128 replies to this topic

[lord-of-shadow]

He's cut federal funding for Stem Cell research, for very stretched religious reasons. Stem Cell research is supposed to have the potential to find a cure for, among other things, diabetes.

There goes another chance for me to live a normal life.

[Hero of Winds]

I'm guessing you aren't religious then?

[lord-of-shadow]

I am not.

However, unless I am vastly mistaken, stem cell research is done using the cut umbilical cords of already born babies. You know how they cut the cords at birth? They use those, and it doesn't hurt anyone or anything. Yet, due to some perceived link to abortion, Bush has cut the federal spending on it, and killed off pretty much all research on it.

I don't see how anyone, even those who are religious, could have any problems with that, especially when the results could lead to cures for problematic diseases. You'd have to stretch to find a connection between stem cell research and abortion.

[Masamune]

Actually...

"Pluripotent stem cells are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Cells from these embryos can be used to create pluripotent stem cell "lines" —cell cultures that can be grown indefinitely in the laboratory. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue obtained from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development)."

So yeah. Whether it's right or wrong depends on your definition of when life begins.

[Hero of Winds]

Actually, you can't cut something that didn't exist in the first place.. he is the first president to allow even the limited funds that he proposed..

Heh... good point.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Actually...

"Pluripotent stem cells are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Cells from these embryos can be used to create pluripotent stem cell "lines" —cell cultures that can be grown indefinitely in the laboratory. Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue obtained from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development)."

So yeah. Whether it's right or wrong depends on your definition of when life begins.

I see your words are in quote marks. Does that mean you've quoted someone or something without giving referencing to them/it? How plagiaristic of you.

Now on another note, may I remind you that life shouldn't realy be said to begin there. If I really wanted, I could scoop out the stem cells from another embryo, grow up the stem cells and shove them in there. They will then still develop into a normal (well, I hope its normal but nobody's ever tried it so you can never tell) human being.

This all makes you wonder what a human being really is.

[lord-of-shadow]

Stem cells are just bunchs of cells that have not developed into anything yet, really. The original cluster of stem cells will branch out into bone tissue, skin, everything else. That is invaluable for research reasons, and it could lead to treatments for alzheimers, diabetes, and numerous other things.

Stem cells can be taken from a very new embryo, or from the umbilical cord. I don't know about the former case, but in the latter case, it harms nothing and noone.

[Masamune]

I quoted the goverment page for Stem Cell Research. What of it?

[Oberon Storm]

Bush allowed funding for existing stem cell lines but will not fund new ones. But that's the thing. We're talking about government funding. While government funding helps you can still get private funding. But then I see no reason not to fund new lines. lordofthemorning said, they would use embryos that will be thrown out anyway.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I quoted the goverment page for Stem Cell Research. What of it?

Well, plagiarism is bad. You can get prosecuted for plagiarism and even imprisoned. Still, I guess no one knows your secret identity so you're safe for the time being... caped crusader (sorry, I couldn't resist adding that last part and if you take offence, please accept my sincerest apologies).

[davogones]

There are many other reasons to be pissed off at Bush, lord-of-shadow. I'm glad you stumbled on at least one of them, because now we can finally agree about something: Bush is an asshole!

I'd like to say something about why Bush funded stem-cell research. At first, he was not going to fund it at all. It was against his principles, and if Bush has one good trait, it's that he doggedly sticks to his principles. Usually. But not in this case. Turns out Mrs. Nancy Reagan had a little *chat* with him and threatened to chop off his balls if he didn't fund stem cell research. (j/k about the balls.) So Bush made an exception for the sake of Ronald Reagan.

Way to go, Bush! Flip-flopping again I see!

[Alakhriveion]

j/k about the balls.

You sure? It is Nancy Reagan, after all.

Stem cells are extracted from an embryo less than a week old, without independant DNA, or anything, for that matter, that's every been used to argue that the thing is alive.

[davogones]

When it comes to the whole killing embryos thing, I don't think it makes much difference to argue where exactly life begins. The point is that you are keeping a human being from being born. It doesn't really matter at which exact stage in the embryonic process you kill the embryo, the end result is the same: baby is not born. Once the sperm reaches the egg, anything you do after that point to prevent the birth of the baby is murder.

It is, of course, a different question whether it's justified to kill one person to save others. It's acceptable for a man to freely choose to sacrifice himself to save others. But it seems to be unacceptable to force this on somebody, especially if they don't even have the mental capacity to choose yet. When it comes down to it, I don't think there is any right thing to do. Any possible choice will involve wrongdoing: either you kill the embryo, or let sick people die. So you have to make a choice, and the choice that stem-cell researchers make is to end the life of an unborn fetus, which presumably can't even feel pain yet, to alleviate the pain of those who are already alive. Surely their intentions are good. If you have to choose between two evils, surely it's better to choose the lesser evil.

[Ditto McCloaker]

Quite to the contrary, my dear friends.

You are correct. A bill to reinstitute the draft WAS raised in Congress. By one Charlie Rangel -D, NY.

That's right. Democrat.

Of course, the whole thing was a sadly misguided ploy to try to... God, I dunno. But we think he was trying to make Bush look bad somehow. I dunno if he figured nobody would check to see who started the bill, or, even stupider, see if Republicans in Congress would take the bait.

Nobody did, of course, and even Rangel ended up not voting for it. He said he 'wasn't serious' or some such nonsense.

You people need to pay more attention to the real world instead of crazy conspiracy theories. We Republicans wish there were more Democrats like Charlie Rangel.

And, yes. President Bush is the first U.S. President to provide any funding at all for stem cell research, and it aint' limited, either. There's some nice billions in the pile. And he provided a nice fat number of stem cell lines to begin with. It's only from the propaganda by people who hate Bush that we get this nonsense about it not being [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img], half can't be used, blah blah blah.

Now, myself, I do wish there were more stem-cell lines available, but I recognize a lot of people have a problem with this. This IS a Democracy after all, and Bush has scored a victory by getting the ball rolling.

How I wish we could have saved Ronald Reagan. *tear*

Anyway, there's an angle many of you aren't considering: Other countries. I'm not worried, because other nations are sure to continue stem-cell research in their own lands, and share any of their findings (as we will share ours). Big picture, folks.

For the record, lord, diabetes runs in my family, too. I'm working to keep from getting it, but I also hope there'll be a cure one day.

[Oberon Storm]

There was no bill to reinstate the draft. The bill proposed by Rangel would have made it mandatory for every young person to serve at least a year or two in the service. Something like Israel I guess. Yes, Rangel is a Democrat, but c-mon Ditto, you accuse us of conspiracy theories.

And before you spout stuff off as nonesense maybe you might, you now, substantiate you assertian with something I like to call facts.

[Toan]

Even I know there was a draft bill, Son of Jor-El.

Yeah, it's like 20+ years old, but Bush brought it up specifically to shoot it down.

You wanna know how I know this? I was so bored yesterday, I watched CSPAN. They were having a "rare Sunday session" of Senate or House of Reps or something. Something Congress related. I was that damn bored.

(NOTE: All this info is directly what CSPAN told me, no opinion (of mine) involved here. 'Cept for the bored part. )

[He-Man]

There was no bill to reinstate the draft. The bill proposed by Rangel would have made it mandatory for every young person to serve at least a year or two in the service.

That's not completely true, Son of Jor-El. The army would never accept somebody who has a disability.

[Oberon Storm]

Well no shit.

But I did just go back and re-read it.

"(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act."

"(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; and

(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act. "

http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/pages/draft2.htm

[lord-of-shadow]

DNA does not equal life. I could grow a culture of my cells and each with have DNA but it wouldn’t make it a person. Notice how they are human embryos and not human beings. Also technically it is not an embryo for several weeks because a good majority of zygotes never make it to the next stage. In addition this isn't abortion we're talking about; we're talking about the zygotes that have been frozen for invetro fertilization, so they really would be just thrown away.

Two people have said this... Myself, I was completely and totally ignorant of the subject until a few days, when my dad (my source ) filled me in on a few details. So my informaiton may be wrong, or... something.

However, two people have said that they're using embryos that would be thrown away, discarded, anyways. In that case, I don't understand why it's an issue at all. The embryo dies either way.

Seems to be that those opposing embryonic stem cell research would be more correct in directing their complaints this 'invetro fertilization" thing.


And don't worry, Davo... I have always hated Bush

[Alakhriveion]

First, the destruction of potential life is not the destruction of life- if teacher gives me a bad grade, ˆ can't sue them for the money I could have made as a lawyer if I'd passed. Having different DNA doesn't make something alive, either, and even if it did, there is NO independant DNA in the embryos extracted to stem cells. Now, I won't deny that life begins at some fetal point, but it's the development of a brain. If you aren't a vegetarian, you've got no right to complain about the destruction of a thing that can't think.

And Yes, a Democrat proposed, but didn't push, a draft bill, which I support- the idea was if you make it so the sons AND daughters of the rich can't escape fighting, they'll tink twice about another invasion. Of course, the rich ARE the Senate and House, so it had no chance.

[davogones]

Alak, if two people decide not to have sex, they are not destroying any life that might have potentially resulted from this union. However, if they DO, and the woman conceives, she already has the beginnings of life within her. If she acts to destroy the fetus after this point, she is not merely thwarting potential life: she is actively destroying real life. For lack of a better definition, I am saying that life begins at the very point where, if you did nothing to stop it, a baby would eventually be born. This happens at the moment of conception.