House approves stem cell measure

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow!!! I figured you were one of the killers. Thanks for finally admitting the truth. WOW!!! I wondered if the poster(s) here, in favor of killing embryos, stood to make a personal gain by either lining their pockets or advancing their careers or professions on the backs of us taxpayers, without providing any service or benefit to our society, and am I correct that you are doing just that, as you post: "I happen to do ESC research"? Wow!!! I can hardly believe that you admitted your reason for wanting this killing to continue, as you did admit your reason didn't you? Thank you! Thank you! You proved my entire point, and, I believe, the point of the House members who voted against the measure when you posted that you do ESC research and yet have failed to provide one piece of evidence in your favor - one illness that has been cured using embryonic stem cells. Now that you own behavior has proven that it is a failed science then, in your own words, "it is insanity" that taxpayers should be forced to pay for your job or embryonic stem cell research when it is so immoral and provides no value. As far as your statement concerning China, our nation has never cowered to China's thinking of killing any baby after baby number one to control our population, and China's behavior is not, as you post, "silly" it is horrific and inhumane. I hope China is, as you say, "enjoying watching us", and, peradventure, they can learn how to save life instead of killing life by watching the example of President Bush and five (5) honorable U.S. Supreme Court Justices (Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia) who stopped the method of Planned Parentless's killing.

Not only do I do research, I also have MS. I have a nephew with Type 1 diabetes and a couple of friends with tramatic spinal cord injuries. What do you do that contributes to society besides preaching forma story book and campaigning to save useless clumps of cells destined for the incinerator?

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
Not only do I do research, I also have MS. I have a nephew with Type 1 diabetes and a couple of friends with tramatic spinal cord injuries. What do you do that contributes to society besides preaching forma story book and campaigning to save useless clumps of cells destined for the incinerator?

Wowless:

Now having confessed that you are one of the killers, and have a vested interest in enhancing funds for your job and that you have MS, you should be in the lead in stopping the use of State tax dollars for a failed science and focus your work toward using the new technology where stem cells developed from blood and skin cells can be used to develop any type of tissue, without the serious results of cancer and cell rejection. Seems that you are fighting against real treatments (via new research, and adult stem cells funding) to enhance your profession on the taxpayers' back. That is about as immoral as one can get.

Yes, there are few people that don't either know of/or live with or have family members with seriously challenging illnesses, but that is no argument for driving state funds to pay for what has been proven to be a failed, immoral science. In fact that is a good reason to place tax dollars toward stem cell research of promise. The fact that you have MS does not give you or anyone with serious illnesses the right to kill another for that other's body parts, including unborn babies, especially when you and I both know that embryonic stem cell research is dead in its tracks, and you are only trying to advance your personal professional position. Again, that's about as immoral as one can get in any society, to drain funds that could be used for real treatments for your own gain.

As for your attack on my religious morality. All any reader of this forum need do is read my posts, and they can well see that I have provided non-moral and moral challenges to why we should not be spending another dollar on embryonic stem cell research, as shown below:

1) After 10 years and billions of dollars no results (reason for not spending tax dollars).

2) It's killing and it's immoral.(reason for not using them at all).

3) Embryonic stem cells have a high risk in creating cancer in the recipients of such, making them sicker not treating them.(reason to not use them at all and reason for not using our taxes for further research).

4) Tissue from embryonic stem cells are often rejected.(reason for not using them at all and reason for not spending tax dollars on them.)

5) This research simply is creating false hopes while spending billions of dollars in research.(reason for not using them at all, and reason for not spending state tax dollars on them.)

6) There is a replacement method of stem cells from blood and skin that can be modified into any other type of human tissue, therefore, embryonic stem cells are not needed nor are they desirable.(reason for not using them at all, and reason for not putting further tax dollars to this failed science.)

However, since you brought up the religious question, there is considerable historical artifacts that show that Moses, King David, and Jesus Christ lived. Those artifacts can not be dismissed with your unreasonable claim of "story book". In fact, historians of today call Moses "The Law Giver". Also, a good portion of U.S. law, European law, and Middle East law is based on the teachings of either Moses or Christ. We also have written artifacts, and/or testimony that Jesus Christ performed miracles. So, according to you, U.S., Europe, and the Middle East based their laws and constitution off of the teachings of as you say, "story book" people. I can only guess that your decision to reject all the history, testimony, and artifacts concerning Moses and Christ is to, again, enhance your professional position, with little care for society and the treatments needed. Again, that is about as immoral as one can get.

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
Your post just justified all of what the wise man said. But, you most likely think you really said something.
Again you argue for the sake of argument. I haven't got time for that or the time for your puffed up head about your degree. Enough shame on that issue for the moment.
I have given real reasons for not using state money to pay for embryonic stem cells research, and reasons for not using them at all as follows:
1) After 10 years and billions of dollars no results (reason for not spending tax dollars).
2) It's killing and It's immoral.(reason for not using them at all).
3) Embryonic stem cells have a high risk in creating cancer in the recipients of such, making them sicker not treating them.(reason to not use them at all and reason for not using our taxes for further research).
4) Tissue from embryonic stem cells are often rejected.(reason for not using them at all and reason for not spending tax dollars on them.)
5) This research simply is creating false hopes while spending billions of dollars in research.(reason for not using them at all, and reason for not spending state tax dollars on them.)
6) There is a replacement method of stem cells from blood and skin that can be modified into any other type of human tissue, therefore, embryonic stem cells are not needed nor are they desirable.(reason for not using them at all, and reason for not putting further tax dollars to this failed science.)
On the flip side of this discussion, adult stem cells and modified stem cells from the recipient's blood and skin cells have proven to be effective, do not create cancer, and have a low risk of tissue rejection, and is not immoral. There are many treatments already provided by Adult stem cells.

Patty:

I did say something, just because you don't understand it (seems to be a recurring issue here), doesn't mean that I didn't.

So I'll just say one more thing. Given what I've learned from our "discussion" - like most conservatives you're an intellectual ostrich and a fraud. You and I know it, I suspect that others have the same opinion. Now I'll let you run away (I'd hate to use up all your "shame" - it's probably pretty expensive).

Patricia, given your protest against the use of stem cell research, I assume that if a cure for a disease is found through the use of stem cell research that you would refuse to use that cure if you were stricken with the disease and that you would also refuse to allow the cure to be used on a child of yours who had the disease, correct?

Because otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

Do you have the faith in your convictions of what is moral and what isn't to watch a loved one die who could be saved by treatment created through the use of stem cell research?

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
1. You say "no results" - It takes many years for research, adult stem cells have had 30 years as opposed to embryonic stem cell research with 10 years and also the restrictions imposed. So your claim is false.
2. You say "it killing and immoral" - fertility clinics have been destroying embryos for some 30 years. Not a word has been said all these years. Another false claim of yours.
3. You say "ESC creates cancer" - true, but with research scientists will find ways in why it happens. And that would be an added benefit if scientists can find out why cancers develop.
4. You say "embryonic stem cells are often reject" - perhaps true, but it brings out the curiosity from the scientists on why it happens. It is all part of the process. Just like adult stem cells are stubborn because they are adult. You are bringing up nothing new.
5. You say "false hopes" - So in your mind we shouldn't have false hopes in Gene Therapy, TNFerade, Monoclonal Antibodies, DNA, RNA, ESC, ASC, or Antisense.
6. You say "blood and skin cells that can be modified into any other type of human tissue" - this remains to be seen. In any case, that is the advantage of embryonic stem cells as they are young enough to be directed to different parts of the body, whereas adult stem cells are what they are.
We have heard it all from the religious right with their lies. And as we see with all of the rhetoric, why we need to keep a separation of church and state. And if you feel otherwise then go to Saudi Arabia.
Finally, by what authority and education do you have.
>Is it the bible that tells you so?
>Do you have a degree?
>Are you a doctor?
>Are you a scientist?
It is interesting among many scholars, the Director of the NIH has disagreed with Pres. Bush on this subject. We all know that Bush is controlled by the religious right. But that does not matter to you. You will look into your fantasy bible and seek out junk that will satisfy your twisted mind.

Gerry, Thanks for making my point for me while trying to attack my points.

Let's take a "real" look at Gerry's reasons to consume millions and perhaps billions of public funds on a failed science, while our state is in financial crisis:

Gerry argues:

1. Embryonic stem cells haven't produce any treatments after years of research. When placed in a patient's body they cause cancer, and are often rejected, placing the patient under greater risk of death than patient's orignial illness. But hey, the researchers can then used the cancer created by the embryonic stem cells, in the patient, to investigate how to fight cancer. And ofcourse, regardless of those facts, some day they might produce a treatment that is usable, so the killings are worth it. And so what if the treatments are causing cancer, making the patients sicker and killing the donors. Big Deal.

2. Since people will kill their unborn babies anyway, we should embrace the killing and spend our straped state funds on paying for the killing and using the killed bodies. In other words, Gerry's argument is, since henious evil happens in the world our state funds should be used to embrace the henious evil in hopes of making some good come from it.

And in Gerry's defense of his arguments he attacks my education and religion, as reasons that Minnesotan's should embrace his arguments.

Thanks Gerry, you pretty much showed why State funds must not, and can not be used for this failed, killing, and immoral science, though you didn't mean to.

Kierkegaard wrote:

<quoted text>
Patty:
I did say something, just because you don't understand it (seems to be a recurring issue here), doesn't mean that I didn't.
So I'll just say one more thing. Given what I've learned from our "discussion" - like most conservatives you're an intellectual ostrich and a fraud. You and I know it, I suspect that others have the same opinion. Now I'll let you run away (I'd hate to use up all your "shame" - it's probably pretty expensive).

You are so full of it. Again, what degree do you have? Do you have anything other than Buybull story book quotes, and OLD data about ESC research? The best researchers do both ESC and ASC research because each has it pros and cons, and are better suited for treating certain diseases. Congenital blindness should be one of the first cures with ESCs. They are closing in on a cure for some forms.

Whya re you so selfish and self-righteous about a clump of cells destined for the incinerator?? What good are they doing flushed down the drain? They are nothing but cells...they have a nucleus, mitochondria, and genetic material. Why waste what is there? The arrogance of the Buybull thumping pseudo-pro-lifers is classic. Are you out protesting at the fertility clinics too?? Or, did the ends justify the means in that situation??

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so full of it. Again, what degree do you have? Do you have anything other than Buybull story book quotes, and OLD data about ESC research? The best researchers do both ESC and ASC research because each has it pros and cons, and are better suited for treating certain diseases. Congenital blindness should be one of the first cures with ESCs. They are closing in on a cure for some forms.
Whya re you so selfish and self-righteous about a clump of cells destined for the incinerator?? What good are they doing flushed down the drain? They are nothing but cells...they have a nucleus, mitochondria, and genetic material. Why waste what is there? The arrogance of the Buybull thumping pseudo-pro-lifers is classic. Are you out protesting at the fertility clinics too?? Or, did the ends justify the means in that situation??

I'm confused - are you asking me (since it seems like a reply to me)? My degrees are in Philosophy, MA work (Hermenuetics, Semiotics, Language, Logic), PhD work (Phil of Science).

Kierkegaard wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm confused - are you asking me (since it seems like a reply to me)? My degrees are in Philosophy, MA work (Hermenuetics, Semiotics, Language, Logic), PhD work (Phil of Science).

Sorry! Whoops!
That was meant for our ignorant friend Patty. She may be smart about some things, but science just isn't her "petri plate of cells."

Sarah wrote:

Patricia, given your protest against the use of stem cell research, I assume that if a cure for a disease is found through the use of stem cell research that you would refuse to use that cure if you were stricken with the disease and that you would also refuse to allow the cure to be used on a child of yours who had the disease, correct?
Because otherwise you would be a hypocrite.
Do you have the faith in your convictions of what is moral and what isn't to watch a loved one die who could be saved by treatment created through the use of stem cell research?

Sarah creates a fictious straw man and then tries to use it to defeat any reasonable logic.

Sarah, the embryonic stem cell research, hasn't and is not going to develop any teatments, and murder and killing can't be the basis of treatments to give life. So your straw man question is invalid. You can't create good out of killing. And again your straw man question is based on a "if" that does not exist, and will not exist. People have for years put billions of state dollars down the toilet on straw man arguments of "if" like yours. No logical person can use a "if" straw man questions to support failed science. That's like asking me "if" the world is flat, would I still be willing to go on a long sea voyage? It challenges all reasonable logic.

It's also interesting that the liberal drive is so strong to use State funds on a horrifically immoral failed science, like embryonic stem cell research. One might ask why? I think the answer is that most large private research firms are beginning to refuse to use their research dollars on a failed science, and are moving to a science that has the means of producing real treatments and that can produce a real revenue stream, like adult stem cells and the newly found means to take blood and skin cells from the patient and modify them to become stem cells that can produce any tissue type the patient needs. So let's not waste our strapped state funds, to finance this failed horrifically immoral research.

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
Gerry, Thanks for making my point for me while trying to attack my points.
Let's take a "real" look at Gerry's reasons to consume millions and perhaps billions of public funds on a failed science, while our state is in financial crisis:
Gerry argues:
1. Embryonic stem cells haven't produce any treatments after years of research. When placed in a patient's body they cause cancer, and are often rejected, placing the patient under greater risk of death than patient's orignial illness. But hey, the researchers can then used the cancer created by the embryonic stem cells, in the patient, to investigate how to fight cancer. And ofcourse, regardless of those facts, some day they might produce a treatment that is usable, so the killings are worth it. And so what if the treatments are causing cancer, making the patients sicker and killing the donors. Big Deal.
2. Since people will kill their unborn babies anyway, we should embrace the killing and spend our straped state funds on paying for the killing and using the killed bodies. In other words, Gerry's argument is, since henious evil happens in the world our state funds should be used to embrace the henious evil in hopes of making some good come from it.
And in Gerry's defense of his arguments he attacks my education and religion, as reasons that Minnesotan's should embrace his arguments.
Thanks Gerry, you pretty much showed why State funds must not, and can not be used for this failed, killing, and immoral science, though you didn't mean to.

I'll just say thanks for your ignorance. Everything from grass seed to the fabric of your clothes has been experimented on and researched over and over again. Some things have failed in the process, but by the perseverance and the curiosity of those that did the research we are living a better life than the generations before us.

"The insanity of the religious right"
Most humans undersatand the "deal" the day you are born you start dying. Because God don't make no junk, attempting to take over the roll of the creator is foolish and self centered for a new type of human that truly believes their longevity is more important than the life of others.
The human body has an OBC that controls every aspect of your life, and there is nothing anyone can do to change that, no matter how many books they read. Life is temporary, get used to it and live every day.

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
Sarah creates a fictious straw man and then tries to use it to defeat any reasonable logic.
Sarah, the embryonic stem cell research, hasn't and is not going to develop any teatments, and murder and killing can't be the basis of treatments to give life. So your straw man question is invalid. You can't create good out of killing. And again your straw man question is based on a "if" that does not exist, and will not exist. People have for years put billions of state dollars down the toilet on straw man arguments of "if" like yours. No logical person can use a "if" straw man questions to support failed science. That's like asking me "if" the world is flat, would I still be willing to go on a long sea voyage? It challenges all reasonable logic.
It's also interesting that the liberal drive is so strong to use State funds on a horrifically immoral failed science, like embryonic stem cell research. One might ask why? I think the answer is that most large private research firms are beginning to refuse to use their research dollars on a failed science, and are moving to a science that has the means of producing real treatments and that can produce a real revenue stream, like adult stem cells and the newly found means to take blood and skin cells from the patient and modify them to become stem cells that can produce any tissue type the patient needs. So let's not waste our strapped state funds, to finance this failed horrifically immoral research.

Patty, I work for a private research firm. Do you have crystal ball? You know absolutely nothing of the research going on here and around the world. You are spewing lies about a topic you have no actual knowledge of. You base all your "theories" on a story book written and rewritten throughout the centuries. Its a bed time story that includes rape murder incest and the fictitious theory that the sun revolves around the Earth. I base my knowledge on facts and experiments conducted by professionals like myself for the past 10 years. Again, will you be protesting the couples who choose infertility treatments? Will call them killers? WIll you call the clinics factories of killing? Or, do they get a pass from you?

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so full of it. Again, what degree do you have? Do you have anything other than Buybull story book quotes, and OLD data about ESC research? The best researchers do both ESC and ASC research because each has it pros and cons, and are better suited for treating certain diseases. Congenital blindness should be one of the first cures with ESCs. They are closing in on a cure for some forms.
Whya re you so selfish and self-righteous about a clump of cells destined for the incinerator?? What good are they doing flushed down the drain? They are nothing but cells...they have a nucleus, mitochondria, and genetic material. Why waste what is there? The arrogance of the Buybull thumping pseudo-pro-lifers is classic. Are you out protesting at the fertility clinics too?? Or, did the ends justify the means in that situation??

Wowless: You call me selfish?

Now having confessed that you are one of the killers, and have a vested interest in enhancing funds for your job and that you have MS, you should be in the lead in stopping the use of State tax dollars for a failed science and focus your work toward using the new technology where stem cells developed from blood and skin cells can be used to develop any type of tissue, without the serious results of cancer and cell rejection. Seems that you are fighting against real treatments (via new research, and adult stem cells funding) to enhance your profession on the taxpayers' back. That is about as immoral, and selfish as one can get.

Yes, there are few people that don't either know of/or live with or have family members with seriously challenging illnesses, but that is no argument for driving state funds to pay for what has been proven to be a failed, immoral science. In fact that is a good reason to place tax dollars toward stem cell research of promise. The fact that you have MS does not give you or anyone with serious illnesses the right to kill another for that other's body parts, including unborn babies, especially when you and I both know that embryonic stem cell research is dead in its tracks, and you are only trying to advance your personal professional position. Again, that's about as immoral and selfish as one can get in any society, to drain funds that could be used for real treatments for your own gain.

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry! Whoops!
That was meant for our ignorant friend Patty. She may be smart about some things, but science just isn't her "petri plate of cells."

Wowless: Insults is not a reason to keep the killing going either.

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll just say thanks for your ignorance. Everything from grass seed to the fabric of your clothes has been experimented on and researched over and over again. Some things have failed in the process, but by the perseverance and the curiosity of those that did the research we are living a better life than the generations before us.

Seeds and Shoes are not human life. And the state in most cases did not pay for it.

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
Patty, I work for a private research firm. Do you have crystal ball? You know absolutely nothing of the research going on here and around the world. You are spewing lies about a topic you have no actual knowledge of. You base all your "theories" on a story book written and rewritten throughout the centuries. Its a bed time story that includes rape murder incest and the fictitious theory that the sun revolves around the Earth. I base my knowledge on facts and experiments conducted by professionals like myself for the past 10 years. Again, will you be protesting the couples who choose infertility treatments? Will call them killers? WIll you call the clinics factories of killing? Or, do they get a pass from you?

As for your attack on my religious morality. All any reader of this forum need do is read my posts, and they can well see that I have provided non-moral and moral challenges to why we should not be spending another dollar on embryonic stem cell research, as shown below:

1) After 10 years and billions of dollars no results (reason for not spending tax dollars).

2) It's killing and it's immoral.(reason for not using them at all).

3) Embryonic stem cells have a high risk in creating cancer in the recipients of such, making them sicker not treating them.(reason to not use them at all and reason for not using our taxes for further research).

4) Tissue from embryonic stem cells are often rejected.(reason for not using them at all and reason for not spending tax dollars on them.)

5) This research simply is creating false hopes while spending billions of dollars in research.(reason for not using them at all, and reason for not spending state tax dollars on them.)

6) There is a replacement method of stem cells from blood and skin that can be modified into any other type of human tissue, therefore, embryonic stem cells are not needed nor are they desirable.(reason for not using them at all, and reason for not putting further tax dollars to this failed science.)

The rest of your tyrade is not worth my time, and you must have been looking into your magic eight ball when you suggested our state should pay for embryonic stem cell research failed science. I guess you see the writing on the wall of firms moving away from your selfish endeavors, and are trying to stuff your pocket. Again that's about as immoral and selfish as you can get.

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
Wowless: Insults is not a reason to keep the killing going either.

Huh? Patty, do you think fertility clinics are killing factories? Do you think the work they have done is good or bad? They give childless couple the opportunity to possibly conceive. Is that good or bad?

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
Wowless: You call me selfish?
Now having confessed that you are one of the killers, and have a vested interest in enhancing funds for your job and that you have MS, you should be in the lead in stopping the use of State tax dollars for a failed science and focus your work toward using the new technology where stem cells developed from blood and skin cells can be used to develop any type of tissue, without the serious results of cancer and cell rejection. Seems that you are fighting against real treatments (via new research, and adult stem cells funding) to enhance your profession on the taxpayers' back. That is about as immoral, and selfish as one can get.
Yes, there are few people that don't either know of/or live with or have family members with seriously challenging illnesses, but that is no argument for driving state funds to pay for what has been proven to be a failed, immoral science. In fact that is a good reason to place tax dollars toward stem cell research of promise. The fact that you have MS does not give you or anyone with serious illnesses the right to kill another for that other's body parts, including unborn babies, especially when you and I both know that embryonic stem cell research is dead in its tracks, and you are only trying to advance your personal professional position. Again, that's about as immoral and selfish as one can get in any society, to drain funds that could be used for real treatments for your own gain.

Again, you know nothing of the research occurring right now because the results are not published since the studies are still going. We are using adult and embryonic stem cells because depending on the use, embryonic are best for congential defects and diseases. ASC can be used in SOME applications, but they are not good for all instances. We have had rampant cancer growth from ASCs and tissue rejection as well. Again, what education do you have to back up the old data you are spewing?

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
Huh? Patty, do you think fertility clinics are killing factories? Do you think the work they have done is good or bad? They give childless couple the opportunity to possibly conceive. Is that good or bad?

Wowless, Go back and read the post where I answered this already.

Patty, I sure hope you are chastising all the couples who use fertility treatments. I hope you aren't giving them gifts for their litters of children. I also hope you are getting in line right now at the local fertility clinci to get a few of those soon to be incinerated embryos implanted in your uterus. The protest at the local fertility clinic can start any time. By the way, when they were researching for fertility treatments, state and federal money paid for some of it...and millions and millions of little embryos were "killed" in the process. Are you writing to your congressman to get them to stop fertility testing too??