H.R. 810 passes Senate 63-37

[jrcskb]

I just wanted to let you all know who may not already. Also, thanks to all that contacted your Senators - please thank them for their support.

The next action should be to contact the President and urge him not to veto.

The other bills passed 100-0.

[BriOnH]

I just wanted to let you all know who may not already. Also, thanks to all that contacted your Senators - please thank them for their support.

The next action should be to contact the President and urge him not to veto.

The other bills passed 100-0.

Contact the president, and urge him to veto. I am pretty sure he will anyhow, given his past track record.

[lgvincent]

You know he'll veto. I can't remember how many votes it takes to override a veto, it seems like 67(?). If that's the case, this one is a lost cause since it didn't get that many votes to begin with.

[lgvincent]

Yep, two-thirds of the Senate and House must vote for passage of a bill in order to override a veto so it's not going to happen since only 63 voted for it to begin with.

[Lex4153]

Politics, ughhh! Isn't our government supposed to represent the people?? But no, our government represents Pres Bush. Forget what the people of the U.S. want (and need!). Forget what the Senate and House pass. We will all live according to Pres Bush's values. What a democratic society we live in, huh?

[spike]

Contact the president, and urge him to veto. I am pretty sure he will anyhow, given his past track record.


Bush listens to WHO, exactly? Besides himself, I mean. :)

[Belinda]

Bush listens to WHO, exactly? Besides himself, I mean. :)


With those ears he only has to listen to himself.......:-

[JediSkipdogg]

I was actually watching this on C-Span today as they were talking about it. It's easy to tell which Senators are cool and which are the dicks of the Senate. One person even stood up and said something like "I support the President of the United States and since I know he's going to veto this, I'm going to go ahead and vote no so we don't need to waste his precious time vetoing it."

I forget which state that person was for, but I wanted to jump through the TV at him and just wack him one for him kissing Bush's ***. It'll be interesting though when it does get vetoed how many people change their vote to a yes vote just to despise Bush (which some said they will.)

[vrocco1]

Bush listens to WHO, exactly? Besides himself, I mean. :)

He is listening to the children that won't be born because of this bill. Don't get your hopes up for stem cell research. There is nothing there but politics, and unrealized hope.

[spike]

He is listening to the children that won't be born because of this bill. Don't get your hopes up for stem cell research. There is nothing there but politics, and unrealized hope.

But, but, but, I WOULD like to see some real advances in diabetes treatment and stem cell research would be a super addition for research. Wadda ya think??

[Lex4153]

Stem cell research typically uses embryos that are thrown away anyhow. They are not "children not being born". They would not have been born anyway.

[JediSkipdogg]

Stem cell research typically uses embryos that are thrown away anyhow. They are not "children not being born". They would not have been born anyway.

The MAIN problem is they think females, mainly low class poverty level ones, will sleep around more spreading more STDs and then go and sell off their unborn fetuses. That is the main problem with embryonic stem cell research. Some medical research companies will want massive amounts of embryo's to research on and the easiest way is to buy them and pay people directly for them. And since it's a huge debated issue if an unborn child is a living creature yet, it's really debatable if that's ethical and even punishable criminally.

I think the above will only happen in a very small portion of people, but it would happen. That's why I wish there would be some laws placed into effect about what an unborn child is instead of us arguing if a man and woman can be married. It's like let's argue on ethical items that have no real effect on a life but the ones that do (abortion) we are not even going to talk about.

[Lex4153]

"Stem cells can be extracted from very young human embryos -- typically from surplus frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures at fertility clinics. A couple undergoing IVF is faced with four alternatives for their 16 or so surplus embryos:

Have them discarded.
Donate the embryos to another infertile couple in what is sometimes called "embryo adoption.".
Donate the embryos for research
Have the embryos preserved at very low temperatures.

There are very few parents willing to give their embryos to another couple for a variety of emotional reasons. There are very few couples willing to receive them for emotional reasons and because thawed embryos have such a low chance of starting a pregnancy. Preservation can be expensive. So most ask that they be discarded."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm


As for what Jedi said above . . . I usually always agree with you but not this time I'm afraid. People often want to donate their embryos to stem cell research but they do not accept donations. They have no need to buy embryos either. There are so many "leftover" embryos from fertility treatments that are discarded everyday that there is no market for them. It would be up to the couple who is doing the fertility treatment if they wish to donate the "leftover" embryos to stem cell research.

[BriOnH]

is there anyway to debate this in one thread instead of two?

[Lex4153]

Brian, you got a debate for me? I'm ready. Bring it. LOL:)

[JasonJayhawk]

It's annoying when politics and religion try to control science. Suddenly, politicians and religion become "experts" over science. I guess it's been like this for hundreds of years, and I'm making a blanket statement, but...errrgghhh.... :egg:

[Lex4153]

Separation of church and state, anyone?:stupido3:

[JediSkipdogg]

Separation of church and state, anyone?:stupido3:

We have that? I thought it was anti-seperation which is why a President that stands up and says he believes all religions are equal and that he hasn't stepped a day in a church on Sunday morning will never be elected. ****, there went my presidential chances.

[duck]

You know he'll veto. I can't remember how many votes it takes to override a veto, it seems like 67(?). If that's the case, this one is a lost cause since it didn't get that many votes to begin with.

Not necessarily. The Senate is an institution, and the Senators are proud of its heritage, etc. They don't even allow PDA's or laptops in the Senate Chamber during session, since they try and hold to traditions that harken back to the 18th century.

Having said all that, I wouldn't bet against as many as ten Senators who voted against this bill voting FOR an over-ride...Sort of a message to this and future presidents that if the Senate has carefully reviewed a bill, and then submit it to him for his signature, SIGN THE FRIGGIN' BILL.

[duck]

Separation of church and state, anyone?:stupido3:

The founding fathers were adamant about keeping the STATE out of the CHURCH. You'll be hard pressed to argue it the other way around, though. They didn't want a godless State, they wanted a stateless God.

[Lex4153]

Well, that's just not fair.

[jrcskb]

He is listening to the children that won't be born because of this bill. Don't get your hopes up for stem cell research. There is nothing there but politics, and unrealized hope.

You should do your homework with reference to the bill before making such a statement. Do you understand the consent requirements in the bill (i.e. if you don't want your "extra" materials used in research because you want someone to make a child - don't sign the consent form). The passage of this bill is not the "slippery slope" to the depths of **** when suddenly we are harvesting humans for body parts! These are already existing embryos that will be discarded or in storage that can be allowed for the use in stem cell research.

"Unrealized hope"...possibly. However, don't you think that before we put this to bed as useless research we should allow an attempt at seeing if the scientists are right in their thoughts??? Alternatively, we could just listen to the minority of the population (many of whom have no knowledge of the bill and/or science) and give up because it goes against that minority's morals.

[jrcskb]

The MAIN problem is they think females, mainly low class poverty level ones, will sleep around more spreading more STDs and then go and sell off their unborn fetuses. That is the main problem with embryonic stem cell research. Some medical research companies will want massive amounts of embryo's to research on and the easiest way is to buy them and pay people directly for them. And since it's a huge debated issue if an unborn child is a living creature yet, it's really debatable if that's ethical and even punishable criminally.

I think the above will only happen in a very small portion of people, but it would happen. That's why I wish there would be some laws placed into effect about what an unborn child is instead of us arguing if a man and woman can be married. It's like let's argue on ethical items that have no real effect on a life but the ones that do (abortion) we are not even going to talk about.

Yes, in a less controversial "fetal farming" bill proposed by Senator Brownback, the above fear is addressed. That passed 100-0.

[duck]

"Unrealized hope"...possibly. However, don't you think that before we put this to bed as useless research we should allow an attempt at seeing if the scientists are right in their thoughts??? Alternatively, we could just listen to the minority of the population (many of whom have no knowledge of the bill and/or science) and give up because it goes against that minority's morals.

Have Korean, British, Swiss, or Scandinavian scientists made a lot of progress with their embryonic stem cell research?

[jrcskb]

Not necessarily. The Senate is an institution, and the Senators are proud of its heritage, etc. They don't even allow PDA's or laptops in the Senate Chamber during session, since they try and hold to traditions that harken back to the 18th century.

Having said all that, I wouldn't bet against as many as ten Senators who voted against this bill voting FOR an over-ride...Sort of a message to this and future presidents that if the Senate has carefully reviewed a bill, and then submit it to him for his signature, SIGN THE FRIGGIN' BILL.

That is the hope. However, the first step (assuming a veto) would be to go back to the House for an override, where the bill was about 50 votes shy the first time it passed (still with an overwhelming majority). Then back to the Senate to try to pick up some votes. This is quite an obstacle - especially for a bill that greater than 2/3 of Americans want passed!

[lgvincent]

I believe the override has to pass by a 2/3's vote in the House of Representatives, too, so even if there are 67 Senators that will vote for it (not likely), are there enough in the House to do the same? I doubt it.

[JediSkipdogg]

I believe the override has to pass by a 2/3's vote in the House of Representatives, too, so even if there are 67 Senators that will vote for it (not likely), are there enough in the House to do the same? I doubt it.

It requires 290 in the House to override a veto. It originally passed the house with a 238-194 vote. So 52 people would need to change their vote. That's alot of work for a bill, which is why my hopes aren't too high.

[BriOnH]

While religion does have the underlying premise here, so does morality in general. We aren't going to round up homeless diabetics and start experimenting on them like lab rats, because we know it's not moral or ethical. Where religion really comes in is where you think that aborted fetus has a soul or not. We will most likely not make any headway on the abortion issue here.

If this bill is not veteod it will give incentive, both to the woman who have it done, and to the marketing of the abortion clinic, for woman to have abortions. If you think that the embryos will not come from abortion clinics, I fear you are wrong. I guarentee you this will become a market.

Lex - debate is always fun :), but in two different places it makes it awfully difficult.

Can a mod close the first thread about this bill?

[Simon]

Bush has never really been popular with the Brits. What anyone saw in him to vote for him is a complete mistery. Lets just hope he doesn't get replaced with anyone worse!

[spike]

Bush has never really been popular with the Brits. What anyone saw in him to vote for him is a complete mistery. Lets just hope he doesn't get replaced with anyone worse!

Mystery? Think back to who his is opponent was...

[BriOnH]

Bush thankfully vetoed it.

[Lex4153]

Oh, yes, gosh, thankfully! Back to just throwing out people's embryos. They'll do better at the bottom of a trash can.

[gettingby]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13934199/?GT1=8307
The first and second paragraphs really tells what he thinks.

[Lex4153]

See and I could understand the "snowflakes" of embryos and not wanting to discard embryos that have a chance to be adopted by another infertile couple, but many couples that have leftovers feel uncomfortable having a baby born into another family and opt to have the embryos thrown out. Can there not be a middle ground? To use only the embryos that are not going to develop anyway? I just don't understand. I'm bummed.

[gettingby]

See and I could understand the "snowflakes" of embryos and not wanting to discard embryos that have a chance to be adopted by another infertile couple, but many couples that have leftovers feel uncomfortable having a baby born into another family and opt to have the embryos thrown out. Can there not be a middle ground? To use only the embryos that are not going to develop anyway? I just don't understand. I'm bummed.
I'm with you Lex. Why can't they use the embryos that are going to be discarded? Why not use them to help others? It's like they say it's death to use them but isn't it considered the death of many, many people if they don't use those that are destined to be destroyed? Or am I way off base here?

[duck]

Do they merely destroy the unused embryos? I know Brownback complained that you can do hard time for breaking an Eagle egg, but do the same to a human embryo and there is no punitive action...

[JasonJayhawk]

I'm with you, too, Lex.

I think Bush is protecting himself from strong religious influence. In Kansas, we removed evolution because a church in Olathe told the school board director to do so. When she lost the following school board election, she actually told the press she didn't want the job in the first place, and that her priest told her to do it!

The nerve of religion interfering with government.

I'm a religious person, but I'm all for separation of church and state.

[Lex4153]

It's the couples choice what to do with their leftover embryos. They have the option of letting their embryo be adopted other infertile couples that have no viable embryos or have them be discarded. Yes, if they opt for having them be discarded, they are destroyed and there is no action taken against them. It is legal. Sometimes the couple opts to freeze the embryo just incase they want to use it in the future but they don't stay "good" for all that long. Once the embryo is exposed to room temperatures, it dies.

[BriOnH]

"It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect."


I couldn't have said it better myself.

There are way to many people out there that are anti-religeon. Little do they know that leberalsim IS their religeon (I am a true independant btw, very fiscal conservative however.).

I have seen people on this board say that christianity is the fault of wiping out the indians to ruining the country. Anyone that knows anything about chritianity knows there was nothing christian about what the founders of this country did to the indians, and this country leans so far to make the smallest voice of insanity respected it makes me sick at times.

Peace.

[jrcskb]

It's the couples choice what to do with their leftover embryos. They have the option of letting their embryo be adopted other infertile couples that have no viable embryos or have them be discarded. Yes, if they opt for having them be discarded, they are destroyed and there is no action taken against them. It is legal. Sometimes the couple opts to freeze the embryo just incase they want to use it in the future but they don't stay "good" for all that long. Once the embryo is exposed to room temperatures, it dies.

I totally agree! H.R. 810 allows you (assuming "you" are the person with the "leftover" embryo in a fertility clinic) to donate the embryo(s) for this research (which could be federally funded). However, if "you" choose not to (for whatever reason - morality, you don't agree with the research, the research is unproven, the sky is blue, etc.) it cannot be used in this research legally and certainly not with federal funds! The irony is that H.R. 810 is the moral "compromise"!

[4519]

You cannot say this and be in a war like we are.

"...."It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect."......" King George.

he won't be president for that long and our decent society will prevail. Just my opinion - we all have one and it is our right - no judgement here exept for George.

[jrcskb]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

There are way to many people out there that are anti-religeon. Little do they know that leberalsim IS their religeon (I am a true independant btw, very fiscal conservative however.).

I have seen people on this board say that christianity is the fault of wiping out the indians to ruining the country. Anyone that knows anything about chritianity knows there was nothing christian about what the founders of this country did to the indians, and this country leans so far to make the smallest voice of insanity respected it makes me sick at times.

Peace.

:hmmmm:

I enjoy debate as much as anyone (I am a lawyer by trade), but please. So it is assumed that anyone "immoral" enough to support this research is also a "liberal"?? Such a moral person should stay away from labels. You should note the 19 or so Senators of the Republican (i.e. non-liberals) that voted yes. I could get you the numbers in the House if you care. However, it wouldn't matter, I assume.

I would say that anyone choosing to support stem cell research is choosing real and existing life (i.e. my own and all of you and your family members with diabetes and other diseases) over protecting a theoretical life of an embryo. If that makes me immoral, so be it. I will take the label and the cure should this research discover it!

[lgvincent]

I have seen people on this board say that christianity is the fault of wiping out the indians to ruining the country. Anyone that knows anything about chritianity knows there was nothing christian about what the founders of this country did to the indians, and this country leans so far to make the smallest voice of insanity respected it makes me sick at times.

Peace.

I'm inclined to disagree. EVERYTHING was taken from the Native Americans, their religion, their way of life, their language, their children, their land, among other things. If Christanity played no part of it, why were they banned from practicing their own religious beliefs?

[corwin]

I would say that anyone choosing to support stem cell research is choosing real and existing life (i.e. my own and all of you and your family members with diabetes and other diseases) over protecting a theoretical life of an embryo. If that makes me immoral, so be it. I will take the label and the cure should this research discover it!

Well said.

[Lex4153]

I'm sorry but how is discarding embryos anymore moral than using them for research to find cures for people? You can play the religion card all you want but if you view embryos as life or containing a soul, how is it moral to discard those embryos?

[lgvincent]

I'm sorry but how is discarding embryos anymore moral than using them for research to find cures for people? You can play the religion card all you want but if you view embryos as life or containing a soul, how is it moral to discard those embryos?

I've never understood that, either. It's immoral to use something to help those in need but it's fine to toss it in the trash.

[spike]

Bush thankfully vetoed it.


Thankfully??? Sheesh! Just toss those embryos in the trash, where they belong...sigh.

Bush continues to aggravate me more and more, the longer he's in office. And I voted for the bozo. aaargh!

Others have already taken you to task for your comments, so I'll not repeat their excellent points about this matter. There's no logic that I can discern, in Bush's comments regarding the "taking of innocent life". WHAT?????

[Lex4153]

Furthermore and delving a bit more into this . . .

Bush declared war on terrorism and sent our troops to Iraq. I don't want this to turn into a debate about the war in Iraq and will not disclose how I feel about it. It's irrelevant for my point. I am merely using this as a tool in my argument.

His reasons for fighting terrorism are to protect the innocent American lives. But in order to do this, we must kill others, as is the game of war. If you will, could you not compare terrorism to these diseases innocent Americans suffer from? Is it really on the same level as killing fully developed human beings to use embryos that would die anyways in order to benefit the millions suffering from various diseases? I would say that war is much worse in this case as many people die. Again, I am not saying I disagree with the war. Just using it in my argument. So how is war not immoral in Pres Bush's eyes, but using these embryos that are destroyed anyway is an "immoral line we cannot cross"? (paraphrasing here) Perhaps because Pres Bush feels that the end justifies the means in the case of war. Killing fully developed human beings isn't so bad because in the end we will live in a safer place (maybe haha) and are protecting people.

Hmm, but isn't embryonic stem cell research protecting people? And who is really being killed to do it? "Unborn babies"? Puh-lease. They wouldn't be born anyways. No one is getting killed, or not being born, in order for embryonic stem cell research to take place.

[spike]

Furthermore and delving a bit more into this . . .

Bush declared war on terrorism and sent our troops to Iraq. I don't want this to turn into a debate about the war in Iraq and will not disclose how I feel about it. It's irrelevant for my point. I am merely using this as a tool in my argument.

His reasons for fighting terrorism are to protect the innocent American lives. But in order to do this, we must kill others, as is the game of war. If you will, could you not compare terrorism to these diseases innocent Americans suffer from? Is it really on the same level as killing fully developed human beings to use embryos that would die anyways in order to benefit the millions suffering from various diseases? I would say that war is much worse in this case as many people die. Again, I am not saying I disagree with the war. Just using it in my argument. So how is war not immoral in Pres Bush's eyes, but using these embryos that are destroyed anyway is an "immoral line we cannot cross"? (paraphrasing here) Perhaps because Pres Bush feels that the end justifies the means in the case of war. Killing fully developed human beings isn't so bad because in the end we will live in a safer place (maybe haha) and are protecting people.

Hmm, but isn't embryonic stem cell research protecting people? And who is really being killed to do it? "Unborn babies"? Puh-lease. They wouldn't be born anyways. No one is getting killed, or not being born, in order for embryonic stem cell research to take place.

I would hope that anyone with the IQ above that of a gnat would understand the point you've made about the absurdity of throwing away usable tissue that might save countless lives. Not sure I agree with the analogy about killing civilians in other countries (collateral damage) however, unless those "civilians" happen to be scum-sucking terrorists or terrorist enablers. I'm also not saying I totally disagree with the war either. I'm ambivalent about it at this point, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE IRAQIS APPEAR EITHER UNABLE AND/OR UNWILLING TO TAKE CHARGE OF THEIR OWN DESTINY. We remain there because of their ineptness, as well as their different culture.
I'm not putting them down when I say they are inept. I'd consider myself inept if someone handed me a scapel and expected me to remove someone's brain tumor. :) It now seems hopeless that they can govern themselves as a democratic nation.

[BriOnH]

Lets not mix the war and my mistakingly partisonship into this arguement (friendly debate :) ), it will cloud it way to much.

IMO not disgarding the embryos will lead to the justification of abortion for both the woman having it and the clinic doing it. Or in terms for JRCSKB; it's fruit from a poisonous tree.

I voted for Bush too, only because there was no one better. I believe abortion is wrong, but my opinion is trumped by the fact that woman deserve the right to choose. Being a man, I can never feel what a woman feels to come to that decision.

[Lex4153]

I didn't want this to turn into a discussion about the war. This is a discussion about morality, since the religion card was played. If one is considered necessary, why not the other? Why is one deemed more immoral than the other according to the Pres?

[BriOnH]

I didn't want this to turn into a discussion about the war. This is a discussion about morality, since the religion card was played. If one is considered necessary, why not the other? Why is one deemed more immoral than the other according to the Pres?

This discussion is about the bill and wether it is right or wrong, I believe. The war is a whole new premise.

[duck]

We're killing Iraqis, so let's kill babies too! Go USA! Woohoo!

[jrcskb]

Lets not mix the war and my mistakingly partisonship into this arguement (friendly debate :) ), it will cloud it way to much.

IMO not disgarding the embryos will lead to the justification of abortion for both the woman having it and the clinic doing it. Or in terms for JRCSKB; it's fruit from a poisonous tree.

I voted for Bush too, only because there was no one better. I believe abortion is wrong, but my opinion is trumped by the fact that woman deserve the right to choose. Being a man, I can never feel what a woman feels to come to that decision.

Not to continue this to the point to infinite frustration, but are you aware that H.R. 810 requires that the donor of the embryos give consent to use the tissues in this research? I think that is a very important piece of the bill, as it gives those totally against the research the right to not participate while allowing the research access to certain embryos that are indeed donated.

Additionally, is anyone really concerned that people are going to get pregnant for the purpose of donating the aborted fetus to science?? It doesn't seem like an efficient and/or cost effective plan to get enough embryos to perform meaningful research on.

I mean, on a parallel note, I always considered selling a kidney in order to pay for school, but I never actually did it (or heard of anyone doing so)!

And, as I said before, Brownback's "fetal farming" bill should avoid the above grave scenario.

[JediSkipdogg]

We're killing Iraqis, so let's kill babies too! Go USA! Woohoo!

Hmmm, now you worry me. Hey, you'd make a good president, or better yet, the governor of Texas. You should run for Texas Governor then President, nothing like having the state governor all about death row as the President. Death solves everything right?

[BriOnH]

Not to continue this to the point to infinite frustration, but are you aware that H.R. 810 requires that the donor of the embryos give consent to use the tissues in this research? I think that is a very important piece of the bill, as it gives those totally against the research the right to not participate while allowing the research access to certain embryos that are indeed donated.

Additionally, is anyone really concerned that people are going to get pregnant for the purpose of donating the aborted fetus to science?? It doesn't seem like an efficient and/or cost effective plan to get enough embryos to perform meaningful research on.

I mean, on a parallel note, I always considered selling a kidney in order to pay for school, but I never actually did it (or heard of anyone doing so)!

And, as I said before, Brownback's "fetal farming" bill should avoid the above grave scenario.

Again (and no disrespect). The fact that that signing off of the embryo could be weighed into a woman's choice for justifying an abortion is wrong, imo. I do not believe that that factor should come into play at all when a woman is contemplating aborting.

The thought of a woman getting pregnant to sell her embryo didn't cross my mind to be honest, but it's another part of that particular new market (albeit probably extremely small) that would be created if this bill passed.

[vrocco1]

But, but, but, I WOULD like to see some real advances in diabetes treatment and stem cell research would be a super addition for research. Wadda ya think??

But, but, but, should someone unwillingly give up their life to improve yours a bit?

[lgvincent]

Look at the bright side, with the lack of funding, we can take comfort in knowing that it will also move to other countries so we can fall behind in medical research, one of the few areas we still have an actual lead in.

[duck]

Hmmm, now you worry me. Hey, you'd make a good president, or better yet, the governor of Texas. You should run for Texas Governor then President, nothing like having the state governor all about death row as the President. Death solves everything right?

Well, it's not like we can quite escape that eventuality, is it? And how bad can it be? Look what it did for Ken Lay.

[duck]

Look at the bright side, with the lack of funding, we can take comfort in knowing that it will also move to other countries so we can fall behind in medical research, one of the few areas we still have an actual lead in.

Since you said that, I guess I'll ask again: Since other countries have had less qualms about embryonic stem cell research, have ANY of them advanced the science any? Or is George W Bush so all powerful he's stopped South Korea from making any advances in embryonic stem cell research? Or Sweden? Or Switzerland?

[Lex4153]

But, but, but, should someone unwillingly give up their life to improve yours a bit?


No one's life would be "given up". We're talking about embryos that are discarded anyway.

[JediSkipdogg]

Since you said that, I guess I'll ask again: Since other countries have had less qualms about embryonic stem cell research, have ANY of them advanced the science any? Or is George W Bush so all powerful he's stopped South Korea from making any advances in embryonic stem cell research? Or Sweden? Or Switzerland?

One word...MONEY

We have the money to do it, those other countries don't. We just won't allow the money to be spent on those areas yet we allow it to be spent in other areas of research that have led nowhere.

[duck]

One word...MONEY

We have the money to do it, those other countries don't. We just won't allow the money to be spent on those areas yet we allow it to be spent in other areas of research that have led nowhere.

Ask Deus, the UK has money. So do the Swiss. South Korea worships one god, and that is money (it's why they have the best penettration of broadband in South Korea, politicians have to take a back seat to entrepenuers who can make a buck off of getting broadband into a podunk rice patty). The Scandinavian countries are reknowned for their research into pediatric issues, so I assume they have a little change to spare...SO maybe it's not money but rather a (so far) fruitless foray into embryonic stem cells?

[spike]

We're killing Iraqis, so let's kill babies too! Go USA! Woohoo!

oh good grief, Duck...

[DeusXM]

The UK is currently at the forefront of stem cell research, and indeed I'd say diabetes research too. If there's ever going to be a cure discovered, it'll be either in this country or Canada. The only downside is that without our American co-scientists helping out, the job will take a few decades more.

Incidentally, I'm just staggered at the hypocrisy here of Bush veto:

- The purpose of this bill was to allow state funding of stem cell research.

- Bush vetoed the bill because he believes it is immoral to sacrifice these embryos for stem cell research - indeed, I believe he equates destroying embyros with murder.

- Therefore Bush opposes stem cell research because it's murder

Yet this bill is only for state funding of research. Private stem cell research is still legal within the United States. Should Bush not be intervening to prevent this private research, if he regards it as murder?

It is a strange morality indeed that pins the moral status and life of the embryo on the question of who is paying for the research.

For my own point of view, I don't care how many baby corpses I have to wade through for a cure. If God chose to screw my life up by giving me diabetes, then I don't feel any particular obligation to respect his laws. Maybe if God didn't want us to kill innocent embryos, maybe he shouldn't have given millions of innocent LIVING people incurable genetic conditions.

Of course, that's only if you accept there's a god in the first place.

[JediSkipdogg]

Deus, I have to agree with you on your analogy. Bush says stem cell research is wrong because it kills a living creature. Yet he still allows abortion and there aren't any talks of laws to outlaw abortion yet. And abortion is more murder than killing an embryo. Not to mention isn't banning/not funding a new research opportunity the same as killing someone since he's assisting in people dying from conditions that embryonic stem cell research may cure?

Secondly, like you said, it's legal to fund and research, you just can't use government research grants for doing stem cell research, which is what this bill is about.

He doesn't seem to be making much sense with his veto of this bill. Neither does the government seem to be making much sense. I hope the next Senate and House and President are much better than our current ones.

[duck]

Deus, I have to agree with you on your analogy. Bush says stem cell research is wrong because it kills a living creature. Yet he still allows abortion and there aren't any talks of laws to outlaw abortion yet. And abortion is more murder than killing an embryo. Not to mention isn't banning/not funding a new research opportunity the same as killing someone since he's assisting in people dying from conditions that embryonic stem cell research may cure?


Do you believe he sleeps well at night knowing abortion is legal in the USA? Or, to ask it another way, do you think he would make it illegal if he could wave his Presidential wand and make it so? If you see where I'm going with this, then you also understand his opposition to embryonic stem cell research...


Secondly, like you said, it's legal to fund and research, you just can't use government research grants for doing stem cell research, which is what this bill is about.

He doesn't seem to be making much sense with his veto of this bill. Neither does the government seem to be making much sense. I hope the next Senate and House and President are much better than our current ones.

You realize you'll be saying that every year until you are...80? :-

[JediSkipdogg]

You realize you'll be saying that every year until you are...80? :-

****, that's....56 years...aka 14 presidential terms...aka possibility of 7 presidents for 2 terms or just 14 different ones........again, all assuming none are shot, killed, die, impeached. Why'd you have to put my hopes down? I really had hopes for this country. Wait, that won't happen till an independent is in office and that will be never.

[duck]

****, that's....56 years...aka 14 presidential terms...aka possibility of 7 presidents for 2 terms or just 14 different ones........again, all assuming none are shot, killed, die, impeached. Why'd you have to put my hopes down? I really had hopes for this country. Wait, that won't happen till an independent is in office and that will be never.

That wouldn't work either. It's hard to govern if you can't get anyone to follow you (ask Jesse Ventura).

[DeusXM]

To be honest, I don't see the connection between ESC research and abortion - any correlation from the two is really brought up by those opposed to both.

The fact remains though that if Bush regards stem cell research as murderous, then it shouldn't be permitted in the United States, regardless of whether it's publically or privately funded. As I said, murder doesn't stop being murder just because of who's funding it.

This decision could cost the Republicans the next election though - word on the ground I've seen from the wire services is that this is a decision that has disappointed both Republicans and Democrats.

[duck]

To be honest, I don't see the connection between ESC research and abortion - any correlation from the two is really brought up by those opposed to both.

The fact remains though that if Bush regards stem cell research as murderous, then it shouldn't be permitted in the United States, regardless of whether it's publically or privately funded. As I said, murder doesn't stop being murder just because of who's funding it.

Bush is pro-life, there is no argument there. And to your point about it being murder whether the Feds are funding it or not, I agree. But this bill also released numerous additional lines of ESC to researchers, currently the lines are limited to what the Clinton administration approved (or was it Bush?) and they have been found to be of lesser quality or contaminated since, so researchers want access to more lines.


This decision could cost the Republicans the next election though - word on the ground I've seen from the wire services is that this is a decision that has disappointed both Republicans and Democrats.

Meh. When voters see who their choices are, it won't hurt the incumbents too much. However, none of the recent political machinations have changed my recent thinking that this country runs better with a conservative, spend-thrift Congress and a liberal, money-grubbing President at the helm.

[jrcskb]

I don't want to get going on the "abortion" debate because it is simply irrelevant (at least in my mind) to this debate. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060720/sc_nm/congress_stemcells_divisions_dc_2;_ylt=Aneeovg6UoF ZdTSOvFxqXHsGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

It is inconsistent to allow "murder" on some stem cells (the lines allowed in 2001) while banning further use. Is is murder when those compromised cells are used?? One can clearly question the logic. If it's murder, than I agree, what is he doing to stop private funds from doing this research?

Oh well, once again, thanks for term limits.

I think that we all need to ban together and continue to work to find a cure or at least better treatments along the way - wherever it might come that is available (non-US federally funded embryos, adult stem cell, artificial pancreas, oral meds, the moon, the stars, under my couch, etc.).

Maybe we just agree to disagree on this particular issue.

[spike]

But, but, but, should someone unwillingly give up their life to improve yours a bit?


I don't think that's an accurate assessment of the circumstances that would surround stem cell research. I guess will have to disagree about what the reality would be if it were to pass.

[BriOnH]

Bush makes the right choices, it's just how he chooses those choices (and how he articulates his reasoning) is a bit messed up at times.

Hillary for president :). If Juliani <sp?> runs though that could be a tough choice.

Embryonic stem cell research, and the lack of, will not put us behind. The answers lie in adult stem cells. I can't stress this enough.

Whether the fetus is a life or not does not matter in this equation, what does is a woman making bad choices because the ends will help justify her means.

[JediSkipdogg]

Hillary for president :). If Juliani <sp?> runs though that could be a tough choice.

I agree the election will be one of the most interesting if she runs. Personally, I hope she does as she will set many feats just for running.

Embryonic stem cell research, and the lack of, will not put us behind. The answers lie in adult stem cells. I can't stress this enough.

Not sure I agree there with you. Embryonic and adult stem cells are similar but different. Embryonic can become anything. Adult can only become a few items, changing them is becoming something new, however, it's still a researched field of it's own.

Whether the fetus is a life or not does not matter in this equation, what does is a woman making bad choices because the ends will help justify her means.

I agree on that. I think it will slightly encourage more pregnancies in a sense because our fabulous (sarcasm here) government can't decide what a woman should legally be allowed to do in terms of her own body and what she can create.

[BriOnH]

Not sure I agree there with you. Embryonic and adult stem cells are similar but different. Embryonic can become anything. Adult can only become a few items, changing them is becoming something new, however, it's still a researched field of it's own.



The nucleus and it's containing chromosomes must match identicially to that of the patient receiving the cell treatment, if not, the immune system rejects it. With embryonic cells(unless its from the embryo of the patient) the nucleus will never match, and nuclei transplants are rarely successfull.

[vrocco1]

No one's life would be "given up". We're talking about embryos that are discarded anyway.

OK, somebody's "chance" at life will be given up to improve my life slightly. Not a fair trade in my opinion.

[vrocco1]

Incidentally, I'm just staggered at the hypocrisy here of Bush veto:


Admit it, you'd be staggered by any decision he ever will or did make because you don't like him. If we are going to accuse the POTUS of hypocrisy, at least be honest about it.

[Lex4153]

I'd say these lives don't have much of a "chance" at the bottom of a trash bin.

[duck]

I'd say these lives don't have much of a "chance" at the bottom of a trash bin.

How often do these things get discarded? I've been trying to find out what their fate is, but the closest thing I can find is that typically the "parents" are unwilling to give up the embryos for other couples...

[Lex4153]

All embryos that aren't placed up for adoption are discarded. I don't know the exact number. But if we used only these embryos that are discarded, we would have so many embryos to use for research we wouldn't know what to do with them all. There are typically over twenty embryos per couple and only one is used. Maybe one other one is frozen and stored for a short while. All others are, essentially, trashed.

[BriOnH]

Looks like the lines have been drawn:

Side a says they are there anyways why waste them
side b says don't let the ends help justify the means of aborting for both woman and clinic
side c is a pro-life/pro-choice arguement

a opens up a scary market as well, and b obviously won't matter in the slightest for some in their rationilization.

[DeusXM]

The nucleus and it's containing chromosomes must match identicially to that of the patient receiving the cell treatment, if not, the immune system rejects it. With embryonic cells(unless its from the embryo of the patient) the nucleus will never match, and nuclei transplants are rarely successfull.

That's the issue. ESCs used for treatment of individuals will need to come from clone embryos. I'm perfectly happy to explore ASCs, but it still remains that ESCs are the easiest stem cells to manipulate. I would rather use ASCs, but in the meantime we should research ESCs so that we know how to use stem cells straight off the bat. Otherwise we'll have to spend 20 years working out how to grow the **** things, and another 20 to use them - whereas we could cut lagtime right down. I'm not prepared to put up with having diabetes until I'm 60 just because a few people are unable to tell the difference between something that actually has a potential for life with a clump of inert cells.

Admit it, you'd be staggered by any decision he ever will or did make because you don't like him. If we are going to accuse the POTUS of hypocrisy, at least be honest about it.

As far as I was aware, I was being honest about it. Or do you not think it hypocritical for a president to outlaw something because it's murder, but allows it to be practised privately?

[Belinda]

A lot of what if's here but here goes

If the research would pass (I hope) could a diabetic couple or just one donate their own egg for a transplant?

What if you had a sib that would donate the egg for you? Would that not be a close match?

[vrocco1]

As far as I was aware, I was being honest about it. Or do you not think it hypocritical for a president to outlaw something because it's murder, but allows it to be practised privately?

The POTUS does not allow abortions. At some point, a very left-wing Supreme Court saw a right to privacy in our constitution. The POTUS is powerless to ammend the constitution. Hence, no hypocrisy. He is doing what he can to limit abortion on demand.

[DeusXM]

Who said anything about abortion? I was talking about the private stem cell research that is permitted to take place in the United States.

At some point, a very left-wing Supreme Court saw a right to privacy in our constitution.

Do I take it then that you believe people don't have a right to privacy?

[duck]

Who said anything about abortion? I was talking about the private stem cell research that is permitted to take place in the United States.



Do I take it then that you believe people don't have a right to privacy?

It's sarcasm, Deus. And yes, there does seem to be at least a hint of hypocrisy, but trust me when I say if he could outlaw any research on embryos that would ensure the embryo would not ever become a baby, George W Bush would outlaw it.

[corwin]

Admit it, you'd be staggered by any decision he ever will or did make because you don't like him. If we are going to accuse the POTUS of hypocrisy, at least be honest about it.

Just to add my point of view here, I think George W Bush is a pretty good president, especially considering the alternative. Here however he made a very poor decision that goes against science and progress, I'll go as far as saying it goes against logic. Don't assume that being against one thing he did means that the person is against him no matter what. So many republicans voted for H.R. 810 and supported it.

[BriOnH]

That's the issue. ESCs used for treatment of individuals will need to come from clone embryos.


You believe (and I am not saying it's neccessarily wrong scientifically, ehtical is another question) that ebryonic stem cell cures will need to come from clones of the adult (patient)? ie the patient will have to be cloned to cure him/her.

I've heard that theory but have read the majority of ESC research either requires nuclei transplants, or massive trickery to cure anything.

My soul and brain just tell me this is the wrong approach for cures. I don't want diabetes anymore then the next person, but I will not cross certain lines to get it.

[AndreLaplume]

I am down a bit today but.....does it really matter. Unless the 'cure' comes in the form of a control I doubt we will ever see it. There is too much money to be lost. I am very skeptical.....personally I think the all out cure would come quicker than a control....we need some rich physician/researcher to make a discovery and share it before they get him.

[duck]

I am down a bit today but.....does it really matter. Unless the 'cure' comes in the form of a control I doubt we will ever see it. There is too much money to be lost. I am very skeptical.....personally I think the all out cure would come quicker than a control....we need some rich physician/researcher to make a discovery and share it before they get him.

"They" who?

[vrocco1]

Do I take it then that you believe people don't have a right to privacy?

Sorry, that left wing court believed the right to privacy includes abortion.

[Lex4153]

"They" who?
Drug companies?

[duck]

Drug companies?

I doubt it. Drug companies, despite their deep pockets and resources, couldn't possibly keep a lid on the thousands of researchers across the globe who are looking for a "cure" to this disease, or for that matter, many others. Drug companies couldn't stop a researcher in Seoul from announcing they have found the cure to one of mankind's scourges or stop an academic in Sweden from making the same find, or stop a multi-billionaire like Lee Iacocca from funding research that the drug companies have no access. The real problem is these diseases are complex, the possible mechanics of a cure are even more complex, and researchers are chasing numerous promising leads but eventually reach the same ends, which is that they discover "more" about this disease (and others) but don't make lots of progress toward the elusive cure. This is one of the driving reasons for ESC, it's another avenue to pursue possible cures, but in my mind, another dead end.

[AndreLaplume]

Yea, I meant drug companies, monitoring equipment companies, food companies...its a HUGE industry. Most research is funded....very few researches are out there on there own.....call me paranoid or pessimistic but we had a slew of cures and shots in the late 1800 / early 1900s...not much but pills since then.

I hope I am wrong, I'd love to some sort of major medical break thru in my life time.

[duck]

Yea, I meant drug companies, monitoring equipment companies, food companies...its a HUGE industry. Most research is funded....very few researches are out there on there own.....call me paranoid or pessimistic but we had a slew of cures and shots in the late 1800 / early 1900s...not much but pills since then.

I hope I am wrong, I'd love to some sort of major medical break thru in my life time.

I'm not picking on you per se, and I can argue your side as well as you can (search my posts), but the fact of the matter is that this problem is larger than our collective ability to solve. Lilly has diabetics and parents of Type 1's performing research for them. If their own company was holding them back, why would they keep silent? I'm half Korean, and Korean culture is a money-grubbing, success-driven culture (and I say that in a respectful way), there are researchers there who would love to have their name associated with the cure for this (and any) disease, and their government would love to put Korea on the map ahead of the vaunted USA/UK/Scandinavian nations as pioneering medical research. The problem is, it's a complex problem faced by complex organisms. It would be easier to solve the oil crunch, honestly. We will solve the oil problem, so let's hope a "cure" is not far behind.

[BriOnH]

I'd love to some sort of major medical break thru in my life time.

We all would; For my own relegious and ethical beliefs though, I couldn't do it this way.

[vrocco1]

From the left-wing rag,USA today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2006-07-21-benedetto_x.htm

[gettingby]

Ok, I'm going to play devil's advocate here or whatever you want to call it and ask a question. I'll probably be trashed for asking this but............
For those that are against the embryonic stem cell research, should a "cure" be found using the discarded (not aborted, but discarded) embryos, would you pass up the chance to be cured because of how the cure was found??
I know everyone has their own opinions on this subject and debate is a good thing as long as it is kept civil. :)

[lgvincent]

I was under the impression that in the creation of insulin, the pancreas was removed from dogs, thereby giving them diabetes. If this is correct, animals suffered and died for us to live today. I don't see any difference in us benefiting from their suffering than millions of people who may benefit from stem cell research. I see all life as important, but I don't see life in stem cells. Sure, stem cells have the potential for creating life but so do the eggs people eat for breakfast, so why is no one upset over that, or the animals slaughtered so someone can enjoy that big mac?

[Lex4153]

Amen, lgvincent. Why is a fully developed cow's life less important than an embryo that wouldn't develop into a life anyway? Just to make some hamburgers? I don't understand the reasoning either. The argument people have against that is that the embryo has a chance at personhood whereas a cow doesn't. I, frankly, don't agree. A life is a life is a life.

It isn't logical to me to just throw a way an embryo rather than use it for the good of mankind. At least if used for research it has to potential to become something. Although I can see the other side that something that has potential to develop into life should not be used as a "tool".

Even understanding the arguments, it still doesn't make sense to me. From a logical perspective, the life wouldn't have potential anyway if discarded. Better to use it to help improve millions of lives than have it simply die.

[duck]

Yeah, that unborn cow might be the cow that researches and comes up with the cure for, say, DIABETES.

Wow. Have you people ever been close to a cow? Here's how smart they are: If they are set on fire, they moo. They don't run. They moo. They're not smart by any stretch of the imagination.

And for the love of...The eggs you buy in a grocery store didn't ever have the chance of becoming chickens, hens can lay eggs all of their lives without ever "knowing" a rooster. Biology was quite a while ago for me, but I seem to recall that above the plant kingdom, it takes male and female to tango.

And for those who think animal's lives are less important in the USA than babies lives: Go and poke a hole into an Eagle egg, or shoot a baby Osprey. You'll do more jailtime for either "crime" than you will for throwing away an embryo, which no matter how you slice it, will become a living, breathing baby if given to any number of women who desperately want one but can't get one.

Here's a stat for all you ESC supporters: ESC has solved NOTHING. It has lead to NOTHING. NOTHING. And that has NOTHING to do with George W Bush. All it really is is the next great hope for a bunch of (so far) hapless researchers. Basically, they can't find any more answers in the fields they have pursued for decades, so they want another avenue. And that's a valid position to take, no doubt. But to spell it and sell it as the end-all be-all cure for all that ails us, they have yet to take the first steps toward even being able to say it shows promise.

[Lex4153]

So a life is worth more based on its intelligence?

[duck]

So a life is worth more based on its intelligence?

Bad for the cows, eh?

[BriOnH]

Ok, I'm going to play devil's advocate here or whatever you want to call it and ask a question. I'll probably be trashed for asking this but............
For those that are against the embryonic stem cell research, should a "cure" be found using the discarded (not aborted, but discarded) embryos, would you pass up the chance to be cured because of how the cure was found??
I know everyone has their own opinions on this subject and debate is a good thing as long as it is kept civil. :)

Yes I would take the cure. If some nut job put all diabetics in to quarentine against their will to experiment on them for the cure, and they eventually found it, I'd take the cure. I would just not put scientists leading those experiments and allow experiments to be done that way. Having a strong biochem background, when I eventually get to the point that I can do my own diabetic research, I couldn't personally grow these embryos like plants just to harvest it's findings.

[JediSkipdogg]

Here's a stat for all you ESC supporters: ESC has solved NOTHING. It has lead to NOTHING. NOTHING. And that has NOTHING to do with George W Bush. All it really is is the next great hope for a bunch of (so far) hapless researchers. Basically, they can't find any more answers in the fields they have pursued for decades, so they want another avenue. And that's a valid position to take, no doubt. But to spell it and sell it as the end-all be-all cure for all that ails us, they have yet to take the first steps toward even being able to say it shows promise.

It hasn't lead to anything because it hasn't been heavily researched yet. Look at E85 fuel, it was first discovered in the early 80s as a possible fuel source. 20 years later it's finally becoming a huge hit and being researched into even more now to see what else it can do.

The same theory applies to ESC, except the goverment isn't funding the research on it or allowing it to be funded. Goverment research grants are a HUGE part of research and one of the top ways things are founded. So not giving the huge grants for ESC is not helping to see what it can lead to. Did the guy that say 30 years ago an artificial limb couldn't be controlled by brain wave functions like a regular hand quit? No, he kept trying and trying and guess what, we now have true artificial arms, nobody can afford ones controlled by the brain fully, but they are starting to exist.

Bad for the cows, eh?

So where's an MRDD person? Might as well just kill them all since all they are are a drain on the government funding. I guess you are saying my brother's 27 years of living costing the government over a million dollars were not worth it? Since you partially claim that intelligence level determines if something should live or not.

[duck]

It hasn't lead to anything because it hasn't been heavily researched yet. Look at E85 fuel, it was first discovered in the early 80s as a possible fuel source. 20 years later it's finally becoming a huge hit and being researched into even more now to see what else it can do.

The same theory applies to ESC, except the goverment isn't funding the research on it or allowing it to be funded. Goverment research grants are a HUGE part of research and one of the top ways things are founded. So not giving the huge grants for ESC is not helping to see what it can lead to. Did the guy that say 30 years ago an artificial limb couldn't be controlled by brain wave functions like a regular hand quit? No, he kept trying and trying and guess what, we now have true artificial arms, nobody can afford ones controlled by the brain fully, but they are starting to exist.


Dude, ESC is being researched worldwide, including in the USA. The issue here is the POTUS refuses to allow FEDERAL funding of research. To say ESC are not being researched is a lie, no way around it. And for the record, there is still ZERO progress made by anyone researching ESC for "cures". If and when some progress is made, this will become a worthy debate, in my mind.


So where's an MRDD person? Might as well just kill them all since all they are are a drain on the government funding. I guess you are saying my brother's 27 years of living costing the government over a million dollars were not worth it? Since you partially claim that intelligence level determines if something should live or not.

Point out to me where I said "human" = "cow", and your point may be valid. Since I didn't say that, let's not go down that road. Someone else here equated "intelligence" with "cow", so go ask them that question.

For the record though, cows aren't smart. But broiled, boiled or fried, they're pretty good. But they mess up my blood sugars.

[Lex4153]

"Wow. Have you people ever been close to a cow? Here's how smart they are: If they are set on fire, they moo. They don't run. They moo. They're not smart by any stretch of the imagination."

No one else brought up a cow's intelligence but you. I was merely asking to clarify if that was your point. Your post seems to lead me to the understanding that the more intelligence a being has, the more it deserves to live. Because a cow moos when it's set on fire and doesn't run away, it's less of a life and okay for us to eat it.

If that's not what you meant than please set me straight.

[Lex4153]

Duck, your posts are also getting a bit fired up. This is a very controversial issue but we're all on this board for the same reasons, to help eachother. Let's keep it cool. This is a friendly debate.

[duck]

Duck, your posts are also getting a bit fired up. This is a very controversial issue but we're all on this board for the same reasons, to help eachother. Let's keep it cool. This is a friendly debate.

LOL, if we were sitting around debating this, you'd see THIS stuff doesn't fire me up. Find me the Mickey D's lady who asked me why I go to Mickey D's and order a Diet Coke...then you'll see fired up! :)

[DeusXM]

I'm sorry but there's a lot of misconceptions being thrown around here. Currently ESC research is hampered by our inability to clone ourselves, so at the moment we have to deal with nucleus transfers. However, it has been theorised at great length that it it possible to create a clone cluster of embryonic cells for an individual, encourage cell division through electrical stimulation and you will get a large collection of 'living' clone cells - which do not have the potential to become living human beings.

The reason ESC research has yet to bring anything definative to the table is because it's a relatively very new line of research and we've spent the last decade just trying to generate the things in the first place. However, it has been theorised (and partially demonstrated) that stem cells MAY be able to help rebuild body tissues, organs and the like. Now, yes, that's not a guarantee that stem cells are the cure for diabetes - however, they still represent the very best chance that we currently have for finding a cure. Stem cell research has massive potential - far more so than a closed-loop system, far more so than the Shapiro protocol. Furthermore, stem cells represent the best possible chance for curing many, many other conditions - for instance, stem cells may be able to allow myelin repair (in the treatment of MS), or rebuild severed spines. We cannot throw away such a golden opportunity because some people can't tell the difference between a living thing and a cluster of inert cells.

On the subject of 'cures' - you'd be amazed but we don't really have the ability to cure anything - everything we have is just something that boosts the human body's ability to defend itself. There's a lot of rubbish floated around that apparently we were discovering cures all the time and then suddenly the evil pharmaceutical companies came along and changed all that. That's simply not true.

[Lex4153]

Thank you for that wealth of information, Deus! That was interesting to read. (and I actually understood it too, amazing!) :)