NationStates Jolt Archive

"The end game
Sources say Mr. Bush will veto only the substantive bill.

The other two will pass the House quickly after the Senate approves them and the President will sign those into law. There is a slight chance the Senate will override the veto of the main bill, but the House definitely will not.

The entire process will be orchestrated so that the President’s veto and the failed overrides will take place in less then 24 hours — as one legislative aide told me, “within one news cycle” — to minimize the publicity.

Show over."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13864044/

Finally, he can really use his veto powers to really mess something up.

Will be one of the most despicable uses of the veto power in recent memory.

Let hope it helps drive the republicans out in november.

Praise the Lord and Pass the ammunition!

Ahh well. It just means the rest of the world will get this figured out as we head into our dark ages.....

And in the meantime, the biotech labs continue to relocate to Singapore and other places where non-interference policies are a solid selling point for attracting high-tech foreign investment. The adverts have been running in the New Scientist magazine for years.

And in the meantime, the biotech labs continue to relocate to Singapore and other places where non-interference policies are a solid selling point for attracting high-tech foreign investment. The adverts have been running in the New Scientist magazine for years.
Lucky Singapore....

The only science Bush ever approved of seems to be Christian Science :D

"Lawd, Timmy dun fell down and broke his leg into a compound fracture, so please we pray to ya to heaaaaaal this child so we don't have to take him to the pagan librul hospitals!"

I can't fathom why a supposedly pro-business President would hamstring America in such a way. :(

I can't fathom why a supposedly pro-business President would hamstring America in such a way. :(
Because it doesn't have anything to do with oil or baseball?

"Frozen embryos? Guess what? THey're not alive! They're frozen! They're frozen! THey're frozen! They're frozen! They Are Frozen! It's not up for discussion! Don't let that idiot in the White House go, 'Well, you know...' They're not alive! You could defrost one like a mini-pizza. It's still not alive! It has the potential for life. Otherwise, it's a mini-pizza." -Lewis Black.

Because it doesn't have anything to do with oil or baseball?

I'd go with that, if not for the huge subsidies the corn, concrete and defense industries have gotten over the past half dozen years...

Aren’t Republicrats wonderful?

I'd go with that, if not for the huge subsidies the corn, concrete and defense industries have gotten over the past half dozen years...
Hmm...
Well, Bush likes corn, sidewalks and missiles as well as baseball and oil.

"The end game
Sources say Mr. Bush will veto only the substantive bill.

The other two will pass the House quickly after the Senate approves them and the President will sign those into law. There is a slight chance the Senate will override the veto of the main bill, but the House definitely will not.

The entire process will be orchestrated so that the President’s veto and the failed overrides will take place in less then 24 hours — as one legislative aide told me, “within one news cycle” — to minimize the publicity.

Show over."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13864044/

Finally, he can really use his veto powers to really mess something up.


Veto? Can't he just say it's illegal anyway?

After all, if you go through Congress, that only confers false legitemacy upon that failed institution.

Veto? Can't he just say it's illegal anyway?

After all, if you go through Congress, that only confers false legitemacy upon that failed institution.
Huh?

Hmm...
Well, Bush likes corn, sidewalks and missiles as well as baseball and oil.

Well, when you put it that way, I can't help but agree! :)

Huh?

I thought that the satire would be easier to pick up on. . .

Anyway, replace "Congress" with "the U.N." and see how it reads. The idea is that, to this point, Bush has shown no more respect for Congress than neo-cons do for the United Nations.

Well, that just deflated any possible humor from the situation. . .

I don't usually like these "we're so smart" threads, but for the first veto in 6 years to be over embryo research is just incredible when you consider the other crap Bush has signed.

On the other hand, this is exactly what he said he'd do in 2000. There shouldn't be any surprise.

I thought that the satire would be easier to pick up on. . .

Anyway, replace "Congress" with "the U.N." and see how it reads. The idea is that, to this point, Bush has shown no more respect for Congress than neo-cons do for the United Nations.

Well, that just deflated any possible humor from the situation. . .
OK... I thought you might be a scary person.

I don't usually like these "we're so smart" threads, but for the first veto in 6 years to be over embryo research is just incredible when you consider the other crap Bush has signed.

On the other hand, this is exactly what he said he'd do in 2000. There shouldn't be any surprise.
That's why it's being predicted.

OK... I thought you might be a scary person.

Who says I'm not? I've worked damn hard for those restraining orders. . .

Who says I'm not? I've worked damn hard for those restraining orders. . .
I'm liberal, man. As long as you don't like Bush, your personal life is your own.

I'm liberal, man. As long as you don't like Bush, your personal life is your own.

What are you wearing right now?

I kid (no, seriously)

What are you wearing right now?

I kid (no, seriously)
Suspenders... and nothing else.

Suspenders... and nothing else.

I suppose I deserve that.

I'll have to go now and spork out my mind's eye.

That's why it's being predicted.
Fair enough. How about "The time for outrage was last November?" Or "This kerfuffle over the veto is pointless."

Fair enough. How about "The time for outrage was last November?" Or "This kerfuffle over the veto is pointless."
Either is valid. Sadly.

Fair enough. How about "The time for outrage was last November?" Or "This kerfuffle over the veto is pointless."

Um, surely you mean November 2004, not 2005?
"The time for outrage was the November before last November?" :D

Will be one of the most despicable uses of the veto power in recent memory.

Let hope it helps drive the republicans out in november.

True statement, and a false hope. In fact, this fiasco will help the Republicans massively. They get a no-risks chance to 'support' stem-cell research if that will help them in their district or state, or to 'take a principled stand against it' if that will help more. In some cases, they will find a way to do both.

This whole thing was engineered to help the GOP in Congress and reinvigorate the religious-reich base by dangling the 'look what would have happened if a Republican President hadn't been in office' threat in front of them. It's just one big posturing ploy.

"The end game
Sources say Mr. Bush will veto only the substantive bill.

The other two will pass the House quickly after the Senate approves them and the President will sign those into law. There is a slight chance the Senate will override the veto of the main bill, but the House definitely will not.

The entire process will be orchestrated so that the President’s veto and the failed overrides will take place in less then 24 hours — as one legislative aide told me, “within one news cycle” — to minimize the publicity.

Show over."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13864044/

Finally, he can really use his veto powers to really mess something up.
Tempest in a teapot. Stem cell research will soon be using adult stem cells obtained from donated blood.

Tempest in a teapot. Stem cell research will soon be using adult stem cells obtained from donated blood.

Other than the fact that embryonic stem cells are more flexible than adult stem cells.

Thank you Mr. President for taking care of those that cannot take care of themselves. I wish all people had the same respect for human life.

Other than the fact that embryonic stem cells are more flexible than adult stem cells.

Not to mention they can be obtained much easier and in massively greater numbers, and are more easily cultured. The fact that they are significantly less pluripotent is just one of multiple inferior qualities adult stem cells have compared to embryonic ones.

Thank you Mr. President for taking care of those that cannot take care of themselves. I wish all people had the same respect for human life. Now go bomb some more brown people.

Fixed. :)

lol if they would get out of the way they wouldn't get bombed :sniper:

lol if they would get out of the way they wouldn't get bombed :sniper:

If there is such a thing as karma, you will be hit by a bus and the last thing you'll hear will be some wanker going: "he should have got out of the way".

Thank you Mr. President for taking care of those that cannot take care of themselves. I wish all people had the same respect for human life.
I wish you had respect for people who are actually out of the womb. How would you feel about this if it could save your mother or a loved one, I wonder.

And as far as your bomb comment, it seems you've shown us all just how much you value human life.

Will be one of the most despicable uses of the veto power in recent memory.

And it will be the first time Bush has ever used that power. Good thing he saved it for something important, right? :rolleyes:

And in the meantime, the biotech labs continue to relocate to Singapore and other places where non-interference policies are a solid selling point for attracting high-tech foreign investment. The adverts have been running in the New Scientist magazine for years.
You don't understand the law. There are no restrictions on private research. The labs don't have interference from the government. The laws currently only refer to which lines of stem cells can be federally funded.

True statement, and a false hope. In fact, this fiasco will help the Republicans massively. They get a no-risks chance to 'support' stem-cell research if that will help them in their district or state, or to 'take a principled stand against it' if that will help more. In some cases, they will find a way to do both.

This whole thing was engineered to help the GOP in Congress and reinvigorate the religious-reich base by dangling the 'look what would have happened if a Republican President hadn't been in office' threat in front of them. It's just one big posturing ploy.

Indeed. They're making a big show by outlawing something that no scientist is truly considering anyways, and telling the NIH that they can fund something they can already fund. Two incredibly useless bills, but they get to pretend that they're doing something.


Tempest in a teapot. Stem cell research will soon be using adult stem cells obtained from donated blood.

Such research is already being done. Of course, that doesn't mean that other types of stem cell research should not be done. The statement that we should rely entirely on adult stem cell research is akin to saying that we should only research penicillin, and never look for other antibiotics. Or maybe we should only research aspirin, and never look for other painkillers. Different medicines are useful in different situations, and it seems that different types of cells will be useful in different situations as well.

Thank you Mr. President for taking care of those that cannot take care of themselves. I wish all people had the same respect for human life.

Taking care of what? All a veto will do is ensure that these embryos get incinerated as medical waste, instead of being used to help research therapies for disease.


You don't understand the law. There are no restrictions on private research. The labs don't have interference from the government. The laws currently only refer to which lines of stem cells can be federally funded.

Of course, private money is only rarely used to fund basic science research, and there isn't enough private money out there to allow much ongoing research with other lines. Not to mention that, in order to avoid losing all federal funding, a university or other research lab looking to use other lines would have to ensure that there was absolutley no mixing of funds. Thus, if I am doing NIH-funded research, anyone in my lab using such lines - privately funded - would have to work in a different area, use completely different reagents (no borrowing), use completely different equipment, and be paid from a different budget.

"The end game
Sources say Mr. Bush will veto only the substantive bill.

The other two will pass the House quickly after the Senate approves them and the President will sign those into law. There is a slight chance the Senate will override the veto of the main bill, but the House definitely will not.

The entire process will be orchestrated so that the President’s veto and the failed overrides will take place in less then 24 hours — as one legislative aide told me, “within one news cycle” — to minimize the publicity.

Show over."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13864044/

Finally, he can really use his veto powers to really mess something up.

It's a beautiful thing...King Georgie breaks his Veto cherry in order to stop science from healing sick people.

It's a beautiful thing...King Georgie breaks his Veto cherry in order to stop science from healing sick people.
You gotta screw some one to pop your cherry.

You gotta screw some one to pop your cherry.
As the very close friend of a Parkinson's patient, and as a life-long researcher in the biomedical sciences, I can personally assure you...he's screwing plenty of people over.

You don't understand the law. There are no restrictions on private research. The labs don't have interference from the government. The laws currently only refer to which lines of stem cells can be federally funded.
Effectively shutting every University out of the equation.

The two Republican Senators from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, authored one of the companion bills. It directs the federal government research establishment to search for means of obtaining embryonic stem cells from sources other than human embryos.
The author states that the research for searching for other stem cell sources can already be funded; in other words, this bill just directs the federal government to do so. I'd say this was a good idea. If alternative means can be found that exclude the destroying of, in Bush's and others' view, "human life", then we won't have this supression of potentially revolutionary treatments.

The author states that the research for searching for other stem cell sources can already be funded; in other words, this bill just directs the federal government to do so. I'd say this was a good idea. If alternative means can be found that exclude the destroying of, in Bush's and others' view, "human life", then we won't have this supression of potentially revolutionary treatments.
You can get to New Jersey by taking a rocket ship to the moon first but that doesn't mean its a good idea or the best way to get there.

Effectively shutting every University out of the equation.

Most universities anyways. Those in California right now are probably getting a boost in the right direction, and Harvard has set up a stem cell institute that is privately funded. Of course, it still counts out most of us that aren't either in California or in an incredibly well-funded ivy league school.

Of course, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy at that point. If research can only be funded for damaged lines, then it is even more likely that opponents can keep saying that no new treatments have been devised. It isn't as if we can place any of the approved lines into human beings anyways.


The author states that the research searching for other stem cell sources can already be funded; in other words, this bill just directs the federal government to do so.

Not *exactly*. It doesn't tell the federal government to do so, as it sets up no budget for it. It is, essentially, a useless bill. It basically says, "Congress likes the idea of having the NIH fund research it is already funding. So, NIH, you can fund this research."

I'd say this was a good idea. If alternative means can be found that exclude the destroying of, in Bush's and others' view, "human life", then we won't have this supression of potentially revolutionary treatments.

Of course, until an alternative that does not destroy the blastocyst can be found...

Not to mention the point that so many people forget: Thes blastocysts are going to be destroyed whether they are used for research or not. Unless Bush is planning on making such destruction illegal (which would be interesting, as it would have to change the entire in vitro fertilization industry, there is really no point to blocking research with said embryos. What such a block basically says is, "It is perfectly ok to incinerate these embryos. Just don't do anything useful with the. It's better just to throw them away."

Not to mention the point that so many people forget: Thes blastocysts are going to be destroyed whether they are used for research or not. Unless Bush is planning on making such destruction illegal (which would be interesting, as it would have to change the entire in vitro fertilization industry, there is really no point to blocking research with said embryos. What such a block basically says is, "It is perfectly ok to incinerate these embryos. Just don't do anything useful with the. It's better just to throw them away."
Which fits in perfectly with the mindset of Bush and his fundamentalist ilk:

It's okay to end human life, as long as nobody learns anything in the process.

You can get to New Jersey by taking a rocket ship to the moon first but that doesn't mean its a good idea or the best way to get there.

Yeah, but then you won't have to drive through the Bible belt.

Veto? Can't he just say it's illegal anyway?

Well he can pass the bill and just issue a signing statement saying "I dont like this bill"

You can get to New Jersey by taking a rocket ship to the moon first but that doesn't mean its a good idea or the best way to get there.
???

So embryonic stem cell research should be considered the only type of stem cell research ever allowed to be practiced? I was just saying that it would be good to look more into adult stem cell research in order to avoid this stupidity with the morally-obssessed right...

???

So embryonic stem cell research should be considered the only type of stem cell research ever allowed to be practiced? I was just saying that it would be good to look more into adult stem cell research in order to avoid this stupidity with the morally-obssessed right...

From what I hear adult stem cells are not as versatile.

I was just saying that it would be good to look more into adult stem cell research in order to avoid this stupidity with the morally-obssessed right...
As a scientist, I am deeply insulted by the number of people who suggest we "look more into" adult stem cell research.

Maybe you don't mean to be a jackass, but honestly...please knock it off. Do you really think that scientists haven't been giving adult stem cells the attention they deserve? Do you really think that the THOUSANDS of researchers who have spent YEARS studying stem cells have just decided not to take a good look at adult stem cells? Gimme a small break. Yes, we really, really, really have. I promise you.

If it were possible to use adult stem cells for all the applications we need, WE WOULD DO IT. I promise you. Most people in the biomedical sciences would love nothing more than to be able to use adult stem cells for every blessed application. I personally know at least three people who have spent the last 10 years of their lives trying to find ways to do exactly that.

Seriously. If you have concrete objections to the use of embryonic stem cells, fine. If you have concerns about their use, fine. If you think adult stem cells have untested potential, please share your information and your research! But pretty please, with tons of sugar on top, please do not make the insulting assumption that scientists aren't putting enough effort into looking at adult stem cells. Please don't assume that scientists are just racing ahead with embryonic cells because they can't be bothered to consider alternatives. Please don't assume that scientists just don't care, or that they enjoy the prospect of killing embryos, or that they are trying to deliberately provoke the religious right.

From what I hear adult stem cells are not as versatile.
They're not, but I've read that researchers believe that they have the potential to be after having done experiments with mice.

As a scientist, I am deeply insulted by the number of people who suggest we "look more into" adult stem cell research.

Maybe you don't mean to be a jackass, but honestly...please knock it off. Do you really think that scientists haven't been giving adult stem cells the attention they deserve? Do you really think that the THOUSANDS of researchers who have spent YEARS studying stem cells have just decided not to take a good look at adult stem cells? Gimme a small break. Yes, we really, really, really have. I promise you.

If it were possible to use adult stem cells for all the applications we need, WE WOULD DO IT. I promise you. Most people in the biomedical sciences would love nothing more than to be able to use adult stem cells for every blessed application. I personally know at least three people who have spent the last 10 years of their lives trying to find ways to do exactly that.

Seriously. If you have concrete objections to the use of embryonic stem cells, fine. If you have concerns about their use, fine. If you think adult stem cells have untested potential, please share your information and your research! But pretty please, with tons of sugar on top, please do not make the insulting assumption that scientists aren't putting enough effort into looking at adult stem cells. Please don't assume that scientists are just racing ahead with embryonic cells because they can't be bothered to consider alternatives. Please don't assume that scientists just don't care, or that they enjoy the prospect of killing embryos, or that they are trying to deliberately provoke the religious right.
I am well aware that embryonic stem cells are the focus of scientists because they show promise that adult stem cells do not. In essence, the bill that is mentioned in the quote that I posted is really just symbolic, a way of showing the religious right that efforts are being made to research other methods of treatment aside from those involving embryos. It's not really about scolding scientists for not having done so in the first place -- it's just a gesture as a way of trying to appease the religious right, giving them hope that embryos are not necessarily the end all and be all of stem cell research.

???

So embryonic stem cell research should be considered the only type of stem cell research ever allowed to be practiced? I was just saying that it would be good to look more into adult stem cell research in order to avoid this stupidity with the morally-obssessed right...

So adult stem cell research should be considered the only type of stem cell research ever allowed to be practiced?

Adult stem cell research is being carried out. In fact, I am one of those carrying it out. However, embryonic stem cell research, which has its own set of possible uses, should also be carried out. Any suggestion that we should be investigating adult stem cells in lieu of embryonic is like suggesting that we should investigate tylenol in lieu of penicillin. And, as Bottle pointed out, any suggestion that we are not putting adequate effort into adult stem cell research is very insulting.

Meanwhile, let's look at the quote you used:
The two Republican Senators from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, authored one of the companion bills. It directs the federal government research establishment to search for means of obtaining embryonic stem cells from sources other than human embryos.

This says nothing about using adult stem cells. That *might* be what the senators meant, but it certainly isn't what this quote says. This says that they wish to obtain embryonic stem cells from some other source than human embryos. Never mind that stem cells that do not come from blastocysts are not, in fact, embryonic stem cells. I think this was probably what was being referenced in the "rocket to the moon to get to New Jersey" comment.

Just moments ago, The US Senate has approved federal funding of Embryonic Stem Cell research. A bill that Bush has vowed to veto.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=492336

Seriously, it is even on the front page with practically the same title.

This must be like Christmas and your birthday all rolled into one, eh Colonel?

Yet one more policy that people 25 years from now will look back upon and go, "What the hell?"

So adult stem cell research should be considered the only type of stem cell research ever allowed to be practiced?

Adult stem cell research is being carried out. In fact, I am one of those carrying it out. However, embryonic stem cell research, which has its own set of possible uses, should also be carried out. Any suggestion that we should be investigating adult stem cells in lieu of embryonic is like suggesting that we should investigate tylenol in lieu of penicillin. And, as Bottle pointed out, any suggestion that we are not putting adequate effort into adult stem cell research is very insulting.

Meanwhile, let's look at the quote you used:


This says nothing about using adult stem cells. That *might* be what the senators meant, but it certainly isn't what this quote says. This says that they wish to obtain embryonic stem cells from some other source than human embryos. Never mind that stem cells that do not come from blastocysts are not, in fact, embryonic stem cells.
I never said that adult stem cell research should be the only type of stem cell research allowed. I simply stated that I support efforts that would advocate looking for alternatives. WAIT! DON'T REPLY WITH SEETHING RAGE YET! READ ON! Yes, the quote appears to be faulty upon second glance, but I believe it is a typo. I think that the bill mentioned in the quote just supports efforts to find alternatives to using stem cells of an embryonic nature. Like I said, it's really just a symbolic gesture, if anything, because it doesn't even deal with funding.

This must be like Christmas and your birthday all rolled into one, eh Colonel?
And you forgot Easter, Halloween, and a Democrat getting hit by a truck.

And you forgot Easter, Halloween, and a Democrat getting hit by a truck.

Not to mention Anne Coulter doing a skin calendar.

;)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=492336

Seriously, it is even on the front page with practically the same title.

Actually it wasn't. I looked. :rolleyes:

Actually it wasn't. I looked. :rolleyes:

then you missed it because its been on page one all day. as soon as I saw your thread I saw the other thread about 10 spots below yours.

Not to mention Anne Coulter doing a skin calendar.

;)
No, no, no. Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity doing a "liberals hate porn" porn shoot.

Ladies and Gentlemen, a hand for Communal Property and his Power of Observation!

:D

I never said that adult stem cell research should be the only type of stem cell research allowed.

No, you didn't. But every time you suggest that we need to spend more time on adult stem cell research in lieu of embryonic stem cell research, you suggest that.

I simply stated that I support efforts that would advocate looking for alternatives.

And ignore the fact that those alternatives are and have been, for quite some time now, under investigation. The bill is a placeholder - something Bush can sign so he can pretend he actually cares about research. It does not change anything at all about actual research.

Yes, the quote appears to be faulty upon second glance, but I believe it is a typo.

You never know. I've seen senators cite research in which embryonic stem cells were combined with somatic cells as evidence that embryos need not be used. Never mind that the research itself used embryonic stem cells that were derived from blastocysts.

I think that the bill mentioned in the quote just supports efforts to find alternatives to using stem cells of an embryonic nature. Like I said, it's really just a symbolic gesture, if anything, because it doesn't even deal with funding.

It isn't even a symbolic gesture of support. It is a political ploy to put up the illusion of support. The political reasons for it are obvious. It is so Bush and all those who vote against embryonic stem cell research can say, "But we do support stem cell research! See!?!?!?!" It is a useless bill specifically designed so that Bush can have something to sign.

Yet one more policy that people 25 years from now will look back upon and go, "What the hell?"


What the hell? :confused:

Well no one can say they didn't see this coming.

Just moments ago, The US Senate has approved federal funding of Embryonic Stem Cell research. A bill that Bush has vowed to veto.

Yay! Once more, the US is led backwards by Bush and 'religion'!

No, you didn't. But every time you suggest that we need to spend more time on adult stem cell research in lieu of embryonic stem cell research, you suggest that.

He likes to suggest things were said or not said by rewording what was said.

Well no one can say they didn't see this coming.


No. At this point it is blindingly obvious that the President wants nothing to do with scientific research in any form that doesn't have to do with weapons.

Yay! Once more, the US is led backwards by Bush and 'religion'!

Well?

You guys had your Dark Ages. I guess it's our turn. :(

Actually it wasn't. I looked. :rolleyes:

Yes, it was. It hasn't left the front page for hours.

No. At this point it is blindingly obvious that the President wants nothing to do with scientific research in any form that doesn't have to do with weapons.

Oh that's bullshit but I'm not going to argue over it because this is about his veto of stem cell research which won't be overridden by the Congress because they do not have the votes to do so.

What the hell? :confused:

As in "what was George Bush thinking?" The answer to this debate is obvious, but Bush isn't on the right (correct) side.

Oh that's bullshit but I'm not going to argue over it because this is about his veto of stem cell research which won't be overridden by the Congress because they do not have the votes to do so.

You're not going to argue about it because you have no defense. Bush continues to hurt the EPA, Stem-cell research, and to fight to undermine education for biology. Those aren't the actions of a man who supports science.

As in "what was George Bush thinking?" The answer to this debate is obvious, but Bush isn't on the right (correct) side.

I thought so. Just wanted a clarification for my dim-witted mind! ;)

You're not going to argue about it because you have no defense. Bush continues to hurt the EPA, Stem-cell research, and to fight to undermine education for biology. Those aren't the actions of a man who supports science.

KSp...

Due keep on track of the current thread in regards to the veto of this bill and nothing else. You are not going to drag me into this fight so kindly shut up about everything else but this.

You're not going to argue about it because you have no defense. Bush continues to hurt the EPA, Stem-cell research, and to fight to undermine education for biology. Those aren't the actions of a man who supports science.

In the name of the Lord!

Oh that's bullshit but I'm not going to argue over it because this is about his veto of stem cell research which won't be overridden by the Congress because they do not have the votes to do so.

Please don't tell me you are talking about his crap mandate about math and science.....

No, you didn't. But every time you suggest that we need to spend more time on adult stem cell research in lieu of embryonic stem cell research, you suggest that.



And ignore the fact that those alternatives are and have been, for quite some time now, under investigation. The bill is a placeholder - something Bush can sign so he can pretend he actually cares about research. It does not change anything at all about actual research.



You never know. I've seen senators cite research in which embryonic stem cells were combined with somatic cells as evidence that embryos need not be used. Never mind that the research itself used embryonic stem cells that were derived from blastocysts.



It isn't even a symbolic gesture of support. It is a political ploy to put up the illusion of support. The political reasons for it are obvious. It is so Bush and all those who vote against embryonic stem cell research can say, "But we do support stem cell research! See!?!?!?!" It is a useless bill specifically designed so that Bush can have something to sign.
My whole point was not diss scientists or you, specifically. Yes, it's a piece of fluff and, as you said, scientists have and are considering adult stem cells, so it's not really even an issue.

EDIT: Hey teh_pantless_hero: it's called clarification (Griswold) and you misreading what I said ("controversial decisions.") But I don't expect you to understand or listen, because I'm a "Republican."

Please don't tell me you are talking about his crap mandate about math and science.....

I'm not talking about anything but this bill.

KSp...

Due keep on track of the current thread in regards to the veto of this bill and nothing else. You are not going to drag me into this fight so kindly shut up about everything else but this.

This is a symptom of an already flawed paradigm that pays lip-service to science while attacking the parts that can save lives. This veto just shows how backwards Bush has become.

I certainly am not suprised. Disgusted, yes, but not suprised.

Ahh, there's nothing like making the US less economically competitive because of one person's ideology. I seriously hope the states move to pass legislation funding embryonic stem-cell research; there's no reason why the rational state legislatures who support innovation and a healthy, modern economy have to suffer just because of the President's ideology.

It's great that Bush vetoes one of the few good pieces of legislation produced by this Congress while his party racks up hundreds of billions in debt and wasteful entitlement spending...it just makes it easier for Democrats to win in 2006 and 2008.

As in "what was George Bush thinking?"

That question is faulty for obvious reasons :D

You don't understand the law. There are no restrictions on private research. The labs don't have interference from the government. The laws currently only refer to which lines of stem cells can be federally funded.
You don't understand corporate politics. Companies pack up and move elsewhere if governments take steps in certain directions. Always better to make sure you're ahead of the pack if you are facing the thin end of the wedge. And a lot of work is performed jointly with universities, which do receive federal funding.

This is a symptom of an already flawed paradigm that pays lip-service to science while attacking the parts that can save lives. This veto just shows how backwards Bush has become.

I certainly am not suprised. Disgusted, yes, but not suprised.

Now care to point out where I supported Bush on this Veto?

After racking up $2 trillion in debt and a trillion more in entitlements with no vetoes Bush proceeds to veto one of the few good pieces of legislation produce by the Republican Congress. And people wonder why he's only got a 36% approval rating...

Merged! Owned! :D

Ahh, there's nothing like making the US less economically competitive because of one person's ideology. I seriously hope the states move to pass legislation funding embryonic stem-cell research; there's no reason why the rational state legislatures who support innovation and a healthy, modern economy have to suffer just because of the President's ideology.

Unfortunately, not all of the states have very rational legislators. In my own state, they are trying desperately to attract biotech, while simultaneously trying to push anti-research bills that end up defining unfertilized eggs as embryos and as human lives. We are hoping that, even if Bush does veto (which I'm sure he will), the fact that this legislation got passed at all might quench some of the more idiotic bills being pushed by state legislations.

Now care to point out where I supported Bush on this Veto?

You didn't. You did, however, call bullshit on my claim and then try to paint it as irrelevant.

You didn't.

Then kindly stop attacking me.

You did, however, call bullshit on my claim and then try to paint it as irrelevant.

Because in this thread, it is irrelevent.

I can't fathom why a supposedly pro-business President would hamstring America in such a way. :(



What does killing babies have to do with business?

What does killing babies have to do with business?

What does killing babies have to do with the price of eggs in China, or even this thread for that matter?

Unfortunately, not all of the states have very rational legislators. In my own state, they are trying desperately to attract biotech, while simultaneously trying to push anti-research bills that end up defining unfertilized eggs as embryos and as human lives. We are hoping that, even if Bush does veto (which I'm sure he will), the fact that this legislation got passed at all might quench some of the more idiotic bills being pushed by state legislations.

Where do you live? Just wondering; I'm seriously hoping it isn't on the West Coast, East Coast, or Texas considering the three nexi of our tech and biotech industries are distributed between those regions.

I think Bush and these legislatures forget that most people support embryonic stem-cell research; the potential benefits are simply too great compared to the drawback of destroyed embryos. We can't allow our economy to falter and antiquate nor can we allow medical breakthroughs to be silenced because of extremist ideological interpretations of the issue (alliteration ftw).

In fact, here's a compromise: All grown embryos have a certain period in which they can be adopted by a prospective parent. If the embryos are not claimed within this period, they are allowed for stem cell research without restrictions. I would prefer no strings attached, but that's too difficult with the current Administration in office.

What does killing babies have to do with the price of eggs in China, or even this thread for that matter?



You DO know what stem cells are don't you and one way stem cell liberals support getting them right?

Then kindly stop attacking me.



Because in this thread, it is irrelevent.

I just showed otherwise. Hence the so-called "attack".

You DO know what stem cells are don't you and one way stem cell liberals support getting them right?

They come from fetuses. Fetuses that are not developed at all, practically. They are not alive and they are not babies.

You DO know what stem cells are don't you and one way stem cell liberals support getting them right?

From the 22 lines that are already available.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/StemCells/Templates/StemCellContentPage.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2finfo%2ffaqs%2easp&NRNODEGUID=%7bA604DCCE-2E5F-4395-8954-FCE1C05BECED%7d&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#classes

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

They come from fetuses. Fetuses that are not developed at all, practically. They are not alive and they are not babies.



Try doing more research. Most of all the cloning aspect to get more stem cells.

You DO know what stem cells are don't you and one way stem cell liberals support getting them right?

Obviously they come from Chinese eggs.

Obviously they come from Chinese eggs.



EVERYTHING comes from Chinese Eggs....DUH!:rolleyes:

Where do you live? Just wondering; I'm seriously hoping it isn't on the West Coast, East Coast, or Texas considering the three nexi of our tech and biotech industries are distributed between those regions.

Georgia. Atlanta, to be specific. I work in a lab where we use various forms of adult stem cells, as well as some embryonic stem cells, in our research. We follow the legislation pretty closely. The Georgia Senate recently tried to push through a bill that, on the one hand, would set up an umbilical cord bank for research (although the bill included no provisions for funding), but on the other included definitions such that an unfertilized egg would be considered a human life - banning research into therapeutic cloning altogether.

One of the few things that actually seemed to win over some of the legislators was an initiative by the Georgia Biomedical Engineering Partnership to make it absolutely clear that biotech business was not going to want to move to Atlanta when such bills were being considered.

I think Bush and these legislatures forget that most people support stem-cell research; the benefits are simply too great compared to the drawback of destroyed embryos. We can't allow our economy to falter and antiquate nor can we allow medical breakthroughs to be silenced because of extremist ideological interpretations of the issue (alliteration ftw).

In fact, here's a compromise: All grown embryos have a certain period in which they can be adopted by a prospective parent. If the embryos are not claimed within this period, they are allowed for stem cell research without restrictions. I would prefer no strings attached, but that's too difficult with the current Administration in office.

Interestingly enough, the bill just passed (the one that will be vetoed, we are told), only allows embryonic stem cells to be derived from blastocysts that would otherwise be destroyed. In other words, the couple undergoing treatment have stated that they do not wish to pay for cryo-storage or donate to any of the programs which set up "adoptions" for excess embryos. Without going to research, they will be destroyed as medical waste.

EVERYTHING comes from Chinese Eggs....DUH!:rolleyes:

And those come from Chinese chickens, which come from previous chinese eggs, which come from previous chinese chickens, up until the first chinese egg, which came from the last chinese proto-chicken.

Try doing more research. Most of all the cloning aspect to get more stem cells.

Ah. See I was under the impression that the "cloned" line was generally considered less useful.

And those come from Chinese chickens, which come from previous chinese eggs, which come from previous chinese chickens, up until the first chinese egg, which came from the last chinese proto-chicken.



And that Proto-Chicken was created by the great Confucius.

You DO know what stem cells are don't you and one way stem cell liberals support getting them right?

What way is that?

I am well aware of what stem cells are - probably much more aware than you are. Tell me, what do you think stem cells are and how do you think researchers obtain them?


They come from fetuses. Fetuses that are not developed at all, practically. They are not alive and they are not babies.

Incorrect. We are discussing embryonic stem cells, which cannot be derived from fetuses. They are derived from an early embryonic stage known as the blastocyst.

Try doing more research. Most of all the cloning aspect to get more stem cells.

The bill under question would only allow federal funding of embryonic stem cells derived from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics - embryos that will otherwise be destroyed as medical waste.

The idea of therapeutic cloning is important in the area of embryonic stem cell research, but is irrelevat to this particular bill.

Ah. See I was under the impression that the "cloned" line was generally considered less useful.



people have come up with some rather immoral ways of getting stem cells. Some women want to get pregnant so they can sell the stem cells.

Incorrect. We are discussing embryonic stem cells, which cannot be derived from fetuses. They are derived from an early embryonic stage known as the blastocyst. .

Well bah. I stand corrected. I clearly don't know enough on the subject.

people have come up with some rather immoral ways of getting stem cells. Some women want to get pregnant so they can sell the stem cells.


And? It's not like they're killing anything that's actually alive.

And that Proto-Chicken was created by the great Confucius.

Who created himself out of fortune cookie dough.

And? It's not like they're killing anything that's actually alive.



:rolleyes:

Ah. See I was under the impression that the "cloned" line was generally considered less useful.

Actually, if E_S is talking about therapeutic cloning, such techniques could be more useful. It would allow us to derive embryonic cell lines that are genetically matched to the patient, removing the issue of rejection.

Of course, we have not yet achieved this feat in human beings, and the bill in question would not fund it anyways.

people have come up with some rather immoral ways of getting stem cells. Some women want to get pregnant so they can sell the stem cells.

Now you are just making things up. Sell what stem cells? Certainly not embryonic stem cells, which are derived from pre-implantation embryos - blastocysts - at about developmental day 5. You can't get embryonic stem cells from a pregnant woman, for a variety of reasons. First of all, the woman isn't even pregnant yet at the point at which they could be derived - as the embryo would not have implanted. Second of all, even if we knew it was there, we have no method by which to retrieve such an embryo for use in cell isolation.


Well bah. I stand corrected. I clearly don't know enough on the subject.

=) I think it's time to ressurect the Stem Cells: Fact and Fiction thread. Be right back. =)

Georgia. Atlanta, to be specific. I work in a lab where we use various forms of adult stem cells, as well as some embryonic stem cells, in our research. We follow the legislation pretty closely. The Georgia Senate recently tried to push through a bill that, on the one hand, would set up an umbilical cord bank for research (although the bill included no provisions for funding), but on the other included definitions such that an unfertilized egg would be considered a human life - banning research into therapeutic cloning altogether.

That's terrible. I hope they don't pass, because Georgia's economy has too much to lose from these kinds of initatives; whenever an industry is chased away from a region, you'll find that others seemingly unrelated to it also leave to chase the lost opportunity. Telecommunications, mechanical engineering, computer programming or anything tech-related are all hurt when one sector suffers a downturn; chasing away biotech will hurt even more because the industry requires a lot of advanced software, complex machinery, and extensive telecom services to function properly.

One of the few things that actually seemed to win over some of the legislators was an initiative by the Georgia Biomedical Engineering Partnership to make it absolutely clear that biotech business was not going to want to move to Atlanta when such bills were being considered.

Good for them. We need the people and organizations affected by these bills to take a firm stand against this type of legislation. Even if these bills are passed, the people will know where to put the blame when the good jobs vanish, companies leave and the young graduates start fleeing the state.

Hopefully, that will influence the voters in their future elections to avoid such ideologically-drive nonsense.

Interestingly enough, the bill just passed (the one that will be vetoed, we are told), only allows embryonic stem cells to be derived from blastocysts that would otherwise be destroyed. In other words, the couple undergoing treatment have stated that they do not wish to pay for cryo-storage or donate to any of the programs which set up "adoptions" for excess embryos. Without going to research, they will be destroyed as medical waste.

Then there should be absolutely no debate over this bill. I find it hard to argue that allowing embryos to be thrown away is morally superior to using them to potentially save lives and definitely advance our knowledge of human physiology. The moral, medicinal, and economic benefits of this legislation are too great to be subverted by a radical ideology.

:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ha! I rolled my eyes more than you!

That's terrible. I hope they don't pass, because Georgia's economy has too much to lose from these kinds of initatives; whenever an industry is chased away from a region, you'll find that others seemingly unrelated to it also leave to chase the lost opportunity.

Well, it didn't pass this session. I'm sure something similiar will come up again, and we'll just be watching.

Good for them. We need the people and organizations affected by these bills to take a firm stand against this type of legislation. Even if these bills are passed, the people will know where to put the blame when the good jobs vanish, companies leave and the young graduates start fleeing the state.

Indeed. No matter how hard they tried to avoid it, the legislators who supported the bill couldn't get around the BME Partnership, the numerous patient advocates, or the scientists (including my advisor) who stood up and spoke against it.

Hopefully, that will influence the voters in their future elections to avoid such ideologically-drive nonsense.

I think it affects some, but not all.

Then there should be absolutely no debate over this bill. I find it hard to argue that allowing embryos to be thrown away is morally superior to using them to potentially save lives and definitely advance our knowledge of human physiology. The moral, medicinal, and economic benefits of this legislation are too great to be subverted by a radical ideology.

And yet, that is exactly the argument that many in the Senate made.

people have come up with some rather immoral ways of getting stem cells. Some women want to get pregnant so they can sell the stem cells.

Obviously you did not read the link from the NIH where they stated that Stem Cells DO NOT come from pregnant women.

Now you are just making things up. Sell what stem cells? Certainly not embryonic stem cells, which are derived from pre-implantation embryos - blastocysts - at about developmental day 5. You can't get embryonic stem cells from a pregnant woman, for a variety of reasons. First of all, the woman isn't even pregnant yet at the point at which they could be derived - as the embryo would not have implanted. Second of all, even if we knew it was there, we have no method by which to retrieve such an embryo for use in cell isolation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cells

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalian_embryogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo


I suggest some reading, try understanding everything about stem cells and how they related to birth and human life instead of copying the first paragraph of wikipedia.

Obviously you did not read the link from the NIH where they stated that Stem Cells DO NOT come from pregnant women.


Read the links I gave to Dempublicents1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cells

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalian_embryogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo


I suggest some reading, try understanding everything about stem cells and how they related to birth and human life instead of copying the first paragraph of wikipedia.

My dear, stem cells are my field. I would suggest that you do some reading, as you obviously have some pretty major misconceptions about stem cell research.

My dear, stem cells are my field. I would suggest that you do some reading, as you obviously have some pretty major misconceptions about stem cell research.


Yeah right. For someone who claims they are your "field" you seem to have a lot of misconceptions of your own.

Read the links I gave to Dempublicents1.

Now read the link from the National Institute of Health:

III. What are embryonic stem cells?
A. What stages of early embryonic development are important for generating embryonic stem cells?

Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. The blastocyst includes three structures: the trophoblast, which is the layer of cells that surrounds the blastocyst; the blastocoel, which is the hollow cavity inside the blastocyst; and the inner cell mass, which is a group of approximately 30 cells at one end of the blastocoel.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

Yeah right. For someone who claims they are your "field" you seem to have a lot of misconceptions of your own.

Really? Like what? You have yet to demonstrate a single one. In fact, every link you gave supports what I have said, and contradicts what you have said.

Tell me, at what point in any link was it even suggested that embryonic stem cells could be obtained from pregnant women?

Now read the link from the National Institute of Health:

III. What are embryonic stem cells?
A. What stages of early embryonic development are important for generating embryonic stem cells?

Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. The blastocyst includes three structures: the trophoblast, which is the layer of cells that surrounds the blastocyst; the blastocoel, which is the hollow cavity inside the blastocyst; and the inner cell mass, which is a group of approximately 30 cells at one end of the blastocoel.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp



In vitro—Latin for "in glass"; in a laboratory dish or test tube; an artificial environment.


Once again, the human body does this naturally, they do invitro so they don't have to wait until women get pregnant. But they DO come from women in early stages of birth. Again read the links I provided, they happen naturally to.

Really? Like what? You have yet to demonstrate a single one. In fact, every link you gave supports what I have said, and contradicts what you have said.

Tell me, at what point in any link was it even suggested that embryonic stem cells could be obtained from pregnant women?



In organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote that has all the DNA of two parents. In plants, animals, and some protists, the zygote will begin to divide by mitosis to produce a multicellular organism. The term embryo refers to the early stages of this development, after the zygote has divided at least once, but before the process has completed to produce the next stage of development.


That.

Once again, the human body does this naturally, they do invitro so they don't have to wait until women get pregnant. But they DO come from women in early stages of birth. Again read the links I provided, they happen naturally to.

What part of "Not coming from pregnant women" don't you understand? None of the links you provided had any source for your claim.

Can you provide a reliable source proving your claims?

Well, it didn't pass this session. I'm sure something similiar will come up again, and we'll just be watching.

I think these bills are in their twilight; the arguments against them are getting more and more outdated and based less in reality and more in religious or philosophical interpretation.

Indeed. No matter how hard they tried to avoid it, the legislators who supported the bill couldn't get around the BME Partnership, the numerous patient advocates, or the scientists (including my advisor) who stood up and spoke against it.

If only such pressure would work on the Federal level; unfortunately, the attitude of invincibility that permeates this Administration likely means he'll just ignore the outcry and veto it anyway. You would think that if Nancy Reagan, wife of the most popular and arguably most successful Republican president in history supports this legislation that the President (who claims to be Republican) would listen to her.

It seems, however, that his ideology deafens him to the patient advocates, scientists, industry groups and 63 politicians who voted for the measure. That's a frightening trait for anyone let alone the President of the United States.

I think it affects some, but not all.

Hopefully, it's enough to remove the proponents of these restrictions from office.

And yet, that is exactly the argument that many in the Senate made.

And it will be ignored for nothing more than politics.

What part of "Not coming from pregnant women" don't you understand? None of the links you provided had any source for your claim.

Can you provide a reliable source proving your claims?



You didn't read them did you? READ THEM! No leave me.

No, seriously, George. I didn't want to get out of this wheelchair, anyway. :upyours:

No, seriously, George. I didn't want to get out of this wheelchair, anyway. :upyours:


Stem Cells are far from doing that anyway.

You didn't read them did you? READ THEM! No leave me.

Yes I did read them. What little supported data in them completely supported Dem.

Why do you keep ignoring this:

They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst.

You find me some reliable sources proving your claim and you might have a leg to stand on.

Once again, the human body does this naturally, they do invitro so they don't have to wait until women get pregnant. But they DO come from women in early stages of birth. Again read the links I provided, they happen naturally to.

There are embryonic stem cells in every blastocyst, yes. But this is rather irrelevant to the discussion, as only those blastocysts created in vitro are useful for stem cell research. As I already pointed out, it is unlikely that we would even know if a woman was carrying a pre-implantation embryo, nor do we have a method of retrieving it. And even if she was carrying a pre-implantation embryo, she wouldn't yet be pregnant, as pregnancy begins at implantation.

It isn't a matter of "not waiting for women to get pregnant." We have no method by which to detect and retrieve blastocysts from a woman's womb. Instead, discarded embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics have been used.


That.

"That" doesn't in any way suggest that we can actually obtain such cells from pregnant women. It simply suggest that, once an egg is fertilized within a woman's womb, the zygote/embryo will go through the same stages of development that allow us to obtain ES cells from eggs fertilized in vitro. This does not, in any way, suggest that we actually can or would obtain ES cells from a blastocyst developing in utero.

So, once again I ask, in what source did you find any evidence whatsoever that women were "getting pregnant to sell the stem cells" or that we could even obtain ES cells from a woman's womb?


I think these bills are in their twilight; the arguments against them are getting more and more outdated and based less in reality and more in religious or philosophical interpretation.

Yes, but sometimes that seems to *increase* support - at least from some groups.


It seems, however, that his ideology deafens him to the patient advocates, scientists, industry groups and 63 politicians who voted for the measure. That's a frightening trait for anyone let alone the President of the United States.

indeed.

Hopefully, it's enough to remove the proponents of these restrictions from office.

Unfortunately, unlikely. The legislators in question don't come from areas of the state likely to disagree with them, and the Georgia legislature is essentially a good ole' boys club.

Stem Cells are far from doing that anyway.

Not as far as you might think. Quite a bit of movement has been recovered in animal models of spinal cord injury - some using human embryonic stem cells.

Stem Cells are far from doing that anyway.


And your point would be? If the GOP has its way, they never will get to that point. I really don't think you have any business telling me, in effect, "suck it up, gimp".

Um, surely you mean November 2004, not 2005?
"The time for outrage was the November before last November?" :D
Of course. And don't call me Shirley.

Of course. And don't call me Shirley.

...That just doesn't have the same effect when the word is spelled out...

Ok, I have to head home now. I'll check in later.

Effectively shutting every University out of the equation.
If this really has the commercial potential that y'all claim, then it would be a no-brainer for a biomedical company to take up the research. Patents are where money is made.

...That just doesn't have the same effect when the word is spelled out...
I know. But the computer begged me to do it. "Don't call me surely" is maybe a little better in text.

And your point would be? If the GOP has its way, they never will get to that point. I really don't think you have any business telling me, in effect, "suck it up, gimp".

Funny that this Bill wouldn't pass without GOP support. The vote was 63-37. However, I be more concerned with the house than the Senate for the votes aren't there for an override.

What does killing babies have to do with business?

Everything is business. Abortion is a business. McDonalds is a business. Is there a difference? Well, one kills children slower.

Everything is business. Abortion is a business. McDonalds is a business. Is there a difference? Well, one kills children slower.

Since abortion doesn't kill children, that's a difficult argument to make. :rolleyes:

Since abortion doesn't kill children, that's a difficult argument to make. :rolleyes:

(psst: I was countering her query of how killing children is a business.)
And, actually, depending on when it is done, it may.

(psst: I was countering her query of how killing children is a business.)
And, actually, depending on when it is done, it may.

My bad. I'll just go sit in the corner for now. :p

???

So embryonic stem cell research should be considered the only type of stem cell research ever allowed to be practiced? I was just saying that it would be good to look more into adult stem cell research in order to avoid this stupidity with the morally-obssessed right...
I'm a big fan of having all avenues explored but not by shutting down the most promising avenue just to appease people who get uneasy over nothing. There is no excuse for destroying something which could be useful.

I wish you had respect for people who are actually out of the womb. How would you feel about this if it could save your mother or a loved one, I wonder.

And as far as your bomb comment, it seems you've shown us all just how much you value human life.

As a matter of fact it might could have saved my mother (who died 14 years ago) but it still is not right and I am proud of the president for sticking to what he believes, and I agree, is best for this country.

As for the other comment about bombing you are right I shouldn't have said that and I apoligize for doing so.

As a matter of fact it might could have saved my mother (who died 14 years ago) but it still is not right and I am proud of the president for sticking to what he believes, and I agree, is best for this country.

As for the other comment about bombing you are right I shouldn't have said that and I apoligize for doing so.
I find it hard to answer you without being insulting. I wish you would read up more on exactly what the process is and that it does not concern a life in any way, shape or form. Also, the very things we are arguing about using are put to needless waste anyway.

As for your apology, thanks for it. Honestly. It shows you're a good person.

It's a beautiful thing...King Georgie breaks his Veto cherry in order to stop science from healing sick people.

Sigged.

I'd go with that, if not for the huge subsidies the corn, concrete and defense industries have gotten over the past half dozen years...
The Corn is so the oil companies can make that Corn fuel when they run out. See it's still about oil. And the defense and cement is to help Boeing and Halburtian out.

If this really has the commercial potential that y'all claim, then it would be a no-brainer for a biomedical company to take up the research. Patents are where money is made.

Actually, biomedical companies very, very rarely invest in basic science research - which is largely where embryonic stem cell research is currently. It isn't cost effective to pay for research from the bottom up, nor is it a good idea for the general progression of science. Basic science research is carried out in a more public arena, and shared with the entire scientific community. When the research gets closer to production of a product, it moves into the private realm - the realm of intellectual property and hiding results - and is then developed into a product.


As a matter of fact it might could have saved my mother (who died 14 years ago) but it still is not right and I am proud of the president for sticking to what he believes, and I agree, is best for this country.

Why isn't it right? Do you really prefer that these exess embryos be destroyed without use? Do you really think that is the more moral option?

Just saw a news blip announcing the veto.....

Just saw a news blip announcing the veto.....
If only we had more Democrats in office to override it...

If only we had more Democrats in office to override it...

Or more increase funding republicans.

If only we had more Democrats in office to override it...

They should still try so the Repubs can't sit on their backsides during elections and say "Hey I voted for it, the shrub vetoed it"

Or more increase funding republicans.
Yeah, but getting Republicans to override the veto of the "head of their party" seems more unlikely; that's why I mentioned the Democrats only.

Or more increase funding republicans.

Or more Republicans not following Karl Rove's orders to vote against (despite their own views or those of their constituents)...

Responding to the First Post- It's already vetoed- and the House and Senate don't have the votes to muster an override.

Just thought I'd let y'all know.

Why isn't it right? Do you really prefer that these exess embryos be destroyed without use? Do you really think that is the more moral option?

It isn't right because A) it just isn't necessary, whatever could be gained from the use of those embyos can be done with adult stem cells as well, and B) it legitimizes abortion.

Burke and Hare, I'm sure would have supported the use of murder as a tool to increase scientific knowledge about human anatomy. Doesn't make it right.

I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree here.

At least I won't have to listen to everyone going on about Bush hasn't used the veto pen anymore.

Ok. I have painted the target on my back. Proceed.

A

It isn't right because A) it just isn't necessary, whatever could be gained from the use of those embyos can be done with adult stem cells as well,

What on earth makes you think that? There is no evidence to support it. It's like saying, "Whatever can be done with penicillin can be done with aspirin as well." Adult stem cells are very different from embryonic stem cells, in many ways.

and B) it legitimizes abortion.

How the heck does it do that? There is no connection between abortion and embryonic stem cell research. One cannot initiate embryonic stem cell research with tissue from abortions. In fact, the embryos used in such research have never and will never be inside a woman's womb. The blastocyst is a preimplantation embryo. As such, were it to be from an egg fertilized inside a woman, she wouldn't even be pregnant at the time the blastocyst is used.

Burke and Hare, I'm sure would have supported the use of murder as a tool to increase scientific knowledge about human anatomy. Doesn't make it right.

Who said anything about murder? Even if you believe that fertilized eggs are human beings with all the rights therein, we are talking about embryos that are going to be destroyed whether they are used for research or not. Preventing their usage in research is really more like preventing the use of cadavers.

What on earth makes you think that? There is no evidence to support it. It's like saying, "Whatever can be done with penicillin can be done with aspirin as well." Adult stem cells are very different from embryonic stem cells, in many ways.



How the heck does it do that? There is no connection between abortion and embryonic stem cell research. One cannot initiate embryonic stem cell research with tissue from abortions. In fact, the embryos used in such research have never and will never be inside a woman's womb. The blastocyst is a preimplantation embryo. As such, were it to be from an egg fertilized inside a woman, she wouldn't even be pregnant at the time the blastocyst is used.



Who said anything about murder? Even if you believe that fertilized eggs are human beings with all the rights therein, we are talking about embryos that are going to be destroyed whether they are used for research or not. Preventing their usage in research is really more like preventing the use of cadavers.
And from what I've read, all of the major medical associations in the United States define pregnancy as beginning when the blastocyst (?) is implanted in the womb. So, taking this into account, what's being used in stem cell research wouldn't even be part of a pregnancy anyway.

There is no connection between abortion and embryonic stem cell research. One cannot initiate embryonic stem cell research with tissue from abortions. In fact, the embryos used in such research have never and will never be inside a woman's womb. The blastocyst is a preimplantation embryo. As such, were it to be from an egg fertilized inside a woman, she wouldn't even be pregnant at the time the blastocyst is used.

I stand corrected.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

And from what I've read, all of the major medical associations in the United States define pregnancy as beginning when the blastocyst (?) is implanted in the womb. So, taking this into account, what's being used in stem cell research wouldn't even be part of a pregnancy anyway.

Implantation generally occurs at approximately 2 weeks. Embryonic stem cell isolation is generally carried out at day 5. So you are absolutely right, the blastocysts used in embryonic stem cell research would not be part of a pregnancy (and thus could not be aborted, even if they were in a woman's body).


a) No, adult stem cells aren't as useful.

I'd shy away from actually making this statement. I think it would be better to point out that they are not useful in the same capacity. There are many therapies that use adult stem cells, and many more that we may develop. However, there are also medical issues that we do not seem to be able to address with adult stem cells. Think of it like the difference between aspirin and penicillin. Both are very useful, but in different capacities.

b) the embryonic stem cells come from frozen embryos that were not going to be implanted. NOT from aborted fetuses. That's a lie told to scare people.

Indeed.

c) How does this "legitimize abortion", especially since, like it or not, abortion is legal?

I keep wondering this as well.

d) It's not to "increase knowledge of human anatomy", it's to cure diseases and save lives, and no one's being murdered.

To be fair, these two things cannot really be separated. An increased knowledge of human anatomy and biology is necessary to cure diseases and save lives. In order to correct, for instance, spinal injuries, we must first understand exactly what happens in such and injury and how therapies may be used to repair it.

Yeah, Maineiacs. Thanks for keeping the debate on an adult level. I particularly enjoyed the "rot in Hell, fundie" part. Now, edit THIS post out of existence.

Yeah, Maineiacs. Thanks for keeping the debate on an adult level. I particularly enjoyed the "rot in Hell, fundie" part. Now, edit THIS post out of existence.



I'm sorry, am I supposed to care?

You DO know what stem cells are don't you and one way stem cell liberals support getting them right?

You're demonstrating with every word that it is you who have no idea what stem cells are or how they are obtained....

Stem cells are undifferentiated pluripotent human cells that ideally (because of maximum pluripotency and cultivation potential) are harvested from a stage of embryonic development called a blastocyst. A blastocyst is not a baby. A blastocyst is a rough sphere of approximately 100 stem cells with no differentiation or internal structure, whose size is less than that of a pinhead and makes it invisible to the naked eye.

A blastocyst, lacking a nervous system, or for that matter any other bodily structure, is not conscious and has no capacity to think, feel, act, choose, be in pain, etc. It has no phenotypical resemblance to a human whatsoever - its only point of similarity is its genotype, which is a point of similarity shared by the skin cells you brush off your arm on a daily basis.

So no, "killing babies" has nothing to do with anything, for example business. On the other hand, revolutionary medical treatment and the growing biotech industry have quite bit to do with business.

You're demonstrating with every word that it is you who have no idea what stem cells are or how they are obtained....

Stem cells are undifferentiated pluripotent human cells that ideally (because of maximum pluripotency and cultivation potential) are harvested from a stage of embryonic development called a blastocyst. A blastocyst is not a baby. A blastocyst is a rough sphere of approximately 100 stem cells with no differentiation or internal structure, whose size is less than that of a pinhead and makes it invisible to the naked eye.

A blastocyst, lacking a nervous system, or for that matter any other bodily structure, is not conscious and has no capacity to think, feel, act, choose, be in pain, etc. It has no phenotypical resemblance to a human whatsoever - its only point of similarity is its genotype, which is a point of similarity shared by the skin cells you brush off your arm on a daily basis.

So no, "killing babies" has nothing to do with anything, for example business. On the other hand, revolutionary medical treatment and the growing biotech industry have quite bit to do with business.
How can people be so misinformed? How hard is it to understand what you've written?

You're demonstrating with every word that it is you who have no idea what stem cells are or how they are obtained....

Stem cells are undifferentiated pluripotent human cells that ideally (because of maximum pluripotency and cultivation potential) are harvested from a stage of embryonic development called a blastocyst. A blastocyst is not a baby. A blastocyst is a rough sphere of approximately 100 stem cells with no differentiation or internal structure, whose size is less than that of a pinhead and makes it invisible to the naked eye.

A blastocyst, lacking a nervous system, or for that matter any other bodily structure, is not conscious and has no capacity to think, feel, act, choose, be in pain, etc. It has no phenotypical resemblance to a human whatsoever - its only point of similarity is its genotype, which is a point of similarity shared by the skin cells you brush off your arm on a daily basis.

So no, "killing babies" has nothing to do with anything, for example business. On the other hand, revolutionary medical treatment and the growing biotech industry have quite bit to do with business.
But those blastocyst have a soul! Conception occurs the second... nay, the milisecond where the spermatozoid meets the egg! the The pope says so! :rolleyes:

Won't somebody think of the blastocysts?
[/sarcasm]

Anybody see this?

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0714letter.pdf