cromagnum Posted July 20, 2006 Author Posted July 20, 2006 They aren't anywhere near something like that. The press hears something about a small advanced and they tout it as the next big thing. The research is still legal. ust that it can't be federally funded. Bill gates could chip in, he's so loaded. That would be better than pushing the Microsoft garbage.Not offended at all. Science takes little steps. Very. very rarerly is there a tremendous breakthrough. Watson and Crick published the structure of DNA in 1953, won the Nobel in 1963 and it took until the late 70s or early 80s for recombinant insulin to be available. 725787[/snapback] All press generally hype neg/pos...I know research is still legal, my point is, no new stemcells from the U.S. can be researched, nor will the fed/gov't fund research for this science. I believe that the fed- gov't should allow the stemcells (that will be incinerated) to be researched and funded To keep the U.S. in the lead on this potentially remarkable science. Imagine a day where the U.S. makes breakthroughs of stemcell research and offers the ability of medicines and cures for the terminally diseased humans on this planet. This science will help all humanity and our economy with this breakthrough. Or Imagine jacque chirac Funding frances stemcell research and they offer the world their breakthroughs. ( I wonder if we would come up with a new freedom fry slogan to protest
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 All press generally hype neg/pos...I know research is still legal, my point is, no new stemcells from the U.S. can be researched, nor will the fed/gov't fund research for this science. I believe that the fed- gov't should allow the stemcells (that will be incinerated) to be researched and funded To keep the U.S. in the lead on this potentially remarkable science. Imagine a day where the U.S. makes breakthroughs of stemcell research and offers the ability of medicines and cures for the terminally diseased humans on this planet. This science will help all humanity and our economy with this breakthrough. Or Imagine jacque chirac Funding frances stemcell research and they offer the world their breakthroughs. ( I wonder if we would come up with a new freedom fry slogan to protest 726063[/snapback] They're not stem cells, they're Freedom Fetal Cells.
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 They're not stem cells, they're Freedom Fetal Cells. 726067[/snapback]
Terry Tate Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 They're not stem cells, they're Freedom Fetal Cells. 726067[/snapback] Contra cells!
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 While we're on the subject, or near it, had anyone read this before? our guardian angel Rick Santorum 'He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could "absorb and understand that they had a brother," Santorum says. "We wanted them to see that he was real," not an abstraction, he says. Not a "fetus," either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described -- "a 20-week-old fetus" -- on a hospital form. They changed the form to read "20-week-old baby."' I understand and sympathize with their loss, but their reaction to it? Creeepy.
stuckincincy Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 At which point people will B word about the greedy drug companies holding all the patents to the therapeutic results of the research, and how the government should take them over... 725600[/snapback] Moot. The Gov't research results go to the private sector in most all instances. Ever hear of CRADA - for one example?
stuckincincy Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Yeah...how many federal dollars went into flight research? Wasted money...if God had intended us to fly, he'd have given us wings... 725877[/snapback] Resorting to reductio ad absurdum? Your "stock and trade", eh?
cromagnum Posted July 20, 2006 Author Posted July 20, 2006 Resorting to reductio ad absurdum? Your "stock and trade", eh? 726137[/snapback] Science and religious-politics constantly butt heads over issues like this. I read that stephen hawking mentioned the pope in 81 saying to him that he feared we would get to close to gods creation if we studied the big bang theory. Yes religion provides many benefits to society they also can take away benefits with their philosophy.
KRC Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 While we're on the subject, or near it, had anyone read this before? our guardian angel Rick Santorum I understand and sympathize with their loss, but their reaction to it? Creeepy. 726122[/snapback] It is an old issue. Since he is up for re-election, I figured to would come back again. It was in his book.
The Avenger Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Exactly...just think of all those additional blastospheres that would die if we were allowed to isolate their stem cells! You know that's the logic, too: that allowing new federally-funded stem cell lines would lead to an increase in abortion as stem cells were harvested to create the new lines. No Blastosphere Left Behind, dammit! 725623[/snapback] Agreed. Not only is that a fallacy in logic as you point out, its just plain wrong. People don't abort 200 cell blastospheres, and if they do, they certainly aren't "harvested". The "embyos" that would be used are the clumps of cells in cold storage at fertility clinics, etc. that were never implanted and would otherwise be destroyed. You can't even imagine how many extra embyos are produced by fertility treatments and how many people undergo these treatments. They may create 10-15 blastospheres in vitro for each attempt at a pregnancy and only 2-3 are usually implanted - the rest are stored for future attempts. Once they have been stored for a ceratin amount of time thier chances of becoming viable are greatly reduced so they are scheduled to be destroyed - this is where most of the prohibited "embyos" would come from. Implying that this issue has much to do with abortion or would lead to more abortions is pure politics, which is a terrible thing for science.
Ramius Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Agreed. Not only is that a fallacy in logic as you point out, its just plain wrong. People don't abort 200 cell blastospheres, and if they do, they certainly aren't "harvested". The "embyos" that would be used are the clumps of cells in cold storage at fertility clinics, etc. that were never implanted and would otherwise be destroyed. You can't even imagine how many extra embyos are produced by fertility treatments and how many people undergo these treatments. They may create 10-15 blastospheres in vitro for each attempt at a pregnancy and only 2-3 are usually implanted - the rest are stored for future attempts. Once they have been stored for a ceratin amount of time thier chances of becoming viable are greatly reduced so they are scheduled to be destroyed - this is where most of the prohibited "embyos" would come from. Implying that this issue has much to do with abortion or would lead to more abortions is pure politics, which is a terrible thing for science. 726191[/snapback] Its funny how come so many people can understand this conept, yet how so many cannot. They'd rather sit there and scream StemCellsBad!
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 It is an old issue. Since he is up for re-election, I figured to would come back again. It was in his book. 726188[/snapback] Yeah, that's an old article. I'm not trying to stoke any pre-election fires. I just think that's awfully strange behavior from a guy who's a leader of the pro-life movement. It's probably among the least of my problems with him though.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Resorting to reductio ad absurdum? Your "stock and trade", eh? 726137[/snapback] I prefer to think of it as "reducto ad stuckincincy".
KRC Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Yeah, that's an old article. I'm not trying to stoke any pre-election fires. I just think that's awfully strange behavior from a guy who's a leader of the pro-life movement. It's probably among the least of my problems with him though. 726205[/snapback] It is also hard to make it an issue since he was open and honest about it. You are correct, however, that there are a lot of other things to rip him on. Casey is no better. Right now, Casey is enjoying a comfortable lead only because he has not had to take a stand on anything yet (Democrats not taking a stand, where have I heard that before....). Wait until we get closer to the election, especially the debates. Santorum will close the lead extremely quickly.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Agreed. Not only is that a fallacy in logic as you point out, its just plain wrong. People don't abort 200 cell blastospheres, and if they do, they certainly aren't "harvested". The "embyos" that would be used are the clumps of cells in cold storage at fertility clinics, etc. that were never implanted and would otherwise be destroyed. You can't even imagine how many extra embyos are produced by fertility treatments and how many people undergo these treatments. They may create 10-15 blastospheres in vitro for each attempt at a pregnancy and only 2-3 are usually implanted - the rest are stored for future attempts. Once they have been stored for a ceratin amount of time thier chances of becoming viable are greatly reduced so they are scheduled to be destroyed - this is where most of the prohibited "embyos" would come from. Implying that this issue has much to do with abortion or would lead to more abortions is pure politics, which is a terrible thing for science. 726191[/snapback] And that would also mean the "issue" has a relatively simple solution: 1) Only allow funding on stem cell lines that do not come from an aborted pregnancy. 2) Require patients in fertility clinics to give express permission to have their stored blastospheres used for scientific research (as I can imagine some - quite a few, actually - patients to prefer the idea of a "cremation" to scientific research). That, in theory, would satisfy everyone involved. Scientists get research funds, research moves forward, no one's "selling their children" for science. It just doesn't satisfy the lunatic crowd that believes a blob of undifferentiated cellular material in a freezer has greater rights as an Alzheimer's patient or a quadrapelegic.
stuckincincy Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 I prefer to think of it as "reducto ad stuckincincy". 726212[/snapback] As an aside CTM. you really need to work on your vocabulary. There are much more colorful, rich words than your constant use of idiot. jerk, dolt etc. Please expand your horizons. It's no fun responding to a pithy "clown" invective. Give me a hearty "rodomomtand" or some such...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 As an aside CTM. you really need to work on your vocabulary. There are much more colorful, rich words than your constant use of idiot. jerk, dolt etc. 726236[/snapback] I know. And it's a constant use of "idiot" and "stupid", you stupid !@#$ing idiot...
stuckincincy Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 I know. And it's a constant use of "idiot" and "stupid", you stupid !@#$ing idiot... 726258[/snapback] That's a first step. I expect a lot of you. I want to see the demons chased, and you to use your intelligence to add to calm society and overall betterment. Just do it. And stop disappointing me.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 I expect a lot of you. I want to see the demons chased, and you to use your intelligence to add to calm society and overall betterment. Just do it. And stop disappointing me. 726275[/snapback] Yeah, right. That'll happen. I'm a friggin' crap throwing monkey.
stuckincincy Posted July 20, 2006 Posted July 20, 2006 Yeah, right. That'll happen. I'm a friggin' crap throwing monkey. 726285[/snapback] Well, then improve the crap. It's agonizingly pedestrian, and I am certain you can do better. Ad at Astra. Excelsior. You must, must do better with the deliberate cruelties you rain on innocents. Do it for me. I will even use your favorite smilie...
Recommended Posts