subject:"Re\: \[QUAD\-L\] Six Stem Cell Facts"

Do you realize if we study embryonic stem cells people are going to get morally 
confused. Moral confusion leads to abortions. Abortions lead to teen sex. Teen 
sex leads to embryonic stem cell research! How can you ignore these facts? 
Masturbation is behind all this. If we had stopped doctors from grave robbing 
we wouldn't have these problems. Then doctors invented homogenation and 
pastuerazation. Then penacillin and the worlds evils are being whittled away. 
Its just wrong!  We are in wheelchairs to punish our souls?!
 
john
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: quad-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 9:15 PM
Subject: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts


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 

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

2007-04-09 Thread Dan

LMAO! Kudos!!

Dan

At 07:44 PM 4/9/2007 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said something that elicited my 
response:
  
Do you realize if we study embryonic stem cells people are going to get 
morally confused. Moral confusion leads to abortions. Abortions lead to teen 
sex. Teen sex leads to embryonic stem cell research! How can you ignore these 
facts? Masturbation is behind all this. If we had stopped doctors from grave 
robbing we wouldn't have these problems. Then doctors invented homogenation 
and pastuerazation. Then penacillin and the worlds evils are being whittled 
away. Its just wrong!  We are in wheelchairs to punish our souls?!
 
john
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: quad-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 9:15 PM
Subject: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts



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
 


--
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from 
AOL at http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF0002000437AOL.com.

Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts

Your wrong about organ  donors always being dead. Often, organ donors are kept 
on life support until their organs can be harvested in a timely fashion so that 
the most people will benefit. 
I could believe that all life is a miracle, but after meeting quite a few 
lawyers, politicians and religious leaders, I'm quite certain that life is not 
miraculous and very probably a mistake.
Most children and mothers survive birth because now we believe in germs. Did 
god make germs? Do religions believe in germs? Should a doctor be allowed to 
study a human body while in med school. Ok. Not your doctor. 
If penicillin (which was denounced by many religions) be with held from people 
in those religions? It cures syphilis and we all know that syphilis was a curse 
from god on people that don't have sex the way god wants them, too. I do 
believe Jerry Falwell shouldn't have sex and just going by his proportions, I 
don't think he could have normal sex. I think he is a masturbator and should 
be stoned until he finds a new drug. Just like muslim terrorists are all gay. 
Only a gay guy would want to spend eternity listening to 72 virgins babble 
incesantly.
 
john  
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; quad-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts


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.html 

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

If human life is so sacred then why does the gov't spend trillions of dollars 
making sure we can destroy more humans than any other country on earth. Why do 
so many Americans want the death penalty? Don't they know human life is sacred? 
Is oral sex half cannabalism?If it is ok to kill people that kill to stop the 
killing of others, why haven't we killed G. W. Bush?
 
john
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: quad-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts


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 

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

I  think the excess eggs should be served at communion. Like the caviar of 
Christ or something. Maybe add a caudacill from Mary 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: quad-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts

So what do you do with the thousands of excess fertilized eggs that result from 
in vitro fertilization? Store them forever? Ban the process? These excess eggs 
are thrown into the garbage everyday yet I don't hear anyone complaining. So 
what's your answer.

Dan 

At 07:50 PM 4/7/2007 -0700, Jim Lubin said something that elicited my response:

Glad to see you partly agree with me Dan. (yes I realize you were being 
sarcastic) I don't agree with the part about having elaborate funerals and 
burying them, but yes we must not destroy unused fertilized eggs created for 
IVF treatments.

Using unused embryos is not the same as organ donation because organ donor are 
dead before organs are harvested. Removing stem cells from an embryo kills the 
embryo. 

I've listened to Dr Kerr from Johns Hopkins talk a few times about his 
research. http://www.hopkinsneuro.org/tm/
watch his presentation at the 2006 symposium here 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=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.html 

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

2007-04-09 Thread Dan T

John, you're getting offensive... Dan T.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I  think the excess eggs should be served at 
communion. Like the caviar of Christ or something. Maybe add a caudacill from 
Mary

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: quad-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts

  .AOLPlainTextBody {   FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: #000; FONT-FAMILY: 
Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff  }  
.AOLPlainTextBody PRE {   FONT-SIZE: 9pt  }  .AOLInlineAttachment {   MARGIN: 
10px  }  .AOLAttachmentHeader {   BORDER-RIGHT: #7da8d4 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: 
#7da8d4 1px solid; BACKGROUND: #f9f9f9; FONT: 11px arial; BORDER-LEFT: #7da8d4 
1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #7da8d4 1px solid  }  .AOLAttachmentHeader .Title {   
PADDING-RIGHT: 3px; PADDING-LEFT: 3px; BACKGROUND: #b5ddfa; PADDING-BOTTOM: 
3px; FONT: 11px arial; PADDING-TOP: 3px  }  .AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldLabel {  
 PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 9px; BACKGROUND: #f9f9f9; PADDING-BOTTOM: 
1px; FONT: 11px arial; COLOR: #00; PADDING-TOP: 1px  }  
.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue {   BACKGROUND: #f9f9f9; FONT: 11px arial; 
COLOR: #00  }  .AOLAttachmentHeader A {   COLOR: #2864b4; TEXT-DECORATION: 
none  }  .AOLImage A {   COLOR: #2864b4; TEXT-DECORATION: none  } 
 .AOLAttachmentHeader A:hover {   COLOR: #2864b4; TEXT-DECORATION: underline  } 
 .AOLImage A:hover {   COLOR: #2864b4; TEXT-DECORATION: underline  }  
.AOLWebSuiteCompose .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink {   OVERFLOW: hidden; WIDTH: 1px; 
HEIGHT: 1px  }  .AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink {   OVERFLOW: hidden; 
WIDTH: 1px; HEIGHT: 1px  }  BODY {   BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; 
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; 
BACKGROUND-COLOR: white  }  .AOLWebSuiteCompose P {   PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; 
PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px  }  
IMG.managedImg {   WIDTH: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px  }  IMG.placeholder {   
BORDER-RIGHT: #dadad6 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #dadad6 1px solid; BACKGROUND: 
#f4f4f4 no-repeat center center; BORDER-LEFT: #dadad6 1px solid; WIDTH: 275px; 
BORDER-BOTTOM: #dadad6 1px solid; HEIGHT: 206px  }  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.html 

-
  AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more

Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts

Kidding?? We don't need to kid. I have neighbors that can't pay bills but go to 
every execution to protest against the people that think the death penalty is 
wrong. They protest abortions but not at the IVF clinic. They think life is a 
miracle because they don't have children. (I'm not telling them babies are a 
result of sex) That stuff is dirty and after meeting them, I believe them 
having sex would be WRONG on levels of hell nobody ever dreamed of. They own 
guns incase they need to send someone to hell or meet a commie. nuff said..
 
john
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; quad-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: 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. 

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

Trust me jim, they took thousands of eggs and fertilized a hundred at least. 
The ones they show on tv are always so perfect. Most times the egg gets messed 
up and is useless. Each time she tried, I guarentee they injected between 6 and 
20 they thought had a good chance. If they only had to prep one egg the price 
would drop a lot. If they aren't paying for storage then the other embryos are 
probably in a local sewer.
 
john
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; quad-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 2:01 PM
Subject: 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.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. 

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

Re: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts

 Human life must be sacred, look how much we spend to destroy it!

john

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Quad-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 11:43 PM
Subject: 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

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.

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] 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

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:

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 agree with S. 30: A bill to intensify research to derive human pluripotent
stem cell lines

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

2007-04-08 Thread RollinOn

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

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] Six Stem Cell Facts

2007-04-08 Thread RollinOn

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

2007-04-08 Thread Danny Hearn

 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

2007-04-08 Thread RollinOn

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

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

RE: [QUAD-L] Six Stem Cell Facts