The Lame will walk

[aspeck]

Re: The Lame will walk

BP has it well covered. Thanks for the posts BP! Your mom and good friend are in the family prayers.<br /><br />Willy, agree with your post except for one thing - while I agree that others have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body, that same woman has no right to tell the unborn child in her that they don't have the right to live. I am pro-choice - the woman has the choice to engage in activity that will lead to pregnancy or not, and accept the risks that are involved with such behavior and preventative measures.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: The Lame will walk

It comes down to this, I will never ever use something from an aborted fetus to fix even my most loved ones. PERIOD!<br /><br /><br />People die, that is what happens.<br /><br />Ken

 

[kd6nem]

Re: The Lame will walk

And for those of us who respect the life of the unborn at all times after conception, the other difference is that umbilical cord cells never involve taking a life.<br /><br />Senator Feinstein was not speaking to scientists, Norse, she was trying to influence national policy with those lies. Policy which determines how we proceed here. In my opinion anyone caught lying to Congress should be treated as though they lied under oath, and prosecuted. Regardless of which party they belong to.<br /><br />Regardless of the other differences in cell types, we see one has multiple proven benefits with few drawbacks. The other may or may not have potential benefits, but has an enormous moral liability. This moral liability I want no part of, and want my tax dollars to have no part of. If I fail to voice my objection, then I effectively become an accomplice to this misjustice. Rationalize all you want, abortion is still killing a baby. FETAL tissue harvesting is NOT ethical. Given the success of non-embryonic stem cells, or even aside from that, there is no reason to pursue what we cannot morally or ethically deal with anyway.

 

[gsbodine]

Re: The Lame will walk

Originally posted by Bearcat Powered:<br />Senator Feinstein was not speaking to scientists, Norse, she was trying to influence national policy with those lies.

I realize that and addressed an OT issue that is corollary to it. I simply said that you do not look to lawmakers to understand science or represent larger issues using their statements or personalities. <br /><br />You are entitled to your opinions, of course, as to the rest of what you are saying, but please don't pretend that they are not opinions. Even embryonic stem cells may be gathered in vitro without abortion. The ethicality of that is open to debate. Despite your capitalization, it is your opinion that it is unethical, not fact. I really hope you are not trying to say that the only alternative to your opinions are lies. That in itself would be deceit.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: The Lame will walk

Originally posted by Bearcat Powered:<br /> Regardless of the other differences in cell types, we see one has multiple proven benefits with few drawbacks. The other may or may not have potential benefits, but has an enormous moral liability.

I don't want you to take this as a personal attack, but you are not a doctor nor a medical scientist. You don't know the all the possible benifits and ramifications of the different types of stem cell research, and what advantages embryonic stem cells may possibly provide that other stem cells cannot. The direction and focus of research should be decided by knowledgable people, the doctors and scientists involved in the research, not by you and I.<br /><br />Along the same lines, I think it's absolutely absurd that we would restrict medical research because of an ethical dilema that is not directly related to that research. Embryonic stem cell research is related to abortion, but it's not cause-and-effect. Stem cell research does not cause abortion. Abortion will still exist and be a legal choice, regardless of whether embryonic stem cell research moves foward or not.<br /><br />Banning or restricting embryonic stem cell research will not affect abortion, but the abortion aspect is the only thing you are against. The very and only thing that disturbs you most is not affected at all. It's like saying you want to ban all baseball because they serve hot-dogs in the stands, and you are against hot-dogs. By restricting stem-cell research, you aren't going to affect abortion. All you'll succeed in doing is restricting medical science.

 

[1994lundminnow]

Re: The Lame will walk

Facts:<br /><br />Bush is the first president to fund Stem Cell research. $28B I believe.. anyone know for sure the amount?<br /><br />Bush signed into law that the U.S. Government will NOT fund Embryonic Stem Cell research BEYOND the lines that already exist. i.e. no more embryo's will be killed, but funding is still going to the research on the lines that already exist.<br /><br />Nobody is banning this research at all, simply putting some rescrictions around how tax payers money is going to be spent because some people have a real hard time in this country dealing with the fact that our government finances what they believe to be murder. If a private funded company wants to do it, then they still can.<br /><br />If embryonic stem cells are really THAT valuable to research then is there really any doubt that the leading researchers wouldn't just simply apply for private funding or for international funds? Bush's policy restrics this research about as much as that dotted line in the road restricts you from driving in the other lane.

 

[1994lundminnow]

Re: The Lame will walk

To the lefties... you guys wonder why we like Bush's straight forward and honest answers vs. Kerry's long winded BS. Below is part of the transcript of the second debate.<br /><br />DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person? <br /><br />KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. <br /><br />First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. <br /><br />But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that. <br /><br />But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society. <br /><br />But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment. <br /><br />Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise. <br /><br />That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning. <br /><br />You'll help prevent AIDS. <br /><br />You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. <br /><br />You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it. <br /><br />GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half. <br /><br />BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that. <br /><br />My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: The Lame will walk

He didnt answer the freakin question............Grrrrrrrrrr. And hey Wilkin if there were no abortions or cloneing allowed where would they get their embronic stem cells from?

 

[1994lundminnow]

Re: The Lame will walk

mikeandronda,<br /><br />Actually he did: "...making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise."<br /><br />It takes some time to decipher his rambling BS but at the end of the day the answer he gave to the ladies question is: "tough shiit, the Kerry administration will provide free abortions via the tax payers dime to those who wish to have them." <br /><br />... and apparently that policy will also prevent the spread of Aids?

 

[kd6nem]

Re: The Lame will walk

Norse, you are correct, it is my opinion. Or perhaps I should say conviction. Very strongly held opinion, anyway.<br /><br />You may chose to disagree with me here also, but I'm convinced that there is a much higher authority than mankind. I take it by faith, very similar really to how you take your conclusion of this matter by faith. Whether you agree or disagree, partially or completely- for both of us it still comes down to some sort of faith in our underlying suppositions which lead us to our respective beliefs. Scientific method alone does not answer all the questions.<br /> <br />Norse say:

The direction and focus of research should be decided by knowledgable people, the doctors and scientists involved in the research, not by you and I.

Knowledge is not intrinsically ethical or moral. Science is not intrinsically ethical or moral. There are ethical and moral uses of science and knowledge, and there are unethical and immoral uses of science and knowledge. It depends on the values of the individuals involved. Some believe that the ends justify the means. Doesn't matter how you get there so long as you get there. This attitude is the same attitude which urges some athletes to cheat to win, or some politicians to lie, or some people to cheat their employer, or some employers to cheat everyone. So WHO should decide this? WHICH doctors and scientists? Those who have a vested financial interest? That would be inviting the fox to guard the henhouse. Science is not unified on this. Far from it. Appealing to science does not answer the ethics questions.<br /><br />If you suggest that I cannot separate the fetal stem cell issue from abortion, you are absolutely correct. So long as abortion is part of the equation (and it most certainly is at least for now), then I cannot support the use of- or even research on- fetal stem cells. I do not believe the ends justify the means.<br /><br />I might be persuaded to not oppose this if the fetal stem cells could be farmed in a way that did not involve anything too closely resembling cloning or the harvesting of what is rapidly developing into a viable fetus. But to get to that point, if even possible, we'll have to put up with a lot of what I and many of my fellow right-to-lifers consider unethical, won't we? I cannot support that in good conscience. Bending just part of the rules is still bending the rules. And bending is merely a euphemism for breaking them in a way we rationalize is OK, right? I say this with the knowledge that my family and I will certainly grow ill some day if accident doesn't take us first, and with ill parents and my deceased father who is sorely missed. <br /><br />Using aborted children's tissues is to me immoral because it does indeed give impetus to the abortion industry. It is yet one more political and economic justification for this legalized genocide. Even if it were to somehow help me or mine in some way or provide a cure for something. Life is finite. I accept this. Don't like it much sometimes, but I accept it. I value conscience more than comfort. There is much more to life than just years.<br /><br />I spent 13 years working on life support equipment. I have relatives who right now depend on some of this equipment. It is wonderful when we can give someone the gift of time and comfort. And I have also seen the great, horrendous struggles presented by the wonderful technology we offer. I've seen families come apart at the seams when facing choices no one would have ever been able to make 25 years ago. I've seen financial ruin and incredible guilt created by these choices. It is not ALL positive. There is an economic burden which is not ultimately sustainable, I'm afraid. Then there are the treatments which when it is all said and done mostly just serve to prolong the suffering for a few months or even years. For many the choice is available to continue or not. Funny how my favorite patients who were the most with it cognitively and who had the most to offer & best attitudes- the ones everyone wants to take care of & befriend- these were the ones who chose to quit therapy & succumb. It was not worth it to them beyond a certain point. I was quite troubled by that for a long time. Then I finally realized that those individuals were simply exercising their right to allow nature to take its course without further human intervention. I now respect that. (Euthanasia is NOT allowing nature to take its course- a WORLD of difference) Why is it we humans think we have to tinker with everything, including life itself? I enjoy life, but I'm not so in love with this world that I want to stay in it any longer than the time God allots for me. I've already seen more suffering than I want to.<br />When it is all said and done, I want to be able to look back and have that satisfaction that while I was not by any means perfect, that I chose to do right- and that I let God be God. Life is given by Him. He is the only one who has the right to take it away.

 

[aspeck]

Re: The Lame will walk

Thank-you, BP for some eloquent and thought provoking posts here. Your insight is much appreciated. Thank-you for taking the time to respond with the heartfelt responses you have put in writing. I appreciate them.

 

[KennyKenCan]

Re: The Lame will walk

Stem-Cell reasearch has absolutly nothing to do with abortion!<br /><br />Stem-Cells are obtained from the Placenta and Umbilical Cord, not the aborted fetus, and can be gathered at each and every birth! (A whole new industry has begun in preserving Placentas and Umbilical Cords for use, in the event, that that individual is stricken with an iccurable desease or injury.)<br /><br />Abortion is not a necessity for the continuation of Stem-Cell reasearch!<br /><br />And, Stem-Cell reasearch still abounds here in the USA, only without the use federal dollars.<br /><br />Should federal monies be spent on this?<br /><br />Maybe so, but why can't the pharmacutical companies pick up these costs with the phenomonal profits they are making on the necessary drugs they sell, and help out the world?<br /><br />Oh, thats right, the CEO's of them pharmacutical companies have to have their $14 million bonuses every year, for sitting on their butts, thinking of better ways to rip off the American public!<br /><br />God forbid they return something to humanity, without making a profit!

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: The Lame will walk

Originally posted by mikeandronda:<br /> He didnt answer the freakin question............Grrrrrrrrrr. And hey Wilkin if there were no abortions or cloneing allowed where would they get their embronic stem cells from?

Argumentum Non Sequitur. Yes, the banning of abortions would stop the source embryonic stem cells. But banning of embryonic stem cell research will not stop abortions. Eliminating a consequence, effect, or by-product of the source does not eliminate the source. If the source is the only cause of objection, why eliminate a by-product that could have positive effects, but still leave the source unchanged? What is the accomplishment?

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: The Lame will walk

Originally posted by Bearcat Powered:<br /> If you suggest that I cannot separate the fetal stem cell issue from abortion, you are absolutely correct. So long as abortion is part of the equation (and it most certainly is at least for now), then I cannot support the use of- or even research on- fetal stem cells. I do not believe the ends justify the means.

To say the ends do/do not justify the means implies that fetal stem cell research somehow causes abortion and loss of life. That is simply not the case.

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: The Lame will walk

So Wilkin my question to you is since we execute deathrow prisoners maybe we should harvest their organs since they are gonna die anyways.........Harvesting the organs would not cause executions or loss of life. Dangerous thinking my friend.

 

[kd6nem]

Re: The Lame will walk

Wilkin said:

If the source is the only cause of objection, why eliminate a by-product that could have positive effects, but still leave the source unchanged? What is the accomplishment?

And

To say the ends do/do not justify the means implies that fetal stem cell research somehow causes abortion and loss of life. That is simply not the case.

So Wilkin, do you really think that having yet another excuse makes absolutely no difference to the baby killing industry? It is already an extremely lucrative business- do you really expect me to believe that a wholesale fetal tissue market won't grossly add impetus to encourage its expansion or at least guaranty the continued slaughter of the unborn? <br />When that much (soiled) money is at stake, it cannot possibly NOT have a significant influence. The abortion industry knows this and is already exploiting fetal stem cell research as another reason to justify their miserable trade. They see it as job security, and are milking it for all it is worth.<br /><br />Indeed, while some of the motives behind stem cell research are to help people medically, this is at least as much a means to another motive as it is a motive in itself. The greater motive remaining unstated thus far is the same as the abortion industry itself- money. I see three segments each making lots of cash if this develops- the abortionists, the tissue brokers, and the refiners/manufacturers. The product distributors and dispensing physicians will also enjoy their portion of the proceeds, although perhaps less directly. <br /><br />We all know the pharmaceutical companies are doing quite well. The biotherapeutic outfits (there may be a better term, just all I could think of) that actually find a useable product should do at least as well- if they should actually be able to succeed. <br /><br />Who wouldn't pay ANY price for a cure to what is killing them or a loved one? Those folks developing this are not stupid. They realize how much money will be in this. ++And again++, I don't object so long as no life gets destroyed in the process, or at the very least there is no encouragment of life's destruction in order to get raw materials for this process. But I do object to a business which thinks so little of the lives of the little unwilling tissue donors. How would you like for someone to knock you over the head one night only to swipe a kidney or two, and maybe your heart? These unborn react to stimulus, which in my book irrefutably qualifies as evidence of life. But who asks their permission to have their life suddenly ended when their bodies are ripped apart and suctioned into a container?<br /><br />The scientists involved in stem cell research are curious, do desire to help people, and some may even like the notoriety and ego-massaging brought by any discoveries they make. They certainly like any financial benefit they earn from this research. Of course they are motivated. No real problem for any of that in and of itself. The ardent right-to-kill crowd have their own socio-political agenda which never did make any sense to me, even in those dark days of youth when I wasn't yet opposed to abortion. (Why are they so ever-lasting angry all the time? I think they must be addicted to the adrenalin rush or something) <br />So different people have their own various motives. But money is a huge one underlying most of the fledgling business.<br /><br />Profit is not wrong. It has provided the needed incentive to develop a lot of worthwhile things. But those in it for profit often sugar-coat what they are doing, especially when they give in to a deeper more base side of profit- greed. There is a lot of sugar coating going on here. So much wild-eyed optimism and tugging at heart strings. Promises and hope. But we really don't know what fetal stem cell research will or won't bring. From the intensity of the fight it is apparent that there is more at stake than just the hoped medical outcome which might just as easily be found with non-fetal stem cells. Those who back it seem to care less about the non-fetal stem cell successes or the lack of much tangible from their side. At least those who keep focusing on the fetal side keep wanting to ensure their kind stays in the center of the spotlight. Why? I can only conclude that there must be some accompanying motives going on, which I've discussed above.<br /><br />The money from this business would not be clean money any more than black market human organs, drugs, or weapons would generate. Anyone who disregards life this easily is no different than any other type of criminal, morally. You can package this any way you want, but if we kill babies to get the material, it is still wrong. Even if they were going to be killed anyway. (How is it we've actually gotten to consider this "normal"?)<br /><br />Should we legalize destructive drugs if dope pushers pledge to support medical research? How about bank robbery? Maybe bank robbers, carjackers, and burglars wouldn't mind funding a few hundred million to help their PR out as well? It is only money, right? Who cares where it comes from? It is only babies, right? Who cares where their tissues come from?<br /><br />(I do!)<br /><br />No, the ends do not justify shady means. No amount of rationalization makes abortion OK.

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: The Lame will walk

You are entitled to you opinion, of course. If you feel it is wrong because the tissue is taken from an aborted fetus, that is your perogative.<br /><br />However, I don't agree with many of the points and supporting arguments you have brought upon which you base your opinion.<br /><br />A "wholesale fetal tissue market" is a gross exaggeration. To claim that a demand for stem cells will fuel mass abortions is simply ludicrous. Abortion itself is a huge industry, over a million a year, it certainly doesn't require any additional catalyst to continue. Considering the equipment required to conduct fetal stem cell research, and given that there are only a handful of labs capable of conducting such research, stem cell harvests might number as high as ten thousand, but I doubt it, most likely it will be much less.<br /><br />1% That's it. The mass fetal market that you predict will be one percent of abortions, hardly a significant impact. The abortion industry is already so big that any additional incentive created from stem cell research will just be a drop in the ocean. It will not create "abortion farms" any more than the advances in organ transplant have created "kidney farms". And of those ten thousand abortions, how many would still proceed even if stem cell research did not exist? I'm sure for at least 95% of those, the incentive is escape from financial obligation, not the advance of medical science.<br /><br />And then you go on to allude that behind stem cell research is a hidden agenda to further the abortion industry? I'm sorry, I can't buy into this conspiracy. Abortion is already legal, they won the fight, and the industry is already large enough, nobody is trying to lobby to increase the number of abortions. They don't need to use medical research to further their "political agenda".

 

[POINTER94]

Re: The Lame will walk

We can then assume that we can count on your support of banning Partial Birth Abortions. The ratio's are about the same. Rape, incest and threat to the mothers life in the third trimester. Say 1%

 

[kd6nem]

Re: The Lame will walk

Partial birth abortion- don't get me started! (Was this a troll for me, Pointer?) <br /><br />So it is NOT homicide so long as ALL the kid is not outside the birth canal? "Wait, don't let that kid's toes out of there yet... I'm not done..." Get real! The kid would have survived in most cases if the knife/scissors wasn't used. Next it will be something like Soylent Green with mandated euthanasia for the elderly maybe? Or if a certain belief is espoused the we should be targeted for elimination? This has been done often around the world. Why not here? That of course is a preposterous stretch, but then again before Roe V Wade we thought legalizing abortion was an preposterous stretch. Of course those who knew better sat on their fanny and did nothing. That gripes me equally. Just disgraceful.<br /><br />The only fully consistent, fully rational, and perfectly clear line which may be drawn defining life is this: If conception has occurred in a female human it is a human life she carries. <br /><br />Any other definition is simply an arbitrary rationalization at best. Even many pro-choice people who have had the courage to think it through this far have had to concede this.<br /><br />Deliberately acting to end someone else's life is by definition murder. We ought to be promoting responsibility in the first place rather than pretending it is just another reasonable option to kill for the sake of mere convenience. Hitler thought it convenient to kill the Jews. We decry that genocide and at the same time ignore all the lives being taken here? What hypocrites we've become in this nation!<br /><br />Wilkin, a network was being set up for tissue collection before the limits were placed on embryonic stem cell research. Biotherapeutics WILL be BIG business, ESC's included or not. How would you have liked to held some Amgen stock about 15 years ago? I wish I had a few dozen shares back then! I never said ESC research was going to muliply the amount of abortions performed, I was trying to state that it was going to provide much impetus for maintaining abortion or even encouraging it. I do not believe the numerical expansion will be huge, at least not right away. If it becomes socially acceptable enough and if abortions were provided at reduced cost what might happen to the numbers in ten or twenty years? This is speculation, but as acceptance grows and as the population grows the number will increase. My point was more toward the entrenchment of the industry being increased. No, it doesn't need any encouragement to continue, but its supporters hold back little for trying to solidify support for the grisly industry anyway.<br /><br />"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" -Lenin "The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one." -Adolph Hitler

 

[mikeandronda]

Re: The Lame will walk

Good post bearcat......and Im sure pointer was not trolling just making a point to wilkin.