House approves stem cell measure

Wow wrote:

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!!!!!!

Wowless,

I see you still haven't googled on the start of life, just google "zygote = life" it's not hard to do. After reading then come back. Your position agrues with the Angel Gabriel when he said that Elizabeth "conceived a son" and argues with science that states that the zygote is the begining of life of a new being. In other words not the womans body, and not just a clump of cells.

DaniGirl123 wrote:

<quoted text>
This is not an abortion forum though.

Killing embryonic stem cells may not be an abortion, but it is killing the unborn just the same, and is closely associted with the same issues. The liberals use the same debative tactics to try to defend the killing in either case.

MN resident wrote:

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.
<quoted text>

You miss the whole point. There is new research that shows that embryonic stem cells are not needed. That either blood or skin cells taken from the person under treatment can produce any cell tissue needed in the body. The example that I provided in this forum was where they took skin cells and created stem cells that grew heart tissue.

In other words, the embryonic cell research is not needed, and has produced nothing, and has created no treatments and now even some of the UofM stem cell researchers are questioning the use of embryonic cell as immoral, and unneeded. That's the point. Let me say it again, "NOT NEEDED". What part of not needed did you not understand?

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
Wowless,
I see you still haven't googled on the start of life, just google "zygote = life" it's not hard to do. After reading then come back. Your position agrues with the Angel Gabriel when he said that Elizabeth "conceived a son" and argues with science that states that the zygote is the begining of life of a new being. In other words not the womans body, and not just a clump of cells.

Still not a person! Just a clump of cells. Do you feel that ALL life is sacred, or just human life? If so, you are arrogant, and have no respect for ALL of your god's creation. PS, Its still a clump of cells, just like bacteria and parasites.

Patty:

The classes that I’ve taken covered all the various theories that I mentioned, plus Contractualism, Feminist ethics, Subjectivism and Egoism. One thing that is clear is that you don’t understand Utilitarianism, particularly Rule Utilitarianism. It’s also clear that you don’t understand the nature of the straw man argument, everything I’ve said has been logically (and I mean that in the literal sense) consistent and relevant. You can go ahead and claim that it isn’t, but you’ll need more of an argument (since, I’m assuming, I’m the only one in this conversation with an advanced degree in logic, I’m going to take my word for it before yours). So, what straw man are you referring too? You can call a potato an elephant all you want, and people might eventually figure out what you’re talking about, but that doesn’t make you right – in the same way, claiming to have defeated an imaginary straw man doesn’t make you right either.

NO, the 90% of my posts have been about the way you’ve asserted that something has been immoral; I’ve never said that it wasn’t about morality, just that the way you’ve tried to get there is incorrect. If you were preaching to the choir (that is, a group of people who share your presuppositions – which are very different from having “facts”), then we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.

I haven’t ignored any of your reasons or supposed “facts”. I’ve explained why they are unconvincing. There are alternatives that you haven’t considered, or have refused to consider. Like you’re claim about there being no connection between embryonic and adult stem cell research.

If someone actually said that, a person who is swayed by rigorous argumentation,(that is, they changed their minds because of it), is to be shamed for not sticking to a dogmatic position, then that person is an idiot.

As Bertrand Russell says,“Many people would rather die than think. In fact, they do.” Which seems to be what your "wise man" is advocating.

Mary wrote:

<quoted text>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.

So Mary, if my girlfriend and I try to conceive a child and it does not happen we are “sinners” and if we choose to use In Vitro Fertilization to make a child. We would also be “sinners” if after she became pregnant we decided it was the wrong time to have a child and decided to have it aborted.

Steve wrote:

<quoted text>So Mary, if my girlfriend and I try to conceive a child and it does not happen we are “sinners” and if we choose to use In Vitro Fertilization to make a child. We would also be “sinners” if after she became pregnant we decided it was the wrong time to have a child and decided to have it aborted.

First off – It is immoral to have sex before marriage. Absenence is what you should practice! Secondly, The Church says that you're not allowed to use contraception because it could stop the creation of God’s miracle. The church is against In Vitro Fertilization as a means of producing un holy children and is most certainly against abortion. God doesn't want His precious children to be killed because of selfish mothers. You aren't a Christian if you don't agree with these ideals and laws.

All I can do is lead you filthy people in the right direction so that when it comes time for final judgment, hopefully you will have pure enough souls so that you can make it to Heaven.

Totally amazing how many people here can't see the forest because of all of those dang tree's in the way.

1. Why is the house even wasting time on a bill that is going to get vetoed? Don't we a budget deficit to worry about? The legislature has too much time on its hands, since it can't seem to get down to the real business of the state.

2. Just because its good for the state of CA, doesn't mean is good for us. Last time I checked, the state of CA is bordering on, if not in a state of bankruptcy.

3. Put your money in the promising research, and after all the private money spent on embryonic stems cells has brought no breakthroughs whereas adult cell research is outracing it, its a bad bet.

Mary wrote:

<quoted text>Do not reply to GBS because she is a w hore and wrong about everything! She is a sinner and deserves only our pity not our acceptance or word!

Mary,

I tend to agree with GBS's posts and she is a clear and logical thinker. You on the other hand fly off the handle all the time. Maybe all your kids should be taken away from you for fear of harm. You are very disrespectful with these words. Please grow up and get your head out of your arse.

Mary wrote:

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

So why did "God" provide us with the knowledge to try to conquer certain things?

Mary wrote:

<quoted text>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.

Church Of Christ follower by chance?

Kierkegaard wrote:

Patty:
The classes that I’ve taken covered all the various theories that I mentioned, plus Contractualism, Feminist ethics, Subjectivism and Egoism. One thing that is clear is that you don’t understand Utilitarianism, particularly Rule Utilitarianism. It’s also clear that you don’t understand the nature of the straw man argument, everything I’ve said has been logically (and I mean that in the literal sense) consistent and relevant. You can go ahead and claim that it isn’t, but you’ll need more of an argument (since, I’m assuming, I’m the only one in this conversation with an advanced degree in logic, I’m going to take my word for it before yours). So, what straw man are you referring too? You can call a potato an elephant all you want, and people might eventually figure out what you’re talking about, but that doesn’t make you right – in the same way, claiming to have defeated an imaginary straw man doesn’t make you right either.
NO, the 90% of my posts have been about the way you’ve asserted that something has been immoral; I’ve never said that it wasn’t about morality, just that the way you’ve tried to get there is incorrect. If you were preaching to the choir (that is, a group of people who share your presuppositions – which are very different from having “facts”), then we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I haven’t ignored any of your reasons or supposed “facts”. I’ve explained why they are unconvincing. There are alternatives that you haven’t considered, or have refused to consider. Like you’re claim about there being no connection between embryonic and adult stem cell research.
If someone actually said that, a person who is swayed by rigorous argumentation,(that is, they changed their minds because of it), is to be shamed for not sticking to a dogmatic position, then that person is an idiot.
As Bertrand Russell says,“Many people would rather die than think. In fact, they do.” Which seems to be what your "wise man" is advocating.

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.

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
Still not a person! Just a clump of cells. Do you feel that ALL life is sacred, or just human life? If so, you are arrogant, and have no respect for ALL of your god's creation. PS, Its still a clump of cells, just like bacteria and parasites.

Wowless,

I see you still haven't googled on the start of life, just google "zygote = life" it's not hard to do. After reading then come back. Your position agrues with the Angel Gabriel when he said that Elizabeth "conceived a son" and argues with science that states that the zygote is the begining of life of a new being. In other words not the womans body, and not just a clump of cells.

Good new freshly harvested stem cells from a newborn, Think of the miracles, Michael J. Fox could remember where he hid the Easter Eggs, Superman Christopher Reeves could have had a new spinal chord, And think of the beautiful faces that old people will aquire, skin as smooth as a babys butt, newborns cells in facial treatments to rid the face of age and wrinkles.

Just think of it how proud we would all be, except for people that refuse to live at the expense of another life, especially a new born baby..... Sick and demented thinking by once reasonable humans that will out live reason and morality. All over our country the Greed light is on.

I hope that a non-religious approach to this vastly misunderstood issue will appeal to some, so here goes.

The difference between adult stem cells (ASC) and embryonic stem cells (ESC) explains why ESC researchers have been failing and why they will continue fail to find a therapy in the next decade to match what ASC are already doing. There are just two simple facts:

1—ASC are in the body to provide Medical Self Repair.
The reason that ASC researchers are improving thousands of lives for almost every disease and medical condition known to man, is that it is relatively easy to train an ASC to do what it was born to do: REPAIR. And when they start to repair what they were sent to repair, they stay there and reproduce.

2---ESC are in the body to make babies.
The reason ESC researchers always fail is that they cannot accept that ESC are "obsessive" in their desire to become babies. Good ESC researchers can sometimes, with great difficulty and at a very high cost in dollars and time, train an ESC to do what he or she wants it to do, such as improve the symptoms of Parkinson's. But no one can control that cell's impossible-to-stop desire to make a baby. They do NOT stay there to continue to repair and reproduce---there is no OFF SWITCH on an ESC, so it cannot be controlled and the too-frequent result is deadly tumors.

Now YOU know more about stem cells than 95% of Americans, including doctors, all in just two minutes!

Don Margolis
International Center for
Adult Stem Cell Education
www.adultstemcelleducation.com

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
Wowless,
I see you still haven't googled on the start of life, just google "zygote = life" it's not hard to do. After reading then come back. Your position agrues with the Angel Gabriel when he said that Elizabeth "conceived a son" and argues with science that states that the zygote is the begining of life of a new being. In other words not the womans body, and not just a clump of cells.

Like I said Patty, zygotes and embryos are as alive as bacteria and parasites. Your using a story book that's been altered over the centuries to support your stance about a mythical angel visiting a woman??? Gee, that sounds reasonable.

Don Margolis wrote:

I hope that a non-religious approach to this vastly misunderstood issue will appeal to some, so here goes.
The difference between adult stem cells (ASC) and embryonic stem cells (ESC) explains why ESC researchers have been failing and why they will continue fail to find a therapy in the next decade to match what ASC are already doing. There are just two simple facts:
1—ASC are in the body to provide Medical Self Repair.
The reason that ASC researchers are improving thousands of lives for almost every disease and medical condition known to man, is that it is relatively easy to train an ASC to do what it was born to do: REPAIR. And when they start to repair what they were sent to repair, they stay there and reproduce.
2---ESC are in the body to make babies.
The reason ESC researchers always fail is that they cannot accept that ESC are "obsessive" in their desire to become babies. Good ESC researchers can sometimes, with great difficulty and at a very high cost in dollars and time, train an ESC to do what he or she wants it to do, such as improve the symptoms of Parkinson's. But no one can control that cell's impossible-to-stop desire to make a baby. They do NOT stay there to continue to repair and reproduce---there is no OFF SWITCH on an ESC, so it cannot be controlled and the too-frequent result is deadly tumors.
Now YOU know more about stem cells than 95% of Americans, including doctors, all in just two minutes!
Don Margolis
International Center for
Adult Stem Cell Education
www.adultstemcelleducation.com

Gee, thanks for your false information. I happen to do ESC research. You couldn't be more wrong about the research. Just like Patty thinking only ESCs can be rejected by the body, or that no advances are being made. Try China, they are making progress. They think we are truly silly and are enjoying watching us. The progress being made in the US is not being publicized until it can be verified, becacause of the insanity of the religious right and pseudo-pro-lifers. We get our cells form fertility clinics. People applaud the clinics and the people who use them, but hate the ESC reserach facilities. Why is one OK, and not the other??

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.

GBS-StPaul, The following is a list of 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.

Furthermore, you post that everyone is entitled to their opinion, 35+ million babies killed is not "an opinion". We pro-lifers have had the pro-choice Planned Parentless "religion" and "your moral standards", as you say, of killing babies forced, or as you say "impose"d and "push"ed on many, many, many, many "others" or, as you say, on the rest of us for too many horrific years to count, and yet you post "but in the United States you are not entitled to push your religious beliefs on others."

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the True and Living God clearly shows how wrong it is to murder a baby, in the Bible, and, therefore, I know nothing about, as you post, your god.

Now, I ask you why, if what you say is true, "but in the United States you are not entitled to push your religious beliefs on others", we pro-lifers have had to live your religious beliefs of killing babies under the guise of, as you say "the right for women to choose what they do with their own bodies"? Before you posted, I believe, you already well understood that a baby inside a woman is not her "own" body or the woman would die when she killed the baby, and yet you attempt to continue to force your religion on the rest of us.

GBS-StPaul, As far as your own body is concerned, who cares what you do with it? However, as far as a baby inside your body, or any other woman's body is concerned, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy finally had enough of the killing by Planned Parentless and ruled in favor of the ban on partial birth abortion, showing that it is not a mother's right to kill. That decision by Kennedy joining Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito has been the first real hope to overturning Roe.

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
Gee, thanks for your false information. I happen to do ESC research. You couldn't be more wrong about the research. Just like Patty thinking only ESCs can be rejected by the body, or that no advances are being made. Try China, they are making progress. They think we are truly silly and are enjoying watching us. The progress being made in the US is not being publicized until it can be verified, becacause of the insanity of the religious right and pseudo-pro-lifers. We get our cells form fertility clinics. People applaud the clinics and the people who use them, but hate the ESC reserach facilities. Why is one OK, and not the other??

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.

Patricia Gould wrote:

<quoted text>
GBS-StPaul, The following is a list of 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.)
real hope to overturning Roe.

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.