Obama Lifts Ban on Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Science • Views: 4,234

President Obama has ended the Bush administration’s limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is ending Bush-era limits on using federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research.

Obama was signing an executive order Monday, with scientists at his side. He said “medical miracles do not happen simply by accident.”

Former President George W. Bush had limited taxpayer money for embryonic stem cell research to a small number of stem cell lines that were created before Aug. 9, 2001. Some Republicans and many conservatives argued that the research on embryos destroys human lives.

But proponents of lifting the restrictions — including former first lady Nancy Reagan — said the research could lead to better treatment and possible cures to various diseases, from diabetes to paralysis.

Jump to bottom

814 comments
1 phoenixgirl  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:43:39am

sigh

2 CIA Reject  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:44:23am

Guess Christopher Reeve will walk now eh?

/What …

3 Opinionated  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:44:36am

I bet the hate “baby killer” Giuliani crowd are still happy he is not President.

4 Milk in a Box  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:44:39am

Not to sound like some extreme Christian-conservative, but I wish he didn’t do this. From what I understand, adult stem cells were working fine while embryonic stem cell research is much less proven. And while I know that there were plenty of embryonic stem cells going to waste, I’m a little worried that now women will have abortions “for science”.

5 Ojoe  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:44:40am

GWB said that it was the essence of civilization to protect the weak and powerless.

6 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:45:01am

I don’t know the science behind this. If the research has merit I am for it. If not this is PR bullshit.

7 Buck  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:46:04am

paying back. It cost a billion dollars to get elected, and now 2 trillion to pay back…

8 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:46:18am

If embryonic stem cells held such promise then why are there no major companies pursuing it? Only government grant funded agencies seem eager to see this happen.

9 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:46:20am

I won’t get into the middle of the use of the fetus argument. But with the way we are bleeding already, why is this type of funding necessary. Glad we don’t have more pressing issues for our leader to be worried about. Lilly Leadbetter, Embryonic Stem Cell research, and here stupid little me thought our economy was in the dumper

10 CIA Reject  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:46:23am

re: #4 Milk in a Box

Not to sound like some extreme Christian-conservative, but I wish he didn’t do this. From what I understand, adult stem cells were working fine while embryonic stem cell research is much less proven. And while I know that there were plenty of embryonic stem cells going to waste, I’m a little worried that now women will have abortions “for science”.

Or at least abortions for money. The BO administration: “Making Human Life a Commodity”

11 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:46:32am

He’ll get plenty of cover from the MSM on this, as they conflate adult and embryonic stem cells, to muddy the waters for Americans. It’s adult stem cells that have brought success, and that’s where the private research dollars go.

12 badger1970  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:46:42am

Change for the sake of change. How someone can overturn sound judgments so quickly just astounds me. Change for the sake of change.

13 thedopefishlives  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:46:44am

re: #6 Erik The Red

I don’t know the science behind this. If the research has merit I am for it. If not this is PR bullshit.

That’s the thing: There is no science behind this. Embryonic stem cells, to the best of my knowledge, have contributed NOTHING that adult stem cells have not already provided. Furthermore, the ban in question only extended to FEDERAL funding, which means that private funding was perfectly acceptable toward this cause.

14 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:46:54am

Hard to believe it was over four years ago that the “Breck Girl” gave his whole Christopher Reeve thang, and “Lurch” spoke with him on the phone.

Over four years ago.

15 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:47:20am

re: #8 FurryOldGuyJeans

If embryonic stem cells held such promise then why are there no major companies pursuing it? Only government grant funded agencies seem eager to see this happen.

It’s just cover for NARAL, NOW, etc.

16 Milk in a Box  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:47:21am

re: #10 CIA Reject

Or at least abortions for money. The BO administration: “Making Human Life a Commodity”

Oh, I didn’t think of that. Yeah, OK, I’m definitely against it.

17 Gella  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:47:58am

there are need to be strict guidelines created for stem research, otherwise a lot women will make money, which is really sad

18 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:48:30am

Shown interviews with Michael J. Fox shaking yet?

19 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:48:30am

It’s not necessary to destroy human embryos for this kind of research:

A portion of stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are to be destroyed, or stored for long periods of time, long past their viable storage life. In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos. This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research.

20 gymmom  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:48:34am

re: #3 Opinionated

I bet the hate “baby killer” Giuliani crowd are still happy he is not President.

My very prolife Catholic friends would have voted for Guiliani over any democrat. I brought Guiliani up at prayer group hesitantly and was surprised by the support. Anyone but a democrat in their minds.

21 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:48:43am

re: #10 CIA Reject

Or at least abortions for money. The BO administration: “Making Human Life a Commodity”

Next stop, the New York Mercantile Exchange. Can I get my hands on some futures contracts? What is human life trading at these days?

/

22 Emperor Norton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:48:52am

Medical miracles do not simply happen by accident, but Obama did.

23 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:49:05am

re: #17 Gella

there are need to be strict guidelines created for stem research, otherwise a lot women will make money, which is really sad

And then when they get older and are unable to have children, they will be looking to sue the federal government.

24 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:49:18am

Meh.

This issue got conflated with this idea that Bush et al were on a mission to end medical advances. A sort of anti-science jihad.

At no point was it illegal in this country to use stem cells from aborted fetuses to conduct research. It was simply illegal for the US Government to pay for it.

Now the US government will.

Yet we get this stupid rhetoric “medical miracles do not happen simply by accident.”

Obama is an idiot. Most medical miracles result from private funding of medical research. That private money is often in search of a profit. That is why the US leads the world in medical research - because we allow people to make money doing it.

But if you look at the prices of US pharmaceuticals since Obama passed his pork package, the money is exiting. It is drying up.

Mr President - medical miracles do not just happen by accident. They also don’t happen because a government spends a lot of money. Otherwise, the French would own the pharmaceutical research industry outright.

Moron.

25 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:49:21am

re: #13 thedopefishlives

That’s the thing: There is no science behind this. Embryonic stem cells, to the best of my knowledge, have contributed NOTHING that adult stem cells have not already provided. Furthermore, the ban in question only extended to FEDERAL funding, which means that private funding was perfectly acceptable toward this cause.

That what I understood. No ban on research only Federal funding. No new science here. Just PR BULLSHIT.

26 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:49:34am

Good news!

27 Golem Akbar  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:49:36am

Do you think they’ll come up with a cure for liberal mind-set? Jimmy Carter-itis? Man, I sure hope so.
(did I forget: ////?)

28 saberry0530  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:49:48am

How long before embryonic stem cells are traded on the commodities exchange?

//////////

29 Gella  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:50:02am

re: #19 Charles

It’s not necessary to destroy human embryos for this kind of research:

that is correct, but unfortunately not everybody understand science behind it, and unfortunately there always will be ppl who will try to profit from this

30 jorline  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:50:15am

Good morning, Lizards.

As soon as Obama finishes undoing all of GWB’s knots we should be up and cruising.
//

31 unreconstructed rebel  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:50:16am

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn’t science figured out how to continue stem cell research without using embryos?

Sounds like very cheap grandstanding to me.

32 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:50:19am

re: #19 Charles

It’s not necessary to destroy human embryos for this kind of research:

Charles, on this I agree. If they are going to be destroyed, then let’s at least put them to good use. But if the science doesn’t back up the claims, then I’m really not interested.

33 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:50:27am
34 livefreeor die  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:50:39am

re: #25 Erik The Red

That what I understood. No ban on research only Federal funding. No new science here. Just PR BULLSHIT.

Just another shiny object to distract the masses from what a failure he is.

35 CIA Reject  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:50:59am

re: #8 FurryOldGuyJeans

If embryonic stem cells held such promise then why are there no major companies pursuing it? Only government grant funded agencies seem eager to see this happen.

Exactly. I believe that for BO this is ideological. In socialist/communist ideology the individual has no value except to serve the state. Unfortunately individual human lives are still very much valued in America so what better way to erode the value of the individual than to reduce human life to a commodity and nurture the notion that, as individuals, we are all simply pharmaceutical ingredients that have outlived our shelf lives?

36 formercorpsman  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:51:01am

re: #33 Spartacus50

Poor taste.

37 Haverwilde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:51:03am

“It is a tale, Told order, signed by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” Except for a few more billions spent, on leftist causes. But what’s a few more billions, when we have trillions to spare.
/

38 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:51:10am

Guys, please knock off the shaking jokes. Parkensons is an awful thing to have.

39 lawhawk  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:51:38am

It was NEVER a ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research. It was a limitation on federal funding. Federal funding for embryonic stem cells was never considered by the government until Bush in early 2001. The rules were actually proffered right before 9/11.

Everything I wrote a month ago is just as appropriate now.

There were no limitations on private funding for embryonic stem cell research, and research on adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells were unfettered by any limitations as well.

The smart money has gone into adult stem cells and cord blood stem cell research, which aren’t affected by the moral and ethical dilemnas posed by embryonic stem cell research. ASCR and CBSCR are both providing advances and therapies are either coming into use or are in the pipeline. The same can’t be said of embryonic stem cells because of a problem with differentiation of those cells - there’s an issue with cancerous growth.

40 unreconstructed rebel  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:51:56am

re: #5 Ojoe

GWB said that it was the essence of civilization to protect the weak and powerless.

Anyone brave enough to quote George gets an upding.

41 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:51:57am
42 Spartacus50  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:52:02am

I guess that South Korean “scientician” can now get his federal matching funds to clone more dogs

43 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:52:19am

re: #33 Spartacus50

Guess what jerk, not funny. Do you know why? Think about it.

44 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:52:40am

Maybe we could get the stem cells from the children who survive abortions, just as long as they aren’t a burden to the mother. Put’em in a bag kicking and drop in a dumpster after the stem cell harvest.

*spit*
/infanticide. Barry Approved! (3 times)….

45 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:52:41am

re: #30 jorline

Good morning, Lizards.

As soon as Obama finishes undoing all of GWB’s knots we should be up and cruising.
//

It’s all about the failed policies of the last 8 years.

46 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:53:08am

re: #38 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Guys, please knock off the shaking jokes. Parkensons is an awful thing to have.

My Gran has Parkinson’s. It is under control when she is on her meds. It is not nice but I have some jokes that are damn funny//

47 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:53:22am

re: #42 Spartacus50

Now, that’s better. That’s funny.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am the courtesy police.

48 Spartacus50  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:53:24am

re: #36 formercorpsman

It was in poor taste for MJ Fox to exploit his illness to campaign against Jim Talent too.

49 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:53:27am

Next, they’ll be able to make Soylent Green without having to round up Edward G. Robinson.

I can see it now - Low Sodium Soylent Green, Sour Cream and Onion Soylent Green, Jalapeno Cheddar Soylent Green, etc.

50 Gella  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:53:55am

and O doesn’t like cloning

51 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:54:04am

re: #26 Killgore Trout

Good news!

Exactly how? What will be the impact? What promising therapies were not already being developed by private efforts?

I live in the San Diego area and a guy who lives a few houses from me runs a biotech firm that does stem cell work. He is vastly more concerned with how much money is leaving the investment pool than he ever was with the Bush ban.

Obama’s policies pose an existential threat to privately funded medical research. Regardless of where you get stem cells from.

52 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:54:07am
At the same event Monday, Obama planned to announce safeguards through the National Institutes of Health intended to diminish what the administration believes is an intrusion by the political process on the scientific community.

I was hearing all sorts of silly quotes this morning on the radio about this, about how in the brave new world of Obama, “we won’t let politics get in the way of science”. No matter what your feelings on this particular matter, this is a non sequitur. The question of whether we should use embryonic stem cells for research is, in the first instance, a moral (or if you prefer, “ethical”) one. There is no “scientific” answer to a moral question.

53 red satellite  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:54:08am
Obama Lifts Ban on Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Now if he could just Lift the Ban on Free Enterprise….

54 Opinionated  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:54:09am

re: #20 gymmom

My very prolife Catholic friends would have voted for Guiliani over any democrat. I brought Guiliani up at prayer group hesitantly and was surprised by the support. Anyone but a democrat in their minds.

I will never ever forgive those “Conservatives” who unleashed vitriolic, unfair and repulsive attacks on Giuliani.

Just imagine if he was President today to deal with the problems facing our Nation.

55 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:54:13am

I am afraid - given how well scientists have indicated research on Adult stem cells has worked, that this is just another ploy by Obama to distract us from his abysmal handling of the economy and foreign affairs.
And, at the same time, this was a poorly written piece, even by AP “standards:

“Regardless, researchers say newer lines that have been produced without federal money during the period of the Bush ban are healthier and better suited to creating treatment for diseases.

“We’ve got eight years of science to make up for,” said Dr. Curt Civin, whose research allowed scientists to isolate stem cells and who now serves as the founding director of the University of Maryland Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine.”

56 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:54:34am

re: #49 Ward Cleaver

You forgot Arugula Soylent Green.

57 zioncat  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:54:36am

I thought there has been a breakthrough in this field that made this whole issue irrelevant?

58 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:54:40am

re: #48 Spartacus50

It was in poor taste for MJ Fox to exploit his illness to campaign against Jim Talent too.

So, that makes it ok for you to continue the poor taste?

59 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:54:42am

re: #35 CIA Reject

Exactly. I believe that for BO this is ideological. In socialist/communist ideology the individual has no value except to serve the state. Unfortunately individual human lives are still very much valued in America so what better way to erode the value of the individual than to reduce human life to a commodity and nurture the notion that, as individuals, we are all simply pharmaceutical ingredients that have outlived our shelf lives?

I was not even addressing that issue. I was addressing the issue that NO medical/pharmaceutical companies are pursuing embryonic stem cell research since so far virtually no benefits have been discovered, adult stem cells have been the area for discoveries. This end to the ban is nothing more than government money being used as bribes and graft to appease the masses.

60 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:54:44am

re: #37 Haverwilde

“It is a tale, Told order, signed by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” Except for a few more billions spent, on leftist causes. But what’s a few more billions, when we have trillions to spare.
/

“Run out of money? Don’t worry; we’ll print more!”

- bho

61 opnion  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:55:38am

re: #44 Oh no…Sand People!

Maybe we could get the stem cells from the children who survive abortions, just as long as they aren’t a burden to the mother. Put’em in a bag kicking and drop in a dumpster after the stem cell harvest.

*spit*
/infanticide. Barry Approved! (3 times)….


He was the only member of the Illinois Senate to not vote to compel medical care for abortion survivors.
They are already born & at that point are US citizens. I loathe that man

62 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:55:46am

re: #51 karmic_inquisitor

Exactly how? What will be the impact? What promising therapies were not already being developed by private efforts?

I live in the San Diego area and a guy who lives a few houses from me runs a biotech firm that does stem cell work. He is vastly more concerned with how much money is leaving the investment pool than he ever was with the Bush ban.

Obama’s policies pose an existential threat to privately funded medical research. Regardless of where you get stem cells from.

Yes, and his health care policies should have this guy trembling. New technologies are rarely cost effective at first. If the government takes over health care, or controls it, biotech companies will not be able to make any money.

63 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:55:48am

re: #56 Jetpilot1101

You forgot Arugula Soylent Green.

You’re right! Also:

Balsamic Vinaigrette Soylent Green.

64 FrogMarch  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:55:53am

re: #39 lawhawk

It was NEVER a ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research. It was a limitation on federal funding.

65 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:55:56am

re: #46 Erik The Red

When the control is harder to maintain, it is not funny. So you know, Erik, I have no problem with families facing things like that with humor.

A Parkensons/Cancer/Althiemers/E.D. joke by one suffering from it is one thing.

A drive by post like that one is harmful and disgusting.

66 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:56:21am

re: #45 soxfan4life

It’s all about the failed policies of the last 8 years.

Thirty years from now, this will be known as the ‘Blame Bush’ Presidency. And that might be the nicest things said about it.

67 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:56:45am

re: #50 Gella

and O doesn’t like cloning

I can see him making an exception - he can be cloned so that our dear leader can rule in perpetuity.

Except they won’t clone from his nose - they can use his ear - much more tissue to work with.

68 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:56:57am

re: #19 Charles

It’s not necessary to destroy human embryos for this kind of research:

Okay, but if the embryonic stem cells are as wildly valuable for research as some say, it raises the real possibility that people could deliberately, shall we say, create embryos in order for them to be, well, sold and stripped for parts. And that raises a very legitimate moral question.

69 CIA Reject  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:57:09am

re: #49 Ward Cleaver

Next, they’ll be able to make Soylent Green without having to round up Edward G. Robinson.

I can see it now - Low Sodium Soylent Green, Sour Cream and Onion Soylent Green, Jalapeno Cheddar Soylent Green, etc.

Don’t forget gluten free - some people have allergies ya know?

70 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:57:15am

re: #53 red satellite

Now if he could just Lift the Ban on Free Enterprise….

Sorry, doesn’t fit his socio-economic-political agenda.

71 livefreeor die  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:57:19am

re: #66 Athos

Thirty years from now, this will be known as the ‘Blame Bush’ Presidency. And that might be the nicest things said about it.

My early vote is for the “Making Jimmy Carter look like a genius” presidency.

72 Gella  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:57:34am

re: #67 karmic_inquisitor

I can see him making an exception - he can be cloned so that our dear leader can rule in perpetuity.

Except they won’t clone from his nose - they can use his ear - much more tissue to work with.

on the other hand if he’ll get clones, one of him can be on perpetual vacation

73 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:57:39am

re: #62 Kosh’s Shadow

Yes, and his health care policies should have this guy trembling. New technologies are rarely cost effective at first. If the government takes over health care, or controls it, biotech companies will not be able to make any money.


Bingo.

But Obama has promised that his administration will cure cancer.

74 Amer-I-Can  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:57:47am

Wow, this is definitely something that we need to do to stimulate the economy, right? How many jobs does this create? This is a proven technology right?

Oh, never proven! No new jobs! Waste of OUR money! Morally questionable at best!

Typical move by “The One” (TM) to prove that BDS is evident at all levels, not just the MSM.

75 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:57:52am

Public funds for stem cells !

Public funds for campaigns !

Oh,wait…

76 formercorpsman  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:58:01am

What bothers me most, is not the actual honest argument over this subject. We need to have that.

But I have a hard time believing, there is not some sick bastard out there waiting to cultivate embryos just for this.

The human embryo farm if you will. For anyone thinking this is fantasy, ask yourself if just 30 years ago you would be seeing Octuplet Mom, and that story now.

It is always about follow the money. Lifting this ban is no different bailing the banks out. Someone will benefit. Money will find its way back as donations, and all of the risk involved with bringing any potential benefit to market, is shouldered by the taxpayer via the federal government.

To say I am concerned about what the future holds for us goes without saying.

77 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:58:05am

re: #67 karmic_inquisitor

I can see him making an exception - he can be cloned so that our dear leader can rule in perpetuity.

Except they won’t clone from his nose - they can use his ear - much more tissue to work with.

Run for your lives! It’s the 50-Foot Obama!

78 CIA Reject  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:58:24am

re: #59 FurryOldGuyJeans

I was not even addressing that issue. I was addressing the issue that NO medical/pharmaceutical companies are pursuing embryonic stem cell research since so far virtually no benefits have been discovered, adult stem cells have been the area for discoveries. This end to the ban is nothing more than government money being used as bribes and graft to appease the masses.

I agree. And in addition I think that appeasement dovetails nicely with BO’s socialist/communist agenda.

79 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:58:31am

re: #73 karmic_inquisitor

Bingo.

But Obama has promised that his administration will cure cancer.

One cyanide pill at a time.

80 gymmom  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:58:37am

re: #44 Oh no…Sand People!

Maybe we could get the stem cells from the children who survive abortions, just as long as they aren’t a burden to the mother. Put’em in a bag kicking and drop in a dumpster after the stem cell harvest.

*spit*
/infanticide. Barry Approved! (3 times)….

When abortions were legalized, I don’t think most people thought there would be abortions in the 3rd trimester (viable infants) or babies thrown away alive. When people think of embryonic stem cells they only think of “discarded tissues”. What is to stop someone from growing the embryo until “it” has a usable kidney. And on and on.

81 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:58:48am

re: #65 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I missed the joke. Any disability is sad and not a joke. But humour is sometimes the only thing that gets us by.

82 formercorpsman  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:58:54am

re: #48 Spartacus50

Yes it was. You won’t get an argument from anyone here about that.

Using their tactic puts you on their level.

83 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:59:06am

re: #66 Athos

Thirty years from now, this will be known as the ‘Blame Bush’ Presidency. And that might be the nicest things said about it.

I’m thinking that 30 years from now we’ll be speaking as affectionately of GWB as we do of Reagan. Let alone what we’ll be saying about President Romney who rescued our economy from the precipice Barry put us on.

84 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:59:07am

The luddites seem upset this morning.

85 Haverwilde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:59:08am

You only need ‘Federal Funds’ when there is too much danger of losing money using private funds. Researchers are not idiots, but Federal granting agencies are full of them.

86 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:59:10am

re: #69 CIA Reject

Don’t forget gluten free - some people have allergies ya know?

So they keep out the buttocks? Gluten free? Gluts? Get it?!

I KEEEEEL ME!

87 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:59:42am

re: #50 Gella

and O doesn’t like cloning

:spit take:

WHAT!?! Well just how the hell does he expect me to get my Jessica Alba harem then?
/

88 mattm  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:59:58am

Life…nope
Liberty…nope
Pursuit of Happiness…nope

Change!

89 Leonidas Hoplite  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:00:15am

re: #68 Occasional Reader

Okay, but if the embryonic stem cells are as wildly valuable for research as some say, it raises the real possibility that people could deliberately, shall we say, create embryos in order for them to be, well, sold and stripped for parts. And that raises a very legitimate moral question.

Exactly. Or why not just create an entire subserviant class of humans to do things that are dangerous, boring, etc.

90 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:00:24am

re: #81 Erik The Red

Don’t go looking for it, friend.

91 Sunlight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:00:34am

Duh.

92 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:01:03am

re: #68 Occasional Reader

Okay, but if the embryonic stem cells are as wildly valuable for research as some say, it raises the real possibility that people could deliberately, shall we say, create embryos in order for them to be, well, sold and stripped for parts. And that raises a very legitimate moral question.

Just another form - or a short step away from eugenics becoming policy.

93 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:01:17am

re: #68 Occasional Reader

Okay, but if the embryonic stem cells are as wildly valuable for research as some say, it raises the real possibility that people could deliberately, shall we say, create embryos in order for them to be, well, sold and stripped for parts. And that raises a very legitimate moral question.

This seems to be an absurd question on my part, but in this day and age anything can happen. It is obvious that our money is no longer sacred from the masses. There is a wealth redistribution. How soon til there is a ‘health’ redistribution? It sounds dumb, but what if the government goes on to say, well, you have this disease, but if we take these 5 organs or parts they can be used to help these 5 people. 5 is bigger than 1. It’s for the greater good. Am I completely off base? I think and hope so…

94 opnion  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:01:41am

re: #89 Leonidas Hoplite

Exactly. Or why not just create an entire subserviant class of humans to do things that are dangerous, boring, etc.

After Obama is through , that will be Republicans.

95 Golem Akbar  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:01:41am

re: #81 Erik The Red

I missed the joke. Any disability is sad and not a joke. But humour is sometimes the only thing that gets us by.


Now that is sense. Not PC, by any means, but sure sensible.

96 essayons7  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:01:50am

Isn’t this just special?

Save the terrorists/whales/owls, kill the unborn.

Lovely.

97 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:02:00am

aires day is here.

98 Leonidas Hoplite  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:02:04am

re: #92 Athos

Just another form - or a short step away from eugenics becoming policy.

This is quite in keeping with the fascistic roots of the left.

99 CIA Reject  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:02:05am

re: #86 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

So they keep out the buttocks? Gluten free? Gluts? Get it?!

I KEEEEEL ME!

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!

/Upding anyway!

100 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:02:21am

re: #84 Killgore Trout

The luddites seem upset this morning.

So anyone who believes there are legitimate moral concerns on this topic is a “Luddite”?

101 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:02:38am

re: #66 Athos

Thirty years from now, this will be known as the ‘Blame Bush’ Presidency. And that might be the nicest things said about it.

Since history is written by the victors, 50 years from now, this period in history will be a case study in the failure of socialism and the cult of personality. While I know we live in challenging times and it’s clear they will get even more challenging, I’m optimistic in my view that fiscal conservatism will return to the halls of power and this abysmal experiment in socialism will come to a screeching halt. There have been many dark days in our country’s history; we are entering a one of those periods now. If history is any guide, those times have always served to jolt the general populace back to reality. I’m hopeful that out of this morass of failure a new cadre of leadership will emerge that will cement the policies of free market economics, fiscal conservatism, and a distinctly pro-science agenda free of religious underpinnings.

102 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:02:49am

re: #92 Athos

Just another form - or a short step away from eugenics becoming policy.

Somewhere, for reasons that she doesn’t understand; Nancy Pelosi just looked up, and sniffed the air….

103 Sheepdogess  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:02:58am

Producing humans solely for the purpose of harvesting their organs is next.

These are indeed weird times.

104 CIA Reject  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:03:04am

re: #89 Leonidas Hoplite

Exactly. Or why not just create an entire subserviant class of humans to do things that are dangerous, boring, etc.

Welcome to the Brave New World

/CHANGE!

105 opnion  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:03:08am

re: #100 Occasional Reader

So anyone who believes there are legitimate moral concerns on this topic is a “Luddite”?

Ya beat me to it.

106 Ben Hur  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:03:09am

It needs federal funding because the private sector won’t invest a dime in a technology that doesn’t show any promise.

Adult stem cell research, for the same reason, doesn’t need any federal funding - or if it does, at a much lesser rate - because ADULT stem cell research has shown promise.

Promise leads to investment.
Ideology leads to federal funding.

107 jayfen  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:03:37am

Back in my College days, when I was a liberal, the mantra from many on the left was you can’t legislate morality. It was in the days of abortion, homosexuality, and other such things being illegal. I still believe in that. As such, the government should not fund any morally controversial application. There should be no funding for embryonic stem cell research or abortion on demand. This is, in a roundabout way, establishing the church of Humanism in government.

108 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:03:38am

The issue of adult stem cells vs. embryonic stem cells is complex, but at present adult stem cells are definitely not as promising, and much more difficult to work with.

This is another issue, I’m afraid, in which the religious right has put out an awful lot of deceptive propaganda. Here’s an example - this headline is ridiculous: President Barack Obama to Force Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

109 lawhawk  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:03:44am

re: #84 Killgore Trout

The luddites seem upset this morning.

I don’t think this has anything to do with Luddites. It has a lot to do with disingenous reporting on the part of the media that makes it appear that there was a ban on ESCR, when there was never a ban. It has a lot to do with misreporting on how Obama is repealing a ban on federal funding, when Bush actually was the first President to provide ESCR federal funding within limits.

Those limitations are being removed.

The moral and ethical quandaries posed by ESCR need to be discussed, but the media would rather focus on the absolute lie that Obama is lifting a ban.

No one has been stopped from using ESCR private funding research, and yet the ESCR research hasn’t yielded promising results the way that ASCR has. That isn’t to say that ESCR can’t yield some kind of benefit - technological tools and processes that can improve ASCR or CBSCR or even direct new therapies based on ESCR. To date, that hasn’t happened.

I happen to agree that part of the reason for lifting the limitations now has as much to do with the economy and need to shift attention away from Obama’s flailing economic and foreign policy performances as it is about ESCR.

110 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:03:51am

re: #32 Jetpilot1101
From Charles #19 link (wikipedia, be forwarned):

It is often claimed by pro-life supporters that the use of adult stem cells from sources such as umbilical cord blood has consistently produced more promising results than the use of embryonic stem cells.[30] Furthermore, adult stem cell research may be able to make greater advances if less money and resources were channeled into embryonic stem cell research.[31]

Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not.[32][33] Moreover, there have been many advances in adult stem cell research, including a recent study where pluripotent adult stem cells were manufactured from differentiated fibroblast by the addition of specific transcription factors. [34] Newly created stem cells were developed into an embryo and were integrated into newborn mouse tissues, analogous to the properties of embryonic stem cells.

This argument remains hotly debated on both sides. Those critical of embryonic stem cell research point to a current lack of practical treatments, while supporters argue that advances will come with more time and that breakthroughs cannot be predicted.


[edit] Scientific flaws
The use of embryonic stem cells in therapies may be fundamentally flawed.

For instance, one study suggests that autologous embryonic stem cells generated for therapeutic cloning may still suffer from immune rejection.[35] The researchers note that: “Our results raise the provocative possibility that even genetically matched cells derived by therapeutic cloning may still face barriers to effective transplantation for some disorders.” In other words, therapeutic cloning may not always produce tissues immune to rejection. In contrast, there are reports of adult stem cells being successfully reintegrated into an autogenic animal.

Another concern with embryonic stem cell treatments is a tendency of stem cells from embryos to create tumors

I am not even remotely close to being even moderately literate on this subject, but as the aformentioned quotes indicate, there is some scientific debate on the value of human embyonic stem cells.
And I do wish people would stop cracking “jokes” about people shaking and all - these are TERRIBLE diseases that sceince is wrestling with and for which the victims cannot be blamed in any way.

111 dhg4  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:03:51am

re: #4 Milk in a Box

Not to sound like some extreme Christian-conservative, but I wish he didn’t do this. From what I understand, adult stem cells were working fine while embryonic stem cell research is much less proven. And while I know that there were plenty of embryonic stem cells going to waste, I’m a little worried that now women will have abortions “for science”.

A few years ago it was true that there were no successful therapies developed from embryonic stem cells, but several using adult stem cells. I believe that there have been announcements of embryonic stem cell based therapies since then.

Perhaps the top commentator on the topic is Charles Krauthammer who wrote in late 2007.

Bush got it right. Not because he necessarily drew the line in the right place. I have long argued that a better line might have been drawn — between using doomed and discarded fertility-clinic embryos created originally for reproduction (permitted) and using embryos created solely to be disassembled for their parts, as in research cloning (prohibited). But what Bush got right was to insist, in the face of enormous popular and scientific opposition, on drawing a line at all, on requiring that scientific imperative be balanced by moral considerations.

Krauthammer, is unusual in that though he suffers from a spinal injury disagreed with the hype over embryonic stem cell research. He also trained as a doctor so he knows something about the technical issues involved.

112 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:03:55am

re: #83 soxfan4life

I’m thinking that 30 years from now we’ll be speaking as affectionately of GWB as we do of Reagan. Let alone what we’ll be saying about President Romney who rescued our economy from the precipice Barry put us on.


(pretends to spit coffee on computer screen.)
President Romney? …Right…

113 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:04:32am

On a serious note…I love the debate here.

114 Sunlight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:04:33am

I always figured that President Bush’s action on embryonic stem cell research gave scientists in other countries one area of research they could move ahead on that wasn’t swamped by U.S. govt research funding (which generally goes to U.S. researchers). So did they take advantage of the lull?

115 Golem Akbar  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:04:42am

re: #100 Occasional Reader

So anyone who believes there are legitimate moral concerns on this topic is a “Luddite”?


So, what do you have against Alan Ludden?

116 Ben Hur  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:04:54am

re: #108 Charles


The issue of adult stem cells vs. embryonic stem cells is complex, but at present adult stem cells are definitely not as promising, and much more difficult to work with.

I thought the opposite was true.

117 smokefire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:04:58am

………..shall I say anything here?

No FU*KING WAY JOSE.

Last time I did, I put my foot so far down my throat, I got athletes throat. Silence is golden here.

118 mattm  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:05:13am

OT NYTimes death watch

NYT sell it’s building, leases tit bacl from new owner.

finance.yahoo.com

119 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:05:15am

re: #113 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

On a serious note…I love the debate here.

Was that suppose to be funny?
/

120 Shug  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:05:31am

Religious conservatives who opposed tax payer funded research for embryos who were likely going to be destroyed , curiously support taxpayer funded Capital punishment.


I’m not sure this will make much difference since the research is already being done. If it was that promising, private companies would be spending the research dollars to get the patents on the treatments.

I think this is all politics, but I am glad to see Science free from the restrictions it previously had

121 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:05:32am

re: #112 Oh no…Sand People!

(pretends to spit coffee on computer screen.)
President Romney? …Right…

I could make you puke and mention how President Biden rescued us.///

122 Ojoe  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:05:43am

re: #80 gymmom

Legal abortion is a slippery slope

123 yma o hyd  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:05:44am

re: #89 Leonidas Hoplite

Exactly. Or why not just create an entire subserviant class of humans to do things that are dangerous, boring, etc.

I knew ‘Brave New World’ might become a reality some day …

124 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:05:56am

re: #113 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

On a serious note…I love the debate here.

F**K YOU AND THE HORSE CARROT YOU RODE IN ON!

///

125 opnion  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:06:15am

I would suggest that Obama be informred that all of the Thaleebhan are survivors of botched abortions. He would got at them hard.

126 FloridaAnole  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:06:23am

re: #4 Milk in a Box

Not to sound like some extreme Christian-conservative, but I wish he didn’t do this. From what I understand, adult stem cells were working fine while embryonic stem cell research is much less proven. And while I know that there were plenty of embryonic stem cells going to waste, I’m a little worried that now women will have abortions “for science”.

Yeah. To me, there is something creepy about grownups eagerly awaiting the harvesting of fetuses to cure them of their ailments.

127 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:06:31am

re: #73 karmic_inquisitor

Bingo.

But Obama has promised that his administration will cure cancer.

Dr. Kevorkian has a “cure”. I’m afraid it is the same one nationalized health care would have, for many cases.

128 beens21  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:06:31am

so is Obama going to take the politics out of global warming? I don’t think so.

129 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:06:39am

re: #110 realwest

Related, but OT… Looked up the movie “Cloverfield” the other day on Wikipedia. They credited Michael J. Fox as the director.

I know I have told this recently, but it fits.

130 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:06:40am

re: #100 Occasional Reader
Not hardly. Thanks O.R.

131 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:07:12am

re: #118 mattm

OT NYTimes death watch

NYT sell it’s building, leases tit bacl from new owner.

[Link: finance.yahoo.com…]

Hey, don’t turn this into a boob thread.

132 Ceemack  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:07:17am

re: #19 Charles

It’s not necessary to destroy human embryos for this kind of research:


Strictly speaking, it IS necessary to destroy human embryos for this kind of research—it’s just that the embryos to be used will be destroyed anyway.

W’s executive order never banned research with embryonic stem cells—it just banned the use of federal funding of it. Drug companies and private foundations could fund all the embryonic stem cell research they wanted, using their own money. Personally, I’m kind of on the fence about embryonic stem-cell research, but I completely agree that people who object to it on moral grounds should not be forced to support it with their tax dollars. Instead of agitating for renewed federal funding, people who were so high on embryonic stem cell research should’ve just cracked open their checkbooks and donated to privately-funded efforts.

I also wonder what will happen in the unlikely event that we find a successful treatment that uses embryonic stem cells. When we’re actually using them, we won’t be able to simply use embryos that would have been destroyed anyway. We’ll have to manufacture embryos specifically for the purpose of destroying them.

That’s a much tougher moral question than the use of surplus embryos originally created for IVF, and one that few advocates of stem-cell research seem to have thought much about.

133 Shug  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:07:21am

I’m waiting for President Obama to sign an executive order requiring all embryos be implanted into Nadia Sulemon

134 lawhawk  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:07:23am

re: #108 Charles

Actually Charles, that headline is a lot more accurate than claiming that there was a ban on funding for ESCR.

Even the NYT gets the headline right - Obama Reversing Stem Cell Limits Bush Imposed.

There was never a ban. According to the NIH:

On August 9th, 2001, Former President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells if the following criteria are met:

* The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.
* The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.
* Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements.

NIH’s Role

The NIH, as the Federal government’s leading biomedical research organization, is implementing Former President Bush’s policy. The NIH funds research scientists to conduct research on existing human embryonic stem cells and to explore the enormous promise of these unique cells, including their potential to produce breakthrough therapies and cures.

Investigators from 14 laboratories in the United States, India, Israel, Singapore, Sweden, and South Korea have derived stem cells from 71 individual, genetically diverse blastocysts. These derivations meet Former President Bush’s criteria for use in federally funded human embryonic stem cell research. The NIH has consulted with each of the investigators who have derived these cells. These scientists are working with the NIH and the research community to establish a research infrastructure to ensure the successful handling and the use of these cells in the laboratory.

135 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:07:26am

re: #120 Shug

I think this is all politics, but I am glad to see Science free from the restrictions it previously had

The only restrictions were where the funding monies came from. There was never any banning on funding from private sources, only government.

136 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:07:27am

re: #36 formercorpsman

Poor taste.

at best

137 Sheepdogess  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:07:44am

re: #101 Jetpilot1101

I hope you’re right. After all we still have the internet to get our message out, but I am told the “government” can pull the plug on this in a nano-second. {Poof} gone.

138 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:07:48am

re: #89 Leonidas Hoplite

Exactly. Or why not just create an entire subserviant class of humans to do things that are dangerous, boring, etc.

Welcome to the Brave New World.
Where’s my soma?

139 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:08:28am

re: #108 Charles

Heh

140 CIA Reject  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:09:05am

re: #127 Kosh’s Shadow

Dr. Kevorkian has a “cure”. I’m afraid it is the same one nationalized health care would have, for many cases.

Back to the Soylent Green sub-thread eh?

Seriously though, I’d love to stay but I have to get back to work so I can pay my taxes so the government can bail out the UAW.

/Cheers!

141 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:09:14am

re: #110 realwest

From Charles #19 link (wikipedia, be forwarned):

I am not even remotely close to being even moderately literate on this subject, but as the aformentioned quotes indicate, there is some scientific debate on the value of human embyonic stem cells.
And I do wish people would stop cracking “jokes” about people shaking and all - these are TERRIBLE diseases that sceince is wrestling with and for which the victims cannot be blamed in any way.

I hear what you are saying, but when some celebrities are used and grandstanded as part of the democrat circus to do nothing but guilt me into a vote I have to draw a line to where the disease ends and the identity politics starts.

142 avanti  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:09:15am

re: #108 Charles

The issue of adult stem cells vs. embryonic stem cells is complex, but at present adult stem cells are definitely not as promising, and much more difficult to work with.

This is another issue, I’m afraid, in which the religious right has put out an awful lot of deceptive propaganda. Here’s an example - this headline is ridiculous: President Barack Obama to Force Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

I made a similar point down thread when it was suggested that the left does not get the sanity of life issue. I said :

“The religiously inspired extreme pro life stance of many on the right is the litmus test that will only further marginalize the party IMHO. The Terri Schiavo, and embryonic stem cell issues are example of positions out of the main stream. You see black and white, I see shades of gray.”

143 Pupdawg  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:09:18am

re: #4 Milk in a Box

Not to sound like some extreme Christian-conservative, but I wish he didn’t do this. From what I understand, adult stem cells were working fine while embryonic stem cell research is much less proven. And while I know that there were plenty of embryonic stem cells going to waste, I’m a little worried that now women will have abortions “for science”.

…and “for money” quite possibly.

144 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:10:12am

re: #122 Ojoe

Legal abortion is a slippery slope

Yep. When you throw morality out the window, where then do you draw the line? Does it become, “It’s not nice to kill people, except…”?

145 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:10:19am

re: #138 Kosh’s Shadow

Welcome to the Brave New World.
Where’s my soma?

Here ya go.

146 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:10:30am
147 Shug  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:10:41am

re: #135 FurryOldGuyJeans

The only restrictions were where the funding monies came from. There was never any banning on funding from private sources, only government.


exactly. California was already spending a bundle.
I don’t know what the French were spending but if they are as cutting edge with Embryonic stem cell research as they were in Infectious disease ( discovering HIV) I am sure they are actively researching it.

I like the tone of what Obama said, however, saying the science should stand on it’s own merits, and not be molded to fit the agenda of politics.

I am suspicious of the conservatives when it comes to science letting religious bias creep into their minds
likewise
I am suspicious of the left when it comes to science letting their own agenda creep into their findings.

Science should be 100% free from political influence

148 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:10:49am

re: #133 Shug

I’m waiting for President Obama to sign an executive order requiring all embryos be implanted into Nadia Sulemon

She’s a piece o’ work, ain’t she? Yikes.

149 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:10:59am

re: #143 Pupdawg

…and “for money” quite possibly.

Or because they don’t want to be burdened tending to a baby.

150 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:11:04am

Could this be a trial balloon to see if the Obama administration can get traction on federal funds for abortion?

151 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:11:23am
152 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:11:25am

re: #143 Pupdawg

…and “for money” quite possibly.

especially in this economy.

153 anduril3019  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:11:42am

re: #120 Shug

regardless of where you fall on the stem cell issue, are you serious about the comparison?

154 Buck  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:11:49am

re: #41 Big Steve

blink blink…..did you really say that

next time don’t quote the bad stuff….

Just sayin’

155 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:11:55am

Oh happy day when miracles take place
And Scientists control the human race.

-Lil Abner

156 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:11:57am

re: #146 MandyManners

What about those who object to war? Should they be able to opt out of paying for the military?

How can those who object to either be sure that their money doesn’t pay for it? It’s not as if we have a form that allows us to check off which things we want to/don’t want to fund.

I want to opt out of paying for Obama’s Kools.

157 Leonidas Hoplite  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:12:03am

re: #147 Shug

Science should be 100% free from political influence

The only way to achieve that is to eliminate federal funding.

158 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:12:12am

re: #151 MandyManners

Her second publicist has quit, calling her greedy and crazy.

Shocker! //

159 Spartacus50  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:12:17am

re: #82 formercorpsman

I find no humor in the medical conditions of those with Parkinsons Disease. However, I do find humor in those who foolishly that think that stem cell research is a panacea of cures simply being held back by congressional Republicans.
There is nothing more distasteful than the Democrats’ shameless exploitation of people’s hopes and fears; especially as it relates to incurable diseases.

160 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:12:28am

re: #151 MandyManners Ouch! That’s pretty bad when the person you hire for PR quits and calls you crazy.

161 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:12:55am

We need to find a way to use high-speed Maglev embryonic stem cells for volcano monitoring, in my highly informed opinion.

162 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:12:59am

I have a question -

Why shouldn’t people who are morally opposed to abortion not want their tax dollars supporting use of fetal tissue?

It is a simple, ethical question.

We have people every day on the left protesting government activities ranging from defense appropriations to meat industry subsidies, all because they see an ethical wrong in the use of their tax dollars.

OK- are they called Luddites for it?

They see an ethical issue and they protest and their protests are accepted as free expression. When people from the other side of the spectrum lodge ethical protests, they are branded as dangerous lunatics and Luddites.

Fucking amazing.

163 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:13:03am
164 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:13:16am

re: #147 Shug

exactly. California was already spending a bundle.
I don’t know what the French were spending but if they are as cutting edge with Embryonic stem cell research as they were in Infectious disease ( discovering HIV) I am sure they are actively researching it.

I like the tone of what Obama said, however, saying the science should stand on it’s own merits, and not be molded to fit the agenda of politics.

I am suspicious of the conservatives when it comes to science letting religious bias creep into their minds
likewise
I am suspicious of the left when it comes to science letting their own agenda creep into their findings.

Science should be 100% free from political influence

And yet I see this lifting of the ban to be nothing but politics writ large now that federal tax monies can now be used to fund research. Grant money agencies will use this as a whip to “guide” the science, similar to how AGW/ACC research is being promulgated.

165 smokefire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:13:21am

I was not going to post, however, this is for all the Roman Catholics that voted for Obama, even though he had a terrible past regarding the abortion question.

HOW DO YOU LIKE HIM NOW?

166 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:13:24am

re: #159 Spartacus50


There is nothing more distasteful than the Democrats’ some low-life blogger’s shameless exploitation of people’s hopes and fears; especially as it relates to incurable diseases.

167 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:13:24am

re: #108 Charles Not only is that headline ridiculously and wildy inaccurate, it even conflicts with the very first sentence of the article itself: “President Barack Obama will sign an executive order on Monday that will force taxpayers to fund destructive embryonic stem cell research.”
The language could be less inflammantory but it is accurate.
And not everyone concerned with this issue from Bush’s side is a member of the “Relgious Right”.

168 Nevergiveup  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:13:25am

re: #150 DaddyG

Could this be a trial balloon to see if the Obama administration can get traction on federal funds for abortion?


If all he has to do is issue another Presidential edict, then that will be coming down the pike soon. If he needs a vote, then it may take a little longer.

169 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:13:25am

re: #146 MandyManners

What about those who object to war? Should they be able to opt out of paying for the military?

How can those who object to either be sure that their money doesn’t pay for it? It’s not as if we have a form that allows us to check off which things we want to/don’t want to fund.

Now that is a great idea; maybe when you file your tax return, you check off those items you want funded and that is where your tax dollars go. There could be a few general questions like: “do you want your tax money paying for earmarks?” or “do you want your tax money paying for roads and bridges?” I’ll bet a lot of worthless government programs would cease to exist.

170 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:13:27am

re: #155 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oh happy day when miracles take place
And Scientists control the human race.

-Lil Abner

A Schmoo in every pot!

171 opnion  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:13:35am

re: #151 MandyManners

Her second publicist has quit, calling her greedy and crazy.

Now that pulicist is judgemental! Just because she is exploiting the infants out of greed & is bat shit crazy is no reason to judge her greedy & crazy.

172 Shug  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:13:41am

re: #153 anduril3019

regardless of where you fall on the stem cell issue, are you serious about the comparison?


yes absolutely.

I find a certain disconnect amongst so called religious people when it comes to destruction of an embryo, and the government sponsored killing of prisoners.
You are either for killing or against it.

I like consistency.

173 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:14:13am

re: #134 lawhawk

Actually Charles, that headline is a lot more accurate than claiming that there was a ban on funding for ESCR.

Even the NYT gets the headline right - Obama Reversing Stem Cell Limits Bush Imposed.

There was never a ban. According to the NIH:

“Nuance? Nuance? We don’t need no steenking nuance!”

- the msm

174 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:14:32am
175 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:14:56am

re: #163 MandyManners

I can’t begrudge him those unless he pays wholesale.

I’ll bet he gets them tax free now, through a BX or PX.

176 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:15:07am

re: #4 Milk in a Box

Not to sound like some extreme Christian-conservative, but I wish he didn’t do this. From what I understand, adult stem cells were working fine while embryonic stem cell research is much less proven. And while I know that there were plenty of embryonic stem cells going to waste, I’m a little worried that now women will have abortions “for science”.

I don’t mind sounding like an extreme Christian-conservative:
Obama, dedicated to stretching the legality of human destruction at both ends of human development.

177 debutaunt  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:15:07am

re: #73 karmic_inquisitor

Bingo.

But Obama has promised that his administration will cure cancer.

That’s a wonderful goal, but destroying the country in the process seems a tad not worth it.

178 A.W.  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:15:16am

This whole thing is insane. Look, can we agree that we really don’t know the moral dimensions here. maybe at conception, the soul attaches, so that you kill an embryo, you are wiping out a real human soul. Or maybe the soul attaches 5 minutes before your birth. or maybe we have no souls. who knows?

Shouldn’t the answer then, to be as careful as possible, here. “First, do no harm?” And that doesn’t mean you necessarily have to ban abortion. i personally wouldn’t do so until the time when most children show signs of brain function; and would want the law to reflect that pragmatic approach. But can we agree that we need to have a decent reason before killing a fetus.

A stroll down instapundit’s archives will show you how many ways they have of getting stem cells without any destruction of fetuses. so why can’t we do it that way?

I have to think this is all tragically ideological, as in certain people want to demonstrate that they place no value on a fetus whatsoever to prove a point on abortion. no room for subtlety, or nuance, just kill kill kill. its f—-ed up.

179 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:15:27am

re: #156 Ward Cleaver

I want to opt out of paying for Obama’s Kools.

I want to stop sending money to terrorists and their supporters, like the UN.

180 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:15:37am

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….”

I’ve just always wanted my rose colored glasses to believe that the gov’t would always fall on the side of life..

Guess that’s just me.

181 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:15:45am
182 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:16:08am

re: #174 MandyManners

As I asked above, how is this approach applied?

Citizens contact their elected representatives, and say “I find X morally objectionable and do not believe that we should be funding it with taxpayer money, and I urge you to vote against any measure in favor of X.” Perfectly legitimate.

183 Sheepdogess  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:16:08am

re: #89 Leonidas Hoplite

Exactly. Or why not just create an entire subserviant class of humans to do things that are dangerous, boring, etc.

We already have them. They are the sheeple of the left.

184 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:16:39am
185 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:16:44am

re: #174 MandyManners

As I asked above, how is this approach applied? It’s not as if we have a form that allows us to check off which things we want to/don’t want to fund.

Through elections, of course. Anyone who is surprised by this wasn’t paying attention.
Or at least their attention was only skin deep.

186 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:16:59am

re: #172 Shug

yes absolutely.

I find a certain disconnect amongst so called religious people when it comes to destruction of an embryo, and the government sponsored killing of prisoners.
You are either for killing or against it.

I like consistency.

I see a difference between the innocent unborn, and convicted murderers.

187 Shug  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:17:04am

Just want to know what people think is wrong about using embryos that were otherwise going to be destroyed?

what’s the big deal?


Creating them specifically to destroy—No

but using something rather than destroying it? Yes

188 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:17:08am

re: #163 MandyManners

I can’t begrudge him those unless he pays wholesale.

Do you really think he pays for them at all? I mean it’s not like he can just walk into the nearest 7/11 and ask for a pack.

189 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:17:13am

re: #179 Kosh’s Shadow

I want to stop sending money to terrorists and their supporters, like the UN.

Ding!

190 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:17:19am

re: #183 Sheepdogess

We already have them. They are the sheeple of the left.

They don’t seem to do very much except vote the way they are told.

191 Nevergiveup  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:17:32am

Timetable for A-Rod’s return the same

sports.espn.go.com

“The surgery went exactly as we planned,” Philippon said on a conference call. “No surprises.”

Yes I am sure it did and we found out the bum has no “Heart”!

Youtube Video

192 Colonel Panik  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:17:33am

The new stem cells are here! The new stem cells are here!

/channeling Steve Martin

193 Leonidas Hoplite  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:17:42am

re: #172 Shug

yes absolutely.

I find a certain disconnect amongst so called religious people when it comes to destruction of an embryo, and the government sponsored killing of prisoners.
You are either for killing or against it.

I like consistency.

Protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty seems pretty cut and dried to me. Both are consistent with ensuring the long-term viability of western civilization.

194 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:17:43am

re: #142 avanti
Well, let’s see. Would you agree that The politically inspired extreme pro choice stance of many on the left is the litmus test that will only further marginalize the Democratic party?
I think it’s shameful the way both the left and the right have taken legitimately questioned scientific issues and so politicized them that sceintists may be even further hamstrung in pursuing science in the future.

195 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:18:03am

“Subservient” work should be performed either by robots, or trained monkeys, the way God intended.

196 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:18:09am

re: #188 Ford_Prefect

Do you really think he pays for them at all? I mean it’s not like he can just walk into the nearest 7/11 and ask for a pack.

He does speak their native language.

197 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:18:10am

re: #181 MandyManners

What if a lot of people defund the military?

I was being a tad facetious and your question is a valid one. My only retort is that most of the American people, even some leftists would still check the “fund the military” box only to ensure they are kept secure. I could be wrong but I’m an optimist and the human preservation instinct is high, even in moonbats.

198 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:18:13am

re: #191 Nevergiveup

Sorry about his labium. Sure Yankee fans are bummed.

199 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:18:28am
200 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:18:29am

re: #172 Shug

I find it difficult to establish a moral equivilancy between an embryo and a multiple murderer on death row. The multiple murderer made a choice / conducted evil actions that brought them to their fate.

201 Colonel Panik  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:18:30am

re: #181 MandyManners

What if a lot of people defund the military?

My thoughts exactly. Don’t want to give moonbats that option. The recent election is an indicator the moonbat population may be somewhat greater than we once thought.

202 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:18:35am

re: #174 MandyManners

As I asked above, how is this approach applied? It’s not as if we have a form that allows us to check off which things we want to/don’t want to fund.

That’s right. What people can do is research and ask their doctors to not treat them with therapies derived from stem cells or medicines tested on clones or chimeras. How many people are actually going to refuse treatment?

203 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:18:52am

re: #198 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Sorry about his labium. Sure Yankee fans are bummed.

Or his labia. Which was it again?

204 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:18:59am
205 Shug  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:19:16am

re: #193 Leonidas Hoplite

Protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty seems pretty cut and dried to me. Both are consistent with ensuring the long-term viability of western civilization.


What does the Pope say?

206 FloridaAnole  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:19:21am

re: #172 Shug

yes absolutely.

I find a certain disconnect amongst so called religious people when it comes to destruction of an embryo, and the government sponsored killing of prisoners.
You are either for killing or against it.

I like consistency.

Except that the fetus is innocent of any crime, whereas the prisoners are presumably guilty of heinous enough crimes to warrant the death penalty.

207 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:19:37am
208 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:19:37am

BBIAB

209 gonecamping  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:19:48am

Some may do it for science, others may do it for the money. I don’t think it is a good idea, the adult stem cell research is working.


re: #4 Milk in a Box

Not to sound like some extreme Christian-conservative, but I wish he didn’t do this. From what I understand, adult stem cells were working fine while embryonic stem cell research is much less proven. And while I know that there were plenty of embryonic stem cells going to waste, I’m a little worried that now women will have abortions “for science ”.

210 avanti  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:19:48am

re: #4 Milk in a Box

Not to sound like some extreme Christian-conservative, but I wish he didn’t do this. From what I understand, adult stem cells were working fine while embryonic stem cell research is much less proven. And while I know that there were plenty of embryonic stem cells going to waste, I’m a little worried that now women will have abortions “for science”.

Embryonic stem cells are 5-7 days old and in a lab dish, nothing to do with even implanted embryo’s. I’ll use a extreme example to explain my position. Assume your loved one has become paralyzed and there is a possibility that stem research could allow them to walk. Now further assume that a family wishes to donate the excess embryo’s from invetro fertilization to that research. Would your pro life position be to refuse the embryo’s and instead discard them and leave the loved one to their fate ?

211 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:19:52am

re: #202 Killgore Trout

What people can do is research and ask their doctors to not treat them with therapies derived from stem cells or medicines tested on clones

That’s the only democratically legitimate option?

Bullshit.

212 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:20:07am

re: #203 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Or his labia. Which was it again?

Doesn’t matter, he folded.

213 Nevergiveup  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:20:18am

re: #198 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Sorry about his labium. Sure Yankee fans are bummed.

Since I kinda hate A-Rod, it’s kinda like having your lawyer go over a cliff in your new Jaguar ( no offense to the lizard lawyers).

214 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:20:38am

re: #191 Nevergiveup

I heard that he then be no better than 80-85%. That would mean that if they can expect 85% of what he has given them in the past post seasons his numbers will negatives.

215 Gella  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:20:41am

on the other hand DOW is down, again after O speech

216 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:20:47am

re: #205 Shug

What does the Pope say?

W.W.O.D.?

/Obama trumps Pope

217 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:20:53am

re: #93 Oh no…Sand People!

This seems to be an absurd question on my part, but in this day and age anything can happen. It is obvious that our money is no longer sacred from the masses. There is a wealth redistribution. How soon til there is a ‘health’ redistribution? It sounds dumb, but what if the government goes on to say, well, you have this disease, but if we take these 5 organs or parts they can be used to help these 5 people. 5 is bigger than 1. It’s for the greater good. Am I completely off base? I think and hope so…

I think you are hitting at one of the fundamental perils of collectivism. The elevation of the collective good above that of the individual. Once that principle takes hold literally anything can be rationalized into being for the ‘greater good’. A scary thought.
*Don’t Tread on Me*

218 Pupdawg  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:20:53am

re: #152 Chicago Blonde

especially in this economy.

Possibly a part of Obama’s plan to decrease the surplus (potentially future tax-paying) population!
Charles Dickens, if alive today and if an American, could not create such madness in his prose.
Jonathan Swift’s ‘A Modest Proposal’ also comes to mind, unfortunately.

219 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:20:59am
220 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:08am

re: #201 Colonel Panik

My thoughts exactly. Don’t want to give moonbats that option. The recent election is an indicator the moonbat population may be somewhat greater than we once thought.

I don’t subscribe to the last election being an indicator of a far larger moonbat population than we thought of - just an indicator of a more naive and undereducated population.

221 CIA Reject  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:13am

re: #172 Shug

yes absolutely.

I find a certain disconnect amongst so called religious people when it comes to destruction of an embryo, and the government sponsored killing of prisoners.
You are either for killing or against it.

I like consistency.

This may or may not come as a surprise, but Pope John Paul II agrees with you.

OK, now I really gotta get back to work!

/Later

222 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:14am

re: #188 Ford_Prefect

Do you really think he pays for them at all? I mean it’s not like he can just walk into the nearest 7/11 and ask for a pack.

He sends Biden out for them, since Biden knows all about convenience store clerks.

/the indian ones, anyway

223 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:19am

re: #141 Oh no…Sand People! Please see my #194 above.

224 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:22am

re: #211 Occasional Reader

That’s the only democratically legitimate option?

Bullshit.

Did you see the word “only” in my post?

225 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:23am

re: #200 Athos

I find it difficult to establish a moral equivilancy between an embryo and a multiple murderer on death row. The multiple murderer made a choice / conducted evil actions that brought them to their fate.

I do not want to argue for Shug, and I am not advocating one position over another, but in answer to you statement I find myself wondering about wrongfully convicted murderers, or more specifically, the morality of possibly executing someone who has been wrongfully convicted. (not trying to derail thread)

226 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:28am
227 albusteve  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:33am

hypocrits about Rush’s ‘failure’ blur


foxnews.com

228 Teh Flowah  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:36am

re: #8 FurryOldGuyJeans

If embryonic stem cells held such promise then why are there no major companies pursuing it? Only government grant funded agencies seem eager to see this happen.

There have historically been a great number of projects that paid off incredibly well that were only pursued by the government or the military.

No objections here. More than I can say for other things he’s done so far.

230 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:48am

re: #215 Gella

on the other hand DOW is down, again after O speech

That is becoming as regular and monotonous as a metronome.

231 Ceemack  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:51am

re: #146 MandyManners

What about those who object to war? Should they be able to opt out of paying for the military?

How can those who object to either be sure that their money doesn’t pay for it? It’s not as if we have a form that allows us to check off which things we want to/don’t want to fund.


I could cut my tax bill quite a bit with a form like that. ;-)

But there are a lot of reasons why your example of supporting the war doesn’t really work. Defense of the nation is a specific responsibility of the federal government, set forth in the Constitution; funding morally ambiguous medical research that may or may not lead to a cure for anything is not.

Private enterprises can conduct embryonic stem cell research. They can’t conduct a war.

The nation as a whole benefits from national defense. Only a very limited group of individuals would benefit from embryonic stem cell research, should it ever lead to a viable treatment.

232 Nevergiveup  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:21:51am

re: #214 Ford_Prefect

I heard that he then be no better than 80-85%. That would mean that if they can expect 85% of what he has given them in the past post seasons his numbers will negatives.

Actually no kidding around, hip injuries like this are not good news. They tend to be degenerative also. If I were a betting man, I’d say that home run record is safe.

233 Gella  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:22:19am

re: #230 FurryOldGuyJeans

That is becoming as regular and monotonous as a metronome.

and predictable

234 Colonel Panik  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:22:27am

re: #220 Athos

I don’t subscribe to the last election being an indicator of a far larger moonbat population than we thought of - just an indicator of a more naive and undereducated population.

I hope for all our sakes, that I am wrong and you are correct.

235 yma o hyd  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:22:30am

re: #178 A.W.

Yes.
Its moral relativism.
drawing this out, you get to the place where people with incurable illnesses, or even people just over a certain age, will be told that they’re better off dead.

The debate about ‘assisted suicide’ ehre in the UK gives a foretaste:

Doctors struck off for denying patients the right to die? What a sinister distortion of medical ethics (Melanie Phillips)

236 Russkilitlover  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:22:31am

re: #68 Occasional Reader

Okay, but if the embryonic stem cells are as wildly valuable for research as some say, it raises the real possibility that people could deliberately, shall we say, create embryos in order for them to be, well, sold and stripped for parts. And that raises a very legitimate moral question.

I agree and this is my problem with the whole embryonic stem cell issue. Now that the Feds are funding research, I can see the argument being made that the 400,000 embryonic stem cells are too old to be viable and any research should beging with new cells. And then the rush to Donate for Dollars begins.

237 kynna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:22:46am

Thanks for the honest headline, Charles. The words ‘funding’ and ‘embryonic’ rarely appear in the MSM when discussing Bush’s action on this issue.

I happen to be one of those who would rather the government not fund embryonic stem cell research. I would strongly rather the government not fund this research. As others have said, if it’s so promising, why are private investors not clamoring for their piece of the pie?

How about funding research of treatment for pediatric cancers (which receives a miniscule fraction of government research dollars)? Oh, wait. Now I see. Despite zero success in using embryonic stem cells for anything but politics, they’re maybe going to one day save my friend’s son’s life. I get it now.

238 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:22:52am

re: #232 Nevergiveup

Actually no kidding around, hip injuries like this are not good news. They tend to be degenerative also. If I were a betting man, I’d say that home run record is safe.

Better get him in for some stem cell therapy.

239 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:22:56am

re: #84 Killgore Trout

The luddites seem upset this morning.

I love the depth of discourse empitomized herein.
/

240 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:22:57am

I’m anxiously awaiting the WND article about children being abducted from playgrounds by government agents to be harvested at stem cell collectives.

242 Pupdawg  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:23:08am

re: #216 Oh no…Sand People!

W.W.O.D.?

/Obama trumps Pope

Obama also apparently trying to trump Trump and his evil capitalistic ways!

243 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:23:15am

re: #224 Killgore Trout

Did you see the word “only” in my post?

So do you agree that it’s perfectly legitimate for people to express their moral concerns on this topic through their elected representatives? Or are such people mere “Luddites” to be ignored?

244 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:23:29am

re: #212 Walter L. Newton

Doesn’t matter, he folded.

Zing!

245 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:23:43am

re: #219 MandyManners

I don’t believe that many moonbats believe that the first duty of government is to keep us safe.

Another valid point. Mandy, the idea would never work for the very points you brought up and believe me, I am not advocating this happens but I think it would be kind of cool to be able to choose wether your dollars could fund earmarks etc. If everyone was rational, maybe the idea would work.

246 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:23:44am

re: #219 MandyManners
“I don’t believe that many moonbats believe that the first duty of government is to keep us safe.”
Spot on observation.

247 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:23:53am
248 mfarmer1  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:23:55am

I never understood this debate and the hoopla surrounding it. Especially now, I’d say there are about 363,458 federal policy issues ahead of this one that need to be resolved. This just looks like another Obama PR stunt, just like GWB’s was over the same issue. This seems like such a complete waste of government resources and time, no matter what side you’re on.

249 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:24:06am

re: #232 Nevergiveup

Actually no kidding around, hip injuries like this are not good news. They tend to be degenerative also. If I were a betting man, I’d say that home run record is safe.

I foresee a lot of bunts down the third base line when he returns.

250 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:24:14am

re: #229 phoenixgirl

Fetal stem cells cause tumor in a teenage boy
By Coco Ballantyne in 60-Second Science Blog

That’s the story I was thinking of this morning.

251 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:24:29am

re: #228 Teh Flowah

And there has been lots of government boondoggles as well.

252 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:24:39am

re: #244 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Zing!

Hi, how are you this morning?

253 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:24:51am

re: #225 Creeping Eruption

Given the checks and balances within the system - mandated appeals, etc - while no system is completely without the chance of error, the risk of that remains small.

Or, let’s look at this from another approach, why is it more morally correct to terminate embryos in the womb (or in the case of Obama’s Illinois vote - allow them to perish if they happen to survive an abortion attempt) than it is to terminate extreme criminals who have undergone years of appeals and court mandated reviews of their case?

254 Cathypop  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:24:55am

re: #207 MandyManners
He bums his cigs from everyone else

255 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:24:57am

re: #240 Killgore Trout

I’m anxiously awaiting the WND article about children being abducted from playgrounds by government agents to be harvested at stem cell collectives.

That’s later today.

/we both agree on wnd

256 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:25:08am

re: #223 realwest

Please see my #194 above.

I agree with you. I just hate how the politicians keep nothing sacred in pursuit of a vote.
But what you say is definitely noted and I’ll do my best to avoid ill timed comments. I don’t mean any offense. My apologies.

257 freetoken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:25:17am

re: #240 Killgore Trout

… children who are held temporarily at one of the 600 or so new detention facilities, with RFID chips waiting to be implanted…

258 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:25:19am

re: #229 phoenixgirl

Fetal stem cells cause tumor in a teenage boy
By Coco Ballantyne in 60-Second Science Blog

Uh… if you read that story you’ll find that this has absolutely nothing to do with stem cell research. It was an “experimental” procedure that verged on quackery.

259 gonecamping  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:25:21am

You are absolutely correct Mandy….Moonbats are convinced the first duty of the govt is to feed them, followed by a burping, followed by a diaper change , then tucking into a bed paid for by the govt. (really us)


re: #219 MandyManners

I don’t believe that many moonbats believe that the first duty of government is to keep us safe.

260 gymmom  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:25:31am

re: #174 MandyManners

As I asked above, how is this approach applied? It’s not as if we have a form that allows us to check off which things we want to/don’t want to fund.

I guess we are suppose to elect those who will vote the closest to what we believe in. But with the current MSM good luck finding out who that might be.

261 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:25:38am
262 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:25:51am

re: #254 Cathypop

He bums his cigs from everyone else

Hmmm… just like Jody Powell, in the Carter administration.

/deja vu

263 Leonidas Hoplite  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:25:58am

re: #205 Shug

What does the Pope say?

Beats me.

264 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:26:21am

re: #243 Occasional Reader

So do you agree that it’s perfectly legitimate for people to express their moral concerns on this topic through their elected representatives? Or are such people mere “Luddites” to be ignored?

We could ask the Luddites what they think if they hadn’t smashed their PCs.

///

265 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:26:31am

re: #90 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Don’t go looking for it, friend.

Wise advice. Not looking for anything. To much emotion around this topic.

266 Nevergiveup  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:26:46am

re: #249 Ford_Prefect

I foresee a lot of bunts down the third base line when he returns.

Maybe Maybe

267 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:26:47am

re: #174 MandyManners

As I asked above, how is this approach applied? It’s not as if we have a form that allows us to check off which things we want to/don’t want to fund.

Hey - don’t get me wrong.

It is a democracy and the majority rules. The majority now says “fund stem cell research using newly harvested tissue”.

My rant is in the whole dishonest framing of the argument by those who opposed Bush’s policy. And the “Luddite” comment really pisses me off.

People have a right to assemble and petition and effect a change in the law. And if having an ethical basis for do so is a bad thing, then I have no idea what would be a good basis for wanting law/policy changed.

Frankly, the ESCR issue never got me fired up either way, except that the attacks on the Bush policy were deceptive and dishonest.

As a practical matter this change in policy will have zero impact on medicine. None. The left is just rubbing people’s faces in dog shit. That is what this is about.

268 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:26:47am

re: #218 Pupdawg

You know, nothing would shock me any more…

269 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:26:49am

What concerns me is the implication on Obama’s part that the focus needs to be on science, not politics.

Federal funding for ANY program automatically includes the influence of politics. As several posters above have noted, there was never a ban on the research, only on federal funding.

As a number of banks have found out, there’s no such thing as government funding with no strings attached.

I can’t see this being any different over the longer term.

270 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:27:13am

re: #247 MandyManners

Aren’t Muslim societies having trouble with kids not immunized against polio or other diseases because pig cells/by-products are used in the preparation of the innoculations? (I’m not drawing a moral equivalence here.)


It’s a very similar problem. Even if people refuse immunizations they still benefit from the rest of the population being immunized. Some people are hamstringed from advancing medicine by religious objections but they almost always benefit along with the rest of society. They become consumers instead of innovators.

271 gonecamping  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:27:22am

And probably tells them what brand to buy!

re: #254 Cathypop

He bums his cigs from everyone else

272 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:27:23am
273 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:27:25am

re: #224 Killgore Trout

Did you see the word “only” in my post?

And, by the way, your post was a complete red herring.

During the 1940s, groundbreaking research in the treatment of hypothermia was done. By German scientists. Using, of course, live Jews as guinea pigs.

To state, “if you find that objectionable, what you can do is refuse any treatment for yourself or a loved one suffering from hypothermia that may have derived from that research” is a rather grand way of missing the point regarding the immoral nature of the research itself.

(And NO, put away your Godwin’s Law Gotcha, I am not saying that stem cell researchers are Nazis, I am using this example to illustrate a point, that’s all.)

274 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:27:56am

re: #245 Jetpilot1101

Another valid point. Mandy, the idea would never work for the very points you brought up and believe me, I am not advocating this happens but I think it would be kind of cool to be able to choose wether your dollars could fund earmarks etc. If everyone was rational, maybe the idea would work.

I would love a purely consumption tax. Use a product, pay the tax that’s related to it. If you don’t…then you don’t. Now of course, some things you may not be able to get around payinf for…but I think this tax would have a great opportunity at targeting the issue you speak of.

275 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:28:09am

re: #269 subsailor68

What concerns me is the implication on Obama’s part that the focus needs to be on science, not politics.

Federal funding for ANY program automatically includes the influence of politics. As several posters above have noted, there was never a ban on the research, only on federal funding.

As a number of banks have found out, there’s no such thing as government funding with no strings attached.

I can’t see this being any different over the longer term.

Well didn’t Barry say he was going to change the way Washington did business. Money without strings the new politics.

276 Cathypop  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:28:18am

re: #271 gonecamping

And probably tells them what brand to buy!

YUP!

277 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:28:25am

re: #253 Athos

Given the checks and balances within the system - mandated appeals, etc - while no system is completely without the chance of error, the risk of that remains small.

Or, let’s look at this from another approach, why is it more morally correct to terminate embryos in the womb (or in the case of Obama’s Illinois vote - allow them to perish if they happen to survive an abortion attempt) than it is to terminate extreme criminals who have undergone years of appeals and court mandated reviews of their case?

Fair enough, but I still do not think it answers the question regarding the sanctity of life. Either life is sacred (no matter what the persons transgressions are) or it is not. The checks and balances should not change that. My position frankly is at odds with many here, and I do not want to engage in a flame war on such a personal topic.

278 freetoken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:28:37am

Did anyone notice that in today’s speech President Obama said nyet to the cloning humans?

What is wrong with the clones?

279 Shanimal1918  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:28:37am

In 30 years from now Chinese or Russian may be our national language the way we are heading. BO is overwhelmed and exhausted by throwing fuel on the economic crisis fire, but has time for this important issue? A gal on CBS this morning actually announced that Obama has reversed the W ban on ESCR, and had to make a correction later. Most likely they were hoping they could get away with that lie without anyone noticing.

280 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:28:52am

re: #264 DaddyG

We could ask the Luddites what they think if they hadn’t smashed their PCs.

///

Not my fault! The damn thing was trying to steal my soul!

281 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:28:57am

re: #219 MandyManners

I don’t believe that many moonbats believe that the first duty of government is to keep us safe.

Just look at the liberal/democrat opposition to Missile Defense. I’ve always scratched my head over that. Missile Defense protects everyone equally….not just conservatives. Although with the vitriol liberals display against it I sometimes wish it could be fine tuned to only protect conservatives………not really, but their opposition does piss me off.

282 gymmom  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:29:00am

re: #202 Killgore Trout

That’s right. What people can do is research and ask their doctors to not treat them with therapies derived from stem cells or medicines tested on clones or chimeras. How many people are actually going to refuse treatment?

I always wanted to know if PETA activist refused treatments based on animal testing!

283 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:29:06am
284 Lincolntf  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:29:10am

All yor fetus iz mine.

285 Kragar  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:29:12am

re: #278 freetoken

Did anyone notice that in today’s speech President Obama said nyet to the cloning humans?

What is wrong with the clones?

They’re good for part.

286 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:29:25am

re: #278 freetoken

Did anyone notice that in today’s speech President Obama said nyet to the cloning humans?

What is wrong with the clones?

They are not registered to vote?

287 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:29:31am
288 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:29:31am

To add fuel to the conspiracy theories the Wiki article for Embryonic stem cell doesn’t have a “controversy” section anymore.

289 avanti  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:29:38am

re: #194 realwest

Well, let’s see. Would you agree that The politically inspired extreme pro choice stance of many on the left is the litmus test that will only further marginalize the Democratic party?

I do agree. Assume for a moment that the Democrats put a line in their convention platform that said :

” We believe that human life begins at birth and a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason up to the point of natural labor.”
That would be the extreme reverse of the GOP’s black and white position that life begins at conception and would marginalize the left.

290 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:29:42am

re: #256 Oh no…Sand People! “I agree with you. I just hate how the politicians keep nothing sacred in pursuit of a vote.”
There is no need to apologize. I just wish politicians of all stripes would leave science to the scientists - and preferably, in cases such as these, leave our tax dollars out of it too.

291 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:30:23am

re: #261 Iron Fist

Your quote struck a chord with me. All we need is some government gnome to decide “it’s a pre-existing condition” for anything they don’t feel like treating…

292 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:30:25am

re: #282 gymmom

I always wanted to know if PETA activist refused treatments based on animal testing!

Of course they don’t. They wouldn’t even think to ask or do the research.

293 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:30:30am

re: #278 freetoken

Did anyone notice that in today’s speech President Obama said nyet to the cloning humans?

What is wrong with the clones?

I couldn’t think of a single reason other than that would risk increasing population vs. decreasing it. That’s the only consistency I can find with the One’s policies regarding the sanctity of life.

294 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:30:40am
295 freetoken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:30:41am

Speaking of WND, I see that Drudge is pimping one of their stories, about David Wilkerson predicting a calamity is about to befall American cities.

No doubt, must be the invasion of the clones he fears…

296 Nevergiveup  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:30:44am

re: #278 freetoken

Did anyone notice that in today’s speech President Obama said nyet to the cloning humans?

What is wrong with the clones?

Didn’t you see Star Wars?

297 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:31:11am

re: #261 Iron Fist
Just an excellent comment my friend.

298 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:31:13am
299 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:31:16am

re: #288 Killgore Trout

To add fuel to the conspiracy theories the Wiki article for Embryonic stem cell doesn’t have a “controversy” section anymore.

Just like the Obama entry being scrubbed clean of any controversies within minutes, and users banned for days for posting said material.

300 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:31:34am

re: #275 soxfan4life

Well didn’t Barry say he was going to change the way Washington did business. Money without strings the new politics.

Why he did! When I was a kid, my mother took me to see Peter Pan (with Mary Martin, so ya know how old I am). Ol’ Mary flew all over that stage, with kids oohing and aahing!

I could see the strings - even when they tried to convince me they weren’t there.

;-)

301 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:31:48am

re: #278 freetoken

Did anyone notice that in today’s speech President Obama said nyet to the cloning humans?

What is wrong with the clones?

We have to go slowly to let the population catch up. Americans are a bit behind on biotech. I have no problem with human clones but I’m in the minority.

302 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:31:57am

re: #289 avanti

” We believe that human life begins at birth and a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason up to the point of natural labor.”
That would be the extreme reverse of the GOP’s black and white position that life begins at conception and would marginalize the left.

Uh, sure… and it would also be a wildy self-contradictory position to maintain the [human] life begins at conception, but can be terminated due to, among other things, someone’s mere whim.

303 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:31:59am

re: #294 MandyManners

Evil doesn’t exist in their minds. They think we can just talk evil people out of being bad.

/Because we’re all alike, and we all want the same things…

(worked with moonbats, know the chorus)

304 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:32:17am
305 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:32:32am

re: #279 Shanimal1918

In 30 years from now Chinese or Russian may be our national language the way we are heading. BO is overwhelmed and exhausted by throwing fuel on the economic crisis fire, but has time for this important issue? A gal on CBS this morning actually announced that Obama has reversed the W ban on ESCR, and had to make a correction later. Most likely they were hoping they could get away with that lie without anyone noticing.

Maybe a minor point, but why would our language be Russian or Chinese in 30 years, even if the US had a complete national breakdown and one of those countries did gain control of our nation?

That’s hyperbole.

306 nyc redneck  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:32:34am

o was a staunch opponent of the ‘infant born alive protection act’.
also he uttered the bizarre statement:” he wouldn’t want his daughters punished w/ a baby”. “PUNISHED”
how could it not occur to him that he was discussing the life of his own grandchild.
and what abt. his response when asked to comment on abortion,
didn’t he say that question was above his “pay grade”.

o is a calloused s.o.b when it comes to cherishing life.

307 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:32:38am

re: #278 freetoken

Did anyone notice that in today’s speech President Obama said nyet to the cloning humans?

What is wrong with the clones?

Why does Obama hate Clones?

308 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:32:42am

re: #287 MandyManners
I do too, but fear you are not.

309 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:32:44am

re: #231 Ceemack

I could cut my tax bill quite a bit with a form like that. ;-)

But there are a lot of reasons why your example of supporting the war doesn’t really work. Defense of the nation is a specific responsibility of the federal government, set forth in the Constitution; funding morally ambiguous medical research that may or may not lead to a cure for anything is not.

Private enterprises can conduct embryonic stem cell research. They can’t conduct a war.

The nation as a whole benefits from national defense. Only a very limited group of individuals would benefit from embryonic stem cell research, should it ever lead to a viable treatment.

I wish I could give you more than a single thumbs-up. The focus of the argument should not be utilitarian though (how many people can benefit from national defense, versus embryonic stem cell research). Rather, it should hinge on whether the decision in question can be settled privately or not. National Defense simply cannot: the government holds legal monopoly over the initiatory use of force. Stem Cell Research, by contrast, can be funded perfectly well through private donations and investment.

310 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:32:45am

re: #295 freetoken

Speaking of WND, I see that Drudge is pimping one of their stories, about David Wilkerson predicting a calamity is about to befall American cities.

No doubt, must be the invasion of the clones he fears…

Last time I looked there were two articles being “trumpeted”. The one you mention and one about wiki scrubbing the Obama entry clean of nirther “facts”.

311 Sheepdogess  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:32:48am

I have become so cynical of this administration, my first reaction to anything they do is “This must be is bad, Obama’ supports it”.

312 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:32:54am

re: #278 freetoken

What is wrong with the clones?

If they cloned me, and you pushed my clone off a cliff? You could be arrested for an “obscene clone fall”.

313 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:32:58am

re: #142 avanti

I made a similar point down thread when it was suggested that the left does not get the sanity of life issue. I said :

“The religiously inspired extreme pro life stance of many on the right is the litmus test that will only further marginalize the party IMHO. The Terri Schiavo, and embryonic stem cell issues are example of positions out of the main stream. You see black and white, I see shades of gray.”

It is simply not true that the democratic party and liberal intellectuals see any shades of gray whatsoever. Proponents of any limits, whatsoever, on what is euphemistically called choice are painted as facists, pro-rape, lunatics.
Obama and cherished liberal special interest groups are pushing for or have already begun to take those shades of gray restrictions, which were very close to pure black already in practice , and eliminate any trace of compromise:
-parental consent
-freedom of conscience for hospitals
-partial birth abortion
-government funding, at home and abroad

There is no call for compromise on the liberal side either, no recognition that embryos, fetuses, or children with one foot in the womb, deserve any consideration.

314 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:33:21am

re: #296 Nevergiveup

Didn’t you see Star Wars?

Begun, the Clone Wars have.

315 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:33:36am
316 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:33:42am

re: #304 ploome hineni

can we impeach Nobama before he totally destroys this country?

Obama is a Great Pretender
By Robert Samuelson


Because President Biden will cause you to sleep better at night. Sheriff Joe is O’s best life insurance policy.

317 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:33:44am

re: #299 FurryOldGuyJeans

Just like the Obama entry being scrubbed clean of any controversies within minutes, and users banned for days for posting said material.

Wikipedia = Minitruth.

318 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:34:07am

re: #317 Ward Cleaver

Wikipedia = Minitruth.

Wikitruth?

319 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:34:11am

re: #312 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

And if you named him Sy he’d be a Sy clone.

320 harrylook  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:34:19am

Sorry if someone already made a similar comment (I haven’t read them all yet), but as a type 1 diabetic, this whole issue makes my blood boil. Everytime it comes up, the reporter has to mention how this could help diabetics, and I wonder, “How in the hell is that going to work?” My body destroys my insulin producing cells. Putting stem cells in my pancreas isn’t going to do shit - my body will destroy those too. Duh. I think this is like any other issue about federal funding: someone wants the money and will say just about anything to get it.

321 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:34:40am

re: #312 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

If they cloned me, and you pushed my clone off a cliff? You could be arrested for an “obscene clone fall”.

If they crossed your DNA with a garden herb you could be Rosemary Clone-y.

322 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:34:48am

re: #319 Chicago Blonde

And if you named him Sy he’d be a Sy clone.

Bozo the Clone?

323 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:34:49am
324 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:34:53am

re: #312 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

If they cloned me, and you pushed my clone off a cliff? You could be arrested for an “obscene clone fall”.

Only if he was naked.

325 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:34:53am
326 davesax  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:35:07am

Scientist: “We need the government to fund scientific research.”

Conservative: “Socialism!”

Bioethicist: “We need to bring health care costs down, and provide coverage to the uninsured.”

Conservative: “Socialism!”

Preacher: “We need the government to fund abstinance only education programs, faith based initiatives, and textbooks that promote ‘Intelligent Design’ in the public schools.”

Conservative: “Freemarket!”

327 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:35:09am

re: #305 Walter L. Newton

Maybe a minor point, but why would our language be Russian or Chinese in 30 years, even if the US had a complete national breakdown and one of those countries did gain control of our nation?

That’s hyperbole.

U Kak znaish tezi neshta?
/(And how do you know these things?)

328 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:35:14am

re: #321 DaddyG

If they crossed your DNA with a garden herb you could be Rosemary Clone-y.

Ah, but you’d smell good.

329 anduril3019  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:35:18am

re: #172 Shug

I find a certain disconnect amongst so called religious people when it comes to destruction of an embryo, and the government sponsored killing of prisoners.
You are either for killing or against it.

I like consistency.

Consistency is fine, but it has to go a little deeper than “killing is wrong”. In general, I am against killing, but I am not at all against killing someone who intends to commit a violent crime that may lead to the death or great bodily harm of someone else if that is the only and most effective way to stop him. The consistency is that I am against murder. Again, we may differ on the morality or effectiveness of capital punishment, but to make a moral equivalence of all killing is morally immature. I am against killing the unborn, but even as one who would be labeled a religious fundamentalist, I would not call it murder.

330 Kragar  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:35:21am

re: #296 Nevergiveup

Didn’t you see Star Wars?

I still wonder what orders 1-65 were.

331 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:35:54am

re: #169 Jetpilot1101

Now that is a great idea; maybe when you file your tax return, you check off those items you want funded and that is where your tax dollars go. There could be a few general questions like: “do you want your tax money paying for earmarks?” or “do you want your tax money paying for roads and bridges?” I’ll bet a lot of worthless government programs would cease to exist.

I’d love to see it done sometime as a thought experiment; problem is, though, is that that money has already been spent three tax returns in advance.

332 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:35:54am

re: #294 MandyManners

Evil doesn’t exist in their minds. They think we can just talk evil people out of being bad.

Evil does exist in liberals minds. Unfortunately, their idea of evil is us conservatives………

333 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:36:09am

Well it’s certainly been an educational day on LGF, as is always the case, but I have to leave now.
I hope you all have a great day, TRY to be at least polite if not kind to each other and that I get the chance to see you all down the road.

334 kynna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:36:20am

re: #309 medaura18586

I wish I could give you more than a single thumbs-up. The focus of the argument should not be utilitarian though (how many people can benefit from national defense, versus embryonic stem cell research). Rather, it should hinge on whether the decision in question can be settled privately or not. National Defense simply cannot: the government holds legal monopoly over the initiatory use of force. Stem Cell Research, by contrast, can be funded perfectly well through private donations and investment.

You’re anti-science!

///sarc

335 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:36:22am

re: #68 Occasional Reader

Okay, but if the embryonic stem cells are as wildly valuable for research as some say, it raises the real possibility that people could deliberately, shall we say, create embryos in order for them to be, well, sold and stripped for parts. And that raises a very legitimate moral question.

But this would only happen to humans who aren’t “legal persons”, like in-vitro embryos, the aborted and, coming to a court near you, the criminally condemned.

///I wouldn’t worry about it.

336 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:36:28am

re: #330 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I still wonder what orders 1-65 were.

Bingo!

/b-7, i-65, n-43…

337 Dustyvet  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:36:48am

re: #291 Chicago Blonde

Your quote struck a chord with me. All we need is some government gnome to decide “it’s a pre-existing condition” for anything they don’t feel like treating…

Doctors force patients to sign gag orders forbidding online reviews

boingboing.net

338 Nevergiveup  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:36:51am

re: #330 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I still wonder what orders 1-65 were.

Something to the effect of “kill all the motherF,,kers” I’d say?

339 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:36:52am
340 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:37:00am
341 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:37:02am

re: #332 LGoPs

Evil does exist in liberals minds. Unfortunately, their idea of evil is us conservatives………

Evil outside of our borders doesn’t exist in a liberals mind.Rush is bad, but not Mugabe.

342 zioncat  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:37:04am

A news piece from 2007:Sacrifice of human embryos no longer “necessary”

The discovery by a Japanese and US team of scientists, shows that stem cells can be produced from human skin tissue, instead of human embryos, has been widely praised, particularly by those scientists who are careful of the ethical consequences of their research. This new technique not only eliminates the problem of the destruction of human embryos, but it also improves the quality of the stem cells that are produced, because their very origins greatly reduces the possibility that they will be refused.

Msgr. Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Council for Life has defined the discovery as “historic”. “Now – he added in an interview with Vatican Radio – there is no further need to use embryos, neither is there a need of the so-called ‘therapeutic cloning’, thus a page of acute controversy and bitter opposition is closed”. US President George W. Bush, has also praised the discovery, underlining how it has come about in “full respect of ethical limits”.

343 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:37:09am

re: #323 MandyManners

We could really go far afield with the immunization debate. Lotsa’ hot opinions either way.

And also, not terribly relevant.

344 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:37:25am

re: #277 Creeping Eruption

Fair enough, but I still do not think it answers the question regarding the sanctity of life. Either life is sacred (no matter what the persons transgressions are) or it is not. The checks and balances should not change that. My position frankly is at odds with many here, and I do not want to engage in a flame war on such a personal topic.

Fair enough. I believe that life is sacred too. I just believe that someone can undertake actions of such a horrendus nature abusing the sanctity of life to the point that they lose their right to enjoy their life. That is a repercussion for the choices and actions they made. They are held accountable and responsible by society for those actions.

345 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:37:44am

re: #332 LGoPs

Evil does exist in liberals minds. Unfortunately, their idea of evil is us conservatives………

Oh, of course. One of the things I loved about that movie Changeling was the heroic depiction of the reverend. Usually Christian all but foam at the mouth and howl in Hollyweird movies…

346 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:37:46am
347 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:37:50am

re: #327 Oh no…Sand People!

U Kak znaish tezi neshta?
/(And how do you know these things?)

Because if I do a quick mental inventory of cultures that have been taken over by other cultures, I don’t see much total changes in the language. Some word borrowing, yes, but, let’s see, Greeks suddenly only speaking Latin, no, French suddenly speaking German, no…

348 phoenixgirl  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:38:42am

re: #258 Charles

Uh… if you read that story you’ll find that this has absolutely nothing to do with stem cell research. It was an “experimental” procedure that verged on quackery.

i read the article.

The theory is that because these stem cells are fetal cells, they are designed to proliferate and give rise to new tissue, which means they have the potential to produce tumors. The case, write the authors of this week’s case study, should serve as a warning that more research is needed to gauge the safety of these novel therapies.

Other stem cell experts echo their concerns and worry that scientists don’t yet understand exactly how stem cells used in such treatments behave once inside the body. Treating neurological disorders with stem cells from fetal brains is a “great scientific goal to pursue,” but there is simply not enough evidence from animal studies, let alone human studies, to prove it is safe or effective for treating these diseases in children, says Sean Savitz, a neurologist at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.

349 doppelganglander  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:38:45am

re: #83 soxfan4life

I’m thinking that 30 years from now we’ll be speaking as affectionately of GWB as we do of Reagan. Let alone what we’ll be saying about President Romney who rescued our economy from the precipice Barry put us on.

From your mouth to God’s ears.

350 albusteve  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:38:50am

the Rolling Clones…I’ll be ready

351 Kragar  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:38:51am

re: #338 Nevergiveup

Something to the effect of “kill all the motherF,,kers” I’d say?

Order 1: Pick up dry cleaning
Order 2: Corrupt Young Skywalker
Order 3: return videos
Order 4: pay bills
Order 5: Teach Stormtroopers to aim

352 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:39:02am

re: #337 Dustyvet

Doctors force patients to sign gag orders forbidding online reviews

[Link: www.boingboing.net…]

OK, everyone, if you get a chance read that thing. that is scary.
Dustyvet, thanks for posting that.

353 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:39:03am
354 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:39:04am

re: #346 MandyManners

I once bought a bottle of shampoo that was not tested on animals. It messed my scalp up really badly. I say, KILL DA BUNNY.

Mmmmm… rabbit stew.

355 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:39:25am

re: #346 MandyManners

Reluctant ding. Hahahahahaha!

Heard a comedian…

If hooking up a battery to a monkey’s testicles can find a cure for AIDS, I have one suggestion…

Red is positive, black is negative….

356 Nevergiveup  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:39:38am

re: #347 Walter L. Newton

Because if I do a quick mental inventory of cultures that have been taken over by other cultures, I don’t see much total changes in the language. Some word borrowing, yes, but, let’s see, Greeks suddenly only speaking Latin, no, French suddenly speaking German, no…

The French don’t speak German today because of all the English Speaking Peoples! Credit to WSC and open your freak en eyes in the State Department!

357 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:39:40am

re: #339 MandyManners

There’s no evil in their world.

Which has to mean that there is no ‘good’. Which then leads me to believe how is it possible for us to be ‘hypocrites’ and how can we lose our ‘moral high ground’. Doesn’t ‘good’ and ‘evil’ require a belief in ‘God’? Is it possible to have a ‘morality’ without an appeal to a higher power?

358 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:39:55am

re: #304 ploome hineni

can we impeach Nobama before he totally destroys this country?

Obama is a Great Pretender
By Robert Samuelson

Obama is a great pretender. He repeatedly says he’s doing things that he isn’t, trusting his powerful rhetoric to obscure the difference. He has made “responsibility” a personal theme; the budget’s cover line is “A New Era of Responsibility.” He says the budget begins “making the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal discipline.” It doesn’t.

The only reason this bastard has powerful rhetoric is because nobody questions him. Shit, if that were the case I’d be a powerful orator…..
Sheesh.

359 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:39:59am

re: #299 FurryOldGuyJeans

Just like the Obama entry being scrubbed clean of any controversies within minutes, and users banned for days for posting said material.

I checked the history for that page, and Wikipedia was right to close editing. They had an infestation of Nirthers.

360 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:40:05am

re: #354 Ward Cleaver

Mmmmm… rabbit stew.

Rabbit shish-ka-bobs.

361 brookly red  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:40:35am

re: #278 freetoken

Did anyone notice that in today’s speech President Obama said nyet to the cloning humans?

What is wrong with the clones?

Now close your eyes and just try to imagine row after row after row of
John Kerry’s marching by…

362 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:40:42am

re: #339 MandyManners

Look at my #332

363 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:40:50am

re: #355 Fat Bastard Vegetarian Shock the Monkey

Youtube Video

364 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:41:01am

re: #225 Creeping Eruption

I do not want to argue for Shug, and I am not advocating one position over another, but in answer to you statement I find myself wondering about wrongfully convicted murderers, or more specifically, the morality of possibly executing someone who has been wrongfully convicted. (not trying to derail thread)

I think that’s a very legitimate arguement to the possible circumstances of capital punishment, but not the to the principle. The law could delineate a higher standard of evidence for capital crimes, and certainly should in fact.
(I trust it is far along enough to derail the thread)

365 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:41:12am

re: #344 Athos

Fair enough. I believe that life is sacred too. I just believe that someone can undertake actions of such a horrendus nature abusing the sanctity of life to the point that they lose their right to enjoy their life. That is a repercussion for the choices and actions they made. They are held accountable and responsible by society for those actions.

Okay. That makes sense. The perspective I was taking (not really mine) was looking at the “sanctity of life” as absolute. If the sanctity of life is not absolute, “pro” death penalty and anti-abortion are not necessary antithetical positions.

366 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:41:20am

OT -

Unusual, but the stock market is down today.

367 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:41:23am

re: #100 Occasional Reader

So anyone who believes there are legitimate moral concerns on this topic is a “Luddite”?

I would think that anyone using extreme hyperbole to make their point on this issue could be called that, since this is pretty much the same thing on the other side of the argument.

It’s one hell of a leap from allowing embryos that are going to be destroyed because they are no longer viable to saying that this will create for profit embryo breeding farms (re: #68 Occasional Reader) or that we should just go ahead and create a slave race of subhumanoids for dangerous or unpleasant work (re: #89 Leonidas Hoplite) or suggesting that this is the doorway to a bright and shiny new age of eugenics (re: #92 Athos).

What this really is, is a great big F/U to GWB and the hardcore anti-abortion crowd from our new God-Emperor President. He knows it will make significant news, distracting from bad and growing worse economic news, and score plenty of political points with his “I hate W” fanbase, while not having any significant impact on actual research.

368 Dustyvet  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:41:27am

re: #352 Chicago Blonde

OK, everyone, if you get a chance read that thing. that is scary.
Dustyvet, thanks for posting that.

ratemds.com


tech.yahoo.com

369 Dianna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:41:36am

re: #357 Oh no…Sand People!

Which has to mean that there is no ‘good’. Which then leads me to believe how is it possible for us to be ‘hypocrites’ and how can we lose our ‘moral high ground’. Doesn’t ‘good’ and ‘evil’ require a belief in ‘God’? Is it possible to have a ‘morality’ without an appeal to a higher power?

Of course you can have morality without an appeal to a higher power. It’s a matter of looking at the fact that the world rewards decency, in the long run. It’s a social reality, and a universal one. You can’t go long without stubbing your toe on reality.

370 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:41:40am

re: #353 MandyManners

How did you survive?

Much chocolate, pasta and good wine, and LGF.

/This sane woman is brought to you in part by Lizards Like You.

371 gymmom  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:41:45am

re: #326 davesax

Who has called funding stem cell research socialism? That’s a completely different issue. The argument didn’t make sense to me.

372 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:41:49am

re: #354 Ward Cleaver

Mmmmm… rabbit stew.

You would eat a wabbit with dandwuff?

373 fish  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:41:49am

re: #92 Athos

Just another form - or a short step away from eugenics becoming policy.

KHAAANNN!

374 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:41:54am

re: #330 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I still wonder what orders 1-65 were.

Order No. 1: Put on this clumsy, ridiculously constrictive “armor”, which is totally ineffective against blasters, Lightsabers or any small arms currently deployed by any side.

375 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:42:08am

re: #361 brookly red

Now close your eyes and just try to imagine row after row after row of
John Kerry’s marching by…

May you get a trillion down dings for that. It’s not like a trillion is very much these days anyway./////

376 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:42:14am

re: #366 Walter L. Newton

OT -

Unusual, but the stock market is down today.

Our Messiah-King pontificated from His Holy Throne earlier.

377 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:42:17am

re: #366 Walter L. Newton

OT -

Unusual, but the stock market is down today.

Surprise…surprise…surprise.

378 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:42:43am

re: #103 Sheepdogess

Producing humans solely for the purpose of harvesting their organs is next.

These are indeed weird times.

Something like that is already happening. Criminal organizations in Brazil, Russia, India and elsewhere have been known to kidnap people, remove their kidneys or other organs for sale. The victim of course is left to die.

Organ Shortage Fuels Illicit Trade in Human Parts

No, this is not stem-cell research. But the moral calculus which seeks to justify one can be used by the other.

379 Dustyvet  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:43:01am

re: #361 brookly red

Now close your eyes and just try to imagine row after row after row of
John Kerry’s marching by…

We’d go broke buying them Three Purple Hearts…Each…!


/S

380 Intifan  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:43:10am

re: #284 Lincolntf

All yor fetus iz mine are belong to us.

381 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:43:11am

re: #366 Walter L. Newton

OT -

Unusual, but the stock market is down today.

No, more like par for the course. With Obama, the stock market is almost always down.

382 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:43:16am

re: #342 zioncat

A news piece from 2007:Sacrifice of human embryos no longer “necessary”

Uh … AsiaNews.it is hardly an unbiased source, and while I’m sure Msgr. Elio Sgreccia is a respectable man, he’s hardly the best person to declare a “historic” scientific breakthrough.

383 azul93gt  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:43:35am

I’m shocked that the B. Hussein administration has waited this long. Usually they pull this in your face stuff on their 1st day in office.

You’re never broke enough to not be able fund more liberal boodoggles, but still no drilling in the sacred ANWR.

384 turn  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:43:41am

re: #320 harrylook

Sorry if someone already made a similar comment (I haven’t read them all yet), but as a type 1 diabetic, this whole issue makes my blood boil. Every time it comes up, the reporter has to mention how this could help diabetics, and I wonder, “How in the hell is that going to work?” My body destroys my insulin producing cells. Putting stem cells in my pancreas isn’t going to do shit - my body will destroy those too. Duh. I think this is like any other issue about federal funding: someone wants the money and will say just about anything to get it.


All you diabetics, try and hold on for nanotechnology. I’ve got more confidence in that becoming a workable solution than I do stem cells.

nanovip.com

This was a quick link, I’ll look for a more technically detailed article at Foresight

385 joncelli  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:43:41am

P.j. O’Rourke once said something along the lines of (and this is a paraphrase) “A religious person would be against both abortion and the death penalty and a realist would be for both.” I’ve held each of the four possible permutations of these two questions — abortion and the death penalty — at some time in my life, and there’s always good arguments for each one. And I don’t know what my point is, except to say “Reasonable people can differ on this so let’s keep it civil.”

386 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:43:55am

re: #361 brookly red

Now close your eyes and just try to imagine row after row after row of
John Kerry’s marching by…


Our Winter Army

387 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:44:01am

re: #346 MandyManners

I once bought a bottle of shampoo that was not tested on animals. It messed my scalp up really badly. I say, KILL DA BUNNY.

Its funny you mention that. This am I was reading the bottle of shampoo I was using and it had instructions in a bunch of languages. Each foreign language paragraph stated that the product was not tested on animals - except for the English paragraph.

I guess I know why now :)

Oh Nasul … .Nasul … where are you?

388 Milk in a Box  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:44:05am

re: #210 avanti

Embryonic stem cells are 5-7 days old and in a lab dish, nothing to do with even implanted embryo’s. I’ll use a extreme example to explain my position. Assume your loved one has become paralyzed and there is a possibility that stem research could allow them to walk. Now further assume that a family wishes to donate the excess embryo’s from invetro fertilization to that research. Would your pro life position be to refuse the embryo’s and instead discard them and leave the loved one to their fate ?

No, that wouldn’t be my position. But when it stops being excess invetro embryos and starts being, “Hey, we’ll give you $100 if you have an abortion. Your help could cure Parkinson’s!” then I worry.

389 Kragar  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:44:07am

re: #374 Occasional Reader

Order No. 1: Put on this clumsy, ridiculously constrictive “armor”, which is totally ineffective against blasters, Lightsabers or any small arms currently deployed by any side.

Order No. 2: Never under any circumstances use the sights on your weapons. Just point them in the general direction of the enemy and hope for the best.

390 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:44:14am
391 Shug  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:44:43am

re: #366 Walter L. Newton

OT -

Unusual, but the stock market is down today.

it’s just a tracking poll. ignore it

/

392 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:44:44am

OT, but looks like Obama’s finally found some people for Treasury:

Treasury Dept. gains 3 more Obama appointments

Treasury Secretary Geithner announced the nomination of three of his current advisors. When asked if any of them might have tax issues, Geithner responded, “Well, we’re pretty sure Larry and Moe are okay, but if there are problems with Curly, we do have Shemp available as well.”

393 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:44:49am

re: #348 phoenixgirl

The procedure in that article took place in Russia, where they have very lax medical standards. That’s why the family of that boy had to go to Russia for it.

This has nothing to do with legitimate stem cell research.

394 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:45:00am

re: #363 DaddyG

Years ago (in Virginia) they were going to execute (which they did successfully) Lynwood Briley (who happened to be black).

Guess how long it took them to suspend the D.J. who (on the air) dedicated that song to him? Wanna guess?

395 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:45:01am
396 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:45:14am

Kidney Village

National Geographic Ultimate Explorer host Lisa Ling recently traveled to India to investigate reports of a widespread trade in organs illegally harvested from that nation’s poor.

Ling visited a desperate neighborhood known locally as “kidney village” because so many of its residents had illegally sold one of their kidneys. The practice is underground, but widespread enough that finding many donors was not a problem for the Ultimate Explorer team.

“They said that they received about $800 a kidney, which for them is a year’s salary,” Ling told National Geographic News. “It’s a decent amount of money to them, but of course when it runs out they can’t sell more organs.”

397 avanti  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:45:15am

re: #357 Oh no…Sand People!

Which has to mean that there is no ‘good’. Which then leads me to believe how is it possible for us to be ‘hypocrites’ and how can we lose our ‘moral high ground’. Doesn’t ‘good’ and ‘evil’ require a belief in ‘God’? Is it possible to have a ‘morality’ without an appeal to a higher power?

No, some atheists are better at defining good and evil then some believers. You don’t need a belief in the supernatural to be a moral human being.

398 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:45:16am

re: #367 CyanSnowHawk

It’s one hell of a leap from allowing embryos that are going to be destroyed because they are no longer viable to saying that this will create for profit embryo breeding farms

Of course, I didn’t really say “breeding farms”, but whatever.

So anyway, why is it such a leap? If embryos “that are gong to be destroyed anyway” can be used, how big a step is it to get to producing embryos “that are going to be destroyed anyway”?

399 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:45:21am

re: #366 Walter L. Newton


Ouch. I can’t wait till next weekend when the stockmarket can’t fall.

400 Dianna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:45:22am

re: #378 Kenneth

Something like that is already happening. Criminal organizations in Brazil, Russia, India and elsewhere have been known to kidnap people, remove their kidneys or other organs for sale. The victim of course is left to die.

Organ Shortage Fuels Illicit Trade in Human Parts

No, this is not stem-cell research. But the moral calculus which seeks to justify one can be used by the other.

Welcome to the world of Gil the ARM.

401 joncelli  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:45:22am

re: #314 Occasional Reader

For that post, updinged you I did.

402 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:45:29am
403 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:46:46am

Today’s “popularity poll” results regarding biotech companies doing stem cell research -

Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (ALXN) DOWN 2.76%
Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. (ARIA) UP 1.67%
Cellgene - (CELG) DOWN 3.21%
Celera Genomics Group (CRA) DOWN 0.89%
Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp. (IART) DOWN 4.04%
Life Technologies (LIFE) DOWN 2.09%
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS (OSIR) DOWN 1.48%

This on top of massive devaluations of these companies that has already taken place in the last month.

But don’t worry - stock prices are just popularity polls.

404 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:46:52am

re: #396 Kenneth

“Oh crap! They stole my kidney!”
-Charlie the Unicorn

405 Dustyvet  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:46:53am

re: #386 soxfan4life

Our Winter Army

Just in time for Christmas…WHACK A KERRY… more fun the Whack a Mole…:)

/S

406 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:47:12am
407 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:47:13am

re: #369 Dianna

Of course you can have morality without an appeal to a higher power. It’s a matter of looking at the fact that the world rewards decency, in the long run. It’s a social reality, and a universal one. You can’t go long without stubbing your toe on reality.

Well for example it appears the only weapon liberals have on people is ‘guilt’ and ‘self loathing’. To me ‘guilt’ comes in the form of failing to live up to a moral codex given by a higher power, perhaps it’s fantasy on my part. If we are a secular society in government, hence no God, how can we feel guilt? To what are we to feel guilty to? For what?

408 rightside  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:47:23am

re: #392 subsailor68

That nervous joke telling reveals he is incompetent, and is trying to gloss over that fact. He is a stooge.

409 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:47:36am

re: #274 Oh no…Sand People!

I would love a purely consumption tax. Use a product, pay the tax that’s related to it. If you don’t…then you don’t. Now of course, some things you may not be able to get around payinf for…but I think this tax would have a great opportunity at targeting the issue you speak of.


That’s not so much what is called a consumption tax, as it is a system of fees and tolls. I think it is more fair to find a way to charge people for what they use in porportion to how they use it, with things like military and police taken care of by income or property taxes since everyone has an equal stake in defense.
But that would be called regressive taxation.

410 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:47:45am

re: #394 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Years ago (in Virginia) they were going to execute (which they did successfully) Lynwood Briley (who happened to be black).

Guess how long it took them to suspend the D.J. who (on the air) dedicated that song to him? Wanna guess?

Let’s see the song is about 4 minutes long… soooo I’m guessing they had him out of the booth in 3:15?

411 Nevergiveup  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:48:06am

Google Earth Uncovers British Nuclear Sub Base, Missile Facility

foxnews.com,2933,506915,00.html

But they never seem to find that secret Russian base?

412 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:48:07am
413 soxfan4life  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:48:19am

re: #405 Dustyvet

Just in time for Christmas…WHACK A KERRY… more fun the Whack a Mole…:)

/S

Come up with a game where we can shit on John Kerry to return the favor and you’ll have a winner.

414 Colonel Panik  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:48:24am

re: #295 freetoken

Speaking of WND, I see that Drudge is pimping one of their stories, about David Wilkerson predicting a calamity is about to befall American cities.

No doubt, must be the invasion of the clones he fears…

“The shroud of the dark side has fallen...begun, the Clone Wars have!”

-Yoda

415 Shug  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:48:31am

re: #393 Charles

The procedure in that article took place in Russia, where they have very lax medical standards. That’s why the family of that boy had to go to Russia for it.

This has nothing to do with legitimate stem cell research.

here is a little better explanation of what happened.

I was trying to find out if ( regardless of the safety, validity of the methods) if patients with ataxia-telangectasia are more prone to this phonomenon.

416 Annar  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:48:38am

The only thing that has changed is that now the tax payers will pick up the tab for speculation which private industry refused to sponsor. Time will tell if this was a worth while risk or another boondoggle like ‘global warming research’ which has kept a lot of sociologists and political scientists at the governmental trough for years.

417 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:48:43am

re: #399 Killgore Trout

Ouch. I can’t wait till next weekend when the stockmarket can’t fall.


Beware the trades of March.

418 NYCHardhat  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:48:50am

Again…. I think GWB was a fine POTUS.

419 Dianna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:48:51am

re: #395 ploome hineni

how are you today? haven’t seen you in a while

I’m doing well. I spent the weekend reading and writing, which is why I haven’t been on.

You’re well, I hope?

420 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:48:52am

re: #408 rightside

That nervous joke telling reveals he is incompetent, and is trying to gloss over that fact. He is a stooge.

Well, actually, I kinda made up the quote part.

;-)

But you’ve pretty much hit the “He is a stooge” part right on the head!

421 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:49:01am

re: #403 karmic_inquisitor

But don’t worry - stock prices are just popularity polls.

Which are immaterial compared to the daily tracking polls taken by the Obama Administration and MSM to show how loved Dear Leader is.

So, what’s next, a federally mandated daily 2 minute hate targeting Rush Limbaugh instead of Goldstein?

422 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:49:04am

I asked my wife her opinion, as she knows a bit more about this subject than I do. Removing the editorial commentary, she wrote:

They can also use placental cells to make stem cells or other pluripotent cells.

423 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:49:05am
424 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:49:11am

re: #382 Charles

Uh … AsiaNews.it is hardly an unbiased source, and while I’m sure Msgr. Elio Sgreccia is a respectable man, he’s hardly the best person to declare a “historic” scientific breakthrough.

The most promising research was linked here last week and this week, it’s a breakthrough in making iPS cells out of skin tissues, basically they’ve come up with a method to keep the retroviral DNA from leaving “junk genes” which can lead to cancer behind after they splice. It’s very encouraging, but still years away from clinical use on Humans.

425 Nevergiveup  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:49:25am

re: #417 DaddyG

Beware the trades of March.

Like maybe David Wright for Ian Kennedy?

426 anotherindyfilmguy  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:49:54am

re: #49 Ward Cleaver

Next, they’ll be able to make Soylent Green without having to round up Edward G. Robinson.

I can see it now - Low Sodium Soylent Green, Sour Cream and Onion Soylent Green, Jalapeno Cheddar Soylent Green, etc.

Stop it, you’re making me hungry…

427 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:50:02am

re: #408 rightside

That nervous joke telling reveals he is incompetent, and is trying to gloss over that fact. He is a stooge.

I take the remark to be smart-assed. Can you imagine if you or I answered another employee or our boss like that?

428 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:50:13am

re: #412 MandyManners

Why wouldn’t it be in English, too?

That what left me scratching my head (no pun intended).

Actually I was responding in jest to your demand that it be tested on animals.

429 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:50:19am

Eat lunch, must I now.

430 Catttt  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:50:54am

re: #38 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Guys, please knock off the shaking jokes. Parkensons is an awful thing to have.

My late father had Parkinson’s Disease - the stiffening version. It was a long 15 years, as he got progressively worse. There was nothing funny about the disease, but to me, there never is anything funny about disease. I make an exception for Monty Python, and Monty Python alone.

431 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:50:55am

re: #409 nikis-knight

That’s not so much what is called a consumption tax, as it is a system of fees and tolls. I think it is more fair to find a way to charge people for what they use in porportion to how they use it, with things like military and police taken care of by income or property taxes since everyone has an equal stake in defense.
But that would be called regressive taxation.

Whatever it would be called, I would be all for it.

432 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:51:08am
433 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:51:27am
434 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:51:30am

re: #403 karmic_inquisitor

Just found an outlier -

Geron Corporation (GERN) UP 16.80%

Geron has the only federally approved stem cell therapy based on embryonic cells.

They are trading in the 4 dollar range, but were up near 8 about a month ago.

435 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:51:35am

re: #410 DaddyG

Heck. Even I was offended.

436 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:52:08am

re: #427 Walter L. Newton

I take the remark to be smart-assed. Can you imagine if you or I answered another employee or our boss like that?

Hi Walter!

Oops…I just made up that quote. Now I realize it did sound EXACTLY like something Geithner would say!

(Hmmm….wonder if I can get a job as his speechwriter?)

:-)

437 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:52:20am

re: #293 DaddyG

I couldn’t think of a single reason other than that would risk increasing population vs. decreasing it. That’s the only consistency I can find with the One’s policies regarding the sanctity of life.

My only real problem with cloning is how clones are regarded; if they can be seen as products or property, that’s terrible. If they are raised as children like any other with a mother and a father, I don’t have a moral objection to it, but, for example, cloning a deceased child or beloved grandparent or famous scientist would be a bizarre psychological environment to raise a child in.
And the ability to do that might to seeing individuals as disposable to some, since you can just re-create that person. Of course that would be a fallacy, since I don’t think will and certainly not memories are genetic, but irrationality has never stopped people from having dangerous attitudes.

438 NYCHardhat  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:52:20am

re: #432 ploome hineni

glowing, thanks

:D

Hey ploome,

I just want to say that I like alot of your comments.

439 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:52:22am
440 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:52:28am

re: #359 Charles

I checked the history for that page, and Wikipedia was right to close editing. They had an infestation of Nirthers.

They are also scrubbing the page clean of any of his political associations, such as Ayer or Wright, except as solitary footnote links at the bottom of the page. The same can not be said of the GWB wiki page.

The Obama wiki page looks like it was written by someone from his administration.

441 Annar  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:52:40am

re: #305 Walter L. Newton

Maybe a minor point, but why would our language be Russian or Chinese in 30 years, even if the US had a complete national breakdown and one of those countries did gain control of our nation?

That’s hyperbole.

A more likely scenario is Spanish as the / an official language with prayer in Arabic. (70 years instead of 30.)

442 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:52:41am

re: #427 Walter L. Newton

I take the remark to be smart-assed. Can you imagine if you or I answered another employee or our boss like that?

Actally subsailor said he made the quote up…..but it was pretty funny.

443 Dianna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:52:43am

re: #407 Oh no…Sand People!

Well for example it appears the only weapon liberals have on people is ‘guilt’ and ‘self loathing’. To me ‘guilt’ comes in the form of failing to live up to a moral codex given by a higher power, perhaps it’s fantasy on my part. If we are a secular society in government, hence no God, how can we feel guilt? To what are we to feel guilty to? For what?

Guilt and shame are inculcated by one’s upbringing. One’s conscience is (in normal people, not sociopaths or psychopaths) a grown thing, and one answers to it. It hasn’t much to do with worrying about what the gods make of one’s thoughts.

In other words, one feels guilty to oneself.

444 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:52:57am

re: #435 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Heck. Even I was offended.

Everyone knows that only Boooosh and Jooooos may be compared to apes and/or monkeys. All else is racist.

/

445 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:53:12am

re: #429 Occasional Reader

Eat lunch, must I now.

Talking backwards, why are you?

446 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:53:20am

re: #436 subsailor68

Hi Walter!

Oops…I just made up that quote. Now I realize it did sound EXACTLY like something Geithner would say!

(Hmmm….wonder if I can get a job as his speechwriter?)

:-)

Er, now I am confused.

447 Cathy in Northern Virginia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:53:30am

Sometimes I wonder if “change” equals “revolution”.

448 freetoken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:53:33am

re: #414 Colonel Panik

“The shroud of the dark side has fallen...begun, the Clone Wars have!”

Perhaps there is a deeper story here? Perhaps Wilkerson is influencing Obama into fighting the clones, both knowing that cloning is a Raelian plot?

449 NYCHardhat  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:53:40am

re: #445 LGoPs

Talking backwards, why are you?

Yoda, he is.

450 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:53:49am
451 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:53:51am

re: #320 harrylook

Sorry if someone already made a similar comment (I haven’t read them all yet), but as a type 1 diabetic, this whole issue makes my blood boil. Everytime it comes up, the reporter has to mention how this could help diabetics, and I wonder, “How in the hell is that going to work?” My body destroys my insulin producing cells. Putting stem cells in my pancreas isn’t going to do shit - my body will destroy those too. Duh. I think this is like any other issue about federal funding: someone wants the money and will say just about anything to get it.

Start here: Obama’s end to stem-cell research ban ‘huge’ in fight against diabetes

Also, ask your doctor on your next visit. He’ll be able to explain it to you.

452 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:53:51am
453 joncelli  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:53:52am

re: #439 MandyManners

[Begin Bugs voice] Kill the Wabbit?[End Bugs voice]

454 rightside  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:54:23am

re: #420 subsailor68

nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

455 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:54:35am
456 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:54:39am

re: #443 Dianna

Guilt and shame are inculcated by one’s upbringing. One’s conscience is (in normal people, not sociopaths or psychopaths) a grown thing, and one answers to it. It hasn’t much to do with worrying about what the gods make of one’s thoughts.

In other words, one feels guilty to oneself.

Now I have to determine where I stand.

Sociopath…or psychopath…
/

457 Leonidas Hoplite  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:54:40am

re: #440 FurryOldGuyJeans

The Obama wiki page looks like it was written by someone from his administration.

Well, David Brooks takes his cue from them so why shouldn’t wikipedia?

458 DaddyG  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:54:51am

re: #438 NYCHardhat

Hey ploome,

I just want to say that I like alot of your comments.

And which ones don’t you like?

///

459 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:54:56am

re: #433 MandyManners

Harvest the placenta after delivering a baby? Who gets paid?

They do it already , but I do not know under what circumstances, or if there is payment, etc. Just e-mailed her to ask.

460 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:54:59am

re: #443 Dianna

Guilt and shame are inculcated by one’s upbringing. One’s conscience is (in normal people, not sociopaths or psychopaths) a grown thing, and one answers to it. It hasn’t much to do with worrying about what the gods make of one’s thoughts.

In other words, one feels guilty to oneself.

I’m a Christian, my husband is agnostic. When stuff goes wrong in our families it’s a guilt-fest from both of us.

461 lifeofthemind  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:55:18am

re: #392 subsailor68

OT, but looks like Obama’s finally found some people for Treasury:

Treasury Dept. gains 3 more Obama appointments

Treasury Secretary Geithner announced the nomination of three of his current advisors. When asked if any of them might have tax issues, Geithner responded, “Well, we’re pretty sure Larry and Moe are okay, but if there are problems with Curly, we do have Shemp available as well.”

They have hired a new independent recruitment service to hang a sign outside of the Treasury HQ,
“We Print Money, Help Wanted”
Volunteers were seen lining up.

462 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:55:32am

re: #454 rightside

nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

Phew! Thanks! My lame attempt at humor, ya know?

463 Kragar  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:55:39am

re: #453 joncelli

[Begin Bugs voice] Kill the Wabbit?[End Bugs voice]

With my spear and magic helmet!

464 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:55:43am

re: #447 Cathy in Northern Virginia

Sometimes I wonder if “change” equals “revolution”.

It does in this case….one is just a lot quieter and more subtle than the other.

465 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:55:47am

re: #460 Chicago Blonde

I’m a Christian, my husband is agnostic. When stuff goes wrong in our families it’s a guilt-fest from both of us.

I mean, we feel it - we don’t dish it out! :)

466 NYCHardhat  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:55:54am

re: #458 DaddyG

And which ones don’t you like?

///

I haven’t heard everything he/she said.

467 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:56:01am

re: #439 MandyManners

I still say KILL DA BUNNY.

Say, you aren’t Elmer Fudd, by any chance?

468 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:56:11am

I’ve personally been healed by my own “stem cells”. In 1957 all of the skin got burnt off both of my feet, pinch grafting skin from my stomach allowed me to keep both of my feet albeit in very scarred state.re: #433 MandyManners

Harvest the placenta after delivering a baby? Who gets paid?

Here’s a good paper where they are exploring the bio-ethics and extent of consent etc.

biology.plosjournals.org

469 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:56:26am

re: #439 MandyManners

I still say KILL DA BUNNY.


Oh Oh, PETA is going to start mobilizing……

470 avanti  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:56:33am

re: #450 MandyManners

What about cloning organs? Is that possible?

Yep, they’ve already doing some of that.

link

471 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:56:38am

re: #461 lifeofthemind

They have hired a new independent recruitment service to hang a sign outside of the Treasury HQ,
“We Print Money, Help Wanted”
Volunteers were seen lining up.

Tres’ cute, mon frere!

:-)

472 Colonel Panik  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:56:40am

re: #439 MandyManners

I still say KILL DA BUNNY.

I believe the original phrase was, “Kill The Wabbit”.

473 rightside  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:56:41am

re: #450 MandyManners


..or glands. ;^)

474 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:57:00am
475 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:57:09am

If you look at stock prices for biotechs under the Bush administration vs. under the Obama administration, you can see which administration was committed to creating the conditions for innovation in medicines and therapies and which is not.

What socialist economy has produced consistent leadership in biotech?

And if you look at today’s reaction to Obama’s lifting the stem cell ban, you can see that it was never that big of an issue economically for these companies. They had sources for their lines and didn’t need the federal government’s help.

476 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:57:15am

OT -

Hey Charles. I just finished reading book 7 of Simon R. Green’s “Nightside” series “Hell to Pay” and he mentions a lizard in the book.

“The Big Green Lizard was banned from the convention circuit because of his refusal to wear a diaper after that ‘radioactive dump’ incident.”

I know it’s not in reference to you of LGF, but that would make some sort of title, for something, wouldn’t it?

477 Dustyvet  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:57:19am

re: #463 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

With my spear and magic helmet!

Youtube Video

478 harrylook  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:57:24am

re: #340 ploome hineni

You’re right. Maybe you can explain the science of how embryonic stem cells will cure me. Believe me - I’d love to be cured. What I don’t like is people politicizing my condition and telling me garbage like that a cure would already be here if it wasn’t for W, etc…..

479 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:57:36am

re: #463 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

With my spear and magic helmet!

And I will give you a sample….

480 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:57:45am

re: #440 FurryOldGuyJeans

They are also scrubbing the page clean of any of his political associations, such as Ayer or Wright, except as solitary footnote links at the bottom of the page. The same can not be said of the GWB wiki page.

The Obama wiki page looks like it was written by someone from his administration.

But there is a whole section on Obama’s religious background and Rev. Wright at the page: Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Obama is a Christian whose religious views have evolved in his adult life. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that he “was not raised in a religious household.” He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents (whom Obama has specified elsewhere as “non-practicing Methodists and Baptists”) to be detached from religion, yet “in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known.” He describes his father as “raised a Muslim,” but a “confirmed atheist” by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as “a man who saw religion as not particularly useful.” Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand “the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.”[196][197] He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.[198][199] Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.

481 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:57:46am
482 brookly red  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:57:55am

re: #437 nikis-knight

My only real problem with cloning is how clones are regarded; if they can be seen as products or property, that’s terrible. If they are raised as children like any other with a mother and a father, I don’t have a moral objection to it, but, for example, cloning a deceased child or beloved grandparent or famous scientist would be a bizarre psychological environment to raise a child in.
And the ability to do that might to seeing individuals as disposable to some, since you can just re-create that person. Of course that would be a fallacy, since I don’t think will and certainly not memories are genetic, but irrationality has never stopped people from having dangerous attitudes.

There was a pretty good movie on that theme… I believe it was called “Parts: the Clonous horror”, but it has been a while.

483 Dianna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:57:57am

re: #446 Walter L. Newton

Er, now I am confused.

You are not alone - I originally thought it was from the Onion or Scrappleface. Now, I guess it’s just for fun.

484 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:57:59am

re: #472 Colonel Panik

I believe the original phrase was, “Kill The Wabbit”.

Damn. You beat me to it.

485 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:58:34am
486 rightside  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:58:50am

re: #462 subsailor68

I thought it was spot on!

487 Dustyvet  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:58:55am

re: #479 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

And I will give you a sample….

Kill The Wabbit (What’s Opera, Doc) The real thing


Youtube Video

488 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:59:00am

re: #4 Milk in a Box

Not to sound like some extreme Christian-conservative, but I wish he didn’t do this. From what I understand, adult stem cells were working fine while embryonic stem cell research is much less proven. And while I know that there were plenty of embryonic stem cells going to waste, I’m a little worried that now women will have abortions “for science”.

These are embryonic cells that are just sitting in liquid nitrogen awaiting destruction.

Does it say “fetal stem cells?

Those kinds of comments make you look really ignorant of scientific concepts, sorry to say.

489 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:59:07am

re: #479 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

And I will give you a sample….

Oh man, back when cartoons were funny.

490 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:59:15am

re: #469 Athos

Oh Oh, PETA is going to start mobilizing……

Cool - get the Hummus ready

491 fish  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:59:24am

re: #156 Ward Cleaver

I want to opt out of paying for Obama ’s Kools.

FTFY

492 Dianna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:59:25am

re: #450 MandyManners

What about cloning organs? Is that possible?

Theoretically, I’ve read about it.

I expect that - at first - it’d be killer expensive. And our nationalized healthcare will never pay for it.

Two-tiered health, anyone?

493 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:59:35am

re: #407 Oh no…Sand People!

Well for example it appears the only weapon liberals have on people is ‘guilt’ and ‘self loathing’. To me ‘guilt’ comes in the form of failing to live up to a moral codex given by a higher power, perhaps it’s fantasy on my part. If we are a secular society in government, hence no God, how can we feel guilt? To what are we to feel guilty to? For what?

We are programmed to feel guilt by virtue of the selfless actions of our Jewish mothers.
If you don’t have a Jewish mother we can talk.

494 joncelli  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:59:38am

re: #474 MandyManners

Agreed. I love my pets, but I love the members of my own species more.

495 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:59:43am
496 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:59:48am

Just stepping in to offer a personal story…

In spring 2005 I was sitting in my OB/GYN’s office, waiting for the scheduled checkup, pregnant with my fifth child. I just happened to see a pamphlet I hadn’t seen before—my hospital was part of a pilot program from the Red Cross to collect placentas for donation.

I signed up—as a regular blood donor I knew I was a pretty good risk, and I was young enough (under 40).

Because it was a pilot program, they only had one gal, and she only worked five days, covering two hospitals. This was one of the reasons I scheduled my induction on a Monday—so I could donate. I knew I would have to deliver while she was working, or it wouldn’t work.

The delivery went fine, but the gal had to race from the other hospital to “catch” the placenta. I think they left it in a few extra minutes, but I was okay with that. (I had just delivered a baby without anesthesia—I was good with just about anything.)

The total cost to my baby: Nothing. The total cost to me: A blood panel and some potentially embarrassing questions. I’m a regular blood donor so big deal.

I still look back with appreciation that I was able to donate his cord blood. They canceled the pilot program shortly afterwords and told me where they moved the cord blood to. It might still be there. It might have already been put to use. Either way, I would do it again in a heartbeat.

497 gonecamping  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:00:01am

All those PETA folks should be happy that all bunnies, sheep and goats destined for the butcher shop are given ‘spa treatments’ with various shampoos, lotions, and bath oil beads.

The critters probably smell better than the protesters.

re: #469 Athos

Oh Oh, PETA is going to start mobilizing……

498 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:00:05am

re: #492 Dianna

Theoretically, I’ve read about it.

I expect that - at first - it’d be killer expensive. And our nationalized healthcare will never pay for it.

Two-tiered health, anyone?

Overdrawn at the organ bank?

499 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:00:09am

re: #483 Dianna

You are not alone - I originally thought it was from the Onion or Scrappleface. Now, I guess it’s just for fun.

Sigh. Seems I’ve caused a kerfluffle. Nope, not Onion or Scrappleface…just something that popped into my head when I read the headline. Sorry for the confusion.

500 Dustyvet  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:00:21am

re: #489 Chicago Blonde

Oh man, back when cartoons were funny.

Wabbit Twacks…

501 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:00:51am
502 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:01:40am

re: #488 funky chicken

Those kinds of comments make you look really ignorant of scientific concepts, sorry to say.


There’s a lot of really bad misinformation out there. It’s a complicated issue and it’s easy for people to get fooled into repeating debunked talking points.

503 harrylook  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:01:41am

re: #451 Killgore Trout

Were you being sarcastic? That link explains nothing.

504 Joan Not of Arc  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:01:43am

There is no evidence to suggest that embryonic stem cells work but plenty to show that adult stem cells do work. It is immoral and impractical to support junk science.
Not that I’m accusing Obama of being moral and practical.

505 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:01:51am
506 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:01:54am

re: #498 Thanos

Overdrawn at the organ bank?

David Crosby is the only person I know of with that problem.

507 pegcity  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:02:18am

um isn’t the economy in a tailspin?

This Obamateur sure has interesting priorities

508 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:02:21am

re: #480 Charles

As I said, as a footnote link at the bottom of the page, not even as a link in the body of the article. I find that disingenuous.

509 Russkilitlover  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:02:27am

re: #398 Occasional Reader

Of course, I didn’t really say “breeding farms”, but whatever.

So anyway, why is it such a leap? If embryos

510 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:02:48am

re: #503 harrylook

Ok, never mind then. Carry on.

511 Sheepdogess  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:02:52am

re: #411 Nevergiveup

Google, the enemy of freedom and liberty everywhere.

512 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:03:04am
513 Dianna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:03:17am

re: #494 joncelli

Agreed. I love my pets, but I love the members of my own species more.

Funny, I can agree in the abstract.

But anyone who proposed using any of my pets as their test subject would find out the hard way just how little I like the idea.

514 NYCHardhat  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:03:20am

re: #507 pegcity

um isn’t the economy in a tailspin?

This Obamateur sure has interesting priorities

Thank you for saying that. You hit the nail right on the head. This administration is a disgrace.

515 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:03:20am

re: #507 pegcity

um isn’t the economy in a tailspin?

This Obamateur sure has interesting priorities distractions.

FTFY.

516 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:03:21am

re: #433 MandyManners

Harvest the placenta after delivering a baby? Who gets paid?

If it ends up being worth alot, the parents could get a bit to help offset teh labor costs (but not so much as to induce people to labor for the placentia) and the hospital some to off-set the storage & delivery costs.
I have a hard time believing anyone would be anything other than thrilled to donate the placentia, or at least enough to allow the superstitious to keep theirs to themselves.

517 Russkilitlover  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:03:26am

re: #509 Russkilitlover

Huh. Somthing went wrong there…..

518 rightside  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:03:26am

too bad geithner has already been confirmed.

519 Dianna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:03:53am

re: #498 Thanos

Overdrawn at the organ bank?

Something like - I keep thinking of Niven’s Gil the ARM stories. And shuddering.

520 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:04:13am
521 Dianna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:04:29am

re: #499 subsailor68

Sigh. Seems I’ve caused a kerfluffle. Nope, not Onion or Scrappleface…just something that popped into my head when I read the headline. Sorry for the confusion.

It’s OK. I’m an idjit, sometimes, when I’m trying to catch up.

522 WriterMom  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:04:30am

re: #398 Occasional Reader

It’s not a far walk from one to the other in my opinion.

523 doppelganglander  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:04:48am

re: #496 EmmmieG

I think that was a great thing to do. I have heard that stem cells from placentas have all the same benefits as embryonic stem cells. I am not well enough informed on the topic to know the specifics, though.

524 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:05:16am

re: #511 Sheepdogess

Google, the enemy of freedom and liberty everywhere.

BTW - OT but that article I linked to a few days ago about the time traveler and the 3 words at the end. It’s been driving me nuts trying to figure it out.
You said it wasn’t a person.
Could it be New World Order?
Please put me out of my misery……
:)

525 clgood  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:05:40am

So the Messiah has lifted the so-called “ban” which was never a ban, encouraging the creation and destruction of human embryos. This has little to do with science - which has had actual success with adult stem cells and none with embryonic stem cells - and all about politics. He is the most radically anti-life politician on the national scene, and I doubt He was motivated by anything else.

He just wants to cheapen human life.

526 Colonel Panik  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:05:51am

re: #501 MandyManners

Elmer Fudd, my hero.

“Rabbit Seasoning” is one of my favorites as well.

527 NYCHardhat  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:06:17am

I just feel soooooo much weaker with this flunky in office.

528 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:06:20am
529 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:06:27am

re: #479 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

And I will give you a sample….

Pure genius.

530 albusteve  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:06:32am

re: #506 OldLineTexan

David Crosby is the only person I know of with that problem.

re: #525 clgood

So the Messiah has lifted the so-called “ban” which was never a ban, encouraging the creation and destruction of human embryos. This has little to do with science - which has had actual success with adult stem cells and none with embryonic stem cells - and all about politics. He is the most radically anti-life politician on the national scene, and I doubt He was motivated by anything else.

He just wants to cheapen human life.

he’s rapidly cheapening mine…

531 joncelli  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:06:39am

re: #513 Dianna

That’s also true. I never claimed to be consistent when it comes to those who are near and dear to me. Which is why it’s easy to propose ideas and much, much harder to live your ideas.

532 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:06:44am

The Biotech industry and all of it’s scientists will miss George W. Bush.

533 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:06:52am

re: #519 Dianna

Something like - I keep thinking of Niven’s Gil the ARM stories. And shuddering.

How a transplant might look under our NEW system

534 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:07:03am

re: #390 MandyManners

Atheists would say it is possible.

Of course it’s possible. Denying that is just an attempt to marginalize atheists.

535 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:07:11am

re: #518 rightside

too bad geithner has already been confirmed.

Wow! Hadn’t read that. Thanks for the link, and this quote from it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence:

Despite 7% compound growth over several years afterwards, Indonesia still couldn’t get itself out of the hole Geithner dug for them.

536 Shanimal1918  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:08:00am

re: #305 Walter L. Newton

Because I’m sure our enemies are taking notice that Obama is overwhelmed dealing with the financial crisis and has no time for other issues like national security. IMO this isn’t a temporary thing either. Meanwhile they are increasing spending on weapon systems and getting stronger. I think maybe you take every word a bit too seriously. I know they won’t take over this country but I was exaggerating to make a point that our country will get weaker every single day BO is the POTUS.

537 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:08:02am
538 yma o hyd  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:08:17am

re: #475 karmic_inquisitor

If you look at stock prices for biotechs under the Bush administration vs. under the Obama administration, you can see which administration was committed to creating the conditions for innovation in medicines and therapies and which is not.

What socialist economy has produced consistent leadership in biotech?

And if you look at today’s reaction to Obama’s lifting the stem cell ban, you can see that it was never that big of an issue economically for these companies. They had sources for their lines and didn’t need the federal government’s help.

The one thing which puzzles me is why this Federal Funding is suddenly so important, and why, as some doctors in the links brought here are saying ‘we can now make up for eight years of lost research’.
The companies look to have done well in the last eight years - and if scientists felt they were losing valuable research time, why did they not go to other countries with other, less restrictive laws?

I think we should not get bogged down by debates about the morality of stem cell research yes or no - we should ask why, if private companies are doing a fantastic job, there needs to be federal funding?

Is this not something which should disturb all the fiscal conservatives here?

539 Dianna  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:08:20am

re: #531 joncelli

That’s also true. I never claimed to be consistent when it comes to those who are near and dear to me. Which is why it’s easy to propose ideas and much, much harder to live your ideas.

Too right.

540 turn  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:08:38am

re: #443 Dianna

Guilt and shame are inculcated by one’s upbringing. One’s conscience is (in normal people, not sociopaths or psychopaths) a grown thing, and one answers to it. It hasn’t much to do with worrying about what the gods make of one’s thoughts.

In other words, one feels guilty to oneself.

Your comment reminded me of this old post by Dr. Sanity highlighting the difference between American and Arab (Islamic) Psyche. It was worth reading again, BTW I notice she is back posting again.

nanovip.com

“Guilt is an emotion that rises after a transgression of one’s own or cultural values. Guilt is about actions or behavior; while shame is about the self. ” Religion is part of the culture of many.

541 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:08:42am

Do other blogs go from “Stem Cell Research” to “What’s Opera Doc” in the same thread?

542 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:09:02am

re: #475 karmic_inquisitor

If you look at stock prices for biotechs under the Bush administration vs. under the Obama administration, you can see which administration was committed to creating the conditions for innovation in medicines and therapies and which is not.

What socialist economy has produced consistent leadership in biotech?

And if you look at today’s reaction to Obama’s lifting the stem cell ban, you can see that it was never that big of an issue economically for these companies. They had sources for their lines and didn’t need the federal government’s help.

Actually, you’ve got two different issues. Yes, the feds will now look at approving grants seeking funds for experiments using embryonic stem cells.

BUT under a socialized medicine regime, any cures will not be available to clients of the regime because even with federal research funds, they will be very expensive to deliver to patients.

543 Colonel Panik  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:09:03am

re: #519 Dianna

Something like - I keep thinking of Niven’s Gil the ARM stories. And shuddering.

Niven’s stories are perfect example of how biotech could be misused, both by technically savvy organized crime gangs and governments. And he can hardly be accused of being a “luddite”.

544 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:09:15am

re: #541 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Do other blogs go from “Stem Cell Research” to “What’s Opera Doc” in the same thread?

Not as elegantly….

545 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:09:17am

re: #518 rightside

too bad geithner has already been confirmed.

Always more information comes out AFTER the fact. This is becoming a familiar pattern.

546 Steve  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:09:20am

re: #4 Milk in a Box

Not to sound like some extreme Christian-conservative, but I wish he didn’t do this. From what I understand, adult stem cells were working fine while embryonic stem cell research is much less proven. And while I know that there were plenty of embryonic stem cells going to waste, I’m a little worried that now women will have abortions “for science”.

I agree. What is wrong with using stem cells from the placenta?
This is nothing more then a mondy making opportunity for planned parenthood imho.

547 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:09:43am

re: #541 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Do other blogs go from “Stem Cell Research” to “What’s Opera Doc” in the same thread?

Nope. That’s why I love it here.

;-)

548 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:10:14am

re: #508 FurryOldGuyJeans

As I said, as a footnote link at the bottom of the page, not even as a link in the body of the article. I find that disingenuous.

But it’s not just a footnote — it’s under “Family and Personal Life” in the body of the page.

549 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:10:36am

re: #537 MandyManners

I’m understanding now.

I’m glad, because I phrased that really poorly ;)

550 Oh no...Sand People!  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:10:43am

How to get some puns going….

This thread is just stemmed my flow of thought…
/

551 freetoken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:11:02am

re: #541 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

LGF is noted for its lateral thinking…

552 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:11:37am

re: #538 yma o hyd

Not to mention all the state funding that cash-strapped California, for example, gave an election or two ago.

553 Dustyvet  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:12:14am

re: #550 Oh no…Sand People!

How to get some puns going….

This thread is just stemmed my flow of thought…
/

We just hired a molecular biologist. Man, is he small.

554 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:12:23am

re: #538 yma o hyd

The one thing which puzzles me is why this Federal Funding is suddenly so important, and why, as some doctors in the links brought here are saying ‘we can now make up for eight years of lost research’.


Well it puzzled me that there was a Norwegian doctor in Gaza who could only blame Jews for deaths and injuries and not Hamas. Then I saw his fake CPR tape.

Science has become highly political precisely because of the distortions created with Federal funding. Just as with higher education.

555 outsidephilly  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:12:23am

re: #549 nikis-knight

I’m glad, because I phrased that really poorly ;)


No, you didn’t, your words were succinct, thank you for posting that!

556 Chicago Blonde  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:12:28am

re: #551 freetoken

LGF is noted for its lateral thinking…

Any place can go off on tangents; we go off sines and cosines too.

557 NYCHardhat  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:12:52am

re: #550 Oh no…Sand People!

How to get some puns going….

This thread is just stemmed my flow of thought…
/

Capitalism for Dummies

by: Barack Hussein Obama

558 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:12:53am

re: #550 Oh no…Sand People!

How to get some puns going….

This thread is just stemmed my flow of thought…
/

That’s very cellfish of you….starting a pun thread on such a weighty subect. B. Cereus.

559 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:13:03am

re: #550 Oh no…Sand People!

How to get some puns going….

This thread is just stemmed my flow of thought…
/

I’m just hoping that stem cellphone research can cure my earache.

560 turn  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:13:09am

re: #552 nikis-knight

Not to mention all the state funding that cash-strapped California, for example, gave an election or two ago.

bingo. The success of the initiative was simply due to BDS IMO.

561 harrylook  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:14:23am

re: #384 turn

turn, thanks for that interesting article.

562 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:14:27am
563 rightside  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:14:28am

re: #545 FurryOldGuyJeans


That sound you hear from down under is them laughing at us.

564 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:15:14am

re: #538 yma o hyd

The one thing which puzzles me is why this Federal Funding is suddenly so important, and why, as some doctors in the links brought here are saying ‘we can now make up for eight years of lost research’.
The companies look to have done well in the last eight years - and if scientists felt they were losing valuable research time, why did they not go to other countries with other, less restrictive laws?

It is because this is not really an issue about research or the companies investments / economic performance - this is fundamentally a socio-political exercise around a socio-political agenda. Just another step forward in the implementation of a flavor of fascism.

565 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:15:36am

re: #548 Charles

But it’s not just a footnote — it’s under “Family and Personal Life” in the body of the page.

Then I stand corrected. I looked and looked at the page and didn’t see it until now.

Ayers is still a footnote, thought.

566 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:15:56am

re: #535 subsailor68

Wow! Hadn’t read that. Thanks for the link, and this quote from it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence:

Despite 7% compound growth over several years afterwards, Indonesia still couldn’t get itself out of the hole Geithner dug for them.

We’re doomed.
-C3PO

567 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:16:25am

re: #19 Charles

It’s not necessary to destroy human embryos for this kind of research:

A portion of stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. Most of these embryos are to be destroyed, or stored for long periods of time, long past their viable storage life. In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos. This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research.

I just want to pick a nit here. These embryos weren’t created specifically for a stem cell harvest and they may be past their expiration date, but they are still human embryos. The embryos are destroyed while harvesting the cells (even if the embryo was going to be discarded anyway.) I can easily understand the moral opposition to using taxpayer money to fund it.

568 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:16:43am

re: #554 karmic_inquisitor

Science has become highly political precisely because of the distortions created with Federal funding. Just as with higher education.

Ideology and agenda supercede intellectual honesty.

569 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:16:47am

re: #563 rightside

That sound you hear from down under is them laughing at us.

The Morloks are laughing at us? ;)

570 gonecamping  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:17:03am

I have become afflicted with the NEW BDS (Barack Depression Syndrome) since the election. With the plummoting stock market and the daily Dumb Ass (and dangerous) stuff he and his lakeys do, I don’t see it going away anytime soon.


re: #560 turn

bingo. The success of the initiative was simply due to BDS IMO.

571 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:17:12am
572 Russkilitlover  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:17:39am

re: #538 yma o hyd

Could not have said it better. Morality/religion/political position aside, why is it so dreadfully important that this research be Federally funded? California has been “funding” stem cell research for a few years now. We never hear a progress report. We never hear of any actual research. All we know is that budget $$s are going to some state program supposedly for stem cell research.

573 Dustyvet  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:18:09am

The invisible man marries the invisible woman. The kids were nothing to look at either.

574 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:20:21am

re: #572 Russkilitlover

Could not have said it better. Morality/religion/political position aside, why is it so dreadfully important that this research be Federally funded? California has been “funding” stem cell research for a few years now. We never hear a progress report. We never hear of any actual research. All we know is that budget $$s are going to some state program supposedly for stem cell research.

And now the Governator wants to start defunding other areas of the state budget since the revenue shortfall is becoming a freefall. But can’t defund stem cell research.

575 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:22:09am

re: #571 Iron Fist

In California, a 14 year old girl cannot get an aspirin without parental notification or approval….but she can get an abortion. Go figure.

576 itellu3times  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:22:21am

re: #6 Erik The Red

I don’t know the science behind this. If the research has merit I am for it. If not this is PR bullshit.

This is PR bullshit.

The idea that all we need to do is inject a bunch of fetal stem cells and it will cure something, anything, everything - doesn’t work. This is now clear. Therefore, there is NO REASON to do this at all. Period.

The science that lets a lab turn your own cells back into your own stem cells, might be more important - but will also never be used. However, the knowledge of how to turn your own cells back into stem cells, may be useful in turning them into liver cells, instead. They may be stem cells for about an hour, in a lab dish somewhere. I believe this is by far the most likely path for the science.

577 leww37334  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:22:28am

Remember when Obama said this stuff was above his pay grade?

Obviously he doesn’t believe that now. Wonder if anyone will ever do an article on how sharply his positions have changed now that he is in office?

578 Steve  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:23:01am

Speaking of small things: Nano Nano

579 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:23:30am

OT, but important

Hundreds of unemployed Americans applying for a few coveted jobs.

580 Athos  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:23:32am

re: #572 Russkilitlover

Could not have said it better. Morality/religion/political position aside, why is it so dreadfully important that this research be Federally funded? California has been “funding” stem cell research for a few years now. We never hear a progress report. We never hear of any actual research. All we know is that budget $$s are going to some state program supposedly for stem cell research.

I’m convinced that the issue is less about the results and more about the agenda.

581 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:23:38am
582 debutaunt  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:25:04am

re: #544 Chicago Blonde

Not as elegantly….


hahahahahahahahahaa

583 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:26:32am

re: #579 Kenneth

OT, but important

Hundreds of unemployed Americans applying for a few coveted jobs.

I can only imagine the comments.

584 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:26:37am

re: #581 ploome hineni

That was tasteless and offensive.

And funny.

585 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:27:59am

re: #572 Russkilitlover

Could not have said it better. Morality/religion/political position aside, why is it so dreadfully important that this research be Federally funded? California has been “funding” stem cell research for a few years now. We never hear a progress report. We never hear of any actual research. All we know is that budget $$s are going to some state program supposedly for stem cell research.

Because then they can grandstand and allow the MSM to add another bullet point to the “Republican War on Science!” and “Democratic Renewal of America!”

586 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:34:03am

re: #572 Russkilitlover

Could not have said it better. Morality/religion/political position aside, why is it so dreadfully important that this research be Federally funded? California has been “funding” stem cell research for a few years now. We never hear a progress report. We never hear of any actual research. All we know is that budget $$s are going to some state program supposedly for stem cell research.

Do you know that the Federal Government is the primary funding source for cancer and AIDS research also?

I’m sorry to tell you guys this, but it’s pro-life nuts who have politicized this issue and driven lots of moderate/republican-leaning biologists away from the GOP.

It’s actually a strong parallel with the creationism nonsense in that regard.

587 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:35:05am

re: #554 karmic_inquisitor

Well it puzzled me that there was a Norwegian doctor in Gaza who could only blame Jews for deaths and injuries and not Hamas. Then I saw his fake CPR tape.

Science has become highly political precisely because of the distortions created with Federal funding. Just as with higher education.

I really do not think it is fair at all to compare stem cell researchers with that Norwegian propagandist. The reality is that science is not cheap. Modern research projects can not just be left to private funding - particularly in a slow economy. The reason for this is pure research does not always produce what the board room wants and more to the point, the data needs to be freely availible to the rest of the community for peer review and general advancement - so that people can build on the work.
It can not be propriatary for science to work.

This means that the government needs to be the primary funder of science. There was a time in American post-war science where the government mostly had the sense not to argue with the scientific community itself over what the science actually was. I will just be fair and honest and say the the religious right and those politicians who feel the need to feed them are not particularly open minded about pure science.

This is not to say that there have not been any number of congressional and presidential idiot moves with regard to science. However, the best bet of getting pure research done is as a nation and not a boardroom. It is hard enough explaining to congessmen why we should care about fundamental science. It is much harder explaining to the bottom line that we are in this for the knowledge and that knowledge will always eventually pay off, however it might not help you make your company’s product.

As to the stem cells themselves, I am a physicist not a biologist or an MD. However, people whom I trust are in those fields and they tell me that the potential is enormous. The resarch will not encourage a “boom” in abortions. That many stem lines are simply not needed. Also given that abortion is still legal, and boy am I opening a can of worms here, but given that it is, I would rather see stem cells used to save lives then simply treated as medical waste.

588 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:39:15am

Imagine my surprise to discover that the “Wikipedia pro-Obama censorship” story seems to originate at … World Net Daily, also one of the main promoters of Nirtherism.

wnd.com

589 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:40:27am
590 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:44:00am
591 GGMac  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:44:11am

So…the obammunistmessiah has raised his moral pay grade..

ref: pre-election Saddleback interview

592 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:44:41am

re: #146 MandyManners

What about those who object to war? Should they be able to opt out of paying for the military?

How can those who object to either be sure that their money doesn’t pay for it? It’s not as if we have a form that allows us to check off which things we want to/don’t want to fund.

National defense is a constitutionally required government responsibility. Scientific research is an elective.

593 samhein  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:44:41am

The embryos that they are using, are litterally only a cell. They are not ripping apart any sort of formed being. When you see photos, all you see is a little cell. Plus, as stated before, most to be used are those headed for the garbage bins already.


From what I have understood, because my dad has a problem that could possibly be helped by stem cell, on some things adult cells were working, on other things the so called “fetal” cells were working. They are also finding that cord blood cells are working for yet other things.


re: #68 Occasional Reader

Okay, but if the embryonic stem cells are as wildly valuable for research as some say, it raises the real possibility that people could deliberately, shall we say, create embryos in order for them to be, well, sold and stripped for parts. And that raises a very legitimate moral question.

594 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:46:35am

re: #587 ludwigvanquixote

Thanks for writing a much more thoughtful response than I did. I am a biochemist, and I’ve seen the effects of partisan hyperventilating about “killing babies for science” turn off many of my colleagues to the GOP, and that’s really annoying.

595 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:48:00am

re: #594 funky chicken

Thanks for writing a much more thoughtful response than I did. I am a biochemist, and I’ve seen the effects of partisan hyperventilating about “killing babies for science” turn off many of my colleagues to the GOP, and that’s really annoying.


Actually, I really liked your response.

596 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:49:50am

re: #590 ploome hineni

and on the other side of the “pro-life nuts” you get the fuck anything that moves degenerates, and all products of conception are disposable until they are viable

and most human are viable…..can live without living off another human being at about 16 yrs old

and even then, not too sucessfully

I am offended at your characterization of ALL pro lifers as automatically ‘nuts’

Orrin Hatch, John McCain are pro-life and pro-stem cell research.

Where did I say all pro-lifers are nuts?

poor reading comprehension

597 SpaceJesus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:51:26am

This is awesome news. My army of spacejesus clones will be complete in no time.

598 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:52:51am

re: #195 Occasional Reader

“Subservient” work should be performed either by robots, or trained monkeys, the way God intended.

Change that to bioengineered cyborg-monkeys, and I’m with you 100%!

599 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:54:44am

re: #592 NukeAtomrod

National defense is a constitutionally required government responsibility. Scientific research is an elective.

Respectfully, one of the lessons of the Second World War and the post war economy, is that the nations with the best scientists and the most pure research do the best both militarily and economically. As one of many examples I could give, the web started as a way for research labs to talk to each other. While we are at it, who would have thought that looking into the quantum mechanical band properties of semiconductors would have been important? Even velcro was developed for NASA originally. I could write a very, very large list of really huge things that are essential to our economy and our military that came directly out of pure research.

If America wants to stay competative, research is not so elective.

600 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:55:37am

Nancy Reagan praises Obama reversal on stem cell research

Former first lady Nancy Reagan welcomed President Barack Obama’s decision Monday to allow government funding of embryonic stem cell research, which scientists believe could help cure diseases such as Alzheimer’s that led to her husband’s death.

Nancy Reagan, who has departed from many fellow Republicans who oppose stem cell research on religious grounds, said lifting the ban on federal funding would allow scientists to “move forward” with their investigations.

“I’m very grateful that President Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research,” she said in an emailed statement. “I urge researchers to make use of the opportunities that are available to them, and to do all they can to fulfil the promise that stem cell research offers.”

601 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:56:44am

I fully agree with Karmic Inquisitor, lawhawk, and Ceemack above. And this is the first thread to find me down-dinging Killgore… sigh…

Charles probably disagrees with my take, but here it is:

As a flaming atheist and supporter of abortion rights, not to mention lifelong lover of science (read “A Brief History of Time” in my very early teens and decided I would become a mathematical physicist until I had to settle for a more pragmatic major at university) I am nonetheless squarely opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

1) I find the linked article extremely deceptive because there was no ban on funding to begin with, federal or private. ESCR was receiving federal funding all the way. Bush had put in place mere funding restrictions, which applied exclusively to federal sources.

2) While personally, from an ethical standpoint, I am not phased by the prospect of embryos being destroyed by the procedure (although, as Charles pointed out, technological advances are making possible the extraction of stem cells from placenta, in ways that wouldn’t harm the embryo), I wholeheartedly sympathize with the outrage of people who are forced to support with their tax-dollars a research activity they find morally reprehensible. In fact, I find it outrageous that tax-payers have to fund any research activity!

3) If the science behind the research is imbued with profitable prospects, private donors, speculators, and investors will fund it in direct proportion. Fueling such research with a single cent above what the market prospects dictate (via federal grants) does nothing but a) divert a cent of resources that would have been more productive if employed elsewhere b) politicize science c) distort the existing market in that scientific sector, rendering less profitable those companies that have been getting by solely on private funding so far (as Karmic Inquisitor empirically pointed out) d) open the door to more stifling regulation within the sector.

4) The analogy to the anti-vaccination argument employed by Killgore and others is not justified. The government has a rightful role in managing certain activities whose slightest neglect could lead to extreme negative externalities injurious to life or limb. National Defense is one of them. Mass vaccination is another one (you can think of the latter as preemptive action against bacterial/viral attack on the civilian population).

There is a difference, politically, economically, and philosophically, between defending collective action to avert disastrous negative externalities and collective action to promote the distribution of arguably positive externalities. Within a free-market structure, positive externalities rarely remain such; they have every opportunity to turn into business propositions, needing no subsidies or government meddling in general.

602 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:59:36am
re: #211 Occasional Reader

That’s the only democratically legitimate option?

Bullshit.


re: #224 Killgore Trout

Did you see the word “only” in my post?

“It’s a trap!” - Admiral Akbar

603 krisstingle  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:00:00pm

re: #120 Shug

Religious conservatives who opposed tax payer funded research for embryos who were likely going to be destroyed , curiously support taxpayer funded Capital punishment.


I’m not sure this will make much difference since the research is already being done. If it was that promising, private companies would be spending the research dollars to get the patents on the treatments.

I think this is all politics, but I am glad to see Science free from the restrictions it previously had

How can anyone compare the people on death row to an unborn child at any stage who has never done anything to anyone. The inmate maid
a concious decision to end up on death row.

604 freetoken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:00:51pm

re: #601 medaura18586

Then you are against any government sponsorship of research?

605 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:02:10pm
606 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:07:10pm

re: #278 freetoken

Did anyone notice that in today’s speech President Obama said nyet to the cloning humans?

What is wrong with the clones?

Yes! Send in the clones!

607 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:08:00pm

re: #601 medaura18586


5) At the risk of sounding Ben-Stein-esque, I have to say I am disgusted by the attitudes of too many scientists, who seem to think they are morally entitled to funding for their area of research and don’t much care where the money to support their play-world is supposed to come from. I watched this PBS documentary which left me shocked and appalled! A bunch of particle physicists and their technicians are outraged that the Republican Congress froze the funding on building a multi-billion dollar accelerator to inquire into the existence of the Higgs boson! The only reason they even think there is such a thing as a Higgs boson is the fact that their theoretical calculations don’t square. Hence they postulate the existence of this particle…

And they’re upset that the Swiss are building a bigger accelerator for the same purpose. I say more power to the Swiss. Knowledge is free. If the Swiss government wants to subsidize this dubious research with huge fixed-cost accelerators, why should the American government double the efforts? And why should someone who doesn’t give a damn about the Higgs boson (I do, for the record; I just don’t think it exists), who is working a mundane job to support one’s family and to finance very simple aspirations, be forced to contribute to the witch hunt for the God Particle? What if the calculations are reworked, and the theoretical necessity of the Higgs’s existence is obliterated through some elegant mathematical solution? What will taxpayers get in return for the multi-billion dollar accelerators/toys built for the Higgs’s believers?

Scientists, no matter how serious, interesting, and important their work, do not have a God-given right to finance their intellectual-ivory-tower lifestyles with taxpayer money! They should invest some of their efforts in plebeian vulgarities such as PR, awareness raising, fundraisers, popularizing… in order to tap on private resources.

608 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:11:06pm

re: #604 freetoken

Then you are against any government sponsorship of research?

Yes, with the sole exception of military-related technology, and possibly, infrastructural research, such as into an invisibility field, etc.

609 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:11:49pm

re: #601 medaura18586

Your arguments are heartfelt and well written.

However, I must completely disagree with your business model for science. The research that will lead to the next giant breakthrough is not something that can always be packaged and sold to a board-room. Almost all of our modern technology is based on understanding Quantum Theory. In the old days, pure science was less expensive, and private funders gave it money as a sort of public charity. Funding science was a sort of noblesse-oblige. No one expected that QM would make them money. Later on, trillions of dollars were made because of understanding QM, but that could never have been predicted or sold as a viable business venture. In today’s corporate culture, no such sense of noblesse-oblige exists.

Pure research is not something that is directly profitable. It is rarely a safe bet economically for an individual company. Bell Labs is gone because of market forces. If you want breakthroughs, you have to be willing to fund the science and let it go where it will. You can not tie it to a short term bottom line. You have to think long term investment. Frankly, that is not the market culture we have anymore. Therefore, science can not be forced to marry short term interests. Simply put, the thing that would be the next breakthrough could never be sold to the MBA who makes the call with the money.

610 JustABill  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:11:54pm

re: #69 CIA Reject

Don’t forget gluten free - some people have allergies ya know?

Its a breeding program not a breading program.

611 freetoken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:12:31pm

re: #607 medaura18586

5) At the risk of sounding Ben-Stein-esque,

This may sound harsh but… you’re beginning to make Stein look rational.

Also, if you look up the LHC (which is on the border between Switzerland and France) you will discover that many of the research projects are done by international collaboration. US funds go (in small part) to pay for a couple of these experiments.

Knowledge is not free… but it is power.

612 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:13:22pm

For the record, I am very excited about the scientific prospects of ESCR and I am fully in favor of supporting it, PRIVATELY!

613 NonNativeTexan  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:14:24pm

re: #601 medaura18586

I first read your point 3 incorrectly. But what I thought it initially
implied might be a good idea -
Match dollar for dollar private funds with federal funds on approved
research up to agreed upon maximum dollar amount on a case by
case basis. This would force people to put their money where their
mouth is.

614 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:15:00pm

The Anti-Nirth cometh.

615 smokefire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:16:30pm

re: #581 ploome hineni

That is so sick……………..
watched it again
Still sick
watched it again
OK, it’s funny

616 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:17:26pm

re: #609 ludwigvanquixote

So why not just cut taxes and let people invest or donate themselves? Let scientists make the case and people allocate their money willingly, instead of other people’s?

617 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:18:02pm

re: #607 medaura18586

5)

And they’re upset that the Swiss are building a bigger accelerator for the same purpose. I say more power to the Swiss. Knowledge is free. If the Swiss government wants to subsidize this dubious research with huge fixed-cost accelerators, why should the American government double the efforts? And why should someone who doesn’t give a damn about the Higgs boson (I do, for the record; I just don’t think it exists), who is working a mundane job to support one’s family and to finance very simple aspirations, be forced to contribute to the witch hunt for the God Particle? What if the calculations are reworked, and the theoretical necessity of the Higgs’s existence is obliterated through some elegant mathematical solution?blockquote>

Grrrrr! Actually, finding the Higgs is vastly more important than you give credit for, because if we do find it, it means that the Standard Model is correct. We also could have found it, but for the craziness of congress. The short form is that we were going to build an enhancement to Fermi-lab. Projected cost 2 billion. This was approved by Reagan.

Powerful forces in congress said we could do the project if we built a totally new facility in Texas, new cost 5 billion. 3 billion were spent digging the hole. After the project got axed by Bush senior and other billion was spent filling the hole in.

As a result, we spent twice as much as what was needed, got nothing, and surrendered our dominance of the field to the Europeans.

618 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:18:15pm
619 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:20:01pm

re: #616 nikis-knight

So why not just cut taxes and let people invest or donate themselves? Let scientists make the case and people allocate their money willingly, instead of other people’s?

Because they won’t. People love the benefits of science, but they don’t care much at all for science itself. It’s a lot like repairing the roads. Everyone thinks that someone should do it, they just don’t want to pay for it.

620 Dasher  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:21:45pm

Embryonic Stem Cell Research was never banned of course. The only thing banned was the use of Federal funds to do it.

Unfortunately it is out of favor for research to be done without public funding. Private contributions or corporate financing have always been an option for this research. If the benefits are so high then funding would be there regardless of the GWB ban.

So far adult stem cells have been found to be much more beneficial.

621 claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:23:50pm

You are against using embryonic stem cells on moral grounds. In the future, however, a family member develops a terrible disease for which there is now a new cure derived directly from the research on and use of these stem cells.

Question: Would you allow your family member or yourself to take the cure or refuse it?

Start thinking about it now.

622 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:32:29pm

re: #619 ludwigvanquixote

Because they won’t. People love the benefits of science, but they don’t care much at all for science itself. It’s a lot like repairing the roads. Everyone thinks that someone should do it, they just don’t want to pay for it.

Or could it be that the rank and file taxpayers grow weary of the heavy burden placed on them, struggling to take care of their own families and communities, while having to suffer the slings and arrows of insults such as ‘luddite’ and ‘ignorant anti-science’ tossed their way, just because they want those in scientific fields to behave in the same fiscally responsible manner that they must in order to survive?

623 Shanimal1918  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:33:18pm

re: #621 claire

You are against using embryonic stem cells on moral grounds. In the future, however, a family member develops a terrible disease for which there is now a new cure derived directly from the research on and use of these stem cells.

Question: Would you allow your family member or yourself to take the cure or refuse it?

Start thinking about it now.

Well using your terms, there is a cure so I’d take it in a hearbeat. I may be against ESCR but I’m not stupid. I just doubt that this would ever happen. I’m mostly against taxpayer money for ESCR, if it’s so promising then some private companies would pay for the research and profit.

624 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:34:03pm

re: #162 karmic_inquisitor

I have a question -

Why shouldn’t people who are morally opposed to abortion not want their tax dollars supporting use of fetal tissue?

It is a simple, ethical question.

We have people every day on the left protesting government activities ranging from defense appropriations to meat industry subsidies, all because they see an ethical wrong in the use of their tax dollars.

OK- are they called Luddites for it?

They see an ethical issue and they protest and their protests are accepted as free expression. When people from the other side of the spectrum lodge ethical protests, they are branded as dangerous lunatics and Luddites.

Fucking amazing.

It is f***ing amazing, isn’t it? Every G_ddamn thing the left protests is on so-called “ethical” grounds, and when anyone on the right protests, also basing their protest on ethical grounds…they’re f***ing theocrats and dangerous. Hey, leftists: quit shoving your morality down my throat, eh? Does that work for ya both ways?

I wasn’t born with enough, or big enough, middle fingers.

625 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:39:42pm

Here’s something that I can agree with the O on. The conclusion that some choose to draw that an embryo is a baby is based purely on philosophical/religious grounds. To have our government interfere with the use or fail to sponsor scientific research based on such objections is, IMHO, granting favorable treatment to a particular set of religious beliefs. That goes against the spirit and intent of our 1st Amendment’s establishment clause.

626 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:39:43pm

There are certain advantages that can only be won with the resources of nations. Even the most individualist nation has to act collectively in certain cases to achieve them, unless they are happy to see others take the lead. If we had not publicly funded the space race, for example, Russia would have won hands down.

When it comes to grand pure research projects, Quixote is right - there are considerable payoffs but not on a time scale that would attract enough private investment to get going.

627 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:43:24pm

re: #616 nikis-knight

So why not just cut taxes and let people invest or donate themselves? Let scientists make the case and people allocate their money willingly, instead of other people’s?

Exactly…

re: #609 ludwigvanquixote

Your arguments are heartfelt and well written.

However, I must completely disagree with your business model for science. The research that will lead to the next giant breakthrough is not something that can always be packaged and sold to a board-room. Almost all of our modern technology is based on understanding Quantum Theory. In the old days, pure science was less expensive, and private funders gave it money as a sort of public charity. Funding science was a sort of noblesse-oblige. No one expected that QM would make them money. Later on, trillions of dollars were made because of understanding QM, but that could never have been predicted or sold as a viable business venture. In today’s corporate culture, no such sense of noblesse-oblige exists.

Pure research is not something that is directly profitable. It is rarely a safe bet economically for an individual company. Bell Labs is gone because of market forces. If you want breakthroughs, you have to be willing to fund the science and let it go where it will. You can not tie it to a short term bottom line. You have to think long term investment. Frankly, that is not the market culture we have anymore. Therefore, science can not be forced to marry short term interests. Simply put, the thing that would be the next breakthrough could never be sold to the MBA who makes the call with the money.

Your response is polite and thoughtful, which is more than I can say for freetoken’s. I completely understand your argument, and I in fact used to subscribe to it myself.

The fact of the matter, though, is that such line of reasoning can ultimately be defended only through totalitarian premises. If the masses cannot be coaxed into privately supporting scientific research (via charities and investment) because agents in charge of making resource-allocating decisions in the private sector (MBAs, execs, board members, etc.) are insufficiently sensitive to the uncertain/long-horizon benefits to result from basic research, then what? Will we need to have “science czars” to mandate those choices for us? If the general public is scientifically illiterate, can it be trusted to elect such far-sighted competent dictators of scientific policy?

There is a fundamental schism between lamenting the inhospitable intellectual climate of America toward scientific funding, and then demanding amends through legislative order, which can be reached only through the workings of a representative-democracy system. If voters are too ignorant to know any better as private citizens making investment decisions, they ought to be too ignorant to elect someone who does.

Also, there are sensible reasons for the uncertainty and long-payback horizon inherent in basic research to act as inhibitors to private investment. We know via hind-sight bias of the enormous monetizeable benefits from some basic research. But we have no reason to believe every effort into basic research, or even a statistical majority of research avenues, will yield the kind of results needed to justify the enormous fixed costs involved. In the meantime, those resources could be employed to more modest bust more certain and concrete outcomes in other fields.

Unless we are to argue that there is some inherent value in scientific breakthroughs, divorced from their benefits to human life and prosperity, then the market is right to discount the value of basic research for uncertainty and for extremely long payback horizons.

628 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:44:44pm

re: #599 ludwigvanquixote

Respectfully, one of the lessons of the Second World War and the post war economy, is that the nations with the best scientists and the most pure research do the best both militarily and economically. As one of many examples I could give, the web started as a way for research labs to talk to each other. While we are at it, who would have thought that looking into the quantum mechanical band properties of semiconductors would have been important? Even velcro was developed for NASA originally. I could write a very, very large list of really huge things that are essential to our economy and our military that came directly out of pure research.

If America wants to stay competative, research is not so elective.

I think you misunderstood my point. I’m not against research spending, but it’s optional and therefore objectionable research can be de-funded. National defense is a mandatory role of government and cannot be de-funded.

629 Claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:44:52pm

re: #623 Shanimal1918

So does it become a question of how useful the embryo ultimately is? It’s bad to destroy it for no benefit, but if it benefits me, it’s just fine? How do you know ahead of time for sure that there’s NO benefit from the research unless you try?

I don’t see the difference between using them for research that doesn’t yield anything and throwing them in the trash, which is their future anyway and would be a complete waste. And if there is medical progress made with them, it’s a huge net plus.

Note: We are talking embryos at the 3 day old handful of cells stage, conceived in a dish, not a womb.

630 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:49:59pm

re: #622 scottishbuzzsaw

Or could it be that the rank and file taxpayers grow weary of the heavy burden placed on them, struggling to take care of their own families and communities, while having to suffer the slings and arrows of insults such as ‘luddite’ and ‘ignorant anti-science’ tossed their way, just because they want those in scientific fields to behave in the same fiscally responsible manner that they must in order to survive?

We have a difference in short term vs. long term benefits.

1. Science budgets for the most part are not so fiscally irresponsible. While there is waste in every large operation, public or private, it turns out that the science money is actually quite well accounted for in general and as a rule. That money is also a drop in the bucket compared to other federal programs. I would point out that all of those bonuses taken by corporate bankers, as corporate welfare, in the last bail-out, amounted to more money than the science budget.

2. No-one wants to pay taxes. We all agree that we don’t like doing it.
However, it is part of the social contract that the government will use this money for our benefit. This does not mean that the government doesn’t screw up all over the place with our money. However, there are certain things that can, should and must be funded by the government. Science is one of them. The military is another.

3. I repeat, America’s economic and military might in the last half century rests firmly on American research. This will not change. Unless you want our nation to be overtaken ecomonically and militarily, you must continue to fund pure research. All of those tax payers may not see the direct benefits of it, but the will like having jobs, and living in a more secure nation as a result of it.

631 Salem  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:52:22pm

With socialized science, science is whatever the state says it is.

632 Claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:53:29pm

re: #607 medaura18586

There should be MORE government funding of basic research, not less. You sound a bit like the senator that wanted to close the patent offices a hundred years ago because everything useful had obviously already been invented.

633 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:54:31pm

re: #625 MJBrutus

Here’s something that I can agree with the O on. The conclusion that some choose to draw that an embryo is a baby is based purely on philosophical/religious grounds. To have our government interfere with the use or fail to sponsor scientific research based on such objections is, IMHO, granting favorable treatment to a particular set of religious beliefs. That goes against the spirit and intent of our 1st Amendment’s establishment clause.

On purely biological grounds, it is a scientific fact that a naturally created human embryo becomes a human baby within 9 months, excepting abortion and miscarriage. Some of us don’t need a religion to decide whether or not destroying a developing baby is immoral. The First Amendment is secure.

634 Claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:56:55pm

re: #633 NukeAtomrod

Then in-vitro fertilization clinics should all be shut down. Right?

635 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:58:40pm

re: #626 Jimmah

There are certain advantages that can only be won with the resources of nations. Even the most individualist nation has to act collectively in certain cases to achieve them, unless they are happy to see others take the lead. If we had not publicly funded the space race, for example, Russia would have won hands down.

When it comes to grand pure research projects, Quixote is right - there are considerable payoffs but not on a time scale that would attract enough private investment to get going.

There is something to that, but I think the method of reasoning is flawed in how it only accounts for immediate results, and not for what “could have been.”

Yes, had the U.S. government not directly funded space research, the first flight on the Moon would have probably been carried out by the Soviets. And to them would have belonged the glory…

But what tangible benefit did we get from the flight to the Moon? And what could have been achieved with the money that went to NASA for that mission, had it been employed in the private section? Getting steps closer to the cure for cancer — we’ll never know — Building advanced weaponry that would have defeated the USSR in much more practical terms —we’ll never know — advancing robotics, computer technology — we’ll never know.

What is some risk-averse legislator had managed to slip in a provision into a megabill, back in 2000, requiring airplanes to have locks on their cockpit doors, and 9/11 had been averted? Would this legislator be a national hero? No. No one would have known that a terrorist attach was averted.

Our minds quickly break down when comparing alternate universes full of unknown unknowns having folded differently. There is no central authority to know better than others what could have, should have, would have happened, had resources been collectively funneled into any specific area… Which is why individuals ought to be left free to make such decisions privately, without governmental coercion.

636 wltzacrsstxs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:59:40pm

I find it disgusting that anyone creates a human being that is so “inconvenient” that they will throw it away.

I also find it disgusting that the reporter would refer to human beings as “lines” i.e. “new lines…” are “healthier and better suited to research…”

Anyone who has held their newborn baby would understand that life is life. A newborn has his/her own personality, likes, dislikes, their own unique smiles, laughs, and cries. That personality, that smile, that laugh came from somewhere. I believe medicine has established that it’s not the moment of “quickening,” as our middle ages ancestors believed. If you are any kind of science believer, rooted in the belief that DNA determines it all, you have to accept that life begins at conception - the moment of creation.

Why are there 400,000 babies laying around at fertility clinics? Jacking around with the creation of life is just not cool. Why oh why did anyone decide it was “acceptable” to create a bunch of disposable infants in the first place? How did we get on this path?

For those in support of this abomination, how long before the “supply” of throw-away babies is gone, and researchers demand new ones? Who’s going to have to create new babies for them to work on? Clearly, some lives are more valuable than others, so which adults are we going to experiment on? Oh, wait, maybe science will just come take your children, since after all, they aren’t really contributing anything to society yet. Or maybe your parents - after all, they’re old, and just a drain on society.

No brave new world on my tax dime, Mr. Obama.

637 Teh Flowah  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 12:59:53pm

re: #251 FurryOldGuyJeans

And there has been lots of government boondoggles as well.

So beyond that, which really help neither side’s arguments, are you prepared to produce any evidence that embryonic stem cells are a “boondoggle”? Or are you just going to stick to your guns that there is no private funding (not true) and therefore must be a worthless endeavor.

About the private funding, you might want to let some of your fellow conservatives(fiscal) know that, since they often said that there was enough private funding for such research that federal funding was unnecessary. Or are you simply going to change your tune and adopt that stance? I’ve just been doing this dance too long. I know all the steps people take to dodge the issue.

Honestly, besides the principled fiscal conservative stance, all other stances are purely religious in nature. And fiscal conservatism is highly relative. Fiscal conservatives often look back on certain government research efforts or federally funded projects and decide they were good ideas, but only in hindsight. Yet hindsight is useless to us here and now for deciding whether or not embryonic stem cell research is something that should be eligible for federal funding.

I will always take a principled stand against government handouts and bailouts, but research and development is one area where I think the government can play a positive role. NASA may be a bit of a wasteful entity, but at the time, no other agency in the country let alone the world could have undertaken spaceflight. And now, thanks to the advances of GOVERNMENTS around the world pushing into space, we have private corporations beginning to take over.

If you had waited for private companies to tackle space, we’d still be waiting. Military necessity, together with national ego and federal funding fueled our huge leap for mankind, and we reap the benefits of such efforts daily. It’s something to think about.

638 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:01:53pm

re: #635 medaura18586

PIMF allover:

And what could have been achieved with the money that went to NASA for that mission, had it been employed in the private sector?

No. No one would have known that a terrorist attack was averted.

Our minds quickly break down when comparing alternate universes full of unknown unknowns having unfolded differently.

639 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:03:34pm

re: #632 Claire

There should be MORE government funding of basic research, not less. You sound a bit like the senator that wanted to close the patent offices a hundred years ago because everything useful had obviously already been invented.

Where do you get off claiming a right to dictate how my hard-earned money ought to be spent? You say basic research, I say Twinkies. You must surely fancy yourself quite an enlightened social engineer. Put your own money where your mouth is. I’ll deal with mine.

640 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:03:40pm

re: #627 medaura18586

Your response is polite and thoughtful, which is more than I can say for freetoken’s. Will we need to have “science czars” to mandate those choices for us? If the general public is scientifically illiterate, can it be trusted to elect such far-sighted competent dictators of scientific policy?

Well yes, that is the scientific community itself, subject to peer review and congressional oversight. I know this sounds harsh, but people do not have the right to decide on complex things they know nothing about. The general pubic does not get to set medical standard of care protocols either. The general public does not get to vote on how a surgeon should go about cracking a chest. If we let them do that, people would die.

If voters are too ignorant to know any better as private citizens making investment decisions, they ought to be too ignorant to elect someone who does.

This why we have a system where the scientific community advises the congress and the congress has oversight.

Unless we are to argue that there is some inherent value in scientific breakthroughs, divorced from their benefits to human life and prosperity, then the market is right to discount the value of basic research for uncertainty and for extremely long payback horizons.

You missed my point. Imagine I were to come to you a century ago and say “There is a problem with blackbody radiation we don’t understand. In fact there is an ultra-violet catastrophe that is challenging Maxwell’s equations, we really need to sort it out!”

You would say un huh, what is the business model… You would refuse to fund it. You would also not know enough to know that these were the questions that led directly to the development of QM. Again, QM did not make millions or billions, it made trillions of dollars.

The fact is that if you only allow short term market forces to drive science, you will kill it. You will never get the next break through and your economy would be relegated to making ever better buggy whips - untill, the nation that did not think so short term takes you over.

641 krisstingle  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:03:49pm

re: #603 krisstingle

How can anyone compare the people on death row to an unborn child at any stage who has never done anything to anyone. The inmate maid
a concious decision to end up on death row.

OOPS! made.

642 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:03:50pm

re: #635 medaura18586

But what tangible benefit did we get from the flight to the Moon?

Ha! You should look into that. I think you’ll be surprised.

643 wltzacrsstxs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:04:10pm

#637

NASA is a complete boondoggle. Maybe if NASA funding had been slashed years ago, we wouldn’t be stuck with the fabricator-in-chief over there, that global warming huckster Dr. Hansen.

644 Teh Flowah  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:04:13pm

re: #633 NukeAtomrod

On purely biological grounds, it is a scientific fact that a naturally created human embryo becomes a human baby within 9 months, excepting abortion and miscarriage. Some of us don’t need a religion to decide whether or not destroying a developing baby is immoral. The First Amendment is secure.

Ok, but X becoming Y in 9 months time doesn’t equate X with Y. Surely anyone basing their opinions off of science and not religion can understand that.

You can call it immoral all you want, you’re right I can’t stop you. But don’t lie to yourself. You’re not objecting because of science, you’re objecting because of religious convictions that you hold.

645 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:04:30pm

re: #630 ludwigvanquixote

2. No-one wants to pay taxes. We all agree that we don’t like doing it.
However, it is part of the social contract that the government will use this money for our benefit. This does not mean that the government doesn’t screw up all over the place with our money. However, there are certain things that can, should and must be funded by the government. Science is one of them. The military is another.

You make excellent points, Ludwig…thank you for your response. My POV comes from being married to an ubergeek/engineer who has worked on both government and private industry projects (defense/aerospace/NASA) and seeing the absolute shocking waste when massive government bureaucracy is involved, not only in monetary terms, but in wasting the brain power of some of the best and brightest. Perhaps you are correct, and government involvement is the only way to support it. ‘Tis a pity there isn’t a better way.

646 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:05:08pm

re: #634 Claire

Then in-vitro fertilization clinics should all be shut down. Right?

I have no idea how you would draw that conclusion from what I said. My point is that stem cell harvesting/abortion is not protected by the First Amendment any more that 1st degree murder is. A satanist could claim that ritual sacrifice of unwilling virgin girls is a legitimate part of his religion and therefore a constitutionally protected act. But, it is not.

647 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:05:31pm

re: #636 wltzacrsstxs

Stop getting your information from preachers. You’re not even close to reality.

648 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:06:06pm

Wow. The luddites are really wound up now.

649 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:06:53pm

Unborn cloned embryos are being sent to the moon with taxpayer dollars!

650 wltzacrsstxs  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:08:22pm

#647

Precisely WHAT of my information came from preachers? I’m quoting this disgusting article.

Try carrying a child for 9 months, giving birth, and holding her in your arms. Then get back to me on the whole “it’s not a baby” thing.

I’m quite sick and tired of my money going to pay Camille Richards a million dollar salary to rake in millions more aborting innocent children who’ve done nothing more than end up in the womb of a selfish slut. And I don’t intend to sit quietly about it any more.

651 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:09:50pm

re: #645 scottishbuzzsaw

You make excellent points, Ludwig…thank you for your response. My POV comes from being married to an ubergeek/engineer who has worked on both government and private industry projects (defense/aerospace/NASA) and seeing the absolute shocking waste when massive government bureaucracy is involved, not only in monetary terms, but in wasting the brain power of some of the best and brightest. Perhaps you are correct, and government involvement is the only way to support it. ‘Tis a pity there isn’t a better way.

Well said. I hear you really well also. Believe me, I know about how the beauraucrats can foul up all sorts of things.

652 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:10:52pm

re: #643 wltzacrsstxs

#637

NASA is a complete boondoggle. Maybe if NASA funding had been slashed years ago, we wouldn’t be stuck with the fabricator-in-chief over there, that global warming huckster Dr. Hansen.

NASA is no longer cutting edge, but in its heyday it accomplished magnificent things.

653 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:12:39pm

re: #644 Teh Flowah

Ok, but X becoming Y in 9 months time doesn’t equate X with Y. Surely anyone basing their opinions off of science and not religion can understand that.

You can call it immoral all you want, you’re right I can’t stop you. But don’t lie to yourself. You’re not objecting because of science, you’re objecting because of religious convictions that you hold.

Nonsense. I see no scientific difference between a developing baby in the womb and a developing baby that has passed through the birth canal.

Also, I’m not a church goer and I have no idea what theological opinion is on the subject.

654 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:12:51pm

re: #630 ludwigvanquixote

3. I repeat, America’s economic and military might in the last half century rests firmly on American research. This will not change. Unless you want our nation to be overtaken ecomonically and militarily, you must continue to fund pure research. All of those tax payers may not see the direct benefits of it, but the will like having jobs, and living in a more secure nation as a result of it.

That’s still the bottom line for me.

655 Claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:13:32pm

Are some of you guys really so young that you are not aware of the benefits of NASA through the years. Wow! That just blows me away. This had been debated for 40 years. I thought this was common knowledge.

NASA Spinoffs

656 cronus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:14:59pm

re: #348 phoenixlittlegreenfootballs.com

Based on what I’ve read the concern about implanted stem cells causing cancer is more prevalent with the adult cells that are being reengineered to be embryonic-like. But there’s been two big announcements on progress on that front in just the last couple weeks:

blog.wired.com
sciencedaily.com

It’s interesting though that while Family Research Council and others want to claim that any advance in utilizing stem cells can be achieved solely through adult cells, they deliberately choose to ignore what the actual researchers have said about the benefits of having those embryonic cells.

Dr. Nagy joined Mount Sinai Hospital as a Principal investigator in 1994. In 2005, he created Canada’s first embryonic stem cell lines from donated embryos no longer required for reproduction by couples undergoing fertility treatment. That research played a pivotal role in Dr. Nagy’s current discovery.
657 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:15:19pm

NASA is awesome, btw. It would probably be even better if it was free market, though.

658 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:19:06pm

re: #655 Claire

That’s why I find it kinda funny. People are using computer technology directly traced to the Apollo program to question the benefits of the Apollo program. High tech luddism!

659 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:20:28pm

re: #657 NukeAtomrod

There is a shift uderway. More private companies are getting into satellite launching and some are even working on space tourism. It will take a while but the private sector is getting involved.

660 krisstingle  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:25:25pm

re: #636 wltzacrsstxs

I find it disgusting that anyone creates a human being that is so “inconvenient” that they will throw it away.

I also find it disgusting that the reporter would refer to human beings as “lines” i.e. “new lines…” are “healthier and better suited to research…”

Anyone who has held their newborn baby would understand that life is life. A newborn has his/her own personality, likes, dislikes, their own unique smiles, laughs, and cries. That personality, that smile, that laugh came from somewhere. I believe medicine has established that it’s not the moment of “quickening,” as our middle ages ancestors believed. If you are any kind of science believer, rooted in the belief that DNA determines it all, you have to accept that life begins at conception - the moment of creation.

Why are there 400,000 babies laying around at fertility clinics? Jacking around with the creation of life is just not cool. Why oh why did anyone decide it was “acceptable” to create a bunch of disposable infants in the first place? How did we get on this path?

For those in support of this abomination, how long before the “supply” of throw-away babies is gone, and researchers demand new ones? Who’s going to have to create new babies for them to work on? Clearly, some lives are more valuable than others, so which adults are we going to experiment on? Oh, wait, maybe science will just come take your children, since after all, they aren’t really contributing anything to society yet. Or maybe your parents - after all, they’re old, and just a drain on society.

No brave new world on my tax dime, Mr. Obama.

I so agree with you. I guess the real question is when did you become you? The time of conception or the day you were born? No matter how many different ways I have tried to reconcile this, I can’t come to any other conclusion than it was the time of conception.

661 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:25:49pm

re: #657 NukeAtomrod

NASA is awesome, btw. It would probably be even better if it was free market, though.

It would never get off the ground if it were free market. All of the economic benefits from NASA have been spin offs - like say velcro.

NASA is one of the more interesting places where politics and public perception meet science. As far as the science is concerned, we get most of it from machines and devices we put in orbit or send as probes. This is actually the smallest part of NASA’s budget over the years.

The manned program, while dashing and a great source of national pride, soes not really contribute so much to the science. I find myself torn here. Who does not love the romance of being an astronaut? However, I have yet to find a real use for the ISS scientifically.

Now, I would not be opposed to real money being spent on researching how to make honest space exploration possible, but we are in a very embryonic stage when it comes to sending people anywhere. We have no real way of getting people to Mars safely in any short period of time. We have no way of getting more than a handful people there at a time.

To solve that problem, all sorts of radical new technologies would need to be developed. However, it would be a pure research grand gamble that the government is not willing to make. Instead, we spend billions of romantic show.

662 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:26:04pm

re: #633 NukeAtomrod

On purely biological grounds, it is a scientific fact that a naturally created human embryo becomes a human baby within 9 months, excepting abortion and miscarriage. Some of us don’t need a religion to decide whether or not destroying a developing baby is immoral. The First Amendment is secure.

You are intentionally obscuring the difference between a potential human and a human.

663 A.W.  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:29:52pm

re: #235 yma o hyd

Yes.
Its moral relativism.
drawing this out, you get to the place where people with incurable illnesses, or even people just over a certain age, will be told that they’re better off dead.

Not sure how you leapt off into that from what i said.

664 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:33:33pm

re: #640 ludwigvanquixote


Well yes, that is the scientific community itself, subject to peer review and congressional oversight. I know this sounds harsh, but people do not have the right to decide on complex things they know nothing about. The general pubic does not get to set medical standard of care protocols either. The general public does not get to vote on how a surgeon should go about cracking a chest. If we let them do that, people would die.

That is most elitist, condescending, and what’s worse, anti-scientific! Who oversees membership into the “scientific community”? Does holding a PhD imbues a scientist with authority over the lives and money of us common plebes? If so, I know a few interesting characters at Answers in Genesis, with impeccable credentials. Or does being peer-reviewed authorize a scientist to decide for the rest of us how our money is spent? That would be quite a circular definition, by the way. Also, the scientific method is fundamentally skeptic. The knowledge we derive from science is only absolute in the hypotheses it discards, not in the ones it affirms. Millions of observations can be overturned by a single one. Science never proves; only disproves: hence its conclusions do not even possess the epistemological rigor of strict dictates to rule over people’s lives.

From all I know, the majority of scientists today agree on the anthropogenic nature of climate change. Does that mean we ought to be bound by their opinions today, and by their prescribed solutions, whatever they be?

What is the constitutional basis for governance by “scientific” fiat? The average Joe may not know squat about Quantum Mechanics. I do. Supposedly so do you. Mathematical physicists by profession know a helluva lot more than both of us. So what? It does not give them or you the moral or legal right to forcefully spread ignorant Joe’s wealth around, toward your scientific master-plans.

This why we have a system where the scientific community advises the congress and the congress has oversight.

Yes, but who watches the Watchmen?

665 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:38:44pm

As a Jew, this is what I believe. It is the belief in Judaism: The Beginning of Life:
According to Jewish law, human life begins at birth.

Let us first establish the time that a fetus legally acquires the status equal to an adult human being. The Talmud states in part that if the “greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.” Thus the act of birth changes the status of the fetus from a nonperson to a person (nefesh). Killing the newborn after this point is infanticide. Many talmudic sources and commentators on the Talmud substitute the word “head” for “greater part.” Others maintain the “greater part” verbatim. Maimonides and Karo also consider the extrusion of the head to indicate birth. They both further state that by rabbinic decree, even if only one limb of the fetus was extruded and then retracted, childbirth is considered to have occurred.Not only is the precise time of the birth of paramount importance in adjudicating whether aborting the fetus is permissible to save the mother’s life, but the viability of the fetus must also be taken into account. The newborn child is not considered fully viable until it has survived thirty days following birth, as is stated in the Talmud: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: Any human being who lives thirty days is not a nephel [abortus] because it is stated: ‘And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month old shalt thou redeem (Num. 18:16),’ since prior to thirty days it is not certain that he will survive.” Further support for the necessity of a thirty‑day postpartum viability period for adjudicating various Jewish legal matters pertaining to the newborn comes from Maimonides, who asserts: “Whether one kills an adult or a day‑old child, a male or a female, he must be put to death if he kills deliberately…provided that the child is born after a full‑term pregnancy. But, if it is born before the end of nine months, it is regarded as an abortion until it has lived for thirty days, and if one kills it during these thirty days, one is not put to death on its account.”
Thus, although the newborn infant reaches the status of a person or nefesh, which it didn’t have prior to birth, it still does not enjoy all the legal rights of an adult until it has survived for thirty days postpartum. The death penalty is not imposed if one kills such a child before it has established its viability, but killing it is certainly prohibited because “one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.”

666 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:40:03pm

re: #658 Killgore Trout

Will you please stop making sense? ;)

667 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:40:17pm

re: #658 Killgore Trout

That’s why I find it kinda funny. People are using computer technology directly traced to the Apollo program to question the benefits of the Apollo program. High tech luddism!

LOL

668 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:40:30pm

re: #640 ludwigvanquixote

You missed my point. Imagine I were to come to you a century ago and say “There is a problem with blackbody radiation we don’t understand. In fact there is an ultra-violet catastrophe that is challenging Maxwell’s equations, we really need to sort it out!”

You would say un huh, what is the business model… You would refuse to fund it. You would also not know enough to know that these were the questions that led directly to the development of QM. Again, QM did not make millions or billions, it made trillions of dollars.

The fact is that if you only allow short term market forces to drive science, you will kill it. You will never get the next break through and your economy would be relegated to making ever better buggy whips - until [sic], the nation that did not think so short term takes you over.

You missed my point. But you steered the discussion into the right direction, namely, that hypothetical parallel universes where unknown unknowns fold differently. It’s information theory: if you know today that you will find out, two weeks from now, that your girlfriend has been cheating on you, you will not wait until two-weeks’ time to actually find out. You will act on this information today. Knowing that you will know, something specific, in the future, is equivalent to knowing it today. But you don’t know… The time arrow and the knowledge arrow don’t intertwine that way. In hindsight, you can think: suppose I know then that bitch was two-timing me; I would have done so and so… But you can only think that after the fact, when it’s too late.

Therefore, your thought experiment above runs counter to the laws of nature and the laws of knowledge acquisition. Whatever we imagine the future to be, today, it will turn out to be different in unimaginable ways. We cannot invoke the hypothetical calling of future discoveries to reach them in the present, precisely because we don’t know what they are! Unless you believe in revelation (not very scientific a concept)…

We don’t know whether the money, time, and talent the government can pour into ANY area of basic research will yield results, and if so, of what magnitude and relevance. We also cannot imagine the opportunity cost of those resources, because it is counter-factual: it is never materialized, the alternative use of those resources will never be played out in the real world. It’s an information problem no towering genius can solve. It’s beyond our faculties. No one holds epistemological authority in deciding what the best use of the money would be, from a “greater good” perspective or otherwise. Which is why no one has the moral authority to arbitrarily decide for taxpayers, whether you consider them too stupid to understand QM or not. It is irrelevant… They may not know any better, but you don’t either. Einstein didn’t. No one does. Therefore, to each his own.

You’d probably enjoy checking out the Black Swan for the information-theory aspect of this argument.

669 Shanimal1918  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:41:13pm

re: #629 Claire

So does it become a question of how useful the embryo ultimately is? It’s bad to destroy it for no benefit, but if it benefits me, it’s just fine? How do you know ahead of time for sure that there’s NO benefit from the research unless you try?

I don’t see the difference between using them for research that doesn’t yield anything and throwing them in the trash, which is their future anyway and would be a complete waste. And if there is medical progress made with them, it’s a huge net plus.

Note: We are talking embryos at the 3 day old handful of cells stage, conceived in a dish, not a womb.

Not for me. As long as taxpayer money isn’t going to the ESC research and it’s private companies instead, I’m ok with it. But that won’t happen now will it? Maybe because private companies won’t waste money on something that isn’t profitable, but the Obama admin has no problem doing this?

670 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:41:20pm

re: #665 NY Nana

That’s one of the reasons Israel is a leader in biotech. India also lack the religious hangups that have handicapped us here in America. People are entitled to their own religious objections to technology but I think it’s unfair for them to force it on the rest of society.

671 Claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:42:22pm

If anybody knows differently, please let me know. But as far as I know, NO aborted babies are being used for stem cells. Nor are there plans to do that. The stem cells are a few days old and are a clump of 100 or so undifferentiated cells. (No organization, no nervous system, no brain, etc.)

672 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:44:56pm

re: #671 Claire

That’s correct. See Charles’ #19.

673 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:47:07pm

Killgore,

I believe I have been around here long enough for my arguments to deserve more intelligent dismissals than the broad-brush “Luddite” smear.

I hold your contributions to LGF in great regard though, hence my great disappointment.

But like I said, to each his own…

674 Claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:49:26pm

re: #668 medaura18586

We don’t know whether the money, time, and talent the government can pour into ANY area of basic research will yield results, and if so, of what magnitude and relevance.

Sure, we do. We just look at what the history of doing exactly that has already yielded, and look at the trend of information that it yields over time. (Increasing exponentially.)

Why on earth would you think that from this arbitrary point in time, that trend would just stop?

675 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:49:49pm

re: #600 Killgore Trout

Nancy Reagan praises Obama reversal on stem cell research

Baby killing hussy!

/

my dinger’s broken again for some reason

676 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:53:19pm

re: #675 funky chicken

my dinger’s broken again for some reason


They have pills for that these days.
/Science!

677 Wendya  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:55:02pm

re: #637 Teh Flowah


Honestly, besides the principled fiscal conservative stance, all other stances are purely religious in nature.


That is quite simply, not true. I am an agnostic and my husband is an atheist. Neither of us support creating human embryos for experimentation.

678 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 1:58:57pm

re: #664 medaura18586

I am sorry that you see what I wrote as elitist or condescending. However, it is a fact that the people who are best qualified to determine what is actual science - and whta is a likely productive avenue of research vs. one which is less likely to produce scientific results, are scientists. This is because they actually know the field and the business of science. Also, there is congressional oversight, and the oversight of the scientific advisory groups to the government.

I do not know why you take such objection to the idea that the experts are the ones to make the calls. I do not argue with doctors about surgical procedures because I am not a surgeon. I do not argue with electrical engineers on how to build a better microchip because I am not an electrical engineer. I do not argue with marine senior non-coms about how to clear a bunker because I was never a marine or in any ground forces. I do not argue spacecraft design with the guys at NASA because I am not an aerospace engineer. I do not argue genetic markers with the biochemists well… I hope you see the pattern.

The fact is, that no, sorry, if someone doesn’t know what they are talking about, and the results are important, they need to keep their big mouth shut and let qualified people do their jobs. Imagine what would have happened to that flight, that landed in the Hudson, if the passengers got to debate with the pilot?

As to epistomological parallel universe arguments… I need make no such point. The fact is that a bottom line short term mentality is antithetical to good science in any universe.

679 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:01:13pm

re: #674 Claire

Sure, we do. We just look at what the history of doing exactly that has already yielded, and look at the trend of information that it yields over time. (Increasing exponentially.)

Why on earth would you think that from this arbitrary point in time, that trend would just stop?

What trend? You have no scientific way of tracing back causality… I say free enterprise is responsible for the explosion of technological advancements and scientific breakthroughs. You say government subsidizes are.

Some say unionization is responsible for the increase in wages and improvements in working conditions for labor… I say free enterprise and free trade are.

Oh, by the way, I am well-read in economics, and I do hold a degree in the field. What if I told you that a socialized centrally-planned economy is the way to go (I wouldn’t; don’t worry)? I have the credentials… Do I, by extension, have the authority to take the money you have earned and employ it where I think the greatest “social profit” will ensue?

Nearly every economist has a master-plan for humanity, and more than one set of economic theories to justify it. After all, little people do not understand the subtleties of convex marginal utility functions, and the augmented Phillips curve, or effects of the money multiplier. Why let them run their lives as they see fit? Why keep any semblance of a free-enterprise system in function?

A summit of economists could just dictate us economic policy.

Economists are peer-reviewed too, you know… They hold PhDs too…

680 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:05:25pm

re: #670 Killgore Trout

Israel is, indeed, very advanced, and India is, also.

Do you remember the Bubble Boy? Now, Israel has found a cure!

681 Claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:06:57pm

re: #677 Wendya

Neither of us support creating human embryos for experimentation.

There appears to be more than adequate on-going supply from in-vitro clinics, so no new ones need to be created. But again, if a cure for some disease you have is found from this research, since you are against it, would you reject the cure on principle?

682 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:07:56pm

re: #664 medaura18586

Also, not to be too cranky, but your comment on mathematical physicists…

I used to do srting theory before getting into chaos and non-linear dynamics…

I am a mathematical physicist :)

683 Alan K. Henderson  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:11:24pm

Bush’s ban was a suitable compromise. He allowed funding on projects using already-existing embryonic stem cell lines, but not for creating new lines. The people who wanted federal money and embryonic stem cells could get both.

In a perfect world, the government wouldn’t spend as much as a penny or even a Zimbabwean mugabuck on scientific research.

684 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:11:31pm

re: #678 ludwigvanquixote


I am sorry that you see what I wrote as elitist or condescending. However, it is a fact that the people who are best qualified to determine what is actual science - and whta is a likely productive avenue of research vs. one which is less likely to produce scientific results, are scientists. This is because they actually know the field and the business of science. Also, there is congressional oversight, and the oversight of the scientific advisory groups to the government.

If scientists had a spotless record of identifying fruitful avenues of research, the private sector would respect their expertise accordingly, and it does, to the extent that it’s warranted.

I do not know why you take such objection to the idea that the experts are the ones to make the calls. I do not argue with doctors about surgical procedures because I am not a surgeon. I do not argue with electrical engineers on how to build a better microchip because I am not an electrical engineer. I do not argue with marine senior non-coms about how to clear a bunker because I was never a marine or in any ground forces. I do not argue spacecraft design with the guys at NASA because I am not an aerospace engineer. I do not argue genetic markers with the biochemists well… I hope you see the pattern.

I do not argue with doctors about surgical procedure, but I reserve myself the right to reject a surgical procedure on my own body, no matter how qualified the physician(s) recommending it. I do not argue with electrical engineers on how to build microchips, but I reserve myself the option of buying a chip designed by them: If they wanted to force me to pay for their chips if I had no interest in them, I would have plenty to argue over. I do not argue spacecraft design with the guys at NASA because I am not an aerospace engineer, but I do argue whether they have a right to build spacecraft on my dime… I hope you see the pattern.

The fact is, that no, sorry, if someone doesn’t know what they are talking about, and the results are important, they need to keep their big mouth shut and let qualified people do their jobs. Imagine what would have happened to that flight, that landed in the Hudson, if the passengers got to debate with the pilot?

They need to keep their mouths shut — agreed — but I further argue that they have a right to keep their wallets shut. The passengers had chosen to be on that flight, and had privately paid for the transaction. They had chosen to relegate the authority for the flight to the pilot when they bought their ticket… It’s airlines rules… if they don’t agree with them, they don’t have to fly. If people don’t want to fund ESCR, what is their option? Leaving the country? The IRS taxes your socks off anyway.

As to epistomological parallel universe arguments… I need make no such point. The fact is that a bottom line short term mentality is antithetical to good science in any universe.

What makes short-term short? Compared to what kind of long-termism? Your own? If the markets disagree, if the people who actually bust their butts to produce the resources you would so nonchalantly appropriate toward your arbitrary conception of what’s good science in any universe, disagree, what’s your argument? “I just know better than you”? Sorry, that doesn’t cut it.

685 Spartacus50  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:13:12pm

re: #652 scottishbuzzsaw

NASA pretty much lost all its credibility the moment they decided it would be fun to send John Glenn back into space on a political joyride.

686 Wendya  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:15:54pm

re: #681 Claire

There appears to be more than adequate on-going supply from in-vitro clinics, so no new ones need to be created. But again, if a cure for some disease you have is found from this research, since you are against it, would you reject the cure on principle?

Of course.

Nor would I accept an organ from a political prisoner in China based on the claim that they’d killed him anyway, why let it go to waste?

687 Morganfrost  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:18:05pm

He had to. The Federal Government will be spending so much money with his new budget, that it’s simply not feasible that something could continue to exist for which no federal funds will be available.

688 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:18:38pm

re: #679 medaura18586

Yes, the problem with a command economy is that you have some authority trying to do what natural forces can handle much better. I agree with you on that. But the situation under dispute here is different. We know that natural market forces are not going to result in this basic research being done. We also know that not doing this research will result in our falling behind in a vital area of science. This is not a case of some authority trying to do the job of the market - it’s the recognition that certain goals will not be achieved if we leave it to the market and need public funding if they are to be done at all.

689 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:19:54pm

re: #684 medaura18586

I used to include market people in the set of people that had knowledge greater than my own and hence I would not argue with them either.

Experience has shown that they don’t know much better than anyone else, so now they are fair game.

Short term is defined by descisions motivated by maximal short term profit without a notion of delayed gratification or a notion of lost oppurtunity.

All of your arguments about what might be vs what are, fail to recognize that every, I repeat every, major breakthrough in science has been the result of pure research - rather than corporate R&D.

There has never been a major breakthrough that resulted from product oriented research. Not one.

So, while we are making economic arguments, given that America’s economic and military dominance ultimately stem from pure research breakthroughs, how important is long term American dominance in your calculations? What is the price tag for that?

690 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:20:07pm

re: #682 ludwigvanquixote

Also, not to be too cranky, but your comment on mathematical physicists…

I used to do srting theory before getting into chaos and non-linear dynamics…

I am a mathematical physicist :)

Good. I respect that. I pursued half a degree into pure math before switching to financial economics… it’s not quite as esoteric as mathematical physics on an academic level, but I’m no ignoramus either. In fact I’m fairly well-versed with the major debates in mathematical physics today from my own leisurely reading…

Where does that leave us?

The people interviewed at the PBS documentary I mentioned, were experimental/particle physicists in any case, not mathematical physicists. But they did sound similar to you in their condescension toward anyone who didn’t share their interest. To them, their fellow citizens were put on this Earth just to work hard so they can fund Higgsian adventures worth billions of dollars. Because, you see, they are too fascinated by the sheer platonic beauty of it all. They shouldn’t be bothered with the technicalities of funding it, convincing people that it’s worthwhile… If you don’t want to shell out your hard earned cash, you’re a simpleton… You don’t see the beauty, the numbers, and theorems flowing into their heads… You should be made to pay anyway, because they’re the scientists, and they know best…

/spit!

691 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:20:58pm

re: #688 Jimmah

Yes, the problem with a command economy is that you have some authority trying to do what natural forces can handle much better. I agree with you on that. But the situation under dispute here is different. We know that natural market forces are not going to result in this basic research being done. We also know that not doing this research will result in our falling behind in a vital area of science. This is not a case of some authority trying to do the job of the market - it’s the recognition that certain goals will not be achieved if we leave it to the market and need public funding if they are to be done at all.


That was what I was trying to say, but you did it better.

692 Salem  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:23:20pm

How ever many generations upon centuries we strive for the ideal of the Philosopher King, it always seems to end with more pirates in charge.

693 Moishe Oofnik  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:31:40pm

re: #282 gymmom

I always wanted to know if PETA activist refused treatments based on animal testing!

The PETA Principle…

Animal rights zealots turning a blind eye to science is nothing new, even though they benefit just like the rest of us. PETA vice president Mary Beth Sweetland has diabetes and injects herself daily with insulin that was tested on animals. Yet she campaigns against experiments on animals — making her a veritable poster-child for hypocrisy. She concedes that her medicine “still contains some animal products — and I have no qualms about it … I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.”

I originally saw Pen & Teller talking about this somewhere in season 1 or 2.
I must agree with them, PETA is total bullshit…

694 American Sabra  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:31:42pm

Aborted babies. Chopping up political prisoners (I think that’s a new one, but ok). These are the lies that have contributed to this science going no where. Meanwhile our relatives were dying because of it when we could have been way ahead of the game by now.

Of course there are some here that would rather cut their noses off to spite their faces when it comes to agreeing with anything Obama does. Which puts them in the exact same place as the Left was to George Bush, but I guess it’s ok for THEM. Hypocrites.

695 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:33:31pm

re: #691 ludwigvanquixote

Thanks.

696 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:35:58pm

gotta jet!

697 Salem  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:36:15pm

Pirates who have license to crawl into our very brains and guts and eat their way out simply by wielding the scepter of science which to them is merely a tool to absolute power. And do the scientists ever actually get to make the call how their discoveries are used when they are owned by the state? If they know what’s good for them they ultimately do what they can to satisfy their masters. Consider the Nazis. And AGW.

698 Claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:38:21pm

re: #679 medaura18586

What trend? You have no scientific way of tracing back causality… I say free enterprise is responsible for the explosion of technological advancements and scientific breakthroughs. You say government subsidizes are.

First off, I don’t say it’s one or the other. They are mutually supportive and both needed. It’s not one or the other. I can say this for sure in the one area that is my expertise: Semiconductor technology. I know that all the applied science (engineering) that is done at the process level to create new semiconductor technology is both privately and publicly financed and I can assure you that without the public portion of the research that the private companies take and build upon, that comes from both publically funded university programs and government labs and from partnerships between the private concerns and these institutions, you would not be typing on as fast a computer as you likely are now, or you may not even yet own a computer in 2009 had this not been the history of the technology. That’s just a fact. You can argue that Gov’t $$ aren’t needed to achieve the same results. I don’t necessarily disagree, except just add many, many extra years to your time line to achieve your milestones. Centuries, even.

What trend? Well, look here for a start:

Moore’s Law
Accelerating Change

699 Authoritarian F*ckpuddles  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:41:56pm

Outro here as well. See y’all later.

700 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:52:14pm

re: #247 MandyManners

Aren’t Muslim societies having trouble with kids not immunized against polio or other diseases because pig cells/by-products are used in the preparation of the innoculations? (I’m not drawing a moral equivalence here.)

Darwinism in action, if you ask me.

701 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:53:40pm

Dr. Josef Mengele also contributed to medical knowledge.
Some things are not worth the price.

702 Killgore Trout  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 2:59:29pm

re: #701 David IV of Georgia

Goodwin ackbar!

703 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:02:29pm

re: #689 ludwigvanquixote

I used to include market people in the set of people that had knowledge greater than my own and hence I would not argue with them either.

Experience has shown that they don’t know much better than anyone else, so now they are fair game.

Experience has shown me that to be true for anyone. I’m not an intellectual communist, by any means: We’re not all equal inside our skulls. But I believe in the free market of ideas. If you know something better than me, you ought to be able to convince me to back you in your area of expertise with my money. Convince, persuade, not coerce. Some people are beyond the reach of reason. You can’t convince them all. But if your ideas have any objective merit, enough people ought to be sold on them as to make their implementation financially plausible.

Short term is defined by descisions motivated by maximal short term profit without a notion of delayed gratification or a notion of lost oppurtunity.

Short-run versus long-run have specific well-defined meanings in Economics, and I don’t think that’s what you are referring to. Does it have anything with one or more resources of factors of production being fixed? If not so, then yours is a subjective label. Is 5 years short run? Is 150 years long run?

In finance, the absolute time scale for when a payoff is expected is largely irrelevant, because the discount rate takes care of any time-preferences (which are inherently short-termistic). But investment decisions are reached within an interest-rate frame, so the value of time is already factored into the decision.

So, if monetizeable benefits from basic research were expected 150 years from now, that, by itself, would not represent a hindrance to investment.

What is relevant, from an economic stand-point, is uncertainty (which, admittedly, is correlated with time: the more far off into the future an event is expected, the less certain it is). Basic research, by nature, consists of digging in the dark in the hope of finding something, anything, remotely along the lines of what the researchers are envisioning. So the planning horizon is not just long, it’s unspecified!

There is no internal check mechanism: do you keep digging in the same direction for 100 years, 1,000 years,.. when do you know it is no longer worth pouring resources into that avenue; when does the entire enterprise become a sunk cost?

Uncertainty comes with an understandable premium. It’s not the market’s defect or short-coming for discounting the potential benefits of basic research for their uncertainty: it’s what the market SHOULD do, because uncertainty matters.

All of your arguments about what might be vs what are, fail to recognize that every, I repeat every, major breakthrough in science has been the result of pure research - rather than corporate R&D.

When has corporate R&D been allowed free reign? When have we ever given it a shot? No, the system we have today is not “it”: private R&D centers now have to compete with government-funded labs and institutions for talent and resources.

704 medaura18586  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:07:26pm
There has never been a major breakthrough that resulted from product oriented research. Not one.

I would argue the factual accuracy of that statement, but I have a more relevant proposition: If you perceive the private sector’s interest in basic research to be slack, then the first remedy would be to create incentive for greater engagement. For example, the death/estate tax is a major inhibitor of long-range investment prospects. Why would someone invest now in a project that would deliver payoffs only after his/her death, at which point most of the payoff would be confiscated? This is especially relevant for the wealthiest prospective investors, the most likely to have the means to finance basic research.

Another issue is the lack of intellectual-property protections for basic research. The institution of IP provisions would make the field far more enticing to speculators and private investors.

So, while we are making economic arguments, given that America’s economic and military dominance ultimately stem from pure research breakthroughs, how important is long term American dominance in your calculations? What is the price tag for that?

I don’t believe America’s economic and military dominance ultimately stem from pure research breakthroughs. I believe those are the side-effects of America’s might, not its driving engines. A free enterprise system, allowing the most efficient allocation of resources, scientific, technological, and social experimentation, would be sufficient in ensure America’s greatness for centuries to come.

705 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:07:58pm

re: #282 gymmom

Ah, PETA members…Mary Tyler Moore, who is a Type I diabetic, had no choice, other than to die young, as when she was a kid, insulin was made from a derivative of pork, while since before I was diagnosed as a Type II, insulin is now rNA. She is a hypocrite, and acts as if she would never touch anything of animal origin.

I am an RN (retired), and long before I was a diabetic, I remember Orthodox Jewish patients (I am also Jewish, and observe Kashrut, the Jewish dietary laws) taking their insulin, of pork and/or beef, as in Judaism, health takes precedence over anything. For example, I cannot fast on Yom Kippur.

I would love to see a patrol sneak up on an alleged animal-loving, card carrying PETA member, eating a ham sandwich in the privacy of their home!

And I would also like to see exactly how many, who cannot survive without a certain medication refuse it on ‘moral’ principles….or even worse, not allow a family member, especially a child, take their med(s).

706 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:16:30pm

re: #694 American Sabra

This is the first and probably the only time I will ever agree with anything The One does.

What he and Shrillary and his Jew-hating cabinet and cronies want to do scares me shitless…he is the very worst of the worst ‘presidents’ in my 71 years. Jimmy the Jew hater is very close, though.

He is a danger to the USA and to Israel.

Sorry to go OT, but the idea of agreeing with The One totally freaks me out.

707 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:25:04pm

re: #706 NY Nana

Sorry to go OT, but the idea of agreeing with The One totally freaks me out.

Of course you know what this means, don’t you? You will now officially be labeled a RINO. Welcome to the dark side, beer’s in the fridge.
//

708 Wendya  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:25:10pm

re: #694 American Sabra

Aborted babies. Chopping up political prisoners (I think that’s a new one, but ok). These are the lies that have contributed to this science going no where. Meanwhile our relatives were dying because of it when we could have been way ahead of the game by now.

Lies?


The only lies I’ve seen are the claims of new treatments being just around the corner if only the government would fund embryonic stem cell research. I’ve been hearing that for years despite the fact that other governments and private enterprise have invested millions and yet the paralyzed aren’t walking and the blind haven’t regained sight.

709 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:26:37pm

Hey everybody, I’m having a bar-b-q this weekend and all of you who are opposed to stem cell research are invited. To help me get enough groceries, please RSVP and let me know if you prefer your chicken over-easy or scrambled.

710 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:35:41pm

re: #702 Killgore Trout

Goodwin ackbar!

A reference to Godwin’s Law, I take it. I am not against the use or experimentation with stem cells. It is the macabre way (in my opinion) of how some stem cells are collected that led to my analogy. Hier stehe ich.

711 Salem  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:39:42pm

I don’t oppose stem-cell research, I just question the wisdom of putting it in the hands of a government that wants to control every aspect of human existence. It just represents another blank check to them, anyway.

712 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:43:41pm

re: #708 Wendya

Lies?

In this case, the lie would be that aborted babies are used for stem cell research. This is not true.

713 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:46:34pm

re: #707 Slumbering Behemoth

ROTFL! It is that I am a Jew first, and a proud parent and grandparent…and also a proud Republican, thanks to Jimmy the Jew hater…and here why I support stem cell research, and wish it had been covered by the Feds years ago. It is going to take a long time to arrive at cures that we might have had by now, sadly.

714 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 3:53:35pm

re: #713 NY Nana

Glad you found it funny. I find the constant flinging of RINO as a pejorative to be silly, and I am on a one man crusade to take the venom out of it. To this end, I have declared myself a proud RINO.

715 FrogMarch  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:01:55pm

Tax payer money. That’s what this is about.

716 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:02:46pm

re: #711 Salem

Until I read your post, I did not think of that. Thanks for the heads up…even though it is like being between a rock and a hard place. I do not expect to approve on anything else to do with The One, except seeing him, Biden, Pelousy™ and Reed impeached, and a Republican President in the White House.

717 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:03:00pm

re: #662 MJBrutus

You are intentionally obscuring the difference between a potential human and a human.

It’s very odd. I make a statement that is essentially “Pregnant women have human babies.” and I get down dinged like crazy and accused of having religious motives. I’m not even against stem cell research. I am just acknowledging that fertilization of an egg is the beginning of life. That is what science says. Really. Ask a biologist if you don’t believe me.

718 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:04:17pm

re: #714 Slumbering Behemoth

/Can a cantankerous senior citizen get special rates?

719 cannon2  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:04:22pm

ok…my 2 cents worth..
i object to the government funding stem cell recearch, not for religious reasons, but for monetary reasons.
the government takes my money in the form of taxes….
the government gives my money to a researcher in the form of a grant…..
the researcher makes a break thru discovery and creates the next merical cure….
the researcher sells the rights and gets rich..
the drug company sells the drug and makes billions of dollars….
where is the return on the money i invested, unwillingly, in this chain?
if you invent something on company time with company equiptment, and company funding, the patent and profits of that invention belong to the company…..
but….
if you invent something with taxpayer funding, you get rich and the taxpayer gets…….
NOTHING.
let the drug companies who are going to get rich and famous curing altzhimers, ect, ect, ect put up the money to do the research and don’t forse the hard working taxpayers to do it for them.

720 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:08:34pm

re: #662 MJBrutus

You are intentionally obscuring the difference between a potential human and a human.

There is no difference.

re: #634 Claire

Then in-vitro fertilization clinics should all be shut down. Right?

You won’t like my answer.

721 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:09:32pm

re: #711 Salem

I don’t oppose stem-cell research, I just question the wisdom of putting it in the hands of a government that wants to control every aspect of human existence. It just represents another blank check to them, anyway.

It does not put it into the hands of government. What you seem to be saying is that government should have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific research including, what is most common, funding any of it.

You think we would have what we have today if we had exclusively relied on the quarterly stock market views of for profit corporations if that were the case?

I can give you one example that we most likely will never achieve if that is the case, and that is controlled fusion for power generation. Of course I could throw in space exploration, major astronomy and much more too.

722 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:10:25pm

re: #718 NY Nana

Sorry, no special rates, but you do get first crack at the beer cooler. I can try and stock some of these, if you like.

723 Salem  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:10:58pm

re: #716 NY Nana

Until I read your post, I did not think of that. Thanks for the heads up…even though it is like being between a rock and a hard place. I do not expect to approve on anything else to do with The One, except seeing him, Biden, Pelousy™ and Reed impeached, and a Republican President in the White House.

No big deal. I just hate to say a one-sided argument go by sometimes. The Dems can usually be counted on to screw up and check themselves even when no one else will. When the Republicans are back in charge maybe the issue will have evolved, anyway.

724 Salem  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:11:53pm

re: #723 Salem

say=see typo

725 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:15:01pm

re: #717 NukeAtomrod

It’s very odd. I make a statement that is essentially “Pregnant women have human babies.” and I get down dinged like crazy and accused of having religious motives. I’m not even against stem cell research. I am just acknowledging that fertilization of an egg is the beginning of life. That is what science says. Really. Ask a biologist if you don’t believe me.

It is the beginning of potential life, and using a condom is the denial of potential life, as is a woman avoiding intercourse when ovulating.

The point that is usually ignored by one side of this debate is that there is also always another life that is well past the potential stage, namely the woman.

726 Salem  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:15:14pm

re: #721 Naso Tang

It does not put it into the hands of government. What you seem to be saying is that government should have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific research including, what is most common, funding any of it.

You think we would have what we have today if we had exclusively relied on the quarterly stock market views of for profit corporations if that were the case?

I can give you one example that we most likely will never achieve if that is the case, and that is controlled fusion for power generation. Of course I could throw in space exploration, major astronomy and much more too.

In a Capitalist system, the market dictates these things. Under Socialism, no one has any money except the government and elites, and they decide what gets funded and to what end.

727 claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:15:45pm

re: #703 medaura18586

Uncertainty comes with an understandable premium. It’s not the market’s defect or short-coming for discounting the potential benefits of basic research for their uncertainty: it’s what the market SHOULD do, because uncertainty matters.

So are arguing on the one hand that the market discounts the value of basic research (and thus does less of it) and on the other hand all basic research should be left to the market because that will make it happen most efficiently? There’s a conflict there.

When has corporate R&D been allowed free reign? When have we ever given it a shot? No, the system we have today is not “it”: private R&D centers now have to compete with government-funded labs and institutions for talent and resources.

The employer who pays the highest generally wins there…..which do you suppose that is? A rich corporation or a start up or the Gov?

Huh? Free reign? What are you talking about? How is it being reigned in now?

Your idea of giving money at death to research by reducing taxes is good. The endowments of a lot of universities have billions of $$ from exactly this- more is better. But where is the money going to come from to fund possibly dead-end private research? Why should a company attempt it if there’s not payoff? Who’s going to biuy stock to grow the company if the payoff is ambiguous and 150 years hence?

As far as your idea that basic research should have stronger IP rights, I could not disagree more. The sharing of information and the free dissemination to multiple nodes to see who can produce the most with it is what makes the system stronger and produces things faster. You keep certain crucial knowledge sequestered in one dysfunctional organization and the rest of the world loses the benefit of it unless they spend money investigating the exact same areas over again which may or may not be fruitful? How is this efficient?

The amount of literature generated world-wide in every technology that is both publically and privately produced is amazing. This can also be a metric to see how much information is being produced over time by society. It ALL builds on common basic research, and every bit accelerates other’s research rate and contributes toward it. Private companies regularly write papers and present them at technical conferences presenting new data and breakthroughs. They don’t have to do this, but it they didn’t and everybody else didn’t either, progress would slow to a crawl in almost every field I can think of. How is this a good thing?

728 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:16:44pm

re: #717 NukeAtomrod

It’s very odd. I make a statement that is essentially “Pregnant women have human babies.” and I get down dinged like crazy and accused of having religious motives. I’m not even against stem cell research. I am just acknowledging that fertilization of an egg is the beginning of life. That is what science says. Really. Ask a biologist if you don’t believe me.

I don’t take issue with your biological statement. I don’t agree with your moral conclusion. But that isn’t important. The important difference here, is that I do not believe that your moral conclusion is a justifiable basis for law. Now don’t get me wrong, morality is certainly a valid justification for laws. But one’s moral judgments are not sufficient to require those whose moral judgment is different to comply.

Let me put it this way. G.W. Bush was within his authority to ban funding of this research, so long as his moral justification was not solely derived from his religion (that is the 1st Amendment argument I put forth). However, Obama is also within his authority to grant this funding, subject to the same 1st Amendment test.

729 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:18:53pm

re: #665 NY Nana

That’s very interesting. Thank you for sharing it.

730 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:19:43pm

BTW NukeAtomrod, just so we’re clear, I did not down ding you.

731 claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:21:17pm

re: #720 David IV of Georgia

If you had a daughter that was desparate for a baby and couldn’t achieve that without an in-vitro clinic, would you be against it? Tough shit and all.

732 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:21:20pm

re: #709 MJBrutus

Hey everybody, I’m having a bar-b-q this weekend and all of you who are opposed to stem cell research are invited. To help me get enough groceries, please RSVP and let me know if you prefer your chicken over-easy or scrambled.

Ah, yes, clever. Except… it reminds us that if you eat chicken embryos, no one bats an eye, because they are, well, chickens, while if you eat human embryos try finding someone who doesn’t think you’re disturbing because they’re, well, human.

733 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:22:58pm

re: #732 nikis-knight

Ah, yes, clever. Except… it reminds us that if you eat chicken embryos, no one bats an eye, because they are, well, chickens, while if you eat human embryos try finding someone who doesn’t think you’re disturbing because they’re, well, human.

So I guess the question of which came first is moot since they’re one and the same :-)

If eating embryos could save or extend my life, I would be the first to belly up to the buffet.

734 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:24:14pm

Just thought that, since a number of folks have come on board on this thread recently, I’d like to re-post Iron Fist’s #261 above:

Just for the record, I have extremely bad diabetes. One day it will kill me (if nothing else does that first). Further, both my parents have diabetes, and my father also has Parkinson’s. If Nancy Reagan’s opinion on embryonic stem cell research is important because of how closely it impacted her life, why is my opinion any less important?

It isn’t all pie in the sky Hopey Changiness to me. It can and will effect my life directly, if it pans out. From what I’ve seen, I’m not particularly sold on embryonic stem cell research as a whole. There are a lot of ifs and maybes associated with it. I’m not sure why people feel the need to expend Federal money on it. Almost everyone believes that Federal spending is way out of control, but the only place anyone seems willing to cut is in military spending. In the middle of a war. I don’t think I can come up with the right words to express my utter contempt for that proposal.

Ethically suspect research, it would seem to me, would be a place where we could restrict Federal spending without totally cutting off that type of research. Experimental medicine is a viable industry right now. Instead of worrying what Bush’s restricting of spending on ethically troubling research will do to the field (in reality, not much impact at all. If the science is there, someone will pony up the resources. If you can’t find investors, maybe you should take a good look at your science), we need to be worried what Obama’s Socialized Medicine will do. not only to stem cell research, but to all experimental medicine in the country. Very simply, experimental medicine is a high-risk investment. If it doesn’t have a suitably high reward to compensate for that risk, then all private funding for all experimental medicine across the board will leave this country for places where the risk is rewarded.

In short, instead of worrying about stem cells, worry about socialism. That’s what I do and I work in the industry (experimental medicine, not stem cell research specifically).

735 FrogMarch  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:25:46pm

related:

One of the most dishonest campaign websites this year was Obama’s mock “Pro-Life” website paid for by George Soros that suggested Obama was pro-Life.

736 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:25:58pm

re: #725 Naso Tang

It is the beginning of potential life, and using a condom is the denial of potential life, as is a woman avoiding intercourse when ovulating.

The point that is usually ignored by one side of this debate is that there is also always another life that is well past the potential stage, namely the woman.

I am afraid you are mistaken. Copulation is the beginning of potential life. When the egg is fertilized, life begins. You seem to understand this because the second part of your statement is all about preventing the fertilization of the egg.

737 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:26:01pm

re: #726 Salem

In a Capitalist system, the market dictates these things. Under Socialism, no one has any money except the government and elites, and they decide what gets funded and to what end.

How you turn this into a socialism versus capitalism comment I don’t know, but it seems like changing the subject to me.

Governments have funded much medical research, particularly when short horizon CEO’s see little profit or bonus potential in a particular line of research. There are many examples of advances that a SOCIETY can make but a for profit organization would never bother with.

This has always been going on and I don’t know of any government owned and run pharmaceutical corporations out there. You seem to think this, in regard to stem cell research, is a unique and new scenario.

738 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:26:31pm

re: #719 cannon2

So this is all about you, you, you…why don’t you just start a lab and do the research for free?

I just pray that you never see a family member or friend in need of the possible cures this research will produce. And you do not know what is ahead of you, nor how to use spell check.

/How many hours a day do you spend in medical or any kind of research, Professor? Talk about a loose cannon…


Grow up!

739 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:27:09pm

re: #725 Naso Tang

It is the beginning of potential life, and using a condom is the denial of potential life, as is a woman avoiding intercourse when ovulating.

Simply because a being is unconscious and parasitical it is only potential life? So malaria is a potential life? Is there an intermediate state between life and death?

740 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:29:59pm

re: #731 claire

If you had a daughter that was desparate for a baby and couldn’t achieve that without an in-vitro clinic, would you be against it? Tough shit and all.

I would be against it. But should she defy me, I would still love her and her child as if she had had my blessing all along.

741 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:30:46pm

re: #644 Teh Flowah

Ok, but X becoming Y in 9 months time doesn’t equate X with Y. Surely anyone basing their opinions off of science and not religion can understand that.

You can call it immoral all you want, you’re right I can’t stop you. But don’t lie to yourself. You’re not objecting because of science, you’re objecting because of religious convictions that you hold.

He said it becomes a human baby, not it becomes a human being. A human embryo is a human being, as is a fetus, child, and adult. The turning point between one stage and the next is an arbitrary line in time.

742 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:30:50pm

re: #723 Salem

The Dems can usually be counted on to screw up and check themselves even when no one else will. When the Republicans are back in charge maybe the issue will have evolved, anyway.

Well said. I agree. Now we can only wait and hope.

743 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:31:13pm

Let me pose a thought experiment to our friends those who would argue that an embryo is a baby.

Imagine that you are in a waiting room at a fertility clinic. In the room is a month old infant in a stroller and a refrigerator which you happen to know is filled with 100,000 embryos. Now imagine that a fire breaks out and that you can only rescue the infant or the refrigerator but not both. Which would you rescue?

744 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:32:25pm

re: #728 MJBrutus

We are actually in perfect agreement here. I am so sick of the willful denial of biology in the abortion/stem cell debate. I’m really mostly interested in looking at things objectively, so that these issues can be considered rationally.

745 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:34:44pm

re: #730 MJBrutus

BTW NukeAtomrod, just so we’re clear, I did not down ding you.

That’s okay. Others did. I wasn’t offended anyway. It seems that taking a stance, even a factual one, gets negative attention when the subject is highly emotionally charged.

746 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:34:54pm

re: #733 MJBrutus

So I guess the question of which came first is moot since they’re one and the same :-)

If eating embryos could save or extend my life, I would be the first to belly up to the buffet.

That you would be willing to do something doesn’t neccessarily say anything about whether or not it should be done.

747 claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:36:30pm

re: #740 David IV of Georgia

That’s sweet of you to still love her, regardless.

(I’m a little disturbed about the word “defy” here, especially if she’s like 40 years old and all, however.)

748 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:38:00pm

re: #741 nikis-knight

He said it becomes a human baby, not it becomes a human being. A human embryo is a human being, as is a fetus, child, and adult. The turning point between one stage and the next is an arbitrary line in time.

I would say that the point at which our society decides to extend legal protection to an incipient human being is arbitrary. That is to say that our Constitution is silent on the matter. Therefore, it is up to we the people through our elected representatives to make such determinations (as long as we don’t violate any other part of our Constitution in so doing). It is up to the democratic process to decide when and if abortion or stem cell research or other related reproductive laws. So if you don’t want to see stem cell research continue, convince enough of your fellow citizens of the rightness of your opinions. That is (or should be) your only recourse.

749 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:38:34pm

re: #734 realwest

Just thought that, since a number of folks have come on board on this thread recently, I’d like to re-post Iron Fist’s #261 above:

If it doesn’t have a suitably high reward to compensate for that risk, then all private funding for all experimental medicine across the board will leave this country for places where the risk is rewarded

.

The above quote would be more accurately stated as “places where risk is accepted”. My point being that many other nations support advanced scientific research that may be considered too risky for private investors, or corporations with nervous shareholders. Nations do this type of thing because they see it as benefiting and advancing their societies as a whole, in more ways than just individual profit.

If they succeed it will be because the leader of the past, the USA, took a pass and, as an aside, we see that kind of attitude in places like Texas and Louisianan where creationists can influence education. One can be pretty confident that no medical breakthroughs will be seen in those states in the future. If we had been meant to cure disease, we would not have been given any.

750 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:39:21pm

re: #743 MJBrutus

Let me pose a thought experiment to our friends those who would argue that an embryo is a baby.

Imagine that you are in a waiting room at a fertility clinic. In the room is a month old infant in a stroller and a refrigerator which you happen to know is filled with 100,000 embryos. Now imagine that a fire breaks out and that you can only rescue the infant or the refrigerator but not both. Which would you rescue?

You would of course save the sustainable life before the static lives, of course.

If you are in a room with two strangers, a man with polio in an iron lung and a baby playing on the floor, and fire breaks out and you are able to only save one but not both, which would you rescue?

751 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:40:09pm

re: #743 MJBrutus

Let me pose a thought experiment to our friends those who would argue that an embryo is a baby.

Imagine that you are in a waiting room at a fertility clinic. In the room is a month old infant in a stroller and a refrigerator which you happen to know is filled with 100,000 embryos. Now imagine that a fire breaks out and that you can only rescue the infant or the refrigerator but not both. Which would you rescue?

The infant. He/she would suffer greatly.
But it would be a tragedy.
By the way, I am also against creating and storing large numbers of embryos that will never be born for fertility reasons, although I don’t have a strong opinion of what the law should be.

752 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:41:37pm

re: #746 nikis-knight

That you would be willing to do something doesn’t neccessarily say anything about whether or not it should be done.

Quite right. While your moral leanings may prohibit you from doing so, mine do not. When it comes to the law, I do not believe that the O is exceeding his authority. I think that Bush may have done so by virtue of the 1st Amendment, but that is certainly arguable.

753 nikis-knight  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:42:23pm

re: #748 MJBrutus

I would say that the point at which our society decides to extend legal protection to an incipient human being is arbitrary. That is to say that our Constitution is silent on the matter. Therefore, it is up to we the people through our elected representatives to make such determinations (as long as we don’t violate any other part of our Constitution in so doing). It is up to the democratic process to decide when and if abortion or stem cell research or other related reproductive laws. So if you don’t want to see stem cell research continue, convince enough of your fellow citizens of the rightness of your opinions. That is (or should be) your only recourse.

This is a republic, though, not a democracy. Laws are made by elected officials, and convincing them, and people to vote for them, is the recourse we actually have and use.
No one here is advocating overthrowing the government over this, so I fail to grasp your point. It is exactly that convincing that is going on.

754 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:42:34pm

re: #747 claire

That’s sweet of you to still love her, regardless.

(I’m a little disturbed about the word “defy” here, especially if she’s like 40 years old and all, however.)

It was simply the first word to come to mind, I meant nothing sinister or domineering by it.

755 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:43:54pm

re: #736 NukeAtomrod

I am afraid you are mistaken. Copulation is the beginning of potential life. When the egg is fertilized, life begins. You seem to understand this because the second part of your statement is all about preventing the fertilization of the egg.

You must be another one of those literalists that pop up from time to time.

Some 50% or more of fertilized ovum are spontaneously aborted. By that measure alone it is “potential”.

Any cells of our bodies can be called “life”. That does not make them human, and you are a good example of one of those yet again ignoring the only human that is always somewhere in the background of this type of discussion.

756 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:43:58pm

re: #750 David IV of Georgia

You would of course save the sustainable life before the static lives, of course.

If you are in a room with two strangers, a man with polio in an iron lung and a baby playing on the floor, and fire breaks out and you are able to only save one but not both, which would you rescue?

While I’m pleased that you would come to the rational conclusion, I do not understanding your reasoning here. Do you not think that the embryos could be implanted in a womb and grow to become perfectly healthy babies? Would your opinion change if the infant had a terminal and incurable illness?

757 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:46:02pm

re: #753 nikis-knight

This is a republic, though, not a democracy. Laws are made by elected officials, and convincing them, and people to vote for them, is the recourse we actually have and use.
No one here is advocating overthrowing the government over this, so I fail to grasp your point. It is exactly that convincing that is going on.

My point is that our judiciary has degenerated in to a political branch of government. Roe v Wade was a horrible, unconstitutional decision. While I’m not accusing you in any way, I was referring to those who would seek to use the courts to “invent” or “discover” new “rights.”

758 realwest  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:47:33pm

re: #749 Naso Tang
Take it up with Iron Fist -he’s the one I’m quoting.
Too bad NY Nana didn’t read it too.

759 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:48:19pm

re: #729 NukeAtomrod

It is a basic tenet of Judaism, and as a Jew, it is what I believe. I was a premature baby 71 years ago, and have no siblings. My Dad zt”l told me when I was old enough to understand that he had asked the GP who was going to deliver me, who was a Catholic, that as a Jew, my Dad wanted the life of my Mum zt”l to be saved if it came to that, and the MD said he knew that about Judaism and abided by it. I can see so much logic in this, and cannot express my appreciation of the MD…happily I survived, but in those days, I was in an incubator for 10 weeks, handled only by the RN’s and the MD and also my Pediatrician. My parents did not get to touch me until they took me home.

How different it was when my oldest granddaughter was born nearly 9 years ago, before week 30, as her twin sister was in fetal distress, and lived only a few hours. My daughter and son in law held the surviving twin at about 4 days of age, if only for minutes, with the baby so covered in all sorts of medical equipment, that at 1 lb. 8 oz, she was the weight of a loaf of bread, and barely visible.

760 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:48:28pm

re: #739 David IV of Georgia

Simply because a being is unconscious and parasitical it is only potential life? So malaria is a potential life? Is there an intermediate state between life and death?

A group of cells that has the potential to become a human is not unconscious. There is something fundamentally dishonest about your style of argument.

761 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:49:35pm

re: #758 realwest

Take it up with Iron Fist -he’s the one I’m quoting.
Too bad NY Nana didn’t read it too.

I was making a general comment, not arguing with you or him.

762 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:58:10pm

re: #722 Slumbering Behemoth

OK, I have stopped laughing long enough to do my spectacular 2-finger typing!

Would you be devastated if I told you that the only time I drink is on the Jewish Sabbath, when we make a blessing over wine, as we do on all major Jewish holidays, and my beverage of choice is sacramental grape juice?

BTW, people who have had He’brew find it to be excellent.

763 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 4:59:35pm

re: #762 NY Nana

OK, I have stopped laughing long enough to do my spectacular 2-finger typing!

Would you be devastated if I told you that the only time I drink is on the Jewish Sabbath, when we make a blessing over wine, as we do on all major Jewish holidays, and my beverage of choice is sacramental grape juice?

BTW, people who have had He’brew find it to be excellent.

Whatever your beverage of choice is, La’Chaim!

764 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:02:49pm

re: #762 NY Nana

I have tried it, and it is excellent. Kosher, too. One of the things I like about kosher stuff is that you don’t have to be Jewish to appreciate it. Hebrew Nationals are great as well.

765 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:02:51pm

re: #762 NY Nana


BTW, people who have had He’brew find it to be excellent.

I’ll have to look for that sometime, but 12%? Now, I’ve done some brewing in my time and I don’t think one can get those little yeast suckers to live to 12%.

I think there is some hanky panky going on here.

766 Claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:05:16pm

Is everyone in this discussion aware that the cells here are basically a cluster of about 100 undifferentiated cells. As far as I know, all alike. Unorganized, undifferentiated- no nervous system, no organs, no brain. About as complex a life form as 100 frog cells at the same stage?

767 Silvergirl  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:06:45pm

re: #743 MJBrutus

Let me pose a thought experiment to our friends those who would argue that an embryo is a baby.

Imagine that you are in a waiting room at a fertility clinic. In the room is a month old infant in a stroller and a refrigerator which you happen to know is filled with 100,000 embryos. Now imagine that a fire breaks out and that you can only rescue the infant or the refrigerator but not both. Which would you rescue?

Interesting and thought-provoking question. I, and I would think most here, would rescue the baby. A lot of the embryo/baby debate depends on where you sit. If you’ve been waiting forever to have a baby and finally you conceive and have an embryo, it is definitely your baby. If a woman had a long-hoped-for embryo in that hypothetical fridge, and the infant in the stroller is a stranger’s child, she may hesitate longer than most of us. She may save the fridge. If you say she is not noble for saving her own instead of another’s, then we need to feel more guilt for feeding our own children while quickly changing the channel when a starving child with flies buzzing his head is shown on TV.

If someone wants to argue that an embryo is a baby, let them.

768 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:07:40pm

re: #766 Claire

Is everyone in this discussion aware that the cells here are basically a cluster of about 100 undifferentiated cells. As far as I know, all alike. Unorganized, undifferentiated- no nervous system, no organs, no brain. About as complex a life form as 100 frog cells at the same stage?

i’m going to tread on some dangerous ground for me here. Dangerous because I am an atheist. My understanding is that those Christians who believe that life begins at conception believe that somewhere a soul is resident in those few cells.

769 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:10:02pm

re: #756 MJBrutus

While I’m pleased that you would come to the rational conclusion, I do not understanding your reasoning here. Do you not think that the embryos could be implanted in a womb and grow to become perfectly healthy babies? Would your opinion change if the infant had a terminal and incurable illness?

Knowing myself, I would pick up the baby and be out the door before I thought about the refrigerator and what it held. If I did think about it and ponder whether I could find a place to plug it in, doctors to take charge of it, a clinic to house it and all, I would still pick up the baby—I know I can save it. If I knew the embryos would be eventually implanted in the wombs of mothers I would probably die in the flames trying to save everyone. If I knew the baby had a terminal and incurable illness would soon die and the embryos would be placed in wombs should I save them and had time to think all this out as the fire raged, I would probably save the refrigerator. But then again, this is all hypothetical speculation.

This is reminding me of too many grad school papers—at least I don’t have to research anything.

770 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:10:16pm

re: #766 Claire

Is everyone in this discussion aware that the cells here are basically a cluster of about 100 undifferentiated cells. As far as I know, all alike. Unorganized, undifferentiated- no nervous system, no organs, no brain. About as complex a life form as 100 frog cells at the same stage?

Most are probably aware of that, but choose to ignore it.

771 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:10:43pm

some choose to ignore it.

772 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:11:10pm

re: #767 Silvergirl

Interesting and thought-provoking question. I, and I would think most here, would rescue the baby. A lot of the embryo/baby debate depends on where you sit. If you’ve been waiting forever to have a baby and finally you conceive and have an embryo, it is definitely your baby. If a woman had a long-hoped-for embryo in that hypothetical fridge, and the infant in the stroller is a stranger’s child, she may hesitate longer than most of us. She may save the fridge. If you say she is not noble for saving her own instead of another’s, then we need to feel more guilt for feeding our own children while quickly changing the channel when a starving child with flies buzzing his head is shown on TV.

If someone wants to argue that an embryo is a baby, let them.

Perhaps a woman might. I would consider such an act (saving the fridge) to be monstrously immoral. I hope that the question would cause some who maintain that embryos are babies to ponder why they would save the infant (if they would) and allow a city full of “babies” to perish.

773 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:16:21pm

re: #772 MJBrutus

Perhaps a woman might. I would consider such an act (saving the fridge) to be monstrously immoral. I hope that the question would cause some who maintain that embryos are babies to ponder why they would save the infant (if they would) and allow a city full of “babies” to perish.

The dichotomy arises because some do not consider self consciousness to be the essence of a human. They consider what I assume they call a soul to be more important and hence saving souls is more important than saving individuals.

I do however think that most people would save the infant, whatever position they might express here. I would attribute that to evolutionary instincts.

774 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:23:59pm

re: #773 Naso Tang

The dichotomy arises because some do not consider self consciousness to be the essence of a human. They consider what I assume they call a soul to be more important and hence saving souls is more important than saving individuals.

I do however think that most people would save the infant, whatever position they might express here. I would attribute that to evolutionary instincts.

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I would like to follow up by asking you if you think that our Constitution in any way:

1) requires that we extend the legal protections we grant people to embryos?
2) prohibits such protections?
3) leaves the matter of what if any protections to grant up to we the people?

My opinion is that #1 would violate our 1st Amendment, since the only basis for granting such protections would be the religious aim of protecting souls. I do not see any way that #2 follows from any part of our Constitution , which leaves me with #3 as the answer.

775 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:24:25pm

re: #755 Naso Tang

You must be another one of those literalists that pop up from time to time.

Some 50% or more of fertilized ovum are spontaneously aborted. By that measure alone it is “potential”.

Any cells of our bodies can be called “life”. That does not make them human, and you are a good example of one of those yet again ignoring the only human that is always somewhere in the background of this type of discussion.

All of those spontaneously aborted eggs are human beings, just as a late-term miscarriage is the death of a human being. They are not potential humans, they are actual humans that didn’t finish developing.

A random cell in your body is not a human being and cannot, without cloning technology, become one.

Why do you think that I’m ignoring the mother in this discussion? She just isn’t relevant to the to the question “At what moment does life begin?” We are discussing a biological process. Not the relative importance of an adult human versus a human embryo.

776 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:32:31pm

re: #775 NukeAtomrod

All of those spontaneously aborted eggs are human beings, just as a late-term miscarriage is the death of a human being. They are not potential humans, they are actual humans that didn’t finish developing.

A random cell in your body is not a human being and cannot, without cloning technology, become one.

Why do you think that I’m ignoring the mother in this discussion? She just isn’t relevant to the to the question “At what moment does life begin?” We are discussing a biological process. Not the relative importance of an adult human versus a human embryo.

I would suggest that the question with regard to public policy is at what point is a developing human deserving of the legal protections of a human being? One could consider a day old zygote to be a human being but still conclude that it is not deserving of the legal protections we grant to a post-natal baby.

777 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:37:16pm

re: #775 NukeAtomrod

Not the relative importance of an adult human versus a human embryo.

You equate those two as equal. I do not in the scientific context being discussed here.

778 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:43:52pm

re: #774 MJBrutus

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I would like to follow up by asking you if you think that our Constitution in any way:

1) requires that we extend the legal protections we grant people to embryos?
2) prohibits such protections?
3) leaves the matter of what if any protections to grant up to we the people?

My opinion is that #1 would violate our 1st Amendment, since the only basis for granting such protections would be the religious aim of protecting souls. I do not see any way that #2 follows from any part of our Constitution , which leaves me with #3 as the answer.

I think this is a good example where relying too heavily on the constitution becomes similar to looking in the bible for answers to valve problems on the space shuttle.

The counter to any attempt to grant “people” status to undifferentiated cells, or even partially differentiated cells is bound to deny some rights to “people” that we know the constitution was designed for.

This is something for society to work out on its own.

779 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:49:32pm

re: #778 Naso Tang

I think this is a good example where relying too heavily on the constitution becomes similar to looking in the bible for answers to valve problems on the space shuttle.

The counter to any attempt to grant “people” status to undifferentiated cells, or even partially differentiated cells is bound to deny some rights to “people” that we know the constitution was designed for.

This is something for society to work out on its own.

Another excellent answer! However, your concluding sentence has me scratching my head a little bit. We both agree, I think, that any laws we pass regarding “people” status must pass Constitutional muster with regard to other rights. By society “working it out” do you mean that any protections should rightfully be part of our democratic process, subject to the limitations that he Constitution places on any of our laws? If so, we’re in complete accord :-)

780 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:49:37pm

re: #760 Naso Tang

A group of cells that has the potential to become a human is not unconscious. There is something fundamentally dishonest about your style of argument.

A-conscious in the sense that a rock is without thought. A-conscious is not an English word, so I chose the closest word I knew. If I inadvertently made a logical fallacy by using malaria to illustrate my idea, then ignore the malaria comment.

The zygote, blastula, gastrula, organogenesis and fetus are all stages in human life. Should the mother reject this life, as often happens, this too is a natural part of life. You may disagree. You may think my belief sucks and is unscientific. You are free to do so. I think that the distinction between potential and actual life is being misused: a human zygote (one cell) or blastula is a human being. A muscle cell or a kidney is not. Simply because an embryo or fetus is unable to live on its own does not make it somehow different than a premature infant that must stay in an ICU to live.

That my graduate studies were done at a seminary might give you insight into why I hold these views.

781 MJBrutus  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:55:06pm

I’m out for the evening. Just wanted to thank everyone for an entertaining and civil discussion. I’m proud of the way we can talk and disagree in a thoughtful and respectful way. It’s why I love coming to LGF :-)

782 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:56:03pm

re: #776 MJBrutus

I would suggest that the question with regard to public policy is at what point is a developing human deserving of the legal protections of a human being? One could consider a day old zygote to be a human being but still conclude that it is not deserving of the legal protections we grant to a post-natal baby.

Thank you. This is exactly what I’m getting at.

783 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 5:57:33pm

re: #779 MJBrutus

Another excellent answer! However, your concluding sentence has me scratching my head a little bit. We both agree, I think, that any laws we pass regarding “people” status must pass Constitutional muster with regard to other rights. By society “working it out” do you mean that any protections should rightfully be part of our democratic process, subject to the limitations that he Constitution places on any of our laws? If so, we’re in complete accord :-)

I’m far from a constitutional expert, but it would seem to me that there is an implicit violation of the constitution in creating a new form of “people” that was not considered when it was written. To the extent that any such recognition denies any prior rights, it would be a violation.

I haven’t read it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t something like that in Roe vWaid

784 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 6:04:40pm

re: #776 MJBrutus

I would suggest that the question with regard to public policy is at what point is a developing human deserving of the legal protections of a human being? One could consider a day old zygote to be a human being but still conclude that it is not deserving of the legal protections we grant to a post-natal baby.

A college athlete in the prime of life and a pitiful person in a vegetative state are both human—but it is generally considered a matter both ethical and legal to allow one to die by withholding care. Life may have different qualities while still retaining the same value.

I’m leaving now, I wish you all well.

785 NY Nana  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 6:08:39pm

re: #761 Naso Tang

I read it this afternoon, and if people knew how to check, they would see that I dug him up, but do not agree with every word…my husband and I are both Type II diabetics. I am on 2 different kinds of insulin, and will be for the rest of my life, as my endocrinologist feels that I am a Type 1 1/2 diabetic. I actually diagnosed my husband….a very long story. Thank G-d he was in the early stages, and as I am an RN (retired), I watch him like a hawk! ;)

We test our blood glucose at least 4x/day, and my HgA1C is that of a non-diabetic, as I am very careful about what I eat. The dietitian who, along with the Diabetic educator who are a part of the endocrinology practice we go to, have been a tremendous help. My husband is on diet control, and has never needed any medication. My husband’s HgA1C is also that of a non-diabetic. Yes, it takes self-discipline, but with the right care and attitude, a diabetic can live a normal life span. Diabetes is a chronic illness that so far has no cure, but with this wonderful research? There is now the hope of a cure! And since Type II is more and more recognized as a genetic disease, there is also help further down the road! We both have a number of Type II’s in our families.

Nowadays there is almost nothing a diabetic cannot eat, if they know the dietary exchanges, and work out the carbohydrates, protein and fat that they will consume. At our kids’ weddings, family celebrations, religious holidays, etc., and the patient, in the case of a diabetic, bears a lot of the responsibility for their own daily care.

I am so used to it that it now is as easy to do as anything I can think of! I am responsible for the management of my diabetes, and sometimes that of a certain man who I have been married to for nearly 50 years. ;)

786 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 6:12:02pm

re: #780 David IV of Georgia

A-conscious in the sense that a rock is without thought. A-conscious is not an English word, so I chose the closest word I knew. If I inadvertently made a logical fallacy by using malaria to illustrate my idea, then ignore the malaria comment.

The zygote, blastula, gastrula, organogenesis and fetus are all stages in human life. Should the mother reject this life, as often happens, this too is a natural part of life. You may disagree. You may think my belief sucks and is unscientific. You are free to do so. I think that the distinction between potential and actual life is being misused: a human zygote (one cell) or blastula is a human being. A muscle cell or a kidney is not. Simply because an embryo or fetus is unable to live on its own does not make it somehow different than a premature infant that must stay in an ICU to live.

That my graduate studies were done at a seminary might give you insight into why I hold these views.

OK. I apologize for the suggestion of dishonesty.

I don’t say your belief sucks, but I would argue that you set your scientific parameters and categories in accordance with your religious beliefs. As has been mentioned here, it may become possible to make any cell from any cell. A muscle or kidney cell has all the DNA of a fertilized ovum, the differences are in what parts have been switched on or off.

If it becomes possible in the future to fully understand the stem cell issue and make a true stem cell, or ovum from a “kidney” cell and you would then not be able to distinguish the source of the cells; what would your philosophical objections the rest upon?

787 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 6:12:19pm

re: #777 Naso Tang

You equate those two as equal. I do not in the scientific context being discussed here.

I have made no such assertion. But I do believe embryos have some value, because they are human. How much value is the question. You appear to believe they have zero value.

Since I believe they have some value, then I have to consider the difference between that value and the value of the potential of the results of the scientific research. How many embryos equal one adult human life? How many embryos are we willing to sacrifice in the pursuit of knowledge? Is the research valuable enough that we are willing to take the embryos by force? Is the research valuable enough that we are willing to pay for it with taxpayer money? To raise taxes for it?

I am still considering all the questions above.

But the biology is clear. Life begins at fertilization. And that life is human.

Those are cold, hard facts.

788 tyomach  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 6:12:56pm

Let me contribute some points as a molecular biologist here.
Why the ban prevented the research (even privately funded) from going forward: Under the ban the researchers could not use any facilities constructed with the help from the government for the stem cell research even if research itself was privately funded. Given that most of the labs are constructed on federal dime (usually NIH) for a while nobody could do any ES cell research at all. Some universities had to construct new buildings in order to do this research- slowing the studies for several years.
Why not let private industry do the research without the feds: You would be surprised but most of research leading to drug development is done in academia on NIH grants. Pharma companies mostly do development, testing, clinical trials/FDA stuff. But the basic research leading to identification of targets is mostly government funded. Why are we better than France here? Because US govt spends more money on NIH and grants.
While adult derived stem cells will likely be used for therapies, they are not exactly the same as ES cells. They are produced by introducing (transfecting) certain genes into adult cells. This transfection is likely to screw them up - make them prone to become cancer, for example. We need ES cells at least to be able to be able to study the difference between adult stem and ES cells and how to make good ES like cells.

789 Claire  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 6:15:38pm

Will human clones have souls?

(Sounds like a science fiction story.)

790 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 6:20:15pm

re: #789 Claire

Will human clones have souls?

(Sounds like a science fiction story.)

Do identical twins have individual souls or do they share one?

Beats me. But if you can answer that question, you can answer yours the same way. Maybe only one twin gets the soul. That would explain the “Evil twin” cliche.

791 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 6:22:19pm

re: #787 NukeAtomrod

I have made no such assertion. But I do believe embryos have some value, because they are human. How much value is the question. You appear to believe they have zero value.

Since I believe they have some value, then I have to consider the difference between that value and the value of the potential of the results of the scientific research. How many embryos equal one adult human life? How many embryos are we willing to sacrifice in the pursuit of knowledge? Is the research valuable enough that we are willing to take the embryos by force? Is the research valuable enough that we are willing to pay for it with taxpayer money? To raise taxes for it?

I am still considering all the questions above.

But the biology is clear. Life begins at fertilization. And that life is human.

Those are cold, hard facts.

Alright, we are moving off the absolutes a little bit. I do not deny that this area has plenty of ethical implications, but I have to say that if you trully mean what you say, that a fertilized ovum is a human, then you should be lobbying for all in vitrio fertilization to be banned because most result in the death of a human.

There is a time for emotion and there is a time for clinical detachment. The potential benefits to the living of this kind of research far outweighs the emotional distress to some from using some undifferentiated cells in experiments to cure diseases.

792 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 6:42:36pm

re: #791 Naso Tang

Alright, we are moving off the absolutes a little bit. I do not deny that this area has plenty of ethical implications, but I have to say that if you trully mean what you say, that a fertilized ovum is a human, then you should be lobbying for all in vitrio fertilization to be banned because most result in the death of a human.

There is a time for emotion and there is a time for clinical detachment. The potential benefits to the living of this kind of research far outweighs the emotional distress to some from using some undifferentiated cells in experiments to cure diseases.

You see. That’s the trouble. It is an ethical problem. An embryo is human, but I am willing to consider that human life could be sacrificed for scientific research.

In my opinion, denying the biology is a self-deception to ignore the ethical dilemma. Saying that life doesn’t begin until birth makes the decision much easier, but is rooted in religious belief. Biology says when a human life begins, it begins. Religion can say that a person becomes human when he receives his soul at birth.

793 zioncat  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 6:57:05pm

re: #382 Charles

Uh … AsiaNews.it is hardly an unbiased source, and while I’m sure Msgr. Elio Sgreccia is a respectable man, he’s hardly the best person to declare a “historic” scientific breakthrough.


Well, I’ve never heard of AsiaNews.it either. The content I wanted to share was this AFP article, unfortunately it’s in Japanese. So I googled for equivalent article in English and came to that AsiaNews.it article. As for Elio Sgreccia, never heard of him either, he most likely isn’t much of a scientist but he does seem like an authority on Catholic morality. And if religious people think iPS cells are morally OK and scientists think iPS cells are even better than stem cells, well government funding of stem cell research is much ado about nothing.

794 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 6:58:33pm

re: #786 Naso Tang

OK. I apologize for the suggestion of dishonesty.

I don’t say your belief sucks, but I would argue that you set your scientific parameters and categories in accordance with your religious beliefs. As has been mentioned here, it may become possible to make any cell from any cell. A muscle or kidney cell has all the DNA of a fertilized ovum, the differences are in what parts have been switched on or off.

If it becomes possible in the future to fully understand the stem cell issue and make a true stem cell, or ovum from a “kidney” cell and you would then not be able to distinguish the source of the cells; what would your philosophical objections the rest upon?

After throwing out some trash and speaking to a neighbor, I’m back. I admit that my scientific parameters are influenced by my religious belief—I’ve studied religion far more than science and I always preferred physics to biology or chemistry. In my haste and perhaps ignorant of some of the finer and more delicate points of the matter, I may appear dishonest or at least ignorant while honestly trying to express my views. It is my view that from conception to death and anything after death, the zygote and whatever it becomes is a human. I think that should humanity last so long this will be the accepted view.

As far as stem cell research goes, I have no problem with the research provided the cells are collected ethically. I hope that this research can do many of the things that it is hoped to do. Perhaps it is only fear-mongering by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell types, but I have heard tales of stem cells being collected in ways I think are unethical and wrong. Should the cells be collected from willfully aborted embryos or fetuses or from embryos grown for this purpose, it is wrong. Should the cells be collected in other ways, there is no problem.

795 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 7:02:01pm

re: #792 NukeAtomrod

I’m not an expert on theology, but I do believe theologists have debated much as to when a human receives a soul and I think most do not think it is at birth, even though in earlier times that may have been the case.

However since I see the concept of soul more in terms of ethics, than a given fact of something that is a real object, so to speak, so we will have trouble agreeing on the details here.

I would however repose the question I made earlier, namely that if and when (I suspect we will) we learn to make a cell identical to any in a dividing zygot from other cells in a body and you would be unable to determine the original source, then what objections would remain except regarding what was done with them, as opposed to where they came from?

796 Basho  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 7:14:05pm

Finally, some great news. Politics has been largely depressing the past few weeks.

797 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 7:17:14pm

re: #789 Claire

Will human clones have souls?

(Sounds like a science fiction story.)

If it is human it has a soul.
The English word soul is ambiguous and is applied to both soul and spirit without differentiation, much like many people use wheel to mean either a wheel or a tire.
A human is body (σωμα soma or corpus) soul (ψυχη psyche or animas, i.e. life) and spirit (πνευμα pneuma or spiritus). With this differentiation, all animals have souls, but only humans, angels (both good and bad) and God have spirit.
If it is human it has a spirit.

798 Banner  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 7:17:44pm

My sister works in the field. She said only the government paid researchers are doing this research because its been recognized as a dead end. The real work is being done with the cells generated from one’s own body and where they really expect to strike pay dirt. Notice all of the medical achievements that have been done in that field in the last year (using the body’s own cells) versus what’s come out of fetal stem cells.

799 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 7:29:46pm

re: #796 Basho

Finally, some great news. Politics has been largely depressing the past few weeks.

What did I miss?

800 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 7:31:05pm

re: #798 Banner

read #788 above

801 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 7:31:12pm

re: #795 Naso Tang

Different theologies could set the beginning of life (or humanness) at any point during the process. I think some even wait until long after birth. But Biology is firm, as science should be. (At least until a better theory comes along.)

As to your question, I think you are describing a cloning technology. If you’re creating a self-replicating zygote-like cell, then it would become a clone of the donor human if implanted in a womb. I think we’re left with a similar ethical dilemma. If you grow that cell to adulthood, then harvest its organs to transplant into the cell donor, you’re still killing a person for the benefit of another person. If you do the harvesting in the embryonic stage, we still have a moral comparison…

But, as I was saying before, it may be worth it. I just don’t want to pretend that we are not ending the life of one human organism for the benefit of another. I think it is important to look at our actions honestly. Ethics aren’t about convincing ourselves that we are doing the right thing. They are about weighing the options and making the best decision we can.

802 notutopia  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 7:36:17pm

I hope we can hold him to his word.

Obama Says Government Will Not Open the Door for Human Cloning

foxnews.com

803 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 7:47:34pm

re: #801 NukeAtomrod

You cover a lot of ground there and certainly there can be discussion of those matters, but the issue here is more simply whether any research that could lead in those directions should be done, and in particular if it should be supported by government grants.

There are many who see the future possibilities as enough grounds for saying this is a taboo area for science, and some simply try to make it harder by arguing about the sources of cells, specifically embryonic stem cells.

I am simply saying that any such cell can theoretically be stimulated to start dividing, in the right conditions and form a zygote and wherever that could lead.

Your argument says essentially that even if we are at the knowledge stage where all it takes is one more action on a bunch of cells in a dish, which one wants to trigger to start duplicating in order to harvest for some other purpose (not cloning a human specifically), then that is killing a human life.

If those cells originally came from a liver and were treated so as to assume a stem cell form, then the very fact of even that biochemical act is part of the process of creating what you call a human life, just two steps removed from the final one. What is the ethical difference between being at an arms length versus right next to something when it is all part of the same process?

804 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 7:52:36pm

re: #802 notutopia

I hope we can hold him to his word.

Obama Says Government Will Not Open the Door for Human Cloning

[Link: www.foxnews.com…]

I think that attempting human cloning would be a bad mistake anytime soon, partly because of all the unknowns but also because of the damage it might cause to more important science.

It will however happen, somewhere. Perhaps The Dear Leader will pay someone a lot of money to give it a shot, for example.

805 NukeAtomrod  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 8:41:50pm

re: #803 Naso Tang

I may have assumed too much from your question. If you are growing a new liver from a liver cell that has been modified for that purpose, then there is no problem ethically.

If you are creating a clone, then killing it at the embryonic stage, you’ve created and destroyed a person. In that case, we have to consider cost vs. value again.

806 Achilles Tang  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:16:25pm

re: #805 NukeAtomrod

I’m gonna have the last word, as it’s bedtime again.

But for the next time, you suggest cost v value, but unless I missed it you have not stated a firm position on the issue being discussed (I think), namely government support or not for stem cell research. Cost versus value alone is a cop out because we don’t know either in an accounting sense. At best we know only “potential” cost versus “potential” value.

Goodnight.

807 avspatti  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 9:53:52pm

re: #18 Oh no…Sand People!

Shown interviews with Michael J. Fox shaking yet?

I am not sure of your point, but embryonic stem cells will not cure Parkinson Disease. Adult ones may show promise.

808 avspatti  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:03:19pm

You all might want to check an article in the new
Good Housekeeping which reports on a couple who had too many embryos and instead of destroying them, found two other couples to use them. As a result, there are six adorable children belonging to three couples who were desperate to have children. These children are not babies now and are vibrant, growing kids. The name of the article is “Siblings of a Sort”.

The biological parents didn’t want to give their embryos up to scientific research because as the father said, “We made them to be kids.”

809 Wendya  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 10:04:21pm

re: #766 Claire

Is everyone in this discussion aware that the cells here are basically a cluster of about 100 undifferentiated cells. As far as I know, all alike. Unorganized, undifferentiated- no nervous system, no organs, no brain. About as complex a life form as 100 frog cells at the same stage?

You are aware, aren’t you that this cluster of cells will never develop into a frog or a chicken or a dog or a horse? If allowed to mature, it will never be anything more than human.

What disturbs me the most about this debate is the refusal of some people to recognize that we are talking about experimentation on human life at its earliest stages. Since it’s acceptable to experiment on this life prior to the point where it is recognizably human, then would you also support experimentation with 5 week old embryos? They’re not recognizably “human” either.

810 Westward Ho  Mon, Mar 9, 2009 11:32:30pm

re: #788 tyomach

Let me contribute some points as a molecular biologist here.
Why the ban prevented the research (even privately funded) from going forward: Under the ban the researchers could not use any facilities constructed with the help from the government for the stem cell research even if research itself was privately funded. Given that most of the labs are constructed on federal dime (usually NIH) for a while nobody could do any ES cell research at all. Some universities had to construct new buildings in order to do this research- slowing the studies for several years.
Why not let private industry do the research without the feds: You would be surprised but most of research leading to drug development is done in academia on NIH grants. Pharma companies mostly do development, testing, clinical trials/FDA stuff. But the basic research leading to identification of targets is mostly government funded. Why are we better than France here? Because US govt spends more money on NIH and grants.While adult derived stem cells will likely be used for therapies, they are not exactly the same as ES cells. They are produced by introducing (transfecting) certain genes into adult cells. This transfection is likely to screw them up - make them prone to become cancer, for example. We need ES cells at least to be able to be able to study the difference between adult stem and ES cells and how to make good ES like cells.

Hear Hear! All govt. spending is not socialism and blastocysts and Zygotes are not microscopic people. Get a grip

811 Basho  Tue, Mar 10, 2009 10:51:12am

re: #798 Banner

scienceblogs.com

…He keeps on harping on how nobody has found a “cure” for anything yet, but you don’t do science with the immediate goal of finding cures! The purpose of this research is to increase our understanding of how cells work to build tissues, not to poof “cures” into existence.

If the US pours hundreds of millions of dollars into stem cell research, and the scientists come back a decade later and say stem cells aren’t the answer any more, it’s new therapy X that they’ve discovered, it isn’t a failure. It means we’ve learned something we wouldn’t have known without doing it, that we’ve uncovered wonderful new surprises, and that through it all, we’ve learned more of the basics of how biology works. We don’t know what we’re going to find; if we did, it wouldn’t be research.

812 fiery celt  Tue, Mar 10, 2009 12:46:13pm

IMHO

This is an extremely evil act on the part of our country.

FYI; Obama made this announcement on an occult date:
3/9/09
Occult numbers: 3, 5, 6., 7 ,9, 11, 13 and multiples thereof—- Some combinations such as 3/9/09 have greater significance-

(See other occult dates and events in History —- IE 9/11: 3/11:
11/11/22: 11/22/63: 3/30: 2/27/33; 3/5/33: 3/12/(38): 9/1/39; 11/5/39; 6/30/44: 6/7(45); 11/9/(38): 08/6/(45); 08/9/45): 04/30/(45);
1/22/73(Roe vs Wade)

BTW; Death of Yasser Arafat 11/11/03 @ 3:30 PM

…just a few examples

This use of embryonic stem cells is nothing short of cannibalism;
We , as a people, are consuming humans , in order to sustain ourselves.

813 Claire  Tue, Mar 10, 2009 12:59:56pm

re: #809 Wendya

It would depend on whether it had a nervous system and a brain that was able to recognize that anything was being done to it. 100 cells don’t have that. A 5 week old embryo that was able to be kept alive would probably require a womb to live in. In that case, no way. Are you talking about in some Jurassic Park way, conceiving in a petri dish and growing it to 5 weeks in a jar or something?

BTW, the parents have given permission (signed a release) for the cells to be used. If

814 Claire  Tue, Mar 10, 2009 1:03:51pm

re: #812 fiery celt

Hey, did you know that “Oreo Cookies” adds up to 666 if A=1 and Z=26, etc.!
Obama is half black, half white. Get it? Add that to the list-It’s not a coincidence the cookie part is made of devil’s food.

\\\\\


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 360 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1