John Edward's comments over the top.

[Galahad]

Originally posted by denisenh
Does it still count if Cheney says it? He is an anybody.

“It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,” Cheney told supporters at a town-hall meeting Tuesday.

Sure it would. Where did he say it? Not in the quote you supplied (I think you're having trouble with your cut and paste...lots of special characters and stuff, btw...).

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Personally, I do have some issues with in vitro fertilization, especially when additional lives are created that are not used. This seems too much like playing God, as does destroying life for man's benefit.

As for Counselor Edwards comments he made it sound like John Kerry was the almighty savior.

And borrowing from Drudge

BE HEALED

 

[julia & nicks mom]

President Bush has not placed a ban on stem cell research - there are no limits placed on privately funded programs - he is also the first president to allow federal funding for stem cell research.

.

Kerry's misleading claim is designed to obscure the truth from the public. President Bush did not ban stem cell research, but is actually the first president to fund stem cell research. Federal funding of stem cell research prior to the President's decision was $0. The President's 2003 budget included $24.8 million for human embryonic stem cell research, an increase of 132 percent from 2002 and $190 million in funding for adult stem cells. There is no ban on private research of stem cells at all.

The President balanced this decision with the position that we should not cross a fundamental moral line by using federal funds to encourage or support the destruction of a human embryo. This principle receives broad support internationally, with many European countries--including France, Germany, Austria, Spain and Ireland--banning altogether the destruction of human embryos to create stem cell lines

 

[denisenh]

Originally posted by julia & nicks mom
Does it really matter that it is an editorial - it is still quoted by a journalist in an article - I would assume since the whole Dan Rather scandal that making stuff up isn't so PC! And there are several posters here who verifying hearing the comments.

So - I would say for debate purposes it is a true quote -

How do you all feel about this?

Of course it matters that the link led to an editorial.

For debate purposes, I do not see the comment being over the top.
Not to mention that:

From http://www.christopherreeve.org/

In addition to his work on behalf of CRPF, Reeve's advocacy efforts include:

Lobbying on behalf of the National Institutes of Health to double the NIH budget in five years. In part because of his leadership, the NIH budget grew from 12 billion dollars in 1998 to nearly 27.2 billion dollars in fiscal 2003.

Testifying before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies in favor of federally funded stem cell research;

Providing instrumental and crucial support for the passage of the New York State Spinal Cord Injury Research Bill (7287C), landmark legislation that makes available up to $8.5 million annually in funds collected from violations of the state's motor vehicle laws to be appropriated among the leading research facilities in New York. Reeve was also involved in lobbying efforts for similar bills in New Jersey, Kentucky, Virginia and California;

Continuing to work tirelessly to obtain increased funding from both the public and private sectors to cure Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, MS, ALS, stroke, as well as to repair the damaged spinal cord;

Helping to establish the Reeve-Irvine Research Center at the UCI College of Medicine. The center supports the study of trauma to the spinal cord and diseases affecting it, with an emphasis on the development of therapies to promote the recovery and repair of neurological function;


From http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/

What is the future of cell therapy?

Despite the many challenges before us, most scientists believe that cell therapy will revolutionize medicine. With the use of cell therapies, we may soon have dramatic cures for cancer, Parkinson's, diabetes, kidney disease, multiple sclerosis, macular degeneration and a host of other diseases. Cell therapies have also shown great promise in helping to repair catastrophic spinal injuries, and helping victims of paralysis regain movement. It is even possible that the human life span could be greatly extended due to the replenishment of tissues in aging organs. We may even have the ability one day to grow our own organs for transplantation from our own stem cells, eliminating the danger of organ rejection. While we will undoubtedly encounter the limits of cell therapy one day, there is every reason to hope that this revolutionary new approach will result in radically improved ways to treat disease.

 

[kellyb2000]

Originally posted by Galahad
Using the death of this fine man as an election gimmick is a bit low.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[denisenh]

Originally posted by Galahad
Sure it would. Where did he say it? Not in the quote you supplied (I think you're having trouble with your cut and paste...lots of special characters and stuff, btw...).

(I noticed that, about the cut and paste. I wish I could fix it)

getting off topic, but what do you think Cheneys quote means?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Okay please tell me how John Kerry becoming President guarantees paralyzed people they are going to walk again? That is what it sounded like Edwards was saying. Not that it would help further the research, not that it would help, nope, he said that people like Christopher Reeve WOULD walk again, if Kerry was president.

 

[caitycaity]

This is no more over the top than Bush promising a safer world.

i agree; it's just rhetoric. it doesn't bother me (and no, it wouldn't bother me if bush said it either).

 

[denisenh]

Originally posted by Galahad
Sure it is. The equivalent would be if Bush said "If I am re-elected, there will be no more terrorists attacks". Something he, nor anybody else is claiming. Using the death of this fine man as an election gimmick is a bit low. But Counselor Edwards has made a career out of making outrageous medical claims (so to speak) so this shouldn't be too surprising.

It isn't an election "gimmick". Stem cell research is one of the differences that the candidates have with each other. One that may be a deciding issue for voters.
Don't oversimplify such an important issue. Learn about it.

 

[richiebaseball]

Yes it's over the top. Yes it's trying to use the death of Christopher Reeve for political purposes. But these are politicians. That's what they do.

However the attempt by some here to pass this off as acceptable is truly eye-opening.

And this has nothing to do with being for or against stem cell research and everything to do with going beyond what any decent human being would do.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[Galahad]

We may even have the ability one day to grow our own organs for transplantation from our own stem cells

Which, for example, has nothing to do with embyronic stem cells. The entire "debate" ignores adult stem cell work and cord blood stem cell work.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by denisenh
It isn't an election "gimmick". Stem cell research is one of the differences that the candidates have with each other. One that may be a deciding issue for voters.
Don't oversimplify such an important issue. Learn about it.

It is not a gimmick to attack the issue. It is indeed a gimmick to use his death in the campaign. Nothing the GWB did or did not do would have changed the outcome for Reeves. It's no less a gimmick than the GOP trying to tap into the death of Reagan as a way to "remind" voters to vote Republican.

I have, in fact, learned a great deal about it. Thanks.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by richiebaseball

And this has nothing to do with being for or against stem cell research and everything to do with going beyond what any decent human being would do.

Bingo

 

[caitycaity]

and everything to do with going beyond what any decent human being would do.

wow that's real nice.

 

[denisenh]

Originally posted by Galahad
It is not a gimmick to attack the issue. It is indeed a gimmick to use his death in the campaign. Nothing the GWB did or did not do would have changed the outcome for Reeves. It's no less a gimmick than the GOP trying to tap into the death of Reagan as a way to "remind" voters to vote Republican.

I have, in fact, learned a great deal about it. Thanks.

It is not a gimmick to use Christopher Reeves name, in life or death in the campaign.
Christopher Reeves was/is a well known victim of spinal cord injury.
He was an advocate of stem cell research and leaves behind his foundation that advocates for stem cell research.
Mr. Reeve probably wouldn't have a problem with his name being used in Kerry's campaign, so I really don't understand why it bothers you or anyone else.

Support Our troops
Kerry/Edwards 2004

 

[caitycaity]

Mr. Reeve probably wouldn't have a problem with his name being used in Kerry's campaign, so I really don't understand why it bothers you or anyone else.

ITA. Christopher Reeve was an advocate for the very things that Kerry/Edwards stand for on this issue. If he was just some injured celebrity that kept to himself or something i could understand (possibly) the problem that people have with this statement.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by caitycaity
wow that's real nice.

I call them like I see them. If it bothers you, it should.

Richard

 

[caitycaity]

If it bothers you, it should.

the only thing that bothers me is your judgmental attitude.

 

[mallcat]

Another of Kerry's promise "Plans" of which he cannot meet. No one can guarantee a paralyzed person will walk again. There is no ban on stem cell research. How can we promise results on something that is still be researched? (through GWB's federal funding for stem cell research by the way).

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by CEDmom
How do you know that stem cell research won't lead to a cure for paralysis and various degenerative diseases? He didn't say while John Kerry is president people like Christopher Reeves will walk, he said if he's elected (at some point in the future) people like him will walk again. Christopher Reeves was a big supporter of stem cell research and believed himself that it would result in his walking again. Medical research can take years before a breakthough. Just because there's no indication that a cure is eminent doesn't mean it won't happen. Let me go find a few remarks made by Chaney that I find inappropriate (won't be too hard) and start a thread about them.

What research to we have to date that even indicates that it will? I mean, hell, I could say stem cell research could lead to a cure for the common cold.