Re: [QUAD-L] sex
Ok...I always have to jump in on this subject. I am an Ab girlfriend of a quad...(Hi honey!). Sex is not an issues as far as I am concerned. I think he worries more about it than I do. First of all there is more than one way to please a woman. I very much enjoy the intimacy that we have. I have never been so close to anyone. It takes a special bond to get over the embarrasing issuses of sex and quad-dom. You have to be very open and have an open mind to new ideas. The only issues that I have is lack of privacy and time. For me...satisfaction is not a problem. I am sure that HE would be more happier with more orgasms for his part...wouldn't we all...LOL. I am not sure how to say what I am trying to get accross. If you truly love someone then sex will work itself out. If you are with the right partner then any issues can be worked around with a little creativity. I am sure some AB's that know we are in a relationship have their heads spinning trying to figure us out! Just be open and talk honsestly with your partnerif they are not comfortable with the situation...then get a new partner. Guys...quit worring so much and relax! I promise that sex for women is mostly in our heads...compliment us..makes us feel special and wanted. That is what we all need most. If young guys would learn this from the beginning they would have it made. Some things do get better with age. HAVE FUN! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Women can, but men can't. How unfair is that. Be cautious. Bacteria is always present in the bladder of the person with the injury. But it can be done. It has been done and it continues to be done. Best Wishes W In a message dated 4/7/2007 8:38:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: does anyone have sex with an indwelling catheter? this sounds risky to me... am i the only one? it could be pulled out or cause infection... yikes! =jessica - See what's free at AOL.com. - Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
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=2767307331641285489hl=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.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB117384191108736444.html
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
I hope you're kidding. Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 The public discussion of human embryo research has too often lacked intellectual honesty, which has only compounded the confusion of an issue of great scientific and moral complexity, say Robert P. George professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and Rev. Thomas V. Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person. Consequently, there are certain facts on which people on either side of the moral debate should be able to agree, say George and Berg. For example: There is no ban on human embryonic stem cell (ESC) research in the United States; the federal government has funded such research to the tune of $130 million dollars since 2001, and the United States continues to be the international leader in the field. We are a long way away from therapies derived from embryonic stem cells; many leading stem cell researchers have echoed the fact that there may be no breakthrough any time soon. Standard embryology texts insist that from the zygote (single-cell embryo) stage forward there exists a new living member of the species homo sapiens that has the active potential to develop by an internally directed process towards maturity. Also: 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 - Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
[QUAD-L] sex
Amen Amy! The point I had hoped to make was those males with foleys, no. Women with foleys, yes... when very careful. You can't always get what you want... but if you try hard, you might get what you need W In a message dated 4/8/2007 9:14:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok...I always have to jump in on this subject. I am an Ab girlfriend of a quad...(Hi honey!). Sex is not an issues as far as I am concerned. I think he worries more about it than I do. First of all there is more than one way to please a woman. I very much enjoy the intimacy that we have. I have never been so close to anyone. It takes a special bond to get over the embarrasing issuses of sex and quad-dom. You have to be very open and have an open mind to new ideas. The only issues that I have is lack of privacy and time. For me...satisfaction is not a problem. I am sure that HE would be more happier with more orgasms for his part...wouldn't we all...LOL. I am not sure how to say what I am trying to get accross. If you truly love someone then sex will work itself out. If you are with the right partner then any issues can be worked around with a little creativity. I am sure some AB's that know we are in a relationship have their heads spinning trying to figure us out! Just be open and talk honsestly with your partnerif they are not comfortable with the situation...then get a new partner. Guys...quit worring so much and relax! I promise that sex for women is mostly in our heads...compliment us..makes us feel special and wanted. That is what we all need most. If young guys would learn this from the beginning they would have it made. Some things do get better with age. HAVE FUN! ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [QUAD-L] sex
On Apr 8, 2007, at 12:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: many have sex w/ a foley i can see how many women might but it seems completely different for a guy...
Re: [QUAD-L] sex
many have sex w/ a foley - Original Message - From: Jessica Ann Gordon Date: Saturday, April 7, 2007 9:40 pm Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] sex To: quad-list@eskimo.com does anyone have sex with an indwelling catheter? this sounds risky to me... am i the only one? it could be pulled out or cause infection... yikes! =jessica
[QUAD-L] sex
Thanks to nature, women are constructed differently then their male counterpart. Physically, a woman can wear a foley cath and still be expose for sex. While men wearing foleys are pretty much covered. The foley must be removed to complete the act of sex. Keep in mind that bacteria in the male bladder can enter a healthy woman, during sex and cause an UTI or bladder infection. It is always a possibility. Meds can help, but one should always be aware. Best Wishes W In a message dated 4/8/2007 11:30:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: many have sex w/ a foley - Original Message - ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. The frozen embryos can continued to be stored indefinitely. What's wrong with that? Are you concerned about the energy being used to keep them frozen? The embryos that are unfrozen eventually die a natural death, just as every other living thing, then cremated. That is quite different then killing it by removing stem cells to use in someone else. Even organ donors are declared dead by some standards before there organs are removed. # S.5Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 doesn't even do that; it just states that the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. and would never be implanted in a woman. I want my spinal cord repaired so I can breathe without a ventilator and possibly move independently, but I don't want it so badly that I will end another human life just for the possible improve my own life. I don't understand how those wanting to use stem cells from embryos can't comprehend that. An embryo is a human life, and put into the right environment, will continue to develop and grow. I'm not so self centered that improving my life should come at the cost of another life. There are other sources of pluripotent stem cells, sources such as umbilical chords and amniotic fluid. There is also somatic cell nuclear transfer (therapeutic cloning) which I don't have a problem with. On a side note, my cousin just gave birth to a son last week. He was the result of IVF from her egg and her husband's sperm. They had 8 viable embryos. The first 7 she did not carry full term. I'm happy for them that the last one she was able to carry to term and mom and son are doing fine. Jim At 08:04 AM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote: 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=2767307331641285489hl=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.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB117384191108736444.html Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. But look at some of the people around, can we really say that all human life is precious? I can't. There are just some people living their lives out there walking around and breathing that don't deserve to be. However, these are people, not just 50-150 cells that don't have a consciousness, what I consider life. And these 50-150 cells are just going to be destroyed anyway. Why not let them serve a purpose. Shouldn't those of us who want a cure to be found, including using embryonic stem cell research, be able to have that option? If you don't want to be treated, potentially cured and able-bodied again someday from what this research finds, just don't accept that treatment. Stay trapped in your body if you'd like. But don't take that chance for living again, really living, away from those of us who want a shot at it. I would gladly donate my eggs to be fertilized via in vitro, solely for the purpose of being used for embryonic stem cell research. CURE not care- Angie Novak Dan T [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Human life is sacred and an embryo is the initial stage of life. I would like to be up and around and Independent but not at the sacrifice of another human life. Dan T. Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 The public discussion of human embryo research has too often lacked intellectual honesty, which has only compounded the confusion of an issue of great scientific and moral complexity, say Robert P. George professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and Rev. Thomas V. Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person. Consequently, there are certain facts on which people on either side of the moral debate should be able to agree, say George and Berg. For example: There is no ban on human embryonic stem cell (ESC) research in the United States; the federal government has funded such research to the tune of $130 million dollars since 2001, and the United States continues to be the international leader in the field. We are a long way away from therapies derived from embryonic stem cells; many leading stem cell researchers have echoed the fact that there may be no breakthrough any time soon. Standard embryology texts insist that from the zygote (single-cell embryo) stage forward there exists a new living member of the species homo sapiens that has the active potential to develop by an internally directed process towards maturity. Also: 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 - Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.
Re: [QUAD-L] SCI Treatments Adult vs Embryonic Stem Cells
Adult stem cells just aren't as versatile and promising as those who promote them over embryonic stem cells would like you to believe. Adult stem cells are a distraction. It would be wonderful if they would work as well as embryonic stem cells, cutting down the pointless controversy and getting research under way, but that's just not the case. - Angie Novak Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SPINAL CORD INJURY TREATMENTS ADULT STEM CELLS VS. EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS Adult Stem Cells Treat Spinal Cord Injury in Humans and Animals: 2006 Scientists in Italy Israel demonstrated that stimulating immune cells enhanced abilities of adult neural stem cells to promote functional recovery of mice with spinal cord injury. Ziv Y et al., Synergy between immune cells and adult neural stem/progenitor cells promotes functional recovery from spinal cord injury, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103, 13174-13179, August 29, 2006. 2006 Spanish researchers achieved almost complete functional recovery of rats with chronic spinal cord injury using bone marrow adult stem cells. Zurita M Vaquero J, Bone marrow stromal cells can achieve cure of chronic paraplegic rats: functional and morphological outcome one year after transplantation, Neuroscience Letters 410, 51-56, July 10, 2006. 2006 Dr. Carlos Lima in Portugal reported on transplant of nasal stem cells into 7 patients with spinal cord injury. Patients regained some motor function and sensation, and 2 patients showed bladder control improvement. Lima C et al., Olfactory mucosa autografts in human spinal cord injury: A pilot clinical study, Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 29, 191-203, June 2006. 2006 Toronto researchers found that transplanting adult neural stem cells into rats up to 8 weeks after spinal cord injury resulted in significant improvement and recovery. Karimi- Abdolrazaee S et al., Delayed transplantation of adult neural precursor cells promotes remyelination and functional neurological recovery after spinal cord injury, J Neuroscience 26, 3377-3389, 29 March 2006; Stem Cell Treatment Succeeds In Spinal Cord-injured Rats, March 30, 2006, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=40538Stem. 2006 University of Louisville scientists turned nasal stem cells into specialized cells that could insulate neurons, and showed repair of spinal cord damage in rats. Zhang X, et al., Role of transcription factors in motoneuron differentiation of adult human olfactory neuroepithelialderived progenitors, Stem Cells 24, 434-442, March 2006; Laura Ungar, Stem-cell research at U of L major step, Louisville Courier-Journal, March 8, 2006. 2005 Treating spinal cord injured rats with umbilical cord blood stem cells gave moderate recovery in mobility and function. Kuh S-U et al., Functional recovery after human umbilical cord blood cells transplantation with brain-derived neurotrophic factor into the spinal cord injured rat, Acta Neurochir (Wien) 147, 985-992, 2005. 2005 Extending earlier results, Wisconsin and Swedish researchers injected neural stem cells into rats with spinal cord injury. The study shows reduction of pain, and increased recovery of function and feeling. Hofstetter CP et al., Allodynia limits the usefulness of intraspinal neural stem cell grafts; directed differentitation improves outcome, Nature Neuroscience 8, 346-353, March 2005. 2004 Japanese scientists tested the effects of bone marrow stromal cells on repair of injured spinal cord. The study demonstrated that the adult stem cells promoted both tissue recovery and behavioral improvements in rats. Ohta M et al., Bone marrow stromal cells infused into the cerebrospinal fluid promote functional recovery of the injured rat spinal cord with reduced cavity formation, Experimental Neurology 187, 266-278, 2004. 2003 University of South Florida and Korean researchers used human umbilical cord blood stem cells to treat rats with spinal cord injuries. They found that the cord blood stem cells migrated to areas of injury, and the rats showed significant behavioral improvements even when treated several days after the injury. Saporta S et al., Human umbilical cord blood stem cells infusion in spinal cord injury: Engraftment and beneficial influence on behavior, J Hematotherapy Stem Cell Research 12, 271-278, 2003. 2002 A collaboration between researchers at Tulane and in Sweden found that adult bone marrow stromal cells promote healing of spinal cord injuries, and that the cells produced significant functional improvement. The study concluded that bone marrow stromal cells are an accessible, expandable source of cells that offer a promising future for spinal cord repair. Hofstetter CP et al., Marrow stromal cells form guiding strands in the injured spinal cord and promote recovery, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99, 2199-2204, February 19, 2002. Touted ESCR
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
What if your cousin's son had a disease or suffered a spinal cord injury? Wouldn't you want any treatment possible to be available to him to stop his agony? I know I would for my nephew. How is it self-centered to want to be in control of your body, something you had before your spinal cord was injured? I don't see embryonic stem cell research supporters as self-centered, not the least! If you're happy being stuck inside your useless and problematic body, don't use any treatments obtained from embryonic stem cell research. I for one, firmly believe that everyone should have the choice concerning what treatments they would like to try or see researched. Are these your embryos that are being used? No, then what right do you have to denounce this research. You have no claim on them, they aren't going to be implanted in any women to become a human. Why not allow the research to be done for those of us who want our bodies and real lives back? CURE not care- Angie Novak Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. The frozen embryos can continued to be stored indefinitely. What's wrong with that? Are you concerned about the energy being used to keep them frozen? The embryos that are unfrozen eventually die a natural death, just as every other living thing, then cremated. That is quite different then killing it by removing stem cells to use in someone else. Even organ donors are declared dead by some standards before there organs are removed. # S.5Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 doesn't even do that; it just states that the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. and would never be implanted in a woman. I want my spinal cord repaired so I can breathe without a ventilator and possibly move independently, but I don't want it so badly that I will end another human life just for the possible improve my own life. I don't understand how those wanting to use stem cells from embryos can't comprehend that. An embryo is a human life, and put into the right environment, will continue to develop and grow. I'm not so self centered that improving my life should come at the cost of another life. There are other sources of pluripotent stem cells, sources such as umbilical chords and amniotic fluid. There is also somatic cell nuclear transfer (therapeutic cloning) which I don't have a problem with. On a side note, my cousin just gave birth to a son last week. He was the result of IVF from her egg and her husband's sperm. They had 8 viable embryos. The first 7 she did not carry full term. I'm happy for them that the last one she was able to carry to term and mom and son are doing fine. Jim At 08:04 AM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote: 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=2767307331641285489hl=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
[QUAD-L] LIFE INSURANCE
I recently took out life insurance,but after reading this article,it seems that upon my death it will be null and void as, it seems quadriplegia will always be a contributing factor to my death. Should i cancel it ? Rob. Paul Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a bummer...for anyone who remembers him... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2826562 Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [QUAD-L] LIFE INSURANCE
Call your insurance company. If they say quadriplegia is allowable...then get it in writing on letterhead. - Original Message - From: Robert Brennan To: quad-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:46 AM Subject: [QUAD-L] LIFE INSURANCE I recently took out life insurance,but after reading this article,it seems that upon my death it will be null and void as, it seems quadriplegia will always be a contributing factor to my death. Should i cancel it ? Rob. Paul Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a bummer...for anyone who remembers him... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2826562 Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
[QUAD-L] E-Mail Senators
If you're having trouble viewing this email, you may see it online. Email 2/Day 2 Senate Bill 5 Campaign Letters to Senators Hi, As outlined in the coordinated campaign, here are your tasks for DAY TWO. Remember to replace the highlighted text within the letter with your personal story and the highlighted text at the end of the letter with your personal contact information. Remember that we have two requests: Vote Yes on S5 and Vote Yes on a Veto Override. Write SEVEN letters (Actually ONE with SEVEN different addresses and titles). FIVE to the targeted Senators and TWO to your own Senators. Sample letters can be found below. Make certain that at least FIVE of your friends and family members do the same. By doing this, you have multiplied your impact from 8 letters to 48 letters! If you can get TEN or TWENTY friends and family to join you, go for it! Again, we are providing some text (between the bold blue lines) that you can copy and send to your friends and family. And as before, please feel free to edit or re-write completely. Please email us if you have any questions or need any help. Thank you again for your continued hard work to pass this bill. - Dear Friends and Family, Please help me contact six Senators who might change their positions to support stem cell research by voting Yes on Senate Bill 5. Below are their addresses and sample text for you to use. For more information on why I think they might be receptive, click here. These are only five of those who voted against the research. If you have the time and energy, it might help to reach all of those who voted no last year. It only takes one Senator to change his or her vote to move this research forward! To find the others who voted no last year, click here. Please be sure to take out the highlighted text and put in your information. After you change the highlighted text, please copy it all to a blank page and add one of the addresses. Repeat this process until you have written all five letters. Please write a separate letter to each Senator (do not send one with all five addresses!) It is most effective if you can mail and fax this letter since they will vote on Wednesday or Thursday - before they get the snail mail version. Also, please send letters to your two Senators. To find your Senators' contact information and voting history, go to Project Vote Smart. It would be extremely helpful to know how many letters you were able to send. I am tracking our impact. It means a lot to me to have your support. Thank you! ** Sample letter: The Honorable Senator Robert Casey, Jr United States Senate Dirksen B-40 Washington, DC, 20510 March 6, 2007 Dear Senator, I understand you will soon be voting on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act bill. This is an issue that transcends local politics and affects American citizens across our nation. For this reason, I am writing to urge you to vote yes on S5. Your decisive vote will allow the research to go forward. Please send the message that it is time for our government to respond to the supermajority of Americans who support this research. Briefly tell your story and why you support stem cell research here. The entire letter must be one page or less If your story is long, you can take out one of the four messages below to accommodate it. As you may know, the success of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S 5) may depend on your vote. Several Senators have proposed a substitute bill, funding alternative research. This mistaken piece of legislation is no substitute for Senate Bill 5. I want to tell you that: To my knowledge, none of the nation's preeminent scientists regard any form of alternative stem cell research as a substitute for embryonic. I will be happy to provide supporting data, if you would like. We citizens and families, consulting with our doctors, should make medical decisions. Political leaders should not be cutting families off from access to lifesaving therapies. Instead, the entire Senate should be leading the effort to fund this research - as it is our family's right to decide and choose the best medical care for our loved ones. The American people overwhelmingly support embryonic stem cell research, and they resent the restrictions currently imposed. These restrictions on federal funds deny every family the right to access the best medical treatment and cures for their loved ones. This support for embryonic stem cell research is undeniable: In the 2006 midterm Election pro-stem cell research candidates won major victories. Non-embryonic stem cell research is already heavily funded. White House documents reveal a preference of nearly 20-1 for funding alternative stem cell research over embryonic
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
Angie, I do respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it. You at least state that you define a life as having a consciousness. I am not aware if an 8 month old fetus has a consciousness or not but I would consider that stage of development a life. That is why I define a human life from the point of conception, joining of a egg and sperm. You wonder why you shouldn't have the option to use embryos for research just because you don't consider it a life? You don't see a problem with the premise of your question? You don't consider it a life so why should anyone prevent you from taking it to better your life. At 11:07 AM 4/8/2007, Angie Novak wrote: Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. But look at some of the people around, can we really say that all human life is precious? I can't. There are just some people living their lives out there walking around and breathing that don't deserve to be. However, these are people, not just 50-150 cells that don't have a consciousness, what I consider life. And these 50-150 cells are just going to be destroyed anyway. Why not let them serve a purpose. Shouldn't those of us who want a cure to be found, including using embryonic stem cell research, be able to have that option? If you don't want to be treated, potentially cured and able-bodied again someday from what this research finds, just don't accept that treatment. Stay trapped in your body if you'd like. But don't take that chance for living again, really living, away from those of us who want a shot at it. I would gladly donate my eggs to be fertilized via in vitro, solely for the purpose of being used for embryonic stem cell research. CURE not care- Angie Novak Dan T [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Human life is sacred and an embryo is the initial stage of life. I would like to be up and around and Independent but not at the sacrifice of another human life. Dan T. Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 The public discussion of human embryo research has too often lacked intellectual honesty, which has only compounded the confusion of an issue of great scientific and moral complexity, say Robert P. George professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and Rev. Thomas V. Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person. Consequently, there are certain facts on which people on either side of the moral debate should be able to agree, say George and Berg. For example: There is no ban on human embryonic stem cell (ESC) research in the United States; the federal government has funded such research to the tune of $130 million dollars since 2001, and the United States continues to be the international leader in the field. We are a long way away from therapies derived from embryonic stem cells; many leading stem cell researchers have echoed the fact that there may be no breakthrough any time soon. Standard embryology texts insist that from the zygote (single-cell embryo) stage forward there exists a new living member of the species homo sapiens that has the active potential to develop by an internally directed process towards maturity. Also: 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.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB117384191108736444.html Don't be flakey. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mailGet Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mailalways stay connected to friends. Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
An eight-month-old fetus is very different from an embryo. That's why there are laws against abortion after a certain time. No, I don't see a problem with using what I don't consider a human life to better myself and anyone like us. We're different than 50-150 cells that are going to be destroyed anyway. Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angie, I do respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it. You at least state that you define a life as having a consciousness. I am not aware if an 8 month old fetus has a consciousness or not but I would consider that stage of development a life. That is why I define a human life from the point of conception, joining of a egg and sperm. You wonder why you shouldn't have the option to use embryos for research just because you don't consider it a life? You don't see a problem with the premise of your question? You don't consider it a life so why should anyone prevent you from taking it to better your life. At 11:07 AM 4/8/2007, Angie Novak wrote: Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. But look at some of the people around, can we really say that all human life is precious? I can't. There are just some people living their lives out there walking around and breathing that don't deserve to be. However, these are people, not just 50-150 cells that don't have a consciousness, what I consider life. And these 50-150 cells are just going to be destroyed anyway. Why not let them serve a purpose. Shouldn't those of us who want a cure to be found, including using embryonic stem cell research, be able to have that option? If you don't want to be treated, potentially cured and able-bodied again someday from what this research finds, just don't accept that treatment. Stay trapped in your body if you'd like. But don't take that chance for living again, really living, away from those of us who want a shot at it. I would gladly donate my eggs to be fertilized via in vitro, solely for the purpose of being used for embryonic stem cell research. CURE not care- Angie Novak Dan T [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Human life is sacred and an embryo is the initial stage of life. I would like to be up and around and Independent but not at the sacrifice of another human life. Dan T. Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 The public discussion of human embryo research has too often lacked intellectual honesty, which has only compounded the confusion of an issue of great scientific and moral complexity, say Robert P. George professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and Rev. Thomas V. Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person. Consequently, there are certain facts on which people on either side of the moral debate should be able to agree, say George and Berg. For example: There is no ban on human embryonic stem cell (ESC) research in the United States; the federal government has funded such research to the tune of $130 million dollars since 2001, and the United States continues to be the international leader in the field. We are a long way away from therapies derived from embryonic stem cells; many leading stem cell researchers have echoed the fact that there may be no breakthrough any time soon. Standard embryology texts insist that from the zygote (single-cell embryo) stage forward there exists a new living member of the species homo sapiens that has the active potential to develop by an internally directed process towards maturity. Also: 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 Don't be
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
At 11:01 AM 4/8/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my response: I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. On a side note, my cousin just gave birth to a son last week. He was the result of IVF from her egg and her husband's sperm. They had 8 viable embryos. The first 7 she did not carry full term. I'm happy for them that the last one she was able to carry to term and mom and son are doing fine. Jim This is where your argument falls apart. First you say you are against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. And that these eggs are sacred and never should be destroyed. But, then you say that it is wonderful that your cousin in fact murdered 7 sacred eggs before finally becoming pregnant - and pregnant is the operative word. Many human eggs are fertilized but very few result in pregnancy. Everything has to occur exactly in the right way and at the right time for this to happen. Millions of naturally fertilized eggs never develop into a human. If you truly believed in your argument, then you would be disgusted with your cousins 'murderous' behavior. Yet, you rejoice. You can't have it both ways. Dan At 08:04 AM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote: 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=2767307331641285489hl=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.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB117384191108736444.html Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
RE: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
I want to know why it is ok to fertilize these eggs and set them up for a certain death and then their religious morals kick in and preach it’s ok to create life for destruction but not destroy it to saves lives, just throw that in the trash I’m done with it! Mark Jackson RollinOn _ From: Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 10:05 AM To: quad-list@eskimo.com 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. HYPERLINK http://www.hopkinsneuro.org/tm/http://www.hopkinsneuro.org/tm/ watch his presentation at the 2006 symposium here HYPERLINK http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2767307331641285489hl=enhttp://vi deo.google.com/videoplay?docid=2767307331641285489hl=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: HYPERLINK http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117384191108736444.htmlhttp://online.wsj.c om/article/SB117384191108736444.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 4/7/2007 10:57 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 4/7/2007 10:57 PM
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
Dan, Her eggs were harvested then fertilized with her husbands sperms, this resulted in 8 embryos. Four were implanted in uterus, all 4 failed to develop and she had a miscarriage. Several month later she had 3 more implanted and those failed to develop. How could anyone possibly equate a miscarriage, the natural or spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, as a murderous act? She didn't willfully terminate the first 7 embryos, they failed to develop. At 12:33 PM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote: At 11:01 AM 4/8/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my response: I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. On a side note, my cousin just gave birth to a son last week. He was the result of IVF from her egg and her husband's sperm. They had 8 viable embryos. The first 7 she did not carry full term. I'm happy for them that the last one she was able to carry to term and mom and son are doing fine. Jim This is where your argument falls apart. First you say you are against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. And that these eggs are sacred and never should be destroyed. But, then you say that it is wonderful that your cousin in fact murdered 7 sacred eggs before finally becoming pregnant - and pregnant is the operative word. Many human eggs are fertilized but very few result in pregnancy. Everything has to occur exactly in the right way and at the right time for this to happen. Millions of naturally fertilized eggs never develop into a human. If you truly believed in your argument, then you would be disgusted with your cousins 'murderous' behavior. Yet, you rejoice. You can't have it both ways. Dan Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
The very embryos that we're talking about, are not going to survive in the first place. They will never be put in a womb to see if they will survive. They aren't babies, just 50-150 life-saving and life changing cells. Why don't more people see that? -Angie Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan, Her eggs were harvested then fertilized with her husbands sperms, this resulted in 8 embryos. Four were implanted in uterus, all 4 failed to develop and she had a miscarriage. Several month later she had 3 more implanted and those failed to develop. How could anyone possibly equate a miscarriage, the natural or spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, as a murderous act? She didn't willfully terminate the first 7 embryos, they failed to develop. At 12:33 PM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote: At 11:01 AM 4/8/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my response: I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. On a side note, my cousin just gave birth to a son last week. He was the result of IVF from her egg and her husband's sperm. They had 8 viable embryos. The first 7 she did not carry full term. I'm happy for them that the last one she was able to carry to term and mom and son are doing fine. Jim This is where your argument falls apart. First you say you are against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. And that these eggs are sacred and never should be destroyed. But, then you say that it is wonderful that your cousin in fact murdered 7 sacred eggs before finally becoming pregnant - and pregnant is the operative word. Many human eggs are fertilized but very few result in pregnancy. Everything has to occur exactly in the right way and at the right time for this to happen. Millions of naturally fertilized eggs never develop into a human. If you truly believed in your argument, then you would be disgusted with your cousins 'murderous' behavior. Yet, you rejoice. You can't have it both ways. Dan Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org - The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
At 01:11 PM 4/8/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my response: Dan, Her eggs were harvested then fertilized with her husbands sperms, this resulted in 8 embryos. Four were implanted in uterus, all 4 failed to develop and she had a miscarriage. Several month later she had 3 more implanted and those failed to develop. Why did the doctors harvest and fertilize so many eggs? Why were so many fertilized eggs implanted? Because the doctors and your cousin knew that most if not all would die. It's a medical fact. The doctors know the odds and so did your cousin. It was a gamble and if they got real lucky maybe, just maybe one or two would survive. So do you think it's okay to play with sacred eggs this way? How could anyone possibly equate a miscarriage, the natural or spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, as a murderous act? She didn't willfully terminate the first 7 embryos, they failed to develop. So it's natural to take 8 eggs out of a female, put the in a dish, fertilize them by putting semen in the dish, take 4 of those eggs and implant them in the female's womb? Those 4 little humans died. So, let's try 3 more. Those 3 little humans died also. Let's try again. Ah, success and we only lost 7 babies. It's like putting 8 babies on the edge of a cliff. Most will fall off the cliff and die but, if you get real lucky, maybe one will roll or crawl away from the edge and survive. You see Jim, if you believe they are sacred then you don't go messing with them. Dan At 12:33 PM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote: At 11:01 AM 4/8/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my response: I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. On a side note, my cousin just gave birth to a son last week. He was the result of IVF from her egg and her husband's sperm. They had 8 viable embryos. The first 7 she did not carry full term. I'm happy for them that the last one she was able to carry to term and mom and son are doing fine. Jim This is where your argument falls apart. First you say you are against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. And that these eggs are sacred and never should be destroyed. But, then you say that it is wonderful that your cousin in fact murdered 7 sacred eggs before finally becoming pregnant - and pregnant is the operative word. Many human eggs are fertilized but very few result in pregnancy. Everything has to occur exactly in the right way and at the right time for this to happen. Millions of naturally fertilized eggs never develop into a human. If you truly believed in your argument, then you would be disgusted with your cousins 'murderous' behavior. Yet, you rejoice. You can't have it both ways. Dan Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
FW: Re: [QUAD-L] film required
Amen! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: quad-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] film required Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:13:40 -0400 Yup, pretty sick stuff. I don't mind them doing it to themselves but I resent them wanting benefits that we have had to fight for. When they are done mutilating themselves, they should be promptly put into an institution for the insane. The can spend entire days learning to dress and undress but they should be seen for what they are, insane, not handicapped. If they want a wheelchair they can have a kitchjen chair with castors. Same thing my great uncle used after returning from ww1. When they get infections they should have to wait for the slow sluggish labs that many of us have. And when they get angry they should be locked in closets. and please do not give these mental defectives a parking permit. john -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: quad-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 3:38 PM Subject: [QUAD-L] film required OK, now for something completely revolting. If you belong to Netflix, check out a film called Whole. It is a documentary about disabled wannabes. Everyone on this list would compromise his soul (well, almost) for a healthy body, and these people long to join our ranks. It leaves me speechless. Check it out. AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
No difference by your definition of life, having a consciousness. A human of 50-150 cells is going to die anyway. I don't consider it a life, so take parts of it before it dies to possibly improve my life. Why not let the death serve a purpose? This guy just suddenly stopped breathing. If we keep him alive he's going to be paralyzed, possibly brain damaged, don't know at this point. Who would want to live like that? What kind of life is that? If we don't do anything to keep him alive he's going to die anyway, so take his heart, lungs, liver and whatever else we want to improve someone else life. Why not let the death serve a purpose? Glad someone who defines a life the way you do wasn't the only one around when I suddenly stopped breathing and my heart stopped beating. That person might have decided that my life was not worth saving because their mother with a failing heart could have an improved life it they took mine. At 12:18 PM 4/8/2007, Angie Novak wrote: An eight-month-old fetus is very different from an embryo. That's why there are laws against abortion after a certain time. No, I don't see a problem with using what I don't consider a human life to better myself and anyone like us. We're different than 50-150 cells that are going to be destroyed anyway. Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angie, I do respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it. You at least state that you define a life as having a consciousness. I am not aware if an 8 month old fetus has a consciousness or not but I would consider that stage of development a life. That is why I define a human life from the point of conception, joining of a egg and sperm. You wonder why you shouldn't have the option to use embryos for research just because you don't consider it a life? You don't see a problem with the premise of your question? You don't consider it a life so why should anyone prevent you from taking it to better your life. At 11:07 AM 4/8/2007, Angie Novak wrote: Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. But look at some of the people around, can we really say that all human life is precious? I can't. There are just some people living their lives out there walking around and breathing that don't deserve to be. However, these are people, not just 50-150 cells that don't have a consciousness, what I consider life. And these 50-150 cells are just going to be destroyed anyway. Why not let them serve a purpose. Shouldn't those of us who want a cure to be found, including using embryonic stem cell research, be able to have that option? If you don't want to be treated, potentially cured and able-bodied again someday from what this research finds, just don't accept that treatment. Stay trapped in your body if you'd like. But don't take that chance for living again, really living, away from those of us who want a shot at it. I would gladly donate my eggs to be fertilized via in vitro, solely for the purpose of being used for embryonic stem cell research. CURE not care- Angie Novak Dan T [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Human life is sacred and an embryo is the initial stage of life. I would like to be up and around and Independent but not at the sacrifice of another human life. Dan T. Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 The public discussion of human embryo research has too often lacked intellectual honesty, which has only compounded the confusion of an issue of great scientific and moral complexity, say Robert P. George professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and Rev. Thomas V. Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person. Consequently, there are certain facts on which people on either side of the moral debate should be able to agree, say George and Berg. For example: There is no ban on human embryonic stem cell (ESC) research in the United States; the federal government has funded such research to the tune of $130 million dollars since 2001, and the United States continues to be the international leader in the field. We are a long way away from therapies derived from embryonic stem cells; many leading stem cell researchers have echoed the fact that there may be no breakthrough any time soon. Standard embryology texts insist that from the zygote (single-cell embryo) stage forward there exists a new living member of the species homo sapiens that has the active potential to develop by an
Re: [QUAD-L] LIFE INSURANCE
I have talked with quite a few insurance companies about life insurance for myself and most say YOUR A QUADRIPLEGIC---good luck we can't help you at all. One guy just said that quads have to many medical factors against them...including not normal bladder or bowel use..and said those 2 things alone plus risk of bladder infections and etc. make it extremely hard for a reliable Insurance Co. to cover them..Quads are considered VERY HIGH RISK. Dan H. Paul Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Call your insurance company. If they say quadriplegia is allowable...then get it in writing on letterhead. - Original Message - From: Robert Brennan To: quad-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:46 AM Subject: [QUAD-L] LIFE INSURANCE I recently took out life insurance,but after reading this article,it seems that upon my death it will be null and void as, it seems quadriplegia will always be a contributing factor to my death. Should i cancel it ? Rob. Paul Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a bummer...for anyone who remembers him... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2826562 Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
RE: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
Yes Jim, But there was a chance that she wouldn’t have naturally and it was a risk she was willing to take. If the first would’ve not failed then the others would’ve been trashed and it happens daily, and fertilizing an egg and implanting it is “not” natural. I know she didn’t willfully terminate the embryos but she took a risk that it could happen so you can’t have it both ways and say she wasn’t willing to risk human life (as you see it) because it was successful, it’s still risking human life. I’m not saying anything is wrong with this procedure btw I think it’s great for people who want children and can’t naturally but research won’t be killing any more or less regardless of any laws being passed, meaning all this work and uproar and not one life saved but science and research could save the suffering of millions and they’re the killers! Mark Jackson RollinOn _ From: Jim Lubin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 3:11 PM To: Dan; quad-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts Dan, Her eggs were harvested then fertilized with her husbands sperms, this resulted in 8 embryos. Four were implanted in uterus, all 4 failed to develop and she had a miscarriage. Several month later she had 3 more implanted and those failed to develop. How could anyone possibly equate a miscarriage, the natural or spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, as a murderous act? She didn't willfully terminate the first 7 embryos, they failed to develop. At 12:33 PM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote: At 11:01 AM 4/8/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my response: I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. On a side note, my cousin just gave birth to a son last week. He was the result of IVF from her egg and her husband's sperm. They had 8 viable embryos. The first 7 she did not carry full term. I'm happy for them that the last one she was able to carry to term and mom and son are doing fine. Jim This is where your argument falls apart. First you say you are against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. And that these eggs are sacred and never should be destroyed. But, then you say that it is wonderful that your cousin in fact murdered 7 sacred eggs before finally becoming pregnant - and pregnant is the operative word. Many human eggs are fertilized but very few result in pregnancy. Everything has to occur exactly in the right way and at the right time for this to happen. Millions of naturally fertilized eggs never develop into a human. If you truly believed in your argument, then you would be disgusted with your cousins 'murderous' behavior. Yet, you rejoice. You can't have it both ways. Dan Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] HYPERLINK http://makoa.org/jimhttp://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: HYPERLINK http://www.makoa.org/http://www.makoa.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 4/7/2007 10:57 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 4/7/2007 10:57 PM
RE: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
All I know is that BILLIONS of poor chicken egg embryo's got boiled this
week for today--Easter.and some say all life is precious.. animal rights
groups want to kill humans for eating animals of any kind. So i guess any point
can be argued huh ? lol I was just reading all the stem cell stuff and it
is complicated, reminds me of the fight over the Death Penalty and
Abortion..AND by the way ABORTION IS LEGAL, to me compared to abortions being
done every daycells seem to be hardly anything compared to killing babies
already formed and growing.Some places even Allow late stage abortions.
)) Just my thoughts on these very confusing issues facing mankind.
Dan H.
RollinOn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape
{behavior:url(#default#VML);}Yes Jim,
But there was a chance that she wouldnt have naturally and it was a risk she
was willing to take.
If the first wouldve not failed then the others wouldve been trashed and it
happens daily, and fertilizing an egg and implanting it is not natural.
I know she didnt willfully terminate the embryos but she took a risk that it
could happen so you cant have it both ways and say she wasnt willing to risk
human life (as you see it) because it was successful, its still risking human
life.
Im not saying anything is wrong with this procedure btw I think its great
for people who want children and cant naturally but research wont be killing
any more or less regardless of any laws being passed, meaning all this work and
uproar and not one life saved but science and research could save the suffering
of millions and theyre the killers!
Mark Jackson
RollinOn
-
From: Jim Lubin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 3:11 PM
To: Dan; quad-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
Dan,
Her eggs were harvested then fertilized with her husbands sperms, this resulted
in 8 embryos. Four were implanted in uterus, all 4 failed to develop and she
had a miscarriage. Several month later she had 3 more implanted and those
failed to develop.
How could anyone possibly equate a miscarriage, the natural or spontaneous end
of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of
surviving, as a murderous act? She didn't willfully terminate the first 7
embryos, they failed to develop.
At 12:33 PM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote:
At 11:01 AM 4/8/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my
response:
I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with.
On a side note, my cousin just gave birth to a son last week. He was the
result of IVF from her egg and her husband's sperm. They had 8 viable embryos.
The first 7 she did not carry full term. I'm happy for them that the last one
she was able to carry to term and mom and son are doing fine.
Jim
This is where your argument falls apart. First you say you are against the
whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. And that these
eggs are sacred and never should be destroyed. But, then you say that it is
wonderful that your cousin in fact murdered 7 sacred eggs before finally
becoming pregnant - and pregnant is the operative word.
Many human eggs are fertilized but very few result in pregnancy. Everything has
to occur exactly in the right way and at the right time for this to happen.
Millions of naturally fertilized eggs never develop into a human.
If you truly believed in your argument, then you would be disgusted with your
cousins 'murderous' behavior. Yet, you rejoice. You can't have it both ways.
Dan
Jim Lubin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://makoa.org/jim
disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 4/7/2007 10:57 PM
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 4/7/2007 10:57 PM
RE: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
This is crazy, IVF: The only reason this exist is to serve a purpose and they also know going into it that embryos are going to die, so it’s planned and calculated sacrifice of human life to improve another. How is research any different than IVF? Mark Jackson RollinOn _ From: Jim Lubin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 4:54 PM To: Angie Novak; Quad-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts No difference by your definition of life, having a consciousness. A human of 50-150 cells is going to die anyway. I don't consider it a life, so take parts of it before it dies to possibly improve my life. Why not let the death serve a purpose? This guy just suddenly stopped breathing. If we keep him alive he's going to be paralyzed, possibly brain damaged, don't know at this point. Who would want to live like that? What kind of life is that? If we don't do anything to keep him alive he's going to die anyway, so take his heart, lungs, liver and whatever else we want to improve someone else life. Why not let the death serve a purpose? Glad someone who defines a life the way you do wasn't the only one around when I suddenly stopped breathing and my heart stopped beating. That person might have decided that my life was not worth saving because their mother with a failing heart could have an improved life it they took mine. At 12:18 PM 4/8/2007, Angie Novak wrote: An eight-month-old fetus is very different from an embryo. That's why there are laws against abortion after a certain time. No, I don't see a problem with using what I don't consider a human life to better myself and anyone like us. We're different than 50-150 cells that are going to be destroyed anyway. Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angie, I do respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it. You at least state that you define a life as having a consciousness. I am not aware if an 8 month old fetus has a consciousness or not but I would consider that stage of development a life. That is why I define a human life from the point of conception, joining of a egg and sperm. You wonder why you shouldn't have the option to use embryos for research just because you don't consider it a life? You don't see a problem with the premise of your question? You don't consider it a life so why should anyone prevent you from taking it to better your life. At 11:07 AM 4/8/2007, Angie Novak wrote: Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. But look at some of the people around, can we really say that all human life is precious? I can't. There are just some people living their lives out there walking around and breathing that don't deserve to be. However, these are people, not just 50-150 cells that don't have a consciousness, what I consider life. And these 50-150 cells are just going to be destroyed anyway. Why not let them serve a purpose. Shouldn't those of us who want a cure to be found, including using embryonic stem cell research, be able to have that option? If you don't want to be treated, potentially cured and able-bodied again someday from what this research finds, just don't accept that treatment. Stay trapped in your body if you'd like. But don't take that chance for living again, really living, away from those of us who want a shot at it. I would gladly donate my eggs to be fertilized via in vitro, solely for the purpose of being used for embryonic stem cell research. CURE not care- Angie Novak Dan T [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Human life is sacred and an embryo is the initial stage of life. I would like to be up and around and Independent but not at the sacrifice of another human life. Dan T. Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 The public discussion of human embryo research has too often lacked intellectual honesty, which has only compounded the confusion of an issue of great scientific and moral complexity, say Robert P. George professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and Rev. Thomas V. Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person. Consequently, there are certain facts on which people on either side of the moral debate should be able to agree, say George and Berg. For example: There is no ban on human embryonic stem cell (ESC) research in the United States; the federal government has funded such research to the tune of $130 million dollars since 2001, and the United States continues to be
RE: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
Risking a life and taking a chance is not the same as willfully terminating a life. I wasn't happy that she was doing IVF because I don't agree with it. I also wasn't paying the thousands of dollars the treatments cost. She and her husband had decided that if the first implantation had been successful they were going to keep the rest frozen because they considered the embryos their unborn children. I don't agree with the whole process, but it's not up to me. It just compounds the problem by saying the embryos are left over and going die anyway so might as well use them for some research to make someone else better. Again, I could understand that for those who don't consider a 50-150 celled human embryo a human life you wouldn't have a problem with using them for research. It's just a meaningless clump of cells to you. Are you so closed minded to see why someone who considers it a life would have a problem using that life for research to improve someone else's life? Would you feel the same if you did consider it a life? At 04:15 PM 4/8/2007, RollinOn wrote: Yes Jim, But there was a chance that she wouldn't have naturally and it was a risk she was willing to take. If the first would've not failed then the others would've been trashed and it happens daily, and fertilizing an egg and implanting it is not natural. I know she didn't willfully terminate the embryos but she took a risk that it could happen so you can't have it both ways and say she wasn't willing to risk human life (as you see it) because it was successful, it's still risking human life. I'm not saying anything is wrong with this procedure btw I think it's great for people who want children and can't naturally but research won't be killing any more or less regardless of any laws being passed, meaning all this work and uproar and not one life saved but science and research could save the suffering of millions and they're the killers! Mark Jackson RollinOn From: Jim Lubin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 3:11 PM To: Dan; quad-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts Dan, Her eggs were harvested then fertilized with her husbands sperms, this resulted in 8 embryos. Four were implanted in uterus, all 4 failed to develop and she had a miscarriage. Several month later she had 3 more implanted and those failed to develop. How could anyone possibly equate a miscarriage, the natural or spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, as a murderous act? She didn't willfully terminate the first 7 embryos, they failed to develop. At 12:33 PM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote: At 11:01 AM 4/8/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my response: I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. On a side note, my cousin just gave birth to a son last week. He was the result of IVF from her egg and her husband's sperm. They had 8 viable embryos. The first 7 she did not carry full term. I'm happy for them that the last one she was able to carry to term and mom and son are doing fine. Jim This is where your argument falls apart. First you say you are against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. And that these eggs are sacred and never should be destroyed. But, then you say that it is wonderful that your cousin in fact murdered 7 sacred eggs before finally becoming pregnant - and pregnant is the operative word. Many human eggs are fertilized but very few result in pregnancy. Everything has to occur exactly in the right way and at the right time for this to happen. Millions of naturally fertilized eggs never develop into a human. If you truly believed in your argument, then you would be disgusted with your cousins 'murderous' behavior. Yet, you rejoice. You can't have it both ways. Dan Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 4/7/2007 10:57 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 4/7/2007 10:57 PM
RE: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
At 05:29 PM 4/8/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my response: Risking a life and taking a chance is not the same as willfully terminating a life. I wasn't happy that she was doing IVF because I don't agree with it. I also wasn't paying the thousands of dollars the treatments cost. She and her husband had decided that if the first implantation had been successful they were going to keep the rest frozen because they considered the embryos their unborn children. Do you mean indefinitely!?! I don't agree with the whole process, but it's not up to me. It just compounds the problem by saying the embryos are left over and going die anyway so might as well use them for some research to make someone else better. Again, I could understand that for those who don't consider a 50-150 celled human embryo a human life you wouldn't have a problem with using them for research. It's just a meaningless clump of cells to you. Are you so closed minded to see why someone who considers it a life would have a problem using that life for research to improve someone else's life? Would you feel the same if you did consider it a life? At 04:15 PM 4/8/2007, RollinOn wrote: Yes Jim, But there was a chance that she wouldnt have naturally and it was a risk she was willing to take. If the first wouldve not failed then the others wouldve been trashed and it happens daily, and fertilizing an egg and implanting it is not natural. I know she didnt willfully terminate the embryos but she took a risk that it could happen so you cant have it both ways and say she wasnt willing to risk human life (as you see it) because it was successful, its still risking human life. Im not saying anything is wrong with this procedure btw I think its great for people who want children and cant naturally but research wont be killing any more or less regardless of any laws being passed, meaning all this work and uproar and not one life saved but science and research could save the suffering of millions and theyre the killers! Mark Jackson RollinOn From: Jim Lubin [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 3:11 PM To: Dan; quad-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts Dan, Her eggs were harvested then fertilized with her husbands sperms, this resulted in 8 embryos. Four were implanted in uterus, all 4 failed to develop and she had a miscarriage. Several month later she had 3 more implanted and those failed to develop. How could anyone possibly equate a miscarriage, the natural or spontaneous end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or the fetus is incapable of surviving, as a murderous act? She didn't willfully terminate the first 7 embryos, they failed to develop. At 12:33 PM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote: At 11:01 AM 4/8/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my response: I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. On a side note, my cousin just gave birth to a son last week. He was the result of IVF from her egg and her husband's sperm. They had 8 viable embryos. The first 7 she did not carry full term. I'm happy for them that the last one she was able to carry to term and mom and son are doing fine. Jim This is where your argument falls apart. First you say you are against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. And that these eggs are sacred and never should be destroyed. But, then you say that it is wonderful that your cousin in fact murdered 7 sacred eggs before finally becoming pregnant - and pregnant is the operative word. Many human eggs are fertilized but very few result in pregnancy. Everything has to occur exactly in the right way and at the right time for this to happen. Millions of naturally fertilized eggs never develop into a human. If you truly believed in your argument, then you would be disgusted with your cousins 'murderous' behavior. Yet, you rejoice. You can't have it both ways. Dan Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 4/7/2007 10:57 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 4/7/2007 10:57 PM
[QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts Confusion
Not to make light of a serious situation, but this issue is being clouded by both facts and some. I'm easily confused by some of those facts. W In a message dated 4/8/2007 1:04:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. The frozen embryos can continued to be stored indefinitely. What's wrong with that? Are you concerned about the energy being used to keep them frozen? The embryos that are unfrozen eventually die a natural death, just as every other living thing, then cremated. That is quite different then killing it by removing stem cells to use in someone else. Even organ donors are declared dead by some standards before there organs are removed. # S.5—Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 doesn't even do that; it just states that the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. and would never be implanted in a woman. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [QUAD-L] sex
It can be done by folding the cath tube over and wearing a condom. That's what I do. I'm not sure but, I don't think it's very easy to pull a full catheter balloon out through a man's penis. Luke -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: quad-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] sex does anyone have sex with an indwelling catheter? this sounds risky to me... am i the only one? it could be pulled out or cause infection... yikes! =jessica = AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
RE: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
At 05:50 PM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote: At 05:29 PM 4/8/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my response: Risking a life and taking a chance is not the same as willfully terminating a life. I wasn't happy that she was doing IVF because I don't agree with it. I also wasn't paying the thousands of dollars the treatments cost. She and her husband had decided that if the first implantation had been successful they were going to keep the rest frozen because they considered the embryos their unborn children. Do you mean indefinitely!?! Yes indefinitely. They had no intention of ever donating any extra embryos to research, had there been any left. I'll pretend for the moment I didn't consider an embryo a life. Why after spending tens of thousands of dollars of their own money to create these embryos would they want to donate the embryos and receive no financial or other inducements. (the wording of S.5). They don't even get a tax break? Someone else benefits financial by being able to use them and can get government money to boot! And if anything does develop from the research, the proceeds from patents! Then we will all be complain that we can't get the treatment because Medicare won't cover the high cost. The able-bodied population won't want to increase spending to Medicare pay for these treatments for those poor people in wheelchairs, sure it will make them better but why should I be taxed more to pay for it. It's all just false hope. I'm just going to enjoy the life I have while I can without thinking of some miracle treatment that may come available but I can never afford to receive. I've already lived 18 years longer than I would have if I had gotten sick in some other part of the world.
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
If human life is not sacred then what the heck is? If a human acts as a derelict, this does not make his humanness unsacred. His life is sacred his behavior is another story and a civil society respects his humanness by not executing him and removes him from society. Dan T. Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angie, I do respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with it. You at least state that you define a life as having a consciousness. I am not aware if an 8 month old fetus has a consciousness or not but I would consider that stage of development a life. That is why I define a human life from the point of conception, joining of a egg and sperm. You wonder why you shouldn't have the option to use embryos for research just because you don't consider it a life? You don't see a problem with the premise of your question? You don't consider it a life so why should anyone prevent you from taking it to better your life. At 11:07 AM 4/8/2007, Angie Novak wrote: Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. But look at some of the people around, can we really say that all human life is precious? I can't. There are just some people living their lives out there walking around and breathing that don't deserve to be. However, these are people, not just 50-150 cells that don't have a consciousness, what I consider life. And these 50-150 cells are just going to be destroyed anyway. Why not let them serve a purpose. Shouldn't those of us who want a cure to be found, including using embryonic stem cell research, be able to have that option? If you don't want to be treated, potentially cured and able-bodied again someday from what this research finds, just don't accept that treatment. Stay trapped in your body if you'd like. But don't take that chance for living again, really living, away from those of us who want a shot at it. I would gladly donate my eggs to be fertilized via in vitro, solely for the purpose of being used for embryonic stem cell research. CURE not care- Angie Novak Dan T [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Human life is sacred and an embryo is the initial stage of life. I would like to be up and around and Independent but not at the sacrifice of another human life. Dan T. Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 The public discussion of human embryo research has too often lacked intellectual honesty, which has only compounded the confusion of an issue of great scientific and moral complexity, say Robert P. George professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics and Rev. Thomas V. Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person. Consequently, there are certain facts on which people on either side of the moral debate should be able to agree, say George and Berg. For example: There is no ban on human embryonic stem cell (ESC) research in the United States; the federal government has funded such research to the tune of $130 million dollars since 2001, and the United States continues to be the international leader in the field. We are a long way away from therapies derived from embryonic stem cells; many leading stem cell researchers have echoed the fact that there may be no breakthrough any time soon. Standard embryology texts insist that from the zygote (single-cell embryo) stage forward there exists a new living member of the species homo sapiens that has the active potential to develop by an internally directed process towards maturity. Also: 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 Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts
If it's not me getting murdered in the inner city why should I care? Dan T. Angie Novak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What if your cousin's son had a disease or suffered a spinal cord injury? Wouldn't you want any treatment possible to be available to him to stop his agony? I know I would for my nephew. How is it self-centered to want to be in control of your body, something you had before your spinal cord was injured? I don't see embryonic stem cell research supporters as self-centered, not the least! If you're happy being stuck inside your useless and problematic body, don't use any treatments obtained from embryonic stem cell research. I for one, firmly believe that everyone should have the choice concerning what treatments they would like to try or see researched. Are these your embryos that are being used? No, then what right do you have to denounce this research. You have no claim on them, they aren't going to be implanted in any women to become a human. Why not allow the research to be done for those of us who want our bodies and real lives back? CURE not care- Angie Novak Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am against the whole IVF process that creates excess embryos to begin with. The frozen embryos can continued to be stored indefinitely. What's wrong with that? Are you concerned about the energy being used to keep them frozen? The embryos that are unfrozen eventually die a natural death, just as every other living thing, then cremated. That is quite different then killing it by removing stem cells to use in someone else. Even organ donors are declared dead by some standards before there organs are removed. # S.5Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 doesn't even do that; it just states that the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. and would never be implanted in a woman. I want my spinal cord repaired so I can breathe without a ventilator and possibly move independently, but I don't want it so badly that I will end another human life just for the possible improve my own life. I don't understand how those wanting to use stem cells from embryos can't comprehend that. An embryo is a human life, and put into the right environment, will continue to develop and grow. I'm not so self centered that improving my life should come at the cost of another life. There are other sources of pluripotent stem cells, sources such as umbilical chords and amniotic fluid. There is also somatic cell nuclear transfer (therapeutic cloning) which I don't have a problem with. On a side note, my cousin just gave birth to a son last week. He was the result of IVF from her egg and her husband's sperm. They had 8 viable embryos. The first 7 she did not carry full term. I'm happy for them that the last one she was able to carry to term and mom and son are doing fine. Jim At 08:04 AM 4/8/2007, Dan wrote: 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=2767307331641285489hl=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
Re: [QUAD-L] SCI Treatments Adult vs Embryonic Stem Cells
I couldn't disagree more. It is quite the other way around. Embryonic stem cells have not yielded any useful results when it comes to SCI. The whole issue has been used as a political football by people who couldn't care less about curing SCI. The proof is clear. Embryonic stem cells are readily available to researchers and their use is not banned. However, groups like The Spinal Cord Society have found that adult autologous (from your own body) stem cells have shown far superior and promising results. These cells not only respond better, they have so far shown no problems with rejection since they are from the same patient. Embryonic stem cells would have the same problems as organ transplants as far as rejection concerns which is why researchers prefer autologous cells. If embryonic cells worked, believe me SCS would use them, they have no moral objection to using them, they are interested in what works best. As a side note: The amount of funding the U.S. government spends on embryonic stem cell research is a drop in the bucket compared to what the private sector is spending not to mention other countries. Eliminating U.S. govt. spending will not slow the research worldwide one bit. On Apr 8, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Angie Novak wrote: Adult stem cells just aren't as versatile and promising as those who promote them over embryonic stem cells would like you to believe. Adult stem cells are a distraction. It would be wonderful if they would work as well as embryonic stem cells, cutting down the pointless controversy and getting research under way, but that's just not the case. - Angie Novak Jim Lubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SPINAL CORD INJURY TREATMENTS ADULT STEM CELLS VS. EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS __ __ Adult Stem Cells Treat Spinal Cord Injury in Humans and Animals: 2006 Scientists in Italy Israel demonstrated that stimulating immune cells enhanced abilities of adult neural stem cells to promote functional recovery of mice with spinal cord injury. Ziv Y et al., Synergy between immune cells and adult neural stem/ progenitor cells promotes functional recovery from spinal cord injury, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103, 13174-13179, August 29, 2006. 2006 Spanish researchers achieved almost complete functional recovery of rats with chronic spinal cord injury using bone marrow adult stem cells. Zurita M Vaquero J, Bone marrow stromal cells can achieve cure of chronic paraplegic rats: functional and morphological outcome one year after transplantation, Neuroscience Letters 410, 51-56, July 10, 2006. 2006 Dr. Carlos Lima in Portugal reported on transplant of nasal stem cells into 7 patients with spinal cord injury. Patients regained some motor function and sensation, and 2 patients showed bladder control improvement. Lima C et al., Olfactory mucosa autografts in human spinal cord injury: A pilot clinical study, Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 29, 191-203, June 2006. 2006 Toronto researchers found that transplanting adult neural stem cells into rats up to 8 weeks after spinal cord injury resulted in significant improvement and recovery. Karimi- Abdolrazaee S et al., Delayed transplantation of adult neural precursor cells promotes remyelination and functional neurological recovery after spinal cord injury, J Neuroscience 26, 3377-3389, 29 March 2006; Stem Cell Treatment Succeeds In Spinal Cord-injured Rats, March 30, 2006, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php? newsid=40538Stem. 2006 University of Louisville scientists turned nasal stem cells into specialized cells that could insulate neurons, and showed repair of spinal cord damage in rats. Zhang X, et al., Role of transcription factors in motoneuron differentiation of adult human olfactory neuroepithelialderived progenitors, Stem Cells 24, 434-442, March 2006; Laura Ungar, “Stem- cell research at U of L ‘major step’”, Louisville Courier-Journal, March 8, 2006. 2005 Treating spinal cord injured rats with umbilical cord blood stem cells gave moderate recovery in mobility and function. Kuh S-U et al., Functional recovery after human umbilical cord blood cells transplantation with brain-derived neurotrophic factor into the spinal cord injured rat, Acta Neurochir (Wien) 147, 985-992, 2005. 2005 Extending earlier results, Wisconsin and Swedish researchers injected neural stem cells into rats with spinal cord injury. The study shows reduction of pain, and increased recovery of function and feeling. Hofstetter CP et al., Allodynia limits the usefulness of intraspinal neural stem cell grafts; directed differentitation improves outcome, Nature Neuroscience 8, 346-353, March 2005. 2004 Japanese scientists tested the effects of bone marrow stromal cells on repair of injured spinal cord. The study demonstrated that the adult stem cells promoted both
Re: [QUAD-L] LIFE INSURANCE
I got life insurance about 1 year ago. I am a C6-7 quad. I am in what they considered very good shape ... for a quad. I was able to get a 1 million dollar renewable term life insurance policy from Beneficial Financial for $350 per month. They told me I was rated as highly as a quad could be at my age (40) then. I am sure an AB would be paying less than half of that. Depending on your health, it can be done, but not very cheaply. On Apr 8, 2007, at 4:00 PM, Danny Hearn wrote: I have talked with quite a few insurance companies about life insurance for myself and most say YOUR A QUADRIPLEGIC---good luck we can't help you at all. One guy just said that quads have to many medical factors against them...including not normal bladder or bowel use..and said those 2 things alone plus risk of bladder infections and etc. make it extremely hard for a reliable Insurance Co. to cover them..Quads are considered VERY HIGH RISK. Dan H. Paul Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Call your insurance company. If they say quadriplegia is allowable...then get it in writing on letterhead. - Original Message - From: Robert Brennan To: quad-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:46 AM Subject: [QUAD-L] LIFE INSURANCE I recently took out life insurance,but after reading this article,it seems that upon my death it will be null and void as, it seems quadriplegia will always be a contributing factor to my death. Should i cancel it ? Rob. Paul Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a bummer...for anyone who remembers him... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2826562 Send instant messages to your online friends http:// au.messenger.yahoo.com
