Democrats & Liberals Archives

Culture-of-Life Veto

The embryonic stem cell bill, which encourages research on embryonic stem cells for the purpose of finding cures to an array of diseases, was passed by the Senate 63-37. President George W. Bush has been threatening to use his first veto on this bill in order to affirm his “culture of life.” By exercising his veto on this life-affirming legislation he has essentially vetoed his “culture of life.”

Bush vetoed the legislation quietly. White House spokesman Tony Snow gives the reason for the veto:

"The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong. The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research."

Something living? What is he referring to? What is he calling "life"? The little spots or dots in a petri dish? Some people who are against this research claim that these embryos, or dots in a petri dish, feel pain. How on earth do they know? These dots have no senses, since they have no eyes, ears, noses, or skins for touch. They have no nerves to experience any such thing as pain. They have no brains. They are not human beings. They may become human beings eventually, but now they are dots in a petri dish.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that these dots in a petri dish are "life." How would you compare dots-in-a-petri-dish "life" with the life of a 55-year old man who is beginning to feel the ravages of Alzheimer's? Compare the two from all viewpoints. The dots-in-a-petri-dish "life" may become human in the future or it may not; more of them do not make it than do. This 55-year old is here, a breathing person who is trying to enjoy life, but is thwarted by this horrible disease. The dots in a petri dish have no senses, nerves and brains. The 55-year old man has all these and they provide him with lots of suffering; he faces a slow, miserable death.

Who deserves our compassion more? The dots in a petri dish? Or the 55-year old man struck with Alzheimer's?

Bush calls using dots in a petri dish killing "life." What does he call the prohibition of research for alleviation of miserable diseases such as Alzheimer's? Of course, no one knows what can and cannot be achieved by embryonic stem cell research. But it is a blow against the "culture of life" to stop or slow down the research.

By vetoing this legislation, Bush has vetoed his "culture of life."

Posted by Paul Siegel at July 19, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #168953


The one thing that this veto absolutely proves is that W has never used wisdom in any of his decisions. In this case it’s the wisdom of science, in other cases it’s been the wisdom of diplomacy, the list goes on and on.

Our President is a theocratic moron. In his mind he’s doing god’s bidding and the results are…….well, just read the news. I know my words are rough, but I truly mean it when I say that Bush is a complete idiot.

W needs a psych eval! Maybe he killed too many brain cells during his drinking years.


PS: can a president be impeached based on incompetence or insanity?

Posted by: KansasDem at July 19, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #168954

Sadly, I must agree.

Bad choice, GWB, but unlike what the Dems are doing to Lieberman for one difference of opinion, I still support you.

Posted by: G.K. at July 19, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #168960

So you support excessive spending, fiscal irresponsibility, bloated inefficient bureaucracy, and homeland security you would see fit to scrape off the road and bury in lime?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #168968

I have searched numerous web sites to try and find any promise to embryonic stem cell research. I find plenty on adult stem cells and the promise they bring along with umbilical cord blood. If esc’s are so promissing why aren’t the pharmesutical companys jumping on the research. Why isn’t private donations being made to fund this research? I’m sure all those Hollywood movie stars pushing this research can drop a million or two to help fund the research.

Posted by: KAP at July 19, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #168970

Paul, what you refer to as “prohibition of research” is simply not true and extremely misleading. President Bush has vetoed the spending of federal money for the use of any additional stem cell lines.
No where and never has the President said he wants to stifle research done with private money. I am certain that many who have contributed to this site would be extremely happy if they could direct their own personal taxes paid into the federal goverment and would ask that none of their taxes be used to support war. President Bush has not altered his positon on the FEDERAL FUNDING of stem cell research and was elected twice with his supporters knowing his position. One can conclude that these many voters also do not want their tax dollars used for this purpose.
Many disagree with the Presidents position, but calling someone an idiot who is following the vows made while running for office is way out of line. We (knew) and know where this President stands on this issue unlike his competition who changed their minds with every poll. Give me courage and consistance over “bending in the wind” every time. Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at July 19, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #168972
“The simple answer is he thinks murder’s wrong. The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research.”

Say what?! So, does that mean the president is against cancer research. Cancer is living cells, living human cells with human DNA. Does a cancer cell feel pain when you kill it?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 19, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #168974


Please! The president did not veto this legislation because of spending concerns. He hasn’t vetoed a single spending bill, not one cent, until now? I don’t think so. He vetoed it to pander to the religious kooks in this country.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 19, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #168976


I say “tomato”, you say “excessive spending, fiscal irresponsibility, bloated inefficient bureaucracy, and homeland security you would see fit to scrape off the road and bury in lime?”

I certainly feel safer under his administration. Kerry would probably resort to singing with Yoko Ono to ward off future attacks. Also, my wallet is fatter, as is yours, unless you are freeloading off of the government.

It’s the economy, stupid.

Posted by: G.K. at July 19, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #168978
I certainly feel safer under his administration.


Safer than what? 9/11? News flash, this administration was in charge then, too. Besides, I certainly feel less safe, with all the anamosity and destabalization this president has caused in the world.

Also, my wallet is fatter, as is yours, unless you are freeloading off of the government.

Oh, that is real nice! Fatten up your wallet while flattening the wallets of the future. Why pay for ourselves, when someone else down the road can pick up the tab?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 19, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #168987

Ok who has the fat wallet? I know I don’t, with gas $3.00 and going up, inflation is what over 4% now, and wait I did get a 2.5% pay raise, so I guess since I am down 1.5% I should feel grateful.

Bush can kiss my gracefull ass. He doesn’t have to worry about gas, now or in the future, as the Saudi’s will make sure he is taken care of.

Posted by: KT at July 19, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #168988


Safer than what? 9/11? News flash, this administration was in charge then, too.

News flash:
Um, that was bound to happen even if Jimmy Carter had been relected.

As for the “tab”, as evidenced by the reduction in the deficit, tax cuts = stronger economy = larger tax base = pay off the tab.

Posted by: G.K. at July 19, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #168990


Liberals should be happy about the gas prices - it means some poeple will reduce consumption or turn to alternative fuels. C’mon, chalk one up for Bush.

Posted by: G.K. at July 19, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #168994

Bushs’ veto show was full of CLONED BABIES!
And they miraculously matched in race!
They get to pick the race of the black market baby.
How sweet, but hoq Nazi Aryian Youth Progam is this???
Heres some data and a link to Snowflake baby Mills
Adoptive applicants must be committed to providing their child with a constructive, wholesome and spiritual home environment.
What this means:

Adoptive applicants must give evidence of good health, which will be verified during the homestudy process by medical examinations.
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

The genetic family’s preferences determine the allowable age of adopting parents. Age limit may be based on the ability of the woman to provide a
healthy pregnancy.
A healthy pregnancy??? But isn’t this about women who can’t get pregant?
Adoptive applicants are encouraged to have been married a minimum of three years when the mathcing phase begins.

And this is the real kicker in this black market clone factory….
There are no agency or program fees for the genetic
parents to place their embryos for adoption.
[i]Just give us the eggs and shut up[/i].
There may be costs during the adoption process if medical records need to be copied or if additional blood work is required, depending on what types of tests have been performed. These fees will be paid by the
adopting parents.
Here’s the list of bloodwork fees. I guess
Adoptive Applicants:
[b]If you live outside of Southern California: [/b]
Program Fee of $5,000
Fees from the agency performing your homestudy,
ranging from $1,000 - $2,500
The fertility clinic’s fee for a Frozen Embryo Transfer
(FET), usally ranging from $2,000 to $7,500
[b]If you live in Southern California: [/b]
Our program fee of $6600 (includes a homestudy)
A $1600 credit is applied if you already completed a
homestudy with another agency
The fertility clinic’s fee for a Frozen Embryo Transfer
(FET), usually ranging from $2,000 to $7,500

AS knotinlip would say….How sick is this?

Hree’s the family worksheet to qualify for a black market baby

Posted by: Joe at July 19, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #168995

I really can’t believe it. Somehow this idiot found his veto pen, hell it took how many years.
I am an adamant 2nd ammendment proponent, This moron came out a couple of years ago and said he would SIGN legistation extending the Clinton ero gun control. So strike one for this idiot for me.
Second (I know you have to go in the way back machine for this one) on security he bowed down to the China when our plane declared a legimate emergeny and let them do as they would for weeks. Guess Clinton isn’t the only president who can not stand up to China.
Third he couldn’t find a spending bill he wouldn’t sign for 5 and 1/2 years but sure as hell could sign tax cuts that have done really little to help the economy and will cause long term problems for the country.
Forth he chose, Yes Chose, to go to war with Iraq. Now we have problems with Iran and N. Korea, both were larger problems when He Chose to wage war with Iraq and not deal with the problems of Iran and N. Korea.
So How has this idiot helped the secureity of our country.
I am against any war that we are unwilling to commit the necessary resources to actually win. Jr wanted a war on the cheap. The problem is there is no such thing as a war on the cheap.

Posted by: timesend at July 19, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #169005

Bush doesn’t want to use federal money for stem cell research. He ask for $700 million to explore Mars. What the hell for? We don’t need another planet to populate. Stem cell research is the base line for curing and preventing many diseases, Diabetes type 1 being one of those. I have type 1 diabetes. Was diagnosed when I was 8 yrs. old. This January will be 32 years that I have fought this disease. Type 1 is different from type 2, which is the kind that is at epidemic proportions now. My pancreas stopped working. I have taken 6 to 10 shots of insulin every day for 31 years now. How can anyone honestly say that this research is not worthy? Could you tell your child that this could possibly cure them of this dreaded disease, but because it technically kills unborn embryos, embryos that won’t be born anyway, that you think it’s best for them to just live with it. If I was the type of “religious” man that Bush says he is, I would pray that his grandkids come down with type 1 diabetes, but I’m not that kind of person. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone. May God have mercy on his soul. I ask that anyone who has a family member with type 1 diabetes, or just feel like making a difference, to make a donation to the Juvenile Diabetes Association. This organization is doing great things, despite W. the dumb ass.

Posted by: kenray04 at July 19, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #169009

Verrry interesting. I checked out your link and immediatly got a case of the heebie jeebies. Looks like Stepford Kids to me.

Posted by: mark at July 19, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #169018


I looked at your link. While that portrays part of the situation it hardly explains the “full meal deal”. The “W” administration has us on the verge of Domimionist Theocracy. Whenever I say that I know everyone says, “oh crap here goes KD again”! Well, sorry, but I’ve been watching since the 80’s and we’re getting close. Real close.

Our situation is not that much different than the Palestinian’s was. We have choices. If we choose extremism, we can expect the same in return.


Posted by: KansasDem at July 19, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #169022

Kansas Dem
I agree. When fundimentalist rule(whether Christian, Jew, or Muslim) there is no room for compromise. It looks like we have the conditions for the PERFECT STORM,and thats no joke!

Posted by: mark at July 19, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #169025

FYI, this goes beyond the use of tax money. There’s the matter of R & D dollars going down the toilet when you can’t get a drug or procedure approved. Both RU486 and the “Morning After Pill” come to mind.

If tax dollars are involved in the development of a procedure or a drug the likelihood of FDA approval is greater. What we must understand is that this debate is driven by the same theocratic nonsense as that which fuels the debate over same sex marriage and abortion.

Republicans want to control our reproductive behaviour. I remember someone else that had that idea.


Posted by: KansasDem at July 19, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #169078

Fatter wallets today than 6 years ago. I don’t know about anyone else but my wallet sure isn’t fatter, if anything it is smaller than ever before. As I have stated before, I work as a server I make 2.83 an hour plus my tips. I now make less than what a gallon of gas costs. As for the tips, guess what with the cost of gas less people are eating out and when they do by the time they put the gas in the car to drive to the restaurant and pay for their meals, guess what, there isn’t that much left over for a tip. So guess what the server making 2.83 gets stiffed. Meanwhile having to pay taxes on the sales that they make. Those that are making minimum wage have it just as bad, try supporting a family on 5.15 (and remember our wonderful congress just turned down the opportunity to raise the min. wage), by the time the worker pays for a gallon of gas they are left with just at the least depending on where you live 2.15 to pay bills, feed and clothe the family. With the cost of inflation the same items we bought I will use coffee for example cause most drink it, cost 3 or 4 dollars to buy now cost 8 or 9 to buy. While still making the same amount of money. Yes I agree that jobs were created, but they are jobs that can not sustain a family. The good jobs, with good wages and benifits are just not there anymore. Company after company are laying off employees or outright closing. More now than at anytime other than the depression. Meanwhile, while there are millions going without a decent wage, health care and often times the basic neccessities, these people that we elect to office get their wages that they get now or in some cases more for the rest of their lives, health care paid for, etc. The taxpayers get screwed again. There are people that can’t afford to go to the doctor for an illness or pay for their medication, but have to pay for the presidents and members of congress to have that right for the rest of their lives. But will bitch and complain that the little people need the same right to health care, and a decent wage. I don’t know about anyone else I sure would like to make 60,000 and upward for doing almost nothing and having the whole summer off and a break of weeks every holiday, while still getting a car handed to me as well as the gas, a cell phone, housing allowances, meals,etc paid for, oh and wait I want to take my family to Europe for a week, what special interest group can I talk into paying for a jet to take me. What a life. Meanwhile I can’t even afford to put gas in my car. Life is great. Great posts Kansas.

Posted by: Sherri at July 20, 2006 7:51 AM
Comment #169082

Let me get this straight. Bush vetoed this bill because he supports a “culture of life” and couldn’t justify the “murder” of embryos. Utter hypocrisy. Anyone who knew the contents of this bill (including our enlightened leader) realized that it limited stem cells to those being harvested from in-vitro fertilization techniques, which usually produces dozens more embryos than can ever be used. As such, these embryos are discarded, and will now continue to be discarded, thanks to Bush.

This anti-science, anti-culture of life President obviously thinks it’s okay to throw away embryos, but not to harvest those same embryos for stem cell research. And he cloaks it all in a false sense of God-enriched morality to satisfy those on the far right. That’s the real hoax, the real shame, and the real idiocy behind this veto.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at July 20, 2006 7:59 AM
Comment #169100

When will Dem’s quite being shocked at this guy. We need to learn to “read” him. I am one Dem that has not been shocked by this idiot in a long long time.

Everything he says, he means just the opposite. Pro-Life means Anti-life. Peace in the Mid-East means War in the Mid-East. No Child left behind, means Every Child left behind.

This guy couldn’t shoot straight if he took lessons from Chaney!

Posted by: PlayNice at July 20, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #169124

The only thing Mr. Bush accomplished in his ill-advised veto is to make US medicine fall further back from competition with other countries.
Let’s face it, there is no stopping progress, other countries like the European Union, India and China have their own stem cell research and it is not hampered by political concerns. In a few short years, Americans will be going to those countries to find a cure for their debilitating ailments, and do so at less expense than they can get them here. Unlike us in America, these countries know better, and leave their scientists alone.

Posted by: Manuel Pagan at July 20, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #169129

You’re all going off on a tangent.
The bottom line is: President Bush is forcing IVF labs to throw extra stem cells in the trash. This is “reverence for life”?
Was he dropped on his head when as an infant?

Posted by: Dragon at July 20, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #169136

Rather than balancing embryonic rights v. the rights of potential patients, it would be better to challenge the assumption that blastocysts are in fact the same morally as a child, or even a fetus.

When I was an undergraduate at Loras College, we asked our ethics professor about when life began. From a purely natural law ethics perspective, because of twinning, human life cannot begin until gastrulation. Gastrulation is also the point at which cross species fertilizations fail (if you took a human egg and dog sperm, it would grow until that point - I challenge anyone who says such an abomination has a human soul) and it is also the point where the genes of the father fully participate in the development of the child. I was not who I am until my father’s genes were as strong as my mother’s in my growth. Until then, I was an egg with my father’s code “tagging along” getting set up for the begining of life.For more information on Gastrulation, see the Encyclopedia Britannica’s entry (the Macropedia) on sexual reproduction and then follow the footnotes to real embryology texts.

Now, the Catholic Church has an opportunity to return to the genesis of Catholic reproductive theology by abandoning the cult of the blastocyst and focus on our traditional opposition to Eugenics. Eugenics was an attempt to improve the white race and the church fought it, especially mandatory sterilization of the “feeble minded.” If stem cell research is part of a program to weed out or alter the “defective” then its roots in eugenics are obvious. However, if it is about relieving pain, then the objections melt away, provided one knows his or her embryology.

The fate of the soul and the body are intertwined. Put another way, the actions of the body demonstrate the existence of the soul. We know that when death occurs the soul has moved on. Using the same logic, we know that when development occurs, the soul is present. We know that development starts at gastrulation. As moralists, we must take what science has to say very seriously. I would dispute what you say about not knowing when ensoulment occurs. Prior to Humanae Vitae, which I view as an attempt at branding Catholic identity, Catholic theologians were pretty clear that the soul was not present at fertilization. Theologians and bioethicists should reject papal encroachment and go with the facts.

I am not arguing for a wholesale disregard for inconvenient life. I am arguing for speaking the truth about when life begins. If we do that, maybe, just maybe, they will listen to us when we tell them about a Gospel of Life. BTW, the extremity to which some self-promoted around the living death of Terri Schaivo does nothing for the movement, especially since we now know that her neurologist was correct in his assessment of her condition. Arguing that moral consistency is necessary in opposition to the facts damages the Church’s credibility with both Catholics in the pews and the outside world. I am not talking about capitulating to the world, I am talking about not lying in the face of the facts in order to bolster ones argument. Traditional teaching on death and dying said giving nutrition was not necessary. If that position had been respected the Church would not have had egg on its face over this affair. If we want to know why the pews are empty we need only look at ourselves. The people in the pews know when they are being lied to.

This veto was more about coalition politics than morality. The movement wants to keep the Catholic Church close, which is tied to Humanae Vitae and oppossition to birth control. In order for consistency, they had to oppose stem cell research as well. The Evangelical Right has now adopted both oppossition to stem cell research and birth control, even though the science was wrong.

The amusing this is that in decades past, Evangelicals were fearful of a Catholic President bringing a Roman agenda into domestic issues. Now they are carrying that same Roman pontiff’s water on sex. Very funny.

Posted by: Michael Bindner at July 20, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #169180

Quite true Dragon, they would rather throw “potential life” away than use tax dollars to research the full potential of embryonic stem cells. Tax money has been the driving force behind many medical breakthroughs.

LOL, I just thought of a title for all this, The Boys from Brazil Midland

Posted by: MyPetGoat at July 20, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #169186

You are aware there were two stem cell bills. One in which Bush would have accepted. But this one was killed. Also Bush was the first president to federally fund stem cell research. He is only reaffirming a law passed by Bill Clinton in which stated we shall not create life for use in research. His stance is against ebriotic stem cell research. The stem cells can come from adults or from ambilical cords. (the other bill dealt with this) Now if congress actually wanted a cure and didnt pander to special interest then they would have passed this stem cell funding.

Posted by: Anthony at July 20, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #169226

The only thing this veto does is say no federal funds for stem cell research it does not stop research. Germany does not allow it either.

The reality is there has yet to be (that i can find) any positive development from embrio research but there has been some promising developments from adult stem cell research. I guess the real question is why should the government pay for it. I could not find any private money doing it. If there was something there to find private money would be doing it. There is a lot of private money for adult stem cell research.

Your analogies are incorrect.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at July 20, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #169239

I have type 1 diabetes. Was diagnosed when I was 8 yrs. old. This January will be 32 years that I have fought this disease. Type 1 is different from type 2, which is the kind that is at epidemic proportions now. My pancreas stopped working. I have taken 6 to 10 shots of insulin every day for 31 years now. How can anyone honestly say that this research is not worthy?

kenray04 - First off, let me say how sorry I am for your suffering. Those who do not have this disease or those who do not work in the medical field have no idea what you have to go through. We must remember who’s back pocket GWB is really in. Religious organizations love him, but so do pharmaceutical companies. If stem cell research would work, drug companies couldn’t make any more money off of insulin drugs. I work in the medical field and every drug rep that serviced my office all had GWB buttons in 2004. Personally, I think the religious right is being used as a scapegoat here. Pharmaceutical companies are the real reason behind this.

Cures = no money.

Posted by: Lisa C. at July 20, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #169246

I challange anyone to show clinical proof that ESC’s are doing what the researchers promiss.

Posted by: KAP at July 20, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #169265
I challange anyone to show clinical proof that ESC’s are doing what the researchers promiss.

The above is an example of a very typical political tactic of this very cynical administration when confronted with “uncomfortable” science. Don’t fund the research and then claim the research is going no where.

Let me lay out some facts that a Republican can read in any reputable medical science journal should they ever be so inclined.

1. Embryonic stem cells hold GREAT potential for the treatment of injury and disease. That is the opinion of the vast majority of medical researchers throughout the world. Don’t think so? Then the burden of proving that is on you. And that will take more than a web search.

2. Adult stem cells ARE NOT the same as embryonic stem cells, and are not regarded as having the same promise at least in the short and medium term. The surge in research on adult stem cells in recent years is driven entirely by the fact that viable embryonic stem cell lines are unavailable in this country.

3. Medical research is incredibly expensive. To state that viable basic research can be done using private donations is either naive or deceptive. Ask Jerry Lewis how much progress 30 years of telethon’s have had for his signature charity. To refuse to federally fund ESC research is the same as killing it in this country.

If you have an ethical or religious argument against the use of embryonic stem cells than say so. Don’t pretend that your objections have any basis in science. They do not.

Posted by: Mike at July 20, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #169272


You are making claims with out any proof to back them up. You are asking those who disagree with you to prove a negative. Sorry study logic. If you make a claim you need to back it up. If you are not able to back it up then quit making that claim.

As for your broad statements there are those who say it is promising but there is no substantial data to back up that claim. Show us some if there is.

The only real evidence of usefulness in stem cell research is in adult stemcell research. What Bush did is only say that there will be no funding of embrionic stem cell research but he has allowed it he just does not want to pay for it.

There currently is research going on for embryonic stem cells and they have achieved nothing. Bush in no way is trying to stop it.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at July 20, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #169277

If any president vetoes something he or she deems wrong, especially if they think it’s murder, he or she has a responsibility to oppose such laws even if I or any of you agree or disagree. If its deemed important enough than congress will override the veto. I disagree with this veto, I disagree with all the pork he signed, never once standing up to his own party to disapprove of pork. I liked his first term, but this one has a lot to be desired.

Posted by: KW at July 20, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #169285

I asked for clinical proof that ESC’s showed any promise. I’ve searched to find out if there was any. Most of what I found showed that adult stem cells showed more promise along with umbilical cord blood. Now if I was going to put money into something I would go with the thing that shows more promise.

Posted by: KAP at July 20, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #169307


Your challenge to show clinical proof that ESC’s are doing what researchers promise is asinine. First they need to be researched, which is not being done thanks to the likes of GWB handcuffing scientist by severely limiting the research. We may never know what they can do, never know how many lives they can improve and save thanks to people like you that don’t value life.

Posted by: mark at July 20, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #169311

The ESC’s are being researched all over the world. As far as being assinine it’s the statements that people like you make without knowing what you are talking about. At least I searched out some information on the subject.

Posted by: KAP at July 20, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #169318

You’ve been writing about you’re searching on web sites for two days now but have nothing to show for it. How do we know that you know what you are talking about?

Posted by: mark at July 20, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #169531

KAP: You’re an idiot:

I found dozens of other sites with similar stories in about 2 minutes.

There’s this search site called Google. You might want to look into it.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at July 21, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #169532

—KAP—I have a trick question for you, do you
want to play?

Posted by: DAVID at July 21, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #169616

Mister Magoo
The article you showed was talking about fetal cells derived from an sborted fetus. Yes I got my info from GOOGLE but I searched more than just 2 minutes. Your the real idiot.

Posted by: KAP at July 21, 2006 9:21 PM
Post a comment