Bush to Veto Stem Cell Research

[Stanley Burrell]

King George II vs. The People:

WASHINGTON (July 19) -- President Bush readied the first veto of his presidency to stop legislation to ease limits on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. The veto is expected as soon as the measure reaches his desk. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that was expected to happen about midday Wednesday, and that Bush would veto the measure as promised.

While both the GOP-run House and Senate defied Bush in passing the measure to expand federally funded embryonic stem research, supporters do not appear to have the two-thirds vote margin needed to override such a veto.

Pleadings from celebrities, a former first lady and fellow Republicans did not move Bush from his determination to reject the bill. However, lawmakers planned to try as soon as Bush issues the veto.

Nor was Bush swayed by two days of emotional debate in Congress, punctuated by stories of personal and family suffering, that plunked lawmakers into the intersection of politics, morality and science.

"The president believes strongly that for the purpose of research, it's inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder. He's one of them," spokesman Tony Snow said.

Strong majorities in the House and Senate joined sentiments with most Americans and passed a bill that lifts restriction currently limiting federally funded research to stem cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001.

"I expect that the House will sustain the president's veto," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Disappointed lawmakers said they intended to keep pushing to lift the restrictions.

"The unfortunate part is, if the president does veto the bill, then it sets us back a year or so until we can finally pass a bill that will have the requisite supermajority to be able to become law," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "And that sets back embryonic stem cell research another year or so."

The Senate voted 63-37 on Tuesday, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto. The House last year fell 50 votes short of a veto-proof margin when it passed the same bill, 238-194.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a surgeon who pushed for expanding federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, said Bush in private conversation vowed not to let any more embryos be destroyed for research with federal money on his watch.

Bush has made 141 veto threats during his time in office, and the Republicans controlling Congress typically respond by changing bills to his liking.

Bush's stand against stem cells is popular among conservative Republicans that the party will rely on in the congressional elections this fall. Those opponents are the same voters who have felt alienated by Bush's actions to increase legal immigration, and the veto could bring them back into the fold.

One conservative group, Focus on the Family Action, in Colorado Springs, Colo., praised Bush's "uncommon character and courage in his defense of preborn," while blasting senators who voted against Bush. "Some members of the Senate who should know better voted to destroy human lives -- and that goes beyond cowardice."

Although many in the religious right are passionately opposed to stem cell research, most Americans support it, and Bush risks alienating that majority in the critical midterm year.

Democrats said two other bills under debate Tuesday were designed to appease voters angry that the GOP-led government had not opened more doors to research.

"Their opposition to stem cell research is outside the American mainstream, so they want to give themselves political cover by voting for two meaningless bills," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "It's a playbook straight from the Republican Orwellian world of politics."

One bill, which passed the Senate but failed in the House, would encourage stem cell research using cells from sources other than embryos in an effort to cure diseases and treat injuries. The other, passed unanimously in the House and Senate, would preemptively ban "fetal farming," the growing and aborting of fetuses for research.

Most disagreement revolved around expanding the embryonic stem cell lines available for federally funded research, which many scientists say hold the promise of treating chronic and degenerative disease.

Bush on Aug. 9, 2001, signed an executive order restricting government funding to research using only the embryonic stem cell "lines" then in existence, groups of stem cells kept alive and propagating in lab dishes.

Proponents said that the bill lifting that restriction also puts strong ethical guidelines in place, requiring donors to give their informed consent for using embryos that would otherwise be discarded.

"Those lives will not begin, but many other lives will end if we do not use all the scientific resources available," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Its opponents, including the president, said no conditions would make it ethically appropriate for embryos to be used in scientific research.


Discuss!

[Back]

Madman.

[Stanley Burrell]

Tony Snow's supportive babblings made me emo enough not to post said babblings.

[Wezas]

"preborn"?

Haven't heard that term before but I guess it does sound more full of life than "unborn".

[Sean of the Thread]

Thought everyone was decided that killing and embryo is killing an embryo?

[Hulkein]

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46546
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,42761,00.html
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html

Doesn't look like it's going to matter.

Destroying possible life to save a possible life doesn't seem like something anyone should do.

I understand that they would use embryo's that are already made, but it is a slippery slope, despite what anybody argues.

As I said, though, it looks less and less like we'll need embryonic ones anyway.

[Back]

Here we go again. Its the people who give metaphysical reasons for everything trying to push their metaphysical beliefs on everyone else.

What if I said tootsie-rolls are alive and every time you eat one you not only does it make the sun 1 degree colder, but incites malicious leprechauns to sabotage traffic lights?

[Hulkein]

What if your post made any sense and wasn't the result of you reading some shit literature while drunk on cheap wine and the sorrows of your unfulfilled life?

[Wezas]

What if I said tootsie-rolls are alive and every time you eat one you not only does it make the sun 1 degree colder, but incites malicious leprechauns to sabotage traffic lights?

Your conspiracy theory counter would go up 1, to a total of 2721 since January 2003

[Back]

Exactly.

Thats how I feel about what people who are against this issue tell me are their reasons.

[Some Rogue]

Right, because everyone who is against abortion or that feels unborn children are still human beings are religious people.

[Wezas]

I'm debating changing my stance from pro-choice to pro-abortion.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Bush is a moron. All I can say is I can't wait until he's out of office, or we have a new majority.

[Parkbandit]

Bush is a moron. All I can say is I can't wait until he's out of office, or we have a new majority in Senate and Congress.

HAHAHAAHAHAA.. just like 2004. Whatever.

[Parkbandit]

My personal view is.. I don't care either way since both sides are extremists imo.

One side is "YOU CAN'T TAKE A LIFE EVEN IF IT'S AN EMBRYO" is stupid. There are plenty of times where an abortion is justified and it is up to the parents to make the decision for or against it.

The other side is "OMG! BUSH R STUPID BECAUSE HE BANNIFICATED ALL EMBRYO TESTING! BUSH HATES THE DISABLED!!!" is equally stupid since most of these discoveries STILL happen and will happen in the free market. JUST because the government isn't paying someone to do it doesn't mean the research stops.

Both sides simply are positioning themselves to gain support to get elected and nothing more.

[StrayRogue]

Reason from PB. Amazing.

[Back]

First veto of the presidency. WTG.

I guess we'll have to put murder charges on all those couples who didn't use every single one of the eggs they had fertilized throughout all the fertilization clinics across America.

[Parkbandit]

Reason from PB. Amazing.

I am the voice of reason bitch.. you should know this by now.

[Skirmisher]

I say wait till one of his parents or grandchildren start suffering from alzheimers or cancer or some other equally hideous disease and gets to live with the fact of knowing that his decision could be the thing that helped delay treatment that could have helped them.

We'll see if he changes his tune then.

[Jorddyn]

HAHAHAAHAHAA.. just like 2004. Whatever.

Unlike 2004, I'm willing to bet some fairly large cash that he's leaving office after this term.

Jorddyn, just saying

[Back]

I love how our president calls it murder, but has no problem bombing innocents.

[Wezas]

You just didn't see the strategery in it, Backlash.

[Some Rogue]

Unlike 2004, I'm willing to bet some fairly large cash that he's leaving office after this term.

Jorddyn, just saying

No way! BUSH R DICKTATOR!!11! HE WILL DECLARE AN EMERGENCY AND NOT LEAVE OFFICE.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/ordinary1.jpg

[Jorddyn]

I guess we'll have to put murder charges on all those couples who didn't use every single one of the eggs they had fertilized throughout all the fertilization clinics across America.

Only if they destroyed them.

As for the currently-frozen-but-unused, we'll take all 400,000 or so and implant them one by one in, um, willing surrogates.

Jorddyn

[Wezas]

I say wait till one of his parents or grandchildren start suffering from alzheimers or cancer or some other equally hideous disease and gets to live with the fact of knowing that his decision could be the thing that helped delay treatment that could have helped them.

We'll see if he changes his tune then.

I kind of like Bush Sr. & Barbara. How bout we give Jeb every illness known to man?

[Sean of the Thread]

Bush is a moron. All I can say is I can't wait until he's out of office, or we have a new majority.

ROFL.

[Artha]

I love how our president calls it murder, but has no problem bombing innocents.

That's called collateral damage. Hippy.

[Back]

Its still life. Bible-thumper.

[Olanan]

I never understood why everyone thought Bush was a grand foo. Now...

I still don't understand, having not read the first post.

[Sean]

most of these discoveries STILL happen and will happen in the free market. JUST because the government isn't paying someone to do it doesn't mean the research stops.

Of course it doesn't stop... it just moves to China.

[ElanthianSiren]

Of course it doesn't stop... it just moves to China.

That's a strong point. With the first restriction, I said that Bush would set the US behind most of the other technologically advanced nations. Lo and behold, they've intermittantly cured Diabetes 1 in Japan and England with stem cells, albeit prohibitively expensive. Stem cell research is vital to the genetic, medical tech, and immunotherapy sectors, as well as having people who UNDERSTAND and have experience with the methodology. Experience can't exist when the allotted stem cell lines are contaminated beyond functionality and more are not allowed to be studied.

What Bush has done ironically, given his latest stance on "encouraging and improving Science!", is placed this country behind other industrialized nations twice. Someone should tell him he can't have it both ways.

-M

[Jazuela]

What's ironic to me, is that human placental tissue is used regularly in the cosmetics industry all the time, and Bush doesn't seem to have any problem with that. Does he not realize, that some of that tissue comes from abortions of healthy fetuses?

To all y'all who are anti-abortion (or pro-life, if you prefer the term): Check the ingredients lists on all your hair-care, skin-care, and body-care. If it says "protein" - especially if it says "natural protein" or "protein extract" - heh. Might wanna get a chemist to figure out which protein it is. Because, it is probably human placental protein you're slathering on your elbows and scrubbing into your hair.

[Sean of the Thread]

What's ironic to me, is that human placental tissue is used regularly in the cosmetics industry all the time, and Bush doesn't seem to have any problem with that. Does he not realize, that some of that tissue comes from abortions of healthy fetuses?

To all y'all who are anti-abortion (or pro-life, if you prefer the term): Check the ingredients lists on all your hair-care, skin-care, and body-care. If it says "protein" - especially if it says "natural protein" or "protein extract" - heh. Might wanna get a chemist to figure out which protein it is. Because, it is probably human placental protein you're slathering on your elbows and scrubbing into your hair.


Using placental tissue...left over/etc or not and knowingly and intentionally killing embryos are the same? You're a little off base.

[Parkbandit]

Its still life. Bible-thumper.

Well.. Bush does hate:

Black people
Muslims
Gay people
Liberals
Democrats
Poor people
Teachers
French people
Women
Minorities
John Kerry relatives


So maybe he did that collateral damage on PURPOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Artha]

Its still life. Bible-thumper.
They're not American so it doesn't count.

[Back]

Well.. Bush does hate:

Black people
Muslims
Gay people
Liberals
Democrats
Poor people
Teachers
French people
Women
Minorities
John Kerry relatives


So maybe he did that collateral damage on PURPOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You forgot to include these, PB. You’re slipping man.

environmentalists
scientists
atheists (agnostics, bhuddists... well, anything not christian)
journalists
the “truth”
diplomacy
Republicans who disagree with him
Well, anyone who disagrees with him

[Warriorbird]

A number of pro life Republicans voted for this bill.

[Apathy]

I'm amazed he veto'd something. All this time I thought the guy couldn't say no.

No really, he can't say no. It comes out like a "neh."

[Jazuela]

Using placental tissue...left over/etc or not and knowingly and intentionally killing embryos are the same? You're a little off base.

Intentionally taking the placenta of a -known- abortion for skin care, and intentionally taking embryos of a -known- abortion for stem cell research are NOT the same?

No matter how you slice it, the point I'm making, is that the government has no problem looking the other way when it comes to harvesting the product of -abortions- for profit via the skin care industry, but it has issues with harvesting the product of -abortions- for medicine and science.

And yes, the initial idea behind this stem cell research thing *included* using aborted embryos (in addition to harvesting embryos for the purpose).

Just for the record, I'm all in favor of stem-cell research, and I'm pro-choice, and I have no problem with science using an aborted embryo OR harvesting them outside the host, as long as the females involved are informed of it and give consent. Currently, there is no consent required for using placental tissue in the skin care industry, or in any manner of scientific or medical research. I think there should be. But that's a whole nuther ball of wax.

[Shari]

I'm not going to bother wading through the bullshit some of you guys present. So perhaps this has already been touched apon.

A friend of mine is going into med school and he explained to us that you can get stem cells from other sources other than embreos. I also recall reading an article in TIME that explained that there are instances where the body will abort a monstrosity-like baby, (its mostly a ball of teeth, hair, etc...think My Big Fat Greek Wedding where the aunt is talking about having her twin in her neck) that contain stem cells.

It just seems to me that Bush is more of..."Well *I* don't like this...FUCK what the American people want." and veto to his liking.

[Sean of the Thread]

Intentionally taking the placenta of a -known- abortion for skin care, and intentionally taking embryos of a -known- abortion for stem cell research are NOT the same?

No matter how you slice it, the point I'm making, is that the government has no problem looking the other way when it comes to harvesting the product of -abortions- for profit via the skin care industry, but it has issues with harvesting the product of -abortions- for medicine and science.

And yes, the initial idea behind this stem cell research thing *included* using aborted embryos (in addition to harvesting embryos for the purpose).

Just for the record, I'm all in favor of stem-cell research, and I'm pro-choice, and I have no problem with science using an aborted embryo OR harvesting them outside the host, as long as the females involved are informed of it and give consent. Currently, there is no consent required for using placental tissue in the skin care industry, or in any manner of scientific or medical research. I think there should be. But that's a whole nuther ball of wax.


Without going into detail..you're stupid.

[Hulkein]

A friend of mine is going into med school and he explained to us that you can get stem cells from other sources other than embreos. I also recall reading an article in TIME that explained that there are instances where the body will abort a monstrosity-like baby, (its mostly a ball of teeth, hair, etc...think My Big Fat Greek Wedding where the aunt is talking about having her twin in her neck) that contain stem cells

Yeah, I posted links for that. It got ignored, pretty much.

[Kranar]

I'm not sure I quite understand what the problem is.

People can still perform research on embryonic stem cells, even if they come from an aborted foetus, they just won't receive funding from the government to do so.

A lot of people are making it seem like the government is banning anyone from performing research using stem cells.

And anyhow, as has been pointed out, this is a moot issue since stem cells can be found in much much larger quantities from sources other than embryos. In fact, almost all of the current treatements, and many of the potential treatments were developed using adult stem cells, rather than embryonic stem cells.

Of course, a lot of these treatments and research are being done outside of the U.S. but nevertheless, there are vast quantities and easy accessibility of stem cells from sources other than embryos.

There really is not much of an issue here.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm not sure I quite understand what the problem is.

People can still perform research on embryonic stem cells, even if they come from an aborted foetus, they just won't receive funding from the government to do so.

A lot of people are making it seem like the government is banning anyone from performing research using stem cells.

And anyhow, as has been pointed out, this is a moot issue since stem cells can be found in much much larger quantities from sources other than embryos. In fact, almost all of the current treatements, and many of the potential treatments were developed using adult stem cells, rather than embryonic stem cells.

Of course, a lot of these treatments and research are being done outside of the U.S. but nevertheless, there are vast quantities and easy accessibility of stem cells from sources other than embryos.

There really is not much of an issue here.


HOLY SHIT and no pun intended. You're spot on and these things should just be common sense to anyone yet people from both extremes ( by far mainly liberals) want to put as much spin on it as possible.

Howard Dean for example is a COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT. Any (little) cred I gave this guy has by far vanished the past couple of days over several issues.. from the Presidents open mic conversation with Blair to his declaration today that "Bush has denied hope health and happiness to millions of people" with the veto. Give me a fucking break.

[Kranar]

That's just it, this is really just an issue to get people who don't know any better all worked up.

The President is quite likely against this to get in good with his pro-life backers, and many Democrats are supporting this to make it seem like the Republican controlled government will put Christianity above science at any cost. They very well might, but this issue isn't why.

The bottom line is that even if the President did allow this bill to become law, it is not going to become the incredible cure that everyone is making it out to be. It's not like because the President is vetoing it, that all medical research has been sent back decades and poor innocent people with diseases are going to be left suffering because of the whacky religious right.

Stem cells ARE going to and currently are bringing a lot of promise and advances in the field of medicine. Embryonic research is not the primary or even secondary reason for this. Very little research has been done using embryonic stem cells around the world compared to the amount of research done using other forms of stem cells.

I think both Democrats and Republicans are being had here, and if it weren't for the seriousness of this issue with peoples hopes on the line and all, it would actually be pretty funny.

[Back]

That's just it, this is really just an issue to get people who don't know any better all worked up

Thank you, Dr. Kranar. So glad you could take time out of your busy stem cell research to help all of us “who don’t know any better” understand American politics and the science of this apparent non-issue. I feel much better knowing that Congress trying to pass this bill to lift the regulations on using the 400,000 embryos already slated for destruction in America’s fertilization clinics was all just a big ruse to get me and millions of other Americans falsely up-in-arms against each other for no particular reason. That the President exercised his only VETO in 6 years against the votes of the Congress and the majority of Americans for what amounts to an irrational and “high-horsed” stance on morality is something I should not worry about at all. Knowing that the rest of the world will take up this research even if we don’t is particularly comforting, because after all, we outsource a good deal of work as it is and America is still the strongest nation, under God, indivisible.

[Artha]

You can't really use a veto against a minority of congress.

[ElanthianSiren]

Stem cells ARE going to and currently are bringing a lot of promise and advances in the field of medicine. Embryonic research is not the primary or even secondary reason for this. Very little research has been done using embryonic stem cells around the world compared to the amount of research done using other forms of stem cells.

I think both Democrats and Republicans are being had here, and if it weren't for the seriousness of this issue with peoples hopes on the line and all, it would actually be pretty funny.

You have some stem cells in your spleen, so for the first few actual medical procedures, you're 100%. I haven't heard of the adult human body containing other, undifferentiated stem cell locations. For studying stem cells, I disagree, especially presently, since the lines that were allocated are contaminated by rat skin and feces. For research on how the cells will behave and how they react to therapies, enzyme combinations, and other concerns when surgically altering human anatomy, other stem cell studies are necessary IMO.

I definitely would want the person who was working with my limited supply of spleen stem cells (which are vastly superior to embryonic since they don't require anti-rejection drugs) to know 100% that it would work based on experimentation and testing -- not "oops, we had a complication due to the reaction of this enzyme with the stem cells we hid in your liver from your beta cells because your ph/enzyme combination is not like the rats' that we studied" -- bam, no more stem cells in your spleen (they're finite) and no more functioning inserted islet cells.

The limitation is still very much hampering the scientific community because it inhibits experimentation with the most plentiful resource (that being embryonic stem cells) and the method used to deem something credible therein (that being repetition of the same experiment; ie human). I don't see the stem cell debate as being about the final product, as I'd hope they'd use spleen cells, but about training; in the same fashion as to learn human anatomy, one studies humans. To operate on human genetics, one studies humans; ie the human genome project. It's the foundation that is at stake.

Private donors don't possess the monetary resources that the federal government does for R&D. IMO It would be like pulling most of the federal funding to the armed services, the fed providing sub par, contaminated resources, and expecting private donors to fund the rest ala fuzzy 70s style wig hats.

-M
edit: for people who just went fu I'm not deciphering that -- it's about maintaining a controlled environment and limiting variables in the experimental and training processes.

[Kranar]

Thank you, Dr. Kranar. So glad you could take time out of your busy stem cell research to help all of us “who don’t know any better” understand American politics and the science of this apparent non-issue. I feel much better knowing that Congress trying to pass this bill to lift the regulations on using the 400,000 embryos already slated for destruction in America’s fertilization clinics was all just a big ruse to get me and millions of other Americans falsely up-in-arms against each other for no particular reason. That the President exercised his only VETO in 6 years against the votes of the Congress and the majority of Americans for what amounts to an irrational and “high-horsed” stance on morality is something I should not worry about at all. Knowing that the rest of the world will take up this research even if we don’t is particularly comforting, because after all, we outsource a good deal of work as it is and America is still the strongest nation, under God, indivisible.


Your response is exactly illustrative of this issue, you're arguing from a purely political standpoint why embryonic stem cell research should be funded by the government rather than from a scientific point of view.

I mean if you do have a solid scientific basis for it, I'm more than happy to read it, keep in mind though that if your argument involves the terms President/Republican/Democrat/prochoice, or any related terms, you are no longer arguing it from the scientific domain and just arguing it from the political one.

I'm far from being a medical doctor, but in my own defense, I would say I do view things from a more scientific point of view than you do, as opposed to a political one. I'm not saying that to be demeaning, as when it comes to purely political or social issues I'm probably a complete idiot.

All I'm saying is that this should not be a political issue and the fact that it's being turned into one is nothing more than a ploy by both Democrats and Republicans to rally up their base and support during an election year.

The scientific community has and will continue researching the potential that stem cells have in curing diseases, independently of the storm being brewed by religious nuts and demagogues in Congress.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm surprised no one's made an allusion to Da Vinci harvesting cadavers to learn about human biology yet.

Anyway, I heard a talk from a guy that fell in line pretty well with what (Dr.) Kranar is saying a few years back (he was very psyched about adult stem cells and in somewhat related news nanobiotechnology). Along with Hulkein's linked info, this is starting to remind me of the immigration "debate", only with "madman" or "religious nut" in place of "racist".

edit: Wow, prescience! I'm not making a remark about Kranar with that last line.

[Kranar]

You have some stem cells in your spleen, so for the first few actual medical procedures, you're 100%. I haven't heard of the adult human body containing other, undifferentiated stem cell locations. For studying stem cells, I disagree, especially presently, since the lines that were allocated are contaminated by rat skin and feces. For research on how the cells will behave and how they react to therapies, enzyme combinations, and other concerns when surgically altering human anatomy, other stem cell studies are necessary IMO.


The brain, the spleen, your nose, bone marrow, and within the last year Canadian researches found that there's a plentiful resource of them in your cheeks. Not to mention the most plentiful source comes from the umbellical cord.

In fact, if you look at stem cell treatments from Korea and Japan, they used adult stem cells in treatments of spinal cord injuries, muscle injuries, to treat some types of cancer, and in England adult stem cells were used in the treatment of blindness.

[ElanthianSiren]

Those are adult stem cells, scattered throughout tissues in the body.

They won't cure things like diabetes or heart disease where you need an entire reset. For that, you need a good steady supply of undifferentiated stem cells, which is hard to mark/find in anything but the spleen. I'll acknowledge that they're looking at ways to try to manipulate the adult cells into being other tissue types -- but I can't see why you'd inhibit your research by requiring that lengthy first step.

-M
edit: Also, I'm not saying that I can't see applications for those things; skin grafts, burn victims, stroke victims, even cheek cancer due to chew use -- I see a whole host of situations that they would be REALLY useful in. I'm just saying that they are not the end all be all, as they would most likely know what they "are" ie you could use one type of blood stem cells to make others, but it would be much tougher using blood stem cells to make islet cells (for example). Usually they are called upon in the body due to injury and utilized in similar sites.

[Back]

Your response is exactly illustrative of this issue, you're arguing from a purely political standpoint why embryonic stem cell research should be funded by the government rather than from a scientific point of view.

I mean if you do have a solid scientific basis for it, I'm more than happy to read it, keep in mind though that if your argument involves the terms President/Republican/Democrat/prochoice, or any related terms, you are no longer arguing it from the scientific domain and just arguing it from the political one.

I'm far from being a medical doctor, but in my own defense, I would say I do view things from a more scientific point of view than you do, as opposed to a political one. I'm not saying that to be demeaning, as when it comes to purely political or social issues I'm probably a complete idiot.

All I'm saying is that this should not be a political issue and the fact that it's being turned into one is nothing more than a ploy by both Democrats and Republicans to rally up their base and support during an election year.

The scientific community has and will continue researching the potential that stem cells have in curing diseases, independently of the storm being brewed by religious nuts and demagogues in Congress.

This is how I view it. A sincere attempt by concerned Americans to open up a valid avenue of research into a possibly revolutionary medical technology being stopped by one man’s sense of morality over rationality and the majority. What ever you want to call it, its just plain stupid.

I don’t buy the “well, the rest of the world will do it anyway” rationalization as an excuse for us not leading the world in cutting edge technologies. Its pathetic.

[Stanley Burrell]

You can't differentiate a bone marrow precursor into epithelial cells for one's pancreas.

The plasticity of embryonic stem cells is unmatched.

Poetically, maybe whatever disease is affecting moron's brain can spread to the rest of his body, treatable only with cell types differentiated from stem cells.

My hugest concern is the message this sends to our governing body on how much more leeway they will be granted in suing institutions up the ass for something like "bookkeeping."

I'll be a returning employee to a research program whose undergraduate university the leader of the free world stepped up from, with flying C's. The amount of insider politics because of how much funding gets kicked out of programs like the NIH and NSA is ridiculous.

I am concerned that the many off-the-record unilateral vetoes excercised by GWB (i.e. Ru486 OTC) might have the possibility of seeming minor when compared to the larger message and possible action this poses.

Universities and medical centers are going to have a sad time operating on cloning fetal stem cells if all their SIGMA cryo freezers don't have proper electrical bills to pay for them. That's pretty much what this administration has targeted, but this is a much more large scale slap in the face.

[Olanan]

Stanley, shut up.

You're making me look stupid.

[Shari]

I really hate when you guys use the big words.

Kranar makes an excellent point, and now that he mentions it, I also heard there are stem cells in umbillical cords.

And, Elanthian Siren used many words I had to look up. :(

[Kranar]

They won't cure things like diabetes or heart disease where you need an entire reset.


Not at all true. I just quickly Google'd some information on research groups using adult stem cells for heart disease, this was the first result, but there are plenty of others.

http://www.vescell.com/

Even the American Heart Association has information about using adult stem cells for heart disease. Of course embryonic stem cells are another source of stem cells, and I'm not saying it's bad or immoral to use them, in fact, just to be clear, I don't think it's immoral to use embryonic stem cells for research purposes.

I just think that even if the government funded embryonic stem cell research, ultimately it won't matter since most progress around the world, where embryonic stem cell research is not a political hot button and is funded, is coming from stem cells from sources other than embryos.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm sorry Shari :(

The big debate there is you can't use your own umbilical cord stem cells. They're gone, so you're still stuck on anti rejection drugs for the rest of your life (using someone else's stem cells; the same thing happens with embryonic). To be quite frank -- part of the irritation with having diabetes 1 or any illness that requires strict medication is the fact that you can't live a normal life. Everything is regimented. Food, medication, blood testing, doc visits, buying drugs, having kids. I haven't met a diabetic who said they wouldn't trade anything in the world to just go a day without having to deal with the regimented BS, including myself. This means that these people are looking to a treatment that frees them from the pharm industry, which spleen stem cells would, if they could perfect the treatment and conditions necessary to use your own (spleen) cells rather than someone else's stem cells.

-M
edit: that site is interesting Kranar; do they have any information on their methodology?

And yes -- the JDF has been copying Dianne Faustmann's research (instead of doing their own after they mocked and scorned her idea -- lazy bums) on using spleen stem cells from adults (large supply of undifferentiated cells) to help people. I follow her research religiously, as she was a professor at harvard and very well respected/working with Lee Iococca. Like I said, I hope the finished product of stem cell research doesn't include embryonics (I have a real love/hate relationship with pharm co's if you missed it); it's the testing/R&D where I see embryonic research as vital, as it presents a limitless supply of test subjects.

[Gan]

Gov't funding = lowest bidder to do the work.


So...

Govt. funded stem cell research < private/academic scientific research.

I can think of many other social programs where this money might be better spent.

As political as I am, this is really a moot issue for me and just another posture event leading up to voting season. I think I'll skip this bandwagon tour since all of the seats are taken anyways.

[TheEschaton]

Someone shoulda told Dubya that if this kind of research had been approved, it coulda given the Gipper a fighting chance. ;)


All joking aside: I'm concerned about the politics behind this veto, personally. I realize Kranar's position, in that research won't be hampered all that much, it's just that it won't receive gov't funding, and will probably moved offshore. Such is capitalism. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as they say. That Bush would deliberately use the veto as a political weapon on an issue he has been on both sides of (some would call this "flip-flopping") illustrates to me the craven levels he'd go to consolidate conservative Republican power.

Of course, I don't think a Democrat woulda acted any different, but who's counting?

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

Gov't funding = lowest bidder to do the work.


So...

Govt. funded stem cell research < private/academic scientific research.

I can think of many other social programs where this money might be better spent.

As political as I am, this is really a moot issue for me and just another posture event leading up to voting season. I think I'll skip this bandwagon tour since all of the seats are taken anyways.


Agreed 100%. In my opinion private R&D is the way to go with stem cell work which will result in the brightest minds.. the best equipment and the greatest results.

Mr Blacklash you need to take off your blinders at any rate. You're experiencing tunnel vision with Bush's face at the end and it obviously keeps you from thinking rationally.

[Back]

LOL. You guys are such pussies. Clear proof and demonstration of this presidents nutso “faith-based” policy making and all I hear is apologists offering rationalizations and excuses as to why its not a big deal especially in these days when religious zeoltry is the enemy.

[Parkbandit]

Someone shoulda told Dubya that if this kind of research had been approved, it coulda given the Gipper a fighting chance. ;)


All joking aside: I'm concerned about the politics behind this veto, personally. I realize Kranar's position, in that research won't be hampered all that much, it's just that it won't receive gov't funding, and will probably moved offshore. Such is capitalism. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as they say. That Bush would deliberately use the veto as a political weapon on an issue he has been on both sides of (some would call this "flip-flopping") illustrates to me the craven levels he'd go to consolidate conservative Republican power.

Of course, I don't think a Democrat woulda acted any different, but who's counting?

-TheE-

You could say he has taken this stand from the beginning as a political weapon.. but you can't say he is using this veto as one since it is the same, exact stand he has had from the beginning of this debate.

[TheEschaton]

If you remember the 7 odd months before 9/11, the thing that was going to "define" Bush's presidency was his inability to decide on various issues one way or the other, including on the stem cell issue. He was thinking of supporting gov't funding for existing stem cell lines (or whatever it is, science issues aren't my bag, really), he was thinking of not supporting it all, or not doing anything about it. He was getting pressure on both sides, it was just a question of who he'd cave to.

Then, 9/11 happened, stem cells were pushed aside, he spent the last 5 years galloping to the right, and now he's firmly entrenched in his current position, but largely due to political windfall (IMO).

But his position on stem cell research was far from firm early on in his administration. I think Time even did a cover story on it, one of those weeks in the summer of 2001.

-TheE-

[Gan]

LOL. You guys are such pussies. Clear proof and demonstration of this presidents nutso “faith-based” policy making and all I hear is apologists offering rationalizations and excuses as to why its not a big deal especially in these days when religious zeoltry is the enemy.

When I read this post I see Nieneque's old avatar with the guy obliterating himeself over his keyboard.

As much as I despise the espousal of the religious right by the Republican party, I can still see beyond the immediate layer of bullshit and realize that this manuever is purely political.

Someday when your monochromatic sky stops falling, chicken little, you'll see the difference too.

PS. Your paranoia is starting to show a little, you might want to lay off the smoke some.

[Back]

blah blah blah I’m a hypocrit blah blah blah...

PS. Your paranoia is starting to show a little, you might want to lay off the smoke some.

I'd lay off it if I had any to lay off of. :( Reality these days is far trippier.

[TheEschaton]

Take me out of your signature. I refuse to be there.

-TheE-

[Gan]

I'd lay off it if I had any to lay off of. :( Reality these days is far trippier.

Nothing about my stance on religion, the republican party, or stem cell research says I'm a hypocrit. Quit falling back on your favorite standby to describe those which disagree with you.

[Parkbandit]

If you remember the 7 odd months before 9/11, the thing that was going to "define" Bush's presidency was his inability to decide on various issues one way or the other, including on the stem cell issue. He was thinking of supporting gov't funding for existing stem cell lines (or whatever it is, science issues aren't my bag, really), he was thinking of not supporting it all, or not doing anything about it. He was getting pressure on both sides, it was just a question of who he'd cave to.

Then, 9/11 happened, stem cells were pushed aside, he spent the last 5 years galloping to the right, and now he's firmly entrenched in his current position, but largely due to political windfall (IMO).

But his position on stem cell research was far from firm early on in his administration. I think Time even did a cover story on it, one of those weeks in the summer of 2001.

-TheE-

Actually, 8/9/01 he made his decision after listening to both sides and has since stuck by that same position throughout the debate. Here's his speech on the subject:

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.

The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children, or to save children already born.

The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.

Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children.

Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases -- from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.

You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos -- from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placenta. And many scientists feel research on these type of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.

However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.

Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life. And the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge. Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.

As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life -- well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. Make no mistake, he told me, that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these, he said, because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation.

And to the other crucial question, if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lies at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields. As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932, when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a "hatchery."

In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling, and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts, or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And, like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world. And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.

I will also name a President's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.

This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues. As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.

I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.

Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.

[Parkbandit]

Originally Posted by Ganalon
blah blah blah I’m a hypocrit blah blah blah...

PS. Your paranoia is starting to show a little, you might want to lay off the smoke some.

I'd lay off it if I had any to lay off of. :( Reality these days is far trippier.

There are only a few individuals on this board that should never call someone a hypocrit. You are certainly one of them.

[Gan]

Take me out of your signature. I refuse to be there.

-TheE-

There is not any valid reason or rule to compel me to do so, not even the kind way you posed this request.

I quoted you in an open post on this forum, which does not contain any content that violates TOS.

Heaven forbid you post something on a public message board that someone might quote you on.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[ElanthianSiren]

Gov't funding = lowest bidder to do the work.

Govt. funded stem cell research < private/academic scientific research.


To use your argument, you could still have government funding with private funding. Government funding, however, also = more people exposed to the technology, who are often contracted, as part of their exposure, to do seminars, educate college students, and raise awareness, which furthers the technology and ensures future interest.

The idea, however, that private funding is going to support broad-level education, awareness, and R&D of stem cell technology is somewhat short-sighted. Here's an example -- my genetics labs in college charged 50.00 per credit to take the class (200.00/student/class; there were 2 genetics levels). They still operated at a deficit. The cost of science equipment, lab time, and scientists themselves is a cost that only the federal government can absorb on as large of a level as the number of disorders that need to be studied.

The other issue with privatization is that people working for private firms, for various reasons, including NDAs (non disclosure agreements), are much less inclined to share their experiences with the technology. For example, Faustmann quit teaching at Harvard to work for Lee, though she documents some snippets of her research to inform the public. The JDF (organization much despised by me due to its pharm connections, its attention whoring push for only embryonic stem cell cures etc) documents much less.

Private funding may work in individual problem areas (though they too are having mass funding issues), but it doesn't work on a scale as broad, interdependent, and interconnected as the scientific community/understanding at large, especially given its penchant for secrecy.

-M

[Stanley Burrell]

Someone shoulda told Dubya that if this kind of research had been approved, it coulda given the Gipper a fighting chance. ;)


All joking aside: I'm concerned about the politics behind this veto, personally. I realize Kranar's position, in that research won't be hampered all that much, it's just that it won't receive gov't funding, and will probably moved offshore. Such is capitalism. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as they say. That Bush would deliberately use the veto as a political weapon on an issue he has been on both sides of (some would call this "flip-flopping") illustrates to me the craven levels he'd go to consolidate conservative Republican power.

Offshore outsourcing will, without a doubt, continue its trend increasingly involving much that encompasses this field, surpassed from the first to the third world countries who have had the intellect to send different messages to science population.


Of course, I don't think a Democrat woulda acted any different, but who's counting?

Definitely naive to my bias of the field, but I feel strongly that the issue wouldn't have stemmed (no pun intended) and if the hypothetical happened, with a strong member of the Democratic party as head honcho, that this much push by congress, combined with such a hypothetical liberal agenda would not have had the ramifications of a veto.

I feel that congress may have done more damage than not by bringing it to the forefront during this administration's ruling.

[Stanley Burrell]

Very much what Mel said (I feel.)

[Back]

I feel that congress may have done more damage than not by bringing it to the forefront during this administration's ruling.

Do not worry overly much. Sensible people will take the Congress back this year and 08 is getting closer every day. The absolute mess of these past 6+ years will get cleaned up, this bill included.

[Hulkein]

I think you said the same thing in '03 about '04.

[Sean]

I find it hilarious that this thread is split along the same political lines as every single other political thread. So much for that gray area...

[Parkbandit]

Backlash is hoping that if they get a big enough Liberal into the White House, they will legalize pot and make it available to purchase with foodstamps or some other federal assistance.

[HarmNone]

I find it hilarious that this thread is split along the same political lines as every single other political thread. So much for that gray area...

Ummm...that what kind of area? Do we have one of those here? :thinking:

[Warriorbird]

Parkbandit does. What's still left on his head.

Some of the pinnacles of American scientific research have occurred with government funding to sweeten the pot. It doesn't have to pay for EVERYTHING, but as a private citizen one is far more likely to work on stuff if there's a prize, extra funding, what have you, for working on it. Companies have R&D departments for similar reasons. Are you Republicans anti corporate R&D? One would hope not. Bush favors all sorts of rewards and tax breaks for companies (me too in a lot of cases) to spur economic growth...why not make stem cell research more attractive? The atomic bomb wasn't and isn't a particularly pleasant technology. We researched the hell out of that. If you have to use weapons as a justification...stem cell research can also be used to assist our biological weapons development (and to protect against the biological weapons development of other countries).

Stuff (defense related) that even Republicans like, because gosh knows, if we listen to Parkbandit, world events justify any amount of spending on defense or cities that should properly be underwater. Cancer and other diseases are world events, right?

I'm amused that a number of pro life Republicans voted for this but Bush had to "play to his base."

[Back]

Backlash is hoping that if they get a big enough Liberal into the White House, they will legalize pot and make it available to purchase with foodstamps or some other federal assistance.

PB and the others are hoping the religious right maintains control over our country's devolution into pre-victorian ages, except the word “devolution” implies such a thing as evolution, so they see it as “manifest destiny” whatever the outcome.

[CrystalTears]

I think both sides of this argument are absurd.

[Sean of the Thread]

Do not worry overly much. Sensible people will take the Congress back this year and 08 is getting closer every day. The absolute mess of these past 6+ years will get cleaned up, this bill included.


Howard Dean is REALLY REALLY helping the Dems move forward to/in the next election. As far as cleaning up this bill.. look at the voting record on it and get back to me.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. The sensible person in this whole thing, shockingly enough, Arlen Specter, said the religious wing of the Republican Party would ensure it never got enough votes.

[Landrion]

Backlash is hoping that if they get a big enough Liberal into the White House, they will legalize pot and make it available to purchase with foodstamps or some other federal assistance.

That would be pretty awesome.

[Warriorbird]

It'd be a great revenue source.

Archer Daniels Midland...

Ganja Provider for the World!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

The embryos would never become children in the first place, so really, to me there's no big difference in throwing them away or using them for research as far as "murder" goes.

What amuses me is that with the slippery slope arguement of stem-cell research or abortions, Republicans only use one half of it, instead of acknowledging the other half. Yes, to a lot of people a fertilized egg is a human being. But on the other side, if a fertilized egg is suddenly given full human rights, that can fuck over a mother or really any sexually active woman in many many ways.

I like a lot of Republican ideas of little government, conservative spending, etc. Given how into business I am, that's no surprise. But the new social policies spewing forth from the religious right are just retarded and sicken me to no end. The amount of good that can come from stem cell research is just amazing.. the amount of lives it can save and make better. But we're so concerned about keeping potential life that we're not willing to preserve existing life. Disgusting.

[CrystalTears]

But we're so concerned about keeping potential life that we're not willing to preserve existing life. Disgusting.
Which is pretty much why I feel this argument is ridiculous, because I'm for preserving ALL life. I don't even like death sentences.

Someone being all about preserving life then turning around and forbidding people from testing with lifeless flesh to preserve life is insulting to me.

[Wezas]

Schwarzeneggar gives $150 million loan for Stem Cell Research (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Schwarzenegger_Stem_Cells.html)

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Schwarzeneggar gives $150 million loan for Stem Cell Research (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Schwarzenegger_Stem_Cells.html)


I like that he's seperating himself from Bush, and I'm glad he's funding the research. :yes:

[Hulkein]

But we're so concerned about keeping potential life that we're not willing to preserve existing life. Disgusting.

It's not so much the concern over keeping the potential life that is already in test tubes there, but the fact that if there are breakthroughs, that will lead to human beings creating life for the purpose of destroying it. That's far more disgusting, imo.

Look for the stem cells elsewhere, it looks like it'll work.

[CrystalTears]

Call me lazy cause I haven't done the research, but where is it saying that people will get pregnant and have that fetus aborted solely for stem cell research?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

It's not so much the concern over keeping the potential life that is already in test tubes there, but the fact that if there are breakthroughs, that will lead to human beings creating life for the purpose of destroying it. That's far more disgusting, imo.

Look for the stem cells elsewhere, it looks like it'll work.

I don't consider it a life until it's viable, and that's the problem with this and every other "is it a life or not?" question. Even then, I don't consider a fetus to deserve any rights until it's out of the womb. It's all moral and religious questions, the other problem is I don't feel anyone deserves to put their morals over anyone elses.

[Hulkein]

Call me lazy cause I haven't done the research, but where is it saying that people will get pregnant and have that fetus aborted solely for stem cell research?

I'm against abortion, too. (Except for health of mother issues).


I don't consider it a life until it's viable

A lot of things aren't viable that most would consider life. Infants and elderly, to name two.


and that's the problem with this and every other "is it a life or not?" question.

You're right, so I'm gonna do my part in hoping this thread doesn't turn into that by leaving it at that, heh.

[Parkbandit]

I don't consider it a life until it's viable, and that's the problem with this and every other "is it a life or not?" question. Even then, I don't consider a fetus to deserve any rights until it's out of the womb. It's all moral and religious questions, the other problem is I don't feel anyone deserves to put their morals over anyone elses.

So you have no qualms about aborting a fetus after 3 months? 4 months? 8 3/4 months? A fetus isn't a fetus until it is out of the womb huh? So if during your 8 month abortion.. the fetus starts breathing.. what should the doctor do, bash it's head against the floor until it stops?

[Back]

Uh oh here come the “morality” police...

[Sean of the Thread]

I don't consider it a life until it's viable, and that's the problem with this and every other "is it a life or not?" question. Even then, I don't consider a fetus to deserve any rights until it's out of the womb. It's all moral and religious questions, the other problem is I don't feel anyone deserves to put their morals over anyone elses.


You keep on considering what "you" want to consider as it's your PERSONAL right.. but the society and government of this nation that you live in will actually set the rules and standards for you in the mean time since you lack common sense.

Let's say a fetus falls out of your womb while washing dishes at 8 months? Do you say OOPS try again next time and toss it in the trash? Fucking shit. Actually I think you're just too young to know the difference yet.

[Sean of the Thread]

Uh oh here come the “morality” police...

It's not about morality it's just plain COMMON SENSE and even a small bit of intelligence. By your tired banter and partisan tunnel vision you are obviously lacking both.

[Parkbandit]

Uh oh here come the “morality” police...

If you have no issue with killing an unborn fetus of 8 3/4 months.. you should have your own morality checked out.

For the record.. I'm for a woman's choice up to a point. My usage of the 8 3/4 month old fetus was more to show her how stupid her point of view can be taken.

[Warriorbird]

Right...because taking something to its most ridiculous possible extreme is clearly an effective method of arguing. You and Xyelin seem to be doing it because you like the aggression. I've been known to enjoy the same myself. Don't act like you're proving anything with your 8 3/4 month example or as though he's making some decent point by insulting her repeatedly.

[Hulkein]

Well, to be fair, she did say it's not life until it's out of the womb.

Well guess what, that's a stupid point of view.

[Sean of the Thread]

You forgot to blame Bush or the Republicans for something in your last post WB. You're seriously slacking.. gonna let Narcissiia and Blacklash get that much of a lead in your reindeer games?

[Parkbandit]

Right...because taking something to its most ridiculous possible extreme is clearly an effective method of arguing. You and Xyelin seem to be doing it because you like the aggression. I've been known to enjoy the same myself. Don't act like you're proving anything with your 8 3/4 month example or as though he's making some decent point by insulting her repeatedly.

The sad part is.. Backlash called me the Morality Police with that example.

[Parkbandit]

You forgot to blame Bush or the Republicans for something in your last post WB. You're seriously slacking.. gonna let Narcissiia and Blacklash get that much of a lead in your reindeer games?

QFT

[Warriorbird]

I don't feel that the fair number of Republicans (some even pro life) who voted for this were doing anything wrong. I see Bush catering to his base and most of the Democrats who are saying anything pulling end of the world doom and gloom nonsense when they should've just been using simple talk to pull in more Republicans. Rewarding R&D that may be beneficial to the country as a whole (even in defense applications) is something that most corporate minded Republicans can understand. The same cannot be said for the religious right, mind, but I don't see a reason to "divide" on this.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Honestly, I'm not against partial-birth abortions in those extreme cases, and I'm not against abortion at all.

I can't remember anything from in the womb.. and I don't consider myself to have been a person then. I was a person when I was birthed, and the cord was cut, and I had the potential to breathe on my own naturally.

I was a high-risk pregnancy for my mother, and when the doctor was talking to my father while she was in labor, there was a chance that my mother could die if I didn't turn around right, and in order to save her in that circumstance, I would have died. My father was asked who to save, and he chose my mother. Luckily, it went as smooth as it could have, and we both lived. But even knowing my father wanted my mother alive over me, I could not blame him or call him immoral. My mother had a whole family, a whole life.. her and my father could create more babies, and though I was important, my life wasn't as important as hers in that case. When I have children, that will be my same decision.. that the life that is already living and existing and that can produce more should be saved before the life that is barely existing, if at all. After my mother died, and seeing how hard it was for my father to raise us children without her, I wouldn't be selfish enough to fuck over my other children and my husband for something I can recreate. That's my non-religious, realist view of it, and though I'm sure there'll be a lot of comments of "In this case, he should have let you die" or "It was all for nothing if your mother passed anyway" it's still noteworthy to post.

What pisses me off, the most, are people like Xyelin. Who think that because I don't have the same opinion as them, I must be crazy. Don't ever claim to love democracy and freedom if you want to live in a country where your personal health is controlled by a majority. The majority is not always right-- history has proven this. For thousands of years, Slavery was an accepted norm of society. Now, we find it to be morally wrong. And a Democracy, is NOT a majority rules situation. That would be Communism. Look at how everything is set up-- a Democracy is EVERYBODY rules. Sometimes it's the majority, but the minority is still intended to be heard and listened to, and not be trampled on by the majority.

Honestly, bringing in my personal life is immature at best, Xyelin. You have no clue who I am, what I've gone through, or the way I feel about motherhood. You have snippets, and that's it. You'll never be faced with the possibility of being pregnant, and having to birth a child. You'll never have to worry about how that's going to effect you or the child, you can just fuck and go. Yeah, a lot of men are responsible, but if you don't want to be, you don't have to be. Women don't have that luxury, and that's just the way it is. I don't want assholes like you deciding what I can and can't do with my body, thanks.

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If you don't want to live in a country where life-saving research can be done because religious people keep their religious shit in the church and out of the Government, move to another country ran by religious zealots. But don't shove your ideology down my throat and call me un-Patriotic and a conspiracy-theorist because I dislike having my freedoms and rights impeded on by anyone else's own views. If I get an abortion, it doesn't affect you. And if someone has to destroy an other-wise useless embryo to get some stem-cells, the only way it effects you is it gives you potential to cure some horrible things. I don't blame any of this shit on just Republicans, or just George Bush. I blame it on all of the religious fucktards out there who want to make us all Christian by politics at the least.

Viability, in the case of fetuses, is when the fetus can survive outside of the womb. This is sometime in the second trimester. That's what US Law states, and in most states, that's where the abortion cut-off is. Viability, and "alive and deserving of all the rights of a person" are two different things to me. An un-born child is dependant entirely on it's biological mother, in ways that even an infant is not. I will never, ever, accept that the un-born child should not have all of the rights of the mother. You may not agree with me, but that's what makes this country so great. Your unborn children can if you want, and mine can't if I want. No one's trampling on the other's decision in regards to that.

[Jolena]

Ironic at the least is the fact that while I agree with some of your post, Narcissia, you post about not wanting others opinions, values and morals shoved down your throat in a decision about how to do something like this, yet you also, in the same post, tell those who disagree with this issue, to 'move to another country ran by religious zealots'. Democracy is a difficult concept in most cases for anyone to accept - meaning that it is not just about accepting what someone says if you like it, but also about what someone says that you hate, including the opinions of people like Xyelin.

That being said, while I do agree that stem-cell research is a great opportunity and would hate to see it banned, I do NOT agree that a child born who cannot live without assistance is not deserving of full rights. I say that with the full and vivid experience of having a premature child who was born without the ability to breath on his own, spent 3 months in an NICU unit on a machine that breathed for him, and consequently spent the next year of his life on oxygen, with several trips to the hospital to spend time on a ventilator (again breathing for him) and a feeding tube to help him maintain nutrition. He most definitely did have full rights as a human, though he most definitely could not survive on his own without those things for the first 2 years.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Ironic at the least is the fact that while I agree with some of your post, Narcissia, you post about not wanting others opinions, values and morals shoved down your throat in a decision about how to do something like this, yet you also, in the same post, tell those who disagree with this issue, to 'move to another country ran by religious zealots'. Democracy is a difficult concept in most cases for anyone to accept - meaning that it is not just about accepting what someone says if you like it, but also about what someone says that you hate, including the opinions of people like Xyelin.

I guess in my anger I didn't clarify enough, that I feel people who don't want democracy shouldn't live in a democracy. Basically, I feel everyone should have the right to choose, and that those who don't respect a right to choose, really misunderstand what a democracy is. Though of course, unless you remain neutral on everything, there's no way to do this completely. The anger was mostly in response to me as a human being and my abilities, as well as stuff that have nothing to do with this being dragged up in a pitiful attempt to argue.

[HarmNone]

Let's leave the personal references out of this...debate. There's a third party involved here who may not want his life discussed on these message boards. Any further references will be removed.

[Latrinsorm]

PB and the others are hoping the religious right maintains control over our country's devolution into pre-victorian agesIf PB is anything, he's the embodiment of the religious... oh wait he's probably the most anti-religion guy here?

Time to take a step back, Backlash.
It's all moral and religious questions, the other problem is I don't feel anyone deserves to put their morals over anyone elses.I liked this example so much the last time I gave it that I'll post it again:
Dave is in charge of hiring at TD Waterhouse.
Jacob is applying for a job at TD Waterhouse.
Jacob also happens to be black.
Dave doesn't think black people are actually people. He thinks they're monkeys.
Therefore, Dave's not going to hire Jacob, even though to an unbiased perspective Jacob's really good at what he does.
Jacob brings a lawsuit against TD Waterhouse.

You're on the jury (pretend there's a jury in civil cases).
Whose side do you find for?
How can you find for either? One person's morals are going to be subjugated.
I wouldn't be selfish enough to fuck over my other children and my husband for something I can recreate.No human being is recreateable, where "human being" is defined as a specific set of (human) genetic code and experiences. You're lying to yourself if you think fetuses are interchangeable. Haven't you ever spoken with someone who's had a miscarriage?
I don't want assholes like you deciding what I can and can't do with my body, thanks.If you pin people down, most people don't care if you end your pregnancy (what you do with your body). What people care about is the other life that's inside you. I'm not sure if Xyelin actually cares about abortion either way, but for most people, the important part is the unborn child. (Aside: preborn is an awkward term.)

I don't think you're unpatriotic, I think you've come to an irrational conclusion.

As to the actual topic, Bush isn't banning anything. He's just not going to have the taxpayers' money pay for a specific type of stem-cell research that by some accounts isn't that great anyway.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm pro choice and pro stem cell research for the record as I've stated several times before and my stances have nothing to do with religion. You speak of unborn children as if they were some item of the shelf in hardware store. Wtf is wrong with you?


>What pisses me off, the most, are people like Xyelin. Who think that because I don't have the same opinion as them, I must be crazy.<

I clearly stated your MINORITY opinion was yours to have but incredibly stupid.


>Don't ever claim to love democracy and freedom if you want to live in a country where your personal health is controlled by a majority.<

You live in a country where people we ELECT set those standards and rules. That's how America works. The majority makes the rules.


>I don't want assholes like you deciding what I can and can't do with my body, thanks.<

? I never told you what you can or can't do with your body? People like me.. do you mean rational people?


>If you don't want to live in a country where life-saving research can be done because religious people keep their religious shit in the church and out of the Government, move to another country ran by religious zealots.<
>And if someone has to destroy an other-wise useless embryo to get some stem-cells, the only way it effects you is it gives you potential to cure some horrible things.<


This is NOT the case and that's a pretty fucking stupid statement. The veto is NOT stopping / banning this in any way.
Perfect example of your ignorance on the subject and thus my original reply to your post.


>Viability, and "alive and deserving of all the rights of a person" are two different things to me.<

This is where you start getting silly.. and that's why we have adults that make the rules and thankfully not people like you.


>Your unborn children can if you want, and mine can't if I want.<
O RLY?



The rest of your garbage isn't worth replying to individually. I'd suggest taking a course in American Govt for Dummies as you have no grasp of even the very basic principles. I mean you tied slavery into this? fuck I'd go on but what's the point.

You seem like a very selfish ignorant bitch and I hope you choke on the placenta in your shampoo non fatally.

[Sean of the Thread]

Oh hell Eric jumped the thread now we're all fucked.

[Sean of the Thread]

I don't think you're unpatriotic, I think you've come to an irrational conclusion.

As to the actual topic, Bush isn't banning anything. He's just not going to have the taxpayers' money pay for a specific type of stem-cell research that by some accounts isn't that great anyway.

QUOTED FOR FUCKING TRUTH.

[Back]

If PB is anything, he's the embodiment of the religious... oh wait he's probably the most anti-religion guy here?

Time to take a step back, Backlash.

Bing bong! You were close, oh so close, to catching on to the hypocritical irony! But you blew it. :( Maybe its time for you to take a step back, butter-cup.

[Gan]

I think that Backlash is in a quandry because Xyelin, PB, and myself are all pro choice even though we vote Republican. We're violating his monochromatic parameters of political and worldly perspectives! Oh Noez!!11one!

If its not black or white it must be hypocracy!!!

[HarmNone]

Since you couldn't shut up, all previous references to a certain third party's personal business have been removed. They are completely off-topic to this conversation.

[Back]

I think that Backlash is in a quandry because Xyelin, PB, and myself are all pro choice even though we vote Republican. We're violating his monochromatic parameters of political and worldly perspectives! Oh Noez!!11one!

If its not black or white it must be hypocracy!!!

Actually, its the fact that you guys are all vehemently against all organized religion yet you all back a religious zealot who systematically gave himself further reaching executive power beyond the checks and balances that were intended for all three branches.

He could literally take a shit on the flag and you guys would all be here denying, diverting, apologizing, excusing, and rationalizing all while attacking other posters personal lives because they disagree with you.

[Gan]

Freedom of speech says almost anyone can take a shit on almost anything they want, especially where a flag is concerned.

Just because I dont agree with 100% of what Bush, or any other politician represents, does not eliminate that one individual from receiving my vote if that candidate still has other stances that I do agree with, and the fact that those other stances or issues carry greater weight with my convictions. (good stances outweighing the bad) But thats a topic that is inherent to someone who looks at the shades of grey instead of things in purely black and white, and therefore something that you would not understand.

If I followed your logic, there would not be a single politician that would receive my vote.

[Hulkein]

I can't remember anything from in the womb.. and I don't consider myself to have been a person then. I was a person when I was birthed, and the cord was cut, and I had the potential to breathe on my own naturally.

Whether or not you can remember anything, the fact remains that you, the person sitting at the computer posting in this thread, was that kid in the womb and killing that kid is killing everything you have done in your life.

[CrystalTears]

Be thankful you didn't need life support when you were born, cause those are only for people. *stares*

[StrayRogue]

I'm all for abortion:

http://www.yikers.com/video_franks_home_abortion_kit.html

Warning, uptight retards might find it offensive. People with actual senses of humour, however, go nuts.

[ElanthianSiren]

I think some things are being missed here, and they struck me when someone mentioned that embryonic stem cell research may not be the best venue for research.

As research depends primarily on repition, this is false. There are several kinds of stem cells, each with a different degree of ability to "morph" into what researchers want.

Embryonic
1st Degree Embryonic:
--can become anything, useful when the body is lacking completely (has destroyed or has had destroyed) a component.
--limitless supply for studying/repetition.
2nd Degree Embryonic:
-- become tissues and organs.
-- more limited
Adult Cells:
1st Degree Adult:
-- Used in conjunction with close tissue types (ie blood to blood and certain other closely related tissues).
-- Very narrow due to finite availability (spleen), which results in repetition limitations and a "you better know what you're doing before you do it" situation.
2nd Degree Adult:
-- Only produce one cell type (skin to skin for instance, marrow to marrow)
-- Only special because they can rebuild themselves.

So, as you can see, that conclusion is false. Carry on.

-M

[CrystalTears]

Stray, say that people who are against abortion won't like the video. I'm far from a religious fanatic and wasn't too impressed with it.

[StrayRogue]

Yeah sorry. It has been edited.

[CrystalTears]

Yeah thanks. Much better. Ass.

[StrayRogue]

No prob, psycho.

[Stanley Burrell]

I think some things are being missed here, and they struck me when someone mentioned that embryonic stem cell research may not be the best venue for research.

As research depends primarily on repition, this is false. There are several kinds of stem cells, each with a different degree of ability to "morph" into what researchers want.

Embryonic
1st Degree Embryonic:
--can become anything.
--limitless supply for studying/repetition.
2nd Degree Embryonic:
-- become tissues and organs.
-- more limited
Adult Cells:
1st Degree Adult:
-- Used in conjunction with close tissue types (ie blood to blood and certain other closely related tissues).
-- Very narrow due to finite availability in some cases (spleen) and repetition limitations.
2nd Degree Adult:
-- Only produce one cell type (skin to skin for instance, marrow to marrow)
-- Only special because they can rebuild themselves.

So, as you can see, that conclusion is false. Carry on.

-M

When you're using what is essentially premature megakaryocytes for cloning into basic plasma samples, you never will never witness anything worthy of receiving an FDA golden star/seal/brand of approval. The idea of EMTs using synthetic blood to treat victims of an accident is absolutely absurd (a major reason why it has never flown in the actual emergency medical field, despite its often being mentioned.)

Antigen presentation on anything but an embyronic stem cell (whereis applicable) is not to be taken lightly from the perspective of a country that considers itself remotely growing in medicine and sciences.

Science is not, or should not be operated on implementing curveballs into experiments as to transform these experiments that would normally yield results in the process of going from point A to B, to instead throw in C, D, E and the rest of the tangible alphabet. The hypervariable regions on one silly little IgG can yield a rather large scope of sensitivity.

In my humble opinion, it seems blatantly illogical to bombard someone with immunosuppresants in the cases of tissue specific diseases, only to yield prognoses less promising than what would indefinitely occur if more laboratories could receive proper funding and support to culture first generation tissue samples from embryonic stem cells.

There is so much to be said about the subject scientifically, politically and religiously, too.


Edited for not having my cup of tea yet.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Whether or not you can remember anything, the fact remains that you, the person sitting at the computer posting in this thread, was that kid in the womb and killing that kid is killing everything you have done in your life.

No, that would be preventing everything that has been done in my life. But if I never experienced it, how could I miss it?

I wouldn't. It's that simple. And if my life wasn't going to begin so that my mother could survive, I can not find fault with that.

As for what I consider to have rights-- let me clarify, "Viable" and "should be viable" are interchangable for me. Not all fetuses develop correctly, and no, because they need help once born does not mean I think we should kill them. Once born, it's not longer a fetus but a baby, and whether or not it's on life support it's still considered viable because it IS alive outside of the womb. Before a certain number of weeks, a child absolutely CANNOT live outside of the womb even with life support (leaving the womb would be traumatic enough to cause death). Before that week is hit, I don't consider the child to be viable. This is the same view as the medical community, currently.

While a fetus is dependent on it's mother body, as I posted before, in ways that not even a new born is dependant on it's mother (they can and will get on without if needs be), that baby's rights are limited, because it isn't functioning as a seperate entity-- it is living off of it's mother. I don't agree with abortion as a birth control method, or with partial birth abortions as a last-minute, "OMG I DON'T REALLY WANT THIS BABY", but that last scenario is not the case. During every birth there is risk, and for some people, that risk is more. There are situations where only the mother, or her child, can be saved. And no, I don't agree with a law that may decide for the couple that a child's life is more important than it's mothers. But there is ALWAYS grey area, and there's no time to get an OK for a partial-birth abortion in the event of a horrible emergency by going through the court systems, should all abortion be outlawed except for case by case scenarios. Some people are just reading the words that I write and trying to find fault without even stopping to think about what I might be saying. Look it up and you'll find that currently, this mindset for the most part is (and was, since I believe partial birth abortion has been banned in some places) how the medical community treats pregnancy and unborn children too. Calling a fetus a fetus and saying that because it needs its mother to survive that its mother has more rights than it is not referring to an unborn child as something you can get in a hardware store. It's a realist, unemotional examination of a topic. It's only "irrational" to some of you because you merely don't agree. Obviously, I have my personal opinions, and just because politically and medically I feel this way, does not mean I personally don't feel another way.

Anyway, the thread and topic isn't about abortion, though I spose stem cell research sort of goes hand in hand as to what is a life. I think that if you look at one thing as killing a potential life, then everything else can be killing a potential life. Masturbating, menstruating, really, anything could be construed. I know why it makes some people uncomfortable, because of the slippery slope that COULD happen.. but that's the same reason it makes the other people who want it uncomfortable, the slippery slope the other way. Someway, a balance has to be achieved but in this case, I don't agree with any extreme as the total answer.

[Hulkein]

I'm not against abortion when it comes to saving the life of the mother.

[ElanthianSiren]

It seemed prudent that I should mention that harvesting 1st degree stem cells fertilized in a test controlled environment (test tube) and aborting a fetus to get its 2nd level stem cells (from a very uncontrolled environment) seems like two entirely different situations to me, especially from a scientific desirability standpoint. Scientists like to try to control any kind of contaminents, which in the case of cells includes foreign tissues surrounding the specimen (uterus).

Even with the current lines, there was incredible outcry because they became tainted to unviability by non-human acids in the agar (solution used to grow stuff in labs). This was due entirely to the growth medium that was used and is another reason to allow the release of more lines (aka it's very easy to mistakenly use what has worked growing cells in previous conditions, but won't work in these). The important point to remember is that these people are trying to learn what works best; that means, they don't KNOW already what works best and are trying to establish that for the medical community. Mistakes will happen and lines will be lost, due to experimentation and flaws.

Anyway, I doubt highly that the fire and brimstone, people will sell their babies!!!! chicken little scenerio would occur. Some people would like to make this into an abortion issue, when it really isn't IMO, as an aborted fetus is quite undesirable for this work.

-M

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

It seemed prudent that I should mention that harvesting 1st degree stem cells fertilized in a test controlled environment (test tube) and aborting a fetus to get its 2nd level stem cells (from a very uncontrolled environment) seems like two entirely different situations to me, especially from a scientific desirability standpoint. Scientists like to try to control any kind of contaminents, which in the case of cells includes foreign tissues surrounding the specimen (uterus).

Even with the current lines, there was incredible outcry because they became tainted to unviability by non-human acids in the agar (solution used to grow stuff in labs). This was due entirely to the growth medium that was used and is another reason to allow the release of more lines (aka it's very easy to mistakenly use what has worked growing cells in previous conditions, but won't work in these). The important point to remember is that these people are trying to learn what works best; that means, they don't KNOW already what works best and are trying to establish that for the medical community. Mistakes will happen and lines will be lost, due to experimentation and flaws.

Anyway, I doubt highly that the fire and brimstone, people will sell their babies!!!! chicken little scenerio would occur. Some people would like to make this into an abortion issue, when it really isn't IMO, as an aborted fetus is quite undesirable for this work.

-M

Well, I agree with you for the most part but, this does tie into abortion because the number one debate in abortion comes down to, "When is it a life and a human being?"

There are people like myself that don't feel it's when the egg is fertilized, and there are other people who feel that the second that sperm touches the egg, that there is a person there. They likely wouldn't agree at all with testube fertilization-- as Hulkein said earlier, he doesn't have a problem with the stem cells, he has a problem with the creation of what he considers a life (the fertilized egg) just to destroy it (Sorry if I put words in your mouth, Hulkein, that's how I interpreted your posts so tell me if I got it wrong and I'll change it). There are many, many people who feel as he do, and many many people who feel as you do-- one half says that's a human being and their life that you're "testing" there, and the other half says No, it isn't. That's essentially the same arguement with abortion.. where do you draw the line?

[Stanley Burrell]

If I bathe fibroblasts in antimycotics for shits and giggles and for some reason, am compelled to use agarose for a medium instead of various liquid washes, I wouldn't really expect to yield anything fundamentally interesting besides negative data.

Because this field of science will undoubtably become more privatized, organizations who have been conducting proper research will no longer have the ability to do so. I do not feel that proper research should begin to function on the stagnation of research and grant renewal for archaic labaratory methods. One purpose of research in the biological sciences is to seldom have the necessity to function off of literature that is, by a gajillion comparisons, outdated.


Anyway, I doubt highly that the fire and brimstone, people will sell their babies!!!! chicken little scenerio would occur. Some people would like to make this into an abortion issue, when it really isn't IMO, as an aborted fetus is quite undesirable for this work.

From my basic experience in the field, I feel that what this administration is doing on all different levels regarding the issue of natural sciences is absolutely idiotic.

I am ticked off, yet not brutally concerned about the integration of Church and State under this administration. From my point of view, the purpose of science should be TO test boundaries; albeit concepts of space and time, psychology, biology, physics, mathematics, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

[ElanthianSiren]

I draw the line at waste.

Personal opinions follow:
I struggled with the life question for many years, only recently finding an answer that made me happy. I would never/could never personally have an abortion of my boyfriend's child, even if I was going to die. I have actually discussed this with him extensively (edit: not because I like to dwell on this, but because dying if I got pregnant is a possibility with my diabetes and my refusal to live unnaturally on machines). This may sound odd coming from me, as I do vehemently defend a woman's abortive rights (I know you haven't been around long enough to see some of the spats we've been in on this issue). Personally, I do believe that a certain modus of life begins at conception, but I don't believe that anyone can conceivably control/regulate abortion. In many cases, it's a monetary issue for me, as I believe people have to live with their own consciences.

The thing to realize is that many of these lines are cultivated from unused fertility endeavours. As a woman, as a scientist, as someone who cares about other people, I couldn't deny allowing others to use what would simply sit otherwise, had I a child already, especially when those cells could save a life. It would definitely, to me, be like that child living on, actually having a life, by living IN someone else, as opposed to sitting there ungrowing.

Those are personal beliefs though, and other peoples' are not my perogative to judge.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

This is the same view as the medical community, currently.Even assuming this was true, for a person who specifically brought up the slavery example this is unbelievably hypoctrical. Everyone believing something doesn't make it right.
Some people are just reading the words that I write and trying to find fault without even stopping to think about what I might be saying.I've thought very carefully about what you're saying, but it's still self-contradictory.
It's a realist, unemotional examination of a topic. It's only "irrational" to some of you because you merely don't agree.Your feeling that you're being realistic doesn't cause reality to conform to your beliefs. Further, your initial post was probably the most emotional in the topic so far, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to classify your position as "unemotional" as if the other side was hysterically emotional.

And from what I read from those links, Stan, it sounds like embryonic cells are *more* dangerous to the patient because they tend towards uncontrolled multiplication when transferred. I'm not a medical guy, but isn't that basically giving the patient cancer?
Some people would like to make this into an abortion issueI'm still not sure why Narcissiia chose to bring it up, but it does fall along the general uninformed "stupid religious people" railing that some people engage in when it comes to the actual topic. In that sense, showing the errors in her position when it comes to abortion conceivably will help her see the rational light on this topic.

[Jolena]

She's already stated why the topic of abortion came to light, several times actually. It was merely the reference to 'When does life begin?' that brought it to discussion.

Also, someone saying that they have the same view as the medical community, does NOT mean that they are saying their view is the only and RIGHT one. It could just be a statement of interest. I think sometimes, Latrin, you get too wrapped up in correcting others and finding things to debate.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I never said that the medical community is for sure right, but that that IS the view of the medical communtiy, and before you spout off on how I'm totally stupid and don't know what I'm talking about, realize that there are thousands of doctors who practice and believe in the same thing. They're probably all stupid too though, given as you know everything about everything, don't you Latrin?

My initial post was rather angry towards someone like Xyelin-- but just because a post is passionate doesn't mean that the reasoning behind those posted feelings are fused with that same emotion. For someone who thinks they're so brilliant, I didn't think it'd be that hard for you to make that distinction.

As for the slavery example, it's a perfect example about the faults of ruling en masse-- but the medical community complying isn't an example of ruling en masse because it's not a decided and accepting thing by everybody. It would be an example of it if it were illegal or socially unacceptable to speak out against abortion, or stem cell research, and politically it is not set in stone. Politically, slavery was set in stone for a VERY long time, and whether everyone agreed with it or not, you dealt with it and that was that. Besides, the comment wasn't even intended to prove how "right" I am. I think you just interpreted how you wanted to so that you'd have something to argue about.

And as Jolena has already had to highlight for you, and I'll highlight again, abortion and stem-cell research debate DOES go hand in hand because they both deal with "What is a life?" This is why the debate is so muddy, and people are so torn over the whole subject. If it was cut and dry and had nothing to do with the questions plaguing abortions, then there'd be no debate over just the research. If there were rulings regarding abortions, it could affect stem cell research as well, and the other way around.

Finally, you've done nothing to show me "errors" in my position, or posted anything I'd consider to be rational or well thought out. In fact, you've shown quite the opposite.

[Sean of the Thread]

You should quit posting in this thread while you're (not so) ahead.

[Back]

You should quit posting in this thread while you're (no so) ahead.

Didn’t realize we were keeping score here. Have you won the PC yet?

[Latrinsorm]

It was merely the reference to 'When does life begin?' that brought it to discussion.I dunno. She was the first one to bring that question up. If she had just said "it's like abortion" I could see it as a tangential comment, but she kinda went into it, don't you think?
Also, someone saying that they have the same view as the medical community, does NOT mean that they are saying their view is the only and RIGHT one.It sounded like an appeal to authority to me, which I find to be a bit shaky, logically speaking, for the reasons I stated above.
before you spout off on how I'm totally stupid and don't know what I'm talking aboutI don't think you're stupid. :/
but just because a post is passionate doesn't mean that the reasoning behind those posted feelings are fused with that same emotion.I didn't say you were irrational because you were emotional. I said you were irrational and in a separate thought found it strange that you would describe your position as emotionless when your first post was markedly emotional.
As for the slavery example, it's a perfect example about the faults of ruling en masseRight, the majority of people believing something doesn't make it true. According to you, the beliefs of the majority of medical people coincide with your position. Do you see why I find the second statement irrelevant when taken in the context of the first? Can you also see why it smacks of hypocrisy for someone to make both statements simultaneously?
If there were rulings regarding abortions, it could affect stem cell research as well, and the other way around. I don't think they're as connected as you do. As Melissa's noted, it's pretty unlikely someone's going to have an abortion just for stem cell research. Maybe I'm just not following you though. What legislative connection do you see between the two?
Finally, you've done nothing to show me "errors" in my position, or posted anything I'd consider to be rational or well thought out.That's too bad. Hopefully I've contributed to your subconscious so that you'll rethink your ideas eventually.

I hope you can consider the example I gave earlier in the thread with regards to ethical subjectivism, because I think that would really help your progress.

[HarmNone]

:gawk:

I think I'm gonna be sick! :(

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I dunno. She was the first one to bring that question up. If she had just said "it's like abortion" I could see it as a tangential comment, but she kinda went into it, don't you think?It sounded like an appeal to authority to me, which I find to be a bit shaky, logically speaking, for the reasons I stated above.

I've already clarified that that is in defense of people accusing me of having crazy ideas that no one else could possibly believe. And as said before, abortion and stem cell research both concern "what is life?" and therefore, one goes hand in hand with another.


I didn't say you were irrational because you were emotional. I said you were irrational and in a separate thought found it strange that you would describe your position as emotionless when your first post was markedly emotional.

Already said that my post was emotional, but the reasoning behind my position isn't emotional just because a post was an emotional reaction to a personal attack. You can passionately defend something that you have an non-emotionally invested stance in.


Right, the majority of people believing something doesn't make it true. According to you, the beliefs of the majority of medical people coincide with your position. Do you see why I find the second statement irrelevant when taken in the context of the first? Can you also see why it smacks of hypocrisy for someone to make both statements simultaneously?

No, I don't. I think it was a misinterpretation on your part, as I explained above. You're hung up on thinking that I commented on the medical community to prove myself right. I commented on it to shut up the cries OMG U R TEH RETARD! (Not neccesarily from you, but from others).


I don't think they're as connected as you do. As Melissa's noted, it's pretty unlikely someone's going to have an abortion just for stem cell research. Maybe I'm just not following you though. What legislative connection do you see between the two?

As I've already noted, it's not the aborted fetus or embryo being used for stem-cell research, it's the fact that embryos and fetuses are being created just for the purpose of being destroyed, in a test tube.

Someone who is against abortions because they believe a fertilized egg is a human being (I'm trying not to use loaded words and be unbiased in this explanation) is generally against the ideas of stem-cell research because they believe that in that test tube, that fertilized egg is also a human being and it's just being destroyed.

Similarly, someone who believes an abortion is ok and that the fertilized egg only becomes a human being LATER, is generally OK with the idea of stem cell research because they believe that the egg in the test tube isn't that human being yet.

Legislation wise, these are VERY interconnected. If a ruling came out, say, banning all abortions, it would have to be because it was ruled that an embryo is indeed a human being, and has full human rights as an entity beyond it's mother. Therefore, stem cell research would become illegal because the embryo in that test tube is now counted as a human being, and it's illegal to destroy it(it would be murder, if the embryo was viewed as a human) just to harvest those stem cells.

As I said before, one affects the other and vice-versa.


That's too bad. Hopefully I've contributed to your subconscious so that you'll rethink your ideas eventually.

I hope you can consider the example I gave earlier in the thread with regards to ethical subjectivism, because I think that would really help your progress.

I've already thought through my ideas plenty, and there's nothing wrong with my "progress" in regards to ethical subjectivism, at all. There just seems to be an issue with how you choose to interpret things.

[Parkbandit]

:gawk:

I think I'm gonna be sick! :(

Backlash has that effect on most people.

[HarmNone]

Heh. In this case, it wasn't Backlash! However, I'll grant you there are several people on these boards who can have that effect, purposely or accidentally. :D

[Parkbandit]

I can't remember anything from in the womb.. and I don't consider myself to have been a person then. I was a person when I was birthed, and the cord was cut, and I had the potential to breathe on my own naturally.


I don't remember years 1-3 either.. does that mean we can go out and start killing kids that age? What about people with alzheimer's?

What a really, really stupid reason. I feel dumber just reading some of your posts.

You certainly worked for this award.. congratulations!

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Dumbshit.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Heh. In this case, it wasn't Backlash! However, I'll grant you there are several people on these boards who can have that effect, purposely or accidentally. :D

Speaking of Backlash.. I have a new pet in WoW..

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Backlash.jpg

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You made an error, so I fixed it. And I even made a nifty box so you can display this proudly in your profile.

It's ok, these things happen.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/PsiElement/congrats.png

Congratulations!

[HarmNone]

Now, PB! You must admit Backlash, as you've so kindly shared with us, has a charming smile. :)

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Now, PB! You must admit Backlash, as you've so kindly shared with us, has a charming smile. :)

I think people often include in their fantasy worlds what they wish they had in real life.

[Back]

I have had dreams where everything is dark and I am under water... I panic at first, then realize I can breath and a feeling of warmth and relaxation spills over me. I think those are pre-birth memories.

I have visual memories that go back to my first year of life.

Then again, I have an exceptional memory.

I would not go so far as to use that as a measure, myself, especially considering that all cells have memory and those memories go back billions of years.

I’m inclined to stay out of metaphysical arguments and let whatever forces of nature are at work in this universe sort things out.

PS. PB, I am honored. The boar is a strong and honorable animal totem.

[CrystalTears]

All depends on how you spell it. :D

[Parkbandit]

You made an error, so I fixed it. And I even made a nifty box so you can display this proudly in your profile.

It's ok, these things happen.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/PsiElement/congrats.png

Congratulations!

Wow.. that's like getting into an argument and your best comeback to being called a stupid fuck is "No, you are"

[Parkbandit]

PS. PB, I am honored. The boar is a strong and honorable animal totem.

He replaced Dar the tiger due to the charge affect all boars have. I like the name actually :)

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I have had dreams where everything is dark and I am under water... I panic at first, then realize I can breath and a feeling of warmth and relaxation spills over me. I think those are pre-birth memories.

I have visual memories that go back to my first year of life.

Then again, I have an exceptional memory.

I would not go so far as to use that as a measure, myself, especially considering that all cells have memory and those memories go back billions of years.

I’m inclined to stay out of metaphysical arguments and let whatever forces of nature are at work in this universe sort things out.

PS. PB, I am honored. The boar is a strong and honorable animal totem.

Those dreams sound quite interesting, and like you, I have visual memories that go back very very far.

What's interesting though is that psychologists say it's impossible to consciously remember anything before a certain age because your brain isn't wired for it. I'll have to dig up the information on it, but the memories we have are either self-created or inherited ones that we pick up from listening to other people. This doesn't make us liars, it's just that our brain naturally fills in gaps using whatever knowldge we've acquired. There is some sort of memory there of the womb though-- given that when we need comfort we curl into the fetal position and those with severe mental and/or physical trauma will rock themselves for comfort (much like a baby is rocked in their mother's womb) if they can. Similarly, Children with autism find squeezing pressure to be comforting, much like what they would experience in the womb during a contraction, and the rubbing/hugging that normally is done too intense.

Even so, until I was out of my mother I was still dependant on her for my air, my water, my food, my growth and my health. Because I was attached inside of her and not an independent being, I still would say I was not a full person, and independent of my mother, until outside of the womb.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Wow.. that's like getting into an argument and your best comeback to being called a stupid fuck is "No, you are"

Arguement? Your idea of an "arguement" is calling someone with a different opinion than yours an idiot. Given your intellectual cabilities, there's little more I could respond with that you would be able to comprehend.

[Back]

Even so, until I was out of my mother I was still dependant on her for my air, my water, my food, my growth and my health. Because I was attached inside of her and not an independent being, I still would say I was not a full person, and independent of my mother, until outside of the womb.

Its my conclusion that consciousness happens while in the womb. When? No idea. People like to talk to their fetuses, play music for them... my parents played sitar music for me (go figure) so the idea is not all that uncommon.

There is no concrete evidence regardless, so with all our science, we still don’t have the answer, and I sure don’t accept any speculative bible-thumping theories... so until we know scientifically I say until then let nature sort it out.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Its my conclusion that consciousness happens while in the womb. When? No idea. People like to talk to their fetuses, play music for them... my parents played sitar music for me (go figure) so the idea is not all that uncommon.

There is no concrete evidence regardless, so with all our science, we still don’t have the answer, and I sure don’t accept any speculative bible-thumping theories... so until we know scientifically I say until then let nature sort it out.

I agree, it's almost moot to say it's definitely one way or another.

[Latrinsorm]

You're hung up on thinking that I commented on the medical community to prove myself right. I commented on it to shut up the cries OMG U R TEH RETARD! (Not neccesarily from you, but from others).
I think you commented on it to provide support for your position. How much support you think it brought to bear is irrelevant, an appeal to authority is bringing in support (of any kind!) from a source that is commonly found to be reliable. In this case, you cited an informed majority (the medical community) when you had very recently decried majorities. I don't think you have dogmatic faith in the medical community, if that's what you're getting at.
If a ruling came out, say, banning all abortions, it would have to be because it was ruled that an embryo is indeed a human being, and has full human rights as an entity beyond it's mother.The neat thing about laws (in the government sense) is they don't have to be have any particular justification. As such, it doesn't *have* to be the case for abortions to be banned on the premise that embryos are human beings. They can be banned just because. In fact, considering your stance of moral subjectivity, it *must* be the case that laws are made on a whim. To consider the ethics of a potential law would necessarily cause one to hold one set as superior.

I see the similarities between an abortion and stem cell research, but I think the differences between them are so profound as to make linking the two an inadvisable position, rationally.
I've already thought through my ideas plenty, and there's nothing wrong with my "progress" in regards to ethical subjectivism, at all.I meant "rethink" in the "consider from an alternate perspective" sense, not in the "think more" sense. I can see how that's vague though. I didn't mean to suggest that your progress was somehow flawed, just that it hasn't reached its logical end yet.

As an aside, "argument". Only one "e". "You can't have an argument in a flue" is how I'd suggest remembering it.

[HarmNone]

Can we please avoid correcting spelling and grammar in this thread? There's enough disagreement here to satisfy even the most voracious seeker of controversy. If we need an English/spelling tutor, we'll let you know.

:break:

[Kranar]

In this case, you cited an informed majority (the medical community) when you had very recently decried majorities. I don't think you have dogmatic faith in the medical community, if that's what you're getting at.


I'd be interested in knowing what medical community actually has declared this. The only biological/medical reference to viability refers to the extent that cells and tissues have in living.

No reference to viability exists that says that after X period of time, a human being is viable. In fact, no reference to seems to exist that discusses viability for any organism, only cells.

Please provide me some resources or references to indicate that the medical community does infact define or regard viability to be a certain period of time after conception.

[Latrinsorm]

Can we please avoid correcting spelling and grammar in this thread?How can I let another suffer? :no:

[HarmNone]

If someone is suffering, I'm sure they'll let you know, just as we'll let you know if we need an English/spelling tutor, Latrinsorm.

[Back]

What about suffering from ethical splinter posts?

[Parkbandit]

Arguement? Your idea of an "arguement" is calling someone with a different opinion than yours an idiot. Given your intellectual cabilities, there's little more I could respond with that you would be able to comprehend.

No.. it's not that you have a different opinion.. it's that you have a stupid, ignorant and retarded opinion. Let me give you some examples of similar retarded opinions:

1) Anyone that doesn't believe in God is going to hell

2) Anyone that doesn't sign up for the Armed forces is unpatriotic

3) Anyone that doesn't strap a bomb to their chest and blow up infidels should be killed anyway.

4) George Bush planted bombs in the World Trade Center on 9-11-01

5) A fetus is nothing until it is born out of the womb of the mother and can be dealt with in any manner which is chosen since they have no memory of that time period.

Clearly they are all opinions.. and clearly they are all ignorant, stupid and retarded.

[Daniel]

How can you find for either? One person's morals are going to be subjugated.

^

The one that effects someone else.

[Warriorbird]

People who attempt to defend insults as an arguing tactic versus people who use "I know you are but what am I." as an arguing tactic...

Y'know, Sun Tzu said something about, "Some battles should not be fought."

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

As for viability and laws, you don't need me to go dig up all of the laws for the state you currently live in. In most states, any abortions past the early second trimester are forbidden, on grounds of viability. In ever plainer english, this means that Doctors WON'T abort past this unless it's an extreme situation. Look up your state laws in regards to abortion if you want to see the medical community in your area's opinions on viability-- but in no state are abortions outlawed (maybe South Dakota is trying to push through a bill to outlaw them) and as long as they aren't outlawed, there is definitely a point where the fetus doesn't have rights and then does, meaning the fetus was not considered a person with full rights since birth.

And Latrin, as far as you thinking I made that comment to prove I'm right, you can think that all you want. I've already clearly stated like 500 times why I said it, and whether you "see" a further reason, that's on you. I know why I posted and my explanation was perfectly reasonable. So the rest of the argument in regards to that will be ignored by myself, as it has nothing to do with this-- I've already said repeatedly the majority is not correct, and if I were definitely correct there'd be no arguement. This is a fluid subject so far and there are no definite answers, only opinions.

With the laws and them not having anything to do with eachother, that's a fallacy. Most laws are written and set based on past laws and rulings-- hence why the Supreme Court rulings are so influential. If laws could be made "just because" and they didn't effect eachother, we wouldn't have a supreme court. That's not the way the US legal system works.

And Parkbandit, I find just about everything you post to be ignorant, stupid and retarded but I try to refrain from dragging that up into the debate until, inevitably, you make one of your ignorant, stupid and retarded statements. You're entitled to be that way though, I'm just done wasting my time responding to a fool like you.

Really though, as I posted a while ago, I'm not changing my opinion anytime soon and insulting me isn't doing anything but making people look like they have nothing intelligent to add to a conversation, so they have to make up for it. I'll argue the politics and law involved in this situation once someone actually understands those. Until then I'm wasting my breath just regurgitating what I thought was pretty well-known information.

[Latrinsorm]

What about suffering from ethical splinter posts?It is truly a transient suffering, giving way to a sublime peace and an overwhelming understanding. While you're waiting for that, though, you might want to skip over this post. Splinter city!
The one that effects someone else.They both affect someone else. On the one hand it's affecting employment opportunities, on the other it's affecting the very freedom of ethics that Narcissiia seems to find so vital.
I know why I posted and my explanation was perfectly reasonable.Yes, it was. You specifically stated that it was to buttress your position against people who would think you were "RETARD"ed. I didn't say "prove", I said "support".
Most laws are written and set based on past laws and rulingsPerhaps, but a nontrivial number of laws buck that trend, in some cases explicitly contradicting earlier laws. Your example of slavery, our episode with prohibition, Jim Crow laws, the list goes on and on. It's clear that precedent isn't the only factor, and may not even be a dominant factor.
This is a fluid subject so far and there are no definite answers, only opinions.There are always definite answers. The trouble is knowing which definite answers are knowable.
I'm not changing my opinion anytime soonSpoken like a devout dogmatist. I hope you appreciate the irony, at least.
Until then I'm wasting my breath just regurgitating what I thought was pretty well-known information.I think just about everyone would agree Kranar's a reasonable guy (speaking of irony!). I don't see what you have to lose by backing up the assertions he found questionable (specifically, the viability of a human organism).

[Back]

It is truly a transient suffering, giving way to a sublime peace and an overwhelming understanding. While you're waiting for that, though, you might want to skip over this post.

A positive reinforcement. So rare.

[Hulkein]

I agree, it's almost moot to say it's definitely one way or another.

Then wouldn't a rational, caring person feel it's smart to err on the side of caution?

[ElanthianSiren]

Then wouldn't a rational, caring person feel it's smart to err on the side of caution?

I'm not exactly sure what your definition of caution is -- aka what point are you making?

On the matter of a collection of gametes that are either going to save lives via research, expand beyond their test tube capabilities worthless, or deteriorate to nothingness in a freezer and accomplish nothing, I err on the cautious side of using them to save existing lives via research in a controlled environment.


-M

[Hulkein]

She said it wasn't definite one way or another whether or not when life begins.

Caution would be to not allow abortion unless it's under extreme circumstances ie: health of the mother issues. I wasn't talking about the stem cell stuff.

[ElanthianSiren]

Ah okay. I misunderstood what you were arguing; sorry.

-M