Obama to Decouple Morality from Medicine
It’s all fun and games until we start killing people…. oh, wait...
President Barack Obama will reverse the U.S. government’s ban on funding stem-cell research today and pledge to “use sound, scientific practice and evidence, instead of dogma” to guide federal policy, an adviser said.
Harold Varmus, co-chair of a science advisory group to the President, said Obama will ask the White House Office of Science and Technology to create guidelines to incorporate ‘scientific integrity’ into decision-making by U.S. agencies. The action on stem cells, which can grow into any kind of tissue, may help speed research into cures for major illness.
Wait, what? Your headline doesn’t make sense. Please explain. It sounds to me like he’s adding an element of morality at the expense of religious gibberish. Right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 0938 hrs
Sounds to me like we are killing human beings.
What happened to the researchers who figured out how to take skin cells and make them into stem cells? - eliminating the need to kill people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 0944 hrs
Bill, do you mean the human beings that would otherwise be discarded or left in frozen limbo forever? The human beings that have no brain waves, let alone heartbeats, and never will? (Aside from the tiny percentage that are adopted and given the chance to develop) I have father in law who is really, really suffering from Parkinsons. I honestly believe that if the stem cells that would otherwise wind up as medical waste can be used to treat or cure him and others like him, it’s a worthy, moral thing to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1052 hrs
Notice that you have to go halfway down the page to find the term “embryonic.” The left has so successfully painted the right as against all stem cell research that a lot of the people on the right think they are.
ohwhynot- These are not embryos that are just lying around, they would be created specifally for that purpose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1119 hrs
I don’t think that’s the case, Rick. These are leftover from IVF treatments. They truly will be discarded, left frozen, or accidentally unfrozen and destroyed. I don’t see where you are finding that these will be specifically created for this research. Can you link?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1242 hrs
I don’t see where you are finding that these will be specifically created for this research
Probably not now, but I would think that for the science to advance, that will need to happen. The Wistar & Sprague-Dawley lab rats have been bred specifically for research, as the research needs to be based on a very consistent genetic background. Scientists don’t just go to a local grainary to get mice & rats for their research.
Right now, grabbing existing embryos is probably OK, but I would speculate that at some future date they will need to know the “history” & purity of what they are using. I’m not so sure that people would be real comfortable swapping all kinds of miscellaneous DNA into their bodies. I am not up on DNA research & maybe they can mitigate that kind of adverse circumstance. I’m just trying to make the point that the desire to create embryos with a specific make-up might be within the realm of the possible.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1320 hrs
As I’ve said on my own blog and elsewhere, the pro-life community lost the battle over stem cell research a generation ago when it lost the battle over IVF.
Ideally, we’d just have the lab make and implant one embryo at a time, but even if we went back to that, there are still who knows how many frozen embryos that have already been abandoned at fertility clinics by their genetic makers. Short of finding women to carry all of them to term and sending them off to Fetus Town for adoption, what’s a practical course of action?
Even if we stipulate that creating all these embryos was a mistake, is it better at this point to donate them for research or let them freeze until they’re either unusable or disposed of as medical waste? One of those must be the lesser of two evils. But which is it? Do we actively kill an embryo in the name of advancing science, or do we passive kill it through neglect? Would God have a preference if death was the outcome either way?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 09, 2009 at 1332 hrs
Here I thought we heard the last of Recess Supervisor, after this:
You see, RS, I have observed you for a while and have learned that you simply comment to leave inflammatory posts, hoping to draw attention to yourself.
Good to see you back.
Short of finding women to carry all of them to term and sending them off to Fetus Town for adoption
I imagine Nadya Suleman’s womb is “open for business”, no?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1426 hrs
Embryos are not human. Claiming that they are devalues human life.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1437 hrs
Haha. I’m only inflammatory sometimes. Other times I ask really good questions that nobody wants to answer. I think Ginny’s still working on the answers to some of my questions, like why Christian bookilsts are okay on public library websites but not LGBT ones. But let’s not digress.
I totally forgot about the octomommy. Let’s see… 8 kids a pop, let’s give her 6-7 months to gestate and maybe a four week recovery before we load her up again. Dammit, does someone have a calculator?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 09, 2009 at 1449 hrs
“But which is it? Do we actively kill an embryo in the name of advancing science, or do we passive kill it through neglect?”
In what fantasy world could the latter choice, the one that has no potential to ease pain or save lives, even be considered the more moral choice?
“Would God have a preference if death was the outcome either way?”
Ohhhh, that fantasy world.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1458 hrs
Of course, there’s also the fact that there’s been a veritable tidal wave of discoveries that make embryo destruction entirely unnecessary to stem cell research (here are a couple examples, but everyone has seen plenty of examples of the stories I’m talking about by now):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090301181423.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112000546_pf.html
*Which* side was placing ideology over science, again?
Posted by Calvin on March 09, 2009 at 1525 hrs
The side that’s trying to put limits on scientific research based on fairy tales. Duh.
Nobody is saying we should stop attempting to cultivate stem cells from other sources too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1543 hrs
Like everything else from the left, this is about politics.
This is not about embryonic stem cell research, it’s about abortion.
Just like global warming is not about science, it’s about land use.
And homosexual unions are not about civil rights; it’s about debasing the sanctity of the family.
Of all of the leftist sugar coating of public policy, we should fear the homosexual agenda the most! And I believe that it’s all tied together: for example, abortion and global warming are a part of the homosexual agenda!
Time to wake up, America!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1543 hrs
The side that’s trying to put limits on scientific research based on fairy tales. Duh
jijawm - Do you believe that all scientific research is OK simply because it is possible? Is cloning OK? Creating embryos specifically for the purpose of destroying them? Yes, I know this is to start with discarded IVF embryos, but…
Where do we stop?
Just because we can doesn’t make it the right thing to do.
As a couple have also mentioned, the greatest scientific and medical breakthroughs to date have been with adult, skin and umbilical stem cells - not the embryonic ones.
btw - PaulNoonan…. an embryo is very much human - it is a unique combination of human tissue. So unless you think that babies come from space aliens….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1559 hrs
“Just because we can doesn’t make it the right thing to do. “
No, it’s the right thing to do because lots of credible scientists think there is a huge potential for embryonic stem cell research to help a lot of people.
“an embryo is very much human - it is a unique combination of human tissue.”
But it doesn’t have a brain. Humans have brains. By the way, obviously I’m okay with doing research on Marc based on this distinction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1622 hrs
No, it’s the right thing to do because lots of credible scientists think there is a huge potential for embryonic stem cell research to help a lot of people.
Isn’t it a little dangerous to let the science get ahead of the ethics? Let’s also remember that embryonic stem cell research was not banned, it just didn’t receive federal taxpayer funding to create new lines (destroy new embryos). The private sector was funding it.
If you think that it is great to fund this research, then you can write a check. I think playing with embryos for scientific research is a very slippery slope.
Another question - is this really the most important thing that Obama thinks we should be focusing on and spending money on? Seriously - how many jobs is this going to create?
Also, a study from the guy who started the research into embryonic stem cells:
In a paper to be published Nov. 22 [2008] in the online edition of the journal Science, a team of University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers reports the genetic reprogramming of human skin cells to create cells indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.
The finding is not only a critical scientific accomplishment, but potentially remakes the tumultuous political and ethical landscape of stem cell biology as human embryos may no longer be needed to obtain the blank slate stem cells capable of becoming any of the 220 types of cells in the human body. Perfected, the new technique would bring stem cells within easy reach of many more scientists as they could be easily made in labs of moderate sophistication, and without the ethical and legal constraints that now hamper their use by scientists.
The new study was conducted in the laboratory of UW-Madison biologist James Thomson, the scientist who first coaxed stem cells from human embryos in 1998. It was led by Junying Yu of the Genome Center of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center.
“The induced cells do all the things embryonic stem cells do,” explains Thomson, a professor of anatomy in the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. “It’s going to completely change the field.”
In addition to exorcising the ethical and political dimensions of the stem cell debate, the advantage of using reprogrammed skin cells is that any cells developed for therapeutic purposes can be customized to the patient.
“They are probably more clinically relevant than embryonic stem cells,” Thomson explains. “Immune rejection should not be a problem using these cells.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1636 hrs
“Is cloning OK?”
Yes. Why wouldn’t it be?
” Creating embryos specifically for the purpose of destroying them?”
Why would anyone want to create an abryo for the purpose of destroying it? If the purpose is actually to try and find a treatment for some disease, than mark me down for “yes.” Obviously.
Are you opposed to research simply because it will help people?*
*Obviously you’re not. I’m just misframing your point of view so you get a taste of your own medicine. Maybe we can start being honest now?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1639 hrs
To echo Mr. Isjustalrightwithme, if you do not have a functioning brain, you are not human. How could you be? I don’t know what being a “unique combination of human tissue” has to do with anything. By that logic chewing your fingernails is murder.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1647 hrs
“The side that’s trying to put limits on scientific research based on fairy tales. Duh.”
Huh. I coulda sworn it was the side that tells people Gradma’s going to die, and unless Uncle Sam funds what we want it to fund, it means you Republicans want her to die—all the while conveniently forgetting to prefix “stem cell research” with “embryonic” or “adult” in their reporting.
Posted by Calvin on March 09, 2009 at 1711 hrs
That’s an absurd argument Calvin. That’s like me calling you out for not saying “pregnancy abortion” when you’re talking about abortion.
“...Oh, I’m in favor of abortion. I had planned on going to the grocery store after work but I aborted my plan. Wait, you meant pregnancy abortion? I’m against that….”
Sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it? People know what the issue is when they hear “stem cell research” just like they know what the issue is when they hear “abortion.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1722 hrs
I’m so off my game today.
Every time Owen posts on a topic that touches religion/morality and politics, he should just automatically put one of these at the bottom of the post.
:zpopcorn:
Posted by Jed on March 09, 2009 at 1726 hrs
No j… it really isn’t an absurd argument since the absence of the embryonic or adult qualifier implies that opponents to embryonic stem cell research are also opposed to ALL stem cell research - much like all of the lefty ads, commercials and talking points stating that “President Bush opposed stem cell research”
The elimination of the embryonic v. adult qualifier also loses the fact that there have been many significant and positive results from the adult research but zero from embryonic research. The embryonic research thus far has produced nothing but rapidly growing tumors.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1739 hrs
But that’s the problem JJ. NOBODY thinks you guys are against the other kinds of stem cell research just like nobody thinks anybody is against my aborting of my plan to go to the store. That’s simply not the issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1741 hrs
The question at hand, whether or not to provide federal funding for stem cell research, is neither a scientific nor a medical question. Science and medicine offer no particular insight as to whether or not such things should be done, only on possible outcomes resulting from doing or not doing such a thing.
The language uttered by Harold Varmus in the link provided is disturbing for exactly that reason. Federal funding of stem cell research was rejected primarily on the basis that it should not be done, not on the basis that it could not be done.
The argument is akin to the question of whether or not generals should determine if the nation should go to war.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1754 hrs
I beg to differ jijawm. Remember when Michael J Fox funded the commercials right before the last gubanatorial election ripping Mark Green for being against stem cell research? Those ads were intentionally vague to make the idiots that actually make their decisions on who to vote for off of ads like that believe that Green was against all stem cell research - not just embryonic. The message was that Green was evil because he didn’t care that Alex P Keaton has Parkinson’s. It plays into the entire straw man that conservative views are stupid and anti-intellectual. It silences the debate.
I’m closer to being Libertarian than I am to Republican, but screwing with the foundations of life make me pause. The same Mr Thomson referenced in my earlier post has stated that the ethics really need to be thought through. I don’t think Obama thought about it any further than what political points he believes he scored.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1759 hrs
If embryonic stem cell research be murder, where have the wingnuts at Wisconsin Right to Life and Pro-Life Wisconsin been the past thirty years when tens of thousands of these frozen “little people” been discarded in medical waste incinerators at IVF clinics?
Over the past 10 years perhaps 25 (surely no more) frozen fertilized eggs have been used in Madison for this research. Over the same period of time, thousands of fertilized embryos have been discarded here in our state, yet not one word from either Barbara Lyons or Matt Sande.
Do these people have even an ounce of intellectual honesty, or is this just a game to them?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 1841 hrs
“Remember when Michael J Fox funded the commercials right before the last gubanatorial election ripping Mark Green for being against stem cell research?”
Yes.
“Those ads were intentionally vague…”
They weren’t vague at all. The issue was embryonic stem cell research and everyone knew it. We all know what APK was talking about!
“the idiots that actually make their decisions on who to vote for off of ads like that believe that Green was against all stem cell research - not just embryonic.”
Why on earth would anybody think this? You’re just being crazy. It’s absurd enough to be against embryonic stem cell research but we all know about god delusions so we can at least comprehend it. Without that though, who could be against non-embryonic stem cell research?
“The message was that Green was evil because he didn’t care that Alex P Keaton has Parkinson’s.”
True. He is.
“It plays into the entire straw man that conservative views are stupid and anti-intellectual.”
IMHO, Liberal/Conservative views are stupid and anti-intellectual.
“I’m closer to being Libertarian than I am to Republican, but screwing with the foundations of life make me pause.”
Fucking over generations of sick people because you’re afraid of faries gives me pause.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 2017 hrs
Indeed as RS and RO have pointed out, the fundamental flaw in the anti-stem cell research crowd’s argument is IVF. IVF doesn’t necessarily create extra embryos on purpose that are subsequently destroyed, but it’s close enough to be almost the same thing. Yet I see no right-to-lifers opposing IVF, or demanding that extra embryos be stored in perpetuity.
Thus, the anti-research argument seems a little hollow if it’s not coupled with demands to end IVF or for perpetual storage of resulting extra embryos, since that process also ultimately leads to their destruction.
Perhaps we ought to come up with a compromise that says, the only embryos that can be used for federally-funded research must come from IVF clinics. Then families can continue to have the children we want, and there will be a supply of embryos for research.
It’s not perfect for anyone I’d imagine, but it makes the best of reality as it exists.
And I think we ought to all agree that in the argument over this topic, anyone arguing it should be perfectly clear about which kinds of research or which kinds of stem cells are being discussed. Scoring political points with vague language is the domain of partisan hacks (i.e. idiots).
What say you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 2025 hrs
“That’s like me calling you out for not saying “pregnancy abortion” when you’re talking about abortion.”
Wow, J. I honestly didn’t expect something *this* moronic in response. Of course the source of the stem cells is an important, relevant qualifier, as JJ pointed out.
But “we can conveniently omit key data from our reporting because everyone already knows” is apparently the Left’s latest excuse for lying to the American people. Thanks for demonstrating it, J!
Posted by Calvin on March 09, 2009 at 2031 hrs
“And I think we ought to all agree that in the argument over this topic, anyone arguing it should be perfectly clear about which kinds of research or which kinds of stem cells are being discussed. Scoring political points with vague language is the domain of partisan hacks (i.e. idiots).”
Wow - I actually agree with ATV for once!
Posted by Calvin on March 09, 2009 at 2032 hrs
Thanks, but you’re still a partisan hack.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 2038 hrs
“But “we can conveniently omit key data from our reporting because everyone already knows” is apparently the Left’s latest excuse for lying to the American people. Thanks for demonstrating it, J!”
Why would something I say demonstrate anything about “the left”? Also, I love you you can draw absolutely no distinction in my analogy. You clearly have no argument.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 2046 hrs
Obviously jijawm, you must have never worked in retail to understand that the general public - en masse - has the cumulative IQ of a brick. You are giving them far too much credit for understanding the nuances of the intentionally vague language.
I could also say that you must want all the sick people to get cancer, since that is all that embryonic stem cells have produced. Adult stem cells are starting to yield real therapies.
If you believe that medical ethics is based on fairies, then there really is no real discussion to be had.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 2055 hrs
J, remember that to the partisan, there are only two sides.
Disagreement means you’re with the strawman “other”. It’s easier for them to dismiss you as such.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 2057 hrs
ATV,
You’re welcome, but you’re still full of it.
J,
You’re really trying my patience. It says something about the Left because we’re talking about a left-wing practice (deception over what type of research is in dispute) that you’re defending. Duh.
It’s not that I can’t draw any distinction from your analogy - it’s simply that your analogy is worthless.
Posted by Calvin on March 09, 2009 at 2058 hrs
Here’s more proof that Wisconsin Right to Life and Pro-Life Wisconsin are full of shit on this issue. During Doyle’s first term, when Republicans had control of both houses, Doyle was willing to sign into law a ban on cloning. Instead, the wingnuts had the legislature pass a bill that banned embryonic stem cell research AND cloning. The Governor vetoed it, of course.
The ban on embryonic stem cell research was so broad that it would have made felons out of the people who discovered the science in the first place!
Would Barbara Lyons and Matt Sande settle for a ban on cloning? Of course not—they wanted the whole enchilda. As a result they got nothing—except the ability to continue to demagoge on an issue upon which they are total 100% flaming hypocrites.
Again, where is the moral outrage over IFV, which kills thousands of what Matt calls “embryonic persons” each and every year? There isn’t any from these phony-baloney two-bit hypocrites, of course. Morally indefensible!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 2126 hrs
“It says something about the Left because we’re talking about a left-wing practice (deception over what type of research is in dispute) that you’re defending.”
That’s a left wing AND a right wing practice. I’m niether and don’t engage in said practice. So, um, you’re a crazy lunatic and you hear voices that tell you something I said related to an unrelated practice perpetrated by people with completely different idiologies than me. Got it.
“It’s not that I can’t draw any distinction from your analogy - it’s simply that your analogy is worthless.”
Actually it’s spot on. I compared a shorthand phrase that describes one political issue with a shorthand phrase that describes another. You can draw no distinction so you just say it’s “worthless.” You’re worthless if that’s all you got.
“If you believe that medical ethics is based on fairies,”
I meant “God.” Sometimes I get my supernatural characters confused.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2009 at 2151 hrs
That’s a left wing AND a right wing practice.
But in this case, it’s being practiced by the left. And you’re defending it, as evidenced by your refusal to let go of your worthless analogy.
I compared a shorthand phrase that describes one political issue with a shorthand phrase that describes another.
Sorry genius, but the fact that both can be described as “shorthand phrases” does not a substantive analogy make. It would beyond absurd to think anyone seeing anything about abortion would think of anything other than the medical procedure that ends pregnancies by killing fetuses. This is partially due to the fact that the term “abortion” is virtually never used for anything else in ordinary discourse.
“Embryonic” and “adult,” on the other hand, are the two halves of the general category “stem-cell research.” The distinction is a real one, and its relevance is huge (as I’m sure you know, no matter how stupid you pretend to be).
Frankly, I wonder if I should have even dignified this BS with an explanation. You liberals (and I know you’ll whine about the label, but hey, it fits) are such two-year-olds….
Posted by Calvin on March 09, 2009 at 2232 hrs
Calvin, that was explanation was an abortion of logic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 0922 hrs
If you’d like to back up that statement, I’m all ears….
Posted by Calvin on March 10, 2009 at 0925 hrs
Fucking over generations of sick people because you’re afraid of faries gives me pause.
I meant “God.” Sometimes I get my supernatural characters confused.
Wow, on the one hand, you’re completely ridiculing a person because of their faith, and then on the other hand you present an argument based solely on faith.
Do you have any hard and fast proof that denial of federal funding for the creation of new lines of embryonic stem cell for research have “fucked over generations of sick people?”
I mean hard proof, and not things like this….
“I’ve been paralyzed for 28 years,” said Rep. Jim Langevin, D-RI, the first quadriplegic to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, who was injured while working with the Warwick Police Department in the Boy Scout Explorer program when a gun accidentally discharged struck him. “I always believed some day I would walk again. It’s become more real now.”
Or this…
Said another attendee, Roman Reed, who broke his neck 15 years ago in a football injury, “JFK was first to put man on moon. Obama will be first to have paralyzed walk on Earth.”
And this is really interesting…
Referring to the research done at UC Irvine by Dr. Hans Keirstead—who with colleagues enabled paralyzed rats to walk again using embryonic stem cells—Don Reed also told reporters that “in 2002 we held in our hands a rat that had been paralyzed and walked again due to stem cell research. Human trials start in July.”
That’s a really fast turn around considering the ban enacted in 2001 was just repealed a few days ago… Hmmm, it looks like the paralyzed rat was cured in 2002… how is that possible without federal funding?
And for the record, I’m completely middle of the road here, and am just interested in some non-emotional disclosure.And to prove that, I have just as much issue with this type of statement….
But anti-abortion activists such as Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, were not assuaged. Upon hearing of President Obama’s plans for today, Smith said “Despite the lack of progress in human embryonic stem cell research and despite all the new and extraordinary medical breakthroughs in the use of adult stem cells, President Obama remains obsessed with killing human embryos for experimentation at taxpayer expense.”
source for all the quotes from here http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/president-oba-8.htmlPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 0958 hrs
““Embryonic” and “adult,” on the other hand, are the two halves of the general category “stem-cell research.””
Here is where you have been fooled. The whole idea that there are two different types or “halves” of “stem cell research” is an invention of right wing assholes. There is one thing called “stem cell research.” There are different methods of harvesting stem cells. Only one is really controversial. But if you are placing limits on any of these methods, you are also limiting the research.
“and I know you’ll whine about the label, but hey, it fits”
You are far more liberal than I am.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 1143 hrs
“Wow, on the one hand, you’re completely ridiculing a person because of their faith,”
I’m ridiculing the faith, not the person.
“and then on the other hand you present an argument based solely on faith.”
No I didn’t.
“Do you have any hard and fast proof that denial of federal funding for the creation of new lines of embryonic stem cell for research have “fucked over generations of sick people?””
No. But it is a fact that generally speaking, if you don’t do research, you won’t learn anything. So if there’s any potential that research into a certain area will help people, there ought to be a good reason to not do it. What somebody’s imaginary friend tells them is not a good reason.
I will say that a general opposition to using federal money for medical research is a good reason not to do it. But that’s often not the case for those that oppose stem cell research.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 1150 hrs
I’m ridiculing the faith, not the person.
Even better…
No I didn’t.
Yes, you most certainly did. I’ll help you out and quote it for you.
Fucking over generations of sick people
That is based completely on faith and nothing more. You even verify it when you honestly state that you have no hard and fast proof of what you have said.
But it is a fact that generally speaking, if you don’t do research, you won’t learn anything.
Ok, lets try this then. What specific research has been denied by the ban that Bush enacted in 2001? What specific studies have been destroyed or halted because of it? Let me show you one that was completed despite the ban…
Referring to the research done at UC Irvine by Dr. Hans Keirstead—who with colleagues enabled paralyzed rats to walk again using embryonic stem cells—Don Reed also told reporters that “in 2002 we held in our hands a rat that had been paralyzed and walked again due to stem cell research. Human trials start in July.”
Seems Dr. Hans Keirstead was able to continue his study and even produce results despite the ban. Can you explain that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 1157 hrs
Are you asking me for proof of scientific studies that never happened?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 1214 hrs
Are you asking me for proof of scientific studies that never happened?
Do you need some help? I asked two pretty clear and specific questions in response to your argument, neither of which relate to your latter question. Hell, I even went a step further and offered some contrary evidence and asked you to explain it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 1243 hrs
Jason, give me the names of the specific people that are here due to abortion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 1303 hrs
“What specific research has been denied by the ban that Bush enacted in 2001? What specific studies have been destroyed or halted because of it? “
It seems pretty clear from this question that you’re interested in knowing what research did not take place due to the ban. How could I possibly “prove” that? Think about it my slow friend. Seriously. Providing an example of a study that did happen doesn’t really say a damn thing about potential studies that didn’t happen.
If you are suggesting that the ban did not prevent any research relating to stem cells, then why do we need the ban? If it isn’t preventing anything, why have it? I hope you’re not suggeting that anyone things Bush’s band prevented all stem cell research. Or even all “embryonic” stem cell research. NOBODY would ever suggest that that’s the case. That would be a COMPLETE straw man argument.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 1304 hrs
It seems pretty clear from this question that you’re interested in knowing what research did not take place due to the ban. How could I possibly “prove” that?
That’s not what I asked for, and later on you subtlety slip in the phrase “Strawman argument”, ironic.
I asked several questions, all of which you’ve dodged, “my slow friend”. Surely you could find some examples of studies and lab work that were in progress that could not be continued because of this ban… after all, you’re the one that stated “Fucking over generations of sick people” when the discussion was about the Bush 2001 ban.
All I’ve been asking is if you can show me any concrete evidence of any work being impacted by the 2001 Ban? No one is asking you to prove studies that didn’t exist. Although, you’d think that if a group of scientists suddenly couldn’t work anymore because of the Ban, it would have made the papers, journals, or something other than an emotional playbook or the tabloids.
I even gave you an example of a successful study that doesn’t seem to have been impacted at all by the 2001 ban… and you have done nothing to refute that. So how does my evidence stand up to your “Fucking over generations of sick people” statement?
If you are suggesting that the ban did not prevent any research relating to stem cells, then why do we need the ban?
False Dichotomy?
Like I said, I’m neither for nor against the ban, because I’m not educated enough in the politics or exact details of it. But your statement “Fucking over generations of sick people” was just as over the top - in my opinion - as Rep. Chris Smith’s statement of “...President Obama remains obsessed with killing human embryos for experimentation at taxpayer expense.”, or even Roman Reed’s “JFK was first to put man on moon. Obama will be first to have paralyzed walk on Earth.”
All are a bunch of emotion laden tripe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 1335 hrs
Good grief, just when I thought this couldn’t get any stupider…..
Here is where you have been fooled. The whole idea that there are two different types or “halves” of “stem cell research” is an invention of right wing assholes. There is one thing called “stem cell research.” There are different methods of harvesting stem cells. Only one is really controversial.
You just described the exact same distinction we conservatives describe all the time. Is “halves” or “types” a poor way of putting it? Sure, I’ll grant that. I hereby apologize for not choosing my words as carefully in a blog comment as I would have elsewhere.
But that’s a simple matter of semantics. And the fact that you’ve inflated such a petty gripe into some sort of deception by “right wing assholes” is very telling.
But if you are placing limits on any of these methods, you are also limiting the research.
Sure - by cutting off one source that is now obsolete anyway, due to ethical concerns. Science totally devoid of ethical considerations is not an intrinsic good.
You are far more liberal than I am.
Cut the crap. I’m not interested in wasting time with statements that have no purpose other than being contrarian.
Posted by Calvin on March 10, 2009 at 1410 hrs
If only Dr. Eduard Wirths were alive; we could get guidance from him on this issue, and get on with creating a master race devoid of disease or injury.
/sarcasm
Posted by Mike Gallo on March 10, 2009 at 1858 hrs
Embryonic stem cell research is NOT obsolete because of ethical concerns. Polls taken by Republican pollsters in Wisconsin show that roughly 60% of Wisconsinites support it. It is not controversial, except among the nut-case class.
For 10 years embryonic stem cell research has been handicapped, but the new President has taken the handcuffs off. At long last we will see what this relatively new technology can produce.
This is a cause for celebration. The hypocritic wingnuts in the so-called pro-life movement have been neutered on this issue. It’s about time.
When these folks take up the cause of banning IVF clinics with the same zealous lunacy then the hypocrite moniker will no longer fit. They are shameless hypocrites—two-bit phonies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 2008 hrs
Calvin,
Not to interrupt your amusing semantic slap fight, but are you in favor of banning IVF, or instituting some kind of restriction related to the inevitable left-over embryos?
I ask because I have yet to hear people like you say anything about the issue. That fact reduces your credibility on the stem cell issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2009 at 2035 hrs
Embryonic stem cell research is NOT obsolete because of ethical concerns.
Of course not. It’s obsolete because of scientific advancement. And last time I checked, polling data wasn’t an ethical barometer.
As for this IFV meme, I actually do remember addressing this in the past. As I said before: yes, I am against IFV too.
The reality is that pro-lifers do think IFV is a problem too. Maybe y’all should get to know a few of us sometime, rather than going by what NARAL (or whoever green-lights your talking points) says we say.
But it’s just stupid to say we’re hypocrites because we focus more on abortion & stem cells than IFV. For one thing, last time I checked, this post was about stem cells, not IFV. So three guesses what we’d talk about.
Should we focus on IFV more? Maybe. But I gather abortion is the primary focus of the pro-life movement because it’s the easiest for the public to wrap it’s head around (especially considering pro-choicers want these babies killable well past the three-cell, no pain stage of development). Stem cells are high-profile partially because new findings comes out every day putting the lie to the Left’s claims about how ESSENTIAL embryos are to advancing stem cell research.
But most important, I’d say most pro-lifers are operating under the assumption that the more successful they are in cultivating a general respect for life, it’s application will spread to other issues in the long run. Maybe we’re right, maybe we’re wrong. But if we’re wrong, that’s no more than a strategic mistake. It wouldn’t be a sign of hypocrisy in any rational mind.
Posted by Calvin on March 11, 2009 at 0949 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 101
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 03:09 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).