I don't understand why Bush wont support Stem Cell Research!

[goofyjumper 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070620/sc_nm/bush_stemcells_dc;_ylt=AnnLi72WwlxerhVPaZwXVHoiANEA

IMO he needs money for the Iraq war.

I just don't understand why if these embryos are going to be discarded anyways, why not use it for good use. Does he not have any family members that would benefit from this research?

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[Butters 0]

Ignorance + Religion = ...

Edit: Pharmaceutical Company Lobbying (Contributions, Donations, etc...)?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[goofyjumper 0]

Quote

Ignorance + Religion = ...

Edit: Pharmaceutical Company Lobbying (Contributions, Donations, etc...)?

ya, true. I almost forgot how America works. I just hate to see my father in law walking with crutches when it is possible for him to be cured.

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[NCclimber 0]

Don't you mean Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

Here's an interesting link:http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

Its findings seem partisan. Feel free to show its bias.

[Royd 0]

Quote

I just don't understand why if these embryos are going to be discarded anyways, why not use it for good use. Does he not have any family members that would benefit from this research?

He just wants it to be funded with private money.

Other than that, the whole thing is just another slippery slope. Crossing one threshold never seems to be enough for those who believe that science should have no moral limitations.

I'm sure that someone has a vision of growing bodies in a lab for spare parts.

[DSE 5]

Yeah...Bush makes a lot of sense here.
1-A man masturbates into a cup.
2-Doctor impregnates egg (retrieved surgically retrieved along with a few additional eggs)
3-Egg becomes fertilized
4-Doctors watch eggs for a few days
5-Doctors implant best eggs in womb
6-Left over eggs are left to die in the petri dish
or
6a-Eggs are allowed to continue growth and may be of benefit to humanity.
There are already laws against cloning in the international and local theatre. Therapeutic cloning is different than reproductive cloning; 10 minutes of study provides a reasonable overview, IMO. Oops...Bush can't even say "nu-klee-ar" let alone read. Wasn't he in reading class on 9/11?

Of course the page you link to is biased. It's a predominantly Christian organization that believes that embryonic stem cell research is unethical. It certainly can be. But cells that have pluripotential also can change the world and save thousands of lives. Strict controls on reproductive cloning (which already exist and can be made more punitive if necessary) already prevent ethics and morals from being legally manipulated.
What would jeshua do? he'd probably become a bioethicist or regenerative medicine specialist, cuz that's where the money is these days.

[masterblaster72 0]

Simplest explanation: because he's f.cking stupid.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[kallend 2,033]

Quote

Don't you mean Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

Here's an interesting link:http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

Its findings seem partisan. Feel free to show its bias.

Its bias shows in its Founding Statement:

"Human embryonic stem cell research is unethical:"

and

"Our careful consideration of these issues leads to the conclusion that human stem cell research requiring the destruction of human embryos is objectionable on legal, ethical, and scientific grounds. Moreover, destruction of human embryonic life is unnecessary for medical progress, as alternative methods of obtaining human stem cells and of repairing and regenerating human tissue exist and continue to be developed"

The organization's Founding Statement indicates very clearly that it has pre-judged the issue. It is biased.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[goofyjumper 0]

While I see your point, I have to argue that Embryonic stem cells are more promising in the fact that they are not specialized. In other words, they have the potential to grow into anything. Adult stem cells are specialized in the fact that they are arleady specialized cells, such as skin cells for example, etc.

Adults do not have stem cells in many vital organs. So it is very important and which is why it needs to be researched more.

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[Butters 0]

Quote

Other than that, the whole thing is just another slippery slope. Crossing one threshold never seems to be enough for those who believe that science should have no moral limitations.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[PLFXpert 0]

You don't understand why someone who is pro-life wouldn't support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?

I don't get it.

I'm pro-choice. Thank goodness if I so desire I can help fund the research.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[quade 4]

Quote

I don't understand why Bush wont support Stem Cell Research!

Ever play Jenga?

If a person bases his entire life and support structure on a few "core beliefs" then certain other ideas MUST follow otherwise the entire thing falls. This is also why these same people hold so tenaciously to the concept of "creation science" rather than the big bang theory, because, let's face it, if the first book of the Bible isn't accurate, then how much of the rest of it can you believe?

GWB has based much of his support on the far right, ultra conservative and religious right. If GWB doesn't do everything he can to NOT support embryonic stem cell research, he'd run afoul of some of his core support group that believes that every "life" begins at conception. To those people, even a single cell is an entire human.

This also means they don't support the creation of stem cells by cloning which is amazingly silly to -me-, but apparently makes perfect sense to them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BillyVance 34]

There are quite a few cures already found for certain diseases and cancers but the drug companies have swept them under the rug because they will lose money big time over the drugs they make to just alleviate the symptoms...

I don't have any proof but that's the standard belief among some people.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[quade 4]

Quote

There are quite a few cures already found for certain diseases and cancers but the drug companies have swept them under the rug because they will lose money big time over the drugs they make to just alleviate the symptoms...

I don't have any proof but that's the standard belief among some people.

Some people believe the world is flat, but that doesn't make it the truth.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Of course the page you link to is biased. It's a predominantly Christian organization that believes that embryonic stem cell research is unethical. It certainly can be.

Does that make their comparison untrue? How so?

Quote

But cells that have pluripotential also can change the world and save thousands of lives.

You mean they "can" save lives, maybe? Or are you are actually saving lives.

I get the multiple use aspect of embryonic stem cells, but what medical advances have been achieved through them - seperate from adult stem cell research?

[Butters 0]

Quote

There are quite a few cures already found for certain diseases and cancers but the drug companies have swept them under the rug because they will lose money big time over the drugs they make to just alleviate the symptoms...

Do you think that AIDS will no longer exist after a cure is found? Can you imagine how much money they could make being able to cure AIDS? I would be willing to bet that there are people who have AIDS that would pay for the cure, get AIDS again, pay for the cure, get AIDS again, etc...

Edit: Drug companies are not against cures. Drug companies are against drugs they can't profit from.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If GWB doesn't do everything he can to NOT support embryonic stem cell research, he'd run afoul of some of his core support group

yup, and then he might lose the reelection. oh, wait, something about 10 year limits.....

I'm not a fan of government sponsored research. I'd just as soon let the private industry do it. So I'm in agreement, but for completely different reasons.

However, if we must fund research, then this is a silly one to not fund. So I have to disagree with Georgie boy's reasons. But I still can credit he's doing what he "thinks" is the right thing. He's just wrong, IMO.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DSE 5]

Quote

Does that make their comparison untrue? How so?

Simply by knee-jerk reaction, it makes it untrue from my viewpoint, yes. Am I closeminded? Probably. The minute I see "Christian" and "Ethic" in the same paragraph, I know I'm fu**'d. It's a stereotype and generality, but stereotypes and generalities typically spring from truths at some point.

Quote

You mean they "can" save lives, maybe? Or are you are actually saving lives.

Would you imply that because lives *perhaps* haven't actually been saved, we *shouldn't* research this opportunity as thoroughly as possible?

Thiers an entelyjent thot fer ya.

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Does that make their comparison untrue? How so?

No, but it means one shouldn't automatically take their conclusions as gospel truth.

Embryonic stem cells are not currently used in any succesful treatments, but then antibiotics never helped anyone until Fleming came along either.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Embryonic stem cells are not currently used in any succesful treatments, but then antibiotics never helped anyone until Fleming came along either.

But were they being promoted as the next great remedy, with billions of dollars being given for research, prior to his breakthrough?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

He just wants it to be funded with private money.

Ding ding ding!

It was said that 70% of Americans support such research. So those 70-percenters just need to put their money where their mouth is, and pony up some donations to do it on their own, without taxpayer funding. Don't take money from people who don't agree with it.

Liberals: Quit your bitching, and donate. Or do you prefer to be charitable only with other people's money?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Don't take money from people who don't agree with it.

Iraq!

The whole purpose of taxation is to take money that people don't want to give.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

He just wants it to be funded with private money.

Ding ding ding!

It was said that 70% of Americans support such research. So those 70-percenters just need to put their money where their mouth is, and pony up some donations to do it on their own, without taxpayer funding. Don't take money from people who don't agree with it.

Liberals: Quit your bitching, and donate. Or do you prefer to be charitable only with other people's money?

The problem is it's THIS charity he doesn't want to sponsor. He'll give my dollars to all those he does support (faith-based charities, defense contractors, etc), and he has no problem spending my money to kill actual people. I'd have no problem with his position if he made it an across the board denial of funding for research and/or charity, but when he denies support to one item due solely to religious concerns while simultaneously giving money to religious entities, that I have a problem with. I'd prefer he let me keep a LOT more of my money and decide for myself which causes I want to help fund.

Personally, my favorite quote from him today was:

Quote

"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us,"

It just sounds ridiculous coming from him.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

I don't understand his reasons for not supporting it. But here is my main reason why I wouldn't support it: let private industry reasearch it on its own.

The legitimate reasons for governmental funding of science are, I believe, founded primarily upon research for "basic science." See, "research" means different things to different people. In industry, "research" typically means "research and development." For academics, "research" means "what is going on?"

Basic science is merely seeking to answer questions without any explicit thought of its applications. Basic science is subject to peer review, and the results of basic science aren't patented, etc.

Basic science is responsible for the discovery of, identification of and explanation of stem cells. The basic scientist says, "Hey, look what I found!" This is the sort of person who doesn't get rich off of his research. I believe governmental money spent to support basic scientists is a legitimate, fair, good and practical use of governmental funding. It's these guys who write the papers that are cited in industrial patent applications.

Applied science is, "What can be done with this science?" Or, as I prefer to see it, "How can we make a buck off of this?" The basic science on stems stems is out there. Let the companies who hope to make a buck off of it front the dollars for research and development. Why the hell should the taxpayer be floating these companies?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Why the hell should the taxpayer be floating these companies?

Because they may well save the lives of those taxpayers.

Refusing to take an opportunity to bring forward cures for major diseases just because someone might also make money from it seems rather, well, screwed up on priorities.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?