Michael J. Fox Stem Cell Research Controversy

Actor Michael J. Fox has a series of political campaign ads circulating television networks in which he tries to persuade Americans to vote for Democrats who support embryonic stem cell research.

Fox, 45, suffers from Parkinson’s, a chronic disease of the central nervous system, causing muscular tremors and physical weakness. Michael J. Fox is causing disputes in Missouri where in his attack ad he states, “Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope.”

In a similar ad, Fox attacks Michael Steele, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland. The irony of this campaign ad is that Steele’s opponent, Ben Cardin, voted against stem cell research.

Conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh retaliated against Fox’s campaign ads, causing a fury of attacks against him when claimed that Michael J. Fox may have exaggerated his condition. Fox was later interviewed by Katie Couric, in which he says he wasn't acting or off his medication.

Limbaugh defends his accusations on his website, stating: "They [Liberals, Fox, Couric] get personal, mocking every conservative illness, foible and failing (including my own) real, fake or forged, yet act outraged that we dare challencge one of them on politics..."

Michael J. Fox and Ben Cardin are misleading the public by playing on the hopes and fears of millions of Americans who are suffering from debilitating diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimers and Dimentia, as well as Parkinson’s Disease. The ad campaign is repulsive because it’s dishonest in promising cures to these diseases, cures that are uncertain and yet to be discovered.

Instead of arguing the facts and admitting the truth behind Limbaugh’s statements, Democrats attack the radio host calling him cruel and hateful and continue to distort his words and statements he makes on his radio show.

The Passion of the Christ star Jim Caviezal, along with actress Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and Cardinal’s pitcher Jeff Suppan, have appeared in advertisements countering the claims of Michael J. Fox. In the ad Caviezal, Heaton and Suppan tell Missouri voters the facts about embryonic stem cell research and then state “Don’t be tricked”, “Don’t be deceived”, and “Don’t be fooled.”

Michael J. Fox came into my living room through my television a few nights ago. He showed me how badly his Parkinson’s disease causes him to tremor, so that maybe I’d feel sorry for him and vote Democrat, or maybe I’d feel guilty if I responded to his exploitation of his condition.

In his ad he said “Wisconsin holds a special place in my heart, because it’s where stem cell research was born.” What really caught my attention is that Fox didn’t say “embryonic stem cell research”. He clearly and deliberately left out the word “embryonic.” I feel this advertisement is very misleading.

Democrats are fighting to allow government funding of embryonic stem cell research which requires the destruction of human embryos. Human embryos are human beings at the earliest stages of development. This is a scientific fact.

As a resident of Wisconsin, I’m very aware that Governor Jim Doyle forced the state to spend money on embryonic stem cell research. This research has yet to help a single patient. Doyle is running for re-election and his opponent Mark Green backs stem cell research of adult stem cells, which does not destroy the life of a human being.

Adult stem cell research has found many treatments such as rebuilding livers damaged by otherwise irreversible cirrhosis, repairing spinal cord injuries using adult stem cells from nasal passages and sinus regions, reversing Type 1 diabetes in mice using adult spleen cells, putting Crohn’s disease into remission and repairing heart attack damage using the patient’s own blood stem cells, as well as many other treatments that have been discovered by using adult stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell research has produced nothing, not one single cure or treatment.

Yes, Michael J. Fox is a victim of Parkinson's disease. Yes, I am sorry he suffers from this condition. I can't say that I understand what he goes through every day. What I do know is that suffering from an illness with no known cure is devasting. My grandfather had Alzheimer's and my family watched him deteriorate every single day of his last years of life. But never did we hope and pray for a cure that was discovered through the destruction of human lives.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at October 31, 2006 9:00 AM
Comments
Comment #191778

You mean like those human lives that are thrown in the trash every day? Those human lives?

Please.

And because nothing has been found yet means nothing will be found?

Please.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 31, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #191783
The ad campaign is repulsive because it’s dishonest in promising cures to these diseases, cures that are uncertain and yet to be discovered.

No, you’re misrepresenting the ads. They don’t promise that Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) will lead to cures - they say (factually) that there is a lot of potential in the research to provide a cure. MJF says “it gives us a chance for hope”. Are you calling “a chance for hope” a promise? There’s a difference there, and you’re calling them liars based on ignoring the difference.

In the ad Caviezal, Heaton and Suppan tell Missouri voters the facts about embryonic stem cell research and then state “Don’t be tricked”, “Don’t be deceived”, and “Don’t be fooled.”

Yes, they have put together that ad, and they say such things. However, what they say are not the facts. They claim things about the Amendment that simply aren’t true.

For example, they say that the Amendment enshrines the right to clone people when the actual text is “No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.”

Dana, you’re accepting the spin from one side of the debate as factual, and calling the other side of the debate all lies. I know that you really agree with one side, but accepting statements that just aren’t true doesn’t help.

Embryonic stem cell research has produced nothing, not one single cure or treatment.

However, it has incredible potential, much more potential than adult stem cell research. This is because adult stem cells can so far grow into only about 5 types of cells, whereas embryonic stem cells can grow into about 200 types of cells.

The argument that we should ban early ESCR because it hasn’t yet provided any cures doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying that Ford shouldn’t have spent the money to design the Model T because there weren’t any sales yet and there were already horses in use. Before the research is complete, you judge based on potential, and ESCR has great potential.

But never did we hope and pray for a cure that was discovered through the destruction of human lives.

Fortunately, that’s not really a concern with ESCR, unless you consider 8-cell clumps of undifferentiated tissue that would be thrown away otherwise to be morally equivalent to a human. To me, it’s pretty obvious that blastocysts are not a human life.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #191785

Thanks for pushing back science to the dark ages, Dana. For giving those with currently incurable illnesses no hope for a cure. For backing up the utter callousness of Limbaugh’s stance. And for incorrectly asserting that we have to destroy human lives in order for stem cell research to proceed. You clearly didn’t read the bill that Bush vetoed. If you had, you wouldn’t trump your effette morality about “destroying lives,” as those potential lives are currently being thrown away, and will continue to be thrown away, thanks to people like you. But what do you care? You’ve clearly adopted the popular Republican masquerade of endorsing a “Culture of Life” that in truth has no regard for the living – specifically, those who are most in need of the promises that science is trying to deliver.

You argue that Michael J. Fox doesn’t desrve our sympathy, because he suffers from a disease he cares about curing. But it’s okay for a baseball player to tell us “don’t be fooled” by the likes of Michael J. Fox. Why is it against the rules to disallow someone who suffers from an incurable disease to try and support a cure for such a disease? If someone doesn’t suffer fromo said disease, his or her life will not benefit from a cure.

Oh, and the main reason why embryonic stem cell research has produced no results so far is because Bush only allowed scientists to work on a very small line of cells, which turned out to be contaminated.

Just because a cure hasn’t come about yet doesn’t mean one won’t. But what do you care? You’re not the one with Parkinson’s disease.

Posted by: Darth Independent at October 31, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #191787

Dana
I agree with the post.

The Missouri item up for vote also including cloning. The whole proposal was paid for at a tune of over 25 million dollars by a couple who, if the proposal passes, will reap billions of dollars from their business that is part of that exploitation of life.

The concept of creating life to kill life is repulsive. And is even more disgusting that nothing good is gained from those actions.

The ethics of embryonic stem cell anything is so below the radar. It is everything evil. It is satanic. Why not go for a cure in an area that is morally correct, has a track record of success, and does not have to destroy life to get it?

Thanks Dana for the post.

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #191792
The Missouri item up for vote also including cloning.

Correct. It explicitly bans it.

The concept of creating life to kill life is repulsive. And is even more disgusting that nothing good is gained from those actions.

Is that more disgusting than your lie here? There is a lot of potential for gain, and there are no living humans destroyed, just use of clumps of undifferentiated cells that would be destroyed anyway.

It is satanic.

I’m glad we’re discussing that rationally. Whew.

Why not go for a cure in an area that is morally correct, has a track record of success, and does not have to destroy life to get it?

Assuming you mean adult stem cell research, there’s nothing in the bill to prohibit or prevent such research, so this is a straw man.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #191795

What Lawnboy and Darth Independent said.

Btw, this is just priceless:
“They [Liberals, Fox, Couric] get personal, mocking every conservative illness, foible and failing (including my own) real, fake or forged,”

Conservative illness!!! Real, Fake, or Forged!!! And he actually used the word mocking!
Truly ironic and hilarious.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 31, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #191797

Bush is not to blame for not allowing embryonic stemm cell research. The bill he vetoed only was that federal dollars could not be spent on that type of research. Embryonic stem cell research is being done throughout the country by various agencies. Their is potential. But the potential is not very good. The researchers have made zero progress toward a solution to any illnes. Their is potential in making oil out of rock, but not very good.

You anti-life posters can rant all you want about the names to call the embryo. It is still life. There is potential in a proper use of those embryoes. Why not pursue a program that extends life and has a higher probability of good for the common interest of society?

There is hope in adult stem cell research. The researchers are finding success on a regular basis. Why not go with a proven track record? There is so much more to be done.

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #191799

Lawnboy,

At what point did you cease to be a clump of undifferentiated tissue? Were you not a moral equivalent of human being at that point in your life? I sure know that I was at the same point in my life.

Alan Crosby - former 8 cell blastocyst

Posted by: Alan Crosby at October 31, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #191800

Is anybody here against In Vitro Fertilization? Quite a number of embryos there are destroyed after they are unneeded for the creation of a new life. That is how it is, and that is the issue the Republicans fear to push back on.

If these embryos are to be destroyed anyways after the creation of life, why not use them for research to sustain and preserve it, with the Parent’s permission?

Then the whole process becomes life-giving, and you don’t have to argue that fertility doctors are serial baby killers.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #191804
Bush is not to blame for not allowing embryonic stemm cell research. The bill he vetoed only was that federal dollars could not be spent on that type of research.

You’re partially correct here. Bush is not necessarily to blame. ESCR is at the point of basic research now, and a better policy by Bush likely would not have led to cures yet.

However, we would probably be much closer. Additionally, it’s a red herring to say that all he did was restrict the use of federal dollars. For basic medical research like this, federal funding is the primary source of support. His approach very much harmed the ability of researchers to find cures.

But the potential is not very good.

tomh, this is just inaccurate. The potential is huge. That’s why 200 different non-profit medical groups support Missouri’s Proposition 2. Please don’t make up stuff just because you don’t like the answer based on facts.

The researchers have made zero progress toward a solution to any illnes.
No, that’s also wrong. They’ve made progress, but they haven’t proceeded completely to a cure. But there has been progress.
You anti-life posters can rant all you want about the names to call the embryo. It is still life.

Why is it a rant to disagree with you? Why is it a rant to call things by their proper names? The clumps of cells we are talking about are officially and really blastocysts, undifferentiated masses of cells. There is life in them, just as there is life in a skin cell. That doesn’t mean they are a human life.

There is potential in a proper use of those embryoes.

I agree with those words, but we disagree one what the “proper use” is. I think the proper use is to try to solve life-threatening diseases. You think it is to hold them in deep storage in the vain hope that someone might adopt a “snowflake” until they get too old and have to be thrown away.

Why not pursue a program that extends life and has a higher probability of good for the common interest of society?

That’s the question I was going to ask, since ESCR has a higher potential for cures than adult SCR.

There is hope in adult stem cell research. The researchers are finding success on a regular basis. Why not go with a proven track record?

No one’s stopping that. But why not go with the approach that has higher potential as well? They aren’t mutually exclusive.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #191805

Alan,

At what point did you cease to be a clump of undifferentiated tissue?

When the stem cells differentiated.

Were you not a moral equivalent of human being at that point in your life?

No, because at that point, I was about as equally likely to be expelled from my mother’s system and never be known about as I was to implant in her womb and grow. Many millions of blastocysts are created naturally each year and never implant, and we don’t mourn those. There’s a real double-standard here.

I sure know that I was at the same point in my life.

That’s the difference between knowing and believing.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #191807

“If these embryos are to be destroyed anyways after the creation of life, why not use them for research to sustain and preserve it, with the Parent’s permission?”

Maybe you haven’t heard…this is already legal in most states. Private research is ongoing with all kinds of stem cell research. The issue is whether Federal Tax Dollars should be used for this. I believe the Federal Government should stay out of it.

Secondly, there is little benefit to adding embryonic stem cell lines until we have research showing promise of a cure/treatment for something. We already have hundreds of ESC lines. Standardization of stem cell lines makes the experiments more likely to be repeatable in the early stages of research (an essential part of the scientific method).

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #191809

we were promised a cure for cancer and aids not so long ago. what happened there?

Posted by: jm1656 at October 31, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #191810

LawnBoy, Stephen D., et al.

If embryonic stem cell research has so much potential, then why isn’t there tons of private funding to support it. If there are tons of private money supporting it, then why must the Federal Govt. As a nation with limited public funds, why is this research more important than any of a host of others. For that matter, why is it more important than many non-research related expenditures. If there is money to be made with the potential cures resulting from this research, I bet there would be plenty of private enterpise funding it.

keith

Posted by: keith at October 31, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #191812
Maybe you haven’t heard…this is already legal in most states. Private research is ongoing with all kinds of stem cell research. The issue is whether Federal Tax Dollars should be used for this.

No, that’s not the issue here. The direct issue at hand is an amendment to the Missouri Constitution that would say that any research into embryonic stem cells and any treatment based on embryonic stem cells that is legal at the Federal level will be legal in Missouri. The reason such an amendment is necessary (in addition to the obvious reasons) is that other bills the last few years that would have supported unrelated biotechnology (medical devices, agriculture, etc.) have been stopped based on the threat of adding anti-ESCR amendments to them.

This amendment is necessary, not because of federal funding, but to allow Missouri to try to grow financially and medically.

The federal funding issue is also important, but it’s not specifically what’s going on in Missouri.

Secondly, there is little benefit to adding embryonic stem cell lines until we have research showing promise of a cure/treatment for something.

Well, reasearch has shown promise, so we’ve cleared that hurdle.

We already have hundreds of ESC lines.

Yes, but the vast majority of those cannot be used in research that has federal funding. Only about 16 of the original lines that the President approved turned out to be viable, and those lines are hard to get.

Standardization of stem cell lines makes the experiments more likely to be repeatable in the early stages of research (an essential part of the scientific method).

It’s even better if you can show that a technique is repeatable across multiple lines.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #191814

Dana -

Good article. You have rightly pointed out the truths behind this issue.

“Michael J. Fox and Ben Cardin are misleading the public by playing on the hopes and fears of millions of Americans who are suffering from debilitating diseases…”

Unfortunately, during an election season, both sides play the “fear card.” I personally like Fox’s acting ability. I like his sense of humor. But when he crosses into the political arena his abilities do not shine as brightly. When the truth is given, Fox looks foolish in these ads.

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #191815
If embryonic stem cell research has so much potential, then why isn’t there tons of private funding to support it.

There is, but the difference in scale between federal and private funding is large.

As a nation with limited public funds, why is this research more important than any of a host of others.

I believe that’s a question for the qualified and expert grant-decision boards to make, not the politicians.

If there is money to be made with the potential cures resulting from this research, I bet there would be plenty of private enterpise funding it.

There is some, but it’s on a different scale. Even in the context of this argument, the amendment is necessary to make sure that Missouri families have access to cures, whether they come from federal or private funding.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #191818

Dana is right. No known cure means no known cure. We’ve had enough of you no good college brainwashed liberals. It’s bad enough that uncurable diseases like smallpox and polio have been beaten back. Let everything be - we dont need change!!

Posted by: Schwamp at October 31, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #191825

Whats wrong with cloning?

Posted by: kctim at October 31, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #191826

Dana,

Embryonic stem cell research is a particularly controversial because, with the present state of techonology, starting a stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning (SCNT).

Stephen Daugherty brings up a great ethical question. What is the difference between In Vitro Fertilization and Stem Cell Research in so far as the creation of multiple embryos and their subsequent “destruction”?

I think great questions like that are why I enjoy this forum so much. My wife and I have personally been through infertility treatments, adoption, natural pregnancy, stillborn birth, miscarriage, and biological birth. I’ve spent no small amount of time thinking about when life begins. And that’s the great debate here, when does life begin.

And I’ll tell you I don’t honestly know the answer to that question. I know I don’t believe in abortion except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life. I do believe in In Vitro Fertilization as a viable and moral method for a married couple to get pregnant and have children.

Ultimately, I think we should support Embryonic Stem Cell research. I think there should be some tight guidelines but there are tons of frozen embryos that are going to be discarded, and there is so much potential for good here.

Perhaps someday we will understand better about the beginings of life and when we know more we can make wiser judgements.

I won’t be voting for a Democrat candidate this year for a lot of reasons, but I will be encouraging my fellow Republicans to change our position on Stem Cell Research.

Tom

Posted by: Tom U. at October 31, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #191827

no matter how loud you voice against, it is useless, stem cell research and human cloning is a certainty, it WILL happen, it will profit to the countries that funded it, putting behind the countries that did not. Besides curing deseases and increase human longevity it will provide gain, because of that, there will always be a place where people do it while others complain about it.

Posted by: goby at October 31, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #191828

kctim,

Are you asking what’s wrong with cloning individual cells, like happens with Stomatic Nuclear Cell Transfer? Or do you mean what’s wrong with creating a new person with identical genes to a previous person, like the amendment bans?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #191829

I am so sick and tired of right-wing nutjobs dragging us down with their crap, can we please secede? We’ll split into two countries for 20 years, and at the end of the 20 years whoever’s in better shape takes over.

Posted by: David S at October 31, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #191830

Dana et. al.—

I wonder why not a single one of you complained when Michael J. Fox was campaigning for Republican Senator Arlen Specter? Why was there no conservative backlash then? Is this simply partisanship? Do any of you really believe what you are saying? I wonder, do you even completely understand the topic?

Posted by: jrb at October 31, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #191832

LawnBoy,

You missed one of the points. Maybe there isn’t enough private funding because the research doesn’t have as high a potential as some might think. BTW, we live in a 30+ trillion dollar economy. Our federal spending is less than a tenth of this. There is much more money available to the private sector for research than there is from the federal govt. Lest you forget the true scale of spending.

keith

Posted by: keith at October 31, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #191833

Doesn’t matter LawnBoy.
Clone a cell or clone a person, big deal. Both can lead to medical discoveries which would benefit all of us.
I’m just a little lost as to why so many people fear this would lead to cloning people.
I think people watch too many movies.

Posted by: kctim at October 31, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #191834

Many of the replies have pretty much said what I wanted to say to Dana’s post. Dana basically got everything wrong from the nature of the scientific research on down.

One thing not mentioned yet is the nonsense about Ben Cardin voting against stem cell research. Cardin voted FOR the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which Bush vetoed. Cardin voted against the Republican bill which prohibits the use of embryonic stem cells, thereby ending the possibility of research in that area. So Dana, Cardin’s record is 100% in favor of embyronic stem cell research.

I take serious issue with your characterization of Fox and Cardin “playing on the hopes and fears.” The Scientists doing the research on embryonic stem cells are in near-universal agreement that the work is an extremely promising avenue of research that can lead to cures for many different illnesses. That is because the nature of the differences between embyronic and adult stem cells. They are careful to point out that you have to know the difference between the two.

But at no time have the scientists, nor Fox, nor Cardin promised anything. Fox and Cardin have taken the time to listen to the scientific community and understand what they are telling them. Apparently, you have not.

I conclude by noting that the heart of your post is nothing but opposition to abortion in any form. I wish you would just stick with that and not spread lies about the science.

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #191835
You missed one of the points. Maybe there isn’t enough private funding because the research doesn’t have as high a potential as some might think.

Are you asking the question honestly? If so, the answer is “No, that’s not it”. Take a look at the list of supporters of the amendment. The reason there are so many important non-profit medical groups supporting the amendment and this research is precisely because there is great potential.

There is also some private funding available, just as there is private funding for all medical research. However, there’s not really a good argument for why this research must rely solely on the smaller pool of private funding when other basic medical research doesn’t need to.

There is much more money available to the private sector for research than there is from the federal govt. Lest you forget the true scale of spending.

In the general economy, you’re right, there are trillions of dollars. That’s a red herring, though. In the realm of basic medical research, government funding dominates.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #191836

LawnmowerMan….

OK. If MJF believes that the ammendment should be passed, why not simply state that? That issue is up for vote by the CITIZENS of Missouri.

Instead of attempting to convince the public of the potential benefits that ammendment could produce for the public, MJF injects himself into a political arena that he does not belong in. MJF, although he has the right to speak his mind, has no real business telling the citizens of Missouri who to vote for….especially since he is not a resident of Missouri.

The candidate he endorses has no more say in the passing of that ammendment than does the candidate he opposes. Regardless of if the ammendment is passed or not by the Missouri voters, there is nothing that either candidate could do to change that, if elected.

If MJF would have stuck to a discussion of the merits of the ammendment, there would have been no dust-up. The problem comes when he attempts to vilify a particular candidate based on party affiliation. I say “party affiliation” because it is clear that he is politicizing the issue. MJF still endorses Ben Cardin over Michael Steele, even though Cardin is on the record as being opposed to ESCR. He is not “supporting candidates who favor ESCR”, he is simply supporting members of the Democratic Party.

Although I am empathetic for his medical condition, I am increasingly disgusted by the elitists on Hollywood who think they can tell me how to vote and/or live my life. They are ACTORS…nothing more. They make their living PRETENDING to be other people.

Posted by: Rich at October 31, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #191838

Dana,

There is no Michael J Fox “controversy”. There are simply two men with diseases. One has Parkinsons and the other is an addict. If you want to debate embryonic stem cell research then please stick with the truth. Not punditry garbage, which is full of lies and half truths. I haven’t read the thread but seeing lawnboys name above this post, I’m sure he showed the “where the lies are”

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 31, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #191840

Rich-

Do Kurt Warner, Jeff Suppan, Jim (I played Jesus, so listen to me!) Caviezel, or Patricia Heaton have any greater expertise than MIcahel J. Fox? Quite the opposite, really. Considering the amount of time and effort MJF has focused on this one cause, I tend to believe he knows more about it than most people who are arguing its merits.

Posted by: David S at October 31, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #191841

rich said “Instead of attempting to convince the public of the potential benefits that ammendment could produce for the public, MJF injects himself into a political arena that he does not belong in”

Since when does a citizen of this nation not “belong in” a political debate? If you really feel that way, doesn’t it make sense that no money should be allowed to be spent in a state where the contribution did not come from? Doesn’t that mean if you’re not from MS then YOU should shut up and stay out of it?

BTW: Didn’t your Ronnie start off as a co-star with a monkey? I’m pretty sure he was “pretending for a living”

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 31, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #191843

I’ve a question for the pro-lifers, and other on here. For years we have been lectured by the pro-life community that “Life begins at conception”. Without debating that specific point, where in the Somatic Nuclear Cell Transfer (SCNT) process does conception take place? From my understnding, there is no conception, no fertilization. Just a transfer of genetic material to an unfertilized egg that has its genetic material removed. In essense, only 1 set of genetic material is used. This is fact. So how can SCNT produce life, if life only begins at conception? This has always bothered me about the whole cloning debate. I believe tht the pro-life community also believes that a “soul” (whatever that means) enters the embryo at conception. Since SCNT involves no conception, when would the “soul” enter?

Posted by: SteveK at October 31, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #191845
MJF, although he has the right to speak his mind, has no real business telling the citizens of Missouri who to vote for…especially since he is not a resident of Missouri.
I see your point, but I disagree. Do you believe that Bush has no right to go to campaign rallys throughout the country supporting Republican candidates? I think he does. Do you think that non-Missouri residents like Patricia Heaton, Jim Caviezal, and Kurt Warner have the right to do ads opposing the amendment based on their religious beliefs? I think they do.

MJF is in a unique position as the visible spokesman for the Parkinsons’ patients. He provides a unique perspective that is worth hearing whether I live in his voting district or not.

You’re right that there is confusion here; his ad explicitly supports McCaskil because of her support for ESCR, but the response ad by Suppan, etc. was explicitly opposing the amendment instead of the candidate. There are two issues here that get conflated and confused.

I don’t know why MJF’s ad was specifically for the candidate and not the amendment - you’d have to ask him and her and the other people involved. However, it doesn’t bother me.

The candidate he endorses has no more say in the passing of that ammendment than does the candidate he opposes.

He didn’t address the amendment in the ad. He addressed Talent’s voting record in the Senate. I believe his ad is based on the idea of getting a better Senator for the issue he cares deeply about.

Are you seriously mad at him for not discussing the amendment in an ad that’s not about the amendment? That’s strange logic.

The problem comes when he attempts to vilify a particular candidate based on party affiliation.I say “party affiliation” because it is clear that he is politicizing the issue.

You are wrong, but you are definitely parroting the anti-MJF spin here. He has campaigned for Republicans in the past on the Stem Cell issue (Republican Senator Arlen Specter in particular).

You and Dana claim that Cardin has opposed ESCR, but Steve K say that’s not true. I don’t know.

I am increasingly disgusted by the elitists on Hollywood who think they can tell me how to vote and/or live my life.

So, you’re equally mad at Patricia Heaton and Jim Caviezal, right? Otherwise, you’re just politicizing the issue.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #191848
I haven’t read the thread but seeing lawnboys name above this post, I’m sure he showed the “where the lies are”

:)

Thanks for the vote of confidence

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #191849
The problem comes when he attempts to vilify a particular candidate based on party affiliation. I say “party affiliation” because it is clear that he is politicizing the issue. MJF still endorses Ben Cardin over Michael Steele, even though Cardin is on the record as being opposed to ESCR. He is not “supporting candidates who favor ESCR”, he is simply supporting members of the Democratic Party.

Rich, what a batch of lies.

Cardin is absolutely NOT “on the record as being opposed to ESCR”. Quite the opposite.

And as has been previously stated, Michael J. Fox has campaigned for Republican candidates who support ESCR. So how is that being politically biased?

Posted by: Burt at October 31, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #191850

I dont want taxpayer money going for this.
When some scientist wins a Nobel Prize or like, do you think he/she will pay it back?

Posted by: Tricia at October 31, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #191852

You should get your science from biologists, not religious fundamentalists, they have a better idea of where cures may come.

This is nothing more than you shoving your God up our asses.

Posted by: The Lindburg Baby at October 31, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #191854

Keith,

“BTW, we live in a 30+ trillion dollar economy. Our federal spending is less than a tenth of this. “

Do you have a source for this? Just wondering.

Posted by: jrb at October 31, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #191856

kctim,

I’m not ignoring you; I don’t have a good answer for you. Perhaps those so upset with Amendment 2 can provide an answer.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #191859

I understand LawnBoy, I wasn’t taking it that way. Its more of a morality question I guess. Probably shouldn’t have brought it up until a post on cloning comes along.
It was just bugging me.

Interesting posts to LB.

With regards to MJF, stem cells and Rush: who cares?
MJ should be free to say what he wishes and support who and what he wants AND Rush should be too.
There’s truth and distortions coming from both sides of the issue.

Just more of the same old same old, do anything to get votes.

Posted by: kctim at October 31, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #191860

Keith,

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the US Department of Commerce are responsible for calculating and reporting government consumption expenditures and gross investment [Government spending not including transfer payments]. These figures are reported quarterly. By their calculations the government is spending over $2.5 trillion per quarter [10 trillion per year]. This would be a third of the US economy if, in fact, we have a $30 trillion economy [I haven’t checked].

I’m just wondering if you have a different source.

Posted by: jrb at October 31, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #191862

Wow. What a hot button issue. It certainly hits my hot button.

Some thoughts that will hopefully get people to think differently:

First, I’m willing to agree that an 8-cell embryo is human and it is living. So, I guess it’s a human life. I don’t know what else to call it.

Organ donation. Think of stem cell research as organ donation. The “person” is going to die anyway. I have the right to donate my body to science and/or donate my organs to save another person’s life, right? It’s a good thing if I’m going to die anyway. Are you conservatives against organ donation?

Iraq War. Before the war started we faced a decision to spend federal dollars on an operation that had “potential” to save lives, American lives at least, but required the destruction of human life to achieve this goal. Were you against the war at that time? How about now. Every day our leadership decides to spend federal dollars to keep our troops in Iraq to fight the insurgency (which necessarily means destroying human life) because in the long run they believe it might save lives. Oh, and with all we’ve spent on the war and all the human lives that were destroyed, this has “produced nothing, not one single cure or treatment.” In fact, a bi-partisan report has said the the war has made us less-safe. So, do you support pulling out of Iraq?

Death Penalty. Do you support the death penalty? It destroys human life. And it doesn’t have any promise to save any lives since it’s been proven over and over that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent.

I confess that the last 2 are really just pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives. But hopefully some of you can start thinking about this research as organ donation or “donating your body to science.”

So, I support this research. And I wonder why it is apposed by people who are willing to go to war and to send people to the gas chamber. But I realize that for conservatives this issue isn’t about science or the fear of scientists cloning and making monsters or honoring the sanctity of human life - it is about abortion. They are afraid that if we are allowed to play with embryos, it’s sends a message that a fertilized egg has no rights as a person. They just won’t come out and say it.

Posted by: Jeff at October 31, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #191863

The US GDP (the common measure of the size of a national economy, I believe) was estimated to be $12.41 trillion in 2005.

Another source

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #191864

Jeff:

Interesting comments.

I also find it interesting that the opponents of abortion also support pharmacists refusing to sell prescribed birth control.

It’s not just about abortion, it’s about regulating morality, i.e. who can have sex, when and how.

This all goes so much deeper.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 31, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #191866

SteveK wrote:
I’ve a question for the pro-lifers …

This is not my post. There’s another “Steve K” out there

Steve K

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #191872

Schwamp -
“We’ve had enough of you no good college brainwashed liberals.”
David S -
“I am so sick and tired of right-wing nutjobs dragging us down with their crap…”
L Baby -
“This is nothing more than you shoving your God up our asses.”

Please, do away with the name-calling. On the issue, was MJFox’s statements in the ads true or false. In one ad he made several statements which were blatently misleading or outright false. That is the issue for me about the ads.

On the research there should be 1) Limits on what kind of research is funded by the Federal Government, and 2) limits on the types of research allowed. They are separate issues.

I believe the Federal Government should not be in the business of funding embryonic research. There are some moral issues which make it objectionable to a large number of citizens (some are Christian, some are Jewish, some are not religious at all). This does not make this research illegal.

I believe there are some types of research which should be illegal. Human cloning, for example, should not be allowed because of the risk of creating people for the purpose of harvesting organs. (Does anyone really believe this would be OK?)

Stem cells have great promise. Cures and treatments will be found. But turning this into a political issue for supporting candidates will only make this issue a divisive one. I have trouble believing that is what MJFox really wants.

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #191874

Jeff
“And I wonder why it is apposed by people who are willing to go to war and to send people to the gas chamber”

Thats to easy Jeff.
A convicted murderer had a choice and chose to murder.
An infant however, had no choice and did nothing wrong.

One could also ask why the left believes the guilty should live but the innocent should die.

OR, as womanmarine has already said: “it’s about regulating morality.”
Like, who should care for the poor, when and how.

Now, I too must confess that the last 2 are really just pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals:)

Posted by: kctim at October 31, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #191875

You and Dana claim that Cardin has opposed ESCR, but Steve K say that is not true. I don’t know.

First, here is the link to the House roll call vote on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll388.xml

Second, here is the link to the Steele for Senate web page which claims Cardin voted against stem cell research.

http://www.steeleformaryland.com/SETTINGTHERECORDSTRAIGHTCardinVotedAgainstStemCellResearchforPurePoliticalGain.htm

You need to read the details on the Steele page. Even though the title reads “Cardin Voted Against Stem Cell Research for Pure Political Gain,” deeper down, when you get to the facts, it refers to legislation on “Alternate Stem Cell Research Methods” that “that do not destroy human embryos …”

Any scientist that is knowledgeable in the field will tell you that the limitation defeats the purpose of using embryonic stem cells, just like saying do your work on adult stem cells but not embryonic stem cells.

Steele write “I am an enthusiastic supporter … adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo.” Well, sorry Mike Steele, but that means you are against genuine research in the field. You cannot do the research and then tie the hands of the researchers this way. It is a dishonest approach and, Dana, you have bought it.

Dana, please post the facts you know about the difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research, will you?

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #191876
In one ad he made several statements which were blatently misleading or outright false.

Really? What? I can’t think of anything he said that isn’t true (at least for the Missouri version of the ad - I haven’t seen the other).

Human cloning, for example, should not be allowed because of the risk of creating people for the purpose of harvesting organs. (Does anyone really believe this would be OK?)

If your only objection is due to the risk of organ farming, couldn’t the law handle that? If the penalties were sufficiently severe for that use of cloning, would you have a reason to oppose cloning still?

Stem cells have great promise. Cures and treatments will be found. But turning this into a political issue for supporting candidates will only make this issue a divisive one.

Well, it is an issue discussed in legislation, so by necessity it’s a political issue. Do you see another way?

I have trouble believing that is what MJFox really wants.

What do you think he really wants? I think his incentive for finding a cure to the disease that causes his such trouble is sufficient motivation that I don’t need to invent or look for others.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #191877

Dana:

You and Michael J. Fox disagree on the need or desire for embryonic stem cell research. OK, that’s fine, many people disagree on this subject.

However, you have no right to question his sincerity, nor the sincerity of others who advocate embryonic stem cell research.

We’re not talking here about facts. We’re talking about research. Fox believes that the research he favors may bring cures to his disease and to other suffering indiiduals.

You don’t agree we should do this. But, this research is a public good.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at October 31, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #191878

Jeff -

“Death Penalty.”

You haven’t studied this issue much, have you? First, as you may know, not all conservatives are in favor of the death penalty.

Second, those who are for it make a clear distinction between punishment for a crime vs. murder of an innocent. You wouldn’t put a baby in prison just for being born, but you would sentence a criminal to prison time. Why? ONE IS GUILTY OF CRIME. (Duh!) The death penalty is A PENALTY (not a deterrant) awarded to a criminal AS A PENALTY FOR THE CRIME HE HAS DONE. Please compare that to Abortion. “One of these things is not like the others…”

Think it through. I believe you will agree they are totally different issues.

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #191879

Stem cells have great promise. Cures and treatments will be found. But turning this into a political issue for supporting candidates will only make this issue a divisive one. I have trouble believing that is what MJFox really wants.

First, there is no guarantee that cures and treatments will be found. But the research is promising. That is a critical difference.

Second, you are right to complain about the politics. But it began when the anti-abortion crowd took a promising area of medical research and started telling lies about the science.

If the anti-abortion supporters want to oppose ESCR for the same reasons they oppose first trimester abortions, that’s a legitimate debate we can have.

But don’t lie about the science. Do not paint a picture to the public that adult stems cells already show promise, so use them instead of embryonic stem cells. The two are different and include that in the facts you present. Do not attack a brand new field of science because it has not produced anything. It has not produced anything because it is brand new.

When conservatives are honest with the facts on ESCR I will stop calling them liars. I will call candidates who lie about science, like Steele, bald-faced liars to their face on this one. They are being 100% dishonest. MJF has every right to weigh in on this issue,because people like Steele are spreading these lies for the purpose of trying to win votes. What is sad about that is Steele and the other liars will allow the suffering of people like MJF to continue because their lies generate votes.

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #191883

Lawnboy -
“If your only objection is due to the risk of organ farming, couldn’t the law handle that? If the penalties were sufficiently severe for that use of cloning, would you have a reason to oppose cloning still?”

Tell me, what uses are there for human cloning? There are only two uses I can think of (there may be more) 1) harvesting organs, 2) choosing your child (maybe replacing a child who died). Neither sound worthy.

I said, “I have trouble believing that is what MJFox really wants.”

What I meant was that I believe MJFox should want research that will find cures/treatments. I don’t see the value in using stem cell research as a divisive issue among candidates. That he moved beyond ads for the support of State Funding into the arena of candidate support is a dangerous one. Wouldn’t it be better to lobby BOTH sides of the aisle, than to put all your hopes for finding a cure into the basket of one party?

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #191885

It appears that there is an anti-Parkinsons disease mentality rather than the issue of embryonic stem cell research. There needs to be a separation of principle.

John Edwards promised that Chris Reeves would stand up out of his wheelchair on his own if embryonic stem cell research was financied by the federal government. That was pure dung.

What potential is looked at when ESCR is brought up? Hope is the only thing. Hope is when all else fails.

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #191888

Don,

As already mentioned above, MJF did support candidates on BOTH sides of the aisle who support ESCR. Also, If you are talking about organ/limb cloning as oposed to whole Human cloning, maybe one good application would be to replace some of the limbs/parts blown off our soldiers in Iraq.

Posted by: jrb at October 31, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #191889
Tell me, what uses are there for human cloning?

I don’t know.

What I meant was that I believe MJFox should want research that will find cures/treatments.

Isn’t that what he wants? I’m sure that he’d prefer to simply be raising money for research, etc., but when politicians are putting up roadblocks to research he finds promising, what choice does he have?

Wouldn’t it be better to lobby BOTH sides of the aisle, than to put all your hopes for finding a cure into the basket of one party?

As we’ve pointed out repeatedly, that’s not what he’s doing. He campaigns on the issue, not on the party. He campaigned for the Republican Senator Arlen Specter because of Specter’s support for the issue.

It’s not MJF’s fault that others have made a political issue out of research that could help him.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #191892

tomh,

John Edwards promised that Chris Reeves would stand up out of his wheelchair on his own if embryonic stem cell research was financied by the federal government. That was pure dung.

I don’t remember the specifics of that speech, but yes, Edwards over-promised. That doesn’t mean the issue as a whole is dung.

What potential is looked at when ESCR is brought up? Hope is the only thing. Hope is when all else fails.

No, it’s not just hope. It’s the pluripotency of the different types of stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have much higher pluripotency than adult stem cells do - there’s much more they could do if we could figure out how to use them, and that will require research.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #191899

For those of you that think this is not about cloning… you better read the fine print.

(1) “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by
fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.

—somatic cell nuclear transfer is the same process they used to clone Dolly the sheep.

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

— So you can fertalize or clone all the eggs you want (ie create life) as long as you do not implant it in a uterus with the intent of creating a “human fetus”.

Posted by: Daddy0f4 at October 31, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #191900

Research on embryonic stem cells has been active for a number of years. There is no progress; not even close.

BTW, on cloning. God forbid someone clone a Pelosi, Kerry. Chavez. Abinajerk, Kim Jung, a pedophile, a rapist, etc. There will certainly be somebody on the scene to replicate one of the above or others. I personally would not want to cloned. As much as I respect Billy Graham, I would not appreciate him being cloned. Cloning is playing God. There is only one GOD. Man in all his imperfections would do a terrible job of trying to immitate GOD.

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #191902
Research on embryonic stem cells has been active for a number of years. There is no progress; not even close.

tomh,

I’m sorry that, once again, you insist that your scientific knowledge is better than those that are experts in the field.

There has been progress. I don’t know why you deny it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #191903

Daddy0f4,

So what? While SCNT can be used to clone sheep or people, such use is strictly forbidden by the amendment, and there are other uses of SCNT that don’t create new people.

The amendment allows cloning cells, but not cloning people. You obviously think that cloning an individual cell creates a life, but it’s not a human life in any traditional sense.

It’s about creating cells that can be used to save lives - it’s not about destroying lives.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #191906

LawnBoy.. your definition of “people” and mine are different and it appears we will not agree on that definition. That is the basis for the problem. Invetro fertilization of a human egg and human sperm (IMO) creates life…not a clump of cells. Now add to that, that I am unwilling to support having my (and yes they are mine) Missouri State taxes funding this destruction of life.

Posted by: Daddy0f4 at October 31, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #191905

The problem is until someone to include the Ole Mighty Rush Limbaugh walks in Fox’s shoes or anyone else who has a disease like MS, Parkinson, ALS, then no one has the right to say what is or isn’t right.
I had a father who was a diabetic for 25yrs, and died from problems it caused. If stem cell research would possibly help in a cure of it, I am all for it.
Problem with Rush is he a drug addict, and always will be one. This is something he did himself, no one to blame but himself. That is a lot different then having something done to your body that you have no control over.
KT

Posted by: KT at October 31, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #191907

Research on embryonic stem cells has been active for a number of years. There is no progress; not even close.

Thank you, Lawnboy, for pointing out tomh’s false claims. By his logic, Jonas Salk should never have stepped foot in a laboratory.

Dana has been suscpisouly quiet since this post went up. But then, with a comment like “Michael J. Fox and Ben Cardin are misleading the public” she should be. Her lack of knowledge on the science front shows that she is the one who is misleading.

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #191909
LawnBoy.. your definition of “people” and mine are different and it appears we will not agree on that definition.

You’re right. I don’t consider an undifferentiated mass of a few cells (that in different contexts would be flushed from the womb unnoticed or thrown away by a clinic due to not having a further use) to be a life more important than living, breathing people.

Do you consider IVF murder since only about 25% (at best) of the blastocysts created implant in the womb?

Now add to that, that I am unwilling to support having my (and yes they are mine) Missouri State taxes funding this destruction of life.

Well, the amendment says nothing at all about using our taxes (I’m in Missouri, too) for research.

All it says is that future legislative efforst cannot prevent Missouri researchers from doing research and Missouri patients from benefiting from cures. There’s nothing about taxes.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #191910

Oh god,forgive me for the killing of millions of human beings when I have wet dreams.

What a complete and utter load of crap.

Posted by: gergle at October 31, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #191915

LB..
Like I said, you and I will probably never agree on what (we believe) is life.

| Do you consider IVF murder since only about 25%
| (at best) of the blastocysts created implant in
| the womb?

Actually no ..I look at this as would be parents trying to increase their chances of having a child.

|Well, the amendment says nothing at all about |using our taxes (I’m in Missouri, too) for |research.

|All it says is that future legislative efforst
|cannot prevent Missouri researchers from doing
|research and Missouri patients from benefiting
|from cures. There’s nothing about taxes.


You should read the ammendment…

http://www.missouricures.com/documents/Initiative.pdf

Section 5
5. To ensure that no governmental body or official arbitrarily restricts funds designated for purposes other than stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures as a means of inhibiting lawful stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures, no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures, allows for such research or therapies and cures to be conducted or provided on its premises, or is otherwise associated with such research or therapies and cures, but (ii) receives or is eligible to receive such public funds for purposes other than such stem cell-related activities, on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities.


Posted by: Daddy0f4 at October 31, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #191918

Daddy0f4,

I have read the amendment.

This section you quoted just says that no official can illegally arbitrarily restrict public funds that are supposed to go to research. It doesn’t allocate funds for research at all, which is what I was saying.

So yeah, it does mention taxes, so I was wrong, but since it doesn’t allocate taxes or require the allocation of taxes, I don’t think you’ve proven your initial point.

Do you consider IVF murder…?

Actually no ..I look at this as would be parents trying to increase their chances of having a child.

So, if you approve of IVF clinics, what do you think we should do with the created blastocysts (400,000 so far) that will never be implanted? Should we make use of them to support potential life-saving cures? Or is it morally superior somehow to throw them away?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #191922

Micheal Fox doesn’t even know what he was supporting as he admitted. He hasn’t read the Bill but found he should campaign for it because it might hold a cure. Well it is legal to have stem cell research not just indiscriminate killing of human embryo. Well I know why he is for it as the dims do the same thing wanting abortion on demand. no diff.

Them dims remind me of their leader the swimmer, he walks into a bar where the sign says ” all you can drink for $1.” teddy bear shouts out in his indignant manner, ” give me $2 worth.” as he dog paddles out of sight on his way back to his home.

Stem cell like other issues of importance have left the dims in the dark like north korea on a clear night. did i mention they are as solid as a soup sandwich. what a bunch of das.

Posted by: lm at October 31, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #191923

David S,

NO…you may NOT seceed for 20 years. Refer to the 14th Amendment.

Tricia,

EXACTLY! That is the whole point here.

When MJF refers to “expanding” stem cell research, he is saying that the government needs to fund it…instead of private firms.

What everyone fails to acknowledge is…once the government gives MY money to the drug companies, they DON’T give it back. It doesn’t matter that they invent cures that reaps billions and billions of dollars in profit. MY money is gone and I won’t be getting it back. The drug companies will put those billions of dollars in their pockets and the only thing they will give the American taxpayer (ME) is the middle finger.

So let’s review:

1.) “Expand” research means taxpayer’s dollars.

2.) Drug companies get billions from cures…we get middle finger.

3.) Taxpayer’s dollars = Corporate Welfare.

Aren’t you all against Corporate Welfare from the government?

If the Drug companies are going to keep the profits, then they should do the research with THEIR dollars.

The government has NO BUSINESS giving our dollars to private mega-corporations who are very capable of doing their own research with their own dollars.

Period.

Posted by: Jim T at October 31, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #191926

So, Jim T,

Are you saying that you oppose all government funding of scientific and medical research? Or are you just opposed to this specific research?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #191927

It doesn’t matter that they invent cures that reaps billions and billions of dollars in profit. MY money is gone and I won’t be getting it back.

Until the day the doctor informs you that you have an illness that used to be fatal, but now can be treated and cured. Then you will be damned happy your money was spent when it was, because not only do you get to keep earning money, far more importantly, you get to keep living.

Posted by: Steve K at October 31, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #191930

I feel terrible for MJF. I loved his movies and feel it is just plain awful that he has to suffer so much when he has brought so much joy to so many people through his work as an entertainer.

MJF has a right - and perhaps a duty - to exercise his right as an American citizen to throw his hat into the political ring. But he should neither seek nor accept special treatment because of his status as a beloved entertainer. What Rush said was pretty harsh, but certainly no more so than what was said about Rush when it was revealed that he was going deaf. And look at the horrible, despicable comments about President Bush and practically every member of his Administration that are the comments du jour of late night pseudo-news comedy programs like Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” HBO’s “Real Time,” the now-defunct “Air America,” and non-conservative blogs everywhere.

No one twisted MJF’s arm to participate in the ad. Well, I don’t really know that for sure. It’s possible that MJF may have been mainpulated into making the ad that everyone is debating about here. But I doubt it.

One thing that bothers me about this is the timing of the ad. Would we be having this debate it MJF had waited until after the midterm elections to air the ad? I doubt it. The ad was aired to influence the outcome of the midterm elections. Nothing wrong with that. But some of the things MJF said need clarification at the very least, and perhaps even a complete retraction. Either way, the damage (however slight or serious) is already done and probably cannot be undone. Not before the election, in any case.

I read with interest the mini-debate going on here about the origin of life. Is a clump of cells “life,” or not? You are whistling past the graveyard of humanity when you argue for a minimum number of cells required to make a life human. To argue that “… the cells are going to be disposed of anyway, why not use them?” is eerily fascistic, don’t you think? Not everything evil has its origins in Hitler’s Germany, but this kind of research makes me think of the “research” conducted by Nazi scientists during WW II. Simply put, the ends do not justify the means. It wouldn’t matter if the Nazis had found a cure for cancer, AIDs, and the common cold. It would still have been wrong.

I know, I know. It’s not the same thing, our scientists are not Nazis. Please don’t misunderstand or misrepresent what I’m trying to lay out here. I just think that this kind of research has at least as much potential for doing great harm as it does for doing good. It would be prudent to proceed with this kind of research in a very careful and deliberate fashion, always with consideration to the critical review of future history.

How do we wish to be remembered? Does the potential for good with ESCR outweigh the potential for evil? Is there such a thing as “bad” science?

Posted by: Chris at October 31, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #191932

If Embryonic stem cell research is murder, then why are you permitting private research, much less in vitro fertilization? if it’s not, why are you blocking Federally funded research? If embryos are to be destroyed, why not destroy them in a way that allows other to be healed?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #191933

KT
The arguement is ebroynic stem cell research or just stem cell research. Nobody is against adult stem cell research and all that it has accomplished.

Steve K
Jonas Salk did not do embroynic stem cell research. Research is research. Maybe you that are for embryonic stem cell research would like to add aborted babies to your pro research list.

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #191934

Okay! I’ve come to a conclusion: Democrats and Liberals call me names when they can’t argue the facts. They accuse me of lying and producing false information when in fact, all of the statements in my article are true! The funniest part of this is the ones who oppose me fail to see the irony and instead attack the messenger (me) instead of argueing the facts (the truths you see above.

There are a few of you “lefties” who think that embryos are a cluster of cells. Nothing more than cells. If I follow your logic, than I can can commit murder (perhaps I’ll kill Ted Kennedy) and I can get away with it, because after all, he’s just a bunch of cells. Drunk cells mind you. Correct???????

Those of you who are pro-life, thank you so much for posting. You’re support means the world to me and to all those little “clusters of cells” that the lefties want to destroy in the name of “potential” (read: non-existent, never gonna happen) cures.

Adult stem cell research has MORE potential because it has proven itself with more than 30 cures. Gee…Skippy…I think that’s progress.

Posted by: Dana J. Tuszke at October 31, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #191935
But some of the things MJF said need clarification at the very least, and perhaps even a complete retraction.

Could you please clarify? Someone else said something along these lines but didn’t elaborate. What did MJF say that you think it inaccurate?

Also, Air America is in bankruptcy, but not defunct.

To argue that “…the cells are going to be disposed of anyway, why not use them?” is eerily fascistic, don’t you think?

Since this is at least partially aimed at me, I’ll respond.

No, I don’t think so, on two levels.

1) Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”. The term doesn’t really apply here. I know you’re actually trying to link this to the bad science of Mengele, etc., but I’m just being precise.
2) No one has really answered the question of what we should do with the 400,000 unused blastocysts otherwise. These are cells that will be destroyed legally and ethically if they are not used for research. There’s no reasonable comparison to the Jews and other groups that were experimented on as part of their unconscionable slaughter.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #191936

JimT:

Very good point. It is not against the law for private corporations to fund their own ESCR. But don’t universities that rely on federal funding for their day-to-day operations run the risk of having those funds revoked if they seek ESCR on their own?

It would help if there was some tangible benefit to ESCR that we could point to and say “See? Without ESCR we wouldn’t have a cure for ________.” But we don’t have a tangible benefit yet. We have promises for possible benefits that may or may not come in our lifetimes.

Posted by: Chris at October 31, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #191939
Okay! I’ve come to a conclusion: Democrats and Liberals call me names when they can’t argue the facts.

Please don’t resort to the victim card so easily. You’re calling us liars as well, so why are you the victim when we challenge you on your facts?

They accuse me of lying and producing false information when in fact, all of the statements in my article are true!

No. We’ve challenged the facts you presented. I challenged (with evidence) your characterization of the ads in question, others have challenged (with evidence) your claims about Cardin, and we’ve challenged your other claims, as well.

If you are right on the facts, you can rebut our challenges. Simply stating “but what I said is right!” doesn’t help your case at all.

The funniest part of this is the ones who oppose me fail to see the irony

There is nothing ironic about you supporting your claims that you’re right with the evidence of “I’m right”. It’s not irony; it’s tautology.

If I follow your logic, than I can can commit murder…and I can get away with it, because after all, he’s just a bunch of cells. Correct???????

Nope. We draw an obvious distinction between living humans and undifferentiated masses of a small number of cells. In no way does that description fit a living adult, no matter how much you hate him or his politics.

Please as least try to give a reasonable argument.

Adult stem cell research has MORE potential because it has proven itself with more than 30 cures.

There’s a difference between past success and future potential. Yes, there has been more success in the 40 years of adult stem cell research than there has been in 8 years of embryonic stem cell research. However, the inherent differences in the cell types mean that there is much more potential in the more pluripotent embryonic cells.

To give a sports analogy, who would you rather build a baseball team around now, Hank Aaron or Ryan Howard? The past results would say Hank Aaron, because he has hit almost 700 more home runs than Ryan Howard. However, Ryan Howard has much more potential, since he’s 26 years old instead of 72.

Saying Aaron’s past production proves more future potential would get you laughed out of any bar, just as your argument here will have the same reaction.

“potential” (read: non-existent, never gonna happen) cures.

Maybe that’s how you read the word “potential.” However, the experts that actually know what they are talking about read that word much differently.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #191950

Dana please don’t take this as a personal attack but I would like to clarify something for you.

Many cells together form a tissue, tissues together form an organ, organs form organ systems, and organ systems form an organism. Hence the difference between a blastocyst and an organism. Many organisms have central nervous systems and some even have a consciousness.

Hey Lawnboy, I’ve got an idea but its a bad one. Lets auction them.

Posted by: darren159 at October 31, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #191953
Democrats and Liberals call me names when they can’t argue the facts. They accuse me of lying and producing false information when in fact, all of the statements in my article are true!

Lie #1:

The ad campaign is repulsive because it’s dishonest in promising cures to these diseases

The ads never “promise” cures. In fact, MJF uses the word “hope” twice in the ad. How is that dishonest let alone repulsive? You can watch the ad for yourself here

Lie #2:

Instead of arguing the facts and admitting the truth behind Limbaugh’s statements

Limbaugh’s statement that MJF was pretending or “off his meds” was not the truth, and even he has admitted as such.

Posted by: Burt at October 31, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #191956

KCTIM wrote:

“Thats to easy Jeff.
A convicted murderer had a choice and chose to murder.
An infant however, had no choice and did nothing wrong.

One could also ask why the left believes the guilty should live but the innocent should die.”

And DON wrote:

“…not all conservatives are in favor of the death penalty.”

“Second, those who are for it make a clear distinction between punishment for a crime vs. murder of an innocent…The death penalty is A PENALTY (not a deterrant)”


Good points. I understand and respect your point of view. My thoughts:

My main problem here is that I hear a lot of conservatives talk about the sanctity of life and refer to the ten commandments. So it seems to me that if you truly believe that life is sacred, then all life should be sacred. And if you believe the 10 commandments are the words of God, you should notice that “Thou shalt not kill” is not followed by “unless they do something really bad.” OK, the death penalty is a punishment, but there are other punishments we can dish out without taking life.

I also noticed that neither of you defended the war in Iraq, where lots of INNOCENT lives have been lost. You know, people who had no choice and committed no crime. See how it seems inconsistent to me that those who oppose ESCR because “it destroys innocent human life”, defend and support wars like this?

KCTIM you ask “why the left believes the guilty should live but the innocent should die.” That’s unfair wording. Nobody “believes the innocent should die.” I don’t know anyone who wants the innocent to die. I don’t know anyone who encourages anyone to get an abortion. I hear the “pro-abortion” term used by the right a lot, but nobody is “pro-abortion.” My sense is that the Left (and the center too for that matter) wants to minimize abortions but without prohibition. Remember, alcohol consumption in the US INCREASED 11.6% the year after prohibition took effect because it pushed production underground and closer to the consumer which actually made it more available than before. So, from my perspective there are better ways to reach the goal of fewer abortions without criminalizing it.

Getting back to ESCR, I noticed neither of you commented on the notion that the parents of these soon to be destroyed embryos should be given the opportunity to “donate” their cells to science. I think it’s an interesting perspective that could help overcome the moral objections that are blocking the availability of federal funding.

Posted by: Jeff at October 31, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #191957

Dana,

Why should I trust Michael J. Fox or the star of Everybody Loves Raymond to tell me whether or not stem cell research is right? And why should I trust you to tell me what is and isn’t life?

Stem cell research isn’t in the Bible, so I rely on scientists. You don’t see it, but you’re just a puppet of politicians who have decided to make a campaign / wedge issue out of a form of research scientists and the rest of the world don’t consider controversial at all.

Posted by: Max at October 31, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #191959

Fascinating debate folks. This has to be one of the best series of posts on any topic for some time. Not the usual litany of name calling.

Also, I noticed that no pro-lifer ddressed my honest questions above about cloning and the beginning of life. Disappointing as I would really like to hear their side of that question.

Lawboy- you are my hero dude. You rock. And you;re from Missouri, like I. Excellent. Kudos to your excellent posts and responses, all done without name calling and other phony debating techniques so often seen on here. And for the record…I already voted FOR Amendment 2 absentee, cause I will be out of town next week. Oh, and also for Claire. :)

Posted by: SteveK at October 31, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #191961

no good college brainwashed liberal, lefties, Nazi scientists, playing God, drug addict, elitists on Hollywood, drunk mass of cells. MJF and Rush are both entitled to there opinions. The other side is not pure evil. We just want life to be treated respectfully. Mocking beliefs, illnesses, or intelligence is not respectful. If what you have to say is important, than the people you say it to are important as well.

Posted by: sassyathiest at October 31, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #191963

Lawnboy,

I am opposed to government funding (MY dollars) of corporations when private funding is available.

I am opposed to corporate welfare from our government when the company will reap the benefits and our government (the American taxpayer) gets shafted.

This is just a general statement. If the drug mega-companies agree to sign over any and all patents to the government to pay off the national debt, then I’m all for it. But really, do you think that will happen?

To have the government fund the “expansion” of anything that a private company (and only the private company) will profit from is wrong.

In the case of stem cell research, all we are doing is putting billions of dollars in the pockets of the drug companies and screwing ourselves.

Remember, drug companies are major corporations…and you’re giving a major cash windfall to big business.

If the big drug companies want to make billions of dollars off of stem cell research…THEY should fund it. Else, they should give those profits back to the American taxpayer.

Posted by: Jim T at October 31, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #191966

Republicans, in general, seem to oppose science and anything else reasonable for that matter. Why don’t you all just let your oppositions to these issues go? Be cool for once.

Posted by: Trent at October 31, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #191968

Jim T,

I understand and can respect that argument, but the scientific and medical success that our current model has had is something that I have a hard time arguing against.

I’m not directly in the scientific world that depends on government grants, so I’m not sure, but I believe that there are rules that say that the direct results of research funded through government grants must be in the public domain. If I’m correct, then your concerns don’t reflect reality - it’s not just corporate welfare.

Is there anyone that can verify or disprove my understanding?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #191972
In the case of stem cell research, all we are doing is putting billions of dollars in the pockets of the drug companies and screwing ourselves.

So, Jim T., I assume you are against the Republican prescription drug benefit.

Posted by: Burt at October 31, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #191974

Lawnboy-

You beat me to the punch. Government funded research related patents are owned by the government. Not sure what the restrictions are, if any, about assigning them to private companies. It would be licensee relationship at best.

Jim T-

Why are you worried about government funded research in this area? It works very well in other areas and tends to serve as a guiding light to the private sector to finance their own research often enough. They just have to be able to prove they’ll get a profit in order to get funding. That is a very different process, often more rigorous, from asking the government for funding based on the idea itself.

Government funding certain research for the benefit of the public trust stimulates the economy in targetted ways that pure economics just hasn’t been able to do. It has also proven to stimulate the economy. What is better? Giving people $1000 to go and spend on some chinese-made products while you allow billions of corperate tax and licensing dollars to go uncollected and those companies outsource operations overseas anyway…leaving millions to seek Wallmart employment? Or creating new avenues for businesses to explore so they can build research facilities and increase demand for educated professionals?

There is a line to be drawn on how to decide what to fund, but that is the role of elected officials, and they should be held more accountable for those types of decisions (ie. how to target the funding to only what is needed and cut waste). The private sector should be encouraged to take on as much R & D as they can stomach, but sometimes they really do need a kickstart that can only come from intentions other than profits.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 31, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #191975

Kevin23,

Thanks for the verification.

Yes, the amount of R&D funding by a government has a good correlation to the economic and scientific success a country has. Unfortunately, I don’t remember my source for that nugget, so take it for what it’s worth.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #191986

The author of this article failed to respond to Stephen Daugherty’s salient question about In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), just as most feigning outrage about Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) avoid the topic of IVF. They know that IVF is a popular procedure which will never be outlawed, so its role in supplying fertilized eggs for ESCR is conveniently ignored, as is the fact that ESCR cannot be honestly described as the procedure which destroys eggs which are headed for the waste basket anyway.

Confronted with this inconsistency, ESCR opponents will point to the fact that IVF is not government funded whereas ESCR. There is an existing market for IVF, whereas early research often relies on government funding. IVF is creating far more fertilized eggs than can ever reasonably be implanted and adopted. If you are outraged by this destruction, the outrage against ESCR is entirely misplaced.

As someone earlier pointed out, no great mourning occurs every time fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus, so this outrage is all conjured out of nothing.

If someone starts a campaign against IVF, I would consider it silly, but at least it would be honest. The whole campaign against ESCR is both silly and dishonest.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at October 31, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #191993
If someone starts a campaign against IVF, I would consider it silly, but at least it would be honest.

Not just that, but the contraceptive pill, as well, which works through the dual function of reducing the chances of fertilization and reducing the chances of implantation.

There actually is one group that is consistent in these issues: the Roman Catholic Church. The official policy of Catholicism is to oppose IVF, ESCR, and contraception. Of course, very few American Catholics actually agree with the Vatican on this.

I strongly disagree with the Vatican on these issues, but I give them credit for consistency.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #192023

Many of the above use ESCR and SCR as if they are the same. Differentiate between the two when you are posting.

On the Biblical Ten Commandments and “thou shalt not kill”. The interpretation is to not take a life wantonly. When a person commits a crime and is issued a sentence of death, this is in accordance with Biblical teaching.

That good old word potential. Say I am at a casino in Vegas. I am at the roulette tabel. I say put a grand on #4. It does not hit, but it had potential. I choose another grand on #22. It did not hit, but sure had potential. And on it goes. All my bets had potential. In reality I probably after a period of time would have het one of those bets. That is the law of averages. ESCR has not had a hit in all these years. This is not the law of averages. It is potential and very poor potential. Some have said that there are so many more oportunities using ESCR which should increase the possibility of getting a “hit”. This has not happened. On the other hand, there have been numerous “hits” using adult stem cell research. How long or how much money or how much hope does one put in a deal going nowhere?

Posted by: tomh at October 31, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #192026
ESCR has not had a hit in all these years.

All these years? All these years? It’s only 8 years old!!! Biomedical research takes time, and 8 years for something as complex as this is not that long.

Your casino analogy really doesn’t work at all, because scientific progress isn’t a game of chance. It’s a slow, methodical improvement over time.

And such improvement and progress has been seen with ESCR, despite your denials.

How long or how much money or how much hope does one put in a deal going nowhere?

You’re trying to kill the research before it really starts. These things take time, and you do no one any good to pretend to know what you’re talking about here.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #192028

Dana-
Michael J. Fox made a commercial in which the reaction to the drug he takes to treat his neurological degenerative condition were painfully obvious, and did so in support of stem cell research. Rush Limbaugh gets on air and not only accuses him of dishonesty, of exaggerating his condition, but also mocks that condition physically.

Embryonic stem cell research deals in clumps of cells being destroyed. If by the Republican argument, that’s killing a human being, then several human beings are killed to make one in fertility treatments which Republicans have not criticized, nor will likely ever take a stance against.

If that is the position it can only be said to be inconsistent. If destroying an embryo is murder, then doing that to gain stem cells differs not at all from doing that as the waste product of In Vitro Fertilization, morally speaking.

If Republicans are unwilling to censure mothers who use IVF to conceive and let the embryos be destroyed, then there should be no censure for the use of those embryos, with the parent’s permission, for Stem Cell Research.

The facts remain that stem cells from adults are not as pluripotent, not as capable of forming all the different kinds of cells in the body. There has been some progress in teasing out different sources of those cells, but the limits generally remain.

We don’t know everything about stem cells, adult or Embryonic. Those presuming that Embryonic stem cells will not do anything much, forget that they do quite a bit at the beginning of our lives. They form every cell we’re born with. So to say they don’t have potential is to ignore the obvious fact that we exist. The question is whether we can use that potential. It’s a question that can’t be pre-emptively answered “no” with any credibility. Science doesn’t work that way.

Ted Kennedy, whatever his sins or virtues, is fully grown man, having been implanted in his mothers womb after the deaths of many other eggs and embryos. He is not just a clump of cells, he is a well organized being, with differentiated tissues and organs, and a brain capable of sustaining thought, emotion, and sensory perceptions. By comparison, the embryo, is just a clump of cells, not yet complex. Once that embryo is developed, life has begun its course, and I do not believe myself that it should be stopped except in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity. But before that, it is merely a clump of cells, which on its own develops into nothing.

The Collapse of Chaos by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart, is an illuminating book on this subject, which reveals that development in the womb is first and largely guided by the mother’s genetic information. Only after a while does the child’s join in and give that individual’s stamp of development. The very important and intricately connected role of mother and child brings this debate to a new level of sophistication.

As for human cloning, allow me to say this. The likelihood is that the clone would resemble but not be an identical copy to the person, since environmental, and experiential conditions would be different. Similar tendencies in behavior and biology might pop up, but the likelihood would be that this would be a distinct person with a distinct soul.

This debate is anything but simple, and the stem cell debate as most Republicans argue it is contradictory and often ill informed. Rush Limbaugh’s performance adds a tacky new dimension to the issue, as we are confronted with the lack of inhibition that they demonstrating in making unfounded, unproven charges, and in failing utterly to respect the virtues of reasoned debate. They don’t debate to persuade, they debate to destroy and discredit their opposition.

You express your problems with being called names, yet defend a man who with no conclusive evidence on his side accused somebody of faking the symptoms associated with a terrible disease. Perhaps you’re taking the wrong approach somewhere here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #192029

tomh-
What qualifies you in any technical sense to comment on the potential of such research? I’m willing to bet that you get most of your information on these matters from church or party outlets. Or do you perhaps have a better source?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #192032

Stephen Daugherty,

Very nicely said.

Thanks.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #192038

tomh,

When a person commits a crime and is issued a sentence of death, this is in accordance with Biblical teaching.

Really? I thought Jesus said turn the other cheek. What do I know?

Posted by: jrb at October 31, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #192047

Jeff -

“I also noticed that neither of you defended the war in Iraq…”

Pick the war you want, war is not like anything else. In wars people get killed and maimed. Many innocents have died throughout the centuries because of wars. It happened in WWII, in VietNam, in Korea, in WWI, in the Spanish-American War… Whether the war is justified or not innocents suffer. So what? This argument doesn’t deserve to be responded to, but since you insisted I have.

“I don’t know anyone who encourages anyone to get an abortion. I hear the ‘pro-abortion’ term used by the right a lot, but nobody is ‘pro-abortion.’”

You don’t get out much! There is a long list of organizations and individuals in the Democrat party who ENCOURAGE abortions. With statistics like these (“More than one-third of all U.S. women will have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.” - Planned Parenthood) someone has to be pushing it. Think about it, (your mother, your sister, your wife) for every 3 women you know one of them has had an abortion by age 45. Doesn’t that make you a little uncomfortable about the rhetoric, “I’m personally opposed to it, but it is a woman’s choice.”? So, who is trying to reduce abortions? Not NARAL or Planned Parenthood. They are pushing for “reproductive freedom.” It is to their advantage, as organizations, to have MORE women who have “chosen” death for their babies, not less. And those organizations raise money to elect Senators and House members who support THEIR cause. Those they support are in favor of less restrictions on abortion, not more. On every other issue the Dems are “personally opposed to” the Dems try to make laws restricting funding, access, etc. Not here. So, wake up! If they didn’t want more abortions they’ll actually do something to reduce abortions. They haven’t even published a pamphlet asking women to not have abortions.

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #192054

Stephen D-
“Michael J. Fox made a commercial in which the reaction to the drug he takes to treat his neurological degenerative condition were painfully obvious, and did so in support of stem cell research.”

And your quote from Fox regarding this… As I understand it, Rush (who never apologizes for anything) offered to apologize if he was wrong. Fox never responded to Rush’s offer. Has Fox made a statement that he was not acting or off his medicine?

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #192058
Has Fox made a statement that he was not acting or off his medicine?

Yes

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #192060

Stephen D-
From Dana’s article: “Fox was later interviewed by Katie Couric, in which he says he wasn’t acting or off his medication.”

Sorry, I forgot what Dana wrote…long thread. But I’m guessing that Rush DID apologize??? You’d forgive him if he did, right?

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #192061

And Don, as far as I know, Rush hasn’t followed up on his offer to apologize. The last statement I know from Rush about the issue is “I stand by what I said. I take back none of what I said. I wouldn’t rephrase it any differently. It is what I believe; it is what I think. It is what I have found to be true.” [source]

Is there something more recent?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #192062
Has Fox made a statement that he was not acting or off his medicine?

Yes, Don. Of course he has.

Don, I count over half a dozen posts by you on this subject and you don’t even know what Michael J. Fox had to say in response to the accusations against him? How typical.

Don’t you guys on the right ever get tired of being uninformed and repeating bad information?

Posted by: Burt at October 31, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #192065
You’d forgive him if he did, right?

If it were a real apology, showing contrition and an understanding that he made a mistake, and with an honest attempt not to make such mistakes in the future? Then yes.

If, instead, it were a “non-apology apology,” simply saying he’s sorry because he got caught without any real attempt to try to imporove his behavior in the future? Then no.

Which do you think is more likely?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 31, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #192074

I’ve yet to see those opposed to ESC research answer how they believe throwing ESCs away rather than using them for research is in any way “better.”

If they are honest, there is no valid argument here for them. “Save the ESCs so we can throw them away!”

And even they must know the wild cloning claims aren’t in play here. Just a bizarre red herring.

If they are more honest, they would tell us all of their feeble arguments are simply based on their fears that ESC research is somehow a slippery slope to somehow not allowing them to outlaw a woman’s right to choose. They’re again using the “fear card,” only this time they’re playing solitaire.

Posted by: Boomer at October 31, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #192085

From Dana:
Those of you who are pro-life, thank you so much for posting. You’re support means the world to me and to all those little “clusters of cells” that the lefties want to destroy in the name of “potential” (read: non-existent, never gonna happen) cures.

First, those little “clusters of cells” that you say are life are already being destroyed. They’re being thrown away. So you, Dana, are in fact already condoning murder (based on your logic), because you obviously think it’s okay to discard millions of unused embryos every year.

Second, you say a cure is “non-existent, never gonna happen.” Really? How do you know that? Can you see into the future? Are you a research scientist? Where are the facts to support your statement? People also said we’d never be able to build a flying machine.

Dana, you SHOULD take the comments here personally. Because what you prop up as facts are anything but, as evidenced by the majority of bloggers here who HAVE provided facts. Facts that you cannot accept because they get in the way of your ideology - which is far more personal than the facts others posting here.

Look, it’s okay to have a strong, personal opinion. But when you state that “… all of the statements in my article are true!”, and they aren’t, you are clearly someone who cares more about her personal convictions instead of the facts. Which wouldn’t be such a bad thing…only if you could understand the difference between the two.

Posted by: Darth Independent at October 31, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #192102

Stephen D.

I have a file about 2-3” thick on stem cell research both adult and embryonic. There are over 100 references. Several universities, medical facilities, and the NIH. Both positions are presented in the file that I have. I do have two or three articles from the Catholic church (I am not Catholic). There are zero from political sources. I am not an expert. I have read enough from both sides to form an educated response to the question. Unfortunately there are too many people on this post that only skirt some facts derived from who knows where and try to give the impression that they have exclusive knowledge on the subject. I try to use information that is derived from both sides of a question and give a response that I believe to be true.

Thank you for the question.

Posted by: tomh at November 1, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #192129

Jonas Salk did not do embroynic stem cell research.

Duh. I mentioned Salk as an example of the type of work that, by your reasoning, you completely oppose. (I could have mentioned many, many other research scientists, but his name came to mind first.) tomh, you are just plain anti-science, anti-research.

If you want to oppose ESCR for anti-abortion reasons, stick to the abortion argument. It’s the only leg you have to stand on. Don’t go after the science unless you understand it. Don’t rely on the political propaganda that does not even explain the scientific differences between embryonic and adult stem cell research. Listen to what the broad spectrum of scientists in the field have to say.

Posted by: Steve K at November 1, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #192135

Truth seems to irrelavent to the Right.
Why else whould so many swallow
This Drival Rush seems to spew.
Rush Lied.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006ballot/fbl.asp
as anyone can read this clearly Read this
Bans Human Cloneing. As for the
Funding well medical research
often must turn to the private
sector for funding. I am sure they
recieve a healthy tax break for
the charitable donation.
In any event it is not takeing
form tax payers.
Rush forgets MJF supports
anyone from either party
who supports medical research.
He helped Republican Arlen Spector
with a add in last election.
Rush Limpball Is simply Blowing
smoke up the Republican pipe
Any who choose to think a drug
addict still has a moral compass
Is chooseing to remain blind
For Party Loyalty sake.

Turn this Idiot off and try
useing your own Brain.

Posted by: Honey P at November 1, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #192140

Lawnboy:

From what I understand, MJF accused Jim Talent in Missouri and Michael Steele in Maryland of opposing research on stem cells. That is not true. They may oppose ESCR that destroys the embryo, but they support stem cell research. Do you have evidence showing otherwise?

It really wasn’t necessary to paste the Webster’s definition of “fascism.” I know what fascism is, and I wasn’t referring to the movement. I simply stated that is was fascistic in the sense that it was evocative of fascism. You don’t see it that way. Okey-dokey. No need to be condescending.

You don’t see a problem with the destruction of human embryos. That’s A-OK with me. I see the possibility of a “slippery slope” when it is left up to some branch of government life to define human life. If the government can decree that a human life begins 180 days from conception, or that certain characteristics must be present in order for “it” to be considered human, then what you have is a sliding scale that can be adjusted up or down according to the whims of contemporary society. And here is where we get to the crux of the whole issue.

I think there is something special about people, something unique in all the animal kingdom. I don’t disavow our relationship to plants and animals. Evolution and natural selection are the processes by which contemporary plant and animal species have come to be. But there is no denying that the human species is unique. A blastocyst may be a clump of undifferentiated cells, but it is a clump of undifferentiated HUMAN cells that will develop into a human being if allowed to grow. A human blastocyst will never develop into a chimpanzee, a manatee, or a zebra.

Here’s a definition for you: Pedantic - marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects; A Pedant is a person who overrates or overuses book learning or pure technical knowledge. Such a person values simple knowledge, (in the form of often obscure facts and rules) over common sense and more general knowledge.

Posted by: Chris at November 1, 2006 8:54 AM
Comment #192143

Unfortunately there are too many people on this post that only skirt some facts derived from who knows where and try to give the impression that they have exclusive knowledge on the subject.

The trouble is, tomh, that your are worse than one of those people who skirt the facts. I don’t even seeing you addressing the basic science.

For example, the only response you have made to me — and I have posted fact after fact after fact — is to jump on my Jonas Salk analogy because he didn’t do ESCR.

Posted by: Steve K at November 1, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #192146

I typed:

I see the possibility of a “slippery slope” when it is left up to some branch of government life to define human life.

I meant to type:

I see the possibility of a “slippery slope” when it is left up to some branch of government to define what constitutes a human life.

Posted by: Chris at November 1, 2006 9:09 AM
Comment #192149

This thread shows people’s true colors. My wife has just been diagnosed with terminal cancer and sent home to die because medicine has no help for her. Neither of us support the amendment that would “clone” humans to try and develop a cure. I am from Missouri so I know what I’m talking about and I’ve tried to read the amendment as they publish it in the paper every week. It is very tiny print and covers two full pages of text. It changes 40 something articles of our constitution and if it were just the right to legalize whatever the Federal government allows it could have been done with one sentence. It says it does not allow cloning of humans but the research it is authorizing is exactly that and will protect it constitutionally. Just don’t allow this “cytoblast” to grow enough to become something that drains our system, stop it while it is still something we can use for OUR benefit.

Are you guys a bunch of Generation X people that don’t remember where “the end justifies the means” leads? For crying out loud, as stated before, this research is not illegal now, so why would it take thousands of words and changes to that many areas of our constitution to not change the law? It DOES legalize cloning and actually prohibits discriminating against it so that means that the liberals can take that wording and mandate that an equal portion of state money MUST go into this research.

Our local tv station news showed the MJF ad and then interviewed a Parkinson’s victim locally that discussed the amendment and guess what, this elderly man, maybe in his 70’s was on the same medication as MJF and was not shaking, trembling or weaving back and forth like MJF. He sat there calmly in front of the camera and appeared without symptoms.

Dana is absolutely right!

rickfromthesticks

Posted by: Rickfromthesticks at November 1, 2006 9:11 AM
Comment #192150

One more time…

I typed:

I see the possibility of a “slippery slope” when it is left up to some branch of government life to define human life.

I meant to type:

I see the possibility of a “slippery slope” when it is left up to some branch of government to define what constitutes a human life.

Posted by: Chris at November 1, 2006 9:12 AM
Comment #192151
From what I understand, MJF accused Jim Talent in Missouri and Michael Steele in Maryland of opposing research on stem cells. That is not true. They may oppose ESCR that destroys the embryo, but they support stem cell research. Do you have evidence showing otherwise?

ESCR is a form of stem cell research. Talent opposes ESCR. Therefore, he opposes a form of stem cell research. QED.

No need to be condescending.

I wasn’t trying to be condescending - I was simply trying to be precise, as I said. Not everything that Hitler or Tojo or Mussolini did was based on fascism - some things were based on other bad ideas. I’m sorry that you’re insulted when I point that out.

What’s your definition of condescension, anyway? I’m seeming to find that you complain about condescension when someone merely points out that you’re wrong on a point of fact.

And here is where we get to the crux of the whole issue.

So, instead you support an arbitrary definition of what constitutes human life? A definition that makes many forms of common birth control murder? A definition that makes IVF treatments mass murder?

I agree that a better definition of life is necessary, but I can’t support the one you support.

A human blastocyst will never develop into a chimpanzee, a manatee, or a zebra.

And without being implanted in a womb, a human blastocyst will never develop into anything.

You know, I almost used “pedantic” instead of “precise” earlier when I was responding to you idea that ESCR is fascistic, but I decided it wasn’t quite the right word for the situation.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 1, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #192152

Chris writes:

From what I understand, MJF accused Jim Talent in Missouri and Michael Steele in Maryland of opposing research on stem cells. That is not true. They may oppose ESCR that destroys the embryo, but they support stem cell research. Do you have evidence showing otherwise?

Wrong, Chris. Here are some facts:

1. Steele (and perhaps Talent; I don’t know because I have not followed that race) oppose EMBRYONIC stem cell research (ESCR).

2. Steele (again perhaps Talent too) endorses ADULT Stem Cell Research and research “that do not destroy human embryos …” But scientists tell us they can’t do that.

3. #1 and #2 severely limit the ability of scientists to conduct ESCR, including illnesses like Parkinson’s disease.

4. #3 is what Fox is addressing. I saw Fox’s CBS interview and he made that point very clear.

You have to understand the science behind numbers 1, 2, and 3 to know what you are talking about. Most people don’t. The Republicans have done a number of the public by not distinguishing between the two types of research and throwing out confusing language when it is raised.

Posted by: Steve k at November 1, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #192153

rickfromthesticks,

I’m sorry about your wife’s situation.

It is very tiny print and covers two full pages of text.

I find it very bizarre that one of the primary points people bring up against the amendment is that it is long. I’m not sure how the length of the amendment is a good or bad thing.

if it were just the right to legalize whatever the Federal government allows it could have been done with one sentence.

Ideally, yes. But this is an age with very talented and picky lawyers. The length comes from being precise.

It says it does not allow cloning of humans but the research it is authorizing is exactly that and will protect it constitutionally.

No. It explicitly bans cloning humans, but it also allows cloning cells. There’s a big difference there.

this research is not illegal now, so why would it take thousands of words and changes to that many areas of our constitution to not change the law?

While there are no laws against it now, there have been attempts. Other bills the last few years that would have supported unrelated biotechnology (medical devices, agriculture, etc.) have been stopped based on the threat of adding anti-ESCR amendments to them.

It DOES legalize cloning and actually prohibits discriminating against it so that means that the liberals can take that wording and mandate that an equal portion of state money MUST go into this research.

It legalizes theraputic cloning of cells, not cloning of people. And the last claim here is just not true.

He sat there calmly in front of the camera and appeared without symptoms.

That means nothing. Parkinson’s affects different patients differently, and the symptoms for an individual patient vary from day to day. That someone else exhibited different symptoms in no way says that MJF was faking his.

Dana is absolutely right!

No, she’s not, for the reasons we’ve articulated, that she refuses to rebut.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 1, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #192184

Steve K

You apparantly did not read the post above by me. I have a file thick with information both pro and con stem cell research both embryonic and adult. No political source is in my file. I have read and understand most of the information in this file. I way the information and come to a conclusion to what my belief is on the subject. You are in the parking lot past left field when you accuse me of being anti-research and anti-science. I will not dignify your charge with any further remark. Most people on this post will not understand the science of the subject. They do understand the principle of the subject. I thought that Chris wanted a discussion on the principle not the science. So I responded.

Posted by: tomh at November 1, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #192195

tomh,

I did read your post. But nothing you have said indicates to me that you’ve read or digested your files. Do you agree with the scientific community? Why or why not?

When you write “Most people on this post will not understand the science of the subject” — that is the problem. We should both be trying to educate them. I know I am. Failure to understand the science leads to bad public policy. This is true in many other areas as well, like climate change.

But I haven’t even read anywhere above that you have articulated or understand the scientific distinction between adult and embryonic stem calls. A real discussion on this topic needs to start there.

Posted by: Steve K at November 1, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #192204

Steve K
You have singled me out/ You will have to deal with that.

Embryonic stem cell research starts with an embyro. Stem cells are extracted from the embryo. When this is done the embryo is dead. That is destroying human life. That is why I am opposed to embryonic stemm cell research.

Adult stem cell research is quite different. The source of stem cells in adults can come from nerve tissue, bone marrow, skin cells, umbilical cord blood, body fat cells. Nothing has to be killed to used these sources for the intended purpose.

Of course there is much more to be said. The Posting by Chris had to do with the morality of either one being correct or wrong. I have stated my position.

Posted by: tomh at November 1, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #192209
When this is done the embryo is dead. That is destroying human life.

That is a statement of belief, not a scientific statement. Science cannot define the moment that life begins - it’s religion, philosophy, and belief.

There’s an interesting article on Wikipedia about the controversy over the beginning of pregnancy. It brings up the point that there are many different points that are considered to be the beginning of pregnancy: including the day of last menstruation, ovulation, fertilisation, implantation and chemical detection. Saying that any one of these points marks the point of the beginning of life is outside the realm of science.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 1, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #192210

Stem cells are extracted from the embryo. When this is done the embryo is dead. That is destroying human life. That is why I am opposed to embryonic stemm cell research.

That is a perfectly acceptable answer, but it is a moral one, not a scientific one. Science does not define “human life” the way you do. If they did, then the AMA would have a policy of prohibiting its members from performing abortions. But they don’t.

As I do not consider an embryo “human life”, I disagree with you on the moral issue, but I also know there is no way either of us will change our minds on this. All I ask is that when discussing the science, stick to the facts and present them accurately. And don’t mix science with morality/religion without warning others that you are doing so.

Posted by: Steve K at November 1, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #192216

tomh,

“Embryonic stem cell research starts with an embyro. Stem cells are extracted from the embryo. When this is done the embryo is dead. That is destroying human life. That is why I am opposed to embryonic stemm cell research.”

Do you understand that these embryos are doomed to death anyway?
That if they aren’t used they will be destroyed?

Should we be holding funerals for each and every one of these embryos?

Why are you against using an embryo that won’t be used, and will be destroyed otherwise, to find possible cures for diseases that scourge mankind?

This is not a slippery slope.
There is no moral question here.
I see no real moral reason that these cells, that are doomed to be destroyed anyway, shouldn’t be used to benefit mankind.

Posted by: Rocky at November 1, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #192221

Trent,

I’m a Republican and I support embryonic stem cell research. Does this make me cool?

If you are the Trent that has been posting for the last few months frequently, then let may say I’ve come to admire your posts. However, this was the opposite of cool, dare I say lame way to phrase your argument.

Stephen,

I appreciate your insight into the discussion, but you questioned not a source but the lack of a source from someone. That to me is not fair play in a debate and goes more to the man than to the message. I think that was beneath your skills.

Lawn Boy,

Your passion for the subject is astounding. I really appreacate your debate. Thanks for all the insight.

Posted by: Rob at November 1, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #192225

Rob,

I don’t know if you were speaking to me or another Steve, but my comments are critical of people who address scientific issues without indicating that they understand the science and separate fact from fantasy.

In the case of tomh, we finally got to the point where I understand his opposition to ESCR on moral — not scientific — grounds. People can take any position they want on this topic for religious reasons and I cannot and will not fault them for that (but may disagree).

But that leads to the larger issue to me: that Dana initially misrepresents the science in an effort to support her religious position. It is a dishonest and fraudulent way to approach public policy, and I will shoot down (in print, that it) anyone who does that — left or right.

Posted by: Steve K at November 1, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #192228

Steve K,

Wait until you get into a debate with tomh on evolution. It’ll really make your head spin trying to figure out what’s in his file and how he interprets science.

and I will shoot down (in print, that it)

Sadly, I think it’s a good idea that you included this qualifier.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 1, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #192241

Lawnboy,

1. Stem Cells
2. Evolution
3. Climate Change

The three great Republican attacks and outright lies on science today.

Posted by: Steve k at November 1, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #192252

This is not primarily a scientific issue, its an ethical/moral issue. In deciding this issue you must answer for yourself two questions: ‘When does life begin?’ and ‘Does the the end sometimes justify the means?’.

To answer the first question (for myself), I switched from ‘pro-choice’ to ‘pro-Life’ when I hear my first child’s heartbeat in the womb very early in my wife’s pregnancy. Later, I would poke my wife’s belly and my unborn daughter would poke back. From that point on I was convinced that life began prior to delivery. Now, where to draw that line…cell clumps…extra embryos… As for MY line, I say lets just not mess with embryos period.

As to the second question, I say the end does NOT justify the means. To answer differently leads to moral relativism. I like my lines straight.

Lawnboy, your posts have been well done, but I believe your post concerning what to do with the 40,000 extra embryos lying around would be a strawman argument. Do the amendments mention just using these embryos? Wouldn’t this just open the door? Besides, I haven’t done the research, but just based on what you’ve said, some of the fertilization clinics cross my ethical line anyways.

Back on topic, Rush is a windbag, and doesn’t speak for THIS conservative. However, questioning MJ Fox is fair IMO. I’ve met several folks with Parkinsons at different stages of the disease. All had the symptoms more or less under control with the ElDopa(SP?). Fox could have it really bad, or the add might have caught him during a bad episode, but questioning the add seems fair. I admit Rush went too far, IMO, though.

With respect;
NotNutts

Posted by: NotNutts at November 1, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #192262

An embryo has life. That life is destroyed when the stem cells are removed. That is scientific and morally factual. This is from ESCR people. This is from people I oppose. The sources I have are many and are in agreement together on the matter of embryoes having life.

Posted by: tomh at November 1, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #192263
An embryo has life. That life is destroyed when the stem cells are removed.

A human skin cell has life. That life is destroyed when you get too much sun.

Does that mean that sunbathing is murder?

Of course not, but your rhetoric doesn’t recognize the inherent distinction between being alive and being a life.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 1, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #192269

Don,

It seems you are either missing my point or are simply ignoring it. Let me try again:

You say: “Whether the war is justified or not innocents suffer. So what?”

My point is that some on this post have argued that they oppose ESCR because they cannot support killing innocent humans even if it means it might save lives. If these are their values, so be it. But if they support any war at all (expecially Iraq where we were not attacked or even threatened), they are being inconsistent, hypocritical, and or racist.

Regarding your comment on Planned Parenthood, et. al. I don’t know much about what they do, but while I oppose making abortion illegal, if anyone is out there encouraging abortions, then they are just evil. I would fully support forcing services like Planned Parenthood to provide fully-informed consent. Anyone considering an abortion should have access to all information about all their options. But all I hear from the right is demands for a complete ban which I feel would not reduce abortions, it would just change the way they happen.

Posted by: Jeff at November 1, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #192270
Lawnboy, your posts have been well done, but I believe your post concerning what to do with the 40,000 extra embryos lying around would be a strawman argument. Do the amendments mention just using these embryos?

Thank you for the complement. The issue of existing frozen blastocysts(of which the number is 400,000, not 40,000) is an often-ignored part of the debate. When I said to tomh that his idea of a proper use of them is to hold them in storage until they get thrown away, I was probably using a strawman, because he hadn’t explicitly said that. However, neither he nor anyone else on his side of this debate has come up with a good alternative. If he presents another reasonable alternative, I’ll retract my statement.

The amendment in question doesn’t directly refer to these existing unused blastocysts, but they exist and can be used to conduct research that would be protected by the amendment. To note the inherent inconsistency in opposing the amendment on the grounds that it will destroy embryos that would be destroyed anyway is a valid counter to the “pro-life” arguments made in this debate.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 1, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #192273

To everyone who thinks it is morally wrong to destroy to destroy the embryo of a human, while I cannot change your beliefs I’d like to consider the following reasoning that I have used to define when zygotes/blastocysts/embryos/fetuses should have a right to life.

Animals and plants are alive, yet there is pretty large majority of people who think that killing animals is acceptable. Why is this so?

The reason that Human Beings are given rights that other animals do not have is that Human Beings have something that animals do not: a consious and sentinent being. That is why we call ourselves Human Beings.

To answer the original question (when does a clump of cells gain the rights that you and I enjoy?) let’s follow the development step by step because everyone agrees that rights must be given sometime between gamete formation and birth.

1. Gametes: Sperm and ova are considered living cells, but do not get any rights because although they are human, they are not Human Beings (No brain, no thought, no consiousness).

2. Zygotes and blastocysts are no different from gametes except for the fact that they are diploid and not haploid. So they do not have rights for the same reason; they are human, but not Human Beings.
BTW this is the stage that ESCR extracts the stem cells

3. Embryos, fetuses, infants, children and adults have brains that allow sentinent, cognative and conscious thought and have rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, speech, religion, petition, bear arms, due process etc… This is because they are Human Beings.

Posted by: Warren P at November 1, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #192274

Tomh-

Your comments crack me up. What exactly does “morally factual” mean? Does it mean that the underlying morality does in fact exist? Then Would the opposite also be “morally factual” if someone else believed it? And what scientific evidence can you offer showing conclusively where life begins? Doesn’t it begin by defining life, which is dependent on your belief system? So how is it you think it is ok to call beliefs facts?

Your posts seem to carry the same theme: misinformation and conclusions drawn from beliefs. It is just funny that you call them “facts” when they are anything but.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 1, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #192276
The issue of (400,000)frozen blastocysts…Posted by: LawnBoy at November 1, 2006 01:12 PM
Wouldn’t the right2lifers have only one answer; the cells must be kept safely frozen until they are brought to term. Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 1, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #192277

I’ll fall back on my original line in the sand on the discussion of life: when the “right to life” crowd shows the same level of energy with the topics of capital punishment and infant mortality in the US as they do with abortion, I’ll find a debating partner who approaches the topic on consistent moral grounds I can relate to.

Posted by: Steve K at November 1, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #192288

Steve K-

This is one area where I’m forced to respect Catholics. At least they value life in a consistent way. This American phenominon of having your cake and eating it too, all with the moral high ground is just strange. You can’t kill a prisoner, throw away embryos, and use fertilization techniques that have a great chance of producing nothing all while saying you value life in all its forms.

Either step up to the plate and say that things are always circumstantial, then explain why you feel your position is correct using sound facts and scientific data, or else go visit a Catholic church, or any other civilized nation and ask people to teach what being consistent really sounds like. Then people like me can actually respect and value your opinion.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 1, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #192344

Kevin23,

I agree pretty much with your assessment of Catholicism in their teachings in this area. I generally respect their consistency.

However, sometimes, some members of the Catholic clergy are inconsistent. For example, in 2004 a few RC bishops said John Kerry was not welcome in their parishes because of his views on abortion rights. Fair enough. However, I’ve never heard a similar comment over Catholics who support capital punishment.

I am not a pro-lifer because I can make no claim to know (or follow the teachings of anyone who claims to know) when “life” begins. But I do know we are in 100% agreement that everyone is alive from the day their are born to the day they die. And Catholics agree with that.

Posted by: Steve K at November 1, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #192398

Instead of arguing the facts and admitting the truth behind Limbaugh’s statements, Democrats attack the radio host calling him cruel and hateful…

Uh, you didn’t offer any proof that Limbaugh was telling the truth. Are you saying you believe that MJ Fox was faking? And, yes, Rush Limbaugh, however high your regard for him personally, is a cruel and hateful man, a hypocrite of the highest order and weak and flabby.

Posted by: mental wimp at November 1, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #192430

SteveK,

My comments were meant for Stephen Daughtery not you. I should have been more explicit my fault.


Posted by: Rob at November 1, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #192573

Kevin23 & Stephen K,

I am Roman Catholic, and it’s nice to know people can still respect yet not necessarily agree with my beliefs. I just wanted to make a point of fact for both of you:

“The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations.” -Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org)

You are both right on your other point(s). The Church is opposed to IVF, ESCR, and all forms of contraception.

Thanks for a lively discussion.

Posted by: DJ at November 2, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #192689

The comments here have been too long to read exhaustively, but here are a few thoughts:

1) The constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty without due proccess of law. Criminals who are put to death have been through their due proccess—they have been tried before a jury of their peers, and granted years of appeals. They are put to death in punishment for horrendous crimes. Unborn babes have no due proccess of law. They are simply deprived of life at a mother’s convenience, or for the “benefit” of society at large. I’m not sure why pro-choicers think that it’s hypocritical to distinguish between an unborn child who has never done anything wrong, and a convicted criminal.

2)It may be morally fine to donate the organs of people who have already died (and I would like to have mine donated, if possible), but would you agree that it’s morally fine to kill a terminally ill person who, however, is not yet dead, in order to harvest those organs at a better time? After all, if the disease continues its progress, now healthy organs may be ruined, and the person’s going to die anyway…? What about all the lives that might be saved with those organs??? It’s a very slippery slope you enter if you think we have the moral authority to decide who should die for “society’s” benefit.

3) After WWII Allied forces recovered a great deal of research that had been done by Nazi scientists experimenting on people. Their experiments are infamous, but they yielded a great deal of real, potentially helpful knowledge. Yet the response of the civilized world was universal: this research could not be used. It was tainted. Though the victims were already dead, it was a desecration to them and their memory to use information gained by their suffering and murders, whatever medical breakthroughs it might yield. Do you think they were foolish?

4) There are stem cells that exist with the umbilical cord of new born babies that have just as much ability to adapt and change as embryonic stem cells. Yet this is an avenue of research that has almost been ignored by the largely atheistic and humanistic scientific community charging forward with the “no stem cells but embryonic stem cells” banner.

5) The government is so incompetant I don’t know why you would want to have them involved anyway. If you want to know the difference between government funding and private funding, pick any government-run institution, and its equivalent prive organization, and go and compare them. See who has more money, is more efficient and better run.

6) There is no difference between a “blastocyte” and you other than age. Every single thing that makes a human a human is there already. That little, living being has its own unique, human DNA, and will never come again. Science cannot create this, only replicate it. I do not agree with IV fertilization that involves the creation of any more embryos than are going to be implanted. I have had two miscarriages and a molar pregnancy (which involves an embryo that scarcely survives past the first few cell divisions), and have mourned each one as a lost child. I found out that birth control pills can cause fertlized eggs to pass out of the body without implanting, and quit taking them. God has power over life and death, and if He chooses to cause embryos of pass out of my body, that’s for Him to do, but it is NOT for me to do.

7) When we as a society begin to prey on the smallest and most vulnerable among us, and think that their “worthless” little lives may safely be extinguished in the pursuit of longer life and health for those of us who were fortunate enough not to get sucked down a sink or frozen into a test tube—and therefore have the power—when life no longer becomes precious for its own sake, and only “quality of life” (as defined, again, by those in power)—then you must know that you, your children, your granchildren, will not be safe, when some day you are the weak and vulnerable (read sick/ elderly/ handicapped/ mentally retarded, even female), and some body else is the strong, and they believe that you are weakening them. This has happened historically over and over again, and although I know I am going to incur much scorn for saying this, and you will refuse to believe that the line lies in something as seemingly unhuman and useless as an eight-cell cluster of human beginning, it is, none the less, true. You cannot morally justify killing something by saying that it was going to die any way, nor by claiming you can help some one else. Even if embryonic stem cells had produced all the cures they have had attributed to them, I would still say the same thing. Yes, this person may be sick, and that person may be dying, but this, this innocent, frozen life did not make you sick—why must it pay the price for your cure? You have had a chance at life—how dare you deny it to another? You were the same as that embryo, once. What makes you superior? The fact that you had a mother willing to carry you and give birth to you? I wish all the “test tube” babies could receive willing wombs and so grow into the unique, special, images of God that they already are (if we could only see it). Perhaps one of them would grow up to be the scientist who will find real cures for these diseases.

There you go. Hack away at me. But remember, I’m not the one you’ll have to answer to, ultimately. :-)

Posted by: LO at November 2, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #192713

Maybe we should split and after twenty years whoever is doing the best will take over. Well David S. after twenty years we will out number you 20 to 1 as you will abort your future. You will be broke in the first 5 as not everyone can live off your decreasing population and the ones that do work will have so much family leave that they can’t flip burgers but half the time.

After 10 years we will need more country to expand our industry, growing families, and farms for growing food, and since your half will be unarmed and hugging trees, we will just walk in, kick your peace loving asses and take what we want.

good luck on your pipe, dream.

Posted by: lm at November 2, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #192716

1) The difference is in the definition of “person”.

2) On some level we do that already. When someone has had a massive stroke, and the patient is brain dead, sometimes there’s nothing to do but give the family time to say goodbye and then to harvest the donatable organs. Timing the final moments in order to make sure that the organ teams are ready happens, and it’s not an ethical problem.

3) No.

4) No one carries the “no stem cells but embryonic stem cells” banner, as you put it. The banner we carry would be more accurately be described as “try all stem cells, not just adult stem cells”. I’m not sure why cord blood stem cells are not often discussed in this debate, but I suppose it comes from the fact that it was only last year that scientists figured out how to harvest them in large enough numbers to support research. My wife and I donated our baby’s cord blood for this purpose when our son was born a couple months ago.

You are incorrect in your insulting claim that this is an avenue of research that has almost been ignored by the largely atheistic and humanistic scientific community. This research is ongoing in parallel to other forms of stem cell research. Finally, the research so far shows that cord blood stem cells are between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells in their pluripotency, but the research field is young - as I said, it was only last year that scientists figured out how to harvest these cells in large numbers.

5) Ahh… An anti-government diatribe. Moving on…

6) There is no difference between a “blastocyte” and you other than age. That is not true. A blastocyst is a mass of undifferentiated cells that has not been implanted in the womb, and will not develop into anything without such implantation. I am a former blastocyst that was implanted in a womb and went through the stages of zygote, embyro, and fetus before birth. I’ve gone through quite a few other stages of development since.

The primary point is that there are many, many things that have to happen just right for a blastocyst to have a chance to grow into an adult. It’s not just a matter of time.

Every single thing that makes a human a human is there already.

That is equally true of a skin cell, but a skin cell is not a person.

7) I appreciate your statement of belief, and I am impressed by your consistency of belief. However, several your statements of fact in your comment are incorrect, as I described above. I prefer that our national decisions are made on actual facts (that’s my little fantasy).

why must it pay the price for your cure?

Yes, let’s throw it away instead. I fail to see how that’s morally superior. I understand that you would prefer that we didn’t have IVF creating these extra blastocysts to begin with, but we do. So now we have the reality to deal with of extra blastocysts. Since these clumps of cells will die no matter what we do, I don’t see any moral advantage in doing it in a way that provides the least possible benefit.

I wish all the “test tube” babies could receive willing wombs

That’s a nice fantasy to wish for. Unfortunately, we have to deal with reality.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 2, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #192758

LawnBoy-

Good points. About #5: LO seems to be grouping federal administration with federal funding. They are not the same. The federal government is, by necessity, more inefficient at administration. But federal funding can be given to any organization with any structure so long as they use the money for what it is designed to achieve. Claiming this is always less efficient than similar private funding is just ignorance.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #192792

There are stem cells that exist with the umbilical cord of new born babies that have just as much ability to adapt and change as embryonic stem cells. Yet this is an avenue of research that has almost been ignored by the …scientific community.

Wrong. By the time a baby is born, the cells have already specialized and are no longer pluripotent.

Posted by: Steve K at November 2, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #192806

Actually, Steve K, there is some truth to what LO says. Blood from the umbilical cord and the placenta contain stem cells. These stem cells are a third class of cells, in addition to embryonic and adult stem cells.

Although the science of these cells is new, it looks so far that these cells are more pluripotent than adult stem cells, but less pluripotent than embryonic stem cells.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 2, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #192831

Lawnboy,

from a scientific standpoint, that makes sense. From a research standpoint, they are less valuable because it requires a live birth to get the genetic history or traits you are researching. E.g., MJF would have to have another child to research his DNA’s predisposition to parkinson’s, instead og just a frozen embryo

Posted by: Steve K at November 2, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #192836

Steve K,

I’m not sure I follow. How would an embryonic stem cell from someone’s else’s line help in anything that required his DNA’s specific predispositions?

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 2, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #192839

Lawnboy,

If you are researching a genetic predisposition for a disease, you need genes that have that have that genetic predisposition.

One of the things I have read on this (I am not a scientist, BTW), is that with embryonic stems cells scientists can see where cells start to specialize and all the intermediate steps. If you see differences occuring in otherwise similar cells (one where the genes have no history of an illness, and one where the genes do), that gives you a clue to where to research a gene therapy for a cure.

To my knowledge, this sort of research simply has not been done yet because there are not enough lines.

Posted by: Steve K at November 2, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #192908

Regarding Embryonic stem cell research. When the Supreme Court finally wakes up and reverses Roe then there won’t BE any Embryos to get stem cells from.

If Planned Parenthood et al are so concerned with a woman’s right to choose…then where are the doctors who donate their time and skills for this Cause. If an abortion is truly for the health of the woman..then it should be paid for by the people who support it. And the Gov’t needs to stop taking my taxes and giving it to PP and others to use to destroy unborn human life. And it is human life unless the “mother” has been impregnated by some animal or other. If she got pregnant by sex with some human male (Rape or not) then she is carrying a human baby…whatever the scientists may want to call it. It is not a fish or a bear or even a chimpanzee. It is a human life and Congress and the Courts need to follw the Constitution and protect that life.
No womam should be allowed more than one abortion.. It is not and should not be used as a contraceptive after the fact.

Posted by: David B at November 2, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #192912
When the Supreme Court finally wakes up and reverses Roe then there won’t BE any Embryos to get stem cells from.

??? Apparently you’re not familiar with the topic at hand. While aborted fetuses theoretically could be a source of stem cells, the current debate is about using unused blastocysts left over from IVF treatments or using blastocysts created through Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.

Roe v. Wade is irrelevant to this debate.

The rest of your comment isn’t any more informed, so I’ll just not bother. Maybe someone else will.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 2, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #193027

David B

While a mother may be carrying a human blastocyst; that blastocyst is in no way shape or form a human being. I explained my reasoning in a comment at 1:22 PM on November 1.

Posted by: Warren P at November 3, 2006 9:12 AM
Comment #207737

I want to donate to a Parkinson’s foundation that does not advocate stem cell research. Is there one? My boss recently passed away from complications of Parkinson’s and they suggest donations to MJF’s foundation, but I would like an alternative.

Thanks for your assistance.

Posted by: Elizabeth at February 12, 2007 4:06 PM
Comment #243593

sup homies and who knows the republicans who support stem cell and right To life?????

Posted by: julianna at January 23, 2008 9:51 AM
Comment #246948

If embryonic stem cell shows so much promise, why isn’t there private investment? If it shows so much promise wouldn’t the big drug companies be putting millions into it? How much money has M.J.Fox’s foundation invested in it. Last I heard it was zero $$.

Posted by: Frank at March 3, 2008 11:38 AM
Comment #282169

Thanks Miss Tuszke for your imput. The truth about embryonic stem cell research needs to be put out.

Posted by: mateo moyer at May 28, 2009 9:34 PM
Comment #378244

Emporio Armani AR0100 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0101 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0106 Subdial Silver Bracelet Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0115 Quartz Black Dial Stainless Brick Link Bracelet Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0121 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0137 Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0141 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0142 Men’s Stainless Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0148 Men’s Watch Men’s Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0257 Classic Black Leather Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0154 Classic Rectangle Face Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0259 Men’s Classic Brown Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0264 Brown Leather Strap Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0266 Black/Brown Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0273 Classic Silver Dial Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0283 Classic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0284 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0285 Classic Leather Strap Designer Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0286 Mens Classic Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0292 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0293 Black And Gold Leather Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0294 Chronograph Designer Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0297 Solid Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0298 Stainless Steel White Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0299 Stainless Black Dial Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0308 Gold-tone Steel Black Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0310 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0311 Leather Strap Designer Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0315 Mens Stainless Steel Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0320 Mens Rose Gold Plated Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0321 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0168 Rose Gold Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0180 Men’s Classic Black Leather Band Watch
Emporio Armani AR0186 Mens Chronograph Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0187 Classic Chronograph Men’s Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0203 Classic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0206 Men’s Classic Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0235 Tan Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0241 Stainless Mens Analog Watch
Emporio Armani AR0322 Classic Chronograph Rose Gold Men Wrist watch
Emporio Armani AR0333 Classic Chronograph Champagne Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0334 Mens Classic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0337 Men’s Classic Brown Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0362 Men’s Classic Black Dial Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0363 Men’s Black Crocodile Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0402 Classic Leather Strap Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0403 Men Classic Brown Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0405 Mens Black Dial Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0406 Men’s Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0407 Mens Analog Watch Brown Leather Band
Emporio Armani Men’s AR0409 Large Stainless Steel and Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0410 Men’s Stainless Steel and Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0412 Womens Brown Croc Leather Classic Watch
Emporio Armani AR0425 Classic Leather Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0426 Brown Leather Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0427 Classic Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0428 Men’s Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0429 Men’s Classics Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0430 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0431 Chronograph Stainless Steel Black Leather Band Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0433 Classic Silver Dial Black Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0430 Classic Collection Men’s Quartz Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0455 Classic Leather Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0456 Brown/Rose Gold Analog Watch
Emporio Armani AR0457 Classic Rectangular Watch Stainless Steel Case
Emporio Armani AR0458 Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0463 Men’s Classic Leather Quartz Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0464 Mens Classic All Black Watch
Emporio Armani AR0465 Mens Classic Black Silver Watch
Emporio Armani AR0466 Two Tone Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0470 Women’s Champagne Dial Gold Tone Ion Plated Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0472 Leather Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0473 Men’s Quartz Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0474 Chronograph Quartz Men’s Silver Watch
Emporio Armani AR0475 Classic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0477 Classic Amber Dial Dress Watch
Emporio Armani AR0478 Classic Mens Chronograph Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0479 Men’s Classic Chronograph Leather Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0480 Men’s Classic Chronograph Stainless Steel Blue Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0482 Gents Classic Watch Stainless Steel Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR0483 Classic Chronograph Silver Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0484 Men’s Dress Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0486 Men’s Classic Silver Dial Watc Watch
Emporio Armani AR0487 Men’s Digital Silver Dial and Black Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0489 Men’s Classic Taupe Textured Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0490 Classic Mens Brown Leather Dress 30MM Watch
Emporio Armani AR0492 Men Large Classic Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0493 Men’s Stainless Black dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0498 Classic Quartz White Unisex Watch
Emporio Armani AR0499 Mens Classic Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0506 Men’s Black Dial Black Canvas Watch
Emporio Armani AR0508 Quartz Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0525 White Leather Unisex Watch
Emporio Armani AR0526 Sport Analog Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0527 Black Mens Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0528 Sports Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0531 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Strap Quartz men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0532 Men’s Rubber Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR0534 Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0539 Classic Black Face Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0540 Brown Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0546 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0546 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0547 Sports Style Stainless Steel Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0552 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0548 Men’s Watch Men’s Rubber Strap
Emporio Armani AR0549 Black Rubber Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0555 Men’s Black Sport Watch
Emporio Armani AR0560 Black Dial Stainless Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0563 Mens Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0566 Mens Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0571 Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0572 Men’s Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0573 Classic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0574 Rose Gold Mens Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0575 Watch Men’s Steel Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR0576 Gents Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0577 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0578 Leather Collection Quartz Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0580 stainless silver watch
Emporio Armani AR0581 Classic Quartz Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0582 Men’s White Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0583 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0584 Black GOLD Rubber Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0585 Men’s Classic Stainless steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0586 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0587 Quartz World Time Watch
Emporio Armani AR0588 Black Rubber Band Bold Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0589 Unisex Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0590 Unisex Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0591 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0592 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0593 Black Rubber Strap Designer Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0594 Men?s Chronograph Mango Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0595 mens sports style rubber strap designer watch
Emporio Armani AR0597 Men’s Sport Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0599 Mens Sport Rubber Strap Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0619 Leather Gents Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0624 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0627 Sports Divers Mens Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0628 Sports Divers Mens Quartz Movement Watch
Emporio Armani AR0629 Unisex Rubber Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR0630 Mens Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0631 Men’s Sport Black Textured Dial Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0632 Classic Mens Designer Posh Watch
Emporio Armani AR0633 Sport Analogue Stainless Steel Bracelet Silver Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0634 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0635 Quartz Gunmetal Gray Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0643 Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0646 Classic Womens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0649 Sport Chronograph Blue Rubber Band Blue Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0653 Sport Analogue Black Rubber Strap Black Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0654 White Silicon Strap SPORT WATCH
Emporio Armani AR0655 Orange Rubber Strap Designer Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0656 Men’s Classic Silver Stainless Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0658 Mens Chronograph Rubber Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0660 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watc Watch
Emporio Armani AR0661 Men’s Black/Grey Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0662 Mens Sports White Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0666 Chronograph Watch Silver Dial Mens Quartz
Emporio Armani AR0665 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0666 Mens Sports Chronograph Divers Watch
Emporio Armani AR0667 Men’s Gunmetal Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0668 Women’s Leather Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0671 Mens Classic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0677 Men’s Brown Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0683 Rubber Sport Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0684 Quartz Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0685 Mens Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0686 Grey Sport Strap Gunmetal Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0687 Sport Blue Man Watch
Emporio Armani AR0696 Classic White Leather 2-Hand Silver Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0926 Quartz Black Dial Stainless Steel Case Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0932 Stainless Silver Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0933 Classic Leather Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0934 Mens Amber Brown Watch
Emporio Armani AR0936 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0937 wrist watch man black steel chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR1400 Men’s Ceramic Black Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1403 Men’s Ceramica White Dial Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR1404 Ceramic Mens Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR1406 Mens Marco Black Watch
Emporio Armani AR1408 White Ceramic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR1410 Men’s Ceramic Black Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1411 Women’s Ceramica Chrono Watch
Emporio Armani AR1412 Women’s Ceramic Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1413 Sport Watch Quartz Chronograph Black Analog Mens
Emporio Armani AR1416 Quartz White Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2006 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2007 Slim Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2008 Men’s Classic Roman Numerals Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2010 Men’s Slim Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2011 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2012 Silver Strap Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2014 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2016 Men’s Classic Mesh Goldtone Mother-Of-Pearl Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2020 Round Case Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR2022 Super Slim Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2023 Men’s Classic Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2026 Men’s Classic Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2027 Men’s Classic Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2028 Gents Classic Watch Black Stainless Steel Mesh Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR2030 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2032 Men’s Rectangular Amber Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2034 Men’s Quartz Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR2036 Gents Stainless Steel Watch with White Dial
Emporio Armani AR2041 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2043 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2053 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2055 Super Slim Silver Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2411 Men’s Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR2413 Watch Men’s Brown Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR2415 Mens Classic Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2417 Classic Silver Dial Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR1700 Mens Black Valente Watch
Emporio Armani AR2421 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR2423 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Analog Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2425 Gold Plated Stainless Steel Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2427 Classic Men’s Leather Dress Watch
Emporio Armani AR2429 Men’s Stainless Steel Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2430 Men’s Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2431 Men’s Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2432 Men’s Chronograph Stainless Steel Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2433 Classic Mens Chronograph Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2434 Classic Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2435 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2436 Unisex Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2440 Men’s Black Dial Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2442 Classic Leather Strap Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2444 Classic Black Leather Date Strap Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2447 Men’s Renato Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR2448 Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2452 Stainless Steel Pink Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR3151 Diamond Mother Of Pearl Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4200 Mens MECCANICO Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4201 Meccanico Automatic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4203 Mens MECCANICO Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4204 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4205 Mens Meccanico Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4206 Mens Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR4207 Mens Meccanico Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4208 Meccanico Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4209 Meccanico Small Seconds Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR4210 Brown Leather Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4213 Classic Chronograph Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4214 Meccanico Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4218 Mens MECCANICO Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4219 Mens Rose Gold Classic Meccanico Watch
Emporio Armani AR4224 Meccanico Open Heart Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4226 Black Rubber Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4228 Meccanico Automatic Black Leather Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4229 Meccanico Automatic Brown Leather Yellow Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4231 Mens Meccanico Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4601 Jungle Combat Mens Leather Wrist Watch
Emporio Armani AR4602 Black Leather Mens Designer Meccanico Watch
Emporio Armani AR4603 Men’s Watch Automatic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR4604 Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4606 MECCANICO Leather Strap Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4607 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR4608 Meccanico Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4609 Mens Meccanico Automatic Dk Blue /Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4610 Meccanico Mens Stainless Steel Automatic Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4611 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4612 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4613 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4619 Meccanico Men’s Automatic Rose Gold Watch
Emporio Armani AR4620 Men Meccanico Calendar Watch
Emporio Armani AR4625 Meccanico Automatic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4627 Meccanico Mens Automatic Watch
Emporio Armani AR4628 Men’s Meccanico Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4630 Meccanico Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4633 Gents Automatic Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4634 Meccanico Automatic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4635 Meccanico Automatic Black Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4643 Men’s Meccanico Brown Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR4644 Men’s Meccanico Brown Leather Strap Silver Dial watch
Emporio Armani AR5300 Striking gents dress watch
Emporio Armani AR5316 Mens Chronograph Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR5321 Black Leather Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR5324 Men’s Stainless Steel Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR5327 Stainless Large Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5328 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR5329 Leather Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5330 Classic GMT Dual Time Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5331 Stainless Gents Watch

Posted by: burberry watch new stlye at May 8, 2014 8:50 AM
Comment #381258

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 5:11 AM
Post a comment