[Guest]

Stem cell researchers reacted with enthusiasm and reservations to a
report that scientists have found stem cells in amniotic fluid, a
discovery that would allow them to sidestep the controversy over
destroying embryos for research.

Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported
Sunday that the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by
pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells.

They reported they were able to extract the stem cells from the fluid,
which cushions babies in the womb, without harm to mother or fetus and
turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types,
including brain, liver and bone.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/ap_on_he_me/stem_cells_11

-------------------

Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
those who love life. The abortion crowd will have to circle the wagons
for a spin on this one.

It looks like President Bush was right not to allow federal funding of
stem cell research in the form it had been presented to him. He did
say there were alternatives available and he forced researchers to look
harder.

--
"The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest
things. He is the one who gets the people to do the greatest things." ~
Ronald Reagan

 

[Guest]

In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] "badgolferman" writes:

> Stem cell researchers reacted with enthusiasm and reservations to a
> report that scientists have found stem cells in amniotic fluid, a
> discovery that would allow them to sidestep the controversy over
> destroying embryos for research.
>
> [...]
>
> Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
> those who love life. The abortion crowd will have to circle the wagons
> for a spin on this one.
>
> It looks like President Bush was right not to allow federal funding of
> stem cell research in the form it had been presented to him. He did
> say there were alternatives available and he forced researchers to look
> harder.

Jesus H, you fanatics really stoop to low levels to try to claim
any kind of moral position. Do you really, truly, hand-on-heart
think this result happened because of the fantacism of so-called
"pro lifers"? You think research on stem cells (which Dubya has
done so much to impede) is done by folk who don't care about the
embryos they work with? In the UK (to which some US researchers
have been forced to flee to do stem cell work), a major theme of
this news story has been the joy on the part of the researchers,
that they now have an alternative -- they no longer must agonise
over which should be saved: the embryo; or the grown individuals
whose lives are in danger.

That you seek to score petty (and worthless) political points in
the face of such joyous news -- and lie while doing it -- pushes
you deep down in the pond scum. For decency's sake, grow up!
--
Andrew Stephenson

 

[Guest]

"Andrew Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "badgolferman" writes:
>
>> Stem cell researchers reacted with enthusiasm and reservations to a
>> report that scientists have found stem cells in amniotic fluid, a
>> discovery that would allow them to sidestep the controversy over
>> destroying embryos for research.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
>> those who love life. The abortion crowd will have to circle the wagons
>> for a spin on this one.
>>
>> It looks like President Bush was right not to allow federal funding of
>> stem cell research in the form it had been presented to him. He did
>> say there were alternatives available and he forced researchers to look
>> harder.
>
> Jesus H, you fanatics really stoop to low levels to try to claim
> any kind of moral position. Do you really, truly, hand-on-heart
> think this result happened because of the fantacism of so-called
> "pro lifers"? You think research on stem cells (which Dubya has
> done so much to impede) is done by folk who don't care about the
> embryos they work with? In the UK (to which some US researchers
> have been forced to flee to do stem cell work), a major theme of
> this news story has been the joy on the part of the researchers,
> that they now have an alternative -- they no longer must agonise
> over which should be saved: the embryo; or the grown individuals
> whose lives are in danger.
>
> That you seek to score petty (and worthless) political points in
> the face of such joyous news -- and lie while doing it -- pushes
> you deep down in the pond scum. For decency's sake, grow up!
> --
> Andrew Stephenson
>

They have to do what they can considering their "moral position" was smoke
and mirrors to begin with.

 

[Guest]

"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]eadfreenews.net...
> Stem cell researchers reacted with enthusiasm and reservations to a
> report that scientists have found stem cells in amniotic fluid, a
> discovery that would allow them to sidestep the controversy over
> destroying embryos for research.
>
> Researchers at Wake Forest University and Harvard University reported
> Sunday that the stem cells they drew from amniotic fluid donated by
> pregnant women hold much the same promise as embryonic stem cells.
>
> They reported they were able to extract the stem cells from the fluid,
> which cushions babies in the womb, without harm to mother or fetus and
> turn their discovery into several different tissue cell types,
> including brain, liver and bone.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070108/ap_on_he_me/stem_cells_11
>
> -------------------
>
> Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
> those who love life. The abortion crowd will have to circle the wagons
> for a spin on this one.


First of all, it "excuse FOR", not "excuse TO".

Now: Are you suggesting that some women have abortions because they want to
assist in stem cell research? You seem to be implying some connection
between the two things.

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

Andrew Stephenson, 1/8/2007, 1:19:25 PM,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "badgolferman" writes:
>
> > Stem cell researchers reacted with enthusiasm and reservations to a
> > report that scientists have found stem cells in amniotic fluid, a
> > discovery that would allow them to sidestep the controversy over
> > destroying embryos for research.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
> > those who love life. The abortion crowd will have to circle the
> > wagons for a spin on this one.
> >
> > It looks like President Bush was right not to allow federal funding
> > of stem cell research in the form it had been presented to him. He
> > did say there were alternatives available and he forced researchers
> > to look harder.
>
> Jesus H, you fanatics really stoop to low levels to try to claim
> any kind of moral position. Do you really, truly, hand-on-heart
> think this result happened because of the fantacism of so-called
> "pro lifers"? You think research on stem cells (which Dubya has
> done so much to impede) is done by folk who don't care about the
> embryos they work with? In the UK (to which some US researchers
> have been forced to flee to do stem cell work), a major theme of
> this news story has been the joy on the part of the researchers,
> that they now have an alternative -- they no longer must agonise
> over which should be saved: the embryo; or the grown individuals
> whose lives are in danger.
>
> That you seek to score petty (and worthless) political points in
> the face of such joyous news -- and lie while doing it -- pushes
> you deep down in the pond scum. For decency's sake, grow up!

I can't speak for the UK, but in the US the abortion crowd was telling
us constantly that embryonic stem cells were going to be the cure-all
for every disease known to mankind (just exaggerating a bit) and that
not federally funding it would push us back into the Dark Ages of
medicine.

This story highlights that there are always alternatives to killing
babies, whatever the circumstances. Stem Cell research is on the fast
track even though President Bush would not sign the bill to fund it
federally.

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Andrew Stephenson, 1/8/2007, 1:19:25 PM,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>
>> [email protected] "badgolferman" writes:
>>
>> > Stem cell researchers reacted with enthusiasm and reservations to a
>> > report that scientists have found stem cells in amniotic fluid, a
>> > discovery that would allow them to sidestep the controversy over
>> > destroying embryos for research.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
>> > those who love life. The abortion crowd will have to circle the
>> > wagons for a spin on this one.
>> >
>> > It looks like President Bush was right not to allow federal funding
>> > of stem cell research in the form it had been presented to him. He
>> > did say there were alternatives available and he forced researchers
>> > to look harder.
>>
>> Jesus H, you fanatics really stoop to low levels to try to claim
>> any kind of moral position. Do you really, truly, hand-on-heart
>> think this result happened because of the fantacism of so-called
>> "pro lifers"? You think research on stem cells (which Dubya has
>> done so much to impede) is done by folk who don't care about the
>> embryos they work with? In the UK (to which some US researchers
>> have been forced to flee to do stem cell work), a major theme of
>> this news story has been the joy on the part of the researchers,
>> that they now have an alternative -- they no longer must agonise
>> over which should be saved: the embryo; or the grown individuals
>> whose lives are in danger.
>>
>> That you seek to score petty (and worthless) political points in
>> the face of such joyous news -- and lie while doing it -- pushes
>> you deep down in the pond scum. For decency's sake, grow up!
>
> I can't speak for the UK, but in the US the abortion crowd was telling
> us constantly that embryonic stem cells were going to be the cure-all
> for every disease known to mankind (just exaggerating a bit) and that
> not federally funding it would push us back into the Dark Ages of
> medicine.
>
> This story highlights that there are always alternatives to killing
> babies, whatever the circumstances. Stem Cell research is on the fast
> track even though President Bush would not sign the bill to fund it
> federally.


Again: Are you suggesting that the reason some women have abortions is to
supply stem cell researchers?

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 1:55:59 PM,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Now: Are you suggesting that some women have abortions because they
> want to assist in stem cell research? You seem to be implying some
> connection between the two things.

Here we go with the interrogations again...

No, I do not suggest such at all. I suggest the abortion lobby has
lost another argument.

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 2:14:25 PM, <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 1:55:59 PM,
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Now: Are you suggesting that some women have abortions because
> > > they want to assist in stem cell research? You seem to be
> > > implying some connection between the two things.
> >
> > Here we go with the interrogations again...
> >
> > No, I do not suggest such at all. I suggest the abortion lobby has
> > lost another argument.
>
>
> Interrogations? Nobody's allowed to question you? Or, is there a list
> of permissible questions? Post it.
>
> Now:
> You or someone pretending to be you said this:
>
> "Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
> those who love life."
>
> If you think that doesn't suggest some sort of perverse market for
> dead babies, just say so. I'll print it and ask my son to show it to
> two English teachers. We'll see what they think.

Go ahead. Maybe you'll learn something. Apparently learned
researchers have.

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 2:14:25 PM, <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 1:55:59 PM,
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Now: Are you suggesting that some women have abortions because
>> > > they want to assist in stem cell research? You seem to be
>> > > implying some connection between the two things.
>> >
>> > Here we go with the interrogations again...
>> >
>> > No, I do not suggest such at all. I suggest the abortion lobby has
>> > lost another argument.
>>
>>
>> Interrogations? Nobody's allowed to question you? Or, is there a list
>> of permissible questions? Post it.
>>
>> Now:
>> You or someone pretending to be you said this:
>>
>> "Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
>> those who love life."
>>
>> If you think that doesn't suggest some sort of perverse market for
>> dead babies, just say so. I'll print it and ask my son to show it to
>> two English teachers. We'll see what they think.
>
> Go ahead. Maybe you'll learn something. Apparently learned
> researchers have.


Are you saying that your sentence did NOT draw a connection between women's
decisions and stem cell research?

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 2:54:42 PM, <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 2:14:25 PM,
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]
> >>> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 1:55:59 PM,
> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> >>> > Now: Are you suggesting that some women have abortions because
> >>> > they want to assist in stem cell research? You seem to be
> >>> > implying some connection between the two things.
> > > >
> >>> Here we go with the interrogations again...
> > > >
> >>> No, I do not suggest such at all. I suggest the abortion lobby
> has >>> lost another argument.
> > >
> > >
> > > Interrogations? Nobody's allowed to question you? Or, is there a
> > > list of permissible questions? Post it.
> > >
> > > Now:
> > > You or someone pretending to be you said this:
> > >
> > > "Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated
> > > by those who love life."
> > >
> > > If you think that doesn't suggest some sort of perverse market for
> > > dead babies, just say so. I'll print it and ask my son to show it
> > > to two English teachers. We'll see what they think.
> >
> > Go ahead. Maybe you'll learn something. Apparently learned
> > researchers have.
>
>
> Are you saying that your sentence did NOT draw a connection between
> women's decisions and stem cell research?

How about commenting on the article itself and dropping the Gestapo
tactics?

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 2:54:42 PM, <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 2:14:25 PM,
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[email protected]
>> >>> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 1:55:59 PM,
>> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>> > Now: Are you suggesting that some women have abortions because
>> >>> > they want to assist in stem cell research? You seem to be
>> >>> > implying some connection between the two things.
>> > > >
>> >>> Here we go with the interrogations again...
>> > > >
>> >>> No, I do not suggest such at all. I suggest the abortion lobby
>> has >>> lost another argument.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Interrogations? Nobody's allowed to question you? Or, is there a
>> > > list of permissible questions? Post it.
>> > >
>> > > Now:
>> > > You or someone pretending to be you said this:
>> > >
>> > > "Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated
>> > > by those who love life."
>> > >
>> > > If you think that doesn't suggest some sort of perverse market for
>> > > dead babies, just say so. I'll print it and ask my son to show it
>> > > to two English teachers. We'll see what they think.
>> >
>> > Go ahead. Maybe you'll learn something. Apparently learned
>> > researchers have.
>>
>>
>> Are you saying that your sentence did NOT draw a connection between
>> women's decisions and stem cell research?
>
> How about commenting on the article itself and dropping the Gestapo
> tactics?


They are not gestapo tactics, although I can see that my question annoys you
because I'm asking whether YOU agree with what YOU wrote. Or, I need to know
if I'm misinterpreting it.

So, first: I think it's cool that they can get stem cells from amnionic
fluid. However, it is not free of risk, but that's not a big deal.

Now, back to what you wrote. You seem to be saying that some women decide
to have an abortion because they look forward to donating biological
material to researchers. If I've got it wrong, then please explain what you
MEANT to say.

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 3:06:10 PM, <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> So, first: I think it's cool that they can get stem cells from
>> amnionic fluid. However, it is not free of risk, but that's not a big
>> deal.
>
> Good, then you like the idea of moving forward with this type of
> research rather than harvesting dead babies.
>
>> Now, back to what you wrote. You seem to be saying that some women
>> decide to have an abortion because they look forward to donating
>> biological material to researchers. If I've got it wrong, then please
>> explain what you MEANT to say.
>
> I already answered that question at 2:11:35 ET.


I saw that. It doesn't make sense. The abortion lobby doesn't defend the
practice because it provides a nice supply of material for research. They
defend the practice because certain decisions are to remain private.

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 3:30:06 PM, <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 3:06:10 PM,
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > So, first: I think it's cool that they can get stem cells from
> > > amnionic fluid. However, it is not free of risk, but that's not a
> > > big deal.
> >
> > Good, then you like the idea of moving forward with this type of
> > research rather than harvesting dead babies.
> >
> > > Now, back to what you wrote. You seem to be saying that some
> > > women decide to have an abortion because they look forward to
> > > donating biological material to researchers. If I've got it
> > > wrong, then please explain what you MEANT to say.
> >
> > I already answered that question at 2:11:35 ET.
>
>
> I saw that. It doesn't make sense. The abortion lobby doesn't defend
> the practice because it provides a nice supply of material for
> research. They defend the practice because certain decisions are to
> remain private.

They want federally funded stem cell research from harvested dead
babies because in their minds it justifies continued legalization of
abortion. They are running out of reasons why abortion-on-demand
should be legal and are looking for ways to continue population control.

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

>From http://tinyurl.com/yacu7o -

"Knowing she can donate tissue from her abortion to potentially
lifesaving medical research may help a woman turn an unintended
pregnancy about which she may feel a sense of loss into a social good.
The choice to donate often gives solace to women who may need to end
their pregnancies (Anderson, et al., 1994; Martin, 1993; Martin, et
al., 1995)."

In other words, believing that she may be contributing to medical
research may help some women "feel better" about killing a baby - an
excuse, exactly as BGM termed it. Of course, the potential guilt seems
a little puzzling given PP's claim that aborting a baby is very likely
a "positive" experience for the mother-to-be, with few if any regrets
after the fact.



JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 1:55:59 PM,
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Now: Are you suggesting that some women have abortions because they
> >> want to assist in stem cell research? You seem to be implying some
> >> connection between the two things.
> >
> > Here we go with the interrogations again...
> >
> > No, I do not suggest such at all. I suggest the abortion lobby has
> > lost another argument.
>
>
> Interrogations? Nobody's allowed to question you? Or, is there a list of
> permissible questions? Post it.
>
> Now:
> You or someone pretending to be you said this:
>
> "Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
> those who love life."
>
> If you think that doesn't suggest some sort of perverse market for dead
> babies, just say so. I'll print it and ask my son to show it to two English
> teachers. We'll see what they think.

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 3:30:06 PM, <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 3:06:10 PM,
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > So, first: I think it's cool that they can get stem cells from
>> > > amnionic fluid. However, it is not free of risk, but that's not a
>> > > big deal.
>> >
>> > Good, then you like the idea of moving forward with this type of
>> > research rather than harvesting dead babies.
>> >
>> > > Now, back to what you wrote. You seem to be saying that some
>> > > women decide to have an abortion because they look forward to
>> > > donating biological material to researchers. If I've got it
>> > > wrong, then please explain what you MEANT to say.
>> >
>> > I already answered that question at 2:11:35 ET.
>>
>>
>> I saw that. It doesn't make sense. The abortion lobby doesn't defend
>> the practice because it provides a nice supply of material for
>> research. They defend the practice because certain decisions are to
>> remain private.
>
> They want federally funded stem cell research from harvested dead
> babies because in their minds it justifies continued legalization of
> abortion. They are running out of reasons why abortion-on-demand
> should be legal and are looking for ways to continue population control.


I'd like to read more about that. Which organization do you feel states that
most clearly as their policy?

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Andrew Stephenson, 1/8/2007, 1:19:25 PM,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>
>> [email protected] "badgolferman" writes:
>>
>> > Stem cell researchers reacted with enthusiasm and reservations to a
>> > report that scientists have found stem cells in amniotic fluid, a
>> > discovery that would allow them to sidestep the controversy over
>> > destroying embryos for research.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
>> > those who love life. The abortion crowd will have to circle the
>> > wagons for a spin on this one.
>> >
>> > It looks like President Bush was right not to allow federal funding
>> > of stem cell research in the form it had been presented to him. He
>> > did say there were alternatives available and he forced researchers
>> > to look harder.
>>
>> Jesus H, you fanatics really stoop to low levels to try to claim
>> any kind of moral position. Do you really, truly, hand-on-heart
>> think this result happened because of the fantacism of so-called
>> "pro lifers"? You think research on stem cells (which Dubya has
>> done so much to impede) is done by folk who don't care about the
>> embryos they work with? In the UK (to which some US researchers
>> have been forced to flee to do stem cell work), a major theme of
>> this news story has been the joy on the part of the researchers,
>> that they now have an alternative -- they no longer must agonise
>> over which should be saved: the embryo; or the grown individuals
>> whose lives are in danger.
>>
>> That you seek to score petty (and worthless) political points in
>> the face of such joyous news -- and lie while doing it -- pushes
>> you deep down in the pond scum. For decency's sake, grow up!
>
> I can't speak for the UK, but in the US the abortion crowd was telling
> us constantly that embryonic stem cells were going to be the cure-all
> for every disease known to mankind (just exaggerating a bit) and that
> not federally funding it would push us back into the Dark Ages of
> medicine.

If you paid attention, the stem cells that would be used would be the
surplus embryos of in vitro fertilization - the ones that otherwise get
thrown away. Instead, people (some people) want to put them to good use
rather than discard them.

Cathy

"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest... " (The Boxer,
P. Simon)


>
> This story highlights that there are always alternatives to killing
> babies, whatever the circumstances. Stem Cell research is on the fast
> track even though President Bush would not sign the bill to fund it
> federally.

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 2:54:42 PM, <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 2:14:25 PM,
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[email protected]
>> >>> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/8/2007, 1:55:59 PM,
>> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>> > Now: Are you suggesting that some women have abortions because
>> >>> > they want to assist in stem cell research? You seem to be
>> >>> > implying some connection between the two things.
>> > > >
>> >>> Here we go with the interrogations again...
>> > > >
>> >>> No, I do not suggest such at all. I suggest the abortion lobby
>> has >>> lost another argument.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Interrogations? Nobody's allowed to question you? Or, is there a
>> > > list of permissible questions? Post it.
>> > >
>> > > Now:
>> > > You or someone pretending to be you said this:
>> > >
>> > > "Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated
>> > > by those who love life."
>> > >
>> > > If you think that doesn't suggest some sort of perverse market for
>> > > dead babies, just say so. I'll print it and ask my son to show it
>> > > to two English teachers. We'll see what they think.
>> >
>> > Go ahead. Maybe you'll learn something. Apparently learned
>> > researchers have.
>>
>>
>> Are you saying that your sentence did NOT draw a connection between
>> women's decisions and stem cell research?
>
> How about commenting on the article itself and dropping the Gestapo
> tactics?

You are the one who inferred that if other ways are found to harvest
embryonic stem cells - other than via aborted fetuses/embryos, that would be
a blow to those who are pro choice. Which is a bunch of baloney.

You can make such a stance - obviously, but you can't then honestly expect
others to just read it & find no disagreement with it.

Cathy

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

"Cathy F." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>
> If you paid attention, the stem cells that would be used would be the
> surplus embryos of in vitro fertilization - the ones that otherwise get
> thrown away. Instead, people (some people) want to put them to good use
> rather than discard them.
>
> Cathy
>
> "A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest... " (The
> Boxer, P. Simon)


If I recall, one of the stooges (dbu, golf boy, sharx or snott in florida)
explained (in a thread about Cheney's daughter) that in vitro fertilization
was a process reserved for lesbians and other undesirables. How could we not
have known this?

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

badgolferman wrote:

>
> Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
> those who love life. The abortion crowd will have to circle the wagons
> for a spin on this one.

Ignoring your idiotic link of abortion rights and stem cell research, I
have to ask you if you think anybody who has had a baby by in vitro
fertilization, is a "baby killer"? `cause that's where almost all the
embryos come from for research.

 

[Guest]

Re: {OT} alternative to killing babies

Andrew Stephenson wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>
> [email protected] "badgolferman" writes:
>

> > Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by
> > those who love life. The abortion crowd will have to circle the wagons
> > for a spin on this one.
> >
> > It looks like President Bush was right not to allow federal funding of
> > stem cell research in the form it had been presented to him. He did
> > say there were alternatives available and he forced researchers to look
> > harder.
>
> Jesus H, you fanatics really stoop to low levels to try to claim
> any kind of moral position. Do you really, truly, hand-on-heart
> think this result happened because of the fantacism of so-called
> "pro lifers"? You think research on stem cells (which Dubya has
> done so much to impede) is done by folk who don't care about the
> embryos they work with? In the UK (to which some US researchers
> have been forced to flee to do stem cell work), a major theme of
> this news story has been the joy on the part of the researchers,
> that they now have an alternative -- they no longer must agonise
> over which should be saved: the embryo; or the grown individuals
> whose lives are in danger.
>
> That you seek to score petty (and worthless) political points in
> the face of such joyous news -- and lie while doing it -- pushes
> you deep down in the pond scum. For decency's sake, grow up!
> --
> Andrew Stephenson

This comes from the type of "moral" people that would rather see an
overpopulated 3rd world full of starving children than allow birth
control.