Oh, my Gawd, Kim! Don't you see the danger herein???? Those from the Left Coast wanting stem cell research and the latent Dahmerite forces in the Democrat__ Party combining forces to produce new-borns for the dual purpose of research and eating.

It is a logical place to look for them, after all. Surprised they didn't look before.

It won't be long before the pro-embryonic (aka pro-abortion) groups declare this source inferior or insufficient. A steady source of embryos from abortions is the only thing which will satisfy them. They will accept no substitutes.

jpm100...hope you eschew eating eggs because, who knows, maybe the Good Lord sees omelets like you see stem cell research.

jpm100 - How nice for you to be able to use your butt cheeks to keep your ears warm on these cold winter days. And your new hat fits right in with the fashion statement being made by rightwing bloggers these days.

Looks like the wingnut lies about Kerry's photo has been debunked as just more wingnut bullshit also...

Another Setback for Conservative Bloggers: The Great 'Kerry Photo' Flap

NEW YORK As if the finding of the allegedly non-existent Associated Press source in Iraq, Capt. Jamil Hussein, wasn't enough, conservative bloggers suffered another setback Friday in the far more trivial flap over a photo of Sen. John Kerry.

The "controversy" started last week when rightwing bloggers cackled over a photo sent to one of them which allegedly showed Kerry on a Dec. 17 visit to Iraq being shunned by troops at breakfast. Indeed, it did seem to show Kerry at a dining hall table with only a couple of non-uniformed people nearby. The blogs charged that this proved that the troops had completely turned on the senator (and decorated Vietnam vet) after his so-called "botched joke" in October, if not before.

Michelle Malkin, for example, wrote that "lonely John Kerry" had been "spurned by the troops," and some other comments were far more mocking. She and others maintained the attack even when other photos surfaced of Kerry surrounded by troops on that visit.

On Friday, the full truth emerged.

It's a veritable wingnut (wrongnut?) hat fashion parade!

jpm100...do you ever look at what you post?

"the pro-embryonic (aka pro-abortion) groups "

If one is "pro-embryo", kindly explain how that makes them the same as "pro-abortion."

Do you have the vaguest idea as to what are a "zygote," "blastocyst," "fetus," "sperm cell," "ovum" are or do you just regurgitate pavlovian response?

Explain, if you can, how one can be "pro-embryonic" and "pro-abortion," unless, of course, one is a Democrat.

"They would also provide a non-controversial source of the cells, which are found with difficulty throughout the body and in days-old embryos."

Lee and Puke,

Is that difficult for you to understand? The reason that private donors haven't gotten very much behind embryonic stem-cell research is its lack of results. Adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood cells, and now, amniotic fluid cells, actually have proven useful without ANYONE raising any moral or ethical questions about it. Maybe jpm didn't state his case very eloquently, but that certainly doesn't make you right.

A steady source of embryos from abortions is the only thing which will satisfy them. They will accept no substitutes.

That's exactly right. The left feels that no cure for disease is acceptable unless it comes from destroying embryos. Although insulin is now made in a laboratory, it is unacceptable because no fetuses are harmed. We're still reeling from the recent chicken pox vaccine, made without the destruction of a single embryo. We long for the days when Luden's cough drops contained the fetus juice liquid center, and Band-Aids were made of embryonic skin. Although there is hope, in the form of ongoing research into whether Advil can be produced from a blastocyst. Stay tuned.

The life of Brian (no pun intended), Lee, Brian, and arepukelian: Wait for every post to appear on a single coservative website, then pounce on it with every ounce of energy in the comments section. Amazing! Do you guys ever go anywhere?

Mentioned Brian twice. Think I meant Hugh. Oh well, now comes a raft of posts about how stupid I am!

No, John F Not Kerry, ...unnecessary...your post speaks volumes for itself.

Rubber/glue.

This ain't good. The dems aren't happy unless they're destroying some human life.

Lee, the truth of the picture still holds. People avoided Kerry like the plague.

BTW, how did that indictment of Karl Rove turn out? lol.

Again with your stupid arguments?

ALL options should be researched and funded (period)

To say one is the only GOD approved method of medical research is a sin against God.

Oh, no! There goes the 2008 wedge issue for the Dims! Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

Jo..."The dems aren't happy unless they're destroying some human life."

How absurd, all the whilst you and your Wizsymps are advocating desperately for the increase of American troop deaths with your support of the Chimp-in-chief's surge, aka escalation in Iraq. You are the blood-sucking flesh-eating kin of Dahmer.

aRepukelican:

If one is "pro-embryo", kindly explain how that makes them the same as "pro-abortion."'

If you read what I wrote, you'd have noticed I said 'embryon[b]ic[/b]' and not embryo

I accidentally omitted the term "stem cell". However if you really wanted to understand what I said, instead of just bitch for the sake of bitching, you could have figured it out.

And you're the last person who should be criticizing people for unclear statements.

Nice try Mitch, the Dems don't have wedge issues. The Pubs turn the progressive evolution of advances in science and society as an assault against God.

Keep up the good work, and watch the results as Hillary is the Prez and Obama as the VP. Watch as the 16-years of Dems control (over the two we have now piss ant) destroys the Pub party.

You mean like "Cristopher Reeves should be able to get out of His grave and walk now?" COOL

Everyone in D.C. needs a new influx of brain cells since they obviously suffered from oxygen deprivation while they were floating around in the amniotic abyss!! Including the chimpazoid in chief!

Brain:

That's exactly right. The left feels that no cure for disease is acceptable unless it comes from destroying embryos. Although insulin is now made in a laboratory, it is unacceptable because no fetuses are harmed. We're still reeling from the recent chicken pox vaccine, made without the destruction of a single embryo. We long for the days when Luden's cough drops contained the fetus juice liquid center, and Band-Aids were made of embryonic skin. Although there is hope, in the form of ongoing research into whether Advil can be produced from a blastocyst. Stay tuned.

Don't embryonic stem cell advocates reject Adult stem and cloned stem cell as well as substitutes for embryonic stem cells? Don't they also reject anencephalic fetuses/embryos as well? Generally they do when advocating for expanded embryonic stem cell research.

Brian, Lee, aRetard may be surprised when this is method is also rejected. I won't be.

BarneyG2000, Can we substitute "Feingold" for "Hillary". I mean, REALLY!

I would vote for Feingold in second, but he can't win (nomination). Just like any Repub can't win the general.

As an Illini, I would first vote for Obama, and than for Feingold (either prefered over Hillary).

Mike

"Brian, Lee, aRetard may be surprised when this is method is also rejected. I won't be."

Thanks for the laugh, jpm100 -- I haven't heard someone use "retard" since I was in elementary school.

If embryonic stem cell research had promise, venture capital would be pouring in. The investors know what the Dems don't want the voters to know: there are other, more promising avenues that don't involve the moral issue of embryonic life.

Stem cell research is about the moral status of the embryo. If it's off limits to experiment on, then it could become off-limits to abort.

Well, it's now too late for amniotic fluid research.

California, Illinois and other states have already committed billions of taxpayer dollars towards embryonic stem cell research. The embyronic stem cell people have already conned politicians to spend these funds on them.

Parties such as pharmacutical companies, which don't need government funding for their research, now have an advantage in that instead of just theoretical 'cures', there has been demonstrated positive results.

Of course, the government could just defund the embryonic stem cell people and fund this more promising research, but we all know that'll never happen.

We should use the most promising stem cells wherever we find them. Incidentally, a stem cell is not a human being.

And the world is more than 6,000 years old, fossils weren't created by Noah's flood, the globe IS warming, and evolution is good science and should be taught in schools.

"Well, it's now too late for amniotic fluid research."

Not true. If you think it's promising, lobby the Federal Government to commit dollars for this kind of research. That some money is going to stem cell research doesn't preclude doing other kinds of research as well.

"If embryonic stem cell research had promise, venture capital would be pouring in."

These would be the same genius capitalists that created the first internet boom?! I think there's a silly myth that capitalists are smart----some are, and some aren't. And even the smart ones make mistakes.

Guess what: this is complex science which guys who can operate a spreadsheet might not understand, nor should they be expected to. And, if you don't understand something, you might not want to invest in it.

Apparently the mental midgets on the Left here don't realize this is a NEW discovery, and as has been pointed out, embryonic stem cell research is at present INFERIOR to adult research.

There is virtually no evidence to support your delusions that embryonic stem cells will do what you imagine. So, you're basically just talking out of your ass, and it's a bonus for you you get to disparage those of us who are troubled with the ethics of this and abortion.

Mental Freakin' Midgets, I tell you.

Perhaps Ms. Pelosi can donate some of her daughter's or granddaughter's embryos for this "earth shattering" research into embryonic stem cells.

Mitchell:

Embryonic stem cell research----like all research----involves investigating the unknown. An embryonic stem cell comes from an early stage embryo (a blastocyst which is a 4-5 day old embryo consisting of 50-150 cells) which is what you are so concerned about.

Because of the properties of these cell, scientists believe they may prove useful for regenerative medicine and tissue replacement.

You may believe that a blastocyst is a human being and therefore killing it to obtain a stem cell is murder. Many of us do not agree with you. In any case, even if you deem embryonic stem cells to be immoral to use, most scientists DO believe that they show promise for finding very beneficial new medical procedures.

Needless to say, those who want to pursue this research (and the scientists behind it) are not mental midgets.

Publicus

Embryonic stemcell research has not been banned. It is only finite Federal funds which have been limited.

I see this as prudent in face of controversy. Certainly, such engagement in anti-religious bigotry that you have demonstrated does nothing to ameloriate the legitimate ethical concerns many may have with human experimentation.

Don't embryonic stem cell advocates reject Adult stem and cloned stem cell as well as substitutes for embryonic stem cells?i>

Well, you just explained why you seem so misinformed on the issues. Because you are.

Embryonic stem cell advocates don't limit their advocacy to only embryonic stem cells. They advocate all stem cell research. I recently listened to a stem cell researcher talk about his work. He said there are basically four horses in the race for effective stem cell therapy. Embryonic cells, adult cells, and two others (I don't recall). His position was that he and other researchers don't care which horse wins, but it's irresponsible and ludicrous to just take two horses out of the race altogether (as those who oppose embryonic stem cell research want to do).

That's the position of stem cell advocates. But you just go ahead and keep thinking that the Democrats just fuel their secret world domination plans with more abortions.

Darleen, I agree! As you say, "Embryonic stemcell research has not been banned. It is only finite Federal funds which have been limited."

This is true. I have not said otherwise.

What about my alleged "engagement in anti-religious bigotry"? Was it my statements about the age of the earth? Or that I pointed out that evolution is supported by science?

As for the "legitimate ethical concerns", I asseted that such concerns were, in my opinion, sincere but mistaken. Many people (I assume including yourself) believe that a 50-150 cell 4 or 5 day old blastocyst is morally identical to a human being. Others, such as myself, do not.

If this new discovery proves to be medically as valuable as embryonic stem cells, then I would happy to support that research over embryonic stem cell research. At this point, it is too early to say.

"Or that I pointed out that evolution is supported by science?"

You meant supported by certain scientists Im sure..!

Damn, ethical discussions do bring out the trolls...

sigh.

First of all, people, W did not ban embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. All he did was prohibit Federal funds from being spent on it.

Oddly enough, adult stem cell (ASC) research seems to be showing far greater results for the research dollars being spent on it, rather than on ESC. As other commenters have noted, several states, including California, have spent millions on ESC with no results in sight for years to come (google is your friend). With ASC, however, research results are being used now in therapies ranging from spinal cord injuries, artery repair after heart attacks, and in reducing the effects of Parkinson's Disease (again, google is your friend) - all of this while avoiding the extremely thorny ethical issues that come with ESC.

Yet for some reason, so many commenters here seem to go to great lengths to cast those of us who celebrate ASC successes (as Kim did with this post) as backwards religious nuts who don't properly bow down and worship their favorite god, Science. How dare we.

In every textbook I have ever read regarding the subject, Evolution is properly labeled, "the Theory of Evolution". You know: theory. Possible, but not proven. However, to suggest that any other theory might better explain the facts, as true scientists would encourage, is laughed at, derided, and dismissed as "religion". Backwards. But I digress.

Publicus, your statement above, that you do not "believe that a 50-150 cell 4 or 5 day blastocyst is morally identical to a human being" statement makes me wish I could go back in time to when YOU were a blastocyst, so I could practice your ethics on you. If I am alive when the technology for time travel becomes available, I will be all too happy to do so. I'll wave the thousands of dollars of incentives girls are given these days to donate eggs in front of your mother, and see if she takes the cash, instead of caring for the "insignificant little blastocyst" that just began to grow in her womb. If your ethics are reflective of your mother, I'll have fun drawing out every ESC from your blastocyst, and watching you die as a result.

Meanwhile, those of us who have moral questions regarding ESC and abortion do not wish to have our tax dollars, and our Government, supporting research into systems that destroy human beings at the blastocyst stage. That ASC shows promise where ESC does not should all the more reinforce our stance. No one has said that private funds cannot be used on ESC research (although if you asked us our thoughts on it, we would time and time again reinforce our position: any research that results in the damage or destruction of fertilized human embryos is morally reprehensible). Yet in case after case where stem cell research funding questions have come before voters (in statewide referendums), the question of funding always involves ESC, not ASC.

I believe there is another, unspoken reason why ESC advocates are so desperate to have Federal funds plowed into their research, despite the overwhelming lack of results: it constitutes a litmus test at the Federal level regarding abortion. To allow Federal funding of ESC reinforces the Government's position regarding Roe v Wade. But if the Feds do not fund ESC, it can be argued that at least one branch of the Government (Executive) disagrees with another branch (Judiciary) regarding abortion and the moral question of where life begins. And, as everyone knows, the Humanist cannot stand for life to be defined at the point of conception. Because other thorny little issues such as moral responsibility for sexuality, and the acknowledgment of humanity as a spiritual being (and not a law and end unto itself) just might come up.

And, as everyone knows, to the Humanist, everyone is equally important. When someone's equal importance infringes upon my needs, though, well, some will just have to understand that some of us are just more important than others.

That's pretty heady proof there 914.

Which version of that bible you using son?

That's pretty heady proof there 914.

Which version of that bible you using son?