If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
I don't believe that a single person here has suggested limiting research on adult stem cells, limitation of knowledge is strictly the purview of your philosophy.
Limitation of knowledge?
I only suggest keeping on course with stem cells that dont destroy human life. Whats wrong with that?
__________________
"What? Thats no country I've ever heard of, do they speak English in What?"
I only suggest keeping on course with stem cells that dont destroy human life. Whats wrong with that?
This argument is the same as the pro-choice/pro-life argument. It's not an issue of whether or not the destruction of human life is OK. People on both sides of the issue will cheerfully agree that the destruction of human life is bad. The issue is whether or not the embryo can be defined as human life.
If you don't believe that an embryo is a human life, and you have a government that limits research on what seems to be a potentially life-saving medical advancement, it can be very frustrating. Particularly when the rationale for that limit comes from doctrine that has no basis in reality.
exactly my point, friends. It's not that they are simply uneducated in the extreme on the most important topics (yet they all know a million ways to hide shady dealings with campaign donors) but worse, they are so arrogant to as not even think they need to address any of the really important issues to get votes from dullards that knew who they were voting for the moment the first mud slinging commercial aired.
The candidates are a reflection of the American public. Stupid. Frankly put and pulling no punches, the average American is a dolt. Didn't we finish like one spot ahead of Turkey on math or something?
If the people aren't only largely ignorant as fuck- like posting links to obvious rightwing christian mouthpiece 'tests' as evidence- but they just DON'T CARE that they are..........
I don't think you should confuse "arrogant" with "tactical" I think the example in question proves why it would be unwise (maybe foolhardy) to tackle scientific subjects. Obviously, the right side on issues of science (science, not dogma) is obvious to anyone. Just as obviously, in our two-party system, the party that sides with science is just as obvious.
Just as obviously, in our two-party system, the party that sides with science is just as obvious.
---oh hardly. The left is so shot full of psuedoscience and utter bullshit that it makes the right's bible idiocy seem tame. Holy hell look no further than Al Gore and his nonsense, michael moore level of nonsense movie.
Social engineering is the hallmark of the left. They're gonna save the world if it costs YOU every penny you have............
They are just as unscientific as the right, just in different areas. The dems fail every bit as badly as the reps in every area.
To try to claim either political party is remotely interested in science or reality, you're just as indoctrinated as the people trying to sell me god door to door.
Science is not a PET issue. It is the most important issue on every front. From the economy to the military to the environment and clean energy to human rights to healthcare.
Science is at the heart of pretty much every big ticket issue.
The candidates refusal to tackle science pretty much eliminates them from having a base of knowledge on every single big issue.
Not surprising. They are people I wouldn't invite in my home, much less vote for.
Relax man. Things will turn around eventually. Familiar with the teaching of science prior to the 50's in this country ? Schoolboards filled and textbooks edited by bible thumpers.
Then Sputnik gave them a pretty hard kick in the ass. I think science went straight to the top, priority wise, didn't it ?
I only suggest keeping on course with stem cells that dont destroy human life. Whats wrong with that?
So using the material that is currently getting tossed into a dumpster is "destroying human life"? Like it or not, your platform here is to champion ignorance, so it is no suprise that your argument is based on ignorance as well.
Federal Policy
The President's Criteria
On August 9th, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells if the following criteria are met:
The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.
The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.
Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements.
NIH's Role
The NIH, as the Federal government's leading biomedical research organization, is implementing the President's policy. The NIH funds research scientists to conduct research on existing human embryonic stem cells and to explore the enormous promise of these unique cells, including their potential to produce breakthrough therapies and cures.
Investigators from 14 laboratories in the United States, India, Israel, Singapore, Sweden, and South Korea have derived stem cells from 71 individual, genetically diverse blastocysts. These derivations meet the President's criteria for use in federally funded human embryonic stem cell research. The NIH has consulted with each of the investigators who have derived these cells. These scientists are working with the NIH and the research community to establish a research infrastructure to ensure the successful handling and the use of these cells in the laboratory.
***
Basically any embryonic cells being researched were harvested 9pm on 9/9/01. No new EMBRYONIC stem cells can be harvested in the USA. While you are correct in saying that the research does happen, I'd say that this legislation puts a pretty severe cap on the amount of research that can be done.
Imagine being a researcher that is thinking of experimenting on a stem cell. If you destroy that cell, you have destroyed one of a limited number of specimens. Do you think that makes advancement more likely, or less likely?
EDIT: Just wanted to add that I was referring to embyronic stem cell research, not adult or umbilical. The embryonic stem cells are the ones that seem most promising.
This does not make stem cell research illegal, nor does it prevent new embryonic stem cells from being harvested in the USA. It ONLY specifies that the federal government will not give money to such research. Anyone is still free to conduct as much of it as they like and can get private (or state) funding for. In CA, for instance, the state government has created a 3 billion dollar fund for stem cell research, including with embryonic cells.
I do agree that it was a dumb move on the government's part. But personally, I don't think the government ought to be funding much research in the first place, and this kind of political posturing is exactly why (along with the immorality of taking people's money by force and then spending it on things those same people find abhorrent).
PhilB
__________________
'93 Ducati Monster 900
158,000 miles (so far)
Linear Mode
