livendive 8 #1 January 11, 2007 Per this article: QuoteThe White House said the bill -- the third bill of the Democrats' first 100 hours agenda to pass the House -- "would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research." I don't think any of us ever doubted that Bush is opposed to research. Perhaps he'd be more amenable if we replaced "research" with "political gain" or "oil". Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 January 11, 2007 Quotewould use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research." Hypocrisy at its very best.. how many HUMAN LIVES has he wasted by his "excellent Adventure in Iraq" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #3 January 11, 2007 There was a GOP congressman in the debate who said it is unacceptable to use a taxpayer's money to perform research that he considers immoral. Why, then, is it OK to use a taxpayer's money to support a WAR that he considers immoral?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #4 January 12, 2007 Quote There was a GOP congressman in the debate who said it is unacceptable to use a taxpayer's money to perform research that he considers immoral. Why, then, is it OK to use a taxpayer's money to support a WAR that he considers immoral? You state that the congressman considers the war immoral. Is that your assertion or that of the congressman? Is it possible that a war could be morally justified/not immoral? In your view, is it possible for medical research to be immoral? In order for someone to take a position opposing some research on moral grounds, should they have to pass your test of moral purity on every other issue? Isn't all this a moot point? Now that embryonic stem cell research has been shown to not be where the research is providing results, and now that amniotic fluid can provide what embryos were providing?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #5 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuote There was a GOP congressman in the debate who said it is unacceptable to use a taxpayer's money to perform research that he considers immoral. Why, then, is it OK to use a taxpayer's money to support a WAR that he considers immoral? You state that the congressman considers the war immoral. Is that your assertion or that of the congressman? Is it possible that a war could be morally justified/not immoral? In your view, is it possible for medical research to be immoral? In order for someone to take a position opposing some research on moral grounds, should they have to pass your test of moral purity on every other issue? Isn't all this a moot point? Now that embryonic stem cell research has been shown to not be where the research is providing results, and now that amniotic fluid can provide what embryos were providing? Sounds like he said the congressman thought the research was immoral and Kallend thought the war was immoral, and was asking what's the difference... either way, you're spending taxpayer money on something somebody considers immoral. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #6 January 12, 2007 QuoteSounds like he said the congressman thought the research was immoral and Kallend thought the war was immoral, and was asking what's the difference... either way, you're spending taxpayer money on something somebody considers immoral. The difference is that not everyone considers the war to be immoral. Analysis of the president's position on embryonic stem cell research should not depend on your own personal opinion of the morality of an altogether different issue. Letting the genocide continue in Iraq or Darfur is also immoral, isn't it? I understand though. It is getting more and more difficult to justify the position in support of embryonic stem cell research, especially now that it isn't the most promising, or even a necessary path for the future of stem cell research.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #7 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteSounds like he said the congressman thought the research was immoral and Kallend thought the war was immoral, and was asking what's the difference... either way, you're spending taxpayer money on something somebody considers immoral. The difference is that not everyone considers the war to be immoral. Analysis of the president's position on embryonic stem cell research should not depend on your own personal opinion of the morality of an altogether different issue. Letting the genocide continue in Iraq or Darfur is also immoral, isn't it? I understand though. It is getting more and more difficult to justify the position in support of embryonic stem cell research, especially now that it isn't the most promising, or even a necessary path for the future of stem cell research. Not everyone considers stem cell research immoral either. The morality of genocide should be irrelevant politically at this point, because we've signed a treaty obligating ourselves to stop it. Regarding embryonic stem cells and alternatives: Professor Helen Blau of Stanford University, who conducts research with adult stem cells: "The whole field of (adult stem cell) research is in its infancy; it's only two years old," she said. "We don't know the potential of those cells, we don't know how to enlist that potential. ... Embryonic stem cell research, Blau explained, has been conducted for decades, and scientists have learned a great deal -- things like what factors induce the cells to grow and differentiate and migrate to different parts of the body -- about these early master cells... We don't know at this point which will be better for what...We need to learn from both. We need to learn the differences, the relative advantages, and we learn a tremendous amount by comparing the two cells...I feel strongly we need embryonic stem cells. The answers are not just going to come from the adult stem cells and it would be extremely short-sighted to shift completely to just adult stem cells." National Institute for Health stem cell primer: "Adult stem cells are often present only in minute quantities, are difficult to isolate and purify, and their numbers may decrease with age" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #8 January 12, 2007 QuoteI feel strongly we need embryonic stem cells. Helen still has access to embryonic stem cells. Bush didn't make it illegal. He only limited federal funding to those already existing embryonic stem cell lines, right? No limitations on private funding. Other researchers in the field have a much different opinion of the future for embryonic stem cells than Helen Blau.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #9 January 12, 2007 There's lots of different opinions. Your opinion is different from Helen's and from the NIH's. People have different opinions about the war, about stem cells and about pretty damn near everything. The congressman said we shouldn't use taxpayer money to do something the congressman himself considers immoral. The problem is, you name it, and somebody out there is going to think it's immoral. So... going by the logic of the congressman, the government shouldn't be funding much of anything beyond what's absolutely necessary... wait a second... I kinda like that idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #10 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuote There was a GOP congressman in the debate who said it is unacceptable to use a taxpayer's money to perform research that he considers immoral. Why, then, is it OK to use a taxpayer's money to support a WAR that he considers immoral? You state that the congressman considers the war immoral. Is that your assertion or that of the congressman? Is it possible that a war could be morally justified/not immoral? In your view, is it possible for medical research to be immoral? ... that the TAXPAYER considered it immoral, NOT the congressman. My bad for the unclear antecedent of the pronoun (actually, the pronoun related to the closest preceding noun (taxpayer) but I can see why the confusion).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuotewould use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research." Hypocrisy at its very best.. how many HUMAN LIVES has he wasted by his "excellent Adventure in Iraq" Democrats very good for the children.... For the ones in the womb... not so much Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #12 January 12, 2007 Quote Democrats very good for the children.... For the ones in the womb... not so much Psst emotional arguements dont work here Mike.. these are remnants of invitro fertilization.. and frozen.. not" in the womb" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuote Democrats very good for the children.... For the ones in the womb... not so much Psst emotional arguements dont work here Mike.. these are remnants of invitro fertilization.. and frozen.. not" in the womb" That was a tongue-in-cheek reply to YOUR emotional argument that I quoted...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #14 January 12, 2007 In recent years, scientists who work for and advise the federal government have seen their work manipulated, suppressed, distorted, while agencies have systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical scientific information. To document this abuse, the Union of Concerned Scientists has created the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science. http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #15 January 12, 2007 It really does frighten me that our nation's leaders are actively impeding important science because "God tells them its wrong". Makes me shake my head in disgust.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #16 January 12, 2007 QuoteIt really does frighten me that our nation's leaders are actively impeding important science because "God tells them its wrong". Makes me shake my head in disgust. Many think it is bad because their sense of morals tells them it is wrong. A direct message from God isn't required. There is good reason to conclude that it is in fact not "important science". To admit that would be very embarrassing to liberals, after making such a fuss about it with Michael Fox. Do you think there is any scientific research that could be immoral?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #17 January 12, 2007 Your avatar is much improved. Glad to see that little skin reaction cleared up. Was it allergies? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #18 January 12, 2007 Quote Do you think there is any scientific research that could be immoral? I define science as "observation and correlation". From dictionary.com, immoral is defined as: violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. I'm sure there are people whose personal and social ethics would have problems with many areas of scientific research. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. At some risk here, I'm going to say that I don't know of any current scientific research that I find immoral. I reserve the right to change my mind on that.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #19 January 12, 2007 QuoteQuote Do you think there is any scientific research that could be immoral? Research to develop better chemical and biological weapons seems immoral to me. As does much of the research done on prisoners by the Nazis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #20 January 12, 2007 >The difference is that not everyone considers the war to be immoral. Most people do NOT support the war, yet we spend hundreds of billions on it. Most people do support stem cell research, but Bush will likely veto a plan to spend millions of dollars on it. This isn't about what the people of the US find immoral or not. This is about what one man finds immoral. Killing tens of thousands of innocent people - moral enough to pay hundreds of billions to accomplish it. Using discarded embryos for research instead of throwing them out - immoral. At least in Bush's mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #21 January 12, 2007 Quote>The difference is that not everyone considers the war to be immoral. Most people do NOT support the war, yet we spend hundreds of billions on it. Most people do support stem cell research, but Bush will likely veto a plan to spend millions of dollars on it. This isn't about what the people of the US find immoral or not. This is about what one man finds immoral. Killing tens of thousands of innocent people - moral enough to pay hundreds of billions to accomplish it. Using discarded embryos for research instead of throwing them out - immoral. At least in Bush's mind. How long, do you think, before women are being paid for having abortions, when/if that law goes through?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #22 January 12, 2007 >How long, do you think, before women are being paid for having >abortions, when/if that law goes through? a) Aborted embryos are basically useless for this sort of research. We're talking about an IVF embryo that's about as large as the period on the end of this sentence. If they are not used, they are destroyed. b) Organ transplants are legal. How many americans are having late term abortions to supply the organ transplant market? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #23 January 12, 2007 Quote>How long, do you think, before women are being paid for having >abortions, when/if that law goes through? a) Aborted embryos are basically useless for this sort of research. We're talking about an IVF embryo that's about as large as the period on the end of this sentence. If they are not used, they are destroyed. b) Organ transplants are legal. How many americans are having late term abortions to supply the organ transplant market? I appreciate the info - thanks.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #24 January 12, 2007 Quoteb) Organ transplants are legal. How many americans are having late term abortions to supply the organ transplant market? Bad analogy. It is illegal to get paid for donating an organ.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #25 January 12, 2007 BWAHAHAHA! That's why they pay cash...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,120 #20 January 12, 2007 >The difference is that not everyone considers the war to be immoral. Most people do NOT support the war, yet we spend hundreds of billions on it. Most people do support stem cell research, but Bush will likely veto a plan to spend millions of dollars on it. This isn't about what the people of the US find immoral or not. This is about what one man finds immoral. Killing tens of thousands of innocent people - moral enough to pay hundreds of billions to accomplish it. Using discarded embryos for research instead of throwing them out - immoral. At least in Bush's mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 January 12, 2007 Quote>The difference is that not everyone considers the war to be immoral. Most people do NOT support the war, yet we spend hundreds of billions on it. Most people do support stem cell research, but Bush will likely veto a plan to spend millions of dollars on it. This isn't about what the people of the US find immoral or not. This is about what one man finds immoral. Killing tens of thousands of innocent people - moral enough to pay hundreds of billions to accomplish it. Using discarded embryos for research instead of throwing them out - immoral. At least in Bush's mind. How long, do you think, before women are being paid for having abortions, when/if that law goes through?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #22 January 12, 2007 >How long, do you think, before women are being paid for having >abortions, when/if that law goes through? a) Aborted embryos are basically useless for this sort of research. We're talking about an IVF embryo that's about as large as the period on the end of this sentence. If they are not used, they are destroyed. b) Organ transplants are legal. How many americans are having late term abortions to supply the organ transplant market? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 January 12, 2007 Quote>How long, do you think, before women are being paid for having >abortions, when/if that law goes through? a) Aborted embryos are basically useless for this sort of research. We're talking about an IVF embryo that's about as large as the period on the end of this sentence. If they are not used, they are destroyed. b) Organ transplants are legal. How many americans are having late term abortions to supply the organ transplant market? I appreciate the info - thanks.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #24 January 12, 2007 Quoteb) Organ transplants are legal. How many americans are having late term abortions to supply the organ transplant market? Bad analogy. It is illegal to get paid for donating an organ.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #25 January 12, 2007 BWAHAHAHA! That's why they pay cash...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
