STEM CELL RESEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.wtov9.com/news/9544388/detail.html
when will america wake up and stop "them" from imposing their ****ing morals on us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
Printable View
STEM CELL RESEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.wtov9.com/news/9544388/detail.html
when will america wake up and stop "them" from imposing their ****ing morals on us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
You know I like Bush but I dont like some of his decisions. I agree with him on alot of stuff but im not a blind follower of him. I dont agree with his rejection of the Kyoto Treaty. Im not sure I like his policy on Illegal immigration ( Eizenhower stamped out Illegal immigration in the 50's with less than 2000 agents!) I dont like the "catch and release". But more than any of that I HATE that he cant see the benifit in stem cell research! there is soooo many things this could cure or help cure. But he refuses! They are going to be using embryos that are going to be thrown away anyway.... in the trash! wasted. yet he refuses... I personally think its madness NOT to use those. ok I will stop now.
Hey Hey,
I'll avoid starting a big war here (I think) and just say:
This is what happens when you let religion and government mix... A religious zealot would never support something like stem cell research.
Peace,
HT
I bet I could google for that phrase and get twenty million hits.Quote:
wake up and stop "them" from imposing their
Every adolescent on the net is obsessed with the shadowy
conspiracy that is trying to impose something on them.
It all started whem your momma smacked you across the
face for calling your sister a Effin Biatch. The little old ladies
anti-fun league is out to spoil all your fun.
Stem cell research is Vampirism. Trying to prolong the lives
of rich old farts by making a magical elixir from dead babies' brainz.
that's gross.
:cool:
It seems to me Bush is pushing his personal religous beliefs on our whole country. Now I do consider myself a Christian but I also support stem cell research. I guess he thinks you cant do both.
I consider myself a christian but I don't believe everyone non-christian should have to suffer because of what I believe.Quote:
Originally posted here by The Texan
It seems to me Bush is pushing his personal religous beliefs on our whole country. Now I do consider myself a Christian but I also support stem cell research. I guess he thinks you cant do both.
Christians and Non-Christians alike would both benifit greatly by expanded stem cell research.Quote:
Originally posted here by The Grunt
I consider myself a christian but I don't believe everyone non-christian should have to suffer because of what I believe.
Won't make jack **** of a difference what Bush says.
All that will happen is that the research will take place in labs outside of the US.
The same multinationals will produces the drugs/treatments from it and the same patients will buy it. Bush is in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks he is making a difference.
If a cures for MS, motorneuron, cancers or alzeimers appeared next year, all developed from stem cell research you think Bush woud have the balls to block his voters from being treated.
"Sorry you're going to die because of my moral standpoint". I doubt it.
It will make a hell of a lot of difference what Bush says. The fact that it won't happen in US labs means the US will lose millions of dollars. We are already begining to fall behind in the engineering/tech field and stem cell tech could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.Quote:
Originally posted here by Aspman
Won't make jack **** of a difference what Bush says.
All that will happen is that the research will take place in labs outside of the US.
The same multinationals will produces the drugs/treatments from it and the same patients will buy it. Bush is in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks he is making a difference.
If a cures for MS, motorneuron, cancers or alzeimers appeared next year, all developed from stem cell research you think Bush woud have the balls to block his voters from being treated.
"Sorry you're going to die because of my moral standpoint". I doubt it.
Yes, for medicinal uses stem cell research will come around maybe 6 months late without being worked on in the US (South Korea, Britain, and Germany are already enough ahead of us that it doesn't matter if we jump in now regardless). But for the US economy and US labs, this is bad news.
Certainly now you will most likely see an exodus of top flight scientists from the States to other countries which have no bias towards research which saves lives and are willing to pay for R & D wether privately or through the taxpayer's.Quote:
Yes, for medicinal uses stem cell research will come around maybe 6 months late without being worked on in the US (South Korea, Britain, and Germany are already enough ahead of us that it doesn't matter if we jump in now regardless). But for the US economy and US labs, this is bad news.
It is unfortunate that the thousands of those suffering from an affliction of one sort or another now have to wait, for someone else who is forward thinking and bold enough to want to see this through, maybe the next election will solve this as I am sure it will be on someone's platform for election purposes, and if the polls are correct at least 60% of Americans want Stem Cell research, so you can bet politician's are taking note... :rolleyes:
but as it's Bush's second term :eek:HE wont be up for the nomination will he :pQuote:
so you can bet politician's are taking note...
He's probably scared that stem cell research could bring back RONNIE :D
Now hang on here. Why is it that when someone stands on their principles your guys lable it as "imposing morality" and claim to be "offended"?
I can easily turn this around and say that signing the Embryonic Stem Cell Funding Bill would be equal to "imposing immorlity" on religious individuals. In this case, having the U.S. Government to collect tax dollars from individuals that find this situation morally repugnant; and funding the harvesting of unborn human fetuses for scientific research with these tax dollars is equally offensive, if not more offensive, to most religious people as opposed to those offended by not having the choice.
And Bush did not outlaw embryonic stem cell research. He said that the government should not fund embryonic stem cell research. If a private company wants to perform these actions then that is ultimately between those individuals participating in the program and GOD.
And for those of you that immeditely want to cry out Foul - Separation of Church and State - (in conjunction with) - You Can't Legislate Morality. That argument is old hat and defunct, simply because the vast majority of laws are based upon morals to start with. Morality IS legislated on a daily basis or there would be very few laws in existance to break. So start thinking hard and find a new slant to debate this issue. You can do it!
I don't agree with Bush's veto either; Stem Cell is a brilliant scientific opportunity. While I disagree with the Veto, I can't say I'm all that angry for it. At the time he was re-elected, the majority of Christrian USA was against such measures. That demographic, actually accounts for the majority in this nation (saddly).
May we conjecture that their feelings have changed on the subject, sure. Can we be certain? No. That's how democracy works, even if only through a proxy republic.
How can you be sure it is "his" principles he is following, suppose for a minute it's his conscience, even better, maybe it's those who backed him in the previous elections and he is now just getting around to rewarding them, I would lay odds, that a few more controversial rewards to this section of society will be forthcoming before he exits and leaves a "holy" mess for those that follow?Quote:
Now hang on here. Why is it that when someone stands on their principles your guys lable it as "imposing morality" and claim to be "offended"
As I see it "abortion" is still a legal "choice" in both of our countries, maybe more so in some places and not so in other's, regardless it happens.So just throw it in the garbage and your conscience is clear....as long as there are going to be unborn human fetuses, then at least put them to good use, and as long as the feds sponsor other areas of research that doens't nescessarily float your boat that's okay...like maybe providing tax dollars to the tobacco industry so their R & D can figure out how to make cigarettes that don't cause cancer, hhmmm that's okay, or provide huge funds to the folks who create plutonium enriched shells for the Army, nobody cares that the radiation levels of these things can be lethal when in powder form...there are a lot of areas both our countries provide tax dollars too that can be considered questionable and ethicaly wrong....my question would be, why did he focus more on this then anything else?Quote:
and funding the harvesting of unborn human fetuses for scientific research with these tax dollars is equally offensive, if not more offensive, to most religious people as opposed to those offended by not having the choice.
Ok. Granted, this could be an ulterior motive. My general statement still applies though. When someone is offended by a religious persons principles the religious person is often villified; but if the religous person is offended, then that individual is supposed to be accepting and considerate of the non-religious persons actions/demands. It does not add up.Quote:
How can you be sure it is "his" principles he is following, suppose for a minute it's his conscience, even better, maybe it's those who backed him in the previous elections and he is now just getting around to rewarding them, I would lay odds, that a few more controversial rewards to this section of society will be forthcoming before he exits and leaves a "holy" mess for those that follow?
Sure abortion is legal in both of countries, despite my personal views, but I still maintain that the government should not be using my tax dollars to pay for taboritions by potential mothers. What would your reaction be to the government providing funding to research a program to sterilize, medicate, and study convicted rapists?Quote:
As I see it "abortion" is still a legal "choice" in both of our countries, maybe more so in some places and not so in other's, regardless it happens.So just throw it in the garbage and your conscience is clear....as long as there are going to be unborn human fetuses, then at least put them to good use, and as long as the feds sponsor other areas of research that doens't nescessarily float your boat that's okay...like maybe providing tax dollars to the tobacco industry so their R & D can figure out how to make cigarettes that don't cause cancer, hhmmm that's okay, or provide huge funds to the folks who create plutonium enriched shells for the Army, nobody cares that the radiation levels of these things can be lethal when in powder form...there are a lot of areas both our countries provide tax dollars too that can be considered questionable and ethicaly wrong....my question would be, why did he focus more on this then anything else?
Your point is very valid about grey areas, government, and morality. Which is why morality is a very important charecterstic to be considered when electing government officials.
As for Bush focusing on this issue above all others... keep in mind that congress passed the Bill, not the President. Yeah the speech issue was over the top, but hey it was the first Bill he has vetoed and if he did not give a speech then he would have been criticized for ignoring the press. <shrug>
I would rather see Tax dollars spent on Stem Cell Research regardless of the morals or ethics then say this:
Quote:
Bioweapons research deserves watchful eye
The United States and its allies have a noticeable record of supplying their enemies with the means of their own destruction. In the 1980s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent, with government authorization, strains of biological agents laying the foundation for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. Nevertheless, while the whole world awaits the conclusion of the United Nations inspectors' investigation in Iraq, a more troubling concern confronts us on the home front.
The risks the United States faces from within its borders should be of equal concern to foreign ones. The anthrax scare shortly following the 9/11 hijackings is a reason why more attention should be paid to attacks originating within the United States. Five people died in the October 2001 anthrax attacks, including two postal workers. Eighteen other people were infected by the disease. White House press spokesman Ari Fleischer declared that federal investigators had concluded that a skilled microbiologist with access to lab facilities could have produced the anthrax used in the mailings without a vast military or government apparatus.
This is a good reason why bioweapons activities sponsored by the U.S. government merit close attention. The strain of anthrax responsible for those deaths very closely resembles a sample that the Army was studying at Fort Detrick, Md. These types of top-secret military bioresearch labs conduct research that includes modifying biological agents into offensive weapons and creating delivery systems. It's everything you need for biowarfare.
The assumption that these facilities are secure and pose no threat overlooks important concerns. Any scientist who works in such a program would have knowledge of lethal biological agents and delivery systems. Whether they would use that information with a malicious intent is debatable. However, it is clearly in the United States' own interests to limit its own bioweapons research, and not just those of other nations.
Source
If you had a choice which one of these would make more sense? or be deserving of your tax dollars? :rolleyes:
just the good ol boys.. never meanin no harm.. thats all i have to say ;)
Good question. Who is to guard the guards?
Granted, I’m painting this with a pretty broad brush, but the message is the same…
Just imagine all the medical isles in the Super Market being empty or other commodities taking their place, drug companies, research centers, cancer treatment centers, and so on; no longer required….
Despite our hopes and the humanitarian side of the issue, I believe you and I will never see any additional cures period. Only an increase in treatment facilities, more drugs for the symptoms, requests for more research, and the like. Money rules and… there’s no money in cures! So all along they play with your heart strings…
The billions of dollars spent being redirected for clothing and feeding the poor, or cleaning up this cesspool we have turned our environment into, etc...not likely.
I don't think stem cells are taken from aborted foetuses. They're from unused fertilized cells used in IVF. So were not talking about harvesting cells from corpses. These are foetuses yes but only in the earliest stages Where cell counts are in the dozens or hundreds.
Stem cells can also be harvested from adults, generated from other cells (that's new, don't know if it's common practice) or harvested from post birth placenta and umbilical cord blood.
Has Bush blocked all stem cell research or just embryonic?
I don't agree. There is no money in you being dead either.Quote:
there’s no money in cures!
The next big thing for the drug companies will be longevity therapies. So you are paying to stay alive indefinitely. They'll cure you of all your diseases but you'll still have to pay to stay alive or to stay fit and not become a geriatric.
Just embroyonic, and only federal funding. Private labs can still do research with them. I'm not sure what sort of explicites are included (like if it can happen in fed funded facilities without that particular part being funded etc).
Stopping the funding of any additional embryonic stem cell research was part of Bush's platform when he ran. People voted for him because of his 'pro-life' stand. Federal funds are available for all work done with 'existing' embryonic stem cell cultures, and 'ALL' adult stem cell research.
Almost all of the advancements made in stem cell research have been made with adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells add the additional problem of being rejected by the recipient. Now that problem may or may not be overcome but it just adds to the complications of something that has shown few results so far. A few promises are made for 10 years down the road. And if they don't materialize no one will remember because some other research will have already done the job
Recently a few people were caught falsifying their work with embryonic stem cells. Why? To make it look more promising that it really is? Im sure there's allot more money to be made harvesting human embryos then saving placenta.
Bush said even before his first election he was against the degradation of mankind brought about by harvesting human fetuses. Maybe it is...maybe it isn't. Hell i don't know. But i do know that makes bush a man of his word. He said it and he stuck by it. So why all the shock and dismay...people voted for what he's doing.
Is anyone who voted for him in shock and dismay? Most of the bush supporters I know, even if they've changed their mind about stem cell research in the last 6 years, like the fact that he didn't change. I don't agree with his decision but I didn't vote for him.
From a science standpoint his decision will not make all that much of a difference. Research will continue privately funded and funded nationally in other countries and the main loss to the US will be an economic one if American labs are not the ones making the breakthroughs. But then again, like you said, embroyonic research has still yet to show whether or not it has practical value. May
end up keeping us from a further deficeit if it's not federally funded.
Oh, and where did you here about the embroyonic stem cells getting rejected? I have not read anything about that. Have any sources?
Dalek. It's important to note that your bioweapon post was sourced from an opinion column and therefore not subject to factual verification by the publisher. I found the rest of the opinion column interesting also.
Creating cures for bioweapons is kind of like white hat hacking. You have to find the vulnerabilities/strains of bioweapons in order to develop a fix/preventative/cure. All that being said, I agree that the U.S. most likely supplied Iraq with bioweapon technology; and that action was a horrible decision which we are paying for in our current situation in Iraq.Quote:
Closer to home is a similar field the U.S. government is now aggressively funding â?? biodefense. Over the next two months, the Center for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases at the UT Medical Branch in Galveston will, along with other universities nationwide, submit proposals to the federal government to build one of a possible two national biocontainment labs. These high-containment facilities are equipped to study some of the world's most lethal and infectious diseases and biological agents. If UTMB wins the bid, it will be a victory for the UT System as it expands and strengthens the center's pre-existing expertise.
The type of research that would happen at UTMB would be a key to better understanding how lethal infections work. It would offload the strain on government agencies like the CDC that have less time and resources to commit to basic academic research.
As good as this sounds, people should not put blind trust into such institutions. So far, UTMB intends to stay away from the type of classified research occurring at military institutions. However, there will always remain the possibility that UTMB could take classified contracts for the center and, in effect, limit the public's knowledge of their activities. Without heightened vigilance and support from the local and scientific community, UTMB could become as much of a national security liability as Fort Detrick.
Farukhi is an economics senior.
Quote:
Originally posted here by The Grunt
Is anyone who voted for him in shock and dismay? Most of the bush supporters I know, even if they've changed their mind about stem cell research in the last 6 years, like the fact that he didn't change. I don't agree with his decision but I didn't vote for him.
From a science standpoint his decision will not make all that much of a difference. Research will continue privately funded and funded nationally in other countries and the main loss to the US will be an economic one if American labs are not the ones making the breakthroughs. But then again, like you said, embroyonic research has still yet to show whether or not it has practical value. May
end up keeping us from a further deficeit if it's not federally funded.
Oh, and where did you here about the embroyonic stem cells getting rejected? I have not read anything about that. Have any sources?
The Grunt
the original place it was published i dont recall. i read it for my own edification some time last year...but i have been following it and not just saying if bush is for it, it's bad. im not accusing you of this but it seems to be a recurrent theme.
as an aside:
even taking the 2 year cycle of mars around the sun by our time into consideration, it's ice caps are melting and there is some chatter about planetary heating happening there. this will not be news until the media finds a way to blame bush for it. (this you can look up yourself 'cause im getting sleepy)
Quote:
BRISBANE, March 22, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Alan Mackay-Sim and his small team of researchers at Griffith University have just published the results of a four-year study of stem cells obtained from the inside of the nose. Their work shows once again that adult stem cells can be made to change into any cells in the body without the medical or ethical problems of embryo cells. Mackay-Sim said almost any kind of tissue in the body could be obtained from olfactory stem cells including heart cells, brain cells and nerve cells, without immune system rejection or formation of tumors.
Here
Quote:
How many humans have been treated by embryonic stem cells? Zero. Indeed, before human trials can even be safely undertaken researchers will have to overcome two serious difficulties that stand between patients and embryonic-cell regenerative medicine: 1) ES cells cause tumors, and 2) ES cells may be rejected by the immune system. Surmounting these difficulties — if they can be surmounted at all — will take a very long time and much expense. There is no risk of rejection with adult cells, by contrast, because they come from the patients' own bodies. Nor, at least so far, does adult-stem-cell therapy appear to cause tumors. This puts adult therapies years ahead of the game.
And Here