George Bush vows to block funding for stem cell research
-
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...
-
If every scientific advancement was stifled due to concerns about how the new knowledge "might" be abused, humans would still be hiding in caves. ;) "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: about how the new knowledge "might" be abused I don't think this is about how the knowledge is used, rather how the knowledge is obtained. Do we allow harvesting of embryos for stem cells or use other sources. It's an interesting problem. As was said before...kill off the young for the old. What happens if there is a sudden mass fertility problem? What do you do with the embros slated for destruction? On the other hand seems the Nazis didn't have a problem with it and neither did a bunch of doctors in the souther states! ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.
-
The recent stem cell research issue (in the US) seems to bring out the polarization of both sides - much like abortion has done in the past. It seems like both sides are busily constructing demons to point the finger at. In reality, the President's agenda has always been to block fetal stem-cell research. i.e. stem cells harvested from dead fetuses (whether they be miscarriages or abortions). To my knowledge, there has never been any block or attempted block on stem cell research in general - just on those which come from fetuses. The painting of the President's (and thus the Right's) stance as being 'anti stem-cell research' appears to me to be a woefully - and probably intentionally - shallow analysis of that position. Personally, I don't see what all of the fuss is about. I don't believe that fetal stem cell research is going to create a black-market for dead fetuses, nor do I see anything inherently wrong with using otherwise unused waste matter (e.g. dead fetuses) for scientific advancement. I guess that puts me in opposition to the Right's stance on the issue, which is fine of course. But still, crappier arguments (BushCo. hates stem cells!) are no way to fend off crappy arguments (Fetal stem cell research is murder!). Probably a great way to get re-elected, though, if you can polarize enough of your constituents with the aforementioned demons. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
I think the fear is that there will at some point be embryo factories. As far as I know, and I think this has been covered in other discussions on this site, there has already been research with embryo stem cells and they do nothing positive. On the other hand using adult stem cells has actually proven useful. If the cells came from a real honest miscarriage...fine. But let's look at the number of abortions under the masquerade of protecting the mother's life. Abortion is getting close to becoming a religion! (I say that because of the frenzy to keep the option of adaption out of possible alternatives making killing the kid the only way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.) What will happen when the so-called new wonder drug (similar to the current craze of diet drugs) hits the market with the source being embryo stem cells? Then we will have factories...whether it worked or not. ed ~"Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny." -Frank Outlaw.