Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Is the new legislature talking about stem cells of aborted fetuses?...sm

Posted By: Democrat on 2006-07-06
In Reply to: I guess my worry is. - LL

Because I am a pro-life liberal. I don't rattle any cages about what other people chose to do with their bodies because I believe 90% of the time a person who choses to abort will not be a good parent anyway and will probably do worse to the child once outside the womb. Yes, I do believe a horid life can be worse than death before full development. The child will more than likely be in abject poverty, social and mental deprivation, and on and on. But more importantly, I think people should be more responsible to not get pregnant in the first place when they don't want kids.

Having said all that we do live in an age where abortion is legal, and like I said if they are going to dispose of the fetus anyway, why not use the stem cells to give hope to a Christopher Reeves of the world.

Now, when you talk about cloning and reproducing parts and such I'm not agreeing with that. That's taking it too far IMHO.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Stem Cells - I can't think of one reason why they should throw the extra cells away, rather than sav
x
Why no funerals for aborted fetuses?
answer that one Foxy
They are much more than 2 merged cells when they are aborted....
you obviously have a brain...use it.
PS; The Alaska State Legislature is
x
My source is the Illinois State Legislature. Gee, do they have a TV show?
xx
That is simply not true. No funerals for fetuses ever.
THINK about it. Foolish to argue this point.
Turkeys are for eating. Embryos and fetuses are

for loving, growing, giving birth to, nurturing, seeing smile for the first time, seeing walk for the first time, celebrating birthday parties with, chasing butterflies with, reading books to, hugging and kissing daily, taking to preschool, graduating kindergarten, running with friends on the playground, learning and developing opinions, going to camp with, fishing with, swimming with, sledding with, snowball fighting with, celebrating report cards with, taking to his/her first dance, first kiss, first date, surviving high school with, graduation, college/military/vocation, finding that special someone, landing a great job, getting married themselves, having more babies to continue that love......


It's called the next generation.


wow -- that's as sad as 1/2 aborted babies being left
nm
I have to weigh in here as someone who aborted a fetus sm
in what you would all consider late term; I had an anencephalic fetus and aborted at 30 some weeks. Am I a murderer according to your logic? I did what was right for my family and myself. And I thank GOD that I had a courageous provider who would do this for me.
group of cells.......
Gee, yea, we were a group of cells. That is how God planned it to be, so just because you were a group of cells, you would have hoped your mother would dispose of you JUST because you were a group of cells on the way to making a human being?
You don't think you might hear the cries of aborted babies....
where were you? Why didn't you help me?
Everyone begins somewhere...blob of cells or not (sm)
still a life in the making. Just because he/she is in the very early stages makes him/her no less a real person, coming to life.
Until I developed a sufficient number of cells to even
that's exactly what I was. And so were you. It's how biology works. Oh, wait. I forgot. You only studied creationism, right?
Mindboggling that republicans would rather throw the cells in the trash...sm
Than put them to use to save a life and in the same sentence call themselves PROlife. I'd really like to understand this reasoning.

I don't agree with cloning or using aborted fetuses for this research (the latter because I am a prolifer), but when an embryo is headed for the dumpster why not use it for research and medicine.

I saw a MJF ad run on Fox News Channel and it was probably the only ad I've taken seriously. He's dedicated to finding a cure.

In answer to AG's question, why do celebrities become the spokeperson's for different causes? They have the finances, fame and connections to rally support. Sure, there are smaller organizations out there, but many would not get the air time or financial support as MJF.

With great power comes great responsibility.
stem cell research
Well, God help you if any of your family gets struck down with a debilitating disease that could be helped with stem cell research
Here's my reasoning on stem cell research
It's not been made illegal, it's simply not funded with federal money, i.e. taxpayers money.  The pendulum has swung so far to the other side.  There are lots of people who have serious objections to abortions and also stem cell research, because of their objection to using live embryos.  People who want abortions have them paid for by people who don't believe in them.  That's unfair.  So, let the private market do the stem cell research and leave the taxpayers out of it.  If you feel very strongly about it, donate your own money to those doing it in the private market.
I don't support stem cell research.
It will never see a dime of my money if I can help it.
Stem Cell Research - First Veto...sm
Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush's First Veto

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 20, 2006; Page A04

President Bush issued the first veto of his five-year-old administration yesterday, rejecting Congress's bid to lift funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research and underscoring his party's split on an emotional issue in this fall's elections.

At a White House ceremony where he was joined by children produced from what he called adopted frozen embryos, Bush said taxpayers should not support research on surplus embryos at fertility clinics, even if they offer possible medical breakthroughs and are slated for disposal.



Stem cell research breakthrough

Just read this on Comcast.  Thought I would share.  Very intesting and exciting stuff!


http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/11/20/Stem.Cells/?cvqh=itn_stemcell


 


Stem cell research has started
I am so glad to see this has started. I know there must be loads of people who suffer maladies including strokes, spinal cord injuries and many, many more who have been waiting to start testing. I am very glad this has been overturned- now to get down to more business!
I'm conflicted about stem cell research.
I'm for it as long as there are limitations with how they get the stem cells - do they come from aborted babies? That I would have a problem with.

I don't have cancer, but there is a genetic background in my family for several different types, as well as muscular dystrophy, so I'm all for stem cell research as long as there are guidelines that are followed and Obama or any other president needs to make those guidelines clear.
Govt backing of stem cell research

I want stem cell research to go forward to help those with devastating illnesses.  I do not want the embryos to be thrown away but rather put to good use.  I really do not care what people with the opposite position say.  This is my position and in my mind and heart and soul it is the right position.  I care more for those who are already alive.


In a democracy, the majority rules and the majority of Americans want stem cell research to move forward with government backing.  The debate, as far as I am concerned, is over.  I am for it, others are not.  Whether it is approved within the next two years or when finally a democratic president, who makes judgments and decisions fairly and based on what the people want and not what God has told him/her, it will be a reality within a few years.


Stem cell research has no proven cure rate.
I remember years and years ago when animal experimentation was being protested.  I saw this fellow who was a soap opera actor.  He was crying and crying because they wanted to stop torturing animals to find cures.  His son had diabetes and he said they were THIS CLOSE to finding a cure.  that had to be at least 25 years ago.  Millions of animals have died and there is no cure for diabetes.  So when does it end? 
Senator Frist Now Backs Funcing for Stem Cell Research

 Finally!  A neocon wants to save life AFTER it's born, too!


 July 29, 2005


Veering From Bush, Frist Backs Funding for Stem Cell Research


WASHINGTON, July 29 - In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.

Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing " P nonetheless.< bill the supports he work, for financing taxpayer on limits strict placed which policy, four-year-old Bush?s Mr. altering about reservations had while that said He speech. Senate lengthy a in morning this decision his announced juncture,? at>

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist said. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."


His speech received the approval of Democrats as well as Republicans.


"I admire the majority leader for doing this," Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader and Democrat of Nevada, said immediately after the speech. He and Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said Mr. Frist's stance would give hope to people everywhere.


Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, contending they were discussing "the difference between life and death," said of Mr. Frist, "I believe the speech that he has just made on the Senate floor is the most important speech made this year, and perhaps the most important speech made in years."


He added: "This is a speech that will reverberate around the world, including at the White House."


Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's chief spokesman, said Mr. Frist had told Mr. Bush in advance notice of his planned announcement. "The president said, "You've got to vote your conscience," Mr. McClellan said, according to The Associated Press.


"The president's made his position clear," Mr. McClellan said when asked if Mr. Bush would veto a pending bill that would liberalize federal support for stem cell research, The A.P. reported. "There is a principle involved here from the president's standpoint when it comes to issues of life."


Mr. Frist's move will undoubtedly change the political landscape in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, one of the thorniest moral issues to come before Congress. The chief House sponsor of the bill, Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, said, "His support is of huge significance."


The stem cell bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, where competing measures are also under consideration. Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters, his support for the bill could break the Senate logjam. It could also give undecided Republicans political license to back the legislation, which is already close to having the votes it needs to pass the Senate.


The move could also have implications for Mr. Frist's political future. The senator is widely considered a potential candidate for the presidency in 2008, and supporting an expansion of the policy will put him at odds not only with the White House but also with Christian conservatives, whose support he will need in the race for the Republican nomination. But the decision could also help him win support among centrists.


"I am pro-life," Mr. Frist said in the speech, arguing that he could reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. "I believe human life begins at conception."


But at the same time, he said, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."


Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, said today in a statement that Senator Frist's decision was "very disappointing but not a surprise," given the senator's previous testimonies advocating stem cell research.


"As a heart surgeon who knows that adult stem cells are already making huge progress in treating heart disease in humans, it is unfortunate that Sen. Frist would capitulate to the biotech industry," Mr. Perkins said. "Thankfully, the White House has forcefully promised to hold the ethical line and veto any legislation that would expand the president's current policy."


Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also objected to Mr. Frist's decision and alluded to its political impact. "Senator Frist cannot have it both ways," he said, according to The A.P. "He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding. Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008."


Backers of the research were elated. "This is critically important," said Larry Soler, a lobbyist for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. "The Senate majority leader, who is also a physician, is confirming the real potential of embryonic stem cell research and the need to expand the policy."


Mr. Frist, who was instrumental in persuading President Bush to open the door to the research four years ago, has been under pressure from all sides of the stem cell debate. Some of his fellow Senate Republicans, including Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Mr. Specter, who is the lead Senate sponsor of the House bill, have been pressing him to bring up the measure for consideration.


"I know how he has wrestled with this issue and how conscientious he is in his judgment," Mr. Specter said today. "His comments will reverberate far and wide."


But with President Bush vowing to veto it - it would be his first veto - other Republicans have been pushing alternatives that could peel support away from the House bill.


Last week Mr. Castle accused the White House and Mr. Frist of "doing everything in their power to deflect votes away from" the bill. On Thursday night, Mr. Castle said he had written a letter to Mr. Frist just that morning urging him to support the measure. "His support of this makes it the dominant bill," he said.


Despite Mr. Frist's speech, a vote on the bill is not likely to occur before September because the Congress is scheduled to adjourn this weekend for the August recess.


With proponents of the various alternatives unable to agree on when and how to bring them up for consideration, Mr. Frist says he will continue to work to bring up all the bills, so that senators can have a "serious and thoughtful debate."


Human embryonic stem cells are considered by scientists to be the building blocks of a new field of regenerative medicine. The cells, extracted from human embryos, have the potential to grow into any type of tissue in the body, and advocates for patients believe they hold the potential for treatments and cures for a range of diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's disease.


"Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold some promise for specific cures that adult stem cells just cannot provide," Mr. Frist said.


But the cells cannot be obtained without destroying human embryos, which opponents of the research say is tantamount to murder. "An embryo is nascent human life," Mr. Frist said in his speech, adding: "This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn't just a matter of faith. It's a fact of science."


On Aug. 9, 2001, in the first prime-time speech of his presidency, Mr. Bush struck a compromise: he said the government would pay only for research on stem cell colonies, or lines, created by that date, so that the work would involve only those embryos "where the life or death decision has already been made."


The House-passed bill would expand that policy by allowing research on stem cell lines extracted from frozen embryos, left over from fertility treatments, that would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Castle has said he believes the bill meets the president's guidelines because the couples creating the embryos have made the decision to destroy them.


In his speech, Mr. Frist seemed to adopt that line of reasoning, harking back to a set of principles he articulated in July 2001, before the president made his announcement, in which he proposed restricting the number of stem cell lines without a specific cutoff date. At the time, he said the government should pay for research only on those embryos "that would otherwise be discarded" and today he similarly supported studying only those "destined, with 100 percent certainty, to be destroyed."


Moreover, he said, "Such funding should be provided only within a comprehensive system of federal oversight."


After Mr. Bush made his 2001 announcement, it was believed that as many as 78 lines would be eligible for federal money. "That has proven not to be the case," Mr. Frist said. "Today, only 22 lines are eligible."


But, Mr. Frist says the Castle bill has shortcomings. He says it "lacks a strong ethical and scientific oversight mechanism," does not prohibit financial incentives between fertility clinics and patients, and does not specify whether the patients or the clinic staff have a say over whether embryos are discarded. He also says the bill "would constrain the ability of policy makers to make adjustments in the future."


Mr. Frist also says he supports some of the alternative measures, including bills that would promote research on so-called adult stem cells and research into unproven methods of extracting stem cells without destroying human embryos.


"Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream," he said in conclusion today. "But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It's time for a modified policy - the right policy for this moment in time."


Jennifer Bayot and Shadi Rahimi contributed reporting for this article from New York.





Michael J Fox admits he did not read the Missouri stem cell initiate. sm
This is exactly what I am talking about.  He has no idea what the stem cell initiative says about cloning.  But he is *quite sure* he would support it anyway.  Frightening.
When McBush is talking, he isn't talking to you unless you are wealthy or CEO

 


who provides campaign funds.  Do you know why lobbyists are making the headlines?  Because they are bribing the politicians of both parties - lobbyists work for private interests (AIPAC) along with the pharmaceutical company ($280.00 for a bottle of pills?  Only in America, folks), oil industry (record profits at your expense) credit card companies and unethical banking procedures (Funny isn't it how Visa wrote the reformed BK bill, making virtually everyone end up in ch 13 (garnishing income, including SS) after raising credit limits and offering transfer balances at 0 percent to everyone with a last name and a roof over their head?  Along with mtgs that were bound to turn into bad loans when house prices dropped which they always do after a bubble.  God, I could go on and on here but I get tired.  The nation is in such trouble.  Serious serious trouble.  There is a huge loan to an unfriendly country (did you watch the Olympics?  did you ever see Bush look more uncomfortable other than during the Stephen Colbert roast during the national press conference.  lol.  


Well I want you to know what fascism.  And I want you to know that those treasury notes are backed up by the taxpayers (you) and real estate including roads and govt buildings and parks.  Have you noticed why Save-Mart Center is owned by savemart and not a community business or the community itself?  There is somethign happening slowly and surely and it is NOT going to benefit middle class america one iota.  You must know that as a poor person, you have no power, no voice.  Elections are rigged and the politicans cease to care whether you like them or not - oh wait, that has already happened. 


THINK ABOUT THIS!!!!  Your 401Ks and investments/assets are what at are stake! 


Fascist governments nationalized key industries and made massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of Soviet-style economic planning measures.[12] Property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state.[13].[14] Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.[15] Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that they opposed reactionaries, and that they were actually revolutionary political movements that fused with conservative social values.


Talking to them is talking to a brick wall.
nm
I am, not talking about Clinton, I am talking
about the torture of prisoners, crimes against the Geneva conventions.

It seems that you did not read the last sentence in my former post.

Are you saying that crimes from the near past should all be forgotten?
Not really, you'd have to know what they were talking about
which I didn't know about the incident of the soldier accidentally killing other soldiers.

Thanks though.
Wow! what are you talking about???nm
x
What are you talking about?
.
I was talking about myself when I said that.
You might want to re-read my post.
What are you talking about?
I am sure I don't know.  I know your game though.
Not what I was talking about

Wasn't referring to WMD, as stated in my post.


Saddam had gotten rid of the WMDs, said his son-in-law, quite a few years earlier.  If your theory of invading a country that no longer is a threat, then would you also advise invading Germany since they used to have a Nazi regime?


If you are talking to me...
which question did I not answer?
who are you talking to?
I don't understand the anonymous post... there are plenty I think it could be addressed to, why did you not point out what you mean? PS you are just stirring the pot more right?
Exactly what I am talking about. Think for yourself.

xx


Talking about yourself again, huh?
nm
what are you talking about?
straight out of left field... you random people!

Yes the baby has Down's syndrome...
He is so adorable did you see him when she held him on stage?
Babies are so amazing!
Okay, what are you talking about?

I just mean in terms of the baby being passed around.  That's what people do with babies.  They share the love. 


Doncha have any babies in your family?


What are you talking about??
And you still have nothing positive to say about Obama.

All I'm asking for is something positive and you can't even do that.


You know exactly what I'm talking about; no need
You'll just produce your own figures (be they real or imagined) to 'back up' your own claims. But if you truly think the number of priests who have turned out to be sexual predators isn't a little fishy, then maybe that blindness is part of the problem.
No, I don't think he is talking about ...
the same sex ed for high school as he is kindergartners. However, it did describe talking about "sexual intercourse" and how HIV-AIDS is spread. I don't know how that is appropriate in any case for a kindergartner. The bill was specifically intended to open it up to the lower grades...it was already being taught in the upper grades. Why would you open that up to elementary school kids, let alone kindergartners? That was my point. If you want to establish a program for elementary school children about right and wrong touches, I am all for that. But introducing sexual intercourse and how HIV-AIDS is spread makes no sense to me for elementary school children. If they did not intend to teach it to elementary school children and kindergartners, why pass a bill to open it up to them?

Apparently many in the state senate agreed, because the bill did not pass.

That was my point. He in essence did vote for sex education for kindergartners and it was not just right and wrong touching. Thankfully, at least in my estimation...it did not pass. You saw the video...if he meant limited to "right and wrong touching" he would/should have said so.
I was talking about
appointing new justices to the supreme court. I would love to have lots of liberal justices seated on the bench. Has nothing to do with put babies in a closet, but hey, whatever.
Now that's what I'm talking about!
x
This is exactly what I am talking about. nm
nm
Who do you think you are talking to?
from the experts to figure out tax structure, credits, cuts, deductions, incentives, etc, and certainly know myself, my beliefs, my principles and my values by now. I also know my party, their platform, my candidate and my choice.
Well am I talking to myself LOL
I meant this to go under the post of sm-m!
So, what will you be talking about
just curious
What are you talking about?!

Biden answered each and every question very completely and very eloquently.  They were more like accusations than questions, and the whole thing resembled an ambush more than an interview.  Please WATCH THE VIDEO OF THIS INTERVIEW (link below) and tell me just which question Biden DIDN'T answer.


I wouldn't waste my time being interviewed by this woman, either.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X346U109Chs


 


What are you talking about
"Fox news is barely legal"