Dan, I can find those items you questioned below and they are particularly
offensive to me as a Catholic. Dan T.
Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What in the Hell are you people talking about!
Hate talk? By who? Slander? By who? Remember boys and girls just because
someone doesn't agree with you, you can't start calling them names. If you
can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. In other words, grow up.
Dan
At 01:27 PM 4/10/2007 -0700, Dan T said something that elicited my response:
Angie, I think you were the one that brought up the freedom of speech issue
but with that freedom comes responsibility. No one has the right to slander
others or their beliefs. A point or opinion can be expressed civilly. Dan T.
Angie Novak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good point, Dan T. Touchet!! I thought you were trying to say that he
wasn't, "being nice," (which nobody has to be), and that he shouldn't be
allowed to say what he wants. Sorry I mistook what you meant behind what you
said.
-Angie
Dan T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe in freedom of speech as most Americans do but as the posts were
getting degrading and offensive, I expressed my freedom of speech that they are
offensive. Dan T.
Jim Lubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Angie,
I don't know how much you watch the news, but everyday there seems to be
someone who is forced to apologies for calling someone a racial slur or
homosexual slur. So what makes it okay to demean and insult someone's religious
beliefs? We were having a civil debate on embryonic stem cells where people
were voicing why they were for or against it, without insulting each other or
someone's beliefs.
Jim
At 10:25 AM 4/10/2007, Angie Novak wrote:
I disagree. Even hate speech falls under freedom of speech. If it didn't,
people would be in jail for just speaking their minds. That's not America.
Jim Lubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can't use "freedom of speech" to justify hate speech. It was completely
uncalled for, as were most of his other rants.
At 07:37 AM 4/10/2007, Angie Novak wrote:
Freedom of speech, Dan T.
-Angie
Dan T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John, you're getting offensive... Dan T.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the excess eggs should be served at communion. Like the caviar of
Christ or something. Maybe add a caudacill from Mary
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
So what do you do with the thousands of excess fertilized eggs that result
from in vitro fertilization? Store them forever? Ban the process? These excess
eggs are thrown into the garbage everyday yet I don't hear anyone complaining.
So what's your answer.
Dan
At 07:50 PM 4/7/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my
response:
Glad to see you partly agree with me Dan. (yes I realize you were being
sarcastic) I don't agree with the part about having elaborate funerals and
burying them, but yes we must not destroy unused fertilized eggs created for
IVF treatments.
Using unused embryos is not the same as organ donation because organ donor
are dead before organs are harvested. Removing stem cells from an embryo kills
the embryo.
I've listened to Dr Kerr from Johns Hopkins talk a few times about his
research. http://www.hopkinsneuro.org/tm/
watch his presentation at the 2006 symposium here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2767307331641285489&hl=en
he mentioned that they want to use the embryos created for IVF that are
deformed (something to that effect) and can not be used for in-vitro treatment.
Now I can go along with using those that could not be used to result in a
pregnancy.
I agree with S. 30: A bill to intensify research to derive human pluripotent
stem cell lines
At 06:35 PM 4/7/2007, Dan wrote:
Yes, yes, yes! We must not destroy all those useless fertilized eggs. We
should let them perish on their own and then we should have an elaborate
funeral and bury them in a tiny little plot of earth. AND we must not allow
abortion at ANY cost. Thank you Jesus! Hallelujah!
Dan, who always gives great credence to anything authored by a reverend.
At 06:15 PM 4/7/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my
response:
SIX STEM CELL FACTS
There are non-controversial alternatives worth exploring; such as the
reprogramming of ordinary somatic (body) cells, the derivation of stem cells
from amniotic fluid, and (assuming that it can be shown that the product is not
an embryo), altered nuclear transfer.
Concerns about embryo destruction are not only religious; but merely a
healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of the good.
The search for cures is not the only motive behind ESC research,; many
scientists are interested only in enhancing basic scientific knowledge of such
things as cell signaling, tissue growth and early human development.
Source: Robert P. George and Thomas V. Berg, "Six Stem Cell Facts," Wall
Street Journal, March 14, 2007.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117384191108736444.html
---------------------------------
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com .
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
----
Jim Lubin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://makoa.org/jim
disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. ----
Jim Lubin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://makoa.org/jim
disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
