{OT} alternative to killing babies

And what is my premise?

You wrote it. Others have expressed objections similar to mine. Since absolutely nobody agrees with your premise, it must be wrong. Not only that, you cannot seem to rephrase it, so YOU must not know what it is.

And this is where anyone stops really paying attention to you and see's that you are full of shit. Without Bush, there would be no funding for stem cell research period.

Glad to see there are many people in this NG who are prepared to go to bat for a bit of truth.

I held back the best bit of the UK TV news reportage: one of the researchers who was so glad to have an alternative pointed out a second source of these stem cells. The placenta, which each one of us comes with but which traditionally has been discarded upon delivery, has a stock of such cells. Not a high proportion; but enough to work with.

Better still, IIRC the stem cells obtained this way are slightly odd. Normal cells, when they reproduce (by fission) lose a part of the sequence on the end of their DNA molecules. After fifty, or thereabouts, divisions they lose enough of the end that their ability to reproduce fails. Result: death of the cell line. (I recall the term "Hayflick Limit" from the 1970s but that may now be out of date. But it was in the same territory.) The special stem cells do not have this problem. Researchers have persuaded them to reproduce through at least seventy generations without a hitch. Implication: we may be able to collect a small number of cells then breed a stock for as long as we like. Our own birth- time placentas might supply us during our lifetimes, yielding us a perfect personalised tissue match every time.

Now we need a lot more research, unimpeded by insane bigotry and influential ignoramuses, to clarify ways and means.

You know they've been working on this for over 7 years? Bush's opposition had nothing to do with this. Researchers have always realized that they needed a better source for stem cells, other than the extremely limited supply that they have now.

Bush didn't invent stem cell research???

Al Gore

I do know what it is and have repeated it two times but you can't seem to grasp it so I'll leave you to flounder about and look foolish.

I have no problem with the researchers et al. The majority of them don't have an agenda to forward, it is the abortion lobby that has some answering to do.

Rubbish.

You just contradicted everything else you've said in this thread, about the subject at hand. Do you understand how you contradicted yourself?

Because this thread's getting cluttered (something you count on and wish for, so as to obfuscate your original error), let's repeat the words you began the thread with:

"Looks like another excuse to killing babies is being eliminated by those who love life. The abortion crowd will have to circle the wagons for a spin on this one."

You wrote those words. Those words mean you think there is a connection between stem cell research, and the likelihood that women will choose abortion.

If you disagree with my interpretation, then re-write what YOU wrote, and explain yourself more clearly. If you can't do that, then we will assume that my interpretation is correct. I'll leave what's left of you for Cathy to chew up and spit out.

You keep saying that, but you have nothing to back it up with.

You still haven't explained what this link is or what this answering is. My only guess is that you assume that if a person is for stem cell research that they are pro abortion, and that's ridiculous.

Do you know what you are typing?

Absolutely.

Are you saying that if Bush hadn't won (?) the last election - or the 2000 election (?), there'd be no funding for stem cell research?? Or are you leaving the Presidency empty, just eliminating GWB from the picture, w/no replacement?

Cathy

I expounded upon that statement at 3:45 PM and at 7:03 PM. Learn to read and understand.

Cathy