NIH approved a grant to the University of Pittsburg to graft the scalps of aborted fetuses onto rats and mice. The findings were published in Nature magazine in September 2020.
2)NIH funded Dr. Gerlach (also at Pittsburg), who came up with a method of getting fresh livers from babies delivered alive at 18-22 weeks.
That NIH gave a research grant to Olsen-Kennedy. She has been using this money to give testoterone to girls as young as 8-9 years old. I have not been able to find out if this is with or without parental permission.
NIH spent 8 million on a Columbia University research study that asked minors to, and offered them $275 to submit information about their homosexual activities without parental permission.
I have not tested the observation with anyone in my church yet, lol, but also it just happened in my reading this past Sunday afternoon. At my old church, I imagine I would probably receive the same reaction you did. My new church is a little more open-minded so, who knows?
Also, that is a really interesting take about their abandoning the promised land. True to itself, the narrative doesnât make any moral judgments on a lot of actions, this one included, so it could be! If God gives you a gift, and you receive it, but then lay it aside, is that a sin?? Or maybe it was just a consequenceâŠ
Yeah, and Donald Trump ordered the vaccines; got vaccinated himself; and urged others to do the same. Not much point trying to make it a party-politics sort of thing, is there?
The idea that Collins is personally morally responsible for every action carried out under the auspices of a huge bureaucracy is ridiculous to me. That would be like saying an administrator at a hospital is personally morally responsible if an abortion is performed at the hospital because they didnât shut down all legal abortions or if an embryo is destroyed in an in vitro procedure because they didnât put a stop to in vitro in their hospital. Or even better, to use Erik Eriksonâs example, that the Christian president of AT&T is personally morally responsible for HBOâs production of Game of Thrones because AT&T owns HBO and it should never have happened on his watch. I think people are confused about what leading large governmental organizations entails. You arenât a totalitarian dictator with a bunch of employees who do your will. You are guiding a huge ship that is already plowing full speed ahead in a direction.
The context was Francis Collins and Deb Haarsma were doing a press event for the launch of BIoLogosâs Integrate curriculum. The PR firm was supposed to be setting up interviews with people who would be interested in hearing about it and potentially publicizing it. The PR firm should never have offered Basham the interview slot in the first place, because it takes five minutes on Twitter to find out she hates BioLogos and Francis Collins and would never give any positive press to the curriculum. She clearly wanted to grill Collins about her conspiracy theories instead, which was not the opportunity she was offered in the first place. Then she threw an online temper tantrum over her âmistreatment.â There were even other journalists on her thread saying that if they were Collins they wouldnât have taken her interview either after the piece she wrote, she should have expected as much.
One more thing. It wasnât just âtoneâ if you read the response, it was âtone and claims.â She actively promotes anti-vax conspiracy theories and claims basic health guidance is COVID propaganda. It wasnât just about her tone, it was about misinformation that she spreads that discredit her as a serious or objective journalist.
What would have happened with the fetal tissue if it was not used in experiments?
I fully understand the very serious ethical issues, but there is more than one way to approach this conundrum. These abortions are happening with or without NIH funded research. Even though I am pro-choice, I wish there wasnât a single abortion, but there are. If we shut down all use of fetal tissue in research it wonât change the number of abortions that occur. If this research ends up benefiting people further down the road then at least something good has come out of something bad.
Letâs look at this from the angle of adult organ donors. There are people who are killed in drunk driver accidents or who die from suicide. People donât seem to have an issue with their organs being donated to people who would benefit from them. Are we somehow supporting drunk drivers killing people on the highway or supporting suicide by using these organs?
These are approved medical procedures that would happen with or without funding. I can almost guarantee that these treatments require parental consent, as would any medical procedure at that age.
That makes a lot of sense. Homosexual youth are at risk of parental abuses if they reveal their homosexuality to their parents. If they are sending in information at their own volition I think that is entirely ethical.
I completely understand this argument. I am pretty Libertarian (no eyerolls, please) so while I am personally pro-life, I am politically pro-choice, with reservations and some caveats. However, regardless of what you think about the pro-life movement, this goes against traditional Christian values (and yes, I am aware of the history of the pro-life movement and how it wasnât always so and all of that). It makes complete sense to me that they would be bothered by this and wonder why tax dollars are going to it, etc. I can also see the argument that it creates a market for fetuses, and therefore does nothing towards what I view is a common goal between pro-lifers and (most) pro-choicers, which is to reduce abortions.
I donât follow this line of thinking. It strikes me as âHere is this bad thing happening. Letâs contribute to it because itâs going to happen anyway.â
Also, do you think it is ok to give hormone treatments to girls this young? There is a lot of evidence that it does great harm.
Ok, it may make sense to you, but the point in my original post is that Christians with traditional values will be bothered by it. Since you agree with it, of course it makes sense to you.
You are looking at the Bible from a legalistic point of view. The question is âDid Joseph do what God called him to do?â His bothers and even his father resented him because God called him for a special task, not because he was prideful. Joseph believed in God and accepted this promise of God, which enabled him to keep his faith despite tremendous odds and difficulties.
Godâs plan was to use Joseph and the pharaoh to save Egypt and the much of the Mideast from severe famine, which they did. It appears that pharaoh used this to strengthen his central government. May be this was part of Godâs plan also. I cannot read Godâs mind, but it was not Josephâs responsibility.
Humans are not called to be perfect in all that we do, just faithful. We are not perfect, which is why we are called to be faithful, and trust that the rest will be covered by God.
I fully believe Christians when they say abortion goes against their values. I see no reason to debate that point.
I can understand why they would feel that way, but when you look at the facts it isnât as cut and dry.
Women arenât getting abortions to sell their fetuses. I have always found that to be a ridiculous argument. In order to work towards our common goal we should try to fix the actual issues that cause women to get elective abortions, such as better social, community, and financial support for at risk young mothers.
How would the research contribute to it? Parents arenât seeking testosterone treatments for their daughters because they want to be part of a research project.
My argument is that they shouldnât be bothered by it. The research isnât encouraging homosexuality.
