someone wish to take issue with this?

[Faye]

Originally posted by EAA:

It is truly sad when a doctor such as Kelly Hollowell, who knows better, tries to deceive the public with such overstated, misguided claims.

I see these statements used again and again to dissuade the public from ESCR. Susan how do you feel about this?

As far as Dr. Kelly Hollowell's statements about wanting a cure for her family members too, this is no different from some of the CC members' preference for the use of ASC. I would never force her family members to use therapies derived from ESCR, neither should she require others to forgo government funded ESCR.

~ The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge ~ Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)
www.CureParalysisNow.org

[member412678]

Originally posted by Steven Edwards:

Hope, I find it interesting because of her daughter having a genetic disorder. People have openly pondered what Bush would do if one of his own daughters were injured. I believe the would react the same Dr. Hollowell does.

Both sides -- opponents and proponents -- need to get a grip on the facts and learn to articulate their positions better.

Steven,
I don't waste time pondering what Bush would or would not do. No surprise in what he's doing and will do for the next 4 years though.
As for his regard for life...He justifies in his own mind sacrificing American lives on a daily basis.
This research has nothing to do with taking life. It has to do with saving lives or throwing something in the trash, down the sink or in the incinerator.
Period.

[tucker]

It is intereasting to note that Bush and his mary band of christian evangelicals have no problem sending our teenagers and young men and women to far away countries to be maimed and killed for the benefit of the Midle-East and somehow the US. There ideologic interpretation allows living sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and friends to die. But heaven forbid they allow an embrio that will be incinerated to be used to save lives and cure sci because this is somehow unacceptable from a religious standpoint.

[Steven Edwards]

Originally posted by hope2findacure:

This research has nothing to do with taking life. It has to do with saving lives or throwing something in the trash, down the sink or in the incinerator.

This is why we'll never win while Bush is in office. The IVF embryo bill has support, but very few are willing to listen to the opposition to understand what they are saying.

They believe life begins at conception, conception being defined as whatever triggers an ovum to begin developing toward a human life, whether or not it's in a uterus. Some scientists agree with this definition, while others [probably the majority] do not. They see it as killing a human being [not implanting it into a uterus is the equivalent of killing soomeone by denying them the nutrients they need to survive].

A note of interest is that, in the polls I have seen, people will largely support embryonic stem cell research if cloning is not mentioned or used [the Castle-DeGette bill fits this definition]. If cloning is mentioned, people will oppose it.

-Steven
...how did it end up like this? it was only a kiss, it was only a kiss.

[alan]

Bump for Susan Fajt,