Republican senator wants ban on human fetuses in food

04SCTLS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
7
Location
Lockport
Okla. senator wants ban on human fetuses in food

http://news.yahoo.com/okla-senator-wants-ban-human-fetuses-food-235857183.html

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A Republican state senator from Oklahoma City introduced a bill Tuesday that would ban the use of aborted human fetuses in food, despite conceding that he's unaware of any company using such a practice.
Freshman Sen. Ralph Shortey said his own Internet research led him to believe such a ban is necessary and prompted him to offer the bill aimed at raising "public awareness" and giving an "ultimatum to companies" that might consider such a policy.
Shortey said he discovered suggestions online that some companies use embryonic stem cells to develop artificial flavors, but added that he is unaware of any Oklahoma companies doing such research.
In an e-mail to The Associated Press, U.S. Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman Pat El-Hinnawy said: "FDA is not aware of this particular concern."
The executive director of the anti-abortion group Oklahomans for Life, which has successfully pushed some of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the country through the state's GOP-controlled Legislature, also said he had never heard of human fetuses being used in food research.
"I don't know anything about that," said Tony Lauinger.
Shortey's bill would prohibit the manufacture or sale of any food in which aborted fetuses were used to develop any of the ingredients.
Meanwhile, the bill has caused a stir among Oklahoma lawmakers, many decrying the proposed legislation.
Self-described "pro-life" Sen. Brian Crain, the chairman of the Senate Human Services Committee to which Shortey's bill likely would be assigned, said Tuesday other issues are more deserving of the Legislature's attention.
"We've got too many challenges facing Oklahomans today. We don't need to go looking for possible challenges that may come about sometime in the future," said Crain, R-Tulsa. "If it can be demonstrated that this is a challenge facing our food supply, then I think we need to act quickly, but there's been no demonstration that this is going on.
"I'd hate to think we're going to spend our time coming up with possibilities of things we need to stop."
First elected in 2010 to a heavily Hispanic district on the city's south side, Shortey has grabbed headlines with other bills he's introduced that have not become law. He sponsored a measure last year to crack down on illegal immigrants by authorizing law enforcement to seize their homes and vehicles, and to deny Oklahoma citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants. He also offered an amendment to a bill that would have allowed legislators to carry firearms anywhere in the state, including the floor of the House and Senate.
This year, Shortey has introduced a bill seeking a public vote on amending the Oklahoma Constitution to abolish the Court of Criminal Appeals.

_______________________________________________________________

You can't make this stuff up LOL!:p

I suppose it's the baby hens that are the most tasty :rolleyes:

Now some companies can advertize that their foods are pro life friendly
and no babies were harmed or exploited in a take on the classic Mad Magazine marketing spoof (our product contains no ground glass or cement)

The thing is some people will actually believe it :eek::rolleyes:

This sounds like something Santorum might pursue.:p
 
Maybe Shortey knows this guy

Louisiana's U.S. Rep. Fleming falls victim to The Onion's 'abortionplex' prank
U.S. Congressman posts satirical news article on public Facebook page

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20120207/NEWS01/120207020


U.S. Rep. John Fleming, R-Minden, is again gaining some national headlines for Louisiana, but this time it's because he apparently fell victim to a satirical news joke.
On Monday, Fleming's public Facebook profile published a link to an article from the satirical newspaper "The Onion" that was titled "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex."

"More on Planned Parenthood, abortion by the wholesale," Fleming said on his Facebook profile where he linked The Onion's article, according to a screenshot published by the website Literally Unbelievable, which compiles "stories from The Onion as interpreted by Facebook."
"The Onion is satire," one Facebook user replied on Fleming's profile. "How exactly did you get elected?"

The "abortionplex" article drew the ire of many Facebook users this past year when The Onion first published it, and Literally Unbelievable has been documenting people who cite the fake news article as a real one since it first hit the Internet.

The joke article describes the fake "abportionplex" as "a sprawling abortion facility that will allow the organization to terminate unborn lives with an efficiency never before thought possible."

Fleming's office quickly removed the post from his Facebook profile, but the blogosphere had already grabbed ahold of the gaffe. His office has otherwise been tight lipped about the incident to inquires from national media outlets.

"We can't make this stuff up," a Huffington Post writer said of Fleming's faux pas.

The Onion's headlines on its website today include ones like "Eli Manning Asks Dad If He Can Stop Playing Football now" and "GOP Introduces New 'Mystery Candidate' With Paper Bag Over Head."

By Tuesday afternoon, a Google news searched showed Fleming's story had been covered by The Washington Post, CBS News, Politico, The San Francisco Chronicle and numerous other outlets across the country.

According to the website Politico, The Onion’s editor, Joe Randazzo, said the publication is "delighted to hear that Rep. Fleming is a regular reader of America’s Finest News Source and doesn’t bother himself with The New York Times, Washington Post, the mediums of television and radio, or any other lesser journalism outlets."
Fleming's mistake also drew strong criticisms from many writers in the liberal blogosphere. Kaili Joy Gray of The Daily Kos said Fleming is "tossing his hat in the ring for Dumbest Member of Congress" and that it "really takes a special kind of stupid to believe" the Onion article in question.

"What the story really demonstrates is just how much Republicans like Fleming hate Planned Parenthood," Gray wrote on The Daily Kos. "They hate it so much that they're willing to believe anything, anything at all, to make the case that the nation's largest provider of women's health care should be put out of business."

In September of this past year, Fleming also came under fire from national media outlets for his appearance in a MSNBC interview in which he came off as insensitive.

During that interview, the MSNBC host asked Fleming about his businesses pulling in $6 million in profit during the past year. Fleming responded that the amount he has to reinvest in his businesses and feed his family is "more like $600,000 of that $6.3 million" after he pays expenses and taxes.

"So by the time I feed my family I have, maybe, you know, $400,000 left over to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment and all of that," Fleming told the television news host in his defense.

Fleming currently represents Louisiana's 4th Congressional District, which runs vertically down the state's western side from Shreveport to Deridder. He has been in office since 2009 and owns a handful of Subway sandwich shops and UPS Stores.

To see the screenshot of Fleming's Facebook page publishing the fake Onion article via Literally Unbelievable,
click here: http://bit.ly/xsvGuY


To read the fake article from The Onion, click here: http://onion.com/mg3IXd


To read Gray's article about the incident on The Daily Kos, click here: http://bit.ly/ycJZD4. To read accounts about the incident on Politico, click here: http://politi.co/y3rImR and from The Hufffington Post, click here: http://huff.to/ysqyIn

_______________________________________________________________

Laughter is the best medicine!
It "really takes a special kind of stupid to believe" the Onion article in question.
Who would believe an 8 BILLION DOLLAR COMPLEX :rolleyes:
At least these guys identify themselves as Republicans.

bilde.jpg
 
Teen pregnancy, abortion rates at record low

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46310316/ns/health-womens_health/

Birth and abortion rates among U.S. teens fell to record lows in 2008 as increased use of contraceptives sent the overall teen pregnancy rate to its lowest level since at least 1972, a study showed on Wednesday.

The Guttmacher researchers said the decline in teen birthrates was largely attributable to increased contraceptive use by teens of both genders.
"Teens are also using more effective forms of contraception," said Kathryn Kost, a demographer with the Guttmacher Institute who co-authored the analysis.

_______________________________________________________________

Despite self loathing Republicans best efforts they have not been able to Bamboozle teens with their because I said so disinformation to fall for their abstinence fantasies that deny and stigmatize normal body functions.

It is interesting that, the most religious parts of the country are those with the highest rates of births outside of marriage and sexually transmitted diseases. Educating young people on contraception and STDs is vital, but the religious and far right conservatives want to preserve ignorance by gutting any sex educational programs and by demonizing Planned Parenthood.

What does one say when presented with an intended result based on reality achieved with a policy fundamentally at odds with unrealistic wishful faith based "reasoning" that abstinence "works"

"No, we are vengeful and prefer to have people suffer for their "sins" of normal bodily functions just like we had to as kids.

Birth control should be available in vending machines like at Shippenburg University in Pennsylvania
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/shippensburg-university-d_n_1260142.html?ref=college
 
So I guess we're all in agreement then about the Despicables who are self loathing, sanctimonious, mean, vengeful and just plain wrong about what's important in this life LOL!:p

And poor Romney is pandering to this bunch by trying to bring himself down to their level.
What a man will stoop to, to try to succeed!
 
In light of your input I'll reassess my opinion of Shorley but not the bad side and self loathing controling toxicity of organized religion in general.
If Shortey had brought up Pepsi as an example for his bill it wouldn't face such criticism.
I wonder why he didn't.
Prior to your link from 6 months ago I had never heard of this.
I think Pro Life is a misnomer though.
IMO Pro Fetus Anti Life is a better description of the your on your own compete or perish after you're born sentiments we see on the Republican side.
It is a typical human contradiction just like Though Shall Not Kill (except for soldiers in which case one may be "honored" and get a medal from the President like the Captain of the USS Vincennese got for shooting down that Iranian Airbus after he violated Iranian waters and thought it was a fighter sent to intercept)
Bush Sr said he didn't care what the facts were, he would never apologize.
Then 7 months later we had Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
 
thanks 04. this place is laugh at election time. right wing/religious are cheaper than a comedians concert. usually funnier.
 
Some GOP candidates could be nominated for Emmys

in their categories :D

We're all waiting to see if

Mr sex is not fun

moralizing dour p!ssy scowl

Ayatollah Ahmadinajad Santorum

takes the whole GOP down with him!

House and Senate too:D

Talk about Jesus Shrugged :p

Wouldn't that be sweet :)
 
'04 now you did it!!! You got 'the worm' goin'

On another subject, I note the quotation from Huff about not makin' things up. I wonder at their hubris since they are so well known for makin' things up---or passin' things along that are nothing but progressive BS.

KS
 
'04 now you did it!!! You got 'the worm' goin'

On another subject, I note the quotation from Huff about not makin' things up. I wonder at their hubris since they are so well known for makin' things up---or passin' things along that are nothing but progressive BS.

KS

And the award for Best BS for the gullable public goes to...
Bullsh!t Baffles Brains.
May the best liar win!
I'm shocked, SHOCKED! KS that HuffPo may have a bias in their reporting and may try to pass off opinion as fact :eek:

Jimmy Carter gave Americans sh!t for living beyond their means and look where that got him against Reagan's sunny deficits don't matter it's Morning in America.

Religion aside Americans vote for upbeat candidates and don't want lectures from moralists but I better understand now about religious Islamist reality deniers voting in extremists who want to curtail the personal freedoms of the fun loving and alternate sexually oriented when given the chance.
But this is America where the pursuit of happiness is a right under the constitution along with life and liberty, but a religion is specifically not to be promoted by the government.

The sun is demographically setting on Leave it to Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet especially with the under 30 "Utes"

"Republican geezers hands off my genitals!"

could be a campaign slogan
 
04SCTLS said:
"Republican geezers hands off my genitals!"

could be a campaign slogan
only for some(most). i get the biggest laugh for incredulous from the "god told me to run " crowd. it's interesting to watch how much closer to extreme fundamentalism the u.s. inches themselves toward while deploring it in the middle east.
the religious zoo comes alive every gop.
 
Romney won Michigan and Arizona :p
so it looks like Jesus is still Shrugging :D
on the namedropping "religious" candidates.

What if Romney picks Santorum for VP running mate as a plum for the base :eek:
That would shut them up quick.;):rolleyes:

Not Mitten's style though.:)

68432961-28063104.jpg
 
Republican Party Sex Problems

Between the rise of Rick Santorum, the controversy that has erupted over contraceptives, and last week’s legislative developments in Virginia, there’s been a lot of talk about Republicans and sex lately, and it’s starting to make some senior Republicans just a little nervous:
Republicans are getting queasy at the gruesome sight of their party eating itself alive, savaging the brand in ways that will long resonate.
“Republicans being against sex is not good,” the G.O.P. strategist Alex Castellanos told me mournfully. “Sex is popular.”
He said his party is “coming to grips with a weaker field than we’d all want” and going through the five stages of grief. “We’re at No. 4,” he said. (Depression.) “We’ve still got one to go.” (Acceptance.)
Castellanos would likely agree with what Rick Moran noted recently in a post at PJ Media when he pointed out that the Republican Party stands to hurt itself among voters at large if it becomes associated with a view of what most people consider to be an entirely private affair that is, to put it mildly, out-dated:
The social conservatives in the Republican Party have a problem with sex and it is going to cost the party dearly in November.
The problem: their outdated, even primitive, critique of human sexuality that denies both the science and the cultural importance of sex and the sex act. Their main target appears to be women, and women’s sex lives, although the act of love itself is also to be placed in a strait jacket. No doubt the right will argue that their criticisms are only meant to help women, and nurture “healthy” attitudes toward sex. Nonsense. First of all, women don’t need that kind of help. They are capable of making their own choices without a bunch of ignorant busybodies telling them how to govern the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives.
Secondly, there is inherent in this critique a 19th century — or earlier — view of sex that seeks to keep the act of love within the confines of the marriage bed, and believes that physical intimacy should be primarily for one reason, and one reason only: procreation. At the very least, sex outside of marriage should be severely proscribed and limited to those who plan a long term relationship or eventual matrimony. Having sex because it’s fun, or because you’re bored, or because you crave physical intimacy, or for any other reason beyond traditional notions of “love” is grounds for disapprobation.
Certainly religion has much to do with this assault on sex. And if the extent of their critique stayed in the pews and pulpits of conservative churches, there would be no problem whatsoever. Christian denominations can tell their adherents how to live their lives, citing chapter and verse from the Bible, and nobody would care.
But when Republican politicians, and others associated with conservatism or the Republican Party, start echoing the various criticisms of contraception, of casual sex, of sex outside of marriage, the perception cannot be dismissed that the imprimatur of the entire party — and consequently, the government if they ever came to power — has been granted and that somebody, somewhere, might want to do something about it. As a voter making a political calculus on how to mark one’s ballot, the GOP is kidding itself if they don’t think this affects the decisions of millions of citizens.
This, I think, is the part of the resurrection of the social conservatives in the Presidential race that poses a problem for the Republican Party. There’s nothing wrong, really, if people believe in a certain view of human sexuality that some may consider old-fashioned, and few people are going to argue with the idea that children would be better off not being raised in a sexuallized environment. However, when you start hearing the SoCon rhetoric from candidates for office, it leads necessarily to the conclusion that they believe that these are topics that are the proper concern of government. Indeed, Rick Santorum said several months ago in an interview with an Evangelical Christian website that, as President, he would “discuss” the supposed, and largely exaggerated, evils of contraception.
This leads, quite obviously, to a question. What business is it of the government, or of a politician running to be the President of the United States, what adult Americans’ sex lives happen to be? Rick Santorum can think that certain things are wrong if he wishes, and nobody is saying that he cannot, but where in Article II of the Constitution does it say that it is either the job or the duty of the President to lecture Americans about their sex lives?
It doesn’t, of course, and this is the part of social conservatism that makes most Americans uncomfortable.
Moran expands on this point at his personal blog:
It’s not these well meaning busybodies making superficial moral judgements who are the problem. The moralists have always been with us and despite being an anathema to the very notion of freedom, feel perfectly comfortable in trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.
It is Republican politicians pandering to the notion that government can actually do something about the sexual revolution that is the real threat to personal liberty. This is self evident. And those who profess reverence for the Constitution have a funny way of showing it. It is not a question of some imposing their morals or values on the Christians and others. It is a matter of personal freedom of expression, guaranteed by the Constitution, that is at issue. Are the Kulture Commandoes saying that the Constitution is the problem? Indirectly, yes. “Gee, if we could only make the notion of freedom disappear, sex would be back in the closet (as would gays), teens would be ignorant of sex, TV would be watchable again, and going to the movies wouldn’t be the harrowing experience it is today.”
Sorry, you can’t put the sexual genie back in the bottle. The real beef of the socons is with the idea that sex is no longer hidden, nor is it a societal taboo to say you love it, or that you enjoy porn, or that women seek it and love it as much as men. It is beautifully, gloriously out in the open to the empowerment of its adult members.
That, in the end, is the reality that the social conservatives don’t want to face:

The sexual revolution is over and they lost.

That’s why they keep trying to gain the reigns of power to enforce their idea of a Victorian America on the rest of us. Why they think it’s going to succeed is beyond me.
 
so, are they against the iraq war? any war?
so much for their defense of the sanctity of life.

Do you not realize how absurdly illogical your "point" is?

Respecting "sanctity of all human life" does not logically negate supporting war.

"A does not follow from "B".

Your "point" is an almost textbook example of a non sequitur.
 
Do you not realize how absurdly illogical your "point" is?

Respecting "sanctity of all human life" does not logically negate supporting war.

"A does not follow from "B".

Your "point" is an almost textbook example of a non sequitur.
finally crawl out of your mothers basement?
i hear you talking, but your not saying anything. how would pro life be in support of killing in a war? otherwise, your as 04 said above, pro fetus, not life.
apparently you don't realize how ILLOGICAL the term pro life is.
but then, i'll await your long drawn wall-o-post rebuttal, but don't expect a reply. you've already shown your lack of logic.
 
Gentlemen

No need for personal attacks.

It's all part of my :D Theory of Human Contradiction (to coin a phrase)

An opinion :D(Shag) I have formed partly from this board and some independant thinking outside the left right box.

People are contradictory some more than others.:rolleyes:
The contradictions can be conceptualized as a balance sheet of pluses and minuses along with a character profit/loss statement.
This is merely a typical neurotic human contradiction being pro fetus
but then not caring for people even being mean to them after they are born.:p
Groupthink amplifies and validates contradictions.
There is a balance of impulses that varies in people but the stridest pro fetusers are probably the meanest regarding welfare for the haplessly born.
That would make for an interesting study.

Let me throw something out I have never heard discussed.
The earliest memory I have of my life is when I was 3 years old on my grandmother's knee and started talking.
Since I was not scentient or self aware before then or have any memories prior to that, how can a fetus be classified as a person if they won't have any memories(the being part of human being) until years later?

Someone is not a human being having a "life" until they have been

How old were you when you had your first memory?
Wouldn't you call that the beginning of your (remembered) life.
 
hrmwrm, by your logic, killing someone in self defense or in protecting the innocent (family for instance) would prove that you have no respect for the "sanctity of all human life". By your logic the only acceptable response is to let your self or your family be killed. Basically, allowing killing would be the only way to respect the "sanctity of all human life", which is laughably absurd and borders on self-refuting.

But then again, the mindless talking point you were originally spouting was never based in logic. As with most of the talking points you espouse, it is nothing but an opportunistic cheap shot against a point of view you are unwilling to consider.
 
self defense is different than joining up to the army and heading off to a foreign country to kill mostly innocent people. you DON"T HAVE TO GO.
but then, you like misdirection. as you do with all your arguements.
 

Members online

Back
Top