| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
| Date: |
04 Aug 2005 11:47:41 PM |
| Object: |
OPTION TO STEM CELLS FOUND |
Option to stem cells found
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable
alternative
By Byron Spice
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Friday, August 5, 2005
University of Pittsburgh http://www.pitt.edu/
researchers have discovered that one type of cell in the
human placenta has characteristics that are strikingly
similar to embryonic stem cells in their ability to
regenerate a wide variety of tissues.
The cells, called amniotic epithelial cells, potentially
could be used to produce new liver cells to treat liver
failure, or new pancreatic islet cells to cure diabetes
or new neurons to treat Parkinson's disease.
Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are obtained only by
destroying human embryos, these cells can be extracted
from the same placentas that now are routinely discarded
after birth. They thus could be a non-controversial
alternative to embryonic stem cells.
http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/
"We think it would be easier to get these to the clinic
than [embryonic stem] cells," said Stephen Strom, an
associate professor of pathology at the Pitt medical
school.
Not only do amniotic epithelial cells lack the
controversy of embryonic stem cells, but they also do not
generate the tumors associated with embryonic stem cells,
he said. So it may be possible in some cases to simply
transplant the amniotic cells to a patient, rather than
to first grow the desired specialized cells in the
laboratory.
Strom and Dr. Yoshio Miki, an instructor in the pathology
department, described their discovery in a paper
published online last night in Stem Cells Express; the
paper also will appear in an upcoming issue of the
journal Stem Cells.
Publication of the paper had been delayed while the
university sought patent protection for the discovery,
Strom noted. A local biotechnology company, Stemnion
Inc., has licensed the patent rights from Pitt with plans
to use the cells for treating cirrhosis and diabetes and
to spur wound healing.
In the meantime, a couple of Japanese research groups
have already confirmed several aspects of the Pitt
findings.
"This is an exciting report," said David Prentice, senior
fellow for life sciences at the conservative Family
Research Council. More and more reports are emerging
regarding stem cells derived from such sources as
amniotic fluid, bone marrow and nasal mucosa that have
much of the same flexibility as embryonic stem cells, but
that don't carry the danger of generating tumors, he
noted.
The announcement comes with embryonic stem cells once
again in the headlines. Last week, Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist, R-Tenn., broke with the Bush administration
and said he would support federal funding to create
additional embryonic stem cell lines. President Bush this
week reiterated his intent to veto any such an expansion
of federal stem cell research.
Alan Russell, director of Pitt's McGowan Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, said finding new sources of stem
cells will be vital to accelerating the pace of stem cell
research.
"The placenta and umbilical cord appear to be rich
sources for stem cells that have real potential to treat
disease," said Russell, who also is an adviser to
Stemnion. "Strom's discovery adds another piece to the
puzzle that will help patients in the future."
Amniotic epithelial cells make up the thin membrane known
as the amnion, or birth sac, which contains the fetus and
amniotic fluid. Among other functions, the amnion keeps
the developing baby from becoming permanently affixed
through wound healing to the mother's organs.
Doctors have recognized that the membrane was rich in
stem cells and have long used it as a sort of human
bandage to aid in healing, notably in eye surgery.
That's why Miki and Strom first studied amniotic
epithelial cells four years ago. Strom is interested in
developing sources of liver cells, called hepatocytes,
that could be used as an alternative to liver organ
transplantation for treating cirrhosis and liver failure.
Once Miki found that the amniotic cells indeed could be
used to produce hepatocyte-like cells, he began exploring
their other capabilities. That's when he found that they
were similar in almost every way to embryonic stem cells.
Just why the cells in this membrane should retain the
potential for generating almost any type of tissue in the
body is not clear, Strom said, and it may simply be a
consequence of when these cells are created during early
development.
Embryonic stem cells are found when the developing embryo
is still a free-floating ball of 40 to 150 cells. The
cells in the middle of this ball, which have yet to take
on any specialized functions, are the stem cells.
The amniotic epithelial cells are the first of the inner
cell mass to "differentiate," or acquire a specialized
function; they develop when the blastocyst prepares for
implantation in the uterus.
Only after implantation does the inner mass of stem cells
begin to differentiate, undergoing a major transformation
called gastrulation in which the cells divide into three
major classes of cells from which all other tissues are
derived. Because amniotic epithelial cells pre-date
gastrulation, Strom said, they retain the ability to form
any type of tissue.
Amniotic epithelial cells, unlike embryonic stem cells,
cannot live forever, Strom said, so therapies based on
them will depend on regularly harvesting cells from
discarded placentas.
Also, questions remain as to whether the replacement
tissues generated from amniotic epithelial cells will be
rejected by a recipient. The amniotic epithelial cells
don't have many of the cell antigens that can trigger
rejection, Strom said, but that seems to change as the
cells differentiate.
That would not pose any problem for liver cell
transplants, he noted, because the liver can tolerate
transplanted cells as long as they have a compatible
blood type. But it could be a problem for therapies such
as islet cell transplants to cure diabetes.
With about 4 million births a year, however, it should be
possible to find donor placentas with tissue types
compatible to any recipient, Strom said.
Or, some people may choose to follow Miki's example. His
wife, Hisae, is due to give birth any day now and he
plans to save the placenta, banking it for possible
future use by their child.
http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05217/549236.stm
- - - - - - -
Don't wait for the MSM to report this - they don't seem
to be interested unless babies (embryos) can be
sacrificed.
Posted on 08/04/2005 9:27:46 PM PDT by pittsburgh gop guy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded messages
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
.
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: OPTION TO STEM CELLS FOUND |
05 Aug 2005 02:11:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:47:41 GMT,
Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> reported:
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative.
<flush remainder>
We don't NEED an "alternative," you pathetically-moronic loon.
However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing ADDITIONAL
avenues of medical advances.
Go get yourself a life. DAMN, but you Anti-Choice control-freaks
are all dumber than dead rocks! How you jerks can survive walking
in a rainstorm without drowning is amazing.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reasoned Insanity" |
|
| Title: Re: OPTION TO STEM CELLS FOUND |
06 Aug 2005 11:47:29 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4s36f11ssdsae0831ssq0bp88mns7464ig@4ax.com...
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:47:41 GMT,
Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> reported:
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative.
<flush remainder>
We don't NEED an "alternative," you pathetically-moronic loon.
However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing ADDITIONAL
avenues of medical advances.
Go get yourself a life. DAMN, but you Anti-Choice control-freaks
are all dumber than dead rocks! How you jerks can survive walking
in a rainstorm without drowning is amazing.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>.
Aren't you the one who is always spouting about the hate of the right? What
you wrote is an example of hate if I ever saw it. I mean you attack the guy
for posting something that, if anything, actually supports your cause by
advocating research into such things. Why did you "flush" over half his
post? Are you not the one that I see complaining about people deleting parts
of your many idotic posts? Hypocrite. Maybe you should consider an anger
management class.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: OPTION TO STEM CELLS FOUND |
06 Aug 2005 09:05:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 09:47:29 -0700,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> reported:
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative.
<flush remainder>
We don't NEED an "alternative," you pathetically-moronic loon.
However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing ADDITIONAL
avenues of medical advances.
Go get yourself a life. DAMN, but you Anti-Choice control-freaks
are all dumber than dead rocks! How you jerks can survive walking
in a rainstorm without drowning is amazing.
Aren't you the one who is always spouting about the hate of the right?
I shine a very bright spotlight on it, yes. And in the process, show
how the relevant facts reveal the utter vacuousness of their agendas, and
those agendas as being sociopathic and utterly devoid of one scintilla
of redeeming social significance.
What you wrote is an example of hate if I ever saw it.
LOL!!! That's how bigots ALWAYS respond, when their bigotry is
spotlighted. Works for me! I wouldn't have it any other way!
I mean you attack the guy for posting something that, if anything,
actually supports your cause by advocating research into such things.
Surely you jest!!! Jai is one of Usenet's more notorious Anti-Choicers,
and if you didn't see that he was making an attempt to promote folks'
viewing an **additional** means as an ALTERNATIVE to wield, in LIEU
of stem-cell research, then you're not particularly astute.
There's nothing wrong with medical science taking a MULTI-pronged
approach to solving problems. But to even HINT that such a viable and
promising method as embryonic stem-cell research should be *dropped,*
while other methods are pursued -- is abject STUPIDITY.
So I called him on that.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reasoned Insanity" |
|
| Title: Re: OPTION TO STEM CELLS FOUND |
07 Aug 2005 05:49:16 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:bbqaf1tfpnbmh32138h1km6jiqeosn2fl9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 09:47:29 -0700,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> reported:
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative.
<flush remainder>
We don't NEED an "alternative," you pathetically-moronic loon.
However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing ADDITIONAL
avenues of medical advances.
Go get yourself a life. DAMN, but you Anti-Choice control-freaks
are all dumber than dead rocks! How you jerks can survive walking
in a rainstorm without drowning is amazing.
Aren't you the one who is always spouting about the hate of the
right?
I shine a very bright spotlight on it, yes.
Then you will be sure to shine a very bright spotlight on yourself then.
What you wrote is an example of hate if I ever saw it.
LOL!!! That's how bigots ALWAYS respond, when their bigotry is
spotlighted. Works for me! I wouldn't have it any other way!
Way to refute, way to refute!
I mean you attack the guy for posting something that, if anything,
actually supports your cause by advocating research into such things.
Surely you jest!!! Jai is one of Usenet's more notorious Anti-Choicers,
and if you didn't see that he was making an attempt to promote folks'
viewing an **additional** means as an ALTERNATIVE to wield, in LIEU
of stem-cell research, then you're not particularly astute.
There's nothing wrong with medical science taking a MULTI-pronged
approach to solving problems. But to even HINT that such a viable and
promising method as embryonic stem-cell research should be *dropped,*
while other methods are pursued -- is abject STUPIDITY.
So I called him on that.
You didn't call him on anything, you just get off on murdering babies. From
the the article said, the alternative method proposed actually is easier and
better than killing unborn children. You just can't seem to get over that
your excuses for women and scientists to be able to murder are slowly being
checked off.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: OPTION TO STEM CELLS FOUND |
08 Aug 2005 02:53:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:49:16 -0700,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> reported:
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative.
<flush remainder>
We don't NEED an "alternative," you pathetically-moronic loon.
However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing ADDITIONAL
avenues of medical advances.
Go get yourself a life. DAMN, but you Anti-Choice control-freaks
are all dumber than dead rocks! How you jerks can survive walking
in a rainstorm without drowning is amazing.
Aren't you the one who is always spouting about the hate of the
right?
I shine a very bright spotlight on it, yes.
Then you will be sure to shine a very bright spotlight on yourself then.
I present FACTS. And that always indicts the bigots. Especially
since they have NO relevant facts available to draw upon in their defense.
What you wrote is an example of hate if I ever saw it.
LOL!!! That's how bigots ALWAYS respond, when their bigotry is
spotlighted. Works for me! I wouldn't have it any other way!
Way to refute, way to refute!
Stating a FACT is the only refutation necessary.
I mean you attack the guy for posting something that, if anything,
actually supports your cause by advocating research into such things.
Surely you jest!!! Jai is one of Usenet's more notorious Anti-Choicers,
and if you didn't see that he was making an attempt to promote folks'
viewing an **additional** means as an ALTERNATIVE to wield, in LIEU
of stem-cell research, then you're not particularly astute.
There's nothing wrong with medical science taking a MULTI-pronged
approach to solving problems. But to even HINT that such a viable and
promising method as embryonic stem-cell research should be *dropped,*
while other methods are pursued -- is abject STUPIDITY.
So I called him on that.
You didn't call him on anything, you just ...
...are FAIR and SENSIBLE enough to value **real people** more
than mere, UNwanted reproductive-process entities (which not even
the Bible defends) -- to the infinite power factorial.
So as I said -- I CALLED him on his abject stupidity.
From the the article said, the alternative method proposed actually
is easier and better than...
...pursuing embryonic stem cell research. No problem!! Some
methods of approaching problems typically are easier than other, but
often are EQUALLY valid, multi-pronged approaches. As is the case
here. NO harm, no foul. Go for both/all, and thereby make medical
advancements even faster and more effectively.
<stupidity-flush>
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reasoned Insanity" |
|
| Title: Re: OPTION TO STEM CELLS FOUND |
08 Aug 2005 07:54:41 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:po3ef15c1pjimhbbf0v7jrko9h4660nh8u@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:49:16 -0700,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> reported:
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative.
<flush remainder>
We don't NEED an "alternative," you pathetically-moronic loon.
However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing ADDITIONAL
avenues of medical advances.
Go get yourself a life. DAMN, but you Anti-Choice control-freaks
are all dumber than dead rocks! How you jerks can survive walking
in a rainstorm without drowning is amazing.
Aren't you the one who is always spouting about the hate of the
right?
I shine a very bright spotlight on it, yes.
Then you will be sure to shine a very bright spotlight on yourself
then.
I present FACTS. And that always indicts the bigots. Especially
since they have NO relevant facts available to draw upon in their defense.
Please Craig, lets not go there. You never have been able to defend yourself
in this area. You NEVER have been able to present proof of any "facts" that
you've had. Come back when you can prove your little "facts".
Here's a little stupidity flush for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: "Reasoned Insanity" PROVES the Abject IGNORANCE Common to Anti-Choice Losers |
08 Aug 2005 09:09:01 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 05:54:41 -0700,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> reported:
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative.
<flush remainder>
We don't NEED an "alternative," you pathetically-moronic loon.
However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing ADDITIONAL
avenues of medical advances.
Go get yourself a life. DAMN, but you Anti-Choice control-freaks
are all dumber than dead rocks! How you jerks can survive walking
in a rainstorm without drowning is amazing.
Aren't you the one who is always spouting about the hate of the
right?
I shine a very bright spotlight on it, yes.
Then you will be sure to shine a very bright spotlight on yourself
then.
I present FACTS. And that always indicts the bigots. Especially
since they have NO relevant facts available to draw upon in their
defense.
Please Craig, lets not go there.
ROTFL!!!!! You're probably HOPING that I won't. Since that's
about to prove **devastating** to you and your loathsome agenda
against millions of women.
You never have been able to defend yourself in this area.
Ah. Per that comment, one or both of these is/are true:
(1) You're as deluded and brainwashed as any cult lemming
who has ever lived.
and/or...
(2) LYING is your long suit.
You NEVER have been able to present proof of any "facts" that
you've had. Come back when you can prove your little "facts".
Facts are truths, and generally are self-evident. And just about EVERY
fact in the outline below is clearly self-evident -- and none of them are
"little." Unless you regard facts that utterly destroy the underpinnings
of your hateful and bigoted agenda to be "little."
A person would have to be one of the most abjectly-ignorant people on
earth in order to say that ANY proof is needed that sunrises occur on the
eastern horizon. The facts in the outline below totally destroy the
sociopathic agenda of the Anti-Choicers. And *your* thinking that any-
thing as OBVIOUS as those need to be proved, is CONCRETE PROOF
of **this**: You, and any other Anti-Choicer dumb enough to say that,
are among the most IGNORANT people on the face of the earth.
(No surprise, though. Ignorance and adherence to control-freakish
and sociopathic agendas of the RRR cult GO together.)
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (oz/e/offs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the 21st century to date,
in the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic
period of time for any nation in the entire history of the
world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reasoned Insanity" |
|
| Title: Re: "Reasoned Insanity" PROVES the Abject IGNORANCE Common to Anti-Choice Losers |
08 Aug 2005 05:31:13 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:jppef1dbigl184ji45l1ru8175ahoefv55@4ax.com...
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 05:54:41 -0700,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> reported:
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative.
<flush remainder>
We don't NEED an "alternative," you pathetically-moronic loon.
However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing ADDITIONAL
avenues of medical advances.
Go get yourself a life. DAMN, but you Anti-Choice control-freaks
are all dumber than dead rocks! How you jerks can survive walking
in a rainstorm without drowning is amazing.
Aren't you the one who is always spouting about the hate of the
right?
I shine a very bright spotlight on it, yes.
Then you will be sure to shine a very bright spotlight on yourself
then.
I present FACTS. And that always indicts the bigots. Especially
since they have NO relevant facts available to draw upon in their
defense.
Please Craig, lets not go there.
ROTFL!!!!! You're probably HOPING that I won't. Since that's
about to prove **devastating** to you and your loathsome agenda
against millions of women.
You never have been able to defend yourself in this area.
Ah. Per that comment, one or both of these is/are true:
(1) You're as deluded and brainwashed as any cult lemming
who has ever lived.
and/or...
(2) LYING is your long suit.
You NEVER have been able to present proof of any "facts" that
you've had. Come back when you can prove your little "facts".
Facts are truths, and generally are self-evident. And just about EVERY
fact in the outline below is clearly self-evident -- and none of them are
"little." Unless you regard facts that utterly destroy the underpinnings
of your hateful and bigoted agenda to be "little."
A person would have to be one of the most abjectly-ignorant people on
earth in order to say that ANY proof is needed that sunrises occur on the
eastern horizon. The facts in the outline below totally destroy the
sociopathic agenda of the Anti-Choicers. And *your* thinking that any-
thing as OBVIOUS as those need to be proved, is CONCRETE PROOF
of **this**: You, and any other Anti-Choicer dumb enough to say that,
are among the most IGNORANT people on the face of the earth.
(No surprise, though. Ignorance and adherence to control-freakish
and sociopathic agendas of the RRR cult GO together.)
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (oz/e/offs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the 21st century to date,
in the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic
period of time for any nation in the entire history of the
world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
+
I see you are back to your old tricks of claiming many things without
backing any of them up. This conversation is over unless I see you proving
everything that you have said with documentation from credible resources.
I'm not going to bother to get into another game of ask Craig to claim what
he says when he never has bothered to before.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: "Reasoned Insanity" PROVES the Abject IGNORANCE Common to Anti-Choice Losers |
08 Aug 2005 04:11:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 15:31:13 -0700,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> reported:
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative.
We don't NEED an "alternative," you pathetically-moronic loon.
However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing ADDITIONAL
avenues of medical advances.
Go get yourself a life. DAMN, but you Anti-Choice control-freaks
are all dumber than dead rocks! How you jerks can survive walking
in a rainstorm without drowning is amazing.
Aren't you the one who is always spouting about the hate of the
right?
I shine a very bright spotlight on it, yes.
Then you will be sure to shine a very bright spotlight on yourself
then.
I present FACTS. And that always indicts the bigots. Especially
since they have NO relevant facts available to draw upon in their
defense.
Please Craig, lets not go there.
ROTFL!!!!! You're probably HOPING that I won't. Since that's
about to prove **devastating** to you and your loathsome agenda
against millions of women.
You never have been able to defend yourself in this area.
Ah. Per that comment, one or both of these is/are true:
(1) You're as deluded and brainwashed as any cult lemming
who has ever lived.
and/or...
(2) LYING is your long suit.
You NEVER have been able to present proof of any "facts" that
you've had. Come back when you can prove your little "facts".
Facts are truths, and generally are self-evident. And just about EVERY
fact in the outline below is clearly self-evident -- and none of them are
"little." Unless you regard facts that utterly destroy the underpinnings
of your hateful and bigoted agenda to be "little."
A person would have to be one of the most abjectly-ignorant people on
earth in order to say that ANY proof is needed that sunrises occur on the
eastern horizon. The facts in the outline below totally destroy the
sociopathic agenda of the Anti-Choicers. And *your* thinking that any-
thing as OBVIOUS as those need to be proved, is CONCRETE PROOF
of **this**: You, and any other Anti-Choicer dumb enough to say that,
are among the most IGNORANT people on the face of the earth.
(No surprise, though. Ignorance and adherence to control-freakish
and sociopathic agendas of the RRR cult GO together.)
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (oz/e/offs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the 21st century to date,
in the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic
period of time for any nation in the entire history of the
world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
I see you are back to your old tricks of claiming many things without
backing any of them up.
Yeah. As though a person would need to back up the statement,
"sunrises occur daily." And the facts stated in my outline above --
NONE of which have **ever** been disproven by ANY person dumb
enough to be an Anti-Choicer -- are THAT obvious.
Thanks for this further evidence that you are FAR fro being the
brightest wick in the lamp shop.
This conversation is over...
Why would THAT bother me one whit? You have provided NO
facts to support your Anti-Choice stance. All you have managed to
do in here is prove that you are stupid, hateful, and bigoted enough
the support a *loathsome* agenda that seeks sociopathically to
impose IMMENSE hardship upon no fewer than tens of MILLIONS
of women by FORCING childbirth upon them. AGAINST their will.
Resulting in the DENIAL of their rights... their RELEGATION to
second-class-citizen status... their INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE to
mere, NON-sentient, Stage 2, 3, and 4 reproductive-process entities
which are, in all important ways, equivalent to the Stage 1 entities
that you so *hypocritically* do NOT "defend"-- which *also* are
human, unique, alive, and comprise a stage of development without
which NO births would occur. UNwanted entities which the WOMEN
very sensibly, under their circumstances, often regard to be parasitic.
Further manifestations of that hardship would be the DISRUPTION
of their well-being, both short-term and long-term (as in, for decades
or a lifetime)... and the DESTRUCTION of countless of their oppor-
tunities.
All of which makes you nothing more than a figurative rat turd
floating in humanity's punchbowl.
So it's supposed to bother me that you may choose to end this
so-called "conversation?"
LOL!!!!!! Not in the least. It's always fun to watch bigoted losers
making such total fools of themselves in public as you have, and
then RUN when it becomes obvious that they have NO debating
weaponry (i.e., FACTS that would support their stance) in their
arsenal.
Just about the only "good old days" aspect of being Civil Rights
workers, back in the early '60s in the South -- other than the great
camaraderie we all shared in fighting a ruthless and very ignorant
foe) was watching them lose it when we baited and taunted them,
and thus caused them to make even BIGGER fools of themselves.
Debating mindless bigots -- such as the segregationists then --
and the Anti-Choicers/RRR-Cult-lemmings, and homophobes today,
is a blast. It's as easy as shooting a brontosaurus in a barrel
with a howitzer. You losers are a monumental joke. And when
your loathsome agendas ultimately swirl down the Drain of
Extinction to join segregation in permanent oblivion, we egali-
tarians will be laughing VERY long and VERY loudly at you.
...unless I see you proving everything that you have said
with documentation from credible resources.
ROTFLMAO!!!! What a tool. I haven't had this much fun
since Jackson, Mississippi in 1964!
But make no mistake... when ALL such mindless bigotry has
become history, forevermore, neither I, nor any other sensible
person, will ever miss it one iota. It'll be "Good Riddance to
VERY putrid garbage." And society will be infinitely better for no
longer being tainted by it.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "someone" |
|
| Title: Re: "Reasoned Insanity" PROVES the Abject IGNORANCE Common to Anti-Choice Losers |
09 Aug 2005 05:08:13 PM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
I see you are back to your old tricks of claiming many things without
backing any of them up.
Yeah. As though a person would need to back up the statement,
"sunrises occur daily."
Go ahead, back it up. Prove that the sun rises daily.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Homilete" |
|
| Title: Re: OPTION TO STEM CELLS FOUND |
08 Aug 2005 11:14:15 AM |
|
|
Reasoned Insanity wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:bbqaf1tfpnbmh32138h1km6jiqeosn2fl9@4ax.com...
Surely you jest!!! Jai is one of Usenet's more notorious Anti-Choicers,
and if you didn't see that he was making an attempt to promote folks'
viewing an **additional** means as an ALTERNATIVE to wield, in LIEU
of stem-cell research, then you're not particularly astute.
There's nothing wrong with medical science taking a MULTI-pronged
approach to solving problems. But to even HINT that such a viable and
promising method as embryonic stem-cell research should be *dropped,*
while other methods are pursued -- is abject STUPIDITY.
So I called him on that.
You didn't call him on anything, you just get off on murdering babies. From
the the article said, the alternative method proposed actually is easier and
better than killing unborn children. You just can't seem to get over that
your excuses for women and scientists to be able to murder are slowly being
checked off.
I wonder if denial of medical care on the basis of income, and
consequent deaths, qualifies as attempt to murder/murder? How about
fatally delayed medical care on the same basis?
Don't abort, we prefer to kill them slowly later, after we've squeezed
some low-wage, don't-provide-an-aspirin-unless-OSHA-mandates-it working
years out of the brutes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: OPTION TO STEM CELLS FOUND |
06 Aug 2005 10:13:00 AM |
|
|
Reasoned Insanity wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4s36f11ssdsae0831ssq0bp88mns7464ig@4ax.com...
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 04:47:41 GMT,
Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> reported:
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative.
<flush remainder>
We don't NEED an "alternative," you pathetically-moronic loon.
However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing ADDITIONAL
avenues of medical advances.
Go get yourself a life. DAMN, but you Anti-Choice control-freaks
are all dumber than dead rocks! How you jerks can survive walking
in a rainstorm without drowning is amazing.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>.
Aren't you the one who is always spouting about the hate of the right? What
you wrote is an example of hate if I ever saw it. I mean you attack the guy
for posting something that, if anything, actually supports your cause by
advocating research into such things. Why did you "flush" over half his
post? Are you not the one that I see complaining about people deleting parts
of your many idotic posts? Hypocrite. Maybe you should consider an anger
management class.
I agree with you. Finding an alternative is a good idea. I for one am
all for stem cell research. And if we can find away to get the cells
needed to help cure disease without the having to take a human life,
then I support that all the way.
In this area Craig and I will strongly disagree, which is why I don't
normally respond to his post..it saves any hard feelings. We agree to
disagree. But I strongly will disagree with Graig on this and say we
do need an alternative, if an alternative is available.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: OPTION TO STEM CELLS FOUND |
06 Aug 2005 09:14:09 PM |
|
|
On 6 Aug 2005 08:13:00 -0700,
Robert Heishman ("osprey") wrote:
"Reasoned Insanity" wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> reported:
Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative.
<flush remainder>
We don't NEED an "alternative," you pathetically-moronic loon.
However, there is nothing wrong with pursuing ADDITIONAL
avenues of medical advances.
Go get yourself a life. DAMN, but you Anti-Choice control-freaks
are all dumber than dead rocks! How you jerks can survive walking
in a rainstorm without drowning is amazing.
... you attack the guy for posting something that, if anything, actually
supports your cause by advocating research into such things.
I agree with you. Finding an alternative is a good idea. I for one am
all for stem cell research. And if we can find away to get the cells
needed to help cure disease without the having to take a human life,
then I support that all the way.
In this area Craig and I will strongly disagree, which is why I don't
normally respond to his post... it saves any hard feelings. We agree to
disagree. But I strongly will disagree with Graig on this and say we
do need an alternative, if an alternative is available.
In the interests of retaining our truce, I simply will comment that
there is nothing wrong with ADDITIONAL approaches to fighting
disease being brought to bear. But ADDING those methods does
*not* preclude ALSO pursuing embryonic stem-cell research toward
that end.
Any more than painting with oils precludes painting with acrylics.
Having MANY ways to approach a problem is a GOOD thing.
The more, the better. Jai implied that medical science should pursue
other methods **in lieu** of stem cell research, and THAT is why I
criticized him. For taking 'WAY too narrow a view.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|