Laura Bush, just another redneck

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 10, 2004, 9:54 am

Okay, stem cell research is the nearest thing humanity has to a cure all. It is the only line of research that could fix me personally ( new knee, shoulder, hip) and can be used to cure everything from sickle cell anemia to growing new teeth. Not to mention Alzheimer's. Well Nancy Reagan spoke out for the need to do stem cell research, and now Bush's bimbo is speaking out against it.

Here is the deal people, there are multiple sources of stem cells, but the easiest method is aborted babies. So they do a blanket ban because they are worried about people aborting for cash. It would make a lot more sense to me to imprison people who abort for cash.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=5383174

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Laura Bush, whose father died from Alzheimer's, said on Wednesday she admired Nancy Reagan's devotion to former President Ronald Reagan until his death but could not back her call for relaxation of stem cell research restrictions.

Reagan, the 40th U.S. president, died on Saturday at 93 of pneumonia after a long battle with the brain-wasting disease. His wife, Nancy, and children were at his bedside.

Mrs. Bush, whose father died in 1997, said she had great respect for the former first lady and that she was an excellent role model for families struggling to cope with the illness.

"I know how very difficult it is for the patient, obviously, but also for the caregiver. It requires unbelievable strength of character to take care of the person you love as you see them slip away like that -- 'the long goodbye' they call Alzheimer's," the first lady told the CBS "Early Show" from Sea Island, Georgia, where leaders of the Group of Eight countries are meeting.

But Mrs. Bush said she did not endorse Nancy Reagan's call, already rebuffed by the White House, to allow greater stem cell research to proceed in the hope it would provide some answers to the disease or possibly a cure.

The Bush administration has placed restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and opposes using stem cells from most embryos, a stand Mrs. Bush said she supported.

"There are stem cells to do research on and ... we have to be really careful between what we want to do for science and what we should do ethically," the first lady said. "Stem cell ... is certainly one of those issues that we need to treat very carefully."

Pressed on whether she was prepared to endorse Mrs. Reagan's impassioned call for restrictions to be lifted, she replied, "No."

More than 200 members of the U.S. Senate and House (of Representatives have also urged Bush to allow researchers to use embryonic stem cells to eventually provide brain cell transplants to Alzheimer's patients. They also hope to use embryonic stem cells to treat Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, diabetes and a range of other illnesses.

Reagan had a decade-long battle with Alzheimer's, which affects the brain, causing memory loss, confusion, mood changes, hallucinations, speech problems and incontinence.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 10, 2004, 10:53 am

A moral code by consensus,

It allows abortion, but restricts the use of aborted kids' bodies.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 10, 2004, 11:13 am

Im reminded of the Southpark episode where Christopher Reeves starts eating stem cells and becomes almost invincible. Basically, they made fun of the fact that most people aren't informed very well when it comes to this subject.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 10, 2004, 11:18 am

Well Lynks considering they used a treatment derived from stem cells on a human being that cured his sicle cell anemia and changed his blood type in the process, I can see where people can iamgine it being a perfect thing.

It is not, but it has potential o lead to almost anything.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 10, 2004, 11:36 am

Lots of promise, yet an ethical minefield.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 10, 2004, 11:39 am

If they restricted the use to the umbilical cord, then I'm all for it..

It's the only thing that would be able to cure me, too.. *sighs*

Post by **Sylvus** » June 10, 2004, 11:58 am

I don't really see the ethical dilemma. If they use the tissues from feti that have already been aborted, who cares? They are already dead.

What good comes from not allowing research on the dead that could possibly save the lives of the living? How do the "moral majority" feel about organ donation after someone dies or on studying the hearts (or brains/spinal cords/etc.) of deceased heart attack (stroke/paralysis/etc) victims to try and gain a better understanding of how the disease works?

While I am pro-choice (and I really am not trying to turn this into an abortion discussion) I can understand where pro-life folks are coming from with not wanting abortions, but not allowing stem-cell research on abortions that have already happened boggles my mind. The thing to understand is that at this moment, abortions are happening all over the country. Myself, and I'm guessing most of the proponents of stem-cell research, are not trying to encourage people to get abortions. What we're asking is, instead of disposing of the bodies of those aborted feti that have already happened (or burying or cremating them), why not try to prevent the future suffering of many more people?

It only seems logical to me, and no different than organ donation or studying the organs of someone after they die of natural causes. The medical and scientific research community seems to have done a pretty good job so far of not running around murdering people to study their hearts or brains. When life gives you lemons...

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 10, 2004, 11:59 am

If they use the tissues from feti that have already been aborted, who cares?

God cares and you're going to burn in Hell!

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 10, 2004, 12:13 pm

Well, I can see the argument that if it could be done for profit you might see people getting pregnant and aborting for the money. Pretty drastic but I don't put much past the people of this world. This will inevitably turn into an abortion argument because the 2 subjects are so closely linked. I'm all for stem cell research, even from aborted fetii. Just make sure there's no financial recompensation, and treat it like organ donation.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 10, 2004, 12:22 pm

Many people are anti-stem cell untill they see someone they love in their death bed. If people are worried that others will start aborting for cash, just make some legislation that they will receive no cash, no tax relief, nothing for the fetus. Its a complete donation.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 10, 2004, 1:11 pm

It only seems logical to me, and no different than organ donation or studying the organs of someone after they die of natural causes.

I was going to say the same thing.. it is really no different than organ donation or cutting up a dead body at medical school heh.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 10, 2004, 1:43 pm

The fucked up thing is that the same people who find it ethically wrong to harvest stem cells from aborted babies would be the first on the bandwagon if we found a way to extract them from the bodies of Afghani & Iraqi insurgents.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 10, 2004, 1:54 pm

You assume incorrectly Masteen.

How about the stem cell lines that are currently in use? What are their limitations in relation to fetus stem cells?

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » June 10, 2004, 2:04 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:You assume incorrectly Masteen.

How about the stem cell lines that are currently in use? What are their limitations in relation to fetus stem cells?

There's currently something like 46 lines of stem cells that are currently under study. The limitation being that we would have to mutate them into the proper mature cells in order to create the organs. Fetus stem cells, at various stages of formation can help show what processes are behind the cells becoming those orgams, or even provide late-stage stem cells that can be used to grow the organs from the stock cells.

It's kinda like reverse engineering a car from a block of steel without a full understanding of metallurgy and fuel-engine manufacturing.

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » June 10, 2004, 2:21 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:How about the stem cell lines that are currently in use? What are their limitations in relation to fetus stem cells?

From http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... index.html

Fifty-eight senators are asking President Bush to relax federal restrictions on stem cell research, and several said Monday that the late President Reagan's Alzheimer's disease underscored a need to expand the research using human embryos.

The senators' letter to Bush was sent Friday, before Reagan died after a long struggle with Alzheimer's.

But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said: "This issue is especially poignant given President Reagan's passing. Embryonic stem cell research might hold the key to a cure for Alzheimer's and other terrible diseases."

Last month, Nancy Reagan appeared at a fund-raising dinner in Los Angeles to promote stem cell research.

"We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping," the senators wrote Bush.

The letter was signed by 43 Democrats, the Senate's one independent and 14 Republicans, among them conservatives who oppose abortion. In April, 206 House members sent a similar letter to Bush.

Bush signed an executive order in August 2001 limiting federal research funding for stem cell research to 78 embryonic stem cell lines then in existence.

But the letter complains that only 19 of those lines are now available to researchers and those available are contaminated with mouse feeder cells which makes their use for humans uncertain.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 10, 2004, 2:24 pm

From a Washington Post editorial about all the Republicans in a rush to put Reagan on money:

Congress and President Bush could more appropriately honor Mr. Reagan's memory right away by liberalizing the national policy on stem cell research. Such action would honor the wishes of his family and pay homage to the suffering he endured as an Alzheimer's disease patient. Research on embryonic stem cells could lead to advances in Alzheimer's care, as well as treatments for other debilitating conditions. And it is now clear that Mr. Bush's restrictive policy is beginning to hold back research: National Institutes of Health Director Elias A. Zerhouni recently conceded that "from a purely scientific perspective more cell lines may well speed some areas of [stem cell] research." If unchanged, Mr. Bush's policy could mean that effective therapies will be delayed and more people and families will suffer as the Reagans have. Avoiding that outcome should be a priority.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 10, 2004, 3:00 pm

You know, stem cell issues are another I went independant, when the Republican party becomes Amish, I am done. There is no reason to not use something that will otherwise be throw away.

murr · Post by **murr** » June 10, 2004, 3:16 pm

I will be saddened the day this is no longer an issue, somewhat - when will I ever get to use the word "fetii" in an argument once it's resolved?

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » June 10, 2004, 3:58 pm

While I think stem cell research (and human cloning and most other science with which people have "ethical" issues) should be rigorously pursued, I feel it important to note that there is no ban on stem cell research. You can do it to your heart's content. You just can't get Federal grants to do it.

Btw, the issue is not one of ethics, it is one of Christian morality.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » June 10, 2004, 4:37 pm

its only an ethics problem because of religious people. adex, do you support stem cell research that use dead 2ish week old fetus's? do you believe in euthanasia? why are we able to put cats/dogs/horses to sleep because its the humane thing to do ... but we have to be "humane" and let sally starve to death for 2 weeks instead of putting her to sleep? people need to get their "ethics" straightened out ....

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 10, 2004, 4:38 pm

Fundie Christian morality. The only people who think that Alzheimers is a beautiful and natural thing are GW and the Pope.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » June 10, 2004, 6:46 pm

There is no reason to not use something that will otherwise be throw away.

This is not true. Again, I am strongly in favour of stem cell research, but not because the moral implications are eliminated by the legality of abortion and fertility treatments. Frankly, if the only means by which embrionic stem cells could be harvested was to impregnate a female and abort after a certaoin number of days, I would suggest setting up embryo donation clinics, much like we donate blood, plateletts, bone marrow, sperm, eggs, etc. But that is because I have no problem at all with early term abortions. Since I have no belief in witchcraft, Shintoism, Christianity, Roman Mythology, or any other work of fiction that would make me think a small collection of undifferentiated tissue had a "soul" that I needed to be concerned with.

But, if I was inflicted with whatever mental disorder results in such beliefs, the mere fact that scociety had designated the killing of the hosts of these souls as legal would not mean that I would support the byproduct of that act being used for research. To do so, especially if it resulted in a tangible benefit, would permanently harm my cause by placing a ultilitarian barrier to recriminalizing abortion. That is, by allowing some good to come out of an evil act, it has the effect of legitimizing that evil act. So, arguing that "well the tissue is there anyway, may as well put it to good use" is not compelling to those that want very much to prevent that tissue from being so readily available in the first place and irrelevant to those of us that would support it anyway.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 10, 2004, 8:04 pm

Kylere wrote: Here is the deal people, there are multiple sources of stem cells, but the easiest method is aborted babies. So they do a blanket ban because they are worried about people aborting for cash. It would make a lot more sense to me to imprison people who abort for cash.

I don't know how else to add to that, make sure money doesn't completely fuck it up.

Stem cell research has massive potential. The doctors at my former hospital were apart of the research which has and still does occur overseas.

I'm really getting tired of christ fundie folks. Bunch of backwater fucks; just use your leeches and be done w/ effecting my potential healthcare issues already.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 10, 2004, 8:26 pm

One more reason that the medical field will be next in outsourcing.

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » June 11, 2004, 9:25 am

Aaeamdar wrote:
There is no reason to not use something that will otherwise be throw away.
This is not true. Again, I am strongly in favour of stem cell research, but not because the moral implications are eliminated by the legality of abortion and fertility treatments. Frankly, if the only means by which embrionic stem cells could be harvested was to impregnate a female and abort after a certaoin number of days, I would suggest setting up embryo donation clinics, much like we donate blood, plateletts, bone marrow, sperm, eggs, etc. But that is because I have no problem at all with early term abortions. Since I have no belief in witchcraft, Shintoism, Christianity, Roman Mythology, or any other work of fiction that would make me think a small collection of undifferentiated tissue had a "soul" that I needed to be concerned with.

But, if I was inflicted with whatever mental disorder results in such beliefs, the mere fact that scociety had designated the killing of the hosts of these souls as legal would not mean that I would support the byproduct of that act being used for research. To do so, especially if it resulted in a tangible benefit, would permanently harm my cause by placing a ultilitarian barrier to recriminalizing abortion. That is, by allowing some good to come out of an evil act, it has the effect of legitimizing that evil act. So, arguing that "well the tissue is there anyway, may as well put it to good use" is not compelling to those that want very much to prevent that tissue from being so readily available in the first place and irrelevant to those of us that would support it anyway.

But there is another source that is just being thrown away. Fertilized eggs are thrown away every day at fertility clinics because the parents no longer need them. The clinics fertilize more eggs than they plant in case none of them take they can do it again with one step removed. What is wrong with using the cells in this case?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 11, 2004, 9:49 am

I'm getting really tired of "blame the religious fundies" every time something in government happens you don't like. I am entirely FOR stem cell research. It's probably the only way we're going to see any cures or effective treatements for things like alzhimers (sp), fibromialgia, chronic erdicaria, cancer, et al.

But I'm also a religious Christian fundie, as it is so succinctly put. I am dead set against abortion, in any form, shy for if it is the only way to save the mthoer's life. I am also against doing full body cloning - clone a new liver for me, please, or clone a pair of eyes, that's fine. But attempt to clone me, my entirety? Not sure I like that idea. Why? I don't know. It makes my skin crawl, tbh.

As it's been stated above, there are lots of places stem cells can be found in aside from fetuses. I am all for using them.. yet I am a religious Christian fundie.

Infact, I can't think of a single person I know that is also a devout Christian that thinks this is a bad idea. They think it's a horrific idea to use aborted children for it, as stated in the examples above (people getting pregnant, then being paid thousands of dollars to abort it); you don't kill children or teenagers or adults or even old folk and profit off of their deaths, babies should be no different.

So what does this make me? Someone that is sick and tired of this constant "Christians are the root of all evil" bullcrap. If you don't like the laws, if a frelling democracy - put the people in charge to change them. If your party is incapable of fielding someone to do so this election, blame your own leadership and ake the steps necessary to demand their replacements.

It is utterly deplorable to sit back and bitch about a man who tries to follow his beliefs and his morals as he does his job when the las trepresentive of the democratic party in office had none to speak of.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 11, 2004, 9:53 am

Something else to add.. if you called her a true redneck, she'd be more apt to have HAD an abortion than your average midclassman's daughter because sex is one fo the few things they know how to do.

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » June 11, 2004, 10:24 am

Akaran_D wrote:It is utterly deplorable to sit back and bitch about a man who tries to follow his beliefs and his morals as he does his job when the las trepresentive of the democratic party in office had none to speak of.

BULL SHIT! He was not elected to follow his beliefs! He was elected to be a representative of ALL PEOPLE of this country! His beliefs should have no place in the decisions he makes - only the constitution and the laws of the land should play a role. If he wants to make decrees based on his beliefs - let him run for pope!

Clinton had more morals than that jackass in office now! So he had a blow job from someone other than his wife - who the hell cares - that is between him and his wife. Did he follow the constitution when deciding doctrine. A lot more than Bush has, that is for sure!

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 11, 2004, 10:31 am

(edited for clarity)
He was elected to do what he thought best for the coutnry while in office while following the constitution.
Stem cell research? THAT is a moral decision he had to make. I'm sorry he feels that it is a poor one.

(edit 2)
Clinton is the sob that signed in a law making it legal to let a newborn baby partialy escape the vaginal canal then pump its head full of formalyhide(sp). Explain to me, please, how THAT shows he has any more morals than Bush.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2004, 10:41 am

Fredonia Coldheart wrote:
Akaran_D wrote:It is utterly deplorable to sit back and bitch about a man who tries to follow his beliefs and his morals as he does his job when the las trepresentive of the democratic party in office had none to speak of.
BULL SHIT! He was not elected to follow his beliefs! He was elected to be a representative of ALL PEOPLE of this country! His beliefs should have no place in the decisions he makes - only the constitution and the laws of the land should play a role. If he wants to make decrees based on his beliefs - let him run for pope!

Clinton had more morals than that jackass in office now! So he had a blow job from someone other than his wife - who the hell cares - that is between him and his wife. Did he follow the constitution when deciding doctrine. A lot more than Bush has, that is for sure!

Your right Fredonia it was between him and his wife until he lied under oath.

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » June 11, 2004, 11:00 am

Akaran_D wrote:Clinton is the sob that signed in a law making it legal to let a newborn baby partialy escape the vaginal canal then pump its head full of formalyhide(sp). Explain to me, please, how THAT shows he has any more morals than Bush.

Did you ever do any research on D&X procedures or just did you just take for word what the assholes in Washington told you? There is no medical practice called "partial-birth abortion". It is actually called D&X and is generally used when the fetus is severely hydrocephalic. In some elses words because she can explain it much better than I:

D&X procedures (the name this type of abortion has medically, not the name given to it by anti-choice activists) are generally performed when a fetus is severely hydrocephalic - that is, there's so much fluid in its head that the head becomes far, far too large to fit through the birth canal. Mild hydrocephaly is no big deal, but in severe cases it causes brain damage so extensive that the fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb.

The head is obviously too big to fit through the birth canal (even normal fetal heads are sometimes too large, so a head the size of two footballs, as is sometimes the case, would be insane to fit through). The alternatives at this point are to puncture the skull, letting the excess fluid drain out, then delivering what's left of the fetus, or doing a c-section.

What's so bad about a c-section? Well, because the head is so large, removing the fetus intact (remember, it's going to die within a minute or two of removal since it has almost no brain activity) requires a MUCH larger incision than a normal c-section, putting the mother's life and continued fertility at great risk as well as causing longer periods of disability following the procedure.

The D&X eliminates most of the danger and the invasiveness of a c-section. It also ensures the woman's continued fertility.

Since the fetus, in this case, will be DEAD ANYWAY, I see nothing wrong with taking every precaution to ensure the mother's life and fertility are protected.

As for people who think women do this for...recreational purposes or something...You. are. dead. wrong.

Why would a woman have a procedure more expensive, more bloody, more traumatic, and more dangerous than a normal birth if a normal birth was a possibility? Do you think women just get off on killing babies, or what? Women do this when a normal birth is NOT AN OPTION, when their life is being put at risk by a fetus incapable of surviving.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 11, 2004, 11:30 am

If it's a living, breathing baby when it comes out, then at least have the common decency to give it a fighting chance to survive instead of giving up on it at the start.

I have cousins - several of them - that had a very, very low chance of survival inside and outside of the womb. Know what? They made it. They lived.

And take a look at what I said above. If the mother's life is at risk, that is the ONLY time that abortion should be considered acceptable.

As for your quote, reference who said it for it to have credability.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 11, 2004, 11:56 am

Akaran_D wrote:Infact, I can't think of a single person I know that is also a devout Christian that thinks this is a bad idea.

I can think of at least one person, namely the first lady or did you not even read the article?

So what does this make me? Someone that is sick and tired of this constant "Christians are the root of all evil" bullcrap. If you don't like the laws, if a frelling democracy - put the people in charge to change them. If your party is incapable of fielding someone to do so this election, blame your own leadership and ake the steps necessary to demand their replacements.

The majority did. In addition, this bullshit about quelling stem cell research was never apart of his campaign.

It is utterly deplorable to sit back and bitch about a man who tries to follow his beliefs and his morals as he does his job when the las trepresentive of the democratic party in office had none to speak of.

Why is it deplorable? He's going to single handedly fuck over medical advancements. It's the same bullshit religious nuts tried to pull back when they were trying to learn to do bypasses for the heart. How many people were saved as a result of "going against the church"?

It is backwater mentality and it IS because of religious convictions that A. a sizable portion of people in the country don't even follow and B. ones that do but still think there's still no reason to stop advancement as a result of it (which part of the reason there are 7 billion different types of christianity in the first place, no one could ever agree on anything interpreted in the bible).

I don't really give a fuck if you're against abortions either, don't ever have one then if you're so dead set against it.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 11, 2004, 12:02 pm

Yeah, like I have the first lady on my speed dial.

The majority did.

Obviously not enough of them..

[qupte]
Why is it deplorable? He's going to single handedly fuck over medical advancements.
[/quote]
No, he's going to stop them *here*. It is being continued in other countries where people with your mindset make the rules. It will not stop progress, hell, it may not even delay it very long. There will be other things that come along that we will do, and the outsourcing is not that bad of a thing in the long run.. read Fortune and Wired on occasion. It sucks for the time being, but will pay off in the end.

I'm against the banning of stem cell research. I'm for it as long as it provides direct laws that prohibit the profitering from abortions. Bush either hasn't considered this option or isn't bright enough to figure it out. However, I cannot pass judgement on a man for doing what he beleives is right within reason. This falls into the reasonable category, regardless of weather you like it or not.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » June 11, 2004, 12:23 pm

So let's let the US be at the very back of medical advancement because of ONE person's religious views. Great idea.

I don't care about Bush's views, I don't care about your views. It's when he starts making decisions for the entire country based on his religion when I, and everyone else, need to start bitching. I'm really sorry you want to blindly follow everything Bush says, but the rest of us are smart enough not to.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2004, 12:27 pm

Vetiria wrote:So let's let the US be at the very back of medical advancement because of ONE person's religious views. Great idea.

I don't care about Bush's views, I don't care about your views. It's when he starts making decisions for the entire country based on his religion when I, and everyone else, need to start bitching. I'm really sorry you want to blindly follow everything Bush says, but the rest of us are smart enough not to.

Its not just one persons views, there are many people that feel this way.

In my opinion Abortion is murder but I refuse to judge people on religious views. To each is own and I will allow god to sort them out. If im wrong im wrong and if im right, well you better hope im not right I hear its toasty down there.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » June 11, 2004, 12:28 pm

We're not talking about abortion. That's a completely different topic.

Edit: And it is just one person's decision Cart. It was Bush's sole decision to sign the presidential order denying funding to any stem-cell research. No one else, besides God of course

, had a say in it.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 11, 2004, 12:31 pm

Yeah the issue here is not abortion at all, unless you are being political rather than realistic.

The issue is needed research in a promising area.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2004, 12:33 pm

Vetiria wrote:We're not talking about abortion. That's a completely different topic.

In a way we are, we are talking about Stem Cell research from aborted Fetuses right?

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » June 11, 2004, 12:45 pm

ok the "other sources of stem cells" are not as good as the ones that you receive from a fetus ... imagen .. having a ... Pinto, Mustang, and Porsche. that is the quality measure of the stem cells. the cells that you get from a fetus can be used for nearly anything .. the cells that you locate in a person that is already fully developed can only be used for a small minute number of things and they are also VERY difficuly to find in a person.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2004, 12:47 pm

Drasta wrote:ok the "other sources of stem cells" are not as good as the ones that you receive from a fetus ... imagen .. having a ... Pinto, Mustang, and Porsche. that is the quality measure of the stem cells. the cells that you get from a fetus can be used for nearly anything .. the cells that you locate in a person that is already fully developed can only be used for a small minute number of things and they are also VERY difficuly to find in a person.

I am not willing to give the A'OK to abortion in order to get the Porsch of stem cells sorry

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 11, 2004, 12:49 pm

Cartalas, let me give ytou 250 so you can buy a vowel, err clue

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET ABORTIONS LEGALLY IN THIS COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD.

So the question is

WHY CAN WE NOT USE THE AFOREMENTIONED TISSUE FOR RESEARCH.

By the way on the abortion side, any male voicing an opinion either pro choice or anti choice must realize that their opinion means shit.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » June 11, 2004, 12:57 pm

http://www.marrow.org/MEDICAL/sources_o ... cells.html

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2004, 12:59 pm

Kylere wrote:Cartalas, let me give ytou 250 so you can buy a vowel, err clue

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET ABORTIONS LEGALLY IN THIS COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD.

So the question is

WHY CAN WE NOT USE THE AFOREMENTIONED TISSUE FOR RESEARCH.

By the way on the abortion side, any male voicing an opinion either pro choice or anti choice must realize that their opinion means shit.

Kylere I understand how you feel but as I stated those are my feeling on the issue. Right or wrong they are not going to change. Just because the fetus is aborted legally does not make it right in my eyes and I dont want scientist standing ther edrooling over the demise of a dead child. Now if the baby dies of natural causes and the parents agree to it well have at it then.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 11, 2004, 1:01 pm

Vetiria wrote:http://www.marrow.org/MEDICAL/sources_o ... cells.html

Thanks vetiria this article is informative.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 11, 2004, 1:07 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Kylere wrote:Cartalas, let me give ytou 250 so you can buy a vowel, err clue

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET ABORTIONS LEGALLY IN THIS COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD.

So the question is

WHY CAN WE NOT USE THE AFOREMENTIONED TISSUE FOR RESEARCH.

By the way on the abortion side, any male voicing an opinion either pro choice or anti choice must realize that their opinion means shit.

Kylere I understand how you feel but as I stated those are my feeling on the issue. Right or wrong they are not going to change. Just because the fetus is aborted legally does not make it right in my eyes and I dont want scientist standing ther edrooling over the demise of a dead child. Now if the baby dies of natural causes and the parents agree to it well have at it then.

But you must realize that your views about abortion are moot, I may think we should legalize marijuana, but that does not make it legal, you may not like abortion, but that does not make it illegal.

Do you have any concept of the numbers of abortions a year? There are more than enough to provide all the tissue needed even if the number of abortions performed was to be cut in HALF.

It is entirely illogical to not use something that already exists, that would be like not looking at art because you do not like the NEA.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 11, 2004, 2:14 pm

Akaran_D wrote:If it's a living, breathing baby when it comes out, then at least have the common decency to give it a fighting chance to survive instead of giving up on it at the start.

I have cousins - several of them - that had a very, very low chance of survival inside and outside of the womb. Know what? They made it. They lived.

And take a look at what I said above. If the mother's life is at risk, that is the ONLY time that abortion should be considered acceptable.

As for your quote, reference who said it for it to have credability.

I don't know where the info came from, but it's accurate. Hydrocephalic babies heads can get HUGE. Squeezing that out will usually wreck a woman's plumbing, and sometimes even kill her. C-sections offer no better chance. So you're saying that the life of a baby that WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY die minutes after birth is more precious than the health of the mother?

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » June 11, 2004, 4:39 pm

*insert special case mobo jumbo here*

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 11, 2004, 4:49 pm

No masteen, I'm not.
I'm saying it shouldn't be allowed as an option for anything but life threatening circumstances. Thanks.

Vetria, please reread everything I've posted, and find me one place where I agree with the ban of stem cell research in the US? You won't, because I don't. I am in favor of it, and I'm sorry that Bush isn't.

What I am is tired of hearing this constant "religion is bad" junk that permeates almost every thread raised on this board. If you don't beleive in it, fine. I'm sorry for you. I'm not going to shove my doctrine down my throat, it's your choice. You don't hear the "religious right" chanting about the "heathenistic left", do you?

Get over yourselves...

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 11, 2004, 4:52 pm

heh religious people shove their gospel down our throats daily. And now Bush does it as well.

VeeshanVault

Laura Bush, just another redneck

Laura Bush, just another redneck

Re: Laura Bush, just another redneck