I have neither condemned or vilified those who do not agree with me. I am presenting my side, period. I made no judgement call on anyone's position. ANd in the case of Bush, I mentioned no names, nor called any. I merely pointed out that if he did not use the terms attributed to him, then he would be a hypocrite, or worse, unethical and immoral for playing politics and using a life vs non-life issue to do it with.

I dont see how you can say I have singled anyone out since I have stated both times "for those who believe", and the reference was not to a religion, faith or creed, but to when life begins (see response #9). If you do believe that life begins at conception, then yes, you can feel guilty for supporting it. I made no such claim, instead saying that "For a person that believes life begins at conception".

I have made no secret of my belief of when life begins at conception, nor do I condemn those who do not believe as I do. But I find it very ironic that "we" (note the term - not you - not him - not her - WE) demand that our politicians be in essence - hypocrites. That one (politician) would be so shallow as to actually allow his morals and ethics interfere with performing his duties of office.

That's what would be in the press if he didn't veto it. "Bush is a hypocrite!" "Bush Unethical and Immoral." "Bush becomes baby-killer." "Bush mistakes stem cells for glass of water." The press hates him, no matter what he does. I love him. I just want him to go somewhere where he can no longer have contact with the rest of humanity. I think that would be best for all parties.

you mean like bush

i believe that qualifies a vilifing someone who doesn't agree with you

I don't have to admit anything cause I am not Bush so I do not know exactly what he is thinking but then neither does anyone else on this site. He probably would, who knows, but that is not what we are talking about. I am not gonna condemn a person for what I think he may do. We are talking about vetoing stem cell research funding. He refuses to use Federal Funding for it, I'm fine with that. Those who would benefit from this (Pharmaceutical companies) have enough money to pay for the research.

Here is one link. I never said that the polls supported taxpayer funded embyronic stem cell research. So if I don't link a poll, I'm just making it up. All it takes is a quick google search to verify. I read, I remember what I read, I write. I don't always look it up immediately prior to responding to an article. If I am going to be called out on every statement that I make, I will start linking for every statement that I make. I don't notice the other bloggers here doing that or being asked to do that.

This one shows that 22% of American want their to be no limits on embryonic stem cell research and anothe 38% think they should ease current restrictions. I have seen other numbers that varied from 55% - 71% in favor of embryonic stem cell research (all a majority) but this was the most recently dated. I never said vast majority because it's not a vast majority but it is a majority.



http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070616/28011_Poll:_American,_Republican_Support_for_Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research_Increasing.htm

You are correct in your assumptions. However the reality is that MOST Americans that feel that way don't know these facts and do not bother to look it up:




Or else they don't want to know.
The "only" reason I'm aware of it is because, only in stem cell research will they find the answers needed to actually do something about the MS I have.

BOTH figures support embryonic stem cell research. When you add the 22% that want no restrictions and the 38% who want lessened restrictions that equals 60%, a majority of Americans that support embryonic stem cell research. But if that isn't good enough for you, I will find more.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

Here is a breakdown of the poll results from 2007 from the above linked website.

CNN/Opinion Research Poll - May 4-6, 2007

53% Federal government SHOULD fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos.

USA Today/Gallup Poll - April 13-15, 2007

64% Bush SHOULD NOT veto bill expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

This poll also contained the numbers I referenced earlier 38% want lessened restrictions and 22% want no restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll January 16-19, 2007

61% SUPPORT Embryonic Stem Cell Research

55% SUPPORT loosening restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

Okay here's more - this is long - look on page 9, there's a pie chart

http://www.dnapolicy.org/images/reportpdfs/2005ValuesInConflict.pdf

This one says 58%.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-24-2005/0004193241&EDATE

This one says 60%.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010803.html

As you can see, I am not making numbers up. I was correct when I stated that the majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research.

Oh and I did find this interesting. In a survey of one thousand infertility patients with frozen embryos, 60% report that they are likely to donate their embryos to stem cell research. This could result in 2000 to 3000 new embryonic stem cell lines for research.

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

and maybe it will turn lead into gold.....

There is nothing to suggest that taxpayer money should be spent on this research. What exactly do the taxpayers who fund this research gain from it? The same people who fund medical research in this country currently pay the highest prices for the drugs that result from the research they paid for.

I just recently paid well over $100 for a month's supply of a drug that can be purchased in any other country in the world for a third of that price. My tax dollars paid for the development of that drug.

No, tax money should not be spent on research for drugs that we have to pay a premium on. And tax dollars should certainly not be spent on research that involves the cloning of human embryos just to destroy them. That is just sick and evil no matter how you care to color it. There isn't a single procedure involving human embryos that can't be conducted using umbilical cord cells or adult stems cells, neither of which involves the murder of a human being. The whole idea of killing embryos for research is just sick and anyone who advocates it is evil and sick.

and um, where exactly in there did it say that they want to spend our tax dollars to pay for the research? Donating unwanted items is not the same as forking over hard earned cash.

I'm sure you've seen the quote "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

Wouldn't it be wonderful if this turned out to be a cure for these diseases or at least lead to medicine to lessen the symptoms of them? I guess I'm just an optimist. I think the potential is amazing and so much more important than our other breakthroughs such as boner medication and regrowing hair.

http://www.camradvocacy.org/resources/Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research_Progress.htm

Some of the progress that has already been made.

hESC (Human Embryonic Stem Cells)have turned motor neurons (nerves which carry messages between the brain and body)offering possibilities for repairing damage caused by ALS, spinal cord injury and other nerve disorders.

*I find this especially exciting because my son has damaged nerves in his shoulder and limited use of his right arm from a birth injury. At the time, they said there is no way to repair nerve damage but now there is hope.* I don't understand how people can't find this incredibly exciting.

hESC allow Alzheimers researchers to study the disease in human tissue cells instead of in people. This will lead to better Alzheimers medications.

Researchers grew heart cells in a petri dish and implanted them into the damaged hearts of pigs. 11 out of 13 hearts regained normal heart rates.

Scientists used hESC to grow retinal cells which could someday return vision to those suffering from retinal disease.

They developed proteins that could mark cancer stem cells from which they hope to develop medication that could slow or turn off tumor formation.

They have developed a stem cell line of Cystic Fibrosis that can now be studied.

They have used hESC to grow inner ear hair cells that do not naturally regrow. This could develop a treatment for deafness.

They made insulin producing cells from mouse ebryonic cells. When transplanted into diabetic mice, they reduced blood sugar flucuation and increased lifespan.

They used embryonic stem cells to grow liver, cartiledge, nerve tissue and blood vessels. All of which appeared to function normally when transplanted into mice.

The used hESC to reverse hemophilia in mice.

Mice were bred without a gene needed for immunity. Cloned cells partially restored the immune system which gives hope for AIDS treatment.

They transplanted hESC into the brains of rats that did not have dopamine producing nerve cells (dopamine regulates movement, loss of dopamine associated with Parkinsons). Implanted cells became dopamine producing cells and improved animals motion relative to controls.

Used hESC to retore myelin insulation around damaged nerves, returning motion to partially paralyzed rats.

Sorry, not true. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types in the body. Adult stem cells are limited to differentiating into different cell types from their tissue of origin. They have also had problems retrieving adult stem cells from certain organs. Large numbers of Embryonic stem cells can be grown in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissue and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not been worked out. Large numbers of cells are needed for cell replacement therapies.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp



Embryonic stem cells are derived from seven-day old blastocysts (microscopic balls of 150 or so cells). I guess I am evil and sick as well as betwen 53-61% of our population and the 60% of infertility patients who said they would donate their frozen embryos for embryonic stem cell research. These are embryos that already exist and would be destroyed. Is it better for these existing embryos to be thrown in the trash than used in research?

So sorry but you are wrong. Adult stem cells and umbilical cord cells do MORE than embryonic stem cells. And BTW...I have noticed that you "still" have not answered my question:



Is that because you know I'm correct? This btw...is from your own linked site.

I've already told you Loca that you shouldn't debate this subject especially with me, unless your ducks are all in a row. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. As a sufferer of MS I keep very close tabs on this subject. And believe me when I say your ducks ain't in a row.

Also from your linked site:

Please note that I'm not even touching on the "moral" issue of this. Because of what I have posted, the moral issue should not even be the question.

So show me your linked info that says adult stem cells do MORE than embryonic stem cells. The only thing I found that would recommend adult stem cells is that any treatment derived from your own stem cells would not be rejected by the body.



My whole post number 43 names advances that embryonic stem cell research has produced. My hope is that they will be able to continue their research and be able to cure disease, develop new treatments and medications that will save lives and improve the quality of life for millions. The research is still in it's infancy and I believe that they will continue to make progress in their research. It may take a decade before they can actually develop viable treatment for human conditions but the potential is there.

If they can get the same results using adult stem cells, great. I know that I probably do not know as much about the subject as you do but from my preliminary internet findings that just doesn't seem to be the case.

Are you sure that President Bush knows what a stem cell is?

BTW...This one is a flat out LIE. "If" it were true they would have cure/treatment for MS and they do NOT. Not even close.

I showed you linked info....IT CAME DIRECTLY FROM YOUR LINK! Now give me a link that shows all your statements in #43 are true. Sorry Loca I'm calling you on this one.





These passages are from "your" linked site. They are not something that I just thought up, nor something that I read on some obscure web page. No, what I have quoted came from the very link you,yourself posted. But what's really funny is that in all my research on the web I can find nothing to back up the claims you have made in reply #43.
If you doubt the veracity of what I have posted, go to you link WWW Link and click on Item #7 "Where can I get more information". In the very first paragraph it tells you to look at their FAQ page. "That" is where my info came from.

This is where I got the info from in response #43. It was right there in the response. I didn't make it up. And I don't think saying that adult stem cells are more flexible than previously thought makes them better than embryonic stem cells.

http://www.camradvocacy.org/resources/Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research_Progress.htm

I don't understand why you are so angry about this issue, don't you find it hopeful. I do.



Hope.

Bush would rather fund a war that is KILLING Americans then fund research that could find cures for disease. Please do not tell me about protecting life. The stem cells from fertilization will be destroyed if they are not used to help fined cures for disease. Bush is a stubborn Idiot!