Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers

Religions > Atheism > Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"quibbler"
Date:	07 Jan 2005 02:07:39 AM
Object:	Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050106114313.htm
Yet another example of the potential of embryonic stem cells to help
hundreds of thousands of people. Too bad that the moronic, immoral bush
administration is blocking federal funding of important research.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Larry Heath"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	09 Jan 2005 02:01:45 AM

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050106114313.htm

Yet another example of the potential of embryonic stem cells to help
hundreds of thousands of people. Too bad that the moronic, immoral bush
administration is blocking federal funding of important research.

--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins

Whats new? Anyone with half a brain, knows that Bush is a dolt! So the way I
figure it at least 30% of the people eligible to vote in the US have less
than half a brain.
Later Larry
.

User: "Reasoned Insanity"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	07 Jan 2005 02:11:50 AM

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net...

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that. Before Bush, there
was no federal funding for stem cell research. You baby butchers are just
lucky you got that much. Now get back in your corner *****.
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	07 Jan 2005 04:28:18 AM

In article <udmDd.80812$Ix2.51792@okepread02>,

says...

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net...

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block federal
funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell, you fucking liar,
and only "allow" research for an insignificant and scientific useless
few remaining stem cell lines. That's the fact, your lies to one
side. It approves a paltry budget and there have been no grants issued
from this tiny funding source. The clinton administration also
encouraged the use of spare zygotes from fertility clinics which Bush
moronically opposes, despite the fact that it takes fewer zygotes to
make a stem cell line than it does to perform the standard fertility
treatments.

Before Bush, there
was no federal funding for stem cell research.

Wrong. Firstly, you were apparently too stupid to qualify your
statement to be *embryonic* stem cell research. In fact the government
has long permitted funding for non-embryonic stem cell research. In
1992 the clinton administration lifted the bans in place from bush
senior and the reagan administration. By 1994 the NIH has specific
policies which would permit things up to and including research on spare
IVF embryos, which would necessarily include derived stem cells from
those embryos.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/05.03.01/cover/embryo2-0118.html
It also the correctly recognized that embryo derived stem cells were
not themselves embryos and thus should not be subject to the same
federal regulations. It's Bush who tried to plug those loopholes with
his own inane policy. Bush effectively killed all science with
embryonic stem cells with his micromanaged, unscientific horseshit.
Bush tried to spin the tightening of restrictions which had not been
present in the Clinton administration as some kind of "compromise". But
the only tangible effect of Bush's draconian prohibition has been to
stop needed research in the area cold.

You baby butchers

They're not babies, you stupid *****. They're single celled
organisms with no brain, like repugs and fundies, which means that they
are incapable of engaging in human behavior. Bush is the baby butcher,
killing 100,000 iraqi civilians, yet claiming that clumps of cells
smaller than a period at the end of this sentence are more important
than saving the lives of people with severe illnesses. This medical
progress, which would not be possibly under Bush's restrictions proves
that Bush's policy is deeply flawed and harmful to the health of many.

are just
lucky you got that much.

Bush gave nothing of significance and took away far more than he
pretended to give. Humanity is unlucky to have the fucking traitor Bush
fucking up policy and one day soon he need to be tried for his crimes.

Now get back in your corner *****.

You've been proven wrong, so it's you who need to go back to your day
job of sucking the dicks of all your perverted repug clientele and not
open your mouth again while it's full of *****.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	07 Jan 2005 02:59:19 PM

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block federal
funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	07 Jan 2005 04:32:09 PM

In article <XuidnXgmDfVaPkPcRVn-oA@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block federal
funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.

No, actually, it's not clear that it would even violate existing laws.
A stem cell is not an embryo. You've shown yourself an ignoramus in
both biology and law as well now.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	07 Jan 2005 05:28:33 PM

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c486776c689922c989690@news.individual.net:

In article <XuidnXgmDfVaPkPcRVn-oA@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block federal
funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.

No, actually, it's not clear that it would even violate existing laws.
A stem cell is not an embryo. You've shown yourself an ignoramus in
both biology and law as well now.

It has nothing to do with biology. The Constitution is very specific on what
Congress is allow to spend money on. Funding research is not one of them. If
individual states want to fund it then that is their choice. I think
California just recently passed a measure allowing just that.
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	07 Jan 2005 07:42:27 PM

In article <TvSdnbLcjttcW0PcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c486776c689922c989690@news.individual.net:

In article <XuidnXgmDfVaPkPcRVn-oA@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block federal
funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.

No, actually, it's not clear that it would even violate existing laws.
A stem cell is not an embryo. You've shown yourself an ignoramus in
both biology and law as well now.

It has nothing to do with biology. The Constitution is very specific on what
Congress is allow to spend money on. Funding research is not one of them.

Wrong. Congress may spend federally accrued funds as agreed upon
legislatively. Medical research safeguards the security of all
citizens, promotes commerce and many other obligations of the federal
government as per the "necessary and proper" clause. Again, I've shown
that you don't have a clue about constitutional law.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	07 Jan 2005 11:21:04 PM

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c487c5a696a0b8a989692@news.individual.net:

In article <TvSdnbLcjttcW0PcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c486776c689922c989690@news.individual.net:

In article <XuidnXgmDfVaPkPcRVn-oA@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block federal
funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.

No, actually, it's not clear that it would even violate existing
laws. A stem cell is not an embryo. You've shown yourself an
ignoramus in both biology and law as well now.

It has nothing to do with biology. The Constitution is very specific on
what Congress is allow to spend money on. Funding research is not one
of them.

Wrong. Congress may spend federally accrued funds as agreed upon
legislatively. Medical research safeguards the security of all
citizens,
promotes commerce

Promoting commerce is not listed as one of the powers of Congress.
Although Congress is notorious is passing huge spending bills under the
guise of "interstate commerce".

and many other obligations of the federal
government as per the "necessary and proper" clause. Again, I've shown
that you don't have a clue about constitutional law.

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) grants to Congress
the power to enact laws to carry out the "numerated powers" (Clauses
1-17), which are specifically assigned to the federal government.
Congress can only legitimately exercise only specified functions (Clauses
1-17); to do otherwise would be a violation of Amendment X, which
specified that those powers not delegated to the federal government are
reserved to the states or the people.
When the Founding Fathers said that "WE THE PEOPLE" established the
Constitution to "promote the general Welfare," they did not mean the
federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and
subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress
the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs
Congress might think would be good for the "general welfare."
The Constitution lays out what the federal government is permitted to do. If
it doesn't mention it, they aren't allowed to do it. Unless the Constitution
specifically grants a power to the federal government, then it does not have
that power.
.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	08 Jan 2005 05:16:37 PM

Gactimus <

> wrote in news:jqCdnVdclbT9hELcRVn-1A@rcn.net:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c487c5a696a0b8a989692@news.individual.net:

In article <TvSdnbLcjttcW0PcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c486776c689922c989690@news.individual.net:

In article <XuidnXgmDfVaPkPcRVn-oA@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block federal
funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.

No, actually, it's not clear that it would even violate existing
laws. A stem cell is not an embryo. You've shown yourself an
ignoramus in both biology and law as well now.

It has nothing to do with biology. The Constitution is very specific
on what Congress is allow to spend money on. Funding research is not
one of them.

Wrong. Congress may spend federally accrued funds as agreed upon
legislatively. Medical research safeguards the security of all
citizens,

promotes commerce

Promoting commerce is not listed as one of the powers of Congress.
Although Congress is notorious is passing huge spending bills under the
guise of "interstate commerce".

Do the words "promote the general welfare"
ring a bell?

and many other obligations of the federal
government as per the "necessary and proper" clause. Again, I've shown
that you don't have a clue about constitutional law.

Wrong.
"The National Road, commonly called the Cumberland Road, was
built by the Federal government in response to a demand for a
road to tie together the East with the early West. The first
route selected ran from Cumberland, Maryland, through southwestern
Pennsylvania to Wheeling, West Virginia. In 1806 President Jefferson
appointed a board of commissioners to decide upon the exact route
through which the extended road would run."
http://www.swetland.net/cumberland.htm

Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give
Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic
programs Congress might think would be good for the "general welfare."

Like the Louisiana Purchase?

The Constitution lays out what the federal government is permitted to
do. If it doesn't mention it, they aren't allowed to do it. Unless the
Constitution specifically grants a power to the federal government, then
it does not have that power.

Balderdash. The general welfare clause authorizes
everything from public schools and public roads to
moon landings and creating the internet. Not even
the founding fathers believed in the strict contructionist
approach you are taking.
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	08 Jan 2005 11:25:25 PM

In article <Xns95D872D86EDABta2eene@216.196.97.136>,
ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com says...

Gactimus <

> wrote in news:jqCdnVdclbT9hELcRVn-1A@rcn.net:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c487c5a696a0b8a989692@news.individual.net:

In article <TvSdnbLcjttcW0PcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c486776c689922c989690@news.individual.net:

In article <XuidnXgmDfVaPkPcRVn-oA@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block federal
funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.

No, actually, it's not clear that it would even violate existing
laws. A stem cell is not an embryo. You've shown yourself an
ignoramus in both biology and law as well now.

It has nothing to do with biology. The Constitution is very specific
on what Congress is allow to spend money on. Funding research is not
one of them.

Wrong. Congress may spend federally accrued funds as agreed upon
legislatively. Medical research safeguards the security of all
citizens,

promotes commerce

Promoting commerce is not listed as one of the powers of Congress.
Although Congress is notorious is passing huge spending bills under the
guise of "interstate commerce".

Do the words "promote the general welfare"
ring a bell?

Gactipus is far too dumb to actually read the document he claims to
support.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Mitchell Holman"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	09 Jan 2005 12:44:22 AM

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c4a19d4db4acb2c989b5a@news.individual.net:

In article <Xns95D872D86EDABta2eene@216.196.97.136>,
ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com says...

Gactimus <

> wrote in news:jqCdnVdclbT9hELcRVn-

1A@rcn.net:

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c487c5a696a0b8a989692@news.individual.net:

In article <TvSdnbLcjttcW0PcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c486776c689922c989690@news.individual.net:

In article <XuidnXgmDfVaPkPcRVn-oA@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block

federal

funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.

No, actually, it's not clear that it would even violate existing
laws. A stem cell is not an embryo. You've shown yourself an
ignoramus in both biology and law as well now.

It has nothing to do with biology. The Constitution is very specific
on what Congress is allow to spend money on. Funding research is not
one of them.

Wrong. Congress may spend federally accrued funds as agreed upon
legislatively. Medical research safeguards the security of all
citizens,

promotes commerce

Promoting commerce is not listed as one of the powers of Congress.
Although Congress is notorious is passing huge spending bills under

the

guise of "interstate commerce".

Do the words "promote the general welfare"
ring a bell?

Gactipus is far too dumb to actually read the document he claims to
support.

He doesn't read much history either, it seems..........
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	08 Jan 2005 11:23:44 PM

In article <jqCdnVdclbT9hELcRVn-1A@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c487c5a696a0b8a989692@news.individual.net:

In article <TvSdnbLcjttcW0PcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c486776c689922c989690@news.individual.net:

In article <XuidnXgmDfVaPkPcRVn-oA@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block federal
funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.

No, actually, it's not clear that it would even violate existing
laws. A stem cell is not an embryo. You've shown yourself an
ignoramus in both biology and law as well now.

It has nothing to do with biology. The Constitution is very specific on
what Congress is allow to spend money on. Funding research is not one
of them.

Wrong. Congress may spend federally accrued funds as agreed upon
legislatively. Medical research safeguards the security of all
citizens,

promotes commerce

Promoting commerce is not listed as one of the powers of Congress.

Article I, section 8 gives congress the power to regulate commerce and
promotion of commerce would be a specific example of one way commerce
could be "regulated".

Although Congress is notorious is passing huge spending bills under the
guise of "interstate commerce".

Actually, you should be proud that that they use such clauses to attempt
to censor dirty words on television and to crack down on porn and drugs.

and many other obligations of the federal
government as per the "necessary and proper" clause. Again, I've shown
that you don't have a clue about constitutional law.

The article also provides "all laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" and herein lies the
discretion of legislators and judges to decide how these are carried
into execution. Furthermore, congress is authorized to provide for the
"common Defense and general Welfare" and "promote the progress of
science" among other things.

Congress can only legitimately exercise only specified functions (Clauses
1-17); to do otherwise would be a violation of Amendment X, which
specified that those powers not delegated to the federal government are
reserved to the states or the people.

When the Founding Fathers said that "WE THE PEOPLE" established the
Constitution to "promote the general Welfare," they did not mean the
federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads

Actually, building roads is a specifically granted power of congress
under the constitution.
, and

subsidize business.

Tell that to the bush administration.

Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress
the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs
Congress might think would be good for the "general welfare."

I'm glad you think you've read their minds, but what they actually said
is subject to interpretation. Most reasonable people have interpreted
differently than fanatics like you, which is a good thing.

The Constitution lays out what the federal government is permitted to do.

No kidding and it also says specific things they're not permitted to do
and it creates duties and obligations.

If
it doesn't mention it, they aren't allowed to do it.

But it does mention it. It's just that it mentions it in general terms.

Unless the Constitution
specifically grants a power to the federal government, then it does not have
that power.

Fortunately congress does have the power to expend money for medical
research to promote the general welfare and to promote the progress of
science among other duties.

--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	09 Jan 2005 11:08:54 AM

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c4a195aab8e08c4989b59@news.individual.net:

In article <jqCdnVdclbT9hELcRVn-1A@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c487c5a696a0b8a989692@news.individual.net:

In article <TvSdnbLcjttcW0PcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c486776c689922c989690@news.individual.net:

In article <XuidnXgmDfVaPkPcRVn-oA@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block
federal funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.

No, actually, it's not clear that it would even violate existing
laws. A stem cell is not an embryo. You've shown yourself an
ignoramus in both biology and law as well now.

It has nothing to do with biology. The Constitution is very specific
on what Congress is allow to spend money on. Funding research is not
one of them.

Wrong. Congress may spend federally accrued funds as agreed upon
legislatively. Medical research safeguards the security of all
citizens,

promotes commerce

Promoting commerce is not listed as one of the powers of Congress.

Article I, section 8 gives congress the power to regulate commerce and
promotion of commerce would be a specific example of one way commerce
could be "regulated".

Although Congress is notorious is passing huge spending bills under the
guise of "interstate commerce".

Actually, you should be proud that that they use such clauses to attempt
to censor dirty words on television and to crack down on porn and drugs.

and many other obligations of the federal
government as per the "necessary and proper" clause. Again, I've
shown that you don't have a clue about constitutional law.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as
qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution)
connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be
a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host
of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

and "promote the progress of science" among other things.

No it doesn't. Read the whole line.
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	09 Jan 2005 05:51:49 PM

In article <ah8Ed.209527$Oc.179372@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c4a195aab8e08c4989b59@news.individual.net:

In article <jqCdnVdclbT9hELcRVn-1A@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c487c5a696a0b8a989692@news.individual.net:

In article <TvSdnbLcjttcW0PcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c486776c689922c989690@news.individual.net:

In article <XuidnXgmDfVaPkPcRVn-oA@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block
federal funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.

No, actually, it's not clear that it would even violate existing
laws. A stem cell is not an embryo. You've shown yourself an
ignoramus in both biology and law as well now.

It has nothing to do with biology. The Constitution is very specific
on what Congress is allow to spend money on. Funding research is not
one of them.

Wrong. Congress may spend federally accrued funds as agreed upon
legislatively. Medical research safeguards the security of all
citizens,

promotes commerce

Promoting commerce is not listed as one of the powers of Congress.

Article I, section 8 gives congress the power to regulate commerce and
promotion of commerce would be a specific example of one way commerce
could be "regulated".

Although Congress is notorious is passing huge spending bills under the
guise of "interstate commerce".

Actually, you should be proud that that they use such clauses to attempt
to censor dirty words on television and to crack down on porn and drugs.

and many other obligations of the federal
government as per the "necessary and proper" clause. Again, I've
shown that you don't have a clue about constitutional law.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them

Madison has lost the debate with modern scholarship on the issue as
virtually nobody, liberal or conservative, agrees with him there. No
modern party including the one allegedly lead by Bush supports this
strict a view of constructionism, as their actions betray whatever lip
service they pay to the empty idea of biblical literalism applied to the
constitution. The purpose of a res publica or republic is to provide
for the public good or "common wealth" of the people, which cannot be
attained if the government shirks things like medical research which
could help its citizens.
as

qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution)
connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be
a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host
of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

and "promote the progress of science" among other things.

No it doesn't. Read the whole line.

As an aside, you'd do well to read the whole second amendment as well,
but I know that's never going to happen.
As to your complaint, I did read the whole thing. Regardless of the
fact that the primary obligation is to establish something like our
patent system, the promotion of the progress of science is still clearly
the primary duty which the government is being asked to promote. That
casts serious doubt on your assertion that they can't be involved in
"research". Patent examiners sometimes do need to "research" the claims
of applicants, again demolishing your assertion. Now do us all the
favor of not being such a dumbass, which hopefully will result in the
complete cessation of your existence.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	09 Jan 2005 10:55:31 PM

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c4b1d1075d07b05989b5f@news.individual.net:

In article <ah8Ed.209527$Oc.179372@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c4a195aab8e08c4989b59@news.individual.net:

In article <jqCdnVdclbT9hELcRVn-1A@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c487c5a696a0b8a989692@news.individual.net:

In article <TvSdnbLcjttcW0PcRVn-gQ@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c486776c689922c989690@news.individual.net:

In article <XuidnXgmDfVaPkPcRVn-oA@rcn.net>,

says...

quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c47bdca963c7465989b50@news.individual.net:

Too bad people like you keep lying about Bush doing that.

It's no lie, liar. Bush's regulations undeniably do block
federal funding a to great many types of embryonic stem cell,

Which is a good thing since federally funding them would be
unconstitutional.

No, actually, it's not clear that it would even violate existing
laws. A stem cell is not an embryo. You've shown yourself an
ignoramus in both biology and law as well now.

It has nothing to do with biology. The Constitution is very
specific on what Congress is allow to spend money on. Funding
research is not one of them.

Wrong. Congress may spend federally accrued funds as agreed upon
legislatively. Medical research safeguards the security of all
citizens,

promotes commerce

Promoting commerce is not listed as one of the powers of Congress.

Article I, section 8 gives congress the power to regulate commerce
and promotion of commerce would be a specific example of one way
commerce could be "regulated".

Although Congress is notorious is passing huge spending bills under
the guise of "interstate commerce".

Actually, you should be proud that that they use such clauses to
attempt to censor dirty words on television and to crack down on porn
and drugs.

and many other obligations of the federal
government as per the "necessary and proper" clause. Again, I've
shown that you don't have a clue about constitutional law.

The article also provides "all laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" and herein
lies the discretion of legislators and judges to decide how these are
carried into execution. Furthermore, congress is authorized to
provide for the "common Defense and general Welfare"

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them

Madison has lost the debate with modern scholarship on the issue as
virtually nobody, liberal or conservative, agrees with him there.

And they would be wrong, considering that Madison is the father of the
Constitution.

No modern party including the one allegedly lead by Bush supports this
strict a view of constructionism, as their actions betray whatever lip
service they pay to the empty idea of biblical literalism applied to the
constitution. The purpose of a res publica or republic is to provide
for the public good or "common wealth" of the people, which cannot be
attained if the government shirks things like medical research which
could help its citizens.

That power isn't given to the federal government. State governments are
free to do so.

as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution)
connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense
would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which
there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
--James Madison

and "promote the progress of science" among other things.

No it doesn't. Read the whole line.

No, it isn't. The clause is very specific on how Congress can promote
science: "By securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The
Constitution is very specific on what powers Congress has.

That casts serious doubt on your assertion that they can't be involved in
"research". Patent examiners sometimes do need to "research" the claims
of applicants, again demolishing your assertion. Now do us all the
favor of not being such a dumbass, which hopefully will result in the
complete cessation of your existence.

"...[T]he government of the United States is a definite government,
confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose
powers are more general." --James Madison
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	10 Jan 2005 04:18:11 AM

And they would be wrong, considering that Madison is the father of the
Constitution.

I'm glad that you've just discovered that Madison was one of the chief
architects of the constitution, but he was not the only author, nor did
he get everything he wanted. Contrary to your genetic fallacy
assertions, Madison's interpretations have not been accepted by the
overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars, even in his own day
and today his fanatically strict constructionism is neither practiced
nor believed by virtually anyone. There are a few ignoramuses like
yourself who pay idiotic lip service to it, but I'm quite confident that
even you have supported many policies in the past which would not be
possible to madison's strict constructionist views. I've also shown you
madison "opinions" about things like his opposition to a standing army
which is simply ridiculous in the modern world. But if you are such a
madison worshipper then certainly you are also aware that Madison was a
staunch and iron-clad supporter of separation of church and state. Do
you support that principle as well?
For example, he commented:
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality
of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State"
"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so
long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as
well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a
legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be
supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical
Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity"
"The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from
civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection
between them is injurious to both"

That power isn't given to the federal government. State governments are
free to do so.

You don't know jack ***** about the powers of state governments. The
tenth amendment only states the obvious -- that whatever residual powers
the federal government cannot lay claim to will default to *both* the
"states" and the people.

and "promote the progress of science" among other things.

No it doesn't. Read the whole line.

No, it isn't. The clause is very specific on how Congress can promote
science: "By securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right

As I pointed out, fool, the patent office often has to engage in
research to determine whether or not a person really deserves a patent.
This blows away your assertion that the federal government cannot engage
in research. Furthermore, it doesn't say how the federal government
will secure exclusive rights. Investing in research can certainly help
to secure rights for inventors. The primary charge is to promote the
progress of science and the manner in which they secure the intellectual
property rights is left rather vague. That leaves open the possibility
that intellectual property of certain types will be pre-emptively
secured in advance of its complete development by research grants into
promising areas of science.

to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The
Constitution is very specific on what powers Congress has.

"...[T]he government of the United States is a definite government,
confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose
powers are more general." --James Madison

Actually, the same strict constructionist argument could be applied to
the constitutions of state governments, invalidating Madison's claim
that states have more general powers. Of course Madison's opinion
carries weight, but some of his arguments were not sound and suffered
from a lack of historical perspective and anachronism. As usual,
religious fanatics like yourself would like to apply the same fanaticism
to other things, like an interpretation of the constitution which you
wrongly believe would help your theocratic ambitions if the powers of
the federal government were curtailed enough to allow you to persecute
your fellow citizen.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "Starshine Moonbeam"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	09 Jan 2005 11:36:52 PM

In article <UdOdnQvRtpX-K3zcRVn-rA@rcn.net>, Gactimus (gactimus@xrs.net)
dropped a +5 bundle of words...

And they would be wrong, considering that Madison is the father of the
Constitution.

YM: "Thomas Jefferson"
--
Starshine Moonbeam
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	10 Jan 2005 03:10:22 AM

"Starshine Moonbeam" <silverbells@tacoshells.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4b7c137485cac298a2cc@news.alt.net...

In article <UdOdnQvRtpX-K3zcRVn-rA@rcn.net>, Gactimus (gactimus@xrs.net)
dropped a +5 bundle of words...

And they would be wrong, considering that Madison is the father of the
Constitution.

YM: "Thomas Jefferson"

No, he meant James Madison. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of
Independence. Madison helped put together the Constitution. Try
reading the Federalist Papers.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list name collector
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible thumper thumper
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

--
Starshine Moonbeam
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM

User: "Starshine Moonbeam"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	10 Jan 2005 03:25:08 AM

In article <Wp6dnRehb_aIb3zcRVn-iA@comcast.com>, Michelle Malkin
(hypatiab7@comcast.net) dropped a +5 bundle of words...

"Starshine Moonbeam" <silverbells@tacoshells.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4b7c137485cac298a2cc@news.alt.net...

In article <UdOdnQvRtpX-K3zcRVn-rA@rcn.net>, Gactimus (gactimus@xrs.net)
dropped a +5 bundle of words...

And they would be wrong, considering that Madison is the father of the
Constitution.

YM: "Thomas Jefferson"

No, he meant James Madison. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of
Independence. Madison helped put together the Constitution. Try
reading the Federalist Papers.

Actually, we're both wrong:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/bdsds/constit.html
The Constitutional Convention Completes a New Constitution
After five weeks of debate over the committee of detail's draft
Constitution, the Constitutional Convention appointed a committee of
style to prepare a final version; Gouverneur Morris, later known as the
"penman of the Constitution," did most of the work. On September 17,
1787, after several days of further revision, the Constitutional
Convention voted in favor of the Constitution. The states were left to
accept or reject this new plan of government. Delegate James Madison,
one of the Constitution's most fervent advocates, felt that the success
or failure of the American Constitution "would decide forever the fate
of republican government."
However Madison was a principle organizer of the Constitutional
convention (along with Hamilton) and was the secretary for it.
--
Starshine Moonbeam
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	10 Jan 2005 04:58:21 AM

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:11:50 -0600, "Reasoned Insanity"
<mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net...

Oh, ***** you drooling ignorant asswipe. Get back to your rimming
and felching of bushs' *****.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	07 Jan 2005 04:26:40 AM

Reasoned Insanity wrote:

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net...

Since isolating stem cells from human embryos wasn't discovered until 1998 and
funding was barely a point of discussion until after Bush was president, the
point you make about no federal funding "Before Bush" is an embarrasingly
uninformed one.
Get the facts about stem cells, stem cell research and funding...before making
assertions and claims. Even the president has said, in that infamous way he has
of "butchering" the English language:
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy
test". (cringe)
http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp
Slap, slap.
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	07 Jan 2005 07:03:40 AM

In article <MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

Great work! I hope that California gets it's own stem cell act together
soon. If not we will probably see a 'brain drain' in reverse. The
anti-science attitude of the Bush administration is a disgrace.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.

User: "Reasoned Insanity"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	07 Jan 2005 11:57:18 AM

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-94C4A8.23034006012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

Which beats your mad scientist view every time....
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	08 Jan 2005 08:33:54 AM

In article <wOuDd.81102$Ix2.74215@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-94C4A8.23034006012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

Which beats your mad scientist view every time....

Oh? Well I for one have no desire to go back to back to the dark ages.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.

User: "Reasoned Insanity"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	08 Jan 2005 04:25:25 PM

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-87BF82.00335408012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <wOuDd.81102$Ix2.74215@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-94C4A8.23034006012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

Which beats your mad scientist view every time....

Oh? Well I for one have no desire to go back to back to the dark ages.

Then why do you push for more things that ignore ethics or decency. Sounds
pretty dark ages to me.
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	09 Jan 2005 07:40:41 AM

In article <OPTDd.81355$Ix2.64732@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-87BF82.00335408012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <wOuDd.81102$Ix2.74215@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-94C4A8.23034006012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

Which beats your mad scientist view every time....

Oh? Well I for one have no desire to go back to back to the dark ages.

Then why do you push for more things that ignore ethics or decency. Sounds
pretty dark ages to me.

So it is ethical and decent to let people die in misery and agony from
terrible diseases instead of trying to find better ways to help them? I
don't think so.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.

User: "Ron"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	09 Jan 2005 07:47:17 AM

In article <jhachm-050C10.23404108012005@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:

In article <OPTDd.81355$Ix2.64732@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-87BF82.00335408012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <wOuDd.81102$Ix2.74215@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-94C4A8.23034006012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

Which beats your mad scientist view every time....

Oh? Well I for one have no desire to go back to back to the dark ages.

Then why do you push for more things that ignore ethics or decency. Sounds
pretty dark ages to me.

So it is ethical and decent to let people die in misery and agony from
terrible diseases instead of trying to find better ways to help them? I
don't think so.

When did it become ethical to save people from themselves and their
ability to exercise 'free will'. I consider whisking down a mountain on
skiis to be inviting injury and death. It must then be my responsibility
to save them from their own choices. Likewise of illness and disease. If
someone gets sick they probably were looking for it in some way.
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	10 Jan 2005 05:38:04 AM

In article <ronis-EFC606.02471709012005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
Ron <ronis@home.com> wrote:

In article <jhachm-050C10.23404108012005@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:

In article <OPTDd.81355$Ix2.64732@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-87BF82.00335408012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <wOuDd.81102$Ix2.74215@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-94C4A8.23034006012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

Which beats your mad scientist view every time....

Oh? Well I for one have no desire to go back to back to the dark ages.

Then why do you push for more things that ignore ethics or decency.
Sounds
pretty dark ages to me.

So it is ethical and decent to let people die in misery and agony from
terrible diseases instead of trying to find better ways to help them? I
don't think so.

Oh? So people get sick or get into accidents because they choose to do
so? They will it upon themselves? What about viruses, bacteria, and
environmental factors? What about genetically transmitted diseases? If
this post is intended to be a joke it's not very funny. If you are
serious, it is one of the most idiotic things that I have seen on the
internet.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	10 Jan 2005 04:41:01 AM

In article <ronis-EFC606.02471709012005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
ronis@home.com says...

In article <jhachm-050C10.23404108012005@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:

In article <OPTDd.81355$Ix2.64732@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-87BF82.00335408012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <wOuDd.81102$Ix2.74215@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-94C4A8.23034006012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

Which beats your mad scientist view every time....

Oh? Well I for one have no desire to go back to back to the dark ages.

Then why do you push for more things that ignore ethics or decency. Sounds
pretty dark ages to me.

So it is ethical and decent to let people die in misery and agony from
terrible diseases instead of trying to find better ways to help them? I
don't think so.

When did it become ethical to save people from themselves and their
ability to exercise 'free will'.

It's always been potentially ethical. Of course the individual
circumstances must be considered. However, we certainly don't think
that the free will of a two-year-old is more important than preventing
him or her from walking out onto the freeway and playing in traffic.
There are all kinds of times when society interferes with the alleged
"free will" of citizens, particular, when that free will has
repercussions upon the rest of society. There are times when an
individual may be considered incompetent to exercise one's will
responsibly, as when one develops addictions or other psychological
conditions. Even when the individual is competent to make decisions,
from virtue ethics point of view it is wrong to allow a person to
squander great talents even if it would supposedly make that person
happier to do so. Of course there are many standards, the most common
of which were postulated by John Stuart Mill in his essay _On Liberty_.
The primary moral obligation of those individuals who may deprive an
individual of "free will" in a given situation is to make a cogent
argument which would hopefully convince a hypothetical "reasonable
individual" of the legitimacy and sincerity of the motives of the group.
I consider whisking down a mountain on

skiis to be inviting injury and death. It must then be my responsibility
to save them from their own choices. Likewise of illness and disease. If
someone gets sick they probably were looking for it in some way.

Yeah, ummm, that's pretty fucking sick and doesn't follow at all in the
case of sickness.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Embryonic Stem Cell Pacemakers	10 Jan 2005 05:10:37 AM

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 02:47:17 -0500, Ron <ronis@home.com> wrote:

In article <jhachm-050C10.23404108012005@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:

In article <OPTDd.81355$Ix2.64732@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-87BF82.00335408012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <wOuDd.81102$Ix2.74215@okepread02>,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:

"johac" <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-94C4A8.23034006012005@news.giganews.com...

In article <MPG.1c479cd1e294c03d989b4f@news.individual.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:

Which beats your mad scientist view every time....

Oh? Well I for one have no desire to go back to back to the dark ages.

Then why do you push for more things that ignore ethics or decency. Sounds
pretty dark ages to me.

So it is ethical and decent to let people die in misery and agony from
terrible diseases instead of trying to find better ways to help them? I
don't think so.

When did it become ethical to save people from themselves and their
ability to exercise 'free will'. I consider whisking down a mountain on
skiis to be inviting injury and death. It must then be my responsibility
to save them from their own choices.
Likewise of illness and disease. If
someone gets sick they probably were looking for it in some way.

Congradulations on demonstrating you're a total moron. Is it possible
for you to say anything more stupid? (rhetorical question)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

Page 1 of 3