View Full Version : Ugh, Not Again. Our Moral President Vetos Stem Cell Bill
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/20/bush.stem.cell.ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pushing back against the Democratic-led Congress, President Bush vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have eased restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.
Democrats, who had made the stem cell legislation a top priority when they took control of the House and Senate in January, were quick to denounce the president's decision.
"This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families, just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, told the Take Back America conference of liberal activists Wednesday.
To blunt criticism, the White House said Bush is issuing an executive order directing the Health and Human Services Department to promote research into cells that -- like human embryonic stem cells -- also hold the potential of regenerating into different types of cells that might be used to battle disease.
"This is, certainly not an attempt to muzzle science," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "It is an attempt, I think, to respect people's conscience on such an issue."
If the measure Bush vetoed would have become law, the White House said it would have compelled taxpayers for the first time in our history -- to support the deliberate destruction of human embyros. Snow said Bush's executive order will encourage scientists to work with the government to add research on new stem cell lines -- that does not involve the creation, harming or destruction of human embryos -- to the list of projects eligible for federal funding.
"The president does not believe it's appropriate to put an end to human life for research purposes," Snow said. "That's a line he will not cross."
This was the third veto of Bush's presidency. His first occurred last year when he rejected legislation to allow funding of additional lines of embryonic stem cells -- a measure that passed over the objections of Republicans then in control. The second legislation he vetoed would have set timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. (Interactive: Past vetoes by Bush and other presidents)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to schedule an override vote, but the date has not been set. Democrats, however, currently do not have enough votes to override Bush's veto.
Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, the NIH says. There were no federal funds for the work until Bush announced on August 9, 2001, that his administration would make the funds available for lines of cells that already were in existence.
Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of August 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.
The science aside, the issue has weighty political and ethical implications.
Public opinion polls show strong support for the research, and it could return as an issue in the 2008 elections.
Opponents of the latest stem cell measure insisted that the use of embryonic stem cells was the wrong approach on moral grounds -- and possibly not even the most promising one scientifically. These opponents, who applaud Bush's veto, cite breakthroughs involving medical research conducted with adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid, none of which involve the destruction of a human embryo.
It's getting harder and harder to support this man at all. ~:doh:
Seamus Fermanagh
06-20-2007, 19:34
I disagree with you Ice. I'm annoyed with GW "I never met an entitlement or amnesty bill I wouldn't sign" Bush for a number of reasons, but this is not one.
This was a waste of time to begin with, congress knew he would veto it, and they knew they didnt have the votes in the house to overrule his veto.
Stemcell research and all the sub plots and topics deserved more then this waste of time, the democrats are begining to annoy me.
Send the bill up when you know you can get it passed and stop playing presidential politics. Federal funding for stem cell research is simply a matter of changing the president which will happen anyway, its a good program and should be done, as long as we have to live with the surplus murder of the unborn lets try and make a positive out of it.
Devastatin Dave
06-20-2007, 19:58
Just another distraction for us to argue about while we're all being :daisy: by the elite.
Atleast this will provide me more garnish for my burgers....
With this and the department budget bills coming up, looks like our government is going to be getting nothing done til January 2009. Can't really say this is a bad thing.
At least Bush is using a power that he actually has the right to use. ~:rolleyes: I guess he remembered something from his Civics class after all.
good luck for Bush trying to stop progress.....
he´s trying to plug all the holes in his "morality" dam....
he´ll run out of fingers soon enough
Marshal Murat
06-20-2007, 21:47
17th Amendment....
It shouldn't have been brought up unless the Congress decided to pass it.
Do nothing Congress? Do something but end up with nothing?
I disagree with you Ice. I'm annoyed with GW "I never met an entitlement or amnesty bill I wouldn't sign" Bush for a number of reasons, but this is not one.
Any particular reasons why? Stem cell research is a fantastic thing that most likely holds the key for treating many diseases and helping millions of people.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-20-2007, 22:03
Any particular reasons why? Stem cell research is a fantastic thing that most likely holds the key for treating many diseases and helping millions of people.
Not one useful practical thing has come from it yet. Why should we pay for the research. Its not like Bush is banning it. In fact he is the only president ever to ear mark money for it. Clinton refused.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-20-2007, 22:06
Any particular reasons why? Stem cell research is a fantastic thing that most likely holds the key for treating many diseases and helping millions of people.
Not against stem cell research per se -- there is, at a minimum, a host of fascinating things yet.
Currently, there is still too much of a threat that embryos would be created solely for "harvesting" purposes -- which I cannot condone.
Other sources of stem cells can and should be researched.
Marshal Murat
06-20-2007, 22:40
What if all this is a bunch of bully? A false hope to treat cancers, cure diseases? If it doesn't deliver then what? You say 'it can cure cancer', but is there proof, or are these hypothesis and theories?
Ironside
06-20-2007, 22:43
Not against stem cell research per se -- there is, at a minimum, a host of fascinating things yet.
Currently, there is still too much of a threat that embryos would be created solely for "harvesting" purposes -- which I cannot condone.
Other sources of stem cells can and should be researched.
AFAIK (and never heard otherwise and that would actually make big news) there's no need for that as the fertilised eggs that ends up as "biohazard" is well enough to cover the need. I do admit that a need could appear if some very rare type of stemcell (odd genetical combination) was needed.
You're a "life begins at conception" type or simply not that fond of an "industrial" approach to embryons in general Seamus?
And other sources of stem cells can and are researched, but until you can take a stem cell from your blood (well any bodypart) and make it create a clone (regular cloning involves only the genetic material, the stem cell that creates the clone is from another embryo), the potency of embryonic stem cells cannot be matched.
Not one useful practical thing has come from it yet. Why should we pay for the research. Its not like Bush is banning it. In fact he is the only president ever to ear mark money for it. Clinton refused.
Some interesting stuff has came from adult stem cells. The embryonic ones are more potent, but harder to make what you want with (think fusion to fission).
As for Bush's veto, it's more of that banning funds on newer stem-cell lines that's interesting. The clear distiction, that says that "We (the state) does not support embryonic stem cell research, but we couldn't really forbid it", is telling and won't help the US keeping a leading position on the area.
What if all this is a bunch of bully? A false hope to treat cancers, cure diseases? If it doesn't deliver then what? You say 'it can cure cancer', but is there proof, or are these hypothesis and theories?
An embryonic stem cell created you. Draw your own conclusions of the potency.
Marshal Murat
06-20-2007, 22:58
So? That indicates only that the cells can divide and produce a human being.
Ironside
06-20-2007, 23:26
Why are you drawing god into this argument?
There is a difference between Meiosis and Mitosis, and while the birth of life is an astounding deal, that doesn't mean we could produce the same thing in a laboratory, or derive any benefit from it.
God? :inquisitive:
That original egg made umpteenth dichotomies (of the Mitosis version, although sometimes as a modified one), that created you from that single egg.
It's not the birth of life, but it's still the creation of you and here's the interesting part. If you can do it once, then you can do it again. It's not creation, but replication.
As for benefits, no lack of organs for organ donations?
It might not give the benefits, but there's undoubtable proof of the possibilities, so not researching on it would be folly, because we know that it is possible and aren't needed to reasearch it it is possible, but only if we can do it or not.
Edit: Well you edited your post after I vrote this, but I've already answered on your comment.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-20-2007, 23:31
Some interesting stuff has came from adult stem cells.
Any that meet the criteria I set or are they just theories?
The embryonic ones are more potent, but harder to make what you want with (think fusion to fission).
You cant make anything with them. But you can with adult.
As for Bush's veto, it's more of that banning funds on newer stem-cell lines that's interesting. The clear distiction, that says that "We (the state) does not support embryonic stem cell research, but we couldn't really forbid it", is telling and won't help the US keeping a leading position on the area.
:juggle2:
Im getting dizzy from this spinning.
The only reason he vetoed it was the embryonic part. He supports adult stem cell research.
Crazed Rabbit
06-21-2007, 02:32
Are we talking about the only President to have provide any federal funds at all for stem cells?
It's amazing to see people contort their thoughts to get mad at him when there was no funding for this before he came to office. It's like they write a new past history in their head of a world where this was the sole thing in the budget and Bush stopped all that.
Crazed Rabbit
Nice to know that the Org has so many bio-scientists on its books.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-21-2007, 03:34
You're a "life begins at conception" type or simply not that fond of an "industrial" approach to embryons in general Seamus?
Yes (Catholic and KofC) and therefore yes to part "B" as well. I understand why others who do not view life as beginning at conception would hold a different view on this.
Are we talking about the only President to have provide any federal funds at all for stem cells?
It's amazing to see people contort their thoughts to get mad at him when there was no funding for this before he came to office. It's like they write a new past history in their head of a world where this was the sole thing in the budget and Bush stopped all that.
Crazed Rabbit
:laugh4:
Bush did stop it all. This was the 2nd time in a year that a bill like this was presented.
Who cares if there wasn't funding before? It doesn't negate the fact that he vetoed a bill to start funding.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-21-2007, 05:14
Bush did stop it all. This was the 2nd time in a year that a bill like this was presented.
And he keeps telling them that as long as they leave in the embryonic research he will veto it. And I and others are glad he does. He only opposes that. Stop trying to make it seem like hes some kind of nut on this. He does plenty wrong to critisize without catching flak for this. Its no big deal. Again nothing has come of it yet.
Who cares if there wasn't funding before? It doesn't negate the fact that he vetoed a bill to start funding.
For embryonic stem cell research If he had line item veto it would be different.
And he keeps telling them that as long as they leave in the embryonic research he will veto it. And I and others are glad he does. He only opposes that.
That is plenty to oppose.
Stop trying to make it seem like hes some kind of nut on this.
I don't think hes a nut, just a rube.
He does plenty wrong to critisize without catching flak for this. Its no big deal. Again nothing has come of it yet.
Nothing has come of it YET. Who knows what additional funding could yield.
Its no big deal. Again nothing has come of it yet.
http://www.drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=21&action=detail&ref=1724
And I could have sworn that I saw news that they tried this on humans with the same results.
I will dig harder :book:
Knew it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1637528.ece
doc_bean
06-21-2007, 07:56
Not one useful practical thing has come from it yet. Why should we pay for the research.
That's what i've been saying about your military spending for quite some time (well, obviously I'm not paying for it, I just think it's ridicoulous you do). At least this thing has promise, and possibly more science behind it than the average DoD approved project.
What's with the "Ugh Not again" in the thread title?
For once the President actually did something good, prevented the disgusting murders of some babies for the sake of "research". This is about the only good thing that Bush has ever done.
:laugh4:
Bush did stop it all. This was the 2nd time in a year that a bill like this was presented.
Who cares if there wasn't funding before? It doesn't negate the fact that he vetoed a bill to start funding.
Not to interrupt your chuckle, but there is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The problem is with new lines that involve the destruction of embryos. There's also funding for adult stem cells- which have shown more promise than any others thus far. Additionally, amniotic and umbilical stem cell funding is also provided. They're also completely free to research all embryonic stem cells via private funding- no one is stopping them.
I'm with Seamus, and Bush on this one. :yes:
http://www.drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=21&action=detail&ref=1724
And I could have sworn that I saw news that they tried this on humans with the same results.
I will dig harder :book:
Knew it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1637528.ece
Those were adult stem cells. Again, proven treatments and none of the ethical controversy- what's not to like there?
Those were adult stem cells. Again, proven treatments and none of the ethical controversy- what's not to like there?Fully aware of that, just a counter to Gawain claim that nothing has come out of it yet.
But if he meant that nothing good has come out of embryonic stem cells then he has a point.
But that doesn't mean you should cut fundings to it.
Papewaio
06-21-2007, 10:26
Meh its a non issue... let some other countries scientist get the Eureka moment and then get one of your companies to buy the commercial rights off of him... its the standard operating procedure so far...
Well, everybody who wants this to be funded so badly can always donate money to the cause I guess.:inquisitive:
Gawain of Orkeny
06-21-2007, 13:20
Fully aware of that, just a counter to Gawain claim that nothing has come out of it yet.
But if he meant that nothing good has come out of embryonic stem cells then he has a point.
But that doesn't mean you should cut fundings to it.
That did nothing to refute my claim. It only reinforced it. Why should we fund embryonic research at all. Everyone supports adult stem cell research.
Zaknafien
06-21-2007, 14:26
well no one expects bushy to let science get in the way of his clumsy rhetoric. one of these days funding will pass for it, trying to stop progress is like plugging fingers in the dam, as someone mentioned above. the fundies just need to accept it and roll with it. progress is good, man.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-21-2007, 14:33
well no one expects bushy to let science get in the way of his clumsy rhetoric. one of these days funding will pass for it, trying to stop progress is like plugging fingers in the dam, as someone mentioned above. the fundies just need to accept it and roll with it. progress is good, man.
Lets hope you are wrong.
Marshal Murat
06-21-2007, 16:17
progress is good, man.
That's what they said about Eugenics.
That's what they said about Eugenics.
You know I read this twice, this is wonderful comeback.
I tip my hat.
Not to interrupt your chuckle, but there is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Let's see. You are correct in a sense. After a quick google search I found the government website responsible for such funding. I then looked at the FAQ and scrolled down to the part about funding. Here is what I found:
Does NIH fund embryonic stem cell research?
Research on human embryonic stem cell lines may receive NIH funding if the cell line meets the following criteria: removal of cells from the embryo must have been initiated before August 9, 2001, when the President outlined this policy; and the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived must no longer have had the possibility of developing further as a human being. The embryo must have been created for reproductive purposes but no longer be needed for them. Informed consent must have been obtained from the parent(s) for the donation of the embryo, and no financial inducements for donation are allowed.
Let's see. No new cells after August 9, 2001 can be used. That definitely cuts into the amount available for such research.
Second, only babies that died of natural causes can be used. What about all those aborted fetuses? They should just get thrown away? What about the ones that weren't purposly conceived for stem harvesting? We should just ditch them?
The problem is with new lines that involve the destruction of embryos.
Like I said, we should simply waste them?
There's also funding for adult stem cells- which have shown more promise than any others thus far.
Really? Our government says otherwise:
There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses might limit the usefulness of adult stem cells.
Additionally, amniotic and umbilical stem cell funding is also provided. They're also completely free to research all embryonic stem cells via private funding- no one is stopping them.
Why not use adult stem cells instead of using human embryonic stem cells in research?
2. Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be.
More can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/StemCells/Templates/StemCellContentPage.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7bA604DCCE-2E5F-4395-8954-FCE1C05BECED%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2finfo%2ffaqs%2easp&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#whatare
Ironside
06-22-2007, 10:18
Second, only babies that died of natural causes can be used. What about all those aborted fetuses? They should just get thrown away? What about the ones that weren't purposly conceived for stem harvesting? We should just ditch them?
Before this turns into the unneeded abortion trail. Embryonic stem cells doesn't come from aborted foestuses. In fact they can't, as the embryonic stem cells only exist extremly early (iirc it's either at 8 or 16 cells were your final chance to get embryonic stem cell exist. After that, the specialisation procedures starts), they only come from in vitro fertilisation (that uses several fertilised eggs to make sure that you'll get some that's viable).
Now, I'm happy to apply your argumentation on in vitro fertilisation, but it should be on the correct area.
Edit: New information, the egg has to start developing organs to be called an embryo and that's about 2 weeks into the development. So the term embryonic stem cells is technically incorrect. :book:
That's what they said about Eugenics.
I was about to say he should repeat that in Germany in 1935.:2thumbsup:
Zaknafien
06-22-2007, 13:48
Oh come on. you can't compare stem cell research to the experimentation on thousands of living breathing human beings. Stem cells aren't people, they're clusters of cellular material in a 4-5 day old embryo, which is little more than a colony of cellular structures. Get real.
Oh come on. you can't compare stem cell research to the experimentation on thousands of living breathing human beings. Stem cells aren't people, they're clusters of cellular material in a 4-5 day old embryo, which is little more than a colony of cellular structures. Get real.
I wasn't responding to stem cell reasearch, I was commenting on your comment that all progress is good.
Though like I said before, if you like it, feel free to fund it, but some others may not want their tax money to be spent on this. Can't really say how effective or promising it is and while the goal sounds appealing, I do have my doubts.
Marshal Murat
06-22-2007, 14:41
Research that isn't research (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/stemcellresearch_org/)
Here they discuss why stemcellsresearch.org isn't really a research group, but a industrialist, Christian front, yadda yadda yadda.
Does it raise some valid points about the stem cell research, or a conspiracy wrapped up in people's ignorance.
Zaknafien
06-22-2007, 14:44
You know, Im always confused, because Christians should be the ones promoting stem cell research. Christianity is all about promoting welfare of people, paticularly the sick and diseased and dying. Its an ethical issue of condemning people to horrible deliberating diseases when we could possibly be healing them.
I mean, the argument that embryonic research is 'promoting murder' is ludicrous. Jesus Christ certainly had no idea what an embryo even was. To consider it a person is beyond the pale. cellular material should be used for the betterment of all mankind.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-22-2007, 14:46
Jesus Christ certainly had no idea what an embryo even was.
Isnt the fallacy of this statement oh too obvious?
You know, Im always confused, because Christians should be the ones promoting stem cell research. Christianity is all about promoting welfare of people, paticularly the sick and diseased and dying. Its an ethical issue of condemning people to horrible deliberating diseases when we could possibly be healing them.
Sadly history dosent bare this theory out.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-22-2007, 14:54
Its an ethical issue of condemning people to horrible deliberating diseases when we could possibly be healing them.
By killing others.
Zaknafien
06-22-2007, 14:58
By killing others.
what others? 2 or 3 cells does not a sentient being make, dude. And you disagreed with the other statment about Jesus. the historical Jesus Christ was a 1st century Jewish bumpkin, he would have had no idea what an embryo was, the average 4th grader today has more of an education than he or any of disciples had.
If you happen to believe he was some sort of incarnation of Yehovah, then that's different. But we're talking historical figures here. And his teachings to his followers were to heal the sick and dying, and give aid to those suffering whenever possible. His followers today are too busy preaching doom and gloom to the world to be focused on that. If Christians would do as their teacher intended, the world would have a much better view of them, and stem cell research is one of these issues why the world does not.
Marshal Murat
06-22-2007, 15:11
followers today are too busy preaching doom and gloom to the world to be focused on that.
Like the threat of DDT, and Global Warming! :2thumbsup:
historical Jesus Christ was a 1st century Jewish bumpkin, he would have had no idea what an embryo was,
Until he became 'God's son' and had all his powers.
I could care less what they do with the embryos, if they want to throw them in the air, dice them, burn them, whatever. Just don't get the govt. involved unless you can get us the cures. I hear about 'miracle cures' like I hear about half what scientists say. Promises that might be fulfilled, might not.
Otherwise every quack scientist who needs federal money promotes his idea as a 'cure for cancer' and gets federal funding to do some crazy things to a rhesus monkey.
2 or 3 cells does not a sentient being make, dude.
So does that make bacteria, protozoa, and every other unicellular organism a 'thing' despite evidence to the contrary?
Gawain of Orkeny
06-22-2007, 15:12
2 or 3 cells does not a sentient being make, dude
Really. I thought the combining of two cells was exactly the way it worked:laugh4:
nd you disagreed with the other statment about Jesus. the historical Jesus Christ was a 1st century Jewish bumpkin, he would have had no idea what an embryo was, the average 4th grader today has more of an education than he or any of disciples had.
:wall:
You said Christians should support it blah blah blah. If Christians believe that Jesus was god then he they certainly believe he knows what a stem cell or embryo is. I doubt a 4th grader is smarter than god.
And his teachings to his followers were to heal the sick and dying, and give aid to those suffering whenever possible.
Not by killing the unborn.
If Christians would do as their teacher intended, the world would have a much better view of them,
Unlike you most people do have a good opinion of them. Look I look at Jesus much as you do in that I look at him as a philosopher not a god. I still dont think he would approve of this.
Sir Moody
06-22-2007, 15:24
not to rain on the parades of people who think stem cell research is a con but
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6517645.stm
there are a number of ethical boundaries we will have to work out but the techniques for growing entire organs from stem cells are almost here and i personally think its for the better
Don Corleone
06-22-2007, 16:22
I'm opposed to any more ticks climbing on the mangy dog that is the federal government to suck more blood out. If the technology is as promising as some say, and if Irosnside's claims that they can grow new organs are founded, don't you think Glaxxo-Smith-Klein and Pfeizer have enough cash on hand to pay the research bill? Why do I need to pay for Big Pharma's next round of profits? This whole issue is mental masturbation for the American Left... they're actually arguing for federal subsidies to an industry they're normally whining and moaning about, just because they like to torque religious conversatives off.
Anyway, again, with regards to the research itself, assuming the funding for research was paid by those that will profit from the sale of it... like Ironside said... there's no need to actually create embryoes for the process. There's petrie dishes all over America and Europe that get thrown out every day. It would be nice to know that rather than being washed down the drain there's actually some positive use going on.
By the way, Ironside, they never specifically mention embryonic stem cells. Given the BBC's heavy editorial content, if they had come from embryoes, I'm sure they would have made mention of that.
HoreTore
06-22-2007, 16:39
Not one useful practical thing has come from it yet. Why should we pay for the research.
That attitude would destroy 90% of all research done in the history of man.
Marshal Murat
06-22-2007, 16:45
Would it?
Do you have any data to support this claim?
I can tell you scientific breakthroughs -1900 were mostly privately funded projects.
The Cotton Gin? Invented by 1 man with a drive.
The Telegraph? Invented by man without federal funding.
Telephone? Man.
Chariot. Men, well, gods, but another story.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-22-2007, 16:52
That attitude would destroy 90% of all research done in the history of man.
Yes i forgot that federal funding has made all things possible. Without it we would still be living in the stone age.
By killing others.
Yes exactly. Bravo, well done, the end.
Its nice to have Don back posting his eloquence and ability with prose is far superior to mine.
He nails it folks
1.
If the technology is as promising as some say, and if Irosnside's claims that they can grow new organs are founded, don't you think Glaxxo-Smith-Klein and Pfeizer have enough cash on hand to pay the research bill? Why do I need to pay for Big Pharma's next round of profits?
Anyone care to tackle this point, i cant.
2.
This whole issue is mental masturbation for the American Left... they're actually arguing for federal subsidies to an industry they're normally whining and moaning about, just because they like to torque religious conversatives off.
This one's like looking at a Picaso.
and !
There's petrie dishes all over America and Europe that get thrown out every day. It would be nice to know that rather than being washed down the drain there's actually some positive use going on.
Right on, as I said in a previous post, since we have to live with sanctioned killing of children anyway lets make the most of it. Often taking a pragmatic approach to an undesirable practice can reap a higher ideal.
This might be the case here, but no tax money for it.
By the way, Ironside, they never specifically mention embryonic stem cells. Given the BBC's heavy editorial content, if they had come from embryoes, I'm sure they would have made mention of that.
They try to tiptoe around it- but once again, this discovery came from adult stemcells.
His team extracted stem cells from bone marrow and cultivated them into heart valve cells.
Ironside
06-22-2007, 19:55
I'm opposed to any more ticks climbing on the mangy dog that is the federal government to suck more blood out. If the technology is as promising as some say, and if Irosnside's claims that they can grow new organs are founded, don't you think Glaxxo-Smith-Klein and Pfeizer have enough cash on hand to pay the research bill? Why do I need to pay for Big Pharma's next round of profits? This whole issue is mental masturbation for the American Left... they're actually arguing for federal subsidies to an industry they're normally whining and moaning about, just because they like to torque religious conversatives off.
You're probably correct. I can accept drop of public funding on the basis of not being something the state shouldn't fund generally or that they're not considering it promising enough, but as it's now it's a contradicting funding that's only based on appeasing the "religious right" that's uninformed on what stem cells are actually used.
As for the drug companies, development and public funding, capitalism has a problem with great leaps that cost much time and money to make and without results relativly fast.
Do you think we would be in space yet with only market forces?
That said, it's up for the nations themself to decide, but there's some projects that won't be done in the private sector, simply because the rewards seems too far away.
If this apply to this specifically is more uncertain though (afaik there's a lot of research money coming from the medical sector), but there's sometimes a need for publically funded projects.
Anyway, again, with regards to the research itself, assuming the funding for research was paid by those that will profit from the sale of it... like Ironside said... there's no need to actually create embryoes for the process. There's petrie dishes all over America and Europe that get thrown out every day. It would be nice to know that rather than being washed down the drain there's actually some positive use going on.
I'm currently holding about the same position. It would require some more ethical aspects of it if you had to create embryoes, although I don't think I would oppose it (but dislike it more though).
By the way, Ironside, they never specifically mention embryonic stem cells. Given the BBC's heavy editorial content, if they had come from embryoes, I'm sure they would have made mention of that.
They try to tiptoe around it- but once again, this discovery came from adult stemcells.
Fair enough, if he can create organs from adult stem cells within 10 years then embryonic stem cells are probably not needed (I'm not sure of all potential uses), but the main issue with adult stem cells is that you can create tissue with it, but not organs (that consists of several tissues, they might be able to create some simpler organs though, based on current knowledge). Unless I'm missed some new research I'm guessing that he will try to make one organ from starting from several original stem cells, instead of only one cell.
HoreTore
06-22-2007, 23:29
Sorry Odin, he may nail it for you, but for a european leftie, it doesn't ~;)
You see, we want to nationalize medical research, ie. take away profit as a goal, and so we want to use tax money to do it, as well as shutting down the pill companies...
A small side question, is it A european, or AN european?
Gawain of Orkeny
06-22-2007, 23:54
You see, we want to nationalize medical research, ie. take away profit as a goal, and so we want to use tax money to do it, as well as shutting down the pill companies...
And this is why most great medical discoveries will still be made in the USA.:beam:
A small side question, is it A european, or AN european?
Now thats a good one, never thought about it. The rules is you use an if the following word starts with a vowel no? Like Im an American. But Im an European just doesnt sound right does it?
Don Corleone
06-23-2007, 00:41
Now thats a good one, never thought about it. The rules is you use an if the following word starts with a vowel no? Like Im an American. But Im an European just doesnt sound right does it?
For speaking:
It's the vowel sound, not the actual letter. American starts with a soft "a" sound, so "an' is correct, "an american".
European actually starts with a consanant sound "hard Y", so "a" "Yooropeean" is correct, not "an european".
Similiarly, it's "an historical event" is correct if your dialect has soft (whispered) "h" sounds.
For written:
HoreTore you are correct, you should match the article with the first written letter.
That being said, I'm an American so I know bupkus on proper English. Ask EnglishAssassin or InsaneApache. Then watch them fight it out. :laugh4:
Don Corleone
06-23-2007, 00:42
As for your point, HoreTore, the socialization of medical research may very well be an appropriate goal (it's not, but that's another thread). The argument on the table is whether I'm going to cough up an extra $4.00 a pay period to help make Pfeizer even richer.
Answer? Not if I have anything to say about it.
HoreTore
06-23-2007, 12:05
As for your point, HoreTore, the socialization of medical research may very well be an appropriate goal (it's not, but that's another thread). The argument on the table is whether I'm going to cough up an extra $4.00 a pay period to help make Pfeizer even richer.
Answer? Not if I have anything to say about it.
As you have private medical companies earning an extreme profit, I certainly can understand and agree with that...
I'm asking the (mostlikely Christian) fundamentalists here what on Earth is wrong with research.
Research is good, and research to stemcells even better. If you don't want to improve why not give up live at all. It has no use if you don't want to make it any better.
Yeah you kill an embryo, so what, like he even cares.
It's the same as abortion: "OH NO, WE'RE KILLING SOMEONE!!!"
That someone will never know, so why even bother.
You also kill wasps, and maybe even shoot deers. So what's wrong with "killing" something that doesn't even know it doesn't exist anymore.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-23-2007, 14:35
I'm asking the (mostlikely Christian) fundamentalists here what on Earth is wrong with research.
Research is good, and research to stemcells even better. If you don't want to improve why not give up live at all. It has no use if you don't want to make it any better.
Yeah you kill an embryo, so what, like he even cares.
It's the same as abortion: "OH NO, WE'RE KILLING SOMEONE!!!"
That someone will never know, so why even bother.
You also kill wasps, and maybe even shoot deers. So what's wrong with "killing" something that doesn't even know it doesn't exist anymore.
Christian yes, fundamentalist no. Standard cradle Catholic with usual lapse in faith from 17-30.
We believe that life begins at conception and that each unique human individual is animated by a "soul" from that point forward. Taking that life, save in the most extreme circumstances, is wrong. From this perspective, harvesting embryos for their stem cells would be mass murder.
If you do not believe life begins at conception, then you probably view the whole kerflaffle as scientific luddism and can't understand why anyone would oppose a medical research issue with so much promise.
Be careful, your last point is self defeating. If you are correct, it would be legitimate to kill you as you would, from that point, not "even know [you don't] exist anymore." :devilish:
Zaknafien
06-23-2007, 14:38
but WHY do catholics believe life begins at conception? that seems unfounded. Is it just beacuse "da pope" said so? Id like to see the evidence they used to make this decision.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-23-2007, 15:13
but WHY do catholics believe life begins at conception?
Thats an easy one. Because it does :book:
KukriKhan
06-23-2007, 15:17
but WHY do catholics believe life begins at conception? that seems unfounded. Is it just beacuse "da pope" said so? Id like to see the evidence they used to make this decision.
I'm no theologian, but I think they use this old testament (Jerimiah) passage:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
to assert a pre-existing individual soul, that gets infused with "life" at the precise instant that sperm and egg unite.
That infusion entitles the union, and all growth afterwards, to protection from harm/death, under the 5th commandment.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-23-2007, 15:31
Thus rendering Roe vs Wade unconstitutional
KukriKhan
06-23-2007, 15:51
Thus rendering Roe vs Wade unconstitutional
Un-biblical certainly; we pay other wise guys to decide unconstitutionality.
HoreTore
06-23-2007, 15:59
wise guys
Wise guys or Vice guys? Hmmm....
Zaknafien
06-23-2007, 16:02
well, I mean at least Bhuddistas provide some explanation behind their claims. In the Book of the Dead it very carefully explains the passage of the soul through the 9 days journey of death and the 'entering' of another body at the moment of conception.
KukriKhan
06-23-2007, 16:05
Not all that different in concept, though, yes? At some magical (or at least invisible) way, a 'spirit' gets fused to a couple of cells. The difference seems to be defining who/what controls that fusing/welding/whatever.
Don Corleone
06-23-2007, 17:17
Well, there's a biological argument to be made as well. A zygote is genetically distinct from the host it draws its nourishment from.
As for the theological basis, I actually think Jews at the time of Christ still believed in the Guff (the Hall of Souls) and that a soul descended upon a woman in childbirth, carried by a sparrow.
But this thread isn't about abortion. It's tangentially about 'when does life begin'. Even so, regardless of whether embryonic stem cell research proceeds or doesn't, thousands upon thousands of embryos get flushed down the drain every day. Hell, they have freezers full of the poor things that will never be thawed. They're in permanent stasis, they can't even die.
If we're just going to toss them into the sewer, why not make a more appropriate use of them? Again, I'm not arguing for funding. Pfeizer gets enough money out of me when my wife goes to the pharmacy, they don't need a nice big fat check comprised of my taxes to boot.
I hate to repeat myself (okay, maybe I don't) but is anbody else struck by the profound denial the American Left are in on this? If you called up Michael J. Fox and told him "We want to start a new tax. It's not going to actually go towards public services, we're just going to give it to the oil companies, or the agricultural industry, or the pharmaceutical companies", do you think he'd say yes? No. Bless his little lefty heart, he'd be shrieking about corporate welfare. Yet that's exactly what he's asking for in this particular case. He wants us to pry open our wallets and pay new tax to pharmaceutical companies (for the record, the most profitable of all industries (oil companies generate larger overall profits, but the margin on drugs is higher).
but WHY do catholics believe life begins at conception? that seems unfounded. Is it just beacuse "da pope" said so? Id like to see the evidence they used to make this decision.
It's not just catholics m8, here in Holland the protestants are far and far worse.
Hell the catholics are far better.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-23-2007, 18:30
Again the good Don keeps hitting the nail on the head. Why should we support corporate welfare. Thats what this really boils down to.
Again the good Don keeps hitting the nail on the head. Why should we support corporate welfare. Thats what this really boils down to.
You would because it has the possibility to benefit society as a whole.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-25-2007, 05:15
You would because it has the possibility to benefit society as a whole.
Not giving them money could also benefit society. Let the government do only what the constitution gives it the power to do. Thats why it was written. If we funded everything that could possibly benefit society we would go broke in one big hurry.
Not giving them money could also benefit society. Let the government do only what the constitution gives it the power to do. Thats why it was written. If we funded everything that could possibly benefit society we would go broke in one big hurry.
Valid point, but I'm wondering if you will feel the same way when you get one of the many diseases that could have been cured by this research.
Papewaio
06-25-2007, 05:48
Not giving them money could also benefit society. Let the government do only what the constitution gives it the power to do. Thats why it was written. If we funded everything that could possibly benefit society we would go broke in one big hurry.
Possibly the ROI on stem cells is far greater then welfare payments...
I do think big business should pay for this as they are quite happy to make the profit but not pay for the fundamental research that creates it quite often (sometimes from pure government funded research, sometimes from hiring the guys in the know from somewhere else or sometimes slightly less ethical and more clandestine knowledge transfer).
The potential for massive profits is certainly there, so I can see private companies pumping in the cash.
The question is, if an overseas company gets the lions share of these royalties how happy will US citizens (edit) be missing the (/edit) boat on the profits (doubtful as the same foreign companies are going to have a lot of US shareholders)...
Marshal Murat
06-25-2007, 06:00
I think that if government funds something, there is going to be embezzlement. You get what is ALOT of money going through a system, and with all that cash, it sometimes disappears...
Companies are more...careful...with their profits, and it streamlines the process.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-25-2007, 07:03
Valid point, but I'm wondering if you will feel the same way when you get one of the many diseases that could have been cured by this research.
Besides at my age they dont have long to make the discovery any way
The potential for massive profits is certainly there, so I can see private companies pumping in the cash.
This is why most new drugs are discovered here. We dont actually subsidize them . What we do is not allow drugs from other countries in. This way they get their research money back by charging high prices. Then people complain and want to buy the same drugs cheaper from Canada. So what are we to do? If we let in the cheaper drugs their goes their incentive to spend all that money on research.
Thus rendering Roe vs Wade unconstitutional
That assumes the old testement is correct. Roe vs Wade is based on the constitution, the 14th amendement, and this is the classice problem with seperation of state and religion.
If the constitution provided guidence in the area of when life begins I would agree, but the due process clause of the 14th amendment was applied and has never been over turned, and it wont be because the decision was correct, based on constitutional law.
While I disagree with this process of using the unborn for expirements, we have been down the road of what is and what isnt a life form. So should we throw these individuals away? Or make the best of it under the law? I vote the later.
Don pretty much nails my feelings on the money part of it.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-25-2007, 14:24
That assumes the old testement is correct. Roe vs Wade is based on the constitution, the 14th
Thats a lie take it back. The whole thing was based on a stupid seldom enforced law by some states prohibiting couples from using birth control. It has barely hung on by its teeth since its inception. It sure is a very liberal interpretation of the constitution.
Thats a lie take it back. The whole thing was based on a stupid seldom enforced law by some states prohibiting couples from using birth control. It has barely hung on by its teeth since its inception. It sure is a very liberal interpretation of the constitution.
The theory of due process is "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Abortion can be claimed as someones choice of liberty, however sad i find it, it dosent change the constitution, as there is no provision made for the determination of when life begins.
Obviously that argument wasnt necessary when it was written, perhaps now it is. That would require an amendment, and given the long road we have travelled with this issue, it would obviously turn into a fight of religion.
The roe decision was based on privacy under the 14th amendment. It also states that a woman has the right to abortion up to the point the fetus has the ability to live outside of the womb, with artifical aid.
what we really need here is for some communist country to make some breakthrough...no matter how small on this area...
then america will go bananas and throw money at this very serious problem so they can solve it before the reds....
yup....the good old sputnik effect....that´s what we need here...
come on china!
Gawain of Orkeny
06-25-2007, 14:44
The roe decision was based on privacy under the 14th amendment
This is all made up you reaslise.
Heres the case its based on. I can give you others that preceeded it if you like
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), this crucial (6-1) decision invalidated a Massachusetts statute making it a crime for anyone to distribute contraceptives, other than doctors and pharmacists prescribing them to married persons. The lead opinion, written by Brennan and getting the vote of three others, went far past the limited right of "marital privacy" found in Griswold by holding that the right to privacy inheres in the individual not married couples--and that the law therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against unmarried people.
Brennan's oft quoted opinion says: "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt at 453. This language was clearly setting the stage for Roe, which, when Eisenstadt came down, had already been argued before the Supreme Court. White and Blackmun concurred on other grounds, holding that reversal was justified by the fact that the record did not disclose whether the contraceptive distributed by Baird was given to a married or an unmarried person. Powell and Rehnquist did not participate. Chief Justice Burger dissented holding that the court's opinion would "seriously invade the constitutional prerogatives of the States and regrettably hark back to the heyday of substantive due process." He held that there was a legitimate health purpose for the statute's doctor/pharmacist requirement and that therefore the married/single issue is not legitimately before the court.
It was this wording that they used to claim that abortion also comes under this heading. It didnt address anything about after the child had already been begotten. Its bad law.
The part you bolded is clearly in line with the 14th amendment.
Look, you and I have a similar view on this issue, but once you start in with the constitution, that raises my eyebrow.
It maybe a liberal interpredation, but subsequent SCJ have not been able to overturn it based on law, the 14th amendment citation in the Roe opinion trumps them everytime.
I'll stand with you on the morality of the stem cell issue, but the abortion thingy, and these petry dishes with children are not the governments property, they are individuals, and as such more so then ever the 14th amendment applies.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-25-2007, 18:09
The theory of due process is "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Abortion can be claimed as someones choice of liberty,
It flies in the face of what you just stated. What is the first right of all of us. Thats right Life. Now what does abortion do?
The part you bolded is clearly in line with the 14th amendment.
If it were then why do we keep getting 5-4 decisions on the matter. Its quite a stretch. Certainly everyone agrees prohibiting birth control is unconstitutional. That again is what this is based on not abortion. They took one word from the oral argument and turned it into Roe Vs Wade.
The word was beget. But that doesnt mean they have a choice to kill it . It meant they had the right to use birth control and it wasnt any buissiness of the government if they did so. Its as plain as the nose on your face. You should see the other case leading up to it.
Even Roe now opposes it,.
It flies in the face of what you just stated. What is the first right of all of us. Thats right Life. Now what does abortion do?
As i stated before, the constitution dosent make the clarification of when life starts.
If it were then why do we keep getting 5-4 decisions on the matter.
Because it is a stretch, but it continues to be upheld time and time again, under the original decision, based on the 14th amendment.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-25-2007, 18:39
As i stated before, the constitution dosent make the clarification of when life starts.
So as Ive argued countless times should we not err on the side of life? Im not sure its alive so Ill kill it? And there never is a doubt that its alive. Only if its sentinet.
Because it is a stretch, but it continues to be upheld time and time again, under the original decision, based on the 14th amendment.
Ever hear of Dread Scott? If it were clear we would be talking about this now would we. Ive shown you how silly it is in reality. It was meant to stop the government with intefering with birth control. Now it has gone so far that most here see it as a legitimate form of birth control. Which it is not.!!!!!!!!!!!!
So as Ive argued countless times should we not err on the side of life? Im not sure its alive so Ill kill it? And there never is a doubt that its alive. Only if its sentinet.
Sure we should, but the SC dosent have that luxury does it? They have to base decisions on prior decisions and the constitution, not on what they think is the right thing to do. While that can be a factor, again, the constitution dosent provide for the theory of when life starts.
I concede it wasnt a necessity at the time, but the only way around it is an amendment.
Now it has gone so far that most here see it as a legitimate form of birth control. Which it is not.!!!!!!!!!!!!
yes, and foder for research grants. :no:
Gawain of Orkeny
06-25-2007, 19:07
Sure we should, but the SC dosent have that luxury does it?
No it has that duty
They have to base decisions on prior decisions and the constitution, not on what they think is the right thing to do.
But they did not in this case. How does what I posted give any right to abortion. Its clearly as I said a birth control matter not an abortion one. It took a hell of a lot of stretching to get to where we are today. Just like this new notion of seperation of church and state.
Don Corleone
06-25-2007, 19:38
Yeah, Odin, the problem with Roe is not that it outlawed abortion. The problem with Roe was that with it, the Supreme Court conferred upon itself a hitherto unknown and unspoken power: the power to decipher the true intent of a law, regardless of the actual written word. They themselves declared that in making that law (and some people claim that this was the main reason the court took up Roe in the first place, abortion was seen as an obscure vehicle on this). From the moment of Roe on, Congress or a state legislature could pass a law with a 95% majority that said "The sky is blue" and SCOTUS could come back and say "And by that statement, we find that they really meant that the sky is orange" and orange it is.
You can argue that the Constitution does not define when life begins. I agree with you on this point. But you can't argue that that vacancy puts it smack dab in the hands of SCOTUS to declare an absolute, unrestrictable right to abortion the way they did. It was a naked power grab.
If SCOTUS reversed Roe (which is not actually based on written law or precedent) and every 50 of the states voted to legalize abortion (which is where all other health care law takes place), I wouldn't have anywhere near the problems with our abortion policy that I do now.
What's more, because of the sledgehammer SCOTUS used to establish their power, this created right of 'privacy' that only they can define, no restrictions can be put on abortion. It's why parental notification laws are routinely struck down (yes, American 11-year old girls cannot take aspirin without a doctor's note, but they can get a 3rd trimester abortion without anybody saying boo about it).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.