The term is "in vitro" TWO WORDS from the Latin meaning "in glass".
In vitro: Literally in glass, as in a test tube. A test that is performed in vitro is one that is done in glass or plastic vessels in the laboratory. In vitro is the opposite of in vivo (in a living organism). http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4033 VT is barely literate. Do not assume because he makes the term one word that it is one word. His written offerings are laughable at best. CW ----- Original Message ----- From: "jgg1000a" <[email protected]> To: "PoliticalForum" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 06:07 Subject: Re: Obama and Bush compared VT, get real... If Obama freed science from ideology he would not have continued the ban on cloning... But he did not... Again, the Presidential order limited federal funding of new stem cell lines... Relating to Invitro fertilization, this involves the entire topic of treatment of infertility, which politically is very different than stem cell research... You claim Obama is being consistent by using the same rule for the issue of infertility and stem cell research and that Bush was inconsistent... I would suggest you are rationalizing Obama's pragmatic approach but not Intellectual approach... Obama if he applied the same intellectual standard to the field cloning (that is destruction of living cells is ok if science can do the procedure, would be in favor of it... Yet he did not... When does a life gain its "human rights"??? At birth, at viability, at conception, or at some other point... The issue of partial birth abortions relies on a post partum definition... I presume Obama favors these... If so, why should I not be able to have a women to carry a child until close to birth, then take out it bone morrow for my use (in effect cloning a body part) as the unborn child has by the Intellectual standard of no human rights until post partum??? Unless Obama is agreeable to this notion he is NOT using the same standard as you wish to ascribe to Obama... Again the point is Obama is doing just as Bush did -- impose moral constraints on science... The problem is when Bush did this you shout "idelological", when Obama does it you shout "Intellectually consistent"... Both are imposing ideological constrains on science and Obama is a hypocrite for suggesting otherwise... On Mar 13, 5:29 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> wrote: > No Obama aligned the use of embryos in both procedures > to equality, this is BOTH pragmatic and intellectual, NOT > a slippery slope of flawed ideology of morally ambiguous > of opposing one and remaining silent on the other > > On Mar 13, 5:20 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > VT, I addressed the issue of who spoke in a more reasoned, thoughtful > > manner on this subject, Obama or Bush... It was Bush by far... Both > > Obama and Bush used their sense of morality (ideology as you you call > > it) to decide using a pragmatic approach BUT not an intellectual > > approach... Yet the pretense here Obama was "freeing science from > > ideology" -- what Obama did is change the ideological guidelines under > > which grant money would be given from Bush's construct to Obama's > > construct... > > > Now as the Presidential order dealt with stem cell research and NOT In > > Vetro fertilization, what I said applied to that subject. Now you > > added an additional topic "why one and not the other?"... Frankly I > > do not know IF Bush opposes InVitro fertilization for humans, as it > > never was part of his Presidential order limiting stem cell research > > to to 21 EXISTING and developed stem cell lines, and prohibiting the > > use of federal money for the creation of NEW stem cell lines... > > > On Mar 13, 4:27 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You merely repeated yourself, you did not address the issue of In > > > Vetro > > > fertilization vs stem cell research. Why Bush was against one and > > > supported the other when both deal with the destruction of fertilize > > > eggs. > > > > On Mar 13, 4:22 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > To many (including those favoring use of fertilized eggs in stem > > > > cell > > > > research, this is an issue where science requires a moral > > > > guideline... The Left was ticked because THEIR guideline was NOT > > > > used under Bush... Now under Ombama it is, and the pretense is that > > > > is not about moral guidelines (theirs)... > > > > > The reality here is Bush thought about and discussed both sides of > > > > the > > > > debate... Obama refused to, in part because I suspect he sees one a > > > > valid side (his) and his POV opponents are non-rational. Obama is > > > > wrong an arrogant... > > > > > On Mar 13, 3:53 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > My response is why wasn't invetro insemination also banned? > > > > > Are not fetuses destroyed in this procedure > > > > > > It was about ideology not reality. > > > > > > On Mar 13, 12:35 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > In this article the question relates to which President is more > > > > > > serious and honest about stem cell research... Not only is Obama > > > > > > less > > > > > > serious, but he is dishonest and a far greater ideologue... > > > > > > >http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/using_embryoswithou... > > > > > > > >>> That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of > > > > > > >>> my office, made me uneasy. The other part -- the > > > > > > >>> ostentatious issuance of a memorandum on "restoring > > > > > > >>> scientific integrity to government decision-making" -- would > > > > > > >>> have made me walk out. > > > > > > > Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is > > > > > > guided > > > > > > solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and > > > > > > politics. > > > > > > > What an outrage. George Bush's nationally televised stem cell > > > > > > speech > > > > > > was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever > > > > > > given by > > > > > > an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the > > > > > > best > > > > > > case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last > > > > > > few > > > > > > minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out. > > > > > > > Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was > > > > > > populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest > > > > > > of > > > > > > straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false > > > > > > choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 > > > > > > minutes > > > > > > and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never > > > > > > open > > > > > > the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction." > > > > > > > Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary > > > > > > scientific interest? And yet he banned it. > > > > > > > Is he so obtuse not to see that he had just made a choice of > > > > > > ethics > > > > > > over science? Yet, unlike President Bush, who painstakingly > > > > > > explained > > > > > > the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to > > > > > > achieve, > > > > > > Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices > > > > > > are > > > > > > morally permissible and others not. > > > > > > > This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral > > > > > > arrogance of a > > > > > > man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while > > > > > > he is > > > > > > guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, > > > > > > foreign > > > > > > policy) and science in medical ethics. > > > > > > > Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science > > > > > > has > > > > > > nothing to say about what is permissible. Obama's pretense that > > > > > > he > > > > > > will "restore science to its rightful place" and make science, > > > > > > not > > > > > > ideology, dispositive in moral debates is yet more rhetorical > > > > > > sleight > > > > > > of hand -- this time to abdicate decision-making and color his > > > > > > own > > > > > > ideological preferences as authentically "scientific." > > > > > > > Dr. James Thomson, the discoverer of embryonic stem cells, said > > > > > > "if > > > > > > human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a > > > > > > little > > > > > > bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." Obama > > > > > > clearly has not. > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 10:37 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > and Intellectual they both are NOT > > > > > > > >http://the-undercurrent.com/paper/obama-the-intellectual/ > > > > > > > > >>> In action, Obama is clearly not an intellectual. He, like > > > > > > > >>> Bush and other politicians, is a pragmatist—the exact > > > > > > > >>> opposite of an intellectual. Issue after issue, including > > > > > > > >>> taxes, the Iraq war, and the environment, reveals that > > > > > > > >>> Obama has made decisions, not with reference to firm > > > > > > > >>> principles derived from a careful and scholarly > > > > > > > >>> investigation of the facts, but by trying to find some > > > > > > > >>> middle ground in a landscape of competing opinions. > > > > > > > > What is different about Obama is that he self-consciously > > > > > > > knows and > > > > > > > proclaims his approach. But what’s so significant about that, > > > > > > > if the > > > > > > > approach itself is anti-intellectual? Obama openly embraces > > > > > > > the view > > > > > > > that it is impossible to use the intellect to ascertain the > > > > > > > right way > > > > > > > to handle the war or deal with the economy, and so he adopts > > > > > > > the tack > > > > > > > of just trying things and seeing what happens. Consider Obama’s > > > > > > > claim > > > > > > > that his “core economic theory is pragmatism, figuring out > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > works” (“Obamanomics,” NYT, 8/20/08). How is this any > > > > > > > different from > > > > > > > prior, allegedly non-intellectual politicians, other than that > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > politicians didn’t happen to be explicit about their > > > > > > > methodology? > > > > > > > > However much Obama seems to sport the trappings of an > > > > > > > intellectual—and > > > > > > > clearly he does—in practice, his policy consists in shooting > > > > > > > from the > > > > > > > hip, making short-range decisions without adherence to any > > > > > > > firm set of > > > > > > > guiding convictions. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
