House approves stem cell measure

Nathan wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no such God, Mary. Your living in fairy land. What, did God come down and speak to you personally; that all those that putter around with stem cells and abortion will go to hell? Your God must be the devil as well. What a photon Joke. HA And how gullible for you to print what is more about you than what God thinks. God is not the author of fear. You are baby. Get a life as God created it, not as you made it.

Nathan, I see now that you know God more than Mary, how interesting. I don't always agree with Mary, but, she seems to have a better scope on the scripture than you just presented. Your, post reminds me of the Jewish elite that called Christ a devil and a mad man.

If you think Mary is wrong then provide information to inform her, not mockery. For instance, I provided to Mary that God in most cases, seemed to show compassion on barren women in the scriptures, and often gave them a child when they asked and prayed in faith to him. A few times when they were past their time of child baring years such as Abraham's wife Sarah (90 years old) and John the Baptist's mother Elizabeth.

Wow wrote:

Gerry, don't forget the billions of embryos that were destroyed while doing the research to even get fertility treatments to the market. However, in that case, for most of the anti-embryonic stem cell research crowd, the ends justified the means. Hypocrits.
I just can't see why these so called pro-lifers are willing to sit back and watch actual people, some they might even know, die for no reason...oh, I mean because they would rather see that clump of cells thrown in the trash.

Wow, I agree that I can't understand why you liberals want to sit back and watch actual people, some you might even know, die for no reason so that you can have our state pay for what has been proven to be an immoral and failed science. I would think that you would instead try to get as many treatments to them as possible by applying our straped tax dollars on treatments of hope, not embryonic stem cell failed research of no hope.

It just doesn't make sense that you would channel research tax dollars to a sink hole when there is hopeful stem cell research using modified blood and skin cells for creating stem cells that can create any tissue needed, without the dangers of embryonic stem cells such as cancer and tissue rejection and without the immorality of killing life. It just doesn't make any sense.

It seems that you have a blood lust for the killing. It seems that you are determined to drive our state to leave the sick without hope of real medical treatment, while you have the state pay for failed research.

GBS-StPaul wrote:

I can see no reason why stem cells should not be used for research. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but in the United States you are not entitled to push your religious beliefs on others. Mary’s God may be against stem cell research and the right for women to choose what they do with their own bodies, but I believe my God is in favor of both. Protest and speak out for your beliefs but do not impose your moral standards on the rest of us.

You can't see any reason?

How about for people in wheel chairs that might be able to someday walk because of this research?

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are going to die anyhow - why not use your organs etc. for something good. In China, they execute people on death row when they need body parts to sell. This sounds like what you advocate.

Im sorry, I don't live in china.... I have never heared of them doing that in the US. You must also be one of those peole who won't donate organs b/c you think the Dr.s will not save you so that they can have your organs?

Well, listen to this :In january my cousins 18 month old son was brutally murdered by his babysitter. My cousin made the desision to give up his organs to other people in need. Little Elijah's organs saved 6 other babies lives! You tell me that's not worth it... your crazy if you do.

I do not advocate the killing of anyone, my point is- abortions are going to happen, wether you like it or not...( not your choice) so why not use the deatj for something good. Why not save someone else?

DaniGirl123 wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't see any reason?
How about for people in wheel chairs that might be able to someday walk because of this research?

DaniGirl, It appears that you are behind times in stem cell research information, as is some of the House. This measure was passed as a political action and not based on scientific grounds. In my first post, I showed that even the U of M scientists (some of the most liberal around) state that they can create "every" type of human organ and cell from adult stem cells. Some of the U of M scientists even now question the ethics in using such embryonic cells. It seems DaniGirl that "you" and 71 House members prefer taking the life of the unborn instead of using proven methods, even though not one cure has yet been provided from using such cells, and recipients of such cells have ended up with cancer and other serious problems. My first post showed that over 70 of the most serious illnesses we have today have been cured by using adult stem cells. It seems that "you" and 71 House members wish to ignore facts, to push for embryonic death instead. Therefore, I'd like to ask you for one (1) concrete piece of evidence that embryonic stem cells have cured anybody. The House was in error of approving the stem cell measure, and PawTy will be right in vetoing the embryonic death law. I only hope PawTy doesn't do another flip flop and return to the position he took during the last campaign. It is beyond my comprehension of why the Republican lawmakers who offered amendments during Wednesday's debate "that would have steered the bill toward favoring adult stem cell research" were overridden when it is a known fact (even the article stated) that treatments have already been developed using adult bone marrow, There simply is no real reason to continue such a risky costly endeavor as using cells from a killed human fetus or embryo.

I agree with Charlene about this Republican congressman Vito Fossella who was recently arrested for drunk driving and yesterday admitted to having a child out of wedlock!

Here is ANOTHER member of the party that preaches to us about their "family values" and then they get caught having sex (and children) out of wedlock, driving drunk, having sex in bathrooms, groping underage congressional pages, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Just do an online search for "Republican scandals" and you'll get a flood of raw sewage!

Or, check out either of these PARTIAL listings of Repugnican pervs:

http://dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Sca...

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october172...

the price of rice is crazy

RepubsOut wrote:

I agree with Charlene about this Republican congressman Vito Fossella who was recently arrested for drunk driving and yesterday admitted to having a child out of wedlock!
Here is ANOTHER member of the party that preaches to us about their "family values" and then they get caught having sex (and children) out of wedlock, driving drunk, having sex in bathrooms, groping underage congressional pages, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
Just do an online search for "Republican scandals" and you'll get a flood of raw sewage!
Or, check out either of these PARTIAL listings of Repugnican pervs:
http://dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Sca...
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october172...

Agreed-no standards for anyone's behavior. We do what we please.

Dani Girl, It is fitting that you chose to respond to Thomas F Schraad's post where he stated: "If you are going to die anyhow - why not use your organs etc. for something good. In China, they execute people on death row when they need body parts to sell. This sounds like what you advocate." Dani Girl, it appears you also advocate killing, the killing of babies. You post that the murder of 35 plus million babies are "going to happen", therefore, you then reason why not use the dead babies bodies. What kind of reasoning is that? You espouse that this dead baby's body (as described in Supreme Court Justice Kennedy's majority opinion) should be used for medical research? That is beyond "crazy", it is absolutely horrific! In conclusion, it is my American duty to try to stop the killing of other Americans by voting for a President, like President Bush, whose legacy will be that he appointed two (2) U.S. Supreme Court Justices who stopped the killing as described in Justice Kennedy's majority findings on abortion: "Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby&#146;'s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby&#146;'s body and the arms &#151;everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus&#133;. The baby&#146;'s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby&#146;s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall....The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby&#146;'s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. &#133;He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.".

Patricia Gould wrote:

Dani Girl, It is fitting that you chose to respond to Thomas F Schraad's post where he stated: "If you are going to die anyhow - why not use your organs etc. for something good. In China, they execute people on death row when they need body parts to sell. This sounds like what you advocate." Dani Girl, it appears you also advocate killing, the killing of babies. You post that the murder of 35 plus million babies are "going to happen", therefore, you then reason why not use the dead babies bodies. What kind of reasoning is that? You espouse that this dead baby's body (as described in Supreme Court Justice Kennedy's majority opinion) should be used for medical research? That is beyond "crazy", it is absolutely horrific! In conclusion, it is my American duty to try to stop the killing of other Americans by voting for a President, like President Bush, whose legacy will be that he appointed two (2) U.S. Supreme Court Justices who stopped the killing as described in Justice Kennedy's majority findings on abortion: "Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby&#146;'s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby&#146;'s body and the arms &#151;everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus&#133;. The baby&#146;'s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby&#146;s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall....The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby&#146;'s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. &#133;He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.".

I have never heared that before...Was that for research or what? Where does that come from?

No I do not advocate the killing of children.

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, I agree that I can't understand why you liberals want to sit back and watch actual people, some you might even know, die for no reason so that you can have our state pay for what has been proven to be an immoral and failed science. I would think that you would instead try to get as many treatments to them as possible by applying our straped tax dollars on treatments of hope, not embryonic stem cell failed research of no hope.
It just doesn't make sense that you would channel research tax dollars to a sink hole when there is hopeful stem cell research using modified blood and skin cells for creating stem cells that can create any tissue needed, without the dangers of embryonic stem cells such as cancer and tissue rejection and without the immorality of killing life. It just doesn't make any sense.
It seems that you have a blood lust for the killing. It seems that you are determined to drive our state to leave the sick without hope of real medical treatment, while you have the state pay for failed research.

You can't KNOW a clump of cells. Its NOT a person. It doesn 't even have a sex yet. You are completely misinformed on embryonic stem cell research and you are completely closed to it, so why bother to add links and facts? You will say its "old data" Last time I checked sista, the BuyBull is much older data, and has been proven false time and time again.

Death row inmates should be executed....quickly. We should be using their organs when ever possible. I think we should do our medical research on them, afterall, they are guilty. What did a chimp ever do to deserve medical research torture?

Again....

Patricia=living person who has thoughts and feelings=deserves to live a full life(unless she is a criminal)

clump of cells=not a person who has thoughts and feelings=going to be washed down the drain and destroyed. Can I stress the NOT A PERSON!!!!!!

DaniGirl123 wrote:

<quoted text>I have never heared that before...Was that for research or what? Where does that come from?
No I do not advocate the killing of children.

Dani Girl, You did not hear of the court case that Planned Parenthood fought for and argued for and lost all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court? This ruling is said to be "the most monumental win on the abortion issue that we ever had." Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice. On April 18, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold a law that prohibits the "abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," (President Bush's words). In this ruling, the High Court of the land banned a specific procedure over how to perform an abortion, and "Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison." MSNBC. The Honorable five Supreme Court Justices,(i.e. Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) said the Constitution permits a nationwide prohibition on a specific abortion method." MSNBC. Honorable Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and stated what I previously posted. Dani Girl, I am somewhat surprised at you not being familiar with this mentioned law because Planned Parentless was very upset that their desire to continue to kill by way of Dr. Haskell's procedure, which I previously posted, now means that they will face up to 2 years in federal prison.

good points:+ the article we are commenting on states that adult stem cells hold great promise. This fact seems to get lost when people harp on not using the (nonviable) embryo stem cells.
To Lake Elmo resident: my heart goes out to you. my son has MS and it may be that MS patients can be helped too. I hope this important research can finally move forward appropriately again so we can help people like our sons.

Lake Elmo Resident wrote:

Do you even know what you're talking about?
My son was diagnosed Type 1 diabetic in grade school. His insulin and supplies cost over $700/month, and that doesn't even include hospital visits for complications and routine medical procedures.
Without these, he dies. Stem cells are very promising to cure this disease. You can add up over billions of dollars in medical costs to this thing and not even get into the human suffering and costs.
He was born with this - didn't choose it. What's that got to do with crossing legs?
The only people profiting from this is the drug companies because they have a capitve audience who would otherwise die without insulin and other medications.
If stem cells will cure it once and for all, it's well worth the investment.

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
Dani Girl, You did not hear of the court case that Planned Parenthood fought for and argued for and lost all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court? This ruling is said to be "the most monumental win on the abortion issue that we ever had." Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice. On April 18, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold a law that prohibits the "abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," (President Bush's words). In this ruling, the High Court of the land banned a specific procedure over how to perform an abortion, and "Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison." MSNBC. The Honorable five Supreme Court Justices,(i.e. Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) said the Constitution permits a nationwide prohibition on a specific abortion method." MSNBC. Honorable Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and stated what I previously posted. Dani Girl, I am somewhat surprised at you not being familiar with this mentioned law because Planned Parentless was very upset that their desire to continue to kill by way of Dr. Haskell's procedure, which I previously posted, now means that they will face up to 2 years in federal prison.

This is not an abortion forum though.

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for letting me know I am just wasting my time even discussing with you.

I’m well aware of what the article is dealing with, and that your position is that tax dollars should not be used for this kind of research. My question/claim the whole time has been that I find your argument unconvincing – sometimes because of errors in reasoning. We’ve run the gambit of school yard rebuttals (you’ve accused me of name calling, then you’ve attempted to rewrite my posts so that they would seem to undermine what I’ve said – a more complex version of “I know you are but what am I). Interesting rhetorical devices, but they don’t prove anything. So let’s look at your reasons.
1) This seems to be a over-generalization. I’d think that the techniques used for embryonic stem cells are the same techniques used for adult stem cells. Thus, there are results; they made the use of adult stem cells possible.
2) Your faith is not a reason for me to agree with you. So, you have the opinion that it is immoral, but that is one of the questions to be answered. We can’t merely assert that it is the case without argumentation.
3) This seems like one reason not to use them, but can different techniques be used to change this outcome? If so, then it seems like it’s not a reason to deny the research tax dollars.
4) Same as above – potential reason for not using them, but it’s not clear that this rules out the use of tax dollars.
5) This could be said of all research, none of it is guaranteed to produce the answers that are being looked for, but that’s, once again, not a reason to not fund it (maybe something will come out of it).
6) Multiple methods are always good (as in the idea that it’s always a good idea to have a plan B). I’m not sure this is a reason to not continue the research or to fund it.

You’re ethics class can’t be right about me (and honestly, I have reservations about the veracity of this “ethics” class – if you did go to one, it sounds like something you’d get from a religious group), because they don’t know me, and neither do you.

I do like arguing (it can be a way of learning something), but it’s not just for the sake of arguing. My position is flexible, if there are good reasons for something; I’m willing to change my mind. That’s what an intellectually honest liberal would do, we shouldn’t dogmatically cling to position just because we feel it’s the right one (are there some that do this?, sure).

Was this a waste of time? Sure, I don’t come in here unless I have time to waste, but it became apparent that you just have a specific agenda to push and don’t really want to discuss this issue anyway. You want to tell everyone “how it is”. Am I interested in the possible treatments that may be developed through this research? Only secondarily, the first question to be answered is whether or not it is morally allowable. And I think the case can be made that it is morally allowable using either a Utilitarian view of ethics, a deontological view of ethics, or Virtue theory. Divine command theory and Natural Law theory would probably provide the opposite view. So the discussion should be about this, after that is determined, we can move on to the funding and treatments. As I noted above, your faith is not a reason for me to think it is immoral to continue this research, or fund it.

Taxed Out wrote:

<quoted text>
And if it was someone you loved that was dying, would your opinion then change?

NO! God decides when a persons soul should be ushered to heaven, not a doctor or scientist!

Sarah wrote:

<quoted text>
Somehow I get the feeling that you wouldn't be saying this if God had chosen YOU to be a barren woman.

God did not make me barren but if he had I would accept it because that is God's will. People that have fertility treatments should be banquished from the church because they are sinners. It is their greed that makes them want a child that God did not want them to have. Their selfishness causes great harm and they will be judged.

Sarah wrote:

<quoted text>
The majority of Americans may not approve of abortion but the majority of Americans still think that it is the woman's right to chose.
Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is as bad as forcing a woman to have an abortion.

A woman who murders her flesh and blood should is an un-Christian piece of filth! It is selfish to act like God and destroy the most innocent life. Most of the women who have abortions were not raped but instead use it as a form of birth control. If they would have kept their legs crossed like a lady should they would not have been pregnant in the first place. To me these people should be forced tyo keep their child and forced to raise their child with the help of the man who fathered the child or the mothers parents. These tramps do not desearve public assistance or anything from us. If they choose to give it up for adaption so the child has a chance in life instead of being brought up my an immoral tramp that would be acceptable also.

Kierkegaard:

Your long post simply is showing that you still have not produced one reason for the state to fund this kind of killing research, except that somewhere, somehow it might produce something that it has failed to do to date, and is extremely unlikely to produce in the future. That's an extremely week case for forcing the state to fund immoral embryonic stem cell research with tax dollars.

And no doubt that you could defend the life of a **** or a murderer with "Utilitarian view of ethics". You could say that a murderer produces a dead body that could be utilized for body parts, and a ****'s body is being utilized to produce physical pleasure for another person. But, from a Christian or even Society aspect that would not make either a ****'s or murderer's behavior moral. And neither can it make killing a young human moral.

And it appears that your ethics class must of been a Utilitarian ethics class.

And your paragraph answering my (1) is a false misleading statement and you know it is misleading statement. The results of adult stem cells have produce a large group of notable treatments, embryonic stem cells has produced nothing, healed no one, helped no one, just made recipients sicker and killed their doniors. And embryonic did not make the results of the adult stem cells possible.

Then you move to the argument that we have to discuss if embryonic stem cell research is moral, when 90% of your posts in the past have argued that morality can't be part of the discussion. What are you all about?

In reality the moral issue is the only real issue here, but, I have given considerable non-moral reasons to stop this killing, and you ignore the reasons and facts by saying my arguments are "unconvincing". A wise man once said that if reasonable facts are not convincing to people then it is a waste of time and effort to continue dialog and it is a shame to the person who does, and also said that a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. I've spent enough shame on you.

Again, you are just debating for the sake of debate. Switching tactics as I defeat each of your straw man arguements to new straw man.

And give me a break. You are not reasonable liberal that doesn't have his/her mind closed. Come on, I think that you can be more honest than that.