Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Minnesotan with quadriplegia

[Mr. P]

**(points to my signature line)**

It's unbelieveable how you attempt to misrepresent me. Do you realize just how many hospitals there are in the world with a Christian origin. Heck, even the Red Cross has a Christian origin.

I got it right. I don't think you understand what you say. Post #14.
Premise...blah, blah..

Forget the "tell me where I said that" crap. You did.

 

[jillian]

I got it right. I don't think you understand what you say. Post #14.
Premise...blah, blah..

Forget the "tell me where I said that" crap. You did.

What's really funny is that she thinks the Red Cross had a Christian origin. The Red Cross symbol was adoped because it is the reverse of the Swiss Flag... as in Geneva Convention. :huh:

When Clara Barton visited Europe in search of rest in 1869, she discovered a still wider field of service. Friends in Geneva, Switzerland, introduced her to the Red Cross and she read A Memory of Solferino, a book written by Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross Movement. Dunant called for international agreements to protect the sick and wounded during wartime without respect to nationality and for the formation of national societies to give aid voluntarily on a neutral basis. The first treaty embodying Dunant's idea was negotiated in Geneva in 1864 and ratified by 12 European nations. (This is called variously the Geneva Treaty, the Red Cross Treaty, and the Geneva Convention.) Later Barton would fight hard and successfully for the ratification of this treaty by the United States.

A more immediate call to action occurred in 1870 with the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. Though not yet allied to the Red Cross, Barton knew the needs of victims of battle and went to the war zone with volunteers of the International Red Cross. To protect herself with the newly accepted international symbol of the Red Cross (the reverse of the Swiss national flag which bears a white cross on a red field), she fashioned a cross out of red ribbon she was wearing. It was characteristic of her pioneering spirit that the first Red Cross symbol she ever wore was one she made herself. Barton helped distribute relief supplies to the destitute in the conquered city of Strasbourg and elsewhere in France. She also opened workrooms to help the citizens of Strasbourg make new clothes, thus anticipating the great quantities of clothing and comfort articles the American Red Cross would produce in later years.

http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/claraBarton.asp

 

[glockmail]

I got it right. I don't think you understand what you say. Post #14.
Premise...blah, blah..

Forget the "tell me where I said that" crap. You did.

Interesting tactic: set up straw man, get called on it, claim that I said it but I misunderstood what I actually wrote.

 

[Mr. P]

What's really funny is that she thinks the Red Cross had a Christian origin. The Red Cross symbol was adoped because it is the reverse of the Swiss Flag... as in Geneva Convention. :huh:



http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/claraBarton.asp

Yep.

 

[Mr. P]

Interesting tactic: set up straw man, get called on it, claim that I said it but I misunderstood what I actually wrote.

Ya can't slither out of this one. You have no case.:tongue1:

 

[glockmail]

What's really funny is that she thinks the Red Cross had a Christian origin. ....

...Jean Henry Dunant, known as the father of the Red Cross, was born on May 8, 1828, in Geneva, Switzerland. His father, a successful businessman and a citizen of some prominence, was a man of means. His mother was a gentle and pious woman. She, more than anyone else, was responsible for her first-born child's early education. Her influence had much to do with molding his character.

As Dunant grew to manhood he enjoyed all the privileges accruing to him by virtue of his family's social and economic position. At the same time, he experienced the disciplines usual to the son of a responsible Swiss citizen. The atmosphere of Calvinist Geneva also influenced his growth and development. He early developed deep religious convictions and high moral principles.

In the first years of his maturity he found outlet for his energies by allying himself with various movements or causes and by engaging in charitable and religious activities. For a time he was active in a movement -then quite strong in many parts of Europe-for the union of Christians and Jews. He became a member of an organization in Geneva known as the League of Alms, whose purpose was to bring spiritual and material comfort and aid to the poor, sick, and afflicted. He was also a regular visitor to the city prison, where he labored to help reform transgressors of the law.

Until he was nearly 30 years of age, however, Dunant's keenest interest was in a group of organizations in Switzerland, France, and Belgium operating under the name of "The Young Men's Christian Union". These were European counterparts of the newly formed Young Men's Christian Association in England. In early 1853 a movement was begun to federate the "Unions" into one organization. Dunant steadfastly opposed the plan as too limited, making the counterproposal that a "World Union" to include the YMCA should be organized. Largely as a result of Dunant's persistence, this was done at the first world conference of the YMCA, held in Paris in 1855. ...http://www.icrc.org/WEB/ENG/siteeng...ocument&style=Custo_Final.4&View=defaultBody2

It must suck for me to be right all the time.

 

[glockmail]

Ya can't slither out of this one. You have no case.:tongue1:

You haven't made one.

 

[CockySOB]

I touched on why in post #10.

Would I agree with government involvement? Hell no. No pumping up the budget year to year. Just some support would be ok with me, because the benifits will be immense IMO.

You mean "could be immense" don't you? Or do you have other knowledge which would validate the pro-embryonic stem cell research camp's position?

 

[Mr. P]

You haven't made one.

Yes I have, you just refused to accept it...Post #14.:funnyface

 

[glockmail]

Yes I have, you just refused to accept it...Post #14.:funnyface

Hello? Post 14 was mine. Hello?

 

[Mr. P]

You mean "could be immense" don't you? Or do you have other knowledge which would validate the pro-embryonic stem cell research camp's position?

I think it would be immense. Like the space program has been.
Many,many discoveries outside of the main purpose of the program.
I think the same would be true in the case of SCR.

 

[Mr. P]

Hello? Post 14 was mine. Hello?

Yep, and so goes your premise in same. Told ya you didn't understand what you were posting.

 

[Avatar4321]

What's really funny is that she thinks the Red Cross had a Christian origin. The Red Cross symbol was adoped because it is the reverse of the Swiss Flag... as in Geneva Convention. :huh:



http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/claraBarton.asp

Where exactly do you think the Swiss flag came from?

 

[Avatar4321]

I think it would be immense. Like the space program has been.
Many,many discoveries outside of the main purpose of the program.
I think the same would be true in the case of SCR.

Then go ahead and fund it. No one is stopping you.

The fact of the matter is if it is so promising there would be absolutely no lack of investors wanting to get in on the bottom floor of this research. But there arent. Investors dont see it as promising. So why should the government fund something no one seems to think is credible enough to support with their own money?

 

[KarlMarx]

If you're for ESC research, you have to be for abortion, by definition. Think about the source of ESCs, it's quite obvious.

Some people who are for embryonic stem cell research have a hidden agenda. That is, to save abortion. If they ever did find a cure using ESC, the public just might be mollified into thinking that, certainly, abortion kills babies, but heck, just look at all the lives it saves! The abortion lobby will then have attained its holy grail, its Nirvana... abortion will be safe from the pro-lifers indefinitely, because not only will it remain legal, but there will be a justification for it, too.

Face it, if ESC ever does produce a cure, routinely harvesting human embryos for cells will become a reality. I can see human embryos being manufactured just for their parts. That's a chilling thought. In an extreme scenario, it could be possible that someday in the future, women will be required to produce "x" number of embryos specifically for this purpose and men will have to donate their sperm to ensure a supply to fertilize them. All of course, for the public good!

It reminds me of the premise of the 1970s movie, "Soylent Green". The movie is set in the near future (actually, the early 21st century). In the movie, the public used Soylent Green as a food staple. People ate it every day, just as we eat bread. It isn't until the end of the movie that you realize just that Soylent Green is made from dead people.

Yet, no one who is for adult stem cell research has ever suggested that we take stem cells from executed criminals or routinely harvest dead people for parts. Can you imagine the public outrage if someone did? It would be front page news! But, you can't avoid the ugly truth of just where ESCs come from, can you?

P.S. And by the way, how is this different from making lampshades and soap out of people? Or how is couching the manufacture of human embryos with the the promise of an unlikely cure any different from Josef Mengle's experiments on Aushwitz inmates? "Dr Death", as he was known, justified his atrocities by claiming that his so called "research" saved lives, too...

 

[Mr. P]

Then go ahead and fund it. No one is stopping you.

The fact of the matter is if it is so promising there would be absolutely no lack of investors wanting to get in on the bottom floor of this research. But there arent. Investors dont see it as promising. So why should the government fund something no one seems to think is credible enough to support with their own money?

So, how many wanted to fund the space program? This is NOT about "promising" it about discovery.

 

[onedomino]

Then go ahead and fund it. No one is stopping you.

The fact of the matter is if it is so promising there would be absolutely no lack of investors wanting to get in on the bottom floor of this research.

That is incorrect; your supposition assumes a relatively short timeline from R&D to profit. The timeline for ESC R&D success, if any, is unknown and likely to be well beyond a decade. Name the investors that would put billions of dollars into R&D or technical projects that may not payoff, if at all, for decades. It may take 10 years or more to come up with a medical treatment based on ESC R&D. Add to that the years that would be consumed by clinical trials. Investors do not put money into research that will probably take decades to yield results. That function can only be handled in the billions of investment dollars necessary by the Federal Government acting on the principle of the "common good," as outlined in the Constitution. Scientists have been working with Adult Stem Cells for 40+ years and the only frequently used treatment based on ASC R&D is bone marrow transplants. Why were there not investors tripping over themselves to put money in the space program, the interstate highway program, etc? Because the payoff, if any, was decades down the line. Nevertheless, the Federal Government invested the required billions based on the "common good." Any CEO who invested company money in ESC would be fired by the Board of Directors because he would not be able to define the ROI timeline for the shareholders. Remember, the Republican controlled Congress authorized Federal funding of ESC R&D. One guy vetoed it.

 

[Mr. P]

If you're for ESC research, you have to be for abortion, by definition. Think about the source of ESCs, it's quite obvious.

Some people who are for embryonic stem cell research have a hidden agenda. That is, to save abortion. If they ever did find a cure using ESC, the public just might be mollified into thinking that, certainly, abortion kills babies, but heck, just look at all the lives it saves! The abortion lobby will then have attained its holy grail, its Nirvana... abortion will be safe from the pro-lifers indefinitely, because not only will it remain legal, but there will be a justification for it, too.

Face it, if ESC ever does produce a cure, routinely harvesting human embryos for cells will become a reality. I can see human embryos being manufactured just for their parts. That's a chilling thought. In an extreme scenario, it could be possible that someday in the future, women will be required to produce "x" number of embryos specifically for this purpose and men will have to donate their sperm to ensure a supply to fertilize them. All of course, for the public good!

It reminds me of the premise of the 1970s movie, "Soylent Green". The movie is set in the near future (actually, the early 21st century). In the movie, the public used Soylent Green as a food staple. People ate it every day, just as we eat bread. It isn't until the end of the movie that you realize just that Soylent Green is made from dead people.

Yet, no one who is for adult stem cell research has ever suggested that we take stem cells from executed criminals or routinely harvest dead people for parts. Can you imagine the public outrage if someone did? It would be front page news! But, you can't avoid the ugly truth of just where ESCs come from, can you?

Yes you can know the truth.

Way too much Sci-Fi my friend.
No one is "harvesting" embryos from a womb. This is all lab stuff.

 

[KarlMarx]

Yes you can know the truth.

Way too much Sci-Fi my friend.
No one is "harvesting" embryos from a womb. This is all lab stuff.

Not really... it can be done quite easily outside of the womb

Just fertilize an egg "in vitro", allow it to grow in a controlled environment (either in a woman's womb, or otherwise) and voila... made to order embryos... isn't that what they do when treating infertility?

 

[deaddude]

It is theoreticly possible to harvest embrionic stemcells without harming the embryo as a whole. The process which causes identical twins is tantamount to a bunch of stemcells breaking off of the original and growing on their own. So theoreticly is should be possible to remove a small number of stemcells (not enough to produce a twin) while leaving the the original embryo intact.