gwprod12 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 A technique is being developed to harvest embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. Let's now hear the nonsensical arguments on the right why this breakthrough is "bad". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 25, 2006 Author Share Posted August 25, 2006 Hopefully there are no arguments here, I can see MAYBE why destroying an embryo would be a moral dilemma, but harvesting the stem cells without harming the embryo at all? Theres NO moral ground not to do it anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat69410 Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 A technique is being developed to harvest embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. Certainly took long enough. Let's now hear the nonsensical arguments on the right why this breakthrough is "bad". No, I'd rather hear the nonsensical arguments on the left why we should still pour billions of dollars into a research program that hasn't produced anything worth looking at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quixos Posted August 27, 2006 Share Posted August 27, 2006 what does left or right have to do with it? i'm about sick of this left and right {censored}. life is not a highschool sporting event. wish these threads weren't hijacked (every single one of them) by the idiot minions of polarization. would make a great T-Shirt Logo... "Idiot Minion" :mellow: or perhaps a smart cocktail mix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 wildcat: no research program produces anything until after the research is done. "We're spending money on this polio thing. No more money, no results!" "We havent gotten to the moon yet, it must be impossible. Pull the plug." "Personal Computers? I havent seen a personal computer do anything. Scrap it." "Why are we wasting money on the ARPAnet? It doesnt DO anything." How do you think things get funded? By convincing people with money that there is potential. No one credible has ever stated Embryonic Stem Cells have no potential. You have simply stated that they havent done anything yet. No one thought the Electron Microscope did anything useful when it was invented either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kseelbo Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Interesting topic going here. I have a personal story related to this. My wife had lukemia and the hospital that was treating her was a research hospital. One of the doctors there had success curing cancer using stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood. The problem with umbilical cord blood stem cell transplants is that adults require 7 to 8 cord bloods because of their size, while a child can get by using one. As the stem cells grow, only one of the 7 or 8 different cord bloods will actually take and become bone marrow, the other 6 or 7 will die off. The risk here is that the patient will die from infection before the minute amount of stem cells from the sucessful cord blood will grow into a sufficient amount of marrow to begin producing red and white blood cells. He found a way to clone the stem cells from one cord blood into an amount necessary for a sucessful (hopefully) transplant. The FDA stepped in because he was using a method they did not approve of to clone the cells and his funding from a major pharmecutical company was cut and his research was halted. Needless to say, my wife died from an infection before her transplant took hold. So what is my position on the research? I say yes to all stem cell research so long as the cells come from embryos that were not aborted (which I believe is the President's stance). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that is where the debate on this really lies, in abortion because the stem cells come from the brains of aborted fetuses? Again, I may be incorrect on this. But one thing of interest here is that this doctor stated that he honestly believes the government does NOT want cancer cured. While I am not a conspiracy theorist, there are MILLIONS of dollars in research, so if it cured, how many are out of a job? We all can agree that politics and corruption go hand in hand, and that when there is big money involved, most politicians are for sale (that's why I believe in small, underfunded, government). Ever meet a politician? Most of them couldn't find thier ass with both hands, and they are making decisions that affect all of us. End of rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat69410 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 wildcat: no research program produces anything until after the research is done. "We're spending money on this polio thing. No more money, no results!" "We havent gotten to the moon yet, it must be impossible. Pull the plug." "Personal Computers? I havent seen a personal computer do anything. Scrap it." "Why are we wasting money on the ARPAnet? It doesnt DO anything." How do you think things get funded? By convincing people with money that there is potential. No one credible has ever stated Embryonic Stem Cells have no potential. You have simply stated that they havent done anything yet. No one thought the Electron Microscope did anything useful when it was invented either. At a certain point however, research is halted because we've found something better. "No, no, give me MORE money, all I need is just a few more years, and this steam engine will fuel the next US Aircraft Carrier" Obviously, it's rediculous to put more money into something when there is something better that already produces the results. Yes, things get funded by proving potential, however that's all ESC has ever done. They just churn out a believable PR campaign promising cures to every form of disease, yet produce nothing of it. I can walk out on the streets and tell them that a hair on my head can cure cancer, simply because of the "potential" involved, and collect funding. However, will I go anywhere with it? No. ESC's have some limited potential, yes, but I think we should put far more money into something that has more than simple potential. I want to put money into something that actually has believable and usable results. I think that it is simply amazing that ESC's have gotten so much money for so long simply based on "potential". They're promising loads of things, but until they deliver, I don't want to allocate MORE money and MORE embryos than the Bush administration has already given them. Interesting topic going here. I have a personal story related to this. My wife had lukemia and the hospital that was treating her was a research hospital. One of the doctors there had success curing cancer using stem cells harvested from umbilical cord blood. The problem with umbilical cord blood stem cell transplants is that adults require 7 to 8 cord bloods because of their size, while a child can get by using one. As the stem cells grow, only one of the 7 or 8 different cord bloods will actually take and become bone marrow, the other 6 or 7 will die off. The risk here is that the patient will die from infection before the minute amount of stem cells from the sucessful cord blood will grow into a sufficient amount of marrow to begin producing red and white blood cells. He found a way to clone the stem cells from one cord blood into an amount necessary for a sucessful (hopefully) transplant. The FDA stepped in because he was using a method they did not approve of to clone the cells and his funding from a major pharmecutical company was cut and his research was halted. Needless to say, my wife died from an infection before her transplant took hold. So what is my position on the research? I say yes to all stem cell research so long as the cells come from embryos that were not aborted (which I believe is the President's stance). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that is where the debate on this really lies, in abortion because the stem cells come from the brains of aborted fetuses? Again, I may be incorrect on this. But one thing of interest here is that this doctor stated that he honestly believes the government does NOT want cancer cured. While I am not a conspiracy theorist, there are MILLIONS of dollars in research, so if it cured, how many are out of a job? We all can agree that politics and corruption go hand in hand, and that when there is big money involved, most politicians are for sale (that's why I believe in small, underfunded, government). Ever meet a politician? Most of them couldn't find thier ass with both hands, and they are making decisions that affect all of us. End of rant My condolences for the loss of your wife, and I'm sorry for the fact that ASC's did not work out as they should have. However, I heavily disagree on the opinion of the doctor you mentioned. Sure, if a cure is discovered, hundreds of people are out of a job, and millions of dollars in research is spent elsewhere. However, the Government knows how to spend millions of dollars elsewhere pretty easily, they don't exactly have a difficulty with it. You can look at it from both angles. And while the Government has become somewhat predictable and corruptable, I don't think that an underfunded small government would do any better. We'd just end up with a Government that nobody would listen to, therefore we'd lose our centralized system and revert to smaller localized governmental systems, dividing up the country into sectors that fight against eachother, etc etc. Okay, that theory is a little far-fetched, but you can see what a small government ends up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share Posted September 2, 2006 At a certain point however, research is halted because we've found something better. "No, no, give me MORE money, all I need is just a few more years, and this steam engine will fuel the next US Aircraft Carrier" Obviously, it's rediculous to put more money into something when there is something better that already produces the results. Yes, things get funded by proving potential, however that's all ESC has ever done. They just churn out a believable PR campaign promising cures to every form of disease, yet produce nothing of it. I can walk out on the streets and tell them that a hair on my head can cure cancer, simply because of the "potential" involved, and collect funding. However, will I go anywhere with it? No. ESC's have some limited potential, yes, but I think we should put far more money into something that has more than simple potential. I want to put money into something that actually has believable and usable results. I think that it is simply amazing that ESC's have gotten so much money for so long simply based on "potential". They're promising loads of things, but until they deliver, I don't want to allocate MORE money and MORE embryos than the Bush administration has already given them. My condolences for the loss of your wife, and I'm sorry for the fact that ASC's did not work out as they should have. However, I heavily disagree on the opinion of the doctor you mentioned. Sure, if a cure is discovered, hundreds of people are out of a job, and millions of dollars in research is spent elsewhere. However, the Government knows how to spend millions of dollars elsewhere pretty easily, they don't exactly have a difficulty with it. You can look at it from both angles. And while the Government has become somewhat predictable and corruptable, I don't think that an underfunded small government would do any better. We'd just end up with a Government that nobody would listen to, therefore we'd lose our centralized system and revert to smaller localized governmental systems, dividing up the country into sectors that fight against eachother, etc etc. Okay, that theory is a little far-fetched, but you can see what a small government ends up with. I think a little bit of an underfunded government is a good idea, not totally barebones underfunded, but just enough so that politicians can only make it if they're good. In todays government, some politicians can just slide by and not do anything, because the rest of the government picks up the slack, but if it had a few problems, some people might actually be doing their job. Back to smaller governments, I think its a great idea, Im more loyal to my state than I am to my country, I know that sounds kinda wierd but, honestly, the people in my state care what I care about, they have the same values, why would I be completely loyal to a group of people who dont share my values on how the world should be run? I wouldnt...I honestly think that the US is too big for its britches, I honestly think it needs to be more decentralized, almost like a EU, but with states, and the states are actually different countries, I honestly dont see a problem with it... Decentralization is good, that way, it takes a lot of people to f*** up the country, not just one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat69410 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I think a little bit of an underfunded government is a good idea, not totally barebones underfunded, but just enough so that politicians can only make it if they're good. In todays government, some politicians can just slide by and not do anything, because the rest of the government picks up the slack, but if it had a few problems, some people might actually be doing their job. Back to smaller governments, I think its a great idea, Im more loyal to my state than I am to my country, I know that sounds kinda wierd but, honestly, the people in my state care what I care about, they have the same values, why would I be completely loyal to a group of people who dont share my values on how the world should be run? I wouldnt...I honestly think that the US is too big for its britches, I honestly think it needs to be more decentralized, almost like a EU, but with states, and the states are actually different countries, I honestly dont see a problem with it... Decentralization is good, that way, it takes a lot of people to f*** up the country, not just one... Decentralization isn't good, it would just further divide the country. If we had individual governments for each state for example, individual states could war with eachother for dominance. We need a overall central government in order to have something to regulate it all. If every governmental issue were decided by state governments, then we'd have radically different standards from state to state. Law enforcement would be a nightmare without a strong federal government. The EU has a ton of problems, primarily being the heavy focus on individual state governments causes a lot of dissention between the individual states. It's already tense in our Congress now, imagine how it would be if we had state governments passing legislation against eachother. Then, imagine the impact on internal trade and revenue. If states then made the internal state trade laws, then our economy would simply deteriorate. Some states would be better off, as they can create a large amount of the goods they need, but some of the smaller states would be screwed. What makes us so strong as a nation is that we stand together, and we do not go to war with ourselves over political issues. Sure, it'll take more people to screw up our nation, but it will take even more to put it back together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share Posted September 2, 2006 Decentralization isn't good, it would just further divide the country. If we had individual governments for each state for example, individual states could war with eachother for dominance. We need a overall central government in order to have something to regulate it all. If every governmental issue were decided by state governments, then we'd have radically different standards from state to state. Law enforcement would be a nightmare without a strong federal government. The EU has a ton of problems, primarily being the heavy focus on individual state governments causes a lot of dissention between the individual states. It's already tense in our Congress now, imagine how it would be if we had state governments passing legislation against eachother. Then, imagine the impact on internal trade and revenue. If states then made the internal state trade laws, then our economy would simply deteriorate. Some states would be better off, as they can create a large amount of the goods they need, but some of the smaller states would be screwed. What makes us so strong as a nation is that we stand together, and we do not go to war with ourselves over political issues. Sure, it'll take more people to screw up our nation, but it will take even more to put it back together. I didnt mean complete decentralization, I just meant more so than now, I think right now, its too centralized. And I dont much like people in washington DC telling me in Washington state how I should live my life, when their needs are totally different than mine, am I making any sense here? Theres no system without problems, We might have a totally different set of problems than the EU, or China, but thats my point, different states have different problems, and instead of trying to make every state the same, embrace the differences. Live in the state that suits your lifestyle best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat69410 Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 I didnt mean complete decentralization, I just meant more so than now, I think right now, its too centralized. And I dont much like people in washington DC telling me in Washington state how I should live my life, when their needs are totally different than mine, am I making any sense here? Theres no system without problems, We might have a totally different set of problems than the EU, or China, but thats my point, different states have different problems, and instead of trying to make every state the same, embrace the differences. Live in the state that suits your lifestyle best. You're making sense, but I still don't even see slight decentralization necessarily a good thing. Even though Washington's needs are different from your needs, you are represented at Washington. You elect your representatives, so you get to send representatives that reflect your needs. I'm not trying to ask that every state be the same, but we cannot give states too much power. Back when we first became a country, when we were more decentralized, there was a lot of chaos. Sure, a part of that can be attributed to the fact that we were a new country, but decentralization creates a lot of problems. By having different states that support different lifestyles, we'll just end up splitting up this nation further. It's split up enough as it is due to political parties, but once States get thrown into the mix, we're in for some trouble. Although I do see your point, federal regulation is a big pain, and I don't always want D.C telling me what to do. However, a large majority of the time, it works better, and is better for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts