|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 19 new of 68 responses total. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 50 of 68:
| 
Jun 19 22:43 UTC 2002 |
resp:35 Both parties retreated to their corners, so to speak, although
I'm fairly certain the Republicans did a lot more consistent moving to
the right, and in larger amounts, than the Democrats.
That candidate for governor was a flake and EVERYONE knew it. He
didn't have a snowball's chance in an inferno. A friend of mine and my
grandfather, both who are Republican, didn't vote for him.
|
klg
|
|
response 51 of 68:
|
Jun 20 03:35 UTC 2002 |
re: "#41 (jmsaul): What oval said. Do some homework. The researchers think
it's true"
If you were honest, you'd say, "SOME researchers think (yes, THINK - they
don't KNOW) it's true." I'll assume that you are aware of this but just don't
want to admit it.
And what does that have to do with my correction of the previous error?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 52 of 68:
|
Jun 20 04:12 UTC 2002 |
The fact is that Baby Bush is preventing scientists from exploring the
most promising area of stem cell research because of fundamentalist (and
conservative Catholic) Christian theology.
If you think that's a good call, you're beneath contempt.
|
bru
|
|
response 53 of 68:
|
Jun 20 05:08 UTC 2002 |
WEll thank you (that isn't the term I was tempted to use) mary for bringing
me into this arguement by using my poor dead mother whose position on this
subject you have no way of knowing, and for mine which you obviously do not
know either.
I do not believe in cloning, nor do I believe in aborting babies to get stem
cells.
I have NEVER stood in the way of other methods of gaining stem cells and using
them to cure disease. I just do not believe that my life or your life is
worth more than the life of an innocent child.
Now apologize for bringing my mother into this and shut the hell up about what
you "think" my position is.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 54 of 68:
|
Jun 20 05:37 UTC 2002 |
NB: Not all fundamentalists hold with the stance described in #42.
Admittedly, too many do, though.
I don't like abortion, but I support each woman's right to choose for herself.
If she's already decided to abort, I see no reason not to ask for the donation
of the tissues (stem cells and otherwise). I would prefer to avoid _paying_
for the tissues, because that could quite conceivably lead to "abortion for
hire".
|
mary
|
|
response 55 of 68:
|
Jun 20 10:43 UTC 2002 |
Re: 53 Do you feel an egg and sperm, brought together in a laboratory
and allowed to divide to eight cells in a petri dish is an innocent
child?
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 56 of 68:
|
Jun 20 19:42 UTC 2002 |
This is not said about anyone in particular, but I think it's rather
hypocritical to defend the rights of a fetus or potential fetus and pay
so little attention to the rights of children post-natal and the
conditions in which they live. Are they simply on their own once
they're out of the womb or test tube?
|
klg
|
|
response 57 of 68:
|
Jun 21 00:52 UTC 2002 |
re: "#52 (jmsaul): The fact is"
The real fact is that what you are calling a "fact" is just an "opinion."
re: "you're beneath contempt."
Don't try to flatter me.
|
oval
|
|
response 58 of 68:
|
Jun 21 01:16 UTC 2002 |
<cues evil soap opera music>
|
bru
|
|
response 59 of 68:
|
Jun 21 02:30 UTC 2002 |
No, I don't even consider 32 cells to be a person.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 60 of 68:
|
Jun 21 04:41 UTC 2002 |
I consider any group of 32 cells to be smarter than klg...
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 61 of 68:
|
Jun 21 15:46 UTC 2002 |
Oh my . . .
I"m digging the music . . . what key's it in? Hopefully a minor key to
match the mood.
|
klg
|
|
response 62 of 68:
|
Jun 22 01:57 UTC 2002 |
Gee, thanks, jmsaul.
|
russ
|
|
response 63 of 68:
|
Jun 22 16:07 UTC 2002 |
Re #51: And the researchers (and others, such as religious figures and
politicians) who say that it's not true, that we don't need to use
embryonic stem cells to cure various diseases... have NO idea what they're
talking about. Nobody's built a new heart or liver and cured a patient
yet (though it looks like there is progress on the kidney and thymus).
We don't know what it takes to do this. The only thing we do know is
that the only way new hearts and livers etc. get made naturally are out
of (drum roll) *embryonic stem cells*, and anyone claiming that any other
kind of cells can be made to do the job have zero evidence behind them.
In other words, they're lying their asses off for the sake of an article
of faith. (Some way to promote their religion's "morality", isn't it?)
They'd rather that science explore all the blind alleys instead of looking
for evidence where we know it exists, while people who could have been
cured suffer with illness and die.
Re #53: Bruce, abortion is not involved. The zygotes never left a Petri
dish. There is no pregnancy, no uterus, no woman, no abortion.
|
klg
|
|
response 64 of 68:
|
Jun 22 20:11 UTC 2002 |
re: "The only thing we do know is
that the only way new hearts and livers etc. get made naturally are out
of (drum roll) *embryonic stem cells*"
and pray tell, (drum roll) how do you know this? and do you
know how difficult it would be to generate enough embryonic stem cells to di
this?
|
carson
|
|
response 65 of 68:
|
Jun 22 20:22 UTC 2002 |
(you mean stem cells don't divide and multiply on their own?)
|
mdw
|
|
response 66 of 68:
|
Jun 23 02:03 UTC 2002 |
Dolly the sheep will certainly be in for a surprise
http://whyfiles.org/034clone/main4.html
|
klg
|
|
response 67 of 68:
|
Jun 23 02:59 UTC 2002 |
Don't you fellows understand the difference between
"the only way" and "one way"?
|
russ
|
|
response 68 of 68:
|
Jun 25 01:38 UTC 2002 |
Re #64: Okay, klg, I know you're not so good at filling in chains of
inference so I'll give you all the links.
1.) Nobody has ever made a replacement human heart (a biological
one, that is). Every one ever transplanted had to come from a donor.
2.) The donors came from embryonic stem cells, which came from zygotes.
And in case you flunked biology, it takes one cell to make all the
organs in the body. That's what a zygote is. So all you'd have to
do is use cloning ("nucleus transfer") to create a totipotent cell
with the patient's own DNA, and derive all the required cells for
the replacment of any organ or tissue which the patient needs.
Re #67: I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to prove that the
use of adult stem cells is "a way". If I believed that heavy coats
are immoral and told you to climb Mount Everest without such, you'd
tell me "It's never been done! F*** you!". To be worth a better
response than that, I'd have to demonstrate that it could be done
without coats. Have you made a heart, kidney or pancreas? Let's see
your demonstration first. Your moralizing is worth bupkis.
|