Discussion:
The Stem Cell Research Debate - Science and Morale
(too old to reply)
Jrcbp
2004-11-19 03:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Hello everyone, I'm doing a report on the science and morale of stem
cell research and the current conflict of opinion that exists in the
United States. With President Bush's conservative stance on the issue,
it seems the issue has become even more heated. There are heated
opinions on both sides, with ethics and religion often being the case
for one side, while research and hope for medical breakthroughs
standing on the other. That, of course, is a limited summary of where
people might come from in forming their opinions.

I'm looking for people to speak on the subject as it will be needed
for my report.
If you do wish to speak, I'd love to have your name to go into my
report (which could be sent to me privately). However, any at all
discussion and those willing to allow their quotes into my report
would be great. Thank you.
Michael
2004-11-19 05:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jrcbp
Hello everyone, I'm doing a report on the science and morale of stem
cell research and the current conflict of opinion that exists in the
United States. With President Bush's conservative stance on the issue,
it seems the issue has become even more heated. There are heated
opinions on both sides, with ethics and religion often being the case
for one side, while research and hope for medical breakthroughs
standing on the other. That, of course, is a limited summary of where
people might come from in forming their opinions.
I'm looking for people to speak on the subject as it will be needed
for my report.
If you do wish to speak, I'd love to have your name to go into my
report (which could be sent to me privately). However, any at all
discussion and those willing to allow their quotes into my report
would be great. Thank you.
(posted and mailed)

Dude. Go get yourself an incurable chronic disease (such as MS, with which
I live every single day)... a disease for which embryonic stem-cell research
hold some promise of cure or effective treatment, and you won't need my
opinions or anyone else's. You'll have an excuse all your own to scream
about it with full justification and righteous indignation at the tops of
your lungs.

And you know what?

Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to you with
an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They aren't going to allow
their minds to be changed... not by "moral relativism" and not by facts.
--
Michael Muirhead
Queen Charlotte City, BC
None Given
2004-11-19 16:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Michael Muirhead
Queen Charlotte City, BC
Did you ever live in Oklahoma? A guy with your name used to live next
door to me.
Michael
2004-11-19 17:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by None Given
Post by Michael
Michael Muirhead
Queen Charlotte City, BC
Did you ever live in Oklahoma? A guy with your name used to live next
door to me.
Heehee.... nope. Canadian born and bred.

One of my favourite-ever co-workers was an Oklahoman guy, but his name was
Schuman. :-)
Jrcbp
2004-11-19 18:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by Jrcbp
Hello everyone, I'm doing a report on the science and morale of stem
cell research and the current conflict of opinion that exists in the
United States. With President Bush's conservative stance on the issue,
it seems the issue has become even more heated. There are heated
opinions on both sides, with ethics and religion often being the case
for one side, while research and hope for medical breakthroughs
standing on the other. That, of course, is a limited summary of where
people might come from in forming their opinions.
I'm looking for people to speak on the subject as it will be needed
for my report.
If you do wish to speak, I'd love to have your name to go into my
report (which could be sent to me privately). However, any at all
discussion and those willing to allow their quotes into my report
would be great. Thank you.
(posted and mailed)
Dude. Go get yourself an incurable chronic disease (such as MS, with which
I live every single day)... a disease for which embryonic stem-cell research
hold some promise of cure or effective treatment, and you won't need my
opinions or anyone else's. You'll have an excuse all your own to scream
about it with full justification and righteous indignation at the tops of
your lungs.
And you know what?
Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to you with
an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They aren't going to allow
their minds to be changed... not by "moral relativism" and not by facts.
--
Michael Muirhead
Queen Charlotte City, BC
Michael, why do you feel there are so many people on the opposite side
of the debate (aka the relgious, moral side)? Do you feel that those
with incurable diseases should speak more directly to these people,
and make it obvious that the argument for stem cell research is so
clear. Why do you feel this country, and our President, are currently
unwilling to let more stem cell research come about?
Michael
2004-11-19 18:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jrcbp
Post by Michael
Post by Jrcbp
Hello everyone, I'm doing a report on the science and morale of stem
cell research and the current conflict of opinion that exists in the
United States. With President Bush's conservative stance on the issue,
it seems the issue has become even more heated. There are heated
opinions on both sides, with ethics and religion often being the case
for one side, while research and hope for medical breakthroughs
standing on the other. That, of course, is a limited summary of where
people might come from in forming their opinions.
I'm looking for people to speak on the subject as it will be needed
for my report.
If you do wish to speak, I'd love to have your name to go into my
report (which could be sent to me privately). However, any at all
discussion and those willing to allow their quotes into my report
would be great. Thank you.
(posted and mailed)
Dude. Go get yourself an incurable chronic disease (such as MS, with which
I live every single day)... a disease for which embryonic stem-cell research
hold some promise of cure or effective treatment, and you won't need my
opinions or anyone else's. You'll have an excuse all your own to scream
about it with full justification and righteous indignation at the tops of
your lungs.
And you know what?
Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to you with
an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They aren't going to allow
their minds to be changed... not by "moral relativism" and not by
facts. --
Michael Muirhead
Queen Charlotte City, BC
Michael, why do you feel there are so many people on the opposite side
of the debate (aka the relgious, moral side)?
I don't feel that they're a majority, but they are such a loud, deeply
convicted, ambitious and pushy minority that they have influence in
government far out of proportion to their numbers.
Post by Jrcbp
Do you feel that those
with incurable diseases should speak more directly to these people,
and make it obvious that the argument for stem cell research is so
clear.
I do not. They won't listen. God has spoken.

Remember: these people's predecessors were against organ transplantation,
and before that, they were against anaesthesia during surgery and
childbirth.

They won't succeed, but it's entirely possible for them to slow things
enough that there'll be no concrete benefit in my lifetime.
Post by Jrcbp
Why do you feel this country, and our President, are currently
unwilling to let more stem cell research come about?
I actually couldn't care less about that. The research will most likely
come about in some other country if not in America... unless America's
present administration succeeds in its goal of imposing its moral authority
worldwide.

There's your Armageddon.
Alan
2004-11-19 21:59:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:17:29 -0800, "Michael" <***@haidagwaii.net>
wrote:
<snip>
The research will most likely come about in some other country if not in America
<snip>

Not "will most likely", but "is":

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Health/Diabetes-unit-wins-first-stem-cells-licence/2004/11/16/1100574469696.html
or http://tinyurl.com/4e8eu

and:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Science/Free-stem-cells-on-offer-for-research/2004/11/15/1100384495237.html

That's just in Australia. Now consider the rest of the world outside the
USA.

One of the problems with cross-posts is that I forget that people may be
writing from another group and will not have seen earlier posts in
misc.health.diabetes on this.

Fortunately, the chances of the religious right in the USA, or any other
country, of stopping the world from eventually performing this research
is zero. Unfortunately, their ability to hinder and delay the success of
the research is more credible and likely.

The consequences will be that any successful results will take longer,
be more expensive to apply, and may not be immediately available to the
nations which did not support the research. They will be eventually
available to those nations - for a price.

If it later transpires that stem cell research leads directly to saving
lives, then those who delayed the research on "moral" grounds must
include consideration of the morality of the lives lost as a consequence
of that delay. Including mine.

To those who are reading this in alt.politics.bush or alt.politics this
may seem an interesting politico-religious debate. To those of us
posting in alt.support.mult-sclerosis or misc.health.diabetes it is
vital. Particularly to the many of us here who are also qualified to
post in the cancer newsgroups.

Cheers Alan,

dx Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Feb '02,
dx Type 2 diabetes May '02

Australia
--
Do not read this, it is a sig.
I find all political and religious sigs offensive.
Including this one.
Of course, it's OK because it's below the line.
So pretend you didn't read it.
Too late? Go back to line 1.
KKT
2004-11-19 20:58:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by Jrcbp
Why do you feel this country, and our President, are currently
unwilling to let more stem cell research come about?
I actually couldn't care less about that. The research will most likely
come about in some other country if not in America... unless America's
present administration succeeds in its goal of imposing its moral authority
worldwide.
There's your Armageddon.
They can't even impose it on the various states. Remember that CA just
voted for a large bond measure to fund stem cell research. In addition,
our governor in WI has just announced a similar initiative:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5092102.html

While we may have some difficult in WI, this is the state that pioneered
such research and we're pretty used to this. I'm hoping for the best.

KKT
OrionCA
2004-11-20 07:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jrcbp
Michael, why do you feel there are so many people on the opposite side
of the debate (aka the relgious, moral side)? Do you feel that those
with incurable diseases should speak more directly to these people,
and make it obvious that the argument for stem cell research is so
clear. Why do you feel this country, and our President, are currently
unwilling to let more stem cell research come about?
There are two types of "stem cell" research going on: Embryonic stem
cells, harvested from aborted fetal material, and adult stem cells,
harvested from the patient's own body.

Aside from the moral problems using embryonic cell there are
considerable technological hurdles in applying these therapeutically.
Like any foreign body they tend to be rejected by the patient's body;
you'd have to keep him on strong immunosuppressants for the rest of
his life. Doctors are *decades* away from figuring out how to use
these safely.

Adult stem cells pose no moral dilemma and overcome the first hurdle
in developing effective therapies automatically; they aren't rejected
when reintroduced into the patient's body. There has already been
very encouraging results using adult stem cells in human trials.

Both types are being funded by the US government; President Bush has
simply restricted availability of embryonic stem cells to
previously-collected lines. There's no ban on using embryonic stem
cells in research at all. Companies can perform research on any lines
they like. They can't use government grants to study any embryonic
stem cells not in these approved lines but they can raise money
privately.
--
Some factoids:


2000 2004 % Increase
Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%

Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%

Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
Alan
2004-11-20 08:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrionCA
Post by Jrcbp
Michael, why do you feel there are so many people on the opposite side
of the debate (aka the relgious, moral side)? Do you feel that those
with incurable diseases should speak more directly to these people,
and make it obvious that the argument for stem cell research is so
clear. Why do you feel this country, and our President, are currently
unwilling to let more stem cell research come about?
There are two types of "stem cell" research going on: Embryonic stem
cells, harvested from aborted fetal material, and adult stem cells,
harvested from the patient's own body.
Aside from the moral problems using embryonic cell there are
considerable technological hurdles in applying these therapeutically.
Like any foreign body they tend to be rejected by the patient's body;
you'd have to keep him on strong immunosuppressants for the rest of
his life. Doctors are *decades* away from figuring out how to use
these safely.
Adult stem cells pose no moral dilemma and overcome the first hurdle
in developing effective therapies automatically; they aren't rejected
when reintroduced into the patient's body. There has already been
very encouraging results using adult stem cells in human trials.
Both types are being funded by the US government; President Bush has
simply restricted availability of embryonic stem cells to
previously-collected lines. There's no ban on using embryonic stem
cells in research at all. Companies can perform research on any lines
they like. They can't use government grants to study any embryonic
stem cells not in these approved lines but they can raise money
privately.
Hi

I honestly have no interest in the politics (for the next four years, I
look forward to a merciful release from US self-centred political
nonsense), nor do I care about the relative likelihood of the two (only
two?) types of research. My interest is in results - I prefer to let the
scientists demonstrate the worth, or otherwise, of their research to
those who fund them. Sadly, that is sometimes the politicians.

However, those decisions on worth should be made by scientists, not by
politicians.

I fail to see the relevance of your sig to the discussion, so I'll add
another meaningless sig to the debate.

Cheers, Alan, T2, d&e, Australia
--
Do not read this, it is a sig.
I find all political and religious sigs offensive.
Including this one.
Of course, it's OK because it's below the line.
So pretend you didn't read it.
Too late? Go back to line 1.
Murder
2004-11-20 08:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
However, those decisions on worth should be made by scientists, not by
politicians.
Too many scientists *are* political, with their own code of ethics. There
has to be some amount of transparency (aside from nuclear and weapons
science) and official oversight. Right?
--
"There is no more foul or relentless enemy of man in the occult world than
this dead-alive creature spewed up from the grave..."


The Castle Monster: http://www.processionofthedamned.com/diablo.htm
OrionCA
2004-11-20 09:29:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:33:02 +1000, Alan
Post by Alan
However, those decisions on worth should be made by scientists, not by
politicians.
There is no Federal regulation preventing researchers from studying
any stem-cell lines they like. There is an Executive order directing
that no Federal funds be used to study embryonic stem cell lines
beyond those previously cultured (around 33) but researchers are free
to seek funding from other sources if they want to study others.
Please note the US government only provides about 5% of the research
funds in the US.

In short there is no ban. There have been politicians CLAIMING a ban
exists for partisan political advantage but there is no ban.
--
Some factoids:


2000 2004 % Increase
Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%

Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%

Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
Alan
2004-11-20 10:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrionCA
There is no Federal regulation preventing researchers from studying
any stem-cell lines they like.
Quite true. There is no Australian Federal regulation that I could find
on the subject at all. You weren't thinking of some other federal
system?


Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
Specialsearcher
2004-11-20 12:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrionCA
In short there is no ban. There have been politicians CLAIMING a ban
exists for partisan political advantage but there is no ban.
--
Ideas need funding to make things happen.
I read that back in the sixties there was the idea that MS was cause by a
virus. Funding dried up and so did the idea, now some forty years later we are
looking for the cause of MS again. Guess what the virus theory is the leading
theory, we are almost at step one again. If the cause of MS was found forty
years ago, how many people could have possible avoided MS we will never know.
In the sixties there was no ban on the idea that a virus caused MS, but with no
funding nothing happened; now we still have no cure and no proven cause of MS
forty years later. FUNDING MATTERS!!!
abdi
2004-11-22 21:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Actually that's not true at all, any educational institution CAN jeopardize
other non related funding by doing those studies.
Its intimidation. Intimidation works by having the opposition interpret the
regulation. Its kind of like the 70 stations that did not air Private Ryan.
--
abdi ---- Quaecomque Sunt Vera
Post by OrionCA
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:33:02 +1000, Alan
Post by Alan
However, those decisions on worth should be made by scientists, not by
politicians.
There is no Federal regulation preventing researchers from studying
any stem-cell lines they like. There is an Executive order directing
that no Federal funds be used to study embryonic stem cell lines
beyond those previously cultured (around 33) but researchers are free
to seek funding from other sources if they want to study others.
Please note the US government only provides about 5% of the research
funds in the US.
In short there is no ban. There have been politicians CLAIMING a ban
exists for partisan political advantage but there is no ban.
--
2000 2004 % Increase
Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%
Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%
Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
Specialsearcher
2004-11-20 08:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrionCA
Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
Bush won, it does not matter so much why; what matters is how we get around the
problems he poses to all of us. States like California might be one answer. As
far as embryonic stem cells; at one time they said heart transplants would
never work, now doctors do them all the time. You have to prove something can't
be done by trying to do it, not just by someone saying it.
KKT
2004-11-20 13:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrionCA
There are two types of "stem cell" research going on: Embryonic stem
cells, harvested from aborted fetal material, and adult stem cells,
harvested from the patient's own body.
Embryonic stem cells come from embryos created by infertile couples.
They are meant for implantation; they are not from aborted fetuses.

Please get your facts straight.

KKT
Sylvia
2004-11-20 00:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Michael;
Post by Michael
(posted and mailed)
<snip>
Post by Michael
And you know what?
Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to you with
an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They aren't going to allow
their minds to be changed... not by "moral relativism" and not by facts.
Until the "anti" or someone close to him/her gets a nasty, iincurrable
disease.

That will change their minds. Then, all of the sudden, the "morals"
of stem cell research will look different.

The logic, the arguments, the rhetoric; none of that matters until it
becomes a persoanl issure.

And, if somebody does have an incurable diesease and is still an
"anti," I'd bet my last thin dime that the anti is in remission.

Sylvia
DCI
2004-11-20 03:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
Michael;
Post by Michael
(posted and mailed)
<snip>
Post by Michael
And you know what?
Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to you with
an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They aren't going to allow
their minds to be changed... not by "moral relativism" and not by facts.
Until the "anti" or someone close to him/her gets a nasty, iincurrable
disease.
That will change their minds. Then, all of the sudden, the "morals"
of stem cell research will look different.
The logic, the arguments, the rhetoric; none of that matters until it
becomes a persoanl issure.
And, if somebody does have an incurable diesease and is still an
"anti," I'd bet my last thin dime that the anti is in remission.
Sylvia
Sylvia,

your points are well taken. A little self experience by doctors will
do wonders for developing insight of what some patients endure while
being treated.

I can't remember the name of the doctor who some years ago suffered a
very painful inflamed neural condition, possibly a viral infection of
some sort, that immobilized him and kept him in excruciating pain for
quite some time. Up to that point he had ever been the guardian of
patients by not prescribing what he felt to be excessive pain
medication in the belief that he might contribute to getting patients
addicted. After his recovery, he became an advocate for patients such
seeking relief from pain. In more recent times, his enlightening
experience has led to a whole different approach to controlling pain
and assuring that patients in need could safely be so treated. Even
the government watchdogs have changed their once restrictive oversight
policy with regards to a doctor's treatment of patients in pain.

Donn
Alan Mackenzie
2004-11-20 18:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
Michael;
Post by Michael
And you know what?
Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to you
with an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They aren't
going to allow their minds to be changed... not by "moral relativism"
and not by facts.
Until the "anti" or someone close to him/her gets a nasty, iincurrable
disease.
Does T1 diabetes count as a nasty incurable disease? If so, then I'm
qualified to speak up, having had it for 39 years, so far.
Post by Sylvia
That will change their minds. Then, all of the sudden, the "morals"
of stem cell research will look different.
I take it we're talking about using stem cells taken from human embryos.
I'm not of one mind about the morals. Curing nasty diseases is a very
strong moral imperative. But so is respecting human life and others'
boundaries. An embryo is not able to consent to having cells taken out
of it.

And, supposing effective treatments using these cells were developed,
where are the embryos to supply these cells to come from? "Spare"
embryos from infertility treatment? Hmmm. Would there be enough? Or
would far more embryos end up being created "just to be sure"? Or could
the cells be taken from aborted foetuses? I'm not opposed to abortion as
such, but I'm wary of the (financial?) pressure that could be put on
women to have an abortion for this purpose.

Or, would embryos end up being created in mass production, from donated
(sold?) gametes? I find this prospect repugnant.

Are we on a slippery slope, here? I fear we are. Already, American and
European governments have begun violating the bodily privacy of their
citizens for surveillance purposes. Is there to be _any_ boundary,
over which the powerful may not step?
Post by Sylvia
The logic, the arguments, the rhetoric; none of that matters until it
becomes a personal issue.
The next question you're probably intending to put is "You'd use this
treatment if it were developed, despite your so-call high moral stance,
wouldn't you?". So I'll answer it now. Yes, I probably would. But I
think I'd feel uneasy about it, and would probably go on feeling uneasy
about it for the rest of my life.
Post by Sylvia
And, if somebody does have an incurable diesease and is still an
"anti," I'd bet my last thin dime that the anti is in remission.
Sylvia
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: ***@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
Michael
2004-11-20 20:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Sylvia
Michael;
Post by Michael
And you know what?
Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to
you with an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They
aren't going to allow their minds to be changed... not by "moral
relativism" and not by facts.
Until the "anti" or someone close to him/her gets a nasty,
iincurrable disease.
Does T1 diabetes count as a nasty incurable disease? If so, then I'm
qualified to speak up, having had it for 39 years, so far.
Yes, it does. Islet cells have beene successfully been grown in
therapeutically useful quantities from "embryonic" stem cells. Want some?
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Sylvia
That will change their minds. Then, all of the sudden, the "morals"
of stem cell research will look different.
I take it we're talking about using stem cells taken from human
embryos. I'm not of one mind about the morals. Curing nasty diseases
is a very strong moral imperative. But so is respecting human life
and others' boundaries. An embryo is not able to consent to having
cells taken out of it.
A blastocyst (not really even an embryo, technically) is nothing but a tiny
collection of cells... no more and no less sentient than a fungal or
bacterial culture.

Women all over the world naturally abort and shed normally-conceived and
growing blastocysts tens of millions of times a month, and there are untold
millions more in fertility-clinic cryo storage that will never be given a
chance to become "human life". Get over it.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
And, supposing effective treatments using these cells were developed,
where are the embryos to supply these cells to come from? "Spare"
embryos from infertility treatment? Hmmm. Would there be enough?
Yes, there would. More than enough by far.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Or would far more embryos end up being created "just to be sure"?
They already are.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Or could the cells be taken from aborted foetuses?
I'm not opposed to
abortion as such, but I'm wary of the (financial?) pressure that
could be put on women to have an abortion for this purpose.
Not even remotely likely. They have to be taken from blastocysts in the
<150 cell stage... long before any potential donor could possibly even know
she's pregnant.

Besides that, in order to take them from women after fertilization, they'd
have to be surgically found (not impossible, but incredibly difficult) and
removed. That's why the responsible and economical source is fertility
clinic "extras".
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Or, would embryos end up being created in mass production, from
donated (sold?) gametes? I find this prospect repugnant.
That's entirely possible, but unlikely in the extreme, considering the
number actually needed.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Are we on a slippery slope, here?
All unintended reference to reproductive anatomy aside... it's not a
slippery anything.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
I fear we are. Already, American
and European governments have begun violating the bodily privacy of
their citizens for surveillance purposes. Is there to be _any_
boundary,
over which the powerful may not step?
Actually, no. There isn't. It has always been that way. What does that
have to do with blastocyst cells?
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Sylvia
The logic, the arguments, the rhetoric; none of that matters until it
becomes a personal issue.
The next question you're probably intending to put is "You'd use this
treatment if it were developed, despite your so-call high moral
stance, wouldn't you?". So I'll answer it now. Yes, I probably
would. But I think I'd feel uneasy about it, and would probably go
on feeling uneasy about it for the rest of my life.
That's silly. Regrets and guilt are wasted energy and change nothing but
your mood.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Sylvia
And, if somebody does have an incurable diesease and is still an
"anti," I'd bet my last thin dime that the anti is in remission.
Sylvia
Besq
2004-11-20 20:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Sylvia
Michael;
Post by Michael
And you know what?
Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to you
with an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They aren't
going to allow their minds to be changed... not by "moral relativism"
and not by facts.
Until the "anti" or someone close to him/her gets a nasty, iincurrable
disease.
Does T1 diabetes count as a nasty incurable disease? If so, then I'm
qualified to speak up, having had it for 39 years, so far.
Post by Sylvia
That will change their minds. Then, all of the sudden, the "morals"
of stem cell research will look different.
I take it we're talking about using stem cells taken from human embryos.
I'm not of one mind about the morals. Curing nasty diseases is a very
strong moral imperative. But so is respecting human life and others'
boundaries. An embryo is not able to consent to having cells taken out
of it.
And, supposing effective treatments using these cells were developed,
where are the embryos to supply these cells to come from? "Spare"
embryos from infertility treatment? Hmmm. Would there be enough? Or
would far more embryos end up being created "just to be sure"? Or could
the cells be taken from aborted foetuses? I'm not opposed to abortion as
such, but I'm wary of the (financial?) pressure that could be put on
women to have an abortion for this purpose.
Or, would embryos end up being created in mass production, from donated
(sold?) gametes? I find this prospect repugnant.
Are we on a slippery slope, here? I fear we are. Already, American and
European governments have begun violating the bodily privacy of their
citizens for surveillance purposes. Is there to be _any_ boundary,
over which the powerful may not step?
Post by Sylvia
The logic, the arguments, the rhetoric; none of that matters until it
becomes a personal issue.
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby? That comes too close to
cannibalism. Life at all costs? When its time to die, its time to die with
dignity. As a nation we've become so selfish anything is acceptable. If we
have famine, I don't doubt we'll demand the dead be used as food and its
only one step from killing the "less valuable" for food.
I also have an incurable disease, I expect to die one day. I'm not going to
shrill that a baby die to keep me alive.
In the '50s life here was good. Now in this day and age, I won't be
reluctant to leave this world and the ugly people in it.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
The next question you're probably intending to put is "You'd use this
treatment if it were developed, despite your so-call high moral stance,
wouldn't you?". So I'll answer it now. Yes, I probably would. But I
think I'd feel uneasy about it, and would probably go on feeling uneasy
about it for the rest of my life.
Post by Sylvia
And, if somebody does have an incurable diesease and is still an
"anti," I'd bet my last thin dime that the anti is in remission.
Sylvia
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
KKT
2004-11-20 20:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Besq
Post by Sylvia
The logic, the arguments, the rhetoric; none of that matters until it
becomes a personal issue.
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby? That comes too close to
Explain to me what using a group of cells, less than a week old, has
to do with a baby?
Post by Besq
cannibalism. Life at all costs? When its time to die, its time to die with
dignity. As a nation we've become so selfish anything is acceptable. If we
have famine, I don't doubt we'll demand the dead be used as food and its
only one step from killing the "less valuable" for food.
I also have an incurable disease, I expect to die one day. I'm
not going to shrill that a baby die to keep me alive.
In the '50s life here was good. Now in this day and age, I won't be
reluctant to leave this world and the ugly people in it.
Again, WHAT baby? These are fertilized eggs that have never been
implanted in a woman and WILL NEVER be implanted in a woman. They're
produced by in vitro fertilization and will either be discarded or
used for research.

I don't think you understand the technology well enough to comment
on it. But if you're interested, you'll find more information here:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/

KKT
Tiger Lily
2004-11-20 21:16:24 UTC
Permalink
i wonder how Besq feels about my neighbour who destroyed 30 fertilized eggs
because she had 'made her family' and didn't want anymore children

should she have been 'required' to have those fertilized eggs implanted,
carry the babies to term and then adopt them out????

which is the travesty here??

i fully support use of 'left over' fertilized eggs to further stem cell
research...... take the eggs out of the freezer and put them to good
use..... far better than tossing the tube of fertilized eggs into the
garbage!

Bewq doesn't have a chronic disease.... that shows......
alzheimers
cerebral palsy
cystic fibrosis
multiple sclerosis
need i go on?
Post by KKT
Post by Besq
Post by Sylvia
The logic, the arguments, the rhetoric; none of that matters until it
becomes a personal issue.
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby? That comes too close to
Explain to me what using a group of cells, less than a week old, has
to do with a baby?
Post by Besq
cannibalism. Life at all costs? When its time to die, its time to die with
dignity. As a nation we've become so selfish anything is acceptable.
If we
Post by KKT
Post by Besq
have famine, I don't doubt we'll demand the dead be used as food and its
only one step from killing the "less valuable" for food.
I also have an incurable disease, I expect to die one day. I'm
not going to shrill that a baby die to keep me alive.
In the '50s life here was good. Now in this day and age, I won't be
reluctant to leave this world and the ugly people in it.
Again, WHAT baby? These are fertilized eggs that have never been
implanted in a woman and WILL NEVER be implanted in a woman. They're
produced by in vitro fertilization and will either be discarded or
used for research.
I don't think you understand the technology well enough to comment
http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/
KKT
Mack®
2004-11-23 07:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tiger Lily
i wonder how Besq feels about my neighbour who destroyed 30 fertilized eggs
because she had 'made her family' and didn't want anymore children
should she have been 'required' to have those fertilized eggs implanted,
carry the babies to term and then adopt them out????
which is the travesty here??
i fully support use of 'left over' fertilized eggs to further stem cell
research...... take the eggs out of the freezer and put them to good
use..... far better than tossing the tube of fertilized eggs into the
garbage!
Bewq doesn't have a chronic disease.... that shows......
alzheimers
cerebral palsy
cystic fibrosis
multiple sclerosis
need i go on?
Post by KKT
Post by Besq
Post by Sylvia
The logic, the arguments, the rhetoric; none of that matters until it
becomes a personal issue.
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby? That comes too close to
Explain to me what using a group of cells, less than a week old, has
to do with a baby?
Post by Besq
cannibalism. Life at all costs? When its time to die, its time to die
with
Post by KKT
Post by Besq
dignity. As a nation we've become so selfish anything is acceptable.
If we
Post by KKT
Post by Besq
have famine, I don't doubt we'll demand the dead be used as food and its
only one step from killing the "less valuable" for food.
I also have an incurable disease, I expect to die one day. I'm
not going to shrill that a baby die to keep me alive.
In the '50s life here was good. Now in this day and age, I won't be
reluctant to leave this world and the ugly people in it.
so I guess those plain crash survivors in the andes are terrible
people who should be punished because they survived only through
cannibalism.

they must be truly evil people to have survived and refused to just
accept death by starvation. wait a minute most of them were teens on
a soccer team. was it because they were teens or were soccer players
that they were so evil?

now stop cross posting
Post by Tiger Lily
Post by KKT
Again, WHAT baby? These are fertilized eggs that have never been
implanted in a woman and WILL NEVER be implanted in a woman. They're
produced by in vitro fertilization and will either be discarded or
used for research.
I don't think you understand the technology well enough to comment
http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/
KKT
Alan
2004-11-20 22:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Besq
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby? That comes too close to
cannibalism.
It also comes too close to pure drivel and is a good illustration of the
sort of emotional nonsense spouted on this subject. An embryo is not a
baby. Shades of Monty Python and "Every sperm is sacred".

I have no ethical, moral or conceptual problems whatsoever in
transforming a four-day old embryo to save human life.

In the research in Australia detailed in
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Science/Free-stem-cells-on-offer-for-research/2004/11/15/1100384495237.html

"Human embryonic stem cells are taken from a four-day-old embryo as a
mass of about 100 cells with the ability to become any type of cell in
the body."

Also, from
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Health/Diabetes-unit-wins-first-stem-cells-licence/2004/11/16/1100574469696.html

"Emeritus Professor Doug Saunders of IVF Australia said couples who had
completed their families often asked if they could donate their excess
IVF embryos to research.

Sydney IVF was the first company to gain a licence to extract embryonic
stem cells, in April this year, and obtained the first Australian stem
cell line in June. Melbourne IVF, with the Melbourne company Stem Cell
Sciences, was awarded a licence in June."


Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
mike gray
2004-11-21 16:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by Besq
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby? That comes too close to
cannibalism.
It also comes too close to pure drivel and is a good illustration of the
sort of emotional nonsense spouted on this subject. An embryo is not a
baby. Shades of Monty Python and "Every sperm is sacred".
I have no ethical, moral or conceptual problems whatsoever in
transforming a four-day old embryo to save human life.
But transforming a four-day old embryo to save human life is not the
question here. It has never been done and prolly never will be.

Do you have any ethical, moral or conceptual problems whatsoever in
transforming a four-day old embryo to a profitable product in the hope
market?
Nico Kadel-Garcia
2004-11-21 00:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Besq
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby? That comes too close to
cannibalism. Life at all costs? When its time to die, its time to die with
dignity. As a nation we've become so selfish anything is acceptable. If we
have famine, I don't doubt we'll demand the dead be used as food and its
only one step from killing the "less valuable" for food.
I also have an incurable disease, I expect to die one day. I'm not going to
shrill that a baby die to keep me alive.
In the '50s life here was good. Now in this day and age, I won't be
reluctant to leave this world and the ugly people in it.
Save my life, give me food from real living plants that might have feelings?
Or save that infant with deceased parents by stealing milk from a cow, who
didn't exactly agree to the process?

You seem to have completely forgotten the racism, sexism, and tacit or
explicit condoning of physical abuse that were rampant in the 50's.
Tadley
2004-11-21 13:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Besq
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby? That comes too close to
cannibalism. Life at all costs? When its time to die, its time to die with
dignity. As a nation we've become so selfish anything is acceptable. If we
have famine, I don't doubt we'll demand the dead be used as food and its
only one step from killing the "less valuable" for food.
I also have an incurable disease, I expect to die one day. I'm not going to
shrill that a baby die to keep me alive.
In the '50s life here was good. Now in this day and age, I won't be
reluctant to leave this world and the ugly people in it.
Listen here you nutjob, nobody wants to kill a baby.
We are talking about EMBRYOS from FERTILITY CLINICS that will simply
be disposed of anyway.
If you consider that a baby, I pity you...
How you get cannibalism from using something that's just going to be
thrown out to save a life or cure a disease is beyond me!
If it wasn't for ignorant people like you, Bush wouldn't have ever
been elected and the state of the world would be much better now.
Cecil B. Truthteller
2004-11-21 22:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tadley
Post by Besq
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby? That comes too close to
cannibalism.
Listen here you nutjob, nobody wants to kill a baby.
Well you are killing babies, woudl you kill your own child for those
"stem cells"? Because you, are killing somebody else's child.
Post by Tadley
We are talking about EMBRYOS from FERTILITY CLINICS that will simply
be disposed of anyway.
They don't have to be, but stem cell mad scientists tell people LIES
to fool them into doing that. Maybe that embryo that you use for
"stem cells," it could become a baby that some other family could
adopt? There is no argument here, the Bible says that life begins at
conception, and after conception and embryo there's a baby there. No
exceptions. The only people who disagree are scientists, with twisted
minds who don't care about the awful things they're doing.

The US is a Christian country, you scientists don't belong here. Get
out. There are plenty of traitors like you in France and Germany,
maybe you scientists should considering moving there because, we're
not going to tolerate your disgusting acts and lies in this land
anymore. Time to leave.

Cecil B. Truthteller

"Pray that the United States honors God's COVENANT with Israel."
Michael
2004-11-21 22:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
Post by Tadley
Post by Besq
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby? That comes too close to
cannibalism.
Listen here you nutjob, nobody wants to kill a baby.
Well you are killing babies, woudl you kill your own child for those
"stem cells"? Because you, are killing somebody else's child.
Walk your talk or be quiet, you idiot.

Arrest, prosecute and execute (for the crime of negligent homicide) every
woman who menstruates within 4 days after unprotected intercourse. They're
killing their own children.
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
Post by Tadley
We are talking about EMBRYOS from FERTILITY CLINICS that will simply
be disposed of anyway.
They don't have to be, but stem cell mad scientists tell people LIES
to fool them into doing that. Maybe that embryo that you use for
"stem cells," it could become a baby that some other family could
adopt?
There are hundreds of millions of them already in storage. Do you have
hundreds of millions of prospective adopters?
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
There is no argument here, the Bible says that life begins at
conception, and after conception and embryo there's a baby there.
The Bible doesn't say any such thing. The people who wrote it didn't even
know what conception *is*.
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
No
exceptions. The only people who disagree are scientists, with twisted
minds who don't care about the awful things they're doing.
I'm not a scientist. I'm just an independent, thinking human being. I
can tell the difference between genuine concern over an issue and blind
adherence to dogma. You, sir, are a blind dogmatist... and you're not even
an intelligent or well-read one.
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
The US is a Christian country, you scientists don't belong here. Get
out. There are plenty of traitors like you in France and Germany,
maybe you scientists should considering moving there because, we're
not going to tolerate your disgusting acts and lies in this land
anymore. Time to leave.
Fine.

They can take the entire US economy - almost all of it the result of
scientific research in one form or another - along with them when they
leave... and you and your ilk can freeze in the dark, hunt with sharpened
branches, eat raw meat, and clean your assholes with twigs and bark every
time you shit.
CW
2004-11-21 22:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
The US is a Christian country, you scientists don't belong here. Get
out. There are plenty of traitors like you in France and Germany,
maybe you scientists should considering moving there because, we're
not going to tolerate your disgusting acts and lies in this land
anymore. Time to leave.
Cecil B. Truthteller
"Pray that the United States honors God's COVENANT with Israel."
CBT,

There are plenty of religious scientists in the US and elsewhere. Several
that I know about are working on stem cell research. Your note reads like
the ravings of those you attack. Alas, your nom de 'net should have tipped
everyone off that you are a troll. That's your trollbiscuit for the day,
now into the killfile you go.
Cecil B. Truthteller
2004-11-24 23:34:35 UTC
Permalink
"CW" <***@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<629od.31043$***@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
There are plenty of religious scientists in the US and elsewhere.
Several
Post by CW
that I know about are working on stem cell research. Your note reads like
the ravings of those you attack. Alas, your nom de 'net should have tipped
everyone off that you are a troll. That's your trollbiscuit for the day,
now into the killfile you go.
If they are scientists they are not truly religious, they, are false
Christians who understand nothing of what they claim to believe.
Scientists are an abbomination to God's law, they kill babies for fun
and then claim that they are helping people. Frankensteins who now
claim that they can kill babies to get stem cells, and tell lies like
evolution and poison our children. They, are a plague to this
Christian country.

You scientists, dont seem to get it, so I will be tell it more
starkly-- the US, Britain and Australia, we are all Christian allies
and we don't want you here. You scientists go against God's law, you
kill babies, you teach our children lies and you need to leave.
France and Germany also insult God's law by trying to block God's
covenant with Israel and halt the rapture with their treachery, but we
Christian allies are far more powerful than all their foolish attempts
to stop us, and Israel will receive the territory from the great Nile
in Egypt to the Euphrates in Iraq that God promised in Genesis. You
scientists and all the other traitors should join the other traitors
in France and Germany, only a traitor can live with a traitor. We
will make sure that you leave if you do not leave on your own. You
have overstayed your welcome here.

Cecil B. Truthteller

"Pagan India must be crushed. We must liberate the Christians of
Nagaland from the yoke of Hindu tyranny. Nagaland will be free."
Alan
2004-11-25 01:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
You scientists, dont seem to get it, so I will be tell it more
starkly-- the US, Britain and Australia, we are all Christian allies
and we don't want you here.
Where? Thank goodness, you can include us out of that lot in that sense.
Into the kf with you, better late than never.


Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
Mack®
2004-11-25 17:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by CW
There are plenty of religious scientists in the US and elsewhere.
Several
Post by CW
that I know about are working on stem cell research. Your note reads like
the ravings of those you attack. Alas, your nom de 'net should have tipped
everyone off that you are a troll. That's your trollbiscuit for the day,
now into the killfile you go.
If they are scientists they are not truly religious, they, are false
Christians who understand nothing of what they claim to believe.
ahh another nutter who would be better off living during the time of
salem witch trials or the inquisition.
Post by CW
Scientists are an abbomination to God's law, they kill babies for fun
and then claim that they are helping people. Frankensteins who now
claim that they can kill babies to get stem cells, and tell lies like
evolution and poison our children. They, are a plague to this
Christian country.
You scientists, dont seem to get it, so I will be tell it more
starkly-- the US, Britain and Australia, we are all Christian allies
and we don't want you here. You scientists go against God's law, you
kill babies, you teach our children lies and you need to leave.
France and Germany also insult God's law by trying to block God's
covenant with Israel and halt the rapture with their treachery, but we
Christian allies are far more powerful than all their foolish attempts
to stop us, and Israel will receive the territory from the great Nile
in Egypt to the Euphrates in Iraq that God promised in Genesis. You
scientists and all the other traitors should join the other traitors
in France and Germany, only a traitor can live with a traitor. We
will make sure that you leave if you do not leave on your own. You
have overstayed your welcome here.
Cecil B. Truthteller
"Pagan India must be crushed. We must liberate the Christians of
Nagaland from the yoke of Hindu tyranny. Nagaland will be free."
Michael
2004-11-25 17:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
If they are scientists they are not truly religious, they, are false
Christians who understand nothing of what they claim to believe.
Scientists are an abbomination to God's law,
Their works must be abomoinations as well, then.

Science brought you the internet, and it brought you most of the materials
from which your home and clothing are made.

It's all an abomination to God's law... so your soul is in mortal peril for
participating in this forum and not living in a cave, wearing nothing but
skins and bark.

Go back to the dawn of agriculture where you belong.
Wes
2004-11-23 01:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
Post by Tadley
Post by Besq
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby? That comes too close to
cannibalism.
Listen here you nutjob, nobody wants to kill a baby.
Well you are killing babies, woudl you kill your own child for those
"stem cells"? Because you, are killing somebody else's child.
Post by Tadley
We are talking about EMBRYOS from FERTILITY CLINICS that will simply
be disposed of anyway.
They don't have to be, but stem cell mad scientists tell people LIES
to fool them into doing that. Maybe that embryo that you use for
"stem cells," it could become a baby that some other family could
adopt? There is no argument here, the Bible says that life begins at
conception, and after conception and embryo there's a baby there.
The Bible *does not* say that you idiot, anywhere in its pages-- like
many other fundy extremists you cite the Bible to vomit up all your
verbal bile, when you probably couldn't cite a chapter or verse within
a mile of accuracy. Either that, or you cherry-pick to such an extent
that you ignore the importance of context. You give real Christians
like me and my friends (you know, the ones who actually take seriously
all the stuff in the NT about loving your neighbor, fighting for peace
and social justice, and playing the role of the Good Samaritan) a bad
name.
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
The US is a Christian country, you scientists don't belong here. Get
out. There are plenty of traitors like you in France and Germany,
maybe you scientists should considering moving there because, we're
not going to tolerate your disgusting acts and lies in this land
anymore. Time to leave.
Well we just might do that, and then you'll get a nice spot-on lesson
on being careful what you wish for. Because of clodheads like you in
fact this is already happening, and France and Germany and quite a few
other countries are marveling at our unexpected largesse and reveling
in their unexpected windfall as research enterprises from here migrate
to over there. The entire basis of the US as a modern, technological
economic bellwether lies in our research enterprise, which you and
your ilk are aggressively undermining at every turn. You and your Tom
Delay clones in the halls of power have managed to cut non-defense
research spending (like NIH funding) drastically and are continuing to
pile on the cuts. Considering that we're frittering away $5-6 billion
*per week* on Iraq (along with untold billions on other inglorious
pork barrels) while cutting revenues ever more dramatically, our
deficit's soon going to pass $1 trillion, which will probably lead to
the slashing of funding for all research except bigger and badder
nuclear weapons (which your ilk seem to get so many wet dreams about).

The only reason we haven't collapsed to the level of a 3rd-world
banana republic is that China and Japan have been buying up our
T-bills like a kid in a cotton candy store, but they're not gonna
finance our debt forever. We're now practically an economic colony of
those two countries (and the Saudis, who've also been on the T-bill
buying spree) and the piper eventually gets paid. When he does, half
the professionals in this place will have already put the shingles on
their office doors in Paris or Munich to escape the sh*t-hitting-fan
scenario when we learn that it's not so easy to repay a $25 trillion
debt.
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
Cecil B. Truthteller
"Pray that the United States honors God's COVENANT with Israel."
WTF does this mean???

Wes
Michael
2004-11-23 01:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wes
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
"Pray that the United States honors God's COVENANT with Israel."
WTF does this mean???
Shows what *you* know about the Bible.

It means the Dome may need to be destroyed, it means the Temple must be
rebuilt, and it means 2/3 of all Jews must die (Zechariah 13:8)... because
only then can the Rapture begin.
Alan
2004-11-23 03:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by Wes
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
"Pray that the United States honors God's COVENANT with Israel."
WTF does this mean???
Shows what *you* know about the Bible.
It means the Dome may need to be destroyed, it means the Temple must be
rebuilt, and it means 2/3 of all Jews must die (Zechariah 13:8)... because
only then can the Rapture begin.
Can anyone tell me if there is a religious equivalent to Godwin's law?
Something to the effect that any discussion dealing with cutting edge
scientific medical research will eventually descend to chapter and verse
quotes from the bible?

At which point any similarity the discussion may have had to logical
debate evaporates.


Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
Michael
2004-11-23 02:28:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:48:36 -0800, "Michael"
Post by Michael
Post by Wes
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
"Pray that the United States honors God's COVENANT with Israel."
WTF does this mean???
Shows what *you* know about the Bible.
It means the Dome may need to be destroyed, it means the Temple must
be rebuilt, and it means 2/3 of all Jews must die (Zechariah
13:8)... because only then can the Rapture begin.
Can anyone tell me if there is a religious equivalent to Godwin's law?
I know of none, but I approve entirely of the one you've suggested.

I move we call it "Alan's Law" and adopt it.

Is there a second?
Something to the effect that any discussion dealing with cutting edge
scientific medical research will eventually descend to chapter and
verse quotes from the bible?
At which point any similarity the discussion may have had to logical
debate evaporates.
Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
KKT
2004-11-23 04:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by Alan
Post by Michael
Post by Wes
Post by Cecil B. Truthteller
"Pray that the United States honors God's COVENANT with Israel."
WTF does this mean???
Shows what *you* know about the Bible.
It means the Dome may need to be destroyed, it means the Temple must
be rebuilt, and it means 2/3 of all Jews must die (Zechariah
13:8)... because only then can the Rapture begin.
Can anyone tell me if there is a religious equivalent to Godwin's law?
I know of none, but I approve entirely of the one you've suggested.
I move we call it "Alan's Law" and adopt it.
Is there a second?
OK. I'll second. To restate:

Alan's Law says that "Any discussion dealing with cutting edge
scientific medical research will eventually descend to chapter and
verse quotes from the Bible" or, more succinctly...

"Any discussion dealing with science will eventually descend to
chapter and verse quotes from the Bible."

When that happens, someone shall declare the Age of Enlightenment
officially "over" and someone else shall commence arguing that the
bridge that Clinton and Gore built to the 21st century should have
been made one-way.

Does that work for you, Michael? ;-)

Kathie
Herman Rubin
2004-11-24 17:39:16 UTC
Permalink
..................
Post by KKT
Post by Michael
I move we call it "Alan's Law" and adopt it.
Is there a second?
Alan's Law says that "Any discussion dealing with cutting edge
scientific medical research will eventually descend to chapter and
verse quotes from the Bible" or, more succinctly...
"Any discussion dealing with science will eventually descend to
chapter and verse quotes from the Bible."
When that happens, someone shall declare the Age of Enlightenment
officially "over" and someone else shall commence arguing that the
bridge that Clinton and Gore built to the 21st century should have
been made one-way.
Does that work for you, Michael? ;-)
I agree with all except that Clinton and Gore built the
bridge; I think it was build despite them, and despite
the efforts of at least 95% of government officials and
an even larger proportion of the bureaucrats.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Alan
2004-11-23 06:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
I know of none, but I approve entirely of the one you've suggested.
I move we call it "Alan's Law" and adopt it.
Is there a second?
Please, please - any name but that. There may be some things I'd like to
be remembered for (and many more things I'd prefer forgotten:-) but
that's certainly not what I want as my epitaph.

How about "Chavers Law" - for chapter and verse.


Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
Alan Mackenzie
2004-11-23 07:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Can anyone tell me if there is a religious equivalent to Godwin's law?
Something to the effect that any discussion dealing with cutting edge
scientific medical research will eventually descend to chapter and
verse quotes from the bible?
Actually, Alan, chapter and verse from the bible wouldn't be too bad.
It's when we get C&V from the religious bigots' tiraders that things
ought to be stopped.

"A whip is for the horse, a bridle is for the ass, and the rod is for the
back of stupid people. Do not answer anyone stupid according to his
foolishness, that you yourself also may not become equal to him."
Proverbs 26:3-4.
Post by Alan
Alan
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: ***@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
Alan
2004-11-23 09:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Alan
Can anyone tell me if there is a religious equivalent to Godwin's law?
Something to the effect that any discussion dealing with cutting edge
scientific medical research will eventually descend to chapter and
verse quotes from the bible?
Actually, Alan, chapter and verse from the bible wouldn't be too bad.
It's when we get C&V from the religious bigots' tiraders that things
ought to be stopped.
"A whip is for the horse, a bridle is for the ass, and the rod is for the
back of stupid people. Do not answer anyone stupid according to his
foolishness, that you yourself also may not become equal to him."
Proverbs 26:3-4.
Post by Alan
Alan
Hi Alan (in Germany)

Thx ; I was looking for something like that - good one:-)

Cheers, Alan (in Oz)
--
Wes Groleau
2004-11-24 03:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Mackenzie
"A whip is for the horse, a bridle is for the ass, and the rod is for the
back of stupid people. Do not answer anyone stupid according to his
foolishness, that you yourself also may not become equal to him."
Proverbs 26:3-4.
Can you give us verse five in the same version?
--
Wes Groleau
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent ^
^ of a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets ^
^ surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like ^
^ Heinlein or Dr. Who. ^
^ -- Chris Maeda ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alan Mackenzie
2004-11-24 19:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wes Groleau
Post by Alan Mackenzie
"A whip is for the horse, a bridle is for the ass, and the rod is for
the back of stupid people. Do not answer anyone stupid according to
his foolishness, that you yourself also may not become equal to him."
Proverbs 26:3-4.
Can you give us verse five in the same version?
I could, but the irony would be too pointed. ;-)
Post by Wes Groleau
Wes Groleau
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: ***@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
Sylvia
2004-11-24 02:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Besq
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby?
Kill WHAT baby?

We are talking about cells that a fertility clinic is going to ghrow
away; cells that have never been in a woman's body.

These are NOT abortions. Get it?

That comes too close to
Post by Besq
cannibalism. Life at all costs? When its time to die, its time to die with
dignity. As a nation we've become so selfish anything is acceptable. If we
have famine, I don't doubt we'll demand the dead be used as food and its
only one step from killing the "less valuable" for food.
Now that is the dumbest argument I've heard yet. Jumping from the use
of clumps of cells that will be discarded to using people for food.
Post by Besq
I also have an incurable disease, I expect to die one day. I'm not going to
shrill that a baby die to keep me alive.
Nobody's talking about babies! Abortions will not be used; got it?
Post by Besq
In the '50s life here was good. Now in this day and age, I won't be
reluctant to leave this world and the ugly people in it.
Life in the 50s was good, if you were male, white, and lived in one of
the developed countries. But that's another subject.

Sylvia
Tim
2004-11-24 11:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
Post by Besq
In other words, save MY life, kill a baby?
Kill WHAT baby?
We are talking about cells that a fertility clinic is going to ghrow
away; cells that have never been in a woman's body.
These are NOT abortions. Get it?
That comes too close to
Post by Besq
cannibalism. Life at all costs? When its time to die, its time to die with
dignity. As a nation we've become so selfish anything is acceptable. If we
have famine, I don't doubt we'll demand the dead be used as food and its
only one step from killing the "less valuable" for food.
Now that is the dumbest argument I've heard yet. Jumping from the use
of clumps of cells that will be discarded to using people for food.
Post by Besq
I also have an incurable disease, I expect to die one day. I'm not going to
shrill that a baby die to keep me alive.
Nobody's talking about babies! Abortions will not be used; got it?
Post by Besq
In the '50s life here was good. Now in this day and age, I won't be
reluctant to leave this world and the ugly people in it.
Life in the 50s was good, if you were male, white, and lived in one of
the developed countries. But that's another subject.
Sylvia
I realise that life has to end at one point and I think that everybody
accepts that. Using stem cells and all other forms of research is
abojut poroviding as good a situation as possible before that end
comes. I also do not believe that a lump of cells can be called a
human but I also know that this area is at best a little foggy in its
use of definitions that not all subscribe to. I do not believe that a
life has to die to help mine. These are a groups of cells that the
clinics throw away, onto the rubbish heap. If they are going to be
thrown away anyway, why not use them for a positive purpose. Help
people who would really like the help. This is a very sensitive area
causing emotons to run high. In my own opinion I wish that people
would just say thankyou to those willing to explore the possibilities.
Specialsearcher
2004-11-20 22:48:52 UTC
Permalink
"But so is respecting human life and others'
boundaries. An embryo is not able to consent to having cells taken out
of it."

Mother nature aborts babies all the time around the world. I guess you never
heard of Miscarriage huh?
Michael
2004-11-20 23:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Specialsearcher
"But so is respecting human life and others'
boundaries. An embryo is not able to consent to having cells taken out
of it."
Mother nature aborts babies all the time around the world. I guess
you never heard of Miscarriage huh?
Nevermind "miscarriage" (which is about post-implantation embryos being cast
off for one reason or another.)

As I keep saying (and as I will keep saying until I'm blue in the face,)
women shed fertilized eggs and blastocysts all the time without implantation
ever occurring. Does anyone cry over the "negligent homicide" of such
women not providing proper conditions for implantation?

No, they don't... and if anyone did, they'd logically have to call almost
half a billion women "killers". I can see that one flying just like the
proverbial lead balloon.

So, tell me... exactly (and I mean explain it fully so an idiot like me can
completely understand it,) what is the big deal about putting the equivalent
of just such cast-off tissue to some *use*... especially if that use is of
some real benefit to humanity?
Sylvia
2004-11-22 00:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Alan;
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Does T1 diabetes count as a nasty incurable disease? If so, then I'm
qualified to speak up, having had it for 39 years, so far.
Yes, Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmuine disease that research with
embryonic stem cells will be donoe on.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Post by Sylvia
That will change their minds. Then, all of the sudden, the "morals"
of stem cell research will look different.
I take it we're talking about using stem cells taken from human embryos.
I'm not of one mind about the morals. Curing nasty diseases is a very
strong moral imperative. But so is respecting human life and others'
boundaries. An embryo is not able to consent to having cells taken out
of it.
These are not embryos. These are cells taken from fertility clinics
that will be thrown out. We are NOT talking about aborted fetuses.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
And, supposing effective treatments using these cells were developed,
where are the embryos to supply these cells to come from? "Spare"
embryos from infertility treatment? Hmmm. Would there be enough? Or
would far more embryos end up being created "just to be sur>
Or could
the cells be taken from aborted foetuses?
NO!

Read that the National Institue of Health has to say about it:

"Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from
embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos
that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in
vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes
with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs
fertilized in a woman's body."

Read that last sentence again: "NOT derived from eggs fertilized in a
woman's body."

In other words, these are NOT abortions.

I'm not opposed to abortion as
Post by Alan Mackenzie
such, but I'm wary of the (financial?) pressure that could be put on
women to have an abortion for this purpose.
Will not happen because abortions are NOT used.

Worry instead about pregant women "talked into" giving their babies up
for adoption. I know two young, single women who were urged to give
up their babies for the babies' "own good." Both refused, and both
are succssfully raising their children.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Or, would embryos end up being created in mass production, from donated
(sold?) gametes? I find this prospect repugnant.
So do I, but it's not going to happen. The fertility clinis have
enough "extras." I personally know a woman who went the fertility
cliinic route in an attempt to have a child. After two unsuccessful
tries (ten thousand dollars a try not covered by insurance), she gave
up and adpoted a baby.

When she told them she was giving up, they "discared" her fertilized
eggs.
Post by Alan Mackenzie
Are we on a slippery slope, here? I fear we are. Already, American and
European governments have begun violating the bodily privacy of their
citizens for surveillance purposes. Is there to be _any_ boundary,
over which the powerful may not step?
Post by Sylvia
The logic, the arguments, the rhetoric; none of that matters until it
becomes a personal issue.
The next question you're probably intending to put is "You'd use this
treatment if it were developed, despite your so-call high moral stance,
wouldn't you?". So I'll answer it now. Yes, I probably would. But I
think I'd feel uneasy about it, and would probably go on feeling uneasy
about it for the rest of my life.
You are very honest here, and you answered just as I expected. If we
were given the chance to cure these diseases with embryonic stem
cells, we would take it.

Sylvia
OrionCA
2004-11-20 07:08:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:52:27 -0800, "Michael"
Post by Michael
live every single day)... a disease for which embryonic stem-cell research
hold some promise of cure or effective treatment, and you won't need my
opinions or anyone else's. You'll have an excuse all your own to scream
about it with full justification and righteous indignation at the tops of
your lungs.
And you know what?
Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to you with
an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They aren't going to allow
their minds to be changed... not by "moral relativism" and not by facts.
While there are some lab experiments showing promise there are
significant drawbacks to using embryonic stem cells in any kind of
therapy. The worst of these is that transplanted stem cells suffer
from the same tissue rejection problem as ANY implanted foreign
bodies. Adult stem cells are more promising in this regard as they
are harvested from the patient himself.
--
Some factoids:


2000 2004 % Increase
Bush 50,456,169 59,459,765 17.8%
Democrat 50,996,116 55,949,407 9.7%

Population 281,421,906 294,719,604 4.7%

Much of the Democrat gain is explained by simple
population growth. Bush's gain isn't.
Alan
2004-11-22 09:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrionCA
While there are some lab experiments showing promise there are
significant drawbacks to using embryonic stem cells in any kind of
therapy. The worst of these is that transplanted stem cells suffer
from the same tissue rejection problem as ANY implanted foreign
bodies. Adult stem cells are more promising in this regard as they
are harvested from the patient himself.
--
Hi All

The problem with all forms of new or unproven research in the early
stages is that it cannot be proven to be worth pursuing or worth the
investment.

Therefore, it is much easier to denigrate it than to support it. We have
had negative comments in this thread ranging from logical financial ones
to rabid ratbag religious or emotive ones. Who knows, maybe in the long
run they may turn out to be right, but I prefer to go along with Louis
Pasteur, who said:

"In the field of observation, chance favours only the prepared mind."

The only guarantee is that if no research is done in this field, nothing
will be discovered.

It is a very fortunate thing for all type 1, and many type 2, diabetics
that Professor John James Rickard Macleod had a more adventurous
attitude to research when he allowed Frederick Banting to use his lab
and an assistant back in 1921. He didn't really expect results. Of
course, Banting discovered insulin.

Fleming's discovery of penicillin is often said to be a fortunate
accident. But if he hadn't been conducting research in that field, even
though he had a different initial aim, and he hadn't had the correct
training, the accident would have been unrecognised and penicillin would
never have been discovered.

There are many, many other examples of scientific research leading to
unforeseen results.

Maybe stem cell research will not lead to cures for any of us; but, as I
said earlier, it sure can't lead to anything if it never occurs.

But it will occur, although probably not in the USA.


Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia.
Remove weight and carbs to email.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
Specialsearcher
2004-11-23 15:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
There are many, many other examples of scientific research leading to
unforeseen results.
Viagra was found by accident, if they never did the research and treatment on
the heart there would also be no viagra.
Post by Alan
Maybe stem cell research will not lead to cures for any of us; but, as I
said earlier, it sure can't lead to anything if it never occurs.
Yea often one thing leads to another, but the research needs to be done.
mike gray
2004-11-21 16:04:32 UTC
Permalink
The Etobian
2004-11-21 16:36:01 UTC
Permalink
I remember well Steve McQueen and his fight with cancer. A wealthy
celebrity, desperate to cure an incurable disease. His trips to Mexico
for laetril treatments gave him hope but he died on schedule.
Nevertheless, his efforts got laetril bans lifted and laetril remains a
popular drug giving hope to the helpless.
Stem cells are the new laetril. No responsible spokesman will say that
they will cure, only that they "offer hope", and hope for the desperate
has always been and always will be a very big and profitable business.
Personally, I find the marketing of hope immoral. But I understand that
many will pay anything, even bankrupt themselves, for a little hope.
What I find most objectionable is the demand of the hope market for
taxpayer funds. You want hope? You pay for it.
Laetrile was banned in the US. Research using fetal stem cells is NOT
banned; just that the federal government will not fund research using
cell lines that came into being after a certain date. Private parties
and states are still free to fund such research.

I feel that given the use of fetal cell lines for the manufacture of
certain vaccines (such as chickenpox) and since their use in children
is mandatory, I find the federal position to be entirely hypocritical.
Herman Rubin
2004-11-22 14:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Dude. Go get yourself an incurable chronic disease (such as MS, with which
I live every single day)... a disease for which embryonic stem-cell research
hold some promise of cure or effective treatment, and you won't need my
opinions or anyone else's. You'll have an excuse all your own to scream
about it with full justification and righteous indignation at the tops of
your lungs.
And you know what?
Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to you with
an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They aren't going to allow
their minds to be changed... not by "moral relativism" and not by facts.
That is, unfortunately, the reality.
I remember well Steve McQueen and his fight with cancer. A wealthy
celebrity, desperate to cure an incurable disease. His trips to Mexico
for laetril treatments gave him hope but he died on schedule.
Nevertheless, his efforts got laetril bans lifted and laetril remains a
popular drug giving hope to the helpless.
Stem cells are the new laetril. No responsible spokesman will say that
they will cure, only that they "offer hope", and hope for the desperate
has always been and always will be a very big and profitable business.
Personally, I find the marketing of hope immoral. But I understand that
many will pay anything, even bankrupt themselves, for a little hope.
What I find most objectionable is the demand of the hope market for
taxpayer funds. You want hope? You pay for it.
Unfortunately, the use of taxpayer funds by the federal
government, originally with the intention of promoting
BASIC research, has had the effect, predicted by a few,
of limiting research funding to what the bureaucrats and
legislators, mostly incapable of understanding that there
is a difference between research and technology, find to
be currently politically correct, and allowing very little
for basic research. There was recently an attempt to
divert research support into "technology transfer"; this
was defeated only when the industrialists almost unanimously
stated that they wanted a PhD who understood the subject
and was educated in the basics; such a person would be more
likely to do a good job of transferring, and even improving,
technology than one trained in transfer.

I agree that we should not be using taxpayer funds for
most research. Return those funds to the taxpayers to
use to fund research which they, as individuals, support.
Reestablish research universities independent of reliance
on government largesse by slowly removing that.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
***@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
mike gray
2004-11-22 20:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman Rubin
Post by Michael
Dude. Go get yourself an incurable chronic disease (such as MS, with which
I live every single day)... a disease for which embryonic stem-cell research
hold some promise of cure or effective treatment, and you won't need my
opinions or anyone else's. You'll have an excuse all your own to scream
about it with full justification and righteous indignation at the tops of
your lungs.
And you know what?
Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to you with
an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They aren't going to allow
their minds to be changed... not by "moral relativism" and not by facts.
That is, unfortunately, the reality.
I remember well Steve McQueen and his fight with cancer. A wealthy
celebrity, desperate to cure an incurable disease. His trips to Mexico
for laetril treatments gave him hope but he died on schedule.
Nevertheless, his efforts got laetril bans lifted and laetril remains a
popular drug giving hope to the helpless.
Stem cells are the new laetril. No responsible spokesman will say that
they will cure, only that they "offer hope", and hope for the desperate
has always been and always will be a very big and profitable business.
Personally, I find the marketing of hope immoral. But I understand that
many will pay anything, even bankrupt themselves, for a little hope.
What I find most objectionable is the demand of the hope market for
taxpayer funds. You want hope? You pay for it.
Unfortunately, the use of taxpayer funds by the federal
government, originally with the intention of promoting
BASIC research, has had the effect, predicted by a few,
of limiting research funding to what the bureaucrats and
legislators, mostly incapable of understanding that there
is a difference between research and technology, find to
be currently politically correct, and allowing very little
for basic research. There was recently an attempt to
divert research support into "technology transfer"; this
was defeated only when the industrialists almost unanimously
stated that they wanted a PhD who understood the subject
and was educated in the basics; such a person would be more
likely to do a good job of transferring, and even improving,
technology than one trained in transfer.
I agree that we should not be using taxpayer funds for
most research. Return those funds to the taxpayers to
use to fund research which they, as individuals, support.
Reestablish research universities independent of reliance
on government largesse by slowly removing that.
Amen!
abdi
2004-11-23 02:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Fascinating concept, you find building bombs moral but finding cures
immoral. You see I always feel bad for prejudging the idiot Dubaya lovers
but your kind makes me ever more convinced of truth.
--
abdi ---- Quaecomque Sunt Vera
Post by Michael
Dude. Go get yourself an incurable chronic disease (such as MS, with which
I live every single day)... a disease for which embryonic stem-cell research
hold some promise of cure or effective treatment, and you won't need my
opinions or anyone else's. You'll have an excuse all your own to scream
about it with full justification and righteous indignation at the tops of
your lungs.
And you know what?
Not one single person on the "anti" side will bother to listen to you with
an ear to becoming converted or even informed. They aren't going to allow
their minds to be changed... not by "moral relativism" and not by facts.
--
Michael Muirhead
Queen Charlotte City, BC
That is, unfortunately, the reality.
I remember well Steve McQueen and his fight with cancer. A wealthy
celebrity, desperate to cure an incurable disease. His trips to Mexico for
laetril treatments gave him hope but he died on schedule. Nevertheless,
his efforts got laetril bans lifted and laetril remains a popular drug
giving hope to the helpless.
Stem cells are the new laetril. No responsible spokesman will say that
they will cure, only that they "offer hope", and hope for the desperate
has always been and always will be a very big and profitable business.
Personally, I find the marketing of hope immoral. But I understand that
many will pay anything, even bankrupt themselves, for a little hope.
What I find most objectionable is the demand of the hope market for
taxpayer funds. You want hope? You pay for it.
Charles Johnson
2004-11-19 14:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Sir,

My wife is a MS sufferer and a devout Catholic, as am I. My wife has had MS now
for 23 years, it struck her when she was in her late thirties and has been
getting progressively worse ever since. At first it affected her eyesight and
her voice ( she could not talk for nine years) and she was excessively tired all
of the time. Now thanks to regular botox treatments she can speak normally about
eight months out of the year and only has a few days each year where she cannot
talk at all. Her eyesight has improved, but she needs canes and a scooter in
order to get around.

We support George Bush's stand on stem cell research. Not because our Church
says to, but because we support the concept that there is a sanctity to life,
and to create human life only to destroy it in the quest for knowledge is, for
us, wrong. Keep a few things in mind. First, George Bush did not outlaw stem
cell research. Second, George Bush did not block stem cell research on
government funded projects. Third, George Bush did limit embryonic stem cell
research to lines of embryos that were already established at the time that he
made his decision. Finally, and most important, George Bush never said that he
was never going to allow government funds go towards the research of embryonic
stem cells, only that in order for him to do so, the researchers would need to
show evidence that there were more then simply possibilities that this research
could be beneficial before he did so.

Trust me, my wife and I both pray daily for some advancement that could cure or
reverse her MS, and that of many of our friends that we have made who also have
MS. But we also applaud President Bush on his morale stance.

Life is truly more than just living.

should you like more you may reach me at: ***@newsguy.com

please put 'Stem Cell Research Debate' in your title...
Post by Jrcbp
Hello everyone, I'm doing a report on the science and morale of stem
cell research and the current conflict of opinion that exists in the
United States. With President Bush's conservative stance on the issue,
it seems the issue has become even more heated. There are heated
opinions on both sides, with ethics and religion often being the case
for one side, while research and hope for medical breakthroughs
standing on the other. That, of course, is a limited summary of where
people might come from in forming their opinions.
I'm looking for people to speak on the subject as it will be needed
for my report.
If you do wish to speak, I'd love to have your name to go into my
report (which could be sent to me privately). However, any at all
discussion and those willing to allow their quotes into my report
would be great. Thank you.
--
Worry is the intrest paid by those who borrow trouble- George Washington
Specialsearcher
2004-11-19 22:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Johnson
Trust me, my wife and I both pray daily for some advancement that could cure or
reverse her MS, and that of many of our friends that we have made who also have
MS. But we also applaud President Bush on his morale stance.
Life is truly more than just living.
There's already one cure in clinical trial that involves stem cells;
unfortunately there's a rather high dead rate and not everybody that goes
through it gets cured. I hope they keep trying to improve it; it took Edison
many tries to get a practical working light bulb; I think this may have to go
through the same route to make it a safe and effective treatment for MS on a
regular basis.

I think its a safe bet that without any kind of stem cells, you can forget
about a cure of any kind for MS...
KKT
2004-11-19 23:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Specialsearcher
Post by Charles Johnson
Trust me, my wife and I both pray daily for some advancement that could
cure or reverse her MS, and that of many of our friends that we have
made who also have MS. But we also applaud President Bush on his morale
stance.
Life is truly more than just living.
I think its a safe bet that without any kind of stem cells, you can forget
about a cure of any kind for MS...
Somebody please explain to me why it's more moral to take fertilized
eggs and dump them down the sink, but it's immoral to take those
same fertilized eggs and extract stem cells for research?

I don't get it.

Kathie
michelle
2004-11-19 23:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
I don't get it.
some are worried about the mad scientist factor..



Michelle

remove the sand to reply to me.
KKT
2004-11-20 01:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by michelle
Post by KKT
I don't get it.
some are worried about the mad scientist factor..
I have no problem with very stringent regulation. This is not
something that should be unregulated.

OTOH, this administration is stridently against regulation. Under
those circumstances, there might be problems.

KKT
Michael
2004-11-20 00:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
Post by Specialsearcher
Post by Charles Johnson
Trust me, my wife and I both pray daily for some advancement that
could cure or reverse her MS, and that of many of our friends that
we have made who also have MS. But we also applaud President Bush on his
morale stance.
Life is truly more than just living.
I think its a safe bet that without any kind of stem cells, you can
forget about a cure of any kind for MS...
Somebody please explain to me why it's more moral to take fertilized
eggs and dump them down the sink, but it's immoral to take those
same fertilized eggs and extract stem cells for research?
I don't get it.
Kathie
What I don't get is why tens of thousands of women aren't jailed for
shedding fertilized eggs by selfishly menstruating instead of providing
better conditions for their implantation.
Sylvia
2004-11-20 16:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Kathie;
Post by KKT
Somebody please explain to me why it's more moral to take fertilized
eggs and dump them down the sink, but it's immoral to take those
same fertilized eggs and extract stem cells for research?
I don't get it.
When you find out, let me know. I don't get it either.

Except, maybe, just maybe if they closed the fertility clinics that
make these cells, the howling and yelling from people who want to use
them to make babies would be overwhelming.

But research for incurable dieseases? It's just not warm and fuzzy
enough.

Sylvia
KKT
2004-11-20 20:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia
Post by KKT
Somebody please explain to me why it's more moral to take fertilized
eggs and dump them down the sink, but it's immoral to take those
same fertilized eggs and extract stem cells for research?
I don't get it.
When you find out, let me know. I don't get it either.
Don't hold your breath. :-(

Kath
Post by Sylvia
Except, maybe, just maybe if they closed the fertility clinics that
make these cells, the howling and yelling from people who want to use
them to make babies would be overwhelming.
But research for incurable dieseases? It's just not warm and fuzzy
enough.
Sylvia
CharlesJohnson
2004-11-23 17:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
Somebody please explain to me why it's more moral to take fertilized
eggs and dump them down the sink, but it's immoral to take those
same fertilized eggs and extract stem cells for research?
I don't get it.
Kathie
The issue is not the disposition of fertilized eggs, but in fact how the
disposition of the eggs are paid for. Bush's stand is that Federal dollars will
not be used to create or destroy embryos for research. Private funds can still
do whatever they want without any problem just like private fertilization
companies can do as they wish.

Researchers that complain about this issue are in fact simply on the prowl for
federal funding to help them develop a cure that they will then take to the
private sector and become billionaires with, if it works...
--
Worry is the intrest paid by those who borrow trouble- George Washington
Michael
2004-11-23 17:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by CharlesJohnson
Post by KKT
Somebody please explain to me why it's more moral to take fertilized
eggs and dump them down the sink, but it's immoral to take those
same fertilized eggs and extract stem cells for research?
I don't get it.
Kathie
The issue is not the disposition of fertilized eggs, but in fact how
the disposition of the eggs are paid for. Bush's stand is that
Federal dollars will not be used to create or destroy embryos for
research. Private funds can still do whatever they want without any
problem just like private fertilization companies can do as they wish.
Researchers that complain about this issue are in fact simply on the
prowl for federal funding to help them develop a cure that they will
then take to the private sector and become billionaires with, if it
works...
Wrong. Talk to them. (I have a friend... a molecular-biology cancer
researcher who travels the world in her job... who's been telling me about
this stuff recently.)

They're pissed off at the chill this federal attitude has put on the
research community's efforts and at the wariness of private funders worried
about being branded "abortionist murderers".

Is it any wonder then, that despite the availability in the USA of some of
the finest infrastructure in the world to support it, the best of this
research is being done in other countries?
KKT
2004-11-23 18:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by CharlesJohnson
Researchers that complain about this issue are in fact simply on the
prowl for federal funding to help them develop a cure that they will
then take to the private sector and become billionaires with, if it
works...
Wrong. Talk to them. (I have a friend... a molecular-biology cancer
researcher who travels the world in her job... who's been telling me about
this stuff recently.)
They're pissed off at the chill this federal attitude has put on the
research community's efforts and at the wariness of private funders worried
about being branded "abortionist murderers".
Is it any wonder then, that despite the availability in the USA of some of
the finest infrastructure in the world to support it, the best of this
research is being done in other countries?
And the problem with federally funded research is exactly what? I have a
conservative friend who believes that federally funded research should
be used to benefit the most number of people ... and that the government
ought to set up procedures to encourage private parties to do the
research [some monetary buy-in] but that the government should reap the
majority of the benefits because it's taking the majority of the risk by
funding the project.

Private companies are most apt to pursue research that benefits their
bottom line. Thus Viagra. While those projects are economically
beneficial to the companies pursuing them, they are not designed to meet
the needs of citizens. Enter the government which can sponsor such
research and reap some financial benefits if the research pays off.

The "government is bad" ideology is simply that. An ideology lacking in
thought or pragmatism. And this administration encourages it more than
others have.

In addition, this administration supports no science that doesn't
support its OWN ideology. We, therefore, have policy based on who knows
what instead of scientific evidence. That's ludicrous in the 21st
century. Hell, it was ludicrous in the 19th century!

Kathie
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-23 20:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
Private companies are most apt to pursue research that benefits their
bottom line. Thus Viagra. While those projects are economically
beneficial to the companies pursuing them, they are not designed to meet
the needs of citizens.
KKT
I'm sure Viagra has benefitted many citizens. These "evil corporations" employ
millions of people, giving them incomes, benefits, stock shares, retirement
plans............ as well as quality products to the free market. You label
people as a "government is bad" group, yet you're totally replete with a
"corporations are bad" mentality. How did you get that roof over your head, the
chair your on, the computer your on, the shirt on your back, the toothpaste you
use, the car you drive, the fridge full of food you have ?............ yep.
Evil corporations.
Post by KKT
In addition, this administration supports no science that doesn't
support its OWN ideology.
Huh? What administration has? That is why it is *their* ideology.
Post by KKT
Enter the government
Yip Yip yahoo. Like the calvary to rescue us from our own evil devices. I bow
towards Washington, DC every morning in worship and give thanks for all that
they are and do.

Chuck
Michael
2004-11-23 20:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
Private companies are most apt to pursue research that benefits their
bottom line. Thus Viagra. While those projects are economically
beneficial to the companies pursuing them, they are not designed to meet
the needs of citizens.
KKT
I'm sure Viagra has benefitted many citizens.
Certainly, it has.

You do realize, don't you, that it sprang from *publically* funded research
into circulatory disorders... and that Pfizer didn't do anything until the
nitric oxide induced vasodilation was shown to be mediated by certain
chemicals?
KKT
2004-11-23 22:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
Private companies are most apt to pursue research that benefits their
bottom line. Thus Viagra. While those projects are economically
beneficial to the companies pursuing them, they are not designed to meet
the needs of citizens.
KKT
I'm sure Viagra has benefitted many citizens.
Certainly, it has.
You do realize, don't you, that it sprang from *publically* funded research
into circulatory disorders... and that Pfizer didn't do anything until the
nitric oxide induced vasodilation was shown to be mediated by certain
chemicals?
There are a myriad of scientific breakthroughs that occur that way ...
and that's fine. It's just that the government should be able to recoup
its investment ... otherwise, we have what's known as "Socialize the
risk, privatize the benefits" ... and why should we do that?

Kathie
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-24 13:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
nitric oxide induced vasodilation was shown to be mediated by certain
chemicals?
I did know that it was originally meant as an anti-angina med. Must of been
some happy and surprised participants in that trial. Nitric Oxide is a
fascinating compoound.

Chuck
KKT
2004-11-23 21:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
Private companies are most apt to pursue research that benefits their
bottom line. Thus Viagra. While those projects are economically
beneficial to the companies pursuing them, they are not designed to meet
the needs of citizens.
KKT
I'm sure Viagra has benefitted many citizens. These "evil corporations" employ
millions of people, giving them incomes, benefits, stock shares, retirement
plans............ as well as quality products to the free market. You label
Set aside for the moment that several corporation are attempting to deny
benefits to their retired employees, no one said a word about "evil."
What I said was that the goals of corporations and the goals of
government are -- by definition -- different. If you disagree with that,
you understand neither.
Post by ChuckMSRD
people as a "government is bad" group, yet you're totally replete with a
"corporations are bad" mentality. How did you get that roof over your head, the
chair your on, the computer your on, the shirt on your back, the toothpaste you
use, the car you drive, the fridge full of food you have ?............ yep.
Evil corporations.
You're railing against something I didn't say. Step back. Reread my post
without your myopic vision and try again.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
In addition, this administration supports no science that doesn't
support its OWN ideology.
Huh? What administration has? That is why it is *their* ideology.
Other administrations have been much better in presenting science as the
basis for policy rather than the religious basis for this one. That's
why a myriad of scientists, including Nobel winners, supported Kerry and
probably would have supported anyone that they thought could beat Bush.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
Enter the government
Yip Yip yahoo. Like the calvary to rescue us from our own evil devices. I bow
towards Washington, DC every morning in worship and give thanks for all that
they are and do.
You know, Chuck, if you didn't set up straw men to challenge, you'd be
more effective. You completely misrepresented what I said in order to
rant against something you disagree with ... try again and see if you
can respond to what I actually said.

Kathie
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-23 20:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
The "government is bad" ideology is simply that. An ideology lacking in
thought or pragmatism. And this administration encourages it more than
others have.
KKT
Oh if only. Bush grew the government more than any other administration in U.S.
history, even when adjusted for inflation. Why would an administration grow
something it deemed bad? More propaganda K.

Chuck
KKT
2004-11-23 21:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
The "government is bad" ideology is simply that. An ideology lacking in
thought or pragmatism. And this administration encourages it more than
others have.
Oh if only. Bush grew the government more than any other administration in U.S.
history, even when adjusted for inflation. Why would an administration grow
something it deemed bad? More propaganda K.
This administration encourages "government is bad" ideological stances
when its suits itself. Social programs? Government bad. Defense
spending? Government good. The programs that he's increased are not
programs he talks about when he talks about "big government."

When this government demonizes "big government," they invariably mean
government programs like Head Start, etc. At other times, they increase
government spending in ways that benefit their friends and campaign
contributors. Note the Medicare drug bill which has ended up [1] more
expensive than it was supposed to be (remember the civil servant who was
threatened if he released the true cost before the vote), [2] less
helpful to seniors, and [3] a boondoggle for the drug companies.

This isn't an either/or ideology and it's more complicated than black
and white. You'll probably have to do some reading and studying to
understand.

KKT
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-24 13:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
You'll probably have to do some reading and studying to
understand.
KKT
You are a total arrogant snob IMO. If anyone disagrees with you "they are not
well informed". If they do not vote as you do, "they are voting against their
own interest". I just spoke with an astronomer and he backed up what I had
thought. The universe does *not* revolve around you or your opinions. Tolerance
ends where your opinion begins. Different people, different beliefs, values,
world views...... different opinions - Deal with it!

Chuck
KKT
2004-11-24 15:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
You'll probably have to do some reading and studying to
understand.
You are a total arrogant snob IMO. If anyone disagrees with you "they are not
well informed". If they do not vote as you do, "they are voting against their
Actually, it's "if you can't get the facts right, you're not well
informed." The problem is that you disagree without knowing what
you're talking about ... not that you disagree.
Post by ChuckMSRD
own interest". I just spoke with an astronomer and he backed up what I had
thought. The universe does *not* revolve around you or your opinions. Tolerance
ends where your opinion begins. Different people, different beliefs, values,
world views...... different opinions - Deal with it!
See above. And try to be civilized. Your behavior does nothing to
enhance your opinion.

KKT
abdi
2004-11-24 16:23:32 UTC
Permalink
The disinformation on the subject is a lot and to make matters worse, these
guys do not trust basic principles. They essentially reject all the 2000
years of science and believe all the facts are in their holy book. And if
you do not agree, then you will be .... . Its a fascinating concept, that is
hard to accept, but its like the flue, it spreading everywhere.
--
abdi ---- Quaecomque Sunt Vera
Post by KKT
Post by ChuckMSRD
You'll probably have to do some reading and studying to understand.
You are a total arrogant snob IMO. If anyone disagrees with you "they are not
well informed". If they do not vote as you do, "they are voting against their
Actually, it's "if you can't get the facts right, you're not well
informed." The problem is that you disagree without knowing what you're
talking about ... not that you disagree.
Post by ChuckMSRD
own interest". I just spoke with an astronomer and he backed up what I had
thought. The universe does *not* revolve around you or your opinions. Tolerance
ends where your opinion begins. Different people, different beliefs, values,
world views...... different opinions - Deal with it!
See above. And try to be civilized. Your behavior does nothing to enhance
your opinion.
KKT
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-24 20:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
Actually, it's "if you can't get the facts right, you're not well
informed." The problem is that you disagree without knowing what
you're talking about
: KKT
LOL. Gee what a surprise response. You back up my statement very well. Facts
according to you is all there are. If it is not known or affirmed by you it is
not true... what an ego trip.
How is that voter fraud accusation going? Oh that was another one of your
"facts" debunked.

Chuck
Michael
2004-11-24 20:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
Actually, it's "if you can't get the facts right, you're not well
informed." The problem is that you disagree without knowing what
you're talking about
KKT
LOL. Gee what a surprise response. You back up my statement very
well. Facts according to you is all there are. If it is not known or
affirmed by you it is not true... what an ego trip.
How is that voter fraud accusation going? Oh that was another one of
your "facts" debunked.
Vote Fraud Found in Volusia, Florida

BreakForNews.com, 17th Nov 2004
by Bev Harris, BlackBoxVoting.org

Dueling lawyers, election officials gnashing teeth, Votergate.tv film crew
catching it all. Here's what happened so far:

Friday: Black Box Voting investigators Andy Stephenson and Kathleen Wynne
popped
into [Volusia County Dept. of Elections] to ask for some records. They were
rebuffed by an elections official named Denise.

Bev Harris called on the cell phone from investigations in downstate
Florida,
and told Volusia County Elections Supervisor Deanie Lowe that Black Box
Voting
would be in to pick up our Nov. 2 Freedom of Information request, or would
file
for a hand recount.

"No, Bev, please don't do that!" she exclaimed. But this is the way it has
to
be, folks. We didn't back down.

Monday: Bev, Andy and Kathleen came in with a film crew and asked for the
FOIA
request. Deanie Lowe gave it to us with a smile, but I noticed that one
item,
the polling place tapes, were not copies of the real ones, but instead were
new
printouts, done on Nov. 15, and not signed by anyone.

I asked to see the real ones, and they told us for "privacy" reasons we
can't
have copies of the signed ones. I insisted on at least viewing them
(although
refusing to give us copies of the signatures is not legally defensible,
according to our attorney). They said the real ones were in the County
Elections
warehouse. It was quittin' time and we arranged to come back this morning to
review them.

[Elections Director] Lana Hires, an employee who gained some notoriety in a
Diebold memo, where she asked for an explanation of minus 16,022 votes for
Gore,
so she wouldn't have to stand there "looking dumb" when the auditor came in,
was
particularly unhappy about seeing us in the office. She vigorously shook her
head when Deanie Lowe suggested we go to the warehouse.

Kathleen Wynne and I showed up at the warehouse at 8:15 this morning. There
was
Lana Hires looking especially gruff, yet surprised. She ordered us out.
Well,
we
couldn't see why because there she was, with a couple other people, handling
the
original poll tapes. You know, the ones with the signatures on them. We
stepped
out and they promptly shut the door behind us.

There was a trash bag on the porch outside the door. I looked into it and
what
do you know, but there were poll tapes in there. They came out and glared at
us.
We drove away a small bit, and then videotaped the license plates of the two
vehicles marked 'City Council' member. Others came out to glare and soon all
doors were slammed.

So, we went and parked behind a bus to see what they would do next. They
pulled
out some large pylons, which blocked the door. I decided to go look at the
garbage some more. Kathleen videotaped this. A man came out and I
immediately
wrote a public records request for the contents of the garbage bag, which
also
contained ballots -- real ones, but not filled out.

A brief tug of war occurred, tearing the garbage bag open. We then looked
through it, as Pete looked on. He was quite friendly.

We collected various poll tapes and other information and asked if they
could
copy it for us, for our public records request. "You won't be going
anywhere,"
said Pete. "The deputy is on his way."

Yes, not one but two police cars came up and then two county elections
officials, and we all stood around discussing the merits of my public
records
request.

They finally let us go, about the time our film crew arrived, and we all
trooped
off to the elections office. There, the plot thickened.

We began to compare the special printouts given to us with the signed
polling
tapes from election night. Lo and behold, some were missing. We also found
some
that didn't match. In fact, in one location, precinct 215, an
African-American
precinct, the votes were off by hundreds, in favor of George W. Bush and
other
Republicans.

Hmm. Which was right? Our polling tape, specially printed on Nov. 15,
without
signatures, or theirs, printed on Nov. 2, with up to 8 signatures per tape?

Well, then it became even more interesting. Lana Hires took it upon herself
to
box up some items from an office, which appeared to contain -- you guessed
it -
-
polling place tapes. She took them to the back of the building and
disappeared.

Then, voting integrity advocates from Volusia and Broward, decided now would
be
a good time to go through the trash at the elections office. Lo and behold,
they
found all kinds of memos and some polling place tapes, fresh from Volusia
elections office.

So, we compared these with the Nov. 2 signed ones and the "special' ones
from
Nov. 15 given to us, unsigned, and we found several of the MISSING poll
tapes.
There they were: In the garbage.

So, Kathleen went to the car and got the polling place tapes we had pulled
from
the warehouse garbage. My my my. There were not only discrepancies, but a
polling place tape that was signed by six officials.

This was a bit disturbing, since the employees there told us that bag was
destined for the shredder.

By now, a county lawyer had appeared on the scene, suddenly threatening to
charge us extra for the time we took looking at the real stuff they had
withheld
from us in our FOIA. Other lawyers appeared, phoned, people had meetings,
Lana
glowered at everyone, and someone shut the door in the office holding the
GEMS
server.

Andy then went to get the GEMS server locked down. He also got the memory
cards
locked down and secured, much to the dismay of Lana. They were scattered
around
unsecured in any way before that.

We then all agreed to convene tomorrow morning, to further audit, discuss
the
hand count that Black Box Voting will require of Volusia County, and of
course,
it is time to talk about contesting the election in Volusia.

Bev Harris
Executive Director
Black Box Voting
Together with Andy, and Kathleen

BREAKING -- MONDAY NOV 22 2004: Florida counties stonewall records requests.
While some Florida counties have been attentive to the public interest and
have
promptly complied with our public records requests (scroll down for the Nov.
2
records request, for critical audit diagnostics), other counties have
stalled,
stonewalled, failed to comply in a timely manner, or outright refused to
provide
the records. Stay tuned for who they are and what happens next.
Michael
2004-11-24 20:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
How is that voter fraud accusation going? Oh that was another one of
your "facts" debunked.
BREAKING -- TUESDAY NOV 23 2004: Citizens take action to clean up
elections: (Summary of irregularities in Volusia) -- Volusia County
resident Susan Pynchon, with the help of Volusia County attorney
Daniel R. Vaughen, P.A., filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, Nov. 23, seeking
to set aside the Nov. 2, 2004 Volusia County election due to
irregularities. Full text of lawsuit

BREAKING -- MONDAY NOV 22 2004: Florida counties stonewall records
requests. While some Florida counties have been attentive to the
public interest and have promptly complied with our public records
requests (scroll down for the Nov. 2 records request, for critical
audit diagnostics), other counties have stalled, stonewalled, failed
to comply in a timely manner, or outright refused to provide the
records. UPDATE: Several Florida counties refused to comply with the
law, by failing to provide the 8 items in the Black Box Voting Nov. 2
public records request in a timely manner.

The following counties have refused to be held accountable for the
2004 presidential election, by declining to produce basic audit
documents until after all election contest periods have lapsed: Palm
Beach County, Ft. Myers County, Pasco County, Highland County, Holmes
County, Indian River County, Lee County, Levy County. Black Box Voting
is requesting citizen audit groups to work with us to take these
counties into full audit mode in December. Other counties may be added
to this list.
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-24 20:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
BREAKING
Yeah I know, Kerry really won the election. Scummy Republican's at it again.
There are stories all over the nation from *both* sides of the aisle. Funny you
don't cite the Dems in Wisconsin offering crack to addicts to come and vote
for the "D"'s. Or the 2000 votes found on all of the machines before the
election started in inner city Philly. Nah, these claims would foil and give
some balance. Just swear in Kerry and get it over with, we all know he *really*
won.

Chuck
Michael
2004-11-24 20:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Michael
BREAKING
Yeah I know, Kerry really won the election. Scummy Republican's at it
again. There are stories all over the nation from *both* sides of the
aisle. Funny you don't cite the Dems in Wisconsin offering crack to
addicts to come and vote for the "D"'s.
That's because it's old news, not because it's unimportant.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Or the 2000 votes found on
all of the machines before the election started in inner city Philly.
That turned out to be - literally - "user error": a reading mistake...
nothing fraudulent in it at all.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/special_packages/election2004/10078797.htm
Posted on Tue, Nov. 02, 2004
Phila. D.A.: No planted votes; machine counters misread

By L. Stuart Ditzen

Inquirer Staff Writer


Philadelphia District

By L. Stuart Ditzen

Inquirer Staff Writer


Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham today refuted reports that
2,000 votes had been "planted" on voting machines at several polling places.

Cathie Abookire, spokeswoman for Abraham, said poll workers misinterpreted
numbers they found on voting machines before the polls opened. Abookire said
the city's new electronic voting machines have two windows that display
voting numbers - one that shows the total number of votes ever cast on the
machine, the other that shows the number of votes cast today.

Some poll workers saw the number of prior votes from past elections on the
machines and thought that meant votes had been planted.

"They misread the machines," Abookire said. "There were no planted votes."

The confusion was created by a Web site, the Drudge Report, which reported
that before voting began in Philadelphia, poll watchers found nearly 2000
votes planted on machines at four polling places - 2601 N. 11th St., 1901 W.
Girard Ave., 122 W. Erie Ave. and 5657 Chew Ave.

Ed Kirlin, a volunteer with the Democratic Party, said whoever had given the
information to Drudge looked at the wrong numbers on the voting machines.

"I think it's an attempt at misinformation," said Kirlin. "They didn't go to
any party officials. They went right to the Drudge Report."

Edward V. Schulgen, deputy city commissioner, also confirmed that reports of
machines with fraudulent starting counts were groundless.

Schulgen said all machines in the city's 1,681 polling places had generated,
before polls opened, a printout reflecting the fact that each machine was
set at zero. He said each was signed by an election worker.

Republican Party officials continued to question whether some form of fraud
may have occurred at four polling places.

In one of the four, party officials said, extra votes were noted by a
technician.

In another, the extra votes were noticed by a poll watcher, who knew the
difference between the daily vote counter and the lifetime vote counter.

In two other cases, the party has yet to cross-examine the poll-watchers who
reported the supposed fraud.

Another report that someone had displayed a gun to intimidate poll watchers
in South Philadelphia was refuted by Philadelphia Police.

A police spokesman said officers went to the polling place and concluded
that the report was unfounded.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Nah, these claims would foil and give some balance. Just swear in
Kerry and get it over with, we all know he *really* won.
It isn't important to me *who* won... it's important that the elections held
in the entire world's paragon of democracy must be honest and *fair*.

Is that concept over your head, or are you just too stubborn to admit
something stinks and has to be corrected?
KKT
2004-11-25 00:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Michael
BREAKING
Yeah I know, Kerry really won the election. Scummy Republican's at it again.
There are stories all over the nation from *both* sides of the aisle. Funny you
don't cite the Dems in Wisconsin offering crack to addicts to come and vote
for the "D"'s. Or the 2000 votes found on all of the machines before the
election started in inner city Philly. Nah, these claims would foil and give
some balance. Just swear in Kerry and get it over with, we all know he *really*
won.
Your Wisconsin example? Can you cite a reputable source for that?
Thought not.

KKT
Yup, Wisconsin
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-25 13:18:34 UTC
Permalink
you cite a reputable source for that?
Post by KKT
Thought not.
KKT
My apologies, more importantly it was Ohio.(below) All I simply say is there
were efforts of fraud on both sides of the aisle. This is the case since the
founding of the nation (at least of these two parties). To think, as you
probably do, that the Dems have halos and the Reps have horns when it comes to
tricks in politics is beyond absurd. I would recommend, oh yee of sole
possesion of facts, that you broaden your references beyond left-wing
conspiratorial cites. Better yet, come out to NJ and see the horrific
corruption on the Dem side of the aisle. It would be interesting to see you
spin that mess into angelic behaviour. The difference between you and I is I
see the corruption on both sides. You choose one side and run with it.

Recently, the NAACP National Voter Fund submitted over 100 forged voter
registration forms to an Ohio county board of elections. Chad Staton allegedly
filled out the fraudulent forms. Though not directly connected with the party
establishment, this incident furthers highlights both the desperation and
ruthlessness rampant in the American left. Coupled with the allegation that
Staton was paid directly by the NAACP with crack cocaine for his forgeries, the
event paints a rather bleak picture of both the election system independent of
the political tug of war and the state of the ‘progressive' left. Ironically,
the NAACP, one of the liberals' most venerated organizations, has shown
complicity in the same corruption they claim to battle.

http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=1102
KKT
2004-11-25 16:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
you cite a reputable source for that?
My apologies, more importantly it was Ohio.(below) All I simply say is there
More importantly? You got the facts wrong again, Chuck.
Post by KKT
were efforts of fraud on both sides of the aisle. This is the case since the
founding of the nation (at least of these two parties). To think, as you
probably do, that the Dems have halos and the Reps have horns when it comes to
Does it occur to you that ANYONE who fraudulently interrupts the
voting process should be prosecuted?
Post by KKT
tricks in politics is beyond absurd. I would recommend, oh yee of sole
possesion of facts, that you broaden your references beyond left-wing
conspiratorial cites. Better yet, come out to NJ and see the horrific
corruption on the Dem side of the aisle. It would be interesting to see you
spin that mess into angelic behaviour. The difference between you and I is I
see the corruption on both sides. You choose one side and run with it.
No, the difference is that I see the corruption on both sides and
think that both sides should be imprisoned if caught and convicted.
Post by KKT
Recently, the NAACP National Voter Fund submitted over 100 forged voter
registration forms to an Ohio county board of elections. Chad Staton allegedly
filled out the fraudulent forms. Though not directly connected with the party
establishment, this incident furthers highlights both the desperation and
ruthlessness rampant in the American left. Coupled with the allegation that
His actions are still wrong. He should still be prosecuted and
jailed. And as you point out, it wasn't a concerted act by the
Democrats to do this.
Post by KKT
Staton was paid directly by the NAACP with crack cocaine for his forgeries, the
event paints a rather bleak picture of both the election system independent of
the political tug of war and the state of the ‘progressive' left. Ironically,
I hate to break your bubble, but the NAACP isn't progressive or left.
Post by KKT
the NAACP, one of the liberals' most venerated organizations, has shown
complicity in the same corruption they claim to battle.
http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=1102
Jeez! I get to the end of your post, read your references and you
cited an OPINION piece. How often do I have to say it. OPINION ISN'T
NEWS! For crying out loud, anyone can have an opinion and it doesn't
even have to be based on fact. You, yourself, said derisively,
"Facts according to you is all there are."

Here is a news piece. You'll notice that it doesn't say "OPINION" in
big bright letters across the top of the column:
http://tinyurl.com/5ga3k

Some of the same information you cited is in this piece, but so is
some that you missed, indicating that the Republicans have their
share of problematic voter registration.

Finally, when I'm speaking of voter fraud, I'm not talking about the
miscellaneous small things that both parties do to get out the vote
and get voters registered [and by the way, is there any indication
that any of the people falsely registered actually voted?]. Those
things are important to alleviate, and should be prosecuted, but
there are greater problems.

I'm talking about literally million to one odds that the exit polls,
the trending polls and the votes themselves could have come out so
differently in 3 major states [PA, OH, FL] and all in ONE direction.
I'm talking about the issue of highly Democratic counties or
precincts suddenly voting for Bush. I'm talking about the lack of a
paper trail so that a recount can't even be done. And I'm talking
about a campaign to disenfranchise people most likely to vote
Democratic.

If there are those kinds of problems for the Republicans, they don't
seem to be reported in ANY media, much less your definition of "Left
Wing" [MSNBC -- Bill Gates is a real leftie, the Charlotte Observer
-- A Knight Ridder paper, ComputerWorld -- left?, the Associated
Press, PR Newswire, United Business Media, the South Florida Sun
Sentinel, The Indianapolis Star [now THERE's a left-leaning part of
the country!], New Times Broward-Palm Beach, the Washington Times
[the first, last and only time this Moonie-owned right-wing screed
will EVER be referred to "left wing conspiratorial"], the Sacramento
Bee, the New Bern NC Sun Journal, a local TV station in Orlando, the
Nashua [NH] Telegraph, and the Palm Beach Post]. And speaking of
which, just what would you consider "middle" or "right leaning" when
you consider local newspapers and The Washington Times "left?"

Once again, you've shown your prejudices without facts to support
your opinions. You've changed the topic from voter fraud to voter
registration [which is not a problem in Wisconsin because we have
same-day registration. Bring identification and proof that you live
where you say you do -- a cable bill, a utility bill, a telephone
bill in your name -- you vote].

When I see you admitting that the problems I've mentioned ARE
problems, I'll admit that you share a concern for the problems that
threaten democracy and the concept of one person, one vote -- all
counted. Until then -- because your posts support this conclusion --
I'll conclude that it's partisanship and not patriotism that
motivates you.

KKT
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-26 01:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
I hate to break your bubble, but the NAACP isn't progressive or left.
ROFL! Yes the praise they heap on Colin Powell, Dr. Rice, and Clarence Thomas
gets overwhelming and repetitious at times.
Michael
2004-11-26 01:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
I hate to break your bubble, but the NAACP isn't progressive or left.
ROFL! Yes the praise they heap on Colin Powell, Dr. Rice, and
Clarence Thomas gets overwhelming and repetitious at times.
Powell, with some ugly and glaring exceptions, has been a praiseworthy
administrator and has provided allegiance to the office of President far
above and beyond the call, and Thomas - while I disagree with a great deal
of his opinion - is thoroughgoing and precise in his analyses of precedent
and jurisprudence.

Any praise the NAACP might *ever* consider heaping on Condoleeza Rice,
however, would be attempting to gild a turd.
KKT
2004-11-26 02:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Powell, with some ugly and glaring exceptions, has been a praiseworthy
administrator and has provided allegiance to the office of President far
above and beyond the call, and Thomas - while I disagree with a great deal
of his opinion - is thoroughgoing and precise in his analyses of precedent
and jurisprudence.
Clarence Thomas has said publicly that he doesn't think that legal
precedence is important. That's a dangerous, radical and
fundamentally fanatical legal position. He is the least qualified
person to be placed on the court, bar none. While it's been said
that he took Thurgood Marshall's seat, the sad truth is that he
doesn't begin to fill his shoes.

Colin Powell lied through his teeth to the United Nations. While he
served Bush well with the utmost allegiance, he didn't serve the
American public. Not now, not during the investigation of Mai Lai.
And like it or not, he has been a public servant his entire
professional life.
Post by Michael
Any praise the NAACP might *ever* consider heaping on Condoleeza Rice,
however, would be attempting to gild a turd.
When [speaking of Rice] I said that I thought that this
administration perfectly exemplified the Peter Principal, my
uber-Republican pal said that he didn't think that that was true ...
that the Peter Principal postulates that one is only promoted ONE
step beyond one's capabilities.

KKT
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-26 12:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Clarence Thomas ...
KKT
snip usual blather

Translation: All three are dangerous liars because they are towards the right
in ideology. Predictable crap.
Colin Powell lied through his teeth to the United Nations.
How does one lie when they are given faulty intelligence and interpreting it?
Clinton interpreted the same thing, as did JF Kerry in a few of his 14
positions on Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/
One time before you said that Clinton was "Wrong" on Iraq's WMD's while those
on the right "Lie". I'd like to hear it again for another laugh. C'mon, please?

Chuck
KKT
2004-11-26 02:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
I hate to break your bubble, but the NAACP isn't progressive or left.
ROFL! Yes the praise they heap on Colin Powell, Dr. Rice, and Clarence
Thomas gets overwhelming and repetitious at times.
What's your point? None of those people particularly support the
work of the NAACP, particularly Clarence Thomas, and all have
benefited from it.

Are you suggesting that only liberals dislike the policies of
Powell, Rice and Thomas? Here's a news flash: my Republican friends
don't like them very much either ... and not one of them would
appreciate being called "liberal" ...

KKT

PS: I see you gave up on the "left leaning" media ...
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-26 12:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
What's your point? None of those people particularly support the
work of the NAACP
KKT
Do you know what NAACP stands for? It is not NAACPWSYI - ..."Who Share Your
Ideology", but it should be because, without exception, that is all that they
do. They should rejoice because in the USA one can not *advance* much further
than the Supreme court and Secretary of State. If you can not see that problem
with the name alone, NAACP, then you are beyond hope and rationalization.

Chuck

KKT
2004-11-25 00:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
How is that voter fraud accusation going? Oh that was another one of
your "facts" debunked.
He not only missed the information you posted, he also missed this
[among other things]:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240
Zogby Vs. Mitofsky (Keith Olbermann)

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/volusia-lawsuit.html [related to your
post, MM]
COMPLAINT TO CONTEST ELECTION

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/10258265.htm?1c
Errors in exit polls still a puzzle to many

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&ncid=696&e=4&u=/afp/20041123/pl_afp/us_vote_investigation
US Congress to investigate irregularities in November 2 vote

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=396&row=0
REPUBLICAN CHALLENGES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BASED ON EXIT POLLS

http://ohiodems.org/index.php?display=ReleaseDetails&id=200466&PHPSESSID=b5b297b2a178c61a7c426c8432a06059
Ohio Democratic Party Seeks Volunteers to Help Recount.


And of course, a series by the Ohio Free Press:

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/995
How the Ohio election was rigged for Bush

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/899
Ohio Presidential Results to be Challenged

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/886
Hearings on Ohio voting put 2004 election in doubt

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/834________________________

Diebold, electronic voting and the vast right-wing conspiracy

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/985
And so the sorting and discarding of Kerry votes begins

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/983
None dare call it voter suppression and fraud


And some more ...

http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2545298,00.html
Berkeley: President comes up short

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/10220215.htm
State to probe Gaston election

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1118-11.htm
US Election: Democracy in Question

http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2004/0,4814,97614,00.html
University researchers challenge Bush win in Florida

http://www.jefffisherforcongress.com/Campaign2006/harrrisletter.htm
Re Epicenter of Vote Fraud Scandal, Florida "The Smoking Gun "
you've been looking for

http://www.opednews.com/keefer_111504_readings.htm
Evidence of Electoral Fraud in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election:
A Reading List

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&u=/ap/20041118/ap_on_el_pr/ohio_ballots_9&printer=1
Ohio Finds Possible Double Votes, Counts

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/11-18-2004/0002462583&EDATE=
UC Berkeley Study Questions Florida E-Vote Count

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5261
Three More Indiana Counties Report E-Vote Errors

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm
Complete US Exit Poll Data Confirms Net Suspicions

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
TUESDAY NOV 16 2004: Volusia County on lockdown

http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6912004.html
How to Fix a Presidential Election
Pt. I: Convicted Felons, ‘Shadowy Financiers' Own Companies Counting
Votes

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-fslots16nov16,0,909841.story

Lawsuit questions 'discovery' of 78,000 absentee votes in Broward

http://www.rise4news.net/extravotes.html
93,000 Extra Votes In Cuyahoga County - Outrage In Ohio

http://www.indystar.com/articles/4/193887-1704-127.html
Computer glitch found in Franklin County ballot-counting

http://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2004-11-04/news/norman.html
Vote Interrupted
Were the absentee ballots lost or stolen? Either way, it's a crime.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041113/NEWS02/111130045/-1/news02
Presidential ballots to be recounted

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041114/OPINION04/111140009/-1/opinion
Did lawyer-observers on Election Day miss fraud incidents?

http://www.alternet.org/story/20494/
A Legitimate Recount Effort in Ohio

http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/193880-4433-093.html
Glitch causes Franklin Co. recount

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041112-112037-7263r.htm
Major bugs found in Diebold vote systems

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/11380251p-12294653c.html
Calif. settles electronic voting suit against Diebold for $2.6M

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041129&s=corn
A Stolen Election?

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/11/far04038.html
Another Rigged Election? The Elephant in the Voting Booth

http://www.newbernsj.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=18297&Section=Local
Election problems due to a software glitch

http://www.michigancityin.com/articles/2004/11/04/news/news02.txt
Computer glitch still baffles county clerk

http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=943
Evidence Mounts That The Vote Was Hacked

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886&nav=0Ra7JXq2
Part One: Will Your Vote Count?

http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1649813&nav=0Ra6KtFX
Part Two: Will Your Vote Count?

http://www.local6.com/news/3883420/detail.html
Wet Ballots Found, Rejected By Voting Machines

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article
Nader requests N.H. vote recount

http://www.wanttoknow.info/electronicvoting
Electronic Ballots – Major Media Report Major Problems

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=389&row=0
An Election Spoiled Rotten

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=6199
Electronic-Voting Critics Scrutinizing U.S. Election

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/shared/news/politics/stories/11/05flavote.html

Software flaw found in Florida vote machines
KKT
2004-11-25 00:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
Actually, it's "if you can't get the facts right, you're not well
informed." The problem is that you disagree without knowing what
you're talking about
LOL. Gee what a surprise response. You back up my statement very well. Facts
according to you is all there are. If it is not known or affirmed by you it is
not true... what an ego trip.
How is that voter fraud accusation going? Oh that was another one of your
"facts" debunked.
Well, thank you. NH is being recounted, a lawsuit's been filed today
on Volusia Co., FL and OH is going to be recounted, Cobb and
Bednarik having raise the money to so so in about 4 days. Of course,
if you had read newspapers, you'd know that.

BTW, facts ARE all there is when you're forming an opinion. Unless
you're working on a faith-based reality. I can't help you with that.

KKT
abdi
2004-11-23 18:58:31 UTC
Permalink
Its really hypocritical, they can kill grown men and that's ok in their
religion but using a few embryos is satanicall. Am I the only one who thinks
this is ridiculous.
--
abdi ---- Quaecomque Sunt Vera
Post by CharlesJohnson
Post by KKT
Somebody please explain to me why it's more moral to take fertilized
eggs and dump them down the sink, but it's immoral to take those
same fertilized eggs and extract stem cells for research?
I don't get it.
Kathie
The issue is not the disposition of fertilized eggs, but in fact how the
disposition of the eggs are paid for. Bush's stand is that Federal dollars will
not be used to create or destroy embryos for research. Private funds can still
do whatever they want without any problem just like private fertilization
companies can do as they wish.
Researchers that complain about this issue are in fact simply on the prowl for
federal funding to help them develop a cure that they will then take to the
private sector and become billionaires with, if it works...
--
Worry is the intrest paid by those who borrow trouble- George Washington
David S-H
2004-11-20 00:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Do you mean Morale or Morality? They're somewhat different. My guess is you
mean morality. But perhaps you need to define your terms more closely.

If you do mean morale, I'd say that it was pretty high here in the UKamongst
PwMS in relation to stem cell research, and even higher amongst the pharma
companies allowed to do the research ;-) Mercifully our govt doesn't seem
to be burdened by the medieval religious strictures placed on other
governments (we just have a tosser for a PM, but that's another matter
entirely).

Rgds
Post by Jrcbp
Hello everyone, I'm doing a report on the science and morale of stem
cell research and the current conflict of opinion that exists in the
United States. With President Bush's conservative stance on the issue,
it seems the issue has become even more heated. There are heated
opinions on both sides, with ethics and religion often being the case
for one side, while research and hope for medical breakthroughs
standing on the other. That, of course, is a limited summary of where
people might come from in forming their opinions.
I'm looking for people to speak on the subject as it will be needed
for my report.
If you do wish to speak, I'd love to have your name to go into my
report (which could be sent to me privately). However, any at all
discussion and those willing to allow their quotes into my report
would be great. Thank you.
Tim
2004-11-20 15:29:49 UTC
Permalink
First of all good luck with your report. Secondly, speaking as someone
with MS, I feel that the amount of uncertaintly that comes from having
something that at the moment cannot be cured or even effectively
treated, the promise of the therapies that can come from Stem cell
research provide a loose grasp of hope in an otherwise very dark
world. To echo some of the other postings, those who have problems
that hope seems to be able to address, do not seem to oppose this form
of research (I may be speaking for too many others there). Related,
and in my opinion antiquated, religious rhetoric regarding God's
wishes cannot be expressed and only sems to be spoken by born again
christians and ex(?)-alchoholics who unforunately hold an amount of
political power. When Bush stops thinking for himself and realies that
he is an elected official elected by and for the people things might
start to change, but that day is a long way off. The positive aspect
of all this is that the researchers and medical personel who deal with
these questions are above divinity. They just see a problem that they
want an answer for and thank God for them. In my sheltered, diseased
opinion, stemn cell research needs the political blessing as well as
de-demonising. We do not all want to be Tom Cruise or Britney Spears,
we just dont want to be ill. Stem cell research needs political and
social backing, the sooner the better.

Tim
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...