NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5056554.stm

Good. The less short-sightedness and religion can limit science, the better.

Excellent. This is just what the world needs more of.

Intellectuals 1, Conservative idiots 0

Dammit. Use umbilical blood! No need to kill people. :headbang:

Dammit. Use umbilical blood! No need to kill people. :headbang:

That's why they're using embryos, not people.

Good to see someone has the balls to ignore the current Administrations ignorant attempts at banning cloning.

Excellent. This is just what the world needs more of.

Intellectuals 1, Conservative idiots 0
To be fair, Clinton was against it too. Not that says anything. Either way, one for the team. Good thing.

Rock on. *bows*

To be fair, Clinton was against it too. Not that says anything. Either way, one for the team. Good thing.
No, Clinton realized it was politically impossible. Sadly, one of his major faults was that he was a consumate politician.

At last. Some good science related news to come out of the US of A.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5056554.stm

Someone correct me if I am wrong but isn't this already illegal in the US?

Score one for science!

wouldnt it be ironic that bush get lukemia and gets cured using this resaerch...

Wouldn't it be ironic if the market (and all the money to be made from these discoveries) funded the research, and not the government?

Wouldn't it make the free market look like the wave of the future, and government funding of research look like a hopeless anachronism?

wouldnt it be ironic that bush get lukemia and gets cured using this resaerch...
It's ironic that if there were treatments etc to be developed from this stuff, he'd be amoung the first to feel the benefits despite his opposition to it. And i doubt he'd raise much objection, either.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the market (and all the money to be made from these discoveries) funded the research, and not the government?

Wouldn't it make the free market look like the wave of the future, and government funding of research look like a hopeless anachronism?

Who has more money to spend on this sort of thing?

The drug companies? Or the government?

Who has more money to spend on this sort of thing?

The drug companies? Or the government?

Drug companies :D

Who has more money to spend on this sort of thing?

The drug companies? Or the government?
The drug companies (along with the arms manufacturers and oil companies) ARE the government.

Liasia']The drug companies (along with the arms manufacturers and oil companies) ARE the government.
No, they aren't.

The drug companies (and the private sector) invests enough capital each year in the US to make government spending look tiny.

No, they aren't.

The drug companies (and the private sector) invests enough capital each year in the US to make government spending look tiny.
I was thinking lobbyists etc. Surely you aren't deny the huge influence big buisness has on the conduct of government in the US?

Liasia']I was thinking lobbyists etc. Surely you aren't deny the huge influence big buisness has on the conduct of government in the US?
Yes.

One reason I can see them opposing government funded research is that in the event something is discovered, it isn't owned by the drug company.

If they pay for it themselves, they get richer.

Looks like they're paying Harvard to do the work. So they'll get rich.

Good. Science is amoral.

Good. Science is amoral.
surely you mean 'bad'? The OP is about science being developed fierther despite the government.

Liasia']surely you mean 'bad'? The OP is about science being developed fierther despite the government.

But that's a good thing.

I mean, science being developed further would be horrible, but when it's fierther, it's fine :D

Liasia']The drug companies (along with the arms manufacturers and oil companies) ARE the government.

One point of contention. The arms manufacturers are comparitively small. It's the arms owners that assert thier influence.

I'll wait till something comes out of it.

Liasia']surely you mean 'bad'? The OP is about science being developed fierther despite the government.

Nope. Get a vocabulary. Science is pure logic and reason, and thus any interference on grounds on grounds of morality is unjustifiable.

One point of contention. The arms manufacturers are comparitively small. It's the arms owners that assert thier influence.
I'm sorry, who makes $trillion profits every year? Money is power, and companies like Boeing sure aren't strapped for cash.

But that's a good thing.

I mean, science being developed further would be horrible, but when it's fierther, it's fine :D
Spelling... its amoral:p

Who said it would never happen?

Nope. Get a vocabulary. Science is pure logic and reason, and thus any interference on grounds on grounds of morality is unjustifiable.
Oh i see a-moral as in 'not relating to morals' not 'evil'. Fair enough then.

What is so special about humans that we should not clone them? Other than the obvious fact that we don't need to add to the already excessive population?

What is so special about humans that we should not clone them? Other than the obvious fact that we don't need to add to the already excessive population?
JESUS!

Liasia']JESUS!

Do not take the name of the Lord in vein.

Do not take the name of the Lord in vein.
Direct arterial injection is always better. Much quicker.

Do not take the name of the Lord in vein.
I was answering the guy's question.

Do not take the name of the Lord in vein.

Meh. Whyever not?

Meh. Whyever not?

Because fitting it into a syringe is hard as hell.

Liasia']I was answering the guy's question.

You were responding to my question but not answering it. What is so special about humans?

You were responding to my question but not answering it. What is so special about humans?
Personally, i was taking the piss. But i think some christians have a thing about life being holy. Search me.

Liasia']Good. The less short-sightedness and religion can limit science, the better.

Excellent. This is just what the world needs more of.

Intellectuals 1, Conservative idiots 0

Ok.... What the fuck does religion have to do with stem cell research? Absolutely nothing. Don't listen to those cunts that preach "Omg stem cell research is against god's will!11!" Tell me one place in the Bible where it says, "Ok guys, if you're reading this 2000 years from now, I hope you're not doing stem cell research."

Liasia']Personally, i was taking the piss. But i think some christians have a thing about life being holy. Search me.

Holy piss! They do?

*Sorry. couldn't resist the pun*:D

Holy piss! They do?

*Sorry. couldn't resist the pun*:D
Mmm you pick some stuff up after a bit on NS general.

Ok.... What the fuck does religion have to do with stem cell research? Absolutely nothing. Don't listen to those cunts that preach "Omg stem cell research is against god's will!11!" Tell me one place in the Bible where it says, "Ok guys, if you're reading this 2000 years from now, I hope you're not doing stem cell research."
I wasn't.

Liasia']Mmm you pick some stuff up after a bit on NS general.

Yes but most of what you pick up isn't contagious.:p

Savages.

Savages.

What's that have to do with anything?

I think it is a good thing to further science. People have been rejecting cloning mostly because they have these irrational fears and don't understand how it can help us, or even how it works, which really disapoints me. But then, many people who support cloning do it more because they hate conservatives and don't understand it much better.

Because fitting it into a syringe is hard as hell.
Try instead to stuff whatever makes you DECLARE "the lord"'s name aloud, perhaps in an ecstatic fashion into the syringe, it's easier and more concentrated. *nods*

-smilie deleted-

Savages.
"Weiner"s.

Hey man, the embryos have a right to life too. Just because they're microscopic and have no discernible body structure doesn't mean that they're any different from an adult human.

Good. If the government were funding it, everything would be going faster. This research could lead to an end of the age of organ shortages.

wouldnt it be ironic that bush get lukemia and gets cured using this resaerch...
Thats disgusting.

It is possible for a person to appreciate the significance of stem cell research and its potential, and still believe that embryos are human life and destroying them is wrong. There is not a person in this world who would like to see a cure for Leukemia more than I would. Still, I personally believe that it would be better to use already existing stem cells, like the ones you can find in adults, rather than use embryos. I expect everyone will get up in arms about how embryos are not human life, and that's fine, whatever. You have a right to see it that way. I'd just like to point out that people who don't want stem cell research to use embryos are not necessarily people who don't care about the diseases that kill or religious fanatics who don't believe in evolution.

Savages.
No, the savages are the religious people clinging to beliefs that are over two thousand years old and attempting and failing to apply them to the modern world.

I am recovering from 18 years of christian addiction, so I think I have a grasp on how they (fail to) reason. What I don't get about this issue is, they already have established that if it comes down to one person or the other, the more full form of life wins. Pregnant mother gets in a car crash, ER doc can only save one, save mom as she's a cognizant adult.

In a stem-cell research situation, what science is ideally looking for is a means to help lots and lots and lots of fully-formed rational adults. Besides, what are the odds of a cluster of stem cells under a normal circumstances in a womb-environment growing into a baby? I bet you it's not a 100% success rate from that point on. From what I've heard, a TON of cell-clusters die within the first few weeks before mom might even know she's pregnant, for no really good medical reason.

Life needs a redefinition. The Terry Schiavo case, morning-after pills, these show us that science has taught us so much about life and what it really is, on a cellular level, that some assume that human life, valuable good human life, is equivalent to cellular life. It really isn't, and so we need to define a difference between cellular life and human life. That's the real issue here.

TRH

Life needs a redefinition.
TRH

Life needs a definition, period. A lot of places are still using the "no pulse = Dead" rule. Others like brain function. The Catholic Church says life begins at conception; other churches say implantation. By law, in most places, you aren't alive until birth.

It is, in fact, the heart of the matter. When does a blastocyst become "alive"? When does life cease?

To me, you are alive as long as you can stay that way without external support, whether medical or natural. Otherwise, you're just a pile of cells.

Savages.

Appalling.

Yep, well i guess we could have a farm of some sort out of the publics eys and clone and manufacture cloned humans for many reasons,

1) Organs
2) Weapons Range
3) Biological Warefare
4) Torture Methods
5) Sleep Deprevations and its affects on the human mind
6) Propaganda Enforcing
7) Radical Climate Changes
8) Evolution D.N.A. alterations
9) Radiation Mutations
10) Test Flying New Planes
11) Deep Space Explorations
12) Suicide Armys

and many more goodies just for the preservation of the human race. !:D

Hey man, the embryos have a right to life too. Just because they're microscopic and have no discernible body structure doesn't mean that they're any different from an adult human.


Crap.

Theyre CELLS...NOT PEOPLE.

Not even human at that point, and at any rate would never reach "birth".

This idea proposes a way to CURE diseases like Luekemia, or cancer of all kinds.
If the power to do this were in your hands alone, and you turned this down, I think God would be super-pissed.
How you know this learning isnt the will of God?

Do you think God objected to Louis Pastuer?

Dont be so arrogant to claim to know the mind of the unknowable.

I am recovering from 18 years of christian addiction, so I think I have a grasp on how they (fail to) reason. What I don't get about this issue is, they already have established that if it comes down to one person or the other, the more full form of life wins. Pregnant mother gets in a car crash, ER doc can only save one, save mom as she's a cognizant adult.

If you follow some of the pro-life debates around here, you would see that many of us Christians do support abortion when the life of the mother is at stake. I am one of those people.

Life does not need a redifinition.

If you follow some of the pro-life debates around here, you would see that many of us Christians do support abortion when the life of the mother is at stake. I am one of those people.

Life does not need a redifinition.
Good post, Corny. *bows*

*little tag*
So ... if life doesn't need a redefinition, why do so many people buy into that "life after death" jazz - when, quite clearly, that would be a redefinition of life ... as would "being born again"
? :D

I was disappointed with cloning ever since I learned that you could never have a real clone - as in, the same age as you, with your memories, a duplicate with whom you could easily conquer the world.

Instead, it's more like having a baby, except the baby has your geneset. Blah. Good enough, as long as I can have 100,000,000 of them. We will be UNSTOPPABLE. (Once they come of age.)

I was disappointed with cloning ever since I learned that you could never have a real clone - as in, the same age as you, with your memories, a duplicate with whom you could easily conquer the world.

Instead, it's more like having a baby, except the baby has your geneset. Blah. Good enough, as long as I can have 100,000,000 of them. We will be UNSTOPPABLE. (Once they come of age.)
Ever see that episode where all the Homers 'cept one flew off into Springfield Gorge after that giant donut?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5056554.stm

Goooood. Hopefully, in future, we'll have the technology to clone supermodels while giving them more intelligence, hence creating excellent citizens.
And cloning might be the excellent solution to Europe's demographic trends...:D

I would say that embryo's aren't yet people, but fetus's are, so: Stem-cell research is fine. I will support it, as it can possibly improve the lives of millions of people who have or may get serious diseases.



Kind of off topic, but the abortion debate goes hand in hand with stem-cell research contoversy.

Abortion when the mother's life is not at stake is not so fine, and I would say is murder. If the mother's life is at stake, I would say save the life of the contributor to society. Though, the Baby MAY also end up being a decent person, they may end up being a murderer. I say save the life of the known contributing person, ie. mother. Though it is still murder, it is as close as one can get to the lesser of two evils. Also, if the mother dies because of some preventable-by-abortion birth complication that is not acted upon, that is TWO deaths, at least one of which was preventable, so abortion cannot simply be banned outright.

Intellectuals 1, Conservative idiots 0
Conservatives can be intellectuals too. That kind of generalization is prejudiced and discriminatory.

They should proceed with caution.

I'm still kind of curious as to who said it would never happen.

Actually, from what I remember what was said was that if the government didn't fund this research someone else, private or another government, would.

I think the OP is confused.

I would say that embryo's aren't yet people, but fetus's are, so: Stem-cell research is fine. I will support it, as it can possibly improve the lives of millions of people who have or may get serious diseases.



Kind of off topic, but the abortion debate goes hand in hand with stem-cell research contoversy.

Abortion when the mother's life is not at stake is not so fine, and I would say is murder. If the mother's life is at stake, I would say save the life of the contributor to society. Though, the Baby MAY also end up being a decent person, they may end up being a murderer. I say save the life of the known contributing person, ie. mother. Though it is still murder, it is as close as one can get to the lesser of two evils. Also, if the mother dies because of some preventable-by-abortion birth complication that is not acted upon, that is TWO deaths, at least one of which was preventable, so abortion cannot simply be banned outright.Good post. *bows*