There seem to be a few misconceptions on Stem Cell Research

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Harvesting is different from being able to use things that are already going to be discarded, though.

and that's allowed

I don't think anyone really wants to see people encouraged to have an abortion so they can harvest them.

to encourage research on something that is a product of abortion will indirectly be condoning abortion, suggesting that some good will come of that act. you do the math.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

The problem isn't that he hasn't banned it. I don't think anyone has even come close to saying that in the thread.

He's allowing private companies to continue, even though it's murder.

He's allowing those human lives in the lines that already existed to continue being prodded by scientists..

But when it comes to expanding the lines, we can't do that with federal money!

there are plenty of academic institutions as well using private funding for such research...i don't for one second agree with your implication that he is specifically reaching out to the big corporations, if that is indeed what you are suggesting.

Don't you think sometimes a scientific discipline needs government funding to be adequately studied in a reasonable time period until the market catches up?

i think there is more involved in government funding of research projects the the 'possible' result. the government also has its people to attend to, and when there is great controversy over an issue, the government has to take that into consideration.

take for example the dubai ports deal. the government thought that it would have been good for the society (as you think embryonic stem cell research would be) but the uproar surrounding the issue created such a debacle. do you not think such things would happen with the stem cell issue? they, as a political entity, HAVE to take politics into account in this issue.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Have you noticed, particularly on message boards, that everytime someone talks to the "people around them," they always seem to support their position? I'm not denying you've had these conversations, but a cursory look at this "method" of surveying opinions has shown to be not very accurate.

i'm not sure that i'm limited to message boards. if you saw me in person i'd bring you up to the labs for some entertaining and deep conversations.

ti's important to consider, too, the silent ones. it's those scientists, i believe, that are 'unsure' yet because of a lack of sound proof. the same applies to global warming. the silent majority i think are silent for the main reason that there is just not enough evidence out there to make one opinion over another. just my thoughts though...

[motivez]

The surrounding uproar in that case encompassed a majority of the United States, and there were other implications there that are simply not present here.

Comparing those two situations isn't really accurate.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

The surrounding uproar in that case encompassed a majority of the United States, and there were other implications there that are simply not present here.

Comparing those two situations isn't really accurate.

nonetheless, it nicely describes political ramifications of a hasty decision, no matter who is upset.

[motivez]

Yes, but the same level of objection isn't present in this case.

As well as that, as was pointed out in the transcript from Meet the Press, the WH's argument and logic is severly lacking.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yes, but the same level of objection isn't present in this case.

As well as that, as was pointed out in the transcript from Meet the Press, the WH's argument and logic is severly lacking.

Logic in what? THEY DIDN'T BAN RESEARCH AND DIDN'T REDUCE FUNDING OF THAT RESEARCH.

Jesus...

[motivez]

No one has said anything of the sort Tek, so you can quit repeating that like it's something you are having to defend.

Read the transcript, the inconsistencies, lack of logic and hypocrisy in their position is obvious

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yes, but the same level of objection isn't present in this case.

hmm...i'd be willing to bet that a poll taken that consited of the question:

"do you object to harvesting of embryos for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research"

would have a majority of objecters.

As well as that, as was pointed out in the transcript from Meet the Press, the WH's argument and logic is severly lacking.

i don't give a fuck what the WH says on meet the press.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

No one has said anything of the sort Tek, so you can quit repeating that like it's something you are having to defend.

Read the transcript, the inconsistencies, lack of logic and hypocrisy in their position is obvious

Regardless, they haven't impeded scientific process.

[motivez]

They have in that they could have done more to promote it.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Logic in what? THEY DIDN'T BAN RESEARCH AND DIDN'T REDUCE FUNDING OF THAT RESEARCH.

Jesus...

Wait, so Bush vetoed a bill which would've raised spending limits on certain research, and you're arguing that "he didn't reduce funding"? Why are you arguing semantics? Preventing an increase in funding is effectively the same as reducing funding.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Wait, so Bush vetoed a bill which would've raised spending limits on certain research, and you're arguing that "he didn't reduce funding"? Why are you arguing semantics? Preventing an increase in funding is effectively the same as reducing funding.

Either way, it didn't impact anything. He did not ban research on stem cells and he did not reduce funding. The amount of money that goes from the government to research is a drop in the bucket of total funding. The president of that company I quoted had 100 million dollars funded to him. He's one of a hundred companies researching stem cells. The government did not give 10 billion dollars to stem cell research last fiscal year.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

They have in that they could have done more to promote it.

Promote it how? "Hey! There's this awesome research that's going on! It involves harvesting embryonic stem cells from fetuses, isn't that great?! Investors don't want to touch it, the scientist who discovered it admits it'll take decades to do anything with it (at which time it'll be redundent), and the president of one of the cheif research firms taking part in embryonic stem cell researc says investing in it over adult stem cells is a bad decision. Did I mention it hasn't had a single succesful ANIMAL test, despite adult stem cells having over 40 succesful HUMAN treatments and hundreds (if not thousands) of succesful tests?"

Man, I tell you what Motivez. When you lay out all the facts like that - i'm fucking SOLD! Where do I sign up to have my tax dollars sent to it?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Wait, so Bush vetoed a bill which would've raised spending limits on certain research, and you're arguing that "he didn't reduce funding"? Why are you arguing semantics? Preventing an increase in funding is effectively the same as reducing funding.

Except they are still getting the same funding they got in the past.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Except they are still getting the same funding they got in the past.

And stem cell research in general is being funded far and above what the past administration provided. Alternative energy research funding of the past administration is also a pale fraction compared to what Bush has approved.

Yet people try to claim he's impeding science.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

And stem cell research in general is being funded far and above what the past administration provided. Alternative energy research funding of the past administration is also a pale fraction compared to what Bush has approved.

Yet people try to claim he's impeding science.

Who here has claimed "science was impeded?"

Why do you always try to argue things over and over and it has no pertinence to anything anyone has said in a thread? Makes no sense.

1: Nobody has said he cut funds.

2: Nobody has said he is impeding science.

3: If he vetoes a bill that WOULD HAVE increased funding for embryonic stem cell research, how is he HELPING science or listening to the wishes of the people?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

1: Nobody has said he cut funds.

2: Nobody has said he is impeding science.

I've probably said both in here.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I've probably said both in here.

The exception cannot prove the rule!??!??!

[Kytro]

My issue with him vetoing this bill is placing his personal moral on all of society