Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/20/2004 5:02:38 AM EST
We know we can get stem cells from things like Bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and placenta. Why do we have to use stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses?
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:03:44 AM EST
There's a good article about it in this week's Newsweek, check it out.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:05:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By hk940:
We know we can get stem cells from things like Bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and placenta. Why do we have to use stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses?



I think it's just to piss people off.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:07:23 AM EST
Because it's a marker for pre-medical enlightenment thought. It should be done. However, this is not a major issue in the election for me...
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:08:36 AM EST
i could see if they are more viable but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
We are looking at the possibility of star trek “the DR. gave me a pill and I grew a new kidney”. Cancer disease and aging may become things of the past.

The only thing I can see is it might put a lot of people out of work.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:10:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Because it's a marker for pre-medical enlightenment thought. It should be done. However, this is not a major issue in the election for me...



Not an issue for me as well. I like the fact that Bush does not want to fund it, because I think the feds fund way to much stuff as it is. It is still ok for private companies to do the research.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:11:02 AM EST
it's a back door way of legalizing abortion forever and shutting down the pro lifers' forever.

humans keep toying with natural selection and all that will be left are mindless idiots and the

1% Eleitists. It's all in their plan
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:12:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 5:39:44 AM EST by M4]
If there are thousands of frozen embrios in fertilization clinics, that have essentially been abandoned by their owners, and will most likely be destroyed, those absolutely should be used in research. That pool of stem cells alone would make a huge contribution.

I have yet to hear even a remotely convincing arguement as to why these should not be made available for immediate research purposes.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:13:09 AM EST
largely a club to beat Bush with.

Embryonic stem cells are not presently showing much promise medically.

Converesely, when used have been know to cause numerous SERIOUS side effects.

Adult stem cells are showing FAR more promise medically.

Embryonic stem cells legitimize abortion, making abortion clinics for- profit meat markets.

There is NO legal prohibition from using them.

The ONLY issue is in FORCING the pro-life crowd to PAY FOR this barbaric process thru taxes.

Got it??

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:13:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By hk940:
We know we can get stem cells from things like Bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and placenta. Why do we have to use stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses?



I think it's just to piss people off.




+1. And from what I have read we have had more success from the adult cells anyways!


Here is what it has come down to. WIth less religion in people lives they have become more selfish and selfcentered to the point they are willing to kill innocents so they may live a short time longer.



SGatr15
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:17:00 AM EST
The medical companies are not legally prohibited from using them; let THEM pay for it.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:18:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:
Embryonic stem cells are not presently showing much promise medically.



As usual, you are FOS.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:19:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By garandman:
Embryonic stem cells are not presently showing much promise medically.



As usual, you are FOS.



Shoo, pest.

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:22:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By garandman:
Embryonic stem cells are not presently showing much promise medically.



As usual, you are FOS.



Shoo, pest.




Oh sorry, did I mess up another one of your uneducated rants?
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:23:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 5:23:26 AM EST by hk940]

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By hk940:
We know we can get stem cells from things like Bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and placenta. Why do we have to use stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses?



I think it's just to piss people off.




+1. And from what I have read we have had more success from the adult cells anyways!


Here is what it has come down to. WIth less religion in people lives they have become more selfish and selfcentered to the point they are willing to kill innocents so they may live a short time longer.
SGatr15


my point being we don't have to kill anyone! there are plenty of other places to get stem cells. why are we focusing on the unnecessary option?
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:29:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:

The ONLY issue is in FORCING the pro-life crowd to PAY FOR this barbaric process thru taxes.




This is the one arguement I have real trouble with. People are daily forced to pay for programs they disagree with. Anti nuke folks have to pay for nuke weapons. Anti welfare folks ahve to pay for welfare. Sorry, that arguement doesn't work. Whatever is good for the society as a whole is what happens.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:35:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:




+1. And from what I have read we have had more success from the adult cells anyways!


Here is what it has come down to. WIth less religion in people lives they have become more selfish and selfcentered to the point they are willing to kill innocents so they may live a short time longer.



SGatr15

+1
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:36:13 AM EST

So that Kerry can claim that
he is "...a President that believes
in science..." He has brought
that line out WRT this issue and
Kyoto.

Of course, the implication is that
the President is a knuckle-dragging,
theocratic, Flat-Earth society
Luddite who longs for the heady
days of 1875...


Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:38:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Gun-fan:

Originally Posted By garandman:

The ONLY issue is in FORCING the pro-life crowd to PAY FOR this barbaric process thru taxes.




This is the one arguement I have real trouble with. People are daily forced to pay for programs they disagree with. Anti nuke folks have to pay for nuke weapons. Anti welfare folks ahve to pay for welfare. Sorry, that arguement doesn't work. Whatever is good for the society as a whole is what happens.




gun-fan....THINK. Don't emote.

The POINT is there is NO Constitutional basis for FORCING people to pay for stem cells thru tax revenues.

yer smarter than your post above.

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:39:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By garandman:
Embryonic stem cells are not presently showing much promise medically.



As usual, you are FOS.



Shoo, pest.




Oh sorry, did I mess up another one of your uneducated rants?




Well, you din't provide any info to support yopur claim


Tell me, is your life so important that you are willing to kill a baby just so you can live?


How shallow are you?


SGtar15
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:39:47 AM EST
prop 71 is going to pass here. I don't like the tax and spending of $6 Billion on top of the other spending.

The research has potential but it sounds like many years down the road.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:41:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Gun-fan:

Originally Posted By garandman:

The ONLY issue is in FORCING the pro-life crowd to PAY FOR this barbaric process thru taxes.




This is the one arguement I have real trouble with. People are daily forced to pay for programs they disagree with. Anti nuke folks have to pay for nuke weapons. Anti welfare folks ahve to pay for welfare. Sorry, that arguement doesn't work. Whatever is good for the society as a whole is what happens.




20 million children have been muredred since abortion became legal.

20 million.


20 million.


Building nukes and welfare doesn't automatically kill people like abortion does.


Anyone that supports abortion will have alot to answer for when they die.


SGtar15


Sgatr15

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:43:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:

gun-fan....THINK. Don't emote.

The POINT is there is NO Constitutional basis for FORCING people to pay for stem cells thru tax revenues.

yer smarter than your post above.




There is also nothing addressing cancer, heart disease, etc...
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:43:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Chaingun:
prop 71 is going to pass here. I don't like the tax and spending of $6 Billion on top of the other spending.

The research has potential but it sounds like many years down the road.




Correctyion, only 3 billion will be spent if 71 passes. It is a 3 billion LOAN that will become 6 billion by the time we get it paid back. This is more than is spend on aids and cancer COMBINED here in Cal!


Sgtar15
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:44:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By hk940:

my point being we don't have to kill anyone! there are plenty of other places to get stem cells. why are we focusing on the unnecessary option?




I agree 100%. If I misunderstood I apologize.


SGtar15
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:45:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By garandman:

gun-fan....THINK. Don't emote.

The POINT is there is NO Constitutional basis for FORCING people to pay for stem cells thru tax revenues.

yer smarter than your post above.




There is also nothing addressing cancer, heart disease, etc...



No argument from me.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:47:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
20 million children have been muredred since abortion became legal.

Perhaps, but you've just painted yourself into a corner. If you believe that stem cell research on the many embryos that exist is wrong, then you must be against the practice of fertility research in general. Why? Because unused fertilized eggs are a byproduct of the science. These will most likely be trashed, and in your eyes murdered.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:48:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Gun-fan:

Originally Posted By garandman:

The ONLY issue is in FORCING the pro-life crowd to PAY FOR this barbaric process thru taxes.




This is the one arguement I have real trouble with. People are daily forced to pay for programs they disagree with. Anti nuke folks have to pay for nuke weapons. Anti welfare folks ahve to pay for welfare. Sorry, that arguement doesn't work. Whatever is good for the society as a whole is what happens.




gun-fan....THINK. Don't emote.

The POINT is there is NO Constitutional basis for FORCING people to pay for stem cells thru tax revenues.

yer smarter than your post above.




I agree that there is no basis for forcing people to pay for certain programs thru tax revenues. The point is that it happens every day. This time it just happens to be something you are personally opposed to. I'm probably more likely to support stem cell research, but don't discount your other arguements stated above. The last one was the one that has no merit. I personally oppose tax dollars being spent on home schooling or in a christian school. It may very well happen though. Hope you have a good one.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:51:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By garandman:
Embryonic stem cells are not presently showing much promise medically.



As usual, you are FOS.



Shoo, pest.




Oh sorry, did I mess up another one of your uneducated rants?




Well, you din't provide any info to support yopur claim


Tell me, is your life so important that you are willing to kill a baby just so you can live?


How shallow are you?


SGtar15



Babys do not have to die for stem cell research. I do not support abortion and they are two seperate issues in my mind.

a 2002 report from the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine
books.nap.edu/books/0309076307/html/1.html#pagetop

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:51:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
The medical companies are not legally prohibited from using them; let THEM pay for it.



You said a mouthful right there. I've got nothing against stem cell research. I've got a HUGE problem with the FedGov funding it. Where exactly in the Constitution does it GIVE the FedGov the power to get involved in the medical care industry? So far all they have done is made it so fucking expensive that doctors no longer make house calls and hospitols charge $50 for a dose of Tylenol.

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:53:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Gun-fan:

Originally Posted By garandman:

The ONLY issue is in FORCING the pro-life crowd to PAY FOR this barbaric process thru taxes.




This is the one arguement I have real trouble with. People are daily forced to pay for programs they disagree with. Anti nuke folks have to pay for nuke weapons. Anti welfare folks ahve to pay for welfare. Sorry, that arguement doesn't work. Whatever is good for the society as a whole is what happens.




gun-fan....THINK. Don't emote.

The POINT is there is NO Constitutional basis for FORCING people to pay for stem cells thru tax revenues.

yer smarter than your post above.




Every time I read a post like this I thank the founding fathers for a system that prevents this country from becoming a fundamentalist theocracy.

Your agenda comes through loud and clear with every post . We need a constitutional amendment to keep religion and superstition out of government.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:55:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By Gun-fan:
I agree that there is no basis for forcing people to pay for certain programs thru tax revenues. The point is that it happens every day. This time it just happens to be something you are personally opposed to. I'm probably more likely to support stem cell research, but don't discount your other arguements stated above. The last one was the one that has no merit. I personally oppose tax dollars being spent on home schooling or in a christian school. It may very well happen though. Hope you have a good one.



Just because the government screws us in a number of ways on a daily basis is no reason to just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well" when they try and pile more on to everything else.

There are certain jobs given to the FedGov. Listed specificly in the Constitution. If it ain't in there, or if there is a specific prohibition placed on them, then get them the fuck out. Period. Yeah, it'll gore a lot of peoples oxen. BFD. They'll get over it. Most of them have been sucking off the government tit for too long as it is.

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:56:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
20 million children have been muredred since abortion became legal.

Perhaps, but you've just painted yourself into a corner. If you believe that stem cell research on the many embryos that exist is wrong, then you must be against the practice of fertility research in general. Why? Because unused fertilized eggs are a byproduct of the science. These will most likely be trashed, and in your eyes murdered.




No corner, I am against fertility drugs. And stem cells aren't only breed from there anyways.


Can't have kids? Adopt one...or two


SGatr15
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:57:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4:
If there are thousands of frozen embrios in fertilization clinics, that have essentially been abandoned by their owners, and will most likely be destroyed, those absolutely should be used in research. That pool of stem cells alone would make a huge contribution.

I have yet to hear even a remotely convincing arguement as to why these should not be made available for immediate research purposes.



I don't support this because it is another way of de-humanizing babies.

It's a "slippery slope" argument.

Same as gunowners not wanting background checks. The argument for it mankes sense to a lot of people, while others see it as an attempt to chip away at gun rights.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:57:58 AM EST
Sorry Va_Dinger, I misunderstood.


But I also don't support stem cells from fertility clinics also.

Those are babies!


SGatr15
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:58:42 AM EST
Simple Truth Time:

It is politics which means there are no deep thoughts here, just a means to an end that is to get [re]elected.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:02:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 6:04:23 AM EST by garandman]

Originally Posted By jimb100:

Every time I read a post like this I thank the founding fathers for a system that prevents this country from becoming a fundamentalist theocracy.

Your agenda comes through loud and clear with every post . We need a constitutional amendment to keep religion and superstition out of government.



Translation: WAAAAHHHH!!!!! Mommy, the bad man made a stronger argument than I'm capable of. I'm gonna call him a cretan and a hater and a Taliban, so people won't see what a limp noodle I've got."

(noodle = brain)

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:07:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:
Where exactly in the Constitution does it GIVE the FedGov the power to get involved in the medical care industry?



It places it under the umbrella of 'General Welfare'. The do have the right to conduct this research as it is not prohibited. As to the financing of it, the 16th ammendment (there goes the 'it's not constitutional' argument) gives them that ability among the other tax code allowances.

You guys slay me sometimes. Keep in mind that research at public universities is also technically 'publicly funded'. This is a VERY GOOD THING. Just because some idiotic things get publicly funded, don't throw the whole system out as being corrupt. Some are so hypocratical, that they'd bitch about public funding of disease research X. Then if a private firm discovered a cure for X, and charged a fortune for it, they'd quickly turn into a Kerryesque liberal and cry extortion and how their life shouldn't have a price tag and demand government involvment.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:21:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:
Where exactly in the Constitution does it GIVE the FedGov the power to get involved in the medical care industry?



It places it under the umbrella of 'General Welfare'. .



So....what DOESN'T fall under "general welfare?"

Under your thinking, the Constitution provides federal intervention for ANYTHING that affects more than one state. Geez, dude, get a grip.

"General welfare" means "general." It DOES NOT mean SPECIFIC welfare - like education, like medical ANYTHING, like welfare.

The "general welfare" clause is the template for gov't's role of getting out of the way of individuals.

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:27:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 6:28:14 AM EST by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:
Where exactly in the Constitution does it GIVE the FedGov the power to get involved in the medical care industry?



It places it under the umbrella of 'General Welfare'. The do have the right to conduct this research as it is not prohibited. As to the financing of it, the 16th ammendment (there goes the 'it's not constitutional' argument) gives them that ability among the other tax code allowances.

You guys slay me sometimes. Keep in mind that research at public universities is also technically 'publicly funded'. This is a VERY GOOD THING. Just because some idiotic things get publicly funded, don't throw the whole system out as being corrupt. Some are so hypocratical, that they'd bitch about public funding of disease research X. Then if a private firm discovered a cure for X, and charged a fortune for it, they'd quickly turn into a Kerryesque liberal and cry extortion and how their life shouldn't have a price tag and demand government involvment.



Well maybe if we'd stop paying for all the deadbeats, drug addicts and such....quit funding regionally specific "PORK", and start focusing the spending on the stuff that really matters not many of us would have our knickers in a twist.

I'm tired of seeing money pissed away on wilderness reclaimation projects in WVa and Idaho. Let WVa and Idaho handle that....you know a couple billion can go a long way when it's not wasted on funding the VDOT goons to make Skyline Drive have nicer overlooks.

At what point do we say, "You have quite enough of my gross income tied up to fund your 'programs'"? 40%, 50%, 60%??? Where is the line? There is no CUTTING, only adding on.....
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:29:08 AM EST
If the can kill embryos for stem cells they will legitimize all abortion forever.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:34:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
It places it under the umbrella of 'General Welfare'. The do have the right to conduct this research as it is not prohibited. As to the financing of it, the 16th ammendment (there goes the 'it's not constitutional' argument) gives them that ability among the other tax code allowances.

You guys slay me sometimes. Keep in mind that research at public universities is also technically 'publicly funded'. This is a VERY GOOD THING. Just because some idiotic things get publicly funded, don't throw the whole system out as being corrupt. Some are so hypocratical, that they'd bitch about public funding of disease research X. Then if a private firm discovered a cure for X, and charged a fortune for it, they'd quickly turn into a Kerryesque liberal and cry extortion and how their life shouldn't have a price tag and demand government involvment.



General Welfare is not Free Healthcare or funding of medical experimentation. Period. The Constitution doesn't work like that. If it isn't listed, then they have NO POWER to do anything in that area without Amending said Constitution. Listed Prohibitions are not the only limits on Federal power. That common misunderstanding is how we have gotten so fucked up in the first place.

Your "public funding" also goes to paying the $15 billion tab ofr AIDS relief in Africa and for funding studies on the enviromental impact of cow farts. Still think you wanna stick to that line of reasoning?

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:36:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By garandman:
Embryonic stem cells are not presently showing much promise medically.



As usual, you are FOS.



Nope, he is correct.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:37:18 AM EST
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:44:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By hk940:
We know we can get stem cells from things like Bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and placenta. Why do we have to use stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses?



Finding "benefits" in the murder of the unborn is a can of worms you don't want to open. Imagine the day when people would get pregnant, then abort the child to supply stem cells for money.

That is a realm of horror we don't need to get into. We cannot concieve children to harvest their body parts for market. That is morally repugnant.

If there are other ways to get stem cells, use them. But we CANNOT make merchandise of aborted children.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 8:01:40 AM EST
Lighten up Francis'es...

You asked HOW government funding of this type of thing exists? And I told you how...
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 8:24:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 8:32:09 AM EST by garandman]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Lighten up Francis'es...

You asked HOW government funding of this type of thing exists? And I told you how...




Nice spin, O'Reilly.....

You said...


It places it under the umbrella of 'General Welfare'. The do have the right to conduct this research as it is not prohibited. As to the financing of it, the 16th ammendment (there goes the 'it's not constitutional' argument) gives them that ability among the other tax code allowances.


If that's not advocacy for embryonic stem cell research thru Fed tax dollars , I don't know what is.

Given your Hillary Clinton-esque interpretation of "general welfare" (the sad product of a public skuul ejukashin) I think we need to have a discussion about what you think "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means.



Link Posted: 10/20/2004 8:31:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

It places it under the umbrella of 'General Welfare'. The do have the right to conduct this research as it is not prohibited. ment.



EXACTLY BACKWARDS.

The POWERS of gov't require SPECIFIC ENUMERATION.

That Consitution is NOT a document that says the gov't has any and every power not prohibited.

Wow.

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 8:42:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By hk940:
We know we can get stem cells from things like Bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, and placenta. Why do we have to use stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses?



Finding "benefits" in the murder of the unborn is a can of worms you don't want to open. Imagine the day when people would get pregnant, then abort the child to supply stem cells for money.

That is a realm of horror we don't need to get into. We cannot concieve children to harvest their body parts for market. That is morally repugnant.

If there are other ways to get stem cells, use them. But we CANNOT make merchandise of aborted children.



OH CHRIST! CAN YOU READ?
if there comes a day when you can get money for something like this just donate some bone marrow! you don't have to get pregnant. If you do get pregnant you can carry the baby to term and donate or sell the afterbirth as you see fit! When did I ever say anything about killing unborn children?
Top Top