Gene Frenkle Posted March 18, 2011 Posted March 18, 2011 With just a handful of Democrats opposing, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a measure Thursday that would prohibit embryonic stem cell research in Oklahoma. “We value life here in Oklahoma,” said the bill’s author, Rep. George Faught, R-Muskogee. “While we in no way dispute the fact that the ability to treat or heal suffering persons is a great good, we also recognize that not all methods of achieving a desired good are morally or legally justifiable.” House Bill 1442 would make it a misdemeanor to conduct embryonic stem cell research. It also would prohibit buying, selling or transferring an embryo for research. It would exclude certain procedures such as in vitro fertilization. The measure passed 86-8. It now goes to the Senate. http://newsok.com/house-passes-embryonic-stem-cell-research-ban/article/3549747
Passepartout Posted March 18, 2011 Posted March 18, 2011 Glad that someone values life. As that is good that they are passing it! As that should send a message to people and the states.
Gene Frenkle Posted March 18, 2011 Author Posted March 18, 2011 Glad that someone values life. As that is good that they are passing it! As that should send a message to people and the states. Oh good! Care to expand on that?
KD in CA Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) Well that's pretty f---in' stupid, but not something to lose sleep over. The stem cell research jobs can go to one of the other 49 states. House Bill 1442 would make it a misdemeanor to conduct embryonic stem cell research. It also would prohibit buying, selling or transferring an embryo for research. It would exclude certain procedures such as in vitro fertilization. p.s. I love this. Are embryos created during an IVF process not real embryos or something? Or do "We value life" unless it happens to interfere with the plans of some voters/campaign donors who really want to get pregnant? Edited March 19, 2011 by KD in CT
LeviF Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 Glad that someone values life. As that is good that they are passing it! As that should send a message to people and the states. I hope you're against the death penalty and using rats in lab tests, as they often kill those rats.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) Oh good! Care to expand on that? Why? Because you: a.) found somebody to give a schit about the poorly constructed wedge issue you are trying to push? b.) think that your attempt at a wedge issue is actually working? c.) found somebody who disagrees with you? d.) are finally getting the attention you think you deserve, and single-handedly improving PPP by bringing "rational" discussion to it? e.) are getting all of the above? Your attempt at trying to make conservatives look bad with this is only backfiring. Perhaps you should move off of stem cells and onto a good wedge issue that will really be effective at making you look smart, conservatives look bad, and will actually help the people involved, like gay marriage! Yeah, that's a good one! Uhhh....wait a sec....you already tried this, you ended up looking stupid, conservatives looked principled, and 35 anti-gay marriage sate laws later, gay people got f'ed over and were sacrificed on your Altar of Hubris. Perhaps you should just stop trying to create lame wedge issues? I am sure gay people don't want any more "help" from the left. And, if I had Parkinson's Disease, I would be doing all I could to reject "help" from the Democratic Party, and especially the far-left. The best way to make stem cell research illegal for the next 50 years is to let the far-left be in charge of it. Edited March 19, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
UConn James Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) Just as a board upkeep issue, Gene, are you planning on creating a separate gd thread for each and every state that decides to take this up? Why could this not have been merged into your current embryonic stem cell thread? Edited March 19, 2011 by UConn James
Gene Frenkle Posted March 19, 2011 Author Posted March 19, 2011 Just as a board upkeep issue, Gene, are you planning on creating a separate gd thread for each and every state that decides to take this up? Why could this not have been merged into your current embryonic stem cell thread? I'll leave that to the mods. For now, I'll keep it to one thread per state. I'll be happy if that's the last of them. Hey OC, that's my first stalker signature - thanks, I feel special now. It's not going to make me start reading your posts, but thank you!
UConn James Posted March 19, 2011 Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) I'll leave that to the mods. For now, I'll keep it to one thread per state. I'll be happy if that's the last of them. Hey OC, that's my first stalker signature - thanks, I feel special now. It's not going to make me start reading your posts, but thank you! In the TBD Terms of Service, under the DO NOT POST section: "posting the same information/opinion in an excessively repetitive manner." So, you're just going to crap all over the board and leave the moderators to clean up after you? Nice. This place depends on us following the rules and keeping discussions grouped accordingly. There's no exemption b/c one person wants to bring more attention to a particular cause. Edited March 19, 2011 by UConn James
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 This place depends on us following the rules and keeping discussions grouped accordingly. There's no exemption b/c one person wants to bring more attention to a particular cause. This "TSW" place, maybe. This "PPP" place depends on a mix of dysfunctional personalities being as abusive and insulting as possible. You stupid git.
UConn James Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 This "TSW" place, maybe. This "PPP" place depends on a mix of dysfunctional personalities being as abusive and insulting as possible. You stupid git. In Gene F. style, maybe tomorrow I'll start 50 separate threads on how much each state is in debt or in surplus (if there are any) for their upcoming budget. I'll dedicate Nevada and Delaware to you, Tom.
Gene Frenkle Posted March 20, 2011 Author Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) In Gene F. style, maybe tomorrow I'll start 50 separate threads on how much each state is in debt or in surplus (if there are any) for their upcoming budget. I'll dedicate Nevada and Delaware to you, Tom. Two states, two threads, jackass. If you don't like it you can eat a dick - or better yet, stay out of the threads...duh. I know nobody ever starts redundant topics here... I wonder if your partner pissed you off or something because you're being a real a-hole. Edited March 20, 2011 by Gene Frenkle
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 In Gene F. style, maybe tomorrow I'll start 50 separate threads on how much each state is in debt or in surplus (if there are any) for their upcoming budget. I'll dedicate Nevada and Delaware to you, Tom. Could be worse. Could be Vermont or Arkansas.
UConn James Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Two states, two threads, jackass. If you don't like it you can eat a dick - or better yet, stay out of the threads...duh. I know nobody ever starts redundant topics here... I wonder if your partner pissed you off or something because you're being a real a-hole. You just admitted you created redundant threads. And just because some other people do it, that makes it all right. BTW, one of the threads doesn't mention a state in the headline. This is like posting one topic as "Senator calls for stricter nuclear regulations" and then starting another as "Lieberman wants tighter nuclear regulations." And next week, it'll be "Kerry, Chambliss look to increase nuclear regulations"? It clogs up the board. But, I'm sure the mods have NOTHING better to do than merge threads for people who can't organize two similar thoughts in their dope-ravaged mind.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) I'll leave that to the mods. For now, I'll keep it to one thread per state. I'll be happy if that's the last of them. Hey OC, that's my first stalker signature - thanks, I feel special now. It's not going to make me start reading your posts, but thank you! So you admit to everything I posted above, and that you intend to start 48 other threads about this... ...and you are wondering why I am telling you to cut the schit in my sig? You have no talent for this kind of thing, time to move on. Edited March 22, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
boyst Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Politics, messing up science almost as much as the church... If you are pro life due to religious beliefs you should not be allowed to go to the Dr. or get immunizations. It is God's will. If you are pro life due to political beliefs you should be shot. Anyone who makes decisions based on politics is either a power hungry megalomaniac or a fool...sometimes both.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 Politics, messing up science almost as much as the church... If you are pro life due to religious beliefs you should not be allowed to go to the Dr. or get immunizations. It is God's will. If you are pro life due to political beliefs you should be shot. Anyone who makes decisions based on politics is either a power hungry megalomaniac or a fool...sometimes both. Interesting... If we extend this thinking: If you are pro choice for whatever reason, and you have a baby, but it is doubtful you can take care of it = no job, under 21, no husband, etc., you should have to go before a judge every two weeks and file, and then defend, a status report on that baby until it turns 18. If your actions aren't acceptable, the judge can order you to make whatever corrections are appropriate, or lose the baby/go to jail. After all, you made a choice, and you must accept the consequences of that choice. It was your will. You want choices? Deal with the consequences of making them. If you are pro choice due to political beliefs, but don't have a baby, or, can take care of it, you still have to support the above to the letter. You want choices for other people, and therefore, you have to deal with the consequences of those choices on society as a whole. After all, supporting unwed mothers popping out 4 kids from different daddies has a serious effect on society as a whole. Or, we can accept that absolutist thinking on this issue isn't effective, and persecuting people for their political beliefs is retarded. For example, what happens if you are pro-choice, but also religious, and actively participate in abstinence education, do you still get your shots?
boyst Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Interesting... If we extend this thinking: If you are pro choice for whatever reason, and you have a baby, but it is doubtful you can take care of it = no job, under 21, no husband, etc., you should have to go before a judge every two weeks and file, and then defend, a status report on that baby until it turns 18. If your actions aren't acceptable, the judge can order you to make whatever corrections are appropriate, or lose the baby/go to jail. After all, you made a choice, and you must accept the consequences of that choice. It was your will. You want choices? Deal with the consequences of making them. If you are pro choice due to political beliefs, but don't have a baby, or, can take care of it, you still have to support the above to the letter. You want choices for other people, and therefore, you have to deal with the consequences of those choices on society as a whole. After all, supporting unwed mothers popping out 4 kids from different daddies has a serious effect on society as a whole. Or, we can accept that absolutist thinking on this issue isn't effective, and persecuting people for their political beliefs is retarded. For example, what happens if you are pro-choice, but also religious, and actively participate in abstinence education, do you still get your shots? What?! What the F are you talking about?! You drew all of that out of what I was saying? You think I am pro-life? I am pro-abortion, heck, if I could I would pay women to get them. I want more of it. I want the government to offer $500 gift cards to anyone who will get themselves fixed and under the age of 30 with only one kid. $2000 for anyone under 30 without a kid. You want welfare or government support? Get fixed at your own expense, take drug tests at your own expense. For every child you have you lose money money, if you have 5 kids you receive 1/5 of what you'd normally get. Go bag groceries, go pick beans, go jump off a bridge, I don't really care. But the idea of sending some trash in front of a judge to decide what to do with the bastard is a great one. Lets log jam our court systems with unfit parents. Lets then realize that those morons can't take care of their kids and get put in foster care because foster care ...is...awesome! Yup, well planned. How about this: If you have a kid and cannot take care of it tough sht. Find some charity to take care of you or go be hungry and live every day of your life regretting your stupidity. After a while people might catch on and I do not think we'd have these same problems. If this happens and you are pro-choice and you are religious then you're an idiot...for being religious. You want God's will (aka some fairy tale BS) to dictate your life then you should not tolerate the improvements to life. God made you get cancer, go die from it. Don't tell someone they cannot get an abortion when the woman and/or baby is in jeopardy and then go get chemo or to rehab. Edited March 22, 2011 by jboyst62
OCinBuffalo Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 What?! What the F are you talking about?! You drew all of that out of what I was saying? You think I am pro-life? I am pro-abortion, heck, if I could I would pay women to get them. I want more of it. I want the government to offer $500 gift cards to anyone who will get themselves fixed and under the age of 30 with only one kid. $2000 for anyone under 30 without a kid. You want welfare or government support? Get fixed at your own expense, take drug tests at your own expense. For every child you have you lose money money, if you have 5 kids you receive 1/5 of what you'd normally get. Go bag groceries, go pick beans, go jump off a bridge, I don't really care. But the idea of sending some trash in front of a judge to decide what to do with the bastard is a great one. Lets log jam our court systems with unfit parents. Lets then realize that those morons can't take care of their kids and get put in foster care because foster care ...is...awesome! Yup, well planned. How about this: If you have a kid and cannot take care of it tough sht. Find some charity to take care of you or go be hungry and live every day of your life regretting your stupidity. After a while people might catch on and I do not think we'd have these same problems. If this happens and you are pro-choice and you are religious then you're an idiot...for being religious. You want God's will (aka some fairy tale BS) to dictate your life then you should not tolerate the improvements to life. God made you get cancer, go die from it. Don't tell someone they cannot get an abortion when the woman and/or baby is in jeopardy and then go get chemo or to rehab. I see my post had the desired effect. You argue for choice, but then argue against the consequences of giving people choice. At the same time, you argue against people using some arbitrary, external, sweeping force, like religion, to make their choices for them...but, then you argue that the consequences of making religion-based choices, should be enforced by some arbitrary, external, sweeping force? I am highly entertained by this.
boyst Posted March 22, 2011 Posted March 22, 2011 I see my post had the desired effect. You argue for choice, but then argue against the consequences of giving people choice. At the same time, you argue against people using some arbitrary, external, sweeping force, like religion, to make their choices for them...but, then you argue that the consequences of making religion-based choices, should be enforced by some arbitrary, external, sweeping force? I am highly entertained by this. You're losing me. yawn.
Recommended Posts