Author Topic: The last stem, err, I mean straw (Read 2466 times)

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #15 on:** July 19, 2006, 06:35:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I'm voting for Hillary. She might not be pretty, but since shes got something to prove, she'll put-out something fierce.

No way I could support Hillary.
I'd sooner vote Saddam for president.

Hillary woud be worse following bad
Or at least as bad

You think the country is in the toilet under Bush.
Under Hillary would flush it entirely

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #16 on:** July 19, 2006, 06:43:02 PM »

Why don't you like Hillary? The Republicans keeping raising the co-pays for VA hospitals, your going to be wishing her health-care system had been implemented when you get nickle and dimed to death.

Eagle Eye · « **Reply #17 on:** July 19, 2006, 06:45:17 PM »

He was a man of his word. He told everyone my veto pad is open and ready. They thought they would pressure him. Guess not

WTG BUSH!!!!:aok

Neubob · « **Reply #18 on:** July 19, 2006, 06:59:53 PM »

Hillary? Yup, maybe....

If she's running against a Gay African-American Jew from China--and that's only if it's discovered that he's secretly a fanatic Muslim to boot.

Get real, people. This isn't the year 3000 yet.

As for Bush being a man of his word, I'm really happy for him. Too bad he gave his word to be an unequivical moron when it comes to stem-cell research.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #19 on:** July 19, 2006, 07:01:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Why don't you like Hillary? The Republicans keeping raising the co-pays for VA hospitals, your going to be wishing her health-care system had been implemented when you get nickle and dimed to death.

And you think Hillary is going to do something about it??
and who gets to pay for Hillarys health care system?
Wheres the money comming from

Not to mention she would have to get it passed frst
Which means even if she did have a good idea. Which I highly doubt.
It would be so watered down by politics that it would be hardly recognisable from what she put forth

Warning Now though.
Hillary Clinton is a Murphys law waiting to happen

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #20 on:** July 19, 2006, 07:05:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagle Eye
He was a man of his word. He told everyone my veto pad is open and ready. They thought they would pressure him. Guess not

WTG BUSH!!!!:aok

Well I'll be damned.
Bush actually Vetoed something.

No matter. it will all be undone soon as he is out of office.
And anything really useful from the reasearch is years away.
We will just build on everyone elses research and experiance.

Its not like we're loosing anything.
This is only temporary.
And probably in the ends saves us money on research.
For the next few years anyway

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 19, 2006, 07:22:23 PM »

Quote

Too bad he gave his word to be an unequivical moron when it comes to stem-cell research.

Moron? Did you even pay attention to what he said?

He is for stem cell research and supported a bill going through the houses. However, he is not for stem cell research when the stem cells are harvested from a fetus.

That's called morality and has nothing to do with intelligence.

Neubob · « **Reply #22 on:** July 19, 2006, 07:27:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Moron? Did you even pay attention to what he said?

He is for stem cell research and supported a bill going through the houses. However, he is not for stem cell research when the stem cells are harvested from a fetus.

That's called morality and has nothing to do with intelligence.

I understand, Sailor. I just think that it's immoral to deny medical developement because of 'human spare parts' that will not be used otherwise. The examples he cites of people adopting unwanted fetuses long before birth do not outweigh the potential benefits. If he wants to be moral, to a fault, he should look at what there is to gain for humans that are already born as well unborn, unconcieved humans of the future. His decision could well set back medical science by a decade or more. And that is the biggest immorality yet.

Eagler · « **Reply #23 on:** July 19, 2006, 07:32:57 PM »

if this ever passes, abortion clinics will be like sperm banks where one will be paid for their deposit ...
neubob, why does this set anything back? you think the US is the only country that can do that research?

Neubob · « **Reply #24 on:** July 19, 2006, 07:48:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
if this ever passes, abortion clinics will be like sperm banks where one will be paid for their deposit ...
neubob, why does this set anything back? you think the US is the only country that can do that research?

No, the US is not the only one. It is, however, the wealthiest. The US is also home to some of the world's most famous and most productive centers for medical research--the NIH being one of them.

To keep places like the NIH, Johns Hopkins and hundreds of other facilities, hospitals and universities from working to their full potential sets back medical science--no two ways about it.

Before anyone even says it, no, I do not support research the likes of which was perpetrated by the Nazis. I do not enjoy the concept of partial birth abortions, or anything of the like... At the same time, I do not think that this even comes close. Bush is working off a largely unscientific definition of what life is and when consciousness begins, and I simply do not agree.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #25 on:** July 19, 2006, 08:02:26 PM »

Shoot, humans cant form long term memories until they are at least 2 and a half years old. And thats bascially what consciousness is, comparing our surroundings to our long-term memories.

Toad · « **Reply #26 on:** July 19, 2006, 08:04:58 PM »

Hmmm.. then we should be able to abort everyone under two?

Neubob, you disagree with Bush. What makes your interpretation more valid than his?

Neubob · « **Reply #27 on:** July 19, 2006, 08:14:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Hmmm.. then we should be able to abort everyone under two?

Neubob, you disagree with Bush. What makes your interpretation more valid than his?

In my previous post I said that I was against partial birth abortions. I could be wrong, but I think that covers everything in the 3rd trimester. If the partial birth abortion is carried out, however, why not use it? Furthermore, if a 2nd trimester abortion is carried out, why not use that?

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #28 on:** July 19, 2006, 08:15:59 PM »

Quote

Hmmm.. then we should be able to abort everyone under two?

Now your thinking!

Yeager · « **Reply #29 on:** July 19, 2006, 08:17:31 PM »

I think parents should be able to lawfully kill their own children up to the age of 18.