NationStates Jolt Archive

Republican Senate Majority Leader William Frist has made known that he will support a bill increasing government funding of stem-cell research, publically opposed by the Preisdent and the party. (http://drudgereport.com/)

Frist stands to lose position as the Majority Leader if Dick Cheney, acting as the President of the Senate chooses to chastise him for his break with the President, and the fact he will no longer be representing the official position of the Republican Party.

Screw Dick Cheney. I'll start a new political party with Frist if they kick him out! ;)

(Anybody else find it ironic that the only Senator with a M.D. supports legalization that has to do with medicine, and a man who has constant heart trouble (Dick Cheney) thinks he knows better?)

It's my personal opinion he's a scumbag pandering for President in '08.

He supported the intervention of the government to sustain Terri Schiavo but now supports stem-cell research. If he thinks he can pander Democrats' votes, he's probably wrong, any of them who actually know what they are talking about hate Frist's guts almost as much as Bush's, and will never vote for him, but this will be a blow to support from his largely pro-life base.

I for one will be issuing an angry letter telling Cheney to appoint a new Majority Leader or I'll never ever vote for another Republican again. :D

He supported the intervention of the government to sustain Terri Schiavo but now supports stem-cell research. If he thinks he can pander Democrats' votes, he's probably wrong, any of them who actually know what they are talking about hate Frist's guts almost as much as Bush's, and will never vote for him, but this will be a blow to support from his largely pro-life base.

Senator Frisk shares my views. I'm pro-life, but in all honesty, what's wrong with stem-cell research if it can lead to new cures for diseases like cancer?

Although his record is less than spectacular, I commend his first attempt at reason.

However, I do not support government funding of stem cell research.
We should remove rediculous regulations and allow privately funded research.

It's a selfish reason to destroy a life to preserve another.

You have no way of judging the worth of the fetus, and I don't believe that we should try to value of one human life over another.

I oppose stem-cell destruction because it's hedonistic and selfish, damn if the zygote is being destroyed to save some sleazy slut who drank too much for her body to handle so now she's on dialysis but doesn't want that interfering in her modern trendy lifestyle, she wants to be Samantha from Sex and the City!

I can't get over a woman who actually said that on some show on cloning and embyros we had to watch in school. I wanted to shoot her.

This is exaggerated, I know there are decent people like Christopher Reeves who have had unfortunate lives and are disadvantaged beyond words, but that doesn't change the fact you're killing someone else just so you can live a few more years, even if you do make a full recovery.

It will not just save one life, Paternia.

You'd better hope that no one else who lost a loved one that could have been saved by stem cell research hears you. Some won't be as kind as me.

My cousin is a quadraplegic who dived into a pool in six feet of water - not deep enough.

Many times these people don't even need stem-cell research to survive, just to increase the quality of their lives.

I won't apologize, and I stick to my guns, It's selfish to kill an innocent person just so you can live a little longer, or walk, or drink as much as you want and have another kidney on the way.

It's a selfish reason to destroy a life to preserve another.

You have no way of judging the worth of the fetus, and I don't believe that we should try to value of one human life over another.

I oppose stem-cell destruction because it's hedonistic and selfish, damn if the zygote is being destroyed to save some sleazy slut who drank too much for her body to handle so now she's on dialysis but doesn't want that interfering in her modern trendy lifestyle, she wants to be Samantha from Sex and the City!

I can't get over a woman who actually said that on some show on cloning and embyros we had to watch in school. I wanted to shoot her.

This is exaggerated, I know there are decent people like Christopher Reeves who have had unfortunate lives and are disadvantaged beyond words, but that doesn't change the fact you're killing someone else just so you can live a few more years, even if you do make a full recovery.

One third of the US population is estimated to suffer from illnesses that might be alleviated by cell transplantation technologies that use pluripotent stem cells.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp

And I don't support destroying embyros. But cloning stem cells from embyros could work. It's not like it's a human being being cloned.

One third of the US population is estimated to suffer from illnesses that might be alleviated by cell transplantation technologies that use pluripotent stem cells.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp

So? It's still selfish.

That's like saying we could have no poor if people stole, or no one would be hungry if we all resorted to cannibalism. I'd rather not be able to control my body from my neck down than kill an innocent person to escape my fate.

It's a selfish reason to destroy a life to preserve another.

You have no way of judging the worth of the fetus, and I don't believe that we should try to value of one human life over another.

I oppose stem-cell destruction because it's hedonistic and selfish, damn if the zygote is being destroyed to save some sleazy slut who drank too much for her body to handle so now she's on dialysis but doesn't want that interfering in her modern trendy lifestyle, she wants to be Samantha from Sex and the City!

I can't get over a woman who actually said that on some show on cloning and embyros we had to watch in school. I wanted to shoot her.

This is exaggerated, I know there are decent people like Christopher Reeves who have had unfortunate lives and are disadvantaged beyond words, but that doesn't change the fact you're killing someone else just so you can live a few more years, even if you do make a full recovery.
http://graphics.samsclub.com/images/products/0076705642844_LG.jpg

So? It's still selfish.

That's like saying we could have no poor if people stole, or no one would be hungry if we all resorted to cannibalism. I'd rather not be able to control my body from my neck down than kill an innocent person to escape my fate.

Kill an innocent person? Stem cells can be taken from the blood of alive people, and even mice, and still be used in humans.

Cannibalism? Stem cells can be taken from the blood of alive people, and even mice, and still be used in humans.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this, I don't really have a position on that yet, but from what I heard many proponents of stem-cell research believe that it isn't viable to do research with these stem cells because of small quantity, and in some cases quality and ability. The embryonic stem cells are much greater in number, so they seek to harvest those instead.

Looking over a bit of data on embryonic stem cell research, it would appear that the eggs are fertilized via in vitro fertilization and not harvested from a womans body. As such, it has zero probability of developing beyond lab set standards.

Given the case, I do not see how the cells can grow into a potential person, much less be given the label of innocent.

I find the arguments against stem cell research amusing actually. I usually put them alongside PETA and ALF arguments.

It is still, an albeit incomplete, human organism, and is alive.

You bring up a good point. Creation of life just to destroy it is even worse than what was previously mentioned.

And how can they not be innocent when they haven't done anything that could be considered wrong and haven't harmed anybody? Saying that they're anything but innocent is ridiculous.

embryo != life

Stem cell research isn't killing anybody, it is making use of what would otherwise be considered medical waste.

It is still, an albeit incomplete, human organism, and is alive.

You bring up a good point. Creation of life just to destroy it is even worse than what was previously mentioned.

And how can they not be innocent when they haven't done anything that could be considered wrong and haven't harmed anybody? Saying that they're anything but innocent is ridiculous.
Saying that they're a life, or an organism is ridiculous.

It is still, an albeit incomplete, human organism, and is alive.

Incorrect. It is a potential human organism. It does not classify as human just yet.


You bring up a good point. Creation of life just to destroy it is even worse than what was previously mentioned.

Creation of life just to destroy it is worst? Please. If so, then all farms should not have any moral right to exist.

And if the loss of a life so that others may exist should not be moral, then you also propose that all agencies in high risk positions should be removed such as emergency services (fire/police), the armed forces. Before you make the statement that these are done with conscious choices, I have to tell you that the supplier of the eggs in the operation are from the only party capable of making said choice. That is the donor.

From a scientific standpoint, a zygote does not classify as a human being just yet.


And how can they not be innocent when they haven't done anything that could be considered wrong and haven't harmed anybody? Saying that they're anything but innocent is ridiculous.

http://www.answers.com/topic/innocence

The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:

1. Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.
2. Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense.
3. Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness.
4. Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté.
5. Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.
6. Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensiveness.

By this reasoning of yours, the label innocence can then be applied to just about any non-living object in existence.

Why aren't you protesting the violation of granite quarries?

Incorrect. It is a potential human organism. It does not classify as human just yet.

Okay.

Creation of life just to destroy it is worst? Please. If so, then all farms should not have any moral right to exist.

I meant human life.

And if the loss of a life so that others may exist should not be moral, then you also propose that all agencies in high risk positions should be removed such as emergency services (fire/police), the armed forces. Before you make the statement that these are done with conscious choices, I have to tell you that the supplier of the eggs in the operation are from the only party capable of making said choice. That is the donor.

They are the only party capable of making the choice, yes, but should they have the right to make that choice for another person? I'd say no.

As for the occupations enumerated above, while the military is more justified than abortion and stem-cell research because they are usually not killing innocents, I would still prefer if it did not exist at all, but it is necessary.

The other professions you have enumerated rarely involve the death of the volunteer, and the person is making a choice for their own life, not someone else's.

From a scientific standpoint, a zygote does not classify as a human being just yet.

Okay.

http://www.answers.com/topic/innocence

The state, quality, or virtue of being innocent, as:

1. Freedom from sin, moral wrong, or guilt through lack of knowledge of evil.
2. Guiltlessness of a specific legal crime or offense.
3. Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness.
4. Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté.
5. Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.
6. Freedom from harmfulness; inoffensiveness.

By this reasoning of yours, the label innocence can then be applied to just about any non-living object in existence.

Why aren't you protesting the violation of granite quarries?

Good point, which brings up a topic I've left out of the conversation: human dignity. Humans have precedence over granite and over everything else on this Earth, other than other humans of course. Humans are the strongest, and have the most to lose in death, and (I believe) have been created to be the masters of the Earth and are above ever other form of life, and their life is sacred whereas others are not.

Granite quarries can be sacrificed, they mean nothing compared to man. On the other hand I would protest the violation of granite quarries for certain reasons, but not this one.

This is exaggerated, I know there are decent people like Christopher Reeves who have had unfortunate lives and are disadvantaged beyond words
Yeah, the por dead bastard. Lived a life of mediocre acting career and no oen gave two shits about him until he fell off his thoroughbread champion steed and had to live in a wheelchair through all the book deals, publicity, and the best medical care undeserving publicity can buy.


http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=creeve

I've seen that myself, and I actually agree with it for the most part, even if it is a little harsh.

I just figured I'd go the more PC route this time, because the previous words were a strong dose.

They are the only party capable of making the choice, yes, but should they have the right to make that choice for another person? I'd say no.

And yet by your own admission, zygotes aren't person's yet. Not in the strict definition of human, to which you indicate has more value than any other type of life.


Good point, which brings up a topic I've left out of the conversation: human dignity. Humans have precedence over granite and over everything else on this Earth, other than other humans of course. Humans are the strongest, and have the most to lose in death, and (I believe) have been created to be the masters of the Earth and are above ever other form of life, and their life is sacred whereas others are not.

I never really did buy into that ballyhoo about manifest destiny. Nevertheless, as you agreed earlier on, a zygote is only a potential human, just as an unfertilized egg is a potential human. In the case of stem cell research, it will never grow in the uterus, and as such, it will never develop into a human in any possible case.


Granite quarries can be sacrificed, they mean nothing compared to man. On the other hand I would protest the violation of granite quarries for certain reasons, but not this one.

Mmm, just like the environment (enlarging the granite quarry example to cover it) and the planet means nothing to man. Unfortunately, you failed to take into account that you happen to be living on said planet. Poison it enough, and you can be sure that it will come back to bite you in the ass one way or another.

However, you did make the exception "for certain reasons". That gives you the benefit of the doubt in how far you believe man is above the planet he lives on.