It has been said that stem cell research may lead to cures of hundreds of serious illnesses. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again, if this line of research is aggressively pursued. The drawback is that an abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives.
John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not. Do you?
And I support abortion rights.
And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating them by different means will render the issue moot soon enough.
JK
Joey Bosco rides into the filters with:
What business is it of yours?
Charlie Self "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." Abraham Lincoln
It'll take more than stem cells to get Christopher Reeve walking again. As far as I know stem cell treatments don't have the ability to revive the dead.
You are making the assumption that stem cell research requires the use of embryos. This is misleading. Embryonic stem cells are only one source (and so far the majority of that research has been done on the many thousands of discarded embryos from fertility clinics). An abortion is NOT necessary to conduct embryonic stem cell research.
There are other sources of stem cells, such as blood from the placenta and umbilical cord. Cord blood stem cells have been used for the last 15 years to treat young patients with various types of leukemia and other problems. Bone marrow stem cells have been used for the last 30 years to treat cancer patients with leukemia and lymphoma. Adult stem cell research has shown that bone marrow stem cells can transform into nerve, liver, and kidney cells. McGill university researchers have even been able to extract stem cells from skin.
Stem cell research offers a lot of potential to make significant improvements in peoples lives. I think it's shameful that uniformed and morally misguided people such as yourself are trying to deny my quadriplegic friend the chance that someday he'll be able to hug and hold his young daughter and play with her, but most of all to fulfill her dream, of having her dad walk her down the aisle on her wedding day.
Neat trick, even for stem cell research -- seeing as how he's dead!
The least you can do is keep your trolls up to date.
--RC
That which does not kill us makes us stronger. --Friedrich Nietzsche Never get your philosophy from some guy who ended up in the looney bin. -- Wiz Zumwalt
Hold on a minute here.
As you yourself correctly noted, there are many sources of stem cells besides embryos -- most of which have shown far more promise, scientifically, than embryonic stem cells. And nobody's trying to ban research with adult stem cells, placental stem cells, bone marrow stem cells, or cord-blood stem cells.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Absolutely.
Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.
And defining a fetus, especially at a very early stage (blastocyst?) as a human being, is a religious belief, not a fact. One could equally hold the belief (also not a fact) that a fetus only becomes human when it is capable of surviving outside the womb without extraordinary measures.
The fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition point from embryo to human.
No one has banned embryonic stem cell research, only limited federal funding to 20-some existing lines. The governator just got Californians to pony up several hundred million for embryonic stem cell research. Again, there is no ban on the research, only some restrictions on the federal funding for research, so no one is being denied anything in this regard. Perhaps the proponents would do better by contributing their own money rather than promoting falsehoods about a ban.
-Doug
Off-topic posting. Is it ethical?
I support wood working, do you or do you only troll?
EXACTLY.. I suspect this was more of a liberal spin against Bush.
Does that make it right?
Its cells contain human DNA.If it isn't human, what is it?
[but incorrectly]
To do so is equivalent to maintaining that a baby born sufficiently prematurely is not human.
That's because there is no transition. A human embryo is human from the beginning, just as a dog embryo is a dog from the beginning.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again, if
Didnt they make a movie about that ? 'Dawn of the dead ? ' :)
Boc
Only if there is an OT - and it can make Superman walk again ( Zombie )
Boc
I see you bought the Democratic and mainline media spin. Bush is the only President who has allowed stem cell research. What he was against was tax payers money being used for stem cell research. There are plenty of private foundations available to do it with no federal funding. And there is nothing prohibiting them from doing it. In this regard President Bush was allowing those who want stem cell research to contribute their money to those foundations, and for those who oppose it, their tax dollars would not be used. Understand Conservatives, they want the people to make their own decisions with their money, and not the government telling them they (the government) know how to better spend the money. Conservatives want you to be able to build wealth as an individual, liberals don't want you to build wealth, they want to keep it to their elitist selves, they want the power to control you and keep you down. Look at welfare, and boy has it worked for them. Now they want socialized medicine, same deal you give your tax dollars to the government, and let them decide on your healthcare choices. I'm 52 years old, have saved every day I have worked, invested and now I no longer need to worry about social security or medicare. I was raised by parents who lived a self sustaining life, wouldn't tke the govenments help even when it was offered. I'll make my own decision when I retire, not the government telling me I can at 62 or 65 because of social security.
Phil
Joey Bosco wrote:
umm... I don't think Chris Reeve is gonna walk again, dude...
He died..
Maybe they need to clone wood and research how to produce hardwood that I can afford..
Also given the fact that other countries will do the research and develop the science whether the US govt. supports it or not... Shall we hold the folks who condemn the research at this point to rejecting the treatment when they or a family member might need whatever treatment becomes available? No, I guess not - my sense of liberal compassion won't allow me to withhold aid from someone who needs it.
Hey Charlie. Just a note to remind you that you can probably hold off checking for a reply for a couple weeks. (It appears this guy is a candidate for the Evelyn Wood course on Political Trolling 101.)
Owen Lowe notes:
Yes. His alter ego, Sparrow, popped up on rec.photo.digital about the same time. Exactly the same wording.
Both names are nothing more than filter meat.
Charlie Self "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." Abraham Lincoln
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.