[plschwartz]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

I expect that since Thersa Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards have spoken at the DNC can we expect less from the RNC
I expect Laura Bush would make a good presentation. But ha anyone ever even SEEN Mrs. Cheney Or does he have a "special room" he keeps her in under his Bunker?

I stand corrected about Mrs. Cheney. But who does he have down there? The Gimp?

[Wino]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I find it odd that nobody commented on this post.

What's there to say? If this had been at the RNC, doubt you would have critiqued his comments. You agree somewhat with the message, but shoot the messenger for using the wrong venue. Typical rhetoric from a right wing extremest!

[LANMaster]

I never shot the messenger for the message. Just the contents of the message.
Had you actually READ my post you'd know that I critiqued the messaage itself.
The rhetoric is coming from you, my friend.

Why there's a controversy on the issue;

Democratic candidate Kerry co-sponsors 'clone-and-kill' bill
Jul 14, 2004
By Staff
WASHINGTON (BP)--Presidential candidate John Kerry signed on July 13 as a co-sponsor of legislation that would permit embryos to be cloned but require they be destroyed early in their development.

Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, officially became a co-sponsor of the Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act, S. 303. The bill, though labeled a "cloning ban," actually allows the cloning of an embryo but prohibits a clone from developing 14 days beyond its first cell division, thereby barring the clone's further growth and birth.

The Massachusetts senator's position on cloning did not come as a surprise, but his timing is interesting. The announcement of his co-sponsorship of the bill came less than two weeks before the Democratic National Convention and long after the bill was introduced and since any other senator had endorsed it. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R.-Utah, introduced the measure in February 2003. Sen. James Jeffords, an independent from Vermont, was the most recent senator to co-sponsor, doing so in May of last year.

Pro-lifers have condemned the legislation, with some labeling it a "clone-and-kill" bill.

"This bill doesn't really ban any human cloning - it bans human clone survival, which is a radically different thing," Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, has said. "This bill would give a green light to the establishment of what President Bush has called human embryo farms. It is incorrect to say that we think it does not go far enough -- rather, it is a step in the wrong direction."

more at the link
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=18688

[LANMaster]

I think the clone and kill bill is rediculous and I cannot support it.
This is not to say that I am against researching stem cell technology at all.

Unfortunately, the extremists on BOTH sides have made it impossible to reach a reasonable compromise.

The right is afraid it will go too far, such as the bill that Kerry sponsored. And the Left is afraid that it won't go far enough, so they're pushing for the whole enchilada.

The result is nobody gets anywhere.

Wino, I'm in the middle on this. why can't you see that? too far left?

[plschwartz]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I think the clone and kill bill is rediculous and I cannot support it.
This is not to say that I am against researching stem cell technology at all.

Unfortunately, the extremists on BOTH sides have made it impossible to reach a reasonable compromise.

The right is afraid it will go too far, such as the bill that Kerry sponsored. And the Left is afraid that it won't go far enough, so they're pushing for the whole enchilada.

The result is nobody gets anywhere.

Wino, I'm in the middle on this. why can't you see that? too far left?

LAN
Its not that I totally disagree with you but at least at this time it is the best way to get organ replacement This conbined with some genetic manipulation to but in the hosts immune system will allow rejection fee organ replacement.
I am much less bothered by this then I am about having a second child to replace parts of the ailing first child. This I find unbelievable but it is accepted.

The alternative to organ growing is organ buying. Already besides blood for the first world, third world people are selling kidneys. The next step which I can only assume is already being done in some places is selling a child for total organ removal. There are certainly people who would buy a new compatable organ even if it were taken from a person "sacrificed" for that purpose. Is this preferable? Welcome to another part of the new american century

[xico]

The next step which I can only assume is already being done in some places is selling a child for total organ removal. There are certainly people who would buy a new compatable organ even if it were taken from a person "sacrificed" for that purpose.

That's precisely why I had "organ donor" taken off my driver's license. I should trust a guy I don't even know, when I'm unconscious? No thanks.

[LANMaster]

I'm not that paranoid.
I just don't think it should be legal to grow a living human fetus with the intent to kill it and remove the useful stem cells.

[sligo]

Human fetus is an oxymoron--its not human! ---a fetus is a fetus--why dont conservatives and right to lifers understand this elementary fact.

[Ciberblade]

*flag on the post*

sligo ~ A dog fetus is different from a whale fetus, human or otherwise. Just because it looks alike in a dish, doesn't mean it is the same.

[plschwartz]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I'm not that paranoid.
I just don't think it should be legal to grow a living human fetus with the intent to kill it and remove the useful stem cells.

As long as they can people will want to continue to live by replacing damaged organs.
Unless you do away with this by a total world-wide ban on any organ replacement then you are faced with the problem of replacement organ procurement.
And either you take them from someone else or if you can grow them from some sort of stem cell or cell cloning.
Organ sale by the poor is a fact. There were rumors out of N. Korea about finding histological compatables and killing them for their organs to give to party powerful.
You cannot or at least I cannot take a position without considering the effects of it. If you oppose cloning then you are either supporting a ban or organ harvesting no other choices.
The choice today is between a human fetus and a grown human life.
There are other tough choices down the line that advances in medicine will present us with - as the costs involved in not pulling the plug.

[valley]

"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception..." John Kerry

Lengthy but interesting. I cut out quite a bit of it. Taken from For-God-and-Country.com :

KERRY GETS RELIGION, SORT OF

By Jeremy Moore

While most Americans were enjoying a long Independence
Day weekend, and news junkies were discussing Michael
Moore or John Edwards, Senator John Kerry made what
could yet be the most important statement of the 2004
election season.

"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion.
I believe life does begin at conception," Kerry told
the Telegraph Herald in Dubuque, Iowa. "But I can't
take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and
legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist.
We have separation of church and state in the United
States of America."

Team Bush pounced on the statement, but Kerry cut the
news cycle short by appointing Edwards as his running
mate and sucking all the air out of the political
reporting arena. It will only buy short-term relief,
however, because Kerry's statement will likely be
repeated again and again and again as it shows
important realities about the man and his campaign.

If Kerry truly believes life begins at conception, and
for the sake of argument I'll assume that he does,
then his pro-choice advocacy and voting record show
that he has supported the right to kill the most
innocent of human life for purposes of convenience or
expediency. Pro-choice leaders insist that abortion
should remain "safe, legal and rare" for cases of
rape, incest or health of a mother, but this is a
caveat both parties concede, and it represents less
than three percent of abortions in any event.

If Kerry believes as he claims, then he has a moral
dilemma because no national Democrat can maintain
power without kissing the ring of the pro-choice
lobby, which has the party in a stranglehold.

As medical science continues to push back the date of
viability, and non-invasive imaging becomes more
vivid, the central pro-choice argument that an unborn
child is just a lump of cells in a woman's body shreds
like so much tissue paper.

Groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice
America, formerly the National Abortion Rights Action
League, know that no reasonable person can view an
unborn child on available ultrasound technology and
then support abortion, which is why they opposed free
ultrasounds at crisis pregnancy centers.

"They don't want women to go to Planned Parenthood,
where they'll get their full range of options," said
Alison Hewitt, director of government relations for
NARAL. "They just want them to go to crisis pregnancy
centers, where women will be exposed to this weapon at
taxpayer's expense."

snip

Pro-life arguments are primarily religious.

Therefore, elected legislators, as representatives of
the state, can not enact pro-life legislation.

The second precept, that the pro-life position is
necessarily religious, is also false. While it is true
that most religious people are pro-life, as shown by
the huge majorities of church-going Christians who
vote Republican, not all pro-life people are
religious.

An organization called the Atheist and Agnostic
Pro-Life League (www.godlessprolifers.org) opposes
abortion "because life is all that matters, and
abortion destroys the life of an innocent human
being."

Hardly a religious position.

Logically, when the major and minor precepts of an
argument fail, the conclusion falls by default. Yet
since the idea that elected legislators, as
representatives of the state, cannot enact pro-life
legislation is largely drawn out of thin air, it is
worth considering on its own merits.

It is telling that Kerry has qualms only about
imposing his views on religion, but apparently feels
no hesitation about imposing his economic, social,
foreign policy, or military views on those who might
disagree. Why is religion singled out?

Perhaps because religion, particularly the Catholicism
Kerry claims to practice, acknowledges the existence
of an omnipotent, omniscient God. If such a God
exists, then His Word provides the final answer on all
matters foreign and domestic, thus limiting the power
of an elected leader.

snip
_____________________

I know this thread isnt about abortion...but if Kerry believes that life begins at conception, then why he is sponsoring this bill to prevent that life from progressing beyond 14 days? I'm not getting involved in this thread. I just wanted to put this out there for people to think about.

[iltos]

keep your eye on barack obama tho....he's a leader

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by iltos

keep your eye on barack obama tho....he's a leader

I agree. He was pretty sharp last night. I bet that once he gets a little older and wiser, he'll switch parties.

[xico]

I find it interesting that the people who are anti-abortion are very often pro-war; and those who profess to want to save innocent lives, are rather silent when it comes to killing innocent bystanders and children who happen to have leaders who are designated as the "enemy" by our cheerful and inspiring leaders. (That doesn't even take into consideration the lives of the poor guys who have to bear the brunt of reforming or revolutionizing the political structures of another nation). Why is it that there is no outcry about all the people being killed daily in Iraq from those who wish to save innocent human lives? Jesus loves dead Iraqi children?

In a book on the Shobono, listed as fictional because Florinda Donner didn't want to open the tribe up to an invasion of well meaning busybodies, Florinda recounts how the Shobono go thru with the birth, but then snap the neck of the baby. Why? Because their economical and environmental conditions will only support 1 child every 3 years. If they don't regulate the birth rate, no one will survive.

Am I pro Abortion. No. But I think it's quite hypocritical and short sighted to make criminals out of people who want an abortion and of those who are willing to help. It seems to me to be a personal choice for the prospective parents. Think of what it would be like to live with someone who really didn't want you around . . . and resented you for using up their funds and their time. Think of what it's like to grow up under the wing of someone who finds you obtrusive and a long cramp in their living style and their dreams. And then think of what it's like growing up with 8 or 10 or 12 siblings, all of whom resent you and each other. Think of what it's like growing up under the wing of an angry father and/or mother. Ultimately the final decision has to be the woman's. Or, if you're really against abortion, why don't we start by making the world a place where women can have children who will have an opportunity for a decent life? Is that an option? It seems to me better than jailing unwilling Moms.

[iltos]

oh xico, you're so unrealistic...the people we kill aren't like us anyway...they don't really understand life and stuff like that....and everybody knows that once the kid is born, you just love the heck out of em....nobody hates kids, even if your still one yourself or already have 11 or are too busy living your life to notice that there is another one in your house

jeez...when ya gonna figure out the TRUTH and stop acting like one of those other human beings?