Why Hillary?

[forrestkc]

To get embryonic stem cells you have to destroy a human life. Now, certainly those tiny human life forms that are destroyed won't look like a human for another couple of months, but that is what they are.

They are going to be destroyed anyway. What we are talking about is taking fertilized eggs, left over from In-Vitro Fertilization Treatments, that would otherwise be simply incinerated or rinsed down a sink. Why does no one that is against this seem to get that?

[Smalcald]

To get embryonic stem cells you have to destroy a human life. Now, certainly those tiny human life forms that are destroyed won't look like a human for another couple of months, but that is what they are.

They are going to be destroyed anyway. What we are talking about is taking fertilized eggs, left over from In-Vitro Fertilization Treatments, that would otherwise be simply incinerated or rinsed down a sink. Why does no one that is against this seem to get that?

Yes I understand that, it is also killing an unborn child to flush those human life forms "left over" from In-Vitro.

So the example of a healthy convicted murderer would definitely be relevant. I think yes, you can make a very good utilitarian case, the utility of the convicted killer who is going to be executed anyway, to society is almost zero, yet his or her organs and tissues could help many people they have utility, so why not harvest them, from a utilitarian perspective it makes total sense I agree.

It is about what and who we are as a people. Besides what people don't get is that we are talking about funding this stuff with tax dollars not about whether they are allowed to do it or not. I am also against corporate welfare which this is an egregious case of, particularly to the pharmaceutical and biotech firms.

Why the big push for embryonic stem cells when other means of stem cells are both available AND more proven. No case of a single cure has come from embryonic stem cell research, yet we do have cures and protocols working with other stem cells. The answer is profit and glory you can OWN a stem cell a human life form and you can more easily profit from it.

[forrestkc]

To get embryonic stem cells you have to destroy a human life. Now, certainly those tiny human life forms that are destroyed won't look like a human for another couple of months, but that is what they are.

They are going to be destroyed anyway. What we are talking about is taking fertilized eggs, left over from In-Vitro Fertilization Treatments, that would otherwise be simply incinerated or rinsed down a sink. Why does no one that is against this seem to get that?

Yes I understand that, it is also killing an unborn child to flush those human life forms "left over" from In-Vitro.

Are you against In-Vitro Fertilization then?

No case of a single cure has come from embryonic stem cell research, yet we do have cures and protocols working with other stem cells. The answer is profit and glory you can OWN a stem cell a human life form and you can more easily profit from it.

Because Stem Cell Research has had the benefit of some 50 years worth of public investment in basic research. Embryonic Stem Cell Research is new field. You are making an apples to oranges comparison. The reason why the scientific community wants public funding of stem cell research is that very little basic medical research is funded in the private sector. Investors in the private sector cannot afford to wait 20 to 40 years before anything profitable is yielded from research. This is why federally funded basic medical research is so important. In fact, it is not an exageration at all to say that federally funded basic medical research is by and large the foundation of modern medicine.

[senerhu]

I guess there are just more, qualified liberal leaning managing editors and delivery personnel... like the rest of the country, more liberal leaning than conservative leaning.

A on a liberal statement from someone who claims to be "the balance"?

I guess there are just more, qualified conservative talk radio hosts, too, more conservative leaning than liberal leaning.

liberal bias in the media is a given. Anybody that knows anything knows that...

[senerhu]

1) She'll sign legislation to expand the federal funding of stem-cell research; open up new lines too.

2) She can complete a sentence without mumbling and fumbling all over the English language.

3) She's got policial savvy just like the "guys" and she's very smart.

4) I thought her Universal Health Care thing was a good idea; don't know if she's planning on trying that again though.

5) I think she's more moral than most even if she doesn't make her "personal relationship with God" ultra public, dripping with veiled bible verses and references to "God" every time she speaks.

6) I don't like her husband but he does have charisma so he'd be helpful in mending some fences abroad and improve our Country's image in the world.

7) She can handle the pressure that goes with the job; after the scandal involving her husband's infidelity she's proven she's got what it takes to take on the job of President.

If you're trying to sell the notion of Hilary for POTUS, you blew it. Numbers 1, 3, 4, and 6 are reasons alone to keep this broad out of the Oval Office. Numbers 2 and 7 are totally irrelevant. And as for number 5, Hilary's god is not the G-d of the Bible. Hers is some kind of morphed out secular progressive caricature of the real One.

The question was asked and I answered it. All are relevant to me and I stand by my list; especially number one. You can make your own choices.

But why haven't I heard anything about this? This is something the Dems would make sure was in the headlines every day, as bad as they want to "get" Tom Delay.

Liberals and democrats don't control the media, a handful of corporations do and they tend to be conservative.

The managing editors are overwhelming liberal and they control the content and the delivery personnel.

I guess there are just more, qualified liberal leaning managing editors and delivery personnel... like the rest of the country, more liberal leaning than conservative leaning.

[senerhu]

I guess there are just more, qualified liberal leaning managing editors and delivery personnel... like the rest of the country, more liberal leaning than conservative leaning.

A on a liberal statement from someone who claims to be "the balance"?

I guess there are just more, qualified conservative talk radio hosts, too, more conservative leaning than liberal leaning.

A facts a fact... should I lie to make you feel better instead?

I guess you could be right, or perhaps liberals have better things to do than listen to talk radio...

maybe the liberals are trying to figure out how to make talk radio work? After all, as you refer to, they have such a large base to draw from ...

[Hypathia]

Papasangel, stem cell aren't babies. You can feed a baby and put a diaper on it or rub it while it's in your belly kicking around. -- A stem-cell is a clump of 150 cells sitting in a petrie dish until they go into the trash.

To get embryonic stem cells you have to destroy a human life. Now, certainly those tiny human life forms that are destroyed won't look like a human for another couple of months, but that is what they are.

The reason the large corporations are so hot on embryonic stem cells is that you cannot patent and control cord blood stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have a much higher profit potential, it is Franken science at its worst.

Many hundreds of thousands of people around the globe could be saved if we simply harvested the organs of convicted killers, or severely sick children who are going to die anyway, or simply paid people for their organs. This is the morality of embryonic stem cells and where it leads us. It is the culture of death and the culture of utility.

Besides embryonic stem cell research is TOTALLY legal, companies, research foundations can start ALL of the lines they want; they just can

Edited July 12, 2007 by Hypathia

[forrestkc]

maybe the liberals are trying to figure out how to make talk radio work? After all, as you refer to, they have such a large base to draw from ...

I am not sure what to make of that. There are more Democratic Governors, Statehouses, and Local Governments than Republican ones. There are also more registered Democrats than Republicans. Democrats hold both houses of Congress, and far more votes have been cast for Democratic Senators than Republican Senators. If conservatives hold such a huge majority, then why is that the case?

[senerhu]

maybe the liberals are trying to figure out how to make talk radio work? After all, as you refer to, they have such a large base to draw from ...

I am not sure what to make of that. There are more Democratic Governors, Statehouses, and Local Governments than Republican ones. There are also more registered Democrats than Republicans. Democrats hold both houses of Congress, and far more votes have been cast for Democratic Senators than Republican Senators. If conservatives hold such a huge majority, then why is that the case?

bush?

[forrestkc]

maybe the liberals are trying to figure out how to make talk radio work? After all, as you refer to, they have such a large base to draw from ...

I am not sure what to make of that. There are more Democratic Governors, Statehouses, and Local Governments than Republican ones. There are also more registered Democrats than Republicans. Democrats hold both houses of Congress, and far more votes have been cast for Democratic Senators than Republican Senators. If conservatives hold such a huge majority, then why is that the case?

bush?

Because he lucked out an got to run against Kerry of all people. Even when he ran against Gore, he still lost the popular vote. I am not saying that liberals are in the majority, I am saying that there is obviously every bit as many liberals as conservatives in this country.