posted on June 24, 2007 07:45:53 PM new
Linda_K
posted on June 24, 2007 07:27:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question? LOL LOL LOL Surely ye jest.
From one of those liberals here who rarely, if EVER, answers questions put to them/you?
ROFLOL""
HAHAHA! That's from the queen of no answers....the coward who can never answer a simple question ...from the blithering idiot who gets backed in to a corner so many times her butt's wedge shaped...from the loser with more excuses than george bush.....too funny!!!!!
It's also from the poster who is so dense she just can't grasp big words like RESEARCH....can't understand that the cells are THROWN IN THE GARBAGE NOW....poor uneducated loser...TSK TSK TSK
posted on June 24, 2007 07:49:00 PM new
"A question? LOL LOL LOL Surely ye jest.
From one of those liberals here who rarely, if EVER, answers questions put to them/you?
ROFLOL"
Just as I thought. You don't have an answer. The above is just your excuse when you don't have an answer. You are mistaken. I usually try to answer all questions put to me, if I am able. If I am not able, I will say so--and have. Just because you don't like my answers--too bad, so sad.
FYI--I do not belong to PETA and I do not consider 150 embryonic cells a human being.
posted on June 24, 2007 07:55:15 PM new
LOL....then you'd be ASSUMING incorrectly. LOL
But you do repeat the common liberal answer whenever I point out that conversations work BOTH ways....and the liberals here refuse to answer questions, only ask more.
tsk tsk tsk
Your 'reasoning' must be why the liberals here don't answer questions, since you falsely accuse me of that.
============
IT'S A DONE DEAL CC. IT's over....the 'protect the ANIMALS but destroy human lifers' have LOST.
posted on June 24, 2007 08:11:28 PM new
"IT'S A DONE DEAL CC." For now. Sooner or later there will be someone in office with the intelligence not to veto a bill like this.
"Your 'reasoning' must be why the liberals here don't answer questions, since you falsely accuse me of that."
I can only speak for myself. As I said in the previous post, I usually will try to answer questions, or if I am not able, will say so. You are lumping all "liberals" under one umbrella. You don't have to lay that excuse on me. By the way, reasoning is a good thing. You should try it sometime.
Here is another question you can refuse to answer: If future stem cell research results in successful treatment of these illnesses, and you find yourself or a loved one in need of this treatment, would you refuse it on principal?
posted on June 24, 2007 08:13:31 PM new
An opinion from a more MODERATE thinker....that didn't agree with President Bush's veto.....but can at least SEE why he did what he did.
I am very thankful there are more MODERATE people like this in our Nation.
==========================
From the Boston Globe:
News > Boston Globe > Opinion > Op-ed
JEFF JACOBY
Science, ideology, and stem cells
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | June 24, 2007
LAST WEEK President Bush for the second time vetoed legislation that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Reiterating a position he first announced in 2001, the president said that while he supports research on stem cells derived from human embryos that no longer exist, he will not use taxpayers' money for work that relies on the destruction of additional embryos.
Op-Ed |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Breaking News Alerts "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us," Bush said. That was a reference to promising advances in stem cell technology -- for example, the discovery that such cells can be harvested from amniotic fluid without endangering any embryo. The vetoed bill would have supported research on stem cells drawn from surplus fertility clinic embryos that will otherwise be discarded. Nevertheless, in Bush's view that would "cross a moral and ethical line."
Stem cells may eventually yield the key to treating devastating conditions, such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease, or spinal-cord injuries. Opinion polls show wide support for this research, so Bush's critics have not hesitated to pile on. Demagogues all but claim that if it weren't for Bush, fewer people would now be suffering from terrible afflictions. ("If we do . . . the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again" -- John Edwards, Oct. 11, 2004.)
I don't share Bush's position. By my lights, a microscopic "test-tube" embryo left over from in vitro fertilization is not a human person with an inalienable right to life. But neither is it of no significance whatsoever. I wouldn't draw the "moral and ethical line" where Bush has drawn it, but surely there is such a line and surely it belongs somewhere.A human embryo is not just another raw material, to be manipulated or destroyed at will. Even in nascent form, human life must be treated with dignity and care. How and under what circumstances embryos can be harvested for their stem cells are not just scientific questions. First they are questions of ethics and morality, and of the values we wish to live by.
Or are they? To judge from the criticism of Bush's stem cell veto last week, nothing outranks the claims of science, and only a zealot could think otherwise.
"With one pen stroke," charged Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, "President Bush has ignored hard science, embraced misplaced ideology, and turned his back on the millions who stand to benefit from . . . stem cell research."
Similarly, Senate majority leader Harry Reid blasted Bush for "putting the politics of his narrow ideology ahead of saving lives."
So did Senator Hillary Clinton: "This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science."
And Senator Barack Obama: "The promise that stem cells hold does not come from any particular ideology; it is the judgment of science, and we deserve a president who will put that judgment first."
What these statements have in common is their use of "ideology" as a pejorative for the principles and ethical values that have guided Bush's thinking on the stem cell issue. They treat "science" as an unqualified good, and reproach the White House for letting ethical qualms impede scientific progress. Yet not all science is progress. Not all ethical qualms are impediments.
It is for man to master science, not the other way around. Unfettered scientific investigation isn't always morally neutral, nor a sufficient end in and of itself. We all want diseases cured and lives prolonged, but there are ethical limits to how far we can go in acquiring knowledge that may one day save life. Embryonic stem cell research, as Bush notes, is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. It is not blind "ideology" to say so.
"You don't need religion to tremble at the thought of unrestricted embryo research," wrote Charles Krauthammer, a physician and former member of the President's Council on Bioethics, last January. "You simply have to have a healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of the good. Once we have taken the position of many stem cell research advocates that embryos are discardable tissue with no more intrinsic value than a hangnail or an appendix, then all barriers are down. . . . The slope is very slippery."
I wouldn't have vetoed the bill Bush rejected. Nevertheless, I appreciate his effort to block that slippery slope. As science tugs us toward a brave new world of manufactured human life, it is more urgent than ever that moral boundaries not be ignored when biomedical public policy is made.
posted on June 24, 2007 08:16:52 PM new
And, of course, I totally disagree that you have been willing to do so, CC. You often run away....and then give sarcastic answers like 'I'm not here all day'....etc. in defense of questions you never answer. Even upon your return.
And as I said....it's MY position that there are several other forms of stem cell research that are being studied now.
No need to destroy human life rather than continue research using ALL THOSE OTHER methods.
And I would personally benefit from this research. As would my MIL...and a couple other family members. Don't go 'ASSUMING' again.....because you know little about my life.
posted on June 24, 2007 08:36:31 PM new
Linda_K
posted on June 24, 2007 08:16:52 PM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, of course, I totally disagree that you have been willing to do so, CC. You often run away....and then give sarcastic answers like 'I'm not here all day'....etc. in defense of questions you never answer. Even upon your return.""
And now for linduh's many excuses for repeatedly being to yellow-bellied to answer questions:
1. "I've already answered that, you're too dense to understand"
2. "You're just seeking attention"
3. "Liberals NEVER answer my questions".
4. "Take your meds".
5. You're stalking me"
What linduh's excuses really mean are "You have proven me wrong and backed me into a corner and I have no answer."
Then her idiocy continues as she posts the hilarious:
""No need to destroy human life rather than continue research using ALL THOSE OTHER methods.""
She's way too stupid to understand "they throw them away"...it's those words of more than 3 letters that stump her.
More drool, ""And I would personally benefit from this research. As would my MIL...and a couple other family members. Don't go 'ASSUMING' again.....because you know little about my life.""
The poor old Alzheimer's patient just can't remember she has repeatedly given MANY boring details of her personal life.....so sad....stem cell research may help her ...so maybe it's not a good idea
posted on June 24, 2007 09:03:45 PM new
"And, of course, I totally disagree that you have been willing to do so, CC. You often run away....and then give sarcastic answers like 'I'm not here all day'....etc. in defense of questions you never answer. Even upon your return"
I do not run away. I come here when I have time, so I am not being sarcastic when I say I'm not here all day.
"And I would personally benefit from this research. As would my MIL...and a couple other family members. Don't go 'ASSUMING' again.....because you know little about my life.
Did not assume anything, that's why I asked you the question: If this treatment were available, would you refuse it on principal?
Now, Linda. Don't accuse me of running away, but gotta get to bed. BFN
posted on June 24, 2007 09:14:46 PM new
LOL! Coincoach ..you "run away" and I "stalk"...sooooo, if one answers and asks questions they are, according to linduh, a stalker. If they don't answer or reply when linduh thinks they should they're "running away"....she is such a flip-flopper!
posted on June 24, 2007 10:01:35 PM new
Yes, CC, I would REJECT any human embryos being used to benefit any illness I either have now or would contract in the future.
IT'S a MORAL position - as I have already explained over and over to you.
===========================
When you return.....do you ALSO support animals being used for research?
If not then I'd love to hear how you justify using HUMAN life while you would be against animal research.
posted on June 25, 2007 07:34:29 AM newNo just society should condone the destruction of human life, even in the name of medical research,"
If no just society should condone the destruction of human life why are you in favor of the death penalty.
If you really believe what you claim to preach Linda, you would be against the death of any person.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on June 25, 2007 08:11:28 AM new
It is a difficult question for me. I am against animal research where there is cruel treatment and unnecessary suffering of the animal, or when research involves frivolous testing (say for cosmetics.) However, many life-saving treatments have resulted from animal testing. There is one big difference IMO regarding this question. Animal testing involves full grown animals which can feel pain and fear and embryonic stem cell testing involves a few embryonic cells not capable of either of those. This is not a human being and therefore, there is no suffering or pain involved.
posted on June 27, 2007 08:19:25 PM newScience News from Scientific American.com
The veto came the same day that Duke University in Durham, N.C., and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore released a report showing that the majority of people with frozen embryos stored at U.S. fertility clinics would likely donate them to create stem cell batches or lines for research.
Researchers sent surveys to more than 2,200 patients at fertility centers in California, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C.
They report in today's issue of Science that 60 percent of the 1,200 patients who responded said they would donate surplus embryos for use in stem cell research; only 22 percent said they would hand over unused embryos to other infertile couples—the option favored by Bush and other embryonic stem cell research detractors.
"Until now, the debate about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has been dominated by lawmakers and advocates. But what about the preferences of infertility patients, who are ethically responsible for, and have legal authority over, these embryos," said study co-author Ruth Faden, director of Johns Hopkins's Berman Institute of Bioethics. "These patients face the often morally difficult task of deciding what to do with their remaining cryopreserved embryos. In the end, it is these people who determine whether embryos are available for adoption or for medical research.''
Co-author Anne Drapkin Lyerly, a Duke bioethicist and professor of obstetrics and gynecology, said the findings could have "significant implications" on policy and research efforts.
"Previous research indicates that there are approximately 400,000 frozen embryos stored in the United States; if half of those belong to people who are willing to donate embryos for research," she said, "and only half that number were in fact donated, there could still be 100,000 embryos available for research."
