Could the DNC possibly put up the reading of the amendment in Missouri? I have heard so many conflicting reports on it, some saying that it is legislation more designed towards "therapeutic cloning" rather than actual stem cell research, but I am not sure as I cannot seem to find a copy of the language of the item on the ballot.

Thank you, if you can help me on this matter.

Tracy, it should not be such a surprise to you that religious faith would enter into a discussion on the creation and/or destruction and/or manipulation of life. That has long, long been the area of faith and ethics. Public policy is just trying to catch up to that discussion.

the republicans are really coming up with some brilliant stuff this week.

- bush never said "stay the course"

- the iraqi'a have signed on the dotted line that we can leave in 12 to 18 months and all will be well...who could question the war now?

- cheney buddy rush is at the white house telling the president how to win in november while doing the "first does schiavo thing" diagnosing michael j fox from some video footage

- fat assed hastert is counter testifying to what fatter assed reynolds had to say.

karl is really working overtime coming up with this stuff....no problemo its in the bag!

pear are you a very subtle troll? we have been getting a new breed of very polite, almost whispering trolls lately and you have that aura about you. i guess one could say compassionate conservative trolls..

Gregg,

No, but I frequent the site only occasionally. I have been here on and off maybe a few months or so. Did I say something to offend? I'm wondering why you ask me this question.

Oy, I am unfailingly polite. Orthodoz Jew. My mother would roll over in her grave if I showed poor manners. :)

Should read "Orthodox", but I'm sure you already knew that. I did not want to leave it uncorrected.

And how about that moron Rush going after Michael on his show recently what a jerk.

thanks pear. your mom should be proud.

As I was watching CNN today they report how that moron Rush Limbaugh actually had the nerve to make fun of Michael J. Fox in the ad because he was shaking. Limbaugh said "he either didn't take his medication or was doing it on purpose". Can you believe this idiot folks? I use to know a couple of people who had parkinson disease, sometimes they would shake to because they couldn't help it. It was part of the disease. Rush Limbaugh should be deeply ashamed of himself. I don't know how anyone could take this idiot serious considering the fact of his past abuse of precription drugs. How would Rush like it if people made fun of him and called him a junkie? He wouldn't like that very much, having said that he should start having a little more compassion for other human beings!

I am watching NBC news and they showed the video of Rush mimicking MJF. Not that I'm surprised, but what a classless pig!!! And then he goes on to say it was all an act. OMG....

My grandmother and mother both had Parkinson's Disease. We didn't think they were acting...unless your think dying of it is a tragedy.

Rush Limbaugh owes Michael J. Fox a public apology but I highly doubt that dumb ass will do it. I checked his website and he is mocking all these famous Democrats with disabilities just to try and make Democrats look bad because he is simply a far right looney tune who is off his rocker. I think the past drug abuse has gone to Limbaugh's brain, what little of a brain he has. Rush Limbaugh's disgusting behavior should be condemned by everyone, Republican, Democrat, and Independents. All should demand he make a public apology. Michael J. Fox was trying to make a point about how life is with this terrible disease and how stem cell research may be able to offer some hope for a cure. Even Republican Nancy Reagan is in favor of stem cell research while the majority of the Republican party is against it. The rest of the Republican party is simply out of touch with the American people.

Dear Dems,

You continue to miss the mark on embryonic stem cell research. In an effort to offer clarity, I would like to directly address Ms. Russo's comments that, "It still boggles my mind that anyone can oppose the life-saving possibilities that stem cell research offers. Ideology standing in the way of public policy. Religion in the way of science. It's outrageous.

Here is the new reality that is informed by the relatively recent mapping of the human genome in 2003:

Since the completion of the mapping of the human genome in 2003, science can now show us with complete certainty, based upon unbiased empirical analysis of genetic information, without regard for personal, philosophical or religious beliefs, that a distinct, individual human life—does in fact—begin at the moment of conception.

This is simple, objective, irrefutable scientific fact. You can either acknowledge it, accept it, and change your attitudes about embryonic stem cell research; embracing it as the Constitutional and human rights issue that it truly is—something that democrats have traditionally championed—or, you can continue to fight this issue in the inappropriate arena of personal religious beliefs, yours vs. the religious rights.

There simply is no going back to 1973, when the scientific community did not have at their disposal, the necessary technology to show this fact irrefutably.

I'm anxious to see if there is at least one amonst you, who has the courage to address this current scientific reality.

Come on you guys! There's got to be someone... !?

"It still boggles my mind that anyone can oppose the life-saving possibilities that stem cell research offers."

Nobody opposes the life-saving possibilities that stem cell research *might* offer. Nobody's against saving the lives and health of people like Michael J. Fox. That's a dishonest strawman tactic. What many people, including many Democrats, oppose is the destruction of some human lives to benefit others. There may yet be a way to gather embryonic stem cells, or to create cells with the same properties, without destroying human embryos in the process. I think you'll find that everyone, including the people maligned in this blog entry, would support that.

You don't need to rely on religion to oppose the destruction of human embryos. The Democratic Party would do well to remember that it has many members -- what was it, 43%? -- who believe that human life should be protected from the moment the individual's life begins. We include among our number conservatives, moderates, liberals, socialists, Christians, non-Christians, and feminists. The party has made a few overtures to its pro-life members since Howard Dean became the chairman, but obviously not everyone got the memo. Remarks like Tracy Russo's betray a lack of awareness of the diversity within her party, not to mention a total disinterest in actually understanding the motivations of the many people who disagree with her.

According to the International Society of Stem Cell Research, "There is no test for whether an embryo is a person." With all the mixed information everyone is giving and receiving, it is hard to know what to believe anymore. All I can say is people need to do their research or they have no place to speak at all. As for what I think about Rush, hes an A-HOLE!!

If a cluster of a hundred or so cells is considered a human being, then what do you call the actual human beings killed in Afghanistan and Iraq? Robots?!
Countless of innocent Iraqis and Afghans have been killed and are being killed on daily bases at a cost of billions of dollars, and Almost three thousand American soldiers have been killed so far, more than 20,000 American soldiers have been injured, many of them severely.
So again I ask myself, are a bunch of cells (that will be discarded like garbage anyway) more humans than real living breathing people who die in the imposed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Are we as Americans such narrow minded fanatics who believe all the garbage the Republicans feed us?

I would like to see the Democratic Party to come up with a TV ad; a split screen ad, with one side showing a cluster of embryonic cells and the other side American soldiers getting killed in Iraq. Let people see what a real human being looks like and what really happens to them. Maybe then the narrow minded people would realise that using cells to find cures and not going to a pointless war are both good for humanity.

having read the Voter Info Guide, for that proposed law. The proposal before the voters of Missouri doesn't actually seem to address anything except the choice of embyonic or adult stem cell research And also makes cloning legal.
The cloning thingie, that just seems wrong.
I don't want any more Dick Nixons running around.

The other problem with the ad is that I don't trust Mike Fox. he tries to scam the public on this issue. He openly stated he went off his meds to create an effect before the congressional panel at which he testified. THAT is a method actor at work. I don't need that either. If we can't win in the arena of ideas I'd rather lose.
Seems to me the American Public is nearly ready for us to just come right out and say that we want to Socialize the country. Go the Route of France and to a lesser degree the Brit's.

I would first like to congratulate JenR! As you, I believe there a lot of Democrats who really understand this issue, but are reluctant to express their opinions for fear of being ridiculed by those still living in 1973. It takes intelligence and courage to make a statement as you have... especially as a Democrat! I encourage all other Democrats who truly understand this issue to speak out as JenR has!

Dear CaraCares: Actually, there is a test! Genetic material from any embryo, can be taken to any genetics lab in the country with the expressed desire to determine; what type of organism did this genetic material come from. Without reservation, they will tell you that this genetic material came from a human. On comparison of this genetic material with samples from any other human—including the mother or father—the lab will also tell you, with complete certainty, that the genetic material came from a human with a distinct individual identity.

Dear alye: You are—like the religious right—interjecting your own personal, provisional definition of what a human being is, into this debate. You—as the religious right—certainly have a right to your own opinion, however, not when it applies to me or any other living human being. This is why we all have to rely on science and objectivity when answering this important question; when does human life begin? The deaths of our young people fighting in Iraq are absolutely tragic... but no more so than the untimely death of any other innocent human being.

Dear pepperhead: Funny... and right on! Your second entry makes some very good points as well!

Overall Dems, I was really suprised to see that some of you truly understand the foundation of this issue and were willing to take a risk, and weigh in! Good job! Keep thinking, and keep communicating with your Democratic friends!

Give it up; you've already lost. The Dems are going to win and Stem Cell research is going to happen.

Why? Because we are no longer living in Leave it to Beaver 1950's. People understand what is going on, at least those who aren't influenced by extreme, religious groups.

Those cells are discarded everyday! I'll say it again, in case you did not hear me; those cells are discarded everyday! We are throwing them out on a regular basis every single day. How is that saving human life...life that has not yet even begun?

It's not. The truth is that if we just throw out cells we are not going to use, THAT is a waste of human life - the life of a human already alive and suffering with illness.

I cannot abide by not using the cell of life that has not even begun, that we are going to throw out anyway, and disregard saving the life of a life already living. That's just not using common sense. I, for one, am tired of religion guiding us backwards to the Dark Ages, especially with false information, lies, and unproven beliefs, especially when religion causes most of the human suffering that exists on this planet because of dividing us all instead of uniting us all.

Let me try to put the Pro-Cure Movement into a perspective that you will understand - a religious perspective:

You believe that God gave those ailments to people to deal with, as a way for them to learn and grow spiritually. The rest of the majority and me believe that God gave those ailments to people so that they could learn to overcome them, not just deal with them. This challenge of “overcoming” is what makes us learn and grow spiritually, not just accepting and dealing with what has been dealt to us.

Then you say, “but at the cost of another human life?” That’s when I say that you are providing nothing more than a belief, nothing proven. You say it has been proven that life begins in a cell. Really? I did not know that scientists were capable of measuring the spirit!

Why hasn't the issue of stem cell research been promoted as supporting our troops? Concept: They gave their lives and limbs ...and eyes and ears and organs... to protect American lives. Should they also be asked give up their hopes for full recovery from their war wounds in order to prevent embryonic stem cells from advancing medical research?

Wow! Good point there! This needs to be passed up the chain to those running the campaign. You are on to something very important there.

From what I've read, there are fetal stem cells in the umbilical cord as well. There are also some adult cells which can act like stem cells.
There needs to be better information put out on exactly what type and how stem cells are to be used, including guidelines on the methods of obtaining those stem cells.
Right now stem cell research is just a political red herring being used to get people to vote for failed Republican policies. That isn't helping anyone.

"he tries to scam the public on this issue. He openly stated he went off his meds to create an effect before the congressional panel at which he testified"

by showing you what the symptoms of parkinsons look like off meds - he's faking? i don't understand this logic at all. he is showing you the reality of the disease, i guess it makes you uncomfortable and you would like to believe he is faking. i am assuming you have never actually:
*been around someone with parkinsons
*known someone who had it\
*read information about the disease.

i had a great aunt with PD and i am VERY aware of the REALITY of their lives. not the philosophical dicussions of what might be- the effing reality. on her worse days, she could barely drink or feed herself she shook so badly. and her quality of life was very much diminished. why shouldn't the person with PD tell us about the disease, potential cures? i am so sick of people with NO experience, NO education, NO expertise - only what they "feel" trumping research and facts. its like men telling women what to feel or how they are "allowed" to handle aspects of their pregnancy. by all means - let's not talk to the person with first hand experience or the person actually having the experience.

it would be nice if more people would return to the reality and fact based world instead of making medical decisions based on willful ignorance and "feelings" this disease has been documented, factually, by medical doctors.

the people who defend rush, allow him to keep his job, invite him to provide commentary or act as a pundit are disgusting. there is simply no other word. i am waiting for the petition to have him permanently taken off the airways.

as far as stem cell research- i would much rather spend time debating how to help people who are already alive and suffering than spend time on a life that "might be" imo a zygote should never have more rights than someone who is already independent (i mean people who do not need a host to survive, to live off of, to receive nutrients). at certain points of fetal development - there is no brain activity, (Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks) therefore the complex emotions we assign this issue are ours and our alone. this is basic reproductive biology folks. the facts are what they are. a 6 week old fetus is not a "baby", not yet, and to put those interests above those of actual, living adults or children (whether it be women and abortion or this debate) is beyond me. it seems simplistic and again willfully ignorant of basic biology. we need comprehensive sex education if for no other reason to educate our population on the development of a fetus. it does not look like a mini baby from the moment of conception, just doesn't work that way.

willful ignorance is one reason we are in our current situation as a country. everyone needs to educate themselves on the issues instead of relying on their "feelings". to ignore facts in favor of your personal "feelings" well, that's exactly how GWB got us into the iraq war. something about god telling him to kill innocent iraqis - he could just "feel it"

willful ignorance is a danger to us all, as is blind obedience. ask questions, demand answers. and do not turn away from FACTS because they offend you. we are here to learn something new everyday, and it seems as if, at least some americans look at learning as a sign of weakness.

As a "right winger," I think y'all are missing a point. Most of us do not oppose stem cell research overall. We oppose embryonic stem cell research, seeing no reason to harvest embryos and eggs for research that has failed, what with the tumors that crop up. We do not think that federal money should be spent on it.

Adult and placental research is A-OK, and actually has had much better success.

Heck, as a right winger, I am all for cloning, as well.

From Boomantribune - they have a link to the amendment - the whole text is there for anyone to read. Here is some of the commentary they provide:

(this is from the amendment)
2. To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:
(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

Human cloning is defined in Amendment 2 as implanting a viable fertilized egg, created by means other than through the combination of human egg and sperm cells, into a women's uterus for development into a human being. That seems pretty conclusive to me. No human clones like Dolly the sheep can be brought into existence. But opponents of the bill seem obsessed with claiming that current techniques necessary to conduct research on adult stem cells are really cloning under another name. In essence they argue that "cloning" equals "cell reprogramming techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer" which are permitted under Amendment 2.

Let's be clear. Somatic cell nuclear transfer does not result in the creation of a human clone. It can be used to initiate the process of reproductive cloning, whereby a human clone baby could be produced, but it would be only the first step in a long process to reach that goal. And since Amendment 2 disallows the implantation of such clone blastocysts into any woman's uterus, you won't see clone babies made in Missouri any time soon, even if this amendment passes.

Essentially, what Jeff Suppan and his friends at Missourians Against Human Cloning really oppose is adult stem cell research which employs blastocysts created from adult stem cells. In short, they not only object to the use of embryonic stem cell research which uses blastocysts created by in vitro fertilization techniques, but now they object to adult stem cell research as well. Thus, they want to ban all stem cell research, whether using embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells.

So don't be fooled by the clever nomenclature they use to hide their true motives behind. It isn't cloning they're concerned about, its stem cell research in any form. They want to turn our country into a scientific backwater, and a third rate economic power, all because they are frightened by research on human biology. My guess is that they are less concerned about the torture, murder and execution of real, live human beings than they are with protecting the rights of blastocysts. It isn't bioethical considerations which motivate them, its a desire to undermine science in the name of their fundamentalist religious beliefs.

endquote

Democrats - stop arguing about how many stemcells can dance on the head of a pin. Republican guest bloggers - answer the challenge put forward by Alye (10/25) and myself. If embryonic stem cells destined to die on the vine are actually the "littlest Americans,"can't they too be called upon to make an important difference in the existence of many born humans? Wouldn't our maimed troops as well as many who are born afflicted welcome a chance at a new body? It's only science fiction if we prevent it becoming a fact.

As the "resident right winger," I do not see an issue with what you wrote, adlib, but why does federal money have to be spent on embryonic stem cell research? Let private industry do.

Furthermore, we should be concentrating on adult and placental stem cell research, which has not only shown great promise, but actual results, sans the tumors that result from ESC research.

I have a 37 year old daughter diagnosed with Type 1, insulin-dependent diabetes at 13 months of age and a 12 year old g-daughter dx'd at age 6. Type 1 diabetes is a devastating disease - you cannot just take your injection and forget it. You have to check blood sugars 8-10 times a day which means sticking your fingertip to draw blood and be constantly vigilant about low and high blood sugars, both which can be fatal if not corrected immediately. My daughter has had over 30,000 injections of insulin in her lifetime This disease is FOREVER. Longterm complications are horrendous such as blindness, kidney failure and amputation of limbs due to arterial disease to name a few. MY question is: Why are not our brightest and best scientists and researchers in the media, instead of politicians, educating the Am. public about how much hope embryonic stem cell research has. They have to let the public know that NO BABIES are being destroyed, etc. and that these excess embryoes are being thrown in the trash in fertility clinics. The politicians are not convincing enough - they do not know the specifics as do the medical community.

I will admit this is an issue that could drive a wedge between the unholy alliance of Creationists and social Darwinists (free enterprise apologists for successful monopoly players)that could be seen as the GOP base. Democrats have been the victims of such tactics in previous elections. It works. Dem's unwilling to be similarly confrontational will experience more defeat. I am as averse to this research being strictly the domain of entrepreneurs as you may be sceptical at the notion of the "public interest" or "we the people." I disagree with Reagan and Timothy McVay (that the problem isn't with government it is government!) I share your misgivings perhaps in an Orwellian Big Brother knowing best how to run our lives. But I lament the decline of public trust in a good government as fair broker in regulatory matters.

To WTeach: Adult stem cells do not hold the promise for cures that embryonic stem cells hold. It is embryonic stem cells that can differentiate into many kinds of organ cells - not adult stem cells. And scientists and researchers do not want to CLONE embryoes - we have enough people already, don't ya think? They want to help improve the quality of life for those already HERE with horrible diseases. I'm tired of hearing opponents of ESCR say that no cures have been found yet - jeez, that's what reseach is for - we haven't give our scientists and researchers the chance to do it yet! We need federal funds because if you leave it in the private sector 1) there's not enough money to get anywhere with it and 2) the progress and cures that are found will be coveted and used to advance the careers and line the pockets of a select few and the general public will not have access to the cures.

Dear adlib,

In your "challenge" question, you put forth the classic pragmatist argument; the end justifies the means. This argument works well in certain contexts; I need a pair of shoes, I'll go buy a pair of shoes. However it's appropriateness is diminished significantly in cases where there are questions of legality at issue; I need a pair of shoes, I'll go steal a pair from my neighbor.

Herein lies the problem. You want to sacrifice the life of one human being, for the well being of another. And please, correct me if I have misinterpreted your question. If this is in fact what you're saying, I must assume that you're trying to have fun at my expense. I'm certain that you must understand the basic premise on which our Constitutionally based system of laws operates; my rights as an individual extend to that point at which they infringe upon the rights of another individual. Example: I have the right to drink a quart of vodka if I so choose. I do not have the right to drink a quart of vodka and then jump in my car for a quick spin around town—because—my actions will endanger the life of another human being.

So again adlib, I'm taking your question at face value and assuming that you're being serious and not just humorously cynical. You've either purposely or inadvertently characterized a developing human embryo as merely a collection of "embryonic stem cells destined to die on the vine... " You may be having a problem accepting these humans in their earliest stages of development because they don't look like human beings to you. If you ask ten different people, what is a human being? You will get ten different answers based upon each individuals personal, provisional, prejudices (how's that for alliteration?) A human has two eyes, two legs, a brain, they can speak, they can hear, they have ten toes, etc, etc... the list goes on and on. However, for every provisional definition we each individually come up with, there can be found an exception. Therefore, as a country, we cannot establish a definition for what a human being is, based only upon one particular groups opinion or belief. We have to look to science and objective fact—something that applies to all of us equally, without prejudice of subjective belief—when answering this question; what constitutes a human being.

When you're finally ready and willing to embrace the indisputable scientific fact that human life begins at the moment of conception, you will be able to more clearly understand the answer to your challenge question. For now, your anger is going to preclude you from doing so.

The best thing about this whole Fox/Limbaugh controversey is that people are talking about it - it's OUT there getting all this attention and that's a good thing. This might put it into a little perspective. I have worked around mothers now for 35 years who, after taking their child to the pediatrician for immunizations that day, came in crying and devastated because their child had to get their immunizations which, as we all know, are a handfull of shots in a lifetime. Ok, - my daughter, as I mentioned above, has had over 30,000 shots of insulin and my granddaughter after six years since diagnosis has had over 5,000 b/c they have to have multiple dialy injections 2 - 3 and sometimes 4 a day. That's not counting the 8-10 sticks on their fingertips for blood sugar checks daily. Do you know, now, the ANGER I have for anyone who stands in the way of a possible cure? I'm outraged!!!!! George Bush should count his lucky stars he and his are healthy!

Micjagger, you obviously love your daughter very much and hate seeing her suffer, but are you really saying that you want to find a cure so baddly, that you wouldn't care if it was at the expense of another childs life? I don't believe that's what your trying to say but unfortunately it sounds like it. I'm hoping you will clarify.

With all sincerity, my heart goes out to you and your daughter.

Micjagger, I feel for you and your family, but that is exactly why we need to give up on ESC research, and put all our efforts into adult and placental research. Not because of religion, politics, or moral leaning, but results. ESC results are poor. Adult and placental are good.

Jonhn: Please read my other messages. No "child" is dying. WE are talking about tissue in a petri dish. It has no chance of becoming a life unless it jumps OUT of the dish into a woman's passing-by uterus. AND these tissues are being THROWN out - disgarded - into the trash! Don't put words or thoughts into my mouth or head. How arrogant of you - go back to church! I don't care what it sounds like to you and it's arrogant of you to think I DO care. But that's how your kind are - next thing you know, you're going to say you will PRAY for me! Like you can fix it all by praying! We're all sick of this and that's why the republicans will lose the house, if not the senate.

WTEACH - BS! Do you think you know more than our brightest and best scientists and researchers? Have you won any nobel laureate awards lately?

WTEACH - GIVE UP? We haven't even started - but other countries have while the U.S. sticks their head in the sand. The cures will come! I'm going to brush up on my Chinese and Korean so I can beg them for a cure!

Micjagger, I'm sorry to have angered you. Your response did help in clarifying your position though. Like many, many others, you are not ready to accept the scientifically irrefutable fact, that human life begins at conception. I'm hoping that you will go back and read all of my entries to see if at any time, I imply in any way, that what I have stated so far is in any way based upon personal, philosophical, or religious belief. Religion can play no legitimate roll in this debate! I had to laugh out loud at your suggestion that I go back to church! I only hope your reason for saying it wasn't to simply try to discredit a concept that you don't understand. Your suggestion that I'm being arrogant also implies that you believe that what I've been talking about has something to do with me personally... it doesn't. I'm not smart enough to make this stuff up! Please, don't take my word on anything... have the courage to do your own research and let me know what you find out.

Jonhn, I stand rebuked (but not chastened) for appearing to be another pro-choice abortionist. Actually I feel that when a child confronts a parent about why he or she was brought into the world it's a pretty sad affair when a parent has to say "because it's the law." That is the triumph of Big Brother. The threshold for being human? Being born. (That includes premature infants born to destitute parents. Someone has to sustain that life once it is medically viable and capabale of weaning off life support.)I'm sure your donations will be appreciated to conserve public dollars. Your instruction has perhaps been wasted on me. This student feels like one who mistakenly participates in a philosophy class discussion when registered for a poli sci class. So if I don't persist in the lively conversation here I trust we've got your other students suitably interested in your course. Peace.

Jonhn - Your arrogance shows once again - - "Please, don't take my word on anything--have the courage to do your own research . . ." are you TRYING to be an a**? (Or as Bush would say "A a**)? I HAVE done my research - I was doing my research on this topic LONG before it became the debate it has become in the last few days. YOU need to read MY previous posts - I have lived this for 36 YEARS! I wish you could live with a Type 1 diabetic for ONE day to see what their life is like. Don't confuse it would Type 2, - the kind over-weight, inactive people get because of their lifestyle. Type 1 is an auto-immune disease that ALWAYS requires insulin for the rest of their life - they cannot take a pill or just "watch their diet" as can most Type 2 diabetics. I have lived and breathed this for years so don't preach to me. Perhaps you're TRYING to be kind or sorry you "angered" me but it doesn't come through on paper. You don't anger me - you ANNOY me - go get educated on the subject or talk to someone who is.

Republicans claim to be prolife yet they oppose stem cell research. Adult stem cells have resulted in cures for over 70 different diseases. I wasn't aware that those arrogant SOBs opposed all forms of stem cell research. I believed their lies and thought they only opposed treatments that resulted in the so-call loss of life (embryonic). Thanks so much for letting the truth be known.

This is in response to Jonhn's oft stated position: "the indisputable scientific fact that human life begins at the moment of conception." Truthfully, I have never heard a more ridiculous statement.

I have read all your posts, and others, and follow the debate on stem cells. Scientists agree that adult cells are less flexible than embryonic. The top researchers in the US are moving outside this country in droves to be able to work more efficiently.

What I don't see you posting is the source of your "indisputable" proof. In fact, I have never heard any real scientist make that kind of statement. The scientific method prohibits such - all science is theory being constantly updated by new evidence. A real scientist would never state what you say, unless, of course, they have another motive for making the statement. Are you sure you are not a closet Republican? You really sound like one, with your "certainty" and indisputable facts. Isn't that what was said about the WMD in Iraq?

Remember these indisputable facts? Less than 500 years ago, the world was flat. Indisputable! Scientists were imprisoned for saying otherwise. What about 1983-1990? AIDS is a disease that only affects gays? I am sure others have better examples.

If life begins at conception like you state, then how could we possibly protect all life? We would have to contol the wombs of all females, right? That goes against EVERY democratic principle I have ever heard, as it argues for state control over the entire personal life of men and women. Makes Stalin and Hitler sound reasonable in what they were trying to do. Even China failed in its one child policy. The ramifications? Some huge number - millions - of baby girls have been killed, skewing the male / female ratio off by some 10%.

The bottom line is that your position is impossible to implement in practice. The only way to support that would be to cut out the few cells after contraception, and raise them for the next 19 years. We'd have to have factories to do it, like science fictions movies I've seen. Since we can't even find enough people to adopt the orphan kids already living (think Madonna and Africa), wouldn't you rather fight for something that actually could be done - like what Micjagger and others are stating?

Nothing is indisputable. This Administration has proven that, if nothing else. Those who state otherwise are dangerous to all. Very much like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield - "we are winning in Iraq."

You sound like a bright person. Why not use all those smarts for something truly constructive that helps the people still breathing. Take on the cause of global warming maybe?

I really have to question why you are here on this site, pushing a core belief of the opposing side. What, exactly, are you hoping to accomplish?

Aw shucks - they're gone. jonhn - please respond my dear, I really want to hear your next defense and see if you use any new words.

Wteach runs a GOP site. Check the link http://www.thepiratescove.us/

It's a little subtle, not flaming Repub - but definitely anti Democratic.

They did have us going though. One really has to check the motivations of people posting here before just responding.

Micjagger - I feel for you. There is hope...

SharpElbows - thanks. And great posts!

Hey Micjagger - the activity is on the main thread now. I would really like to hear what you think of the video link I posted at 8:08pm. Here it is again - http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??f=00&g=4fecf79a-bfd2-4999-a83a-11ee21c1c691&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15408508/&fg=He

Does anyone think this is as big a thing as I think it is?
The new turncoat, David Kuo, was interviewed this afternoon.
He is asking Republician PASTORS to denounce Rush, as well as telling the Evangelicals how the Admin laughs at them in his new book promo tour.

THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT WILL REALLY GET THE FUNDING AND HELP YOUR FAMILY!

Great - i'll check it out now and let you know! Thanks

SharpElbows - yes, I've seen the ad - it's all over - tonight when I was in a video store, they had CBS news on and Fox was on there again - he made more points tonight including how the stem cells are being discarded. I think this is hugh and I hope it keeps up. Thanks

SharpELbows - what do you mean by the main thread and what do you mean by the video youu posted - isn't that an MSNBC post? I guess I'm confused about parts of your post on this site - -

This is a hard topic. I have no idea what it involves. Something extremely odd was going on. I was reading John C Lilly the other day. That business about telepathy, isolation, that famous Owlsley, or ROLLing Stone editor living at OWL Farm. Experimenting with dolphins, feeding them lssd. And these candidates? I go see a primary school teacher in Edwardstown, and next thing it's a pres candidate and state govt here is building a prison control centre nearby. and young hoods drive past in her old brown car.
now they do.
a couple people like frank zappa, michael j fox, jackie onasis even, all seemed to suddenly come down with strange illnesses. I'd played a zappa record, and now it's "republican" mayor zappia; wrote about "fox brains" and now it's this and heard a story that "judge judy harris" had leakaemia and "passed it on" only I think she supplied me with false subjective data.
I'm confused.
Joe Stalin showed up at Hazel's supermarket 2002, Goodwood Road. Hitler was a couple years earlier, civilian clothes, the bridge at Saint Peters 10th avenue area; what? recently it's been Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush and Newt Ginrich, all on the same street, Fisher Street. makes me want to workship a dolphin which they showed on TV in the 60s could just about walk on water using it's rear tail etc.
And when the internet started the sound these modems made was vageuly like that chirping sound. Anyway, these few days, swallows circle me as I walk home, as if they were electrons and etc around the atom, and I'm the centre of their circle. hey. Just like a John Lennon song. So far as politics goes, it's compulsory here to vote and so I enjoyed Jane pauley and NBC and your politics, as there was "even" some debate etc.
AT 911 for example, they had a National party Anderson guy take reigns of power, and he's only pretending to be a pop star named Jon Anderson who is an incarnation of John C Lilly's face, or something. So, research is a good thing. But take care as to who is doing it. Your local butcher?

..."the indisputable scientific fact that human life begins at the moment of conception."

This keeps being said over and over by the same person. Allow me to RESTATE that there is NO scientific facts or evidence that human life begins at the moment of conception BECAUSE SCIENTISTS CANNOT MEASURE THE SOUL.

Because the soul cannot be measured or detected, there is NO conclusive evidence of life beginning at the cell level.

I will also add this:

Even if life did start at the cell level, we are currently making a choice between two lives as we speak. We are allowing people that have actually lived lives, contributed to the world and society, and created families and loved ones to die because of illness, while allowing clumps of cells (our other choice) to live.

IDEALLY, it would be nice to allow both to live, cells and actual people. However, we ARE CURRENTLY NOT DOING THAT. If we are currently going to choose between a clump of cells or actual people, like we are right now, I see no rationalization in choosing the people that have created lives over clumps of cells that haven't even begun life.

If I have to choose (which, apparently I do) I will always choose real people with loved ones, actual lives, who contribute to the world over a clump of cells. Once again, common sense.

Here's an Ad concept for stem cell research.

Basically, it addresses the fact that plenty of people from all walks of life advocate stem cell research and that a very small minority want to stop it.

It also asks about the hypocrisy of those who would risk their moral ground to condone torture but not to save lives.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/107

Guys, in particular, Micjagger and SharpElbows. There are two possibilities at work here (maybe more) but I'm going to put them out here for consideration, even though—based upon your previous responses—you're probably going to consider them arrogant. 1.) You don't have the capacity to understand the concepts I've been talking about. 2.) You do understand completely what I've been talking about but because you think these objective facts have something to do with me personally, and—because you think you know who I am and you hate me—you are unwilling to acknowledge these facts.

1.) is easily excused! We all have at times, problems wrapping our heads around certain concepts, based upon our individual capacity to understand and the relative complexity of a particular concept. Believe me when I tell you, I am "excused" early on!

2.) I think most people would see this as far less excusable because it doesn't speak to ones intelligence or ability to understand, but rather to ones character.

You are adamant that you in fact know what you're talking about and have done the necessary research. But then you give no objective evidence to support this notion. I think the main problem you're having is that you do not understand the difference between an "organism" and "individual or groups of cells," in this case, embryonic stem cells.

At the moment of conception, a distinctly identifiable, singular "organism" is created. The human organism that we refer to as "you" is a conglomerate of many different types of cells, working in conjunction, to perform your sustaining life functions; walking, talking, breathing, thinking, etc, etc... Again, the totality of your cells, combine to comprise the human organism that we recognize as... you! The individual cells or the many specialized groups of cells within your body are NOT individual organisms.

Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus; are simply terms we use to designate the earliest stages of human development. They are no different than other terms such as infant, child, adolescent, adult, geriatric, that we use to describe later stages of human development. From the moment of conception, we are all individually identifiable, living, developing, human organisms; even though at these earliest of developmental stages, our organism is comprised of only a few cells. There is no difference between you when you were a zygote and you now, except for your relative stage of biological development. Keep this in mind, an ameba is a distinct, living, singular, organism comprised of only... one [1] cell!

Someone has—most likely for political reasons—convinced you, that a zygote, blastocyst, or embryo is NOT a distinct, individual organism, but rather only an inert group of stem cells. This is simply not factually true.

Again, I don't expect to be able to convince you that what I'm saying is correct. For your own personal edification, take the time to check my facts. If you choose not to, you end up only deluding yourself.

I'm going to let you guys have the last word. Thanks for listening.

Okay...couldnt resist on this one.

If we are going to say that a single cell organism is equal to a "born" human being, that certainly raises some questions...admittedly sarcastic ones (let's be honest, we can blather back and forth about this extremely emotional issue and nobody is going to change anyone else's minds).

Are we going to discriminate as to what types of single cells (or cellular clusters) are worth more than others? Are we going to abandon all medical science that causes in any way the damage or destruction of single cell organisms? If so, hoo boy...better start destroying all antibiotics, vaccines, etc...why? Because although we might consider the targets of these "cures" (I told, you...sarcasm)--who are we to determine that one type of single cell organism has any more right to live than another? After all, the lord works in mysterious ways. If He meant for us to be struck down due to influenza or any other illness we presently have "cures" or drugs that allow a "liveable existence"...than who are we to argue with His plan for us? Better throw away all that anti-bacterial soap...yep, bacteria is a single cell organism. Washing your hands after using the rest room? Nope, again, killing another single celled organism...but the hundreds, if not thousands. Wow, talk about mass murder. Cleaning your house, which usually involves any number of chemical agents that in their process of cleaning...uh oh...destroy single celled organisms.

Now...what about our species treatment of itself? We use ballistics tipped with depleted uranium that leave rusted out hulks of old military machinery that is now radioactive (yes, both sides of the aisle have done this) and will affect the people who live in these areas for years to come. "Collateral damage" and other euphemisms that mean one thing--death. We poison the water with industrial runoff. We continue to pollute the planet and affect our own futures. We scream "save the planet" when it's really about saving US. The earth will be here long after it shakes off the human race like an infestation of fleas. The environment being livable for humans to exist...well, that's in our own hands.

Let's not break our arms patting ourselves on the back for being self-righteous when so many things out there cause destruction and death. I understand the desire to protect the unborn and how passionate the people on that side of the issue are...and at the same time I understand the other side of the issue and the desire to help those who are already born (why is it the outcry is only about the time before one is born and just before they die...the other time it's always "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" time.). Both sides are passionate and they will never meet in the middle.

The fact still does remain, however--that when a couple must undergo in-vitro fertilization--they create many more blastocysts (or whatever term you want to use) than just one. Folks that must resort to this means to reproduce have obvious difficulties conceiving...hence the procedure in the first place. Once the couple either is able to have a child (or children) they do not keep the frozen cells forever (as they do deteriorate over time) they literally are disposing of these cells...in other words, throwing them in the trash. If it's okay to toss them in the dumpster--thereby destroying a couple hundred cells that have yet to form into what type of cell (skin cells, muscle cells, etc)--hence the name "stem cell"--than why not allow those cells to be donated by the couple, if they so desire, to be used for research that could help to save or improve life? If they're going to be destroyed, wouldnt it be best that the destruction at least have some possibility of a positive aspect rather than no positive aspect at all?

If we want to take this to the cellular level, really...it's a pandora's box that can be used both for and against this. The fact is, nobody can define when life begins...because there are multiple viewpoints (and definitions) on that issue...and they definitely all disagree.

I lost a father many years ago to Diabetes, and my mother to lung cancer. I by no means am trying to belittle anyone or stoke the fire. But we need to realize everyone's got their own opinion and feelings on this matter (some from a religious background and others from a different side).

I dont claim to have all the answers...heck, I dont even have all of the questions. But I do know the only folks talking about cloning seem to be the opponents. We have enough people with hardships in this world already...who the heck wants a clone? I'm sure someone does...but honestly, I've yet to hear anyone say "woo hoo, bring on the clones!"

But, with all the disagreements and vitriol...and sarcasm, etc...at least the subject is being discussed and not ignored.

EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS ARE PROBLEMATIC

The media is not fully informing people on embryonic stem-cell research. Adult stem cells are highly successful and are being used in connection with the treatment of 72 diseases. And this number has been increasing steadily.

However, embryonic stem cells are problematic. They create tumors. ESCR has to date developed no track record of success, and it has not proven useful to the treatments in a single disease. This is why the private sector has given up on embryonic stem cells. This ought to be a red flag for us. We should not waste our own dollars by giving them to the government so it can fund a no-yield and frivolous exercise.

We should respect the humanity of people – from the earliest, embryonic form. If we do not respect human embryonic stem cells, we will become a cruel, inhumane society. We should have learned from the inhumane and cruel activities of past generations. We should put our money and our priorities where they actually can help people and where it can be spent in the most wise, ethical manner. Embryonic stem-cell research is not a wise investment of the people’s money, nor is it a humanitarian activity because it destroys human life.

Rather than pouring money down a black hole, let’s invest in the highly successful applications of adult stem cell research.

karlsouthflorida I read your entire entry. And even though your first two paragraphs make no rational sense (we've been talking about the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of people... human beings!) the rest of your piece made me realize that you are a caring and sensitive person.

I just wanted to respond to your rhetorical question about why we always seem to be preoccupied with the rights of the unborn or those at the end of their years. It's because these individuals, for the most part, have no one else to speak for them. They cannot speak for themselves.

Your comments about in-vitro fertilization raise good questions. Can the in-vitro process be changed so that unneeded embryos are not created, eliminating the need for cryogenic storage and the question of what to do with the extra embryos? This approach is a good one but runs up against a major problem. In-vitro fertilization has become big, big business. Opponents of my solution will say that the procedure is already costly and this solution will only make it more so. The danger in allowing these extra embryos to be used for embryonic stem cell research, is that there will then be a natural inclination, from a purely business perspective, to create even more embryos just to fulfill the demand from the research community. Ethically, this is a vast and slippery slope.

Through legal precedence, we have already defined when life begins. The knowledge that we now possess relative to genetics, knowledge cemented in the successful mapping of the human genome in 2003, is the same knowledge used to genetically identify individuals in a court of law. Again, all we have to do, is to have a number of cells from an embryo, genetically analyzed at a genetics lab with the express concern of; determining what type of organism these cells came from, and, is it a distinctly unique organism—can it's DNA be matched against any other. Again, the answer that they will give you is that these cells came from a distinct, living, human being. When the single strand of DNA in a sperm cell combines with a single strand of DNA in an egg cell during the moment of conception, a new, unique, human being begins it's life. As you stated, we may all have differing personal opinions about when human life begins, based upon personal philosophy or religion; however, the science related to this question is no longer debatable.

I don't pretend to have all the answers either karlsouthflorida. However, the person I hate fooling the most, is myself. I used to be pro choice many years ago because I too accepted as truth, the rhetoric supporting this position. Are you kidding me, I was a young man in 1973! And they're telling me if I get my girlfriend pregnant, we can just go get an abortion?! Count me in!! However, as I grew older and more objective in my thinking, I simply could no longer deny the factual realities of this issue and their Constitutional implications.

I liked your comments.

Well said Durango!

Well, I guess we'll have to completely abandon in-vitro fertilization then...because they're murdering thousands of frozen cells when they throw them away.

How could I have been so foolish.

And lest I forget...since the destruction of these cells is murder...time to start arresting every laboratory employee who ever threw away any petri dishes.

And since the process cannot currently guarantee that some will end up being thrown away--we need to start enlisting every single female who is of child bearing age and who opposes the destruction of these cells--they need to step up and protect those who cannot speak for themselves--and volunteer to carry these cells to term.

After all, that's the only humane thing to do, right?

Look karlsouthflorida, I didn't want our dialog to revert to this, but you're just being an idiot. And look, you certainly have the right to do so. Put the pipe down for just a couple of minutes and consider this; I never once suggested that we outlaw in-vitro fertilization. Man... how does your mind work?! In-vitro fertilization has been a miracle for thousands of couples who couldn't conceive otherwise. We simply have to find a way to perform this procedure more responsibly. Look, I remember the first time I got high too, but if you're going to weigh into a serious conversation, you have got to pull it together! Enjoy your early start on the weekend!

LMAO...very good, but I'm taking your argument that a single human cell is a life and applying the logic that the destruction of that cell is equal to the murder of a full human being.

There are currently thousands of these frozen embryos or whatever term you'd like to use currently waiting either fertilization or destruction.

Since you apparently have the moral high ground, please enlighten me on what should be done with those unused cells.

Give them the vote. Who they're voting for is stipulated.

karlsouthflorida, you had better write back when you're straight my man! I never ever said "that a single human cell is a life." Now slow down cowboy and ready this carefully; a human life begins when the single strand of DNA in a sperm cell, unites with the single strand of DNA in an egg cell, at the moment of conception. This now "fertilized egg cell" begins to devide and reproduce itself, on and on and on until we have... you! You are multicellular, human organism. Go crack your 8th grade biology book for a little light bedtime reading! I don't claim to possess any moral high ground, I leave morality to the theologians. What I'm concerned with is protecting your and my Constitutional rights, as well as the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. The 14th amendment does allow for the destruction of these extra embryos, but this process must include due process of law. Look Haus, you're a friggen democrat! Get a copy of the Constitution, give it a good read, and take it to heart! (by the way, I have nothing against you being obviously high... moderation though is the key!)

For the sake of argument posit that Jonhn is right. These nascent human beings have rights. We all want our lives to matter. Maybe they can't declare themselves organ donors on their license like you and I can but that's why we do that. How can we help these humans reach their potential to become more than bio waste?

You can insult me all you like. I dont get high, first off.

Second..since apparently I dont have a clue--ANSWER MY QUESTION.

What do we do with the cells already in frozen storage?

Someone must be high on caffeine to heroically hold off all the Democrats on this blog. Kudo's. It's as if winning or losing this argument decides the fate of the free world. I hope that's true. May I ask whoever deems herself the resident biology maven whether ontogeny recapitilating philogeny means we have to go through all the phases of evolution before we achieve the rank of human beings? If so,then the Buddhist concept of working our way up to the being the crown of creation makes more sense to me. And be kind to all forms of life!

As of today:

0 = zero = no cures or treatments have been found by embryonic stem cell research.

65 = sixty-five = known treatments using adult stem cell research.

Which would you put your money on. My 3 daughters were embryos at one time. I'm not willing to trade my daughters for a so called cure or treatment. Embryionic stem cells have come up empty. Adult stem cells show promise. If you can't understand this FACT you are hopeless.

never thought i'd see the day when the asses of the republicans could get so red, it does look good though with their red ties. after this last hastert,limbaugh debackel i now can rest. what a smell. RAV.

never thought i'd see the day when the asses of the republicans could get so red, it does look good though with their red ties. after this last hastert,limbaugh debackel i now can rest. what a smell. RAV.

Hello. I am new to your great site. I just got worn out with the trolls at Political Animal and thought I would come check out yours.

I must be livin' right to come across a stem cell thread my first time here, since I'm a biochemist by training.

I won't hijack a thread by replicating an entire blog post and relevent comments here; I do want to be welcomes back, after all.:)

So I will just link to it. I try to explain it all in plain English. I live in Missouri and Amendment 2 is the hot button issue. On one side you have the Catholic Church and MO Right to Life. On the other side, you have a whole host of medical research foundations and Jack Danforth. In the breach, you have me.

At the very top of the thread someone asked for the text of the amedment in Missouri. It is available here.

As to the no cures yet strawman, I have a torch handy. Adult stem cell therapy has been around for years. Bone marrow transplants are in that number of successful adult stem cell therapies, and we have had that ability since 1968.

ESCR is a new field, and science moves slowly by design. We take the long view because when we introduce something into human usage, we want to know damn good and well what we are doing. Yes, diabetics want a cure tomorrow, but that is not going to happen because we do not experiment on people, damnit.

It is all laid out very clearly in the essay I linked and the comments section that follows.

For you repukes who claim that Michael J. Fox is scamming the american public. I have this in response...you basically dont want to deal with a disease that impacts millions of americans. I bet if someone in your family that you "love" had parkinsons you would be singing a different tune. This issue exposes the anger, angst and uncaring attitude of repukes (like Rush Limbaugh). Rush basically is trying to give repukes a way of to avoid dealing with reality of a disease (parkinsons). I hope this issue rips the repuke party apart and exposes how out of touch with the majority of the american people they are!

Sorry folks, life saving or not, I see no reason why the taxpayers should fund the research that will make the biotech companies filthy rich with ZERO risk on their part. No way.

This sentence should read:

Their actions have consequences for the millions of Americans living with diseases that scientists believe can (be) treated or cured based on stem cell research.

"I see no reason why the taxpayers should fund the research that will make the biotech companies filthy rich with ZERO risk on their part."

Why not? We do that with drug companies and big oil right now with BILLIONS in tax breaks while the rest of us pick up their check!

What's one more industry, especially one that can do us some legitimate good?

Once again, given the choice between the life of a living person who is suffering and a pack of cells or single cell, I'm choosing the living person who is suffering; the cell is going bye-bye.

Someone earlier said that they wouldn't trade in their daughters that they currently have right now for nothing. Well, let me ask you this:

Would you trade them right now - let them die - so that a cell that isn't even a person yet could live?

I'm betting I know your answer and I'm betting you would allow that "cell" to die instead of your daughters. Y'know what? I don't blame you.

That is why stem cell research should and is going to continue.

Funding greedy drug and oil companies so they can make money off of us doesn't make anything right. We must stop pandering to the rich and greedy.
"What's one more industry, especially one that can do us some legitimate good?"
Prescription medicine and heating oil does a lot of people legitimate good too. That doesn't mean that these companies are going to be ethical and socially responsible while they do it. The same goes for the biotech industry.
There is already blackmarket trade in used body parts, look at the things that are happening with dead bodies in New York City, and with poor people in third world countries. What makes you think that this won't happen in the area of stem cells too? You bet it will.
What we are looking at is a further devaluing of individual human beings, as if the poor, the infirm, the elderly, and the young in this country haven't already been devalued more than enough.
A culture that respects only money and not those people who are socially responsible is a culture of abuse, egoism, and inequality, and murder, whether homicide, denial of needed care, or through deliberate neglect and/or abuse.
There is no respect for other people involved in this issue, no matter how much Republicans prate about wanting to help people.
They are only using this issue as a hot button item to get people to vote for their candidates.
The truth is that stem cells are available from other sources, and there will be no immediate benefits to the research for years to come.
This is a complex issue, one which involves human life and the stuff from which it is made. It deserves a thought out and reasoned approach brought about by an INFORMED consensus.
To use it for a political football, as the Republicans are doing, only cheapens the issue, and if anything shows the Republicans' true agenda, which has more to do about creating spin than caring one iota about their fellow human beings.

Well, I certainly agree with you that corporations have run amuck over the people and that has got to stop. Incidentally, it’s the Republicans who have done a good job of enabling that.

Back to the issue at hand, I can’t advocate not even trying something that could be beneficial for all of humanity because of fear of what might happen (big business and money being focused on). As the title of this discussion says on the home page, "Stem Cell Research Brings Hope."

Every issue has a potential dark side. But, to not even bother trying something that could potentially do so much good, simply because of fear of what it could do wrong, does not make much sense. Giving in to fear does not make our lives better, it only holds us back. Hope moves us forward.

Sure, if we go through with stem cell research, the whole thing might blow up in our face (thanks to big business) and millions will still suffer with potentially curable diseases. But, if we don’t do anything , millions will still continue to suffer with diseases and this time because we didn't even try to do anything. This time it would be because we were too scared to try because of our fears.

That’s unacceptable.

If it goes wrong, we will move on, hopefully ceasing the effort. It’s that simple. But there is a chance that it will not go wrong and hope is always worth that chance. Hope is always worth the effort.

That's just the problem. Millions of human beings are going to continue to suffer anyway. The Republicans and their multinational owners are not looking to help millions. They are looking to MAKE millions.
Look at the AIDS treatments, and how the drug companies have priced their products out of the majority of the world's AIDS sufferers out of getting the medication they need.
Millions are dying right now world wide because of the simple lack of medication, and the uneven distribution of food supplies. What have the Republicans done about that.
It's another single-issue Republican ploy to entrap single-issue voters, just like the anti-abortion "pro-life", the anti-gay "pro-family" and the scare tactic of the "Second Amendment gun rights" issue they use to take people's minds off of their attack on the whole Bill of Rights.
What I'm saying is that this should not be a cheap spin issue. This is a very important issue that should be discussed thoughtfully and with all information available.
It should not be used, or even considered as a single-issue voter issue in their very dirty no-holds-barred congressional campaign.

I support life saving research.
I support making decisions based on the best evidence available and the advice of experts.
I sincerely hope that our future will be better for all of us.
I sure hope that many USA-citizens will vote, but as well that the bigger part will vote democratic.
Henk Hospers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

As a regular Missouri voter I try to stay informed about the issues on the ballot. I have been reading about the ESCR issue. I would like to try to understand both sides.

I have heard and read all of the passionate speeches... it amounts to ending one life to save another, ten cells in a dish are not as important as a ten year old fighting diabetes, it is not right to play God with lives, etc. Some seem to base their decision on when life begins, which I think could be argued both ways until we are all blue in the face. My question is kind of along that line.

I read the statements about in-vitro written above. This is one of the areas where I am confused about the divide on ESCR. Everyone I have spoken with or read from seems to support the procedure of in-vitro, even while they do not support ESCR. Since there have been arguements on both sides here, I would like to pose the question I have been wanting answered. I won't repost the information already posted about in-vitro, I just want to understand where people are coming from...

What is different about the research and procedure involved with in-vitro from the research involved with ESCR that upsets people so much? Why is it playing God when the choice is made to use some tissue for research, but not when artifically implanting other in the uterus of a woman unable to conceive naturally?

I guess my point is, I could understand if a person was against both procedures, but why just be against the one? I am wondering if there is some distinction I am missing. Anyone help?

MoMom: You have illustrated one of the points that I'm trying to make. There has been so much spin and half-truths, and hoopla going on about this issue, that we all need to step back and take a reasoned look at it.
I'm not saying don't, ever, at this point. I'm saying that we need to take a better, more reasoned approach to this issue than the crap that's being spread around.
We need to know what is possible with all types of stem cells; adult, umbilical, and fetal.
We need to know what the limitations of each type of cells are.
We need to know what are the possibilities with each type of cell.
We are dealing with the stuff of life, and this should not nor ever be a cheap campaign issue which will only assist those who cheapen human life by putting a price tag on it. Bottom line.

Wonder why "embyonic" is not mentioned anywhere in Tracy Russo's original "stem cells will cure everything" post?

Why hide it? It even mentions the "Republicans bowing from pressure". Yes, from those opposed to killing unborn children, not from stem cell research itself. I'm for stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cells.

And let's not forget Ben Cardin voted against stem cell research and Mr Fox hasn't read the Missouri amendment.

Maybe Joe Lieberman is the start of a new third party.

Can we have Howard Dean back? I'd vote for him before the current crop of democrats who hide from their own records and have to tweak their rhetoric as to not clearly state their positions.

SteveO

I've got a co-worker who listens to Rush Spinbaaa everyday and this simplistic, narrow-minded, neo-con hick that I work with just LOVES to talk about how Michael J. Fox goes off