This is bad because he claims that he doesn't want to destroy embryos, but the embryos used in stem cell research are the ones that get thrown away from fertility clinics. So, he'd rather they get thrown away than used to find a cure?

Additionally, if the Feds fund the research, they can provide oversight, which means that they can regulate how the research is performed and used. In other words, they can ensure that people aren't farming out embryos. Now they're opening themselves up to unregulated, even black market, research. Now you WILL see embryo farms. Good job, George.

i agree with his end but not his rhetoric. the federal governemnt shouldnt fund private research. the free market can control what medical corporations spend R and D money on. however, this isnt "protecting" human life....this is causing exactly what greybeard describes

Bush won't be president forever. This will eventually pass.

Well, I found out 2 things in this thread suck. The veto and that Sophandros has me on ignore.

Uh, this is patently false. And the original version of this article was an ideal illustration of yellow journalism. It was filled w/ misleading statements and omissions that lead to a completely false conclusion. At least this one was cleaned up a bit.

Nevertheless,

First, Bush vetoed a bill regarding embryonic stem cell research. Not all stem cell research.

Secondly, the veto is strictly for federal funding of such research. It can still be done by private enterprise, or even at the state level.

Thirdly, it's not "bad" because he didn't decrease the amount of R&D that the feds are funding, he simply restricted where it can go. Guess what? There are a variety of restrictions on all sorts of research.

Sophandros Wrote:This is bad because he claims that he doesn't want to destroy embryos, but the embryos used in stem cell research are the ones that get thrown away from fertility clinics. So, he'd rather they get thrown away than used to find a cure?

Additionally, if the Feds fund the research, they can provide oversight, which means that they can regulate how the research is performed and used. In other words, they can ensure that people aren't farming out embryos. Now they're opening themselves up to unregulated, even black market, research. Now you WILL see embryo farms. Good job, George.

...and the rest of the world will continue to lead research of stem cells

RobertN Wrote:Well, I found out 2 things in this thread suck. The veto and that Sophandros has me on ignore.

I have Robert, not RobertN, on ignore. Different guy.

REALLY annoy.

DrTorch Wrote:Uh, this is patently false. And the original version of this article was an ideal illustration of yellow journalism. It was filled w/ misleading statements and omissions that lead to a completely false conclusion. At least this one was cleaned up a bit.

Nevertheless,

First, Bush vetoed a bill regarding embryonic stem cell research. Not all stem cell research.

Secondly, the veto is strictly for federal funding of such research. It can still be done by private enterprise, or even at the state level.

Thirdly, it's not "bad" because he didn't decrease the amount of R&D that the feds are funding, he simply restricted where it can go. Guess what? There are a variety of restrictions on all sorts of research.

Sophandros Wrote:This is bad because he claims that he doesn't want to destroy embryos, but the embryos used in stem cell research are the ones that get thrown away from fertility clinics. So, he'd rather they get thrown away than used to find a cure?

Additionally, if the Feds fund the research, they can provide oversight, which means that they can regulate how the research is performed and used. In other words, they can ensure that people aren't farming out embryos. Now they're opening themselves up to unregulated, even black market, research. Now you WILL see embryo farms. Good job, George.

In my commentary, I stated that it's about embryonic research.

Bush said that he wants to protect embryos, but he doesn't seem to care that the ones being used in research would otherwise BE THROWN AWAY.

Why don't you guys ever address that and fertility clinics?

Sophandros Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:Uh, this is patently false. And the original version of this article was an ideal illustration of yellow journalism. It was filled w/ misleading statements and omissions that lead to a completely false conclusion. At least this one was cleaned up a bit.

Nevertheless,

First, Bush vetoed a bill regarding embryonic stem cell research. Not all stem cell research.

Secondly, the veto is strictly for federal funding of such research. It can still be done by private enterprise, or even at the state level.

Thirdly, it's not "bad" because he didn't decrease the amount of R&D that the feds are funding, he simply restricted where it can go. Guess what? There are a variety of restrictions on all sorts of research.

Sophandros Wrote:This is bad because he claims that he doesn't want to destroy embryos, but the embryos used in stem cell research are the ones that get thrown away from fertility clinics. So, he'd rather they get thrown away than used to find a cure?

Additionally, if the Feds fund the research, they can provide oversight, which means that they can regulate how the research is performed and used. In other words, they can ensure that people aren't farming out embryos. Now they're opening themselves up to unregulated, even black market, research. Now you WILL see embryo farms. Good job, George.

In my commentary, I stated that it's about embryonic research.

Bush said that he wants to protect embryos, but he doesn't seem to care that the ones being used in research would otherwise BE THROWN AWAY.

Why don't you guys ever address that and fertility clinics?

Folks have been addressing this for years (check the dates on these articles) even though it's a very unpopular position.

http://www.breakpoint.org/search.asp?key...ity+clinic

The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.

If it can save lives, I say let's do it.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.

If it can save lives, I say let's do it.

Human experimenation with new drugs could save lives as well. Decades ahead of the process that's in place now. Do we do it?

It comes down to the philisophical quandry of do the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few?

If you could kill 1000 people to save 100,000,000 is it worth it?

Bush's rhetoric regarding this is ridiculous. What this deals with is the slippery slope of medical research and experimenation. How far is too far when dealing with how to cure disease?

You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?

is it wise to throw taxpayer dollars at something that has already had millions if not billions spent on it and produced no results, while other forms of Stem Cell research do produce results?

or is this all politics, bio-techs trying to suck off the govt. tit and in the process piss off the pro-life crowd?

Ninerfan1 Wrote:You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?

Left to the free market, cloning will happen sooner rather than later.

And yes, those embryos ARE being thrown away. Why not make them useful to society instead of rubbish?

GGniner Wrote:is it wise to throw taxpayer dollars at something that has already had millions if not billions spent on it and produced no results, while other forms of Stem Cell research do produce results?

or is this all politics, bio-techs trying to suck off the govt. tit and in the process piss off the pro-life crowd?

I think that having a measure of oversight is what is needed, so that we can ensure that the research is performed in an ethical manner. Federal funding isn't necessary, but it forces these labs to be held accountable for their actions.

Regarding your last question, I think that it's a bit of all of that. I do find it interesting that the so-called pro-life crowd (anti-choice is a better name for them, but that's beside the point right now) would rather these embryos be thrown in the trash than used in a manner which may save lives in the long run.

they don't want their tax dollars spent on it, they are not pushing for a ban of embroynic research....the free market has already deemed it a meritless research, basically pumping dollars into something that produces nothing, other than getting certain bio-techs rich. This is why there is a push for it politically, they can't get venture capital money anymore so trying to persuade the public emotionally/politically to open up the govt. coffers to them..

I've heard that dead babies are a great bio fuel source. Think of all the power a pile of dead babies will generate when burned. They burn hot and clean. And that power is used to power the electron microscopes that research diseases such as AIDS. So, they are being put to good use. I will now remove the tongue from my cheek.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.

That's not a "fact", that's an opinion. And not one particularly well established in science.

Sophandros Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:You say now, "well these are embryos that will just be thrown away." But once you start down that road it's not that far til we use aborted fetuses for the research. Then how far until cloning?

Left to the free market, cloning will happen sooner rather than later.

And yes, those embryos ARE being thrown away. Why not make them useful to society instead of rubbish?

Isn't that the same question posed to the results of the holocaust experiments?

Not that I have the answer to that question...but it's worth noting.

EastStang Wrote:I've heard that dead babies are a great bio fuel source. Think of all the power a pile of dead babies will generate when burned. They burn hot and clean. And that power is used to power the electron microscopes that research diseases such as AIDS. So, they are being put to good use. I will now remove the tongue from my cheek.

Thank you Jonathan Swift.

Of course, you realize that already born babies and extra embryos from a fertility clinic (they put several embryos into a woman, usually one takes hold, and the rest are flushed out by her body and discarded) are not the same thing.

Basically, embryonic stem cell research is like using a cadaver in medical school.

DrTorch Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:The fact remains that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with "killing babies" regardless of the rhetoric from conservatives.

That's not a "fact", that's an opinion. And not one particularly well established in science.

An embryo that fails to fertilize is discarded. Basically thrown in the garbage. How is that an opinion, and not established in science?