Michael J. Fox and Embryonic Stem Cell Research
by Dana J. Tuszke

Actor Michael J. Fox has a series of political campaign ads circulating television networks in which he tries to persuade Americans to vote for Democrats who support embryonic stem cell research.

Fox, 45, suffers from Parkinson's, a chronic disease of the central nervous system, causing muscular tremors and physical weakness. Michael J. Fox is causing disputes in Missouri where in his attack ad he states, "Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope."

In a similar ad, Fox attacks Michael Steele, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland. The irony of this campaign ad is that Steele's opponent, Ben Cardin, voted against stem cell research.

Conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh retaliated against Fox's campaign ads, causing a fury of attacks against him when claimed that Michael J. Fox may have exaggerated his condition. Fox was later interviewed by Katie Couric, in which he says he wasn't acting or off his medication.

Limbaugh defends his accusations on his website, stating: "They [Liberals, Fox, Couric] get personal, mocking every conservative illness, foible and failing (including my own) real, fake or forged, yet act outraged that we dare challencge one of them on politics..."

Michael J. Fox and Ben Cardin are misleading the public by playing on the hopes and fears of millions of Americans who are suffering from debilitating diseases like Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimers and Dimentia, as well as Parkinson's Disease. The ad campaign is repulsive because it's dishonest in promising cures to these diseases, cures that are uncertain and yet to be discovered.

Instead of arguing the facts and admitting the truth behind Limbaugh's statements, Democrats attack the radio host calling him cruel and hateful and continue to distort his words and statements he makes on his radio show.

The Passion of the Christ star Jim Caviezal, along with actress Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and Cardinal's pitcher Jeff Suppan, have appeared in advertisements countering the claims of Michael J. Fox. In the ad Caviezal, Heaton and Suppan tell Missouri voters the facts about embryonic stem cell research and then state "Don't be tricked, Don' be deceived, and Don't be fooled."

Michael J. Fox came into my living room through my television a few nights ago. He showed me how badly his Parkinson's disease causes him to tremor, so that maybe I'd feel sorry for him and vote Democrat, or maybe I'd feel guilty if I responded to his exploitation of his condition.

Dymphna's Road writes: "I'm shedding no tears for Michael J. Fox. He's been, whether he realizes it or not, hightly blessed. He's rich, he has a wife who is apparently content to be his wife and who stays out of the tabloids. He has two children I think, and even with Parkinsons he lives a life of luxury that the average American can only dream about it. I'm sorry he's sick but so are a lot of people and they aren't advocating slaughtering innocents."

In his ad he said "Wisconsin holds a special place in my heart, because it's where stem cell research was born." What really caught my attention is that Fox didn't say "embryonic stem cell research." He clearly and deliberately left out the word "embryonic." I feel this advertisement is very misleading.

Democrats are fighting to allow government funding of embryonic stem cell research which requires the destruction of human embryos. Human embryos are human beings at the earliest stages of development. This is a scientific fact.

As a resident of Wisconsin, I'm very aware that Governor Jim Doyle forced the state to spend money on embryonic stem cell research. This research has yet to help a single patient. Doyle is running for re-election and his opponent Mark Green backs stem cell research of adult stem cells, which does not destroy the life of a human being.

Adult stem cell research has found many treatments such as rebuilding livers damaged by otherwise irreversible cirrhosis, repairing spinal cord injuries using adult stem cells from nasal passages and sinus regions, reversing Type 1 diabetes in mice using adult spleen cells, putting Crohn's disease into remission and repairing heart attack damage using the patient's own blood stem cells, as well as many other treatments that have been discovered by using adult stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell research has produced nothing, not one single cure or treatment.

Fallen Rogue writes: "MJF is speaking from a place that my previous article was coming from; science. Yes, he accepts that we need to discuss these scientific issues socially, but we need to talk about them and if we decide as a nation that the further of scientific thought is a priority then we need to step up and honor that and not hide behind the false truths of some policy makers. I, personally, don't believe some even have a clue as to the science involved in certain forms of stem cell research."

True, many Americans do not know the science involved with embryonic stem cell research, or adult stem cell research for that matter. Because so many people are uninformed, it is very important for politicians to be truthful with their ad campaigns, rather than try to trick the intelligence of their voters. Aren't we all getting tired of attack ads that candidates are displaying, desperately trying to sway us their direction in the Election Day zero hour?

Viva La Blog writes: "I like Michael J. Fox. He is what I call a John Wayne type of actor. Instead of becoming the part like many great actors, the part becomes him. In the movies, Teen Wolf and Back to the Future, Fox acted as himself. This is not to say Fox is not a good actor, he is just a different type of actor. But like so many of those in Hollywood, he has gotten mixed up in politics and then believes because he is a victim no one will challenge his motives. Note to Fox: being a victim does not insulate you from the right of others to question your motives."

Yes, Michael J. Fox is a victim of Parkinson's disease. Yes, I am sorry he suffers from this condition. I can't say that I understand what he goes through every day. What I do know is that suffering from an illness with no known cure is devasting. My grandfather had Alzheimer's and my family watched him deteriorate every single day of his last years of life. But never did we hope and pray for a cure that was discovered through the destruction of human lives.

Contributing Editor Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files and Watch Blog.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke (view blog) on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:18

Comments

 

It's still despicable for

It's still despicable for Limbaugh to accuse Fox of "acting", no matter where you stand on the issue. And Fox didn't say cure, he said hope, to suggest there is no potential for ESCR to lead to a cure someday is preposterous. I do not support ESCR because I believe an embryo is the first stage of humanity.

Submitted by Shan on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 10:12
 

Insinuations

Michael J. Fox insinuated that ESCR will produce cures for these diseases with his attack ads. A cure or treatment has not been discovered by ESCR in 15 years and it may take 15 more years before politicians and MJF realize this. I don't believe we should stand by and watch as scientists destroy more human embryos, just because an actor and select politicians want to hang on to "hope" that has not produced any benefits.

Adult stem cell research has in fact produced treatments. Scientists are making progress in that field of research. But I don't see any ad campaigns stating this information or promoting this truth.

In no way do I defend Limbaugh's accusations that Fox was acting, what I do defend is Rush's point that because Fox suffers from Parkinson's disease, we should feel sorry for him and not respond against him.

We must respond, especially when there is misleading information presented.

Dana J. Tuszke

The Dana Files

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 10:47
 

Get your facts

You don't have many facts straight.

"Human embryonic stem cells were first isolated eight years ago. Federally funded researchers have had access to the cells for about four years. Those cells are ineligible for human clinical trials."

Where is your 15 years? Do you really think that research is a matter of a few years when it comes to serious illness? That we can pop out a cure in 2 or less years, and anything that takes more than that is hogwash?

Adult stem cell research is only focused on blood marrow transplants. The types of cells present in this effort is too differentiated for any other types of research. That's why embryonic stem cell research is important.

Also, the reason why we have this vote in Missouri is that state legislators tried to criminalize this research in this state, which meant if someone left the state to take part in a cure or trial in another state, they would be arrested as criminals once they returned home.

So not only would Missouri lose out on research money and jobs, possible cures, but we'd also be made into criminals.

That's we have our amendment, and that's what Fox is helping to prevent by support for McCaskill.

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:12
 

University of Wisconsin

University of Wisconsin researchers first isolated human embryonic stem cells in 1998, however their research began in 1991. 1991 to 2006 equals 15 years.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:46
 

Facts facts facts

I would suggest you strongly read this article.

"Derived eight years ago by Wisconsin developmental biologist James Thomson, in whose lab I work, the human embryonic stem cells in front of me are happy, dividing with ease in their cocktail of nutrients and growth factors.

Cared for properly, these cells will divide in culture endlessly. They are the Energizer Bunnies of cells. They never stop dividing.

Coaxed with different growth factors, the cells can migrate down any of scores of developmental pathways to become nerve cells, heart cells, bone, blood - any of the 220 types of cells or tissues in the human body.

Their abilities to replicate endlessly and become any type of human cell are the two features that make human embryonic stem cells unique. No other cells have these qualities."

Also this:

"The policy that limits our work is based on the fact that isolating embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a human embryo.

One recent study suggests there may be ways to obtain stem cells without destroying the embryo, and that's exciting news. But that research is in its earliest stages, has yet to be replicated and may not, in fact, be the solution to our ethical dilemma.

All of the embryos used in our field are "spares," donated by the patients who created them for treating infertility. It has been reported that there are some 400,000 such embryos in cryogenic preservation in the United States.

Even if there is a way to extract stem cells without harming an embryo, what is the fate of that embryo? Will it be refrozen? To what end?

The sad fact is that the vast majority of those embryos will be destroyed anyway. Therein resides the great moral inconsistency and flaw of current policy.

The reality of IVF treatment is that it often results in the creation of more embryos than a couple is interested in using themselves.

There are several options available for the disposition of these "spare" embryos: a couple can choose to continue to freeze them indefinitely (an expensive proposition), donate them for use by another couple, discard them or donate them for scientific research.

While President Bush has stated that these embryos should be donated to other couples, the reality is couples very rarely choose that option. Most IVF patients are uncomfortable giving spare embryos to other couples, and the government is not currently in a position to compel them to do so.

Unfortunately, the favored alternate disposition is the trash can. A busy IVF clinic, I would wager, disposes of more embryos in a year than have been used to date in all of stem cell science.

On moral grounds, is that the preferred outcome? Is throwing the entire embryo into the trash a better option than using a part of it for research to improve human health?"

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 12:39
 

Human life!

University of Wisconsin researchers first isolated human embryonic stem cells in 1998, however their research began in 1991. 1991 to 2006 equals 15 years.

That would mean embryonic stem cell research began in 1998 since according to you they didn't even isolate stem cells until that date. That would be 8 years, not 16 . I guess if this is the extent of your critical thinking skills, you may be in trouble!

Submitted by cmankey999 on Sun, 12/10/2006 - 10:49
 

The research began in 1991.

The research began in 1991. They didn't start killing babies in 1998 - that's what you are trying to tell me, isn't it? Who's thinking skills are in trouble? Certainly not mine. I know the difference between right and wrong. Do you?

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 13:34
 

Prove it

You claim that "... Ben Cardin, voted against stem cell research."

I'd be curious to see some proof of that comment, other than citing Rush.

As far as I know, Ben Cardin voted IN FAVOR of stem cell research, as did Arlen Specter, another left-leaning candidate for whom Fox made a commercial (in 2004).

Submitted by ptruskier on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 10:52
 

Absolute bias and lack of accuracy

I didn't know that Blogher was having Rush L weblog, because this is nothing more than almost a verbatim copy of many right to life organizations.

As the previous commenter said: where did Ben Cardin vote against stem cell research?

Where is the 'attack' in Michael J. Fox's ad? He said in it--and I live in Missouri--that Talent does not support stem cell research and McCaskill does, and that's true: Talent does not support Amendment 2 that's coming up for election and that would ensure a legal standing of embryonic stem cell research in this state. Talent originally didn't even support adult stem cell research until somebody told him he was being an idiot.

You talk about Americans being uninformed, but this is about the most uninformed biased post I have read at Blogher.

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 10:56
 

PS

How many people have to suffer and die before those obsessed with 'right to life' are satisfied that 'life' is being preserved?

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 10:58
 

Dana's TALKING POINTS

Dana,

Are these TALKING POINTS from FOX News or the Republican National Committee?.

Please spare us the self serving propaganda that is destroying the country we all love and want to protect.

Independant American

Submitted by Independant American on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:06
 

Proof

Alternate Stem Cell Research Methods – Passage. “Barton, R-Texas, motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would require the National Institutes of Health to conduct and support research on the isolation, derivation and production of pluripotent stem cells that do not destroy human embryos. It would require the Health and Human Services secretary to issue final guidelines for additional stem cell research, with priority for research with the greatest potential to yield benefits in the near future, within 90 days of the bill's enactment.” (S. 2754, CQ Vote #380: Motion rejected. July 18, 2006, Cardin voted Nay)

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:18
 

Deliberately misleading

I was waiting for this one...

He voted against the funding for the so-called 'alternative' stem cell research, which also had wording that could be effectively used to kill true embryonic stem cell research.

"Cardin Voted with the majority of Democrats on that bill. The bill was introduced by Rick Santorum and from what I could tell would have been a sham of a bill and would have diverted more federal dollars to less promising research that would "not do harm to embryos"

Here's the nuts and bolts of the bill:

Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells that are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of the developing body and may result in improved understanding of treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, but that are not derived from a human embryo.

Requires the Secretary to: (1) provide guidance concerning the next steps required for additional research; (2) prioritize research with the greatest potential for near-term clinical benefit; and (3) take into account techniques outlined by the President's Council on Bioethics and any other appropriate techniques and research.

In other words it would have taken the US farther away from the most effective methods of research, relying on Bush's "bioethics" standards which we all know have set us back years in technology and research.

Ben Cardin voted FOR the bill that bush vetoed."

Facts. Pesky things, aren't they?

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:29
 

Facts. Pesky things, aren't

Facts. Pesky things, aren't they?

Ben Cardin voted for which bill? I don't see the vote number in your comment.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 12:18
 

This was famous: here

This was famous: here

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 12:44
 

Shelley, what is

Shelley, what is inaccurate?

Yes, if respecting life means I'm biased, then I'm guilty.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:28
 

You don't respect life

But you don't respect life...you respect your religious beliefs to the exclusion of respecting that others may differ from you--in this regard and others.

Like Limbaugh, who is also unfortunately from Missouri, you use pop terms, unsubstantiated facts, and then when questioned you fall back on "I respect life", as if we don't because we disagree with you.

We have given you facts, refute them. Don't fall back on platitudes.

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:32
 

Let me understand what

Let me understand what you're accusing me of. Because I don't support the destruction of embryos I don't respect life? I'm afraid I'll need you to be more specific.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:54
 

refute facts, Dana Facts

refute facts, Dana

Facts

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 12:44
 

But you don't respect

But you don't respect life...

You're asking me to refute facts but yet you make personal attacks on me.

Where is your fact that I don't respect life? Don't beat around the bush. Tell me why you feel that way. Tell me where you get this idea.

I'm against the destruction of human embryos. I think this shows my great respect for life.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:23
 

based on your beliefs

But this is based on your religious beliefs. Mine differ. Which is why arguments based on belief aren't arguments, and why we should stick to facts.

Facts, Dana. Facts.

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:30
 

Let's set up a situation here

A clinic bursts into flames.

Sitting next to you a 12 year old girl in a wheel chair, and in the other chair, a cooler with 1,000 frozen embryos. Which do you grab and run out the door with before the place burns down?

Submitted by Temerarius on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:11
 

You're comparing a fire with

You're comparing a fire with the deliberate destruction of human embryos?

These embryos should not be cultivated for research in the first place. Did you miss that point?

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:29
 

I just thought I'd jump in

I just thought I'd jump in right quick and tell you, this is one of those issues I sit on the fence about; and only because I have other things on my mind. But I do admire you, Dana, for taking a stand on the issue. I admire that you will not back down from your position and are ready to defend it.

Let me also respond to the fire scenario. I don't believe for one minute that it has anything to do with the issue, Dana is speaking of. In fact your scenario is a bit absurd, to say the least...in my opinion. And we are all entitled to one.

Much Love.

Submitted by Tanilan on Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:06
 

"yet act outraged that we

"yet act outraged that we dare challencge one of them on politics..."

I couldn't see where he debated politics and policy when he attacked Fox's integrity.

Priya Ramachandran
Blogher Contributing Editor - South East Asia
Words on Water

Submitted by DesiGal on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:34
 

That's true, Priya, Limbaugh

That's true, Priya, Limbaugh should not be excused for his attack on the integrity of Michael J. Fox. However, Limbaugh also stated the inaccuracies portrayed in these advertisements and I think we should address those inaccuracies.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 12:09
 

Address them she did...

I think we should address those inaccuracies.

Address them?

I believe that shelleyp did:

Comment by shelleyp posted Sat, 2006/10/28 - 10:29am

I think it is you that needs to address the intellectual dishonesty that allows you and Mr. Limbaugh to claim that the vote in question was actually a vote against ESCR. It was NOT, and you have NOT addressed the substantive content of shelleyp's post.

Submitted by ptruskier on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 12:20
 

Dana, which category are you covering as a
Contributing Editor?

Just curious...

Blog: Multidimensional.Me

Submitted by Koan on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:44
 

Covering BlogHer's political beat....

Hi Koan,

I just updated our list of editors (http://www.blogher.com/node/1077) to reflect the following line-up in Politics and News:

As you know, we're an omnipartisan site. Since LaShawn Barber felt she didn't have time to continue this spring, we've been looking for an editor who could join us to cover politics from the conservative side.

Dana is going to cover politics from the right. Morra Aarons will continue to cover politics from the left and l regularly weigh in on politics too -- more as a voter than as a partisan. Erin Kotecki Vest covers news.

Hope this helps!

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Submitted by Lisa Stone on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 11:59
 

Thanks, Lisa

I checked both of the categories listed for Dana's post, when she first posted it, and she wasn't listed as a CE for either (at that point) so I felt it was worth asking.

Blog: Multidimensional.Me

Submitted by Koan on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 12:09
 

Yes, my next stop is the topic categories!

You are quite right, Koan, I must next update the headers with our other new editors too (Ronni Bennett will cover Elders, Birdie Jaworski is talking Life and Pari Esfandiari is going to blog the Middle East).

I should also add that just every editor and many members of the community have weighed in politics. For example, the conversation Laina Dawes started earlier this week was fantastic: Are You Ready For A Black President?

And, actually, the first stem cell convesation on BlogHer this week was started by Roberta: Does GOD really care about stem cell research?

Viva the forums...

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Submitted by Lisa Stone on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:05
 

Clarity matters

I just like to know where a post is coming from, that's all. Of course, things may have changed since I was a CE - nothing wrong with that. But, to start with, my understanding was that a CE only posted on her category. Then, that was relaxed to allow cross-posting, but I seem to recall that the agreement was that the post still had to fit in the CE's assigned category. Fast forward to this post, from a CE who hadn't posted before, who wasn't listed as a CE for either of the categories her post covered...

I was just trying to understand where she was coming from, that's all. You've explained, I have no problem with that.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that there will be coverage from the right. Always good to have their opinions on public display - reminds me of the need for vigilance.

Blog: Multidimensional.Me

Submitted by Koan on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 15:11
 

I am glad to see BlogHer is non-partisan

But as a person living with several chronic illnesses (personally, and in the family), I want any chance for hope or cures. the MJF spot is moving and wonderful. Thank you for pointing it out.

My family has made the choice to support the life that is currently suffering. The embryos used for Embryonic Stem Cell Research are embryos that were never going to be transferred. And anyone who has ever read an infertility blog knows that even a transferred embryo does not automatically equal a baby.

I am proud to live in a state that supports ESCR, and I hope the research will help people in the future.

Rachel
A Gaggle of Girls
Rachel's Recipe Box

Submitted by mia3mom on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 12:07
 

Rachel, I understand your

Rachel, I understand your point a view regarding cures for chronic illnesses. I hope and pray for cures for these diseases that do not require the destruction of another human life.

I personally relate to infertility issues because of my own experiences. I used fertility drugs such as clomid to aid in my conception, but was unsuccessful. I am not an advocate of in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination, but that is due to personal religious beliefs.

You are correct, a transferred embryo may not lead to a successful pregancy which results in the birth of a baby, but that embryo is still a human life. People who undergo ferility treatments know that the embryos are not deliberately destroyed to find cures to diseases.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 12:16
 

Given brains

So you also support making IVF illegal, as well as artifical insemination?

What else do you want to criminalize, Dana? Just curious.

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 12:48
 

Shelley, where did I say I

Shelley, where did I say I support making IVF illegal? Where do you get the idea that I criminalize these methods?

Is your opposition of my opinion that strong that your willing to make assumptions and put words into my mouth?

I stated I don't advocate it meaning I would never participate in it because of my religious beliefs. Clearly you missed the point of my comment. Perhaps you'll need to read it again.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:08
 

If you criminalize the one then why not the
other

If you want to criminalize embryonic stem cell research, then how can you not support the criminalization of IVF? After all, this results in the 'killing' of embryos.

What differentiates this for you? Why would IVF be OK, resulting in unused embryos being tossed into the trash, but embryonic stem cell research is wrong?

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:18
 

Again, where are you getting

Again, where are you getting the idea that I criminalize ESCR?

My point is that ESCR is wrong because it destroys human life. It should not be funded by the Federal government. I do not want my taxes dollars supporting this deliberate destruction. Politicians and celebrities should not be on television purposely misleading voters.

If you are asking me if the researchers of ESCR should be jailed for their actions my answer is no. I feel sorry that these people devote their life's work to the destruction of embryos. They will have to answer for their sins.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:38
 

if this is murder

as you all say, a direct taking of innocent human life, then how you not support criminalizing this? After all, that's what the legislators in my state wanted to do, which is why Amendment 2 came about.

I mean, if you really seriously believe this is the taking of human life, then you must want to put those researchers at the U of Wisconsin into prison.

Could it be because when push comes to shove, you all know that this one would shove the undecided over into voting for such amendments like 2? Because when it really boils down to it, no one 'really' believes that these early stage embryos are 'human lives' equivalent to the babies already born, not to mention we adults.

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 14:04
 

Okay, if it means that much

Okay, if it means that much to you. You win. Yes, researchers of ESCR should be jailed. You're right they are destroying a human life so that should be manslaughter. That's the first point I'll agree with you on.

I mean, if you really seriously believe this is the taking of human life, then you must want to put those researchers at the U of Wisconsin into prison.

Not all of them. The ones researching adult stem cell research should continue their work.

(That was my best attempt at sarcasm, Shelley, in case you didn't notice.)

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 15:00
 

Because when it really boils

Because when it really boils down to it, no one 'really' believes that these early stage embryos are 'human lives' equivalent to the babies already born, not to mention we adults.

The only "no one" that doesn't believe that embryos are human lives is you. Didn't you ever learn how those babies that are already born began? With an embryo! I kid you not! It's true!

Maybe we should have a Reproduction 101 course here at Blogher.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 15:03
 

Facts

Facts, Tuszke.

We have refuted your 'facts', and you've repaid it with God and snark.

See ya

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 17:48
 

You haven't refuted

You haven't refuted anything. You've simply made it clear that when it gets hot in the kitchen you leave. I've made my point that embryos are human life. You're not willing to accept that. You merely hide behind excuses that embryos are cells. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Meanwhile, those of us with repsect for life will continue to fight against ECSR, against abortion and we're sorry you can't do the same.

Believe it or not, you and I started out as an embryo, then became a fetus and then we were born. If I follow your logic, then we're all a bunch of cells walking the earth. In that case than there's no harm in killing cells in any form. Correct? So if you decided to kill me because you don't like my view points, you would get away with murder, because I'm just cells. That's all.

How's that for logic and facts, Shelley? The idiocy of your idea that embryos are cells makes me sad for the human race.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Tue, 10/31/2006 - 11:48
 

That's a valid view

It's a religious view, though, and not a compelling scientific one that mandates any clear decision in public policy, imho.

I don't consider a box of cake mix a birthday cake, and I don't consider a blob of cells to be a baby. There is far far more that is required before a baby is born.

However, I think the point is valid that if you're against ESCR, you must be against IVF. After all, that's how these embryos are created in the first place. Arguing that those embroyos should be destroyed rather than used for stem-cell research is hardly a pro-life position, yet that is exactly what happens without the research. Should not "life," as you call it, serve to potentially benefit human life rather than simply be discarded? Or should IVF be banned as well, so those embryos are never created in the first place?

--
media girl

Submitted by media girl on Sun, 10/29/2006 - 13:49
 

The fact of the matter is,

The fact of the matter is, Shelley, that Michael J. Fox is advocating embryonic stem cell research. His ads are misleading because he does not say the word "embryonic". The Republican candidates in his ads want the Federal government to fund adult stem cell research because it does not cause the destruction of embryos.

Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said "Allowing our scientists to search for cures to the world’s deadliest diseases is not about being liberal or conservative, it’s about being compassionate. And respect for human life means you don’t turn your back on cures that can save lives."

But there are no cures derived from ESCR. And his hypocrisy is unsettling. How can one claim he has respect for human lives when he is advocating the destruction of developing human embryos?

Freedom from Eden puts it best:

Frankly, that makes me sick. It's a joke to hear Doyle talking about having respect for human life.

I wonder. Would Doyle have supported Nazi medical experiments on concentration camp captives?

Does he abide by any moral boundaries when it comes to medical research?

Is there anything that would make Doyle "turn [his] back on cures that can save lives"?

Perhaps using animals in research -- would that be off limits?

The fact is Fox and Doyle do the same thing. They play with the truth.

They purposely confuse the public by failing to mark the distinction between stem cell research and EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:05
 

Ever heard of Godwin's Law?

Ever heard of Godwin's Law? How about reductio ad Hitlerum"?

This happens when those in a debate bring up either Nazism or Hitler, when they no longer have a decent argument.

To Michael J Fox, the only stem cell research that matters is embryonic stem cell research because adult stem cell research is not of benefit to people like him suffering Parkinson's.

Now who is misleading by saying that adult stem cell research is 'good enough'? It isn't. It is not the same thing.

Also, as I said earlier, embryonic stem cell research is too new and no human trials can be allowed at this time. We can't determine what it can or can not cure if we have to use cell lines that are flawed or contaminated, and cannot get new cell lines, and have to fight this fight based on religious belief over scientific fact and reasoning, as well as facts.

You throw around truth, but you haven't once refuted any of my facts, Dana.

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:14
 

Ever heard of Godwin's Law?

Ever heard of Godwin's Law? How about reductio ad Hitlerum"?

Funny you should bring that up, because when Democrats can't come up with a decent argument about the war in Iraq, the reside to calling Bush a fascist, a nazi and compare him to Hitler.

That's a very excellent point you bring up Shelley! Thanks!

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:32
 

And this is pertinent to this discussion how?

And this is in reference to this current discussion how? I don't believe that we're talking about Bush and Iraq, unless you want to bring this up as evidence of how Bush demonstrates respect for life.

Submitted by shelleyp on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 13:59
 

I'm sorry, how was your

I'm sorry, how was your comment about Godwin's law pertinent to the discussion? Clearly determining the obvious isn't your strong point, is it?

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 14:56
 

Determining the obvious..

Its not so hard. Like this:

Dana said

"Freedom from Eden puts it best:

Frankly, that makes me sick. It's a joke to hear Doyle talking about having respect for human life.

I wonder. Would Doyle have supported Nazi medical experiments on concentration camp captives?

Then came Shelley's reply:

Ever heard of Godwin's Law? How about reductio ad Hitlerum"?

This happens when those in a debate bring up either Nazism or Hitler, when they no longer have a decent argument.

THEN Dana says:
Funny you should bring that up, because when Democrats can't come up with a decent argument about the war in Iraq, the reside to calling Bush a fascist, a nazi and compare him to Hitler.

So Shelley says:
And this is in reference to this current discussion how?

THEN Dana says(wait for it...)
I'm sorry, how was your comment about Godwin's law pertinent to the discussion? Clearly determining the obvious isn't your strong point, is it?

There wasn't even any analytical skill involved in following this discussion. I could show the logical fallacies to a middle school student with nothing more than a crayon with which to draw the arrow from Dana's Nazi statement to her inexplicable rant against Democrats who call President Bush a Nazi, to her apparant confusion about how Godwin's law was related to the conversation.

Follow the lines. It doesn't get much more obvious than THAT.

Submitted by whatzaname on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 17:58
12next ›last »