The Republican congress has soft-pedaled this issue for two long.
Americans who believe embryonic stem cells could one day cure their cancers, their parents’degenerative diseases or their children’s diabetes may soon reach a crossroads: a final vote by Congress to lift President Bush’s ban on federal funding for research on new embryonic stem cell lines.
Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Orrin Hatch of Utah, two Republicans leading a bipartisan coalition to force such a vote, say the issue should reach the Senate floor sometime in May or June after languishing for months.
They predict they have enough votes to lift the ban and say they believe Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, will make the push. But they say they are prepared to take matters into their own hands should he hesitate.
If you’re suggesting that “Joe LunchBox” is so worked up over embryonic stem cell research, that he’s thinking, “I used to like this guy — hell, I voted for him three times — but if he’s against embryonic stem cell research, then, shoot, I’m voting Democrat!”, then be prepared for a big disappointment in November ‘06
I’m thinking we need the research to save people’s lives. Unlike the GOP and their broken promises to the religious far right, we want to actually get this legislation done to save people.
None who practice actual science. Then again, I’m sure if you did a survey in 1962, a lot of people thought going to the moon was impossible. Luckily one guy didn’t.
Frank, what a vapid comment: “…So are lots of scientists.” Scientists that I know, with whom I went to school, are at this very minute pressing this issue in Washington because there is great promise with embrionic stem cells.
This shouldn’t even be a political issue but that certain fringe elements in our religious community have made it so.
The Guardian Aug. 17 2005.
The Future of Stem Cells; Scientific American Magazine; July 2005; by Clive Cookson, John Rennie, Christine Soares, Richard Gardner, Tim Watson, Patti Waldmeir, Gary Stix; 33 Page(s)
Scientific American July 2005, behind Firewall but I’m sure your local library has a copy.
The GuardianTuesday August 23, 2005
Oh and let’s see…There is an entire Journal Stem Cells which
So, Oliver can we just pretend Frank doesn’t exist? He obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about…oh, and he is a racist too boot.
The ever popular Some Say!
Some who Frank Some Who?
And that is Colorado not Coronado to you bub!
I’m thinking you’re wrong. So are lots of scientists.
You can never go wrong blaming anything on Christians…
Most Christians support stem cell research. Need a barn for all that straw?
I glance into the comment section every now and then just to see what’s going on. I always thought that perhaps Frank was given a bad rap, that he wasn’t an actual troll or anything too harmful.
But this is the third time within a week that I’ve come and seen Frank make some sort of exaggerated, inane or completely insane claim without any link or other source to back it up. Each time he’s been called on it “Back that up with a source, any source Frank” and each time he just sits quietly or throws out a strawman or, worst of all, plays the victim card (as he did with Christianity in this thread). Please Frank, grow a pair. I’d like to see an actually intelligent discussion go on in here with a thoughtful conservative but instead people just spend all their time getting frustrated with you.
p.s. Woah, I just followed the link to his Condi fetish site. Douche chill!
“ban” is very misleading, verging on dishonest.
If stem cell research is “banned” then Congress has “banned” my lifetime supply of Talisker.
Progressives always think in terms of there being unlimited, ‘peoples’ resources and that the central problem of governance is merely deciding to spend those unlimited resources (for which, of course, we need a lot of progressives with liberal arts educations to insure that money is spent ‘compassionately). It don’t work that way. Always millions more causes ‘worthy’ of funding than confiscated working peoples’ earnings to fund same said worthy projects.
Dugger
Frank, don’t blow it off! Who are these scientists and why do you take their word over the vast consensus of every single other scientists who practices in this field? Don’t things like this ever make you question your assumptions? This is basic stuff.
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,68252,00.html
Embryonic stem-cell research advocates are currently faced with a tough decision. They can continue to push pending legislation that would open up more embryonic stem-cell research, but which also faces a likely veto from President Bush; or they can face up to the current political climate in Washington, and back a different bill, which would fund alternative types of stem-cell research.
* * *
We’d prefer that more federal funds went toward embryonic stem-cell research, and we feel that the president’s restrictions on that research are harming science and patients. We also realize that these alternative methods, while potentially interesting, are largely designed to provide political cover to the president. Still, if stem-cell proponents succeed in vilifying these alternatives, they will have to face up to the fact that it wouldn’t just be the president who is delaying potential breakthroughs.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp
A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient’s own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient’s own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs.
Embryonic stem cells from a donor introduced into a patient could cause transplant rejection. However, whether the recipient would reject donor embryonic stem cells has not been determined in human experiments.
I know it’s a waste of time, but there’s 6 comments, each with a link, 3 awaiting moderation.
maikuru, check out Apr 3, 10:31, in re “growing a pair.”
That’s who, Coronado!
http://www.lifenews.com/bio1430.html
Polls show Americans join scientists who say the use of adult stem cells should give patients more hope and they oppose using taxpayer funds to pay for embryonic stem cell research.
An October 2005 Virginia Commonwealth University found that, when asked which type of stem cell research shows the greatest promise, 44 percent named adult stem cells, just 14 percent said embryonic stem cell research held the greatest promise and only 7 percent said both types hold equal promise.
A May 2005 poll by International Communications Research, found 52 percent oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research while just 36 percent support it.
http://www.lifenews.com/bio1431.html
Sacramento, CA (LifeNews.com) — Researchers in California say they have found stem cells in men’s testicles that have embryonic stem cell-like qualities. They have been able to prompt the cells to turn into nerve, heart and bone cells and the discovery could be another alternative to embryonic stem cell research.
* * *
Embryonic stem cells have never been ready to be tried on humans and treatments on animals have found that the cells were rejected by the immune system. Claims by South Korean scientists to have overcome the problem proved fraudulent.
http://www.dogstreetjournal.com/story/3175
Does being human matter?
Wesley Smith posed this question last Wednesday in the Campus Center Little Theatre during his lecture entitled Bioethics: Creating a Disposable Caste of People?
The appeal of embryonic stem cell research is the potential for these stem cells to be plural potent, meaning they can be formed into any type of cell. The ethical issue here lies in whether or not an embryo, at the blastocyst stage when it would be used, is a human life.
Science tells us that new human life begins when conception is completed, but science can t tell us if it that matters, Smith said. That s what we have to decide.
Smith also cited instrumental uses of human life in the areas of cloning, fetal farming for the harvesting of organs and euthanasia.
Some aspects of bioethics, Smith conceded, are very promising and will make excellent contributions to humanity.
There are now cancer drugs tailored to a person s unique genetic makeup, Smith said, and adult stem cell research is remarkable. Fat stem cells have treated heart disease in pigs. That s great!
None of these [cancer drugs, adult stem cell] are controversial; no human life is at risk Smith said, The controversial areas [of bioethics] are small but create a lot of noise.
A pro stem cell research site with some insight into why federal funds are important
mjb: One sentence out of three comments — with three in moderation, couldn’t possibly say it all. In fact, there;s more to it, even in the Wired article, but let’s not pay any attention to the “man behind the curtain.”
You’ve found the right sentence.
You’re right, I’m wrong.
I told you I was wasting my time.
Frank (”I m thinking you re wrong. So are lots of scientists”),
1. Your quote only refers to people who happen to agree with scientists who deny the scientific consensus. No one should care what lay people think on this issue.
2. If the scientists who claim to have found that adult stem cells can “turn into nerve, heart and bone cells”, are correct (a big if) it does nothing to counter the consensus which says that embryonic cells can do so much more easily.
3. “We d prefer that more federal funds went toward embryonic stem-cell research, and we feel that the president s restrictions on that research are harming science and patients” – that says it all. Political considerations have nothing to do with science. If a president choses to make a decision based on politics (as Clinton did when he decided not to fund embryonic research, while not denying the science as republicans do) that’s his/her decision but it’s not science.
We d prefer that more federal funds went toward embryonic stem-cell research, and we feel that the president s restrictions on that research are harming science and patients. We also realize that these alternative methods, while potentially interesting, are largely designed to provide political cover to the president. Still, if stem-cell proponents succeed in vilifying these alternatives, they will have to face up to the fact that it wouldn t just be the president who is delaying potential breakthroughs.
Currently, it is not clear whether stem cells from adult tissues or umbilical cord blood are pluripotent*. The comparison of human embryonic stem cells to adult stem cells is currently a very active area in research, and one that will hopefully lead to cures for tissue degenerative diseases in the future.
Frank, I’m just spitballin’ here, but it would appear that these two points you cited negate your argument.
aned I still don’t see the issue about euthenasia and assisted suicide if the alternative is mind-crushing pain and suffering. The quality of life argument is moot when the quality of that life is unbearable.
And Frank;
Not everyone sees every action as having a positive/negative political
result. Sometimes you do something because it’s the right thing to do.
from the same site, Bill:
Currently, it is not clear whether stem cells from adult tissues or umbilical cord blood are pluripotent*. The comparison of human embryonic stem cells to adult stem cells is currently a very active area in research, and one that will hopefully lead to cures for tissue degenerative diseases in the future.
* Stem cells which can develop into any of the three major tissue types: endoderm (interior gut lining), mesoderm (muscle, bone, blood), and ectoderm (epidermal tissues and nervous system). Pluripotent stem cells can eventually specialize in any bodily tissue, but they cannot themselves develop into a human being.
cleo: I estimate the ratio of dollars invested to
dollars and LIVES IMPROVED at 10,000 to 1
You do, eh? Based on what, may I ask?
Other people believe that this line of research can put us on a slippery slope to assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Still other people believe that embryonic SCR holds no more of a gurantee than does adult SCR, in terms of being able to find cures for 1, 2, 3 & many things.
Note to group: Frank is referring to the people here. Not actually people in authority to know.
duros: Enjoying your role as “class clown”? Wait for all six comments, read them, and then come back here with your lame attempt at humor.
What you should have said is, “I really don’t have anything serious to say, now that Frank, when challenged, did exactly what was asked, so I’ll make fun of him. Besides, he only wrote more than 800 words of comment, how am I supposed to think of what to say?’
“Need a barn for all that straw?” A quote for the funnybone archives.
Dugger;
“Always millions more causes worthy of funding than confiscated working peoples earnings to fund same said worthy projects.”
Catagorize me as a ‘pay as you go” supporter, but stem cell research
is one that will pay off big (I estimate the ratio of dollars invested to
dollars and LIVES IMPROVED at 10,000 to 1) when the butcher’s bill is
tallied.
I’m sorry, not to tell Fank what he thinks, I should have said “I believe Frank is referring to…” Mea Culpa.
ban is very misleading, verging on dishonest.
It would be if that was what it said. But it doesn’t.
to lift President Bush s ban on federal funding for research on new embryonic stem cell lines.
As hard as you might find it to believe, some of the people who disagree with you are not religious fanatics.
My take on the debate is this: Many people believe life begins at conception.
As noted above, Science tells us that new human life begins when conception is completed, but science can t tell us if it that matters, Smith said. That s what we have to decide.
Other people believe that this line of research can put us on a slippery slope to assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Still other people believe that embryonic SCR holds no more of a gurantee than does adult SCR, in terms of being able to find cures for 1, 2, 3 … many things.
This being the case, why not give life the “benefit of a doubt”? Why not pursue the non – controversial adult SCR, before wandering off into “dangerous territory”?
The Salk – Sabin story tells us that sometimes latching on to one line of research is not always best.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-75-363-2004/science_technology/polio/clip5
duros: Was your comment of 11:38 AM a joke? You’re gonna have to tell me from now on.
If you think I’m funny, keep joking. Discuss the issue with people who agree with you. It works well, doesn’t break intellectual sweat, and it’s oh, so educational.
maikuru: douche chill?
Turn your hat around, buy some pants that fit you, and grow up.
Don’t use terminology you’re totally unfamiliar with.
Believe me, you weren’t having a black moment — you were having an ignorant moment.
Semant,
I agree. I would priortitize stem cell research high and cut another program (for which I would probably be decribed as a baby-starver). Though I think stem cell has had more hype than results produced, the long term potential to actually cut health care costs is great.
Dugger
Oh, that’s funny, Frank. You wrote 800 words of comment, and I still think you’re wrong.
Quantity, not quality.
I’m glad this isn’t an audio type of thing. I get the feeling you would be screeching like Bill O’reilly right about now. Whoever screams the loudest wins the argument.
You really should chill out. You get so upset when people pick on you, and yet, you are usually the first responder to these threads, baiting people to refute you. And then you get upset when they do. Then it’s the Frank Show.
OK, I’ll play some more, duros.
Still, if stem-cell proponents succeed in vilifying these alternatives, they will have to face up to the fact that it wouldn t just be the president who is delaying potential breakthroughs.
Currently, it is not clear whether stem cells from adult tissues or umbilical cord blood are pluripotent*. The comparison of human embryonic stem cells to adult stem cells is currently a very active area in research, and one that will hopefully lead to cures for tissue degenerative diseases in the future.
Frank, I m just spitballin here, but it would appear that these two points you cited negate your argument.
Actually, no they don’t. While the author of the Wired favors embryonic SCR, they are raising another point. I will not repeat it, it’s quoted above, but it is significant to end the article with, whether you accept its significance or not.
Secondly, if it is not even clear that embryonic SCR can deliver on its promise, why run the risk of the abovementioned items (11:06 am), that amused you so?
Third, “The quality of life argument is moot when the quality of that life is unbearable.” Who’s arguing about the “quality of life”? If embryos are human life, then when they are sliced and siced, they don;t have a “quality of life” problem — they’re dead!
The subjects of assisted suicide and euthanasia don’t have a “quality of life” problem — they’re dead!
Put simply, when we start trading lives for lives, we’re in deep shit!
Now make a joke about that, Krusty!
Remember on Friday when you called me a Nazi?
that ethical choice heads right for the path they were on.
I don’t believe your premise, so I don’t believe your conclusion.
The subjects of assisted suicide and euthanasia don t have a quality of life problem they re dead!
But you are opposed to it, right?
Why is it that government funding is so necessary? People are once again under the delusion that because there is a ban on federal funding, that none of this research is being conducted. If enough people support such research, why don’t get their checkbooks out and do something about it? Why do they always need Uncle Sam to do the work for them?
And I didn’t call you a Nazi (your insulting me is payback or what?). I said then, and now, that that ethical choice heads right for the path they were on.
Do you want to go there, or will you keep insisting it can’t happen here?
mike, I don’t think you’re a half – wit, but that wasn’t at all funny.
Coronado: The ever popular Some Say!
Some who Frank Some Who?
maikuru: Each time he s been called on it Back that up with a source, any source Frank and each time he just sits quietly… Please Frank, grow a pair. I d like to see an actually intelligent discussion go on in here with a thoughtful conservative…”
Interestingly, he says this, “instead people just spend all their time getting frustrated with you,” followed by this, “p.s. Woah, I just followed the link to his Condi fetish site. Douche chill!” WTF?
mjb: Frank, don t blow it off! Who are these scientists and why do you take their word over the vast consensus of every single other scientists who practices in this field?
So I answer you, quite thoughtfully, and what do I get? Don Rickles’ illegitimate children!
duros: You really should chill out. You get so upset when people pick on you, and yet, you are usually the first responder to these threads, baiting people to refute you.
Is that what it is? And all the time, I thought I was I being insulted by people who thought, “He’s a troll — let me think of something really clever and hip to say, so I can impress my fellow cool and hip left – wing posters.”
Well, live and learn.
Duros, when responding to Frank, one must respond to every single paragraph in order to make any point at all. Because one does not have the time/energy to respond to each of the 10-20 posts per thread, one will eventually lose the argument. It’s a clever way to attempt to refute a specific point that is made.
Yes, that was a joke. But, if Frank doesn’t find it funny, well, it’s no longer a joke and I am only a half-wit.
duros: Was your comment of 11:38 AM a joke? You re gonna have to tell me from now on.
No, it wasn’t. It continues to what we were talking about on Friday. If you can remember that far back.
I hope we do get an up or down vote, so we can see which Senators are on the record as against people with terminal diseases.
We don’t want illegal aliens, but the job displacement would be huge. Many don’t want to throw out unwanted embryos. Why don’t we deport the illegals, and put the blastocyst-Americans to work in our fields and in our kitchens? Solve two problems at once!
The point, Jay C, isn’t that government funding is necessary to do any research, it is that government funding is necessary to quicken results from the research. What makes this any different than giving money to find cures for cancer or AIDS or whatever. Infact, in doing research, we might find cures for all sorts of crap (as often happens with pure research, finding things by ‘accident’). The fundamental question is “Why prevent any dollars from going to this research with a bill banning federal funding from being used when the benefit to society could be very substantial indeed?” Just as substantial as cures to certain cancers, AIDS, etc. Granted, there can only be a finite number of dollars on any given year given to companies for medical research purposes, but SCR should at least be considered as one of the beneficiaries of said funding. This should be a funding issue, not a religious issue and it has been transformed into the latter by quite a wide margin.
If you want to make the religious argument, that’s fine.
However, I do agree that not enough people do as you say and get out their checkbooks for the cause they are championing. Myself, I’m not championing this issue, but merely saying that there is no need to pass a law banning government funding from going to this research. I see such a law as nothing more than pandering to the hard right.
I have a better idea, bouncedcheck, hatcheck, factcheck: Put the people with terminal diseases to work in the fields… It will be good for their morale, and we won’t have to bury them…
We’ll just rename them: Mulch – Americans!
So we can see which Senators are on the record as against people with terminal diseases. Silly.
duros: don’t waste my time. I recognize my own sentences. Instead of being half – clever, why don’t you say something substantial? I went out on a liimb, and found information that you, yes, you implied didn’t exist (”Frank is referring to the people here. Not actually people in authority to know.”)
Then you turn around, and say, in effect, “BZZZT!” “Wrong!” C’mon.
And I am opposed to both euthanasia and assisted suicide, if that’s what you were getting at. It’s hard to tell when you’re being a “Clever Jack.”
Did you read the story of Carrie Buck? There’s an interesting postscript to the story, that they bring put at the end of the movie: The case of Carrie Buck was used by some of the defendants at the Nuremberg Trials, particularly this chilling statement by Justice Holmes:
The punchline: There was no evidence that she was even mildly retarded.
Did I hear somebody mention “quality of life”?
Frank, regardless of the fact that the link you provided has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about, comparing embryonic stem cell research to the uegenics movement is apples and oranges. You may think it is a “slippery slope”, but it has a negligable pitch angle to it. I would like to think we have learned something since the blatatnt racism and medical ignorance of the 1920’s, but maybe not. Ask your doctor. It appears to me that you are saying is that embryos have feelings too. Which is impossible.
And if you are just going to make fun of me, or anyone that disagrees with you, then I feel sorry for you.
I recognize my own sentences. I’m glad. do they make any more sense when someone else says it?
I went out on a liimb, and found information that you, yes, you implied didn t exist
I never implied any such thing and you provided me with a Lifetime movie review of questionable accuracy and historical context that had nothing whatsoever to what this thread is about. I was commenting on your straw man comments about “some people think this..” and “Some people think that.”
And if you are just going to make fun of me, and call me names, or anyone that disagrees with you, then I feel sorry for you. If it makes you feel better, oh well.
Honestly, where do you find the time?
Frank is referring to the people here. Not actually people in authority to know.
I guess you disn’t imply it — you said it.
The subjects of assisted suicide and euthanasia don t have a quality of life problem they re dead!
But you are opposed to it, right?
What exactly were you trying to say? Did I guess wrong?
questionable accuracy and historical context?
Question this:
http://tinyurl.com/hr33q
{I’m sorry if you can’t “connect the dots.”}
I would like to think we have learned something since the blatatnt racism and medical ignorance of the 1920 s
That’s a switch, coming from the left…
Where do you find the time? You’re right here…
And if you are just going to make fun of me, and call me names, or anyone that disagrees with you, then I feel sorry for you.
Now that is funny — not to mention incredibly hypocritical. If you’re going to try and pull off feigned indignation, try not to do it 3 hours and 6 minutes after you make fun of me — and in the same thread, no less.
Frank: Interesting, but post hoc. What exactly are you trying to suggest with this information? That the money will come from somewhere, so why don’t we just stop spending government money on everything? Why don’t we have the war in Iraq funded this way? Just to be clear, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, only trying to guess at what you want to say with this data.
mike: I was trying to suggest that your idea that “not enough people do as you say and get out their checkbooks for the cause they are championing,” was wrong — with evidence.
Well, it’s ABOUT TIME!!!! The issue, I guess, is where life begins. I suppose there is no way of knowing for sure, but there is one thing I do know, many people ALIVE and not doing so well, could benefit from such research (thinking on a recently lost 45 year old brother to Cancer). Why is it that the religious right cares so much about the uncertain life of an embryo, but not that of people DYING DAILY?
“We ll just rename them: Mulch – Americans! So we can see which Senators are on the record as against people with terminal diseases.”
Ack…
“I m thinking you re wrong. So are lots of scientists.”
As a Molecular Biologist, I’m wondering where it is Frank meets all these “Scientists” he speaks about. Eeek, nevermind, I didn’t say his name, I don’t want the “cooties”. Egads, why make a serious issue so juvenile-like. No embryonic pun(t) intended.
Thanks Bill. Great site!
I m thinking you re wrong. So are lots of scientists.
I said that 4 hours ago. A lot of water has passed under the bridge — not to mention six substantive comments, and more.
And “getting ‘cooties’ from saying my name”? Talk about making an issue “juvenile – like”!
questionable accuracy and historical context?
Question this:
http://tinyurl.com/hr33q
I’m not questioning that it happened, Frank. I was questioning the movie itself, all right?
It is still apples and oranges.
I would ask you how I made fun of you, Frank, (I wasn’t even talking to you) calling you a “class clown” etc., but I don’t care to waste anymore time of the other people who come here, and I would hate to be on your “list” with frameone.
But just one; Frank D, El Heffe of Asshatistan.
Which one of actually thinks that I insulted somebody, who didn’t insult me first?
Which one of you thinks “I asked to be insulted”?
Anyone?
Goddammit Frank, your confusing things. I want to do this slowly and non-confrontationally, OK? No insults, no judgements, OK?
Why rush pell – mell into the former when we can avoid it by choosing the latter?
Who is rushing pell-mell?
Secondly, embryos become live humans,
On;y if they have a womb in which to develop.
That means that if they are alive, this process will kill them.
And how do you determine that? They are cells, ergo, they are alive. And what makes them so special (as we discussed to no conclusion on Friday)?
Not engaging in research that may cure them sometime before that happens, is most definitely not the same, as the finality of terminating of pregnancy.
No, it isn’t the same, on that we can agree. but you are bringing up the possibility of terminating pregnancies here. We are talking about embryos in fertility labs, aren’t we? In Vitro?
Please, correct me if I’m wrong.
I m sorry, not to tell Fank what he thinks, I should have said I believe Frank is referring to& Mea Culpa.
It was not meant as an insult,Frank. You have chastised many people here for assume they know what you think. You have been very diligent in parsing language and usage. I was sincerely trying to clarify.
And that s El Jefe, Krusty Sorry, not a lot of hispanics in my neck of the woods.
But what’s with the Krusty comments?
Don’t be disingenuous, duros…
Note to group: Frank is referring to the people here. Not actually people in authority to know.
duros62 Says:
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 am
I m sorry, not to tell Fank what he thinks, I should have said I believe Frank is referring to& Mea Culpa.
If this was truly, honestly, not meant as an insult, I’ll apologize as soon as you explain what you did mean.
And that’s El Jefe, Krusty
Forgive the misquote then, my error.
Why is it that the religious right cares so much about the uncertain life of an embryo, but not that of people DYING DAILY?
Here is a moral hypothetical for the right. DISCLAIMER: This is purely hypothetical and not what I think is true. The stem cells from an abandoned emryo in a fertility clinic could have saved Terri Schiavo’s brain. What do you do? Go.
Athene: You have joined together my parody of factcheck with his “Silly” statement.
And it’s not actually about “when life begins” for two reasons.
We are faced with the possibilty of choosing a path of research that shows a disrespect for life, or one where we sidestep the controversy.
Why rush pell – mell into the former when we can avoid it by choosing the latter?
Secondly, embryos become live humans, if they are pulverized, and spun around in centrifuges. That means that if they are alive, this process will kill them.
Sick people, on the other hand, will die — either from their illness, or Lord knows whatever cause kills them. Not engaging in research that may cure them sometime before that happens, is most definitely not the same, as the finality of terminating of pregnancy. After all, it’s not as if the cure is locked up in the Capitol building, waiting for those eeeeevil Republicans to unlock the safe.
Every sperm is sacred…every sperm is good…
Meanwhile, in another skit, they kill the organ donor for his liver.
Truly before their time.
This is a great way to pander to Catholics and other religious groups. Everything in politics today is an appeal to emotion and it has to be stopped.
I call for a new party. I call for a “Logic Party”. Elect me, mikebdot, in 2036 on a Logic platform. It could happen, unless of course the robots take over.
I’m with you, FC.
Duros, one of the big problems I have with the pro-fetus crowd is that they value a blastocyst the same or more than a living, thriving, human life. Noone ever loved that embryo, it is at this point a science experiment. On the other hand, people loved Christopher Reeve. People loved Terri Schiavo. People love my uncle, who is dying from Parkinsons disease, like several million other Americans.
Embryonic stem cell research is no magic pill, but it could end suffering for many millions of people. Again, the religious right is putting politics over people. I am in favor of my tax money to help fund embryonic stem cell research, along with the majority of Americans.
$300 billion to kill thousands in Iraq, $0 to potentially save millions of people in the US.
Frank:
Re: mike: I was trying to suggest that your idea that not enough people do as you say and get out their checkbooks for the cause they are championing, was wrong with evidence.
Have they cured MD? Raising some money doesn’t mean that enough has been raised to make a dent into the research.
One article about MD money being raised isn’t evidence. There are plenty of people that donate regularly and they are great human beings, but there are plenty of people with plenty of liquid assets who do not do so. Once I get out of college loan debt I’ll be one of the ones that gives to causes. Holy crap do I look forward to that day.
Anyhow, the point is taken, there are indeed people that open their checkbooks. But there are also those that don’t (I personally know many who don’t as evidenced by their 3 or 4 luxury vehicles) with “support our troops” magnets who are healthy adult specimens…
You can’t prove a negative, especially when talking about other people’s finances. Perhaps I’m wrong and everyone gives every penny they can spare to every cause they champion.
The potential for human life is not the same as human life. Something I was trying to say on Friday, but the point was lost to many…
Nobody else? C’mon, man, Terri Schiavo is dying (hypothetically) here!
“Douche chill” is a perfectly cromulent phrase in the kings English. It’s originates as a reference to the time Lord Douchenberry first chilled the peasant uprisings 1722 by providing them with an adequate means of sustenance, mainly a slurry composed of potato vodka and blood pudding. It refers to the creepy feeling one would get drinking the cold substance.
For more information please check out the following sight.
Just because urban dictionary doesn’t have the correct meaning doesn’t mean I’m using it incorrectly.
No, maikuru, see here
See? Civil ain’t so bad… Shall we keep it up? {Aside: I’m listening to “Lady Day” as I type. Very civilizing…}
OK, from the top to the bottom
No problem, Athene, welcome to the Fun House
duros62:
OK, then I apologize — I will resist the temptation to make an immigration remark.
You don’t know who Krusty is?
{I just heard Lady Day sing “Strange Fruit” — spine chilling every time}
duros62 . The stem cells from an abandoned emryo in a fertility clinic could have saved Terri Schiavo s brain. What do you do? Go.
I would never trade a life for a life. I wouldn’t ask a volunteer to die for her — would you? Why would I ask an unwilling volunteer?
factcheck:
…one of the big problems I have with the pro-fetus crowd is that they value a blastocyst the same or more than a living, thriving, human life.
I don’t see why… When was the last time you shot a dog?
Did you ever swerve out of the way of an animal on the road? Why?
Because it’s a living thing…
mikebdot:
Have they cured MD? Raising some money doesn t mean that enough has been raised to make a dent into the research.
Is government money magic? MDA has received millions of dollars over the last 50 years. They’ve done amazing things with physical therapy, prosthetics, and assistive technology; from which many more people than MD have benefited. They have probably received a ton of government money, too. I’m not buying Jay C’s argument whole hog, but I do believe that it’s a better test of people’s concern when they are asked to give money, then when they are forced to.
Holy crap do I look forward to that day.
Amen. I’m still borrowing, until at least 2007. 50 plus thousand.
duros62:
duros: The potential for human life is not the same as human life. To me, a distinction without a difference.
Obviously, there is not a direct line from stem cell research to ethnic cleansing.
But look at the link in the comment above (10:42 AM):
Duros, I think the pro-fetus position generally is keep the fetus/embryo/blastocyst alive at all costs, until there is life, in which case screw them. At least until there isn’t any quality of life, in which case, keep them alive at any cost.
And just so I’m clear on this point, you would be in favor of letting her die, or continue her on life-support with 0 quality of life in perpetuity?
Should I infer that you oppose the death penalty as well?
And do you also oppose sterilization for serial pedophiles?
Ok, I get it. I’m a clown to you. Funny.
I would never trade a life for a life. I wouldn t ask a volunteer to die for her would you? Why would I ask an unwilling volunteer?
From the hyperbole that ensued after that whole affair, you probably could have found a volunteer.
But it’s not the same thing. There is a distinction. Every once in a while, do you find a fertilized egg in a dozen eggs you bought at the store? Do you consider that a living chicken or do you just toss it out? Or (eww) eat it anyway?
I’m not going to change your opinion, I know that. I just can’t see how you can give a clump of 8 cells rights and a soul.
I can’t follow your premise that research in this area will lead to the killing of the mentally retarded. Or forced sterilization or any host of mean and nasty things.
Perhaps you have a big freezer at your house, so you can save the children.
I’m awaiting moderation, but this is included above:
BirthRight.org, and other organizations come to mind.
I thought I typed up a comment, but I must have forgotten to post it.
I’m divided on the death penalty: peronally, I’m opposed to it (you killed someone, so we’re going to kill you” doesn’t seem right to me), but I also fully understand that people think retribution is crucial to justice (you took a life, so yours must be taken”).
Recent studies ahow that there are two types of pedophiles: One, who because he feels inadequate in “normal” relationships, seeks the company of children, with an almost inadvertent molestation to follow; and two, there is the sexual predator, who seeks out children to overpower them (as rapists do adult women). It is difficult to tell them apart. So, while chemical castration might seem “appropriate” for type 2, type 1 can often be rehabilitated.
Maybe there are vacancies on Devil’s Island?
factcheck (Lawd, whatever made you think of that name?): The myth that people opposed to abortion don’t care about children after their birth, has been dispelled years ago.
Christians are involved in prenatal care, as well as adoption procedures for the children given away. Of course, women are encouraged to marry and raise the child, but they are supported in whatever their choice, provided they choose life for the child.
BirthRight.org, and other organizations come to mind.
Recent studies ahow that there are two types of pedophiles: One, who because he feels inadequate in normal relationships, seeks the company of children, with an almost inadvertent molestation to follow; and two, there is the sexual predator, who seeks out children to overpower them (as rapists do adult women). It is difficult to tell them apart. So, while chemical castration might seem appropriate for type 2, type 1 can often be rehabilitated.
Maybe there are vacancies on Devil s Island?
I m divided on the death penalty: peronally, I m opposed to it (you killed someone, so we re going to kill you doesn t seem right to me), but I also fully understand that people think retribution is crucial to justice (you took a life, so yours must be taken ).
Studies? Two types?
I m thinking you re wrong. So are lots of scientists.
>>Why is it that government funding is so necessary? People are once again under the delusion that because there is a ban on federal funding, that none of this research is being conducted
Caruso and I go back a long way. Probably 10 years. Or close to it.
I have repeatedly “informed” Jay, and people like Jay why federal funding of basic biomedical research is needed. The problem, for Jay, is that he’s very smart on some issues, but this is one with which he has always expressed a moderate amount of cluelessness.
I won’t bore everyone with yet another explanation of why basic, federaly funded, research is needed, other than to simply say that I’m glad that members of Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle, are smarter than Jay.
They know that the NIH funds over $20B to fund a lot of basic research that corporations won’t do because the long-term risk is too high, and results uncertain.
We have a public/private RD partnership that is without question, the best in the world. Yet Caruso wants everyone to pull out their checkbook. Sometimes, it’s better to remain silent when you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Jay, on this issue, you are simply lost.
There’s another side of this. Read Jennifer Washburn’s, “The Kept University.” It’s about the increasing influence of corporate America on the University campus, and the changing face of the the R&D enterprise.
It’s very hard for researches to get funded. It’s very competetive, and the review process very demanding. That’s the way it should be. However, one of the results of the shrinking federal pie is that universities are looking to corporate America for funding. Essentially, there’s a lot of expertise on most campuses, for very little $$. Much less money than it would take to develop similar intellectual property in the private sector. (It doesn’t take a whole heck of a lot of $$ to pay for a bright grad student.)
One of the unfortunate effects of this trend, is that corporations are putting increasing pressure on researchers to give them results that will reflect positively on their corporation. Scientists are being prevented from publishing the results of their research if the results aren’t good for the company. That runs counter to the traditional mission of ANY academic community, which is, of course, furtherance of knowledge for the public good.
Corporate funding is necessary. Very necessary. Right now, however, there isn’t a formal understanding between the two institutions, the two cultures, and that has the end result of compromising research integrity.
So, Jay couldn’t be any more wrong. He’s a lost cause, but since this happens to be something *I* know a lot about, I need to get it out there.
JK
Let me clarify one statement: Corporate funding is necessary. Very necessary. Right now, however, there isn t a formal understanding between the two institutions, the two cultures, with sometimes very different goals, missions, and priorities. In some instances, there are documented cases of research from industry/university partnerships having been compromised.
When the federal government funds basic biomedical research in the form of a grant…there are no expectations from the government that the results be favorable in a particular direction. Not so, when there’s a profit motive.
No, I am not saying “profit,” is bad. No one would argue the point that industry has been behind some of the greatest inventions and discoveries in history.
It’s just that their increasing influence in the laboratory changes the dynamic of the research enterprise, and we need to be aware of it.
JK
Really good stuff, JK.
And I like when I read a long, well-reasoned post and then get the “JK” at the end as thought you were just kidding.
Good times.
The market can’t solve everything. Too many potential cures are not pursued because the market is too small or too poor to justify the massive expense. This isn’t to be held against the drug companies, they do need to make a profit.
The government’s interest is two-fold: Make it financially justifiable to find cures, often by underwriting early research, in order to bolster US standing in the global marketplace, and to solve public health problems.