Shrubya Vetoes Senate Stem Cell Bill

[chefmike]

The chimp-in-chief continues to do his best to ensure that de-evolution marches on...

Bush issues first veto, nixes stem cell bill
Says measure ‘crosses a moral boundary’ society needs to respect


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13934199/

Defending Bush’s Veto, Rove Grossly Distorts Stem Cell Science


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/defending-bushs-veto-rove-grossly-distorts-stem-cell-science/

[houstonshemalefan]

Tell you what Chefmike, since you disagree with Bush's decision let us kill you right now and donate your body to science. Sound like a deal?

[chefmike]

Now there's a shocker...another dumb texan who is in favor of killing adults (and doesn't mind spending billions doing it, as in Iraq), but is so concerned about using a fetus so that science can save lives...

I guess the bible-bangers own you too...but does your congregation know that you hang out here, tex?

Ya'll come back now, ya hear?

[houstonshemalefan]

Yep mike you're just another idiot who doesn't realize that if one CHOOSES to serve and die is different from an unborn fetus that has not been given that choice.

[chefmike]

Reagan's Legacy: A Coin or a Cure?
Flavia Colgan


Yesterday, the Senate passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act with 63 votes, joining the house in its support for stem cell research. Scientists have shown how stem cells can help paralyzed mice walk and can create T-cells which could be used in the fight against AIDS. The President has said he will veto the bill and it does not appear the Congress will have the votes to override the veto.


Since there are now only 21 stem cell lines eligible for federal research funding, all of which are contaminated, this bill would allow American Scientists to research uncontaminated stem cell lines from the some 400,000 excess embryos in fertility clinics, many of which will be discarded. People would be able to donate these embryos to research that could lead to cures for medical conditions that affect tens of millions of Americans. Conditions such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS), diabetes, and those who have suffered spinal cord injuries.

While some social conservatives have tried to use this as yet another tool in the culture wars, claiming it divides Americans, the facts just don't back it up. 70% of Americans support the legislation, probably one of the reasons it sailed through Congress, while immigration continues to stagger. Many of the legislation's supporters are not what you would call "liberals," Orrin Hatch, Bill Frist, Nancy Reagan, to name a few.

Since research first unearthed the power of stem cells to aid in the cure of dozens of diseases, including Alzheimer's, Mrs. Reagan has begged her husband's party to support critical research into therapeutic stem cell cloning. The last ten years have steeled Mrs. Reagan and her family to the suffering millions of American families face every year from Alzheimer's.

Mrs. Reagan speaks bravely of the pain she and the former President went through in the years leading to his death. Alzheimer's begins with mild memory loss and slowly progresses to the loss of virtually all memory and control of bodily functions. Mrs. Reagan's honest description of the anguish of a long and gradual twilight is perhaps one of her greatest contributions.

She joined hundreds of scientific, medical, and religious authorities in asking for politicians to support this legislation: "Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with answers that have so long been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this," she said.

After renaming Washington National Airport and the largest Federal building in the Capital after Ronald Reagan conservatives set out on many "Reagan Legacy Projects." Grover Norquist made waves with the suggestion that Ronald Reagan's face be added to Mount Rushmore and put on the $10 bill and dime. He also proposed constructing a Ronald Reagan Memorial on the National Mall and erecting a statue of him in every county in the United States. Nancy Reagan said, "I do not support this and I am certain Ronnie would not." While she may not love the push to idolize her Ronnie on coins we do know she supports honoring him by funding research to cure the disease that killed him.

Ronald Reagan's greatest legacy may well be the no-nonsense approach of Nancy Reagan to his illness.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flavia-colgan/reagans-legacy-a-coin-_b_25380.html

[Trogdor]

Well, once again Dubya ends up staggering medical science another few daceades, since he's afraid of making Jesus angery.

[trish]

houstonshemalefan claims:

... you're just another idiot who doesn't realize that if one CHOOSES to serve and die is different from an unborn fetus ...

gee American soldiers are CHOOSING TO DIE!!!! i DID NOT KNOW!!!


here's a gratuitous pic to keep this site on topic. oh...don't jerk off to it...unless those sperm have volunteered to die.

[houstonshemalefan]

What's the big deal, can't all the liberal movie stars out there spend their own money to fund stem cell research????

[trish]

Again Houstonshemalefan quips,

What's the big deal, can't all the liberal movie stars out there spend their own money to fund stem cell research????

sure, and when you need the cure or treatment that was discovered through embryonic stem cell research, you can volunteer to suffer and die instead.

[Quinn]

I watched my grandfather slowly loose both his mind and his dignity to Alzheimer’s disease. My father died an excruciatingly painful death due to cancer. If stem cell research can make it less likely that others will suffer similar fates, which it can, I am all for it.

-Quinn

[chefmike]

What's the big deal, can't all the liberal movie stars out there spend their own money to fund stem cell research????

Now there's an original idea...who would have ever expected a repug lackey like yourself to think out of the GOP box in such a radical manner... :roll: who would have ever thought of blaming them godless Hollywood liberals...a great mind like you might even get a job at the Crawford ranch...maybe they'll let you pass out the kool-aid when the rapture comes, sparky...

Or maybe we could try this...how about ending the archaic tax-exemption on organized religion and use the money from that to fund the research?

[chefmike]

It's a Discarded Blastocyst, Bush, Not a Child
Russell Shaw

I've been toggling through the radio dial today. I have to tell you, the fundamentalists and more than a few evangelicals are absolutely ecstatic that President Bush vetoed the bill today that would authorize federally funded stem cell research.

Oh, yea, this is the "family values" President. But what about if, just a few years down the line a "family" member of any of you Bible-thumpers dies of a disease that robust embryonic stem cell research initiatives could have found a cure for? As her moans echo off the hospice walls, are you going to tell your grandmother, mother wife, sister, aunt, uncle or whomever hey, tough luck but my President voted against funding research into a possible cure for this because,after all, he is a Christian?

rest of this article here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw/its-a-discarded-blastocy_b_25427.html

[DJ_Asia]

It should come as little suprise....As perhaps the worst 8 year term in recent memory winds down(not soon enough) Bush was actually given a chance to redeem himself ( just a bit) but sticking to his 6 shooter,he imposed HIS "morals" on the American public and vetoed a bill that really could save millions of people from horrible suffering and death...At least he is consistent....consistently an idiot

In other news Bush requested an additional $800 billion dollars for the war on terrorism today..........

[GroobySteven]

Stem cell research may be cool and all that... but I ain't payin for it. Let those scientists run off to investors to support their craft.

I don't care if Jesus H Christ came looking for money. If I gotta pay for it, Jesus is going broke.

Well when you're the one dying of some disgusting disease, please don't let my insurance go up again.

A
R
S
E

seanchai

[kieron]

Dumb ass George Bush!

Doesn't even know when a good opportunity slaps him in the face!

Did you see the NZ Minister of Foreign Affairs interrupt some republican (possibly in the news)? - who was the republican - touted to be the next president?

[Trogdor]

It should come as little suprise....As perhaps the worst 8 year term in recent memory winds down(not soon enough) Bush was actually given a chance to redeem himself ( just a bit) but sticking to his 6 shooter,he imposed HIS "morals" on the American public and vetoed a bill that really could save millions of people from horrible suffering and death...At least he is consistent....consistently an idiot

In other news Bush requested an additional $800 billion dollars for the war on terrorism today..........

And I bet Dubya's going, "Now Jesus won't be mad at me now, yee-haw!"

[White_Male_Canada]

The chimp-in-chief continues to do his best to ensure that de-evolution marches on...

Bush issues first veto, nixes stem cell bill
Says measure ‘crosses a moral boundary’ society needs to respect




Defending Bush’s Veto, Rove Grossly Distorts Stem Cell Science



Another useless post by a whiffenpoof poseur with no DD-214 to his name.

A. The Veto held.

B. It doesn`t deny private companies from doing their own research.It does deny tax payer dollars from doing so. Tax payer funded medical research is NOWHERE to be found in the US Constitution.

C. Beetle Bailey,just another sissy poseur fake with no dd214.

[chefmike]

Now tell me again why I'm supposed to post my DD-214 on the internet for the benefit of a repug jackass like you? I don't a flying fuck through a rolling donut what a fucking stooge like you cares to believe, or not believe about me...

I'm not running for office...but please send out the swift boats anyway, fool...

[JRon]

[quote=TFan]Stem cell research may be cool and all that... but I ain't payin for it. Let those scientists run off to investors to support their craft.

I don't care if Jesus H Christ came looking for money. If I gotta pay for it, Jesus is going broke.

That might be one of the most asinine posts I have ever read.

If the research is left up to independent scientists rather that the federal government, then the scientists will not be funded by individual "investors" but rather by large corporations acting as investors. Should they develop any cure, it is in their "investors" best interest to SELL said cure for an outrageous price only to be afforded by a miniscule percentage of the population. If the research were to be left up to the government, then should a cure be found, it would be AVAILABLE for ALL citizens.

This is the EGALITARIAN way, not the LIBERAL way, FYI. If we have the ability to do so, we should work to allow the most amount of people to be benefited. Liberatarian nonsense like this post are a smack in the face to true American ideals.

[chefmike]

Deluded fools like white male stooge still refuse to admit that their emperor wears no clothes...but they are in the minority...now tell us again about how optimistic you are about those mid-term elections, fool...

Bush Snubs Science in Deference to Snowflakes
Margaret Carlson


The day before Tuesday's U.S. Senate vote backing embryonic stem-cell research, Republican Sam Brownback appeared with several Snowflakes, the name given to children born from frozen embryos. It was a lovely tableau, proof of the wisdom of kissing every baby on the campaign trail.

With polls showing a large majority of Americans favoring federal funds for such research, Snowflakes are the last redoubt of a minority of a minority within the Republican Party adamantly opposed to it.


President George W. Bush mounted a similar pageant at the White House before a House vote in May 2005 to expand federal funding, his little guests wearing T-shirts saying, "This embryo was not discarded.''

That's true for his T-shirt-wearing visitors and about 125 others born of `"adopted'' embryos, those left after couples undergoing fertility treatments have had their children and no longer need the extra embryos produced as backup. Yet they're a fraction of those approximately 400,000 unimplanted specks -- with the feelings, soul and brains of a gnat -- at clinics across the country that the Senate bill would rescue for research.

Bush yesterday exercised his first-ever veto to stop that from happening, an action that spokesman Tony Snow explained was motivated by a conviction that "murder's wrong.''

No argument there. But if salvaging a few embryos to be used in research is murder, what is the production of thousands of embryos destined for destruction?

the rest of this column here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-carlson/bush-snubs-science-in-def_b_25452.html

[JRon]

Deluded fools like white male stooge still refuse to admit that their emperor wears no clothes...but they are in the minority...now tell us again about how optimistic you are about those mid-term elections, fool...

Bush Snubs Science in Deference to Snowflakes
Margaret Carlson


The day before Tuesday's U.S. Senate vote backing embryonic stem-cell research, Republican Sam Brownback appeared with several Snowflakes, the name given to children born from frozen embryos. It was a lovely tableau, proof of the wisdom of kissing every baby on the campaign trail.

With polls showing a large majority of Americans favoring federal funds for such research, Snowflakes are the last redoubt of a minority of a minority within the Republican Party adamantly opposed to it.


President George W. Bush mounted a similar pageant at the White House before a House vote in May 2005 to expand federal funding, his little guests wearing T-shirts saying, "This embryo was not discarded.''

That's true for his T-shirt-wearing visitors and about 125 others born of `"adopted'' embryos, those left after couples undergoing fertility treatments have had their children and no longer need the extra embryos produced as backup. Yet they're a fraction of those approximately 400,000 unimplanted specks -- with the feelings, soul and brains of a gnat -- at clinics across the country that the Senate bill would rescue for research.

Bush yesterday exercised his first-ever veto to stop that from happening, an action that spokesman Tony Snow explained was motivated by a conviction that "murder's wrong.''

No argument there. But if salvaging a few embryos to be used in research is murder, what is the production of thousands of embryos destined for destruction?

the rest of this column here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-carlson/bush-snubs-science-in-def_b_25452.html

The scary thing about GDubs is that he actually believes this moral-crusader BS. At least his Dad only swtiched to a pro-life stance as a political, rather than ideological move.

It's sometimes disheartening to know that there are people out there that don't want to see programs developed that they know would benefit mankind.

[Quinn]

It's sometimes disheartening to know that there are people out there that don't want to see programs developed that they know would benefit mankind.

Cosign!

-Quinn

[thombergeron]

Two things:

Government funds about 36% of medical research in the U.S. But that number is a little misleading, since what's getting funded is basic science. Private concerns primarily spend research dollars on the application of of basic science. So emerging technologies like stem cell research depend entirely on public funding, because there are no immediate commercial applications. So 10 years ago, the federal government funded the Human Genome Project, and now private companies are building on that research because the practical application of DNA sequencing has a near-term profit potential.

So without public funding, embryonic stem cell research largely won't happen.

And enough with the DD-214 nonsense. A DD-214 contains personal information such as a social security number and a military service number. No sane person would post their DD-214 on a public bulletin board. He would be begging to be the victim of identity theft.

[DJ_Asia]

News Flash!!!!!

GW Bush just signed a bill that would effectively make jerking off illegal.

"The act of masturbation is immoral and the semen shot on floors and computer screens across the nation could've become a child"

Makes sense to me

[chefmike]

Two things:

Government funds about 36% of medical research in the U.S. But that number is a little misleading, since what's getting funded is basic science. Private concerns primarily spend research dollars on the application of of basic science. So emerging technologies like stem cell research depend entirely on public funding, because there are no immediate commercial applications. So 10 years ago, the federal government funded the Human Genome Project, and now private companies are building on that research because the practical application of DNA sequencing has a near-term profit potential.

So without public funding, embryonic stem cell research largely won't happen.

And enough with the DD-214 nonsense. A DD-214 contains personal information such as a social security number and a military service number. No sane person would post their DD-214 on a public bulletin board. He would be begging to be the victim of identity theft.

LMAO...it's comes as no surprise...people like him, and the neocon chickenhawks that he shills for never served in any military capacity...oh shit...I almost forgot...shrubya was a "fighter pilot" in the national guard... :roll:

[White_Male_Canada]

Now tell me again why I'm supposed to post my DD-214 on the internet for the benefit of a repug jackass like you? I don't a flying fuck through a rolling donut what a fucking stooge like you cares to believe, or not believe about me...

I'm not running for office...but please send out the swift boats anyway, fool...

Thy doest protest too much,phony.

Still waiting for jena pierre to release his F180 to the public too. Big fuckin` phony that he is.

[Felicia Katt]

Some basic facts about IVF

.

That period is the size of a blastocyst, which is a very early stage embryo, approximately 4 to 5 days old consisting of 50-150 cells. A picture is below.

The chance of a successful pregnancy is approximately 20-30% for each IVF cycle

Traditionally 2 to 4 blastocysts are typically implanted during IVF in order to maximize the chance of pregnancy.

The average cost for 1 IVF cycle is approximately 13,000 so it costs about 65,000 for each successful one

There are estimated to be 400,000 blastocysts in storage waiting to be destroyed with more being added everyday. Generally 24 are harvested for each infertile couple and 10 or so used on average to have a successful pregnancy. In 2003 about 123,000 cycles were performed, to help some of the estimated 1 in 7 American couples who have difficulty conceiving naturally. That's roughly 25,000 couples having 25,000 babies, sacrificing 250,000 blastocyts to do so and leaving about another 300,000 unused . Thousands are routinely destroyed with the patients' consent. According to an IVF clinic doctor "We simply remove them from the liquid nitrogen. They thaw. And then we discard them in bio-hazard waste. They’re cells; they would be discarded the way any other cell that was removed from the body would be discarded"

There have been about 125 successful "Snowflake adoptions" so far. Nice White House photo opportunities but at 2 blastocyts per cycle and only 1 cycle in 5 succeeding, 1250 had to be sacrificed for the remaining ones to say cheese. If there are only 400,000 blastocysts heading for destruction, that's an adoption rate of less than .00031 per cent or less than 1 in 3000, but actually, that rate is much much lower, because most of those adoptions were from specifically donated embryos, not the 400,000 in nitrogen limbo.

If they proceeded with a program to get every unused blastocyst adopted

40,000 might live
360,000 would die

"Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value," Bush said. The value of the 40,000 that might be born would apparently be matched by the 9 times that many that would have to be sacrificed.

The cost of a program to implant all the unused embryos would exceed 2.6 billion. Who is going to pay that? We are, the same way we are already paying for the IVFs that take place now. We would have to bear these costs either directly, in a government paid program or in increased insurance costs, or indirectly in reduced tax revenues for the tax deductions taken.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." Bush said at the White House.

The moral boundary that maybe we should think again about crossing is doing IVF at all, when there are over 500,000 children in the US currently residing in some form of foster care. But apparently, its ok in our "decent society" to take "innocent human life" for the medical benefit of an infertile couple who could adopt, but not for people who have no options, with real life threatening or altering illnesses like Parkinson's, MS, ALS, Diabetes, spinal cord injuries, cancer etc. I think ending their suffering is what really needs to be respected.

FK

[hondarobot]

Felicia has returned! Thank God. I feel better right now, and I honestly do mean that.

Don't leave us again, sweetheart.

:)

[chefmike]

:claps :claps :claps

Right Wing Should Adopt 400,000 Frozen Embryos
Bob Geiger

Now that George W. Bush, aided by Congressional Republicans and the Religious Right, has ruined immediate hope of meaningful progress on stem cell research, it's time for Democrats to tell them to put up or shut up on their strident claims that a child is born almost the minute two people even discuss conception.


One of the primary arguments against federal funding of stem cell research was the alleged viability of the 400,000 frozen embryos in storage at fertility clinics throughout the country.

Sam Brownback (R-KS), one of the Senate's major stem cell opponents, even went through the theater of holding a press conference showcasing children whose parents adopted them as frozen embryos from fertility clinics --the so-called "snowflake babies."

"What we're talking about in this debate is the use of embryos, young humans, as raw materials, raw material in research, raw material to exploit," said Brownback.

Bush himself made many similar statements and his spokesman, Tony Snow, even said that Bush considers it murder to conduct stem cell research.

"What the President has said is that he doesn't want human life destroyed. Now, you may consider that insignificant, but the President has said.... [he] believes strongly that for the purpose of research it's inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder; he's one of them," said Snow. "The simple answer is he thinks murder is wrong. The President is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something that is living and making it dead for the purpose of research."

Senate and House Democratic leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) need to call these guys on their pious claims and immediately propose legislation that would fund an adoption program for all 400,000 of the frozen embryos stored throughout America. The first people who should step up to the plate and adopt one of these microscopic entities are the 37 Senators who voted against the stem cell research bill on Tuesday and the 193 members of the House who refused to override Bush's veto of the bill yesterday. Heck, the Bush family alone could probably adopt a couple hundred of them.

That leaves only about 399,500 of the little cells to find homes for, which is where Bush can start a faith-based, Christian program and enlist the help of James Dobson, at the ultraconservative Focus on the Family, who called the stem cell bill "barbarous legislation" and lauded the veto, calling Bush "a man of his word and a champion for the pre-born."

With the 1.5 million listeners they claim for their daily radio broadcast and the combined circulation of about 2.3 million subscribers for their magazines, Focus on the Family alone should be able to provide cozy little Petri dishes for the remaining cells by the end of July.

But if, by any chance, they turn out to be a bunch of hypocrites who don't really see these as living beings or who just don't give a damn enough to help them, Bush can always hit up those God-fearing -- and science-fearing -- people at the Family Research Council (FRC).

"Rather than defend human dignity, for the first time in U.S. history a majority of Senators approved legislation to use taxpayers' money for research requiring the destruction of human life," said FRC Chief Taliban, Tony Perkins. "The President is absolutely right to veto this legislation."

With that kind of endorsement, Perkins should have no trouble getting his large, compassionate flock to adopt a stem cell or 10.

And think of what a win-win this is for everyone involved: The 400,000 cells will get a home with the people who claim to care about them the most. And the proud, new, exclusively-heterosexual "parents" will get an unprecedented amount of time to get the embryo's room ready, prep the other children for a new brother or sister and, of course, adjust the family finances for a new mouth to feed and a new family member who will need health care once they're bigger than the head of a pin.

I think this will work out just fine. Unless Congressional Republicans vote against it -- or Bush uses his second veto.

[chefmike]

:claps :claps :claps

The Immoral Veto
Terry Curtis Fox

Bush’s veto of the Stem Cell Research bill is being cast as a classic conflict between science and religion, with the hope that the clear medical benefits will make this a potent campaign issue.

It’s the right issue, but the wrong approach.

Once again, the Republican right has cast their actions in a moral light, and when posed as a conflict between morality and science, science nearly always loses, even when science is in the public’s best interest.


Going back to the revolution, the American left has won when it has cast its arguments in moral terms. Looks at the Declaration of Independence for starters, move on to abolition, the enfranchisement of women, Roosevelt’s “four freedoms” and the ensuing New Deal, the civil rights movement, and then to the early success of feminism and recent acceptance of at least some gay rights. All were expressed in specifically moral language.

the rest of this brilliant column here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-curtis-fox/the-immoral-veto_b_25509.html

[Foto]

Bush Snubs Science in Deference to Snowflakes
Margaret Carlson


Is Bush the stoooopidest fuck up on this planet?

[DJ_Asia]

Bush Snubs Science in Deference to Snowflakes
Margaret Carlson


Is Bush the stoooopidest fuck up on this planet?

No...he's second behind only all the morons who voted for him and continue to support his reign of terror and ultra conservative,overspending,war mongering,privacy invading,regressive policies

[DJ_Asia]

TFan wrote:

If you can provide definitive proof that without stem cell research people will die, please name it.

And even if you do, successful medicine based on stem-cell research does not need to be funded by the government.

Government is not the solution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell ya what take an afternoon and head down to your nearest big city(somewhere in redneckville no doubt) and visit the local Multiple Sclerosis Society. There is currently no cure nor effective treatment to reverse the effects of MS.None.
Spend the afternoon walking from bed to bed and visit with the patients there,some of whom have no ability to talk,or walk,or swallow,or see,or have control of their bowels nor wipe their asses when it happens.Now take a moment and realize that all these people at one point in their hopeless lives were NORMAL...had a family,a house, a car,worked a 9-5,had hobbies,took the dogs for a walk.They had lives.
All of that is a distant memory in their foggy minds now.You see MS eats at you slowly,slow and steady until there is nothing left.No life,no joy,no dignity,nothing.In fact the number one cause of death amongst MS sufferers is suicide.
Now what I want you to do is kneel down beside their beds and whisper into their ears,hold their hands and look into their eyes and tell them that there is no need for stem cell research..tell each patient.And say it with a big shit eating Republican smile on your ignorant face.

[EdelweissFan]

Foto, Bush is not the stupidest person on the planet. There are, after all, severely mentally disabled and mentally ill people who actually are dumber than Bush, hard to believe though that is. But certainly he is the stupidest president in American history, probably the stupidest current leader of any country, and one of the stupidest leaders of any country in history.

But the idiocy of this one man is not the most remarkable thing. What boggles my mind is that any American citizen at this point could possible continue to support this moron. When people on this thread chime in to spout republican talking points, it just stupifies me. After six years of complete and utter catastrophe, what could motivate anyone to continue to support the idiot in chief and his gang of thieves, liars, murderers, religious nut jobs, traitors, war profiteers and bribe takers? It is a complete mystery to me.

[InHouston]

Tell you what Chefmike, since you disagree with Bush's decision let us kill you right now and donate your body to science. Sound like a deal?

I voted for Bush, but I don't agree with his veto. Yet again, the light of science snuffed out by religion and mysticism.

[specialk]

Some basic facts about IVF

.

That period is the size of a blastocyst, which is a very early stage embryo, approximately 4 to 5 days old consisting of 50-150 cells. A picture is below.

The chance of a successful pregnancy is approximately 20-30% for each IVF cycle

Traditionally 2 to 4 blastocysts are typically implanted during IVF in order to maximize the chance of pregnancy.

The average cost for 1 IVF cycle is approximately 13,000 so it costs about 65,000 for each successful one

There are estimated to be 400,000 blastocysts in storage waiting to be destroyed with more being added everyday. Generally 24 are harvested for each infertile couple and 10 or so used on average to have a successful pregnancy. In 2003 about 123,000 cycles were performed, to help some of the estimated 1 in 7 American couples who have difficulty conceiving naturally. That's roughly 25,000 couples having 25,000 babies, sacrificing 250,000 blastocyts to do so and leaving about another 300,000 unused . Thousands are routinely destroyed with the patients' consent. According to an IVF clinic doctor "We simply remove them from the liquid nitrogen. They thaw. And then we discard them in bio-hazard waste. They’re cells; they would be discarded the way any other cell that was removed from the body would be discarded"

There have been about 125 successful "Snowflake adoptions" so far. Nice White House photo opportunities but at 2 blastocyts per cycle and only 1 cycle in 5 succeeding, 1250 had to be sacrificed for the remaining ones to say cheese. If there are only 400,000 blastocysts heading for destruction, that's an adoption rate of less than .00031 per cent or less than 1 in 3000, but actually, that rate is much much lower, because most of those adoptions were from specifically donated embryos, not the 400,000 in nitrogen limbo.

If they proceeded with a program to get every unused blastocyst adopted

40,000 might live
360,000 would die

"Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value," Bush said. The value of the 40,000 that might be born would apparently be matched by the 9 times that many that would have to be sacrificed.

The cost of a program to implant all the unused embryos would exceed 2.6 billion. Who is going to pay that? We are, the same way we are already paying for the IVFs that take place now. We would have to bear these costs either directly, in a government paid program or in increased insurance costs, or indirectly in reduced tax revenues for the tax deductions taken.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." Bush said at the White House.

The moral boundary that maybe we should think again about crossing is doing IVF at all, when there are over 500,000 children in the US currently residing in some form of foster care. But apparently, its ok in our "decent society" to take "innocent human life" for the medical benefit of an infertile couple who could adopt, but not for people who have no options, with real life threatening or altering illnesses like Parkinson's, MS, ALS, Diabetes, spinal cord injuries, cancer etc. I think ending their suffering is what really needs to be respected.

FK


Felicia........your back!!!!!!!!!!! and I missed you, this forum missed you!!!! :wink:

[Quinn]

I'm not going to put forth an argument as part of some reasoned debate. To do so would be pointless because there really isn't a valid scientific reason for opposing stem cell research, particularly when one considers the potentially profound benefits that humankind could reap.

From my perspective, the only reason one would stand against something of such obvious merit is because they hold an ultimately outdated and dogmatically barbaric view. Then again, why should this surprise anyone? Organized religions have a long history of stifling scientific advancement. If the Christian Churches of the West had their way, we would all still be reading by candle light how the Earth is flat.

-Quinn

[thombergeron]

And even if you do, successful medicine based on stem-cell research does not need to be funded by the government.

Government is not the solution.

I would think, given the prevalence of HIV in this population, readers of this board would be aware that nearly all HIV/AIDS research that has ever been done has been funded by some United States governmental agency, either state or federal. We would know basically nothing about HIV if it weren't for the NIH.

Short list of things that would not exist were it not for government-funded research:

Satellites
Nuclear power
Semiconductors
The Internet
Jet aircraft
Chemotherapy

[JRon]

A

R

S

E



I respect you as a frequent poster on you here so I'm not going to call names. If you can provide definitive proof that without stem cell research people will die, please name it.

And even if you do, successful medicine based on stem-cell research does not need to be funded by the government.

Government is not the solution.

It's not "without the research, people will die" but "with the research, people will live." If you frame the argument that way, it sounds a little different.

Good posts chefmike.

[Frank_D]

If stem cell research can make it less likely that others will suffer similar fates, which it can, I am all for it.
And you know that how?

[DJ_Asia]

A

R

S

E



I respect you as a frequent poster on you here so I'm not going to call names. If you can provide definitive proof that without stem cell research people will die, please name it.

And even if you do, successful medicine based on stem-cell research does not need to be funded by the government.

Government is not the solution.

It's not "without the research, people will die" but "with the research, people will live." If you frame the argument that way, it sounds a little different.

Good posts chefmike.


RIGHT ON FOR RESEARCH!

But I ain't payin for it.

The epitome of the selfish,me first ugly American

[JRon]

A

R

S

E



I respect you as a frequent poster on you here so I'm not going to call names. If you can provide definitive proof that without stem cell research people will die, please name it.

And even if you do, successful medicine based on stem-cell research does not need to be funded by the government.

Government is not the solution.

It's not "without the research, people will die" but "with the research, people will live." If you frame the argument that way, it sounds a little different.

Good posts chefmike.


RIGHT ON FOR RESEARCH!

But I ain't payin for it.

The epitome of the selfish,me first ugly American

You're right DJ Asia...and it kills me everytime I have to deal with it. It makes life much more difficult for the people that actually want to make the world better.

[Quinn]

If stem cell research can make it less likely that others will suffer similar fates, which it can, I am all for it.
And you know that how?

Here you go:

1. There are over 70 diseases and injuries that could be helped by stem cell research. Some of the diseases that could be helped include Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injury, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis and even severe burns.

http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/page.php?id=163

2. For an example of a specific application, you might want to look at the following:

Cell therapy can be defined as a group of new techniques, or technologies, that rely on replacing diseased or dysfunctional cells with healthy, functioning ones. These new techniques are being applied to a wide range of human diseases, including many types of cancer, neurological diseases [this includes Alzheimer's Disease] such as Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's Disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. Replacing dead cells in the retina with new ones may someday cure even presently incurable eye diseases such as glaucoma and macular degeneration. To understand how cell therapy works, it helps to understand the role of cells in the body.

http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm

3. Harold Varmus, President of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, stated the following:

It is not too unrealistic to say that this research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life.

4. The Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center supports a similar view:

The study and clinical application of stem cells is at the core of regenerative medicine, and holds great promise in tissue regeneration, organ repair, and treatment of aging-related diseases. Moreover, stem cell research is very relevant to cancer since it has become increasingly clear that the malignant proliferation of stem cells can lead to tumors that are particularly hard to eradicate.

http://www.cancer.duke.edu/modules/StemCell13/index.php?id=1

There are dozens of sites that contain similar information. Should you require further education in this matter (the role of embryonic stem cells vs. that of adult stem cells, etc.), I trust that you will prove capable of actually doing the research yourself.

-Quinn

[DJ_Asia]

A

R

S

E



I respect you as a frequent poster on you here so I'm not going to call names. If you can provide definitive proof that without stem cell research people will die, please name it.

And even if you do, successful medicine based on stem-cell research does not need to be funded by the government.

Government is not the solution.

It's not "without the research, people will die" but "with the research, people will live." If you frame the argument that way, it sounds a little different.

Good posts chefmike.


RIGHT ON FOR RESEARCH!

But I ain't payin for it.

The epitome of the selfish,me first ugly American

You're right DJ Asia...and it kills me everytime I have to deal with it. It makes life much more difficult for the people that actually want to make the world better.

yeah we can all see that youre just the guy to wanna make things better...gimme a fuckin break...dont you have an NRA meeting to attend?

[JRon]

A

R

S

E



I respect you as a frequent poster on you here so I'm not going to call names. If you can provide definitive proof that without stem cell research people will die, please name it.

And even if you do, successful medicine based on stem-cell research does not need to be funded by the government.

Government is not the solution.

It's not "without the research, people will die" but "with the research, people will live." If you frame the argument that way, it sounds a little different.

Good posts chefmike.


RIGHT ON FOR RESEARCH!

But I ain't payin for it.

The epitome of the selfish,me first ugly American

You're right DJ Asia...and it kills me everytime I have to deal with it. It makes life much more difficult for the people that actually want to make the world better.

yeah we can all see that youre just the guy to wanna make things better...gimme a fuckin break...dont you have an NRA meeting to attend?

NRA? What the fuck are you talking about?

[DJ_Asia]

A

R

S

E



I respect you as a frequent poster on you here so I'm not going to call names. If you can provide definitive proof that without stem cell research people will die, please name it.

And even if you do, successful medicine based on stem-cell research does not need to be funded by the government.

Government is not the solution.

It's not "without the research, people will die" but "with the research, people will live." If you frame the argument that way, it sounds a little different.

Good posts chefmike.


RIGHT ON FOR RESEARCH!

But I ain't payin for it.

The epitome of the selfish,me first ugly American

You're right DJ Asia...and it kills me everytime I have to deal with it. It makes life much more difficult for the people that actually want to make the world better.

yeah we can all see that youre just the guy to wanna make things better...gimme a fuckin break...dont you have an NRA meeting to attend?

NRA? What the fuck are you talking about?

My bad Jron ...meant for the resident fuckwad TFan...the bozo who obviously has never known anybody who has been gravely ill or more probable has but is so caught up in his own little redneck world that he doesnt give a shit...

[Trogdor]

My bad Jron ...meant for the resident fuckwad TFan...the bozo who obviously has never known anybody who has been gravely ill or more probable has but is so caught up in his own little redneck world that he doesnt give a shit...

I'm not white and I find your abusive tirades to be childish and immature.

I lost a family member to cancer in May of 05 which further proves that not only are you a crude child with an abusive nature, but also reactionary.


It's people like you who are bitching and moaning now. But IF these scientists do find medical breakthroughs on public money, you'll be bitching and moaning about how expensive the new treatments are and how "Big medicine" is ignoring "the poor and elderly" because of high prescription costs. You'll continue the whining protocol of the professional victim liberal democrat..... all the while blaming whitey and getting nowhere.

Please grow up.

The government throwing money on pet projects is the very definition of bureaucratic waste.

I got a better idea for that, Mr. Hank Hill.

Let's take a page from Canada and Europe. I remember the Mike Moore Film, Bowling For Columbine....and Health Care is gauranteed and cover so everyone can go get medical help with needed. Let's do that then, let's have the ridcicuously high taxes we've been paying and instead of using it to pay for the ploticians salary rasies and vacations ( again ) and use it so people in the country can have medical service and actually have where it is NOT a crime to not be rich in this country. Why should only the people with Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and Operah be able to afford medical service?

Plus the other countries have stuff that won't be here for years, if ever, since the FDA takes forever to approve anything. :P

[DJ_Asia]

My bad Jron ...meant for the resident fuckwad TFan...the bozo who obviously has never known anybody who has been gravely ill or more probable has but is so caught up in his own little redneck world that he doesnt give a shit...

I'm not white and I find your abusive tirades to be childish and immature.

I lost a family member to cancer in May of 05 which further proves that not only are you a crude child with an abusive nature, but also reactionary.


It's people like you who are bitching and moaning now. But IF these scientists do find medical breakthroughs on public money, you'll be bitching and moaning about how expensive the new treatments are and how "Big medicine" is ignoring "the poor and elderly" because of high prescription costs. You'll continue the whining protocol of the professional victim liberal democrat..... all the while blaming whitey and getting nowhere.

Please grow up.

The government throwing money on pet projects is the very definition of bureaucratic waste.

I never said you were white..I said you were a redneck..deal with it.Furthermore to bring race into it is so patheticly typical.Cant you find anew card to play,that one is old and tired.

Abusive tirades? you havent seen anything yet Turbo,keep it up and I will wave my magic wand and make your sorry punk ass go bye bye.

Living abroad allows me to hear exactly what the world thinks of America and its people in general..and you are the prototypical cromagnon the world despises.Now go back to your cave,sit down,shutup before u piss me off.

[DJ_Asia]

I never said you were white..I said you were a redneck..deal with it.and to bring race into it is so pathetic..typical,but pathetic.

You said "Redneck". Unless you're going to get into pathetic word games, which I expect you to do, "redneck" means "Ignorant Whitey".

You may be none to bright, but any half-decent person knows what "redneck" means.


Abusive tirades? you havent seen anything yet,keep it up and i will wave my magic wand and make your sorry punk ass go bye bye.

LOL at that. The only recourse of a frustrated internet punk.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:




Living abroad allows me to hear exactly what the world thinks of america and its people in general..and you are the prototypical cromagnon the world despises.

In the great words of the greatest man, Ronald Reagan....

One hundred nations in the UN have not agreed with us on just about everything that's come before them, where we're involved, and it didn't upset my breakfast at all.


Translation

America handles it's own affairs just fine. We don't need the rubber stamp of Europe, Asia or frustrated internet punks. We had a guy running for president on the "Pass a global test" ticket..... he lost.

LOL


Now go back to your cave,sit down,shutup before u piss me off.


LOL... or what tough guy?

you have no clue do you..you had your chance...See ya REDNECK

[Trogdor]

My bad Jron ...meant for the resident fuckwad TFan...the bozo who obviously has never known anybody who has been gravely ill or more probable has but is so caught up in his own little redneck world that he doesnt give a shit...

I'm not white and I find your abusive tirades to be childish and immature.

I lost a family member to cancer in May of 05 which further proves that not only are you a crude child with an abusive nature, but also reactionary.


It's people like you who are bitching and moaning now. But IF these scientists do find medical breakthroughs on public money, you'll be bitching and moaning about how expensive the new treatments are and how "Big medicine" is ignoring "the poor and elderly" because of high prescription costs. You'll continue the whining protocol of the professional victim liberal democrat..... all the while blaming whitey and getting nowhere.

Please grow up.

The government throwing money on pet projects is the very definition of bureaucratic waste.

I never said you were white..I said you were a redneck..deal with it.Furthermore to bring race into it is so patheticly typical.Cant you find anew card to play,that one is old and tired.

Abusive tirades? you havent seen anything yet Turbo,keep it up and I will wave my magic wand and make your sorry punk ass go bye bye.

Living abroad allows me to hear exactly what the world thinks of America and its people in general..and you are the prototypical cromagnon the world despises.Now go back to your cave,sit down,shutup before u piss me off.

Yep, america is pretty much that new kid on the block with rich parents. You know how it goes, he goes around showing off his great he is and gets all pissy when no one agrees with him. And the whole cowboy mentality is exactly what the world is sick of. And out illustrious president and his adminstration pretty much upped this by about 10 fold. Kinda like going back in time and giving a stoneaged man a transister radio......you just probably altered man's evolution much to earlier than expected.

and the whole "love it or leave it!" mentality is a pain in the ass too....cause it shows that some people will support their leaders no matter how shitty they are.

Me? I don't wanna change the goverment......I wanna fire it. :idea: :twisted:

I mean if you fuck up at your job, you get fired. Apart from weather forecasters, politics seem to be the only job you can't get fired from.

[Trogdor]

Whatever.

As an American. I don't walk around sweating what other countries might think.

Oh, and love it or leave it.


Got one thing to say to that.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg/250px-Flock_of_sheep.jpg
BAAAAAAAA!!!!! BAAAAAAA!!!! :mrgreen:



And no offence to any Avine critters eating grass right now. :wink:

[johnie]

Are 3 to 4 microscopic cells more important than human beings???

Oh and by the way to all of you Bush supporters on here, if he had the chance he would make boards like this illegal citing this conent as "immoral" and have you all arrested and institutionalized.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

I have a suspicion who this TFan person is- it smells like YourDaddy-who was banned already.

Several people have tried this attempt like MixedPrettYGuy who is now CuteMixedGuy, but he has been in check (at least on here) otherwise he would have been gone, gone, gooooooooooooone. But there are others who are banned, lurk back and then they get chopped again.

I'll bet u anything I am right.

[chefmike]

Whatever.

As an American. I don't walk around sweating what other countries might think.

Oh, and love it or leave it.


Got one thing to say to that.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg/250px-Flock_of_sheep.jpg
BAAAAAAAA!!!!! BAAAAAAA!!!! :mrgreen:



And no offence to any Avine critters eating grass right now. :wink:

LMFAO...love it or leave it??? The age old cry of right wing stooges whenever a citizen dares to question idiots like the current chimp-in-chief...not to mention tricky dick nixon...whose legacy shrubya is mindlessly carrying on...

That doesn't exactly jibe with the ideas and priciples that our founding fathers established this once great nation on...

Not exactly what they would have thought of as good citizenship, pilgram...

Although I'm sure that Hitler, Stalin et al. would have loved to have you on their team...they always needed help with those enemies of the state that had been identified as not loving their country enough...

Oh that's right...the fact that you post here would have included you amongst those enemies of the state...my bad...

[Quinn]

I have a suspicion who this TFan person is- it smells like YourDaddy-who was banned already.

Several people have tried this attempt like MixedPrettYGuy who is now CuteMixedGuy. . . .

LMAO…. At least he was clever enough to pick a new ID that couldn't possibly be linked to his old one. If I get banned, I'm thinking of coming back as something like Quinn2 or Not_Quinn. No could ever possibly see through such a clever ruse.

-Quinn

[Jamie Cross]

Now there's a shocker...another dumb texan who is in favor of killing adults (and doesn't mind spending billions doing it, as in Iraq),

Hey, I resent that remark. I happen to be from Texas and resent Dubya as much as anyone possibly can.



but is so concerned about using a fetus so that science can save lives..

This is a common misconception even with those in support of stem cell research and probably the biggest reason Bush has any support at all:

We're not even talking about fetuses here. Not even remotely (unless you're refering to stem cells that can be harvested incidentally from a miscarrage, abortion, etc.).

Actual embryos harvested for stem cells are microscopic. Under a microscope they look like a rough spherical object and nothing more.

What few people seem to realize is this: the harvested embryos are small enough to easily fit inside the eye of a needle! We're not talking about killing anything even remotely resembling a human being. The harvested embryos have the stuff of life, but they are not yet alive in any normal sense of the word. They are not self-aware, they do not think, they do not feel. They are simply a very tiny cluster of cells not unlike any other cells that can be found in the human body.

You kill just as much living material as a stem cell harvester when you fall and scrape your knee on a rough patch of ground or get your ear pierced.

A stem cell is kind of like an apple seed. The apple seed is not a tree, nor is it even an apple. It has the potential to become an apple tree if it is planted. Even if it is planted, there is no guarantee that it will take root and grow.

So if you throw an apple core away in the trash, have you killed ten apple trees?

That is the real reason why opponents of this research are generally--well--retarded. They're uninformed and have jumped on the general "pro life" bandwagon. They're under the very false impression that they're opposing a bunch of evil, inhumane, baby-killing mad scientists. In short, they haven't done their home work, they don't know what they're opposing because if they did, they'd know that their position is flat out silly and without basis in reality.

Thank you.

:)

[AllanahStarrNYC]

I have said it before and I will say it again.

If you are ON THIS SITE, ANY PORN SITE, ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE SITE, or you practice any form of an alternative sexual lifestyle and you support Dubya and THIS ADMINISTRATION and consider yourself to be part f the right wing or moral majority-

YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A GOOD OLE' HYPOCRITE, IN THE CLOSET, YELLOW COCKSUCKER WHO LIKES TO TAKE IT IN THE ARSE, SWALLOW JIZZ, then politely wipe your mouth go home and kiss your wife- and then HAVE NERVE to talk shit about the homos and all the other rhetoric the right wing loves to spew out.

I know this type very well, because I have lived it. Believe you me, the ones out there talking shit about fags, trannys, rasing hell, fire, and brimstome, and trying to dictate morality- are the first ones to go suck a cock behind closed doors.

HYPOCRITES. Nothing but HYPOCRITES is all I can say.

[Jamie Cross]

Believe you me, the ones out there talking shit about fags, trannys, rasing hell, fire, and brimstome, and trying to dictate morality- are the first ones to go suck a cock behind close doors.


Thank you!

This is sooo sooo true.

They oppose the things they are afraid of. Why are they afraid? Because they're insecure. Why are they insecure? Because they are in denial about who they really are.

If you're afraid of being a "fag" then you're the one most likely to go out and declare to the world that you hate "fags". If you're actually secure in your own sexuality, you probably don't care about how other people prefer to have sex in the privacy of their own bedrooms. If you're secure in who you are then you'll most likely feel that your neighbor's sexual orientation is none of your business--unless, of course, you happen to be attracted to your neighbor. ;)

[chefmike]

Hey, I resent that remark. I happen to be from Texas and resent Dubya as much as anyone possibly can.


I didn't mean to offend you or any other sane Texans...please excuse my generalization...we have a few other cool Texans on this board in addition to yourself...tsntx and DamionXXX to name a couple...and I think Kinky Friedman is OK...not that I agree with everything that he says on IMUS...

But we also have a few people on here who announce their Texas heritage while they shill for our pathetic prez...

On a side note, I've enjoyed your posts and hope you continue to hang out...no pun intended(?) when you're inclined, Jamie...

[Jamie Cross]

I didn't mean to offend you or any other sane Texans...please excuse my generalization...

Oh, I wasn't really offended, I was just taking the opportunity to speak up for the sane minority that live here.

It's a rather depressing thing, driving around Dallas and seeing all of the pro-Dubya bumper stickers, it can make a gal feel isolated sometimes. Everyone here supports our troops (and if you don't support the war, then they'll insist that you don't support our troops).

Everyone here thinks we're in Iraq to fight "terror", protect our "freedom" and get back at the bastards responsible for 9/11. I used to try telling them that Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Queda or 9/11 and that we're using the war on "terror" as a pretext to occupy a poor, broke-down 3rd world country that had no ability to pose a threat to us to begin with. I used to point out that we've been harshly criticized for our unprovoked aggression on Iraq by the U.N. and pretty much any other modern, industrialized country not in our back pocket. I used to explain that we're the bad guys, not the impoverished people of Iraq or their laughable, limp-wristed, now decimated military.

My ideas were never very popular though and I got tired of dodging bird-shot, so I keep to myself these days. ;)



On a side note, I've enjoyed your posts and hope you continue to hang out...no pun intended(?) when you're inclined, Jamie...

Why thank you, sir! :)

[Trogdor]

I also have a a second theroy, in addition to to the reason these fellows wanna ban stem cell research. If we do it and we can cure or prevent all these bad illnesses......what's gonna happen to the pharmacudical companies? They gonna be gone....and lots of these politicians have stock in the industry and are also the drug companies' bitches.

Think that might be a reason as well as their fear of making jesus angry?

[apocarm]

I just had a comment about the first statement here. I don't want to start anything, but you talk about de-evolution. My thoughts were that survival of the fittest was one of the properties of evolution. If we're curing people of their very deadly diseases with the aid of stem cells, but not ensuring the disease doesn't pass on, isn't that kind of "de-evolution".

My thoughts are that every bit of medicine we produce has a de-evolving effect on society. Weakness then has it's ability to continue on, I think we're going to be chasing our tails on diseases as more and more people become affected by the diseases that should have killed themselves out slowly.


The chimp-in-chief continues to do his best to ensure that de-evolution marches on...

[Jamie Cross]

I also have a a second theroy, in addition to to the reason these fellows wanna ban stem cell research. If we do it and we can cure or prevent all these bad illnesses......what's gonna happen to the pharmacudical companies? They gonna be gone....and lots of these politicians have stock in the industry and are also the drug companies' bitches.

Think that might be a reason as well as their fear of making jesus angry?

A sound enough theory.

Curing diabetes would be a huge bummer for the folks that are making billions selling insulin to the super-sized, starch and sugar addicted masses.

Cure one or two forms of cancer, say good-bye to billions in profit for chemotherapy drugs.

And so on...

[Trogdor]

I just had a comment about the first statement here. I don't want to start anything, but you talk about de-evolution. My thoughts were that survival of the fittest was one of the properties of evolution. If we're curing people of their very deadly diseases with the aid of stem cells, but not ensuring the disease doesn't pass on, isn't that kind of "de-evolution".

My thoughts are that every bit of medicine we produce has a de-evolving effect on society. Weakness then has it's ability to continue on, I think we're going to be chasing our tails on diseases as more and more people become affected by the diseases that should have killed themselves out slowly.


The chimp-in-chief continues to do his best to ensure that de-evolution marches on...

So you agree with those "perfect society" ideals like in the classic sci-fi film Logan's Run where the old and sick are put to death.

And life is not survival of the fittest.....if that was so half of us would be dead and dead for years. Plus the pencil pushers in congress would have been pushing up daises too. A person walking this earth has the rights to Life, Libery and persuit of Happiness.....these items are NON-DEDUCTABLE.

You wanna know what evolution is.....I'LL TELL YOU WHAT EVOLUTION IS, SPARKY. Evolving is not simply adapting over the period of eons and developing webbed feet or having the ability to grow quills....that's just part of it. Evolution is also about a person or people who learn from their mistakes, who learn about the world around them, how the world works, how things tick. Some of our best examples of us evolving are:

In no particular order:

Drafting the Magna Carta.
Building the Pyramids at Giza ( how and why is another matter ).
Discovered penacillen.
Invented the abcaus.
Built Stone Henge.
Built the Imperial city.
Discovered Radium.
Spun Sugar into Cotten Candy.
Sailed in Leaky boats across the great ocean to the 'new world' cause they hated the old world.
Invented the Slinky.
Took gutter twine, encased it in white, hit it with a stick for 500 yards into a tin cup and made the practitioners of this feat rich men.
Abolished Slavery.
Discovered the atom.
Created Democracy.

These are a few examples of how we evolved. There's a greater list of man's shortcommings, but that would be too easy and would take several pages here. :wink:

[Trogdor]

I also have a a second theroy, in addition to to the reason these fellows wanna ban stem cell research. If we do it and we can cure or prevent all these bad illnesses......what's gonna happen to the pharmacudical companies? They gonna be gone....and lots of these politicians have stock in the industry and are also the drug companies' bitches.

Think that might be a reason as well as their fear of making jesus angry?

A sound enough theory.

Curing diabetes would be a huge bummer for the folks that are making billions selling insulin to the super-sized, starch and sugar addicted masses.

Cure one or two forms of cancer, say good-bye to billions in profit for chemotherapy drugs.

And so on...

Not to mention the companies that sell the syringers, the glucose monitors, the test strips, the lancets and so forth. :idea:

I call Chemotherapy poisoning someone to me.

Heck, look at the word.....sounds like chemically raping someone.

For man to evolve onwards, the quest for wealth and material possesion is the next obsticle.

[JRon]

I have said it before and I will say it again.

If you are ON THIS SITE, ANY PORN SITE, ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE SITE, or you practice any form of an alternative sexual lifestyle and you support Dubya and THIS ADMINISTRATION and consider yourself to be part f the right wing or moral majority-

YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A GOOD OLE' HYPOCRITE, IN THE CLOSET, YELLOW COCKSUCKER WHO LIKES TO TAKE IT IN THE ARSE, SWALLOW JIZZ, then politely wipe your mouth go home and kiss your wife- and then HAVE NERVE to talk shit about the homos and all the other rhetoric the right wing loves to spew out.

I know this type very well, because I have lived it. Believe you me, the ones out there talking shit about fags, trannys, rasing hell, fire, and brimstome, and trying to dictate morality- are the first ones to go suck a cock behind closed doors.

HYPOCRITES. Nothing but HYPOCRITES is all I can say.

So fucking true it's not even funny. I may be relatively new to this whole scene...but seriously come on how the hell is it possible for a "TFan" to support anything that comes out of GDubs weasly ass mouth. And the dude quoted Ronald Reagan no less!!!!!

ps This is a great thread.
pps No harm done Dj Asia - I figured you were refering to TFan with the NRA quip.

[Jamie Cross]

I call Chemotherapy poisoning someone to me.

Any good doctor will tell you that chemotherapy drugs destroy both cancerous and healthy cells. So yes, the drugs are cellular poison, they break down cells and bind to their DNA to prevent duplication.

They basically work by attacking the whole body (including the cancer cells) in the hope that the cancer cells will be wiped out before the patient is. This is why sometimes doctors will say that a patient is not "strong" enough for chemotherapy or that chemo would be too much of a risk for a certain patient. Prime example: My grandmother had breast cancer. It metastasized and things looked really grim for her. The cancer didn't kill her, though, the chemo did. :(

There will come a day when chemo is looked back upon as an archaic, cruel and dangerous last resort of a society that was living in a medical dark age. The more money we put into stem cell research, the sooner that day may come. :)

[Jamie Cross]

My thoughts were that survival of the fittest was one of the properties of evolution. If we're curing people of their very deadly diseases with the aid of stem cells, but not ensuring the disease doesn't pass on, isn't that kind of "de-evolution".

My thoughts are that every bit of medicine we produce has a de-evolving effect on society. Weakness then has it's ability to continue on, I think we're going to be chasing our tails on diseases as more and more people become affected by the diseases that should have killed themselves out slowly.

You're a little near-sighted in your thinking here.

First of all, long term or adult onset illnesses (IE, cancer, diabetes, alzheimer's, parkinson's) will never "kill themselves out slowly". Diseases that don't kill us before we're able to reproduce will be happily passed along to future generations, this is why so many afflictions have remained with our species for so many hundreds or thousands of years. Waiting for afflictions like these to just "die out" on their own is, quite frankly, a ridiculous suggestion.

Secondly, stem cell research falls hand in hand with other types of genetic research. At first, we'll cure those who are already afflicted. Eventually we'll be engineering our genes to eliminate the diseases completely. It's a slow, iterative process though. Each small advance brings us a bit closer. Potential advances from stem cell research are enormous. It would be silly to turn away from such opportunity in hopes that our suffering will simply go away on it's own.

[Trogdor]

I call Chemotherapy poisoning someone to me.

Any good doctor will tell you that chemotherapy drugs destroy both cancerous and healthy cells. So yes, the drugs are cellular poison, they break down cells and bind to their DNA to prevent duplication.

They basically work by attacking the whole body (including the cancer cells) in the hope that the cancer cells will be wiped out before the patient is. This is why sometimes doctors will say that a patient is not "strong" enough for chemotherapy or that chemo would be too much of a risk for a certain patient. Prime example: My grandmother had breast cancer. It metastasized and things looked really grim for her. The cancer didn't kill her, though, the chemo did. :(

There will come a day when chemo is looked back upon as an archaic, cruel and dangerous last resort of a society that was living in a medical dark age. The more money we put into stem cell research, the sooner that day may come. :)

I also remember from Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home where Dr. McCoy said, and among other things, "Chemotherapy....it's a god damned Spanish Inquistion!"

I myself would NEVER go under chemo. I was a 170 pound, 8% picture of health 7 years ago. I got a job at a Meijer's ( a mid western equivilent to walmart ) and got VERY sick. I left the job at 140 pounds and a fucked up colon. In the past year, I was able to recover enough to get back in Body building and slowly getting my strength and size back, I put on about 10 pounds this year finally.

There's no way in hell I am gonna have my body ravaged again. :x

That so-called 'cure' is worse than the disease in my book. :P

[trish]

apocarm "thinks",

that every bit of medicine we produce has a de-evolving effect on society. Weakness then has it's ability to continue on, I think we're going to be chasing our tails on diseases as more and more people become affected by the diseases that should have killed themselves out slowly.


In evolutionary theory the "fittest" species is the one that best fits the niche for which other species are competing. Survival, barring bad luck, generally goes to the fittest in this sense of the word. One well proven survival strategy is a gene pool stocked with multitudinous variations. The trails of life, including diseases, climate changes and other changes in habitat filter out some variations (selecting them for extinction or diminishing their numbers) while allowing others to pass (selecting them for success). One can never tell which variation will prove beneficial or detrimental because one never knows which filters are going to be in play and when. In malarial infested environments the genes that produce sickle cell anemia, for example, are beneficial to individuals possessing. However, these people are at a disadvantage outside such an environment. Using our brains, (something human evolution has selected for survival and enhancement) to cure as many diseases as we can keeps our gene pool variation rich. This is not only human, but good evolutionary strategy.

[Jamie Cross]

One can never tell which variation will prove beneficial or detrimental because one never knows which filters are going to be in play and when. In malarial infested environments the genes that produce sickle cell anemia, for example, are beneficial to individuals possessing. However, these people are at a disadvantage outside such an environment. Using our brains, (something human evolution has selected for survival and enhancement) to cure as many diseases as we can keeps our gene pool variation rich. This is not only human, but good evolutionary strategy.

*applause*

Two well thought out objections I must also agree with. I hadn't thought of either of these points (medicine as a function of our evolved brain power and biodiversity with "disease" conditions as an advantage).

Thank you! :D

[Quinn]

I just had a comment about the first statement here. I don't want to start anything, but you talk about de-evolution. My thoughts were that survival of the fittest was one of the properties of evolution. If we're curing people of their very deadly diseases with the aid of stem cells, but not ensuring the disease doesn't pass on, isn't that kind of "de-evolution".

My thoughts are that every bit of medicine we produce has a de-evolving effect on society. Weakness then has it's ability to continue on, I think we're going to be chasing our tails on diseases as more and more people become affected by the diseases that should have killed themselves out slowly.


The chimp-in-chief continues to do his best to ensure that de-evolution marches on...

If you view evolution as an exercise in eugenics, which is predicated upon a preference for strength, then this view might have some merit. However, evolution, in the Darwinian sense of the word, focuses upon adaptation as the driving principal for natural selection, not strength. As such, when viewed from a Darwinian perspective, would it not be safe to say that applying scientific knowledge to treat disease is perhaps the epitome of adaptation and, by extension, evolution? Just a random thought.

-Quinn

[Trogdor]

and think of the non leathal, annoying illnesses we can get rid of.

Can you imagine how many men AND women ( young and old ) could be helped if Stem Cell research could cure or prevent hairloss? I bet it would help big time for people's who's self esteem have been destroyed from this.


the possibilities alone are endless. :D

[trish]

Can you imagine how many men AND women ( young and old ) could be helped if Stem Cell research could cure or prevent hairloss?

love your irony, Trogdor. But sexual selection is also an evolutionary strategy and hairloss treatments a counter strategy. :)

[Trogdor]

Can you imagine how many men AND women ( young and old ) could be helped if Stem Cell research could cure or prevent hairloss?

love your irony, Trogdor. But sexual selection is also an evolutionary strategy and hairloss treatments a counter strategy. :)

I am sure millions of people stuck with wigs and those hair pills would think otherwise. And I am talking emotionally helped.

[apocarm]

I just had a comment about the first statement here. I don't want to start anything, but you talk about de-evolution. My thoughts were that survival of the fittest was one of the properties of evolution. If we're curing people of their very deadly diseases with the aid of stem cells, but not ensuring the disease doesn't pass on, isn't that kind of "de-evolution".

My thoughts are that every bit of medicine we produce has a de-evolving effect on society. Weakness then has it's ability to continue on, I think we're going to be chasing our tails on diseases as more and more people become affected by the diseases that should have killed themselves out slowly.


The chimp-in-chief continues to do his best to ensure that de-evolution marches on...

So you agree with those "perfect society" ideals like in the classic sci-fi film Logan's Run where the old and sick are put to death.

And life is not survival of the fittest.....if that was so half of us would be dead and dead for years. Plus the pencil pushers in congress would have been pushing up daises too. A person walking this earth has the rights to Life, Libery and persuit of Happiness.....these items are NON-DEDUCTABLE.

You wanna know what evolution is.....I'LL TELL YOU WHAT EVOLUTION IS, SPARKY. Evolving is not simply adapting over the period of eons and developing webbed feet or having the ability to grow quills....that's just part of it. Evolution is also about a person or people who learn from their mistakes, who learn about the world around them, how the world works, how things tick. Some of our best examples of us evolving are:

In no particular order:

Drafting the Magna Carta.
Building the Pyramids at Giza ( how and why is another matter ).
Discovered penacillen.
Invented the abcaus.
Built Stone Henge.
Built the Imperial city.
Discovered Radium.
Spun Sugar into Cotten Candy.
Sailed in Leaky boats across the great ocean to the 'new world' cause they hated the old world.
Invented the Slinky.
Took gutter twine, encased it in white, hit it with a stick for 500 yards into a tin cup and made the practitioners of this feat rich men.
Abolished Slavery.
Discovered the atom.
Created Democracy.

These are a few examples of how we evolved. There's a greater list of man's shortcommings, but that would be too easy and would take several pages here. :wink:[/img]


Sparky!!

lol


I wasn't saying I was agreeing with anything. I was just stating that he said de-evolution, I was going off of the Darwin definition of it. I wasn't trying to make a social statement, just a regular statement.

Sorry Chief.


P.S. and to add.

[apocarm]

Ohh and to add..... Yeah I think it would be cool to get rid of a few old people. The roads would be soo much safer to drive :).




j/k

[Trogdor]

Ohh and to add..... Yeah I think it would be cool to get rid of a few old people. The roads would be soo much safer to drive :).




j/k

Well, good thing you are joking, cause one need not be senile and not all in the head once advanced age kicks in.

I myself for the past decade have been investing in my health and planning to be like this man pictured here
http://www.legendaryfitness.com/BobDelmontique.jpg
He's in his 80's and he looks and feels healthy as a horse. This is my plan for the future of myself, to be like this and not a withered mummy barely clinging to life. And I feel that with things like Stem Cell research, alternative medicines, and us getting the hell away from pharmacudical drugs as far s we can, many more people can be a picture of health like Mr. Delmontique there. 8) Cause age is supposed to be just a number, not an expiration date. :wink: :idea:

[johnie]

I just had a comment about the first statement here. I don't want to start anything, but you talk about de-evolution. My thoughts were that survival of the fittest was one of the properties of evolution. If we're curing people of their very deadly diseases with the aid of stem cells, but not ensuring the disease doesn't pass on, isn't that kind of "de-evolution".

My thoughts are that every bit of medicine we produce has a de-evolving effect on society. Weakness then has it's ability to continue on, I think we're going to be chasing our tails on diseases as more and more people become affected by the diseases that should have killed themselves out slowly.


The chimp-in-chief continues to do his best to ensure that de-evolution marches on...


Survival of the fittest and natural selection are all fine things when you are talking about animals roaming the wild, or plants growing over millions of years. Natural selection will work to improve the species over long periods of time, but does nothing for the short term. Any humanoid disease you see now, if left completely untouched my medical science, would not be "cured" by natural selection for tens of thousands of years.

When your SON or DAUGHTER gets stricken with a horrible disease that could have been cured by stem cell research, I'm sure that you will not want him/her to be part of the "natural selection" process and you won't mind being a part of "de-evolution."

You are ignorant to say that medicine hurts the human race. Victims of these horrible diseases are human beings. They are fathers, brothers, sons, daughters etc. they have people who love them dearly. If medical science (including stem cell research) can save them, then it's our duty as humans to develop such technology and to apply it to as much as an extent as possible.

[apocarm]

Like I said before, I was merely going off of the Darwin definition. I'm not saying I'm going for or against anything. He said de-evolution, I'm not even touching the issue of feelings and daughters.


I'm a total fence sitter, I'd agree and disagree with everyone. By the way, I don't think I'm alone with the disagreeing with everyone. There seems to be a lot of that around here. :twisted:

[Felicia Katt]

Human evolution is still ongoing, but its largely being fueled by artificial, instead of natural selection. We are taller, stronger, and live longer now because of social and political choices made. But at the same time, human evolution leading to radical change is largely over, because of our most recent evolutionary changes, those leading to our advanced brain. Our response to evolutionary pressure is now technological, not genetic. Its transmitted by culture, not genes. This has permitted us to move into all sorts of extreme environmental niches and to exploit all sorts of resources to which we are not at all physically adapted. Given that most of the conditions discussed in this thread are either not genetic, or occurr after afflicted individuals have reproduced, whatever minimal evolutonary force they may have is dissipated by modern medicine. And the afflicteds' contribution to our technology and culture is greater than whatever negative impact they might have on the gene pool.

Religous opposition to evolution is exactly like it is to stem cell research. Blind zealotry. The religious right says they are pro life, but really they are anti-sex, and anti-science. They want people to pay the wages of sin, and they fear any knowlege that undercuts their faith. Bush is more beholden to them than to anyone else, including the pharmaceutical industry. Drug companies don't oppose stem cell research, they just want a free ride on it. Government funds the basic science that they refine into application. Stem cell research , once it is fully realized, has the potential to make the drug companies even more money than the already staggering profits they enjoy, as it leads to better therapies for things that plague us now, and new ones for the conditiions we didn't know we had. After they finally cure cancer, can dandruff and restless leg syndrome be far behind?

FK

[Jamie Cross]

After they finally cure cancer, can dandruff and restless leg syndrome be far behind?

Don't forget chronic fatigue, acne, constipation, baldness, liver spots and of course... herpes! ;)

Very nice post, by the way. Knowledgeable, intelligent and well written.

[chefmike]

Hawking criticises EU states trying to ban stem cell research


Stephen Hawking, the world's best-known living scientist, has attacked "reactionary" forces in Europe and America which are trying to ban research into stem cells from human embryos.

Professor Hawking, who suffers from motor neurone disease, has criticised President George Bush and European governments who want to stop the funding of research with embryonic stem cells, which promises to revolutionise the treatment of many incurable conditions.

"The fact that the cells may come from embryos is not an objection because the embryos are going to die anyway," he said. "It is morally equivalent to taking a heart transplant from a victim of a car accident."

the article in it's entirety here-

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article1193119.ece

[Nowhereboy]

Human evolution is still ongoing, but its largely being fueled by artificial, instead of natural selection. We are taller, stronger, and live longer now because of social and political choices made. But at the same time, human evolution leading to radical change is largely over, because of our most recent evolutionary changes, those leading to our advanced brain. Our response to evolutionary pressure is now technological, not genetic. Its transmitted by culture, not genes. This has permitted us to move into all sorts of extreme environmental niches and to exploit all sorts of resources to which we are not at all physically adapted. Given that most of the conditions discussed in this thread are either not genetic, or occurr after afflicted individuals have reproduced, whatever minimal evolutonary force they may have is dissipated by modern medicine. And the afflicteds' contribution to our technology and culture is greater than whatever negative impact they might have on the gene pool.

FK

Felicia,

I will only disagree with you to this extent. It is not really correct to say that "human evolution leading to radical change is largely over" First, evolution rarely leads to radical change. It is a collection of minor, almost imperceptible changes that accumulate over time that lead to radical differences between species. Different generations within a single population will not recognize the changes even as they occur. Second, as a species on earth, we modern humans, the ones who do use their brains to alter their environment, have only been on the earth for the shortest of times. It is difficult to say that we have not evolved over that time.

I do agree that the impact of environment, the sole cause of natural selection, is attenuated by human control over it. As we continue to damage our environment, we may well have to adapt to survive.

Other than these nit-picking little differences I totally agree with your statement and I am always delighted to read one of your well thought out and reasoned responses to this type of issue. Too many posters here resort to Ad Hominem attacks while your posts are about the message not the messenger.

Peter

[chefmike]

Maybe stem cell research could help the idiots in the White House with their epidemic of foot-in-mouth disease...

A Summer Snow Job: The Strange Case of Stem Cell Murder
Robert J. Elisberg

So, let's see, Tony Snow - spokesman for the President - said that Mr. Bush "strongly considers" stem cell research "murder." And repeatedly used the "murder" charge. But now, apparently, Mr. Snow says he was "overstating" the President's position.

Rumors are that for Snow's gross overstatement, he will receive the same punishment that do all members of the Administration for major errors, and will be given the Congressional Medal of Honor.


So, let's see, he was "overstating" the President's position, he says. To what degree? Is it that the President doesn't consider stem cell research to be murder? Or that he doesn't "strongly" consider it murder. Only somewhat murder.

Something is really screwy here. It's one thing to "overstate" someone's position. But hearing the word "murder" is really hard to misinterpret. And to "strongly consider" something "murder" would seem to be near-impossible to get wrong.

Remember, this is "murder," we're talking about. How do you get confused by that???

"Oh, I'm sorry, you're honor, when we charged the defendant with murder, we overstated the case. What we meant was, shoplifting."

"And so, I, Hercule Poirot, the world's greatest detective, strongly tell you this is a case of the murder!! Well, perhaps I am overstating the case. He has sinus trouble. Just ask him."

"Here's $10,000. I want you to murder my business partner. Sorry, not murder him, I'm overstating. Please buy out his partnership."

the column in it's entirety here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/a-summer-snow-job-the-st_b_25779.html

[tsluver247]

Notice how they are using the terminology "destruction of life" rather than murder.

Transcript of Josh Bolten defending Bush's position (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13904922/)

MR. RUSSERT: Then if the president believes it is human life, how can he allow private stem cell research to go forward, go forward, if, in fact, that is murder?

MR. BOLTEN: It’s a very, it’s a very difficult balance. I mean, the president recognizes that there are millions of Americans who don’t recognize that as a human life, and that the promise of that research for the saving of life is so important that they, that they want that to go forward. What the president has said is that as far as the federal policy is concerned, no federal funds, your tax dollars and my tax dollars, will go towards promoting the destruction of that human embryo.

MR. RUSSERT: But you’re using federal funds for existing lines, which were of embryos. So were those embryos that the federal government is experimenting on obtained by homicidal means?

MR. BOLTEN: Those, those embryos, those stem cell lines, were already—those embryos were already destroyed, and, and that’s where the president—the president’s policies draw the line. That is that our tax dollars, from the point that the president made his policy statement forward, our tax dollars are not going to go to further incent the destruction of those fertilized embryos. Let me, let me...

MR. RUSSERT: The logic, Mr. Bolten, as people are listening to this, the president is saying no, we can’t use embryos that are going to be discarded by in vitro clinics because, according to a spokesman, that’s murder. But we can use embryos that were existing before I became president, that’s OK. And if you have a private company and you want to use those embryos, that’s OK. Back to the central question: does the president agree with his spokesman, Tony Snow, that the research on the embryo in, in fact, to use that embryo is murder?

MR. BOLTEN: The president thinks that that embryo, that fertilized embryo, is a human life that deserves protection...

MR. RUSSERT: But does he accept or reject the use of the word “murder”?

MR. BOLTEN: I haven’t spoken to him about the use, the use of particular terminology, but the—but let me come back to the fundamental point here, Tim, and that is that there’s, there’s a balance that needs to be struck, and it’s a very difficult balance for, for any president to strike, between, between the needs of allowing science that can be life-saving to go forward, and reflecting the ethics and morals of this society. And as, as far as those, those fertilized human embryos are concerned that are, that are going to be discarded anyway, there was, there was a very moving ceremony, I thought, in the East Room of the White House this week, when the president discussed his stem cell policy. And on stage there with him—you had a clip of it at the top of the show—on stage there with him there were some children who are the products of those fertilized embryos that otherwise would have been, would have been destroyed.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, 128 embryos were adopted. But 400,000 are now not being used, and will be probably discarded. And you’re saying they should not be used for research by the federal government.

MR. BOLTEN: Yes, that is the president’s policy.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you then move to close down in vitro clinics—if, in fact, those embryos are being created and used by private companies for research and the president’s spokesman says that’s murder, and the president said it’s a human life, why not then close down the in vitro fertility clinics? Because they’re creating embryos that, in the president’s view, will be murdered.

MR. BOLTEN: That’s not where the president has, has drawn the balance. He’s drawn the balance with—the line with federal funding, people’s tax dollars not going to—not going to incent the further destruction of the human life. Look, 400,000...

MR. RUSSERT: But he will—he will allow private cell research companies to “destroy human life.”

MR. BOLTEN: That issue isn’t before him. What’s before him is what—the issue of what will federal funds be used for.

Look, those, those 400,000 fertilized...

MR. RUSSERT: But he could take steps to outlaw that.

MR. BOLTEN: Those 400,000 human—fertilized human embryos, I’m sure the president fervently wishes that, that every single one of them is going to get adopted and turn into one of those beautiful kids we saw at the ceremony.

MR. RUSSERT: All 400,000 are going to be adopted?

MR. BOLTEN: No. They’re not likely to be, and that’s, that’s, that’s very sad for this country. But...

MR. RUSSERT: Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, said that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic stem cells, and the White House could not identify any scientist who could confirm that. Is—does the president agree with Mr. Rove?

MR. BOLTEN: I’m, I’m no scientist, not, not quantified to speak on it, but I think the point that Karl was getting at is that there are alternative means to achieve some of the promise of the—of the embryonic stem cells that, that scientists...

MR. RUSSERT: No, he said “far more promise.”

MR. BOLTEN: Well...

MR. RUSSERT: Can you—can you cite any scientist who believes that adult stem cells have far more promise than embryonic stem cells?

MR. BOLTEN: Well I can’t cite scientists on either side of it, but what I can tell you is that adult, adult human stem cells have already shown enormous utility in, in the amelioration of disease in this country. Embryonic stem cells have, have yet to fulfill the promise that many see, but, but there—but there is a legitimate promise there, and that’s why the president has struggled so much with that difficult balance...(unintelligible).

MR. RUSSERT: But is there any ev—is there any evidence that you’re aware of, or the president’s aware of, that says that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic?

MR. BOLTEN: Adult stem cells have already demonstrated for—in the amelioration of disease...

MR. RUSSERT: So you agree with Mr. Rove.

MR. BOLTEN: I—like I said I’m not—I’m not a scientist and I don’t...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, I don’t think Karl Rove is, either.

MR. BOLTEN: Well, he knows a lot of stuff, but the—look, the, the point here is that there are alternative ways to get to the, the promise that the embryonic stem cells have, and the president, in his announcement this week on, on stem cell policy, also announced that we were going to put extra effort at, at—within our scientific community at NIH into pursuing stem cell research that does not involve the destruction of those fertilized human embryos.

MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Josh Bolten, White House chief of staff. We thank you. I look forward to the time you come back and we talk about the deficit and the debt and all of the other subjects you’re so familiar with.

MR. BOLTEN: All the good stuff.

MR. RUSSERT: Thank you very much.

MR. BOLTEN: Thank you.

[interestedParty]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet in this thread, but I'll say it anyway.

When Bush announced his veto, he did so (hey, that rhymes!) surrounded by people who had been conceived via in-vitro fertilization. The thing is that during said process, there are a significant number of embryos that are discarded(I can't seem to find an article that lists the number of embryos that are actually discarded, but I've heard that it ranges in the thousands; Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-vitro_fertilization).

[Jamie Cross]

"Oh, I'm sorry, you're honor, when we charged the defendant with murder, we overstated the case. What we meant was, shoplifting."

:lol:

That part actually made me giggle a bit. Thank you!

[Jamie Cross]

Notice how they are using the terminology "destruction of life" rather than murder.

Transcript of Josh Bolten defending Bush's position (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13904922/)

MR. BOLTEN: That’s not where the president has, has drawn the balance. He’s drawn the balance with—the line with federal funding, people’s tax dollars not going to—not going to incent the further destruction of the human life.

Yeah, he's careful to dance around the word, "murder". The difference between "destruction of human life" and "murder" I assume, is whether we're talking about a moral delima or a criminal act.

I'd like to point out the irony in the fact that Dubya seems to have no qualms about going to the middle east and destroying human life, both theirs and ours.

That aside, his position on this defies reason. The rest of the world is moving quickly to outpace us in this technology. Here the House and Senate actually got their heads together for long enough to agree on something meaningful and Dubya slaps it down. Why?

Yes, in the most literal interpretation of his words, embryonic stem cell research does "destroy life". But so does spraying bleach around the eves of your house to kill off mold and mildew. Certainly, molds and mildew are more complex living creatures than a tray of frozen embryos.

No, mold and mildew won't grow up to become human. But neither will Jane's embryo if she doesn't hook up with Dick this weekend and get down and dirty. If she tells him "no", should he point out that she's "destroying life"?

The more you think about it, the more absurdity you can find.

My point really is this. Any objections to stem cell research are philosophical. Philosophical as in, some people like their toast with jam, others prefer only butter. I'll have jam because I like to start the morning with something sweet. You'll have butter because you say it goes better with coffee. Dubya doesn't know which he'll have because Pat Robertson hasn't yet told him which one is the most immoral.

[tsluver247]

Notice how they are using the terminology "destruction of life" rather than murder.

Transcript of Josh Bolten defending Bush's position (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13904922/)

MR. BOLTEN: That’s not where the president has, has drawn the balance. He’s drawn the balance with—the line with federal funding, people’s tax dollars not going to—not going to incent the further destruction of the human life.

Yeah, he's careful to dance around the word, "murder". The difference between "destruction of human life" and "murder" I assume, is whether we're talking about a moral delima or a criminal act.

I'd like to point out the irony in the fact that Dubya seems to have no qualms about going to the middle east and destroying human life, both theirs and ours.

That aside, his position on this defies reason. The rest of the world is moving quickly to outpace us in this technology. Here the House and Senate actually got their heads together for long enough to agree on something meaningful and Dubya slaps it down. Why?

Yes, in the most literal interpretation of his words, embryonic stem cell research does "destroy life". But so does spraying bleach around the eves of your house to kill off mold and mildew. Certainly, molds and mildew are more complex living creatures than a tray of frozen embryos.

No, mold and mildew won't grow up to become human. But neither will Jane's embryo if she doesn't hook up with Dick this weekend and get down and dirty. If she tells him "no", should he point out that she's "destroying life"?

The more you think about it, the more absurdity you can find.

My point really is this. Any objections to stem cell research are philosophical. Philosophical as in, some people like their toast with jam, others prefer only butter. I'll have jam because I like to start the morning with something sweet. You'll have butter because you say it goes better with coffee. Dubya doesn't know which he'll have because Pat Robertson hasn't yet told him which one is the most immoral.

You make several good points. I always found it amazing how today's Republican party, the supposed party of religion, morals, and pro-life, got millions to become pro-war. Just to think this was all based on fear and hatred messages.

[JRon]

Notice how they are using the terminology "destruction of life" rather than murder.

Transcript of Josh Bolten defending Bush's position (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13904922/)

MR. BOLTEN: That’s not where the president has, has drawn the balance. He’s drawn the balance with—the line with federal funding, people’s tax dollars not going to—not going to incent the further destruction of the human life.

Yeah, he's careful to dance around the word, "murder". The difference between "destruction of human life" and "murder" I assume, is whether we're talking about a moral delima or a criminal act.

I'd like to point out the irony in the fact that Dubya seems to have no qualms about going to the middle east and destroying human life, both theirs and ours.

That aside, his position on this defies reason. The rest of the world is moving quickly to outpace us in this technology. Here the House and Senate actually got their heads together for long enough to agree on something meaningful and Dubya slaps it down. Why?

Yes, in the most literal interpretation of his words, embryonic stem cell research does "destroy life". But so does spraying bleach around the eves of your house to kill off mold and mildew. Certainly, molds and mildew are more complex living creatures than a tray of frozen embryos.

No, mold and mildew won't grow up to become human. But neither will Jane's embryo if she doesn't hook up with Dick this weekend and get down and dirty. If she tells him "no", should he point out that she's "destroying life"?

The more you think about it, the more absurdity you can find.

My point really is this. Any objections to stem cell research are philosophical. Philosophical as in, some people like their toast with jam, others prefer only butter. I'll have jam because I like to start the morning with something sweet. You'll have butter because you say it goes better with coffee. Dubya doesn't know which he'll have because Pat Robertson hasn't yet told him which one is the most immoral.

You make several good points. I always found it amazing how today's Republican party, the supposed party of religion, morals, and pro-life, got millions to become pro-war. Just to think this was all based on fear and hatred messages.

Politics is all strategic...fucked up but so so true.

[tsluver247]

Politics is all strategic...fucked up but so so true.

I give the Karl Rove and the Republican party credit for nationalizing and strategizing their message. They have a majority for a reason. Unfortunately, the neo-con and hard-liners took over the party and are trying to create a dictatorship (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330), which is why I can no longer concern myself a moderate Republican. The Republican party has show me that fiscal conservatism, small government, and keeping the government out of the people lives was just a big lie. I also forgot eliminating corruption in the government. These neo-cons are bankrupting America and our future to please big oil, big business and the defense industry, especial defense contractors like Halliburton. Unfortunately, "Contract of America" was a scam to get votes.

Neocons stated goals: "New American Century" (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)

[Quinn]

Politics is all strategic...fucked up but so so true.

I give the Karl Rove and the Republican party credit for nationalizing and strategizing their message. They have a majority for a reason. Unfortunately, the neo-con and hard-liners took over the party and are trying to create a dictatorship (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330), which is why I can no longer concern myself a moderate Republican. The Republican party has show me that fiscal conservatism, small government, and keeping the government out of the people lives was just a big lie. I also forgot eliminating corruption in the government. These neo-cons are bankrupting America and our future to please big oil, big business and the defense industry, especial defense contractors like Halliburton. Unfortunately, "Contract of America" was a scam to get votes.

Neocons stated goals: "New American Century" (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)

Great post. As a dedicated moderate who used to support Republican calls for fiscal responsibility, I can't help but identify with the tone of this post. At this point, neither party can make a claim to being the fiscally responsible party. Greatest threat to this nation's future: our debt.

-Quinn

[specialk]

Politics is all strategic...fucked up but so so true.

I give the Karl Rove and the Republican party credit for nationalizing and strategizing their message. They have a majority for a reason. Unfortunately, the neo-con and hard-liners took over the party and are trying to create a dictatorship (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330), which is why I can no longer concern myself a moderate Republican. The Republican party has show me that fiscal conservatism, small government, and keeping the government out of the people lives was just a big lie. I also forgot eliminating corruption in the government. These neo-cons are bankrupting America and our future to please big oil, big business and the defense industry, especial defense contractors like Halliburton. Unfortunately, "Contract of America" was a scam to get votes.

Neocons stated goals: "New American Century" (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)

Great post. As a dedicated moderate who used to support Republican calls for fiscal responsibility, I can't help but identify with the tone of this post. At this point, neither party can make a claim to being the fiscally responsible party. Greatest threat to this nation's future: our debt.

-Quinn


Let me congratulate you on this epiphany tsluver247. and for having the guts to admit it. I caught on to the "Repug party bullshit" during the Reagan years, although I never was a Repug, just been around a good many years with my eye on Wash. since the 60's. I consider myself a moderate of sorts, not always seeing eye to eye with the Dems that's for sure.

[tsluver247]

Thanks for the posts. I have been very upset with both parties as far as spending. I found out that during the Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations account for over 60% of our total debt. Amazing! It took a Democrat president to change the trend. The very sad thing about the deficit is the Social Security cash surplus hides the "real" story. If it was not for the $200 billion surplus, we will be in big debt. Most of our deficit in trade and budget goes straight to China. I believe the government should stop making pennies, since it costs more than a penny to make, and ask its citizens to donate their pennies to bring down the deficit. My biggest fear is invading Iran. Not because I do not think we can defeat Iran, but China has $70 billion invested in their oil. Mess with China's oil, all China has to do is place an economic embargo on our country and watch the dominoes fall. Prices would rising drastically (especially oil if we are invading Iran and all those cheap China goods - $200 billion trade deficit with China) and no one to buy our bonds. We will be in a world of hurt.

Charles Barkley thinking of running for Alabama governor as a Democrat. He tried running as a Republican before. Asked why the switch, he replied, "I was a Republican until they lost their minds".

[specialk]

Thanks for the posts. I have been very upset with both parties as far as spending. I found out that during the Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations account for over 60% of our total debt. Amazing! It took a Democrat president to change the trend. The very sad thing about the deficit is the Social Security cash surplus hides the "real" story. If it was not for the $200 billion surplus, we will be in big debt. Most of our deficit in trade and budget goes straight to China. I believe the government should stop making pennies, since it costs more than a penny to make, and ask its citizens to donate their pennies to bring down the deficit. My biggest fear is invading Iran. Not because I do not think we can defeat Iran, but China has $70 billion invested in their oil. Mess with China's oil, all China has to do is place an economic embargo on our country and watch the dominoes fall. Prices would rising drastically (especially oil if we are invading Iran and all those cheap China goods - $200 billion trade deficit with China) and no one to buy our bonds. We will be in a world of hurt.

Charles Barkley thinking of running for Alabama governor as a Democrat. He tried running as a Republican before. Asked why the switch, he replied, "I was a Republican until they lost their minds".


Allow me to make a few points worth noting here. As far as Iran is concerned, the definition of "defeat" is a matter of ambiguity. If your talking about a ground war...forget it, we could never in a million yrs. win it. Just look at the mess in Iraq we will, over time lose. We could nuke the piss out of anyone and claim a "win" if that is the standard used.

As far as oil is concerned, understand this. ...It is a commodity, priced and sold on commodities markets. The more instibility in the world the higher the price. It makes no difference if we pump all our oil from the ground in Texas, or import all our oil from other countries, it will be priced and sold on commodities markets, at whatever the market will bear. Supply and demand. When we wake up and get "off" the oil needle, and diversify our sources....solar, wind, hydrogen etc., we stand a chance of paying fair prices, with less price pressure from the world geopolitical situation.

[JRon]

When we wake up and get "off" the oil needle, and diversify our sources....solar, wind, hydrogen etc., we stand a chance of paying fair prices, with less price pressure from the world geopolitical situation.

The most logical assessment is not always the one put into policy.

[specialk]

When we wake up and get "off" the oil needle, and diversify our sources....solar, wind, hydrogen etc., we stand a chance of paying fair prices, with less price pressure from the world geopolitical situation.

The most logical assessment is not always the one put into policy.


More like never put into policy..........It's all for the vested interest, always!