Reply With Quote
So basically it is unknown what benefits embryonic stem cells could provide, yet some are already claiming such research will lead to miracle cures, perhaps within the next 10 years?
Um ok.
So basically it is unknown what benefits embryonic stem cells could provide, yet some are already claiming such research will lead to miracle cures, perhaps within the next 10 years?
Um ok.
We won't know without the research. You would prefer to remain in the dark, even when one of these maladies may strike someone in your family?
Whether you are for or against stem cell research, there's no defending Edwards' remarks. Giving empty promises to people desparate for any kind of hope is ing low, plain and simple. He's in no position to make those kinds of promises, stem cell research not withstanding.
He politicised the facts. He's not the first to ever do so. The research should still be allowed.
No one is stopping the research. The federal government isn't even banning embryonic stem cell research. They are merely withholding federal funds -- my tax dollars -- from being used for embryonic stem cell research.
Go ahead, start your own research firm and study them to your heart's content.
Also, there's absolutely no evidence that embryonic stem cells are any more valuable for the cure of Edward's list of diseases and afflictions than are adult stem cells.
In fact, researchers will readily admit, if you read beyond the rhetoric, that there is much more study required on embryonic stem cells, generally, before they can determine if they are indeed useful for more than are adult stem cells.
The research using the adult stem cells hasn't yielded much. Neither have the embryonic cells which have been utilized so far.We won't know without the research.
Say someone is in need of a major organ transplant. Would they be justified in having another killed for the organ they need?
I agree with UD. Edwards' comment is unseemly, to say the least.
Facts? Hardly. Stem cell research, funded or not, is nowhere near the point to be telling someone in a wheel chair they'll be walking anytime soon. Again, whether you support federal funding for the research or not, what Edwards said is bordering on vile.
Sure, and there are plenty of criminals on death row we can use for medical experimentation too. And after we run out of them, I'm sure you and your wife can supply some fetuses on government command for experimentation.
Any other groups I've missed? Any Christian groups you don't like and wouldn't mind seeing killed back a bit? Jews? Muslims?
It's all the same thing.
You, NBAJoeStalin and Johnny TheNazi all have one thing in common...you have the ethics of Stalin.
Just another sad example of saying whatever it takes to be elected. Disgusting..
BTW, I heard that GWB was the first president to even allow partial funding for this area of research. Any validity in that? Also that there have been instances of cancer developing in those that were injected with stem cells.
I'm not going to get into the philosophical discussion on this one.. everyone here knows my stance on this.
Typical lawyer response...""ol Chris will get right up out of that wheelchair and walk again just as soon as Kerry is elected." "Be healed and send your dollars to......."
trav - You know how the frozen embryo thing works, right? They usually do several dozen for a couple, because, just as in nature, not all of them become viable. No couple wants several dozen kids. Some of these couples have designated their frozen embryos for research, but they can't be used now. Should we just throw them away? Leave them frozen? Force the couple to bring each and every one of them to term? What's your answer, other than putting the kibosh on anyone else's proposal?
You know how death row works, right? Why wait for years while the condemned sit around full of organs that could save a life? Take 'em out back, wring their necks, and let's save some lives. , they have taken life. It's time they give it back.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 10-13-2004 at 10:14 AM.
Why stop with stem cells? The elderly are a drag on our society. They are sucking up resources which could go to fund research which could save lives. Maybe you are happy keeping the old bas s alive but I say let's not let religion get in the way of progress.
Mark, it hasn't been made illegal. If there are couples who have designated their frozen embryos for research, they can still do so. The only difference is that federal tax dollars can't be used to fund the research.
And what about those couples who don't designate their embryos? Would it be OK for doctors to take one/a few without their knowledge, since they obviously are more knowledgeable about what is "necessary" in the pursuit of science? And don't even try to tell me that wouldn't happen...
Despite your posting of a political article, there has been no scientific evidence that embryonic stem cell research can do anything. And there has been no scientific evidence that adult stem cell research (which suffers none of the federal funding restrictions that embryonic cells do) is any less effective.
So why the woody for embryonic stem cells? Why can't you prove to me that adult stem cells are unsuitable first?
Exactly. And it's not like the current administration is blocking other research into potential cures for the smorgasboard of ailments out there.Despite your posting of a political article, there has been no scientific evidence that embryonic stem cell research can do anything.
There is a reason why this has been made such an issue, it is precisely because it gives abortion advocates the semblance of justification for their position.
Also, it is quite telling that it didn't take long in this thread for someone to start bashing the peaceful exercise of religious faith by others.
Still waiting for any answer to these.Should we just throw them away? Leave them frozen? Force the couple to bring each and every one of them to term? What's your answer, other than putting the kibosh on anyone else's proposal?
Ah, now the truth comes out. You've been dancing around it long enough. One question, though: has the ban on federal funding for stem cell research stopped abortion?There is a reason why this has been made such an issue, it is precisely because it gives abortion advocates the semblance of justification for their position.
An exercise of religious faith would be to not utilize any of the cures that may come of this, for religious reasons. Anything else is the forcing of your faith on others.Also, it is quite telling that it didn't take long in this thread for someone to start bashing the peaceful exercise of religious faith by others.
No. Yes, for now. No.
Now how about the issues I raised?
I don't know the answer to that. Besides, it's not relevant to the argument. The argument is whether or not my tax dollars should be used to advance research that requires the creation of a human life that will be destroyed during that research.
The more appropriate question is, has the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research stopped embryonic stem cell research? If so, why? If not, what's your beef?
Also, it apparently escapes EVERYONE'S notice that the federal government has NEVER funded embryonic stem cell research.
Huh?
That does not follow my statement. Try again.Ah, now the truth comes out. You've been dancing around it long enough. One question, though: has the ban on federal funding for stem cell research stopped abortion?
That's great, but you were the one who felt compelled to use this as an opportunity to attack religious faith. One can be an athiest and believe that the destruction of embryos in the name of research is unethical.An exercise of religious faith would be to not utilize any of the cures that may come of this, for religious reasons. Anything else is the forcing of your faith on others.
Yoni, I asked something about that earlier, I heard yesterday that Bush is the first president to allow even partial funding for this area of research.
No.Would it be OK for doctors to take one/a few without their knowledge, since they obviously are more knowledgeable about what is "necessary" in the pursuit of science?
I actually started to do some more net research to post, but then stopped. The plain, undisputable fact is that you don't want them to be. I could take you to a lab and show you in person, but you'd just fall back on ol' standby: "but it's still wrong". There's no arguing with that, because it's a belief or a non-belief situation.So why the woody for embryonic stem cells? Why can't you prove to me that adult stem cells are unsuitable first?
ummmm...whether it's a belief or non-belief situation does not alter the fact that there is no evidence supporting embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells.
There's plenty.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
