Rush v. Micheal J.
- Thread starter Nomar
- Start date
spydrjon said:
I'm not claiming either side as my own. BigRed spouted some rhetoric from a Pro Life website that began with "Spokesmen for the biotechnology industry..." about an issue that is central to the agenda of the Pro Life movement. Now, that's a slippery slope. Why is it wrong for me to make the observation that the source for his quote isn't the best place for anyone to gather an unbiased opinion? If the American League of Dog Shit is Delicious told me that poo has 30% less carbs than Oreos, I'd be concerned that they were utilizing their vested interest in the successful promotion of poo-eating to gloss over the truth and feed me a 'pile of crap.' BigRed's trust in a Pro Life website to tell him success/failure quotes for stem cell research is just as foolish, regardless of opinions about said research or abortion in general.
Election years are so much fun. Its times like these that I am reminded that folks vote more with their emotions and under the influence of faces they see in the crusts of their sandwiches than the reality of the world in which they live.
Last edited:
utahdog2003 said:
1. This is why I try to steer clear of these threads.
2. Dog poop is almost carb free. Eat up.
3. You are probably right in that I shouldn't have pasted a quote from a site that I came across in my research without considering that anything from the site would be immediately dismissed.
4. I don't necessarily trust a "Pro Life" website any more than any other website. I do trust my ability to gather and discern the information that I come across.
5. You should do some reasearch yourself and form your own opinion. Just google something like "embryonic stem cell success" and see what you come up with.
A good friend of my has Parkinsons and none of the medicines have worked so far and its like that all the time for him. Unless you guys keep track of him who knows what a bad day is like for him.
leo
leo
Roverlady said:
Now you're just hurting our feelings. That's OK. I didn't read your post past that sentence.
Sorry James, I had JUST gotten the call that he(my uncle) might not live another week and I was pretty upset....
Roverlady said:
I'm just being a dork. I guess it's not funny considering your situation. Sorry to hear about your bad news.
What they are not telling you is that fetal stem cell research has not done any good yet. In fact, it has killed several people all ready. (And I don't mean the fetus)
The other thing they are not telling you is that they have already cured cancer and regrown body limbs in mice in the lab -- using the mice's own adult stem cells from their bone marrow... What more do you need to know?
The other thing they are not telling you is that they have already cured cancer and regrown body limbs in mice in the lab -- using the mice's own adult stem cells from their bone marrow... What more do you need to know?
RBBailey said:
I'm hesitant to believe anything I read on the subject because of the inherent personal motivations involved in even discussing the subject.
However, two things are true:
1. Religion is big business.
2. Abortion is big business.
Between the two of them, it's a wonder we're not all swallowed up by the abyss.
My sister-in-law is performing the research that is being conducted on the bone marrow stem cells. She has seen a mouse re-grow an ear, and she has cured cancer in mice that she herself gave cancer.
RBBailey said:
Great! Now let WalMart sell the cure for mouse cancer for $4 a bottle.
I'm not doubting that adult stem cell research is promising, but I'm also not believing the hype that says fetal stem cells are lesser in potential (regardless of your statement implying that fetal stem cells are toxic to humans and cause instant death to all test subjects).
My point is that the discussion is almost indecipherable to the average person. Everyone in the issue has an angle. The Abortion Industry needs to feed on the unborn for profit, and the religious want to save the life of an embryo at the expense of those of us outside the womb. They all just want to fuck us out of the truth. Science is God's gift to humanity, too.
I'd love to see these self-righteous religious people who worship the cellular embryo answer me this: A building is on fire and they can run in and save the contents of only two of four rooms. Behind door number one is a refrigerator full of 100,000 viable frozen embryos. Behind door number two (work with me here) are three one gallon stasis chambers, each containing a 8 month old fetus. Behind door number three is their beloved family pet. Behind door number number four is their only child. So tell me, who do they save? They save their son and dog, goddamn it! If they didn't, they'd likely be put in prison. See, that's because we as a society make sane laws governing life. If we were to legislate the morality of the (ir)Religious Right, then the decision to save one's dog and son over 100,000+ unborn souls would be equated with genocide. Religion is such a horrible thing. It not only leads people away from true Faith, it also leads them far from Reason.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that human life begins at conception. But, the only way to proclaim that a few cells in a petri dish hold as much inherent spiritual eternity as do you and I is blasphemy pure and simple. Only God can know this. It's no different than people proclaiming to know the eternal destination of another's soul. Again - blasphemy. And yes, I've heard the tired argument extracted with prejudice from the Bible that "God knew you in the womb", etc. etc.; but, the same people who make this argument forget that they worship a God who is not bound by space or time, nor is He bound by any finite verbal constructs.
:deadhorse:
Last edited:
What if the question were: If you could be cured using embryonic stem cells, or your own bone marrow cells, which would you choose? The answer to that question will tell you a lot about what you really think; not what the media, or the ACLU, or a bad Supreme Court decision seems to say. If you answer: Your own. Why? If they could both cure you, what would be the difference? Follow the logic, it may take you to a place where you start thinking differently about abortion.
This is not a law question. It is not a USA v. European Society question. This is not a Women's Rights question. This is just about the most basic of moral questions we are faced with in life -- we should all have an actual, really good answer for it. The other "issues" surrounding this issue are merely distractions.
Who says we need a law banning abortion? Bah! We need more people believing that it would simply be better to think differently about the subject.
This law in Missouri, as I understand it, makes it constituional for human cloning. So, the idea is to make a clone of yourself that you will be able to harvest for parts or disease erradication. This is different than what the MJF ad seems to be talking about. I think they are lying, just like when Planned Parent hood purposefully leaves out the option of adoption.
This is not a law question. It is not a USA v. European Society question. This is not a Women's Rights question. This is just about the most basic of moral questions we are faced with in life -- we should all have an actual, really good answer for it. The other "issues" surrounding this issue are merely distractions.
Who says we need a law banning abortion? Bah! We need more people believing that it would simply be better to think differently about the subject.
This law in Missouri, as I understand it, makes it constituional for human cloning. So, the idea is to make a clone of yourself that you will be able to harvest for parts or disease erradication. This is different than what the MJF ad seems to be talking about. I think they are lying, just like when Planned Parent hood purposefully leaves out the option of adoption.
Last edited:
RBBailey said:
All things being equal, of course you use adult stem cells instead of fetal. However, all things are not equal because we don't know yet - scientifically and for a fact - that adult stem cells are just as rich in potential as fetal stem cells.
I don't know the science, but it only makes sense that there would be much more potential locked away in fetal stem cells than adult stem cells. Might fetal stem cell research be more difficult? More risky? Perhaps. But that doesn't address the issue of potential. If you're arguing instead that the potential in adult stem cells should be adequate to cure anything, I can accept that as an opinion, but it's hardly an idea based on fact.
Stem cells is stem cells -- that's the point -- that's why they are called stem cells. The only difference so far is that for some reason adult stem cells seem to work, while fetal stem cells don't.
And if the answer is: All things being equal, of course you use adult stem cells instead of fetal. But your rational for using them now is "potential". Then I would ask about the potential of the potental life that was potentially taken to potentially create potential.
Oh, and my father-in-law has a neurological disorder that he has been suffering from for the past 20 years. It is sort of like parkinson's, but not really. No one really knows what it is. But it is slowly taking away his ability to move automatically and deliberately. In the past 11 years I have seen him go from a bit stiff and hunched over, to wheel-chair bound and almost 100% dependant. His mind remains sharp, but he can't really talk. He can't write. He can barely feed himself anymore. And he won't participate in Stem Cell thearapy.
In fact, the way that I know that fetal stem cells seem to have a bad outcome is that he was in the pool for a research based treatment. His doctor wanted him to do it, but he refused. A year later, his doctor reported to him that all the people in the program had died. They went mad. They all lost their minds and the various neurological disorders that each of them had had were compounded to the point of death.
So, I personally know two people who are very close to this issue on the scientific side of it. One is doing successful research with adult stem cells. She is 31 years old and has already been published in several scientific and medical journals. She has been one of the top speakers/presenters at several international and U.N. conventions on gene thearapy and stem cell research... but you would never hear about this side of it in the media -- not even from Murdoch's Fox.
The other is my father-in-law, who lost all of his coherts in a botched fetal stem cell program that was supposedly the leading edge of this technology. That story did make the news... but not the front page.
So, you have the moral arguement, and the rational/scientific arguement.
And if the answer is: All things being equal, of course you use adult stem cells instead of fetal. But your rational for using them now is "potential". Then I would ask about the potential of the potental life that was potentially taken to potentially create potential.
Oh, and my father-in-law has a neurological disorder that he has been suffering from for the past 20 years. It is sort of like parkinson's, but not really. No one really knows what it is. But it is slowly taking away his ability to move automatically and deliberately. In the past 11 years I have seen him go from a bit stiff and hunched over, to wheel-chair bound and almost 100% dependant. His mind remains sharp, but he can't really talk. He can't write. He can barely feed himself anymore. And he won't participate in Stem Cell thearapy.
In fact, the way that I know that fetal stem cells seem to have a bad outcome is that he was in the pool for a research based treatment. His doctor wanted him to do it, but he refused. A year later, his doctor reported to him that all the people in the program had died. They went mad. They all lost their minds and the various neurological disorders that each of them had had were compounded to the point of death.
So, I personally know two people who are very close to this issue on the scientific side of it. One is doing successful research with adult stem cells. She is 31 years old and has already been published in several scientific and medical journals. She has been one of the top speakers/presenters at several international and U.N. conventions on gene thearapy and stem cell research... but you would never hear about this side of it in the media -- not even from Murdoch's Fox.
The other is my father-in-law, who lost all of his coherts in a botched fetal stem cell program that was supposedly the leading edge of this technology. That story did make the news... but not the front page.
So, you have the moral arguement, and the rational/scientific arguement.
RBBailey said:
See, that's what I'm talking about. How are people supposed to know that? If that is indeed true, then end of story. So what do the proponents of fetal stem cell research say are the benefits to fetal vs adult? Is it simply the supply?