Stem Cell Research Veto

N

NoExcuses

New member
I want to be clear as well.

What Bush vetoed is <b><u> <i> additional </i>government funding </b> </u>for embryonic stem cell research.

There are already I think 4-5 embryonic stem cell lines the government is researching and he doesn't want to increase the # of lines. Sorry if someone has said this earlier in the thread.

The research on those 4-5 lines will continue. Bush will not authorize research on additional lines.

Private companies can do research on embryonic stem cells all they want, however. There just won't be funding from the Federal Government. That's all that's going on....

Here in California, the State of California funds a bunch of stem cell research. We passed a bill a few years ago....
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
I want to be clear as well.

What Bush vetoed is <b><u> <i> additional </i>government funding </b> </u>for embryonic stem cell research.

There are already I think 4-5 embryonic stem cell lines the government is researching and he doesn't want to increase the # of lines. Sorry if someone has said this earlier in the thread.

The research on those 4-5 lines will continue. Bush will not authorize research on additional lines.

Private companies can do research on embryonic stem cells all they want, however. There just won't be funding from the Federal Government. That's all that's going on....

Here in California, the State of California funds a bunch of stem cell research. We passed a bill a few years ago....
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
I want to be clear as well.

What Bush vetoed is <b><u> <i> additional </i>government funding </b> </u>for embryonic stem cell research.

There are already I think 4-5 embryonic stem cell lines the government is researching and he doesn't want to increase the # of lines. Sorry if someone has said this earlier in the thread.

The research on those 4-5 lines will continue. Bush will not authorize research on additional lines.

Private companies can do research on embryonic stem cells all they want, however. There just won't be funding from the Federal Government. That's all that's going on....

Here in California, the State of California funds a bunch of stem cell research. We passed a bill a few years ago....
 
N

NoExcuses

New member
I want to be clear as well.

What Bush vetoed is <b><u> <i> additional </i>government funding </b> </u>for embryonic stem cell research.

There are already I think 4-5 embryonic stem cell lines the government is researching and he doesn't want to increase the # of lines. Sorry if someone has said this earlier in the thread.

The research on those 4-5 lines will continue. Bush will not authorize research on additional lines.

Private companies can do research on embryonic stem cells all they want, however. There just won't be funding from the Federal Government. That's all that's going on....

Here in California, the State of California funds a bunch of stem cell research. We passed a bill a few years ago....
 
A

AnD

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>sakasuka</b></i>

well sure they say that - they make more money if people believe that.



i think others may argue differently about success rates.....</end quote></div>


I read several articles about the preliminary results for stroke and heart disease. And the advantages for treating leukemia and other blood disorders is documented. They have apparently been working with that for around 10 years.

It's not just *them* who are saying that- it was simply the shortest and simplest explanation...

Plus, the most hope seems to be in creating a big donor cord blood supply, to expand the donors and cut the time to transplant down for leukemia (etc.) patients, and expand the racial makeup of the donors.<i> Not </i>encouraging people to store their baby's cord blood for just<i> their </i>baby. Actually, sibling cord blood is still apparently prefered (to cut down on the potential for reoccurance of the disease), and non related transplants do better and have less "Graft/host" disease (I can't remember the exact name) than with other donors.

Besides, Amy, you are the one always critizing people for being jaundenced about the big drug companies funding the drug research- I think the same thing applies here <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0"> .


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Cord blood (CB) is an attractive alternative to bone marrow or peripheral blood as a source of transplantable hematopoietic tissue. However, because of the reduced volume, the stem cell content is limited; therefore its use as a graft for adult patients might require ex vivo manipulations.</end quote></div>

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...01003a.html
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...s/2401003a.html
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v12/n5/abs/2401003a.html
<br ">http://www.natur...eu...01003a...
</a></a>
</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>But cord blood transplants are more forgiving than other procedures, like bone marrow transplants, if the donor isn't a perfect genetic match. </end quote></div>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Now scientists like Low are finding that stem cells from umbilical cord blood - once thought capable only of turning into blood cells - may be able to grow into other kinds of cells as well. </end quote></div>


<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_cord_blood_2.html">http://news.nationalgeographic...0406_cord_blood_2.html</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>What diseases may be treated with cord blood stem cell transplantation?</i>
The first successful cord blood stem cell transplant was performed in 1988 in Paris, France. The patient, a boy with Fanconi's syndrome (a rare, genetic and lethal type of anemia), is alive and healthy today. <b>Cord blood stem cell transplants have now been successfully given to patients (mostly children) with some 80 disease diagnoses,</b> including acute lymphocytic leukemia (also called acute lymphoblastic leukemia or ALL), acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), myelodysplasia, chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), juvenile chronic myelogenous leukemia (JCML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, neuroblastoma, thalassemia, severe combined immune deficiency (SCID), Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, metabolic diseases such as adrenoleukodystrophy and Hurler syndrome and severe aplastic anemia. <b>To date, more than 6,000 cord blood stem cell transplants from unrelated donors and several hundred from sibling donors have been performed worldwide</b>.</end quote></div>



<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_mat_toc.adp?item_id=9622#_q-4
">http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.o...em_id=9622#_q-4
</a>
 
A

AnD

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>sakasuka</b></i>

well sure they say that - they make more money if people believe that.



i think others may argue differently about success rates.....</end quote></div>


I read several articles about the preliminary results for stroke and heart disease. And the advantages for treating leukemia and other blood disorders is documented. They have apparently been working with that for around 10 years.

It's not just *them* who are saying that- it was simply the shortest and simplest explanation...

Plus, the most hope seems to be in creating a big donor cord blood supply, to expand the donors and cut the time to transplant down for leukemia (etc.) patients, and expand the racial makeup of the donors.<i> Not </i>encouraging people to store their baby's cord blood for just<i> their </i>baby. Actually, sibling cord blood is still apparently prefered (to cut down on the potential for reoccurance of the disease), and non related transplants do better and have less "Graft/host" disease (I can't remember the exact name) than with other donors.

Besides, Amy, you are the one always critizing people for being jaundenced about the big drug companies funding the drug research- I think the same thing applies here <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0"> .


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Cord blood (CB) is an attractive alternative to bone marrow or peripheral blood as a source of transplantable hematopoietic tissue. However, because of the reduced volume, the stem cell content is limited; therefore its use as a graft for adult patients might require ex vivo manipulations.</end quote></div>

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...01003a.html
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...s/2401003a.html
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v12/n5/abs/2401003a.html
<br ">http://www.natur...eu...01003a...
</a></a>
</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>But cord blood transplants are more forgiving than other procedures, like bone marrow transplants, if the donor isn't a perfect genetic match. </end quote></div>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Now scientists like Low are finding that stem cells from umbilical cord blood - once thought capable only of turning into blood cells - may be able to grow into other kinds of cells as well. </end quote></div>


<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_cord_blood_2.html">http://news.nationalgeographic...0406_cord_blood_2.html</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>What diseases may be treated with cord blood stem cell transplantation?</i>
The first successful cord blood stem cell transplant was performed in 1988 in Paris, France. The patient, a boy with Fanconi's syndrome (a rare, genetic and lethal type of anemia), is alive and healthy today. <b>Cord blood stem cell transplants have now been successfully given to patients (mostly children) with some 80 disease diagnoses,</b> including acute lymphocytic leukemia (also called acute lymphoblastic leukemia or ALL), acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), myelodysplasia, chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), juvenile chronic myelogenous leukemia (JCML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, neuroblastoma, thalassemia, severe combined immune deficiency (SCID), Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, metabolic diseases such as adrenoleukodystrophy and Hurler syndrome and severe aplastic anemia. <b>To date, more than 6,000 cord blood stem cell transplants from unrelated donors and several hundred from sibling donors have been performed worldwide</b>.</end quote></div>



<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_mat_toc.adp?item_id=9622#_q-4
">http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.o...em_id=9622#_q-4
</a>
 
A

AnD

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>sakasuka</b></i>

well sure they say that - they make more money if people believe that.



i think others may argue differently about success rates.....</end quote></div>


I read several articles about the preliminary results for stroke and heart disease. And the advantages for treating leukemia and other blood disorders is documented. They have apparently been working with that for around 10 years.

It's not just *them* who are saying that- it was simply the shortest and simplest explanation...

Plus, the most hope seems to be in creating a big donor cord blood supply, to expand the donors and cut the time to transplant down for leukemia (etc.) patients, and expand the racial makeup of the donors.<i> Not </i>encouraging people to store their baby's cord blood for just<i> their </i>baby. Actually, sibling cord blood is still apparently prefered (to cut down on the potential for reoccurance of the disease), and non related transplants do better and have less "Graft/host" disease (I can't remember the exact name) than with other donors.

Besides, Amy, you are the one always critizing people for being jaundenced about the big drug companies funding the drug research- I think the same thing applies here <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0"> .


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Cord blood (CB) is an attractive alternative to bone marrow or peripheral blood as a source of transplantable hematopoietic tissue. However, because of the reduced volume, the stem cell content is limited; therefore its use as a graft for adult patients might require ex vivo manipulations.</end quote></div>

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...01003a.html
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...s/2401003a.html
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v12/n5/abs/2401003a.html
<br ">http://www.natur...eu...01003a...
</a></a>
</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>But cord blood transplants are more forgiving than other procedures, like bone marrow transplants, if the donor isn't a perfect genetic match. </end quote></div>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Now scientists like Low are finding that stem cells from umbilical cord blood - once thought capable only of turning into blood cells - may be able to grow into other kinds of cells as well. </end quote></div>


<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_cord_blood_2.html">http://news.nationalgeographic...0406_cord_blood_2.html</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>What diseases may be treated with cord blood stem cell transplantation?</i>
The first successful cord blood stem cell transplant was performed in 1988 in Paris, France. The patient, a boy with Fanconi's syndrome (a rare, genetic and lethal type of anemia), is alive and healthy today. <b>Cord blood stem cell transplants have now been successfully given to patients (mostly children) with some 80 disease diagnoses,</b> including acute lymphocytic leukemia (also called acute lymphoblastic leukemia or ALL), acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), myelodysplasia, chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), juvenile chronic myelogenous leukemia (JCML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, neuroblastoma, thalassemia, severe combined immune deficiency (SCID), Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, metabolic diseases such as adrenoleukodystrophy and Hurler syndrome and severe aplastic anemia. <b>To date, more than 6,000 cord blood stem cell transplants from unrelated donors and several hundred from sibling donors have been performed worldwide</b>.</end quote></div>



<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_mat_toc.adp?item_id=9622#_q-4
">http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.o...em_id=9622#_q-4
</a>
 
A

AnD

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>sakasuka</b></i>

well sure they say that - they make more money if people believe that.



i think others may argue differently about success rates.....</end quote></div>


I read several articles about the preliminary results for stroke and heart disease. And the advantages for treating leukemia and other blood disorders is documented. They have apparently been working with that for around 10 years.

It's not just *them* who are saying that- it was simply the shortest and simplest explanation...

Plus, the most hope seems to be in creating a big donor cord blood supply, to expand the donors and cut the time to transplant down for leukemia (etc.) patients, and expand the racial makeup of the donors.<i> Not </i>encouraging people to store their baby's cord blood for just<i> their </i>baby. Actually, sibling cord blood is still apparently prefered (to cut down on the potential for reoccurance of the disease), and non related transplants do better and have less "Graft/host" disease (I can't remember the exact name) than with other donors.

Besides, Amy, you are the one always critizing people for being jaundenced about the big drug companies funding the drug research- I think the same thing applies here <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0"> .


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Cord blood (CB) is an attractive alternative to bone marrow or peripheral blood as a source of transplantable hematopoietic tissue. However, because of the reduced volume, the stem cell content is limited; therefore its use as a graft for adult patients might require ex vivo manipulations.</end quote></div>

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...01003a.html
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...s/2401003a.html
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v12/n5/abs/2401003a.html
<br ">http://www.natur...eu...01003a...
</a></a>
</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>But cord blood transplants are more forgiving than other procedures, like bone marrow transplants, if the donor isn't a perfect genetic match. </end quote></div>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Now scientists like Low are finding that stem cells from umbilical cord blood - once thought capable only of turning into blood cells - may be able to grow into other kinds of cells as well. </end quote></div>


<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_cord_blood_2.html">http://news.nationalgeographic...0406_cord_blood_2.html</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>What diseases may be treated with cord blood stem cell transplantation?</i>
The first successful cord blood stem cell transplant was performed in 1988 in Paris, France. The patient, a boy with Fanconi's syndrome (a rare, genetic and lethal type of anemia), is alive and healthy today. <b>Cord blood stem cell transplants have now been successfully given to patients (mostly children) with some 80 disease diagnoses,</b> including acute lymphocytic leukemia (also called acute lymphoblastic leukemia or ALL), acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), myelodysplasia, chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), juvenile chronic myelogenous leukemia (JCML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, neuroblastoma, thalassemia, severe combined immune deficiency (SCID), Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, metabolic diseases such as adrenoleukodystrophy and Hurler syndrome and severe aplastic anemia. <b>To date, more than 6,000 cord blood stem cell transplants from unrelated donors and several hundred from sibling donors have been performed worldwide</b>.</end quote></div>



<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_mat_toc.adp?item_id=9622#_q-4
">http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.o...em_id=9622#_q-4
</a>
 
A

AnD

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>sakasuka</b></i>

well sure they say that - they make more money if people believe that.



i think others may argue differently about success rates.....</end quote>


I read several articles about the preliminary results for stroke and heart disease. And the advantages for treating leukemia and other blood disorders is documented. They have apparently been working with that for around 10 years.

It's not just *them* who are saying that- it was simply the shortest and simplest explanation...

Plus, the most hope seems to be in creating a big donor cord blood supply, to expand the donors and cut the time to transplant down for leukemia (etc.) patients, and expand the racial makeup of the donors.<i> Not </i>encouraging people to store their baby's cord blood for just<i> their </i>baby. Actually, sibling cord blood is still apparently prefered (to cut down on the potential for reoccurance of the disease), and non related transplants do better and have less "Graft/host" disease (I can't remember the exact name) than with other donors.

Besides, Amy, you are the one always critizing people for being jaundenced about the big drug companies funding the drug research- I think the same thing applies here <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0"> .


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Cord blood (CB) is an attractive alternative to bone marrow or peripheral blood as a source of transplantable hematopoietic tissue. However, because of the reduced volume, the stem cell content is limited; therefore its use as a graft for adult patients might require ex vivo manipulations.</end quote>

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...01003a.html
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...s/2401003a.html
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v12/n5/abs/2401003a.html
<br ">http://www.natur...eu...01003a...
</a></a>
</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>But cord blood transplants are more forgiving than other procedures, like bone marrow transplants, if the donor isn't a perfect genetic match. </end quote>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Now scientists like Low are finding that stem cells from umbilical cord blood - once thought capable only of turning into blood cells - may be able to grow into other kinds of cells as well. </end quote>


<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_cord_blood_2.html">http://news.nationalgeographic...0406_cord_blood_2.html</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>What diseases may be treated with cord blood stem cell transplantation?</i>
The first successful cord blood stem cell transplant was performed in 1988 in Paris, France. The patient, a boy with Fanconi's syndrome (a rare, genetic and lethal type of anemia), is alive and healthy today. <b>Cord blood stem cell transplants have now been successfully given to patients (mostly children) with some 80 disease diagnoses,</b> including acute lymphocytic leukemia (also called acute lymphoblastic leukemia or ALL), acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), myelodysplasia, chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), juvenile chronic myelogenous leukemia (JCML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, neuroblastoma, thalassemia, severe combined immune deficiency (SCID), Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, metabolic diseases such as adrenoleukodystrophy and Hurler syndrome and severe aplastic anemia. <b>To date, more than 6,000 cord blood stem cell transplants from unrelated donors and several hundred from sibling donors have been performed worldwide</b>.</end quote>



<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_mat_toc.adp?item_id=9622#_q-4
">http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.o...em_id=9622#_q-4
</a>
 
A

AnD

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>sakasuka</b></i>

well sure they say that - they make more money if people believe that.



i think others may argue differently about success rates.....</end quote>


I read several articles about the preliminary results for stroke and heart disease. And the advantages for treating leukemia and other blood disorders is documented. They have apparently been working with that for around 10 years.

It's not just *them* who are saying that- it was simply the shortest and simplest explanation...

Plus, the most hope seems to be in creating a big donor cord blood supply, to expand the donors and cut the time to transplant down for leukemia (etc.) patients, and expand the racial makeup of the donors.<i> Not </i>encouraging people to store their baby's cord blood for just<i> their </i>baby. Actually, sibling cord blood is still apparently prefered (to cut down on the potential for reoccurance of the disease), and non related transplants do better and have less "Graft/host" disease (I can't remember the exact name) than with other donors.

Besides, Amy, you are the one always critizing people for being jaundenced about the big drug companies funding the drug research- I think the same thing applies here <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0"> .


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Cord blood (CB) is an attractive alternative to bone marrow or peripheral blood as a source of transplantable hematopoietic tissue. However, because of the reduced volume, the stem cell content is limited; therefore its use as a graft for adult patients might require ex vivo manipulations.</end quote>

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...01003a.html
">"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...s/2401003a.html
"><br "><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nature.com/leu/journal/v12/n5/abs/2401003a.html
<br ">http://www.natur...eu...01003a...
</a></a>
</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>But cord blood transplants are more forgiving than other procedures, like bone marrow transplants, if the donor isn't a perfect genetic match. </end quote>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Now scientists like Low are finding that stem cells from umbilical cord blood - once thought capable only of turning into blood cells - may be able to grow into other kinds of cells as well. </end quote>


<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_cord_blood_2.html">http://news.nationalgeographic...0406_cord_blood_2.html</a>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>What diseases may be treated with cord blood stem cell transplantation?</i>
The first successful cord blood stem cell transplant was performed in 1988 in Paris, France. The patient, a boy with Fanconi's syndrome (a rare, genetic and lethal type of anemia), is alive and healthy today. <b>Cord blood stem cell transplants have now been successfully given to patients (mostly children) with some 80 disease diagnoses,</b> including acute lymphocytic leukemia (also called acute lymphoblastic leukemia or ALL), acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), myelodysplasia, chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), juvenile chronic myelogenous leukemia (JCML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, neuroblastoma, thalassemia, severe combined immune deficiency (SCID), Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, metabolic diseases such as adrenoleukodystrophy and Hurler syndrome and severe aplastic anemia. <b>To date, more than 6,000 cord blood stem cell transplants from unrelated donors and several hundred from sibling donors have been performed worldwide</b>.</end quote>



<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_mat_toc.adp?item_id=9622#_q-4
">http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.o...em_id=9622#_q-4
</a>
 
M

madisonsmom

New member
""THere is NO evidence that embryonic stem cells cure or heal any disease. There is evidence that adult stem cells work fine. The best results in stem cell research have been placental and cord stem cells, as well as stems cells harvested from adult donors for use in their own bodies. There is no reason to kill babies to get stem cells. Also, people may be compelled to destroy life in order to promote research. It's unacceptable. "" QUOTE FROM PREVIOUS RESPONCE



I think statements like the above are inflamatory and inaccurate..... I equate the "KILL BABIES" terminolgy to a an equally inflamatory and inaccurate bumber sticker I once saw:

SAVE A BABY: KILL AN ARAB

The above examples induce fanatical emotions which have no real place when debating questions related to scientific dispute.

I am offended when people assume making statements like the first one are okay.
It's obvious when ever anyone uses these tactics they haven't really taken the time to thoughtfully research the topic.
 
M

madisonsmom

New member
""THere is NO evidence that embryonic stem cells cure or heal any disease. There is evidence that adult stem cells work fine. The best results in stem cell research have been placental and cord stem cells, as well as stems cells harvested from adult donors for use in their own bodies. There is no reason to kill babies to get stem cells. Also, people may be compelled to destroy life in order to promote research. It's unacceptable. "" QUOTE FROM PREVIOUS RESPONCE



I think statements like the above are inflamatory and inaccurate..... I equate the "KILL BABIES" terminolgy to a an equally inflamatory and inaccurate bumber sticker I once saw:

SAVE A BABY: KILL AN ARAB

The above examples induce fanatical emotions which have no real place when debating questions related to scientific dispute.

I am offended when people assume making statements like the first one are okay.
It's obvious when ever anyone uses these tactics they haven't really taken the time to thoughtfully research the topic.
 
M

madisonsmom

New member
""THere is NO evidence that embryonic stem cells cure or heal any disease. There is evidence that adult stem cells work fine. The best results in stem cell research have been placental and cord stem cells, as well as stems cells harvested from adult donors for use in their own bodies. There is no reason to kill babies to get stem cells. Also, people may be compelled to destroy life in order to promote research. It's unacceptable. "" QUOTE FROM PREVIOUS RESPONCE



I think statements like the above are inflamatory and inaccurate..... I equate the "KILL BABIES" terminolgy to a an equally inflamatory and inaccurate bumber sticker I once saw:

SAVE A BABY: KILL AN ARAB

The above examples induce fanatical emotions which have no real place when debating questions related to scientific dispute.

I am offended when people assume making statements like the first one are okay.
It's obvious when ever anyone uses these tactics they haven't really taken the time to thoughtfully research the topic.
 
M

madisonsmom

New member
""THere is NO evidence that embryonic stem cells cure or heal any disease. There is evidence that adult stem cells work fine. The best results in stem cell research have been placental and cord stem cells, as well as stems cells harvested from adult donors for use in their own bodies. There is no reason to kill babies to get stem cells. Also, people may be compelled to destroy life in order to promote research. It's unacceptable. "" QUOTE FROM PREVIOUS RESPONCE



I think statements like the above are inflamatory and inaccurate..... I equate the "KILL BABIES" terminolgy to a an equally inflamatory and inaccurate bumber sticker I once saw:

SAVE A BABY: KILL AN ARAB

The above examples induce fanatical emotions which have no real place when debating questions related to scientific dispute.

I am offended when people assume making statements like the first one are okay.
It's obvious when ever anyone uses these tactics they haven't really taken the time to thoughtfully research the topic.
 
M

madisonsmom

New member
""THere is NO evidence that embryonic stem cells cure or heal any disease. There is evidence that adult stem cells work fine. The best results in stem cell research have been placental and cord stem cells, as well as stems cells harvested from adult donors for use in their own bodies. There is no reason to kill babies to get stem cells. Also, people may be compelled to destroy life in order to promote research. It's unacceptable. "" QUOTE FROM PREVIOUS RESPONCE



I think statements like the above are inflamatory and inaccurate..... I equate the "KILL BABIES" terminolgy to a an equally inflamatory and inaccurate bumber sticker I once saw:

SAVE A BABY: KILL AN ARAB

The above examples induce fanatical emotions which have no real place when debating questions related to scientific dispute.

I am offended when people assume making statements like the first one are okay.
It's obvious when ever anyone uses these tactics they haven't really taken the time to thoughtfully research the topic.
 
M

madisonsmom

New member
""THere is NO evidence that embryonic stem cells cure or heal any disease. There is evidence that adult stem cells work fine. The best results in stem cell research have been placental and cord stem cells, as well as stems cells harvested from adult donors for use in their own bodies. There is no reason to kill babies to get stem cells. Also, people may be compelled to destroy life in order to promote research. It's unacceptable. "" QUOTE FROM PREVIOUS RESPONCE



I think statements like the above are inflamatory and inaccurate..... I equate the "KILL BABIES" terminolgy to a an equally inflamatory and inaccurate bumber sticker I once saw:

SAVE A BABY: KILL AN ARAB

The above examples induce fanatical emotions which have no real place when debating questions related to scientific dispute.

I am offended when people assume making statements like the first one are okay.
It's obvious when ever anyone uses these tactics they haven't really taken the time to thoughtfully research the topic.
 
A

AnD

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>JazzysMom</b></i>



I dont want this to turn into a political/Bush bashing debate.</end quote></div>


No, all it means is that someone believes differently than you. The bumpersticker is just tacky, crude and predjudiced and has nothing to do with people who believe life begins with conception. Comparing the two is inflammatory, and misses the question that JazzysMom was asking.
 
A

AnD

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>JazzysMom</b></i>



I dont want this to turn into a political/Bush bashing debate.</end quote></div>


No, all it means is that someone believes differently than you. The bumpersticker is just tacky, crude and predjudiced and has nothing to do with people who believe life begins with conception. Comparing the two is inflammatory, and misses the question that JazzysMom was asking.
 
A

AnD

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>JazzysMom</b></i>



I dont want this to turn into a political/Bush bashing debate.</end quote></div>


No, all it means is that someone believes differently than you. The bumpersticker is just tacky, crude and predjudiced and has nothing to do with people who believe life begins with conception. Comparing the two is inflammatory, and misses the question that JazzysMom was asking.
 
A

AnD

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>JazzysMom</b></i>



I dont want this to turn into a political/Bush bashing debate.</end quote></div>


No, all it means is that someone believes differently than you. The bumpersticker is just tacky, crude and predjudiced and has nothing to do with people who believe life begins with conception. Comparing the two is inflammatory, and misses the question that JazzysMom was asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top