And by 'funny', why do I think you DON'T mean hilarity and merriment?

We're #29, Go USA:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1205/p02s01-usgn.html

Buzz,

Don't make me hurt you! But I do like how quickly you figured it out!

I probably shouldn't tell this one in mixed company, but speaking of hurting someone, did you hear about the massochist and sadist that met on the street one day?

The Massochist begs of the sadist "kick me. HARD. 'down there', Pleeeeaaase!!!"

to which the sadist gleefully replies

"Noooooo!"

This little story kind of reminds me of how the righties in this country keep voting against their own interests, and then say they enjoy it.

This little story kind of reminds me of how the righties in this country keep voting against their own interests, and then say they enjoy it...

Maybe its because some of us value life and would rather accept the fact that we may die, as we all eventually will, than to support or be the cause of the destruction of other human life. You think we are voting against our own interests, how so. Did you ever think that our own interest may expand beyond our interest inf life and into what we believe happens to us after death? You obviously didn't and assume we are all too stupid to understand what is best for us. I'm not a very religious man as it comes to organized religion, but I do believe in God and do believe my actions in this life will be judge in the afterlife. Maybe, my interest in opposing the destruction of human embryos has something to do with my desires of how I'm judged after death.

Drive-by - Stop it, will you? I'm still trying to recover from your comment on the last thread about how Glenn Beck has mastered debating! And speaking of which - where were you this morning when Steve somebody was ranting on and on about liberals just coming on here every day to "stroke each other's egos"? I'm too nice a girl to post the reply that one was begging for!

Sorry STL- I didn't mean to apply that to this particular subject. I respect your sincere beliefs and honor your consstitutional right to hold them.

Aw Mikey--

What BS. You don't value life. What you value is a superiority complex that forces your will on others while at the same time professing a desire for limited government. If you valued "life" why aren't you there to care for them after an unwanted pregnancy? Why is it that the "life" of the mother is less important than an unwanted child in the minds of some of you when the mother is subjected to rape or incest? Why aren't you taking them in when they are abused and their "life" is in jeopardy? When their "life" is in ruins and they are shuffled through the foster system are you there to give them a "life" that facilitates their utmost potential? No, what you value is the empty Republican rhetoric that passes for compassion. Get a life!

I am not buying what STL Mike is selling. I think it has much more to do with Power over other PEOPLE. The Righties have NO problem waging wars (controlling people), death penalty (but no DNA testing - if they are on trial they 'probably' did SOMETHING wrong) and this one, actually said to me by a VIGILANT right to lifer when I countered with - Who is going to raise the 'unwanted' babies that are forced to be born?

His response, [I have a witness & I am NOT making this up], "Well, that depends, they shouldn't have been having sex to begin with. If they can't be adopted out, then who ever had them should figure out a way to take care of them."

Yep, this genius has five kids. He is a sweet man; but a clueless individual. Through no fault of his own he has been left in a completely bizarre personal situation and I would be very surprised if he hasn't recently had somewhat of a change of heart about 'government handouts'.

Breath taking in it's over simplistic terms, to say the least.

I failed to mention that he stood by his comment EVEN IN THE CASE OF RAPE AND INCEST. Which as many of you know, sets me off on an anti Right to Lifer CRUSADE. Go ahead and Quote me on that one.

STLMike, please explain to me how the "party of life" is against health care for all Americans.

Why are most conservatives against stem cell research?

Simple answer...

It is the same as abortion.... The mother made a CHOICE to put herself in a situation where she could get pregnant. The unborn child did nothing to put themselves in the position they are in.

The mother made her choice and now gives up the rights she had before to do whatever she wants. She is a mother now.

The mother had her chance to live why does the unborn child not get that opportunity?

But then again President Obama made it clear when he was talking about how he didnt want his daughters to HAVE to deal with a child....

What a shame

Posted by Larry:

It is the same as abortion.... The mother made a CHOICE to put herself in a situation where she could get pregnant. The unborn child did nothing to put themselves in the position they are in.

On this point, I agree with Larry. Notice the word CHOICE. It is important to remember that.

The mother made her choice and now gives up the rights she had before to do whatever she wants. She is a mother now.

Here, I think Larry is WRONG. Just because the mother made her CHOICE, she still HAS THE RIGHT - and the CHOICE - to do whatever she wants, even though she is a mother now. We see that all of the time. Most people CHOOSE to take care of their baby; some mothers CHOOSE not to. It is still their CHOICE, no matter if you agree or not.

The mother had her chance to live why does the unborn child not get that opportunity?

Larry, a mother has an AWESOME responsibility when she brings a child into the world. However, that does NOT preclude her CHOICE. She can choose to do the RIGHT thing and take care of that child, or she can CHOOSE to do something else.

Unfortunately, that unborn child does NOT have a say in what the MOTHER CHOOSES to do. I do NOT believe that it is our fight - or right - to FORCE a mother that CHOOSES not to take care of her child to be a responsible mother.

If the Mother decides to abdicate her responsibility, it is between that mother and God Himself as to why she did what she did. When that mother faces God directly, then she can explain to HIM why she didn't want to take care of her child. It probably doesn't help much when that neglected child will be standing there with God wanting to know why they were not taken care of either.

That is a meeting that I would NOT want to ever experience even if I was able to bear children.

We need to stay out of what a mother does with her womb. We need to let the responsibility lie where it belongs and stay OUT of battles that are not ours to fight.

Sorry, Pietro and Larry,

NO WOMAN WOULD EVER CHOOSE TO BE RAPED; NOR WOULD A YOUNG GIRL CHOOSE TO BE THE VICTIM OF PEDOPHILE FAMIIES.

That is NOT a choice. There is nothing more frustrating than this topic discussed by men. I'm sorry; but there isn't. Thanks for getting that! I still luv ya', Pietro; but really - CHOICE?

Clara - No, I was NOT talking about rape or incest. I did not get that vibe from Larry's post either.

But since you asked -

I do not have a 'blanket' answer for incidences of rape or incest because they are all different. it is something that I wrestle with when I have this conversation with la mia fidunzata. I really do NOT know what I would do or how I would react in a case like that.

However, if all things are equal, I stand by my post. I do not think that I should interject my own mores or values in what women do with their bodies or the choices they make when they are having children. I am NOT one for legislating anyone's behaviour (it never works, anyway).

We can agree to disagree about the NON-incest and rape issue if you like.

Hey everyone, the fetus has or will be aborted. All this legal nonsense has to do with is: What will or will not be done with the aborted tissue which, of course, includes embryonic stem cells. The law is absurd. It is a pathetic attempt, indirectly, to "tarnish" the act of abortion. Religious loonies continue in every way possible to impede abortion, a LEGAL procedure. This is an example of fundamentalist neediness, even at the expense of potential wonderful medical discoveries. This single voter issue turns off literally millions of women who are otherwise conservative and who might well vote conservative.

afloatinasea,

No kidding,

We are only now discovering and using adult stem cells and marrow stem cells. We could be miles ahead if we could have used embryonic stem cell lines 10 years ago. You know, the embryonic cells that get "thrown away" after a woman is successfully implanted. God forbid we use the "leftover" line for research instead of just throwing them out with the trash!

This is where I am confused - I thought the embryos being used were ones that were going to be discarded anyway. So instead of just discarding those embryos, they are used for embryonic stem cell research, possibly saving someone's life or giving quality of life to those affected by debilitating diseases and/or injuries. If these embryos are routinely discarded anyway, why is there a problem to use them seeing how they were going to be discarded.

Joi G, the answer is : religious fundamentalism. Sad. It's (fundamentalism) not limited just to Muslims.

So aloat, if someone goes to a fertility clinic and gets a couple of dozen embryos fertilized, what happens to the ones that don't go into her womb?

It's a lot easier to have the DOJ file court cases than it is to move the Senate republicans into helping fix the economy instead of hoping for Pres Obama's waterloo. He would have done a lot more on jobs IF the Senate republicans allowed it.

He would have done a lot more on jobs IF the Senate republicans allowed it....

That's why he spend a full year on health care when he had a fillibuster proof Senate and didn't need the Republicans support? He passed a $850 billion stimulus and it did nothing for jobs. Nothing he can do will stimulate jobs as long as this country is facing the tax increases coming down the road next year. And don't give me the BS line that it will only affect the wealthy. It affects us all! Try educating yourself rather than simply spouting off Democratic talking points!

Hey STL Mike, here is an article to help educate yourself regarding what the stimulus bill did. If its too much information just scroll down the appendix. Lots of graphs and charts with pretty colors.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf

Unless the Majority/Minority split is 60/40 the minority is actually an equal and you must "listen" to that equal percentage of the population. That is why Rahm Emanual called Public Option supporters the R-Word. Rahm knows that for legislation to be palatable to all, there must be compromise.

Compromise... the word that appears to be missing from the Republican vocabulary

Adidas, here something from Mark Zandi, do the drooling dopes of nope know who he is? This stem cell issue is one more piece of crap left over from the last 8yrs.

Joining the backlash against House Majority leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) economic speech yesterday, Mark Zandi, Moody's chief economist, said Boehner was "just wrong" to call the $787 billion stimulus spending "a failure."

If there was no stimulus at all, Zandi said, unemployment would be at around 11.5% rather than 9.5%.

"I think if we had not had the stimulus, estimates put forward by the Congressional Budget Office are absolutely right: we'd have 2.5-3 million fewer jobs than we'd have today," he said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast briefing this morning.

What needs to change are people's expectations, he said. "The stimulus did exactly what it was intended to do. It was intended to end the recession, jump-start the economy, and it did that," said Zandi, who has advised both Obama and John McCain in the past.

As Zandi points out, the government spent "a minor amount" of stimulus money in the first quarter, which jumped to $100 billion in the second quarter and another $100 billion in the third quarter.

"It's that key change that provides the economic juice...that's when the recession ended," Zandi said. "This is why the benefits of stimulus are fading, because we've gone from $100 billion in spending to zero."

In another excerpt from the briefing which you can view below, Zandi said unemployment could reach up to 10 percent by November elections.

Not paying close attention there Mikey. You spouting the usual extremist BS shows that. I really feel sorry for you.

Obama doesn't have nor will he ever have a magic wand that will isnstantly solve all of our problems but we've taken some steps in the right direction. Those who hate progress and those who advocate progress called progressives are those who could easily be called regressives. Going back to the 20s and 30s of the last Century isn't going forward. The US used to be the leader in scientific development but other countries are now leading the way, not only in stem cell research, but in research and development of home grown, sustainable, renewable, clean energy sources. That will be the future like it or not. We might as well lead the parade or get out of its way as it marches on. Unfortunately the extreme right wingers would rather we follow the elephants in the parade with brooms and scoopers and cans to deposit their favorite thing into. Elephant dung,,,,ah yes the righties favorite food.

Those very people who whine and carp about using embryos that would be tossed out anyway have no problem killing other people in death chambers, or allowing people to die because of a lack of medical care because they can't afford it or the insurance to cover it. They favor sending men and women of to war to die in a foreign country that wasn't involved in 9/11 and no real threat to us. Hypocrisy seems to be alive and well on the far reigh, er I mean ..right.

He passed a $850 billion stimulus and it did nothing for jobs. Nothing he can do will stimulate jobs as long as this country is facing the tax increases coming down the road next year.

STLMike - actually, the stimulus has done EXACTLY what it was supposed to do. We are NOT in a depression, are we? We don't have long queues for food now, do we? Most people have jobs, don't they? There are no queues for gasoline, are there?

Without the stimulus, we would have a LOT more people out of work than we have now.

As far as unemployment is concerned, the reason I believe we have a sluggish economy is because those that DO have jobs are NOT (over)extending themselves when it relates to credit. Most of us are using the money we make to PAY DOWN OUR DEBT. By doing this, the money that would 'nomally' be used to buy things is being paid to the bank(s) and other debt servicers, which in effect is taking the money OUT of circulation (a decrease in buying power). The DISCRETIONARY dollar - the one that we use for entertainment, trips and frivilous buying - has almost disappeared.

What we are seeing is the money that is being spent is for living expenses and essentials - food, gas, fares, utilities. Any extra is being used to pay off those credit cards (and most Americans have at LEAST $10,000 worth of credit card bills to deal with) so they are not paying interest on balances that do NOTHING to stimulate the economy. Also, people are saving more money these days so that they can weather a downturn in their personal lives - loss of a job, a medical bill, bankrputcy, loss of a home.

I think it is disingenuous to say that 'nothing will stimulate jobs as long as this country is facing the tax increases coming down the road next year'. What WILL stimulate jobs will be an increase in demand for goods and services; an increase in manufactured goods that can be sold; and debt that has been paid off.

Since we have seen over the past 30 years that our manufactuaring capabilities have been shipped to China and India, that segment of the economy will continue to be sluggish, which affects the increase in the manufactured good that can be sold. People are NOT going to buy when they are uncertain about their monies in their budgets. Companies are NOT going to expand if they don't see any demand for their goods or services. The only ones making out right now are the debt servicers and the banks (because people are paying down their debt), and we know that they don't directly contribute to the economy the way that manufactured goods (especially durable goods) would.

Are these Democratic talking points? Possibly. However, you really should be thankful that President Obama had the foresight to have a stimulus plan. Without it, it may be difficult for you to hold onto your house or car because there wouldn't be enough money circulating in the economy to allow that.

It is NO ACCIDENT that President Bush pretty much let the President-elect Obama craft a response to the AIG debacle with the TARP program. President Bush could not give away the keys of the country to President Obama fast enough.

@STLMIke:

Because congress is not a pair of sports teams. Having a specific letter after your name doesn't guarantee a vote any more than having a sports car guarantees you're one of those snotheads that drag races in a residential neighborhood.

The republican party, love them or hate them, is known for squashing dissent within their ranks, and working against any potential candidate that would break ranks to vote otherwise. The democrats do not have such an iron grip on their ranks, making dissenting votes more common. They'd need 75 or even 80 seats to ram-rod things through that way.

Anyone can chant "It's the jobs, stupid!", but the solution isn't so simple...there's no such thing as a "silver bullet" answer to any problem. We've just come off a decade and a half of debt-fueled hyperconsumption, the production levels on the supply side were never sustainable long term. The stimulus did nothing in the 'upward' sense because it tried to prop up a house of cards using the same techniques that built it in the first place: spend money we don't have. When the stimulus money dried up, the artificial demand did too. When the credit dried up, the artificial demand was gone. It did, however, do what it was intended to do...prevent a total collapse, as Pietro says.

The economy isn't collapsing, the sky isn't falling; it's normalizing. You can slash taxes all you want, but that won't change that citizen debt is nearly $20,000 per household, plus mortgages on top of that yet. Those chickens have come home to roost, and now that the 'Who cares, we can just get more debt to keep going' spell has been broken the average citizen [I refuse to use 'consumer', as that implies mindlessly buying because they're told to], demand levels have fallen to realistic levels. So long as those debt payments remain, that's money not being potentially spent. Less spending, less demand. Less demand, less need for supply. Less need for supply, no new jobs.

Taxes will have to go up. It's not some jealous attack, it's reality. 'Make less per transaction, make it up on volume' mantra has gotten us a 600% increase in national debt since Reagan. The money to pay for that has to come from somewhere, and the correct answer is not 'China'.

Pietro also touches on something important: Prosperity is built on the back of the discretionary dollar ['I'm not required to spend this on anything, I'll use it how I want'], whether that 'how I want' is saving towards retirement or buying a shiny new widget. Thanks to the aforementioned debt-fueled hyperconsumption, we as a society in general have already spent our discretionary dollars for the next few years.

There's no easy way out of this one.

Foxden Racing - Bravo, sir, on your post. You DEFINITELY explained the economic situation a lot better than I did.

Da Noid - they just keep it open to be able to use it in a campaign, you can better bet that if one of their own needed this research they'd go through hell and high water to get to it. No, they don't care for those abandoned embryos, if they did they would make insurance companies implant them in infertal couples (the female) but do they even consider that? Heck no, Mr. Insurance CEO might now make a 45 million dollar bonus (oh yes, that is what the CEO of Anthem BC made last year - not salary, but bonus).

Another reason the republicans don't want all that research - it could lead to a cure without peddeling all those drugs off on people - where would big pharma be without selling all that medicine, most of which poisons as well as cures?

Better we should have elected a beauty pagent winner than a leader?

Or, a maverick-not maverick?

Still better than having a drunken coke head, half broke oil man appointed by your Daddy's friends on the supreme court, now isn't it? Absolutely, yes indeed it is.

Amen, brother!

Since your so in favor of this type of research, why don't you send them a check to help fund the research. This isn't banning the research all together, it is simply disallowing it to be funded through federal money.

Agreed Independent_Thinker. This usually boils down to Religion and Science butting heads as to when sentient life begins, and I know that that issue will not be solved in my lifetime.

Independent, abortions are typically performed on fetuses, not embryos. Most women don't realize they're pregnant until the embryonic phase has ended. If I understand it right, the research is done using cells that haven't yet turned into specific cell types (heart/muscle/skin/optic that sort of thing)- once embryo becomes fetus, those "decisions" have already been made by the cells. Cord blood would still be a viable research tool but the process of an abortion likely renders that useless as well.

That being said, I'll admit I'm torn on this issue. What a couple decides to do with their frozen embryos is an extremely personal and difficult decision. I know several who've been through it. I'm sure my experience is not universal but without fail, these are people who value their "potential lives" the same reverence most give their actual, living children. What they chose to do, whether it be transfer in hopes of another child, donate to another couple for adoption, donate for medical research or destroy is that couple's decision and no one else's. I think ultimately I have no objection to what funding is used to do research on the donated embryos. Where I have issue is the concept of creating embryos specifically to destroy them for research. It just seems skeevy to me. Personal thing, I can't necessarily explain it but I don't like it. I would prefer we didn't encourage this specific practice with federal funding.

What intrigues me is that we've made huge progress with adult stem cells but the debate rages on embryonic stem cells that have shown little promise. Why waste the money it takes to argue this stuff through the court system when it could be better served furthering adult stem cell research?

Paul - nice post. We don't always agree, but we do here.

I guess the question would be why there is a need to kill the stem cell host. Could there not be a technique developed that could harvest the stem cells needed WITHOUT the death of the embryo? If there is such a technique, why is the technique not used FIRST when harvesting stem cells?

This is one example where Americans need to work SMARTER.

Pietro

That is the second time you have been most understanding of my views, regardless of our partisan divide. I appreciate it very much.

If the embryos were being created for the sake of being destroyed, I'd agree with you. But that's not the case, and anyone saying otherwise is being sensationalist to scare people.

Embryos for stem cell research come from fertility clinics...a place where sperm and eggs combined in a medical setting instead of in the bedroom, then implanted into a female. They create more than they use, so that there's a higher chance the procedure will work...and afterward, discard the extras.

They're being destroyed anyway...it's not like mad scientists in cliffside castles are forcing women to get abortions during ominous thunderstorms, in order to cut up their babies or anything of the like. They're being destroyed either way, so why not do good for those already alive?

Seriously? You're going to adopt a pietry dish from a lab refrigerator?

You people are complaining about taking life that does not exist. I can't even wrap my around how ridiculous this argument is.

People like you make me sick, putting the idea of religious conscience over existing life. You obviously have never met anyone with a debilitating disease. And why would you care, it doesn't affect you. But I think you'd feel differently if your wife or child was paralyzed.

All I can do is shake my head.

Honestly, Brutus CA: I always think that people like poor Larry and Todd see this as little teeny tiny people living in petrie dishes, a sort of microcosmic world. The teeny tiny boys have blue on and the teeny tiny girls have pink. They don't seem to get that we are talking cell division, nor do they care, as long as it fits some perverted view of Christianity that they hold. You have to wonder, if God gave us the ability to do this, one might interpret that to mean that He wants us to use this technology so people like my mother do not have such a tortuous death.

Umm, I think some of you have a pretty narrow minded view of what happens when someone undergoes IVF. Yes, in many cases there are more eggs harvested than transplanted in a single attempt but rest assured, any viable embryo over the "transfer count" for the fresh cycle are NOT commonly destroyed- they are frozen for future attempts. The success rate for a fresh cycle is slightly less than 50%. Every women I know who's been through IVF and had "Extra" embryos beyond the number transferred on the first try as frozen those embryos either to try again if the fresh cycle fails to produce a viable pregnancy or for a future attempt at having another child. The expense of an IVF cycle is daunting and once you've gotten to that point in the infertility game, you don't waste money by destroying future chances to have a child.

And yes, there are many couples who've chosen to adopt frozen embryos from couples who do not wish to try for more children. I know a few.

I think what those who've never dealt with infertility fail to realize is that people who go through this process are not typically in a rush to destroy the potential lives they've struggled, often for years and at great expense, to create, at least not in my experience. The number of viable embryos is limited, the number that are never used for a transfer attempt is even smaller. It is a personal decision whether to transfer, donate for adoption, donate for research or destroy the embryos whether you like it or not.

@Suzy:

Good information to have; the underlying point I was trying to make remains the same, though. The embryos used for research aren't being created for the sake of being destroyed, as the urban myths denouncing stem cell research would like people to believe.

Retired Cop/Lawyer - maybe if we had statesmen/stateswomen in Congress who would be willing to work WITH this President, you and I would not be at odds.

Maybe this is where we as AMERICANS do what is good for America - for once - and get rid of the egocentric boobs who are gumming up the works...

btw, core blood from umbilical cords has stem cells in it just to clarify things.

So what you want to do, forever store every cell division in every fertility clinic forever? I am so tired of people who worship cell division over the needs of the living. Grow up.

@NewDayDawning:

Fight nice...you make more friends with an open hand than you do a closed fist. Namecalling and cynicism only antagonize.

@Ryman:

As I typed to Todd above,

Research embryos aren't created for the sake of being destroyed; they come from fertility clinics, and are destroyed regardless of whether they go towards stem-cell research. It's not like mad scientists in cliffside castles are forcing women to get abortions to use the cells. I figure if they're going to be destroyed either way, it may as well be for a good reason, rather than being tossed in a medical waste bag and summarily incinerated.

That said, umbilical blood is a potential source, but there are suggestions that harvesting those can harm the newborn; that blood contains vital antibodies and the like that can greatly help the child.

Since 'storage' costs for unused embryos are ongoing - I wonder how many 'wreckless abandonments' are on record? You know, folks who didn't reup the storage rental fees? Defend ALL embryos; but turn off the freezer? There has to be a corporation involved somewhere RIGHT now with a Death Panel making that VERY decision. Funny, no?

Clara, very funny YES!

Sounds like I came off as more scathing there than I'd intended. My apologies.

stem cell from core blood is cool with me. harvested embryo's is not.

RymanU18,

For Pete's sake, the word is CORD. If you want to sound like an authority on the topic, you are going to HAVE to learn the basics, okay, Sparky?

And just for the record, Ryman, cord cells are OLDER and cannot replicate the same as embryonic cells. In fact, these are very different stages of scientific research, as is bone marrow. Think half lives and replication of an already developed cell. They simply are not INTERCHANGEABLE concepts.

PRiCS,

Sorry; but I am simply not buying it. Unless I see you at an execution protesting against the State OR in an Anti-War demonstration - maybe then I'll let you hold your bible up and over another individual. Right now you are dangerously close to your own brand of blasphemy by playing judge and jury over your fellow man. I would LOVE to see you pull the log out of your own eye so you are pure enough to pluck the splinter from my eye. It could actually turn out that G-d SENT Intellectual Curiosity down to promote scientific discoveries that have the future potential to save thousands of lives. Or not,...but the FACT is - you don't know and I don't know. Best to keep your Old Testament spewing between you and G-d and let us THINK you a fool, than to open your 'mouth', as it were, and remove all doubt.