Absolutely no doubt about that, Ivan. As the third line of the epitaph Ronald Reagan selected for himself proves:
that what is right will always eventually triumph
and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.
Posted on 06/10/2004 2:21:32 AM PDT by MadIvan
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:39:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The nation should honor President Reagan by committing itself to finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, Rep. Chris Smith said yesterday, but not by using embryos for stem cell research.
Smith, R-Washington Township, who was first elected with Reagan in 1980, yesterday blasted those who have used Reagan's death on Saturday after a decade-long bout with Alzheimer's to advocate embryonic stem cell research.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Beautifully stated and exactly right.
Thanks for the ping!
Absolutely no doubt about that, Ivan. As the third line of the epitaph Ronald Reagan selected for himself proves:
If you are so sure Smith is wrong, then you must know something we don't.
Therefore I know you will post links to any peer-reviewed and duplicated 'research' that shows significant and lasting benefit to patients with implanted embryonic stem cells.
And you will also post links to peer-reviewed and duplicated 'research' showing that ONLY embryonic stem cells show any promise, compared to, say, umbilical cord stem cells.
Won't you?
...and before that we were all a sperm.
Are you for the protection of human sperm? Using stem cells from this source is no different than transplanting of hearts from people in traffic accidents to someone who needs one.
Only if the accident victim is already dead. Huge difference.
A sperm, without an egg, is not a human being. An embryo is. Another huge difference.
Therefore I know you will post links to any peer-reviewed and duplicated 'research' that shows significant and lasting benefit to patients with implanted embryonic stem cells.
And you will also post links to peer-reviewed and duplicated 'research' showing that ONLY embryonic stem cells show any promise, compared to, say, umbilical cord stem cells.
Zarf didn't claim there were currently "significant and lasting benefits to patients with implanted embryonics stem cells." He was saying Smith's statement that embryonic stem cells have "not shown any promise in developing treatments for Alzheimer's or any other disease or condition" was BS. And saying embryonic stem cell have not shown "any promise" is a BS statement.
With research, eventually there may very well be "significant and lasting benefits to patients with implanted embryonics stem cells." The field has great promise and it will continue with or without the government's funding.
The safest approach is to simply ban all abortions, and prevent unwanted pregnancies through prevention of sexual intercourse. While many people say that sexual intercourse is unpreventable, such a claim taken to its logical and inevitable conclusion removes all human moral culpability from human actions.This statement presumes that sexual intercourse is immoral. My wife and I would disagree.
This research is obscene. It is not an effort to find a cure, but an effort to permanently ensconce abortion legally. By constantly making wild promises of a fabulous cure all, pro-abortionists hope to keep the value of life low.
Like the rest of the abortion debate, they frame the question in false alternatives. They say it is trading a clump of cells for a cure. In reality, it is trading a baby for an empty promise, a medical lie.
Sexual intercourse is immoral for anyone not prepared to accept the inevitable result: a child.
...Chris Smith comes through again!
What do you mean by this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.