supeman was my favorite -

childhood hero. And I don't think Chris did a bad job at all....

john (gone fishing)

"riverman" wrote in message
...
This is much sadder than Rodney's death. Not only because I think we all
wished we could have been him (at least before the accident), but he's one
of the biggies of 'our generation' instead of our parents'.

--riverman

And Rodney still can't get no respect!


Mark

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Peter Charles wrote in

Here's another example that I've pondered over myself. Jews tend to
place a high regard on sending a dead body back to its maker in the same
condition it was given to them. That's why, after a suicide bombing,
some of the first on the scene are canvassing the sites for pieces of
flesh, to make sure they're buried with the right body, or waiting for
the survivors in the ground when they get buried. In any case, because
of the way the dead are treated, orthodox Jews are not organ donors.
Now, people die, and fairly often, waiting on the list for a transplant
donor. Is the witholding of organs by these people "religious tyranny"?
Well, others are certainly free to donate organs, nobody is stopping
them. Nobody is trying to put an end to transplantation either. Yet,
the fact remains, for every orthodox Jew that would make a good organ
donor that dies, that's a few organs that won't ever make it to the
transplant list.


This is an apples and oranges example compared to the stem-cell research
topic. While Jews are not organ donors, they do not active fight others from
being organ donors, or try to quench research into how to make organs more
acceptable to the recipient. They let others do research, and the public
benefits from the research. I can support someone who does not go into stem
cell research because they feel its religiously immoral, but not people who
block the benefits of others doing that research.

I agree that its hypocritical for someone who actively opposed stem cell
research to express their sympathies for the death of Chris Reeve (not for
them to say what a valiant fighter or true hero he was, that's different).
But to have actively resisted the research that might have cured him, and
then bemoan the sadness of his ailment is like seeing someone fall
overboard, pulling the safety ring away from them each time they reached for
it until they drown, then claiming it is so sad that they drowned.

BTW: I heard that Bush waivered on his anti-stem cell stance when it came
out that Ronnie might benefit from it (or else right after he died), but he
couldn't just open the floodgates because of the religious right. So he
found the middle ground.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in
:

They let others do research, and the public
benefits from the research. I can support someone who does not go into
stem cell research because they feel its religiously immoral, but not
people who block the benefits of others doing that research.


The government doesn't block anyone from doing research on or developing
any stem cell line they want-- they just won't pay for it. Any researcher,
even those who get NIH money, can do this, so long as they can demonstrate
entirely different funding lines for the research.

Again, I think that the current policy is not as consistent as refusing to
pay for line development, but allowing researchers to use all lines
developed through other means. My own values are that I believe the
government should end these restrictions, but I understand why some people
would not want government money going in to this research. I also feel the
current policy is the height of wishy-washyness, and should satisfy noone

Scott

Jonathan Cook wrote:
riverman wrote:


I agree that its hypocritical for someone who actively opposed stem cell
research to express their sympathies for the death of Chris Reeve (not for


Hypocritical to express sympathy? You've got to be kidding...

What is hypocritical is to oppose stem cell research on the grounds that
the stem cells come from "aborted" fetuses (which isn't true), while at
the same time not opposing fertility treatments, which is the actual
source of stem cells (from excess blastocysts that would be discarded
anyway).

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:17:46 -0600, rw
wrote:

So just what do you think is the motivation behind the people who are
misleading the public? Is it a plot to cause more abortions? Sheesh.

Ask Senator Edwards....

BTW, stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses.
Well there seems to be a difference of opinon here, Peter says this is
a source.

The least promising
ones (for research) come from adults, somewhat more promising ones come
from umbilical cords, and the most promising ones (and the ones that are
causing the controversy) come from excess blastocysts which are produced
in fertility treatments, and that would be otherwise discarded.

I admit to not being up to speed and this thread has presented at
least three explanations of the cell's themselves. I read that a
blastocyst is a fertilized ovum ....so it becomes an issue ones
definitions and here I do not have a clear view.

In fact, if you actually LISTEN to the responsible and knowledgeable
people who call for more stem cell research, they state up front that
treatments are years away. You recently had successful treatment for
cancer, which was wonderful. You looked GREAT at the Western Clave,
Harry. What if, say 30 years ago, we decided not to spend money for
cancer research because treatments were many years away?

speaking as one who has been up close and personal to the terror of
these maladies I am for just about any type of research and stem cell
is included.
I just have some issues about the source and how they are gotten.
This is not to say I'm against it, I just think we should be careful.
But , I'm learning more and more and unlike some here I'm at least
willing it change.


-

wrote:

That aside, I thought the main objection to embryonic stem cells was not
related to abortions, but the fact that it HAD to be a planned thing -
create the embryo knowing you're going to destroy it - that destroyed
the embryo, and in doing so, a (potential) life.

The "planning" is done by couples being treated for infertility. Women
are treated with hormones to induce the production of eggs, which are
then fertilized in vitro and grown into blastocysts, some of which are
implanted in either the "mother's" uterus or the uterus of a surrogate.
The excess blastocysts are, as of now, discarded or kept frozen
indefinitely.

Hence, at least for
me, there is no hypocrisy in allowing research on current stocks of
already-not-viable embryos.

The currently available cell lines are corrupted with mouse cells, among
other things.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

In article , says...
Peter Charles wrote:
Finally, don't equate cloning and vivisection to stem cell research
using aborted fetus tissue, for that too, is over-the-top. What will
you equate it to next, live experimentation on humans?

Why is it over the top? At least give credit, as Scott does, to
the realities of the beliefs behind the opposition. If someone
believes abortion is really equivalent to murder, wouldn't you
_expect_ them to oppose using the left-over "cadavers" in
research? Rather than vilifying them for it, congratulate them
on being consistent.
(to others, I'm just following Peter's phrasing -- I do understand
that stem cell lines don't just (or maybe even at all) come from
aborted fetus tissue)

If stem cells do not come from "cadavers" why are people opposing
stem cell research?

If people opposed Reeve's life work because of a misconception then I
don't know what you want to call it, but it does seem "bad" for
those people to gush over Reeve now that he's died.
- Ken

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:17:46 -0600, rw
wrote:


In fact, if you actually LISTEN to the responsible and knowledgeable
people who call for more stem cell research, they state up front that
treatments are years away. You recently had successful treatment for
cancer, which was wonderful. You looked GREAT at the Western Clave,
Harry. What if, say 30 years ago, we decided not to spend money for
cancer research because treatments were many years away?

There is a short but very encourging article in this months The
Economist concerning Cancer research...things appear to be getting
much better

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:17:46 -0600, rw
wrote:


In fact, if you actually LISTEN to the responsible and knowledgeable
people who call for more stem cell research, they state up front that
treatments are years away. You recently had successful treatment for
cancer, which was wonderful. You looked GREAT at the Western Clave,
Harry. What if, say 30 years ago, we decided not to spend money for
cancer research because treatments were many years away?

There is a short but very encourging article in this months The
Economist concerning Cancer research...things appear to be getting
much better