George Bush vetoes stem cell bill

[steveox]

WASHINGTON - Pushing back against the Democratic-led Congress, President Bush vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have eased restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families, just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told the Take Back America conference of liberal activists Wednesday.

To blunt criticism, the White House said Bush is issuing an executive order directing the Health and Human Services Department to promote research into cells that — like human embryonic stem cells — also hold the potential of regenerating into different types of cells that might be used to battle disease.

"This is, certainly not an attempt to muzzle science," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "It is an attempt, I think, to respect people's conscience on such an issue."

If the measure Bush vetoed would have become law, the White House said it would have compelled taxpayers for the first time in our history — to support the deliberate destruction of human embyros. Snow said Bush's executive order will encourage scientists to work with the government to add research on new stem cell lines — that does not involve the creation, harming or destruction of human embryos — to the list of projects eligible for federal funding.

"The president does not believe it's appropriate to put an end to human life for research purposes," Snow said. "That's a line he will not cross."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to schedule an override vote, but the date has not been set. Democrats, however, currently do not have enough votes to override Bush's veto.

Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, the NIH says. There were no federal funds for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would make the funds available for lines of cells that already were in existence.

Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.

The science aside, the issue has weighty political and ethical implications.

Public opinion polls show strong support for the research, and it could return as an issue in the 2008 elections.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070620/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_stem_cells

THATS THAT LAST STRAW!!! IM VOTING FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!!!

I Had enough with the G.O.P MR LIMBAUGH YOU JUST LOST A FAN!!

[USMC the Almighty]

Article 1, Section 8; 10th Amendment

[steveox]

Im so Pissed off right now!! I Hope Laura Bush gets cancer or a diease.I hope Bush dad gets an heart or liver diease. I hope Barabra Bush gets breast cancer or his daughter Jenna develops kidney failure and then He will change his mind about stem cell research.Ther reason he veto this cause it hasnt affected him or his family members. Im so sick n tired of his political bull****. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON 08!!!

[USMC the Almighty]

Im so Pissed off right now!! ITher reason he veto this cause it hasnt affected him or his family members. Im so sick n tired of his political bull****. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON 08!!!

I'll ignore all the terrible things you wished upon our presidents family and get down to the issue here.

I'll even forget about the moral aspect of embryonic stem cell research for a second.

State and privately funded embryonic research has yielded nothing. On what basis do you believe that federally funded research will magically uncover cures for cancer or other deadly diseases?

Lastly, as I said above, Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not grant Congress this power and as such, I cannot support it. However, the 10th Amendment does say that any power not given to Congress is reserved to the States and to the People, thus the ability to continue research is allowed.

[steveox]

I Rather my tax dollars go towards something to cure our dieases instead towards lazy bums on welfare who recives money,food stamps,free housing and free medical care instead of working an job an 8 hour shift earning his or her money.

[USMC the Almighty]

I Rather my tax dollars go towards something to cure our dieases instead towards lazy bums on welfare who recives money,food stamps,free housing and free medical care instead of working an job an 8 hour shift earning his or her money.

First of all, neither are Constitutional. Secondly, if there was an sort of indication that embryonic stem cell research would cure diseases, then I might be inclined to support it. Until then...

[steveox]

Well Hillary Rodham Clinton will sign it.Cause she cares!

[USMC the Almighty]

Well Hillary Rodham Clinton will sign it.Cause she cares!

Well articulated position. Really good.

[drippinhun]

I'll ignore all the terrible things you wished upon our presidents family and get down to the issue here.

I'll even forget about the moral aspect of embryonic stem cell research for a second.

State and privately funded embryonic research has yielded nothing. On what basis do you believe that federally funded research will magically uncover cures for cancer or other deadly diseases?

Lastly, as I said above, Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not grant Congress this power and as such, I cannot support it. However, the 10th Amendment does say that any power not given to Congress is reserved to the States and to the People, thus the ability to continue research is allowed.

Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

When the Constitution was written, welfare literally meant health. So combined with the mission statement, also known as the Preamble, it is the duty of Congress to promote and provide for the health of its citizens.

Amendment 10
Taking the prior mentioned literal interpretation that I suggest has been grossly overlooked by citing the it is a defined obligation to take care of the health of the people, the 10th Amendment would be moot, as issuring the health is clearly a power conferred by the Constitution.

[USMC the Almighty]

Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

When the Constitution was written, welfare literally meant health. So combined with the mission statement, also known as the Preamble, it is the duty of Congress to promote and provide for the health of its citizens.


Even if I make the blind assumption that your translation of the word "welfare" is correct, it still doesn't mean socailized healthcare or stem cell research in today's language. You're interpretation is wrong.

The Framers weren't literally saying "promote the general welfare" of the citizens -- they were saying they aimed to "promote the general welfare" of "the more perfect Union". So they're essentially saying that the Constitution's purpose is to help maintain the health of the country (i.e economy and national security) not the citizens themselves.

If they actually believed that it was the government's job to literally take care of its citizens, then they would have done it. But they didn't, which means this wasn't their intent and wasn't their meaning of "promote the general welfare".

[steveox]

Im so sick n tired of Handouts if you want money, Shoes on your feet and food down in your stomach. Then WORK FOR IT!!!!

[Chip]

Bush's decision to veto the embyonic stem cell bill was the right thing to do.

There are no disposable people, no matter how young they are.

No one is to be sacrificed by another, and no one can sacrifice themselves without their consent.

Because a unique individual human being begins to live that person's one and only life at the moment of conception, all embryos are people, and they cannot rightly be Hitlerianly sacrificed for scientific purposes.

Though I oppose Bush on most everything else, he gets this issue right by respecting the foundational right to life of newly conceived people.

If all of Bush's policies respected the reality of rights, he would be a great president ... instead of being one of the worst we've ever had.

[palerider]

Im so sick n tired of Handouts if you want money, Shoes on your feet and food down in your stomach. Then WORK FOR IT!!!!


That is a strange thing for a guy who plans to vote for hillary because you believe for some reason that if she is president you can sue McDonalds for millions because "they" made you overweight gave you diabetes.

[palerider]

Bush's decision to veto the embyonic stem cell bill was the right thing to do.

There are no disposable people, no matter how young they are.

No one is to be sacrificed by another, and no one can sacrifice themselves without their consent.

Because a unique individual human being begins to live that person's one and only life at the moment of conception, all embryos are people, and they cannot rightly be Hitlerianly sacrificed for scientific purposes.

Though I oppose Bush on most everything else, he gets this issue right by respecting the foundational right to life of newly conceived people.

If all of Bush's policies respected the reality of rights, he would be a great president ... instead of being one of the worst we've ever had.

While I wouldn't rate Bush among the best presidents, his performance doesn't place him among the worst either but that is beside the point. I agree with you completely that he had an obligation to veto the stem cell legislation. The idea of using tax dollars to fund human experimentation in which we are deliberately killing human beings is beyond repulsive.

And why would we want to fund such research anyway? The list of diseases that have been successfully treated with adult and cord blood stem cells grows practically every day while the list of successful treatments from human experimentation on unborns still languishes at zero?

[Chip]

I agree with you completely that he had an obligation to veto the stem cell legislation. The idea of using tax dollars to fund human experimentation in which we are deliberately killing human beings is beyond repulsive.

And why would we want to fund such research anyway? The list of diseases that have been successfully treated with adult and cord blood stem cells grows practically every day while the list of successful treatments from human experimentation on unborns still languishes at zero?
Yes ... and in addition, now that scientists have created stem cells from a rat's tail, the "need" to "harvest" embryonic stem cells has come to a merciful end.

[palerider]

Yes ... and in addition, now that scientists have created stem cells from a rat's tail, the "need" to "harvest" embryonic stem cells has come to a merciful end.

It has become increasingly clear over the years that embryonic stem cell research is not about treating disease, but bolstering the dwindling support for abortion.

[9sublime]

That is a strange thing for a guy who plans to vote for hillary because you believe for some reason that if she is president you can sue McDonalds for millions because "they" made you overweight gave you diabetes.

Once again I agree with you Palerider, and not grudgingly. You have a go at people for handouts, but you want to sue McDonalds for your own gluttony and lack of self control?

[steveox]

Thats why i want the Goverment start regalating rules on resteraunts cooking foods right.I want the goverment start passing laws that you cant cook burgers or Steaks on grease grills.You cant cook fries or chicken by using vegtable oil. You cant have a grease grill or a fryer in the kitchen You must cook burgers,chicken and steak on a flame grill You must cook fries in the oven baked! Or Pay a $1,000 fine and the manager speands 2 days in jail.

[9sublime]

Thats why i want the Goverment start regalating rules on resteraunts cooking foods right.I want the goverment start passing laws that you cant cook burgers or Steaks on grease grills.You cant cook fries or chicken by using vegtable oil. You cant have a grease grill or a fryer in the kitchen You must cook burgers,chicken and steak on a flame grill You must cook fries in the oven baked! Or Pay a $1,000 fine and the manager speands 2 days in jail.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH.

If you dont like restaurants that cook burgers, steaks, fries or chicken in a certain way... DON'T EAT THERE. EAT SOMEWHERE THAT DOESN'T COOK THEM LIKE THAT.

IF I WANT TO EAT BURGERS COOKED IN VEGATABLE OIL ON A GREASY GRILL, I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO.

Why do you have to tell people what to do about their food? Its you who needs to change something in your lifestyle, not the restaurant, because its you who cant stop stuffing your face at McDonalds.

The restaurants are under no obligation to change their ways, YOU ARE A RESPONSIBLE ADULT. Children I can understand, they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions and cannot have the same self control.

You are the only person you can blame for your ill health. If you don't like burgers cooked unhealithy, go somewhere and buy a proper burger then.

[steveox]

COOK FOOD THE WAY YOU WANT TO AT YOUR OWN HOME!!! Just like Smoking!!! If you wanna light up a cigarette DO IT AT YOUR OWN HOME!! NOT OUT IN PUBLIC!!!

[palerider]

Thats why i want the Goverment start regalating rules on resteraunts cooking foods right.I want the goverment start passing laws that you cant cook burgers or Steaks on grease grills.You cant cook fries or chicken by using vegtable oil. You cant have a grease grill or a fryer in the kitchen You must cook burgers,chicken and steak on a flame grill You must cook fries in the oven baked! Or Pay a $1,000 fine and the manager speands 2 days in jail.

Cooking over a flame creates known carcinogens and the problem with carcinogens is that you don't know exactly how much is too much. I know how much fat is too much because my belt will tell me when I am eating too much, but with carcinogens, one day you have cancer and you may never know exactly what gave it to you.

Personally, I would rather take the chance of getting fat if I eat too many mickey dee's cheesburgers than get cancer from food cooked over an open flame. And exactly who are you to tell the government how to cook my burger for me anyway?

[steveox]

And exactly who are you to tell the government how to cook my burger for me anyway?

Samething here,, who are you to tell the government why i should wear a seat belt in my car which i paid for and own it?

[palerider]

Samething here,, who are you to tell the government why i should wear a seat belt in my car which i paid for and own it?

I don't think that the government should make you wear a seat belt but by the same token, I don't think that a single penny of government money should be used for fixing you up, or careing for you after you put your head through a windshield because you didn't wear it.

So explain why you would want the government to tell restaurants how to cook food if you don't want them telling you to wear a seatbelt. Your whole philosophy seems to be hopelessly riddled with inconsistencies.

[steveox]

I don't think that the government should make you wear a seat belt but by the same token, I don't think that a single penny of government money should be used for fixing you up, or careing for you after you put your head through a windshield because you didn't wear it.

So explain why you would want the government to tell restaurants how to cook food if you don't want them telling you to wear a seatbelt. Your whole philosophy seems to be hopelessly riddled with inconsistencies.

WHY? So i wouldnt develop diabetes and other dieases. I rather risk death in a car then wake up and found out i have diabetes after i woke up from a coma.

[rmbarron]

The idea of using tax dollars to fund human experimentation in which we are deliberately killing human beings is beyond repulsive.

That would be true, assuming that an embryo is actually a human being. Which is arguable at best. A ball of rapidly dividing cells does not a human make. It's hardly any more human than my liver. I'd be interested to understand the rationale behind endowing a cytoplast with human qualities, aside from the grasping-at-straws potential human argument. Then again, I guess that's why they don't like masturbation either. Damn the Pope.

[rmbarron]

Im so sick n tired of Handouts if you want money, Shoes on your feet and food down in your stomach. Then WORK FOR IT!!!!

What's this have to do with anything?

[steveox]

What's this have to do with anything?

Cause i Rather pay my taxes towards curing people instead bums who are on WELFARE collecting free money,Free Public Housing and food stamps.Bush doesnt think taxes should be used for reserach on finding cures.

[rmbarron]

Framers weren't literally saying "promote the general welfare" of the citizens -- they were saying they aimed to "promote the general welfare" of "the more perfect Union". So they're essentially saying that the Constitution's purpose is to help maintain the health of the country (i.e economy and national security) not the citizens themselves.


Are there any legal or historical precedants that you might be able to cite for your interpretation? It seems rather broad and convenient to limit "welfare" to the conservative pets of economy and national security. I often feel the "Framers" (whom I feel are not nearly as far-sighted and ingenius as they are made out to be) didn't really know themselves what they inteneded by such wording. The Constitution is riddled with such vague wording that seems more intended to prevent power than bestow it.

[palerider]

That would be true, assuming that an embryo is actually a human being. Which is arguable at best. A ball of rapidly dividing cells does not a human make. It's hardly any more human than my liver. I'd be interested to understand the rationale behind endowing a cytoplast with human qualities, aside from the grasping-at-straws potential human argument. Then again, I guess that's why they don't like masturbation either. Damn the Pope.

Tell you what. Provide me a single piece of credible science that argues that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

Your liver is your liver and will never be anything else. Even if you die and it is transplanted to someone else, it will always be your liver and any capable laboratory student could identify it as yours with a DNA test. An unborn is undeniably a human being. Immature yes, but a human being none the less.

As for the tired old "potential" argument. It isn't even worth the effort it took you to type it out. Sperm and eggs represent "potential" life. Once fertilization is complete, however, that potenital has been realized. From the time fertilization is complete, you have a potential doctor, or a potential, baseball player, or a potential arsonist but you do not have a potential human being because the offspring of two human beings can be nothing but a human being.

The whole "masturbation" argument is pointless as well. It only illustrates that you don't have a very good grasp of basic biology. Alone, both sperm and eggs are of no more consequence than your toenail clippings. They are just cells from your body. Unique in that they only have a half set of chromosomes, but still just cells from your body that will be sluffed off after a given amount of time if they aren't used. Once fertilization is complete, however, neither sperm nor egg continues to exist as such but instead, a brand new human exists in their place.

Your argument fails on every biological level but don't feel bad, all pro choice arguments fail on every level. You could be honest and simply state clearly that you favor killing human beings for the purpose of medical experimentation or that you favor abortion because ou feel that women have the right to kill their children for whatever reason they may care to make up. My bet though, is that the truth of your position is too repulsive for you to articulate.

[palerider]

WHY? So i wouldnt develop diabetes and other dieases. I rather risk death in a car then wake up and found out i have diabetes after i woke up from a coma.


If you wake up with diabetes because you are obese because you couldn't regulate the food you eat, exactly how is that worse than waking up from a coma that was the result of you not wearing your seat belt. Either way, it is your own fault. Your personal philosophy is so riddled with inconsistencies and hypocricies it surprises me that you wouild even voice them in public.

[steveox]

Its not my fault.,Its McDonalds fault.Why you think George Bush signed that Cheeseburger Law so we cant sue em? Is Smoking Cigarettes is that persons fault if he or she develops lung cancer? So why are republicans allowing people to sue tabbaco companies than allowing people to sue fast food resteraunts?

[palerider]

Its not my fault.,Its McDonalds fault.Why you think George Bush signed that Cheeseburger Law so we cant sue em? Is Smoking Cigarettes is that persons fault if he or she develops lung cancer? So why are republicans allowing people to sue tabbaco companies than allowing people to sue fast food resteraunts?


Because you have no right to sue them. They have a sign in every single restaurant that states clearly what you are eating when you eat their food. If you don't have the intellectual wattage required to know that eating too much of it is bad for you, then you are a prime candidate for the darwin award and deserve to die.

Nicotine is an addictive drug, cheeseburgers are not. Tobacco companies got sued because there was the claim that they didn't inform consumers what was in cigarettes. That is not the case with mcdonalds, they tell you what is in it.

[steveox]

Cigarette Ads have been Banned from TV,Billboards,Maganizes,Buses and Stadium Scoreboard Ads. I think all Fast Food Ads should be banned too TV,Billboards,Buses and Maganizes.But you can put the ads on Radio. Cause you cant see the hamburger junk on the radio.

[r0beph]

WHY? So i wouldnt develop diabetes and other dieases. I rather risk death in a car then wake up and found out i have diabetes after i woke up from a coma.

Ok first of all. You don't develop diabetes from eating a) too much sugar b) eating too much food. You develop diabetes from a combination of insulin absorbtion problems and a lack of insulin for your body weight (When you're large you need more, body can't produce the amount needed, and also, fat increases the amount of insulin required for the same amount of glucose reduction as if you weren't fat. ) This is called type II diabetes, you can as well get this via old age which is simply partial organ failure (insuling is produce by some rather fragile cells in the pancreas called islets of langerhan. They are subject to being weakened and made dysfunctional with age. Type II diabetese is Incedental diabetes and the majority of cases are due to being overweight, not exercising enough, and just generally being a fatty mcbutterpants and eating all the wrong crap. Just cos you eat fastfood daily wouldn't even be enough, it would be the combination of all your health malpractices. I'm a type 1 diabetic (the cause is idiopathic, (unknown) however it is believed that we have a predisposition as our islets of langerhan looks similar to a virus that uses this to its advantage, once our body realizes this and responds, it decides to nuke our insulin production system. No amount of dietary control/weight loss would help. Again nothing caused this but a bad deal of the cards. I've been Type 1 Diabetic since I was 11, I'm 5'7" and weigh 170lbs with about 8-10% body fat index.

As for seatbelts. As a former EMT I will express my love of the requirement of seatbelts. All the old wives tales and urban legends about "seatbelts killing someone" are utter crap, sure they've been the primary cause of trauma, but what isn't stated in these cases is that a force that is intense enough to damage you to that extent via the seatbelt would splatter you without one. It's just a 0% survivability chance in most of those cases. I can also assure you that I'd approximate 1 our of every 200 car fatalities I scraped up off the highway were buckled, the other 199 were not.

Lastly, what people don't realize is how DANGROUS of a missile you become at 50mph and above, to passengers in your vehicle. I've seen many people killed by incidental traumas caused by secondary impact of the unrestrained passenger into the restrained passenger. usually both die in this case. So to relieve the burden on your tax dollars to pay for the public EMS transit / medical care / etc just in that light, the seatbelt law is needed. You don't just endanger yourself, you endager all who are in the car with you. As such I won't ride with anyone in my vehicle unrestrained. I've seen what it does, over and over and over. I still have some rather bad dreams concerning car wrecks. Its for the better.

[TruthAboveAll]

Are there any legal or historical precedants that you might be able to cite for your interpretation? It seems rather broad and convenient to limit "welfare" to the conservative pets of economy and national security. I often feel the "Framers" (whom I feel are not nearly as far-sighted and ingenius as they are made out to be) didn't really know themselves what they inteneded by such wording. The Constitution is riddled with such vague wording that seems more intended to prevent power than bestow it.

The entire Article 1, Section 8 is details of Congress' rights and duties. "Common defense and general welfare of the United States" in only the vaguest way can be interpreted as specifically "health" in the sense of medical care, provisions for medical research, etc.

Definition: the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc. of a person, group or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

Although the word "health" is used in the definition, and the phrase "physical or moral welfare of society" does not abrogate license to the Federal government to inject itself into these matters.

The framers of our Constitution and other originating documents certainly were not prescient. They were, however, fairly wise men who had struggled against what was increasingly becoming oppression in the ruling authority. And they set things in motion with some very firm limitations on government so that future generations could be protected from the same type of oppression. I'm sure that they were fully aware of the wording they were using, and their intentions for using it.

Then, as now, reading anything should always be accompanied with a firm grip on the purpose of the writer(s). Vague wording may be found. The intention was indeed to limit power rather than bestow it, on the government. If vague wording serves that purpose at times, so be it.

Bush is 100% correct to stand against federal funding for this research. If he were standing in the way of the research itself, that would be a different matter altogether. But that is not the case. Abortion, where these embryonic stem cells come from, is a legal act in this country. The courts have found the restrictions on it to be unconstitutional.

I may not agree with that, but it is the law of the land today. If there is the demand for these "harvested" stem cells, and corporations, etc. wish to expend their own research dollars in this direction, so be it. I happen to believe that the whole thing is indeed an effort to shore up an industry that continues to strive for legitimacy. And of course, there is always the money...

[steveox]

But the police arent doing this to save lives.All it is,Is to benitfit their salaries. Police officers dont really protect you.All theyre really protecting is the wealthy mans interests.Look they Guard the President,Vice President and their staff. They Guard the Governor and the mayor.They guard the Hollywood and Sports Celebrites.They Protect Jewley Stores,Banks and shopping centers.What do they do for the lil people? Practuly nothing!!! Except writing Parking Tickets,Speeding Tickets and Not wearing your seat belt.They even cited you for protecting yourself with an handgun or with pepper spray.They dont protect your car nor your home.Hell they even give you a ticket when your dog poops a on the sidewalk.:mad:

[vyo476]

But the police arent doing this to save lives.All it is,Is to benitfit their salaries. Police officers dont really protect you.All theyre really protecting is the wealthy mans interests.Look they Guard the President,Vice President and their staff. They Guard the Governor and the mayor.They guard the Hollywood and Sports Celebrites.They Protect Jewley Stores,Banks and shopping centers.What do they do for the lil people? Practuly nothing!!! Except writing Parking Tickets,Speeding Tickets and Not wearing your seat belt.They even cited you for protecting yourself with an handgun or with pepper spray.They dont protect your car nor your home.Hell they even give you a ticket when your dog poops a on the sidewalk.:mad:

I can't tell if you're a communist or just a really, really confused fascist.

[Chip]

It has become increasingly clear over the years that embryonic stem cell research is not about treating disease, but bolstering the dwindling support for abortion.
Function ... vs. intent.

Functionally, in the eyes of liberal pro-abortionists, they rationalize that in slaughtering embryos for their stem cells it's okay to murder newly conceived people via abortion.

The hippocratic medical professional is intent upon curing disease ... and he can sometimes get lost in the ends justify the means like an Hitlerian mad scientist.

[steveox]

Ok first of all. You don't develop diabetes from eating a) too much sugar b) eating too much food. You develop diabetes from a combination of insulin absorbtion problems and a lack of insulin for your body weight (When you're large you need more, body can't produce the amount needed, and also, fat increases the amount of insulin required for the same amount of glucose reduction as if you weren't fat. ) This is called type II diabetes, you can as well get this via old age which is simply partial organ failure (insuling is produce by some rather fragile cells in the pancreas called islets of langerhan. They are subject to being weakened and made dysfunctional with age. Type II diabetese is Incedental diabetes and the majority of cases are due to being overweight, not exercising enough, and just generally being a fatty mcbutterpants and eating all the wrong crap. Just cos you eat fastfood daily wouldn't even be enough, it would be the combination of all your health malpractices. I'm a type 1 diabetic (the cause is idiopathic, (unknown) however it is believed that we have a predisposition as our islets of langerhan looks similar to a virus that uses this to its advantage, once our body realizes this and responds, it decides to nuke our insulin production system. No amount of dietary control/weight loss would help. Again nothing caused this but a bad deal of the cards. I've been Type 1 Diabetic since I was 11, I'm 5'7" and weigh 170lbs with about 8-10% body fat index.

As for seatbelts. As a former EMT I will express my love of the requirement of seatbelts. All the old wives tales and urban legends about "seatbelts killing someone" are utter crap, sure they've been the primary cause of trauma, but what isn't stated in these cases is that a force that is intense enough to damage you to that extent via the seatbelt would splatter you without one. It's just a 0% survivability chance in most of those cases. I can also assure you that I'd approximate 1 our of every 200 car fatalities I scraped up off the highway were buckled, the other 199 were not.

Lastly, what people don't realize is how DANGROUS of a missile you become at 50mph and above, to passengers in your vehicle. I've seen many people killed by incidental traumas caused by secondary impact of the unrestrained passenger into the restrained passenger. usually both die in this case. So to relieve the burden on your tax dollars to pay for the public EMS transit / medical care / etc just in that light, the seatbelt law is needed. You don't just endanger yourself, you endager all who are in the car with you. As such I won't ride with anyone in my vehicle unrestrained. I've seen what it does, over and over and over. I still have some rather bad dreams concerning car wrecks. Its for the better.

Ok Explain this one.How come certain people dont get fat when they eat too many hambergers or hot dogs? Such as this Japanese Hot Dog champion Takeru Kobayashi doesnt get fat but other people gain weight when they eat too much?

[9sublime]

Cigarette Ads have been Banned from TV,Billboards,Maganizes,Buses and Stadium Scoreboard Ads. I think all Fast Food Ads should be banned too TV,Billboards,Buses and Maganizes.But you can put the ads on Radio. Cause you cant see the hamburger junk on the radio.

Just one cigarette is bad for you. It damages your lungs. One burger from McDonalds, doesnt harm you.

Are you really so weak minded that if you see an advert, you have to go out and buy it?????

[palerider]

Ok Explain this one.How come certain people dont get fat when they eat too many hambergers or hot dogs? Such as this Japanese Hot Dog champion Takeru Kobayashi doesnt get fat but other people gain weight when they eat too much?

Because the don't eat "too many" steve. I am a very active person. Always out walking the countryside, swimming, offshore fishing, etc. I can eat fried burgers because my lifestyle is such that I burn off the calories. If I eat too many, then I either have to add more physical exertion to my life or I will gain weight.

Do you think that japanese lady eats like that every day?

[rmbarron]

Wow. Your inherent wrongness is quite astounding. After all that writing you still haven't made the faintest attempt to explain what makes a ball of cells a human. Does your DNA make you human? Is that all that seperates you from animals?

Tell you what. Provide me a single piece of credible science that argues that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

An embryo is not the offspring of two human beings. It is what turns into the offspring, but it is not the offspring itself. Why don't you provide "a a single piece of credible science" that suggests otherwise?

The whole "masturbation" argument is pointless as well. It only illustrates that you don't have a very good grasp of basic biology.

The fact that you would even call the masturbation comment an "argument" proves you have no concept of reality.

Your argument fails on every biological level but don't feel bad, all pro choice arguments fail on every level. You could be honest and simply state clearly that you favor killing human beings for the purpose of medical experimentation or that you favor abortion because ou feel that women have the right to kill their children for whatever reason they may care to make up. My bet though, is that the truth of your position is too repulsive for you to articulate.

As a point of fact I have already articulated the truth of my point and it's not repulsive at all. There is no, I repeat no evidence that a fertilized embryo in any way constitutes a human being. If you disagree (and I know you do) than prove it. And please, with something more substantial than, "you're wrong."

[rmbarron]

Bush is 100% correct to stand against federal funding for this research. If he were standing in the way of the research itself, that would be a different matter altogether. But that is not the case. Abortion, where these embryonic stem cells come from, is a legal act in this country. The courts have found the restrictions on it to be unconstitutional.

I appreciate the thoughtful explanation, and I find myself in agreement with most of what you said. However, as I understand it, the embryos used in stem cell research come from extra eggs produced in invetro-fertilization, not abortion.

[steveox]

Just one cigarette is bad for you. It damages your lungs. One burger from McDonalds, doesnt harm you.

Are you really so weak minded that if you see an advert, you have to go out and buy it?????

Just one Drink of Whiskey will harm you? What part of body does it damage?

[USMC the Almighty]

Wow. Your inherent wrongness is quite astounding. After all that writing you still haven't made the faintest attempt to explain what makes a ball of cells a human. Does your DNA make you human? Is that all that seperates you from animals?


A zygote, the immediate result when a male sperm and female ovum unite is unquestionably biologically alive as it fulfills the four criteria necessary:
(1) metabolism
(2) growth
(3) reaction to stimuli
(4) reproduction [cell reproduction called “twinning” – asexual]

From the eighteenth day after conception, substantial development of the brain and nervous system occurs.

At about three weeks, a primitive heart muscle begins to pulsate. Other organs begin to develop during the first month, such as a liver, primitive kidneys, a digestive tract, and a simple umbilical cord. This developing body has a head and a developing face with primitive ears, mouth, and eyes, despite the fact that it is no larger than half the size of a pea. Toward the end of the first month (between 26 and 28 days) the arms and legs begin to appear as tiny buds. A whole embryo is formed by the end of the first month.

During the second month, the eyes, ears, nose, toes, and fingers make their appearance; the skeleton develops; the heart beats; and the blood — with its own type — flows. The unborn at this time has reflexes and her lips become sensitive to touch. By the eighth week her own unique fingerprints start to form, along with the lines in her hands.

A vast majority of abortions are performed during this time, despite the scientific facts which clearly show that an individual human life is developing, as it would after birth, from infant to child to adolescent to adult.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1318#post1318

[9sublime]

Just one Drink of Whiskey will harm you? What part of body does it damage?

Sorry? Apart from being irrelevant, one drink of whisky doesnt harm your body. Small amounts of alcohol are good for you.

[steveox]

Sorry? Apart from being irrelevant, one drink of whisky doesnt harm your body. Small amounts of alcohol are good for you.

Even for Diabetes?

[9sublime]

Not everyone has diabetes, its like saying nuts should be banned from adverts in case you have a nut allergy.

[rmbarron]

A zygote, the immediate result when a male sperm and female ovum unite is unquestionably biologically alive as it fulfills the four criteria necessary:
(1) metabolism
(2) growth
(3) reaction to stimuli
(4) reproduction [cell reproduction called “twinning” – asexual]

Those criteria also apply to every cell in my body. That doesn't endow them with the rights of a human.

From the eighteenth day after conception,....clearly show that an individual human life is developing, as it would after birth, from infant to child to adolescent to adult.
[/QUOTE]

That was all extremely fascinating, but what we're talking about is an embryo not a fetus. An embryo is a cluster of cells that have yet to specialize into all those wonderful organs you listed. I still haven't heard a rationale for what makes it human.

[palerider]

Wow. Your inherent wrongness is quite astounding. After all that writing you still haven't made the faintest attempt to explain what makes a ball of cells a human. Does your DNA make you human? Is that all that seperates you from animals?

I asked you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anyting but a human being. The fact that you haven't really hamstring's your argument.


An embryo is not the offspring of two human beings. It is what turns into the offspring, but it is not the offspring itself. Why don't you provide "a a single piece of credible science" that suggests otherwise?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=offspring

offspring - n. - the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant

Since you did not come "from" an embryo but were an embryo, it is clear that you and the embryo that you were are one in the same. Therefore you did not "turn into" anything. You just matured.

There is no, I repeat no evidence that a fertilized embryo in any way constitutes a human being. If you disagree (and I know you do) than prove it. And please, with something more substantial than, "you're wrong."

OK.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.


"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597


Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE, E. BLECHSCHMIDT, ]16–17 (1977).


"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”
T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990;

"This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, 1998


Are respected, peer reviewed medical journals and medical textbooks enough for you? I can provide more.

Now it is your turn. Provide some credible science that states that the unborn of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

[rmbarron]

I asked you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anyting but a ...

Nice work. I still don't believe you, but since you obviously take this forum much more seriously than I, I'll have to yeild ground to you on this. I'm not prepared to do the research neccessary to prove my point. Neither am I willing to say your wrong without backing it up. Ergo, I loose. :D

[palerider]

Nice work. I still don't believe you, but since you obviously take this forum much more seriously than I, I'll have to yeild ground to you on this. I'm not prepared to do the research neccessary to prove my point. Neither am I willing to say your wrong without backing it up. Ergo, I loose. :D

Mighty caucasian of you.

By the way, I am not asking for you to believe me. That is why I wen't to the trouble of finding impeccable scientific sources. I didn't always believe that unborns were human beings myself. The perponderance of the evidence, however, put me in a place where I either held a position that I, intellectually, knew was a lie, or adjusted my postion so that it was in line with what I found to be the truth.

By the way, you couldn't prove your point even if you visited every medical library, and researched all the reference material for human developmental biology on the face of the earth. The argument that the offspring of two human beings is at some point something other than a human being is simply not true and there isn't a shred of credible evidence to support it.

[Pidgey]

The argument that the offspring of two human beings is at some point something other than a human being is simply not true and there isn't a shred of credible evidence to support it.It would seem that folks differ more on the relative... value (for lack of a better word) of the unborn, than the actual definition of one. To someone who does not believe in the concept of a "soul", why would there be any such value to merit any special codified protection? And to the person who does, how could there be anything less? Do you ever get the idea that some people seem to believe that a growing fetus is just a car and the driver only steps in at some later point, perhaps at birth?

[palerider]

It would seem that folks differ more on the relative... value (for lack of a better word) of the unborn, than the actual definition of one. To someone who does not believe in the concept of a "soul", why would there be any such value to merit any special codified protection? And to the person who does, how could there be anything less? Do you ever get the idea that some people seem to believe that a growing fetus is just a car and the driver only steps in at some later point, perhaps at birth?

I am not sure how souls have a bearing on the issue. I would wager that most people who don't believe in souls but are pro choice accept that the law protects the lives of infants and have no problem with that. If they don't believe in souls, then it wouldn't matter if the child is 1 hour old, or 1 century old, the soul would have no bearing on their acceptance of the protection of the law.

Personally, I try not to bring souls, or religion, or the verbage of soothsayers, necromancers, or gypsys into the conversation. Such things only serve to obscure the facts, not clarify them and as such are really of no value.

I get the feeling that people "believe" all sorts of things. In fact, those who are on the pro choice side of the discussion tend to disregard what they know in favor of what they believe in order to maintain their position. Or in some cases have terribly distored misunderstandings of biological mechanics and base their positions upon this completely wrong information.

[Pidgey]

I am not sure how souls have a bearing on the issue.

I get the feeling that people "believe" all sorts of things. In fact, those who are on the pro choice side of the discussion tend to disregard what they know in favor of what they believe in order to maintain their position. Or in some cases have terribly distored misunderstandings of biological mechanics and base their positions upon this completely wrong information."A rose by any other name... " Maybe some would rather steer to the concept of "self awareness". Perhaps some folks base the entire argument on some more visceral perception of their own with its beginnings in their own memories. I, for instance, have a few vague memories from when I was two years old, but nothing before that, really. So, in simplified terms, that might be the point that I define as when my life actually started. That's not my personal belief, but I think it's a possibility that others might proceed from that basis when asked to get down to the dirty business of codifying definitions. With that as a start, some people might respond when asked "how would YOU feel if YOU were aborted?" ..."well, I guess I wouldn't have cared... "

That said, how do you "know" for sure just what it is that other people "know"?

[palerider]

"A rose by any other name... " Maybe some would rather steer to the concept of "self awareness".

Infants are not self aware and research suggests strongly that we (human beings) do not achieve self awareness until we are as much as 18 months old and yet, post natals from 0-18 months enjoy the protection of the law.

That said, how do you "know" for sure just what it is that other people "know"?

We "know" that we do not come from blastocysts but were, at one time, a blastocyst. We "know" that we did not come from embryos but were, at one time, an embryo. We know that the only difference between us (post natals) and them (pre natals) is time and growth.

When arguing this topic one either knows and accepts the truth, knows and disregards the truth in favor of what they choose to believe, or is ignorant. Very few admit to being ignorant. After facts have been presented, then the ignorant know and at that time either join the group who know the truth and accept it or join those who know the truth and disregard it in favor of what they believe.

rmbarron above is a fine example of the latter. I presented him with credible scientific evidence that we are indeed human beings from the time fertilization is completed and his answer was that he chooses not to believe me and not to do any actual research which would just further reinforce the facts that I have already given hiim. His choice is to disregard what he now knows in favor of what he wishes to believe. My bet is that should either of us encounter him on this subject again in the future, he will still be arguing that unborns are not human beings.

[Pidgey]

Well, I've known a lot of registered voters who could neither define "blastocyst", spell "blastocyst" nor even comprehend "blastocyst" if the entry was read to them out of a children's encyclopaedia. And, being so challenged, could not draw the line from that point to this one in their lives and see the continuity as it relates to this discussion. You can pound them over the head all year long and it's just not going to compute.

I'm just trying to figure out the disconnect between your side of the debate and this person's:

Those criteria also apply to every cell in my body. That doesn't endow them with the rights of a human.

From the eighteenth day after conception,....clearly show that an individual human life is developing, as it would after birth, from infant to child to adolescent to adult.


That was all extremely fascinating, but what we're talking about is an embryo not a fetus. An embryo is a cluster of cells that have yet to specialize into all those wonderful organs you listed. I still haven't heard a rationale for what makes it human.While you can verbally club someone over the head until they're just plain tired of talking with you and therefore "give up" the discourse, that's not the same thing as actually convincing someone or making a convert. There are, apparently, millions of people out there (registered voters) who, for whatever reason, share this person's opinion, misunderstanding, or whatever you'd like to label it. So, there's some fundamental blockage of communication that's not being addressed. Find that, and you'll have a more convincing case.

[palerider]

... So, there's some fundamental blockage of communication that's not being addressed. Find that, and you'll have a more convincing case.


rmbarron clearly knows what a blastocyst is and is conversant in other aspects of biology. When shown information that clearly showed him he was wrong, he chose to ignore it. He has made a choice to disregard what he knows in favor of what he believes.

I don't accept that there is any blockage of communication with this sort of person and doubt that he can ever be convinced. Not because he doesn't understand the material, but because he does not want to be convinced. He offers up an opportunity to convince others though. By bludgenoning him, and those like him with an incessant barrage of fact, others who may be, in reality, sitting on the fence see his argument fail.

I have argued this topic for quite some time face to face and in a large number of forums and can count the number of people who actively engaged me on the subject and have changed from the pro choice to the pro life side of the argument without running out of fingers.

The number who have entered the discussion as it nears its end however, and have stated that they have learned things that they did not know, or realized that they have been misinformed, and as a result have, or are seriously considering coming off the fence to the pro life side of the argument is considerably larger.

Do I expect someone like rmbarron to ever change his position? No. They aren't interested in fact or what is and what isn't, their only interest in fact is how it might be tortured into supporting their opinion or how twisting the truth might result in tricking someone who really has no real grasp of biology into agreeing with them.

[Pidgey]

Well, let's try it this way then...

rmbarron,

At what chronological point (beginning from conception) and for what reason do you believe (know, think, consider... choose whatever word works for you) that a human being merits the protection of law?