House approves stem cell measure

For an education on embryonic stem cells you can youtube.com (embryonic stem cells) and listen to Dr. Doug Melton of Harvard. Embryonic stem cells have different characteristics than adult stem cells. Adult stem cell research has been going on for some 30 years. Embryonic stem cells for some 10 years. Over 500 organizations including the AMA, American Diabetes Association, 40 Nobel laureates, the state of California, Singapore, Congress, and Bush's own director of the NIH supports this science. We don't need religion dictating on what is best. Bush has proved you cannot put religion in government.

I would add that this has nothing to do with abortion. This comes from the discarded embryos from 360 fertility clinics. So it is a lie by the religious right that embryos have to be destroyed, because they are destroyed anyway. So there is no ethics involvement anyway.

It is interesting the lies that come out of those that oppose this research. I never knew that religious people lied so much.

Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

>why doesnt he strike down all people that participate in the research then? or why did he give us the ability this out?
Maybe God is just giving all of humanity enough rope before we collectivly hang ourselves, Chad.

Mary wrote:

It is against Gods will to do stem cell research or have abortions. The doctors and researchers are sinners and shall be punished by the Lord! People should not play God. We should accept the fate for which God has bestowed upon us and live our days honoring our creator. Those of you that support the killing of innocent babies should be ashamed of yourselves!

Mary, do you think god thinks its ok for barren women to use fertility treatments??

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

The Democrats in the house voted, bill passed by a slim majority. Pawlenty said he would veto the anti-life measure. No override is possible. Bill is dead.
Before the Democrats can screw up our lives any more, how about a motion to adjourn.

Thomas, this is not an "anti-life measure." This is a life saving measure. Are you OK with fertility treatments?

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
Mary, do you think god thinks its ok for barren women to use fertility treatments??

NO! If God wanted a couple to have children he would have blessed them with the ability to do so. Only arogant people use science to create a child that was not intended for them! These people should adobt a child if they wish to raise one. They should not try to ack like God and creat their own!

I would think god could deny a couple from conceiving through science if he really was against it. Looks to me like science is more powerful than god. Mary, where do you get your 'facts?'

Stem cell research could help millions of people worldwide. Lets leave religon out of it.

Do you pass judgement on those that use fertility treatments as you would on a woman who has an abortion, or on a child with Type 1 diabetes who is trying an experimental ESC treatment? Or, do you congratulate them on the birth of their 5 scientific creations, and call them little blessings??

Mary wrote:

<quoted text>NO! If God wanted a couple to have children he would have blessed them with the ability to do so. Only arogant people use science to create a child that was not intended for them! These people should adobt a child if they wish to raise one. They should not try to ack like God and creat their own!

This has never made any sense to me. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then it seems that one should try to act like God. If Christ was a moral exemplar, then that just means that we should try and act like him, right? So, to be a moral agent is to act like God.

Aristotle sees it the same way (of course, he wrote before there were any christians). He thought of God as a thinker, so to be good people we should act like God.

Thus, it doesn't make sense to merely claim that we shouldn't, what kinds of reasons can you provide?

Wow wrote:

Do you pass judgement on those that use fertility treatments as you would on a woman who has an abortion, or on a child with Type 1 diabetes who is trying an experimental ESC treatment? Or, do you congratulate them on the birth of their 5 scientific creations, and call them little blessings??

Aborsionist choose to sin by murdering their own child and stem scell research is reliing on the slaughter of innocent children to save others. A fertility treatment is wrong in so many ways those who use it create the ultimate sins. The Bible is prety specific about masterbation and God does not condone the spilling of seed. A man must spill seed to create this abonamation and then the couple must go against God's own will to use science to create a child that God did not wish for them to conceave!

Mary wrote:

<quoted text>Aborsionist choose to sin by murdering their own child and stem scell research is reliing on the slaughter of innocent children to save others. A fertility treatment is wrong in so many ways those who use it create the ultimate sins. The Bible is prety specific about masterbation and God does not condone the spilling of seed. A man must spill seed to create this abonamation and then the couple must go against God's own will to use science to create a child that God did not wish for them to conceave!

Were you born crazy, or did you hit your head??

Glad to hear the state won't bow to the religious wackos on this one.
Minnesota can now join others in hopes of helping millions of people around the world, as opposed to those who "claim" to help in the name of their religion.

If children are going to be aborted anyhow- why not use their remains for something good?

Gas prices are mostly driven by supply and demand. Gas stations will charge what they can get. If the gas tax holiday is implemented and a station can get $3.50 per gallon, it will still charge what it can get. The only difference is that instead of putting 20 cents per gallon into our roads, it will be extra profit for Exxon. Wisconsin has had a state gas tax a full 10 cents higher than ours, but their gas prices are not 10 cents higher than ours. So the prices are similar, but in Wisconsin, more of it goes back to the people, and in Minnesota, more of it goes back to the oil companies. When Republicans want a gas tax holiday or don't want to implement any new gas tax, realize that it won't change your price at the pump, it will just mean more profit leaving the state for the oil companies.

Alec Timmerman, St. Paul

Chris wrote:

Glad to hear the state won't bow to the religious wackos on this one.
Minnesota can now join others in hopes of helping millions of people around the world, as opposed to those who "claim" to help in the name of their religion.

Just TPaw will bow. He wants MN to be hindered in advancing research. I remember thinking that MN was a great hot bed of scientific discovery and advances.
I didn't realize that MN had been taken over by the irrational BuyBull thumpers like Mary.

Kierkegaard:
Your Bible knowledge is clearly bankrupt. First, Moses gave the statutes and judgments that God's people were required to follow, and it was a violation of the Law to harm or kill a fetus in the womb. In fact, if the person killed the child in the womb, by accident, they had to pay a large fine for their crime and sin, However, if they purposely killed the fetus then they were to be stoned as it was attributed to murder, See Exodus 21:22-23. To apply that law today, if a child in the womb is killed by medical malpractice then the doctor would have to pay a fine, however, if the doctor killed the child in the womb on purpose then he would have to be put to death.

As for your Adam statement, you are again wrong: The Angel Gabriel stated to Mary, the Mother of Christ, that her cousin Elizabeth had "conceived a son" and was now in the "6th month" with that child. Notice that the son was described, by the Angel, at conception. Again, the Bible does, by its laws, abhor pre-birth murder and states where life begins. "conceived a son". Interesting enough science says the same thing as Gabriel said. Science states that the beginning stage for a new life is when the zygote is formed in the womb, in other words at conception.

You also asked, "how do you know it wasn't God's will". The answer to that question resides with God's declaration of his will, his words, through his prophets and ministry by revealment or revelation. How did Simon Peter know that Jesus of Nazareth was the "Christ" or "Messiah"(annoited one) to come? According to Christ's own word, God revealed it to Peter via revelation. Christ's words were: "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." In other words, can we know all of the Eternal God's thoughts? NO. But, we can understand how he expects us to act to receive eternal life and live a Christian life. How? Through his will and law revealed by his apostles, prophets and ministry thoughout the years that have been written down. And it's clear through the statutes given to Israel that the unborn child must remain unmolested by the butcher's hand. Christ strengthens this law with his teachings that curses anyone that would harm an innocent little one.

And it is not judging another to claim sin is sin, murder is murder, and neither the Bible nor Christ has prohibited such.

You also posted about sacrifices in the Bible. The Bible never condoned human sacrifice, in fact God ordered a nation to be completely removed from the face of the earth due to their human sacrifices. However, your comparison of abortion to human sacrifice might well be reasonable. Both condemned by the will and word of God and his Christ.

Patricia Gould wrote:

You also posted about sacrifices in the Bible. The Bible never condoned human sacrifice, in fact God ordered a nation to be completely removed from the face of the earth due to their human sacrifices. However, your comparison of abortion to human sacrifice might well be reasonable. Both condemned by the will and word of God and his Christ.

So - was it sacrifice when that WI couple watched their daughter die from diabetes? Wouldn't you say this was a sacrifice to god since he "chose" not to save her when a trip to the hospital would have left her alive.

This type of religious fervor is a slippery slope. So glad you folks get to conveniently justify in your head who gets to live or who gets to die.

Mary wrote:

<quoted text>NO! If God wanted a couple to have children he would have blessed them with the ability to do so. Only arogant people use science to create a child that was not intended for them! These people should adobt a child if they wish to raise one. They should not try to ack like God and creat their own!

Mary, Although I agree with you on the majority of your posts, I, as a woman, would be utterly devasted if I was barren. I do not mind fertility clinics to offer hope to women who cannot conceive because life is being created not death. However, when the fertility clinics are used to pronounce death, I am utterly abhorred of that behavior. Killing embryonic cells does not and never has produced life. There are adult stem cells that do not take life, have no risk involved of becoming cancerous, and have no risk of being rejected by the donor/recipient.

Also, embryonic stem cells are not needed, and those stating that they are needed, for medical cures, are not providing the facts and are relying on out-dated scientific data.

Just this spring, a group of scientists received the Nobel Peace Prize, for medicine, due to their showing that adult skin and blood cells have all the properties within them to produce new stem cells needed by science. These adult stem cells have the full capability to function as was falsely attributed to embryonic stem cells.

Again, the blood and skin cells do not create the issue of cancerous growths and body rejection as do embryonic stem cells. Why the Democrats, who know these facts, would submit a bill that is designed to fund a known failed science is unfathonable. The facts are the reason PawTy has changed his voice against use of embryonic cells as a political flip flop. During the last campaign, when debating with Hatch, PawTy supported the use of embryonic stem cells and derided President Bush's stance to not use embryonic stem cells. Now that embryonic stem cells are proven to not be scientifically useful, PawTy has switched back to almost mimic President Bush's words. PawTy's flip flop behavior makes him untrustworthy on all issues.

Patricia, you can't be OK with fertility treatments, and think embryonic stem cell research is wrong. Give me one justifiable reason why one is OK, but not the other.