Pot, meet kettle, just insert left wing.

Quote:You are arguing, in essence, that it is grossly unethical to to use federally fund research into biological matter now stored in freezers all over the United States to help sick or crippled citizens live longer, better lives.

While your total inability to grasp the basics of a moral argument doesn't shock me I find it funny the depths you'll go to twist someone's meaning.

It is grossly unethical to create a human life and destroy it for the sake of others who are sick.

Quote:-- that all fertility clinics be closed down now and forever on the grounds that in-vitro fertilization is just as unethical because it leads to the creation of all this additional biological matter.
-- that all remaining biological matter be implanted in someone -- anyone -- because to do otherwise is to sentence all these tens or hundreds of thousands of "people" to certain "death."

Well then let's carry your position to it's logical conclusion shall we? Screw testing in labs on animals, let's go straight to human testing. After all, there are all these tens or hundreds of thousands of people consigned to certain death because we waist valuable time on testing on animals right?

Invitro clinics are not creating life just to destroy it. Once again you're just as ignorant about the right's position as blazer. The issue isn't the creation of they embryo, it's the PURPOSE for which it's created.

I find it quite funny how you call it "biological matter" when your candidate calls it "LIFE". Kerry was just a hypocrit, your position just makes you an advocate of murder.

BTW Tiger. I quit arguing with RebKev a long time ago. He knows everything, is always right, and you are stupid for disagreeing with him. The last thing he is interested in is an actual discussion of issues. Plus, he's a ping pong poster so responding just ensures a plethora of mostly nonsensical but normally insulting posts.

MAKO Wrote:He knows everything, is always right, and you are stupid for disagreeing with him. The last thing he is interested in is an actual discussion of issues. Plus, he's a ping pong poster so responding just ensures a plethora of mostly nonsensical but normally insulting posts.

:eek: :eek:

There has never been a bigger pot meet kettle post in the history of this board.

RebelKev Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:How many of you people that are for Embryonic Stem Cell research and abortion are against the Death Penalty?

???? Schad?

How many of you who are against blastocystic stem cell research and abortion are for the death penalty?

:rolleyes:

MAKO Wrote:

Quote:Therein lies the rub for me. I don't see why public funds should be thrown into ANY endeavor that can't get enough private funding to at least survive.

Pure science is funded by the government for several reasons. First, no private industry is going to fund it. Second, there are some questions that, although it won't necessarily make your commute easier, are questions we just want to answer out of human curiosity. But, if you want to be practical about it, pure science is funded because there is absolutely no way of knowing when those discoveries might become practical in the future. Perhaps it is more accurate to refer to pure science as "knowledge of the facts of nature." Examples:

1. In 1946, it was discovered that nuclei can act as tiny magnets. Totally and completely useless discovery except that it told us more about the workings of the sub-atomic world.

2. In the 1930's it was realized that quantum physics required that an electron might simply "appear" on the far side of a barrier without having actually passed through the barrier. It's called "quantum tunneling" and your government spent big bunches of money to verify the theory experimentally.

3. In 1905, a scientist predicted that if you stimulated certain materials in a certain way, you could cause those materials to emit photons at a predictive wavelength.

4. In 1915, it was predicted that the gravity of a large body (such as the earth) would cause time to run at a different speed within the gravitationall well of the large body than it would run in space.

5. In the 1950's scientists discovered that the molecule responsible for transmitting genetic information looked like a twisted ladder.

6. In 1985, two scientists at Rice University created 60 atom clusters of pure carbon that had the shape of a soccer ball.

Not a single one of these discoveries had any practical application at all at the time of their discovery. None. They were completely and totally useless. Yet, respectively, these discoveries form the foundation for the following:

1. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
2. Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope
3. Lasers
4. GPS
5. All medicine based on DNA
6. This one is still too young to have realized many practical applications but, if you want to find out more, just type in "Buckyballs" in google.

Your #3 example doesn't demonstrate any need for gov funding. This was theoretical work.
Your #6 example could use some work.

99Tiger makes the logical fallacy of saying, "since I currently don't see adult stem cells being capable for some applications, they will never be capable."

Isn't that what research is for?

BTW, since Bush opened up the research, why do you insist on saying he is stifling it? Moreover, you admit that the research to be done is extensive...why not focus on the mature stem cells instead of the controversial embryonic ones? especially since there are limited financial resources?

I'll answer that last question, it's because the scientists involved in this are filled w/ such hubris that they insist they are above any ethical limitations. They don't like the president or anyone else telling them what to do. That is pure ego...and it's dangerous. They have now taken the role of deranged scientists straight from B-movies. It is ironic that the "defenders of freedom" Democrats choose to ignore this.

Oh, and didn't RebelKev make an excellent point about embryonic stem cells coming from placenta and other newborn tissue? Why does this get ignored in the mainstream media?

Moreover, back to MAKO and his efforts to show off how much science he knows, none of these examples had any obvious ethical concerns. This one obviously does.

At least SF has cut to the chase and argued that the "blastocyst" is not fully human. That's where the debate really lies. Curious to note that unbiased journalism now commends the use of "kooky" and "extreme" when describing a position you don't like.

As for the original question, do you use a treatment that comes from embryonic research? Well if means directly destroying embryos...then yes I'd reject it. If it meant the treatment was developed from destroyed embryos, but now does not require this process...the issue is harder to decide.
Personally I think I'd still reject it. More realistically, I doubt people will be privy to the facts surrounding how a treatment was developed.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:It is grossly unethical to create a human life and destroy it for the sake of others who are sick.

This may be true (and it may be not, considering we are talking about blastocysts in freezers and not third-trimester fetuses in wombs). But let's set that question aside and assume you are correct.

Now, let's look at this question: How is it unethical to use for medical research the tens of thousands -- if not hundreds of thousands -- of blastocysts have already been created and are now sitting in freezers across the country?

DrTorch Wrote:Curious to note that unbiased journalism now commends the use of "kooky" and "extreme" when describing a position you don't like.

If the standards of unbiased journalism were rigoriously enforced here, no one would ever be allowed to post.

Every postion I take -- from my defense of progressive taxation to the Social Security system -- is derided as left wing and extremist by some here.

I'm fighting back, and describing the absurd position taken by many here on stem cell research what I believe it to be: Extreme, and right wing.

("Kooky" was perhaps a bit mean spirited. Sorry. But I know you've seen the vitrol routinely aimed at me).

MAKO Wrote:

Quote:Therein lies the rub for me. I don't see why public funds should be thrown into ANY endeavor that can't get enough private funding to at least survive.

Pure science is funded by the government for several reasons. First, no private industry is going to fund it. Second, there are some questions that, although it won't necessarily make your commute easier, are questions we just want to answer out of human curiosity. But, if you want to be practical about it, pure science is funded because there is absolutely no way of knowing when those discoveries might become practical in the future. Perhaps it is more accurate to refer to pure science as "knowledge of the facts of nature." Examples:

1. In 1946, it was discovered that nuclei can act as tiny magnets. Totally and completely useless discovery except that it told us more about the workings of the sub-atomic world.

2. In the 1930's it was realized that quantum physics required that an electron might simply "appear" on the far side of a barrier without having actually passed through the barrier. It's called "quantum tunneling" and your government spent big bunches of money to verify the theory experimentally.

3. In 1905, a scientist predicted that if you stimulated certain materials in a certain way, you could cause those materials to emit photons at a predictive wavelength.

4. In 1915, it was predicted that the gravity of a large body (such as the earth) would cause time to run at a different speed within the gravitationall well of the large body than it would run in space.

5. In the 1950's scientists discovered that the molecule responsible for transmitting genetic information looked like a twisted ladder.

6. In 1985, two scientists at Rice University created 60 atom clusters of pure carbon that had the shape of a soccer ball.

Not a single one of these discoveries had any practical application at all at the time of their discovery. None. They were completely and totally useless. Yet, respectively, these discoveries form the foundation for the following:

1. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
2. Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope
3. Lasers
4. GPS
5. All medicine based on DNA
6. This one is still too young to have realized many practical applications but, if you want to find out more, just type in "Buckyballs" in google.

So, does the US make back the money it invested? No. Do the American taxpayers have to pay to utilize the advancements that they already paid for? Yes. It is Dutch Door Action. The people get screwed coming and going.

I am a taxpayer. My money is being used to fund research that could possibly save my life, but only if I have enough money to pay for it AGAIN.

While we are at it, why don't we give grants to holistic medicine research? It has a lot of potential too.

ccs178 Wrote:So, does the US make back the money it invested? No. Do the American taxpayers have to pay to utilize the advancements that they already paid for? Yes. It is Dutch Door Action. The people get screwed coming and going.

I am a taxpayer. My money is being used to fund research that could possibly save my life, but only if I have enough money to pay for it AGAIN.

I don't know, it's not that simple.

Do laser companies (everyone from Coherent to Biolase) pay taxes?

Do you count the taxes from semiconductor manufacturers who can only make their products using laser lithography? Would we still be using adding machines and IBM typewriters w/o all of this? Would that be better?

Do you get some form of ROI b/c MRI is now exists, and is affordable? Quality of life, health, well-being, those are all hard to quantify w/ dollars.

And we aren't even discussing national security.

I understand your position, I just don't think the answer is as simple as you suggest.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

wpblazer Wrote:So...if it is morally wrong to destroy these "lives" that have been created, then logically it must be just as wrong to create them in the first place, right? Do all of you think fertility clinics are "morally reprehensible," too? I'm just curious.

Words cannot express how completely illogical this statement is.

There is nothing logical about saying since it's morally wrong to create life just to destroy it then it's wrong to create it to begin with. I guess by your logical standards people shouldn't get pregnant huh? :rolleyes:

Clearly you lack the basic understanding as to the crux of the argument. The issue is not the creation of "life" it's the purpose for which it's created. Creating it, just to destroy it, is morally reprehensible. The morality, in this instance, doesn't lie within the act, it lies within the purpose.

Are you this condescending to everyone, or just to people that don't have the exact same beliefs as you do?

Now, if we can get back to the point I (along with Schad) was making, and stop trying to claim intellectual superiority.

The discussion was about fertilized eggs that had already been created, but not used, as noted in MAKO's original post. And the question is this: If it is immoral to destroy "life" (fertlized eggs), how can it possibly not be immoral to play god and try to create that life in the first place. And just so you can follow my logic, I am not (and have never) mentioned pregnancy, because (logically) that is a natural creation of life and not the scientific creation of fertilized eggs. Are you still with me?

Contrary to what you may think there is nothing illogical about this question, and I'm still waiting for an answer or explanation.

MAKO Wrote:BTW Tiger. I quit arguing with RebKev a long time ago. He knows everything, is always right, and you are stupid for disagreeing with him. The last thing he is interested in is an actual discussion of issues. Plus, he's a ping pong poster so responding just ensures a plethora of mostly nonsensical but normally insulting posts.

That's half the fun of it!

RebelKev Wrote:It's all about us, huh? God? There IS no God. :rolleyes:

Seems like the right-wing mantra these days.

Screw Christ and his message. America has its own agenda; to kill Christians in other nations.

And am I the only person on this God-forsaken board that is anti-stem cells, anti-death penalty, anti-war and anti-abortion?

Damn, the rest of you just love ending human life. :rolleyes:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I am against embryonic stem cell research. I have no problem with adult.

I am with Niner.

Open Secrets Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:It's all about us, huh? God? There IS no God.  :rolleyes:

Seems like the right-wing mantra these days.

Screw Christ and his message. America has its own agenda; to kill Christians in other nations.

You forgot children, old people, and minorities.

:rolleyes:

Open Secrets Wrote:And am I the only person on this God-forsaken board that is anti-stem cells, anti-death penalty, anti-war and anti-abortion?

Damn, the rest of you just love ending human life. :rolleyes:

well, by your own definition, you seem to be in a class by yourself.

just out of curiosity, could you identify the country or countries where the US is killing christians to the extent that you feel comfortable claiming that "America has its own agenda; to kill Christians in other nations?" and while you're at it, if you value life, why does it make a difference as to religious affiliation?

Iraq, Afghanistan and any other country that we have bombed in the past few years.

The fact that I value all human life equally does not make me a Christian. It is the reverse. The fact that I am a Christian is why I feel that I must value all human life equally.

Unfortunately, too many people in this country mold their own beliefs to the Bible, instead of vice versa. Not many people in this country can accept Christ's radical message, including myself.

Open Secrets Wrote:Iraq, Afghanistan and any other country that we have bombed in the past few years.

The fact that I value all human life equally does not make me a Christian. It is the reverse. The fact that I am a Christian is why I feel that I must value all human life equally.

Unfortunately, too many people in this country mold their own beliefs to the Bible, instead of vice versa. Not many people in this country can accept Christ's radical message, including myself.

when you calm down, perhaps you can translate this into a coherent philosophy, moral or otherwise.

there's damn few christians in the countries you identify, yet you claim there is an agenda to kill the christians where they are few.

and you avoid the issue of what this country, consisting of christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, bahai's, hindus, atheists, etc., should do in response to mass murder perpetrated on all of its citizens, and ongoing threats to increase the carnage.

nevermind. go back to focusing on the outrage of rebelkev telling you to kiss his, or someone's, ***.

Open Secrets Wrote:Iraq, Afghanistan and any other country that we have bombed in the past few years.

The fact that I value all human life equally does not make me a Christian. It is the reverse. The fact that I am a Christian is why I feel that I must value all human life equally.

Unfortunately, too many people in this country mold their own beliefs to the Bible, instead of vice versa. Not many people in this country can accept Christ's radical message, including myself.

Open Secrets Wrote:Unfortunately, too many people in this country mold their own beliefs to the Bible, instead of vice versa.

This is a bad thing? It's my belief that this is how it's supposed to be done.

If I start molding the Bible to fit my preconceptions, then what good is it? Why do I need such a book?