Patricia Heaton & her participation i...

Patricia Heaton & her participation in anti-stem cell research tv commercial

Posted in the Patricia Heaton Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Cathy Haig Bonjukian

New York, NY

#1 Oct 25, 2006
I viewed the anti-stem cell research TV commercial today online and saw that Patricia Heaton is part of that celebrity enclave that is against the research.

I realize that she is a conservative actress entitled to her opinion but to come out against a research that can only help people with fatal diseases is uncomprehensible to me. She is a good actress and the mother of four boys who if one of them contracted Parkenson's Disease, would go out on the limb to find any cure to save her son.

Therefore, why is she stumping against the research that would find a cure for other mother's sons? I don't understand her rational for participating against the Michael J. Fox commericals which are stumping for getting stem cell research approved. Fox has a real disease and is fighting for his life. Chances are he will die before seeing a cure but if this research is never allowed to bear fruit so will many other people.

Fetus life does not begin until the soul enters that fetus body and no one knows when that happens. So if it is a woman's choice to abort her child for whatever reason why can't that unborn child save others?

Even George W. Bush, our president approves of stem cell research -- and the entire Iraqi war and allt he problems that have gone with it could have been avoided if Barbara Bush had just aborted son Georgie and his embryo was used in stem cell research. There would be cures galore!

Thanks for reading.
down with patricia

Crestline, OH

#2 Oct 25, 2006
Never again will I watch anything with this witch in it. I will beg others to do the same.
I wish she had someone in her life who is fighting for their life. Maybe then she could use her brain instead of stuffing more fake tits in her body which only confuses her pathetic, conservative, republican loving mind.
This person does not Love Patricia. Good riddens.
Aubrey Bone

Columbus, GA

#3 Oct 25, 2006
I am proud of Ms. Heaton for standing up for common sense. Read the proposed amendment. See for yourself that this is not about allowing stem cell research, this is about allowing bio firms to make tons of money cloning human embryo's. If you, like I support stem cell research in a responsible manner, then you will not support this piece of garbage legislation. Educate yourself, see for yourself that this amendment must not pass.
Thank you, Ms. Heaton for your visible support.
Libby

Springfield, MO

#4 Oct 25, 2006
May Aubrey, Heaton and all of the other brain washed bafoons who are so worried about sounding like part of the "moral majority" be faced with a loved one some day that needs a cure that could come from stem cell research (a grandchild in the NICU, a child that becomes paralyzed or a aging parent that has Parkinsons. Better them than one of those that are actually educated on the matter and letter our heads rule rather than jumping on a bandwagon to look Godly. It's amazing how hypocritical those that speak out the loudest on such "moral" issues can become when it is them faced with such a devasting disease. I am a nurse and see it all of the time.
Aubrey Bone wrote:
I am proud of Ms. Heaton for standing up for common sense. Read the proposed amendment. See for yourself that this is not about allowing stem cell research, this is about allowing bio firms to make tons of money cloning human embryo's. If you, like I support stem cell research in a responsible manner, then you will not support this piece of garbage legislation. Educate yourself, see for yourself that this amendment must not pass.
Thank you, Ms. Heaton for your visible support.
Dante B

Chicago, IL

#5 Oct 25, 2006
We need to watch you next movie or tv series and write the producer or the ad companys of our displeasure of her. Please everyone band together and lets boycott this terrible women.
Austin

United States

#6 Oct 25, 2006
I think Patricia is a very good person. I also agree with her on many issues, including stem cell research. She doesn't condone using embryos for research that won't go anywhere for years. Thats her opinion and shes entitled to it and shouldn't be bashed for expressing what she feels.
david del gaizo

United States

#7 Oct 26, 2006
Now that she has four healthy boys, too bad for the poor parents of children with a degenerative disease that might actually benefit from scientific research. It's appalling how nuch these religous fanatics enjoy playing God.
david del gaizo

United States

#8 Oct 26, 2006
If she were truely a good person she would allow the parents of children that might benefit from stem cell research make that decision.
Austin wrote:
I think Patricia is a very good person. I also agree with her on many issues, including stem cell research. She doesn't condone using embryos for research that won't go anywhere for years. Thats her opinion and shes entitled to it and shouldn't be bashed for expressing what she feels.
dave c

Honolulu, HI

#9 Oct 26, 2006
overpaid bigmouth that thinks she knows more then she does hated her on raymond hate her even more now stem cell research is going to help many more humans then it could ever hurt wake up hollywood and get into real life
Tim

AOL

#10 Oct 27, 2006
Patricia Heaton is a fear monger. Why is it that some people push hope in order to resolve issues while others attempt to pray on the fear factor. Such a negative view on life. We have to feel sorry for her.
anonymous

Toronto, Canada

#11 Oct 27, 2006
Why is it that everytime a Christian speaks out for their belief, they are called fanatics, labelled "terrible" and "pathetic". Why is every other religion entitled to their religion but Christianity? And since when was speaking out against stem cell research - trying to save the lives of unborn children an attempt to play God? Isn't taking the right of life away from an unborn child and never giving them chance to breath one breath of life worse the worst crime possible? Is there NO OTHER way to find cure for parkinsons? If you all are so intent on helping others in the fight for a cure, why don't you offer your own sons and daughters for research purposes!?!?
Toronto

Toronto, Canada

#12 Oct 27, 2006
Such harsh words for someone's 3 second commercial. I think the commercial is mainly focused on legislting cloning in one state, not just stem cell research - which is what all of you ignorant people are ranting about. You're all putting words into her mouth and taking the whole thing out of context. Poor Patricia.
Mike B

Woodstock, MD

#13 Nov 6, 2006
Toronto wrote:
Such harsh words for someone's 3 second commercial. I think the commercial is mainly focused on legislting cloning in one state, not just stem cell research - which is what all of you ignorant people are ranting about. You're all putting words into her mouth and taking the whole thing out of context. Poor Patricia.
UM....NO! It wasn't 3 seconds either... more like 9o-12. But more importantly it is the flow of lies that is getting her in hot water. Ammendment 2 does not make a tempting offer to impoverished women. As a matter of fact it clearly states that harvesting eggs from women with the intention of stem cell research would be prohibited. From the parent perspective, anyone that has children should be in support of this ammendment. This could mean cures for our children and an end to suffering for millions of people all over the world. She should really have read the ammendment before she did the ad. Her fault!
Meredith

Opp, AL

#14 Nov 19, 2006
You guys keep on talking about how if people who don't support embryonic stem cell research had someone they knew suffering from a horrible, incurable disease, they would immediately swap sides in order to save their loved one. That's not true for a good many people, and especially not me. I watched a man in my church whom I loved very dearly die from cancer. The tumor was in his brain, and eventually, it became impossible to do anything for him because if the doctors tried to operate, they would leave him brain dead. It wasn't a whole lot of fun to watch him slowly become less and less of the man he used to be, but I still stand by my conviction that embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong. I don't have a problem with all of your opinions. They don't really bother me, even though I don't agree with you. I respect your beliefs, and I wish you would do the same for mine and any other conservative or liberal who doesn't support embryonic stem cell research.
steve w from hbj

New York, NY

#15 Dec 20, 2006
david del gaizo wrote:
If she were truely a good person she would allow the parents of children that might benefit from stem cell research make that decision.<quoted text>
hey, david! how do you feel about medical experiments on bookstore managers (and workers). who the heck is patricia keaton?
[email protected]
TAz

Salmon Arm, Canada

#16 Jan 7, 2007
Ironically, I was born in the same hospital room as Michael J. Fox at the Royal Alec., and have met him a few times. Also, as a product of note, I was born from an embryonic birth as well, which gives me a unique insight into stem-cell research and embryonic donation.

Anyways, this "taking the life of an unborn child" broken-logic needs to fall, it was never a valid argument. Let's say a teenage girl becomes pregnant, cannot afford it, would have to drop out of school, and inevitably lead a broken life and raise a child in the worst of worst conditions (in western society), but instead she decides that she should do the right thing and produce offspring when she's ready, or if she even ever wants to do such a stupid thing on a planet with already over 7 billion humans and global warming a no-longer controversial irrefutable reality, and has the fetus aborted.
Well by waiting to produce offspring when she can raise them in a life that would raise them not to end up in squalor of their own, she would first of all be choosing a situation with two possible production of fetuses, one of which ends up with a child in an all-odds-against-him teenage-mother lifestyle, and the other one giving him an actual chance at living a good life.
And more to the point, people talking about aborting fetuses meaning killing, well, if she has this fetus form into an actual baby and then a human instead of waiting and producing the other one later down the line, she is in effect "KILLING" the other person (according to the broken views of some people) that she would have when she's ready, by producing this one, and breaking all chances of producing the other one.
Of course we know in reality neither have consciousness yet so the point is moot, neither is killed; nobody has what are called "event memories" in neurophysiology until the age of at LEAST three, which is the first triggered sign of consciousness, something human offspring lack, which is why none of us have memories preceding the age of about 3 or 4.

And more importantly, the main issue being contested is the scientific study and management of funds for stem-cell RESEARCH right now, not harvesting. Harvesting will be an issue later down the line, which, if I was a women I would donate regular stem cells for the cause, just like I'm a man and I'd donate sperm if it could help as well, which can also "become a human" by the way, so apparently to the broken views of some people every time a person masturbates they're also killing. Remember, a person doesn't really become a person until they have consciousness, which would be the scientific equivalent of a "soul", or the strange existence of a conscious being within a biological computer - our brain, which physically would work without consciousness, but strangely enough it is still granted it by the age of 3 to 4 years, but that's off topic.

Anyways, it's not that those of us who are intelligent expect those who wrongfully oppose stem-cell RESEARCH to swap sides immediately if they were to have a loved one who had contracted or been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, it's just that it's much easier to choose an opposing side when you blind yourself to the realistic reason why we as a human race want to cure for the future and for all of these "children" the diseases which plague what should be a great life. Opposing cures is just like physically giving people debilitating diseases that forces them to live with pain, as cures could exist in as little as ten years for diseases which today seem hopeless to cure, such as my aunt who every day suffers from parkinsons, it's just horrible to watch.
...continued on next post
TAz

Salmon Arm, Canada

#17 Jan 7, 2007
...continued
And being an embryonic birth, if my embryo was used as a basic for research, then, not knowing from where consciousness is derived, perhaps I would have been born a little later, to a billionaire, or perhaps somebody else would have been born to my parents who would have invented a new source of endless energy production for third world countries; it's all moot.

Given my unique circumstances, it's tough to see this issue being debated by such uninformed ignorance or just plain ignorant opposition. It's an issue that shouldn't even be debated, much like treating homosexual people like they don't even deserve to buy food or be allowed to live, which is ridiculous.

Anyways, just want to thank those people who gave well-informed opinions, as the pro-opinions hurt no one, however opposing stem-cell research has obvious reprocussions, particularly to my aunty Doris, who I'd really like to see live another five years, which typing it right now I just realized is a terrifying reality.
TAz

Salmon Arm, Canada

#19 Jan 7, 2007
Ironically, I was born in the same hospital room as Michael J. Fox at the Royal Alec., and have met him a few times. Also, as a product of note, I was born from an embryonic birth as well, which gives me a unique insight into stem-cell research and embryonic donation.

Anyways, this "taking the life of an unborn child" broken-logic needs to fall, it was never a valid argument. Let's say a teenage girl becomes pregnant, cannot afford it, would have to drop out of school, and inevitably lead a broken life and raise a child in the worst of worst conditions (in western society), but instead she decides that she should do the right thing and produce offspring when she's ready, or if she even ever wants to do such a stupid thing on a planet with already over 7 billion humans and global warming a no-longer controversial irrefutable reality, and has the fetus aborted.
Well by waiting to produce offspring when she can raise them in a life that would raise them not to end up in squalor of their own, she would first of all be choosing a situation with two possible production of fetuses, one of which ends up with a child in an all-odds-against-him teenage-mother lifestyle, and the other one giving him an actual chance at living a good life.
And more to the point, people talking about aborting fetuses meaning killing, well, if she has this fetus form into an actual baby and then a human instead of waiting and producing the other one later down the line, she is in effect "KILLING" the other person (according to the broken views of some people) that she would have when she's ready, by producing this one, and breaking all chances of producing the other one.
Of course we know in reality neither have consciousness yet so the point is moot, neither is killed; nobody has what are called "event memories" in neurophysiology until the age of at LEAST three, which is the first triggered sign of consciousness, something human offspring lack, which is why none of us have memories preceding the age of about 3 or 4.

And more importantly, the main issue being contested is the scientific study and management of funds for stem-cell RESEARCH right now, not harvesting. Harvesting will be an issue later down the line, which, if I was a women I would donate regular stem cells for the cause, just like I'm a man and I'd donate sperm if it could help as well, which can also "become a human" by the way, so apparently to the broken views of some people every time a person masturbates they're also killing. Remember, a person doesn't really become a person until they have consciousness, which would be the scientific equivalent of a "soul", or the strange existence of a conscious being within a biological computer - our brain, which physically would work without consciousness, but strangely enough it is still granted it by the age of 3 to 4 years, but that's off topic.

Anyways, it's not that those of us who are intelligent expect those who wrongfully oppose stem-cell RESEARCH to swap sides immediately if they were to have a loved one who had contracted or been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, it's just that it's much easier to choose an opposing side when you blind yourself to the realistic reason why we as a human race want to cure for the future and for all of these "children" the diseases which plague what should be a great life. Opposing cures is just like physically giving people debilitating diseases that forces them to live with pain, as cures could exist in as little as ten years for diseases which today seem hopeless to cure, such as my aunt who every day suffers from parkinsons, it's just horrible to watch.
...continued (to above)
TAz

Salmon Arm, Canada

#20 Jan 7, 2007
...cont.
And being an embryonic birth
...post is too long, removed some...
Anyways, thanks for your opinions and particularly to pro-stem cell research, where opinions hurt nobody, however where negative opinions have serious reprocussions, particularly to my aunty Doris, who I'd really like to see live another 5 years, which typing it right now I just realized is a terrifying reality.
TAz

Salmon Arm, Canada

#21 Jan 7, 2007
Ironically, I was born in the same hospital room as Michael J. Fox at the Royal Alec., and have met him a few times. Also, as a product of note, I was born from an embryonic birth as well, which gives me a unique insight into stem-cell research and embryonic donation.

Anyways, this "taking the life of an unborn child" broken-logic needs to fall, it was never a valid argument. Let's say a teenage girl becomes pregnant, cannot afford it, would have to drop out of school, and inevitably lead a broken life and raise a child in the worst of worst conditions (in western society), but instead she decides that she should do the right thing and produce offspring when she's ready, or if she even ever wants to do such a stupid thing on a planet with already over 7 billion humans and global warming a no-longer controversial irrefutable reality, and has the fetus aborted.
Well by waiting to produce offspring when she can raise them in a life that would raise them not to end up in squalor of their own, she would first of all be choosing a situation with two possible production of fetuses, one of which ends up with a child in an all-odds-against-him teenage-mother lifestyle, and the other one giving him an actual chance at living a good life.
And more to the point, people talking about aborting fetuses meaning killing, well, if she has this fetus form into an actual baby and then a human instead of waiting and producing the other one later down the line, she is in effect "KILLING" the other person (according to the broken views of some people) that she would have when she's ready, by producing this one, and breaking all chances of producing the other one.
Of course we know in reality neither have consciousness yet so the point is moot, neither is killed; nobody has what are called "event memories" in neurophysiology until the age of at LEAST three, which is the first triggered sign of consciousness, something human offspring lack, which is why none of us have memories preceding the age of about 3 or 4.

And more importantly, the main issue being contested is the scientific study and management of funds for stem-cell RESEARCH right now, not harvesting. Harvesting will be an issue later down the line, which, if I was a women I would donate regular stem cells for the cause, just like I'm a man and I'd donate sperm if it could help as well, which can also "become a human" by the way, so apparently to the broken views of some people every time a person masturbates they're also killing. Remember, a person doesn't really become a person until they have consciousness, which would be the scientific equivalent of a "soul", or the strange existence of a conscious being within a biological computer - our brain, which physically would work without consciousness, but strangely enough it is still granted it by the age of 3 to 4 years, but that's off topic.

Anyways, it's not that those of us who are intelligent expect those who wrongfully oppose stem-cell RESEARCH to swap sides immediately if they were to have a loved one who had contracted or been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, it's just that it's much easier to choose an opposing side when you blind yourself to the realistic reason why we as a human race want to cure for the future and for all of these "children" the diseases which plague what should be a great life. Opposing cures is just like physically giving people debilitating diseases that forces them to live with pain, as cures could exist in as little as ten years for diseases which today seem hopeless to cure, such as my aunt who every day suffers from parkinsons, it's just horrible to watch.
...post is too long, had to remove last paragraph...

Thanks for your opinions, I'd really like to see my aunty Doris live to see another 5 years.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Patricia Heaton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
robin pachino more interracial porn (Mar '16) Jun '17 chris70564 2
Patricia Heaton nude (Jul '07) Nov '16 kimb 52
patricia heaton in a interracial love scene in ... (Jun '16) Jun '16 gene 1
has patricia heaton ever french kissed a girl (Jun '16) Jun '16 gene 1
just how sexy is patricia heaton (May '16) May '16 gene 1
( patricia heaton-celb fakes favourite milfs-p... (Feb '16) Feb '16 gene 1
4 a white girl does patricia heaton think black... (Feb '16) Feb '16 gene 1
More from around the web