OT - Stem Cell Research, is it ethical?

> It has been said that stem cell research may lead to cures of hundreds of
> serious illnesses. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again,
> if
> this line of research is aggressively pursued.

It'll take more than stem cells to get Christopher Reeve walking again. As
far as I know stem cell treatments don't have the ability to revive the
dead.

> The drawback is that an
> abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
> you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
> of lives.

You are making the assumption that stem cell research requires the use of
embryos. This is misleading. Embryonic stem cells are only one source (and
so far the majority of that research has been done on the many thousands of
discarded embryos from fertility clinics). An abortion is NOT necessary to
conduct embryonic stem cell research.

There are other sources of stem cells, such as blood from the placenta and
umbilical cord. Cord blood stem cells have been used for the last 15 years
to treat young patients with various types of leukemia and other problems.
Bone marrow stem cells have been used for the last 30 years to treat cancer
patients with leukemia and lymphoma. Adult stem cell research has shown that
bone marrow stem cells can transform into nerve, liver, and kidney cells.
McGill university researchers have even been able to extract stem cells from
skin.

Stem cell research offers a lot of potential to make significant
improvements in peoples lives. I think it's shameful that uniformed and
morally misguided people such as yourself are trying to deny my quadriplegic
friend the chance that someday he'll be able to hug and hold his young
daughter and play with her, but most of all to fulfill her dream, of having
her dad walk her down the aisle on her wedding day.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
>> the same
>>respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.
>
> Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.

They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to being a
toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <1100015757.WZwJc2J3/8tBruKwjPTQmw@teranews>, Scott Cramer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>> True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
>>>> the same
>>>>respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.
>>>
>>> Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.
>>
>> They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to
>> being a
>>toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.
>
> The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.
>
> The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the
> difference between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance
> of becoming half a human being, and something that already is an
> entire human being.

I didn't think you'd be willing to touch the difference between Dick Cheney
and a human being.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>>> They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is
>>>> to being a
>>>> toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.
>>>

>>I didn't think you'd be willing to touch the difference between Dick
>>Cheney and a human being.
>
> I didn't think you'd be able to refrain from making a gratuitous
> insult.

I would never make a gratuitous insult about the power behind the
throne. If I were to insult the puppetmaster, it would be heartfelt and
sincere.

I found a good site discussing the ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell
Research. The author makes many good points that have been well
researched. It even talks about things that you can do to make a
difference. I encourage you to visit it:
http://www.hesc.cjb.net

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >> The drawback is that an
> >> abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
> >> you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
> >> of lives.
> >>
> >Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
> >frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.
>
> Does that make it right?
> >
> >And defining a fetus, especially at a very early stage (blastocyst?) as
> >a human being, is a religious belief, not a fact.
>
> Its cells contain human DNA.If it isn't human, what is it?
>
> >One could equally
>
> [but incorrectly]
>
> >hold the belief (also not a fact) that a fetus only becomes human when
> >it is capable of surviving outside the womb without extraordinary
> >measures.
>
> To do so is equivalent to maintaining that a baby born sufficiently
> prematurely is not human.
> >
> >The fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition
> >point from embryo to human.
>
> That's because there is no transition. A human embryo is human from the
> beginning, just as a dog embryo is a dog from the beginning.

Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.

"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> <snip> End discusssionas far as I'm concerned. It's impossible to change
> the
> views of someone who bases their opinions on faith instead of facts.
>
>
> Actually Larry.. according to your own words.. you've based your opinions on
> the absence of facts. And as far as understanding the word "potential"... I
> personally hesitate to remove value if the "potential" exists. In fact, that
> is exactly why I would attribute value. As far as not attributing a
> particular designation to an egg.. such as a "chicken" egg as you've chosen
> this example..... next time you make yourself breakfast ask yourself if
> lizard eggs will do just as well.....

Babies have no potential to continue to grow in a petre dish or in a freezer.

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > It has been said that stem cell research may lead to cures of hundreds of
> > serious illnesses. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again,
> > if
> > this line of research is aggressively pursued.
>
> It'll take more than stem cells to get Christopher Reeve walking again. As
> far as I know stem cell treatments don't have the ability to revive the
> dead.
>
> > The drawback is that an
> > abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
> > you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
> > of lives.
>
> You are making the assumption that stem cell research requires the use of
> embryos. This is misleading. Embryonic stem cells are only one source (and
> so far the majority of that research has been done on the many thousands of
> discarded embryos from fertility clinics). An abortion is NOT necessary to
> conduct embryonic stem cell research.
>
> There are other sources of stem cells, such as blood from the placenta and
> umbilical cord. Cord blood stem cells have been used for the last 15 years
> to treat young patients with various types of leukemia and other problems.
> Bone marrow stem cells have been used for the last 30 years to treat cancer
> patients with leukemia and lymphoma. Adult stem cell research has shown that
> bone marrow stem cells can transform into nerve, liver, and kidney cells.
> McGill university researchers have even been able to extract stem cells from
> skin.
>
> Stem cell research offers a lot of potential to make significant
> improvements in peoples lives. I think it's shameful that uniformed and
> morally misguided people such as yourself are trying to deny my quadriplegic
> friend the chance that someday he'll be able to hug and hold his young
> daughter and play with her, but most of all to fulfill her dream, of having
> her dad walk her down the aisle on her wedding day.

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this clearly and
calmly. There's no way I could control my temper and do it as
gracefully. You see, my husband would like to be able to hoist the
ladder up to the girls room on their wedding day! Just kidding. I'd
like to tell some of you guys to walk a mile in my husbands
shoes...they're nice, just like new.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Jana) wrote:
> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
>
> >> >Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
> >> >frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.
> >>
> >> Does that make it right?
>
> >
> > Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.
>
> Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death?

Doug. They are not all utilized. The remainder are discarded ~ thrown
away. I would be the last person who would approve of stem cell
research if the only resources were from cells that were either
aborted or would eventually be used invetro. We have the right to
disagree and I admit your responces have gotten under my skin. I
sincerely hope you or know one you love is ever dependant on this
research. I have a huge interest in it. My husband is in a
wheelchair. The fact that he can't walk isn't so bad. The pain is,
though. He describes it as having your toes in a vise as tight as
it'll go, with his feet in near boiling water, and the tingling you
get when your feet have been asleep...all at the same time. 24-7 for
over 7 years. The only relief is constant rubbing. It has nothing to
do with circulation, the nerves just misfire. Somehow, he's just
learned to deal with it. I'm not telling you this so you can feel
sorry for me or Jim. We doctor at Mayo and I've met so many people
that make us feel so lucky that I would be ashamed to complain. So,
I'm sorry, you will never ever change my mind. I've been working for
the past 7 years tying to get my husband to walk and it'll take more
than you to make me give up.

"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> <snip>And defining a fetus, especially at a very early stage (blastocyst?)
> as
> a human being, is a religious belief, not a fact.
>
> Actually, defining a blastocyst as a fetus is wrong. Human or not. a
> Blastocyst is an early metazoan embryo typically having the form of a hollow
> fluid-filled rounded cavity bounded by a single layer of cells.
>
> A fetus is defined as an embryo having formed its basic shape.
>
> Actually the religious belief isn't whether it's a human being or not...
> it's when does it get a soul. Until that is proven, an impossibility by the
> way,this will always be a controversial subject. Even an atheistic
> scientist doesn't deny it's human.
>
>
> <snip>One could equally hold the belief (also not a fact) that a fetus only
> becomes human when it is capable of surviving outside the womb without
> extraordinary measures.
> <snip>The fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition
> point from embryo to human.
>
> The fact is you are talking gibberish. The medical industry, biologist,
> geneticists, etc. all agree on one thing.... it's human. It's a human egg.
> It's a human sperm. At conception it becomes a human embryo with all it's
> various stages. It then becomes a human fetus with it's various stages and
> if the incubation period is successful it becomes a human infant followed by
> numerous other human stages of life.

I don't think anyone will ever be able to pinpoint an exact time when
the human gets a soul. I think logic can narrow it down a bit by
saying that it's when the brain develops. Any other part of the human
body can be transplanted or amputated and the soul remains unchanged.
If you have ever been present at the time of death when a person
becomes brain dead, it's all too clear. The body can continue to
function for a time or be assisted by life support, but when the
brain's gone...it's all over. The soul is gone. Going by what my
heart tells me, I'd like to say that it all begins the exact second I
found out I was pregnant. Up until then, you could lose it and never
be the wiser. After that, it's more important than anything.

In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that
>> another might walk?
>
>Hmm. I think the question might be: "Is it right that a human
>being should die, in order that a degenerative condition or a
>debilitating condition might be removed from the lives of all
>other human beings?"

Emphasis on the word "might". There have already been significant advances
derived from research on adult and umbilical cord stem cells, but none
whatever from embryonic stem cells. That's *all* just pie in the sky.
>
>Pick one and call for volunteers - you might be surprised at the
>response.

Emphasis on the word "volunteers". There's nothing voluntary on the part of
the embryos that are sacrificed in the extraction of their stem cells.
>
>Consider another question: Is it right that a human being should
>be placed (voluntarily or involuntarily) in harm's way, in order
>that others live free?

Voluntarily, sure.
Involuntarily, I don't know. I think that might depend to some extent on the
specific circumstances, including (but not limited to) the age of the human
being involved, but in general I have problems with that.

However, placing an adult "in harm's way" (i.e. _at_risk_ of injury, possibly
even fatal injury) is definitely not in the same category, ethically and
morally, with deliberately causing the certain death of a child whether born
or unborn.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:39:14 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Prometheus wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:48:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating
>>>>> them by different means will render the issue moot soon enough.
>>>>
>>>> Also given the fact that other countries will do the research and
>>>> develop the science whether the US govt. supports it or not... Shall we
>>>> hold the folks who condemn the research at this point to rejecting the
>>>> treatment when they or a family member might need whatever treatment
>>>> becomes available? No, I guess not - my sense of liberal compassion
>>>> won't allow me to withhold aid from someone who needs it.
>>>
>>>Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals
>>>were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those
>>>nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why
>>>government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
>>>[potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.
>>
>> Funny, I coulda sworn that had something to do with the most of R&D
>> money of said drug manufacturers going to commericals that show people
>> hiking and canoeing without ever telling you just what in the heck the
>> drug is for.
>
>(a) What percentage of "R&D money" was diverted to those commercials? In
>fact what percentage of the annual income of that company was taken up by
>those expenditures. I think you'll find that they were a drop in the
>bucked for a company that size.

Couldn't find a percentage, here's an article with some ad budgets.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/drugs/2001-12-11-drug-ads.htm
You could be quite right about it being a drop in the bucket, but any
signifigant money (and I'd call 160.8 million ad dollars for Vioxx
pretty darn signifigant) is taking away from R&D. I would imagine
that 9 figures would buy a pretty good chunk of research, instead of
frittering it away on short videos of people canoeing.

>(b) The content of the commercials is regulated by the government.

Yippie. They still don't tell you just what in the hell the drug in
question is supposed to do- shouldn't that be the point of the
commercials?

>> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Joey Bosco rides into the filters with:

>
>John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not. Do
>you?

What business is it of yours?

Charlie Self
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character,
give him power." Abraham Lincoln

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:32:01 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
>> Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an
>> entire human being."
>> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
>
>How many cells does it take before you won't kill it?

I don't intend to kill any of them. All I've ever said is that I
don't believe any of us has the right to make that call for someone
else. Somehow that makes me not only a murderer, but a slaver and
supporter of Hilter as well, I guess- though I fail to see how.

>todd
>Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit
>materiari?

Damn, it wasn't supposed to be that offensive to everyone, I just
thought I'd add a sig file like half the folks on here. Who cares if
it's in Latin or English? A quick google search pulls up the
definition right away.


Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:48:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating
>>> them by different means will render the issue moot soon enough.
>>
>> Also given the fact that other countries will do the research and develop
>> the science whether the US govt. supports it or not... Shall we hold the
>> folks who condemn the research at this point to rejecting the treatment
>> when they or a family member might need whatever treatment becomes
>> available? No, I guess not - my sense of liberal compassion won't allow me
>> to withhold aid from someone who needs it.
>
>Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals
>were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those
>nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why
>government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
>[potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.

Funny, I coulda sworn that had something to do with the most of R&D
money of said drug manufacturers going to commericals that show people
hiking and canoeing without ever telling you just what in the heck the
drug is for.

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> The drawback is that an
> abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
> you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
> of lives.
>
Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.

And defining a fetus, especially at a very early stage (blastocyst?) as
a human being, is a religious belief, not a fact. One could equally
hold the belief (also not a fact) that a fetus only becomes human when
it is capable of surviving outside the womb without extraordinary
measures.

The fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition
point from embryo to human.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>One could equally
> > [but incorrectly]
> >>hold the belief (also not a fact) that a fetus only becomes human when
> >>it is capable of surviving outside the womb without extraordinary
> >>measures.
> >
> >>The fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition
> >>point from embryo to human.
> >
> > That's because there is no transition. A human embryo is human from the
> > beginning, just as a dog embryo is a dog from the beginning.
> >
> >
> Thank you, Doug. I have been reading this thread trying to think of the
> proper response and how to word it and you said exactly what I believe.

And I suppose you both think an egg is a chicken, right?

Do you understand the word "potential"? A fetus is a potential human
just as an egg is a potential chicken.

Anyway, this subject has been argued for decades and it still comes down
to a religion trying to force others to live by its tenets.

And BTW, somebody said the argument is over when the fetus gets a soul.
Well, there are a lot of folks who'd say "never" to that. If they're
right, does that mean none of us are human?

End discusssionas far as I'm concerned. It's impossible to change the
views of someone who bases their opinions on faith instead of facts.

To the rest of you, I apologize for responding in the first place. I've
got to learn to ignore the trolls/fanatics/etc..

Perhaps I should lose "faith" that reason will change human minds. Shaw
may well have been right.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Do you believe an egg is a fetus? I don't, but from your analogy, it
> appears you do. A human "egg" is not a baby, but a fetus is more than
> an egg.
>
Talk to a biologist.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On 9 Nov 2004 12:04:50 -0800, Jana <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>> Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death?

> Doug. They are not all utilized. The remainder are discarded ~ thrown
> away. I would be the last person who would approve of stem cell
> research if the only resources were from cells that were either
> aborted or would eventually be used invetro. We have the right to
> disagree and I admit your responces have gotten under my skin. I
> sincerely hope you or know one you love is ever dependant on this
> research.

You know, the distinction that is being missed here is that there is no _ban_ on
stem cell research, just a ban on government funding of _new lines of embryonic
stem cell research_. Nobody is saying "Don't do the research", nobody is
shutting down labs, they're just saying "the federal government won't fund
new lines".

> I've been working for
> the past 7 years tying to get my husband to walk and it'll take more
> than you to make me give up.

With all the other sources of stem cells out there, and all of the lines which
are still being researched with federal funds...imagine how much more productive
this could all be if people weren't getting bent out of shape based on misinformation
about a ban on research that doesn't exist?

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:23:23 -0600, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:39:14 -0500, "J. Clarke"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>(b) The content of the commercials is regulated by the government.
>
> Yippie. They still don't tell you just what in the hell the drug in
> question is supposed to do- shouldn't that be the point of the
> commercials?

If they say what the drug does, they have to list the possible side-effects
in the commercial as well. Not a noticable thing until someone points
it out, but obvious after that.

Dave Hinz

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Of
> course, morally there's an enormous difference between humans and oak trees,
> and between human fetuses and acorns.
>
Funny, I've never heard an oak tree say that :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

Mel, that was one of the few reasonable posts in this thread.

> If you align yourself on the belief that there exist a particular stage in
> development before it can be called a meaningful life then you are merely
> guessing hence the often occurring need for justification.
>
One small quibble to that.

I know that the woman carrying the fetus is a human. When the fetus
becomes human is, as you say, a matter of opinion. When there is a
conflict betwen the woman and the fetus, I'd have to come down on the
side of the woman. That's the only justification I need.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:30:38 GMT, "mel" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>As far as not attributing a
>particular designation to an egg.. such as a "chicken" egg as you've chosen
>this example..... next time you make yourself breakfast ask yourself if
>lizard eggs will do just as well.....


If they were mas--produced and thus cheap enough, and that's
what people had been eating all their lives, they *would* have
done just as well. There is nothing particularly appetizing about
chickens in the flesh, or the factories used to produce them or
their eggs.

<snip>And defining a fetus, especially at a very early stage (blastocyst?)
as
a human being, is a religious belief, not a fact.

Actually, defining a blastocyst as a fetus is wrong. Human or not. a
Blastocyst is an early metazoan embryo typically having the form of a hollow
fluid-filled rounded cavity bounded by a single layer of cells.

A fetus is defined as an embryo having formed its basic shape.

Actually the religious belief isn't whether it's a human being or not...
it's when does it get a soul. Until that is proven, an impossibility by the
way,this will always be a controversial subject. Even an atheistic
scientist doesn't deny it's human.


<snip>One could equally hold the belief (also not a fact) that a fetus only
becomes human when it is capable of surviving outside the womb without
extraordinary measures.
<snip>The fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition
point from embryo to human.

The fact is you are talking gibberish. The medical industry, biologist,
geneticists, etc. all agree on one thing.... it's human. It's a human egg.
It's a human sperm. At conception it becomes a human embryo with all it's
various stages. It then becomes a human fetus with it's various stages and
if the incubation period is successful it becomes a human infant followed by
numerous other human stages of life.

I see you bought the Democratic and mainline media spin. Bush is the only
President who has allowed stem cell research. What he was against was tax
payers money being used for stem cell research. There are plenty of private
foundations available to do it with no federal funding. And there is nothing
prohibiting them from doing it. In this regard President Bush was allowing
those who want stem cell research to contribute their money to those
foundations, and for those who oppose it, their tax dollars would not be used.
Understand Conservatives, they want the people to make their own decisions with
their money, and not the government telling them they (the government) know how
to better spend the money. Conservatives want you to be able to build wealth
as an individual, liberals don't want you to build wealth, they want to keep it
to their elitist selves, they want the power to control you and keep you down.
Look at welfare, and boy has it worked for them. Now they want socialized
medicine, same deal you give your tax dollars to the government, and let them
decide on your healthcare choices.
I'm 52 years old, have saved every day I have worked, invested and now I no
longer need to worry about social security or medicare. I was raised by
parents who lived a self sustaining life, wouldn't tke the govenments help even
when it was offered. I'll make my own decision when I retire, not the
government telling me I can at 62 or 65 because of social security.

Phil

Joey Bosco wrote:

> It has been said that stem cell research may lead to cures of hundreds of
> serious illnesses. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again, if
> this line of research is aggressively pursued. The drawback is that an
> abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
> you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
> of lives.
>
> John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not. Do
> you?

Hey. Check the name of this group.... this is for woodworkin stuff, not
your philosophical rants.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Jana) wrote:
> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Jana) wrote:
> >> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> >> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
> >>
> >> >> >Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
> >> >> >frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does that make it right?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.
> >>
> >> Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the
death?
> >
> > Doug. They are not all utilized. The remainder are discarded ~ thrown
> >away.
>
> This does not trouble you?
>
> > I would be the last person who would approve of stem cell
> >research if the only resources were from cells that were either
> >aborted or would eventually be used invetro.
>
> What's the difference, morally, between harvesting stem cells from a baby
> aborted in the womb, versus from a human embryo in vitro? Either one kills
a
> unique human person.
>
> >We have the right to
> >disagree and I admit your responces have gotten under my skin. I
> >sincerely hope you or know one you love is ever dependant on this
> >research. I have a huge interest in it. My husband is in a
> >wheelchair. The fact that he can't walk isn't so bad. The pain is,
> >though. He describes it as having your toes in a vise as tight as
> >it'll go, with his feet in near boiling water, and the tingling you
> >get when your feet have been asleep...all at the same time. 24-7 for
> >over 7 years. The only relief is constant rubbing. It has nothing to
> >do with circulation, the nerves just misfire. Somehow, he's just
> >learned to deal with it. I'm not telling you this so you can feel
> >sorry for me or Jim. We doctor at Mayo and I've met so many people
> >that make us feel so lucky that I would be ashamed to complain. So,
> >I'm sorry, you will never ever change my mind. I've been working for
> >the past 7 years tying to get my husband to walk and it'll take more
> >than you to make me give up.
>
> I'm sorry that your husband is in such pain. But I can't see that it in
any
> way justifies killing in the _hope_ -- it's not even a certainty -- that a
> treatment for his condition may be developed. In any event, research into
> adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells has, so far, been much more
> promising -- so why the insistence on using *embryonic* stem cells?
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:31:04 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:

>"Scott Cramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> > Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that another
>> > might walk?
>>
>> If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
>> being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
>> orgasm.
>>
>> What a senseless waste of potential human life!
>>
>> What's that? A sperm cell isn't the same as a fertilized egg?
>
>If you don't understand the huge difference between a sperm cell and a
>fertilized egg, you need to return to biology class.

Cells are life, mon. Don't cut yourself. You'll kill _life_!
(Goodonya, Scott)

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

>Babies have no potential to continue to grow in a petre dish or in a
freezer.

these are imposed restrictions to the potential.

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:48:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals
>were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those
>nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why
>government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
>[potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.


Have you really been brainwashed into believing that this
is the decision point or are you just playing dumb ?

>Joey Bosco wrote:
>> It has been said that stem cell research may lead to cures of hundreds of
>> serious illnesses. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again,

Neat trick, even for stem cell research -- seeing as how he's dead!

The least you can do is keep your trolls up to date.

--RC


That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
Never get your philosophy from some guy who ended up in the looney bin.
-- Wiz Zumwalt

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Jana) wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard

>> >Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
>> >frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.
>>
>> Does that make it right?

>
> Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.

Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Off-topic posting. Is it ethical?

Only if there is an OT - and it can make Superman walk again ( Zombie )

Boc

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Jana) wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Jana) wrote:
>> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
>> > news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
>>
>> >> >Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
>> >> >frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.
>> >>
>> >> Does that make it right?
>>
>> >
>> > Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.
>>
>> Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death?
>
> Doug. They are not all utilized. The remainder are discarded ~ thrown
>away.

This does not trouble you?

> I would be the last person who would approve of stem cell
>research if the only resources were from cells that were either
>aborted or would eventually be used invetro.

What's the difference, morally, between harvesting stem cells from a baby
aborted in the womb, versus from a human embryo in vitro? Either one kills a
unique human person.

>We have the right to
>disagree and I admit your responces have gotten under my skin. I
>sincerely hope you or know one you love is ever dependant on this
>research. I have a huge interest in it. My husband is in a
>wheelchair. The fact that he can't walk isn't so bad. The pain is,
>though. He describes it as having your toes in a vise as tight as
>it'll go, with his feet in near boiling water, and the tingling you
>get when your feet have been asleep...all at the same time. 24-7 for
>over 7 years. The only relief is constant rubbing. It has nothing to
>do with circulation, the nerves just misfire. Somehow, he's just
>learned to deal with it. I'm not telling you this so you can feel
>sorry for me or Jim. We doctor at Mayo and I've met so many people
>that make us feel so lucky that I would be ashamed to complain. So,
>I'm sorry, you will never ever change my mind. I've been working for
>the past 7 years tying to get my husband to walk and it'll take more
>than you to make me give up.

I'm sorry that your husband is in such pain. But I can't see that it in any
way justifies killing in the _hope_ -- it's not even a certainty -- that a
treatment for his condition may be developed. In any event, research into
adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells has, so far, been much more
promising -- so why the insistence on using *embryonic* stem cells?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

The morality of stem cell research depends on if your or one you love
is dying of a disease that could reasonably benefit from it. If it
does not touch you and yours then it is immoral. Therein lies the
difficulty: for all the promise of stem cell research it does not
influence enough lives (yet) to gain popular support.

hex
-30-

Off-topic posting. Is it ethical?

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Jana) wrote:
> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
>
> >> >Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
> >> >frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.
> >>
> >> Does that make it right?
>
> >
> > Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.
>
> Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the death?

You better hope so, as we're killing a lot of innocents elsewhere and
they're a lot bigger than embryos.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:09:03 GMT, [email protected] vaguely
proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>
>>Joey Bosco wrote:
>>> It has been said that stem cell research may lead to cures of hundreds of
>>> serious illnesses. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again,
>
>Neat trick, even for stem cell research -- seeing as how he's dead!

Who, "people like Christopher Reeve"? They're not all dead last I
heard. <G>

RTOP.

You may be well advised to read the trolls before replying.
*****************************************************
Dogs are better than people.

People are better than dogs for only one purpose. And
then it's only half of ofthe people. And _then_ most
of them are only ordinary anyway. And then they have a
headache.........

In article <1100015757.WZwJc2J3/8tBruKwjPTQmw@teranews>, Scott Cramer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>> True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
>>> the same
>>>respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.
>>
>> Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.
>
> They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to being a
>toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.

The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.

The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the difference
between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance of becoming half a
human being, and something that already is an entire human being.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

<snip>If they were mas--produced and thus cheap enough, and that's
what people had been eating all their lives, they *would* have
done just as well. There is nothing particularly appetizing about
chickens in the flesh, or the factories used to produce them or
their eggs.

Ok.. you got me.... if embryos were mass produced and women were viewed as
factories then this wouldn't be questioned by our society.

In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>>Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an
>>>entire human being."
>>
>> It has a full complement of human DNA, uniquely its own, and needs only
>> nutrition and time before it grows into something that even you could not
>> possibly deny is a human being.
>
>To bring it back (halfway) on topic: Beware of the many birch trees
>that fly around in atumn, the many oak trees that rain down in autumn,
>the many fir trees assembled in clusters known as pine cones...

Genetically, there's no difference between an acorn and an oak tree. Of
course, morally there's an enormous difference between humans and oak trees,
and between human fetuses and acorns.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Doug Miller wrote:

> I guess I'd put it this way: I see children, particularly
> infants and the unborn, as more deserving of protection than
> adults (though not intrinsically any more valuable) because
> they are more vulnerable. We adults have the ability to care
> for and defend ourselves, but they do not, at least not to the
> same extent, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to be more
> careful of their lives and safety than we are of our own.

We /do/ seem to agree on much of the issue - so I'll push my luck
a bit and engage in hairsplitting just were our views diverge...

I'm of the opinion that all are equally /deserving/ of
protection; but that the /need/ for protection is greatest for
the very young, diminishes with the onset of maturity, and then
increases with old age.

I've found that we need to be as careful with the lives and
safety of adults as we are with children. With children the need
for care is obvious. It's less obviously so with adults; but a
part of becoming adult in many cultures is learning to mask or
even deny the needs that are so obvious in children.

We restrain ourselves from telling a child that (s)he is "stupid"
because we recognize the damage that can bring about. As time
passes and our children become adults, we remember their
vulnerabilies and we still don't tell 'em that they're stupid -
even when they make really poor decisions. Let me use that as
evidence that we (sometimes) recognize that protection is
appropriate regardless of age. "Stupid" is only for those we
don't care about or don't respect as human beings.

At a rather elemental level, nearly everyone subscribes to the
principle called "The Golden Rule": treat other people the way
you'd like to be treated yourself. For most of us, it's the basis
for how we relate to others when we're acting in a way we
ourselves approve of (and I acknowlege that we don't always play
by even our own rules.)

Out of that, if I put myself in my own embryonic "shoes" I find
that I would rather be a short-lived but significant contribution
to improvement of life (for even just one person) than be an
unwanted, unloved, and resented ("Stupid!") child with an
extremely high probability of becoming an emotionally broken and
crippled adult who knows only how to /not/ love self or others.
In fact, I'd even prefer an embryonic trip to the dumpster to that.

In the best of all possible worlds, every living being would be
protected and cherished. Since that's not this world, I would
settle for every life having its own unique purpose and value.

Having said all that, I'll edge back to where we seem to be in
better agreement by saying that it'd be really good if all of the
research objectives can be accomplished using /adult/ stem cells.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

RE: Subject

Rant on all you fish fucks, but just not here.

Lew

Doug Miller wrote:

> Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that
> another might walk?

Hmm. I think the question might be: "Is it right that a human
being should die, in order that a degenerative condition or a
debilitating condition might be removed from the lives of all
other human beings?"

Pick one and call for volunteers - you might be surprised at the
response.

Consider another question: Is it right that a human being should
be placed (voluntarily or involuntarily) in harm's way, in order
that others live free?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

"Scott Cramer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that another
> > might walk?
>
> If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
> being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
> orgasm.
>
> What a senseless waste of potential human life!
>
> What's that? A sperm cell isn't the same as a fertilized egg?

If you don't understand the huge difference between a sperm cell and a
fertilized egg, you need to return to biology class.

todd

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> The drawback is that an
>> abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
>> you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
>> of lives.
>>
>Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
>frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.

Does that make it right?
>
>And defining a fetus, especially at a very early stage (blastocyst?) as
>a human being, is a religious belief, not a fact.

Its cells contain human DNA.If it isn't human, what is it?

>One could equally

[but incorrectly]

>hold the belief (also not a fact) that a fetus only becomes human when
>it is capable of surviving outside the womb without extraordinary
>measures.

To do so is equivalent to maintaining that a baby born sufficiently
prematurely is not human.
>
>The fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition
>point from embryo to human.

That's because there is no transition. A human embryo is human from the
beginning, just as a dog embryo is a dog from the beginning.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

<SNIP>

> And I suppose you both think an egg is a chicken, right?
>
> Do you understand the word "potential"? A fetus is a potential human
> just as an egg is a potential chicken.
>
<SNIP>

Do you believe an egg is a fetus? I don't, but from your analogy, it
appears you do. A human "egg" is not a baby, but a fetus is more than
an egg.

Glen

in my last post spell check changed the 5th type of abortion to
hysterectomy.. it should read hysterotomy

In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> I guess I'd put it this way: I see children, particularly
>> infants and the unborn, as more deserving of protection than
>> adults (though not intrinsically any more valuable) because
>> they are more vulnerable. We adults have the ability to care
>> for and defend ourselves, but they do not, at least not to the
>> same extent, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to be more
>> careful of their lives and safety than we are of our own.
>
>We /do/ seem to agree on much of the issue - so I'll push my luck
>a bit and engage in hairsplitting just were our views diverge...
>
>I'm of the opinion that all are equally /deserving/ of
>protection; but that the /need/ for protection is greatest for
>the very young, diminishes with the onset of maturity, and then
>increases with old age.

I certainly agree with you with respect to the need for protection. We part
company, albeit slightly, on the extent to which protection is deserved. It
seems to me that adults who are capable of protecting themselves not only need
less protection, but deserve less as well -- in the sense that, to the extent
that society feels that those adults deserve protection, society is tempted to
foist that protection on those who may not want it. Example: I never, EVER, go
anywhere in a car without wearing a seat belt. And if I'm driving, the car
doesn't roll until everyone is wearing one. But I'm strongly opposed to
legislation requiring adults to wear them -- while at the same time, I support
laws requiring parents to buckle their kids.
>
>I've found that we need to be as careful with the lives and
>safety of adults as we are with children. With children the need
>for care is obvious. It's less obviously so with adults; but a
>part of becoming adult in many cultures is learning to mask or
>even deny the needs that are so obvious in children.

We may have to agree to disagree here...
>
>We restrain ourselves from telling a child that (s)he is "stupid"
>because we recognize the damage that can bring about. As time
>passes and our children become adults, we remember their
>vulnerabilies and we still don't tell 'em that they're stupid -

No -- they tell us that we're stupid. :-)

>even when they make really poor decisions. Let me use that as
>evidence that we (sometimes) recognize that protection is
>appropriate regardless of age. "Stupid" is only for those we
>don't care about or don't respect as human beings.

What you call protection in this context, I would call manners.
>
>At a rather elemental level, nearly everyone subscribes to the
>principle called "The Golden Rule": treat other people the way
>you'd like to be treated yourself. For most of us, it's the basis
>for how we relate to others when we're acting in a way we
>ourselves approve of (and I acknowlege that we don't always play
>by even our own rules.)
>
>Out of that, if I put myself in my own embryonic "shoes" I find
>that I would rather be a short-lived but significant contribution
>to improvement of life (for even just one person) than be an
>unwanted, unloved, and resented ("Stupid!") child with an
>extremely high probability of becoming an emotionally broken and
>crippled adult who knows only how to /not/ love self or others.
>In fact, I'd even prefer an embryonic trip to the dumpster to that.

A paradox: you have to be born first, to be capable, eventually, of thinking
such thoughts. And of course, as an adult, you're not really able to put
yourself in the place of an embryo... which leads me to suspect that these
hypothetical embryonic thoughts are really actual adult a priori beliefs.

>In the best of all possible worlds, every living being would be
>protected and cherished. Since that's not this world, I would
>settle for every life having its own unique purpose and value.

I entirely agree -- which is exactly why I am opposed to the destruction of
embryos, regardless of the reason -- and insist that there had better be a
pretty darn good reason for the destruction of *any* human life. (Yes, that
*is* an invitation to discuss the morality of capital punishment, if anyone's
interested.)
>
>Having said all that, I'll edge back to where we seem to be in
>better agreement by saying that it'd be really good if all of the
>research objectives can be accomplished using /adult/ stem cells.

We're definitely in complete agreement there.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:05:54 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:

>>The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the difference
>>between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance of becoming half a
>>human being, and something that already is an entire human being.
>
>Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an
>entire human being."

It has a full complement of human DNA, uniquely its own, and needs only
nutrition and time before it grows into something that even you could not
possibly deny is a human being.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article <1100020120.fwfCbVXLzpWGPJD773XuVg@teranews>, Scott Cramer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <1100015757.WZwJc2J3/8tBruKwjPTQmw@teranews>, Scott Cramer
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>> True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
>>>>> the same
>>>>>respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.
>>>>
>>>> Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.
>>>
>>> They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to
>>> being a
>>>toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.
>>
>> The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.
>>
>> The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the
>> difference between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance
>> of becoming half a human being, and something that already is an
>> entire human being.
>
>I didn't think you'd be willing to touch the difference between Dick Cheney
>and a human being.

I didn't think you'd be able to refrain from making a gratuitous insult.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

>"Scott Cramer" wrote in various messages and demonstrated his lack of
understanding of human physiology with comments such as--

>If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
orgasm.

I see what you are trying to say here Scott. You are saying that if a male
reaches an orgasm then all those sperm cells are wasted. There's one
problem with this. A sexually mature male will produce more than 100
million sperm each and every day which will... and this is the key word
here... UNAVOIDABLY perish and be reabsorbed by the body. Another
interesting fact--did you know that a female doesn't produce eggs each
month? After about the 5th month of pregnancy an unborn baby girl will have
about 5 million eggs in her ovaries. At birth that number will have dropped
to about 1-2 million. By the time she reaches sexual maturity that number
will drop to about 300,000. By the time she menopauses she will no longer
have any heathly eggs in her ovaries.

>more of Scott's lack of knowledge-

>True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves the same
respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.

In the previous comment I introduced you to the amazing fact that an unborn
5 month old baby girl will have more eggs than in any other time of her
life. You seem to think that the size of the cluster of cells warrants
consideration. Let's go backwards shall we?

4 months- The fetus is now about 4" long. The arms are now long enough for
the hands to grasp each other and fingernails begin to appear. The baby
activitly kicks, swims and turns somersaults to develope muscle tone.

10 to 12 weeks- The fetus is 3" long, can exercise it's arms and legs. It
sleeps, awakens, sucks it's thumb, get's the hiccups and urinates. Facial
expressions begin as the fetus can squint, frown and open and close it's
mouth.

8 weeks- Every organ is in place and functioning. This is when the embryo
becomes a fetus. It's about 1-1/2" long.

5-6 weeks- The embryo is over 1/2" long. The skeleton is complete and the
eyes, nose and mouth have formed. Arms and legs are very short but 10 little
fingers and toes are beginning to develope.

4 weeks- The embryo is about 1/4" long. The brain and backbone are forming
while the heart pumps blood to the liver an into the aorta. This is just 2
weeks after the mother suspects she may be pregnant having missed her first
menstrual cycle.

Day 21- The heart begins to beat.

Days 10 to 14 - Mom misses her first menstrual cycle.

Days 5 to 8 - The fertilized egg enplants itself in the uterus. It's
expanded to about 200 cells and is the size of a grain of sand.

Day 1- Conception

Regardless of which side you take to stem cell reserch or to the Pro Life or
Pro Choice issue you need to truly understand the facts before you make up
your mind. The "Pro Choicers" use the promise of stem cell reserch to
justify blocking legislation that would limit government funding to abortion
clinics. It's not about the morality of abortions. It's about whether or
not our government is going to foot the bill. Right now, all over America,
clinics such as Planned Parenthood, are receiving our tax dollars to
funtion. Right now, my 14 yr old daughter can go to one of these clinics
and get an abortion and easily circumvent the parental notification. I know
from experience. When I was 15 I got a girl pregnant and this was the
option we chose. When I hear the BS about it's the woman's body and it only
effects her I think about all the years of carrying the emotional pain we
both share.

I have my opinions about abortion and you are welcome to yours but I hope we
can agree on a few simple principles. If abortions are going to continue to
be allowed our government doesn't need to fund them any more than they need
to fund hysterectomies or vasectomies. A young girl shouldn't be able to
make this choice without her parents knowledge or if extenuating
circumstances exist, without some form of guidance. Most abortions are
perfomed on teenage girls who simply made a poor choice...not rape, not
abuse, not incest and not life threatening.

More facts- Abortions are not performed on microscopic clusters of cells.
Generally there are 5 types of abortions. 1) suction, 2) Dilation and
curettage (D&C), 3) prostaglandin, 4) saline poisoning and 5) hysterectomy

Suction abortion- used before 10 weeks. A tube is inserted into the uterus
and the embryo is sucked out

D&C- used before 12 weeks. a hooked shaped knife is inserted to cut the
embryo into small enough pieces, forceps are used to crush the head and the
womb is scraped clean. There is usually profuse bleeding.

Prostaglandin- after 12 weeks a hormone drug is injected into the amniotic
sac produces labor and a premature birth, The baby is often born with a
heartbeat and set aside to die.

Saline poisoning- A strong saline solution is injected through the belly
into the amniotic sac. The baby is forced to swallow this poison and
suffers severely. It kicks and jerks violently, it's skin is literally
being burned off. After 48 hours the mother delivers a dead baby.

Hysterotomy- As in a Cesarean section the abdomen is cut open and the baby
lifted out and set aside to die.

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:31:11 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

>> Hold on a minute here.
>>
>> As you yourself correctly noted, there are many sources of stem cells
>> besides embryos -- most of which have shown far more promise,
>> scientifically, than embryonic stem cells. And nobody's trying to ban
>> research with adult stem cells, placental stem cells, bone marrow stem
>> cells, or cord-blood stem cells.
>
> No one has banned embryonic stem cell research, only limited federal
> funding to 20-some existing lines. The governator just got Californians
> to pony up several hundred million for embryonic stem cell research.
> Again, there is no ban on the research, only some restrictions on the
> federal funding for research, so no one is being denied anything in this
> regard. Perhaps the proponents would do better by contributing
> their own money rather than promoting falsehoods about a ban.


EXACTLY.. I suspect this was more of a liberal spin against Bush.

In article <[email protected]>, Scott Cramer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that another
>> might walk?
>
> If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
>being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
>orgasm.

Complete non-sequitur.
>
> What a senseless waste of potential human life!
>
> What's that? A sperm cell isn't the same as a fertilized egg?

No, it isn't.
>
> True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves the same
>respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.

Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

>Mel. I apologize for assuming that you have a sense of irony, and offer my
condolences on learning that you don't.

Actually Scott you used sarcasm not irony. The fact that a male produces
sperm even without an orgasm...... now that's irony.

As far as a sense of humor.... well the simple are easily amused. I'm glad
you are enjoying yourself.

In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.
>>
>> The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the difference
>> between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance of becoming
>> half a human being, and something that already is an entire human being.
>
>So you would count a miscarriage as what?

As an unfortunate accident.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

> Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that another
> might walk?

If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
orgasm.

What a senseless waste of potential human life!

What's that? A sperm cell isn't the same as a fertilized egg?

True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves the same
respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster. Or at
least half the respect. Mathematically, given the quantity of living cells
involved in an orgasm, you should give that lovin' spoonful hundreds of
thousands of times as much respect.

And to think that conservatives call liberals bleeding hearts. Feh.

Scott

>>"Scott Cramer" wrote in various messages and demonstrated his lack of
> understanding of human physiology with comments such as--
>
>>If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
> being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
> orgasm.

<snip of bandwitdh hogging diatribe and graphic description of medical
procedures, every last one of them legal and life-saving, on occasion>

Mel. I apologize for assuming that you have a sense of irony, and offer my
condolences on learning that you don't.

Ditto on the sense of humor.

"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>Mel. I apologize for assuming that you have a sense of irony, and
>>offer my
> condolences on learning that you don't.

> As far as a sense of humor.... well the simple are easily amused. I'm
> glad you are enjoying yourself.

I'm not that easily amused. But your hand-wringing and wailing over the
collection of stem cells, and the bizarre extrapolation to abortion, is
funny in a bleeding-heart conservative (tmSC) sort of way.

Just a heads up, Mel: stem cells aren't collected by dumpster diving at
Planned Parenthood clinics.

Hi Doug,


> Hey, check the title of the thread. See the "OT" in it? Stands for
> "off topic". If you don't like reading off-topic threads, there's a
> simple solution: don't read them.

Interesting as this discussion may be, you have just argued for reducing
the entire usenet to one large group - as long as people just start their
threads with OT.
You cannot be serious ?


--
Regards,
Soeren

* If it puzzles you dear... Reverse engineer *

Hi,

Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Ever been in a shop with your co-workers? Did you all focus on the
> job at hand with a single-minded intensity, or chat about things that
> had nothing whatsoever to do with work to pass the time between those
> moments when focus on the job was absolutely necessary? There sure is
> a place for "shop talk" in a woodworking forum, at least in my
> opinion.

That would IMO hold true if this was real life, but I think this (and
other) discussion group(s) are more to be likened with say books - and
who would like a book on one subject waisting time/space on perhaps 50%
or more which had absolutely nothing to do with what they got the book
for.

So I could ask you back:
Ever been in a shop where all the nails, screws, bolts etc. of all sizes
was tossed in one large box and all the tools in another - I think there
is good reasons to keep wood issues in one group and political issues in
another, then we _all_ can select what each of us want and be spared what
we find "noise" - I guess you wouldn't be too happy if I drummed up a
couple of wood working buddies and started a flood of discussions of say
metalworking, motorcycling, robotics, local politics, (or whatever we are
presently debating amongst us), in this group ?


And yes, I know I probably cannot expect any changes on this, but that
will not keep me from expressing my opinion on the subject.

Of course, it has much to do with the balance of off topic to on topic
posts and the general magnitude of the former, so here is a suggestion:
Keep one single thread for OT posts and discuss *anything* OT in that
single thread - that should appeal to your (and others) arguments of
talking about a diverse range of subjects *and* keep the focus on
woodwork overall :)


--
Regards,
Soeren

* If it puzzles you dear... Reverse engineer *
New forum: <URL:http://www.ElektronikTeknolog.dk/cgi-bin/SPEED/>

"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an
> entire human being."
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

How many cells does it take before you won't kill it?

todd
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit
materiari?

Troll.

"ajb147" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I found a good site discussing the ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell
> Research. The author makes many good points that have been well
> researched. It even talks about things that you can do to make a
> difference. I encourage you to visit it:
> http://www.hesc.cjb.net
>

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:01:20 -0800, "mp" <[email protected]> vaguely proposed
a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


>>People ***like*** Christopher Reeve may one day walk again,


>It'll take more than stem cells to get Christopher Reeve walking again.

Which is not what was claimed....
*****************************************************
Dogs are better than people.

People are better than dogs for only one purpose. And
then it's only half of ofthe people. And _then_ most
of them are only ordinary anyway. And then they have a
headache.........

Doug Winterburn wrote:

> Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate
> liberals were really upset that the government might be
> supporting R&D by those nasty profit making drug
> manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why government
> support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
> [potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.

I'm not sure that you're really looking at the whole picture
here. Moreover, this discussion has focused on morality instead
of ethics.

The pharmaceutical manufacturers are reported to be making huge
profits (IMO a Good Thing); but are doing so by selling at least
some of those drugs for very much higher prices in the US than
elsewhere (IMO price gouging, not a Good Thing.)

But, my opinions aside, the manufacturers are sufficiently
profitable that they don't /need/ additional R&D funding.

Stem cell research, which seems to hold much promise, is still in
its infancy - its profits yet to appear - and needs front-end R&D
dollars until either we discover that the promise is false or
until it yeilds profits that can be re-invested in R&D, at which
point public funding should stop.

[Another personal opinion: I think the results of publicly funded
R&D should be publicly owned; and patents denied on that basis. YMMV]

It's not /all/ about liberal/conservative issues.

Actually, I think the more interesting question might be whether
a private subscription pool could be established to fund R&D
efforts (of any/all areas holding substantial promise) from which
the general (world) public would benefit. The corporate
structure, invented to fund production/sales, would seem to be
inadequate for funding extremely large front-end R&D efforts.

Care to focus on that possibility?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

In article <[email protected]>, "Michael Roberts" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hey. Check the name of this group.... this is for woodworkin stuff, not
>your philosophical rants.

Hey, check the title of the thread. See the "OT" in it? Stands for "off
topic". If you don't like reading off-topic threads, there's a simple
solution: don't read them.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On 5 Nov 2004 15:45:58 GMT, Joey Bosco <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>It has been said that stem cell research may lead to cures of hundreds of
>serious illnesses. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again, if
>this line of research is aggressively pursued. The drawback is that an
>abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
>you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
>of lives.
>
>John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not. Do
>you?

Absolutely.

Joey Bosco wrote:
> It has been said that stem cell research may lead to cures of hundreds of
> serious illnesses. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again, if
> this line of research is aggressively pursued. The drawback is that an
> abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
> you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
> of lives.
>
> John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not. Do
> you?

Yes.

And I support abortion rights.

And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating them
by different means will render the issue moot soon enough.

JK

Prometheus wrote:
>
>
> Ohhh... a chance to get back on-topic! Have you checked out the
> hybrid that's for sale under the name "Lyptus"? Nice looking wood,
> and fairly cheap around here. Definately worth a look.
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Off topic! Off topic! How dare you! :^)

What does it work like?

JK

Prometheus wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:48:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating
>>>> them by different means will render the issue moot soon enough.
>>>
>>> Also given the fact that other countries will do the research and
>>> develop the science whether the US govt. supports it or not... Shall we
>>> hold the folks who condemn the research at this point to rejecting the
>>> treatment when they or a family member might need whatever treatment
>>> becomes available? No, I guess not - my sense of liberal compassion
>>> won't allow me to withhold aid from someone who needs it.
>>
>>Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals
>>were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those
>>nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why
>>government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
>>[potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.
>
> Funny, I coulda sworn that had something to do with the most of R&D
> money of said drug manufacturers going to commericals that show people
> hiking and canoeing without ever telling you just what in the heck the
> drug is for.

(a) What percentage of "R&D money" was diverted to those commercials? In
fact what percentage of the annual income of that company was taken up by
those expenditures. I think you'll find that they were a drop in the
bucked for a company that size.

(b) The content of the commercials is regulated by the government.
>
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <1100015757.WZwJc2J3/8tBruKwjPTQmw@teranews>, Scott Cramer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>> True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
>>>> the same
>>>>respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.
>>>
>>> Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.
>>
>> They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to
>> being a
>>toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.
>
> The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.
>
> The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the difference
> between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance of becoming
> half a human being, and something that already is an entire human being.

So you would count a miscarriage as what?

> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jana wrote:

> "mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> <snip> End discusssionas far as I'm concerned. It's impossible to change
>> the
>> views of someone who bases their opinions on faith instead of facts.
>>
>>
>> Actually Larry.. according to your own words.. you've based your opinions
>> on
>> the absence of facts. And as far as understanding the word
>> "potential"... I personally hesitate to remove value if the "potential"
>> exists. In fact, that
>> is exactly why I would attribute value. As far as not attributing a
>> particular designation to an egg.. such as a "chicken" egg as you've
>> chosen this example..... next time you make yourself breakfast ask
>> yourself if lizard eggs will do just as well.....
>
> Babies have no potential to continue to grow in a petre dish or in a
> freezer.

So when the power fails at a fertility clinic who do you charge with murder?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Prometheus wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:39:14 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Prometheus wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:48:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating
>>>>>> them by different means will render the issue moot soon enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also given the fact that other countries will do the research and
>>>>> develop the science whether the US govt. supports it or not... Shall
>>>>> we hold the folks who condemn the research at this point to rejecting
>>>>> the treatment when they or a family member might need whatever
>>>>> treatment becomes available? No, I guess not - my sense of liberal
>>>>> compassion won't allow me to withhold aid from someone who needs it.
>>>>
>>>>Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals
>>>>were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those
>>>>nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why
>>>>government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
>>>>[potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.
>>>
>>> Funny, I coulda sworn that had something to do with the most of R&D
>>> money of said drug manufacturers going to commericals that show people
>>> hiking and canoeing without ever telling you just what in the heck the
>>> drug is for.
>>
>>(a) What percentage of "R&D money" was diverted to those commercials? In
>>fact what percentage of the annual income of that company was taken up by
>>those expenditures. I think you'll find that they were a drop in the
>>bucked for a company that size.
>
> Couldn't find a percentage, here's an article with some ad budgets.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/drugs/2001-12-11-drug-ads.htm
> You could be quite right about it being a drop in the bucket, but any
> signifigant money (and I'd call 160.8 million ad dollars for Vioxx
> pretty darn signifigant) is taking away from R&D. I would imagine
> that 9 figures would buy a pretty good chunk of research, instead of
> frittering it away on short videos of people canoeing.

If the advertising is ineffective in increasing sales then you might have a
point. If the increased income from sales is greater than the cost of the
ads then the ads pay for themselves. So, playing Fun With Numbers, we find
that Vioxx is an arthritis medication, which puts it in the
Anti-inflammatory/analgesics category. Merck's sales in that segment were
2.6 billion dollars in 2003. The Vioxx ads cost 6 percent of that. If
they increase sales by 6 percent in the first year in that segment then
they've paid for themselves. If they increase it by a much smaller amount
over the life of the product then they've paid for themselves.

Merck did not become a forty billion dollar company with 22 billion dollars
a year in annual sales and 63,200 employees by "frittering money away on
short videos of people canoeing". You can be sure that that expenditure
was carefully scrutinized by a number of levels of management before being
authorized.

Now, to put it in the perspective of research, Merck increased has increased
their research budget about ten percent a year every year since 1994.
Between 2002 and 2003 they increased that budget by more than twice the
cost of those advertisements. The total research budget is about 20 times
the cost of those advertisements. And the advertisements represent less
than one percent of Merck's annual sales.

Most companies of any size have their annual reports online. They usually
contain this kind of information.

>>(b) The content of the commercials is regulated by the government.
>
> Yippie. They still don't tell you just what in the hell the drug in
> question is supposed to do- shouldn't that be the point of the
> commercials?

Not if the government doesn't allow it. It's frustrating for the
pharmaceutical companies and frustrating for the advertising agencies, but
they do the best they can with what they've got. Until the government says
precisely what conditions are "on label" and what side effects must be
listed in the prescribing information they aren't allowed to say anything
about what it treats in their advertising. So they either have to wait
until the government gives them that information, in which case they don't
get the ad campaign in gear until after the product has shipped, and they
lose money in inventory costs, or they put out the kind of vague
advertising that you have seen. Obviously they have determined that the
vague advertising costs less than the inventory sitting on the shelves
waiting for sales to pick up would cost, otherwise they wouldn't be
spending money on it.

>>> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
>
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:44:02 GMT, mel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Scott Cramer" wrote in various messages and demonstrated his lack of
> understanding of human physiology with comments such as--
>
>>If you truly feel that a microscopic cluster of cells is a human
> being, then your conscience must bother the hell out of you with every
> orgasm.
>

Actually all of the promising stem cell research has been with
adult-source stem cells. None of the promising results have been with
fetal or umbilical stem cells.

The Bush administration has funded research with stem cells: Adult,
umbilical, and existing strains of fetal. What the Bush administration
refuses to fund is the creation of fetuses for the sole purpose of
destroying said fetuses.

Using the all-important "Follow the Money" principle, one notes that
that Big Pharma, when they must spend their OWN money, choose to spend
it on adult stem cell research rather than fetal or umbilical. Given
that there's no particular reason why for example a German
pharmaceutical company would feel bound by American mores, that suggests
to me that reason is purely capitalistic: They believe that adult stem
cells are more promising, and vote with their dollars.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&q=author:bosco32v3%40yahoo.com+

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Michael Roberts" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Hey. Check the name of this group.... this is for woodworkin stuff, not
> >your philosophical rants.
>
> Hey, check the title of the thread. See the "OT" in it? Stands for "off
> topic". If you don't like reading off-topic threads, there's a simple
> solution: don't read them.

If you don't like to read complaints about off-topic threads there's
a simple solution: Don't read the off-topic threads.

--

FF

>Jana writes-I don't think anyone will ever be able to pinpoint an exact
time when the human gets a soul. I think logic can narrow it down a bit by
saying that it's when the brain develops. Any other part of the human body
can be transplanted or amputated and the soul remains unchanged.

I want to gently discuss the concept of a soul and expand on your logic a
bit if you'll permit. The logical path you've taken is that the soul is
contained in the brain. It may be.. but... is conscious thought the soul?
Do people with brain damage have a damaged soul? If you subscribe to the
belief that a soul even exists then chances are you also believe the soul
isn't bound by the physical properties of this world. Brain wave activity
can be monitored by various electrical impulses. When those impulses stop,
as you yourself have said, the body can continue to function for a bit.....
either artificially or simply just winding down. The thing is... brain
death and actual death don't always coincide.

You said the following,"If you have ever been present at the time of death
when a person becomes brain dead, it's all too clear. The body can continue
to function for a time or be assisted by life support, but when the brain's
gone...it's all over..."

If you've ever been in that situation.... if you were paying
attention....you would have noticed a brief instance between brain death and
actual death. That may be when the soul leaves the body. I do not believe
we can begin to understand what is the soul or where it resides or even how
it can reside and then leave to go..... where? The problem with applying
logic to it is that it's illogical in the first place.

I personally don't condemn stem cell research. I'm against using it to
justify abortion. Currently, there are over 4,000 abortions performed in the
US every day. That's way more research material than we need. There are a
sufficient amount of sources for the material needed to conduct research,
i.e. miscarriages, stillbirths and even the death of a pregnant woman. Don't
see anyone saying a woman ought to include the donating of a fetus in the
case of accidental death now do you? You see Jana, you stated earlier that
nothing would change your opinion about your hopes for stem cell research
and I wouldn't ask you to. What I would ask you to do is to not allow your
hope to compromise your values. I do not know if you subscribe to a
religious belief or not. I do. My belief includes that one day, by the
grace of God and the hope of salvation in Jesus that we all have been given
hope of perfect, flawless bodies. If you'd like to discuss this further I'd
be happy to via email.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Jana) wrote:

> Thank you so much for taking the time to write this clearly and
>calmly. There's no way I could control my temper and do it as
>gracefully. You see, my husband would like to be able to hoist the
>ladder up to the girls room on their wedding day! Just kidding. I'd
>like to tell some of you guys to walk a mile in my husbands
>shoes...they're nice, just like new.

Is it right, that a human being should die, in order that another might walk?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:43:48 +0000 (UTC), Soeren
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi Doug,
>
>
>> Hey, check the title of the thread. See the "OT" in it? Stands for
>> "off topic". If you don't like reading off-topic threads, there's a
>> simple solution: don't read them.
>
>Interesting as this discussion may be, you have just argued for reducing
>the entire usenet to one large group - as long as people just start their
>threads with OT.
>You cannot be serious ?

Ever been in a shop with your co-workers? Did you all focus on the
job at hand with a single-minded intensity, or chat about things that
had nothing whatsoever to do with work to pass the time between those
moments when focus on the job was absolutely necessary? There sure is
a place for "shop talk" in a woodworking forum, at least in my
opinion.


Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

<snip> End discusssionas far as I'm concerned. It's impossible to change
the
views of someone who bases their opinions on faith instead of facts.


Actually Larry.. according to your own words.. you've based your opinions on
the absence of facts. And as far as understanding the word "potential"... I
personally hesitate to remove value if the "potential" exists. In fact, that
is exactly why I would attribute value. As far as not attributing a
particular designation to an egg.. such as a "chicken" egg as you've chosen
this example..... next time you make yourself breakfast ask yourself if
lizard eggs will do just as well.....

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:59:37 -0600, Prometheus
<[email protected]> wrote:

The obvious ramblings of someone intheir twenties.



Search Result 5
From: Patrick Leach ([email protected])
Subject: Re: How do you cut tenons?
View: Complete Thread (43 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Date: 1995-01-06 04:59:15 PST


Bennett Leeds <[email protected]> writes:

<Stuff. Volumes of stuff. All deleted.>

Jaysus H. X, Bennett, I simply chirp in with my $1.380 on why the
1/3rd
rule of thumb evolved, and why it's still practical for many and I'm
treated
in return with rebuttal after rebuttal after rebuttal after rebuttal
after
rebuttal. I swear to god that I'd soil my drawers if you could just
once
let something be said uncontested, without a cross-examination that
would
be the envy of the OJ Simpson defense team.

Let's re-cap where this thread has gone, compliments of you - we've
learned that the morticing gauge is a specialized tool; we've visited
the East to note that endgrain is terrible; that tenons are the weak
part of a mortice and tenon joint; that glued mortice and tenon joints
on architectural doors are good; that power tools are designed with
each
other in mind and take in account proportion; that haunches were only
the result of the groove being shot through; and, finally, best of
all,
that I'm "just trying to come up with solutions that can be achieved
by handtools" to do what I do.

My last response in this catacomb of ratholes is, the morticing
gauge
is not a specialized tool and is very common; I live in the West
(where
endgrain was finished as well as any other grain) and don't give a
rat's
ass what they did in China; that my observations point to the mortice
being the weak part of the mortice and tenon joint; that glue is un-
necessary for pinned mortice and tenon joints (furthermore, it's lame
to glue a 9" through morticed lock rail to a 4" stile); that handtools
are sized with each other in mind and assist proportion; that haunches
are the signature of finer work since they help prevent the rail from
twisting; and I do what I do because it's traditional with the tools
that I choose to use, is time-tested, has proven itself to yield
satis-
factory physical properties, and is recommended by scores of authors
on the matter.

And since we're getting tremendous dining pleasure over the 1/3rd
rule,
here's another bone for ya to chew on. Someone asked about what other
rules
of thumb are used when making tenons. Another rule of thumb, when
making
mortice and tenons located at the corners of a frame, addresses the
width
of the tenon. Guess what? The width of these tenons is 2/3rd the width
of
the rail with the remaining 1/3rd given to the haunch. This is not
only
done to prevent the rail from twisting along it's face, but it's also
done
as an attempt to reduce short grain, which, by the way, is increased
when
making a tenon's thickness greater than one third the rail's
thickness.

OK, Bennett, it's tender victuals time. Comes and gits it.......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Leach
Just say Capt. Kirk? He's dead, Bennett.
etc.


Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 09:46:53 -0500, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Prometheus wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ohhh... a chance to get back on-topic! Have you checked out the
>> hybrid that's for sale under the name "Lyptus"? Nice looking wood,
>> and fairly cheap around here. Definately worth a look.
>> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
>
>Off topic! Off topic! How dare you! :^)
>
>What does it work like?

Still looking for the right project to test it out on... But it's
supposed to be extemely workable, and it grows to harvest size in just
15-17 years. I imagine that if it takes hold, we'll see the price
drop on it fairly rapidly. Looks like it's got a fairly tight grain,
and a color similar to mahogany (when I've seen it- obviously, these
things vary)

>JK
>
>

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
> Mel, that was one of the few reasonable posts in this thread.
>
> > If you align yourself on the belief that there exist a particular stage
in
> > development before it can be called a meaningful life then you are
merely
> > guessing hence the often occurring need for justification.
> >
> One small quibble to that.
>
> I know that the woman carrying the fetus is a human. When the fetus
> becomes human is, as you say, a matter of opinion. When there is a
> conflict betwen the woman and the fetus, I'd have to come down on the
> side of the woman. That's the only justification I need.

Weigh that against the consequence to the woman (for most, an inconvenience,
though of course, a major one) and to the fetus (death). So, if there's a
possibility that the fetus is a person with rights, doesn't it deserve
additional consideration because the penalty for being wrong is so great?
Here's a question no one on the pro-abortion side wants to answer. Let's
say for a moment that none of us truly knows if the fetus is a person with
rights. Maybe it's a person, maybe it's not. Good Lord, what if you're
wrong? 1.3 million persons are exterminated every year! If I'm wrong, a
whole bunch of women are inconvenienced for 9 months. (Please leave out the
rape cases and those causing death to the mother...they're a tiny fraction
of the total).

todd

"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >> Aut inveniam
viam aut faciam
> >
> >How many cells does it take before you won't kill it?
>
> I don't intend to kill any of them. All I've ever said is that I
> don't believe any of us has the right to make that call for someone
> else. Somehow that makes me not only a murderer, but a slaver and
> supporter of Hilter as well, I guess- though I fail to see how.

Try to follow the point. How many cells does it take until you believe
there is something worth protecting? When does an unborn get rights of its
own, in your opinion? Only when it breathes air?

> >todd
> >Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit
> >materiari?
>
> Damn, it wasn't supposed to be that offensive to everyone, I just
> thought I'd add a sig file like half the folks on here. Who cares if
> it's in Latin or English? A quick google search pulls up the
> definition right away.

I didn't say anything about your sig. At least mine is on-topic. ;-)

todd

Doug Miller wrote:

> However, placing an adult "in harm's way" (i.e. _at_risk_ of
> injury, possibly even fatal injury) is definitely not in the
> same category, ethically and morally, with deliberately
> causing the certain death of a child whether born or unborn.

I'm less certain about that than you seem to be. A human life is
a human life (and regardless of age according to the
anti-abortionists) and, somewhen along the way, I realized that
eighteen year olds are still kids - kids with a /very/ strong
potential to become mature adults - but still kids nonetheless.

If we put uniforms on them and send them into combat, it's a near
certainty that some will not return alive. I invite you to accept
your share of the responsibility for that happening (as we all
share in that responsibility.)

I don't like it much; and yet I recognize that it is a part of a
price that must be paid to avoid paying a still higher price - a
price so high that even 18-year olds (still teenagers!) are
willing to risk losing all that would otherwise lie ahead of
them. Not just by ones or twos, but by the tens and hundreds of
thousands.

When the going gets really heavy, we use conscription to force
those who haven't volunteered into the same risk. Again, it is
foreknown that some are certain to pay that "lesser" price.

I do /not/ feel that one life is more or less valuable than
another; but neither do I go into denial and refuse to recognize
sometimes lives must need be given up and sometimes lives must
need be taken.

I think it /is/ in the same catagory - and I think the greatest
tragedy might be the unnoticed end of a purposeless life; and
that's not the end I envision for these embryos.

Still, I envy your certainty.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

>>>(a) What percentage of "R&D money" was diverted to those commercials? In
>>>fact what percentage of the annual income of that company was taken up by
>>>those expenditures. I think you'll find that they were a drop in the
>>>bucked for a company that size.
>>
>> Couldn't find a percentage, here's an article with some ad budgets.
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/drugs/2001-12-11-drug-ads.htm
>> You could be quite right about it being a drop in the bucket, but any
>> signifigant money (and I'd call 160.8 million ad dollars for Vioxx
>> pretty darn signifigant) is taking away from R&D. I would imagine
>> that 9 figures would buy a pretty good chunk of research, instead of
>> frittering it away on short videos of people canoeing.
>
>If the advertising is ineffective in increasing sales then you might have a
>point. If the increased income from sales is greater than the cost of the
>ads then the ads pay for themselves. So, playing Fun With Numbers, we find
>that Vioxx is an arthritis medication, which puts it in the
>Anti-inflammatory/analgesics category. Merck's sales in that segment were
>2.6 billion dollars in 2003. The Vioxx ads cost 6 percent of that. If
>they increase sales by 6 percent in the first year in that segment then
>they've paid for themselves. If they increase it by a much smaller amount
>over the life of the product then they've paid for themselves.
>
>Merck did not become a forty billion dollar company with 22 billion dollars
>a year in annual sales and 63,200 employees by "frittering money away on
>short videos of people canoeing". You can be sure that that expenditure
>was carefully scrutinized by a number of levels of management before being
>authorized.
>
>Now, to put it in the perspective of research, Merck increased has increased
>their research budget about ten percent a year every year since 1994.
>Between 2002 and 2003 they increased that budget by more than twice the
>cost of those advertisements. The total research budget is about 20 times
>the cost of those advertisements. And the advertisements represent less
>than one percent of Merck's annual sales.
>
>Most companies of any size have their annual reports online. They usually
>contain this kind of information.

You got me there, and I'm not going to argue with it. Not enough
sleep and too many cries of "murderer" directed at me got me good and
worked up, and I started poking my ass out. I just get irritated with
the huge number of commericals on every TV station, radio station,
highway, bus-stop, taxicab and hundreds of other sources that surround
us all the time. You can't get away from it, and it's gotten really
offensive to me. No doubt the companies make money as a result of
their ad campaigns- but they also make sickness, in my opinion. Some
people must have these medicines, but their doctors should be the ones
to prescribe them, not the television.

>>>(b) The content of the commercials is regulated by the government.
>>
>> Yippie. They still don't tell you just what in the hell the drug in
>> question is supposed to do- shouldn't that be the point of the
>> commercials?
>
>Not if the government doesn't allow it. It's frustrating for the
>pharmaceutical companies and frustrating for the advertising agencies, but
>they do the best they can with what they've got. Until the government says
>precisely what conditions are "on label" and what side effects must be
>listed in the prescribing information they aren't allowed to say anything
>about what it treats in their advertising. So they either have to wait
>until the government gives them that information, in which case they don't
>get the ad campaign in gear until after the product has shipped, and they
>lose money in inventory costs, or they put out the kind of vague
>advertising that you have seen. Obviously they have determined that the
>vague advertising costs less than the inventory sitting on the shelves
>waiting for sales to pick up would cost, otherwise they wouldn't be
>spending money on it.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:

> >John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not. Do
> >you?
>
> What business is it of yours?

Hey Charlie. Just a note to remind you that you can probably hold off
checking for a reply for a couple weeks. (It appears this guy is a
candidate for the Evelyn Wood course on Political Trolling 101.)

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:

> Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals
> were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those
> nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why
> government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
> [potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.

Because the drug manufacturer who so readily took from the public funds
to research and develop the drug then turns around and rapes the
consumer (especially the US market) on drug costs. All the while looking
for protections and favorable rulings.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article <[email protected]>,
"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote:

> And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating them
> by different means will render the issue moot soon enough.

Also given the fact that other countries will do the research and
develop the science whether the US govt. supports it or not... Shall we
hold the folks who condemn the research at this point to rejecting the
treatment when they or a family member might need whatever treatment
becomes available? No, I guess not - my sense of liberal compassion
won't allow me to withhold aid from someone who needs it.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:31:11 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:


> Hold on a minute here.
>
> As you yourself correctly noted, there are many sources of stem cells
> besides embryos -- most of which have shown far more promise,
> scientifically, than embryonic stem cells. And nobody's trying to ban
> research with adult stem cells, placental stem cells, bone marrow stem
> cells, or cord-blood stem cells.

No one has banned embryonic stem cell research, only limited federal
funding to 20-some existing lines. The governator just got Californians
to pony up several hundred million for embryonic stem cell research.
Again, there is no ban on the research, only some restrictions on the
federal funding for research, so no one is being denied anything in this
regard. Perhaps the proponents would do better by contributing
their own money rather than promoting falsehoods about a ban.

-Doug

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:51:28 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And I'm guessing that techniques for cloning stem cells or isolating
>> them by different means will render the issue moot soon enough.
>
> Also given the fact that other countries will do the research and develop
> the science whether the US govt. supports it or not... Shall we hold the
> folks who condemn the research at this point to rejecting the treatment
> when they or a family member might need whatever treatment becomes
> available? No, I guess not - my sense of liberal compassion won't allow me
> to withhold aid from someone who needs it.

Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals
were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those
nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why
government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
[potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.

-Doug

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 01:14:10 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Coulda sworn it wasn't too long ago some of the compassionate liberals
>> were really upset that the government might be supporting R&D by those
>> nasty profit making drug manufacturers. I'm trying to figure out why
>> government support for [potentially life saving] drug R&D is bad but
>> [potentially life saving] stem cell R&D is good.
>
> Because the drug manufacturer who so readily took from the public funds to
> research and develop the drug then turns around and rapes the consumer
> (especially the US market) on drug costs. All the while looking for
> protections and favorable rulings.

And you think if any magic comes out of stem cell research the providers
of the magic aren't going to clean up, whether they are in the US, France
or wherever?

This whole hoopla about stem cell reseaarch is a big something about
nothing. Consider:

1) Stem cell research is not illegal.
2) The feds don't supply unlimited funds for any kind of medical research.
3) GWB, not a democrat president, pushed through funds for limited stem
cell research despite all the whining about deficits.
4) Many of us contribute to research for cancer, MS, childhood lukemia,
etc. even though there may be some federal funds also provided.

So the question is why are folks trying to manufacture a political club
outa this so as to reach into other folks pockets and demagoging
the issue instead of getting out their crowbars and contributing
themselves?

-Doug

--
IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO GIVE THAT SPECIAL SOMEONE
A SEX TOY FOR CHRISTMAS! OR GIVE YOURSELF THAT
SPECIAL VIDEO!
http://www.sextoysex.com/a2k4
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-
Looking to Find a Date?? with a REAL PERSON??

http://68.82.94.85:2000/Public/singles.htm
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Looking to find local swingers & hookups?
Couples? Singles? SEARCH BY ZIPCODE!
100% FREE

http://68.82.94.85:2000/public/swingers/index.htm
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

You can also checkout our NEW all GAY site at

http://68.82.94.85:7000


"Michael Roberts" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hey. Check the name of this group.... this is for woodworkin stuff, not
> your philosophical rants.
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Jana) wrote:
> > >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> > > news:<[email protected]>...
> > >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] (Jana) wrote:
> > >> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> > >> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard
> > >>
> > >> >> >Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands
of
> > >> >> >frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Does that make it right?
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Doug, Yes, it does make it right. No human should die in vain.
> > >>
> > >> Hmmmm. So it's okay to kill, if some good is going to come of the
> death?
> > >
> > > Doug. They are not all utilized. The remainder are discarded ~ thrown
> > >away.
> >
> > This does not trouble you?
> >
> > > I would be the last person who would approve of stem cell
> > >research if the only resources were from cells that were either
> > >aborted or would eventually be used invetro.
> >
> > What's the difference, morally, between harvesting stem cells from a
baby
> > aborted in the womb, versus from a human embryo in vitro? Either one
kills
> a
> > unique human person.
> >
> > >We have the right to
> > >disagree and I admit your responces have gotten under my skin. I
> > >sincerely hope you or know one you love is ever dependant on this
> > >research. I have a huge interest in it. My husband is in a
> > >wheelchair. The fact that he can't walk isn't so bad. The pain is,
> > >though. He describes it as having your toes in a vise as tight as
> > >it'll go, with his feet in near boiling water, and the tingling you
> > >get when your feet have been asleep...all at the same time. 24-7 for
> > >over 7 years. The only relief is constant rubbing. It has nothing to
> > >do with circulation, the nerves just misfire. Somehow, he's just
> > >learned to deal with it. I'm not telling you this so you can feel
> > >sorry for me or Jim. We doctor at Mayo and I've met so many people
> > >that make us feel so lucky that I would be ashamed to complain. So,
> > >I'm sorry, you will never ever change my mind. I've been working for
> > >the past 7 years tying to get my husband to walk and it'll take more
> > >than you to make me give up.
> >
> > I'm sorry that your husband is in such pain. But I can't see that it in
> any
> > way justifies killing in the _hope_ -- it's not even a certainty -- that
a
> > treatment for his condition may be developed. In any event, research
into
> > adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells has, so far, been much
more
> > promising -- so why the insistence on using *embryonic* stem cells?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
> >
> > Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> > by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> > You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 5 Nov 2004 15:45:58 GMT, Joey Bosco <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>It has been said that stem cell research may lead to cures of hundreds of
>serious illnesses. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again, if
>this line of research is aggressively pursued. The drawback is that an
>abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
>you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
>of lives.
>
>John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not. Do
>you?

umm... I don't think Chris Reeve is gonna walk again, dude...

He died..

Maybe they need to clone wood and research how to produce hardwood
that I can afford..

"Joey Bosco" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> It has been said that stem cell research may lead to cures of hundreds of
> serious illnesses. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again,
> if
> this line of research is aggressively pursued. The drawback is that an
> abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
> you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
> of lives.
>
> John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not.
> Do
> you?

I support wood working, do you or do you only troll?

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:05:54 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <1100015757.WZwJc2J3/8tBruKwjPTQmw@teranews>, Scott Cramer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>> True, but it's an essential, living component, and deserves
>>>> the same
>>>>respect that you're giving that pinhead-sized stem cell cluster.
>>>
>>> Baloney. It's not the same. And I think you know that.
>>
>> They are far closer to being the same than a blastocyst is to being a
>>toddler. Or Dick Cheney. And I know you know that.
>
>The difference between an embryo and a toddler is about 3 years.
>
>The difference between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg is the difference
>between something that has about a one-in-a-million chance of becoming half a
>human being, and something that already is an entire human being.

Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an
entire human being."
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

>But your hand-wringing and wailing over the collection of stem cells, and
the bizarre extrapolation to abortion, is funny in a bleeding-heart
conservative (tmSC) sort of way.

I'm going to try to help you understand, whether you agree to the views or
not, where the extrapolation comes from....

Some say life begins at conception

Some say life begins at birth.

Nobody knows for sure.

If you believe meaningful life begins at conception then you believe that
the loss of a fertilized egg is a loss of life.... accidental or
intentional.

If you believe meaningful life begins at birth then you believe it doesn't
matter until it draws breath.

There are many levels of belief in between. The above are the two extremes.

We, as a people, are being called to define our belief because of 1)
abortion, 2) invetro fertilization, and 3) stem cell research.

If you align yourself on the life at conception side then you believe all of
these issues warrant responsible consideration. I want to take the liberty
to make the statement this view is the only view you know for sure that
innocent life is being protected.

If you align yourself on the belief that there exist a particular stage in
development before it can be called a meaningful life then you are merely
guessing hence the often occurring need for justification. If you say that
you can fertilize an egg and allow it to develop to a point and then discard
it then you also say that same stage can be aborted. Hence the
extrapolation.

Just to define my view....I'm not against stem cell research. As long as
the material is collected in a responsible manner with consideration to the
protection of innocent life. i.e. miscarriages, stillbirths, accidental
death of a mother.

Larry Wrote:

>One small quibble to that.

>I know that the woman carrying the fetus is a human. When the fetus
becomes human is, as you say, a matter of opinion. When there is a
conflict between the woman and the fetus, I'd have to come down on the
side of the woman. That's the only justification I need.

First, I'd ask you to define conflict and then I'd ask you to apply the
logic to the justification to ending any life... fetus to adult.
Self-preservation I'll buy along with numerous other extenuating
circumstances... personal inconvenience or the avoidance of unpleasant
consequences due to poor decisions.... I have to draw the line there.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 12:47:31 GMT, "mel" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Ok.. you got me.... if embryos were mass produced and women were viewed as
>factories then this wouldn't be questioned by our society.


The *real* issue is that it's women rather than men who have
babies. If men did, we would have a constitutional amendment
in place guaranteeing the right to abortion, Rush would be
ranting about "christian fanatics," and we'd have the Usual
Suspects screaming "baby hugger !" at anyone challenging
it.

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:46:38 GMT, mac davis <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 5 Nov 2004 15:45:58 GMT, Joey Bosco <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>It has been said that stem cell research may lead to cures of hundreds of
>>serious illnesses. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again, if
>>this line of research is aggressively pursued. The drawback is that an
>>abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
>>you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
>>of lives.
>>
>>John Kerry supported embryonic stem cell research. George Bush does not. Do
>>you?
>
>umm... I don't think Chris Reeve is gonna walk again, dude...
>
>He died..
>
>Maybe they need to clone wood and research how to produce hardwood
>that I can afford..

Ohhh... a chance to get back on-topic! Have you checked out the
hybrid that's for sale under the name "Lyptus"? Nice looking wood,
and fairly cheap around here. Definately worth a look.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>
>>>The drawback is that an
>>>abortion needs to be performed to obtain embryonic stem cells. That means
>>>you need to kill an unborn baby, to potentially save hundreds of thousands
>>>of lives.
>>>
>>
>>Bullsh*t! Embryonic stem cells can be gotten from the thousands of
>>frozen unwanted embryos which are going to be discarded anyway.
>
>
> Does that make it right?
>
>>And defining a fetus, especially at a very early stage (blastocyst?) as
>>a human being, is a religious belief, not a fact.
>
>
> Its cells contain human DNA.If it isn't human, what is it?
>
>
>>One could equally
>
>
> [but incorrectly]
>
>
>>hold the belief (also not a fact) that a fetus only becomes human when
>>it is capable of surviving outside the womb without extraordinary
>>measures.
>
>
> To do so is equivalent to maintaining that a baby born sufficiently
> prematurely is not human.
>
>>The fact is that there is no scientific definition of the transition
>>point from embryo to human.
>
>
> That's because there is no transition. A human embryo is human from the
> beginning, just as a dog embryo is a dog from the beginning.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>
Thank you, Doug. I have been reading this thread trying to think of the
proper response and how to word it and you said exactly what I believe.
Well said.

Glen

[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:

[...]

>>Please explain how an undifferentiated single cell "already is an
>>entire human being."
>
> It has a full complement of human DNA, uniquely its own, and needs only
> nutrition and time before it grows into something that even you could not
> possibly deny is a human being.

To bring it back (halfway) on topic: Beware of the many birch trees
that fly around in atumn, the many oak trees that rain down in autumn,
the many fir trees assembled in clusters known as pine cones...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:


[...]

> Genetically, there's no difference between an acorn and an oak tree. Of

So any law concerning trees should start at the seed stage?

> course, morally there's an enormous difference between humans and oak trees,
> and between human fetuses and acorns.

Of course. Trees are a blessing to the world.

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I'm less certain about that than you seem to be. A human life is
>a human life (and regardless of age according to the
>anti-abortionists) and, somewhen along the way, I realized that
>eighteen year olds are still kids - kids with a /very/ strong
>potential to become mature adults - but still kids nonetheless.

[snip thoughtful, but somewhat lengthy, commentary with which I largely agree]

I guess I'd put it this way: I see children, particularly infants and the
unborn, as more deserving of protection than adults (though not
intrinsically any more valuable) because they are more vulnerable. We adults
have the ability to care for and defend ourselves, but they do not, at
least not to the same extent, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to be more
careful of their lives and safety than we are of our own.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article <[email protected]>, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Stem cell research offers a lot of potential to make significant
>improvements in peoples lives. I think it's shameful that uniformed and
>morally misguided people such as yourself are trying to deny my quadriplegic
>friend the chance that someday he'll be able to hug and hold his young
>daughter and play with her, but most of all to fulfill her dream, of having
>her dad walk her down the aisle on her wedding day.

Hold on a minute here.

As you yourself correctly noted, there are many sources of stem cells besides
embryos -- most of which have shown far more promise, scientifically, than
embryonic stem cells. And nobody's trying to ban research with adult stem
cells, placental stem cells, bone marrow stem cells, or cord-blood stem cells.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Joey Bosco" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
. People like Christopher Reeve may one day walk again, if
> this line of research is aggressively pursued.

Didnt they make a movie about that ? 'Dawn of the dead ? ' :)

Boc