web grab.jpgby JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • The apparent ignorance of the regular writers at RH Reality Check never ceases to amaze me. This time, Robin Marty chastises Cardinal Daniel DiNardo because he calls an embryo an embryo in a letter to the commissioner of the FDA. Marty writes:
  • Also, the Cardinal seems to have forgotten developmental biology – an embryo is at least 21 days post-fertilization. Before that, you have a blastocyst or a zygote….

    Robin… ummm… a blastocyst is a name for an embryo at a certain stage of development and your link to a Mayo Clinic web page does nothing to prove a pre-implantation embryo isn’t an embryo. Only ignorant people or people attempting to dehumanize human embryos try to act like blastocysts aren’t embryos. Even the National Institutes of Health defines blastocyst as “a pre-implantation embryo of about 150 cells produced by cell division following fertilization.”
    Also, as an employee of a pro-abortion web site, you might also want to avoid linking to a page whose sub-header reads, “Fetal development begins soon after conception. Find out how your baby grows and develops during the 1st trimester.

  • According to the Telegraph, the number of reported euthanasia cases in the Netherlands rose by 13% in 2009.
  • At ProWomanProLife, Andrea Mrozek posts a Canadian study’s findings on abortion and preterm delivery:
  • After adjusting for baseline characteristics, women with one previous abortion were 45% more likely to have a premature child at under 32 weeks; 71% more likely at less than 28 weeks; and more than twice as likely at less than 26 weeks. This association was even stronger for those with 2 or more abortions.


  • The San Francisco Chronicle has an article on Shinya Yamanaka (pictured left) winning the Kyoto Prize for creating induced pluripotent stem cells. The writer, SF Chronicle’s Science Editor David Perlman, can’t help himself from deceiving his readers in describing President Bush’s embryonic stem cell funding policy:
  • Before his discovery, those pluripotent human stem cells could only be harvested from human embryos, a source posing such powerful ethical issues that former President George W. Bush banned virtually all embryonic stem cell research 8 years ago. The ban remained in force until President Obama reversed it last year.

    Even after the reversal of the policy, reporters across America still have so much trouble honestly describing the policy which limited federal funding on embryonic stem cell research. I understand the goal of lying about the policy while it was still in place but why now? In at least one previous article Perlman shows he can accurately describe the Bush policy so why is he intentionally describing it inaccurately now?
    [Yamanka photo via SFGate.com]

    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...