Bless that guy.

And fuck Limbaugh.

Seriously where does Rush Limbaugh get the stupid idea to even say that? Bloody drug using hypocrite...

I sometimes suspect that the right-wing radio talkers are just as disdainful of their audience as the White House is of its religious base.

I think they say the stupid things that they suspect their listeners are thinking, which creates an echo chamber and "legitimizes" their collective brainlessness.

Or, they're just as stupid as their audience. Either one.

Well Rush Limbaugh's entire paycheck depends on creating the echo chamber effect. The republican party doesn't care if it loses arguments, it just wants to muddle the argument enough that objectivity is lost. It's easy to notice how they do it once you know that fact.

Mcfly.......!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

He puts through his argument incredibly well - he's doing great work.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

The middle related videos below is the one this clip is referencing.

Good job Rush, how many more people saw the commercial or heard about this issue due to your help?

Dang, MJF is old now and with the disease. So sad!

<mock_indignation>
Ouch, ant, he's only 45! I'm only a few years younger... sorry, I'm just feeling a little like a dinosaur these days.
</mock_indignation>

Shouldn't this have a politics tag?

What a class act, to respond with good grace and intelligence - turning the other cheek.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Right you are Timothy, ta. *politics

Video added to politics channel (politics called by gold star member dag)

Funny, they don't mention the apology he made 15 minutes after he made those comments, or that the ad Fox made was full of half-truths...but I guess facts and context aren't important.

I still can't help feeling sympathetic as I watch him twitch away. He does have that factor when he does interviews and although he denies it, I'm sure he knows it as he wants people to see the severity of his symptoms and why stem cell research is so important. But accusing him of 'intentionally' skipping medication would be bit too far.

I also liked how he pointed out that it's an American's right to have this medication, not because others pity him. He's a smart man.

Wumpus, hurling an accusation without backing it up is SO Rush Limbaugh of you.
I'm aware of Limbaugh's half-assed "apology", followed immediately with the Coulter-esque accusation of the Democrats putting up pitiable victims, which Fox answered in the clip above:

COURIC: I called Rush Limbaugh and he told me: I believe Democrats have a long history of using victims of various things as political spokespeople because they believe they are untouchable, infallible, they are immune from criticism.

FOX: Well, first thing, he used the word victim. And on another occasion I heard him use the word pitiable. And understand, nobody in this position wants pity. We don’t want pity. I could give a damn about Rush Limbaugh’s pity or anyone else’s pity. I’m not a victim. I’m someone who is in this situation. I think I’m in this situation along with millions of other Americans, and we have a right, if there’s answers out there, to pursue those answers with the full support of our politicians. And so I don’t need anyone’s permission to do that.

I know for a fact that you didn't watch the entire clip, or you would have seen that, as well as Fox's point that he's recorded campaign commercials for Arlen Spector, a Republican who supports stem cell research. Just like Nancy Reagan.

So the "context and facts" were pretty much all right there in the clip. Thanks for watching.

Bah, I am just used to his Family Ties, Backto the Future, etc. days when he was way younger and didn't have this disease.

providing some source links would be most welcome and circumspect, wumpus!!

i fully agree with you, theo ... although, i rarely join these political discussions, i could not sit back and let this one pass as a nurse. throughout his career, michael j fox has never been one for the limelight ... so this is all that someone, like limbaugh, has to demonize him with ... claiming that he failed to take his medication.

had limbaugh done an ounce of research ... he may have realized that. dealing with dyskinesias (and tardive dyskinesias) on a daily basis ... it is not easily contrived. it really turned my stomach to see limbaugh do that. he's reached a new low that will never be redeemable.

as michael j fox stated at the end of the clip: it is that simple. unfortunately, the public as a whole doesn't see any scientific progress in certain areas because our gov't would rather keep americans dumb. it's sad that those who do speak out get shouted down with the ignorant chanting 'yeah' behind them.

cures and solutions are out there ... but the industry would collapse if that were to happen.

"providing some source links would be most welcome and circumspect, wumpus"
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential3/mjf0.member.html

Forget the link...thats my bad.

Here you are straight from the horse's mouth.

"I believe Democrats have a long history of using victims of various things as POLITICAL spokespeople because they believe they are untouchable, infallible. They are immune from criticism. But when anyone enters the POLITICAL arena of ideas they forfeit the right to be challenged on their participation and message.

I have not met Mr. Fox, do not know him. I have admired his work in film and TV and his appearances on Letterman were howlers. I have nothing personal against him. But I believe his implication that only Democrats want to cure disease(s) is irresponsible (as I believed about John Edwards assuring voters Christopher Reeve would walk if only John Kerry were elected). I think this is ultimately cruel and gives people who suffer these terrible afflictions false hope.

As of now there is NO EVIDENCE that embryonic stem cells even hold promise, while other approaches, such as adult stem cells, already have yielded results. Michael's TV spots mislead and misinform on this. (You might ask him about the gene therapy research at a Chicago hospital which has produced encouraging results on Parkinson's patients. A VIRUS is inserted in the gene, which is then inserted in the brain. The Michael J. Fox Foundations has committed $1.9 million to further research on this...story from earlier this month.)

I did NOT mock or make fun of Mr. Fox. I have seen him many times on TV but never have I seen him as he appears in the ads. I read from his own book that he will not take his medications before certain appearances (Senate, 1999) in order to illustrate the ravages of Parkinson's, which I understand and applaud. So the concept of manipulating meds has been stated by Mr. Fox, which is what caused me to question his appearance in his ads.

He is stumping for Democrats, in the political arena, and is therefore open to analysis and criticism as we all are. His suffering is NOT fair game and I am sorry if people drew that conclusion about my comments, but I believe this happens precisely because NO criticism of victims is ever allowed, at all, which as I say is the Democrat strategy in putting them forward."

thanks for the quote, wumpus ... as i don't care to become a member of his site!

limbaugh is really reaching there by quoting michael j fox from 7 years ago ... again, this just goes to show that he was grandstanding and spewing drivel for pure shock value. PD is a progressively debilitating disease ... it doesn't get better, it gets worse regardless of medication.

Ugh - you actually pay money to get Limbaugh drivel?
No wonder you're indoctrinated.

And Limbaugh's false claims (there's more of them, what a shock) about embryonic vs. adult stem cells and Fox stumping ONLY for Democrats are debunked here:
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=18455

Damn you, substantia nigra!

My problem is the either-or fallacy that Fox and others insist on. That is, either you support embryonic stem cell research or you're opposed to science and cures. He/they also clearly imply that this research simply will cure a host of diseases. There is no evidence of this - only hypotheses and hope.

"limbaugh is really reaching there by quoting michael j fox from 7 years ago ..."
This is his own admission and until he either publiclly amends or reclarifies himself, we have no choice but to take him at his word.

So you'd rather have no hope at all?

Perhaps we'd be better off with no research at all. Maybe you're right. If only we could all pine for the salad days when you were lucky to survive your infancy due to the myriad of preventable diseases.

Most Americans are in favor of increased stem cell research, and disapprove of Bush's handling of it. Source Polls.

i watched this last night and it killed me.

"So you'd rather have no hope at all?"

That's not what I mean.

I'll come right out and say I'm against embryonic stell cell research because I believe that life does begin at conception and thus ebryonic research destroys life. That is my belief.

That being said I'm all for adult stem cell research and cord blood stem cell research. Now you have to ask the questions, is there potentiol for cures through embyrnic research? I'd say it's possible. Do we know for certain that embryonic stem cells will cure diseases, at this point we simply don't know for certain. Are there cures to be found through adult stemm cells? Again there's the same potential. Can the same potential cure's be found through adult stemm cells instead of emryonic research? I don't know...I really hope so.

Do I have all the answers? No. Do any of us here have all the answers? I seriously doubt it.

I'm teaching logic right now, so the fallacies are getting to me. Either you support this, or you're anti-science (the "either-or" fallacy). Most Americans are in favor of it (the "bandwagon" fallacy). Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict (the "ad hominem" fallacy).

I'm with Wumpus. The question really shouldn't be "Will it work?" but "Is it right?" My father (an M.D.) used to talk about the fact that major discoveries about the brain were made by the Nazis experimenting on live subjects. His position was that we wouldn't know as much about the brain as we do today without those experiments - and that they should never have been done.

"As of now there is NO EVIDENCE that embryonic stem cells even hold promise, while other approaches, such as adult stem cells, already have yielded results."

What about all of this research done with mice and mice ESC which has shown to regenerate a mouse's damaged spinal cord. Where are these results that adult stem cells have shown, I have not seen them.

"I'll come right out and say I'm against embryonic stell cell research because I believe that life does begin at conception and thus ebryonic research destroys life. That is my belief."

If you believed that the earth was flat, does that mean the earth is flat?

If you're against ESC research because you believe life begins at conception, then do you believe that conception can occur in a test tube? I believe conception occurs in the womb, not a test tube.

Are you against IVF? The process of IVF destroys hundreds of thousands of embryos each year. I'm not talking about just the left overs that are thrown away. Several are destroyed in the process just to have a successful pregnancy.

There are other ways to get embryonic stem cells than just using left over IVF embryos. Are you against Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer to create ESCs? SCNT uses an unfertilized egg and a DNA sample (usually a skin cell) to create an ESC line matching the patients DNA. This process shows the most promise in ESC research becase the stem cells have no chance of being rejected by the patient.

People oppose SCNT because the same process can be used for human cloning, but only if the cells are implanted in a woman. This has been unproven though, and most scientist believe that the "embryo" would not develop normally even if it survives. They use the argument that the research can be abused, so we should ban it all together.

I am for researching both adult and embryonic stem cells. I've read articles from scientist that say ESC research is needed to fully understand the potential of adult stem cells.

I'll give you the point on logical fallacies, wallace. My wife is an English teacher and was railing about logical fallacies last week, so I know where you're coming from.

I don't subscribe to the life begins at conception argument as a reason to be against embryonic stem cell research. The egg and the sperm are alive before conception, so why aren't we more protective of them? Everytime Joe Blow masterbates in the shower should we advocate saving it? What about the hundreds of thousands of eggs that go down the toilet or into the trash each month because a mother is taking contraceptives or just didn't have sex? Or more provactively, what about the spontaneous abortions that occur every single day? Depending on what research you look at and how you define it, anywhere from 10 to 45% of all pregnancies spontaneously abort. Where's the outrage about that?

I just don't think a government ban (direct or indirect) on stem cell research is a rational answer.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

amxcvbcv writs:
Everytime Joe Blow masterbates in the shower should we advocate saving it?

Every sperm is sacred.

amxcvbcv: Everytime Joe Blow masterbates in the shower should we advocate saving it?

dag: Every sperm is sacred.

*off topic:*
i know i've been responsible in the destruction of millions ... but i would never advocate genocide!! ahem ...
*back to topic*

Actually I think Limbaugh would be an expert having taken so many perscription pills and knows when a person is shaking from the drugs and not from the drugs. Fox and Limbaugh should get together so that Limbaugh can show him how not to overmedicate because we know Limbaugh has plenty of experience with that.

Sperm is Sperm
Egg is Egg
Sperm + Egg = Human
Sperm or Egg is not a human life and can never be without the other half. Its a human at conception and I have never been able to grasp why just the way it looks matters so much. If I need some cells from a 1 year olds heart why shouldn't I be able to take it any differently than the 1 minute old?

i really love reading the threads these vids create. it makes me proud to be part of this community when i see all the comments from people who are speaking from their hearts. limbaugh is a FAH! 'nuf said.

"Ugh - you actually pay money to get Limbaugh drivel?
No wonder you're indoctrinated."

Gosh, if Fox campaigns only for Democrats, who was that Fox lookalike in the Arlen Specter commercial back in 2004?

As Fox said on CBS last night, he supports politicians who support embryonic stem cell research. Sheesh.

Besides Rush's lack of tact or class, the issue is not whether it should be researched but whether Taxpayer dollars should be used for it. I don't think its a proper use of government.

www.stemcellresearch.org
So far about 70 advancements using non-embryonic stem cells and ZERO for ESCR. Except the faked success in S Korea.

We need to drop this idiotic notion nowadays that if the government doesn't do it then it doesn't get done.

Here is the whole ~23 minute long interview.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/26/eveningnews/main2128188.shtml

"If you believed that the earth was flat, does that mean the earth is flat?"
The problem with that line is that the Earth has been proven to be, in fact round. It has also been proven that an egg that has been fertalized with a sperm has the same potential to become a human being as any other fertialized egg that the egg and sperm do not possess seperately. Both zygote cells are in fact living cells but they don't have the potential to become living human being until they are combined i.e. fertalized.

"If you're against ESC research because you believe life begins at conception, then do you believe that conception can occur in a test tube? I believe conception occurs in the womb, not a test tube."

That's a perfectly valid and respectable position to take. If that's your belief then you're entitled to it. But hypotheticlly speaking, if an embryo in created invitro and grown into an independantly living infant in a labratory, is that that not also considered life as opposed to an invitro fertilization that was implanted into a uterus that also results in an infant? Bear in mind that this is a hypothetical situation and only one part of the growing debate of bioethics.

To reitterate for amxcvbcv and Dag, I don't subscribe to the Catholic belief that "every sperm is sacred", because by themselves, a sperm and egg cannot create life seperately, but the human species was created/evolved (pick one or both)in a way that an egg and a sperm are combined expressly for the sole purpose of creating life and propogating the species and in my opinion, not for experimentation.

Embryos are thrown away as medical waste if they are not used. That's preferable than using them for stem cell research?

What happens to the fertilized eggs that don't make it to the womb and are flushed out during that wonderful few days women have every month? Does that make every woman who's ever had sex and a period a serial killer?

If you would seriously pick a few cells you can't even see with your naked eye over a living, breathing human being already on this planet, your so-called religious beliefs are a fucking joke.

Prayer. It works. I wake up in the morning and pray for food. BAM! It's on my plate. I get a bill in the mail and pray for someone to pay it. BAM! It's paid. I want a roof over my head, so I pray for a home. BAM! I have a nice house to live in.

Micheal J. Foxx just hasn't prayed hard enough. Jesus is shaking him so hard to make him understand, but he just isn't getting it.

P.S. The best hookers have parkinsons.

I believe if you are that strict with religious law about human life, maybe you should stop taking medication too because you know, you're going against god's plan...

> The problem with that line is that the Earth has been proven to be, in fact round.

Actually Wumpus, the Earth is an oblate spheroid..

ok...it's round-ish

"I believe if you are that strict with religious law about human life, maybe you should stop taking medication too because you know, you're going against god's plan... "

At what point did I say this was a religious law? I said it was a personal belief.

"Sperm + Egg = Human"

Well, technically sperm + egg combine to create a zygote - the combining of two haploid cells into a single diploid cell. From this diploid, in time, will grow a human but to suggest that a zygote = human is a bit of a stretch. I think when most people think of a "human" they tend to picture a fully developed, thinking, breathing being and not a mass of cells that could exist in a petri dish. If you want to start talking about whether or not that same zygote has a soul, well now you're stepping into the realm of religion which has no place in science and should not be the basis upon which government makes decisions.

Rush's whole point was not to make fun of MJF, and he said so many times over the course of the week. His whole point was, and still is, that it's contemptible of people (be they movie stars or no) to promise cures for diseases of only they vote for (or against) a specific political party.

The commercial that MJF appeared in made the tone unmistakable with the implication: "If you vote for the Democrat in X election, then we'll find a cure for Parkinson's. If you vote Republican, then no cure for you."

The left keeps accusing the right of 'fear-mongering' in the War on Terror. Does fear-mongering get any worse than saying "don't vote for this party, they want to keep everyone sick"?

And as always, Rush was right. It was, and is, contemptible for MJF to imply that only one political party wants to help cure diseases. And once again, all the left has is emotional rhetoric. Even the headline of this video "rush limbaugh's lies" is meant to grab those emotions by the nether regions and twist them. Here's the 'cliff notes' version of the whole situation.

1) MJF appeared in this commercial - which endorses Democrats.

2) MJF says (albiet indirectly) in his commercial that Democrats want to cure the disease, while their Republical opponents want to keep people sick.

3) Rush doesn't believe MJF, and responds to him, at first saying, "he's either acting, or off his meds". http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential3/mjf0.guest.html

4) The media cries foul, saying that as a sufferer of the disease, MJF is off limites. (And in so doing, they prove Rush's point that the left takes morally indefensible positions and then props up victims to promote them - victims who they say cannot be refuted or argued with because it's 'mean' to do so.)

5) Over the week, Rush continually clarified that he was NOT making fun of MJF.

6) Rush cites evidence from MJF's own book that he DID once deliberately go off his meds while appearing before congress so he could appear shaky and suffering and thus gain thier attention (and money). To which Rush said, he could understand why.

7) MJF admits during an interview that he was not OFF his meds - he says he took TOO MUCH meds before doing the commercial - which doctors have said - makes the symptoms of Parkinson's appear worse.

Rush cites numerous instances of appearances of MJF, on TV, interview, appearances, in which he is neither shaky nor twitchy.

9) Rush cites many instances of left-leaning politicos, celebrities and media types who routinely say cruel, mean and utterly vulgar things about right-leaning persons - and they never apologize.

The long and short of it is that MJF could have appeared cogent and normal in that commercial - if he wanted to. But he wanted to prove a point to viewers by illustrating the symptoms of his illness. So he over-medicated to accomplish this. He, and the commercial producers, could have done re-takes or re-shoots so that MJF would have appeared as normal as he usually does. But they wanted poeple to see his symptoms, and hear the message: "Democats will cure you - Republicans will keep you sick".

The fact is that Embryonic stem cell research is already legal and ongoing in the states in which these ads are running. And no one is stopping it. Fact is, it's just not yeilding as good results as ADULT stem cell research and the new virus research.

Once again - Rush was right. And once again, the media is desperate to hide it.

All the facts are here -
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential3/mjf0.guest.html

If you have the courage to face them.....

"All the facts are here - http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential3/mjf0.guest.html"

Dude are you even being serious? The facts! Don't spin it into something that it wasn't.

Am not a democrat or a republican, my main dismay is the audacity Rush Limbaugh had in just saying something that rude! To a person who is suffering from Parkinson's, a disease no one would want to have.

Now you're turning this into, he said she said. Rush Limbaugh said what he said, and thats the point, I don't care who the hell you are you. He couldn't even muster a heartful apology, fine you don't agree with MJF's political affiliations and allude to political collusion fine... you can say all that without attacking someone's plight.

Incredible ignorance from Slyrr. I doubt he watched the vid, just came along to troll. I don't want to dignify trolling, but just this one comment:

>> 2) MJF says (albiet indirectly) in his commercial that Democrats want to cure the disease, while their Republical opponents want to keep people sick.

MJF says in the interview that he has backed Republican candidates and done commercials for Republicans. So 2 is just a lie. MJF said it's not about red state vs blue state and D's and R's.

Check his comments Gervaise, it's all GOP spin politik from Rush Limbaugh.

Jeremy1967 you did exactly what I expected. Dehumanization. Is a person any less of a person becaue they have one cell? Everyone here is still just cells. If you want to break it down scientifically then a zygote is a single cell person and an adult is the fully developed collection of cells but sill, they are both the same human being. Also a human infant can't survive any longer than a human zygote without outside help so where is the difference there? That is why I think the science community shouldn't be allowed to use embryos in stem cell research.

Yet MORE evidence that the whole kerfuffle was and is nothing more but liberal spin.

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/29/video-fox-admits-he-has-not-reviewed-missouris-stem-cell-amendment/

MJF didn't even review the amendment that he endorsed when he threw his weight behind the Democrat candidate. If he had, he might have learned that the Misourri Democrat candidate he was endorsing voted AGAINST the embryonic stem-cell research that MJF says he wants.

But I'm not at all surprised by the dismissal from other denizens on this board. Like MJF, it is THEY who are displaying 'ignorance'. They don't even research the issues they say they support.

All they hear is what they want to hear: Republicans and right-wingers are heartless monsters who want to keep you sick, and if you vote for them, oooooh, terrible STUFF is gonna happen.

as to farhad's dismissal of the evidence as 'lies':

[quote] 2) MJF says (albiet indirectly) in his commercial that Democrats want to cure the disease, while their Republical opponents want to keep people sick.

MJF says in the interview that he has backed Republican candidates and done commercials for Republicans. So 2 is just a lie. MJF said it's not about red state vs blue state and D's and R's.[/quote]

View the commercial itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo

MJF endorses McCaskill "You can elect.. McCaskill - who shares my hope for cures". He then says of the Repbulican opponent, "Unfortunately Sen Jim Talent opposes research" and "Sentator Talent even wants to criminalize the research that gives us a chance for hope".

You can call MJF's own words a 'lie' if you want to - but you can't escape them. He makes it clear, that the Democrat candidate is the white knight on the silver stallion riding to the rescue of those who suffer from Parkinson's - while the evil Republican Talent wants to stop them.

MJF said in all his subsequent interviews, when confronted with the facts, that he's non-partisan. Why then is he lying about Democratic candidates who are voting against the research that he claims is so desperately needed?

http://breakingnews.redstate.com/blogs/redlightgrnlight/2006/oct/22/michael_j_fox_is_wrong_jim_talent_supports_stem_cell_research

Rush documented the whole thing with web links, data, facts and a clear timetable of events. He provided proof of exactly who DID vote against the measures that are supposedly at the heart of the whole issue - and it wasn't the Republican. Leftwingers are always demanding evidence, proof and documentation. But when they get it, "oh, it's just spin".

I saw no evidence from all the drive-by media types who decry Rush as an insensitive jerk. In fact, when you remove all their rhetoric and emotion from their 'interviews', that's really all they have - "Rush is a jerk and shouldn't be allowed to respond to this ad." Ask them why. They'll sputter and hiss and say again, "he's an insensitive jerk". Ask them about the facts. They'll retreat into the safe cloak of "he's a jerk".

Which is what the denizens of videosift seem to do more often than not.

I suppose it's much more comfortable for them to hide behind these threads and comfort themselves by agreeing with their pre-formed opinions of "Rush is a jerk and shouldn't be allowed to speak". Yet he's the only one who provides the evidence, documentation and facts that the left keeps saying they want, and then flee when confronted with it.

It takes a lot of work and thought to study out the issues. It takes no effort at all to make faces on the internet.

I'd like to see a link to a newspaper story for the claim that McCaskill does not support embryonic stem cell research, please. This St. Louis Post-Dispatch story makes it pretty clear that she is supporting Amendment 2.

If some time ago she was opposed to it, but has changed her mind -- so what? She now supports embryonic cell research, as described in Amendment 2. If she voted against a booby-trapped omnibus bill (the old "my opponent voted against money for our troops!" trick), or against a bill that didn't have the controls she favours -- so what? She supports embryonic stem cell research in Missouri, controlled as described in Amendment 2.

By the way, the transcript of Fox's testimony to a Senate Subcommittee shows that he told them that his Parkinson's symptoms weren't being controlled by medication. He didn't deceive them, and he wasn't forced into "admitting" this years later, either. In fact, it made a hell of a lot of sense for them to see what the symptoms of Parkinson's looked like.

From that transcript:

"For many people with Parkinson's, managing their disease is a full-time job; it is a constant balancing act. Too little medicine causes tremors and stiffness, too much medicine produces uncontrollable movement and slurring, and far too often Parkinson's patients wait and wait (as I am right now) for their medicines to kick in."

The subcommittee saw his Parkinson's symptoms (not the dyskinesia he showed in the ad, which is different), and they knew they were looking at them unmediated by medication.

Incredible spin. I can unspin it for those who are confused.

MJF did another ad for Ben Cardin which is almost exactly the same as the one for McCaskill. Ben Cardin voted against a bill which would allow only adult stem cell research. Therefore people can spin it and say he's against stem cell research. Truth is Ben Cardin doesn't want to restrict stem cell research to only adult stem cells and he favors embyonic stem cell research.

How convenient that Slyrr didn't mention Ben Cardin anywhere but mentions McCaskill deliberately trying to confuse people.

And it's quite clear that Talent opposes embryonic stem cell research, but favors adult stem cell research. So we can spin that too and just say he favors stem cell research and therefore we can say MJF lied. It's just playing with semantics to twist reality to your own view.

I'm still curious how the fact that MJF did an ad for Arlen Spector in 2004 fits into this tin foil hat conspiracy. In the 2004 ad for Arlen Spector, MJF makes it quite clear that the Republican candidate is the white knight on the silver stallion riding to the rescue of those who suffer from Parkinson's and other diseases. Convenient how the people who attack MJF leave that tidbit out.

Only thing I agree with Slyrr is: "All they hear is what they want to hear". Yup. I don't know why I bother responding.

First of all.. I probably have listen to Rush for more years than most of you.. And luckily I have been deprogrammed. For you mental giants who still run around spouting (let alone even thinking) "Rush is right" on anything.. well you need to check for lobotomy scars.

My idiot parents are repeating all these same talking points about Rush in defense of his attack on a person with a TERMINAL DISEASE. Now, my parents are only idiots, because like Wumpus and some others, they believe this Rush crap hook and line..

Rush: "I did NOT mock or make fun of Mr. Fox."
Me: HELLO!?! Asshole I have two eyes. I'm pretty sure a second grader would agree that you were in fact making fun of MJFox.

That's right Wumpus and Slurr.. The average 8 year olds are smarter than both of yous.

Hahaha.. I had not seen this yet. One of your fellow ditto-zombies just lost her race by repeating Rush mantra.. Limbaugh said he would slap actor and Parkinson's disease sufferer Michael J. Fox, "if you'd just quit bobbing your head." So she said she'd slap her libertarian opponent, the guy with MS and a wheelchair. Her excuse like all of these GOP idiots running ruining the country was that it was someone else's fault. She got to brainwashed from listening to Rush. Yep. It's either rehab from alcohol.. or Rush-induced temporary insanity.

As Wumpus believes that a human life begins at the moment of fertilization, please oblige me in answering the following hypothetical question...

If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you only have time to save either a petri dish full of zygotes or a two-year old child, which do you save?

Thanks, Gervaise. I thought there were some twisty half-truths at work in this thread, and you've identified them nicely.

It's sad to see an actor I watched growing up so changed. I hope he's around for a long time to keep the fight going.

By the way, Rush? DIE, you worthless, fat junkie slob.

"If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you only have time to save either a petri dish full of zygotes or a two-year old child, which do you save?"

The child of course, it's a no brainer.

Which would be my answer as well.

Now let's suppose that it was a hundred petri dishes, each stacked on top of the last, and that for whatever reason, each dish holds a thousand zygotes. Would you make the same choice? If so, why did you decide to sacrifice a hundred thousand lives for the one?

I don't know how the hypotheticals offered establish that a zygote is not a life, though.

You could add the wrinkle that the embryo is the person who shall cure cancer and the 2 year old is the high school shooter #6. Who do you save now? The question that is being missed is "Are they both 'living beings'?

As anyone who has seen ultrasounds can tell you, at a certain point in gestation egg+sperm become something that is unmistakably human. And abortion, whether or not you believe it is murder, it is a cessation of life. At the end of the day, you are harvesting cells from the products of killings.

I suppose that there is a idealistic 'greater good' argument espoused by Fox and others, but it is morally very murky.

heh, I love this rhetorical device. The crazy thing about not wanting to fund stem cell research is that the government pays for 80% of all new drug creations, we are already disposing of thousands of stem cells a week. So if you prescribe to the ridiculous notion that we should be protecting zygotes why are you not going after the mothers and fathers who have hundreds of zygotes made in the process of artificial insemination, but ultimately end up using one or two. By the logic expressed by wumpus and others in this thread these parents are guilty of murder for daring to have one child, while the other hundreds die. Of course it takes a ridiculous rhetorical device like Hamfist's to point this out, but the reality is that we THROW AWAY thousands of zygotes a day, if they are actually people (cough cough) would their lives not be better served providing people with parkinsons, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injuries, and others with hope?

For me at, least the answer, unless you are an unbelievably cruel bastard, or at least horribly uneducated about the realities of zygote death in the US, is yes of course we should.

"I suppose that there is a idealistic 'greater good' argument espoused by Fox and others, but it is morally very murky."

again, we "kill" 350,000 embryos a year by throwing them into the garbage, would we not be better off using them for medicine? Or is it more humane to not profit off "their deaths" in the form of potentially life saving research?

Personally, I would harvest away on the fertility clinic stores of early zygotes. But I don't consider developing human genetic material to be human.

I would hesitate to harvest stem cells from aborted fetuses, however, particularly from fetuses that are/were otherwise viable.

In the political season, the stem cell argument avoids any kind of nuance. And yet I can acknowledge that there is a an actual moral dilemma in harvesting humans (soylentgreen!) so that Marty McFly may persevere.

hmmmm...abortion....stem cells...
seems to me that justification of ending a human life is a personal thing...and the proceedures that have been developed to assist in this age-old practice, are just a helpful way of aiding in the denial that life that wasn't yesterday, now is, because I wanted to get sexy.
As the wonder of the genome produces more advanced and creative ways to tweak the human body..one thing shall remain the same, perhaps, that sperm + egg = life = change..
its the fear of change that make anyone react to a situation by nukin it.

And the Buddhists would say that you can have as many fetus eradication ceremonies you like but, Karma is a motherfucker.....
COR 10:23
....All things are lawfull, but not all things are profitable...the Bible has some good shit in it.
And so does the Necronomicon-.......
Hey, how'd I get on abortion???!

"Now let's suppose that it was a hundred petri dishes, each stacked on top of the last, and that for whatever reason, each dish holds a thousand zygotes. Would you make the same choice? If so, why did you decide to sacrifice a hundred thousand lives for the one?"

Okay, excellent question. First off, I think you're assuming that given my stance on the issue, I hold embryonic life equally valuable as post-natal life. I do, in a way, but let me explain. I believe that a child and an embryo are equal in that they both have some value as human life. Then you need to ask the question that in a given moral dilemma such as this where you need to make a decision, is one kind of life more valuable then another. I would have to say yes. In this kind of a situation, you need to make a distinction between one having the potential of becoming an independently sustaining human being, and one that already is...go for the kid.

But the issue at hand is, do we create life for the purpose of experimenting and destroying it in the process for the benefit of others? For some people, an embryo is not life and if that's your position, that's fine with me, I'm not out to change anybody's mind. My position, is that both an embryo and a child both hold value as human life. Is the value equal for the purposes of your scenario? No. But being that it is still human life, it should be protected. The creation of life is the most fascinating and wondrous phenomena in this universe, that a small collection of cells can grow into something that can accomplish great things. It should not be experimented upon. That is my position.

Let me leave you with some small words of wisdom from Thomas Jefferson.

"A difference of opinion, is not a difference in principal."

"But the issue at hand is, do we create life for the purpose of experimenting and destroying it in the process for the benefit of others?"

We don't have to create any life, we just have to use embryos that are being thrown out any way. Ones that we are already creating and destroying for the benefit of others, in this case new parents whom are unable to conceive naturally for whatever reason. By arguing against the use of these embryos for research you are ensuring that their deaths are pointless when they could in fact be used for the good of man. Regardless of whether or not they will be used for stem cell research they are still going to be thrown out, we don't have the capacity to store all the embryos made today.

Look at the video I linked up thread, it does a nice job of showing the fate of most embryos involved in the artificial insemination process.

Also, because artificial insemination results in the destruction of embryos are you against it? If not then why?

pardon me all above references to artificial insemination should be references to In vitro fertilization. Get carried away and fudge the details sometimes.

As a biomedical research PhD student I might be able to provide an interesting perspective on this discussion.


However, I'm pretty busy, and I come to videosift to see puppies and watch music videos.


The only thing I will say is witholding funding for tissue research based on moral opinions is far more selfish than one disease sufferer's attempts to try to make the public aware that the US no longer trusts the ethics of its scientists.

Someone oughta artificially inseminate James

One of my favorite pictures of all time is of a wildly smiling veterinary student, one inseminating arm deep in cow nethers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/images/mollycow3.jpg

And that is the American political stem cell debate to me.

So first off, let me thank you for politely explaining your position on a commonly divisive topic. I did not hazard assuming I understood your belief system, other than that it was probably different from my own, and that this was alone sufficient cause for dialog.

"In this kind of a situation, you need to make a distinction between one having the potential of becoming an independently sustaining human being, and one that already is...go for the kid."

With all due respect, I find it curious that an extreme circumstance is the only requirement for you to make the distinction between an actual life and a potential life. If I understood your position rightly, the zygotes were just as alive as the child but when forced to make a choice between the two, the zygotes suddenly lost the right to live and, in some sense, died even before they were consumed by fire.

In my opinion, the issue at hand is not whether we should create human lives for the purposes of experimentation, simply because zygotes are already a byproduct of the fertility industry and, as James points out, terminated by the thousands anyway. The issue at hand is whether one can make an ethical distinction between a cluster of cells, which have potential to become a human, and a cluster of cells in which that human potential has already been actualized. If we draw no distinction between the two, then it is only proper that the same natural rights apply to both.

Only 23 more comments to 100, I think this is almost the most discussed thread on the sift.

I am hoping for 100 votes and 100 comments.

"With all due respect, I find it curious that an extreme circumstance is the only requirement for you to make the distinction between an actual life and a potential life. If I understood your position rightly, the zygotes were just as alive as the child but when forced to make a choice between the two, the zygotes suddenly lost the right to live and, in some sense, died even before they were consumed by fire."

But an extreme circumstance is the one you presented me with, and as with extreme circumstances they involve extreme decisions and usually should not be a basis of testing a hypothesis.

Let me put it another way...If you don't believe life begins at conception, then at what point do you define life? At one month...two months..six months...eight months...eight months and 29 days? Where do you draw the line? When does it cease being simple collection of cells and become a human life? And of you're not willing to make this decision yourself, then who do you trust to make it for you?

Um.. we have laws for a reason. When is your birthday assholes! When are you declared dead? Why is my twin brother older than me?! My cells are technically older.

WTF! We have birth certificates, that say your are born on this day. You can considered alive when you are born. You are considered dead when you are declared dead. Until the laws are changed everyone can STFU. Sure you are "alive" in your mother's womb, but that's not what has got everyones panties in a bunch, it is when the gov't and laws considered someone alive.

So this isn't a biology argument here, it's about peoples religious and political agendas, so refer to above, and change the frickin law, or quit wasting your breath on this. WTF does zygotes and conception have to do with MJFox, or stem cells for that matter.

Anyone who is so nuts about when is life "life" and when are stem cells sacred... just need to take their anti-science, anti-evolution, 3000 year old dinosaurs and go play on someone else's playground.

(in a bald attempt to push this to 100 comments)

Your point is nice, dirt, for SS numbers and your momma's health benefits, but the Law seemingly has been pushing back the age which a person is considered to be 'alive' in recent years. For instance, there are heightened criminal penalties for assaulting or killing a pregnant woman, particularly if the perpetrator kills the fetus. And, the Supreme Court may make late-term abortions illegal this year. So the law on fetus as mere stem cell material or as Little Superstar is in flux.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=9eeae5c9-c9ff-4eab-8ef1-907ae94b1326

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

More documentation. What a Parkinson's neurologist had to say about the whole thing. And a list of diseases which have treatments on tap with adult stem cell research - vrs. a list of diseases being researched with embryonic stem cells....

That's a letter to the editor in the National Post, a very conservative Canadian newspaper. The neurologist confirms that the ad symptoms are consistent with medication side effects -- that's hardly backing up Limbaugh's first claims.

And note that this neurologist quotes the "admission" that Fox went off his meds before testifying in 1999, without acknowledging Fox's disclosure in the transcript. If he couldn't even be bothered to check the transcript, I wonder about his POV in framing the whole matter.

Wow. If stemcellresearch.org says it, then it must be true.

If you want a more rigorous source of 'documentation' on this subject (caveat emptor: low on pre-packaged talking points for those who need those glib little word snacks to troll) , you should check out National Institutes of Health page, particularly the links to the annotated bibliography.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/

The drive-by media can't wait to make a mountain out of a molehill and this non-incident is no different.

I like M.J. Fox, but he has to know that embryonic stem cell research is a bust (for now) and the real advances have been with umbilical cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells.

So why is M.J. Fox shilling for liberal politicians trying to paint all Republicans as the enemies of medical research?

He's desperate, yes, and here are the donkeys lining up to exploit his illness. They have no shame.

Democrats hide behind "unattackable" victims. Business as usual for the cowards.

stemcellresearch.org is a front for the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity which is a christian bioethics organization. So it must be unbiased right??

That neuroscientist paints Fox as partisan for the Democrats which is just not true.

That's a good link rickegee, I already learned a lot about stem cell research.

'shroom, why do you never respond to anything? You post these moronic soundbites that you heard on talk radio, or read on freerepub, or saw on Faux News.. but then you can't ever defend anything you say.

Why is "embryonic stem cell research is a bust (for now) and the real advances have been with umbilical cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells"?? Most science-types would disagree with you, but since you support anti-stemcell gov't policies, you love to repeat this nonsense.

And "why is M.J. Fox shilling for liberal politicians trying to paint all Republicans as the enemies of medical research"... So if this were true, why the hell was MJFox campaigning for Arlen Specter? Sadly, the repubs in Congress rubberstamp anything Bush want. The one time they didn't, Bush used his only veto to shoot down a Bill passed by Congress.. regarding stemcell research. Most republicans are so afraid of their evangelical base that they can't publicly support stemcell research.

No one is exploiting MJFox or his illness. No one is calling him un-attackable. The only cowards are bullies like Rush who mocked MJFox and got caught on national TV looking like a douchebag. I guarantee Rush screwed up on this. If it was for his moronic antics, the week before elections would NOT have been filled with news cycles about stemcell and how repubs are against it.

So don't blame MJFox for taking his meds. Try blaming Rush for not taking his "prescription" meds. (Or for having taken illegal pain killers or viagra.. maybe his constant erection makes him have to dance around and flail his arms like he has parkinsons)

Rush was tactless to be sure, but the following facts remain:

1. MJFox admitted to testifying before Congress after lowering his medication to emphasize the effects. He didn't do it this time but he HAS before.
2. Embryonic stem cells have not led to a single treatment for ANYTHING thus far. joedirt I bet you have no sources for the 'Most science-types' who would disagree. Other stem cells have 70+ treatments so far.
3. He admitted in the CNN interview he hasn't even read the legislation he is backing.

In the end it is Fox who is reaching into the taxpayers wallet for science which is so far just a wishing well.

Wow DavidM, I'm glad you joined VS just to comment on MJFox videos, or sockpuppet for your masters. Is there a freeper thread about the libherhal enclave that is videosift?

What the hell do you care about MJFox medication levels? You obviously don't care about how much opiates Rush has consumed on a given day, or how much Viagra he has taken when on vacation with a bunch of men. So why does it matter one small iota if MJFox is taking too much ot too little medication. He has Parkisons you twit.

From Time magazine, "The Bush Administration's limit on the use of federal money for human embryonic stem-cell research in the U.S. since 2001 has reduced funding and deterred some scientists from undertaking the controversial work. A report in Nature Biotechnology in April found a widening gap in the rate at which U.S. and non-U.S. research teams have published articles about human embryonic stem-cell research in scientific journals since 2002, and concluded that the U.S. was "falling behind in the international race to make fundamental discoveries" in the field."

You are a real retard with your chicken and egg argument that no discoveries have been found from stuff people aren't allowed to research in. Research takes money and time. If you say other stem cell treatments work, then I guarantee "embryonic stem cells" (like I care) would also yield results, if not better, or different. Who gives a rat's ass where the cells come from, they are medical waste anyways if not from organ donors.

Man, this debate is just so silly. Of course we should research every available avenue. I think both sides agree with that, actually. The problem is that this debate is actually about something else entirely: abortion. A perfect example of how one unresolved issue effects many other issues. It is way beyond the time that this abortion issue gets resolved, but neither side is willing to yield.

How about a compromise abortion policy?

Neither side is going to agree on whether life begins at conception or not. I don't think it does, and I'm a religious man. Is a miscarriage an abortion by G-d? Well, if G-d can do an abortion, so can we. But let's compromise on the timeframe. We all agree that a life has ended when the heart has stopped beating, why not just all agree that life has started when the heart starts beating? Or use brain-activity as the test. Or just pick some arbitrary number of months, 3 or 4 or 5. Or perhaps up until the time when the fetus would actually be viable and be able to live even outside the womb with all the help from modern medical technology. Some arguments are just not worth continuing. Let us agree to disagree between the sides and then find an acceptable compromise.

For the religious folk: You don't know when the soul enters the body and you have no basis on which to make such a claim. For sure we should take every effort to preserve human life, but is a zygote a human? You don't know when it makes the transition from potential-human to actual human, nor do I, nor does anybody. Stop being so intransigent and let's find a real solution.

For the non-religious folk: You don't know either, so find some compromise timeframe. For certain partial-birth is inexcusable. What about the week before delivery when it could have been delivered by C-section? And the week before that? Keep working your way back and at some point you'll find the gray line - there's the point at which a compromise can be constructed.

To all: I read the first 30-40 of the posts here, but I couldn't bring myself to read all the rest. If this has been said before, then plese forgive my interruption.

An internet 'tough talker' wow am I not surprised.

Well joe I don't give a rats azz what you think of why I am posting or registering here. Shooting down your mindless drivel is too easy. You seem to be the one in lock step with the rest of the mindless masses here. I have actually looked at the non-results of the tech.

Its not the function of government to force me to go to work so my money can be sent to drug companies. The free market outstrips government on just about anything you care to discuss. Don't they teach even basic free market economics in your trailer park?

If the US is 'falling behind' other countries, where are the breakthroughs from those other countries?

I already said Rush was out of line. Frothing at the mouth idiocy such as yours doesn't comes not from rational thought or facts, just bigotry of anyone who doesn't agree with you.

www.stemcellresearch.org

Well said, peretz.

I may have raised the abortion angle in post #62 or #65, but the artificial insemination angle of posts 72-77 was just too juicy to pass up, so I dropped it.

DavidM

I would point you to
http://stemcells.nih.gov/ for information that is more critical and thorough. Christian bioethics advocacy groups have their pluses and are easier to Google, but the stemcellresearch.org site is a bit undernourished on critical analysis.

Has your tax money been earmarked for the drug companies? I am pretty bitter that my taxes have gone to pay for (now unused) barbed wire fences in Sadr City, Iraq and single-source contracting with Halliburton. But such is a big Fed. It is the fairly minimal individual cost of being a citizen of a great (new AP ranking #7) and affluent nation.

I do hate the libertarian or NIMBY argument that you advance against government sponsored scientific research. To wholly privatize something like stem cell research, you would invite two substantial problems into the field:

1) Intellectual property issues - A lawyer's feast for bottomfeeders like me to be sure, but these issues won't help patients.

2) Profit - Research would be driven by profit alone which would cut off many avenues and possibly limit the pool of persons who ultimately benefit.

Public-Private competition (as was found with the human genome project) is probably the most beneficial state of affairs.

rickegee,

I see what you are saying but I did not advocate no funding at all. I would rather have tax-benefits or trust funds set up for companies which make specific breakthroughs in Parkinsons or other treatments.

Paying these companies up front doesn't necessarily speed up the process. Case in point, I think the 'humans cause global warming' research *needs* to find evidence to continue funding for research.

Results are what guides the free market, sadly this is not always true of the public sector.

-David

David -

I like your idea of back-end rewards/incentives in the forms of tax breaks or specific subsidies for companies who demonstrate progress in scientific research.

It just seems to me (not even a good science student) that most scientific research is intrinsically glacial and requires some front-end incentives to merely explore. I imagine that unintended benefits are discovered through the process of exploration. The market, on the other hand, requires faster results or, at least, a stable body of engaged investment capital.

Like the Mars Rover for instance, I have little idea of what back-end benefits will come, but the spirit of exploration is inspirational so the front end costs don't seem to be unreasonable.

Interesting discussion.

Just one clarification - embyros from fertility clinics are not "destined to be destroyed." There are already groups of infertile couples ready to adopt any "unwanted" embryos.

Again, good discussion (most of it), but I thought I'd clarify that one point.

More Tissue Research Goddammit!! Oh, and by the way, that zygote that would have housed a soul had it not been for "boob job" and "Two-heads'??? He/She/It or whatever the big brains and vocabs feel comfortable to call it, was going to be the one who cured,.....pick a disease..
The greatest disease of all is justification of ending the process of life, for any reason but survival of the species!
(this retort to the abortion defenders, and other self-hating types......Jesus, man, look to historically socially acceptable behavior as it relates to the rise and fall of empires..., "Protect the most vulnerable of human life, FIRST!!"...basic common sense!)

(damn.......I didn't realize I was such a vehement hater of abortion, but yeah, argue it with a mother of four marines)

My video board is about a gig low so it takes forever to load foriegn media players .I'll try to figure this out without seeing it . Let me get this straight . First Micheal J . shakes ...then Rush gets upset and says Mr fox is a fake ......Your just pissed off Rush 'cause you didn't think of it first ...Years ago you could have come on TV shaking and say " My self 'been better since rehab !?!" and we would have all loved your big baby head . But No , we hate you now and now you have attacked Mr. Family ties ...you are an idiot .....you big doof !
and as far as stem cells go I still believe the earth is the center of the universe so don't ask me .

People who are against abortion are stupid. Who do you expect to pay for the extra influx into the population? The State? Hilarious proposition in this age of low taxation and big spending.

Oh man, *dead

The link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by gold star member Krupo)

Discarding this video. It was flagged as dead but not flagged undead within 7 days.

*dead

Only published or personal queue videos may be flagged dead - ignoring dead request by longde.