[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Pro Life? Fire Mission needed. (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 3/7/2007 9:37:45 AM EDT
|
I don't know how these two bills escaped my attention. H.R. 3, Stem Cell Research Act and its identical counterpart in the Senate S.B. 5, seek to broaden stem cell research to include embrionic and fetal stem cells. It's sponsors are looking to put the power of Federal Law behind issues that when initially discussed a few short years ago, they claimed would never arise. Please write and call your elected representatives in Washington D.C. and express your opposition to these bills. HR 3 S.B. 5 Why H.R.3 and Senate Bill 5 are wrong: 1. Senate Bill 5 says it bans cloning. It does not. It bans one kind of cloning and makes another kind legal. It bans some forms of reproductive cloning, cloning to make a baby. It gives legal protection to scientists who want to create clones to be destroyed in scientific experiments. This kind of cloning, “cloning to kill,” is even more unethical than reproductive cloning. 2. Senate Bill 5 says it regulates human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. It does not. It regulates only research funded by state dollars. Sponsors also said last year that they would not propose funding from state dollars to be used for stem hESC research. If that is true, the bill is toothless on hESC research. 3. Sponsors of Senate Bill 5 say that stem cell research and cloning are already legal in Delaware and that SB 5 is necessary to regulate them. In fact, no one in Delaware is doing hESC or cloning research, because scientists fear that, in the absence of a bill authorizing these activities, that they could be prosecuted. SB 5 exists only to authorize such research. 4. Senate Bill 5 says it supports adult stem cell research. This is a smokescreen. Adult stem cell research is ethical and legal and does not need a bill to make it so. Adult stem cell research is going on in Delaware right now. There are over 70 treatments from adult stem cells. 5. Senate Bill 5 says it makes the sale of embryos illegal. While it does make the sale of embryos illegal, it does not make the sale of the products of human embryos illegal. Stem cell lines are sold for up to $5,000 each. Each human embryo that is destroyed can produce up to 200 lines. There is big money in human embryonic stem cell research. 6. Senate Bill 5 does nothing to stop the exploitation of poor women for their eggs, which will be needed for any cloning research. Huang, the discredited scientist from Korea who claimed to have cloned a human last year, went through thousands of human eggs, which were obtained by forcing graduate students to hyperovulate, a painful and medically dangerous process. |
I'm pro not limiting people's options. I think the most pro-life thing you can do is aid in helping needy mothers, helping arrange adoptions, and other pro-active things like that instead of trying to ban abortion. It's not like abortions will increase in number because stem cells can be used for scientific research. Luckily, IIRC scientists recently discovered how to make stem cells from less controversial means. |
And yet you were compelled to click and post in a thread that you completely disagree with even when its title illustrated clearly what it was about?  Obviously you are confused and can't follow your own advice.  FWIW: When the .gov makes something I disagree with the Law of the Land and my tax dollars go to fund said law...that makes it my business. 
|
That's the thing... is a single cell a human being? You say yes, I say no. All of you who are against stem cell research, are you equally opposed to in vitro fertilization? |
All teenage boys should be locked up for being mass murderers. You don't have to be a six-footer. You don't have to have a great brain. You don't have to have any clothes on. You're a Catholic the moment Dad came, Because... Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. Millions of potential babies are dying in tube socks right this second... Also, it's not like middle class and well off families are having the most abortions. When our society is able to help the poorest and least educated mothers with afforable health and child care, I would prefer they retain their reproductive rights until they are certain they can raise a child properly. Lastly, did anyone read my first post? Scientists have figured out how to harvest stem cells from less controversial means Washington Post Article: Skins cells converted to Stem cells |
Single cells are not aborted. You know that. Recently a baby was released from the hospital that weighed only 10 ounces at birth. It was born 4.5 months premature. The only reason to abort a baby is selfishness. |
|
Adult stem cell research has already shown promises and is being used for clinical treatment. Diverting funds to fetal/embryonic stem cell research is a WASTE of money. Logic dictates you fund what is promising. Those who believe in spending money on fetal/embryonic stem cell research are the same people that sell profitable stocks when the market turns down, keeping the losers in hopes they turn around. These "investors" are actually losers. |
|
Several years ago I was in Chicago with my family on vacation. We visited the museum of science and industry, a huge museum and a fascinating place. In one of the exhibit halls they had a display of the development of a human baby. They had numerous babies preserved in glass jars that had miscarried. One for each day of the development of the baby, from a single egg to a full term baby. I spent a couple of hours looking at this display, it was presented so as to educate you on the development of the baby and had nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. I started at the full term baby, no question this was a real baby. The one right next to it was one day younger, again no question real baby, in fact I couldn't tell the difference between them. I went all of the way down the line looking at them one at a time. I couldn't tell the difference between them from day to day. Obviously if you looked at changes over weeks of time you could the the difference but not day to day. This didn't really sink in until several weeks later. I got to thinking about what I had observed, and came to the conclusion that I was not capable of deciding if there was a line of time where one was a baby and the day before was not. Therefore I concluded that I believe life begins at conception since that is the only place where the difference was undeniable. From that moment on I became pro-life. |
So we're going to limit science by only using the least of the controversial harvesting methods? Considering how much we don't know, I would have to raise issue with any limitation. |
I suppose the same thing could be done by showing me several sheets of paper that change one shade at a time from light blue to dark green. It would be difficult for me to decide which is the first shade that is actually green, but not that difficult for me to know that the first one was not green. |
Or the inability of a parent to be good decent supporter of a child. While I wouldn't want my ole lady performing an abortion, I look at it this way. Yes, it's aweful, yes it's traumatic, but do you really want someone who would be willing to kill their child to be a parent?? To me it's like saying, "Yeah, we know you're not up for the job, but you're going to do it anyway." If they're willing to actuall have one performed, they're obviously not qualified to be good parents anyway. What's worse for the child? To get things over & done with before they really get started or be forced to live life with an asshat parent? |
Nothing will limit science and its far reaching endeavors. What we can limit is the .gov (our taxes) paying for it. Why is it incumbent on the citizens of the US to pay for everything? Where would be today if we waited for the .gov to fund scientists to develop the plane, cotton gin, penicillin, electricity, plastics, computers, mapping the genome etc? If private researchers want to solicit private funds to conduct their own studies, so be it. I don't like it, but as a private citizen there isn't much I can do about it. Why does the financial weight and backing of the US Gov't have to be stamped on everything for people to think it is legitimate or conversely illegitimate? |
You are trying to limit my freedoms in the same way anti's are trying to. Whether I believe in abortion or not(or own a gun or not), it should be up to me to decide, not a politician. Social dumping is the reason so many cultures hate us, and its easy to see why. |
I guess this shows where your priorities lie. I take it that you'd vote for Hillary if she were slightly more pro-life than the Republican?  Not that that's much of a surprise around here; I think half of you guys don't even shoot off anything other than your mouths.In case nobody noticed, the news had a report a few weeks ago that researchers have successfully harvested stem cells from amniotic fluid. In other words, they no longer need to abort babies to obtain the stem cells that these bills would allow to be used in federally-funded research. So, I guess you are simply opposed to medical research. I do so very sincerely hope that you also intend to refuse all medical treatments stemming from such immoral research. |
Aye, Now thats something I can get on bored with. As longs as its not a outright ban. |
I am not trying to limit anyones freedom. Abortion is ALREADY the law of the land. This isn't about abortion. This is about the government forcing it's opinion upon the people by passing a law that the people won't get to debate. Youf comment about social dumping speaks volume about your character and your opinion of the USA. Stand for something or you'll fall for anything. If the USA can't stand on high moral ground, then we cannot stand before the world and argue that terrorism is wrong because who are we to say anything is right or wrong. As an American, I could care less what the rest of the world thinks about me. America is the most generous nation ever to exist. We have ALWAYS stood to help those in need and those who couldn't defend themselves. Hell, most of the nations who hate us we either 1) bailed their sorry asses out of several wars, b) beat their asses in several wars (but notice we didn't occupy their lands and make their lame country a territory of the US) or c) have become socialistic states where everybody sits in their own filth but WTF...their .gov's pay for them to have 4 weeks of vacation a year so who cares. Explain to me why I should care what France thinks about me or my country? |
How about teaching them to say no and crossing their legs. Abortion is MURDER OF AN INNOCENT BABY. |
I completely agree. In my opinion, a human life is created when it is capable of surviving outside the womb, at around 23 weeks, or so. A sperm or egg cell isn't human, and stem cells from cord blood or amniotic fluid aren't humans, themselves. Again, IMO, a "human" is produced as it incubates in the mother's womb. The process of in vitro fertilization fertilizes many eggs in an attempt to create just one viable baby. Once the mother successfully becomes impregnated, the remaining fertilized eggs are frozen, and eventually destroyed. This seems like the exact same thing as abortion, to me, but on a larger scale. However, I think this is a lot of "potential life" simply not allowed to grow into life. |
Should rape victims be forced to carry to term the child of their attacker? |
Because abstinence isn't a realistic concept. I think it's a great idea, but people will always get raped, screwed over, or make stupid decisions. Is every happy child born through in vitro fertilization the product of dozens of murdered children? |
Its like telling someone in china they can't eat dogs because we don't do it. You don't see people in india screaming at us for eating beef because they don't do it. Stop being so self-righteous. Live your life as you will and leave everyone else alone. |
Thank you for just making my point. Why should we do what other countries say? As far as I can tell, they can't vote here in the US. I live my life the way I believe I should. I could care less about what you do in your life as long as it doesn't harm me, my family or innocent bystanders. What business is it of the .gov to mandate funding for research that if it is going to happen, should be funded privately? |
Opposition?:: Heck, I support getting the government out of peoples lives (including science), not dangling its noddeledeg appendeges into science. |
Because they fund many, many other scientific and medical research topics. There's no reason they shouldn't also fund a brand new idea with such huge possible benefits. |
 Would you rather do without the majority of medical technologies we have today? What about NASA? The atomic bomb? |
|
By saying no to that type of research, you're essentially looking children suffering from type 1 diabetes in the eye and saying NO to a promising method of treatment. Pro-life isn't just about being anti-abortion ... it's about using medicine to help people suffering with life threatening diseases have a chance at THEIR LIFE. It's not 'playing god' any more than organ transplants, blood donation, antibiotics or blood pressure medication help alter the course of someone's life. Years ago ... people balked at organ transplant, but we're seeing people live a full life because of someone else's death. There are so many possible avenues in stem cell research and so many diseases that can be cured or made easier to cope with through more research and development of these cells. edited to add: Look at the medical reality ... years ago ... the flu claimed a ton of lives. So did pneumonia. Diseases were rampant and now we can vaccinate and prevent so much. And that didn't happen without research and pushing the boundaries of science. |
So you are willing to take the life of one child to save another. I cant do it. edit for spelling |
Coun't me in You can always count on the baby murder advocates and atheists to crap in your thread |
|
Most stem cell research uses unused embryos from invitro clinics. An embryo in the blastocyst stage is not a child. Would I save ... oh, a five year old child who can think, breathe on its own, who can speak, and is suffering instead of a mass of cells that isn't anything... yes, without hesitation I would save the child. |
According to you Go ahead and rationalize any way you need to avoid the fact of the matter |
People have argued about this for decades...when does life begin? You know what? The most logically sound argument is this; It begins at the beginning. To say that one isn't human simply because they aren't fully developed opens a lot of doors. It would then mean that any member of the species up to the age of adulthood is not human...because even teenagers aren't fully developed (ie not done growing). |
"Cheaper" Oh the irony.... |
|
Here's an interesting contradiction; There are those that want laws to make it fully legal to harvest embryonic stem cells (from whatever source), and at the same time it is already highly illegal to do anything with even a piece of an eagle, its nest, or its egg... "The Act imposes criminal and civil penalties on anyone (including associations, partnerships and corporations) in the U.S. or within its jurisdiction who, unless excepted, takes, possesses, sells, purchases, barters, offers to sell or purchase or barter, transports, exports or imports at any time or in any manner a bald or golden eagle, alive or dead; or any part, nest or egg of these eagles." ...it's okay to kill unborn humans, but you'd better not get caught with an eagle's egg. BALD EAGLE PROTECTION ACT 16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d |
We can always just build more prisons and stiffen sentencing right? I suppose you oppose sex education too? The tards don't want us to have guns because we might go postal and shoot small children. You don't people to have condoms or abortion as a last ditch because they might have sex. Are you getting the ironic doublestandard here? How about people who cannot bare the costs of children be discouraged from having them. No welfare for the able bodied, I guarantee you conception and abortion rates will go down. |
Therein lies the fault of your argument. This is simply not true. Embryonic stem cells are not the best nor the most efficient ways of getting stem cells. Science has proven that adult stem cells, stem cells from fetal pigs and other sources are far cheaper, more efficient and yield better results than embronic cells. The embryonic debate is being pushed by the National Org of Women and other pro choice organizations because it further legitimizes and engrains abortion into the fabric of American culture. Embryonic cells harvested from aborted fetii are extremely delicate and untable. It take a tremendous amount of money to harvest them, transfer and prepare them for research. Research which as many have found is all unecessary because cheaper and more viable sources are being used every day to find cures and treatments for hundreds if not thousands of illnesses and disease states. Consider this, in the face of all the evidence supporting alternate sources, why is the left screaming so hard for this ONE line of study? The answer is simple. Once it is made law, it becomes a protected entitlement much like welfare, medicare, medicaid and social security has become. In otherwords, big $$ will follow. Name one program put forward by the .gov that hasn't grown into an entitlement program that can neither be recalled or ended? Who winds up paying for it? You and I via our tax dollars. |
Don't go injecting facts into the argument... it's much cooler to be a man/woman of "science" and use the junk studies that never can be repeated to obatin the same results Hey thread shitters show me one therapy or treatment that has been derived from Embryonic stem cells... I will be waiting a long time for your response Wolfgang Lillge, M.D. The question of stem cells is currently the dominant subject in the debate over biotechnology and human genetics: Should we use embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells for future medical therapies? Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue). Stem cells are of wide interest for medicine, because they have the potential, under suitable conditions, to develop into almost all of the different types of cells. They should therefore be able to repair damaged or defective tissues (for example, destroyed insulin-producing cells in the pancreas). Many of the so-called degenerative diseases, for which there are as yet no effective therapies, could then be alleviated or healed. It is remarkable that in the debate–often carried on with little competence–the potential of embryonic stem cells is exaggerated in a one-sided way, while important moral questions and issues of research strategy are passed over in silence. Generally, advocates of research with embryonic stem cells use as their main argument that such research will enable us to cure all of the diseases that are incurable today–cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, and so forth. Faced with such a prospect, it is supposed to be "acceptable" to "overlook" a few moral problems. On closer inspection, however, the much extolled vision of the future turns out to be a case of completely empty promises: Given the elementary state of research today, it is by no means yet foreseeable, whether even one of the hoped-for treatments can be realized. Basically, such promised cures are a deliberate deception, for behind the mirage of a coming medical wonderland, promoted by interested parties, completely other research objectives will be pursued that are to be kept out of public discussion as much as possible. Perfect candor should rule in stem cell research. This requires that the scientist himself clearly establish the moral limits of his activity and declare what the consequences of research with embryonic stem cells really are. In the process, no one can escape the fact that, should one wish to use embryonic stem cells for "therapeutic purposes," the very techniques will be developed that will also be used for the cloning of human beings, the making of human-animal hybrids, the manipulation of germ lines, and the like–thus for everything other than therapeutic purposes. Any coverup or hypocrisy in this matter will very quickly reflect upon the research as a whole. |
You think adult stem cells will yield better results than embryonic cells? Leave it to the uneducated to argue science. Again, I'm reminded of a blind-folded 6 year-old screaming at the top of his lungs with his fingers in his ears. |
I don't disagree with stem cell research. I disagree with ebryonic stem cell research. Look 4 posts up and read what an expert has to say on the subject. |