Votevets Thanks Two Florida Congressmen for Clean Energy and Security Act

[FayeforCure]

Big Moment On Energy and Security â€" Are You With Us?

When Members of Congress do wrong, we speak out. But, when they do right, we're there to thank them, and tell them to keep it up. That's what we're doing with new ads today that we're launching in seven House districts - thanking those who voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and put America's security, and our troops, first. The ads are running in the districts of Reps. Chandler, Boccieri, Giffords, Grayson, Kosmas, Perriello, and Teague.

If this bill passes the Senate and heads to the President for his signature, we'll make a serious move off of foreign oil - lessening our dependence by 300,000 barrels, every day. That means we'll be helping cut off one of the biggest sources of funding for terrorists groups - Middle East oil profits. That protects America's troops, and our country.

Our focus is now going to shift to the Senate, which is going to be a much tougher fight. Entrenched special interests know that they've got to kill this legislation there, or it will become law. They're going to put a lot of money into a campaign to defeat this legislation, and keep us importing oil. We need to fight it. Are you with us?

JOIN THE FIGHT TO IMPORT LESS OIL FROM THE MIDDLE EAST! It's all hands on deck right now, as we enter this crucial phase. So, let's go!

http://votevets.org/pages/?id=0027

[BridgeTroll]

VoteVets.org was founded and is supported by veterans, its website states. [1].

Co-founder and Chairman Jon Soltz "organized veterans in Pennsylvania for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, and his VoteVets boasts an advisory board dominated by such Democratic veterans as Kerrey and Clark." [2]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=VoteVets.org

[FayeforCure]

VoteVets.org was founded and is supported by veterans, its website states. [1].

Co-founder and Chairman Jon Soltz "organized veterans in Pennsylvania for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, and his VoteVets boasts an advisory board dominated by such Democratic veterans as Kerrey and Clark." [2]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=VoteVets.org

A lot of people spoke and wonderful organizations were started during the Kerry campaign. I remember both Christopher Reeve ( Superman ) and Michael J Fox ( Back to the Future) speaking on behalf of common sense to allow the advancement of science to help those with incurable medical conditions and injuries. Oh the humanity.

Votevets members have served our country,.... I am glad they are putting out ads in Florida to spell out the importance of Clean Energy and National Security.

[Clem1029]

VoteVets.org was founded and is supported by veterans, its website states. [1].

Co-founder and Chairman Jon Soltz "organized veterans in Pennsylvania for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, and his VoteVets boasts an advisory board dominated by such Democratic veterans as Kerrey and Clark." [2]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=VoteVets.org

A lot of people spoke and wonderful organizations were started during the Kerry campaign. I remember both Christopher Reeve ( Superman ) and Michael J Fox ( Back to the Future) speaking on behalf of common sense to allow the advancement of science to help those with incurable medical conditions and injuries. Oh the humanity.

"Common sense" = killing the weakest among us for scientific experimentation. Thanks Faye...you've pretty much demonstrated how far around the bend you've gone.

Not that it wasn't obvious already...

[FayeforCure]

A lot of people spoke and wonderful organizations were started during the Kerry campaign. I remember both Christopher Reeve ( Superman ) and Michael J Fox ( Back to the Future) speaking on behalf of common sense to allow the advancement of science to help those with incurable medical conditions and injuries. Oh the humanity.

"Common sense" = killing the weakest among us for scientific experimentation. Thanks Faye...you've pretty much demonstrated how far around the bend you've gone.

Not that it wasn't obvious already...

This is precisely what I meant, .............many are too little informed to even realize that the cells used in stem cell research are cells that are recycled from medical waste from in vitro fertilization clinics. Common sense is out the door with poor information and the hysteria that goes along with that. It is so wonderful we have gone back to what made America great in the past: Being at the cutting edge of research in the most ethical way.

[Clem1029]

A lot of people spoke and wonderful organizations were started during the Kerry campaign. I remember both Christopher Reeve ( Superman ) and Michael J Fox ( Back to the Future) speaking on behalf of common sense to allow the advancement of science to help those with incurable medical conditions and injuries. Oh the humanity.

"Common sense" = killing the weakest among us for scientific experimentation. Thanks Faye...you've pretty much demonstrated how far around the bend you've gone.

Not that it wasn't obvious already...

This is precisely what I meant, .............many are too little informed to even realize that the cells used in stem cell research are cells that are recycled from medical waste from in vitro fertilization clinics. Common sense is out the door with poor information and the hysteria that goes along with that. It is so wonderful we have gone back to what made America great in the past: Being at the cutting edge of research in the most ethical way.

There is nothing ethical about 1) creating human life and then 2) discarding human life. "waste from in vitro fertilization clinics"?!?!? It's ETHICAL to create human life for waste? Wow...I'd hate to see where you draw the line at unethical.

[FayeforCure]

There is nothing ethical about 1) creating human life and then 2) discarding human life. "waste from in vitro fertilization clinics"?!?!? It's ETHICAL to create human life for waste? Wow...I'd hate to see where you draw the line at unethical.

Hmmm, I suppose you have rallied for the closure of all fertility clinics then?

[Clem1029]

There is nothing ethical about 1) creating human life and then 2) discarding human life. "waste from in vitro fertilization clinics"?!?!? It's ETHICAL to create human life for waste? Wow...I'd hate to see where you draw the line at unethical.

Hmmm, I suppose you have rallied for the closure of all fertility clinics then?

Haven't seen a strawman that big since the Wizard of Oz.

There's plenty a fertility clinic can do to encourage conception...I'd be perfectly OK with shutting down the in vitro business. But, how about a "common sense" middle ground - don't create human life without the intention of implantation.  That should be a pretty basic ethical standard - don't create "leftover human waste."

[FayeforCure]

Hmmm, I suppose you have rallied for the closure of all fertility clinics then?

There's plenty a fertility clinic can do to encourage conception...I'd be perfectly OK with shutting down the in vitro business. But, how about a "common sense" middle ground - don't create human life without the intention of implantation.  That should be a pretty basic ethical standard - don't create "leftover human waste."

That common sense middle ground already exists in the fertility clinics: blastocysts are created with the fullest intent of implantation. Unfortunately getting blastocysts to implant is not an exact science, and therefor when things go well, there are left over cells. There are over 600,000 blastocysts stored in freezers, the majority are destined to be trashed by the people they belong to,..........or maybe used for life-saving research if they so decide to donate their cells.

[Clem1029]

Hmmm, I suppose you have rallied for the closure of all fertility clinics then?

There's plenty a fertility clinic can do to encourage conception...I'd be perfectly OK with shutting down the in vitro business. But, how about a "common sense" middle ground - don't create human life without the intention of implantation.  That should be a pretty basic ethical standard - don't create "leftover human waste."

That common sense middle ground already exists in the fertility clinics: blastocysts are created with the fullest intent of implantation. Unfortunately getting blastocysts to implant is not an exact science, and therefor when things go well, there are left over cells. There are over 600,000 blastocysts stored in freezers, the majority are destined to be trashed by the people they belong to,..........or maybe used for life-saving research if they so decide to donate their cells.

Do you often contradict yourself in consecutive sentences?

First you say that common sense middle ground exists...then you go on to point out that the entire in vitro process is experimentation itself. So before we even get to the immorality of killing off life for experimentation, they first create life to experiment implantation with? Awesome ethics there.

Next, let's correct your vocabulary - they are not "left over cells," they are "human lives." The science there is irrefutable.

Finally, just so we're on the same page of what you think is ethical...according to you it's ethical to create leftover humans, kill them off at the hope of some sort of scientific cure, for which no evidence yet exists it will actually provide. I reiterate...if that's ethical to you, I'd hate to see where you draw the unethical line.

[FayeforCure]

Next, let's correct your vocabulary - they are not "left over cells," they are "human lives." The science there is irrefutable.

Hmmm, 100% of scientists know that human life does not exist without implantation. Because these cells will not implant, these are cells that will perish, plain and simple,..........unless we use the cells for life-saving research.

[Clem1029]

Next, let's correct your vocabulary - they are not "left over cells," they are "human lives." The science there is irrefutable.

Hmmm, 100% of scientists know that human life does not exist without implantation. Because these cells will not implant, these are cells that will perish, plain and simple,..........unless we use the cells for life-saving research.

First, nicely done cherry picking what you believe to be your strongest talking point. The rest of what I said goes unaddressed, and if this is where you want to stand your ground, you're nuts, but fair enough.

"human life does not exist without implantation." - this is so fundamentally false, it's unbelievable that there is someone in this day and age that actually believes this. Again, the science is irrefutable - human life begins at the MOMENT of conception. The minute conception happens, the zygote has every single characteristic of a living organism (as defined by science) and it's genetic makeup is completely human - you're not going to get a frog or a tomato. From the moment of conception, what starts as one cell is constantly growing and expanding. Implantation is utterly IRRELEVANT to whether or not 1) it's human and 2) it's alive. 100% of scientists are on my side of the argument. I reiterate - implantation is irrelevant to the question of life.

Now that we've removed your talking point, let's discuss the question of these human lives that will perish. Are these lives frozen, and not given the chance to grow? Absolutely. But so is any newborn life that is ignored. So is any grown life that has a significant disability that requires someone else to care for them. The only logical conclusion to your position is that scientific experimentation is perfectly legitimate on any human organism that can't take care of itself without outside intervention. Consider that carefully Faye...is that REALLY the position you want to take?

Next, let's address "life-saving research." There's zero evidence, um, anywhere, that the research done on cells that have been extracted from murdered human beings will actually deliver. It's a wide eyed hope more than anything else. You conveniently ignore that the only viable therapies have been developed from adult stem cells. I know that's an inconvenient truth and all, but it's reality.

So can you please drop the pretense of somehow being more sympathetic and such? You advocate killing human life to experiment on it on an outside chance it might provide a cure for a given illness. Your position might be a little more honest if you didn't pretend that humans aren't being killed off. A little more honest...but not much.

[FayeforCure]

Implantation is utterly IRRELEVANT to whether or not 1) it's human and 2) it's alive. 100% of scientists are on my side of the argument. I reiterate - implantation is irrelevant to the question of life.

Correct,....... and a simple skin cell ( or skin tissue) meets both criteria too: it's human, and it's alive.

The fact remains that blastocysts cannot possibly become a human being without implantation. Republican Senator Orin Hatch as well as 100% of scientists concur. The pin size ball of cells will simply perish, which happens by the hundreds of millions even in nature:

Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?
Harvesting stem cells without tears
Ronald Bailey | December 22, 2004

What are we to think about the fact that Nature (and for believers, Nature's God) profligately creates and destroys human embryos? John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President's Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows. In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy babies.

So millions of viable human embryos each year produced via normal conception fail to implant and never develop further. Does this mean America is suffering a veritable holocaust of innocent human life annihilated? Consider the claim made by right-to-life apologists like Robert George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, that every embryo is "already a human being." Does that mean that if we could detect such unimplanted embryos as they leave the womb, we would have a duty to rescue them and try to implant them anyway?

"If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined," declared Michael Sandel, a Harvard University government professor, also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.

As far as I know, bioconservatives like Robert George do not advocate the rescue of naturally conceived unimplanted embryos. But why not? In right-to-life terms, normal unimplanted embryos are the moral equivalents of a 30-year-old mother of three children.

Of course, culturally we do not mourn the deaths of these millions of embryos as we would the death of a childâ€"and reasonably so, because we do in fact know that these embryos are not people. Try this thought experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing 10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?

Stepping onto dangerous theological ground, it seems that if human embryos consisting of one hundred cells or less are the moral equivalents of a normal adult, then religious believers must accept that such embryos share all of the attributes of a human being, including the possession of an immortal soul. So even if we generously exclude all of the naturally conceived abnormal embryosâ€"presuming, for the sake of theological argument, that imperfections in their gene expression have somehow blocked the installation of a soulâ€"that would still mean that perhaps 40 percent of all the residents of Heaven were never born, never developed brains, and never had thoughts, emotions, experiences, hopes, dreams, or desires.

Yet millions of intelligent people of good will maintain that seven-day-old embryos have the exact same moral standing as do readers of this column. Acting on this sincere belief, they are trying to block biomedical research on human embryonic stem cells that is desired by millions of their fellow citizens.

But there may be a way out of this politico-theological impasse. The President's Council on Bioethics held an extraordinarily interesting session earlier this month in which two different avenues for obtaining human embryonic stem cells were proposed, in ways that would skirt right-to-life moral objections.

First, Howard Zucker and Donald Landry, two medical professors at Columbia University, proposed "a new definition of death for the human organism, an organism in development, and that is the irreversible arrest of cell division." They pointed out that a good percentage of in-vitro fertilized (IVF) embryos consist of a mixture of cells, some containing the wrong number of chromosomes (aneuploidy), some with the normal number. Embryos with such cell mixtures often cease development by cell division and thus cannot develop into fetuses, much less babies. Zucker and Landry argue that such embryos can be considered dead, and the normal embryonic cells they contain can be harvested just as organs can be ethically harvested from brain-dead adults. (Animal experiments have already shown that cells harvested from defective embryos will produce normal tissues.) Thus, we get stem cells from an entity that could not, under any circumstances, have become a human being.

William Hurlbut, a consulting professor in the Program of Human Biology at Stanford University and another member of the President's Council on Bioethics, proposed another way to produce cloned human embryonic stem cells that right-to-lifers should not find morally objectionable. Hurlbut cited work by researcher Janet Rossant at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto in which she inactivated the cdx2 gene in mice. Once the cdx2 gene is inactivated, the mouse embryo cannot form a trophoblastâ€"the tissues that grow into the placenta. However, embryonic stem cells do develop, although they cannot form an embryo. Hurlbut proposed an attempt to find similar genes that could be inactivated in the nuclei of adult human cells before they are installed in enucleated human eggs to produce cloned embryonic stem cells that are a genetic match for the person who donates the adult nucleus. (Transplanted cells and tissues produced by such therapeutic cloning would not be rejected by the donor's immune system.) Once the stem cells have been derived, the inactivated genes could be reactivated so that the stem cells could be used to produce normal transplantable cells and tissues.

"This process does not involve the creation of an embryo that is then altered to transform it into a non-embryonic entity," explained Hurlbut. "Rather the proposed genetic alteration is accomplished ab initio, the entity is brought into existence with a genetic structure insufficient to generate a human embryo."

Will this research reduce the number of embryos populating heaven? Who knows? But these options offer a possible way around the moral blockades that impede promising biomedical research on human embryonic stem cells. Should we halt current human embryonic stem-cell research while these possible new avenues of research are being explored? Absolutely not. That would be surrendering to the moral bullying of a minority that wants to halt promising medical research that could cure millions on theological grounds that many of their fellow citizens do not share.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34948.html