posted on May 21, 2005 05:26:47 PM new
::Would you want another George Bush, John Kerry or anyone else cloned.::
Libra - after all this time you have not figured out the difference between stem cell research and cloning? PLease, for the sake of everyone involved in this discussion, stop now and look into that one because we are talking about stem cell research...NOT cloning.
::He was elected in part by his moral values.::
I'm sorry Libra but he was elected as a representative of the american people in a democratic society and reseach tells us that the majority of americans are NOT against stem cell research. Therefore he is allowing his personal moral view to override the override the democratic will of the people. THAT is not a presidents job. He is not our moral compass. He is the protector of our constitution, not our soul.
::Fenix can you positively tell me that a baby isn't a baby when the heart is beating?::
That is almost as relevent as your cloning arguement Libra - the embriotic cell has no heart. How are you able to hold such absolute opinions on a subject that you show no basic understanding of? We are talking about an embryo that has been fertilized for only 3-5 days.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 21, 2005 05:36 PM ]
posted on May 21, 2005 05:34:05 PM new
:Would you want another George Bush, John Kerry or anyone else cloned.::
how about another "classic" cloned??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
posted on May 21, 2005 05:37:57 PM new
No debating with you fenix as you are always right. But remember that 2 or 3 day old embro in about two weeks will start becoming a baby.
posted on May 21, 2005 05:55:26 PM new
Imo, fenix you're speaking to Libra like she's stupid and doesn't know the difference between cloning and stem cell research.
IF you would read the post peepa made, and she responded to, it mentions THIS BILL included BOTH. I believe that's why she's mentioning them both.
===
In the Senate, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who is undergoing chemotherapy in his battle against Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph system, is pushing stem cell legislation with Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a conservative Republican, and Dianne Feinstein of California, a moderate Democrat. The three said their bill would make reproductive cloning, to produce a baby, a crime punishable by up to 10 years. But they want to allow for cloning for the purpose of obtaining stem cells to be used in treating disease.
I'm sorry Libra but he was elected as a representative of the american people in a democratic society
AND because of the positions HE holds. One of which was he's against cloning AND government paying for embryonic research. CAn't deny that ...it's a fact. It WAS part of why he was elected.
and reseach tells us that the majority of americans are NOT against stem cell research. Therefore he is allowing his personal moral view to override the override the democratic will of the people.
Well...as I said...same things applies to partial birth abortion....the MAJORITY OF American's were AGAINST allowing it. Didn't stop clinton from vetoing the bill.
THAT is not a presidents job. He is not our moral compass. He is the protector of our constitution, not our soul.
lol...I'd sure like to see where you don't see OUR Constitution giving our President's VETO rights. And I, for one, sure see absolutely no difference between what you are blaming HIM for and the SAME actions clinton took.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on May 21, 2005 06:00 PM ]
posted on May 21, 2005 06:06:14 PM new
linduh AGAIN speaks for others:
""IF you would read the post peepa made, and she responded to, it mentions THIS BILL included BOTH. I believe that's why she's mentioning them both."""
posted on May 21, 2005 06:20:52 PM new
Linda it will be like that forever and just think if they can prolong life until about 125+ years what you will have to look forward to. Oh! what an ugly thought.
posted on May 21, 2005 06:41:21 PM new
Libra - I took your statement on cloning either kerry or President Bush as a joke.....and laughed. I don't want to even think about it.
And yes....I agree with your position that a large part of those who voted this President in office, AND re-elected him, did so BECAUSE of his moral beliefs....AND his opposition against abortion, cloning and embryotic 'harvesting' of stem cells.
Try to let some of what's said roll of your back. [hard, I know] They're just frustrated that they have so little control....and the power as with the 'buck' stops at the President's desk. HE'LL be the one who decides if he signs a bill on thise or not...and that's what angers some on the left, it might not go the way they'd like to see it go.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 21, 2005 07:22:50 PM new
::Imo, fenix you're speaking to Libra like she's stupid and doesn't know the difference between cloning and stem cell research.::
I don't think that she is stupid Linda. I think that she is arguing from a point of ignorance on this topic. Her arguments have nothing to do with the reality of stem cell research, she has demonstrated no basis of actual knowledge on the subject and I see no point in acting as though she does.
The fact that she is now going to play this childish game of "there's no point in arguing with you, you are always right" when she is factually incorrect in her argument does not help.
As for your attempt to excuse her confusion by way of Peepa's posted article. It was posted AFTER her post.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 21, 2005 07:24 PM ]
Will Bush's policy allow human stem cell research?
The question really is: Will Bush's policy stop stem cell research in the United States? Other countries are proceeding with stem cell research. It is possible, though, that without federal funding, this country's human embryonic stem cell research could only be done by corporations. The Bush administration claims that there are 60 "lines" of stem cells already available. Many scientists dispute this, saying that there are less than a dozen lines of stem cells that meet the administration's criteria, and most of these are the property of private companies or foreign countries. We really don't know what's available right now. Many of these lines are thought to be at the limits of their totipotency, Bioethicist Arthur Caplan has called president Bush's policy against using new lines "a ban," and he points out that the restrictions on federal funds for scientists to make new stem cell lines could mean that the only scientists in America who could do human embryonic stem cell research would be those funded by corporations. Thus, "embryonic stem cell research will become a business without regulation or accountability of any sort."
What are the problems of corporations controlling stem cell research?
It's a matter of responsibility and public accountability. Like atomic energy, embryonic stem cell research is incredibly powerful and can be used for all sorts of ends, good and bad. One can start manipulating stem cells by adding genes to them. The same techniques that can cure disease could augment a person's ability. Do we want this? Probably not; but if the market economy is the only regulator of embryonic stem cell use, then we can expect to see muscle-forming stem cells injected into our wealthier high school athletes. If there are no federal regulations, will the wealthy be allowed to extend their lives continuously? There is nothing now to prevent that from happening. With atomic energy, the United States established the Atomic Energy Commission (and later, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to oversee and regulate nuclear energy programs in our country. We have nothing comparable for human embryonic stem cells. In Britain, the Human Fertalisation and Embryology Authority has the power to license fertility meet their strict guidelines. In America, it is strictly entrepreneurship, and embryonic stem cell entrepreneurship has already begun,
I suspect that neither the American public wants embryonic stem cell therapy to be an unregulated business enterprise. But Bush's policies may effectively take away human stem cell research away from the American public
and put it into the hands of foreign governments and corporations. That, too, is an ethical issue.
Scott F. Gilbert is Professor of Biology at Swarthmore College where he teaches developmental genetics, embryology, and the history and critiques of biology. He received his B.A. in both biology and religion from Wesleyan University, and he earned his PhD in biology from the pediatric genetics laboratory of Dr. Barbara Migeon at the Johns Hopkins University. His M.A. in the history of science, also from The Johns Hopkins University, was done under the supervision of Dr. Donna Haraway. He pursued postdoctoral research at the University of Wisconsin in the laboratories of Dr. Masayasu Nomura and Dr. Robert Auerbach. Dr. Gilbert is currently on the Board of the Directors of the International Society for Differentiation and is a fellow of the AAAS. He also serves on the education committee of the Society for Developmental Biology. He has written the textbook Developmental Biology (presently in its sixth edition), as well as editing A Conceptual History of Embryology and (along with his wife, Anne M. Raunio) Embryology: Constructing the Organism. He has received several awards, including the Medal of François I from the Collège de France, the Dwight J. Ingle Memorial Writing Award, the Choice Outstanding Academic Book Award, an honorary doctorate from the University of Helsinki, and a John Simon Guggenheim Foundation Grant. His present research is in evolutionary developmental biology, focusing on that most interesting of topics--how the turtle forms its shell. Dr. Gilbert continues to write both in developmental biology and in the history and philosophy of biology.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
posted on May 22, 2005 11:17:34 AM new
fenix - I think that she is arguing from a point of ignorance on this topic.
Because a person doesn't agree with another view...doesn't automatically mean their ignorant.
Her arguments have nothing to do with the reality of stem cell research, she has demonstrated no basis of actual knowledge on the subject and I see no point in acting as though she does.
Well...SINCE many American's are divided on this topic....and even the scientists DON'T agree to the benefit of embryotic stem cell research....she's certainly not alone in her views.
The fact that she is now going to play this childish game of "there's no point in arguing with you, you are always right" when she is factually incorrect in her argument does not help.
I see it differently...surprise? When we have discussion on these threads...many different thoughts are brought to the table. Then when responding...and a couple of them are spoken about together....others may believe they don't know what they're talking about...SINCE they mentioned both in one statement. Doesn't mean they don't understand the difference.
And on the 'timing' of a post issue...I wasn't checking the times things were posted. But because peepa's post was made after her statement....ALSO doesn't automatically PROVE she hasn't read the inter-relationship between the two that WAS mentioned in peepa's post...somewhere else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 22, 2005 11:20:51 AM new
Thank-you Helen! Last year, there was major concern as Bush continues to cut funding for scientific research and study groups across the U.S., favouring research done by the major drug companies.
If you read Helen's article, you'll soon get the feeling Bush doesn't want to see scientific progress and he doesn't want to help sick people.
posted on May 22, 2005 11:40:52 AM new
fenix - I use part of peepa's post in the other cell thread to make my above point on just how the TWO issues are discussed together.
[example]
[i]The president's veto threat drew immediate reaction from sponsors of the bipartisan bill, Reps. Mike Castle, R-Del., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
Castle said the legislation would not allow the cloning of embryos or embryo destruction[/i].
There the two are discussed together.
[also stated in peep's article]
In the Senate, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who is undergoing chemotherapy in his battle against Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph system, is pushing stem cell legislation with Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a conservative Republican, and Dianne Feinstein of California, a moderate Democrat. The three said their bill would make reproductive cloning, to produce a baby, a crime punishable by up to 10 years. But they want to allow for cloning for the purpose of obtaining stem cells to be used in treating disease.
And there, again, the two are mentioned.
So I'm trying to point out the two are discussed in the same discussion together....and it doesn't mean those mentioning the two together don't KNOW the DIFFERENCE.
--
fenix - I'd also be interested in hearing from you your personal understanding of just what you believe is meant by: "but they want to allow for cloning for the purpose of obtaining stem cells to be use in treating disease.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 22, 2005 11:47:40 AM new
KD [i]you'll soon get the feeling Bush doesn't want to see scientific progress and he doesn't want to help sick people[i].
No, only blonds would get 'that' feeling.
Others would be aware that he doesn't believe in creating life [farming humans] for the purpose of killing them.
BUT...unlike the dems usual pattern HE offers alternatives. Cord blood, adult stem cell funding, etc. Just opposes 'farming' humans.
So to say what you've said is to show you're incorrect. He just wants to see people be helped from alternative sources.
AND he won the election...so HE has the VETO power to see that his promises to American's who voted him in office are also represented. That's the American way.. YEA for the AMERICAN way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on May 22, 2005 11:52 AM ]
The restrictions on federal funds for scientists that Bush's veto will effect, will essentially route stem cell research to big business...not a surprising goal of Bush. As the primer that I posted above points out, embryonic stem cell research will become an unregulated big business enterprise with no accountability.
posted on May 22, 2005 12:18:42 PM new
LOL helen...but you just NEVER point out the other FACTS.
And one is that when IVF was being pushed....it was those who so supported this science that said they'd be no concern about it not being regulated...as scientists would act ethically.
Guess what....IVF is STILL not regulated and we've seen many abuses of the process because of that. Same would hold here...I have no doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 22, 2005 12:36:46 PM new
I don't understand the reluctance to use stem cell research for the progress of cures.
The benefits far outwiegh any negatives and people have to remember that embryos are cells, nothing more. No toes, head, feet or hands.
posted on May 22, 2005 12:51:53 PM new
Ron - Imo, I believe the general public doesn't really understand the issue here. There are many.
First of all...there is currently much 'stem cell' research currently going on.
Secondly....on both embryo and adult stem cell research there is MUCH disagreement over embryotic research is even worthwhile spending funds on. Many scientists argue that it's going backwards in our research...as adult stem cell is already showing good results. So keep the money there...where's it's proving to do good....rather than on speculation.
Thirdly...there's the issue of who's going to pay for any of these methods....the government OR the private sector.
Many, myself included, believe the private sector, should pay for it...not our government.
Read a little on what's going on in CA right now...they're trying to get embryotic stem cell research voted in. Read the pluses and the minues. Part of the bill proposed, keeps funding from being taken away...even IF the research proves to not be worthwhile down the road. IF voted in CA's will be paying for this via their tax dollar...forEVER.
Plus then you have those who are morally opposed to the method used...'farming' human life. It's a MORAL issue with them. Also there are many ethical issues involved.
So it's not like it's a simple issue...it has many varying factors to it.
Because the left leaning media TRY to make it only a religious issue....doesn't mean it is. BUT this President does oppose it...and wants to encourage more FED funding to go into adult stem cell research...along with cord blood research. There are other alternatives to research....that don't take human life in order to do so.
And because this President WAS elected on his moral values by some voters...they are happy he's opposing this taking of life.
---
Some here can't see that this is no different than when our Congress passed, twice, the anti-partial birth-abortion bill and clinton vetoed it. Same thing here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 22, 2005 01:00:32 PM new
:: a person doesn't agree with another view...doesn't automatically mean their ignorant.::
This is true however the fact that she has equated stem cell reasearch and cloning and later referred to a heart beat shows the she is in fact ignorant of the FACTS regarding stem cell research. I was not referring to opinion, I was referring to a lack of factual knowledge wqhen I used the word ignorance.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 22, 2005 02:43:15 PM new"There is an abstract notion of human dignity which maintains that there is something special about being human which sets us apart from other animals." (Taken from Helen's link.)
posted on May 22, 2005 04:52:30 PM new
dbl - Yes, I personally do believe she sees them as equal...human and animals.
--
We used to have one or two others here who agreed with her in this area...that even butterflies shouldn't be hurt...and of course, no hunting of animals for food or sport. It's not right to take an animals life...they have feelings too. [paraphrasing]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 22, 2005 05:11:09 PM new
Double, as much as you'd like to think otherwise, humans are animals. Some more than others, that's all.
Yes, I do feel that way, Linda. I don't think ANY life form is more worthy than the next. It's only conditioning and ego that prevents us from realizing this (mixed in with a bit of religion, of course).
posted on May 22, 2005 05:43:36 PM new
OK Linda. Maybe it's because everyone's arguing I just took it the wrong way, like a dig, mentioning I even felt that way about butterflies, as in that's how stupid she is.
posted on May 22, 2005 05:50:38 PM newas much as you'd like to think otherwise, humans are animals. Some more than others, that's all.
lol! As much as *I'd* like to "think" otherwise...Yeah, I know kraft. I'm one of those human animals that woaa! think! And some of us have even evolved from walking on all fours and turned grunts into a language. Hell of a trick for an animal, dont ya think ?
posted on May 22, 2005 06:03:03 PM new
Sorry Double. The only trick is the one your ego is playing on you by assuming walking on 2 legs is better than 4 and that having language somehow overrides in quality the language animals already have.
