George Bush vows to block funding for stem cell research
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Do you find research on amoebas unethical as well? I never said I found any of the researdh unethical. However, I do find the comparison of a human embryo to an amoeba to be based on questionable and dangerous ethics. If I can ethically experiment on an embryo because it is comparable biological to an amoeba, why can I not ethically experiment on a 2 month old baby because it is less advanced physically and mentally than most animals are at that stage of life - a lab rat for example. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Because a 2 month old baby can think (although the brain capacity is limited), an amoeba can't. Nor can a stem cell. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: private companies don't do as much pure research you mean like pet cloning being done now, or human cloning for fertility reasons (that I have no doubt will be done, it simply will be hidden until the child matures)? Use of stem cells to grow tissue for sales? Cryo-cell is the largest commercial U-cord stem cell storage and marketing company for blood from stem-cells; StemCell International uses adult stem cells so that they can receive government and private contribution, but looking forward to extending research. There is another Stem cell company to hit IPO soon. Chemicon Int. and others. The 21 new lines of stem cells requested in the bill to be added to the list of approved stem cell lines come from corporate stem cell research rather than government assissted which is why they exist while there was a ban on new line creation from any company receiving government monies. Very few of those 21 are from the states, but they are corporate interest created. Corporations may not do as much "pure research" but there is a lot of money for the company who can find cures for some things. And billions to be made if we can cheat death. The ban on new lines of stem cells did not prevent their creation, just prevented their creation or use with government money. They still exist, and more will exist. I personally prefer U-cord stem cells or adult stem cells, but I would say there are quite a few companies that are interested in stem cells. Fetal stem cells are just easier to use and grow and therefore cheaper, and easier to make profit. Which is exactly why they are desired so much, and why we have new lines to use. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: you mean like pet cloning being done now based on research that was developed... where? Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: Corporations may not do as much "pure research" but there is a lot of money for the company who can find cures for some things yes. of course. that applies to any invention in any field. yet, universities still do much of the work when there is no clear profits in sight. Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: The ban on new lines of stem cells did not prevent their creation, just prevented their creation or use with government money i'm not arguing that. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: I'm guessing because he feels that certain stem cell research would not be "fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages." I don't personally agree with him, but I can read entire sentences. "fostering and encouraging respect for human life in all its stages." This is the same President that decided to start a War. This President needs to get his shit together imo. He obviously does not trust the scientific community. I guess in his mind he is displaying political courage. Maybe he doesn't have trust that the government will be giving funding to the correct research. Later, JoeSox "Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see." -Mark Twain CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ Audioscrobbler
I was thinking of the number of people dying in Texas due to pollution from oil refineries. Maybe I'm wrong but aren't they exempt from pollution control ? Cerainly on a programme I saw 4-5 months ago families living near a refinery in Texas had an awful lot of respiratory problems. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Well said! I don't know I just question the guy's rationale sometimes. He seems to be big on hypocrisy but then what politician isn't? Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: An eye for an eye will only make the world blind. A tooth for a tooth will make the denture manufacturing business boom. :) Later, JoeSox "Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see." -Mark Twain CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ Audioscrobbler
JoeSox wrote: A tooth for a tooth will make the denture manufacturing business boom. 5! :-D Vikram.
http://www.geocities.com/vpunathambekar "It's like hitting water with your fist. There's all sorts of motion and noise at impact, and no impression left whatsoever shortly thereafter." — gantww.
-
Well said! -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
I find it amazing that the left seems to have lost the ability to evaluate the morality of scientific progress. Do we tolerate embryo factories in order to keep every old fart on the planet alive for every possible last nano-second of mortal existence? You don't have to be a religious zealot to appreciate the moral quandry of this kind of research. I also do not necessarily agree with Bush, but I am glad there are people asking these kinds of quesitons. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: Do we tolerate embryo factories in order to keep every old fart on the planet alive for every possible last nano-second of mortal existence? o need to worry about that, because, When old farts would turn young farts and compete for young women, the jealous young farts would kill the former old-farts and thus restoring nature's balance. Maybe the most compelling reason for embryo factories is to restore hair forthe most annoying and rediculous sights on earth namely bald farts.
-
Because a 2 month old baby can think (although the brain capacity is limited), an amoeba can't. Nor can a stem cell. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
A 2 month old can't solve the kinds of problems a common lab rat can solve - therefore, ethically, it is comparable just as an ambryo is to an amoeba. A human embryo is no more an amoeba than a human baby is a lab rat, both are merely stages on an unbroken continuum of a human life. To base ones ethics on such a false analogy is truly disturbing, and clearly defines why modern secular morality represents such a tremendous danger to traditional human society. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
A 2 month old can't solve the kinds of problems a common lab rat can solve - therefore, ethically, it is comparable just as an ambryo is to an amoeba. A human embryo is no more an amoeba than a human baby is a lab rat, both are merely stages on an unbroken continuum of a human life. To base ones ethics on such a false analogy is truly disturbing, and clearly defines why modern secular morality represents such a tremendous danger to traditional human society. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: To base ones ethics on such a false analogy is truly disturbing, and clearly defines why modern secular morality represents such a tremendous danger to traditional human society. If that's the care, then everytime you shake someone's hand, you are killing human life. If it is unethical to study stem cells, which never would've turned into a human, then it's equally unethical to shake hands. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: An eye for an eye will only make the world blind. What is your suggestion? A penis for an eye? That will only make the whole world go lesbian.
That's probably the stupidiest strawman ever conceived. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: To base ones ethics on such a false analogy is truly disturbing, and clearly defines why modern secular morality represents such a tremendous danger to traditional human society. If that's the care, then everytime you shake someone's hand, you are killing human life. If it is unethical to study stem cells, which never would've turned into a human, then it's equally unethical to shake hands. -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning at all on that. Shaking hands? People have embryos on their hands? I don't get it. The microbes we have on our hands are not embryos for God's sake. And the ethical point relating to stem cells are not the stem cells themselves, it is how they are acguired. I understand that a line of stem cells can be maintained from a single embryo, but that embryo still existed. If we all have viable stem cells on our hands, than why does any one care about protecting embryos from such research? Personally, I have no problem with the procedure, I just think we should all be honest about what it is we are doing. An embryo desreves recognition as a stage of a human life. To rationalize it as anything less in order to feel less guilty about what it is we are trying to achieve is unethical. We are, in fact, "playing God" with human life. I think a little humility might be in order at the very least. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning at all on that. Shaking hands? People have embryos on their hands? I don't get it. The microbes we have on our hands are not embryos for God's sake. And the ethical point relating to stem cells are not the stem cells themselves, it is how they are acguired. I understand that a line of stem cells can be maintained from a single embryo, but that embryo still existed. If we all have viable stem cells on our hands, than why does any one care about protecting embryos from such research? Personally, I have no problem with the procedure, I just think we should all be honest about what it is we are doing. An embryo desreves recognition as a stage of a human life. To rationalize it as anything less in order to feel less guilty about what it is we are trying to achieve is unethical. We are, in fact, "playing God" with human life. I think a little humility might be in order at the very least. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
A skin cell is a "transformed" stem cell. Does that make it any less living? That was the point of the "hand shaking". -- An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
-
Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning at all on that. Shaking hands? People have embryos on their hands? I don't get it. The microbes we have on our hands are not embryos for God's sake. And the ethical point relating to stem cells are not the stem cells themselves, it is how they are acguired. I understand that a line of stem cells can be maintained from a single embryo, but that embryo still existed. If we all have viable stem cells on our hands, than why does any one care about protecting embryos from such research? Personally, I have no problem with the procedure, I just think we should all be honest about what it is we are doing. An embryo desreves recognition as a stage of a human life. To rationalize it as anything less in order to feel less guilty about what it is we are trying to achieve is unethical. We are, in fact, "playing God" with human life. I think a little humility might be in order at the very least. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
But the embryos in question are going to be discarded anyway... They are left over from IVF procedures. The owners of the embryos have donated them to science and do NOT want them given to others. In no circumstance, will they ever develop past their current stage. Let's be pragmatic about this. If they can be used to help mankind instead of ending up in a medical waste facility, why not? In IMHO, those that want to stop stem-cell research are being "anti-life", not the other way around. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
And some people find experimentation on a human life, at any stage of development, to be immoral. Why is your morality superior to theirs? Because yours is secular and theirs is religious? Has it come down to that? "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: Why is your morality superior to theirs? Because yours is secular and theirs is religious? What I'm saying is that experimenting on human cells for medical purposes is a better moral choice than researching offensive weapons because weapons are designed only to kill people while medicine helps people.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
But the embryos in question are going to be discarded anyway... They are left over from IVF procedures. The owners of the embryos have donated them to science and do NOT want them given to others. In no circumstance, will they ever develop past their current stage. Let's be pragmatic about this. If they can be used to help mankind instead of ending up in a medical waste facility, why not? In IMHO, those that want to stop stem-cell research are being "anti-life", not the other way around. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
I'm all for being pragmatic. But I also like being honest with myself at the same time. You can say that they are just the left overs from IVF, but that still represents "harvesting" of embryos. We are creating life and than destroying it for our own health and security, nothing more, nothing less. Well, fine - but lets not trivialize the process. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
I'm all for being pragmatic. But I also like being honest with myself at the same time. You can say that they are just the left overs from IVF, but that still represents "harvesting" of embryos. We are creating life and than destroying it for our own health and security, nothing more, nothing less. Well, fine - but lets not trivialize the process. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: but that still represents "harvesting" of embryos. Hardly. Harvesting implies that the embryos were created for stem-cell research in the first place, such as harvesting a crop of vegetables. Using otherwise discarded IVF embryos for stem-cell research and its potential panacea is not only pragmatic... it's noble. I still contend that those who wish to stop it are miss informed at best and morons at worst. Those that wish to stop it under a guise of respect for "life" are hypocrits. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Stan Shannon wrote: but that still represents "harvesting" of embryos. Hardly. Harvesting implies that the embryos were created for stem-cell research in the first place, such as harvesting a crop of vegetables. Using otherwise discarded IVF embryos for stem-cell research and its potential panacea is not only pragmatic... it's noble. I still contend that those who wish to stop it are miss informed at best and morons at worst. Those that wish to stop it under a guise of respect for "life" are hypocrits. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
I disagree completely. Just becasue the IVF process is inefficient and creates more embryos than needed, if you gather up and use the excess for other purposes that is clearly harvesting. In and of itself that does not make it wrong, but it is certainly harvesting. What if a more efficient process were developed that created exactly one embryo for each IVF candidate, would they use it or would they continue with the old process merely to have the extra embryos to experiment on? How do you know that the IVF process were not designed specifically to create plenty of such extra embryos to be sold for scientific purposes? Further, the fact that you or I might think it "noble" is irrelevant. There is a valid moral question to ask about the process. I see nothing noble about dismissing the moral quandry that might motivate some to ask that question merely because those motivations are based upon religious, or any other, principles. Generally, I think asking such moral questions is a good thing. I disagree with liberals about capitalism also, but I'm glad there are people out there concerned about the morality of capitalism, just as I am glad that there are people concerned about the morality of stem cell research eventhough I also disagree with them. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
I disagree completely. Just becasue the IVF process is inefficient and creates more embryos than needed, if you gather up and use the excess for other purposes that is clearly harvesting. In and of itself that does not make it wrong, but it is certainly harvesting. What if a more efficient process were developed that created exactly one embryo for each IVF candidate, would they use it or would they continue with the old process merely to have the extra embryos to experiment on? How do you know that the IVF process were not designed specifically to create plenty of such extra embryos to be sold for scientific purposes? Further, the fact that you or I might think it "noble" is irrelevant. There is a valid moral question to ask about the process. I see nothing noble about dismissing the moral quandry that might motivate some to ask that question merely because those motivations are based upon religious, or any other, principles. Generally, I think asking such moral questions is a good thing. I disagree with liberals about capitalism also, but I'm glad there are people out there concerned about the morality of capitalism, just as I am glad that there are people concerned about the morality of stem cell research eventhough I also disagree with them. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: Generally, I think asking such moral questions is a good thing. Bush isn't asking questions. He's stating his intention to single-handedly veto a bill passed by the majority of the peoples representatives. He is placing his religious beliefs above the will of the people and that is (IMO) absolutely wrong! "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Generally, I think asking such moral questions is a good thing. Bush isn't asking questions. He's stating his intention to single-handedly veto a bill passed by the majority of the peoples representatives. He is placing his religious beliefs above the will of the people and that is (IMO) absolutely wrong! "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: Bush isn't asking questions. He's stating his intention to single-handedly veto a bill passed by the majority of the peoples representatives. He is placing his religious beliefs above the will of the people and that is (IMO) absolutely wrong! Again, I disagree. The man is clearly acting on his heart felt moral concerns. There is nothing in the constitution that forbids him from doing so. I disagree with him, but I respect his position. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
I disagree completely. Just becasue the IVF process is inefficient and creates more embryos than needed, if you gather up and use the excess for other purposes that is clearly harvesting. In and of itself that does not make it wrong, but it is certainly harvesting. What if a more efficient process were developed that created exactly one embryo for each IVF candidate, would they use it or would they continue with the old process merely to have the extra embryos to experiment on? How do you know that the IVF process were not designed specifically to create plenty of such extra embryos to be sold for scientific purposes? Further, the fact that you or I might think it "noble" is irrelevant. There is a valid moral question to ask about the process. I see nothing noble about dismissing the moral quandry that might motivate some to ask that question merely because those motivations are based upon religious, or any other, principles. Generally, I think asking such moral questions is a good thing. I disagree with liberals about capitalism also, but I'm glad there are people out there concerned about the morality of capitalism, just as I am glad that there are people concerned about the morality of stem cell research eventhough I also disagree with them. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: What if a more efficient process were developed that created exactly one embryo for each IVF candidate, would they use it or would they continue with the old process merely to have the extra embryos to experiment on? I can assure you that women don't get their eggs harvested for fun. It's a process that requires anestethics, and still hurts like hell. If you're worried that poor people in the US would do it anyway for money, then the ban should be on getting money for them. Much simpler, and doesn't block science. "God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
Shog9 wrote: Maybe so, but i agree with him on this one. I did too at first until I did some more thinking and research into it. Shog9 wrote: but research for the sake of research has little business demanding tax dollars when the public providing them is conflicted (to say the least) as to its desirability. I believe the government pumps money into research is for longterm economic growth and global market gain for America. South Korea is ahead of us in this field because of the Bush ban. Just imagine if the government didn't fund NASA research or defense department research. This is a breaking field that could actually help reduce medical costs in the long run, is one way of looking at it. It's research not actually products that can be banned properly. Later, JoeSox "Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see." -Mark Twain CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ Audioscrobbler
It's a gamble. We once had high hopes for curing mental illness via surgery, but in the end, it came far short of panacea. Someday, that may change, but the lesson of caution is one best not soon forgotten. Frankly, i'm not against it for the reason many i know are: the abortion connection. We're already too comfortable killing the defenseless to need any more excuses. Gov't funded research or no, it won't make a difference here. I'm against it because of what i see as a callous disregard for public opinion... or even common sense. Odd as it sounds, maybe if we have people in office making noise we'll be able to somehow maintain our humanity, debased and ugly though it is.
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...