Doug Winterburn wrote:

Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate
liberals were really upset that the government might be
supporting R&D by those nasty profit making drug
manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why government
support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
[potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.

I'm not sure that you're really looking at the whole picture
here. Moreover, this discussion has focused on morality instead
of ethics.

The pharmaceutical manufacturers are reported to be making huge
profits (IMO a Good Thing); but are doing so by selling at least
some of those drugs for very much higher prices in the US than
elsewhere (IMO price gouging, not a Good Thing.)

But, my opinions aside, the manufacturers are sufficiently
profitable that they don't /need/ additional R&D funding.

Stem cell research, which seems to hold much promise, is still in
its infancy - its profits yet to appear - and needs front-end R&D
dollars until either we discover that the promise is false or
until it yeilds profits that can be re-invested in R&D, at which
point public funding should stop.

[Another personal opinion: I think the results of publicly funded
R&D should be publicly owned; and patents denied on that basis. YMMV]

It's not /all/ about liberal/conservative issues.

Actually, I think the more interesting question might be whether
a private subscription pool could be established to fund R&D
efforts (of any/all areas holding substantial promise) from which
the general (world) public would benefit. The corporate
structure, invented to fund production/sales, would seem to be
inadequate for funding extremely large front-end R&D efforts.

Care to focus on that possibility?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

(Doug Miller) wrote in message .com...
In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.

Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.

Does that make it right?

And defining a fetus, especially at a very early stage (blastocyst?) as
a human being, is a religious belief, not a fact.

Its cells contain human DNA.If it isn't human, what is it?

One could equally

[but incorrectly]

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.

To do so is equivalent to maintaining that a baby born sufficiently
prematurely is not human.

The fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition
point from embryo to 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.

Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.

"mel" wrote in message om...
snip End discusssionas far as I'm concerned. It's impossible to change
the
views of someone who bases their opinions on faith instead of facts.


Actually Larry.. according to your own words.. you've based your opinions on
the absence of facts. And as far as understanding the word "potential"... I
personally hesitate to remove value if the "potential" exists. In fact, that
is exactly why I would attribute value. As far as not attributing a
particular designation to an egg.. such as a "chicken" egg as you've chosen
this example..... next time you make yourself breakfast ask yourself if
lizard eggs will do just as well.....

Babies have no potential to continue to grow in a petre dish or in a freezer.

"mp" wrote in message ...
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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this clearly and
calmly. There's no way I could control my temper and do it as
gracefully. You see, my husband would like to be able to hoist the
ladder up to the girls room on their wedding day! Just kidding. I'd
like to tell some of you guys to walk a mile in my husbands
shoes...they're nice, just like new.

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:48:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

In article ,
"James T. Kirby" wrote:

And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating
them by different means will render the issue moot soon enough.

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.

Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals
were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those
nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why
government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
[potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.

Funny, I coulda sworn that had something to do with the most of R&D
money of said drug manufacturers going to commericals that show people
hiking and canoeing without ever telling you just what in the heck the
drug is for.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 09:46:53 -0500, "James T. Kirby"
wrote:

Prometheus wrote:


Ohhh... a chance to get back on-topic! Have you checked out the
hybrid that's for sale under the name "Lyptus"? Nice looking wood,
and fairly cheap around here. Definately worth a look.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Off topic! Off topic! How dare you! :^)

What does it work like?

Still looking for the right project to test it out on... But it's
supposed to be extemely workable, and it grows to harvest size in just
15-17 years. I imagine that if it takes hold, we'll see the price
drop on it fairly rapidly. Looks like it's got a fairly tight grain,
and a color similar to mahogany (when I've seen it- obviously, these
things vary)

JK



Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Babies have no potential to continue to grow in a petre dish or in a
freezer.

these are imposed restrictions to the potential.

In article , (Jana) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message
.com...
In article , Larry Blanchard

Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.

Does that make it right?


Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.

Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death?

--
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.

In article , (Jana) wrote:

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this clearly and
calmly. There's no way I could control my temper and do it as
gracefully. You see, my husband would like to be able to hoist the
ladder up to the girls room on their wedding day! Just kidding. I'd
like to tell some of you guys to walk a mile in my husbands
shoes...they're nice, just like new.

Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that another might walk?

--
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.

Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that another
might walk?

If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
orgasm.

What a senseless waste of potential human life!

What's that? A sperm cell isn't the same as a fertilized egg?

True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves the same
respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster. Or at
least half the respect. Mathematically, given the quantity of living cells
involved in an orgasm, you should give that lovin' spoonful hundreds of
thousands of times as much respect.

And to think that conservatives call liberals bleeding hearts. Feh.

Scott

"Scott Cramer" wrote in message
.39...
Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that another
might walk?

If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
orgasm.

What a senseless waste of potential human life!

What's that? A sperm cell isn't the same as a fertilized egg?

If you don't understand the huge difference between a sperm cell and a
fertilized egg, you need to return to biology class.

todd

In article , Scott Cramer wrote:
Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that another
might walk?

If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
orgasm.

Complete non-sequitur.

What a senseless waste of potential human life!

What's that? A sperm cell isn't the same as a fertilized egg?

No, it isn't.

True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves the same
respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.

Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.

--
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.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
the same
respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.

Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.

They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to being a
toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.

In article 1100015757.WZwJc2J3/8tBruKwjPTQmw@teranews, Scott Cramer wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
the same
respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.

Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.

They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to being a
toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.

The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.

The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the difference
between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance of becoming half a
human being, and something that already is an entire human being.

--
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.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
om:

In article 1100015757.WZwJc2J3/8tBruKwjPTQmw@teranews, Scott Cramer
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
the same
respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.

Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.

They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to
being a
toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.

The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.

The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the
difference between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance
of becoming half a human being, and something that already is an
entire human being.

I didn't think you'd be willing to touch the difference between Dick Cheney
and a human being.

Doug Miller wrote:

Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that
another might walk?

Hmm. I think the question might be: "Is it right that a human
being should die, in order that a degenerative condition or a
debilitating condition might be removed from the lives of all
other human beings?"

Pick one and call for volunteers - you might be surprised at the
response.

Consider another question: Is it right that a human being should
be placed (voluntarily or involuntarily) in harm's way, in order
that others live free?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:31:04 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
calmly ranted:

"Scott Cramer" wrote in message
8.39...
Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that another
might walk?

If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
orgasm.

What a senseless waste of potential human life!

What's that? A sperm cell isn't the same as a fertilized egg?

If you don't understand the huge difference between a sperm cell and a
fertilized egg, you need to return to biology class.

Cells are life, mon. Don't cut yourself. You'll kill _life_!
(Goodonya, Scott)

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

In article 1100020120.fwfCbVXLzpWGPJD773XuVg@teranews, Scott Cramer wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

In article 1100015757.WZwJc2J3/8tBruKwjPTQmw@teranews, Scott Cramer
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
y.com:

True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
the same
respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.

Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.

They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to
being a
toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.

The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.

The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the
difference between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance
of becoming half a human being, and something that already is an
entire human being.

I didn't think you'd be willing to touch the difference between Dick Cheney
and a human being.

I didn't think you'd be able to refrain from making a gratuitous insult.

--
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.

In article , Morris Dovey wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that
another might walk?

Hmm. I think the question might be: "Is it right that a human
being should die, in order that a degenerative condition or a
debilitating condition might be removed from the lives of all
other human beings?"

Emphasis on the word "might". There have already been significant advances
derived from research on adult and umbilical cord stem cells, but none
whatever from embryonic stem cells. That's *all* just pie in the sky.

Pick one and call for volunteers - you might be surprised at the
response.

Emphasis on the word "volunteers". There's nothing voluntary on the part of
the embryos that are sacrificed in the extraction of their stem cells.

Consider another question: Is it right that a human being should
be placed (voluntarily or involuntarily) in harm's way, in order
that others live free?

Voluntarily, sure.
Involuntarily, I don't know. I think that might depend to some extent on the
specific circumstances, including (but not limited to) the age of the human
being involved, but in general I have problems with that.

However, placing an adult "in harm's way" (i.e. _at_risk_ of injury, possibly
even fatal injury) is definitely not in the same category, ethically and
morally, with deliberately causing the certain death of a child whether born
or unborn.

--
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.

Jana wrote:

"mel" wrote in message
om...
snip End discusssionas far as I'm concerned. It's impossible to change
the
views of someone who bases their opinions on faith instead of facts.


Actually Larry.. according to your own words.. you've based your opinions
on
the absence of facts. And as far as understanding the word
"potential"... I personally hesitate to remove value if the "potential"
exists. In fact, that
is exactly why I would attribute value. As far as not attributing a
particular designation to an egg.. such as a "chicken" egg as you've
chosen this example..... next time you make yourself breakfast ask
yourself if lizard eggs will do just as well.....

Babies have no potential to continue to grow in a petre dish or in a
freezer.

So when the power fails at a fertility clinic who do you charge with murder?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Doug Miller wrote:

In article 1100015757.WZwJc2J3/8tBruKwjPTQmw@teranews, Scott Cramer
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
the same
respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.

Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.

They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to
being a
toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.

The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.

The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the difference
between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance of becoming
half a human being, and something that already is an entire human being.

So you would count a miscarriage as what?

--
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.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Prometheus wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:48:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

In article ,
"James T. Kirby" wrote:

And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating
them by different means will render the issue moot soon enough.

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.

Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals
were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those
nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why
government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
[potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.

Funny, I coulda sworn that had something to do with the most of R&D
money of said drug manufacturers going to commericals that show people
hiking and canoeing without ever telling you just what in the heck the
drug is for.

(a) What percentage of "R&D money" was diverted to those commercials? In
fact what percentage of the annual income of that company was taken up by
those expenditures. I think you'll find that they were a drop in the
bucked for a company that size.

(b) The content of the commercials is regulated by the government.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

(Doug Miller) wrote in message .com...
In article , (Jana) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message
.com...
In article , Larry Blanchard

Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.

Does that make it right?


Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.

Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death?

Doug. They are not all utilized. The remainder are discarded ~ thrown
away. I would be the last person who would approve of stem cell
research if the only resources were from cells that were either
aborted or would eventually be used invetro. We have the right to
disagree and I admit your responces have gotten under my skin. I
sincerely hope you or know one you love is ever dependant on this
research. I have a huge interest in it. My husband is in a
wheelchair. The fact that he can't walk isn't so bad. The pain is,
though. He describes it as having your toes in a vise as tight as
it'll go, with his feet in near boiling water, and the tingling you
get when your feet have been asleep...all at the same time. 24-7 for
over 7 years. The only relief is constant rubbing. It has nothing to
do with circulation, the nerves just misfire. Somehow, he's just
learned to deal with it. I'm not telling you this so you can feel
sorry for me or Jim. We doctor at Mayo and I've met so many people
that make us feel so lucky that I would be ashamed to complain. So,
I'm sorry, you will never ever change my mind. I've been working for
the past 7 years tying to get my husband to walk and it'll take more
than you to make me give up.

On 9 Nov 2004 12:04:50 -0800, Jana wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message .com...

Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death?

Doug. They are not all utilized. The remainder are discarded ~ thrown
away. I would be the last person who would approve of stem cell
research if the only resources were from cells that were either
aborted or would eventually be used invetro. We have the right to
disagree and I admit your responces have gotten under my skin. I
sincerely hope you or know one you love is ever dependant on this
research.

You know, the distinction that is being missed here is that there is no _ban_ on
stem cell research, just a ban on government funding of _new lines of embryonic
stem cell research_. Nobody is saying "Don't do the research", nobody is
shutting down labs, they're just saying "the federal government won't fund
new lines".

I've been working for
the past 7 years tying to get my husband to walk and it'll take more
than you to make me give up.

With all the other sources of stem cells out there, and all of the lines which
are still being researched with federal funds...imagine how much more productive
this could all be if people weren't getting bent out of shape based on misinformation
about a ban on research that doesn't exist?

Dave Hinz

"mel" wrote in message m...
snipAnd defining a fetus, especially at a very early stage (blastocyst?)
as
a human being, is a religious belief, not a fact.

Actually, defining a blastocyst as a fetus is wrong. Human or not. a
Blastocyst is an early metazoan embryo typically having the form of a hollow
fluid-filled rounded cavity bounded by a single layer of cells.

A fetus is defined as an embryo having formed its basic shape.

Actually the religious belief isn't whether it's a human being or not...
it's when does it get a soul. Until that is proven, an impossibility by the
way,this will always be a controversial subject. Even an atheistic
scientist doesn't deny it's human.


snipOne 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.
snipThe fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition
point from embryo to human.

The fact is you are talking gibberish. The medical industry, biologist,
geneticists, etc. all agree on one thing.... it's human. It's a human egg.
It's a human sperm. At conception it becomes a human embryo with all it's
various stages. It then becomes a human fetus with it's various stages and
if the incubation period is successful it becomes a human infant followed by
numerous other human stages of life.

I don't think anyone will ever be able to pinpoint an exact time when
the human gets a soul. I think logic can narrow it down a bit by
saying that it's when the brain develops. Any other part of the human
body can be transplanted or amputated and the soul remains unchanged.
If you have ever been present at the time of death when a person
becomes brain dead, it's all too clear. The body can continue to
function for a time or be assisted by life support, but when the
brain's gone...it's all over. The soul is gone. Going by what my
heart tells me, I'd like to say that it all begins the exact second I
found out I was pregnant. Up until then, you could lose it and never
be the wiser. After that, it's more important than anything.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is
to being a
toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.


I didn't think you'd be willing to touch the difference between Dick
Cheney and a human being.

I didn't think you'd be able to refrain from making a gratuitous
insult.

I would never make a gratuitous insult about the power behind the
throne. If I were to insult the puppetmaster, it would be heartfelt and
sincere.

(Doug Miller) wrote in message .com...
In article , (Jana) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message
.com...
In article , Larry Blanchard

Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.

Does that make it right?


Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.

Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death?

You better hope so, as we're killing a lot of innocents elsewhere and
they're a lot bigger than embryos.

Doug Miller wrote:

However, placing an adult "in harm's way" (i.e. _at_risk_ of
injury, possibly even fatal injury) is definitely not in the
same category, ethically and morally, with deliberately
causing the certain death of a child whether born or unborn.

I'm less certain about that than you seem to be. A human life is
a human life (and regardless of age according to the
anti-abortionists) and, somewhen along the way, I realized that
eighteen year olds are still kids - kids with a /very/ strong
potential to become mature adults - but still kids nonetheless.

If we put uniforms on them and send them into combat, it's a near
certainty that some will not return alive. I invite you to accept
your share of the responsibility for that happening (as we all
share in that responsibility.)

I don't like it much; and yet I recognize that it is a part of a
price that must be paid to avoid paying a still higher price - a
price so high that even 18-year olds (still teenagers!) are
willing to risk losing all that would otherwise lie ahead of
them. Not just by ones or twos, but by the tens and hundreds of
thousands.

When the going gets really heavy, we use conscription to force
those who haven't volunteered into the same risk. Again, it is
foreknown that some are certain to pay that "lesser" price.

I do /not/ feel that one life is more or less valuable than
another; but neither do I go into denial and refuse to recognize
sometimes lives must need be given up and sometimes lives must
need be taken.

I think it /is/ in the same catagory - and I think the greatest
tragedy might be the unnoticed end of a purposeless life; and
that's not the end I envision for these embryos.

Still, I envy your certainty.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.

The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the difference
between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance of becoming
half a human being, and something that already is an entire human being.

So you would count a miscarriage as what?

As an unfortunate accident.

--
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.

In article , (Jana) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message
.com...
In article ,
(Jana) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message
.com...
In article , Larry Blanchard

Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.

Does that make it right?


Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.

Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death?

Doug. They are not all utilized. The remainder are discarded ~ thrown
away.

This does not trouble you?

I would be the last person who would approve of stem cell
research if the only resources were from cells that were either
aborted or would eventually be used invetro.

What's the difference, morally, between harvesting stem cells from a baby
aborted in the womb, versus from a human embryo in vitro? Either one kills a
unique human person.

We have the right to
disagree and I admit your responces have gotten under my skin. I
sincerely hope you or know one you love is ever dependant on this
research. I have a huge interest in it. My husband is in a
wheelchair. The fact that he can't walk isn't so bad. The pain is,
though. He describes it as having your toes in a vise as tight as
it'll go, with his feet in near boiling water, and the tingling you
get when your feet have been asleep...all at the same time. 24-7 for
over 7 years. The only relief is constant rubbing. It has nothing to
do with circulation, the nerves just misfire. Somehow, he's just
learned to deal with it. I'm not telling you this so you can feel
sorry for me or Jim. We doctor at Mayo and I've met so many people
that make us feel so lucky that I would be ashamed to complain. So,
I'm sorry, you will never ever change my mind. I've been working for
the past 7 years tying to get my husband to walk and it'll take more
than you to make me give up.

I'm sorry that your husband is in such pain. But I can't see that it in any
way justifies killing in the _hope_ -- it's not even a certainty -- that a
treatment for his condition may be developed. In any event, research into
adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells has, so far, been much more
promising -- so why the insistence on using *embryonic* 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.

In article , Morris Dovey wrote:

I'm less certain about that than you seem to be. A human life is
a human life (and regardless of age according to the
anti-abortionists) and, somewhen along the way, I realized that
eighteen year olds are still kids - kids with a /very/ strong
potential to become mature adults - but still kids nonetheless.

[snip thoughtful, but somewhat lengthy, commentary with which I largely agree]

I guess I'd put it this way: I see children, particularly infants and the
unborn, as more deserving of protection than adults (though not
intrinsically any more valuable) because they are more vulnerable. We adults
have the ability to care for and defend ourselves, but they do not, at
least not to the same extent, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to be more
careful of their lives and safety than we are of our own.

--
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.

Doug Miller wrote:

I guess I'd put it this way: I see children, particularly
infants and the unborn, as more deserving of protection than
adults (though not intrinsically any more valuable) because
they are more vulnerable. We adults have the ability to care
for and defend ourselves, but they do not, at least not to the
same extent, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to be more
careful of their lives and safety than we are of our own.

We /do/ seem to agree on much of the issue - so I'll push my luck
a bit and engage in hairsplitting just were our views diverge...

I'm of the opinion that all are equally /deserving/ of
protection; but that the /need/ for protection is greatest for
the very young, diminishes with the onset of maturity, and then
increases with old age.

I've found that we need to be as careful with the lives and
safety of adults as we are with children. With children the need
for care is obvious. It's less obviously so with adults; but a
part of becoming adult in many cultures is learning to mask or
even deny the needs that are so obvious in children.

We restrain ourselves from telling a child that (s)he is "stupid"
because we recognize the damage that can bring about. As time
passes and our children become adults, we remember their
vulnerabilies and we still don't tell 'em that they're stupid -
even when they make really poor decisions. Let me use that as
evidence that we (sometimes) recognize that protection is
appropriate regardless of age. "Stupid" is only for those we
don't care about or don't respect as human beings.

At a rather elemental level, nearly everyone subscribes to the
principle called "The Golden Rule": treat other people the way
you'd like to be treated yourself. For most of us, it's the basis
for how we relate to others when we're acting in a way we
ourselves approve of (and I acknowlege that we don't always play
by even our own rules.)

Out of that, if I put myself in my own embryonic "shoes" I find
that I would rather be a short-lived but significant contribution
to improvement of life (for even just one person) than be an
unwanted, unloved, and resented ("Stupid!") child with an
extremely high probability of becoming an emotionally broken and
crippled adult who knows only how to /not/ love self or others.
In fact, I'd even prefer an embryonic trip to the dumpster to that.

In the best of all possible worlds, every living being would be
protected and cherished. Since that's not this world, I would
settle for every life having its own unique purpose and value.

Having said all that, I'll edge back to where we seem to be in
better agreement by saying that it'd be really good if all of the
research objectives can be accomplished using /adult/ stem cells.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:05:54 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article 1100015757.WZwJc2J3/8tBruKwjPTQmw@teranews, Scott Cramer wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
the same
respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.

Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.

They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to being a
toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.

The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.

The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the difference
between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance of becoming half a
human being, and something that already is an entire human being.

Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an
entire human being."
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:39:14 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:48:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

In article ,
"James T. Kirby" wrote:

And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating
them by different means will render the issue moot soon enough.

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.

Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals
were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those
nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why
government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
[potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.

Funny, I coulda sworn that had something to do with the most of R&D
money of said drug manufacturers going to commericals that show people
hiking and canoeing without ever telling you just what in the heck the
drug is for.

(a) What percentage of "R&D money" was diverted to those commercials? In
fact what percentage of the annual income of that company was taken up by
those expenditures. I think you'll find that they were a drop in the
bucked for a company that size.

Couldn't find a percentage, here's an article with some ad budgets.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...1-drug-ads.htm
You could be quite right about it being a drop in the bucket, but any
signifigant money (and I'd call 160.8 million ad dollars for Vioxx
pretty darn signifigant) is taking away from R&D. I would imagine
that 9 figures would buy a pretty good chunk of research, instead of
frittering it away on short videos of people canoeing.

(b) The content of the commercials is regulated by the government.

Yippie. They still don't tell you just what in the hell the drug in
question is supposed to do- shouldn't that be the point of the
commercials?

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

"Prometheus" wrote in message
Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an
entire human being."
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

How many cells does it take before you won't kill it?

todd
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit
materiari?

In article , Prometheus wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:05:54 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the difference
between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance of becoming half a
human being, and something that already is an entire human being.

Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an
entire human being."

It has a full complement of human DNA, uniquely its own, and needs only
nutrition and time before it grows into something that even you could not
possibly deny is a human being.

--
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.

(Doug Miller) writes:

[...]

Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an
entire human being."

It has a full complement of human DNA, uniquely its own, and needs only
nutrition and time before it grows into something that even you could not
possibly deny is a human being.

To bring it back (halfway) on topic: Beware of the many birch trees
that fly around in atumn, the many oak trees that rain down in autumn,
the many fir trees assembled in clusters known as pine cones...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

[...]

Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an
entire human being."

It has a full complement of human DNA, uniquely its own, and needs only
nutrition and time before it grows into something that even you could not
possibly deny is a human being.

To bring it back (halfway) on topic: Beware of the many birch trees
that fly around in atumn, the many oak trees that rain down in autumn,
the many fir trees assembled in clusters known as pine cones...

Genetically, there's no difference between an acorn and an oak tree. Of
course, morally there's an enormous difference between humans and oak trees,
and between human fetuses and acorns.

--
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.

(Doug Miller) writes:


[...]

Genetically, there's no difference between an acorn and an oak tree. Of

So any law concerning trees should start at the seed stage?

course, morally there's an enormous difference between humans and oak trees,
and between human fetuses and acorns.

Of course. Trees are a blessing to the world.

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:44:02 GMT, mel wrote:
"Scott Cramer" wrote in various messages and demonstrated his lack of
understanding of human physiology with comments such as--

If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
orgasm.


Actually all of the promising stem cell research has been with
adult-source stem cells. None of the promising results have been with
fetal or umbilical stem cells.

The Bush administration has funded research with stem cells: Adult,
umbilical, and existing strains of fetal. What the Bush administration
refuses to fund is the creation of fetuses for the sole purpose of
destroying said fetuses.

Using the all-important "Follow the Money" principle, one notes that
that Big Pharma, when they must spend their OWN money, choose to spend
it on adult stem cell research rather than fetal or umbilical. Given
that there's no particular reason why for example a German
pharmaceutical company would feel bound by American mores, that suggests
to me that reason is purely capitalistic: They believe that adult stem
cells are more promising, and vote with their dollars.