NationStates Jolt Archive

Last week he made a good point. The embryos in question that are now blocked by Bush and anti-abortion groups, are actually frozen in fertility clinics. Thousands of these are thrown in the dumpster each year. This is what researchers want to use and not stemcells from abortions. But anyway Bill Maher said something like, ok conservative women why don't you have these embryos implanted and raise them to term. Thus pointing out the hypocrisy. If this life is too precious for research, then save them from the dumpster. Any takers?

Well if Maher could get his facts straight, he would know that fertility treatments are immoral too.

Ok is that also a part of the stance?
Even so, these embryos exist and are "moral" people williing to support the life in them? Or do they keep going in the dumpster. He may not have all the facts straight, but he does employ a logic.

They get them from a fetus where the spine is just developing, right around 13 weeks - that's when the heart is beating on it's own. They don't stay in the garbage either, hobos pick them out of dumpsters all the time and use them for shoes.

Last week he made a good point. The embryos in question that are now blocked by Bush and anti-abortion groups, are actually frozen in fertility clinics. Thousands of these are thrown in the dumpster each year. This is what researchers want to use and not stemcells from abortions. But anyway Bill Maher said something like, ok conservative women why don't you have these embryos implanted and raise them to term. Thus pointing out the hypocrisy. If this life is too precious for research, then save them from the dumpster. Any takers?


as too why they dont implant them, how about because because they are all genetically similar to each other. You go to a fertility clinic and many embryos are made, the clinic keeps trying to implant until one takes. The rest are genetically identical, do you think it would be wise to raise muliple people who are genetically identicle?

as to the banning, Bush only banned FEDERAL funding of embryonic stem cell research. He is also the first president to allow FEDERAL funding for ANY stem cell research(non embryonic). If you didnt bitch at president Clinton for banning ALL federal funding with regards to stem cells(ALL types), then you cannot say anything about President Bush's policy with regards to stem cells.

it is immoral to create embryos for whatever purpose and then not give them a chance at life by implanting them into some woman's womb. when infertile couples come to the end of their treatments, their unused embryos should be mandated to be given to couples who cannot create their own.

that they now toss them out does not make it RIGHT. nor does it make any other form of "disposal" (ie scientific research on them) RIGHT.

of course they are not going to mandate the proper use of those embryos so they may as well "dispose" of them in any manner they want from stem cell research to embryo soup.

...shoes, I tell you...

WTF does Clinton have to do with this? Last time I checked, I can talk about whatever I want and I don't have to invoke Clinton for anything.
I'm talking about right now, today, researchers want to expand the research already being done, thanks to Bush, to these embryos that are being thrown out. I'm trying to see a logic for the opposition and if there is one it's saying that fertility practices should also be banned. That would fall in line with the Bush policy on abortion, and birth control as well. He would rather see people not have access to condoms and birth control pills along with abortions. So is that it for the "moral" people on reproduction? No abortion, no birth control, no fertility practices. Just abstain from sex and become like John Ashcroft who can't even stand the sight of a naked breast on a stone statue. Am I right?

it is immoral to create embryos for whatever purpose and then not give them a chance at life by implanting them into some woman's womb. when infertile couples come to the end of their treatments, their unused embryos should be mandated to be given to couples who cannot create their own.

that they now toss them out does not make it RIGHT. nor does it make any other form of "disposal" (ie scientific research on them) RIGHT.

of course they are not going to mandate the proper use of those embryos so they may as well "dispose" of them in any manner they want from stem cell research to embryo soup.
Using your 'logic', I guess we should stone any and every menustrating woman, cause she's not using that egg to create life. Her body is disposing of it, which is not RIGHT.
Stone the whore! Stone her! STONE HER!




Shoes, you say? I thought they sold them to the Troll Doll factory. Where else can we get them from?

Menstrating an egg is a weeeee bit different than stopping a beating heart.

Where can i get these embryo shoes from? I always wanted a pair of shoes made from the frozen gametes of a mature woman.

no, really

Menstrating an egg is a weeeee bit different than stopping a beating heart.
Here's the disconnect. Even though we are talking about embryos that are frozen, this guy is still talking about abortion.

Check the dumpsters behind high schools around Prom Night. They fresher that way.

and he can't spell menstruating

what has everybody got against stem cell research anyway? The actual stem cells (in the UK) would be extracted from a post 8-cell stage blasocyst (poor spelling, I know) which does not even have ndividual cells. I wasn't aware that there WERE stem cells close to the highly specialised nerve cells in the spine

the only problems that i see with stem cell research is that it is SO wasteful - like genetic engineering, only around 1/4% of the cells are of any use, cuz lots die

WTF does Clinton have to do with this? Last time I checked, I can talk about whatever I want and I don't have to invoke Clinton for anything.
I'm talking about right now, today, researchers want to expand the research already being done, thanks to Bush, to these embryos that are being thrown out. I'm trying to see a logic for the opposition and if there is one it's saying that fertility practices should also be banned. That would fall in line with the Bush policy on abortion, and birth control as well. He would rather see people not have access to condoms and birth control pills along with abortions. So is that it for the "moral" people on reproduction? No abortion, no birth control, no fertility practices. Just abstain from sex and become like John Ashcroft who can't even stand the sight of a naked breast on a stone statue. Am I right?

Why are people throwing the embryos out. Are you saying Bush told them to do that ? Because he didn't.

And no-one is stopping the crazy scientists from doing their research, all Bush did is refuse to fund it. They can do all the experiments they want, just not on my taxes. That's fair isn't it? Or are you saying that tax dollars should be used to fund all embryonic reasearch even when so many people believe it is wrong?

Where can i get these embryo shoes from? I always wanted a pair of shoes made from the frozen gametes of a mature woman.

are they as shiny as patent leather?

sorry, no, but when they warm up i bet its like tiny frogspawn - in more ways than one

Using your 'logic', I guess we should stone any and every menustrating woman, cause she's not using that egg to create life. Her body is disposing of it, which is not RIGHT.
Stone the whore! Stone her! STONE HER!




Shoes, you say? I thought they sold them to the Troll Doll factory. Where else can we get them from?
no, demented, that would not be using my logic

my logic tells me that it only right to give those embryos the chance at life. after all they are NOT in a woman at this time, they were created because they were WANTED, and they can be put into a woman who desperately wants a baby but is unable to get pregnant the usual way.

They get them from a fetus where the spine is just developing, right around 13 weeks - that's when the heart is beating on it's own. They don't stay in the garbage either, hobos pick them out of dumpsters all the time and use them for shoes.

Wow. You are monumentally uninformed. Embryonic stem cells are removed right around day 8 at just about he latest. This is when the embryo is a blastula. There are no real forms and there sure as hell isn't a heart. There are simply regions of different cells, none of which have fully differentiated down any line.

And no-one is stopping the crazy scientists from doing their research, all Bush did is refuse to fund it. They can do all the experiments they want, just not on my taxes. That's fair isn't it? Or are you saying that tax dollars should be used to fund all embryonic reasearch even when so many people believe it is wrong?

Most people believe it is wrong because they are uninformed or, worse - misinformed. When the actual process is explained to most people, they have very little problem with it. It's people who go around equating it with abortion that causes uninformed people to rally against it.

Why are people throwing the embryos out. Are you saying Bush told them to do that ? Because he didn't.

And no-one is stopping the crazy scientists from doing their research, all Bush did is refuse to fund it. They can do all the experiments they want, just not on my taxes. That's fair isn't it? Or are you saying that tax dollars should be used to fund all embryonic reasearch even when so many people believe it is wrong?

In fact Bush is the first President that has funded the research. What he does however is provide the funding in a manner that makes results unlikely. I'm saying that since we are funding the research with tax dollars already thanks to Bush, then let's go ahead and meet the requests of the researchers to let them include these frozen embryos. I could name a few things being done with my tax dollars that I don't support, don't give me that what's fair nonsense, because it isn't fair.

Bush may have outlawed embryonic stem cell research by governmentally funded organisations, but you can bet your arse that those Christian advice board people had a say in it. Please could someone american tell me their real name, as i dont actually know it. they're the ones who stop govt. research into anything they dont understand. come on. you know who im talking about. or did i make them up?

oh,oh! They are mentioned briefly in that Dan Brown book, angels and demons

Wow. You are monumentally uninformed. Embryonic stem cells are removed right around day 8 at just about he latest. This is when the embryo is a blastula. There are no real forms and there sure as hell isn't a heart. There are simply regions of different cells, none of which have fully differentiated down any line.
Said that at the top of the page

Menstrating an egg is a weeeee bit different than stopping a beating heart.
I don't see the difference when there is no brain capable of doing more than basic functioning inside the same body. A heart is just a pump.

I don't see the difference when there is no brain capable of doing more than basic functioning inside the same body. A heart is just a pump.

Not to mention that there's no heart to stop either.

Most people believe it is wrong because they are uninformed or, worse - misinformed. When the actual process is explained to most people, they have very little problem with it. It's people who go around equating it with abortion that causes uninformed people to rally against it.

This is true of so many things. Its political reality in an election year. The previous president gained nothing politically by allowing any research funding(he already had his base) this president gains by throwing a bone(allowing funding for some lines) to people who not support him. This happens with every issue.

If Kerry is elected, do you think embryonic stem cell research will be funded? Dream on. It will be one of the first lambs he slaughters on the negotiating table to get his other programs through.

People are worried that having a trial lawyer as VP is going to make lawyers more powerful... No way. He already has that vote block locked up, there is no incentive for him to do anything for trial lawyers.

This is life, this is politics.

It would be great if everyone could be fully informed on every issue, but that just isnt possible.

Same with Social Security, a program that needs to be fixed. Yet, it is political suicide to even address this issue. Not to mention that presidents will be out office before the shit hits the fan. I am shocked that Bush is even daring to bring up the issue(not that I believe his solution is right or wrong), I am just surprised he would take the political risk to bring up the issue.

I don't see the difference when there is no brain capable of doing more than basic functioning inside the same body. A heart is just a pump.
Also each heart cell contracts not just the heart as a whole. Stem cells don't contract by themselves thus they can't be heart cells. :P

Blasto Stem cells should be good enough to help people in about 10 years of research but funding...

Adult stem cell research if funded by Bush but its so limited and partially differenciated. Thus its weaker and works less.

Why are Christians always against science?

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia sees no problem with stem cell research, despite his Christianity. It is his belief that, up until the brain becomes active within the embryo, the embryo has no more soul than any other collection of cells. After all, it is brain activity which is used to determine whether or not a life has ended - even if the heart still beats, an individual can be considered dead if their brain has permanantly ceased to function. While an embryo without brain activity, technically, is a living entity, the same can be said of bacteria within a dish - and, without neurological activity, such a comparison is more apt than a comparison to even the lowest of vertebrae. Since destruction for stem cell research occurs long before that point, there is no reason why destruction of an embryo for such research should be considered morally wrong.

Why are Christians always against science?

It scares away their invisible friend :(

This is true of so many things. Its political reality in an election year. The previous president gained nothing politically by allowing any research funding(he already had his base) this president gains by throwing a bone(allowing funding for some lines) to people who not support him. This happens with every issue.

Of course, this president has already lost all respect from the community (the scientific) he presumes to "throw a bone" to, so looks like it may blow up in his face. And since the bone has been demonstrated to actually be pig slop, I don't think it'll gain him much. Good riddance.

If Kerry is elected, do you think embryonic stem cell research will be funded? Dream on. It will be one of the first lambs he slaughters on the negotiating table to get his other programs through.

All he has to do is remove the restriction and let the NIH decide for itself. Will he do it? Probably, or he will lose the base he gained by running on it. Remember, Kerry will be a first-term president and will want to keep everyone happy enough to gain a second.

It would be great if everyone could be fully informed on every issue, but that just isnt possible.

Yes, but in some matters, those who do not make themselves fully informed should not be allowed into the decision making process. And those who purposely keep them uninformed should be shot.

or invisible fiend, depending on how you see science in relation to God

...shoes, I tell you...
Or crispy treats.

for those who are prolife, abortion and the destruction of embryos is the same thing for one reason. This is because life begins at conception and since embryos have been conceived they are life and killing them is the same as abortion.

However i am completely for adult stem cell research because of the great breakthroughs that have produced through adult stem cells. They have shown to reverse some of the effects of alzheimer's while embryonic stem cells when used in studies have actually caused negative effects in patients.

I can understand that perfectly Gaposis. I don't agree with that interpretation of the Bible if that's what your view is drawn from, but that's not the issue. The issue is: OK, we have these frozen embryos that as you have stated are life, have been conceived. The same group of people you mentioned are doing nothing to protect these lives. It's exactly like having your position and being for the death penalty. That's where people like myself and Bill Maher take issue. If people who believe the way you do are to take any moral high ground, then they must have a standard for which all life is treated. That's all I'm saying and I would complety respect such a position. As it stands now, it's nothing more than politics.

for those who are prolife, abortion and the destruction of embryos is the same thing for one reason. This is because life begins at conception and since embryos have been conceived they are life and killing them is the same as abortion.
I happen to believe life does not start at conception. That is up for argument of course.

However i am completely for adult stem cell research because of the great breakthroughs that have produced through adult stem cells. They have shown to reverse some of the effects of alzheimer's while embryonic stem cells when used in studies have actually caused negative effects in patients.
I'd like to see the source for that last part. It sounds more like negative hearsay than actual fact, and it makes no sense.

http://www.freakingnews.com/entries/6500/6782FKmj_w.jpg

So says the snake oil salesman Edwards.

Great a bunch of pansy cristians want to stop science that could save millions of lives.

goed i like your sig my response Pogamahone

Great a bunch of pansy cristians want to stop science that could save millions of lives.

goed i like your sig my response Pogamahone


What like missile defense? I don't believe "cristians [sic]" are necessarily against that.

Last year on the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, _The Economist_ had an issue dedicated to the topic. The lead editorial offered an interesting analysis. The thesis was that in most western countries the right of choice had been achieved through a legislative process (i.e. elected legislative bodies acting on behalf of their constituents to enact laws guaranteeing reproductive rights) whereas in the United States, reproductive rights came about through a judicial process - an unelected judiciary making a final and binding ruling on a highly divisive issue. This, according to _The Economist_ has only served to polarize and inflame the debate further as neither side has a popular mandate to refer to. In essence, rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court short-circuited the democratic process which in turn fueled and radicalized the debate that goes on to this day.

Whether one agrees or not with the Supreme Court's decision (full disclosure: I'm strongly pro-choice), this analysis offers much food for thought. Would the subsequent debate have been somewhat less acrimonious if the result (or its opposite) had been achieved legislatively rather than judicially (and, as can reasonably be argued, on less than ironclad constintutional grounds)?

-pvg

What like missile defense? I don't believe "cristians [sic]" are necessarily against that.

No but missile defense is a very poor choice of "science" since it currently does not work at all and the prevailing scientific view is that it is unlikely to ever work. In fact, it is essentially guaranteed to not work against a determined enemy which is why the US was, until quite recently a signatory to the ABM treaty.

-pvg

Last year on the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, _The Economist_ had an issue dedicated to the topic. The lead editorial offered an interesting analysis. The thesis was that in most western countries the right of choice had been achieved through a legislative process (i.e. elected legislative bodies acting on behalf of their constituents to enact laws guaranteeing reproductive rights) whereas in the United States, reproductive rights came about through a judicial process - an unelected judiciary making a final and binding ruling on a highly divisive issue. This, according to _The Economist_ has only served to polarize and inflame the debate further as neither side has a popular mandate to refer to. In essence, rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court short-circuited the democratic process which in turn fueled and radicalized the debate that goes on to this day.

Whether one agrees or not with the Supreme Court's decision (full disclosure: I'm strongly pro-choice), this analysis offers much food for thought. Would the subsequent debate have been somewhat less acrimonious if the result (or its opposite) had been achieved legislatively rather than judicially (and, as can reasonably be argued, on less than ironclad constintutional grounds)?

-pvg


Yeah, you need to read Cass Sunstien's Partial Constitution. This is not a new thought. BTW Cass believes that the 2nd ammendment is an individual right.

Last year on the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, _The Economist_ had an issue dedicated to the topic. The lead editorial offered an interesting analysis. The thesis was that in most western countries the right of choice had been achieved through a legislative process (i.e. elected legislative bodies acting on behalf of their constituents to enact laws guaranteeing reproductive rights) whereas in the United States, reproductive rights came about through a judicial process - an unelected judiciary making a final and binding ruling on a highly divisive issue. This, according to _The Economist_ has only served to polarize and inflame the debate further as neither side has a popular mandate to refer to. In essence, rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court short-circuited the democratic process which in turn fueled and radicalized the debate that goes on to this day.

Whether one agrees or not with the Supreme Court's decision (full disclosure: I'm strongly pro-choice), this analysis offers much food for thought. Would the subsequent debate have been somewhat less acrimonious if the result (or its opposite) had been achieved legislatively rather than judicially (and, as can reasonably be argued, on less than ironclad constintutional grounds)?

-pvg
Well, sometimes Congress doesn't move fast enough. Do you think that with all the Southerners in Congress, segregation could have been voted down "democratically" as you say?

In any case, the courts exist to determine constitutionality of laws. They found that denying a woman the right to an abortion was unconstitutional.

It's acrimonious because people fight with their emotions.

Chrisitians aren't against science. Christians are against science that they believe to be immoral and destructive to life.

Chrisitians aren't against science. Christians are against science that they believe to be immoral and destructive to life.
but think of all the terminal diseases that stem cells could cure. at this point the world is overpopulated and if we dont do something than things are only going to go down hill

Yeah, you need to read Cass Sunstien's Partial Constitution.

I might, if you tell me how it relates and why I should

This is not a new thought.

Did not mean to imply it was. More of "interesting point of discussion germination".


BTW Cass believes that the 2nd ammendment is an individual right.

Ok.

-pvg

Well, sometimes Congress doesn't move fast enough. Do you think that with all the Southerners in Congress, segregation could have been voted down "democratically" as you say?

No I don't. On the other hand, the constitunality of various civil rights (including anti-segregation) laws seems much easier to directlty establish from basic philosophical and also constitutional grounds.

In any case, the courts exist to determine constitutionality of laws. They found that denying a woman the right to an abortion was unconstitutional.

There is no argument as to what the court is there for. On the other hand the same court also affirmed the constitionality of slavery and segregation so saying "the court found X" is simply a nonargument. The point is not whether the result is a good idea or not, the argument that that by relying on the judicial rather than legislative process has served to extend the lifetime of the acrimony far beyond what what it would have been had the alternative been taken.

-pvg

but think of all the terminal diseases that stem cells could cure. at this point the world is overpopulated and if we dont do something than things are only going to go down hill

Rubbish. Every major scientific effort in the past twenty years has been opposed by the left. Whenever someone has tried to advance experimental physics or chemistry the left has always looked askance because the “money could be better spent on the poor.” All of a sudden, and because it further supports the abortionist agenda, the left has discovered “science”

Well, bravo, leftist. Killing babies in an unproven endeavor is obviously worthwhile. Good job.

But why not admit that this is just another pathetic attempt to further the abortionist agenda.

I might, if you tell me how it relates and why I should



Did not mean to imply it was. More of "interesting point of discussion germination".



Ok.

-pvg


Cass believes that big issues should be decided via "deliberative democracy." In other words, it is not up to the courts to impose major changes upon society, but rather only to ensure that the channels for meaningful debate are open.

In some respects it is not unlike John Ely's theory, but it contians more substantive vocative rights. Anyway, Cass believes that decisions like the legality of abortion should be thouroghly debated and voted on, not handed down from an undemocratically appointed court.

but think of all the terminal diseases that stem cells could cure. at this point the world is overpopulated and if we dont do something than things are only going to go down hill

Yes, it is a tough position to take, but there is reason behind it. Here's a little background on the the Christian position. Christian morality is based on acts, not intentions. Since the Christian stance is that life begins at conception, it is believed that abortion and the killing of fetuses for stemcells is wrong despite any good intentions.

Actually, I think that (though I'm not completely sure) that the Catholic stance is that the use of stem cells if they came from fetuses that died of natural causes is ok. This is because it isn't gaining benefit from evil like getting stem cells from an aborted fetus or from a fetus created just to harvest cells from them.

Of course, adult stem cells and cells from umbilical cords are considered to be ethical to use.

Just to add a little emotional appeal, my Grandpa recently died from complications of Alzheimers, yet I'm sure that he would be against stem cell research. Also, a lot of people believe that president Reagen would be against it to, which is interesting because his son is using his death and illness to justify funding it. Something to think about.

Cass believes that big issues should be decided via "deliberative democracy." In other words, it is not up to the courts to impose major changes upon society, but rather only to ensure that the channels for meaningful debate are open.

In some respects it is not unlike John Ely's theory, but it contians more substantive vocative rights. Anyway, Cass believes that decisions like the legality of abortion should be thouroghly debated and voted on, not handed down from an undemocratically appointed court.

Thanks, I'll check it out next time I'm in a bookstore.

I actually did not intend to get start or get bogged down into an "activist judiciary" argument that is, for better or worse, a dominating factor of US political discourse. Many significant US judicial decisions do not, for a variety of reasons, have direct correspondences in the rest of the western world. Roe v Wade is interesting in that it does, other western democracies in which the issue was no less acrimonious at the time, though, have achieved what can be termed as "closure" on the matter and _The Economist_ argued that the significant difference is how this consensus was achieved. The difference is certainly there and I was wondering if others felt it was necessarily causal.

-pvg

Rubbish. Every major scientific effort in the past twenty years has been opposed by the left.

Specifically, which major scientific efforts?

Whenever someone has tried to advance experimental physics or chemistry the left has always looked askance because the “money could be better spent on the poor.” All of a sudden, and because it further supports the abortionist agenda, the left has discovered “science”

This seems like quite a stretch. The most significant opposition to science in the US has invariably come from the right whenever some aspect of science has been deemed threatening to traditionalist religious belief. Consider the "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design" movements whose sole purpose and focus has been legislative and judicial imposition of non-scientific viewpoints on K-12 cirricula, rather than advancement of their positions through scientific processes.

Well, bravo, leftist. Killing babies in an unproven endeavor is obviously worthwhile. Good job.

I don't think "killing babies" has been suggested as a viable avenue of research by either side.

-pvg

Rubbish. Every major scientific effort in the past twenty years has been opposed by the left. Whenever someone has tried to advance experimental physics or chemistry the left has always looked askance because the “money could be better spent on the poor.” All of a sudden, and because it further supports the abortionist agenda, the left has discovered “science”
You are so wrong it's not funny. Provide just one bit of evidence to support that claim. The religious right has ALWAYS been the opposition to science. "Mustn't tamper with God's plan". "We can't play God".

Well, bravo, leftist. Killing babies in an unproven endeavor is obviously worthwhile. Good job.
I don't really want to turn this into an abortion thread, but seriously, if you are gonna call a clump of cells a baby you have totally lost perspective.

THIS: http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg is not a baby.

But why not admit that this is just another pathetic attempt to further the abortionist agenda.
Regardless of what you may think, liberals are not keeping score with how many abortions they can do. All they are doing is fighting for women to keep their abortion rights.

...

No I don't. On the other hand, the constitunality of various civil rights (including anti-segregation) laws seems much easier to directlty establish from basic philosophical and also constitutional grounds.
You would think...but people look at philosophy and the constitution all the time and come to different conclusions. You have premises that can change everything. Are blacks people? Are gays people? Are zygotes people?

There is no argument as to what the court is there for. On the other hand the same court also affirmed the constitionality of slavery and segregation so saying "the court found X" is simply a nonargument.
Agreed.

The point is not whether the result is a good idea or not, the argument that that by relying on the judicial rather than legislative process has served to extend the lifetime of the acrimony far beyond what what it would have been had the alternative been taken.
If abortion had been legalized through Congress, it would still be the acrimonious business it is today. People keep thinking with their emotions, nothing can change that.

You are so wrong it's not funny. Provide just one bit of evidence to support that claim. The religious right has ALWAYS been the opposition to science. "Mustn't tamper with God's plan". "We can't play God".


remember that whole super collider thing.

or the cancelation of the black prince project

and are you for missile defence and sdi too, or is this just more leftist misrepresentation?

Well come on.

Or do you want me to talk about the "billions of dollars spent up there when they could be spent down there" thing.

The only thing the left has been interested in funding is the NEA.

You are all a bunch of Christopher Reeves. (And in case you didn't notice he was a very selfish man).

No wait.

"Science has gone too far"

"The internet is just too vast"

Blah Blah Blah,

Now, all of a sudden, the left "discovers" science.

What about drug companies? Haven't they been doing that for years?

Apparently not in your books because they are "profit" driven and evil,

OK. I'll confess I haven't read the entire post so I'll assume this hasn't been brought up. Embryonic stem cells have resulted in no cures. Adult stem cells (which are regarded as ethical by Christians, atheists, jews, jihadists... well maybe not the last one) have helped cure paralysis and Parkinsons. Don't believe me? Check out the Senate testimony of Dr. Jean Peduzzi-Nelson (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3671) (U of Alabama) andDr. Michael Levesque (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3670) (UCLA School of Medicine). Or here from two former quadripelegics Ms. Laura Dominguez and Ms. Susan Fajt here (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3673) and here (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3674). Or Dr. Dennis Turner (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3676) who saw his Parkinson's enter remission. All testified before a Senate hearing this July, and the patients are proof positive adult stem cells work.

What this debate boils down to is the allocation of limited resources. We are very nearly onto complete cures for Parkinson's and have helped paralysis patients walk with adult stem cell research. But some people want to now divert the limited funding available to embryonic stem cells, which have resulted in no cures but tumors in lab tests.

As Dr. Levesque put it, "Degenerative and traumatic disorders of the brain represent an enormous burden to the patient, their family and health care providers. The current debate between the embryonic stem cell proponents and those who are opposed to their use distracts from other avenues with promising outcome, such as adult stem cell therapy."

Well come on.

Or do you want me to talk about the "billions of dollars spent up there when they could be spent down there" thing.

The only thing the left has been interested in funding is the NEA.

You are all a bunch of Christopher Reeves. (And in case you didn't notice he was a very selfish man).

This, coming from someone who apparently thinks leftists take orgasmic pleasure in abortions

OK. I'll confess I haven't read the entire post so I'll assume this hasn't been brought up. Embryonic stem cells have resulted in no cures. Adult stem cells (which are regarded as ethical by Christians, atheists, jews, jihadists... well maybe not the last one) have helped cure paralysis and Parkinsons. Don't believe me? Check out the Senate testimony of Dr. Jean Peduzzi-Nelson (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3671) (U of Alabama) andDr. Michael Levesque (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3670) (UCLA School of Medicine). Or here from two former quadripelegics Ms. Laura Dominguez and Ms. Susan Fajt here (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3673) and here (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3674). Or Dr. Dennis Turner (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3676) who saw his Parkinson's enter remission. All testified before a Senate hearing this July, and the patients are proof positive adult stem cells work.

What this debate boils down to is the allocation of limited resources. We are very nearly onto complete cures for Parkinson's and have helped paralysis patients walk with adult stem cell research. But some people want to now divert the limited funding available to embryonic stem cells, which have resulted in no cures but tumors in lab tests.

As Dr. Levesque put it, "Degenerative and traumatic disorders of the brain represent an enormous burden to the patient, their family and health care providers. The current debate between the embryonic stem cell proponents and those who are opposed to their use distracts from other avenues with promising outcome, such as adult stem cell therapy."


And thank you.

My point exactly. The left has never given a F**k about this kind of research. Ever. But now they see embryos involved, suddenly it’s a matter of life and death. Now we are confronted with the specious question: “well you just don’t want paraplegics to walk.”

If they want to continue with their baby killing agenda, that’s fine. But don’t pretend for a second it’s based in a sudden desire to push back the frontiers of science.

This, coming from someone who apparently thinks leftists take orgasmic pleasure in abortions

well what about the super collider then, Goed ? If that really is your name.

Why are people throwing the embryos out. Are you saying Bush told them to do that ? Because he didn't.

And no-one is stopping the crazy scientists from doing their research, all Bush did is refuse to fund it. They can do all the experiments they want, just not on my taxes. That's fair isn't it? Or are you saying that tax dollars should be used to fund all embryonic reasearch even when so many people believe it is wrong?


Tax dollars are being used to fund a war that more than half of americans think is wrong.

Should bush ban tax funding of the military next?

Stem cell research will save more lives than bush's adventure in conquest ever could.

If they want to continue with their baby killing agenda, that’s fine. But don’t pretend for a second it’s based in a sudden desire to push back the frontiers of science.

After you shoot all the scientists and intellectuals will you put them in mass graves or burn the bodies in ovens?

remember that whole super collider thing.

or the cancelation of the black prince project

and are you for missile defence and sdi too, or is this just more leftist misrepresentation?
I googled super collider, apparently they ran out of money to fund it.
I also googled black prince project, same thing, it was cost prohibitive.

Well come on.

Or do you want me to talk about the "billions of dollars spent up there when they could be spent down there" thing.

The only thing the left has been interested in funding is the NEA.

You are all a bunch of Christopher Reeves. (And in case you didn't notice he was a very selfish man).
I'm fairly interested in funding space travel. One of the few admirable things about the Bush presidency, was his announcement of restarting space plans, to the moon, and eventually Mars.
And we are all entitled to our opinions of Christopher Reeve.
However, I think you're very wrong.

No wait.

"Science has gone too far"

"The internet is just too vast"

Blah Blah Blah,

Now, all of a sudden, the left "discovers" science.

What about drug companies? Haven't they been doing that for years?

Apparently not in your books because they are "profit" driven and evil,
I dont consider corporations evil. But they are profit-driven, which can be used for good, such was the case with airplanes. The government can't fund everything.




Anyhow, your entire argument seems to be that democrats refuse to fund highly expensive programs, therefore they are against science.

Whereas Republicans ban any research they find objectionable (usually religiously based).

well what about the super collider then, Goed ? If that really is your name.

The super collider? What the hell is that?

And my name obviously isn't Goed, it's Kyle Louis Morton. Although, if what you're askign is if I have any puppets, the answer is no. I only used a different name once when my nation was deleted for inactivity

If they want to continue with their baby killing agenda, that’s fine. But don’t pretend for a second it’s based in a sudden desire to push back the frontiers of science.

First of all, having actually looked at the picture provided, that looked more like some crazy thing of water then a bebe. Secondly-do you honestly beleive that the left gets a kick out of killing babies?

After you shoot all the scientists and intellectuals will you put them in mass graves or burn the bodies in ovens?

Good comeback lefty. When did I ever suggest that? Anyway, you hate scientist, all left wing people do. Science requires experimental proof, and your whole east germany thing failed - inevitably.

Good comeback lefty. When did I ever suggest that? Anyway, you hate scientist, all left wing people do. Science requires experimental proof, and your whole east germany thing failed - inevitably.

So wait, you're mad at him because he used a generalization against you...and to prove him wrong, you did the very same thing back?

Now I know I'm not the only one who sees something screwy in that.

I googled super collider, apparently they ran out of money to fund it.
I also googled black prince project, same thing, it was cost prohibitive.



No, Clinton and the democratic congress de-funded it because they could see no point in high energy physics.

The black prince project went on to become the french airiane rocket, which is the only profitable launch vehicle. But at the time Tony Benn felt that there was more important projects like public housing to put the money into.

And what about SDI, isn't that science? Or is it just not "worthwhile."

Honestly, the left should get it straight. The left hated science for the past thirty years, but now they rediscover it when it is to do with embryos,

No, Clinton and the democratic congress de-funded it because they could see no point in high energy physics.

The black prince project went on to become the french airiane rocket, which is the only profitable launch vehicle. But at the time Tony Benn felt that there was more important projects like public housing to put the money into.

And what about SDI, isn't that science? Or is it just not "worthwhile."

Honestly, the left should get it straight. The left hated science for the past thirty years, but now they rediscover it when it is to do with embryos,

Yet more sweeping generalizations, and the assumption that anyone associated with the left needs to kill a baby in order to be turned on.

So wait, you're mad at him because he used a generalization against you...and to prove him wrong, you did the very same thing back?

Now I know I'm not the only one who sees something screwy in that.


Well:

a) I didn't intially use a generalization, but I was subsequently accuse of wanting to kill scientists. So I thought all is fair &ct.

b) I actually respect your opinion on matters Goed - tho I do not agree with them all; and I also have found from your posts that you have a pretty good sense of humor. So if you found my post to you offensive I tell you now that was not my intention. My point still stands that tradtionally the right wing has funded science and not the left, but the whole thing about your name was just meant to be - as I see it now - a lame joke. I never meant otherwise.

And what about SDI, isn't that science? Or is it just not "worthwhile."

Honestly, the left should get it straight. The left hated science for the past thirty years, but now they rediscover it when it is to do with embryos,
Strategic Defense Initiative is military related. Just because liberals do not feel like dumping huge sums of money into military research does not make them anti-science.

And I have no clue why you keep going on about embryos. You make it sound like liberals only support science because it lets them do more abortions.

And I will say this again, liberals only oppose "science" when they can't afford it (how's that for fiscal responsibility?)

conservatives will oppose science if it conflicts with their morality in any way.


Anyway, you hate scientist, all left wing people do.
You are seriously mistaken. Scientists have always suffered at the hands of the Religious Right.

Strategic Defense Initiative is military related. Just because liberals do not feel like dumping huge sums of money into military research does not make them anti-science.

And I have no clue why you keep going on about embryos. You make it sound like liberals only support science because it lets them do more abortions.

And I will say this again, liberals only oppose "science" when they can't afford it (how's that for fiscal responsibility?)

conservatives will oppose science if it conflicts with their morality in any way.



You are seriously mistaken. Scientists have always suffered at the hands of the Religious Right.

Look, apparently you have confused Christian with muslim or something. Did Christians feel that way 300 yrs ago. Yes they did; but not now. The bulk of pro-science research over the past post WWII years has come from the right. Every time there has been a high energy physics or large scale engineering study proposed it has come from the right. On the other hand, the left has uniformly declared as of 1966 that the money could be better spent on more “practical” endeavors.

But now, all of a sudden, the left has a new interest in science.

You said before fiscal responsibility; but you desperately wish to fund an entirely speculative avenue of research. The key thing is it involves embryos. Well you don’t fool me.

Last week he made a good point. The embryos in question that are now blocked by Bush and anti-abortion groups, are actually frozen in fertility clinics. Thousands of these are thrown in the dumpster each year. This is what researchers want to use and not stemcells from abortions. But anyway Bill Maher said something like, ok conservative women why don't you have these embryos implanted and raise them to term. Thus pointing out the hypocrisy. If this life is too precious for research, then save them from the dumpster. Any takers?

The hypocrisy is part of the anti-abortion position. It can't be removed.

"You don't see many of these white anti-abortion women volunteering to have any black fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? No. You don't see them adopting a whole lot of crack babies do you? No. That might be something Christ would do." -George Carlin.

Look, apparently you have confused Christian with muslim or something. Did Christians feel that way 300 yrs ago. Yes they did; but not now.
Sorry, but Christianity was and still is the obstructing force to science. Whether they are censoring Copernicus or banning evolution from being taught in school, and even now banning thereaputic human cloning...there is no way you can convince me that they have changed significantly in their outlook on science. Islam is pretty bad too. Interestingly though, Islam rejects the idea of life beginning at conception, so those countries have been the loudest opposition to the US government's attempts to pass a worldwide ban on all forms of human cloning.

The bulk of pro-science research over the past post WWII years has come from the right. Every time there has been a high energy physics or large scale engineering study proposed it has come from the right. On the other hand, the left has uniformly declared as of 1966 that the money could be better spent on more “practical” endeavors.
If you are talking about building deadlier bombs then I suppose the right has supported science. But just because liberals are more interested in education and healthcare does not mean they are anti-science. Anti-science means they have an explicit desire to thwart science. And the first thing that comes to mind for thwarting science are the bible-thumping Christians chanting "Don't play God".

You said before fiscal responsibility; but you desperately wish to fund an entirely speculative avenue of research.
What? Of course it's speculative, it's science! Did they know the atom bomb would work when they first started working on it?

The key thing is it involves embryos. Well you don’t fool me.
And you don't fool me either. This is just one more example of the Religious Right dominating the Republican Party to enforce their version of morality on the rest of us.

The hypocrisy is part of the anti-abortion position. It can't be removed.

"You don't see many of these white anti-abortion women volunteering to have any black fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? No. You don't see them adopting a whole lot of crack babies do you? No. That might be something Christ would do." -George Carlin.

The anti-abortion argument is based on the belief that the killing of the unborn is wrong. Even if people don't adopt crack-babies (some do, by the way), it doesn't make it any more right.

Poverty and starvation is a bad thing too, but some people don't give money to fight it. Does that mean that starvation and poverty is ok? Does that mean that the anti-poverty position is hypocritical??

The anti-abortion argument is based on the belief that the killing of the unborn is wrong. Even if people don't adopt crack-babies (some do, by the way), it doesn't make it any more right.

Poverty and starvation is a bad thing too, but some people don't give money to fight it. Does that mean that starvation and poverty is ok?

Of course not. But these same people are the last people who should be activists for the cause.

Are Anti-abortion people who murder doctors, accost nurses and bomb clinics any different than if these same people threw rocks and firebombs at soldiers returning from Iraq? I won't even call them Pro-life anymore. Pro-life people don't condone murder.

Sorry, but Christianity was and still is the obstructing force to science. Whether they are censoring Copernicus or banning evolution from being taught in school, and even now banning thereaputic human cloning...there is no way you can convince me that they have changed significantly in their outlook on science. Islam is pretty bad too. Interestingly though, Islam rejects the idea of life beginning at conception, so those countries have been the loudest opposition to the US government's attempts to pass a worldwide ban on all forms of human cloning.

No, you have no evidence that Christianty obstructs science now. Nor in the recent past other than relying on silly stereotypes. I know for a fact that under Clinton the research budget in the physical sciences collapsed to almost nothing. I can say this with confidence because I have a M.S. in structural engineering (from an ABET school) and was actually a research assistant in the 90's. As per the lefts doctorine in the early 90s all major projects were defunded because they had no obvious immeadiate benefits for humanity.


if you are talking about building deadlier bombs then I suppose the right has supported science. But just because liberals are more interested in education and healthcare does not mean they are anti-science. Anti-science means they have an explicit desire to thwart science. And the first thing that comes to mind for thwarting science are the bible-thumping Christians chanting "Don't play God".

Yes, you are right I suppose, there was no specific desire to thwart science other than when it upset the leftist world-view. Of course, when I worked on a team which found that suburbs are far more energy efficient that large cities, you bet it was shut down instantly. Both sides cleave to their own idelology just as much, but the left now actually has the power to do something.


What? Of course it's speculative, it's science! Did they know the atom bomb would work when they first started working on it?

And you don't fool me either. This is just one more example of the Religious Right dominating the Republican Party to enforce their version of morality on the rest of us.

So Clinton was wrong about the super collider. Or are you just contradicting yourself?

Of course not. But these same people are the last people who should be activists for the cause.

Are Anti-abortion people who murder doctors, accost nurses and bomb clinics any different than if these same people threw rocks and firebombs at soldiers returning from Iraq? I won't even call them Pro-life anymore. Pro-life people don't condone murder.

Yeah, those are extremists that give the pro-life cause a bad name.
I don't think you can rightfully call one's self pro-life and then go murder someone.

Yeah, those are extremists that give the pro-life cause a bad name.
I don't think you can rightfully call one's self pro-life and then go murder someone.

OR CONDONE IT!

OR CONDONE IT!
Indeed.

Look, apparently you have confused Christian with muslim or something. Did Christians feel that way 300 yrs ago. Yes they did; but not now. The bulk of pro-science research over the past post WWII years has come from the right. Every time there has been a high energy physics or large scale engineering study proposed it has come from the right. On the other hand, the left has uniformly declared as of 1966 that the money could be better spent on more “practical” endeavors.

Dear god, i hope you ARE aware that the muslims maintained a civilized and HIGHLY advanced (Technologically and artistically) society while christianity was wallowing in the dark ages and burning people at the stake for daring to suggest the earth rotated around the sun right? You are aware that the rennaissance (sp) wouldnt have gotten off the ground had the muslim empires not saved knowledge and tech from the crumbling roman empire?

Dear god, i hope you ARE aware that the muslims maintained a civilized and HIGHLY advanced (Technologically and artistically) society while christianity was wallowing in the dark ages and burning people at the stake for daring to suggest the earth rotated around the sun right? You are aware that the rennaissance (sp) wouldnt have gotten off the ground had the muslim empires not saved knowledge and tech from the crumbling roman empire?

Ok, try to read the bit you quoted first.

And second dont get me started on muslims, UNLESS YOU CAN GIVE ME BACK MY WIFE.

KTHX.

Ok, try to read the bit you quoted first.

And second dont get me started on muslims, UNLESS YOU CAN GIVE ME BACK MY WIFE.

KTHX.

...I so don't get it.

9/11

Wow I'm drunk talking about this,

9/11

Wow I'm drunk talking about this,

I'll allow every muslim that has and will ever exist to be blamed for those attacks if you allow me to blame every christian that has and ever will exist for the Crusades (yes, I KNOW they were mostly political, but hey-so was 9/11), the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Holocaust...etc.

Why don't scientists just use Adult Stem Cells? I'm not trying to take a moral stance on the embyonic thing, but I was under the impression that, scientifically, there had been more sucess with adult cells anyway.

Why don't scientists just use Adult Stem Cells? I'm not trying to take a moral stance on the embyonic thing, but I was under the impression that, scientifically, there had been more sucess with adult cells anyway.
Adult cells are harder to get and use. Embryos are much more desirable (and remember, embryo does not mean baby...do I need to post another pic?)

I'll allow every muslim that has and will ever exist to be blamed for those attacks if you allow me to blame every christian that has and ever will exist for the Crusades (yes, I KNOW they were mostly political, but hey-so was 9/11), the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Holocaust...etc.

As I said, I'm a little drunk (perhaps a lot) so I can talk about this.

And as I have said before Goed ( if that really is your name ) I do respect your posts and intelligence. On the other hand, you wish me to "debate" an intensely personal tragedy as if it was simply a historic fact. This I cannot do. I don't give a f**K about those other things. They are not happening today, are they? I do know from personal experience however, that Muslims apparently want to kill me and the people I love. After all they have succeeded in part. And maybe this is why I am now, as you so aptly put it, a “hardcore” Christian.

As I said, I'm a little drunk (perhaps a lot) so I can talk about this.

And as I have said before Goed ( if that really is your name ) I do respect your posts and intelligence. On the other hand, you wish me to "debate" an intensely personal tragedy as if it was simply a historic fact. This I cannot do. I don't give a f**K about those other things. They are not happening today, are they? I do know from personal experience however, that Muslims apparently want to kill me and the people I love. After all they have succeeded in part. And maybe this is why I am now, as you so aptly put it, a “hardcore” Christian.

I'm not trying to debate hardcore. And yes, I know what it's like to lose a loved one to someone else. And I know what it's like to want to...do nasty things to them, let's just say.

But to attack an entire group based on it? No. I will not shame myself OR whomever I lost by doing such.

Hate only leads to more hate, and eventually more death. I refuse to walk that path.

I'm not trying to debate hardcore. And yes, I know what it's like to lose a loved one to someone else. And I know what it's like to want to...do nasty things to them, let's just say.

But to attack an entire group based on it? No. I will not shame myself OR whomever I lost by doing such.

Hate only leads to more hate, and eventually more death. I refuse to walk that path.

All I know is that muslims killed my wife. I have yet to hear an apology. Mostly I hear them screaming about the next crusade.

Well I'm sorry. It's tough for them I guess. Frankly they are lucky that I am not president of the US. If you read my other posts that don't involve this I think you'll find I'm usually quite reasonable (except about christianity which I believe is the only bulwark against the muslim scum).

I'm sorry. But it is really a personal matter I guess. I should not have brought it up.

All I know is that muslims killed my wife. I have yet to hear an apology. Mostly I hear them screaming about the next crusade.

Well I'm sorry. It's tough for them I guess. Frankly they are lucky that I am not president of the US. If you read my other posts that don't involve this I think you'll find I'm usually quite reasonable (except about christianity which I believe is the only bulwark against the muslim scum).

I'm sorry. But it is really a personal matter I guess. I should not have brought it up.

So you go off and kill them. Eye for an eye.

Pretty soon none of us will be able to see **sighs**

isn't this about stem cells and not jihad?

and "muslims" do not want to kill anyones friends or family. some may, but to stereotype one of the largest faiths on earth is a very politician-like or tabloid paper like thing to do

for those who are prolife, abortion and the destruction of embryos is the same thing for one reason. This is because life begins at conception and since embryos have been conceived they are life and killing them is the same as abortion.

And yet no "pro-life" person will ever live up to all the ramifications of that statement. I have yet to meet a "pro-life" person who is willing to prosecute a woman who lives a stressful lifestyle for neglect when her embryo fails to implant.

However i am completely for adult stem cell research because of the great breakthroughs that have produced through adult stem cells. They have shown to reverse some of the effects of alzheimer's while embryonic stem cells when used in studies have actually caused negative effects in patients.

To my knowledge (and I'm in the field) no one (at least in the Western world) has used embryonic stem cells in cell therapy for humans yet. We simply haven't finished all the basic science research we need to accomplish yet. Uncommitted embryonic stem cells can most certainly cause damage if simply injected - they need to be at least partially differentiated first. And the differentiation process is still where we are working. However, one fact is simple - there are cell types that can be obtained through embryonic stem cells for which there are no adult stem cells.

Yes, it is a tough position to take, but there is reason behind it. Here's a little background on the the Christian position. Christian morality is based on acts, not intentions. Since the Christian stance is that life begins at conception, it is believed that abortion and the killing of fetuses for stemcells is wrong despite any good intentions.

You know, people like you need to stop acting like you can speak for all Christians. You *cannot*.

Actually, I think that (though I'm not completely sure) that the Catholic stance is that the use of stem cells if they came from fetuses that died of natural causes is ok. This is because it isn't gaining benefit from evil like getting stem cells from an aborted fetus or from a fetus created just to harvest cells from them.

Guess what? Embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted fetuses. They don't even come from fetuses. All of the current lines came from embryos from IVF clinics slated to be destroyed anyways. And, if such research were not looked down upon in this country, we could begin deriving them from embryos that would pretty much never reach the fetus stage anyways.

Of course, adult stem cells and cells from umbilical cords are considered to be ethical to use.

To you.

Just to add a little emotional appeal, my Grandpa recently died from complications of Alzheimers, yet I'm sure that he would be against stem cell research. Also, a lot of people believe that president Reagen would be against it to, which is interesting because his son is using his death and illness to justify funding it. Something to think about.

If your Grandpa were as misinformed as you, he might be. Of course, if you took the time to figure out what you're talking about, your opinion might change.

OK. I'll confess I haven't read the entire post so I'll assume this hasn't been brought up. Embryonic stem cells have resulted in no cures. Adult stem cells (which are regarded as ethical by Christians, atheists, jews, jihadists... well maybe not the last one) have helped cure paralysis and Parkinsons. Don't believe me? Check out the Senate testimony of Dr. Jean Peduzzi-Nelson (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3671) (U of Alabama) andDr. Michael Levesque (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3670) (UCLA School of Medicine). Or here from two former quadripelegics Ms. Laura Dominguez and Ms. Susan Fajt here (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3673) and here (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3674). Or Dr. Dennis Turner (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3676) who saw his Parkinson's enter remission. All testified before a Senate hearing this July, and the patients are proof positive adult stem cells work.

What this debate boils down to is the allocation of limited resources. We are very nearly onto complete cures for Parkinson's and have helped paralysis patients walk with adult stem cell research. But some people want to now divert the limited funding available to embryonic stem cells, which have resulted in no cures but tumors in lab tests.

As Dr. Levesque put it, "Degenerative and traumatic disorders of the brain represent an enormous burden to the patient, their family and health care providers. The current debate between the embryonic stem cell proponents and those who are opposed to their use distracts from other avenues with promising outcome, such as adult stem cell therapy."

By your logic, we should have stopped coming up with antibiotics when we found penicillin. How could we possibly ever need a different drug??!!

Seriously, there are uses for embryonic stem cell research that simply cannot be solved with adult stem cells - because adult stem cells are already committed to a lineage, and there are none for certain cell types that may need to be regenerated. Adult stem cell therapy most likely can't (and certainly hasn't) cure Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, it can simply slow it down or maybe even stop the progression. However, it cannot reverse the effects. We would have to create cell types that we have no adult stem cells for in order to do so.

Why don't scientists just use Adult Stem Cells? I'm not trying to take a moral stance on the embyonic thing, but I was under the impression that, scientifically, there had been more sucess with adult cells anyway.

There has been more time and funding for adult stem cells.

However, there are cell types that cannot be derived from adult stem cells. And there are instances in which a person may not be able to use their own adult stem cells, because the reason for their disease is a defect in their cells, or a lack of cells.

Embryonic stem cells are another avenue to explore - that promise be more useful for some applications and less useful for others.

Saying that we shouldn't investigate them is like saying we should have stopped trying to make drugs as soon as we discovered penicillin.

As I said, I'm a little drunk (perhaps a lot) so I can talk about this.

And as I have said before Goed ( if that really is your name ) I do respect your posts and intelligence. On the other hand, you wish me to "debate" an intensely personal tragedy as if it was simply a historic fact. This I cannot do. I don't give a f**K about those other things. They are not happening today, are they? I do know from personal experience however, that Muslims apparently want to kill me and the people I love. After all they have succeeded in part. And maybe this is why I am now, as you so aptly put it, a “hardcore” Christian.

You are not a Christian at all, much less a "hardcore" one if you think that anything Christ taught gives you leave to judge millions of people based on the actions of a few.

"Guess what? Embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted fetuses. They don't even come from fetuses. All of the current lines came from embryos from IVF clinics slated to be destroyed anyways. And, if such research were not looked down upon in this country, we could begin deriving them from embryos that would pretty much never reach the fetus stage anyways."

Sorry, I confused my terms. I realize that the cells come from a very early stage of development. However, it's the same difference if one believes that life begins at conception, like I do.


"If your Grandpa were as misinformed as you, he might be. Of course, if you took the time to figure out what you're talking about, your opinion might change."

Just because I don't change my ethics based on convinience doesn't mean I'm misinformed.


"You know, people like you need to stop acting like you can speak for all Christians. You *cannot*."

Sorry if I didn't make it clear. No one could never speak for all of any large group (isn't that obvious?). I know that a lot of Christians are for stem cell research. But I thought it was obvious that I wasn't representing Christians who believe it's ok.

"To you. "
To me and many others. I'm pretty sure that the post didn't imply that everyone thought so...

Sorry, I confused my terms. I realize that the cells come from a very early stage of development. However, it's the same difference if one believes that life begins at conception, like I do.

You also realize, then, that they have never come from aborted fetuses?

As for life begining at conception - are you prepared to back that up? Would you prosecute a mother for neglect if her stressful lifestyle led her to miscarry a pregnancy in its early stages?

Just because I don't change my ethics based on convinience doesn't mean I'm misinformed.

You quite clearly stated that you believe embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses. This is clearly misinformed. If you will not question your ethics, they aren't ethics at all - they are simply following like a blind sheep.

isn't this about stem cells and not jihad?

President Bush: "Didn't you know? They're the same thing! They'll both destroy America!"

=)

Bill Clinton moves to make a witty riposte...gasp....choke.............thump.....;george bush has pressed the button which makes Clinron's heart explode for a second time

President Bush: "Didn't you know? They're the same thing! They'll both destroy America!"

=)

Be fair Dempublicents. President Bush is the first president to allow ANY federal funding with regard to stem cells. He might not have gone as far as you would have liked, but he went further than any other President.

govt funding isn't necessary - science can go it alone

money makes the world go round

Be fair Dempublicents. President Bush is the first president to allow ANY federal funding with regard to stem cells. He might not have gone as far as you would have liked, but he went further than any other President.

One must realize that the first *human* embryonic stem cells were isolated in - what - 1998 I think? Clinton didn't deal with the issue because it was brand new. Bush was really the first president to face this issue. There was funding prior to Bush's decree. There was simply no money set aside specifically for such funding. I am pretty sure that the NIH was funding cutting edge research before the administration decided to get involved.

And when presented with evidence that what he did was essentially useless without extending it at least some, he stuck to his stubborn assertions - thus hurting much more than helping. By only providing funding for specific, flawed, cell lines, he has made sure that the research won't progress as far or as quickly as it could, as most investors will just assume that researchers can get government funds for the "approved lines."

govt funding isn't necessary - science can go it alone

Says someone who knows absolutely nothing about how science, technology, and progress work.

ah, but all the scientists pro-stemcell research could just stop supplying the govt. with answers to anything, rendering the govt. powerlesss....

ok, so it was a joke comment. have a heart!

ah, but all the scientists pro-stemcell research could just stop supplying the govt. with answers to anything, rendering the govt. powerlesss....

ok, so it was a joke comment. have a heart!

That's a wonderful idea in theory. However, it wouldn't work with Bush, since he only listens to "scientists" willing to fudge/ignore data and be yes-men anyways.

That's a wonderful idea in theory. However, it wouldn't work with Bush, since he only listens to "scientists" willing to fudge/ignore data and be yes-men anyways.

aah, but we have blair..

*bush tugs one of blair's puppet strings*

nope, he won't fund it either