The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox

[almaty 19]

ah yes, missouri politics, where it's difficult to tell the politicians from the actors they have on the ad

waits for almaty to find this

stem cell research is support by democrats and gop alike..danforth..etc...of course, talent is against it ...so is his 94% boss

[dani_christine 0]

i live in missouri, and i will be voting NO on amendment 2--the "stem-cell" initiative, which is really a pro-cloning bill.

i, too, work in healthcare...i'm an occupational therapist, and i work in a long-term care facility. i work with patients with parkinson's disease (and many other brutal neurological diseases) daily. i am SO supportive of stem-cell research, as long as it does not involve the sacrifice of the life of another human being.

it comes down to the question...would you kill one person to save 10? or would you kill 100 people to save 1000?

my understanding is that embryonic stem-cell research has not only proved itself to be disappointing in animal studies, but is actually proving to be quite dangerous. the FDA will not approve embryonic stem-cell "therapies" for human testing, because it has been shown to be so dangerous. it has been shown to produce tumor growth, and has yet to show promise towards a single cure.

so called "ADULT" stem-cells, however, are showing AMAZING promise!! (for clarification, "adult" stem-cells can be harvested from the patient's own body, from the body of a donor, from umbilical cord blood and from placentas). there are already 72 proven effective therapies being used today from adult stem-cells. this is the answer...not embryonic stem cells.

why is the left so pro-embryonic stem cell research? even rejecting the promises of adult stem-cell research? because, ladies and gentlemen...it is forever and inexorably tied with that side's sacred cow...abortion. they are terrified of any law that could protect the rights of an embryo...because those same laws could be used to overturn Roe v. Wade. and THAT, my friends, is the cause the libs are willing to die for.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

it comes down to the question...would you kill one person to save 10? or would you kill 100 people to save 1000?

it's a slippery slope i refuse travel

[dani_christine 0]

it comes down to the question...would you kill one person to save 10? or would you kill 100 people to save 1000?

it's a slippery slope i refuse travel

when we are willing to say that one human life is more valuable than another...God help us.

[rclouse 0]

i am SO supportive of stem-cell research, as long as it does not involve the sacrifice of the life of another human being.

Your definition of "human being" differs from that of many of us.

Embryonic stem cell resaerch does not "harvest" or grow embryos for study. The cells come from embryos created for in vitro fertility treatments that were not used. Before stem cell research the embryos were disposed of, that is, just thrown away.

So all of you "holier-than-thou" Christians who oppose stem cell research because it "kills human beings" should also be opposing in vitro fertilization, because it also "kills"

Because otherwise you're saying it's OK to just throw away unused embryos, but not OK to do research on unused embryos.

BTW, why is it "unconscionable" to want a cure for Parkinson's?

[Alex+R 0]

i am SO supportive of stem-cell research, as long as it does not involve the sacrifice of the life of another human being.

Your definition of "human being" differs from that of many of us.

Embryonic stem cell resaerch does not "harvest" or grow embryos for study. The cells come from embryos created for in vitro fertility treatments that were not used. Before stem cell research the embryos were disposed of, that is, just thrown away.

So all of you "holier-than-thou" Christians who oppose stem cell research because it "kills human beings" should also be opposing in vitro fertilization, because it also "kills"

Because otherwise you're saying it's OK to just throw away unused embryos, but not OK to do research on unused embryos.

BTW, why is it "unconscionable" to want a cure for Parkinson's?

:thumbs:

Yes, I doubt a majority of the American public would support baby slaughterings for stem cells. It's not quite like that.

[dani_christine 0]

actually, many people are chosing to place their embryos for adoption.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/28/...ain712541.shtml

http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm

and...actually...the question at hand is not the destruction of embryos created for purposes of IVF. the question at hand is the CLONING of these babies. "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer" - the scientific definition for cloning and the method used to clone Dolly the sheep--that's the issue. for this to happen, a single cell is removed from an already-created embryo, and the contents of the cell nucleus are placed into a donor egg from which the nuclear contents have been removed. the resultant embryo is a CLONE.

talk about your slippery slopes.

i am SO supportive of stem-cell research, as long as it does not involve the sacrifice of the life of another human being.

Your definition of "human being" differs from that of many of us.

Embryonic stem cell resaerch does not "harvest" or grow embryos for study. The cells come from embryos created for in vitro fertility treatments that were not used. Before stem cell research the embryos were disposed of, that is, just thrown away.

So all of you "holier-than-thou" Christians who oppose stem cell research because it "kills human beings" should also be opposing in vitro fertilization, because it also "kills"

Because otherwise you're saying it's OK to just throw away unused embryos, but not OK to do research on unused embryos.

BTW, why is it "unconscionable" to want a cure for Parkinson's?

:thumbs:

Yes, I doubt a majority of the American public would support baby slaughterings for stem cells. It's not quite like that.

the majority of the american public is too lazy or too stupid to research for themselves and would prefer to listen to "celebrities". that's the whole point.

[Alex+R 0]

actually, many people are chosing to place their embryos for adoption.

Do you think that even if 84 of these babies have been born, there won't be thousands of unwanted ones still thrown out? That's what confuses me. No one is going to refuse to allow someone to "adopt" an embryo so that they can use it for stem cell research. Those embryos are currently going in the trash. Why are they better than other stem cells? Because they can develop into any tissue in the body. Hm, seems important for research...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/28/...ain712541.shtml

http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm

and...actually...the question at hand is not the destruction of embryos created for purposes of IVF. the question at hand is the CLONING of these babies. "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer" - the scientific definition for cloning and the method used to clone Dolly the sheep--that's the issue. for this to happen, a single cell is removed from an already-created embryo, and the contents of the cell nucleus are placed into a donor egg from which the nuclear contents have been removed. the resultant embryo is a CLONE.

talk about your slippery slopes.

Ok, so the real issue is cloning. I don't know. This is definitely what the GOP uses to scare people. The average American abhors the idea of actual human cloning. I think we've already entered into what could be a slippery slope and roundly rejected the idea of cloning. The capability is there, and we're not interested in doing that. The people would not allow the legality of that.

[dani_christine 0]

but don't you see?

the bill in missouri PROTECTS somatic cell nuclear transfer.

THAT'S CLONING

[Saddle Bronc 124]

ah yes, missouri politics, where it's difficult to tell the politicians from the actors they have on the ad

waits for almaty to find this

stem cell research is support by democrats and gop alike..danforth..etc...of course, talent is against it ...so is his 94% boss

Actually, Talent is against EMBRYONIC s-c research, not ADULT or umbilical-cord.

(FYI, there has been more than one study which showed embryonic s-c's NOT being effective, vs adult or cord cells)

[Alex+R 0]

but don't you see?

the bill in missouri PROTECTS somatic cell nuclear transfer.

THAT'S CLONING

Yes, I see that. But just because something is technically based in cloning does not mean that we will descend into mad science cloning a brainless army of spare-parts humans or something. I'm saying we're humans, and we can set limitations. Nobody wants that kind of cloning. Most people want this kind.

[dani_christine 0]

can you show me evidence of one time that a society has made a decision that *some* lives are more vaulable than others...that it's been a good thing?

[Alex+R 0]

can you show me evidence of one time that a society has made a decision that *some* lives are more vaulable than others...that it's been a good thing?

Well, I and most Americans don't really see it that way. If you want to call a pre-embryo life, fine. I know a lot of people like life begins when you unzip your pants or something, and not being any sort of deity I don't pretend to have any answers about that. However, if it is a life, with no consciousness, no ability to survive on its own, then um yes, I will prioritize people who can sustain life outside the womb, who have families.

And we have routinely prioritized our own human lives over animal lives. And you can bet any dog, for example, suffers and has a much more complex consciousness than a pre-embryo. I'd choose my dog over a cluster of cells any day, yes sir.

There has never been any time in society we have had an opportunity to make any comparable decision. No comparison works here.

[dani_christine 0]

um...a cluster of cells isn't a "pre-embryo"

a sperm and an egg are "pre-embryos", i suppose.

[Alex+R 0]

um...a cluster of cells isn't a "pre-embryo"

a sperm and an egg are "pre-embryos", i suppose.

Sure it is. That's the kind of thing they want to use.