Schwazenneggar and Abortion

[editor]

I voted for Ahnold the Governator in the recall election, on the basis that: a. he could actually get elected, and b. he was a fiscal conservative.

But governors of states have no power to regulate abortion, so it wasn't a big issue.  

I would never, under any circumstances, vote for him for president.

Presidents appoint Supreme Court justices.  Supreme Court justices, right now, rule the country!

I will not do anything to give a man so base and evil as to support the legalized butchering of millions of babies into such a powerful place.

I don't see how any Christian could.

Thomas Maddux

Morning Tom,

I don't know if you noticed or not, but Arnold just broke with the republican party----he ran as a republican in the recall election, and was voted into office by republicans---in that he now supports state funding for embryonic stem cell research in CA.  (Prop 71)

What this means is that embryos are "grown" in the lab, and then harvested a few days later in order to cull the pluripotent stem cells and conduct experiments on them.  This research has been going on for some time in privately funded laboratories, all across the country, but now our governor want to spend my tax dollars in order to do this.

Does this bother anyone besides me?

California sets trends, and the trend of the most powerful, popular republican governor breaking with the party in order to support this practice is quite chilling to me.

Of course, I could say, "Told you so...." but it really makes me too sad to do so.  I am so happy I didn't vote for him.

Brent

[Arthur]

Yeah it stinks to high heaven.  While proponents claim that stem-cell research is for the benefit of alzheimers patients, in reality this is just a front put on by abortion racketeers who want to legitimatize their heinous crimes and continue to reap its profits, even branching out into this new market getting a fat bankroll from Aunt Samatha.
Like I said, they're going to hell.

Arthur

[enchilada]

Stem cell research, despite the heinous aspect of it, is something that will advance medical technology.  We are all living off of technology that is one way or another heinous in origin.  Stem cell research appears to be one of them.  For example, the development of the computers we use to create and participate in this web site yields toxic waste that is poisoning children at play nearby the chemical dump sites in China.  The cars we drive run on gasoline that was refined in Long Beach, Anacortes, and Martinez, where pollution is poisoning the population.  Take a cruise along Petroleum Avenue on a windless day and you'll see for yourself.  San Francisco Bay is a chemical soup of petroleum byproducts that is discusting to see during a flight approach to SFO on a clear day--which eliminated any urge I had to go sailing in it.  So, up in the research labs at UCSF cancer research center, and the orthopedic labs, etc, there is research going on that will involve the sad use of stem cells for the purpose of curing cancer, greatly accelerating the mending process of life threatening fractures, etc.  I have to admit that if I ever get in a car accident, say some drunk from the California Maritime Academy rams into my car, resulting in the fracturing of dozens of bones, some Reeve style, and there is a cure available that required the use of stem cells, I would not hesitate to use it.  I have children to feed...

Dan

[vernecarty]

Stem cell research, despite the heinous aspect of it, is something that will advance medical technology.  We are all living off of technology that is one way or another heinous in origin.  Stem cell research appears to be one of them.  For example, the development of the computers we use to create and participate in this web site yields toxic waste that is poisoning children at play nearby the chemical dump sites in China.  The cars we drive run on gasoline that was refined in Long Beach, Anacortes, and Martinez, where pollution is poisoning the population.  Take a cruise along Petroleum Avenue on a windless day and you'll see for yourself.  San Francisco Bay is a chemical soup of petroleum byproducts that is discusting to see during a flight approach to SFO on a clear day--which eliminated any urge I had to go sailing in it.  So, up in the research labs at UCSF cancer research center, and the orthopedic labs, etc, there is research going on that will involve the sad use of stem cells for the purpose of curing cancer, greatly accelerating the mending process of life threatening fractures, etc.  I have to admit that if I ever get in a car accident, say some drunk from the California Maritime Academy rams into my car, resulting in the fracturing of dozens of bones, some Reeve style, and there is a cure available that required the use of stem cells, I would not hesitate to use it.  I have children to feed...

Dan

Yep! We don't know the half of it.
If you are using a cell-phone without a phone-shield I advise you to correct that situation immediately. The microwave exposure over time is not good...not good at all.
This is one of the most under-reported and potentially serious consequences (especially conisdering their remarkably common usage) of employing modern technology that I know of. If you do not know how to get a phone shield, IM me and I will tell you how, but get one!
Children especially should not be allowed to use cell phones without a radiation shield.
Verne

[sfortescue]

On cell-phone usage, I would suggest not wearing glasses while using a cell-phone, since the wire that runs through them acts as an antenna that helps radiate the microwaves into the brain.

[enchilada]

Yep! We don't know the half of it.
If you are using a cell-phone without a phone-shield I advise you to correct that situation immediately. The microwave exposure over time is not good...not good at all.
This is one of the most under-reported and potentially serious consequences (especially conisdering their remarkably common usage) of employing modern technology that I know of. If you do not know how to get a phone shield, IM me and I will tell you how, but get one!
Children especially should not be allowed to use cell phones without a radiation shield.
Verne

The people that are opposed to stem cell research have good reason for their stand.  Nevertheless, I'd be willing to bet that most of them would utilize the breakthroughs of this controversial biotechnology if they had the misfortune to choose between that or an alternative, such as spending a shortened life as a quadripregic or worse.

Verne, The cell phone is something I don't like to use because I guess I just like the sound of the quarter dropping into the payphone.  

[d3z]

Regarding cell phones, sheilding and such.  I would be surprised if anyone could develop a sheild that would adequately sheild a user from RF without making the phone useless, or making the user look like they were wearing a ski mask.  Devices that simply slap on the phone, and such, are a complete crock.

If you are concerned about RF emissions from your cellphone, but a wired earpiece.  Wear the phone on your belt, or carry it in your hand.

Also, different carriers use different frequency bands, which will have different effects.

[enchilada]

Regarding cell phones, sheilding and such.  I would be surprised if anyone could develop a sheild that would adequately sheild a user from RF without making the phone useless

This issue stems from cell phone research; not stem cell research.

[Tony]

You have to be specific when talking about stem cells.   There is a huge difference between successes with adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.

   I like the way that Joni Eareckson-Tada put it on an interview with Larry King last summer.

   Partial transcript follows:

EARECKSON TADA: That may very well happen using incredible therapies that are happening using adult stem cell research. It is absolutely amazing what is
happen.

Dr. Carlos Lima in Lisbon, Portugal has helped restore bladder and muscle control to people with paralysis -- it is using stem cells from their own nasal
tissue.

KING: Everyone says it will be faster if embryonic is also used. Nancy Reagan is going to campaign strongly for that.

EARECKSON TADA: I heard that.

KING: Are you against that.

EARECKSON TADA: I am against that, Larry.

KING: Why.

EARECKSON TADA: Well, for two reasons. It's kind of a two prong fork here. Number one is a person with a disability, research dollars are few, they are
scares, they are precious. And because they are scares, I want to see that money channeled into therapies which have the most promise, which are the most
effective. Right now, no stem cell derived from a human embryo is even in clinical trial in a human and even the trials in animals are fraught with problems,
there's tissue malformation, there's tissue rejection. There's...

KING: That happens in all beginnings, of all studies.

EARECKSON TADA: That's true, but right now, with their own stem cells, whether dental pulp or nasal tissue, bone marrow tissue, incredible therapies are
happening.

KING: But who's being harmed. Someone said the other day, what's an argument against embryonic cell research, that they haven't tried it yet.

That's not an argument. What's an argument -- is there a moral argument.

EARECKSON TADA: One argument is, of course, there is -- there is -- it's abhorrent to take human life. Larry, I'm a person with a disability. I am exposed
and vulnerable as a quadriplegic and I believe that people like me, the elderly, the frail, the unborn, our lives are in jeopardy in a society which begins
to dismantle the safe guards around human life. If we begin taking human life, no matter how small, whether or not a human embryo has a soul, and I happen
to believe it does, is not the point, it's a not a goat embryo, it's not a rat, it's not a chicken embryo, it's a human.

KING: Would you debate Chris Reeve.

EARECKSON TADA: Well, yes, I'd be happy to.

KING: He favors it, as you know, strongly.

EARECKSON TADA: I know he does. You know, I think, Christopher Reeve's best chances and people that we serve at Joni and Friends, thousands of disabled
people and their families, our best chances, my best chance as a person with a spinal cord injury to get a viable cure is through pouring all the effort
and all the attention in developing therapies using adult stem cells.


*******

Unfortunately, she will not be able to speak to Chris Reeve but I'm sure that he read some of her books.

   The interview on Larry King Live will be rebroadcast on New Years Day!

2004 has been an awesome year...A healthy church family, opportunities to serve and a Blessed dusting of challenges.   I am looking forward to 2005...Lord willing.

Happy New Year to all!

--Tony

[enchilada]

Stem cell research, despite the heinous aspect of it, is something that will advance medical technology.  We are all living off of technology that is one way or another heinous in origin.  Stem cell research appears to be one of them.  For example, the development of the computers we use to create and participate in this web site yields toxic waste that is poisoning children at play nearby the chemical dump sites in China.
Dan

Yep! We don't know the half of it.

I noticed that in today's SF Chronicle, there's an article that backs up my comment about toxic waste sites caused by the computers we use, etc....  Although this thread is ancient history, here's a link to: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/12/RECYCLE.TMP; and a copy of part of that article, beginning with its title:


Demonstrating concern
Environmentalists picket at Macworld over Apple policies
Birgitta Forsberg, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

While hundreds of visitors moved in and out of Apple's Macworld Conference & Expo at the Moscone Center on Tuesday, a handful of picketers gathered outside around a pile of old Apple computers.

On the monitors of some of the computers were images of Asian children and adults picking through equipment in dumps of toxic electronic waste containing lead, mercury and brominated flame retardants.
===========

Overall, it seems that if tree huggers are against cutting down trees, then they should refrain from using guitars and jungle drums at their protest rallies because those two products they are using are contributing to the destruction of the forests they want to protect.  So goes with those in opposition to stem cell research:  if they are against it, then they better not plan to use the medications, developed by stem cell research, that cures the alzheimer disease that may run in their families....or the use of any similarly produced remedies to grave illnesses.  However, using stem cell research for non-lethal ailments, such as increasing body mass or weird stuff like that is unacceptable.  I might be wrong, but it's just my opinion.

Dan

[al Hartman]

Overall, it seems that if tree huggers are against cutting down trees, then they should refrain from using guitars and jungle drums at their protest rallies because those two products they are using are contributing to the destruction of the forests they want to protect.  So goes with those in opposition to stem cell research:  if they are against it, then they better not plan to use the medications, developed by stem cell research, that cures the alzheimer disease that may run in their families....or the use of any similarly produced remedies to grave illnesses.  However, using stem cell research for non-lethal ailments, such as increasing body mass or weird stuff like that is unacceptable.  I might be wrong, but it's just my opinion.

The people who profess that mankind evolved as a step in the progression of nature are the same folks who say that man is at odds with the rest of nature.  They can accept that they have emerged as the latest descendants of some primordial muck, but not that they have naturally developed into self-serving destroyers of their environment.  Their own logic fails them while proving the biblical account, but they can see neither...

al

[enchilada]

Overall, it seems that if tree huggers are against cutting down trees, then they should refrain from using guitars and jungle drums at their protest rallies because those two products they are using are contributing to the destruction of the forests they want to protect.  So goes with those in opposition to stem cell research:  if they are against it, then they better not plan to use the medications, developed by stem cell research, that cures the alzheimer disease that may run in their families....or the use of any similarly produced remedies to grave illnesses.  However, using stem cell research for non-lethal ailments, such as increasing body mass or weird stuff like that is unacceptable.  I might be wrong, but it's just my opinion.

The people who profess that mankind evolved as a step in the progression of nature are the same folks who say that man is at odds with the rest of nature.  They can accept that they have emerged as the latest descendants of some primordial muck, but not that they have naturally developed into self-serving destroyers of their environment.  Their own logic fails them while proving the biblical account, but they can see neither...

al

Al,

I guess the question is whether or not it is appropriate for a Christian to advocate stem-cell research.  Overall, I favor the research, but have some underlying concerns.  The benefits include several nice things, such as potential cures for alzheimers, spinal injurues, etc.  The downside is that it exploits the unborn.  However, it also appears similar to the idea of organ transplantation from a dead human to a live.  

Abortion is always going to occur, and it seems better to make some positive use of the consequences without having it act as any justification or encouragement for a pregnant woman to have her defenseless baby murdered.  If the results from the use of a small percentage of the murdered unborn for research will serve as prolonging the lives of millions, then why not?  This question somewhat reminds me of an old post in this chat room, which several endorsed, suggesting that nuclear weapons be dropped on and kill millions of the innocent as well as the guilty people in muslim countries in order to help mitigate the terror threats.  If his arguement is acceptable, then stem cell research might also be.  After all, the cost/benefit ratio of stem cell research appears more favorable than that of nuking the muslim cities.  

Dan

[editor]

If his arguement is acceptable, then stem cell research might also be.  After all, the cost/benefit ratio of stem cell research appears more favorable than that of nuking the muslim cities.  

If the unborn could be shown to be future terrorists, then your comparison of these two somewhat different ideas has merit.

I always consider the unborn to be innocent, whereas the citizens of countries we are at war with I deem enemies.

A generation ago, it was considered proper to kill one's enemies, a la Hiroshima, Nagasaki.  At the same time, abortion was illegal and not federally funded.

Today, it is considered proper to kill the unborn, and build schools for one's enemies.

I just have a hard time with this.

Brent

[enchilada]

If his arguement is acceptable, then stem cell research might also be.  After all, the cost/benefit ratio of stem cell research appears more favorable than that of nuking the muslim cities.  

If the unborn could be shown to be future terrorists, then your comparison of these two somewhat different ideas has merit.

I always consider the unborn to be innocent, whereas the citizens of countries we are at war with I deem enemies.

A generation ago, it was considered proper to kill one's enemies, a la Hiroshima, Nagasaki.  At the same time, abortion was illegal and not federally funded.

Today, it is considered proper to kill the unborn, and build schools for one's enemies.

I just have a hard time with this.

Brent

Regardless of whether our tax dollars subsidize it, it will continue.  So why not not have some microbiology grad student interns head over to the back alley garbage cans at planned parenthood and harvest some stem cells?  If the stem cells from a thousand corpses save millions from deadly ailments, that seems okay because the unborn were going to die anyway.  On the other hand, dropping the bomb to kill billions of people in order to kill 100,000 terrorists in order to keep them from killng a few million people seems to be a less desirable scenario.  Too much death of innocent people.  The only way to get rid of the terrorists is by deporting all the muslims, ship them all to Mecca, dump them out of a cargo plane over Mecca with a parachute.  They might like that so they won't have to think about which direction to pray because they'll be there.

[Tony]

Dan,

you wrote:
"I guess the question is whether or not it is appropriate for a Christian to advocate stem-cell research.  Overall, I favor the research, but have some underlying
concerns.  The benefits include several nice things, such as potential cures for alzheimers, spinal injurues, etc.  The downside is that it exploits the
unborn."

   The question is "Is it appropriate for a Christian to support HUMAN embryonic stem cell research?"  My response is that one should find out, to the best of their ability, what exactly they are supporting.   IMO, when there are so many successes documented with the use of adult stem cells studies, the ESC debate smells of an agenda and could most likely be traced to sources which hate the Light that has come into this world.   I am skeptical of the "possible cures" as I have found that many researchers are seeking grant dollars and will make ANY claim to keep the cash cow in their own barn...even lie.  (anyone remember Piltdown man?"
  I don't know if any possitive results will come out of the Embryonic Stem Cell research but I would much rather see the money going towards research that uses cells with a person's own (or close relative's) DNA to repair/replace defective cells and tissue.   It seems to make sense that these cells would have a higher probability for success.

   I cannot support, nor can I stomach,  research which creates human life for the sole purpose of destroying it.


you wrote:
"However, it also appears similar to the idea of organ transplantation from a dead human to a live."

  Maybe in China!   I don't think that you would support killing of a "less desireable person" to get organs for someone else...or would you?

you wrote:
"Abortion is always going to occur, and it seems better to make some positive use of the consequences without having it act as any justification or encouragement
for a pregnant woman to have her defenseless baby murdered.  If the results from the use of a small percentage of the murdered unborn for research will
serve as prolonging the lives of millions, then why not?"

How a follower of Jesus Christ can view what happens in an abortion to a defenseless baby and then say that they would be willing to benefit from it is somewhat confusing to me.

   When I have more time, I'd like to share a story of a research project that I was closely involved in and the lies that later came out to support using aborted tissue.   I made  up my mind then as to where I stand and I wasn't even a born again Christian at the time.

  The problem with a pragmatic approach to finding cures or organs or tissue is that once you've gone far enough down that road, there is no turning back.   How far are we from:

"since we are spending so much money on caring for the mentally retarded, and they do not truly serve as a useful contributor to society, why not take those perfectly good organd and give them to someone who could?"

   It may be awhile before we see that in America but I guarantee that it is going on in other countries.

--Tony Edwards