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?

Joey Bosco wrote:
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?

Yes.

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:


John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not. Do
you?

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 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.

Joey Bosco wrote:
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,

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

In article , "mp" wrote:


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.

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.

On 5 Nov 2004 15:45:58 GMT, Joey Bosco wrote:



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?

Absolutely.

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.

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.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:31:11 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:


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.

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?

"Joey Bosco" wrote in message
.4...


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?

I support wood working, do you or do you only troll?

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:31:11 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

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.

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.


EXACTLY.. I suspect this was more of a liberal spin against Bush.

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.

--
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.

"Joey Bosco" wrote in message
.4...


.. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again, if
this line of research is aggressively pursued.

Didnt they make a movie about that ? 'Dawn of the dead ? '

Boc

"Phisherman" wrote in message
...
Off-topic posting. Is it ethical?

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:

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?

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.

Subject

Rant on all you fish ****s, but just not here.

Lew

On 5 Nov 2004 15:45:58 GMT, Joey Bosco wrote:



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?

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..

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.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article ,
otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not. Do
you?

What business is it of yours?

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 and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

Owen Lowe notes:

In article ,
otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not.
Do
you?

What business is it of yours?

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.)

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

Doug Miller wrote:
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.

--
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.


Thank you, Doug. I have been reading this thread trying to think of the
proper response and how to word it and you said exactly what I believe.
Well said.

Glen

In article . net,
says...
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:

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.

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.


Thank you, Doug. I have been reading this thread trying to think of the
proper response and how to word it and you said exactly what I believe.

And I suppose you both think an egg is a chicken, right?

Do you understand the word "potential"? A fetus is a potential human
just as an egg is a potential chicken.

Anyway, this subject has been argued for decades and it still comes down
to a religion trying to force others to live by its tenets.

And BTW, somebody said the argument is over when the fetus gets a soul.
Well, there are a lot of folks who'd say "never" to that. If they're
right, does that mean none of us are human?

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.

To the rest of you, I apologize for responding in the first place. I've
got to learn to ignore the trolls/fanatics/etc..

Perhaps I should lose "faith" that reason will change human minds. Shaw
may well have been right.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

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.....

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:46:38 GMT, mac davis
wrote:

On 5 Nov 2004 15:45:58 GMT, Joey Bosco wrote:



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?

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..

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

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:30:38 GMT, "mel"
wrote:

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.....


If they were mas--produced and thus cheap enough, and that's
what people had been eating all their lives, they *would* have
done just as well. There is nothing particularly appetizing about
chickens in the flesh, or the factories used to produce them or
their eggs.

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.

-Doug

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:48:51 -0700, 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.


Have you really been brainwashed into believing that this
is the decision point or are you just playing dumb ?

snipIf they were mas--produced and thus cheap enough, and that's
what people had been eating all their lives, they *would* have
done just as well. There is nothing particularly appetizing about
chickens in the flesh, or the factories used to produce them or
their eggs.

Ok.. you got me.... if embryos were mass produced and women were viewed as
factories then this wouldn't be questioned by our society.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

SNIP

And I suppose you both think an egg is a chicken, right?

Do you understand the word "potential"? A fetus is a potential human
just as an egg is a potential chicken.

SNIP

Do you believe an egg is a fetus? I don't, but from your analogy, it
appears you do. A human "egg" is not a baby, but a fetus is more than
an egg.

Glen

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:09:03 GMT, vaguely
proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


Joey Bosco wrote:
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,

Neat trick, even for stem cell research -- seeing as how he's dead!

Who, "people like Christopher Reeve"? They're not all dead last I
heard. G

RTOP.

You may be well advised to read the trolls before replying.
************************************************** ***
Dogs are better than people.

People are better than dogs for only one purpose. And
then it's only half of ofthe people. And _then_ most
of them are only ordinary anyway. And then they have a
headache.........

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:01:20 -0800, "mp" vaguely proposed
a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


People ***like*** Christopher Reeve may one day walk again,


It'll take more than stem cells to get Christopher Reeve walking again.

Which is not what was claimed....
************************************************** ***
Dogs are better than people.

People are better than dogs for only one purpose. And
then it's only half of ofthe people. And _then_ most
of them are only ordinary anyway. And then they have a
headache.........

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?

JK

The morality of stem cell research depends on if your or one you love
is dying of a disease that could reasonably benefit from it. If it
does not touch you and yours then it is immoral. Therein lies the
difficulty: for all the promise of stem cell research it does not
influence enough lives (yet) to gain popular support.

hex
-30-

In article k.net,
says...
Do you believe an egg is a fetus? I don't, but from your analogy, it
appears you do. A human "egg" is not a baby, but a fetus is more than
an egg.

Talk to a biologist.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 12:47:31 GMT, "mel"
wrote:


Ok.. you got me.... if embryos were mass produced and women were viewed as
factories then this wouldn't be questioned by our society.


The *real* issue is that it's women rather than men who have
babies. If men did, we would have a constitutional amendment
in place guaranteeing the right to abortion, Rush would be
ranting about "christian fanatics," and we'd have the Usual
Suspects screaming "baby hugger !" at anyone challenging
it.

In article ,
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.

Because the drug manufacturer who so readily took from the public funds
to research and develop the drug then turns around and rapes the
consumer (especially the US market) on drug costs. All the while looking
for protections and favorable rulings.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 01:14:10 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

In article ,
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.

Because the drug manufacturer who so readily took from the public funds to
research and develop the drug then turns around and rapes the consumer
(especially the US market) on drug costs. All the while looking for
protections and favorable rulings.

And you think if any magic comes out of stem cell research the providers
of the magic aren't going to clean up, whether they are in the US, France
or wherever?

This whole hoopla about stem cell reseaarch is a big something about
nothing. Consider:

1) Stem cell research is not illegal.
2) The feds don't supply unlimited funds for any kind of medical research.
3) GWB, not a democrat president, pushed through funds for limited stem
cell research despite all the whining about deficits.
4) Many of us contribute to research for cancer, MS, childhood lukemia,
etc. even though there may be some federal funds also provided.

So the question is why are folks trying to manufacture a political club
outa this so as to reach into other folks pockets and demagoging
the issue instead of getting out their crowbars and contributing
themselves?

-Doug