NationStates Jolt Archive

(Now hear me out)

So Bushie's stance on stem cell research is that: he opposes federal funding for stem cell research that involves destroying a living human embryo.

For once, he's right! (YES, I'm still libertarian, don't worry) The federal government should not fund stem cell research (regardless of the killing of the human embryo). Rather, private enterprises should attract investors to invest in their research, rather than depend on the oh-so-unreliable federal government.

Damn you for ruining my rant saying Bush never does anything right.. Well he finally did something right at least. (Reliable government? We have that now?)

(Reliable government? We have that now?)
No, my post said 'unreliable' . . .

Rather, private enterprises should attract investors to invest in their research, rather than depend on the oh-so-unreliable federal government.

I dunno ... private enterprise and science have always been a bad mix. After all, proving the Earth was the center of the universe was a private enterprise and when the institutes of higher learning found it not to be true, that same private enterprise was allowed to cry "heretic" and get folks arrested.

I say leave science to the universities and peer reviewed bodies.

....I say leave science to the universities and peer reviewed bodies.
The church back then was NOT a private entity - it abused so much power back then it wasnt funny. Also, what about the people behind SpaceShipOne? Weren't they a private entity?

And universities and peer reviews do qualify as private entities

The church back then was NOT a private entity - it abused so much power back then it wasnt funny. Also, what about the people behind SpaceShipOne? Weren't they a private entity?

The church is a private entity ... always has been. Still is today. I'm not familiar with SpaceShipOne.

And universities and peer reviews do qualify as private entities

Nah ... Universities are generally publicly funded places.

The church is a private entity ... always has been. Still is today. I'm not familiar with SpaceShipOne.


Well that depends on definitions. It certainly did have a lot of power (but you could say the same of modern corporation I suppose), but it did also have its own state, The Papal States.

http://www.lsmarconi.it/users/crt/Cultura%20e%20Storia/The%20Papal%20States.gif

any kind of life research should always have regulation and rules. many companies force their researcher to use cruel method not because it is the only way, but because it is CHEAPER!!! it is not really the fault of science, it is the fault of capitalism.

not doing stem cell research however, doesn't make a big deal. there will be other countries working on it, and the technology can be obtain from those countries without doing the research ourself. :fluffle:

i was in life science 3 years ago so i am a little bias; research DO SAVE MANY MORE LIFE, i quit because i can't accept how they do things in the industry.

any kind of life research should always have regulation and rules. many companies force their researcher to use cruel method not because it is the only way, but because it is CHEAPER!!! it is not really the fault of science, it is the fault of capitalism.

not doing stem cell research however, doesn't make a big deal. there will be other countries working on it, and the technology can be obtain from those countries without doing the research ourself. :fluffle:

i was in life science 3 years ago so i am a little bias; research DO SAVE MANY MORE LIFE, i quit because i can't accept how they do things in the industry.
Here's what I say about stem cell research:
Whether you like it or not, abortion is legal. But using the fetuses for stem cell research is not. They get to go out in the trash with the styrofoamcups and half-eaten lunches. Such a shame, when it's possible they can save lives.

If there's life being lost anyway, why not redeem ourselves a little bit by letting that loss of life go to save more?

Rather, private enterprises should attract investors to invest in their research, rather than depend on the oh-so-unreliable federal government.

That's fine, as long as you want medical advances to pretty much end in ten years, as private corporations do not invest in basic science research.

Here's what I say about stem cell research:
Whether you like it or not, abortion is legal. But using the fetuses for stem cell research is not. They get to go out in the trash with the styrofoamcups and half-eaten lunches. Such a shame, when it's possible they can save lives.

If there's life being lost anyway, why not redeem ourselves a little bit by letting that loss of life go to save more?

For the record, aborted fetuses are not, and never have been, used to extract embryonic stem cells.

For the record, aborted fetuses are not, and never have been, used to extract embryonic stem cells.
That's the whole problem. They're just going to waste. They should be used to extract stem cells from, if they're just going to get disposed of otherwise.

That's the whole problem. They're just going to waste. They should be used to extract stem cells from, if they're just going to get disposed of otherwise.

Aborted fetuses *CAN'T* be used to extract embryonic stem cells. It is technologically impossible. Very few women get an abortion at day 8, or even know they are pregnant by that point. Meanwhile, the very process of abortion will kill what cells there are, so even fetal stem cells can't really be extracted.

I dunno ... private enterprise and science have always been a bad mix. After all, proving the Earth was the center of the universe was a private enterprise and when the institutes of higher learning found it not to be true, that same private enterprise was allowed to cry "heretic" and get folks arrested.

I say leave science to the universities and peer reviewed bodies.
Galileo was pretty much a private enterprise. And I second the opinions expressed above that the Roman Catholic church was most decidedly a public instituion at the time. Although if you actually read the full story about what happened, you'll see that Galileo was attacked by other scientists, who ran out of weapons andd then decided to use the church against him. Fascinating in the full account.

Aborted fetuses *CAN'T* be used to extract embryonic stem cells. It is technologically impossible. Very few women get an abortion at day 8, or even know they are pregnant by that point. Meanwhile, the very process of abortion will kill what cells there are, so even fetal stem cells can't really be extracted.
Holy shit!
My teachers were lying to me all throught high school!

I just checked up on the web, and you're right!

It's funny, my science and history teacher were always talking about stem cell research, and eventually did a unit on it, and it turns out most of the fatcs they tought us were total bunk. In my senior year, no less!

Okay, now I'm appalled.
:mad:

Holy shit!
My teachers were lying to me all throught high school!

I just checked up on the web, and you're right!

It's funny, my science and history teacher were always talking about stem cell research, and eventually did a unit on it, and it turns out most of the fatcs they tought us were total bunk. In my senior year, no less!

Okay, now I'm appalled.
:mad:

Sorry. (I'm actually in the field).

IVF embryos that are going to be discarded have been used (and could be, if the funding were available) to create embryonic stem cell lines. Many (although not all) anti-abortion types are also opposed to IVF because many embryos are either frozen forever or destroyed. These embryos could be used in research - and they are just going to be thrown away anyways, so your point still makes sense.

Sorry. (I'm actually in the field).

IVF embryos that are going to be discarded have been used (and could be, if the funding were available) to create embryonic stem cell lines. Many (although not all) anti-abortion types are also opposed to IVF because many embryos are either frozen forever or destroyed. These embryos could be used in research - and they are just going to be thrown away anyways, so your point still makes sense.
Okay, so there's at least a little bit of a redeeming factor to my argument, and I don't sound like a totallly ignorant moron?
Phew...

what in the name of the Goddess does IVF mean?

Originally Posted by Ciryar
Galileo was pretty much a private enterprise. And I second the opinions expressed above that the Roman Catholic church was most decidedly a public instituion at the time. Although if you actually read the full story about what happened, you'll see that Galileo was attacked by other scientists, who ran out of weapons andd then decided to use the church against him. Fascinating in the full account.

Someone else in the world (other than my university's Western history professor) actually knows what happened in the Galileo incident. :)

Holy shit!
My teachers were lying to me all throught high school!

I just checked up on the web, and you're right!

It's funny, my science and history teacher were always talking about stem cell research, and eventually did a unit on it, and it turns out most of the fatcs they tought us were total bunk. In my senior year, no less!

Okay, now I'm appalled.
:mad:

Clicky! (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684818868/qid=1106839875/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-4777121-2967624) ;)

Okay, so there's at least a little bit of a redeeming factor to my argument, and I don't sound like a totallly ignorant moron?
Phew...

what in the name of the Goddess does IVF mean?


I believe that would be In Vitro Fertilisation.

Someone else in the world (other than my university's Western history professor) actually knows what happened in the Galileo incident. :)
Did you also know Galileo was a stubborn bastard who rejected a collegues theory on what comets were because of his own prejudices? And that the biggest reason he was locked up was because he basically compared the pope to a simpleton in writing.

Ok, I don't usually post in any of these Forums but, this one got my attention. Stem cell research is not a bad thing, not at all. However, adult stem cell research would be much easier for many to swallow. It holds as much promise as Embryonic Stem Cell research. I have a small problem with that type of research. I object mostly Ethical grounds but a few are religious and I will not go into those, that being said. Private research is going on. The Governator just signed legislation about Embryonic research, which is almost totally privately funded. ( I think I have that right, but need to check on that fact) Private reasearch has not been outlawed at all, in fact it goes on all the time. The biggest problem I see in this type of research is ethical. Is it Ethically right to destroy an embryo? Medically, the research is quite exciting, of course it is, who wouldn't want to cure so many things if they could? The problem for me is this, when folks start talking about "curing" Alzheimers or diseases like it, the facts say for themselves it isn't possible. My son is Autistic and I have even heard the "specious" arguement that Autism could be cured with this type of research. It's bull, you can't fix Autism with stem cells, it's a wiring problem, Alzheimers can't be cured either, so some arguements that proponents of Embryonic Stem Cell research are bunk, being used to get the "Folks" to support it. Hold out hope to them and later when it's not happening just say "Sorry, we were wrong?" What then?

Bush is right - Kerry's wife can't be transformed out of her ugliness with the unproven promise of stem cell research.

Okay, so there's at least a little bit of a redeeming factor to my argument, and I don't sound like a totallly ignorant moron?
Phew...

what in the name of the Goddess does IVF mean?

IVF = In Vitro Fertilization

Basic procedure:

- Couple cannot become pregnant for some reason
- Sperm sample from male and eggs from female are removed and mixed in a lab
- Embryos from the mixing are frozen
- Several embryos are placed in the mother, in hopes that at least one will implant. The rest are kept frozen, in case they need to try again, or the couple later wants another pregnancy.

When it is all said and done, and the couple does not want any more children, they have two options: 1) Pay loads of money every year to keep the leftover embryos frozen 2) Have them destroyed (incinerated)

In some places, a third option is included which allows the couple to donate the embryos to research (without any monetary compensation whatsoever).

Stem cell research is not a bad thing, not at all. However, adult stem cell research would be much easier for many to swallow. It holds as much promise as Embryonic Stem Cell research.

Making this statement demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge of the subject. Both hold much promise, but in very different areas and, from a scientific standpoint, much more can be done with embryonic stem cells.

The Governator just signed legislation about Embryonic research, which is almost totally privately funded. ( I think I have that right, but need to check on that fact)

It is California-state funded as well as privately funded. No *federal* funds are being used.

Private reasearch has not been outlawed at all, in fact it goes on all the time.

(a) It does not "go on all the time." In fact, creation of new lines is exceedingly rare.
(b) Private research does not do much good for the general populus, as it is all proprietary and oriented only towards making profits. Private research in an area like this is also going to move much, much, much slower, as there is no communication with other groups.

Alzheimers can't be cured either, so some arguements that proponents of Embryonic Stem Cell research are bunk, being used to get the "Folks" to support it. Hold out hope to them and later when it's not happening just say "Sorry, we were wrong?" What then?

Again, you demosntrate a clear lack of knowledge of the subject. Alzheimers is a degenerative disease. Basically, neurons start dying out. If we could replace said neurons, or at least keep more from dying out, it absolutely could be cured.

Bush is right - Kerry's wife can't be transformed out of her ugliness with the unproven promise of stem cell research.
lol.LOL.hahhahaha. :D


but really. why would we be even thinking about curing all these diseases and such? no one is prepared to the population start living forever, with virtually no death rate besides MURDER. did any of the left ever think of that?

Bush is never wrong. His stance is clearly democratic. Not only does he believe in the need to enforce democracy around the world, thereby freeing millions of people, but he believes in keeping money out of religiously heated investments.

(Now hear me out)

So Bushie's stance on stem cell research is that: he opposes federal funding for stem cell research that involves destroying a living human embryo.

For once, he's right! (YES, I'm still libertarian, don't worry) The federal government should not fund stem cell research (regardless of the killing of the human embryo). Rather, private enterprises should attract investors to invest in their research, rather than depend on the oh-so-unreliable federal government.

This sort of reasoning would lead to cutting funding to basically all pure research. Companies aren't going to do research that doesn't have immediate value without government grants, and research institutes and universities wouldn't be able to do research at all without government money.

If it weren't for the moral issues, there would be absolutely no question about funding stem cell research - it would be automatic.

Except in a few very profitable areas like pharmaceuticals and microelectronics, most research only happens because the government funds it, and we've done very well by funding as much science as we do.

Of course Bush is right.



Far right. Very far right.



Other than that, he's a scoundrel and worse - he believes his own hype.



Let me pull the wool over my own eyes, thanks.

Of course Bush is right.
Far right. Very far right.
Other than that, he's a scoundrel and worse - he believes his own hype.
Let me pull the wool over my own eyes, thanks.

From what I've noticed of Hillary Clinton, for example, she alternates between right and left without warning, and she's a scoundrel, and just as bad as Bush, she actually believes her own hype.

I'm fresh out of wool, though.

Normally, I'd say something about your post.
But now....I'm just saying wtf.

From what I've noticed of Hillary Clinton, for example, she alternates between right and left without warning, and she's a scoundrel, and just as bad as Bush, she actually believes her own hype.

I'm fresh out of wool, though.
the Clintons always have been professional waffles but Bush is consistently wrong-I dont know which is better

From what I've noticed of Hillary Clinton, for example, she alternates between right and left without warning, and she's a scoundrel, and just as bad as Bush, she actually believes her own hype.

I'm fresh out of wool, though.

so Bush is better because he's an unwavering scoundrel?

take those peices of meat and use them for somthing good instead of throwing them out like common wast. and p.s bush is a warmonger and a warloard and should be put behind bars for starting a needless war.

Josh Davis p.m for MEGA-canada

Bush is Right

Well, I'd say he's kinda difficult to place on the political spectrum... on social issues he's way far to the right, but then on spending and whatnot he's totally inconsistent.

:D

Well, I'd say he's kinda difficult to place on the political spectrum... on social issues he's way far to the right, but then on spending and whatnot he's totally inconsistent.

:D

He strikes me as a bit of a Dixiecrat.

so Bush is better because he's an unwavering scoundrel?

No, Mr. Town. I think that there aren't any alternatives to the Right in the US.

If you can point out any real philosophical differences in the Democrats and Republicans in the US (who merely pander to their constituencies while implementing policies that are remarkably similar), I'd be glad to see them.

The Democrats are against this war only because they didn't get the good luck to be in power during 9-11, and then get to wave the sword themselves so that they could score political points being He-Man and the Masters of the Universe.

If the Democrats had been in charge, they would have pulled something similar. Afghanistan for sure, and probably some other country - maybe not Iraq, but some place to keep us busy ("you can't elect the other party - we're in a war, dammit").

Note the fairly small percentage of Democrats in the House and Senate who actually voted against Condi. That's because a lot of them, if the scales tip, want to be able to say they were always for the war.

War is good for any party in power in the US.

Just remember which party got us into the Vietnam War, and how well that went. It was the Democrats, and they started it with an outright lie (Tonkin Gulf).

He strikes me as a bit of a Dixiecrat.

Well, except for the whole "States' Rights" thing.

With Bush trying to change the Constitution to limit states' rights (e.g. definition of marriage) and fighting in the courts against other states' rights (e.g. the debate over medical marijuana), he can hardly be called a "States' Rightest!"

Well, except for the whole "States' Rights" thing.

With Bush trying to change the Constitution to limit states' rights (e.g. definition of marriage) and fighting in the courts against other states' rights (e.g. the debate over medical marijuana), he can hardly be called a "States' Rightest!"

That's why I said "a bit of a Dixiecrat' instead of "OMG WTF Bush r teh Dixiecratz0r". :D

Well, except for the whole "States' Rights" thing.

With Bush trying to change the Constitution to limit states' rights (e.g. definition of marriage) and fighting in the courts against other states' rights (e.g. the debate over medical marijuana), he can hardly be called a "States' Rightest!"

There was a recent NPR talk show (Diane Rehm) where a few major Democratic Party strategists said that the only weapon left in their arsenal to fight against the power of the Republicans at the Federal level was to fight for States' Rights.

They viewed the filibuster as a weak, and a possible public relations disaster.

States' rights, on the other hand, they could use to fight against an anti-gay marriage amendment.

They saw it as their only way out.

Interesting to see them get desperate.

(Now hear me out)

So Bushie's stance on stem cell research is that: he opposes federal funding for stem cell research that involves destroying a living human embryo.

For once, he's right! (YES, I'm still libertarian, don't worry) The federal government should not fund stem cell research (regardless of the killing of the human embryo). Rather, private enterprises should attract investors to invest in their research, rather than depend on the oh-so-unreliable federal government.

The problem is Bush makes it appear that he is against ALL stem cell research based on religious reasons.

I have a very utilitarian/pure science approach to the subject, where I can morally handle the idea of killing live embryos or creating mice with human brains in order to cure Alzheimer's (1 ex-family member and 2 other family members) or cancer (2 family members) or multiple schlerosis (2 family members) or any number of diseases.

While the idea of having private funding for the research is not a bad one, private sector labs will generally not focus on cures. If you look at all the big pharmaceuticals, most are too busy creating the next Viagra to pay attention to some silly little non-money-making thing like a cure for diabetes (three family members) or heart disease (2 ex-family members and two other family members).

You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos
You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos
You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos
You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos
You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos
You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos
You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos
You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos
You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos
You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos
You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos
You fucking can get stem cells out of embryos :sniper:

The only reason I agree with you is that I think the govt. is too much in debt to pay for anything else, but its medicine, it should get all three, state funds, govt. funds, private funds.