Schiavo autopsy finds no sign of trauma

[Kabowd]

Tess - Are you also opposed to all envitro fertilization?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm opposed to destroying life in the name of research and the "hopes" to save or improve another life, and I'm opposed to creating life for the purpose of destroying it.

[Guest charlie]

Is that a yes or a no?

Also, do you think Judge Greer's old church should apologize and ask him to come back?

[Guest charlie]

I thought that site was taken off the web; however, I did see it when it was up but the links they had wouldn't work. It had very little documentation to link to anyway.

The more I read your posts Butero, in which you repeat the same things over and over with no regard for the truth, I'm reminded of this saying: Tell a lie long enough and someone will believe it.

After telling me where you get all your news I can see that you've bought many lies, hook, line, and sinker like I did for a long time. But, you obviously have internet service so you have no excuse for not verifying what you're being told by Rush Limbaugh or fauxnews. Start trying to independently verify what they're telling you; you'll be surprised to find that they frequently lie or embellish the truth.

[apothanein kerdos]

Tess - Are you also opposed to all envitro fertilization?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just in case you forgot Charlie, you ignored her entire post. Here it is in case you were wondering:

1. Infants can't feed themselves, numerous invalids in nursing homes cannot feed themselves...should we just stop feeding them too?

2. Who determines when there is "no chance" of recovery? Who determines the definition of "no chance"? Who determines the definition of "recovery"?

And regarding stems cells...

Everyone has an unknown amount of stem cells (adult stem cells) that can be retrieved without harm or injury. Contrary to what advocates for embryonic stem cell research want us to believe, the potential advantages and "cures" discovered by these cells is entirely speculative, because embryonic stem cells have never been successfully used in clinical experiments with human patients.

However adult stem cells and stem cells from cord blood are currently being used to treat at least 74 diseases.

I think stem cell research is a good thing and could lead to potential cures and treatments...but I am completely opposed to embryonic stem cell research. From what I've read and how it's been explained to me...scientifically there is absolutely no evidence showing that embryonic stem cells are in any way superior to cord blood stem cells or adult stem cells.

So, shall we kill the elderly?

You attempt to make the argument that had she collapsed and we had no technology to keep her alive, she would have died eventually anyway, thus it does not matter. That is an extremely weak and empty arguement. There are gun shot victims that, 100 years ago would have died from their wounds, but due to modern medicine live (though paralized, or with nerve damage). Does this mean we are wrong for allowing them to live?

Again, as humans, we dont' have the luxury of defining what a "quality life" is because we didn't create life...thus we have no way of determining what it is supposed to look liek and what the bare minimum of it is.

[Guest charlie]

Butero the Judge was perfectly within the law for that decision. The parents were obviously attempting to file endless motions and appeals to prevent the decision of the courts from being carried out. I notice Tom DeLay and Bill Frist have been mum on the autopsy results but Jeb Bush is attempting to keep it going. These people made jackasses out of themselves by bringing the federal government into a private family matter.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

I encourage anyone interested in this case to read the judicial decisions that have been entered. Most informative, from a factual point of view, are Judge Greer's orders and the Second District's decisions. The December 2003 guardian ad litem report to Governor Bush provides perhaps the most detailed factual chronology available.

December 1963

Edited June 26, 2005 by charlie

[apothanein kerdos]

Tess - Are you also opposed to all envitro fertilization?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just in case you forgot Charlie, you ignored her entire post. Here it is in case you were wondering:

1. Infants can't feed themselves, numerous invalids in nursing homes cannot feed themselves...should we just stop feeding them too?

2. Who determines when there is "no chance" of recovery? Who determines the definition of "no chance"? Who determines the definition of "recovery"?

And regarding stems cells...

Everyone has an unknown amount of stem cells (adult stem cells) that can be retrieved without harm or injury. Contrary to what advocates for embryonic stem cell research want us to believe, the potential advantages and "cures" discovered by these cells is entirely speculative, because embryonic stem cells have never been successfully used in clinical experiments with human patients.

However adult stem cells and stem cells from cord blood are currently being used to treat at least 74 diseases.

I think stem cell research is a good thing and could lead to potential cures and treatments...but I am completely opposed to embryonic stem cell research. From what I've read and how it's been explained to me...scientifically there is absolutely no evidence showing that embryonic stem cells are in any way superior to cord blood stem cells or adult stem cells.

So, shall we kill the elderly?

You attempt to make the argument that had she collapsed and we had no technology to keep her alive, she would have died eventually anyway, thus it does not matter. That is an extremely weak and empty arguement. There are gun shot victims that, 100 years ago would have died from their wounds, but due to modern medicine live (though paralized, or with nerve damage). Does this mean we are wrong for allowing them to live?

Again, as humans, we dont' have the luxury of defining what a "quality life" is because we didn't create life...thus we have no way of determining what it is supposed to look liek and what the bare minimum of it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You, once again, ignored everything in that post. Respond to it all or simply call it quits.

[Guest charlie]

1. Infants can't feed themselves, numerous invalids in nursing homes cannot feed themselves...should we just stop feeding them too?

No

2. Who determines when there is "no chance" of recovery? Who determines the definition of "no chance"? Who determines the definition of "recovery"?

People like you and me determine it everyday across America; this case just got the press. Even Tom Delay made the decision to cut off his father's life support.

And regarding stems cells...

Everyone has an unknown amount of stem cells (adult stem cells) that can be retrieved without harm or injury. Contrary to what advocates for embryonic stem cell research want us to believe, the potential advantages and "cures" discovered by these cells is entirely speculative, because embryonic stem cells have never been successfully used in clinical experiments with human patients.

Embryonic stem-cell research is still new; a lot of people are standing in the way and trying to prevent it. I think in spite of this there have been some break-thus anyway. All research is speculative when it starts out. Sometime it produces results sometimes not; but you won't know if you don't try.

However adult stem cells and stem cells from cord blood are currently being used to treat at least 74 diseases.

That's wonderful. I don't think there've been any obstacles to that kind of stem-cell research; see the kinds of fruits it's produced?

I think stem cell research is a good thing and could lead to potential cures and treatments...but I am completely opposed to embryonic stem cell research. From what I've read and how it's been explained to me...scientifically there is absolutely no evidence showing that embryonic stem cells are in any way superior to cord blood stem cells or adult stem cells.

I agree with the first part. We disagree on the use of embryonic stem-cells obviously. I do believe scientists think the embryonic stem-cells could be superior and that's why there's such a controversy.

There you go SJ; are you going to be fair and balanced and ask Tess to answer my question?

Edited June 26, 2005 by charlie

[apothanein kerdos]

no, you'e still ignoring the rest of my post.

[Guest charlie]

no, you'e still ignoring the rest of my post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which part? I thought I addressed your posts already?

Is this what you're referring to:

You attempt to make the argument that had she collapsed and we had no technology to keep her alive, she would have died eventually anyway, thus it does not matter. That is an extremely weak and empty arguement. There are gun shot victims that, 100 years ago would have died from their wounds, but due to modern medicine live (though paralized, or with nerve damage). Does this mean we are wrong for allowing them to live?

No we're not wrong for allowing them to live; but those decisions are usually left up to the families to decide without the federal government trying to intefere.

I don't know what you expect me to say about the first part; I think I've been very clear and consistent in regards to common sense and medical science.

IMO you're just going around in circles.

Edited June 26, 2005 by charlie

[apothanein kerdos]

Again, as humans, we dont' have the luxury of defining what a "quality life" is because we didn't create life...thus we have no way of determining what it is supposed to look liek and what the bare minimum of it is.

*

You ignore this everytime I bring it up. I'm beginning to wonder why.