NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, he vetoed the first bill of his administration, concerning stem-cell research. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204375,00.html)

WASHINGTON — President Bush vetoed the first bill of his five-and-a-half year administration Wednesday by rejecting a measure that would provide more federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

Wish he'd cut spending for a lot of other things, too...

God told Dear Leader that people who were born with painful crippling genetic deformities or suffered hideous injuries deserve it if they aren't rich enough to pay for the medical costs, so he should veto the bill.

Oh, for some reason I knew the veto would be stupid even before I opened the thread. I wonder why...

Presumably, they will be cured by Jesus. :rolleyes:

(Right after the nuclear annihilation of Israel brings about the Rapture)

...Yanno, that article could be posted in the running "Bush's first veto" topic...

Presumably, they will be cured by Jesus. :rolleyes:

(Right after the nuclear annihilation of Israel brings about the Rapture)

Jesus Saves (Blastocysts)

I can't even begin to express my rage over this.

Bush has now joined the likes of the people who arrested Gallileo.

I cannot believe the man honestly believes we have a moral obligation to protect frozen pizza.

On the plus side this gives Dems massive ammunition for the election. This means every single spending bill, the massive debt they've wracked up, the tax cuts all had Bush's OK, not just ambivalence, he was behind them all 100%.

Imagine how that'll play for the mid-terms.

I can't even begin to express my rage over this.

Bush has now joined the likes of the people who arrested Gallileo.

I cannot believe the man honestly believes we have a moral obligation to protect frozen pizza.

And years from now, when we're all laying low somewhere out in the wilderness hiding from the Kingdom of Gilead's thug squads, I'll be telling you "Hey, at least I didn't vote for Bush. Hell, I couldn't stand the coked up retarded welfare fratboy."

God told Dear Leader that people who were born with painful crippling genetic deformities or suffered hideous injuries deserve it if they aren't rich enough to pay for the medical costs, so he should veto the bill.

Why is it that adult stem cells cannot be used to combat those problems you mentioned? They have already been proven to regenerate damaged heart tissue following a heart attack. Explain.

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

Well, at least he didn't try to put it into the constitution like he did with gay marriage. With luck, the next President will have a bit more sense.

He vetoed it because it would mean the lives of Democrats would be unnecessarily prolonged, as Republicans don't need medicine because they have the blessing of God! :D

Why is it that adult stem cells cannot be used to combat those problems you mentioned?

Because adult stem cells are much more lineage-restricted. They are also much more difficult to keep undifferentiated in culture and have a lower proliferative potential.

They have already been proven to regenerate damaged heart tissue following a heart attack. Explain.

Untrue. They don't seem to regenerate any actual cardiac muscle. It seems to be more of a trophic effect than a regenerative one. And, interestingly enough, it seems to happen regardless of what type of stem or progenitor cell is injected. Studies have been done with myoblasts (muscle progenitors), bone marrow progenitors, and embryonic stem cells, with largely the same results.

Of course, there are also medical conditions for which only a single type of stem cell has been found to work. There are others for which, at this point, no type has been found to work, as no adult stem cell has been found that reliably differentiates into the type of cell under question.

What a waste of a veto. I could fill a vile with ebola and say its an embryo an try to destroy it and Bush and the Christian Right would have a cow.

Welp. I hope he gets fucked over by his own beliefs and gets something that stem cell research could have cured.

Could the next president veto this veto?

Welp. I hope he gets fucked over by his own beliefs and gets something that stem cell research could have cured.

Could the next president veto this veto?

Unfortunately not. Congress would have to pass the bill again (not that it looks like that would be a problem).

So when you send soldiers off to war to die, thats okay.
When embryos that are about to be discarded anyway die to save lives, thats bad.

Any questions? Yes quite a bit actually.

So when you send soldiers off to war to die, thats okay.
When embryos that are about to be discarded anyway die to save lives, thats bad.

Any questions? Yes quite a bit actually.

Didn't you get the memo? It is obviously much more moral to dispose of embryos as medical waste than to use them in medical research.

Farewell high-paying jobs and goodbye additional tax revenue! Well, when the US starts to lose its biotech jobs because other countries' universities and research labs are making the breakthroughs at least we'll know who to blame. I find it ironic that Bush and the anti-funding Republicans want to revive American competitiveness but simultaneously destroy it with their ignorance...what good is math and science education if you can't use the skills they provide in the US?

On a side note:
(Thank God for globalization and the fact that I'm going in to finance; at least I can benefit from investing biotech stocks anywhere in the world and not have to worry about nuts like Bush destroying them...if anything, globalization prevents the ideological fanatics from damaging progress in other parts of the world.)

Didn't you get the memo? It is obviously much more moral to dispose of embryos as medical waste than to use them in medical research.
oh im SURE they will all be given a full funeral ceremony since they are preborn children. anything less would be a mockery of human life.

Didn't you get the memo? It is obviously much more moral to dispose of embryos as medical waste than to use them in medical research.

I notice that you didn't bother to correct HIM that the only embyos that would be disposed were of the in vitro variety. Perhaps, because you agreed with him?
But anyway, thanks for enlightening me on the difference. And additionally, by doing so in a mature manner.

One who makes his/her points intelligently and without rancor, equal a thousand Maineiacs in futhering your viewpoint.

oh im SURE they will all be given a full funeral ceremony since they are preborn children. anything less would be a mockery of human life.

No, all these people who oppose this research should adopt these embryos and raise them! After all, if they are possible children than surely those noble souls would agree to bring them to term in order to save them, correct? But then again, it's so much easier to use rhetoric than to actually follow through on what you believe...it's so inconvenient to practice what you preach.

It gets in the way of your income, your political aspirations, your material desires...

I notice that you didn't bother to correct HIM that the only embyos that would be disposed were of the in vitro variety. Perhaps, because you agreed with him?

He didn't say that they weren't, so there was no correction to make. Considering that the post I was replying to was clear that the embryos were to be discarded, I guess I assumed the poster was aware that they are derived through in vitro.

But anyway, thanks for enlightening me on the difference. And additionally, by doing so in a mature manner.

No problem. As I've told other people, this is an issue I follow very carefully, as I work in a lab that focuses on stem cells - muscle satellite cells, neural progenitors, bone marrow progenitors, and embryonic stem cells. We are all of the opinion that, whatever someone thinks about the issue, they should at least be well-informed about it.

On the plus side this gives Dems massive ammunition for the election. This means every single spending bill, the massive debt they've wracked up, the tax cuts all had Bush's OK, not just ambivalence, he was behind them all 100%.

Imagine how that'll play for the mid-terms.

If anything, it'll be the opposite. Bush isn't running for office again - why does he care? What matters is the Congressmen who voted, or didn't, for the bill, and for them, the GOP got exactly what they wanted - this will do nothing but help them.

The GOP Congressmen get to distance themselves from Bush and "prove" that they aren't his lackeys, first, if they want/need to. Second, they get to make a no-risk choice. In any case, no matter what, they never had the numbers to override a veto and always had the assurance a veto would occur. This means that ones who would benefit in their district from supporting ESC research would get that benefit, no risk of actual passage, and the ones who needed to prove their conservatism to their district got the chance to do that. Thirdly, the GOP's religious-reich base got a sop, just in time to head off the rising complaints that they were being ignored.

The GOP wins, because this whole deal was their political posturing ploy.

Farewell high-paying jobs and goodbye additional tax revenue! Well, when the US starts to lose its biotech jobs because other countries' universities and research labs are making the breakthroughs at least we'll know who to blame. I find it ironic that Bush and the anti-funding Republicans want to revive American competitiveness but simultaneously destroy it with their ignorance...what good is math and science education if you can't use the skills they provide in the US?

On a side note:
(Thank God for globalization and the fact that I'm going in to finance; at least I can benefit from investing biotech stocks anywhere in the world and not have to worry about nuts like Bush destroying them...if anything, globalization prevents the ideological fanatics from damaging progress in other parts of the world.)
Banning embryonic stem cell research is only the icing on the cake of "reviving American competitiveness" while simultaneously doing everything in their power to put the nails in its coffin.

Does anyone support Bush's veto from a different angle, as I do?
I'm not fanatical about whether or not the embryo constitutes a human life or not. In fact, I can say with confidence that we will never 'discover' whether or not it is human life.

The point is the bill is asking for federal funding for a very controversial program. I don't see how you can morally force people to pay tax dollars for something they vehemently oppose. Just like abortions, the practice can go on, but you sure as hell won't get a penny from me and anyone else who does not support the program. Those who do support it can give all they want.

Banning embryonic stem cell research is only the icing on the cake of "reviving American competitiveness" while simultaneously doing everything in their power to put the nails in its coffin.

Well when the shit hits the fan and we're losing thousands of biotech and related jobs, the Republicans can claim that it's not their fault and people will believe them. I seriously wonder what sense it makes to bolster funding for science and then destroy the job opportunities of these prospective science students.

(Of course, trying to force intelligent design in to science classes doesn't help. We're cutting off the head of our tech industry through government regulation while simultaneously shooting it in the foot by trying to destroy the science education of our kids.)

I cannot believe the man honestly believes we have a moral obligation to protect frozen pizza.
ROFLcopters!

The point is the bill is asking for federal funding for a very controversial program. I don't see how you can morally force people to pay tax dollars for something they vehemently oppose. Just like abortions, the practice can go on, but you sure as hell won't get a penny from me and anyone else who does not support the program. Those who do support it can give all they want.

But there are people who vehemently oppose military spending on moral grounds; by that logic we shouldn't spend money on defense. It may not be as controversial but there are still vehement pacifists who see it as morally wrong.

But there are people who vehemently oppose military spending on moral grounds; by that logic we shouldn't spend money on defense. It may not be as controversial but there are still vehement pacifists who see it as morally wrong.
I agree. If I could choose where my taxes would go, it'd be towards stem cell research and not the bloated defense budget.

Hahahaha, now all of you know what I meant when I said that the position (of President) holds too much power.

Of course a lot of you knew that already. I just love it when points are proven without me having to take any action whatsoever.

Well when the shit hits the fan and we're losing thousands of biotech and related jobs, the Republicans can claim that it's not their fault and people will believe them. I seriously wonder what sense it makes to bolster funding for science and then destroy the job opportunities of these prospective science students.

(Of course, trying to force intelligent design in to science classes doesn't help. We're cutting off the head of our tech industry through government regulation while simultaneously shooting it in the foot by trying to destroy the science education of our kids.)
Science jobs arn't even the start of it.

Your surprised that he veto'd this? He announced that he was going to long before it even got into the house.

Science jobs arn't even the start of it.

Clearly, education is much more important (sorry, that was terrible). Anyway, if G.W. Dumbfuck didn't veto the bill, we could've had a lot of extra jobs and revenue... Not to mention the competetive spirit the Republicans so desperately want, or at least make us think they do.

Your surprised that he veto'd this? He announced that he was going to long before it even got into the house.
We all held out hope that maybe Bush would wake up this morning and think to himself, "You know, maybe I'm not a scientist, after-all. Maybe - just maybe - I'm not a scientist at all."

cnn.com:

"The measure, which the House of Representatives passed in May 2005, allows couples who have had embryos frozen for fertility treatments to donate them to researchers rather than let them be destroyed."

poor frozen blastocysts, they have to die, even though W tried so hard to save them :(

We all held out hope that maybe Bush would wake up this morning and think to himself, "You know, maybe I'm not a scientist, after-all. Maybe - just maybe - I'm not a scientist at all."

Or, he could have looked at it and said "The research itself is not illegal. I dont agree with it happening at all but seeing as how I cant stop it entirely i can at least prevent the Government from funding it when it would be perfectly capable of funding itself from donations by people who are interested in it."

Bush values frozen pizza up to the point they are sent off to Iraq to bake.

http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/2006/07/19.html#a1068


Here is why Bush's position is a joke: Thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded.

If Bush and his administration truly believe that destroying an embryo is a kind of murder, they shouldn't be wasting their time arguing about research funding: They should immediately shut down every fertility clinic in the country, arrest the doctors and staff who operate them, and charge all the wannabe parents who have been wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn.

But of course they'll never do such a thing. (Nor, to be absolutely clear, do I think they should.) Bush could not care less about this issue except as far as it helps burnish his pro-life credentials among his "base." This has been true since the first airing of Bush's position in 2001, as I said back then. So he finds a purely symbolic way of taking a stand, but won't follow the logic of his position to the place where it might cause him any political harm -- as opposing the family-building dreams of millions of middle-class Americans would doubtless do.


Bush - Just going through the motions so he can get fundie votes.

Or, he could have looked at it and said "The research itself is not illegal. I dont agree with it happening at all but seeing as how I cant stop it entirely i can at least prevent the Government from funding it when it would be perfectly capable of funding itself from donations by people who are interested in it."
Oh, we know how he looked at it. Proving himself wrong again.

Oh, we know how he looked at it. Proving himself wrong again.

You KNOW how he looked at it? Did you go talk to him? Use your amazing supernatural powers to read his mind to see EXACTLY what he was thinking? Everything here is speculation. Well, In this thread, speculation and insults.

Nonetheless, He Veto'd it.

The veto makes me sad. Anything less than a feotus should not be considered human life. What we need is a good Libertarian canidate.

Quite honestly, I think this veto is a good thing. Not because of any moral issue, but because I don't think the government should have an involvement in science for the most part. I think the private sector is far more able to determine profit, risk, capital needs, saving, etc., than a central planner in Washington. Banning stem cell research is another issue entirely, and not what the veto was about. The market is better able to determine what consumers want and how to allocate resources than the government.

Thank God someone had the balls to deny life saving research to millions. Im glad Bush had big enough balls to use his 1st veto on this. Science, medicine, and stem cells makes jesus cry. Bush just made sure jesus doesn't cry. God he has big balls.

Quite honestly, I think this veto is a good thing. Not because of any moral issue, but because I don't think the government should have an involvement in science for the most part. I think the private sector is far more able to determine profit, risk, capital needs, saving, etc., than a central planner in Washington. Banning stem cell research is another issue entirely, and not what the veto was about. The market is better able to determine what consumers want and how to allocate resources than the government.
Treatment like this shouldn't be bought and sold on the market like a goddamn bag of chips.

Quite honestly, I think this veto is a good thing. Not because of any moral issue, but because I don't think the government should have an involvement in science for the most part. I think the private sector is far more able to determine profit, risk, capital needs, saving, etc., than a central planner in Washington. Banning stem cell research is another issue entirely, and not what the veto was about. The market is better able to determine what consumers want and how to allocate resources than the government.
Not funding scientific research is a good way to fall behind other countries in scientific development quick, fast, and in a hurry.

Treatment like this shouldn't be bought and sold on the market like a goddamn bag of chips.

But it's the only way to do it. How do you decide between funding research for AIDS vaccines and funding a cure for cancer? I would agree that they're both important, but how do you decide how to give each a priority? We live in a world of scarcity, of finite resources, and we can't just spend all we want to make both of them. We need some measure of value to determine which is more necessary, which is more viable, and which is more readily created. Otherwise, we don't get it at all, or at the expense of others things that we have a much more pressing need to get (Think of all of the vaccines that are already produceable that we could make with the money necessary to just develop some of the stages of a cure for cancer or AIDS).

The veto was inevitable because Bush thinks the very field of research (stem cell research) being discussed is nothing but an Elizabeth Bathory(ian ) deception in disguise as modern science. A Pandora’s box of things better left unopened.

For illness that still need cures; Cord blood/cells and adult stem cells are not restricted. Synthetic developments will continue…

Even if they did find a magical cure for this or that disease using limited stem cell banks available now, then stem cell collection would then have to become stem-cell farming to produce the medication in the quantities needed for a world wide supply source. Which countries do YOU think would be used to collect stem cell tissues on the farming scales needed by the pharmaceutical companies? I bet it wouldn’t be the better off countries, I’ll tell you that.

Thank God someone had the balls to deny life saving research to millions. Im glad Bush had big enough balls to use his 1st veto on this. Science, medicine, and stem cells makes jesus cry. Bush just made sure jesus doesn't cry. God he has big balls.
Your sarcasm is running all over my screen now *wipes screen*

The veto makes me sad. Anything less than a feotus should not be considered human life. What we need is a good Libertarian canidate.
The Libertarian would veto it because it involves federal funding.

Not funding scientific research is a good way to fall behind other countries in scientific development quick, fast, and in a hurry.

Of course it can. But the private sector can do a lot of, if not most, of the research. There's little need for the government to get in on it.

You KNOW how he looked at it? Did you go talk to him? Use your amazing supernatural powers to read his mind to see EXACTLY what he was thinking? Everything here is speculation. Well, In this thread, speculation and insults.

Nonetheless, He Veto'd it.
Bush sometimes uses words to express feelings:

“It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it,” Mr Bush said.

Does anyone support Bush's veto from a different angle, as I do?
I'm not fanatical about whether or not the embryo constitutes a human life or not. In fact, I can say with confidence that we will never 'discover' whether or not it is human life.

The point is the bill is asking for federal funding for a very controversial program. I don't see how you can morally force people to pay tax dollars for something they vehemently oppose. Just like abortions, the practice can go on, but you sure as hell won't get a penny from me and anyone else who does not support the program. Those who do support it can give all they want.

I suddenly get the idea that your attempt at rational justification is only an attempt to hide your moral bias.

As for your point, I would guess that I oppose about 50% of government spending (that doesn't include this bill), so surely we should do away with it. There are many people who oppose about 90% of government spending, we should also do away with that portion as well too, right?

But there are people who vehemently oppose military spending on moral grounds; by that logic we shouldn't spend money on defense. It may not be as controversial but there are still vehement pacifists who see it as morally wrong.

Hell, there are those who oppose all medicine on religious grounds - thinking it is "playing God." Should we stop funding all medical research? Should we do away with Medicare and Medicaid?

Bush did the job he was elected to do...he represented...and paid back.. those that put him in office...although I understand his action...I think it sucks.

Science jobs arn't even the start of it.

For every biotech job, there are probably dozens of others in the IT and manufacturing industries to support it. And those jobs have their own supporting industries, and those supporting industries have their own and so on. A lot of jobs are lost with each biotech job, and even more will be lost simply because businesses don't like investing in a restrictive legislative environment or one that is percieved hostile to their line of work.

Quite honestly, I think this veto is a good thing. Not because of any moral issue, but because I don't think the government should have an involvement in science for the most part. I think the private sector is far more able to determine profit, risk, capital needs, saving, etc., than a central planner in Washington. Banning stem cell research is another issue entirely, and not what the veto was about. The market is better able to determine what consumers want and how to allocate resources than the government.

Federal funding isn't determined by a "central planner in Washington." In fact, it is determined by scientists themselves, asked to sit in study sections of others' proposals. The NIH and other such agencies only determine how much there is to spend, not how it will be spent.

Meanwhile, the private sector is completely incapable of furthering basic science research, as the private sector is too secretive. If basic science research were funded by private corporations, science would progress much, much, much more slowly, due to the fact that information would not be shared.

And on top of that, basic science research is so far from actual therapies that it has little to do with "what the public wants." The public isn't well informed enough to know what basic science research can lead to down the road - and most of the results are years, if not decades, out.

But it's the only way to do it. How do you decide between funding research for AIDS vaccines and funding a cure for cancer? I would agree that they're both important, but how do you decide how to give each a priority? We live in a world of scarcity, of finite resources, and we can't just spend all we want to make both of them. We need some measure of value to determine which is more necessary, which is more viable, and which is more readily created. Otherwise, we don't get it at all, or at the expense of others things that we have a much more pressing need to get (Think of all of the vaccines that are already produceable that we could make with the money necessary to just develop some of the stages of a cure for cancer or AIDS).

And don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the best people to decide that priority are those who know the most about them - the scientists and doctors doing the research? Put it in private hands, and the basic science research simply won't get done, as the profits from it are so far out in the future (and much more hypothetical) that companies simply don't invest in it. Of course, without it, science doesn't progress.


For illness that still need cures; Cord blood/cells and adult stem cells are not restricted.

Nor do they have the same range of potential as embryonic stem cells.

Even if they did find a magical cure for this or that disease using limited stem cell banks available now, then stem cell collection would then have to become stem-cell farming to produce the medication in the quantities needed for a world wide supply source. Which countries do YOU think would be used to collect stem cell tissues on the farming scales needed by the pharmaceutical companies? I bet it wouldn’t be the better off countries, I’ll tell you that.

How, exactly, do you think embryonic stem cells are isolated? How would you use a country to collect stem cells at all? Currently, these stem cells are isolated from excess embryos from fertility treatments - treatments only available in the "better off countries." In the future, there is the possibility of therapeutic cloning. In other words, there wouldn't be vast banks of stem cells, but cells would instead be grown specifically to match the patient.


Of course it can. But the private sector can do a lot of, if not most, of the research. There's little need for the government to get in on it.

You really don't have the first clue about how scientific research progresses, do you? As I already pointed out, private industry doesn't invest in basic science research (which is where this still is), except to provide materials to those carrying it out. On top of that, the realm of intellectual property is the last place we want such basic research being carried out, as it will greatly slow progress towards actual therapies by adding a secretive element.

The US is a leading country in biotech specifically because we do not leave important scientific research to the private sector. If we do, we will fall way behind.

Federal funding isn't determined by a "central planner in Washington." In fact, it is determined by scientists themselves, asked to sit in study sections of others' proposals. The NIH and other such agencies only determine how much there is to spend, not how it will be spent.

Meanwhile, the private sector is completely incapable of furthering basic science research, as the private sector is too secretive. If basic science research were funded by private corporations, science would progress much, much, much more slowly, due to the fact that information would not be shared.

It's still central planning. It's not determined by the market, but rather the government, even if it is by proxy through these scientists. How does the scientist determine how much there is to spend, if he's not using banks and other capital and profitability to determine whether there are enough resources to fulfill this project and how great its economic impact will be? No matter how intelligent and wise the person is, they cannot determine the exact amount of money they really have to spend- it can only be done by market forces and entrepeneurs who can estimate cost, benefit, viability, available resources, etc, because they have to deal with money and finance on a daily basis. Quite honestly, I see nothing wrong with the private sector being secretive, because it's the results of their own costs and the fruit of their work. If there was stronger intellectual property right protection to discourage people from stealing ideas, then we wouldn't see these companies being so secretive and having to expend so many resources to protect their creations.

In fact, I would argue that science would progress much more quickly, because companies would be able to more securely sell their ideas to the highest bidder, weeding out the unprofitable ideas and allowing for the expansion upon useable ideas that will satisfy consumer desires. People would be encouraged to conceive, develop and sell their ideas to the highest bidder, thus advancing science and enriching the market.

And on top of that, basic science research is so far from actual therapies that it has little to do with "what the public wants." The public isn't well informed enough to know what basic science research can lead to down the road - and most of the results are years, if not decades, out.

It doesn't matter what the public thinks is best to develop- this isn't some kind of "democratically controlled" economy, nor do I hope it will ever be. It's what they consume in the end, what satisfies their desires, that matters. It's what the entrepeneur believes is a profitable placement of resources that bridges the gap between conception and retail.

And don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the best people to decide that priority are those who know the most about them - the scientists and doctors doing the research?

Maybe, just maybe, I don't. The best people to determine whether to put money into something are, obviously, those who are skilled with putting money into things. The scientists and all can help, certainly, but in the end if it's not something that can achieved and applied usefully, it shouldn't be developed. Because we live in a world of scarcity, we cannot put money into every thing that we would like to.

Put it in private hands, and the basic science research simply won't get done, as the profits from it are so far out in the future (and much more hypothetical) that companies simply don't invest in it. Of course, without it, science doesn't progress.

Ah, but this is where you're wrong. Yahoo! and other dot com businesses were years away from profitability, but investors still put money into them. Unfortunately, this was caused by the central bank pumping too much credit into the system, making it believe that there were more saved resources than really available for capital, but if investors believe there is a reasonable level of profitability in a project, they will invest in it. An entrepeneur with plenty of capital will be able to fulfill these investments, and, since he has proven the ability to gain such a high amount of capital, will be all the more adept to determine where resources would best be put.

You really don't have the first clue about how scientific research progresses, do you?

No, I just don't have a belief that the government is a magical panacaea and that the market is an evil thing that hates science and lurks under children's beds.

As I already pointed out, private industry doesn't invest in basic science research (which is where this still is), except to provide materials to those carrying it out. On top of that, the realm of intellectual property is the last place we want such basic research being carried out, as it will greatly slow progress towards actual therapies by adding a secretive element.

But intellectual property gives incentive to people to develop these technologies in order to be able to profit off of it. It also dissuades people from investing in less useful technologies- if it can't make a profit, the resources are best used elsewhere, quite honestly. And technology is capital like any other- take a look at the dot coms and biotechs, for example. Those need technology in order to be able to function, and that technology ends up being a form of capital. Science is a type of investment, like any other, and investment is best left in the hands of those who know how to invest.

...Nor do they have the same range of potential as embryonic stem cells.

How, exactly, do you think embryonic stem cells are isolated? How would you use a country to collect stem cells at all? Currently, these stem cells are isolated from excess embryos from fertility treatments - treatments only available in the "better off countries." In the future, there is the possibility of therapeutic cloning. In other words, there wouldn't be vast banks of stem cells, but cells would instead be grown specifically to match the patient.
...

First you hypothesized a justification for using stem-cells over any other route to a cure, and THEN you foretell a methodology for not needing to harvest stem cells in the manufacture of the medication in the future, instead, cloning the tissue necessary.

Perhaps you should simply hypothesize your method to cloning the healthy tissue required for the individual’s needs in the first place and skipping the stem cell altogether then eh? But no, I’m sure you won’t agree, because you hypothesized the cloning before the technology is ready, to produce a medication cure that does not even exist.

BTW: you didn’t actually address my post, you simply jumped it by isolating the aspects of it you could attack. But I never once pretended that the stem cell science couldn’t be successful, my argument was in calling it a Pandora’s box of Elizabeth Bathory’s cures. In other words, in some perspectives, this hypothetical cure might be worse than the illnesses it’s theorized to treat.

It's still central planning. It's not determined by the market, but rather the government, even if it is by proxy through these scientists. How does the scientist determine how much there is to spend, if he's not using banks and other capital and profitability to determine whether there are enough resources to fulfill this project and how great its economic impact will be? No matter how intelligent and wise the person is, they cannot determine the exact amount of money they really have to spend- it can only be done by market forces and entrepeneurs who can estimate cost, benefit, viability, available resources, etc, because they have to deal with money and finance on a daily basis. Quite honestly, I see nothing wrong with the private sector being secretive, because it's the results of their own costs and the fruit of their work. If there was stronger intellectual property right protection to discourage people from stealing ideas, then we wouldn't see these companies being so secretive and having to expend so many resources to protect their creations.

The point Dempublicents is trying to make (and evidently not succeeding) is that bluntly, shareholders demand immediate profitability in all investments. Further, they demand that the corporation they are invested in provide a unique product or service that no other corporation has access to. Tha combination makes basic scientific research at the stage embryonic stem cell research at, unattractive to investors and shareholders.


In fact, I would argue that science would progress much more quickly, because companies would be able to more securely sell their ideas to the highest bidder, weeding out the unprofitable ideas and allowing for the expansion upon useable ideas that will satisfy consumer desires. People would be encouraged to conceive, develop and sell their ideas to the highest bidder, thus advancing science and enriching the market.

You argument would be incorrect. Stem cell research is neither simply nor easily equated to the private sector. Corporate investment rarely happens until a potentially successful product (medical, pharmaceutical or otherwise) exists and is ready for marketing to the general public. This is pure, unfettered Macreconomics, you cannot have a demand without a reliable supply. Investors are not known for taking long-term unsecured risk, nor are shareholders terribly forgiving of investors that do take unsecured risk.


It doesn't matter what the public thinks is best to develop- this isn't some kind of "democratically controlled" economy, nor do I hope it will ever be. It's what they consume in the end, what satisfies their desires, that matters. It's what the entrepeneur believes is a profitable placement of resources that bridges the gap between conception and retail.

Once again, supply drives demand, not the other way around. The public may wish upon a star for a successful stem-cell or theurapeutic cloning technique to be available, but until there is a technique that works and is commercially available, those wishes (or demand) amount to nothing.


Maybe, just maybe, I don't. The best people to determine whether to put money into something are, obviously, those who are skilled with putting money into things. The scientists and all can help, certainly, but in the end if it's not something that can achieved and applied usefully, it shouldn't be developed. Because we live in a world of scarcity, we cannot put money into every thing that we would like to.

Macroeconomics again. We have a scarcity of cures for certain illnesses. Scientists address that scarcity by researching and determining if a successful technique, cure, vaccine (whatever word you wish to use) is viable. The first steps have been taken. Before the full restriction of stem cell lines was proposed and executed, certain embryonic lines showed and continue to show promise. Without funding (either private or public), the next steps cannot be taken and so the commercial aspects aren't anywhere near being brought into play.


Ah, but this is where you're wrong. Yahoo! and other dot com businesses were years away from profitability, but investors still put money into them. Unfortunately, this was caused by the central bank pumping too much credit into the system, making it believe that there were more saved resources than really available for capital, but if investors believe there is a reasonable level of profitability in a project, they will invest in it. An entrepeneur with plenty of capital will be able to fulfill these investments, and, since he has proven the ability to gain such a high amount of capital, will be all the more adept to determine where resources would best be put.

With all due respect, the parallel you use is not applicable. By the time Yahoo and the other dot.com businesses were being invested in, they already had a marketable product and service in the development stage along with a vehicle or mode of delivery for the service. The internet was not theoretical, it existed. Cures developed out of the stem cell line are not out of the theoretical stage yet, promising research has occurred indicating that such cures MIGHT be waiting in that research line. Those investors had something tangible to hold onto, right now they don't.


No, I just don't have a belief that the government is a magical panacaea and that the market is an evil thing that hates science and lurks under children's beds.

Here you and I think much the same. Each has a role. But the free market is not the magic bullet you think it is. It is remarkably effective at delivering certain goods and services as long as a supply exists and the commensurate demand for that supply. The free market is not patient enough to support long term research in unproven products. The market does a great job of throwing a product out on the market to see if the demand meets the supply.


But intellectual property gives incentive to people to develop these technologies in order to be able to profit off of it. It also dissuades people from investing in less useful technologies- if it can't make a profit, the resources are best used elsewhere, quite honestly. And technology is capital like any other- take a look at the dot coms and biotechs, for example. Those need technology in order to be able to function, and that technology ends up being a form of capital. Science is a type of investment, like any other, and investment is best left in the hands of those who know how to invest.

That is why scientific research is not where the free market excels. There is not enough patience to invest over a twenty year term for a cure for Tourette's Syndrome or any other orphan illness. It's stretching the limits of the market to invest in companies doing research about regarding a full cure for AIDS or even cancer. It is not profitable in the long term to cure a chronic illness, it is much more profitable to invest in short term, quality of life, expensive drug cocktails that extend life, but demand a lifetime of dependency on that drug (or group of drugs).

US business is no longer about long term, reliable small to medium profits. It is about profitability by the fiscal quarter, not the fiscal year nor the fiscal long term. If a company has a disappointing quarter, it gets dumped by the big funds or is invested in less by the big funds and thus becomes worth less.

That's reality and frankly why the government, as inefficient as it is, is better suited to funding those long term research programs, rather than the private sector that demands an immediate, bottom line profit for investment return.

Well, it does all make sense. It's much more important to respect the symbolic value of a potential life which will most likely be destroyed than to use that potential life to save countless thousands of real lives of real people suffering around the world. Forget that three-quarters of the country are OK with embryonic stem-cell research. Ignorant religious mandates should always be the guide of our democracy.

Bastard.

Your sarcasm is running all over my screen now *wipes screen*
sorry. heres a towel, make sure you get it all. *hands towel*;)

It's still central planning.

Indeed. If you are going to use government money to fund research, some sort of planning is necessary. Luckily, at least in this one instance, the government goes to the experts.

It's not determined by the market, but rather the government, even if it is by proxy through these scientists.

If scientific progress were determined by the market, there'd be an awful lot of important progress we wouldn't have yet made.

Quite honestly, I see nothing wrong with the private sector being secretive, because it's the results of their own costs and the fruit of their work.

Then you don't have the first clue how science actually works. If scientists don't share their research, progress is slowed down to a crawl. Every company interested in something is likely to go through the same failed experiments (and the same successful ones) - wasting a great deal of money, because all of that research is being kept a secret. In the actual scientific community, on the other hand, research is published. If a group in Europe has already done the experiments I am thinking about, I can look that up and find out whether or not it worked. If it did, I can move on to the next step after only a small amount of confirmation work. If it didn't, I can plan to try something else. We won't both be making the same mistakes - or the same progress. Instead, we can build off of each other, with no fear of being sued over intellectual property.

Once research moves out of the basic science stage and into the application stage, it enters the realm of private industry and intellectual property.

In fact, I would argue that science would progress much more quickly, because companies would be able to more securely sell their ideas to the highest bidder, weeding out the unprofitable ideas and allowing for the expansion upon useable ideas that will satisfy consumer desires.

You seem to have this completely idiotic idea that we can know what basic science will be profitable ahead of time. We cannot and do not. We have an idea, which sometimes works out and sometimes does not. Meanwhile, all the research on whatever ideas were actually chosen would be going on in multiple places - as multiple people would get the same idea.

Science progresses by building off of the progress of others. Without that open communication, it would slow to a crawl or even a complete hault.

People would be encouraged to conceive, develop and sell their ideas to the highest bidder, thus advancing science and enriching the market.

Ideas don't advance science - not directly anyways. Research does. And as long as we can share our research freely, things will progress much more quickly. If we cannot, there is no reason that there wouldn't be 50 groups doing the exact same thing, using the exact same disproven ideas, since no one is going to share the fact that it doesn't work.

It doesn't matter what the public thinks is best to develop- this isn't some kind of "democratically controlled" economy, nor do I hope it will ever be. It's what they consume in the end, what satisfies their desires, that matters. It's what the entrepeneur believes is a profitable placement of resources that bridges the gap between conception and retail.

Do make up your mind. If the consumer decides, then the consumer decides. If you are saying that the consumer does not decide, then they do not decide.

Maybe, just maybe, I don't. The best people to determine whether to put money into something are, obviously, those who are skilled with putting money into things. The scientists and all can help, certainly, but in the end if it's not something that can achieved and applied usefully, it shouldn't be developed. Because we live in a world of scarcity, we cannot put money into every thing that we would like to.

Once again, you demonstrate a complete and total ignorance about how science works. Progress cannot be made without basic science research but such research is not, in and of itself, profitable. There is no way to know until the research is done whether or not something can be "achieved and applied usefully." In fact, there is generally no particular achievement or application involved. The idea is to further understand the object of study so that possible achievements and applications can be found. Basic science research leads to all sorts of applications down the road, but very few, if any, of them are known at the basic science stage. Unless you have a time machine or something else to predict the future, your comments are completely useless to the actual field of science.

Not to mention that, believe it or not, your average businessman doesn't know any more about science than a high school student (if even that). Your top businessman might know quite a bit about his or her specific field (at least what it was when he/she got a degree), but won't know much of anything about other fields or even about further progress in his/her own field.

Suggesting that a businessman is qualified to make scientifc judgements is like suggesting that he decide what treatment a patient receives, or how best to build a space shuttle.

Ah, but this is where you're wrong. Yahoo! and other dot com businesses were years away from profitability, but investors still put money into them.

Neither of these were basic science research, now were they? They were already developed and people thought they would be immediately profitable, or at least that profits would come soon.

With most basic science research, we know for a fact that profitable results are up to decades away. But we also know that no progression will be made without it.

No, I just don't have a belief that the government is a magical panacaea and that the market is an evil thing that hates science and lurks under children's beds.

What does that comment have to do with the price of eggs in China? Considering, you know, that I didn't suggest any of these things....

Of course, you at least admit that you don't have the first clue about the subject.

But intellectual property gives incentive to people to develop these technologies in order to be able to profit off of it.

...which is rather irrelevant to the point. Science progresses by the sharing of information. Without that sharing, it would slow considerably.


First you hypothesized a justification for using stem-cells over any other route to a cure, and THEN you foretell a methodology for not needing to harvest stem cells in the manufacture of the medication in the future, instead, cloning the tissue necessary.

You don't clone tissue, my dear. Therapeutic cloning, since you obviously didn't bother to look it up, involves the derivation of embyronic stem cells. In fact, it is completely dependent upon it. The method would involve creating a clone of the patient by taking the patient's DNA, inserting it into an egg cell, and causing the cell to begin to divide. When it gets to the blastocyst stage, embryonic stem cells would be removed in exactly the same way as they are now removed from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization. In other words, please at least **TRY** to be a little bit informed about something before you begin to discuss something.

BTW: you didn’t actually address my post, you simply jumped it by isolating the aspects of it you could attack. But I never once pretended that the stem cell science couldn’t be successful, my argument was in calling it a Pandora’s box of Elizabeth Bathory’s cures. In other words, in some perspectives, this hypothetical cure might be worse than the illnesses it’s theorized to treat.

In what way? Is it really better to throw excess embryos away, rather than use them for research?

Meanwhile, I absolutely did address your post. You made an outrageous claim that we would have to start farming stem cells from third world countries in order to use stem cell therapies. I pointed out why that was wrong, and the fact that your comment didn't even begin to make sense.

We have a scarcity of cures for certain illnesses. Scientists address that scarcity by researching and determining if a successful technique, cure, vaccine (whatever word you wish to use) is viable. The first steps have been taken.


That is why scientific research is not where the free market excels. There is not enough patience to invest over a twenty year term for a cure for Tourette's Syndrome or any other orphan illness. It's stretching the limits of the market to invest in companies doing research about regarding a full cure for AIDS or even cancer. It is not profitable in the long term to cure a chronic illness, it is much more profitable to invest in short term, quality of life, expensive drug cocktails that extend life, but demand a lifetime of dependency on that drug (or group of drugs).


Indeed, another problem would be that some research into disease will *never* be profitable. A disease may be awful, and curable, but if it only affects a tiny portion of the population, you would have to charge much more than they could possibly pay to make a profit, doing the research all in the private industry. If, on the other hand, the basic science research is carried out in the public arena - the scientific arena - and then it is moved to private industry only when a treatment is in sight, it is possible to make a profit even with a small group of patients. If medical research were based completely on "the market", there would be many diseases that would never even get the time of day. I suppose that wouldn't matter though, right? We should just let those people suffer and die?

Welp. I hope he gets fucked over by his own beliefs and gets something that stem cell research could have cured.

Could the next president veto this veto?
It kinda already happened. Nancy Reagan came out in facor of the research and against any possible veto. So much for respecting the Gipper's legacy.

Does anyone support Bush's veto from a different angle, as I do?
I'm not fanatical about whether or not the embryo constitutes a human life or not. In fact, I can say with confidence that we will never 'discover' whether or not it is human life.

The point is the bill is asking for federal funding for a very controversial program. I don't see how you can morally force people to pay tax dollars for something they vehemently oppose. Just like abortions, the practice can go on, but you sure as hell won't get a penny from me and anyone else who does not support the program. Those who do support it can give all they want.
Then I want a check for my taxes that were spent in Iraq.:rolleyes:

Then I want a check for my taxes that were spent in Iraq.:rolleyes:

When it comes down to it, there are far more US citizens opposed to the war in Iraq than embryonic stem cell research. So I guess it does make you wonder why people are yelling that voters shouldn't be forced to pay for something they don't agree with and no one brings up the actual contested issues.

What is it I say when I see situations of Stupid Bush and his Neo Con friends...

Oh yeah

Hate this government...
Hate it so damn much...

What is it I say when I see situations of Stupid Bush and his Neo Con friends...

Oh yeah

:headbang: Hate this government...
Hate it soooo much...

Thank the people on NS General who put the chimp in office.

Especially the ones who voted for him as "The Lesser Evil™".

This is appalling. I am somewhat ambivalent about issues such as abortion and the war in Iraq, and even Israel, but stem cell research is one of the few things I am 100% in favour of.

All the people it could help, all the good it could do, but he wants to save embryos that will never be people anyway. It reminds me of about a year ago when a bunch of animal rights activists freed 40 wild boars, to "save" them, but the boars were dangerous so they had to be shot. He is doing no good and hurting a lot of people.

I hope he gets crippled, then he might see why he's a dumb motherfucker.

I suddenly get the idea that your attempt at rational justification is only an attempt to hide your moral bias.

As for your point, I would guess that I oppose about 50% of government spending (that doesn't include this bill), so surely we should do away with it. There are many people who oppose about 90% of government spending, we should also do away with that portion as well too, right?

Precisely.

That's why I believe the government's only job is the protection of contract and property rights, which, I don't think anyone would want to do without.

And don't make assumptions about my so-called 'moral bias'. I have none in this case.

should have started way earlier with the veto power:gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

When it comes down to it, there are far more US citizens opposed to the war in Iraq than embryonic stem cell research. So I guess it does make you wonder why people are yelling that voters shouldn't be forced to pay for something they don't agree with and no one brings up the actual contested issues.

YES!

Never said I wanted the war in Iraq either. Heh. However, they could argue that national security (if that's what the war entailed) is far more important than scientific research and is a good that is used by everyone, not by a select few. Now before you start throwing stuff at me, remember, that's what I think they would say. Not that I agree with it.

Some of you are missing the point of the veto. SCIENTISTS ARE USING HUMAN EMBRYOS TO MAKE THE STEM CELLS! Those embryos are still people.

Insted of bitching and moaning about not being able to use the embryos, scientists should work on another way to get the stem cells without resorting to human embryos.

And don't get me started on Christopher Reeve. That guy never cared about finding cures for parapalegics or helping others with diseases until he got his ass knocked off that horse. He was only looking out for himself. Look it up. There is no evidence of him helping organizations till after the fact he was in a wheel chair.

Some of you are missing the point of the veto. SCIENTISTS ARE USING HUMAN EMBRYOS TO MAKE THE STEM CELLS! Those embryos are still people.

That's the flashpoint of this debate isn't it? Some people don't think embryos have the same rights as newborn babies.

...
You don't clone tissue, my dear. Therapeutic cloning, since you obviously didn't bother to look it up, involves the derivation of embyronic stem cells. In fact, it is completely dependent upon it. The method would involve creating a clone of the patient by taking the patient's DNA, inserting it into an egg cell, and causing the cell to begin to divide. When it gets to the blastocyst stage, embryonic stem cells would be removed in exactly the same way as they are now removed from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization. In other words, please at least **TRY** to be a little bit informed about something before you begin to discuss something.

In what way? Is it really better to throw excess embryos away, rather than use them for research?

Meanwhile, I absolutely did address your post. You made an outrageous claim that we would have to start farming stem cells from third world countries in order to use stem cell therapies. I pointed out why that was wrong, and the fact that your comment didn't even begin to make sense.


Ah, now you've resorted to full frontal condescending tone, I imagine this is because your argument holds so little merit.

You hypothesized a cure, then you hypothesized how much supply the treatments would require by each of the given patients and then you hypothesized a methodology for producing a world supply of this imagined cure by utilizing ONLY excess fertilization clinic resources. You are arguing from a short sighted and naive OR intentionally dismissive vantage point, in regards to the infrastructure required for the mass production of any resource for global dispersal. Whole production lines would be required to meet the supply needs created by millions of patients suddenly requiring some newly developed stem cell treatment (regardless of the treatment methodology). Harvesting the resources to manufacture that supply will by necessity be a part of that hypothesized world you've imagined.

And if you continue to pretend that you can manufacture your world supply of this magical cure you’ve imagined from the infamously small resource of using ONLY excess fertilization supply, then I’ll hypothesize that you should ALREADY have enough of your resource to meet your research requirement needs. I.e., If with simple manufacture you claim to be able to meet your supply needs, you should now be able to manufacture the supply you need with the supply you already have. Your argument fails because your position stands of false groundwork. The harvesting of the resource will have to come from a controllable supply source, not from the excess accidental production of it. e.g., A few people can drive cars run on the bio-diesel made from the excess supply they get from restaurant fry oil, but the minute the whole town starts running bio-diesel cars their won’t be enough restaurant oil to go around. But you pretend like this wouldn’t happen with your suddenly discovered stem-cell based miracle cure and excess fertility clinic supply.

Of course it can. But the private sector can do a lot of, if not most, of the research. There's little need for the government to get in on it.
I think you arn't connecting something..

The power Bush holds makes him so damn sexy...

Thank the people on NS General who put the chimp in office.

Especially the ones who voted for him as "The Lesser Evil™".


While you run around crying and wailing and screaming laments....especially not blaming the democrats for putting up such a worthless boob as an opponent...get your panties out of a bunch and take a deep breath and relax .

Bush veto'd the government spending on the research of new embyo's..its the promise he maade to the people that elected him ..it shows he has integrity ...compare that to waffle head Kerry who has about as much integrity as an scorpion..and actually has to look uo the meaning of the word before he uses it .

now saying that the GOVERNMENT wont USE PUBLIC FUNDS for the research..means that those that elected Bush are getting what they asked for ....BUT it in NO WAY STOPS ANYONE ELSE FROM SPENDING A GAZZILION DOLLARS ON ANY TYPE OF EMBRYONIC RESEARCH THEY CARE TO FUND.

Bill gates can go out tomorrow and buy up every frozen embryo in existance and have someone start sucking stem cells out of them ..but the research will be on his dime ..

So WTF is the problem ?

A politicion actually comes through on a promise...and you cry like he's taking the stem cells from your belly button .

You want the research invest some cash and go stem cell away .

But facts never got in the way of a good rant against the evil Bush monster..
half of most likely didnt even bother to vote.

I should invest in tissues for the 2006 elections for all the crying from the libs ....and definately in 2008 when we get 4 more years of republicans....unless of course hell freezes over and the Democrats develope a plan of some sort and lose the looney left wingers .


BTW Bush and his friends are entitled to their beliefs and opinions but they are WRONG on this issue..

But I live in a Democracy and since this in no way infringes on my constitutional rights as an American..I guess I'll just have to invest in Biomed .

The power Bush holds makes him so damn sexy...


I'm starting to worry about you.......

I'm starting to worry about you.......

Don't worry, believe me. I have been worried about you for a long time. If you ever approach me, I'll give you some pepper spray.

*snip partyline bullshit*
Uninformed.

While you run around crying and wailing and screaming laments....especially not blaming the democrats for putting up such a worthless boob as an opponent...get your panties out of a bunch and take a deep breath and relax .

Bush veto'd the government spending on the research of new embyo's..its the promise he maade to the people that elected him ..it shows he has integrity ...compare that to waffle head Kerry who has about as much integrity as an scorpion..and actually has to look uo the meaning of the word before he uses it .

now saying that the GOVERNMENT wont USE PUBLIC FUNDS for the research..means that those that elected Bush are getting what they asked for ....BUT it in NO WAY STOPS ANYONE ELSE FROM SPENDING A GAZZILION DOLLARS ON ANY TYPE OF EMBRYONIC RESEARCH THEY CARE TO FUND.

Bill gates can go out tomorrow and buy up every frozen embryo in existance and have someone start sucking stem cells out of them ..but the research will be on his dime ..

So WTF is the problem ?

A politicion actually comes through on a promise...and you cry like he's taking the stem cells from your belly button .

You want the research invest some cash and go stem cell away .

But facts never got in the way of a good rant against the evil Bush monster..
half of most likely didnt even bother to vote.

I should invest in tissues for the 2006 elections for all the crying from the libs ....and definately in 2008 when we get 4 more years of republicans....unless of course hell freezes over and the Democrats develope a plan of some sort and lose the looney left wingers .


BTW Bush and his friends are entitled to their beliefs and opinions but they are WRONG on this issue..

But I live in a Democracy and since this in no way infringes on my constitutional rights as an American..I guess I'll just have to invest in Biomed .
Oh, if it was only that. The bill also would have allowed the research to be done in the same labs as the non-funded cells. As of now it is illegal to use government funds ANYWHERE in a lab that does research with embryonic stem cell (that don't come from the 12 or so lines grandfathered in). Do you realize how expensive that is for a university? This is, in effect, a ban.

First of all, I'd like to toss a few comments in the general direction of those claiming that allocating scientific research to the private sector is a *good* idea:
- No.
- Shut up.
- Stupid-heads.

And now I will justify these comments with the power of logic, the secret to my superhero identity.

Sir Isaac Newton - Theory of Gravity
Wright Brothers - Sustained, Manned Flight

zOMG! Why didn't Sir Isaac Newton come up with flight?! Because while brilliant, he was not a machinist - In the same way that a genetic engineer is not a neurosurgeon. If you privatise research, different groups, different minds with different paths of thought and different capabilities, background knowledge, intuition, etc. will not come together as they have in the past. Sure, a guy can build the hardware components of a computer, but that does not automatically mean that he can program the software to make that computer useable to a 40 year old mother of 3 children who refers to the keyboard as 'that clackity thingamabobber'.

And now, on to the senseless dismantling of an innocent bystander's post!

*snip*
A politicion actually comes through on a promise...and you cry like he's taking the stem cells from your belly button .

*snip*

But facts never got in the way of a good rant against the evil Bush monster.

*snip*

I should invest in tissues for the 2006 elections for all the crying from the libs ....and definately in 2008 when we get 4 more years of republicans....unless of course hell freezes over and the Democrats develope a plan of some sort and lose the looney left wingers .

*snip*
BTW Bush and his friends are entitled to their beliefs and opinions but they are WRONG on this issue..

*snip*
But I live in a Democracy and since this in no way infringes on my constitutional rights as an American..I guess I'll just have to invest in Biomed *snip*

I cut out the parts where you actually have a decent point. Consider the exclusion of text to be some form of Lesser Concession, whereby I concede that, through whatever Forces That May Or May Not Be, SOMEHOW a Republican has come up with a semi-valid argument.
Nevermind that the fundamental basis of the action you are arguing in favor of is just plain retarded.

Now then! On to attacking isolated sections of your post, a task that I will no doubt relish and delight in.

A politicion actually comes through on a promise...and you cry like he's taking the stem cells from your belly button .
"If you elect me, I promise I will sodomize each and every one of your children."
I'd be pretty upset if he came through on that one, too. The fact of the matter is that he's misrepresenting the extreme majority, and in a Republic or Democracy, the majority comes before the personal honor and/or integrity of the representative OF those people. If the citizens of the U.S. want to nuke everyone else, then it is the responsibility of the president to get those warheads ready, even if he has to grab a rope and pull 'em upright himself.

But facts never got in the way of a good rant against the evil Bush monster.
No, they really don't. =D Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it, how the facts always seem to align against Bush, as though Fate and the Creator Himself were opposed to the brilliance of our noble leader. It's almost as though Almighty White Christian God is frowning upon the man.

I should invest in tissues for the 2006 elections for all the crying from the libs ....and definately in 2008 when we get 4 more years of republicans....unless of course hell freezes over and the Democrats develope a plan of some sort and lose the looney left wingers .
Crack open a history book or three. Ever notice how the economy goes to hell when a Republican follows a Democrat, and the soldiers go to war? Oh, oh, and look here - when a Democrat follows a Fascist Republican, the economy invariably makes an unprecedented, completely unpredicted, inexplicable recovery! Except some of its vitality is forever lost due to the sickness we call Rightosis. =( Oh, and wars are concluded (NOT 'broken off') more often under a Democratic leadership than under a Republican leadership. Oh! Oh! And polls since the internet age (admittedly not a very long data gathering period) show that the people are more supportive of Democrat presidents than Republican presidents. Gee whizz!

EDIT: My bad, they're not Fascists. They don't kill us for not worshipping their God. =D
EDIT2: Crap, S doesn't act as strikeout. =( Just consider 'Fascist' to be struck out.
EDIT3: Italicized text WAS 'Democracy than under a Republic', which would be slightly, uhm, irrelevant? =P
EDIT4: Actually, I didn't edit it a fourth time. I just wanted to point out how much I suck at proofreading my own stuff. =/

BTW Bush and his friends are entitled to their beliefs and opinions but they are WRONG on this issue..
I think it's so admirable how Bill Clinton got head in the Oval Office, and probably had been getting it for a long time before anyone noticed. Man, what a player.
BY THE WAY, he's the scum of the Earth for doing that kind of thing! Oh my God!

But I live in a Democracy and since this in no way infringes on my constitutional rights as an American..I guess I'll just have to invest in Biomed
When was the last time YOU got to present your views in front of every citizen in the nation? The United States of America operates under a traditional, Roman Republic, with elected senators representing provincial territories. A Democracy cannot operate on such a large scale, as to give everyone the opportunity to stand before every other citizen and speak his/her mind on EVERY ISSUE would be impossible. It would be impossible with Superman, Samuel L. Jackson, and Barney masterminding the government, with the reanimated corpse of Abraham Lincoln operating as the leader of our shadow government.

Some of you are missing the point of the veto. SCIENTISTS ARE USING HUMAN EMBRYOS TO MAKE THE STEM CELLS! Those embryos are still people.
No, they are *potential* people. Protecting embryos on the basis of their symbolic, potential humanity is illogical. It would be like prohibiting the recycling of paint cans and canvases on the premise that, because they have the potential to become great works of art, recycling them would be tantamount to destroying the Mona Lisa or the Last Supper.

Yes, embryos are technically human, but only potentially so. They cannot think or feel. They can't percieve pain. They don't even have a nervous system. They can only become human if they are implanted in the womb, and until then they're just cells, no more human than a red blood cell or a nerve ending.

Not to mention the fact that IVF destroys countless embryos every day without a peep from the right. Why is it OK to discard or freeze these cells, but not to use them in life-saving research that could end the suffering of millions of real humans?

Insted of bitching and moaning about not being able to use the embryos, scientists should work on another way to get the stem cells without resorting to human embryos. How about this: instead of bitching and moaning about the destruction of a potential life, the religious right should get with the program and support the curing of countless diseases afflicting millions of people through embryonic stem-cell research.

So, allow me to get this clarified.

Social conservatives call an inviable blastocyst a "human life"? I know this has been mentioned before, but I am confused. When you go to a fertility clinic for every successful fertilization there are a large number of attempts that are not viable. In other words, a large number of embryonic stem cells are currently discarded because they will never continue in the maturation process and grow into a human baby are routinely destroyed.

These are being called "human lives?" You say the biomaterial of these embryonic stem cells should just be heartlessly discarded? If you practiced what you preached, you would be up in arms at the destruction and discarding of so many "human lives" and demand fertility clinics be closed.

Interesting universe you folks live in. Of course the argument you and your idiotic President present are utter rubbish.

Interesting universe you folks live in. Of course the argument you and your idiotic President present are utter rubbish.
It's almost funny... until you realize that these inane "arguments" are not only greedy political posturings done solely to harvest votes from the evangelicals, but that they're also being used to cripple research that could cure innumerable diseases that kill or debilitate millions of people around the world.

A few posts ago someone mentioned that it doesn't effect private stem cell research? That anyone who wants to can go out and get stem cell research?

Well, I guess my point here - and to me, this is the fundamental flaw in american society - is that if you're rich, give 'er, if your poor we can't help you and if you're black you're fucked.

Not everyone is white and middle class well - to do - people, and government funded stem cell research would ssave the lives of the poor and the vulnerable, those your democracy should be looking out to most. Those who canb't afford the mdical treatment they need.

So, allow me to get this clarified.

Social conservatives call an inviable blastocyst a "human life"? I know this has been mentioned before, but I am confused. When you go to a fertility clinic for every successful fertilization there are a large number of attempts that are not viable. In other words, a large number of embryonic stem cells are currently discarded because they will never continue in the maturation process and grow into a human baby are routinely destroyed.

These are being called "human lives?" You say the biomaterial of these embryonic stem cells should just be heartlessly discarded? If you practiced what you preached, you would be up in arms at the destruction and discarding of so many "human lives" and demand fertility clinics be closed.

Interesting universe you folks live in. Of course the argument you and your idiotic President present are utter rubbish.
I don't want to be here with these people you speak about. They are crazy and they are trying to hurt me.

If scientific progress were determined by the market, there'd be an awful lot of important progress we wouldn't have yet made.

Yes, I would not argue this. But there has been a lot of potential scientific progress that has not been performed because one scientist planner thought that one project was more important than another, projects that, had they been viewed in the scope of profitability, risk and allocation of resources to satisfy consumer needs, would have been more beneficial. I'm not denying that it's very nice to have these things that the planners have focused resources on- I'm just saying that there are potential advancements that entrepeneurs and investors would have been able to determine were more profitable to make that would have gotten money instead and been able to do more good.

Then you don't have the first clue how science actually works. If scientists don't share their research, progress is slowed down to a crawl. Every company interested in something is likely to go through the same failed experiments (and the same successful ones) - wasting a great deal of money, because all of that research is being kept a secret. In the actual scientific community, on the other hand, research is published. If a group in Europe has already done the experiments I am thinking about, I can look that up and find out whether or not it worked. If it did, I can move on to the next step after only a small amount of confirmation work. If it didn't, I can plan to try something else. We won't both be making the same mistakes - or the same progress. Instead, we can build off of each other, with no fear of being sued over intellectual property.

The companies that are less efficient in researching will lose money, while the companies that are more quick will gain money. The less efficient companies will have undervalued capital, because they are not making the same amount of money that they could potentially make, and will be bought out by the superior competition so that the superior competition may take advantage fully of this capital. It is indeed inefficient to have a slew of companies doing scientific research, not only for your reasons but also because scientific research is capital intensive and requires large amounts of money, so there will be consolidation for those companies that are more efficient in order to become more efficient that will also weed out the weaker companies. In the end, the company(ies), which will be able to communicate readily within themselves, will not only have plenty of capital and finance to perform plenty of research, but will have an advantage that the government does not have-connection to the world of money to be able to calculate which research is the most profitable and to allocate resources in which they will be best put to use for consumer needs.

You seem to have this completely idiotic idea that we can know what basic science will be profitable ahead of time.

Well, I don't, actually. Nothing in life is certain, and it's not limited to just determining which research is the best to place resources into. It has to do with *any* kind of investment- by your logic, since we cannot truly determine what kinds of benefits anything will bring, we should put everything under the control of the experts in that field, as opposed to those who are able to calculate risk and profitability through their connection to the market, and who are skilled in moving resources from less profitable, less optimal placements into those which are more useful.

Do make up your mind. If the consumer decides, then the consumer decides. If you are saying that the consumer does not decide, then they do not decide.

I'm going to try and explain this again to you, in the hopes that you'll understand it this time. The consumers decide what satisfies their needs. The entrepeneurs estimate these needs and try to satisfy them through what they believe is a proper allocation of resources. Those who are bad calculators are removed through their losses, and those who are good calculators will gain more capital with which to make more good decisions, and thus end up helping consumers more and more with time. But ultimately the consumer does decide what satisfies his preferences.

Progress cannot be made without basic science research but such research is not, in and of itself, profitable. There is no way to know until the research is done whether or not something can be "achieved and applied usefully." In fact, there is generally no particular achievement or application involved. The idea is to further understand the object of study so that possible achievements and applications can be found. Basic science research leads to all sorts of applications down the road, but very few, if any, of them are known at the basic science stage

Capital investment is not profitable in and of itself. It never has been, and it never will be. It is the end product that makes capital have value. We cannot be sure what value capital has, until we determine how much it satisfies consumer preferences. It is not different with scientific research, either, which is just another kind of investment as well. This risk is inherent in any kind of investment, because we cannot be certain of the future. But what we need is to allow those who are skilled with determining risk and benefit to be able to use their skills to allocate resources as they believe is optimal. If they are correct, they gain money. If they are wrong, they are weakened in their control of or even outright eliminated from the marketplace, thus allowing for greater efficiency.

Not to mention that, believe it or not, your average businessman doesn't know any more about science than a high school student (if even that). Your top businessman might know quite a bit about his or her specific field (at least what it was when he/she got a degree), but won't know much of anything about other fields or even about further progress in his/her own field.

But he doesn't necessarily need to- that's the wonder of specialization in the economy. He can rely on others to help him in his decision making, and he had better do so, if he hopes to make any money. But ultimately, he must rely upon his skills of measuring a situation through whatever means he can utilize to determine risk and profitability. He is the one skilled in deciding where to allocate resources- ergo, he should be the one to allocate resources.

Suggesting that a businessman is qualified to make scientifc judgements is like suggesting that he decide what treatment a patient receives, or how best to build a space shuttle.

If he does it all alone, he gets eliminated, most likely, because he doesn't know these things. But he can rely on others to aid him in his decisions, and to be able to better determine where to properly allocate resources in the face of benefit and risk. By your logic, only the experts in those fields should be able to determine where to allocate the resources they believe to be best put. But if we were to do this, we would not be able to calculate the worth, cost, risk and benefit of investment and end up seriously misallocating resources that could be better employed elsewhere.

What does that comment have to do with the price of eggs in China? Considering, you know, that I didn't suggest any of these things....

Of course, you at least admit that you don't have the first clue about the subject.

First of all, no, I did not admit such a thing, despite your misreading or spinning of what I said. I said that I just don't think, like you, that the government can solve this problem, and that the market is capable of conducting scientific research as efficiently, if not more so. The ability to determine risk, profitability and the proper allocation of resources is best left with those who are skilled in determining risk and profitability and the proper allocation of resources. Scientists can help, of course, but ultimately the final decision of the allocation of resources to satisfy consumer needs should be left in the hands of those who are skilled in allocating resources to satisfy consumer needs.

...which is rather irrelevant to the point. Science progresses by the sharing of information. Without that sharing, it would slow considerably.

Yes. And when the companies that are inefficient and do not have enough capital are driven out of the marketplace by those companies that are more efficient and can gain more capital, they will form a large entity that will be able to share information within itself, not to mention be able to more properly allocate resources and determine risk and profitability. Both inefficiencies will ultimately be rooted out of the marketplace, while in the government one inefficiency will remain.

On the plus side this gives Dems massive ammunition for the election. This means every single spending bill, the massive debt they've wracked up, the tax cuts all had Bush's OK, not just ambivalence, he was behind them all 100%.

Imagine how that'll play for the mid-terms.

I agree I don't think he has done hiself much good with this. Shit but then how long has he got left anyway and he can't have a third term in office.

Umm not unless he changes the law, but not even old monkey boy would do that though, umm would he?

Some of you are missing the point of the veto. SCIENTISTS ARE USING HUMAN EMBRYOS TO MAKE THE STEM CELLS! Those embryos are still people.

Insted of bitching and moaning about not being able to use the embryos, scientists should work on another way to get the stem cells without resorting to human embryos.

And don't get me started on Christopher Reeve. That guy never cared about finding cures for parapalegics or helping others with diseases until he got his ass knocked off that horse. He was only looking out for himself. Look it up. There is no evidence of him helping organizations till after the fact he was in a wheel chair.
I think you miss an even larger point. People all over the world are using NAIL CLIPPERS to trim HUMAN FINGERNAILS.

That comment is just a bit more ridiculous than yours.

So, allow me to get this clarified.

Social conservatives call an inviable blastocyst a "human life"? I know this has been mentioned before, but I am confused. When you go to a fertility clinic for every successful fertilization there are a large number of attempts that are not viable. In other words, a large number of embryonic stem cells are currently discarded because they will never continue in the maturation process and grow into a human baby are routinely destroyed.

These are being called "human lives?" You say the biomaterial of these embryonic stem cells should just be heartlessly discarded? If you practiced what you preached, you would be up in arms at the destruction and discarding of so many "human lives" and demand fertility clinics be closed.

This is all just part and parcel of a system of belief that totally devalues the people who actually make babies: women.

See, these people don't want to accept the fact that women's bodies make babies. They want to continue believing that MEN make babies, because the Mighty Sperm is the source of all humanity. They don't like the fact that our unequal human biology dictates that female bodies build babies, while male bodies contribute only one of the many ingredients necessary to make a baby.

If they can elevate blastocysts to the level of full human beings, then they can successfully rob women's bodies of all the credit for the work they do. Women are, once again, reduced to mere passive vessels that carry the already-human unborn around.

I've used this example before, but calling an embryo a "person" is like saying that eggs, flour, and sugar are the same as cookies. You can't have a bunch of cookies without adding more ingredients, mixing them properly, and baking them correctly...and it is supremely insulting to the chef if you choose to overlook all the work she must do to make those cookies for you. An embryo doesn't even include all the ingredients needed to make a person (which is why embryos don't magically become babies all by themselves), and it certainly doesn't have all the machinery necessary to gestate itself!

This is all just part and parcel of a system of belief that totally devalues the people who actually make babies: women.

See, these people don't want to accept the fact that women's bodies make babies. They want to continue believing that MEN make babies, because the Mighty Sperm is the source of all humanity. They don't like the fact that our unequal human biology dictates that female bodies build babies, while male bodies contribute only one of the many ingredients necessary to make a baby.

If they can elevate blastocysts to the level of full human beings, then they can successfully rob women's bodies of all the credit for the work they do. Women are, once again, reduced to mere passive vessels that carry the already-human unborn around.


Whislt I sort of agree with what you say, surly both a man and a women are needed to make babies. To say that women's bodies make babies then only does what you are accusing 'them' of doing.

Whislt I sort of agree with what you say, surly both a man and a women are needed to make babies.

A man's body is necessary to make a fertilized egg. However, only a woman's body is necessary to make a baby out of a fertilized egg.

To say that a man's body is needed to make a baby is like saying, "You need eggs to make cookies, and therefore a chicken makes cookies just as much as a baker does." Men do not make babies; men make one critical ingredient for babies.

Think of it another way: you are baking cookies, but you discover you have no butter. You MUST HAVE BUTTER for this recipe, or you will have no cookies. So you find a friend who has some butter she can give you. You proceed, using her butter along with all your other ingredients. You use all your equipment and your kitchen. You bake the cookies. Now, would you say that your friend "made the cookies"? Or would you say that you made the cookies, and your friend contributed a very important ingredient?


To say that women's bodies make babies then only does what you are accusing 'them' of doing.
Women's bodies make babies. Men's bodies do not. This does not insult men in any way; it is simply true. Just as it is true to say that men's bodies do not (normally) produce milk to nurse babies. Men's and women's bodies participate unequally in reproduction. This does not mean men are worth less than women, or vice versa, nor does it mean that men are irrelevant to reproduction. It's just the way things work.

Believe me, I would like nothing more than for men's bodies to be able to make babies!

Hey Bottle,

Naa mate you are entirly wrong. Both man and woman make babies, if the world where purged of either one then no babies would be the result. It is true that woman contain, protect and feed the egg, but if we can make artificle incubators then this need no longer be true.

Yes it is true that come one day we may not need a mans sperm, but then come one day we may not need either a womans egg, nor womb.

Again, both man and woman make babies.

Hey Bottle,

Naa mate you are entirly wrong. Both man and woman make babies, if the world where purged of either one then no babies would be the result. It is true that woman contain, protect and feed the egg, but if we can make artificle incubators then this need no longer be true.

Yes it is true that come one day we may not need a mans sperm, but then come one day we may not need either a womans egg, nor womb.

Again, both man and woman make babies.
*COUGH*DOLLYTHESHEEP*COUGH*

Call me crazy, but Bottle - I believe - realises you need man and a woman to make babies. What she's saying is that society generally is "Man" made and run for the most part, and in the words of the bounty hunter on the last episode of Firefly, here is what the men on top of this society are saying through controls such as religon;

"Man is by far stronger than woman, yet only women can bear a child. Does that seem right to you?

A man's body is necessary to make a fertilized egg. However, only a woman's body is necessary to make a baby out of a fertilized egg.

To say that a man's body is needed to make a baby is like saying, "You need eggs to make cookies, and therefore a chicken makes cookies just as much as a baker does." Men do not make babies; men make one critical ingredient for babies.

Think of it another way: you are baking cookies, but you discover you have no butter. You MUST HAVE BUTTER for this recipe, or you will have no cookies. So you find a friend who has some butter she can give you. You proceed, using her butter along with all your other ingredients. You use all your equipment and your kitchen. You bake the cookies. Now, would you say that your friend "made the cookies"? Or would you say that you made the cookies, and your friend contributed a very important ingredient?


Women's bodies make babies. Men's bodies do not. This does not insult men in any way; it is simply true. Just as it is true to say that men's bodies do not (normally) produce milk to nurse babies. Men's and women's bodies participate unequally in reproduction. This does not mean men are worth less than women, or vice versa, nor does it mean that men are irrelevant to reproduction. It's just the way things work.

Believe me, I would like nothing more than for men's bodies to be able to make babies!

By your own logic, women don't really make the babies any more than the man does: they provide one crucial ingredient and the pan to cook them in. If I borrowed my neighbor's pan, I wouldn't say she baked the cookies any more than the proverbial neighbor with the butter.

And knock it off with the "Help, Help! Womyn are being oppressed!" routine. You don't agree with Bush. Hell, I don't agree with Bush. But somehow I don't think he has in mind an infernal plot to render you under absolute despotism, if for no other reason than he can't even spell "infernal plot to render you under absolute despotism". So even if that is the practical effect, stop pretending it's also the intent. He just thinks, mistakenly, that a blastocyst is the same thing as a human, and treats it (sort of) accordingly.

By your own logic, women don't really make the babies any more than the man does: they provide one crucial ingredient and the pan to cook them in. If I borrowed my neighbor's pan, I wouldn't say she baked the cookies any more than the proverbial neighbor with the butter.


While I don't necessarily agree that this issue has anything to do with devaluing women, to say that women only provide "one crucial ingredient" for babies is absolute nonsense. When a baby comes out of its mother's womb, is it larger than a single cell? If so, where did all that additional mass come from?

While I don't necessarily agree that this issue has anything to do with devaluing women, to say that women only provide "one crucial ingredient" for babies is absolute nonsense. When a baby comes out of its mother's womb, is it larger than a single cell? If so, where did all that additional mass come from?

It comes from the mother feeding it, for certain. But given the proper conditions, for the early embryo a petri dish is as good as a womb for providing a nourishing environment. Our inability to build an artificial womb that could sustain a larger fetus is a problem of engineering, not nature. As such, I think the pan analogy is perfectly appropriate: women provide the material means to keep the cookie together during formation. They also provide some of the crucial ingredients, just as men do. To say then that men aren't really necessary but women are indispensable is just reverse-Aristotelian para-feminist babble.

It comes from the mother feeding it, for certain. But given the proper conditions, for the early embryo a petri dish is as good as a womb for providing a nourishing environment. Our inability to build an artificial womb that could sustain a larger fetus is a problem of engineering, not nature. As such, I think the pan analogy is perfectly appropriate: women provide the material means to keep the cookie together during formation. They also provide some of the crucial ingredients, just as men do. To say then that men aren't really necessary but women are indispensable is just reverse-Aristotelian para-feminist babble.

It would be silly to say that men are unnecessary and women are indispensible, which is probably why no one said that. At the present time, a woman's body is necessary in the production of a baby, while a man's body is not. Biologically, men are needed for exactly one thing as far as baby-production is concerned, while women are needed for everything else. Now, in real life, one hopes that the man will contribute a great deal more to the pregancy than just sperm, but that's all he technically must provide in order for a baby to exist. Make sense? :p

:eek: Bush lost his "Veto Virginitiy!!"

I can't even begin to express my rage over this.

Bush has now joined the likes of the people who arrested Gallileo.

I cannot believe the man honestly believes we have a moral obligation to protect frozen pizza.

Well, this is the same guy who thinks gay marriage is a problem and thinks it's okay to just randomly invade a country. Personally, I'm not surprised one bit that he takes pleasure in making sure the sick stay sick and the crippled stay crippled.
All I can say is if WW3 comes from this Israel/Lebanon thing, thank god we've only got two more years with him left.

Thank the people on NS General who put the chimp in office.

Especially the ones who voted for him as "The Lesser Evil™".
That's why I voted Cthulhu. I refuse to settle for a lesser evil.

Some of you are missing the point of the veto. SCIENTISTS ARE USING HUMAN EMBRYOS TO MAKE THE STEM CELLS! Those embryos are still people.

Insted of bitching and moaning about not being able to use the embryos, scientists should work on another way to get the stem cells without resorting to human embryos.

And don't get me started on Christopher Reeve. That guy never cared about finding cures for parapalegics or helping others with diseases until he got his ass knocked off that horse. He was only looking out for himself. Look it up. There is no evidence of him helping organizations till after the fact he was in a wheel chair.
No, no, no, NO! It's NOT a person, end of story. Anyone willing to send grown-up embryos to fight for spurious reasons should have no compunction about using embryos -- DESTINED TO BE DISCARDED -- for research.

Some of you are missing the point of the veto. SCIENTISTS ARE USING HUMAN EMBRYOS TO MAKE THE STEM CELLS! Those embryos are still people.

Insted of bitching and moaning about not being able to use the embryos, scientists should work on another way to get the stem cells without resorting to human embryos.


I'm all for scientiests looking for another way. But in the mean time, so long as these embryos aren't going to be born, might as well make life better for someone who was.
It's along of the lines of why I put the organ donor thingy on my license - when you're dead you don't need that stuff nearly as much as someone who's alive does.

That's why I voted Cthulhu. I refuse to settle for a lesser evil.
Hear, hear! I will be running against Lord Cthulhu in 2008. I hope to prove once and for all that I am the ultimate evil.

Hear, hear! I will be running against Lord Cthulhu in 2008. I hope to prove once and for all that I am the ultimate evil.

Just make sure if you want to win in Ohio you have to get everyone to hate you. This state disliked Bush with a passion and then turned around and re-elected him.

Here's an aspect of this issue that pisses me off.

1. Pro-life folks are into saving the embryos from the evils of research, and they feel that way based on their Biblical respect for all life as a gift of God. I think that's just fine. Everyone needs to believe something, and on the whole, Christianity averages positive. Judgmental in practice, but positive.

2. When someone dies young in a tragedy of some sort, pro-lifers tend to console themselves with the salve of "God's Will" being the author of the person's untimely demise. Subverting God's Will is, in fact, one of the more strident arguments against gay marriage and all kids of things to which pro-lifers are morally opposed.

3. However, and conveniently, God's Will pretty much stops at death when it comes to excusing sorrowful events. If a pro-life couple is infertile or "barren" as the Bible as worded it, that too is God's Will. Or is it? Science, which seems to suffer at the hands of populist Christians more often than it profits, developed a way for pro-lifers and others to subvert God's Will by producing viable offspring in those couples previously determined to be sterile. How is this any different from any morally objectionable action deemed sinful because it opposes God's Will?

3a. To be fair, some folks DO take God's Will as law and allow their children to go without vaccinations or other medical treatment and instead pray for their healing. I'm all for prayer, after all, thoughts held in mind produce after their kind, and the healing potential of the human mind has been demonstrated. It doesn't take much, however, for me to imagine God trying to poke through the Veil long enough to urge the faithful medical Luddites to get their kid to a hostpital.

4. So the barren pro-life couple go to a fertility clinic and the scientific and technical jiggery-pokery is done and lo and behold, it's a miracle -- the pro-lifers are preggers.

4a. Many times, fertility treatments lead to multiple births. These people then not only oppose God's Will, but burden themselves and their family and their friends and community with quintuplets. Miracle? Not so much. And get this -- businesses, chambers of commerce and even colleges try to make hay on the sudden family-of-seven by offering them FREE STUFF. Diaper services, scholarships for when they go to college, all kinds of generous donations. And that's fine. But ask many of these people to donate to someone who's destitute with ONE child (and perhaps add the sad coincidence that the parent and/or child has a dark skin tone), and you'll get the bootstrap lecture. To sum up: choose to defy God and pump out five units? Free stuff. Defy God (or not!) and get a clucking lecture on responsibility and "choices".

4b. I don't know the exact number, and it's likely different for every woman, but fertilized eggs pass through the uterus without attaching and get flushed out all the time! Pro-lifers, to use their logic, would label any sexually active woman who conceives but for one or another doesn't implant a murderer...or even a serial killer. Well, she's sexually active without being married (an assumption that makes pro-lifers feel nice and righteous, despite the fact that it can happen to infertile pro-life couples, too...only five implanted, remember, out of how many created and sent in), so she gets what she deserves. See how inaccurate righteousness can be?

4c. Then there are those zygotes that didn't get implanted and didn't get flushed out during the pro-lifers' fertillity procedure. What of them? Mr. & Mrs. Pro-life have their hands full with five newborns. But then, they wouldn't want to see some other family raising what they believe are their sons and/or daughters...goodness, what to do?

5. Aunt Martha has Parkinson's Disease (or a spinal cord injury or name your potentially-helped-by-stem-cells condition). This too is seen as God's Will and Auntie has been very strong, brave and even spry during her fight. What Bush has effectively done with his virgin veto is say this: Mr. & Mrs. Pro-life may use the benefit of science to reverse God's Will and spill a few zygotes in the process. Aunt Martha, despite only needing those zygotes that were on their way to disposal anyway via medical waste bin or freezer burn, will not be allowed that same privilege.

6. I'm completely supportive and even appreciative of the Christian lifestyle (that word, lifestyle, always sounds bad when applied to homosexuals, but slap it on one of the "good" religions, and my, such a rehabilitation). I am glad that folks have a way to make themselves feel good and get through life with a feeling of security. Sometimes I envy them.

7. My support comes crashing to the ground faster than Courtney Love at an open bar when that lifestyle threatens to become law, especially in the area of consensual acts, moral ambiguity, and when there's room for disagreement. Law means I MUST do what YOU think is right, no matter WHAT I think. Well, I love Aunt Martha, and I THINK she deserves any possible help medical science can give. And given that you feel the same way about not adopting -- about being fanatical about seeing your own genes expressed and furthering your bloodline, regardless of how independent that might be from how you raise a child -- I dont' see where you have a leg to stand on with regard to stem cell research.

Sorry for the length, but that's been in my head for a while. Thank you for your attention.

It would be silly to say that men are unnecessary and women are indispensible, which is probably why no one said that. At the present time, a woman's body is necessary in the production of a baby, while a man's body is not. Biologically, men are needed for exactly one thing as far as baby-production is concerned, while women are needed for everything else. Now, in real life, one hopes that the man will contribute a great deal more to the pregancy than just sperm, but that's all he technically must provide in order for a baby to exist. Make sense? :p

<chuckle> Just wait until people start having to deal with creches and artificial wombs. The science already supports it and it is a clearly viable method of carrying a child to term.

"Don't want to get pregnant? Don't want to mess with the distension of your body? Just come down to Otto's Artificial Wombs! Where what we have cookin' is ALIVE with possibilities! Otto's, a division of Glaxo-Smith-Kline <tm>."

<chuckle> Just wait until people start having to deal with creches and artificial wombs. The science already supports it and it is a clearly viable method of carrying a child to term.

"Don't want to get pregnant? Don't want to mess with the distension of your body? Just come down to Otto's Artificial Wombs! Where what we have cookin' is ALIVE with possibilities! Otto's, a division of Glaxo-Smith-Kline <tm>."

Hey, those things keep the drones from rioting in Alpha Centauri...

It would be silly to say that men are unnecessary and women are indispensible, which is probably why no one said that. At the present time, a woman's body is necessary in the production of a baby, while a man's body is not. Biologically, men are needed for exactly one thing as far as baby-production is concerned, while women are needed for everything else. Now, in real life, one hopes that the man will contribute a great deal more to the pregancy than just sperm, but that's all he technically must provide in order for a baby to exist. Make sense? :p

It makes perfect sense. Which is why I wasn't objecting to the idea that men provide only one thing (although technically, a woman on her own in the third trimester would be hard-pressed to find some animal protein), just the implication that 1) women provide everything else, and 2) The Man is out to keep freewheelin' Foxy Brown down. Women provide the baking tin, the heat, and the ingredients, but it's the baby itself that coalesces the ingredients. Until Bottle can will her baby to be a boy or girl or have Down Syndrome or not, she does not have complete control over what happens during the pregnancy.

Like I said before, this is exactly what he'd promised to do back in 1999. Get over it. Get private industry involved.

Like I said before, this is exactly what he'd promised to do back in 1999. Get over it. Get private industry involved.
Bring the issue up over and over again until it gets the attention and funding it deserves. I like that better.

Bring the issue up over and over again until it gets the attention and funding it deserves. I like that better.
I still don't understand the need for government funding. If this were a risky, unproven, and doomed-to-fail line of investigation, it would be right down the government funding alley. But, instead, it promises some pretty beneficial outcomes. Why do we have to wait for the government to fund it? Why aren't the big bio-med companies racing to patent a procedure or a product?

I still don't understand the need for government funding. If this were a risky, unproven, and doomed-to-fail line of investigation, it would be right down the government funding alley.

The Internet and the computer are products of government research initiatives. Government is capable of providing the funding for basic research that the private sector won't undertake due to the risk involved with providing funding for a project of unknown value.

But, instead, it promises some pretty beneficial outcomes. Why do we have to wait for the government to fund it? Why aren't the big bio-med companies racing to patent a procedure or a product?

One main reason is because it's more profitable to develop medicines to treat conditions than it is to investgate their cures. Pharmaceutical companies do run a risk of cutting in to their long-term financial health by committing to cures for diseases rather than treatments; that's one of the reasons why most cutting-edge research is being done in universities and small biotech firms rather than in large pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, those same small biotechs often lack the cash and facilities necessary for doing basic research.

Once again, Les Drapeux.

Economics prevent major pharmas from making this type of investment. If you read my previous posts on the economics of research, you would not have made such a bloody ignorant post. The simple fact of the matter is that investors and shareholders demand immediate returns for their money on a quarterly basis. Long term research stretches into the decades without a major financial return.

Neither you nor I have a bloody clue if the research will result in a line of successful therapeutics, treatments, or outright cures. We can only take the word of research scientists who say that so far signs indicate a promising and possibly fruitful line of pursuit.

But let me guess, in addtion to your amazing ability to always be right, you also happen to be a PhD or MD who is prescient and KNOWS that embryonic stem cells will be a dead end. :rolleyes:

Economics prevent major pharmas from making this type of investment. If you read my previous posts on the economics of research, you would not have made such a bloody ignorant post. The simple fact of the matter is that investors and shareholders demand immediate returns for their money on a quarterly basis. Long term research stretches into the decades without a major financial return.

You do know that there are 99 year bonds, correct? According to your line of thinking, these would be basically useless, because no one is going to wait that long. But the thing is, people purchase these bonds and wait for them to appreciate. If the company becomes more viable in the future, the holders sell these bonds, which are now more valuable because of the company's great fortune, to other people, thus making a profit. This is just one example of how the market can fund long-term projects. Stocks can also increase in value, and be sold when the companies become more viable and profitable. Yahoo! and other dot coms were years away from profitability, but people invested in them regardless because it would be an idea that would pay off in the long run. (Unfortunately, this was caused by the Fed expanding credit and deceiving buyers into thinking that there was more saved resources available than there actually were, but that's another topic.) Regardless, the point is that the market can create long-term projects, if people believe that it will bring benefits in the future and can ride on the gradual appreciation of the project.

Good news from one University. But not very good news.

"Relaxed federal standards would have been a boost as the university makes this transition to more embryonic research while trying to maintain its reputation. The institute's leaders say they will progress without the additional federal help, though it means some wasteful measures to separate publicly approved research from privately supported work.

The veto "is bad in terms of our potential for rapidly developing embryonic stem cell research at this institution," said Dr. John Wagner, the institute's scientific director for clinical research. "It does have a negative impact. It doesn't prevent us from moving forward — it just significantly slows the process."

Federal funding is an overwhelming driver of scientific research in the nation and supports stem cell projects at the University of Minnesota and elsewhere that use adult stem cells and existing embryonic cell lines. But federal money does not support research involving new embryonic cell lines, which would require the destruction of human embryos that are left from in-vitro fertilization."
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/nation/15077542.htm

You do know that there are 99 year bonds, correct? According to your line of thinking, these would be basically useless, because no one is going to wait that long. But the thing is, people purchase these bonds and wait for them to appreciate. If the company becomes more viable in the future, the holders sell these bonds, which are now more valuable because of the company's great fortune, to other people, thus making a profit. This is just one example of how the market can fund long-term projects. Stocks can also increase in value, and be sold when the companies become more viable and profitable. Yahoo! and other dot coms were years away from profitability, but people invested in them regardless because it would be an idea that would pay off in the long run. (Unfortunately, this was caused by the Fed expanding credit and deceiving buyers into thinking that there was more saved resources available than there actually were, but that's another topic.) Regardless, the point is that the market can create long-term projects, if people believe that it will bring benefits in the future and can ride on the gradual appreciation of the project.

99 year bonds. <chuckle> Oh, yes I am very much aware of them.

You are so desperate to make a point that you would use 99 year bonds as a viable counter to the basics of economics in this country (and the world)?

You keep using Yahoo and the dot.coms as a prime example of your argument. Bluntly, you have no idea what you are talking about. ONCE AGAIN.

Yahoo and the dot.coms already had a viable and proven technology as a means to deliver the product they offered, so investments in them...while a moderate risk offered an enormous short term return.

You cannot change the rules of economics and business to suit your argument. FACT: Major Pharmas are publicly traded and are expected to profit in the short term by both investors and shareholders. FACT: If they do not profit, they either stop being traded to a greater extent, get sold off, LOSE SHARE VALUE, go belly up, or any combination of the four. I cannot alter the way that business is taught at Harvard and Yale. These very principles are taught at the major US and International Schools of Business and Economics worldwide.

It takes a rare, gutsy shareholder and an even ballsier investment banker to make a twenty year commitment to a line of research that has yielded no sign of ever being profitable in the near future with no immediate return on the investment dollar. So, the question is, what company or investment firm is going to make a 99 year commitment? The answer is: Not bloody many. Even if they do, these bonds will be part of a mixed investment profile with a mix of solid, low-risk medium return investments and riskier, higher-return short term investments. The major players in long term bonds tend to be government pension plans and mixed 401k plans, not precisely top shelf stuff here.

Most bond investments are made in the 10 year and 30 year terms.

99 year bonds. <chuckle> Oh, yes I am very much aware of them.

You are so desperate to make a point that you would use 99 year bonds as a viable counter to the basics of economics in this country (and the world)?

I don't see what's so "desperate" about it. I was using it as an example of long-term investments being plausible in a market, using subjective perception of long term gain and the appreciation of worth of a company through the creation of a structure of production, and that it's not impossible to invest long term. It is just one example that I chose among many, and is desperate only by your perception, kind sir (or madame).

Yahoo and the dot.coms already had a viable and proven technology as a means to deliver the product they offered, so investments in them...while a moderate risk offered an enormous short term return.

But Yahoo! and other dot coms were burning through their capital at a very high rate, and thus were far from profitability. This would mirror lab research, as lab research as well burns capital without producing any revenue. Yet, people still invested in Yahoo! and other dot coms even though they were not immediately viable, and managed to stay afloat for a good while due to the expectations of long-term profit (It would have been fine had it not been for Fed credit expansion- but again, topic for another time).

You cannot change the rules of economics and business to suit your argument. FACT: Major Pharmas are publicly traded and are expected to profit in the short term by both investors and shareholders. FACT: If they do not profit, they either stop being traded to a greater extent, get sold off, LOSE SHARE VALUE, go belly up, or any combination of the four. I cannot alter the way that business is taught at Harvard and Yale. These very principles are taught at the major US and International Schools of Business and Economics worldwide.

Unfortunately, many of these principles are based on John Maynard Keynes' writings, which have been discredited (stagflation, anyone?) but strangely enough has an almost cult-like following adhering to his false theories- theories that were made as a result of his trying to deny that he was not a good entrepeneur and that all he needed to have kept the money he lost in the Great Depression was the government to change the real rules of the game of business. I am not changing the rules of real economics and business, because those are distinctly different from Keynesian economics. And yes of course major pharmas are publicly traded, but it is very difficult to make any company immediately profitable- capital investments must be made first in order to create the structure of production to produce consumer goods. In order to make these short term profits, these companies must make investments first in order to gain the capital to make the consumer goods that constitute these profits. Basic research is part of this structure of production, that ultimately brings consumer goods. Just because it is capital intensive doesn't make it any different from other capital.

I don't see what's so "desperate" about it. I was using it as an example of long-term investments being plausible in a market, using subjective perception of long term gain and the appreciation of worth of a company through the creation of a structure of production, and that it's not impossible to invest long term. It is just one example that I chose among many, and is desperate only by your perception, kind sir (or madame).

Indeed. But in my honest opinion you could have chosen a better example. Certainly there will always be forward thinking types who are willing to take long term risk. But under the market conditions as they stand, the free market is an unwise choice to commit medical research to, and without government assistance, such research is left out in the financial cold.


But Yahoo! and other dot coms were burning through their capital at a very high rate, and thus were far from profitability. This would mirror lab research, as lab research as well burns capital without producing any revenue. Yet, people still invested in Yahoo! and other dot coms even though they were not immediately viable, and managed to stay afloat for a good while due to the expectations of long-term profit (It would have been fine had it not been for Fed credit expansion- but again, topic for another time).

I just don't buy the parallel. To be fair, I know where you are coming from and I accept you argument. I just simply don't think it's adequate.


Unfortunately, many of these principles are based on John Maynard Keynes' writings, which have been discredited (stagflation, anyone?) but strangely enough has an almost cult-like following adhering to his false theories- theories that were made as a result of his trying to deny that he was not a good entrepeneur and that all he needed to have kept the money he lost in the Great Depression was the government to change the real rules of the game of business. I am not changing the rules of real economics and business, because those are distinctly different from Keynesian economics. And yes of course major pharmas are publicly traded, but it is very difficult to make any company immediately profitable- capital investments must be made first in order to create the structure of production to produce consumer goods. In order to make these short term profits, these companies must make investments first in order to gain the capital to make the consumer goods that constitute these profits. Basic research is part of this structure of production, that ultimately brings consumer goods. Just because it is capital intensive doesn't make it any different from other capital.

Here you and I are going to find a lot of common ground. I simply detest the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes. Why sensible people have fallen for the siren song lure of of his long disproven economic theories is beyond me. But, the way the markets are structured, and more importantly how investment bankers and professional investors think is along Keynesian lines. Why? Because the damn fool Business Schools at Harvard and Yale teach the drivel like it was the Holy Gospel of economics. In long term thinking, I am certain that one day somebody will finally get it beat into their idiotic heads than Keynes was a fool. The problem is that right now we face a staggering, long-term deficit that the government refuses to pay down by progressive taxation. In fact, it cuts taxes to the very group of taxpayers that could make a significant difference to cutting the deficit with their tax burdens.

Remember, the government makes no profit of it's own and only raises money through taxation, so if you cut taxes to the highest tax brackets, money still must be raised to pay the bills. Where is that tax burden shifted? Certainly not to the lower income brackets. It is shifted to the middle class. Precisely the people that drove the vast economic expansion in the post-WWII era. So real income and wages go down as more taxation is shifted to the middle class along with the higher costs of living. So, you get the "stagflation" that any of us with a reasonable education in economic theory KNEW would occur.

If I did the books the way that the government does their books, I would be in prison. It is long past time for a legally mandated balanced budget and a restoration of a progressive tax code rather than rely on regressive taxation and "trickle-down" garbage.

Ah, now you've resorted to full frontal condescending tone, I imagine this is because your argument holds so little merit.

Actually, it has more to do with the fact that you are arguing something you quite obviously know nothing about. If I were to try and go into a thread and argue about the details of quantum physics with actual physicists, I would fully expect them to correct me.

You hypothesized a cure, then you hypothesized how much supply the treatments would require by each of the given patients and then you hypothesized a methodology for producing a world supply of this imagined cure by utilizing ONLY excess fertilization clinic resources.

I'm not exactly sure what you are going on about here. First of all, when you consider the near-infinte proliferative potential of embryonic stem cells, it is clear that, if we could create lines of cells that would not be rejected by patients, we would only need a few to meet the needs of the medical community, so long as they were kept properly.

Second of all, I see that you completely dropped the discussion of therapeutic cloning, which wouldn't involve excess fertility clinic resources at all. It would involve only the patient and a donted egg.

You are arguing from a short sighted and naive OR intentionally dismissive vantage point, in regards to the infrastructure required for the mass production of any resource for global dispersal.

Not in the least. I am simply arguing from the vantage point of someone who knows the technology.

And if you continue to pretend that you can manufacture your world supply of this magical cure you’ve imagined from the infamously small resource of using ONLY excess fertilization supply, then I’ll hypothesize that you should ALREADY have enough of your resource to meet your research requirement needs.

A major problem with this hypothesis is the fact that nearly every embryonic stem cell line currently in use is not suitable for human use. Most of them have been grown on mouse feeder layers, contaminating them with mouse proteins and making them impossible to use in humans. Pretty much all of them have been grown in high oxygen conditions and thus often have karyotype problems. We aren't going to know exactly how to treat these cells until we have experimented a bit more. After that point, we actually could get a vast amount of resources from a few new lines.

Your argument fails because your position stands of false groundwork.

No, my dear. You simply don't know the groundwork (ie. knowledge of the actual technology), nor do you apparently understand most of what I have said.

And why exactly did you completely drop the concept of therapeutic cloning? Is it really that hard to understand the concept of creating an embryonic cell line specifically for use in given patient?

What a waste of veto. Now, some other nation will be ahead in that research.

...
I'm not exactly sure what you are going on about here. First of all, when you consider the near-infinte proliferative potential of embryonic stem cells, it is clear that, if we could create lines of cells that would not be rejected by patients, we would only need a few to meet the needs of the medical community, so long as they were kept properly.

Really? Then why did you yourself say...
...Second of all, I see that you completely dropped the discussion of therapeutic cloning, which wouldn't involve excess fertility clinic resources at all. It would involve only the patient and a donted egg.

The answer is that you can't really prepare blank treatments in advance without harvesting resources from somewhere (as I have said all along). Someone has to collect and prepare and harvest the stem cells. A blastocyst becomes an embryo and you need to start a new one, you can’t use the same one over and over again to create your desired stem cells.

...
And why exactly did you completely drop the concept of therapeutic cloning? Is it really that hard to understand the concept of creating an embryonic cell line specifically for use in given patient?

I didn't drop it. I attacked it straight on. I accused you of exaggerating the technology's readiness to accomplish what you've said it can do, by saying if you can do that, then do it now and solve your own need for new lines of stem cells. IF you can, you would. You can't so you don’t. Why pretend that this problem would suddenly solve itself in the future when someone actually develops a methodology for treating one illness or another via stem cell technologies. It will not solve itself nor simply go away (not even discussing the fact that therapeutic cloning is nearly as controversial as human reproduction cloning).

Human Egg donations (as you said yourself, one patient one egg) are not so easily collected when such large quantities will be needed. Thus, everyone can plainly see the rationale for my original statement, harvesting of these resources is not likely to occur in countries that are better off.

*snip*

Suffice it to say that I disagree with you. I don't have the same kind of uncompromising faith in the nebulous "market" that you do, nor do I think that science would benefit from the removal of communication.

Like I said before, this is exactly what he'd promised to do back in 1999. Get over it. Get private industry involved.

If private industry got involved in basic science research, you'd have a point. However, they do not. It simply isn't profitable, and thus isn't in the realm of industry.

I still don't understand the need for government funding. If this were a risky, unproven, and doomed-to-fail line of investigation, it would be right down the government funding alley.

You're right. All of the biomedical research going on around the country in just about every research university is "doomed-to-fail." That's why their research is being used by all sorts of companies when those companies get to the point that they have a product to develop. :rolleyes:

But, instead, it promises some pretty beneficial outcomes. Why do we have to wait for the government to fund it? Why aren't the big bio-med companies racing to patent a procedure or a product?

The government funds it because private industry does not, and has never, invested in basic science research. They take the results of such research and push them into applications, but they do not take on the basic science research itself. Biotech companies are trying to profit on this, but not in the sense that they are doing such research. Instead, they have created stem cell lines that they now sell (for outrageous prices and contracts, due to the government regulations that ensure that labs are pretty much required to use their cells). They also discourage research into new ways of growing these cells, by placing a warranty of sorts on the cells, but only if you grow them exactly as listed in their own specifications.


Really? Then why did you yourself say...

Why did you just quote a line that says nothing about the first line. You made a comment about whether or not excess embryos from fertility clinics could meet long-term need. I pointed out that, if we could make such cells in a way that would prevent immune response to them, it would only take a few lines to meet such need, as the cells have near unlimited potential.

The second quote, on the other hand, is talking about an entirely different strategy altogether, that would not use excess embryos from fertility clinics.

Once again, you demonstrate your complete ignorance by trying to suggest that one contradicts the other.

The answer is that you can't really prepare blank treatments in advance without harvesting resources from somewhere (as I have said all along). Someone has to collect and prepare and harvest the stem cells. A blastocyst becomes an embryo and you need to start a new one, you can’t use the same one over and over again to create your desired stem cells.

No, but in the case of a single cell line that would be used for all therapies, you don't need lots and lots and lots of blastocysts. You need to start a few lines, and let them continue to proliferate. Once again, embryonic stem cells have near-infinite proliferative potential. Once we start a line, we wouldn't have to start another for quite some time.

In the case of therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, we wouldn't even have to keep a huge bank of cells. When a patient came in and needed such therapy, we would simply take a few skin cells from them, grab a couple of eggs, and create a clonal embryonic stem cell line for use in that patient. Once again, there is no need for huge-scale resources. Eggs could either be taken from the patient (if she is female), from a friend or family member, or, barring all of that, from a bank of some sort.

I didn't drop it. I attacked it straight on.

No, you didn't. Your entire post ranted and railed about excess embryos from fertility clinics, and completely ignored the prospect of therapeutic cloning, which would have nothing at all to do with such excess embryos.

I accused you of exaggerating the technology's readiness to accomplish what you've said it can do, by saying if you can do that, then do it now and solve your own need for new lines of stem cells.

I never said that the technology was ready. In fact, I said just the opposite. We need to research the technology.

Meanwhile, that isn't what you said at all. You were ranting about excess fertility treatment embryos, which have nothing to do with therapeutic cloning. You also stated that the lines we already have should be enough. I pointed out why they cannot be used in human trials.

Let's look at exactly what you said:
And if you continue to pretend that you can manufacture your world supply of this magical cure you’ve imagined from the infamously small resource of using ONLY excess fertilization supply, then I’ll hypothesize that you should ALREADY have enough of your resource to meet your research requirement needs.

Tell me, considering that you are back on "excess fertilization supply", what does this have to do with therapeutic cloning?

Human Egg donations (as you said yourself, one patient one egg) are not so easily collected when such large quantities will be needed.

Luckily, most people know at least one woman who would be willing to donate for their treatment. Thus, in the realm of therapeutic cloning, we wouldn't need huge-scale donations. We would simply need a caring friend or family member (or might take eggs from the patient herself).

And then, if we didn't go the therapeutic cloning route, but instead found a way to reduce the threat of rejection with cell therapies from more standardized cell lines, we would only need a few lines - considering the proliferative potential of these cells. You seem to have this idea that one blastocyst would map to one treatment, which is ridiculous. One blastocyst, through proliferation of the cells, could most likley provide treaments to thousands of patients.

Thus, everyone can plainly see the rationale for my original statement, harvesting of these resources is not likely to occur in countries that are better off.

What you fail to see, since you clearly don't understand the technology even that we already have, is that you wouldn't need the level of tissue resources that you seem to think we need.

~No, you didn't. Your entire post ranted and railed about excess embryos from fertility clinics, and completely ignored the prospect of therapeutic cloning, which would have nothing at all to do with such excess embryos.
...
~Meanwhile, that isn't what you said at all. You were ranting about excess fertility treatment embryos, which have nothing to do with therapeutic cloning. You also stated that the lines we already have should be enough. I pointed out why they cannot be used in human trials. [/quote]

Obviously you're not even reading what is actually written in the post. Not once, not even a single time, did I even mention the very word "embryo," during any of my posts until that very last one where I said a blastocyst turns into an embryo. Your accusations of 'ranting and raving' appears to be merely echoes of your own clamor.

I never said that the technology was ready. In fact, I said just the opposite. We need to research the technology.

That's right, it's not ready. Only when it IS ready will you be able to claim to know what it can achieve.



What you fail to see, since you clearly don't understand the technology even that we already have, is that you wouldn't need the level of tissue resources that you seem to think we need.

And you are only guessing. And guessing incorrectly at that. Assumptions are ever proven wrong, and usually for the worse, not the best.

Obviously you're not even reading what is actually written in the post. Not once, not even a single time, did I even mention the very word "embryo," during any of my posts until that very last one where I said a blastocyst turns into an embryo. Your accusations of 'ranting and raving' appears to be merely echoes of your own clamor.

What, exactly, were you talking about then? After all, the "excess" used from fertility treatments in stem cell research are, in fact, excess embryos. Were you making up use of some new "excess" that doesn't actually exist yet?


That's right, it's not ready. Only when it IS ready will you be able to claim to know what it can achieve.

I didn't claim to know what it can achieve. I claimed to know only what we already know from research. We know that embryonic stem cell lines seem to have an infinite proliferative potential. We know that, in other animals, we have been able to produce DNA-matched embryonic stem cell lines (and even living clones, although that isn't somewhere we want to go with human cells). Everything I have said has been drawn directly from the research that has already been done.

And you are only guessing. And guessing incorrectly at that. Assumptions are ever proven wrong, and usually for the worse, not the best.

I'm only guessing what? There are some things that we know are possible with these lines, having used them in research for about a decade now. What, exactly, have I "guessed incorrectly"?

This is the danger of giving folks just a little knowledge, Dem. They immediately believe that they can argue with someone who actually works in the business and understands the technology involved.

I restrict myself to my knowledge of economics and economic conditions in the US in this venue.

It does not take a financial genius to understand the basic premise that major companies, investment bankers and shareholders of those companies will reject long-term risk in favour of short term gains. It also does not take a genius to understand the mentality that the company investing privately wants patents, guarantees and a unique product to maximize profitability. Such a mentality would not be good for the cooperative nature of the communication you and your fellow medical researchers need in order to make gains in research.

Certainly Big Pharma is not going to be especially interested in outright cures. They make their money on long term treatment.

The free market capitalists won't touch stem cell research until it is a sure or near sure thing.

It does not take a financial genius to understand the basic premise that major companies, investment bankers and shareholders of those companies will reject long-term risk in favour of short term gains.
It doesn't take but anyone half competent or educated to understand that, but then you look around..

...
I'm only guessing what? There are some things that we know are possible with these lines, having used them in research for about a decade now. What, exactly, have I "guessed incorrectly"?

You've guessed incorrectly when you say there won't be a market for 'shady' and questionable 'harvesting' practices from the pharmaceutical companies once stem cell research begins to produce actual real world treatments for ailments. Practices that will likely be illegal to do in well off countries will be done in third world countries to the benefit of rich people in need of treatments.

You've guessed incorrectly when you say there won't be a market for 'shady' and questionable 'harvesting' practices from the pharmaceutical companies once stem cell research begins to produce actual real world treatments for ailments. Practices that will likely be illegal to do in well off countries will be done in third world countries to the benefit of rich people in need of treatments.
Before I reply exactly, what are you arguing for?

You've guessed incorrectly when you say there won't be a market for 'shady' and questionable 'harvesting' practices from the pharmaceutical companies once stem cell research begins to produce actual real world treatments for ailments. Practices that will likely be illegal to do in well off countries will be done in third world countries to the benefit of rich people in need of treatments.

What type of "shady" and questionable "harvesting" practices are we talking about? If you are so sure they are inherent in the idea, you must have some in mind.

What a waste of veto. Now, some other nation will be ahead in that research.

Hopefully California and New Jersey get their research centers they've authorized off the ground so we won't fall behind so much.

Hopefully California and New Jersey get their research centers they've authorized off the ground so we won't fall behind so much.

Indeed. And, hopefully, the fact that this bill actually passed in the federal legislature will sink in with state legislatures that are trying to even further restrict research.

But let me guess, in addtion to your amazing ability to always be right, you also happen to be a PhD or MD who is prescient and KNOWS that embryonic stem cells will be a dead end. :rolleyes:

He's a Bushevik. He knows "everything" because Gawd and Dear Leader told him.

:D

Am I the only one hear remembering some of the whining the Dems were doing about stuff Bush supposedly blocked again?

Geez guys, make up your mind.

I bet Bush would look at things differently if someone told him the stem cells were muslim.
I'm surprised he even knows what a stem cell is. Maybe he can move on to grander things like learning the alphabet or singing along with Sesame Street.

It doesn't take but anyone half competent or educated to understand that, but then you look around..

<sigh> True. But I do occasionally hope for an intelligent discussion here.

Worst waste of a first Veto, ever.

To intentionally block funding for a potential cure to who-knows how many different illnesses for some archaic religious belief is appalling.
If Nancy Reagan can be for such a thing, is it really about Political alliances anymore, or has it become sheer ignorance and stubborness?

THIS is why we have such a clear distinction between church and state in this country, and I add this to a long list of deliberate smudging of that line by Bush.

His whacko born-again nonsense could cost years to the advancement of stem-cell research, and how many people might have been helped by them in the meantime?

Gee...I guess we wont know, becuase the dumbass decided to use his veto power and nix the damn bill, even after it passed a republican controlled house and senate.

As far as Im concerned, this alone, Iraq completely aside, makes Bush an uber-****.

What type of "shady" and questionable "harvesting" practices are we talking about? If you are so sure they are inherent in the idea, you must have some in mind.

Stem cell treatments derived from therapeutic cloning (nuclear transfer) will result in impractical economic problems because of the amount of human eggs needed and the lack of donors for large dispersal and world wide demand.

The process now is extremely inefficient and extremely expensive. It only works every one or two tries out of every hundred attempts and assuming a vast ten time improvement in production methods, it would still represent only about 10% instead of 1%. As you probably know, most of the time the cells made by nuclear transplantation just stop, they lose momentum and quit.

And then this imaginary future world of yours with a working stem cell research derived therapy would create large-scale demand and because of laws limiting the Dr. Frankensteinish practices it will likely fall on the shoulders of the third world medical labs to meet the demand for the resources needed to meet and produce the therapies/treatments for each of the rich patients who can afford not just one unnecessary treatment, but many, and frequently (each body part needing it’s own treatment of cells differentiated for it).

The methodology is likely to never be economically feasible for an every person treatment, so it will be left to the rich person’s luxury and vanity, when they figure out that they can do more than simply treat their aging and diseased or damaged organs, but can also replace their aging cells in their facial skin with the skin cells of youth, or their drooping breasts with the breasts of the young, the world’s rich will use up the supply of stem-cell therapy resources from the world over, and the poor countries with less laws to protect the individuals from unscrupulous clinics will supply the resources to meet that ever increasing demand. You wait and see.

The entire field is primed and ready to become an industry designed for the likes of Elizabeth Bathory, but this time around she will look more like the patron saint of the cause, not a demonized monster even Mary Shelley couldn’t have imagined, not the atrocity that she really represents.

Stem cell treatments derived from therapeutic cloning (nuclear transfer) will result in impractical economic problems because of the amount of human eggs needed and the lack of donors for large dispersal and world wide demand.

The process now is extremely inefficient and extremely expensive. It only works every one or two tries out of every hundred attempts and assuming a vast ten time improvement in production methods, it would still represent only about 10% instead of 1%. As you probably know, most of the time the cells made by nuclear transplantation just stop, they lose momentum and quit.

When computers were first made, they were room-sized bulky monstrosities that required various punchcards to feed and print out information, could only do relatively simple calculations, and its capacity was vastly outranked by an Atari 2600. Of course decades from that time, you're typing at the result of continuous research and progress. Just because stem cell research is nascent and not really efficient as people expect, do you want to give up? Such shortsightedness cost American companies many innovations we now buy from Asia.

And then this imaginary future world of yours with a working stem cell research derived therapy would create large-scale demand and because of laws limiting the Dr. Frankensteinish practices it will likely fall on the shoulders of the third world medical labs to meet the demand for the resources needed to meet and produce the therapies/treatments for each of the rich patients who can afford not just one unnecessary treatment, but many, and frequently (each body part needing it’s own treatment of cells differentiated for it).

The methodology is likely to never be economically feasible for an every person treatment, so it will be left to the rich person’s luxury and vanity, when they figure out that they can do more than simply treat their aging and diseased or damaged organs, but can also replace their aging cells in their facial skin with the skin cells of youth, or their drooping breasts with the breasts of the young, the world’s rich will use up the supply of stem-cell therapy resources from the world over, and the poor countries with less laws to protect the individuals from unscrupulous clinics will supply the resources to meet that ever increasing demand. You wait and see.

The entire field is primed and ready to become an industry designed for the likes of Elizabeth Bathory, but this time around she will look more like the patron saint of the cause, not a demonized monster even Mary Shelley couldn’t have imagined, not the atrocity that she really represents.

Aside from your creative attempts to associate stem cell research with body snatching, vivisection and other gruesome bodily uses, you're going on a hyperbole. Stem cells are not even sentient, or derived from sentient matter. If harvesting stem cells makes you think of Liz Bathory taking a dip in the Red Jacuzzi, then you ought to be opposed to blood transfusions as well as organ and marrow transplants because they are essentially the same thing on a larger scale. But nobody significant has complained about an epidemic of organ harvests have they?

Stem cell treatments derived from therapeutic cloning (nuclear transfer) will result in impractical economic problems because of the amount of human eggs needed and the lack of donors for large dispersal and world wide demand.

So you think the problems will occur because of the need for eggs. Once again, however, I wonder why you don't recognize that most people know at least one woman who would be willing to donate her eggs directly if they were in need of such therapy (if they were not, in fact, female). For a woman, both the somatic cells and the eggs would most likely come from her (which would actually increase the chances of deriving a useful stem cell line).

The process now is extremely inefficient and extremely expensive. It only works every one or two tries out of every hundred attempts and assuming a vast ten time improvement in production methods, it would still represent only about 10% instead of 1%. As you probably know, most of the time the cells made by nuclear transplantation just stop, they lose momentum and quit.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer hasn't yet been succesfully completed with human cells. However, we have seen an increase in efficiency over time with the animals in which it has been done.

And then this imaginary future world of yours with a working stem cell research derived therapy would create large-scale demand and because of laws limiting the Dr. Frankensteinish practices it will likely fall on the shoulders of the third world medical labs to meet the demand for the resources needed to meet and produce the therapies/treatments for each of the rich patients who can afford not just one unnecessary treatment, but many, and frequently (each body part needing it’s own treatment of cells differentiated for it).

What "Dr Frankensteinish practices"? Once again, you keep saying "BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN!" without even bothering to define those "bad things." It seems that you are just looking for a reason to be opposed to research that might bring new cures, so you posit that there *must* be bad things to come.

The methodology is likely to never be economically feasible for an every person treatment,

Most people can't afford life-saving treatments, but they get them all the time. That's why so many of us dump large amounts of money into insurance that seems relatively useless. It's a gamble so that we will have something there when we need it. There is obviously a problem for those without insurance, or with cheap insurance that won't pay for such treatments, but that is the case with just about every life-saving treatment out there.

The entire field is primed and ready to become an industry designed for the likes of Elizabeth Bathory, but this time around she will look more like the patron saint of the cause, not a demonized monster even Mary Shelley couldn’t have imagined, not the atrocity that she really represents.

I still don't see it. But, if you do, you should be worried about pushing legislation against such practices, not against the research in general. Your stance really seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. From what I can tell, it's basically, "Sure this could help a lot of people, but it could also be misused, so we should just let all those people it could help suffer."

HAVE you people even heard his reason????????

No thats right your just quick to blaime the church you dumb atheist's.

I think he shouldnt have done it but that dosnt mean that i blaime the Church for EVERYTHING the President does.

He gace his reasons and i REPECT his view.

Do you know it's say in the bible that a living thing is something with blood going threw it (even tress have sap) to a Baby is alive when blood starts to go threw it. now look at when that happens and then the Maximum time allowed for abortion. thats why i disagree but no you guys just blaime the church WE HAVE A REASON FOR THE WAY WE THINK even you you dont agree with it.

You atheist say your all accepting and more 'Moral' then religious people THEN PROVE IT.

Besides america has a crap Healthcare system anyway in australia we dont have to pay for surgery and it's FREE.

The reason people get in such bad shape in america is because there government takes away any chance of the poor people (who need it the most) of having treatment.

Heck even Cuba has a better HealthCare system and they cant afford the basics. Economy has nothing to do with it.

I wonder if people realize that embryonic stem cell reasearch can still be done by the private sector, Bush just veto the bill that ask the federal government to fund it.

HAVE you people even heard his reason????????

You mean "Crossing the Moral Boundary" that conveniently snakes a detour around Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib?

No thats right your just quick to blaime the church you dumb atheist's.

Oh right, anyone who doesn't like Bush for the incompetent welfare-recepient fratboy he is happens to be an athiest.

:rolleyes:

I think he shouldnt have done it but that dosnt mean that i blaime the Church for EVERYTHING the President does.

And who blames "The Church" specifically? And which church are you referring to? If anything, most people blame Dear Leader's prostitution to the Christian Taliban that provided most of his electorate base.

He gace his reasons and i REPECT his view.

And you can respect his views even if I still think he's an incompetent welfare-recepient fratboy.

Do you know it's say in the bible that a living thing is something with blood going threw it (even tress have sap) to a Baby is alive when blood starts to go threw it. now look at when that happens and then the Maximum time allowed for abortion. thats why i disagree but no you guys just blaime the church WE HAVE A REASON FOR THE WAY WE THINK even you you dont agree with it.

Biblical interpretations taken literally and inflexible leads to all sorts of problems, especially on the medical front. Why else do Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transplants that would offer them a much better chance at survival in situations that require them? Which is funny because religious inflexibility and fundamentalism is the root of the new national sport, "Muslims R 3B1L." If their fundamentalists are inflexible and thus terrorists, why should there be a special pleading exception for Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps and their likes?

Again, which church? Unless you're lumping Christians under One Church.

"ONE GOD!! ONE CHURCH!!" VROOOOM-ROOM-ROOM-ROOM... "ONE MOTOR SCOOTER!!" - Lance Henriksen, "Pit and the Pendulum" blooper reel

You atheist say your all accepting and more 'Moral' then religious people THEN PROVE IT.

You sure sound like there's a Vast Atheist Conspiracy to wipe out Christianity from the face of the planet.

HAVE you people even heard his reason????????

No thats right your just quick to blaime the church you dumb atheist's.

I think he shouldnt have done it but that dosnt mean that i blaime the Church for EVERYTHING the President does.

He gace his reasons and i REPECT his view.

Do you know it's say in the bible that a living thing is something with blood going threw it (even tress have sap) to a Baby is alive when blood starts to go threw it. now look at when that happens and then the Maximum time allowed for abortion. thats why i disagree but no you guys just blaime the church WE HAVE A REASON FOR THE WAY WE THINK even you you dont agree with it.

You atheist say your all accepting and more 'Moral' then religious people THEN PROVE IT.

Do you own a table made of wood? Then you're a murderer!

You atheist say your all accepting and more 'Moral' then religious people THEN PROVE IT.


Prove it?

Very well.

I dont give a FUCK what you believe.
If you wish to worship trees, i could personally give a shit less.

BUT...if stem cell research could be utilized to treat a number of diseases, thus ending the suffering, or even saving the lives of millions....

Your personal philosophy doesnt mean squat compared to that.

REGARDLESS of who or what you choose to worship, what on earth gives you the right to say that your desires based on "faith" are more important than funding potential cures to deadly, or crippling diseases.

To insist upon squashing any potential advancement of medicine, and thus denying much needed programs wich could give us answers to untold numbers, based upon some hippocritical "my god doesnt like it" nonsense, makes you immoral as anyone else.

Yes, he vetoed the first bill of his administration, concerning stem-cell research. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204375,00.html)



Wish he'd cut spending for a lot of other things, too...

I wish he'd die but there you go.

I wish he'd die but there you go.

Not necessarily death. Maybe Alzheimer's, MS, or some other neural degeneration. It would be an ironic touch.

Yes, he vetoed the first bill of his administration, concerning stem-cell research. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204375,00.html)



Wish he'd cut spending for a lot of other things, too...

I wish he'd cut taxes for the ultra-wealthy ... again. So that America can be even further in debt to the Chinese.

So you think the problems will occur because of the need for eggs. Once again, however, I wonder why you don't recognize that most people know at least one woman who would be willing to donate her eggs directly if they were in need of such therapy (if they were not, in fact, female). For a woman, both the somatic cells and the eggs would most likely come from her (which would actually increase the chances of deriving a useful stem cell line).

Somatic cell nuclear transfer hasn't yet been succesfully completed with human cells. However, we have seen an increase in efficiency over time with the animals in which it has been done.

What "Dr Frankensteinish practices"? Once again, you keep saying "BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN!" without even bothering to define those "bad things." It seems that you are just looking for a reason to be opposed to research that might bring new cures, so you posit that there *must* be bad things to come.

Most people can't afford life-saving treatments, but they get them all the time. That's why so many of us dump large amounts of money into insurance that seems relatively useless. It's a gamble so that we will have something there when we need it. There is obviously a problem for those without insurance, or with cheap insurance that won't pay for such treatments, but that is the case with just about every life-saving treatment out there.

I still don't see it. But, if you do, you should be worried about pushing legislation against such practices, not against the research in general. Your stance really seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. From what I can tell, it's basically, "Sure this could help a lot of people, but it could also be misused, so we should just let all those people it could help suffer."

Ovulation induction is the process where a woman’s body is tricked with drugs to produce a multiple eggs release.

Women undergoing the method are given injectable gonadotropins to enhance ovulation and the eggs are retrieved via the vagina. Most times this process is brought about by utilizing birth control pills followed by a medication known as GnRH-agonist. The treatment puts a woman in a temporary menopause-like state allowing her physician to control the timing of her ovulation. This is then followed by the use of the gonadotropins mentioned above. Because GnRH-agonists cause temporary menopause, they are oftentimes associated with hot flashes, vaginal dryness, memory changes, and headaches. Then, after all of this, they have a handful of eggs that can be used for research or the theoretical treatment process that has yet to be devised. And the women needs a couple of months to recover to normal cycles.

HOWEVER, your assumption is deceptive because there is no reason to believe that only one induction of eggs will be enough for each patient. You keep saying (or pretending) that one egg for one patient is going to be easy enough to get (donated by a friend of the family or whatever), but it’s far more likely to be something along the lines of 100 eggs for each patient OR 10women donating eggs for a month each for each individual patient when all is said and done and some type of actual treatment is invented and tried.

Rich people can control the lives of 10 donors for a month, but clinics overseas will be able to do it faster and cheaper and with less oversight. The field is a horror story looking for a place to happen.

Sometimes it is best to find a new road instead of staying on the one you know will lead to abuse and the devaluation of human beings.

I wonder if people realize that embryonic stem cell reasearch can still be done by the private sector, Bush just veto the bill that ask the federal government to fund it.


Shhhhhhh.................. That erases all rational reason to rant .

cant have that now can we ?

Not necessarily death. Maybe Alzheimer's, MS, or some other neural degeneration. It would be an ironic touch.

No, as too many people would be expecting it.

I wonder if people realize that embryonic stem cell reasearch can still be done by the private sector, Bush just veto the bill that ask the federal government to fund it.

Basic research is usually the focus of the public sector rather than the private sector. Without federal funding, it gets a hell of a lot harder to raise the funds to perform this basic research; large pharmaceutical companies aren't going to do it becuase it hurts their bottom line, and small biotechs lack the funds necessary to do it on their own. This is where the public universities and government funds to companies should step in, but thanks to the genius in the White House that's not going to happen.

And another thing: companies don't like to invest in countries where these kinds of laws are passed even if their research is not directly affected. Moralistic regulation scares them away, plain and simple. They tend to leave and go to places where their research is supported and understood, and the jobs that support them tend to follow. I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few biotechs decide to cut back on their US investment and hiring in favor of a more rational climate in Asia or Europe as a result of this law.

Michael J. Fox (Parkinson's sufferer) speaks out on stem cells (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkA1aN1osVk&search=michael%20%20fox%20stem%20cells)

I'd love to see Bush's response to that. I can just taste the condescension and the false sympathy he would spew...

Yes, he vetoed the first bill of his administration, concerning stem-cell research. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204375,00.html)



Wish he'd cut spending for a lot of other things, too...

God Bless the President for protecting American from immoral scientific ventures.

<sigh> True. But I do occasionally hope for an intelligent discussion here.
:eek:
I've officially met the greatest optimist EVER.

You have my respect, my sympathy, and shortly, via FedEx, two bottles: one of aspirin, the other of single malt Highland scotch.

Besides america has a crap Healthcare system anyway in australia we dont have to pay for surgery and it's FREE.

The reason people get in such bad shape in america is because there government takes away any chance of the poor people (who need it the most) of having treatment.

Heck even Cuba has a better HealthCare system and they cant afford the basics. Economy has nothing to do with it.
It isn't free. Your condition worsening while you wait untold months for your procedure is the price you pay.

Ovulation induction is the process where a woman’s body is tricked with drugs to produce a multiple eggs release.
*snip*
And what of God's Will, all you Christian anti-scientists? Super-ovulation is clearly an abomination!



STEM CELLS and GOD's WILL:

1. Pro-life folks are into saving the embryos from the evils of research, and they feel that way based on their Biblical respect for all life as a gift of God. I think that's just fine. Everyone needs to believe something, and on the whole, Christianity averages positive. Judgmental in practice, but positive.

2. When someone dies young in a tragedy of some sort, pro-lifers tend to console themselves with the salve of "God's Will" being the author of the person's untimely demise. Subverting God's Will is, in fact, one of the more strident arguments against gay marriage and all kids of things to which pro-lifers are morally opposed.

3. However, and conveniently, God's Will pretty much stops at death when it comes to excusing sorrowful events. If a pro-life couple is infertile or "barren" as the Bible as worded it, that too is God's Will. Or is it? Science, which seems to suffer at the hands of populist Christians more often than it profits, developed a way for pro-lifers and others to subvert God's Will by producing viable offspring in those couples previously determined to be sterile. How is this any different from any morally objectionable action deemed sinful because it opposes God's Will?

3a. To be fair, some folks DO take God's Will as law and allow their children to go without vaccinations or other medical treatment and instead pray for their healing. I'm all for prayer, after all, thoughts held in mind produce after their kind, and the healing potential of the human mind has been demonstrated. It doesn't take much, however, for me to imagine God trying to poke through the Veil long enough to urge the faithful medical Luddites to get their kid to a hostpital.

4. So the barren pro-life couple go to a fertility clinic and the scientific and technical jiggery-pokery is done and lo and behold, it's a miracle -- the pro-lifers are preggers.

4a. Many times, fertility treatments lead to multiple births. These people then not only oppose God's Will, but burden themselves and their family and their friends and community with quintuplets. Miracle? Not so much. And get this -- businesses, chambers of commerce and even colleges try to make hay on the sudden family-of-seven by offering them FREE STUFF. Diaper services, scholarships for when they go to college, all kinds of generous donations. And that's fine. But ask many of these people to donate to someone who's destitute with ONE child (and perhaps add the sad coincidence that the parent and/or child has a dark skin tone), and you'll get the bootstrap lecture. To sum up: choose to defy God and pump out five units? Free stuff. Defy God (or not!) and get a clucking lecture on responsibility and "choices".

4b. I don't know the exact number, and it's likely different for every woman, but fertilized eggs pass through the uterus without attaching and get flushed out all the time! Pro-lifers, to use their logic, would label any sexually active woman who conceives but for one or another doesn't implant a murderer...or even a serial killer. Well, she's sexually active without being married (an assumption that makes pro-lifers feel nice and righteous, despite the fact that it can happen to infertile pro-life couples, too...only five implanted, remember, out of how many created and sent in), so she gets what she deserves. See how inaccurate righteousness can be?

4c. Then there are those zygotes that didn't get implanted and didn't get flushed out during the pro-lifers' fertillity procedure. What of them? Mr. & Mrs. Pro-life have their hands full with five newborns. But then, they wouldn't want to see some other family raising what they believe are their sons and/or daughters...goodness, what to do?

5. Aunt Martha has Parkinson's Disease (or a spinal cord injury or name your potentially-helped-by-stem-cells condition). This too is seen as God's Will and Auntie has been very strong, brave and even spry during her fight. What Bush has effectively done with his virgin veto is say this: Mr. & Mrs. Pro-life may use the benefit of science to reverse God's Will and spill a few zygotes in the process. Aunt Martha, despite only needing those zygotes that were on their way to disposal anyway via medical waste bin or freezer burn, will not be allowed that same privilege.

6. I'm completely supportive and even appreciative of the Christian lifestyle (that word, lifestyle, always sounds bad when applied to homosexuals, but slap it on one of the "good" religions, and my, such a rehabilitation). I am glad that folks have a way to make themselves feel good and get through life with a feeling of security. Sometimes I envy them.

7. My support comes crashing to the ground faster than Courtney Love at an open bar when that lifestyle threatens to become law, especially in the area of consensual acts, moral ambiguity, and when there's room for disagreement. Law means I MUST do what YOU think is right, no matter WHAT I think. Well, I love Aunt Martha, and I THINK she deserves any possible help medical science can give. And given that you feel the same way about not adopting -- about being fanatical about seeing your own genes expressed and furthering your bloodline, regardless of how independent that might be from how you raise a child -- I don't see where you have a leg to stand on with regard to stem cell research.

And what of God's Will, all you Christian anti-scientists? Super-ovulation is clearly an abomination!



STEM CELLS and GOD's WILL:

1. Pro-life folks are into saving the embryos from the evils of research, and they feel that way based on their Biblical respect for all life as a gift of God. I think that's just fine. Everyone needs to believe something, and on the whole, Christianity averages positive. Judgmental in practice, but positive.

2. When someone dies young in a tragedy of some sort, pro-lifers tend to console themselves with the salve of "God's Will" being the author of the person's untimely demise. Subverting God's Will is, in fact, one of the more strident arguments against gay marriage and all kids of things to which pro-lifers are morally opposed.

3. However, and conveniently, God's Will pretty much stops at death when it comes to excusing sorrowful events. If a pro-life couple is infertile or "barren" as the Bible as worded it, that too is God's Will. Or is it? Science, which seems to suffer at the hands of populist Christians more often than it profits, developed a way for pro-lifers and others to subvert God's Will by producing viable offspring in those couples previously determined to be sterile. How is this any different from any morally objectionable action deemed sinful because it opposes God's Will?

3a. To be fair, some folks DO take God's Will as law and allow their children to go without vaccinations or other medical treatment and instead pray for their healing. I'm all for prayer, after all, thoughts held in mind produce after their kind, and the healing potential of the human mind has been demonstrated. It doesn't take much, however, for me to imagine God trying to poke through the Veil long enough to urge the faithful medical Luddites to get their kid to a hostpital.

4. So the barren pro-life couple go to a fertility clinic and the scientific and technical jiggery-pokery is done and lo and behold, it's a miracle -- the pro-lifers are preggers.

4a. Many times, fertility treatments lead to multiple births. These people then not only oppose God's Will, but burden themselves and their family and their friends and community with quintuplets. Miracle? Not so much. And get this -- businesses, chambers of commerce and even colleges try to make hay on the sudden family-of-seven by offering them FREE STUFF. Diaper services, scholarships for when they go to college, all kinds of generous donations. And that's fine. But ask many of these people to donate to someone who's destitute with ONE child (and perhaps add the sad coincidence that the parent and/or child has a dark skin tone), and you'll get the bootstrap lecture. To sum up: choose to defy God and pump out five units? Free stuff. Defy God (or not!) and get a clucking lecture on responsibility and "choices".

4b. I don't know the exact number, and it's likely different for every woman, but fertilized eggs pass through the uterus without attaching and get flushed out all the time! Pro-lifers, to use their logic, would label any sexually active woman who conceives but for one or another doesn't implant a murderer...or even a serial killer. Well, she's sexually active without being married (an assumption that makes pro-lifers feel nice and righteous, despite the fact that it can happen to infertile pro-life couples, too...only five implanted, remember, out of how many created and sent in), so she gets what she deserves. See how inaccurate righteousness can be?

4c. Then there are those zygotes that didn't get implanted and didn't get flushed out during the pro-lifers' fertillity procedure. What of them? Mr. & Mrs. Pro-life have their hands full with five newborns. But then, they wouldn't want to see some other family raising what they believe are their sons and/or daughters...goodness, what to do?

5. Aunt Martha has Parkinson's Disease (or a spinal cord injury or name your potentially-helped-by-stem-cells condition). This too is seen as God's Will and Auntie has been very strong, brave and even spry during her fight. What Bush has effectively done with his virgin veto is say this: Mr. & Mrs. Pro-life may use the benefit of science to reverse God's Will and spill a few zygotes in the process. Aunt Martha, despite only needing those zygotes that were on their way to disposal anyway via medical waste bin or freezer burn, will not be allowed that same privilege.

6. I'm completely supportive and even appreciative of the Christian lifestyle (that word, lifestyle, always sounds bad when applied to homosexuals, but slap it on one of the "good" religions, and my, such a rehabilitation). I am glad that folks have a way to make themselves feel good and get through life with a feeling of security. Sometimes I envy them.

7. My support comes crashing to the ground faster than Courtney Love at an open bar when that lifestyle threatens to become law, especially in the area of consensual acts, moral ambiguity, and when there's room for disagreement. Law means I MUST do what YOU think is right, no matter WHAT I think. Well, I love Aunt Martha, and I THINK she deserves any possible help medical science can give. And given that you feel the same way about not adopting -- about being fanatical about seeing your own genes expressed and furthering your bloodline, regardless of how independent that might be from how you raise a child -- I don't see where you have a leg to stand on with regard to stem cell research.




So what ? the government wont pay , or rather it wont use taxpayer money to pay , for something that the representative's of the people of the US do not think the people want . it is called Democracy . OVERIDE the veto...thus proving that the people DO in fact want it.

Or just go out like NICE capitalist and fund the research with PRIVATE investment and suck all the stem cells you want from wherever you desire to .

why is this even an argument ?

So what ? the government wont pay , or rather it wont use taxpayer money to pay , for something that the representative's of the people of the US do not think the people want . it is called Democracy . OVERIDE the veto...thus proving that the people DO in fact want it.

Or just go out like NICE capitalist and fund the research with PRIVATE investment and suck all the stem cells you want from wherever you desire to .

why is this even an argument ?
Because the house and senate, Republican-controlled entites both, passed the legislation, and Bush vetoed based on nothing more than his own personal religious feelings.

I know this next request is completely futile, but here goes anyway:

Read the thread.

Because the house and senate, Republican-controlled entites both, passed the legislation, and Bush vetoed based on nothing more than his own personal religious feelings.

I know this next request is completely futile, but here goes anyway:

Read the thread.


well...if you have read the tread then you would see I have been in it posting from the start .


Ask yourself this simple question " If the President , having stated to the electorate , his intentions to veto any legislation that allows the government to pay for stem cell research that is beyond his personal and what he thinks the people he represents , moral and ethical standards , can be wrong for doing what he was ELECTED twice to do .

And it also follows that the ELECTED representatives in both houses of congress have ALSO done what they have been elected to do .


Your statement about it being " only" his own personal feelings he based it on is pure simple bullshit..it was a MAJOR part of the platform he ran on and was elected on .

But aside from that...It only effects money the government will spend.

So WHO cares ...Invest in biomed , make money , and let the private sector do it . Its called capitalism and the US is really good at it .

Or ELECT different people who want to use GOVERNMENT money to fund different types of stem cell research .

Thats what we do in a Democratic Republic .

...
I know this next request is completely futile, but here goes anyway:

Read the thread.

That's especially funny coming from you. You didn't even read my single post when you jumped the first line in it and took it out of context, quoted it and then used it to imply that I had claimed something entirely different and unrelated to what was the actual topic of my post.

Nicely done :rolleyes:

He vetoed it because it would mean the lives of Democrats would be unnecessarily prolonged, as Republicans don't need medicine because they have the blessing of God! :D

XD

Besides america has a crap Healthcare system anyway in australia we dont have to pay for surgery and it's FREE.

The reason people get in such bad shape in america is because there government takes away any chance of the poor people (who need it the most) of having treatment.

Heck even Cuba has a better HealthCare system and they cant afford the basics. Economy has nothing to do with it.
i dont think you should make comments on things you obviously know nothing about.

Michael J. Fox (Parkinson's sufferer) speaks out on stem cells (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkA1aN1osVk&search=michael%20%20fox%20stem%20cells)

I'd love to see Bush's response to that. I can just taste the condescension and the false sympathy he would spew...
Isn't it obvious?
Fox is a vile sinner who is suffering for his filthy ways, while Bush has God speaking through him.
We lowly mortals can't expect to understand the ways of God, the way a not-very-bright alcoholic failed businessman and ex-cokefiend can.

God Bless the President for protecting American from immoral scientific ventures.

Who will protect US Americans from you?

HAVE you people even heard his reason????????

Yes, have you?

Do you know it's say in the bible that a living thing is something with blood going threw it (even tress have sap) to a Baby is alive when blood starts to go threw it. now look at when that happens and then the Maximum time allowed for abortion. thats why i disagree but no you guys just blaime the church WE HAVE A REASON FOR THE WAY WE THINK even you you dont agree with it.

Well, if it is a living thing once it begins to have blood flow, then you should have no problem at all with embryonic stem cell research. The circulatory system hasn't even begun to form at 5 days, when the cells are isolated.

Ovulation induction is the process where a woman’s body is tricked with drugs to produce a multiple eggs release.

Indeed.

HOWEVER, your assumption is deceptive because there is no reason to believe that only one induction of eggs will be enough for each patient.

Considering the leaps and bounds made in efficiency of the process in other animals, yes, there actually is.

Sometimes it is best to find a new road instead of staying on the one you know will lead to abuse and the devaluation of human beings.

You don't *know* any such thing. You are assuming it because you apparently can't see beyond the tip of your own nose.


So what ? the government wont pay , or rather it wont use taxpayer money to pay , for something that the representative's of the people of the US do not think the people want .

Actually, it is quite clear that the representatives of the people *do* think that it is what the people want, considering that they passed it.

And the direct surveys of the people show that it is what the people want.

Bush, on the other hand, and a small minority of fundamentalists who generally don't even have a basic understanding of the process, do not.

Your statement about it being " only" his own personal feelings he based it on is pure simple bullshit..it was a MAJOR part of the platform he ran on and was elected on .

You know, I followed the election very closely. This was hardly a "major" part of the platform he ran on. It was generally a sidebar - one that was mentioned in a debate or two.

So WHO cares ...Invest in biomed , make money , and let the private sector do it . Its called capitalism and the US is really good at it .

The private sector has never been the place for basic science research. It is, quite frankly, *not* good at it.

The private sector has never been the place for basic science research. It is, quite frankly, *not* good at it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a sticky that said this?

Actually, it is quite clear that the representatives of the people *do* think that it is what the people want, considering that they passed it.


Overide the Veto . its done all the time...shame its an election year. seems to turn politicions into pussys .

BTW..I think they are nuts not to fund it and that the bill was a good one for everyone in the US...but I understand and accept that I live in the US and that sometimes the government wont do what I want .

and the private sector is way ahead of the government ...are you JOKING :eek:

Katrina ring a bell ? health care ? Any Government run program ?

vaccines and other areas with high exposure and low payout...yes bring in government MONEY...but WTF ..who do you think would be doing the research the bill would PAY for ...THE PRIVATE SECTOR..only with government funding instead of private funding...

I invest in biomeds...so far so good . Growing nicely ...stem cell research shows great promise for so many things its not going to be stopped by a shortsighted ploitical play . Too much potential profit laying out there for that .

BTW

The private sector discovered and advanced stem cell research to the point it is at today..

So you were saying ?


Link to the White house bullshit..ermmm explanation ..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html


Some history on the PRIVATE sector developement of stem cell research...

What is the history of stem cells?



Stem cells themselves have actually been around for almost as long as life has been on earth. In essence all life evolved from stem cells of some kind.

Many of the earliest forms of life on earth were not much more complex than stem cells.


Stem cell research has been around for almost as long as microscopes. Though it is only within the 1980s that more sophisticated genetechnology developments have allowed for the culturing (growing of cells) in laboratories.

Fetal nerve cells were one of the first 'stem cells" not real stem cells though were used to treat Parkinson.

source: Lasker Foundation

Later in 1998 a team from University of Wisconsin managed to grow human stem cells in culture.


http://clearlyexplained.com/nature/life/cells/stemcells.html#history

Oh come on, you people need to get real. Have you ever heard of snow flake babies? They are "embreyos" that got adopted and matured into wonderful kids. They will love, live, marry, have kids, have pain, have joy, and be people who have lives. A lot better then being sacreficed on the bloody alter of science. Besides, from what I understand adult stem cell lines work a lot better for research.Where do you all draw the line? How about farming fetuses for scientific research. They are not people....or are they? Let me give you a good quote:

"Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grown old."

Who said it? Ted Kennedy in 1971. He is a disgraceful man.

Oh come on, you people need to get real. Have you ever heard of snow flake babies? They are "embreyos" that got adopted and matured into wonderful kids. They will love, live, marry, have kids, have pain, have joy, and be people who have lives. A lot better then being sacreficed on the bloody alter of science. Besides, from what I understand adult stem cell lines work a lot better for research.Where do you all draw the line? How about farming fetuses for scientific research. They are not people....or are they? Let me give you a good quote:

"Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grown old."

Who said it? Ted Kennedy in 1971. He is a disgraceful man.

So you take a quote from Ted Kennedy, a "disgraceful man" you dismiss as as irrelevant Massachusetts Liberal 99.99% of the time until he says something that suits your Luddite Fundamentalism. Hooooow convenient.

:rolleyes:

So you take a quote from Ted Kennedy, a "disgraceful man" you dismiss as as irrelevant Massachusetts Liberal 99.99% of the time until he says something that suits your Luddite Fundamentalism. Hooooow convenient.

:rolleyes:

No, I am fully aware of his full list of crazy claims and statements. I just chose to use his quote in this case because it shows just how much of a hypocrite he is, and many of his collegues are, on this issue.

Oh come on, you people need to get real. Have you ever heard of snow flake babies? They are "embreyos" that got adopted and matured into wonderful kids. They will love, live, marry, have kids, have pain, have joy, and be people who have lives. A lot better then being sacreficed on the bloody alter of science. Besides, from what I understand adult stem cell lines work a lot better for research.Where do you all draw the line? How about farming fetuses for scientific research. They are not people....or are they? Let me give you a good quote.

Well, then people need to adopt them! Everyone who opposes using the embryos for scientific research should agree to either have themselves or their wives carry all of the viable embryos to term; if they don't, they're doing nothing but relegating the surplus to the status of medicinal waste. I don't know about you, but I think that is a far less moral use for them than to advance our knowledge of human physiology and possibly save millions of lives. Honestly, I would find it inspiring if the opponents of embryonic stem cells valued them so much that they were willing to bring as many of them as possible to term each year.

But then again, it's so inconvienent to practice what one preaches; it gets in the way of one's political aspirations, your material desires, one's sex life...it's a lot easier to simply pontificate and bluster with rhetoric than actually do what one says, and quietly dispose of those "children" with the rest of the medicinal waste.

Well, then people need to adopt them! Everyone who opposes using the embryos for scientific research should agree to either have themselves or their wives carry all of the viable embryos to term; if they don't, they're doing nothing but relegating the surplus to the status of medicinal waste. I don't know about you, but I think that is a far less moral use for them than to advance our knowledge of human physiology and possibly save millions of lives. Honestly, I would find it inspiring if the opponents of embryonic stem cells valued them so much that they were willing to bring as many of them as possible to term each year.

But then again, it's so inconvienent to practice what one preaches; it gets in the way of one's political aspirations, your material desires, one's sex life...it's a lot easier to simply pontificate and bluster with rhetoric than actually do what one says, and quietly dispose of those "children" with the rest of the medicinal waste.

Indeed , I agree. Society is taking the easy way out and it is wrong. Denying humanity is dangerous. I am not able to adopt as I am not married, but if I was I would. The child is much more precious when it is not burned up with medical waste because of a culture of death Senate. How far along is it until it becomes a child for you? Not an embreyo? How about a first trimester fetus? How about a second trimester fetus. Many senators believe that it is not until the child is born....which is confusing as I was a c-section. If I was born at 6pm, according to them I was of no value until 6pm. Yet the doctor could have schedualed it for 3pm. See? Well, I believe ( along with a majority of Americans) that life begins at conception. It is wrong to create human life and then destroy it on the bloody alter of science.

I always prefer that possibility of adoption be exhausted first before the embryos can be used for research. We should try to get as many of them as possible to term and only then only the remaining to be used for research. Although using them for that purpose still raises moral complications, I think by encouraging adotion first and then scientific research we can reach a moral situation that is a good deal less egregious than simply disposing of the embryos as medicinal waste. Either way, it minimizes the wasting of life and that is always a good thing.



Exactly what part of "these are not embryos ripped out of pregnant women, they're spares from fertility treatments that were never going to be implanted" did you not understand?

Exactly what part of "these are not embryos ripped out of pregnant women, they're spares from fertility treatments that were never going to be implanted" did you not understand?

I understand it, and that's why I fully support this kind of research.

However, I also think we should provide an opportunity for these embryos to be adopted so opponents of embryonic stem-cell research can put their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

Oppose embryonic stem cell research? Adopt one of the viable surplus embryos to prove your "commitment to life"...it's a way of showing that you actually care rather than just bluster from your pulpt. Interestingly, the number of people that would follow through are significantly less than the number that oppose it...

I dont like him at all...hes making that veto based on his own religious beliefs and thats fascism.

I dont like him at all...hes making that veto based on his own religious beliefs and thats fascism.

That's not fascism, not by a long shot.

It's called whoring to The Christian Taliban.

That's not fascism, not by a long shot.

It's called whoring to The Christian Taliban.



Can I get an amen?

Well, there's some good news. California has authorized $150 million for new embryonic stem cell research; this confirms my belief that the funding for this type of research will come from the states that see its value in both a moral and economic light and who don't let religious illogic cloud their judgement.

Bush's veto might hurt the states that go along with his crusade, but not California:

Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/BAGGDK2TEN1.DTL)

Once again, California has to lead the US in science and technology.

Once again, California has to lead the US in science and technology.

Of course. How else is the Guvahnah going to get Cyborg Tissue Generation off the ground?

:D

Oh come on, you people need to get real. Have you ever heard of snow flake babies? They are "embreyos" that got adopted and matured into wonderful kids. They will love, live, marry, have kids, have pain, have joy, and be people who have lives. A lot better then being sacreficed on the bloody alter of science. Besides, from what I understand adult stem cell lines work a lot better for research.Where do you all draw the line? How about farming fetuses for scientific research. They are not people....or are they? Let me give you a good quote:

"Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grown old."

Who said it? Ted Kennedy in 1971. He is a disgraceful man

and the private sector is way ahead of the government ...are you JOKING :eek:

Katrina ring a bell ? health care ? Any Government run program ?

vaccines and other areas with high exposure and low payout...yes bring in government MONEY...but WTF ..who do you think would be doing the research the bill would PAY for ...THE PRIVATE SECTOR..only with government funding instead of private funding...

Actually, the research the bill would pay for would be almost exclusively in the Universtiy system - like most basic science research.

The private sector discovered and advanced stem cell research to the point it is at today..

Not really. Once again, it is scientists at major universities who have done most of the research. All the private sector did was create a few very expensive cell lines that they sell to said researchers.

Oh come on, you people need to get real. Have you ever heard of snow flake babies?

Yes. And if the couple who uses in vitro chooses to donate along that route, it is their right to do so.

Besides, from what I understand adult stem cell lines work a lot better for research.

You understand wrong. Neither type "works a lot better" for research. Both are being researched. We are discovering how they are different, and the advantages of each in different areas. Trying to say that one is "better" would be like saying, "Research on aspirin works a lot better than research on morphine. We should only research aspirin."

Where do you all draw the line? How about farming fetuses for scientific research.

Farming fetuses would involve endangering a woman, and pushing the line of what is and is not alive.

You understand wrong. Neither type "works a lot better" for research. Both are being researched. We are discovering how they are different, and the advantages of each in different areas. Trying to say that one is "better" would be like saying, "Research on aspirin works a lot better than research on morphine. We should only research aspirin."

but only one method of research has these moral issues attached to it. Your comparison is lousy. It would be accurate if 46% of Americans believed that an aspirin was a person


Farming fetuses would involve endangering a woman, and pushing the line of what is and is not alive.

ah, now you get to the center of the issue. When does life begin in your opinion? When does it become wrong if in the future we can grow a fetus without a woman being needed to carry it? In May 2003, Newsweek asked, when does human life begin? Fifty-eight percent said at fertilization (46%) or at implantation (12%).

Oh come on, you people need to get real. Have you ever heard of snow flake babies? They are "embreyos" that got adopted and matured into wonderful kids. They will love, live, marry, have kids, have pain, have joy, and be people who have lives. A lot better then being sacreficed on the bloody alter of science. Besides, from what I understand adult stem cell lines work a lot better for research.Where do you all draw the line? How about farming fetuses for scientific research. They are not people....or are they? Let me give you a good quote:

"Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grown old."

Who said it? Ted Kennedy in 1971. He is a disgraceful man

Again with this crap? Ted Kennedy and a bunch of Snowflake Babies that Shrub doesn't really give a shit about past photo ops is the reason we ought to cut off possible research into human tissue repair and regeneration?

Of course. How else is the Guvahnah going to get Cyborg Tissue Generation off the ground? :D

Oh Noes! :eek:

Actually, come to think of it if I were to become a cyborg I could live centuries without having to deal with illness, aging, or injury...time to move to California.

but only one method of research has these moral issues attached to it. Your comparison is lousy. It would be accurate if 46% of Americans believed that an aspirin was a person

Did you know that 46% of statistics are made up on the spot?

Seriously, the latest surveys I have seen show that a significant majority are in favor of embryonic stem cell research. That kind of puts a hole in your number.

Meanwhile, all sorts of research has moral issues attached to it. There is a reason that bioethicists have a job. Animal research has moral issues attached. Stem cell research has moral issues attached. Even genetic research has moral issues attached.

Of course, every time people get into a discussion of morals, they forget the people who have undergone in vitro fertilization treatment, and feel a moral imperative to donate their excess embryos to research. Do their moral views not count simply because they disagree with yours?

ah, now you get to the center of the issue. When does life begin in your opinion? When does it become wrong if in the future we can grow a fetus without a woman being needed to carry it? In May 2003, Newsweek asked, when does human life begin? Fifty-eight percent said at fertilization (46%) or at implantation (12%).

"When does human life begin?" and "When does life become personhood?" are two very different questions. Now you have demonstrated quite clearly that your first citation of this statistic was bogus.

Of course, from a scientific or even a medical point of view, both time points are unsupported. They are both gut feelings, no different from saying, "Life begins at 3 hours, 15 minutes, and 2 seconds." The fetus begins to meet all the requirements to be deemed an organism (and thus a life) between 10-12 weeks, when it gains the ability to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity. From a medical point of view, a person is not alive without a certain level of brain activity - activity that is not reached in the fetus until about week 20.


Of course, that also isn't the "center of the issue." In the case of the bill under question, we are talking about embryos that are going to be destroyed whether they are used for research or not. Thus, the "center of the issue" is whether it is more moral to destory these embryos with no benefit whatsoever, or destroy them for possibly life-saving research. Anyone who truly believes that a fertilized egg is a human life, with all the rights therein, should be adamantly opposed to in vitro fertilization at all, as destroyed embryos are inherent in the process.

Sometimes it is best to find a new road instead of staying on the one you know will lead to abuse and the devaluation of human beings.

As if to add to the problems with your argument, an article in Science this month discussed several groups who have managed interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer. In other words, it seems to be possible to take a somatic cell from one species, transfer it into an egg from another, and create a stem cell line that is basically indistinguishable from one created wholly from one species. It has apparently been used quite well - even leading to live births of cloned animals - in some endangered species.