Stem Cell Research - CLOSED
Message boards :
Science (non-SETI) :
Stem Cell Research - CLOSED
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 Scary Capitalist  Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0 
|
So how about the fact that Stem Cell research is being funded by creating more DEBT? You are another one of those people that insist upon making good sense and using logic. Please desist at once....lol Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! 
ID: 339063 ·  |
Enigma  Send message Joined: 15 Mar 06 Posts: 628 Credit: 21,606 RAC: 0 
|
So how about the fact that Stem Cell research is being funded by creating more DEBT? Which will be offset by the billions it costs to keep the older generation living their lifestyle...... Belief gets in the way of learning  
ID: 339141 · |
Daniel Michel  Send message Joined: 2 Feb 04 Posts: 14925 Credit: 1,378,607 RAC: 6
|
So how about the fact that Stem Cell research is being funded by creating more DEBT? Hopefully...And i do mean hopefully...The two numbers will just cancel each other out...I believe that older americans who are freed from the burden of lingering diseases that might result from this research would be less of a burden to the health care system...But you are correct...There is a price tag attached to longevity...It is a price that it is hard to resist paying.  PROUD TO BE TFFE! ID: 339342 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
So how about the fact that Stem Cell research is being funded by creating more DEBT? Dan Michel, I agree with you largely... But everybody is going to die sometime....and whenever that time comes whatever kills us is going to be a disease.....some kind of disease. It's impossible to avoid in the here and now. Advancing medicine for the aged at this point is only useful for prolonging life through curing or deteriorating diseases's potency, not unfortunateley eliminating it altogether. That accomplishment would mean mankind has become immortal, by definition. Give humanity 3 or 4 hundred more years and we'll see if that is achieved. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 339401 · |
|
Enigma Send message Joined: 15 Mar 06 Posts: 628 Credit: 21,606 RAC: 0
|
So how about the fact that Stem Cell research is being funded by creating more DEBT? I reason that stem cell research will increase longevity by facilitating organ replacement and stopping degenerative diseases such as those mentioned in this thread, however will it lead to cures for the real killers, cancer, heart disease, aids etc etc for which the treatment is very expensive? At the end of the day, we may just have lots more people living longer and still lots having to be treated for symptoms. Some argue that stem cell research will lead to many other cures....Perhaps..... I would like to think that the equation would be so balanced. However given the economics of the situation, treating symptoms is big business. Not something that is going to just 'go away'. Belief gets in the way of learning
ID: 339415 · |
Beethoven  Send message Joined: 6 Apr 06 Posts: 1383 Credit: 6,852 RAC: 0 |
That may change. Governments are having to bear the costs of this treatment syndrome, and it's getting so expensive that they may just decide to band together, raising taxes/duties on treatment drugs and tax incentives for cures. When governments do decide to get together on mutual problems they can be a decisive influence by setting joint policies in secret. Look at the way they jointly set monetary policy now, for an example of this. The countries cannot tackle the pharmaceutical companies individually, but together they can. It is becoming a serious problem for them, demographics being what they are, so they just might do it. ID: 339470 · |
|
Enigma Send message Joined: 15 Mar 06 Posts: 628 Credit: 21,606 RAC: 0
|
I think the problem is more fundamental. If the biggest research houses are 'for profit' (publicly listed entities etc) is it in their interests to suppress a cure and continue treatement (we are talking shareholder returns now). I dont think the pharmaceutical companies give a toss about nation debt and health care costs. It's an ethical dilemma and i don't think the private sector is up to it. Unless governments band together to do scientific research then perhaps we will see a different trend (competing with the private sector?). The alternative is to increased company tax on treatment drugs, and regulate (price fix) the product prices across the board. This would give the private sector incentives for cures rather than treatment..... (reduced profits on treatment drugs). Belief gets in the way of learning
ID: 340973 · |
Misfit  Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
A promising sign - Senate may finally act on stem cell funding UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL July 3, 2006 For more than a year, supporters of embryonic stem cell research have urged the U.S. Senate to vote on a House-passed bill that would lift funding restrictions imposed by President Bush in 2001. Scientists and patient advocates say those restrictions have caused the United States to fall behind other nations in the promising line of medical research. Last year, the House passed a bill that would permit the use of federal funds for stem cell research using cells from eggs that are donated for that purpose after in-vitro fertilization procedures. The bill, however, was not allowed to come up for a vote in the Senate at that time. But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a physician, promised that he would allow a vote this year. As is almost always the case during an election year, political positioning will play too much of a role in an issue so potentially important to so many people. In a deal that was worked out to bring the stem cell research bill to a vote, the House bill will be but one of three that senators must act on. The other two – one that would ban the use of tissue from fetuses created for that purpose, and another that would allow federal funding only for research using tissue not taken from embryos – are supported by some conservatives who generally oppose stem cell research. Under the deal, all three bills need 60 votes to pass, and no amendments are allowed. The House would have to consider the two bills it has not voted on. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because it uses the cells from embryos in an effort to produce new cells to cure degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, diabetes, burns and spinal cord injuries. In extracting the cells, the embryo – at that point about 100 cells – is destroyed. For this reason, some oppose the research. Even though the House-passed bill may have enough support in the Senate to override a threatened veto from Bush, it is unlikely the House could support an override. Still, a show of strong support in Congress would hearten the overwhelming majority of Americans who support stem cell research. me@rescam.org ID: 355920 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Senate to vote on further funding for stem cell research By Terri Somers Union-Tribune July 14, 2006 The Senate will vote next week on whether the federal government should expand its funding for controversial embryonic stem cell research, loosening restrictions put in place by President Bush in August 2001. The vote on three proposed pieces of legislation is expected to further fuel an already contentious debate in which many conservative Republicans senators are siding with their more liberal colleagues to expand funding for human embryonic stem cell research. President Bush, however, has said he intends to veto one of the bills, which allows federal funding for research involving human embyros left over after in-vitro fertilization procedures. That bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, or HR 810, was approved by a 238-194 vote a year ago in the House of Representatives. The bill is expected to have the 60 votes it needs to pass in the Senate, including the support of California senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats. But many think it is unlikely the measure could get enough support to override the president's veto. Current federal funding is available only to research on embryonic stem cell lines that existed prior to August 2001. In establishing the current policy, Bush said he did not want federal funding to support the continued destruction of human embryos. Scientists have said the limiting of crucial federal funding has hurt the progression of the science in the United States, while other countries are directing millions more dollars to the research and potentially gaining an edge in a field that many hope may eventually provide treatments or cures for some of society's most devastating diseases. “There's tremendous promise in stem cell research, and I've worked long and hard with my colleagues to bring this serious ethical issue to the floor in a way that encourages thoughtful discussion and deliberation,†Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a written statement. Frist, a physician, is one of many anti-abortion conservatives who support expanding funding for the controversial research. Frist has been under pressure from Democratic and Republican proponents of the research to allow a vote. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other senators have threatened to delay Senate business to force a vote on stem cell research. Frist will put three pieces of stem cell legislation up for debate at the same time, before the votes are cast for each one individually. Several proponents of embryonic stem cell research said the two additional pieces of legislation provide cover for conservatives who don't want to expand funding but want to tell constituents they support stem cell research. One of those measures would support alternative methods of harvesting stem cells without destroying human embryos. San Diego-based stem cell researchers said this doesn't change federal policy, which already allows this research using federal dollars. The third piece of legislation would institute a ban on creating fetuses in order to harvest them for research. “I don't know anyone who is seriously proposing doing this,†said Jeanne Loring, a researcher at the Burnham Institute in La Jolla. “This is not something we would want to do, so I support it.†The second and third pieces of legislation show Frist's savvy, said Jesse Reynolds of the Oakland-based Center for Genetics and Society, a non-profit that focuses on the ethical aspects of stem cell research. “They provide a certain amount of political cover for a certain group of senators that don't want to support expanded funding,†Reynolds said. “They can go back to constituents and say although I voted against HR 810, I supported stem cell research by voting for one of the other measures.†Reynolds' organization supports expanded funding, but wishes the legislation went further by outlining ethical standards. In California, where voters approved spending $3 billion in taxpayer money to fund the controversial research, committees of patient advocates, ethicists, researchers, biotechnology insiders and the public have been working to build these standards for more than a year now. The Los Angeles-based Alliance for Stem Cell Research, which sprang out of California's stem cell initiative, is urging voters to call, e-mail and fax their U.S. Senators to voice their support for expanded funding. “Even though they are expected to vote in favor of it, they should hear from supporters because they are definitely going to hear from those who oppose it,†said Susan DeLaurentis, chief executive of the alliance. The alliance is among many patient advocacy groups that have been lobbying for expanded funding for more than five years. Their campaign has won the support of many conservatives, including former first lady Nancy Reagan. “I don't know how someone can say that they don't support this because they are worried about destroying these embryos – these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway,†DeLaurentis said. “That they can be used to change someone's life for the better is a wonderful opportunity.†DeLaurentis was optimistic that a presidential veto might be overridden because she has spoken with several congressmen who said they now regret their vote against HR 810. Stem cell researcher Loring is not as optimistic, but said there is still an upside. “All this discussion and the news articles teach more people what we are talking about with regard to embryos – they see that it is medical waste that we are talking about and we're not tearing something limb from limb,†Loring said. “When people actually get the subtleties, it makes a real difference in how they feel about the issue. It's certainly meant a lot more senators getting it,†said Loring, who is a founder of the San Diego-based Stem Cell Resource, a bank where people can donate embryos left over after in-vitro fertilization for use by researchers. me@rescam.org ID: 367604 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
Enigma, After noticing many of your posts over many many months I increasingly wonder why it is you believe that governments are the only means by which cures and treatments are better administered. Will you explain? The history of the world....well, that will be my follow up question. :-) ID: 367762 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Bush Promises Veto of Stem Cell Bill By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer Jul 17 6:27 PM US/Eastern WASHINGTON - In an emotional session marked by tales of death and hope, the Senate debated on Monday whether the government should pay for new embryonic stem cell research, pushing a measure to do it toward passage and President Bush's first veto. "He would veto the bill," the White House declared in a written statement, underlining the words for emphasis. That quieted speculation by supporters that Bush, perhaps persuaded by new science and strong public support for embryonic stem cell research, would reverse course and sign the legislation into law. Though several Republican Senate leaders support the measure, many GOP lawmakers oppose it, as do conservative voters in a midterm election year. "The bill would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells, overturning the president's policy that funds research without promoting such ongoing destruction," the White House said. Behind the scenes, former first lady Nancy Reagan lobbied lawmakers on the bill's behalf. Her husband, President Reagan, died in 2004 after a long deterioration from Alzheimer's disease, one of several illnesses that researchers say stem cell research might eventually cure. "She is still restless on this issue," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D- Mass. "We all know this debate has moved further down the road toward a hopeful conclusion because of her work." Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a cancer survivor, said his disease is one of many that might be cured sooner with the engine of federal funding behind embryonic stem cell research. Specter compared opposition to the bill to historical resistance to research that led to space travel and landmark vaccinations "to show how attitudes at different times in retrospect look foolish, look absolutely ridiculous." "There is just no sensible, logical reason why we would not make use of stem cell research," he said. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a transplant surgeon whose negotiations permitted the bill to come to the floor after being stalled for a year, attributed the opposition to "fear (that) can also delay scientific advances that are out there before us." "We've got to work together to allow science to advance" within ethical boundaries, he said. Where to draw those boundaries is the heart of the debate. Bush and his allies believe embryos are nascent human life worth more than the advances they might make through stem cell science and point out that embryonic stem cell research is years away from clinical trials, let alone cures for disease. They rejected arguments that only leftover embryos from fertility clinics would be used. "Just because the budding lives would not survive does not mean that we should ghoulishly conduct experiments on them," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky. "Who knows how many human embryos we will have to destroy before any tangible progress is made?" Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., appeared with three children adopted from in vitro fertilization clinics in an effort to put faces on the argument that frozen embryos could have a future other than being subjects of stem cell research. "It is immoral to destroy the youngest of human lives for research purposes," Brownback said. "It is an age-old human debate, whether you allow the stronger to take advantage of the weaker. We have already regretted doing it in the past; we will regret this, too." Neither house has demonstrated the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. Vote counters on both sides said they expected the Senate to pass the bill with at least 60 votes, but they could not predict there would be the required 67 for a veto override. The House last year fell 50 votes short of a veto-proof margin when it passed the same bill, 238-194. The Senate was slated to vote Tuesday afternoon. Bush was expected to veto the bill early Wednesday, followed by the House's override effort. Two related bills also are scheduled for votes Tuesday in both the House and Senate. One, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would encourage study on stem cells derived from sources other than embryos. The other, sponsored by Santorum and Brownback, would ban so-called "fetal farming," the possibility of developing fetuses, then aborting them for scientific research. Both have little or no opposition and Bush is expected to sign them. me@rescam.org ID: 370494 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Clash over stem cells Congress is right to ease rules on research UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL July 18, 2006 Nearly five years after President Bush placed restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, the Senate is expected to vote, as early as today, to ease the restrictions. The House already has approved the legislation. President Bush has promised to exercise his first veto once the measure reaches his desk. For the majority of Americans – nearly two in three, according to some polls – support for embryonic stem cell research is common sense. It is believed that embryonic stem cell research, which uses cells extracted from 5-day old embryos in an attempt to replicate other cells, someday could lead to cures for such degenerative conditions as Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries and severe burns. But others, including President Bush, believe that using cells from an embryo, even from one that otherwise would be discarded after in vitro procedures, amounts to taking the life of another human being. That is why Bush placed restrictions on the research in August 2001. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that other forms of research, including adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells, show just as much promise. Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that other stem cells do not show as much promise in research because they cannot grow into different types of tissue. That embryonic stem cell research has gotten tied up in abortion politics is regrettable, though understandable. It is not a simple issue. A number of staunchly anti-abortion conservatives, such as Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John McCain, support the legislation. In the Senate, the effort to ease the restrictions is expected to pass overwhelmingly, as are two other related measures that the president is expected to sign. The two related bills, which have not been voted on by the House, were introduced to gain conservative support for the main bill. One of these would encourage scientists to search for stem cells from sources other than embryos. The other would prohibit “fetal farming†– harvesting embryos from women or animals for the purpose of research. Neither of the two related bills is controversial, and both are expected to pass the Senate. While politics keeps getting in the way in Washington, across the nation and the world stem cell research of various kinds is progressing, though treatments in humans are not expected for years. Five states, including California, have decided to set aside money for embryonic stem cell research. California, while establishing a structure to do so, cannot issue bonds to finance research until a lawsuit now on appeal is decided. Still, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is crucial. And even with a promised veto, Washington may be moving closer to supporting it. me@rescam.org ID: 371183 · |
Captain Avatar  Send message Joined: 17 May 99 Posts: 15133 Credit: 529,088 RAC: 0
|
BUSH ISSUES FIRST VETO OF PRESIDENCY, REJECTING BILL TO EXPAND FEDERAL RESEARCH ON STEM CELLS OBTAINED FROM EMBRYOS Jul 19, 2:38 PM (ET) By MARY DALRYMPLE WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush cast the first veto of his 5 1/2-year presidency Wednesday, saying legislation easing limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research "crosses a moral boundary" and is wrong. "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said at a White House event where he was surrounded by 18 families who "adopted" frozen embryos not used by other couples, and then used those leftover embryos to have children. "Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said. The veto came a day after the Senate defied Bush and approved the legislation, 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds margin needed to override. White House officials and Republican congressional leaders claimed it was unlikely that Congress could override the veto. Bush's support was the strongest in the House, which was expected to take up the veto as early as later Wednesday. Bush has supported federally funded research on only those stem cell lines created before Aug. 9, 2001, the date of his speech to the nation on the subject. The president vetoed the measure shortly after it came to his desk. His position was politically popular among conservative Republicans, and it was sure to be an issue in the midterm congressional elections. Announcing the veto, Bush was surrounded in the East Room by so-called "snowflake" families, those with children born through embryo donation. "They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. The remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells. And they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals," Bush said. He said the bill would have crossed a line and "once crossed, we would find it impossible to turn back." At the same time, Bush announced he had signed another bill, passed unanimously in the House and Senate, that would pre-emptively ban "fetal farming," the prospect of raising and aborting fetuses for scientific research. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was quick to criticize the president's veto. "I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act," said Frist. "Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available." Said Bush: "As science brings us every closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience in history as a nation demand that we resist this temptation. "America was founded on the principle that we are all created equal and endowed by our creator with the right to life," he added. "We can advance the cause of science while upholding this founding promise. We can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology. And we can ensure that science serves the cause of humanity, instead of the other way around." 
ID: 371718 · |
|
Darth Dogbytes™ Send message Joined: 30 Jul 03 Posts: 7512 Credit: 2,021,148 RAC: 0
|
This is just another reason to vote a straight Democratic ticket in November. Account frozen... ID: 371744 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
1 minute ago CNN reported the House failed to override the veto. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 371804 · |
Hans Dorn  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 2262 Credit: 26,448,570 RAC: 0 
|
 ID: 371871 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Review of stem cell patents is sought Consumer groups say researchers 'handcuffed' By Terri Somers Union-Tribune July 19, 2006 Two consumer groups yesterday asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine and revoke three patents that give the rights to all human embryonic stem cells used for research to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, known as WARF. The patents require any researcher in the United States working with embryonic stem cells – whether at a university, private research lab or drug discovery company – to pay exorbitant fees and adhere to such restrictive guidelines that researchers are effectively being “handcuffed,†the consumer advocates said. The groups – the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights in Santa Monica and the New York-based Public Patent Foundation – said the “outrageous and overreaching†patents present more of a roadblock to embryonic stem cell research than the moral debate played out on Capitol Hill yesterday. A lawyer for WARF, a nonprofit group affiliated with the University of Wisconsin, called the allegations “a red herring†presented by people who want to use the university's groundbreaking discoveries for nothing. The consumer advocates say the patents, and the fees being charged to use the science they cover, are driving researchers and philanthropic funding overseas, where the patents are not legally recognized. The Carlsbad-based biotechnology company Invitrogen, for example, is planning to conduct its embryonic stem cell program at its offices in China, unfettered by the WARF patents. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation is giving more money to researchers overseas because its philanthropic dollars go further where scientists are unfettered by the WARF patents, Richard Goldstein, the organization's chief scientific officer, said earlier this year. Many scientists and biotech insiders contend that this brain drain is giving other countries an advantage in the research that many hope may one day lead to a lucrative industry providing treatments for some of society's most devastating diseases. “WARF needs to get the dollar signs out of their eyes and stop impeding vital research that needs to go forward,†said John Simpson, of the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayers Rights. Simpson said he began exploring the idea of a WARF patent challenge after hearing numerous scientists complain. He said he was further motivated several months ago when WARF announced that it would seek a share of revenue if California's taxpayer-funded stem cell initiative led to patents that could be licensed. At issue are patents issued to University of Wisconsin researcher James A. Thompson in 1998, 2001 and last April. The patents cover the scientific recipe for pulling embryonic stem cells out of days-old primate embryos that are a cluster of 100 to 200 cells. These embryonic stem cells eventually morph into all cell types in the body, including nerve, blood and bone. The hope and hype is that these cells can be used to test new drugs that are problematic to test on people, and that they might eventually be used to produce new cells to cure diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. The consumer groups contend the patents should never have been issued because Thompson was not patenting something unique. They point to a patent issued in November 1992 and scientific articles published even earlier detailing how to derive embryonic stem cells from mouse embryos. Thompson concedes in his patent application that a previously published recipe for deriving embryonic stem cells from mice works on human embryos, the groups said in their filing with the patent office. Neither the earlier patent nor the articles were reviewed by the office when it considered whether to grant Thompson his patent, the groups said. “WARF was not the first to do human embryonic stem cell research,†said Dan Ravicher, of the Public Patent Foundation. “They were just the first to run to the patent office and try to get such a broad patent.†The nonprofit Public Patent Foundation, made up of patent lawyers and scientists, will handle all the legal wrangling for the requested re-examination, Ravicher said. At the time Thompson's first patent request was filed, “it was obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of embryonic stem cell derivation that the process taught by (the earlier patent and published articles) could be used to isolate embryonic stem cells of other mammals, including humans,†said Burnham Institute researcher Jeanne Loring, who filed a declaration to support the re-exam request. Elizabeth Donley, a WARF lawyer, was not familiar with the cases brought forth by the consumer advocates and could not say whether they were reviewed in Thompson's patent application. Until recently, WARF charged nonprofit research institutes $5,000 for a license to use embryonic stem cells. After the National Institutes of Health tapped the University of Wisconsin to be the home of a national embryonic stem cell bank, the license fee for nonprofit research was dropped to $500, which WARF said only covers its costs to issue the license. The fee charged to commercial researchers, however, starts at $75,000 and is known to run as high as $250,000, Simpson said. That does not include annual maintenance fees and royalties, he added. The consumer groups expect that within three months the patent office will decide whether to grant a re-examination. The office receives about 450 requests each year, and about 70 percent of those cases result in a change to the patent, Ravicher said. me@rescam.org ID: 371884 · |
|
Misfit Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
 ID: 372015 · |
Jeffrey  Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
"America was founded on the principle that we are all created equal and endowed by our creator with the right to life," Did I just hear Thomas Jefferson again? ;) ID: 372076 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
Jeffrey, The main issue really is that the problem of what is a person has never been resolved in society at large. It's such a complex issue it's not likely to reach a meaningful resolution soon insofar as most of the public will be satisfied. That being said, let's stir the pudding here and deal with this from a different point of view and use a different tact. I support stem cell research, but not this bill. How is it right to use taxpayer dollars to fund any medical research that doesn't directly affect the properly delineated functions of government? Why am I required to pay for research that I may or may not morally agree with? When, where, and how does the government acquire the right to decide which research projects get funded and which do not? Now, as I said, I support the freedom of scientists to conduct stem cell research. G.W. Bush and I agree on this particular MORAL issue, in a fashion. He rejects it on 'moral grounds'.....and so do I. He rejects it because he believes an embryo is a person and it is immoral to destroy his definition of a 'person'. But, of course, only a person is a person. Not an embryo. My moral grounds for dismissing it are much different and they center on the following simplified point. To tax Americans forcibly to promote research into areas they take moral stands against are wrong. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 372166 · |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.