• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Needs Stem Cells to Cure HIS Alzheimers

Arthur Fonzarelli said:
Actually, to be totally honest, I am not against embryonic stem cell research. Especially in the manner in which you speak of...(left over embryo from in vitro)...

I just found it interesting in your previous statement that you would carelessly put a baby's life at the bottom of your priorities of human existence.
That's not what I wrote, I think you misunderstood? I wrote that people who claim that embryonic stem cell research is the equivalent of killing a baby are wrong, and that it is shameful to deny science the ability to discover cures due to the claim that you're killing babies by using embryonic stem cells.

OK?
 
Squawker said:
As usual, I never said the things you said I said. Why do you keep doing that Champ? There are 24 embryos still available for research and NIH will fund it. We will have a new administration in 2008 and a different decision may be made at that time. The States are funding some on their own, so I don't see why you are so angry about it.
Untrue....you cited legislation in MA as proof that cloning is coming, and you wrote it in a "I told you so" and "it would lead to farming of human parts." That is what you wrote, and that is what irked me.

As far your non-fed involvement being OK, that too is BS. Why? It slows down the process...which to me translates into more people dying because of your type of thinking, and that does more than irk me, it really upsets me a lot.

You also did not answer this question, which I will ask you again, how about an answer this time?

If you were dying from a disease and the cure had been discovered thru stem cell research you would have to decline the treatment, right? You would die instead? Is that correct? If it is, are you going to create a living will that clearly states that no matter your condition you will not accept embryonic stem cell created cures? Is that what you plan on doing?
 
If you were dying from a disease and the cure had been discovered thru stem cell research you would have to decline the treatment, right? You would die instead? Is that correct? If it is, are you going to create a living will that clearly states that no matter your condition you will not accept embryonic stem cell created cures? Is that what you plan on doing?
That is a silly question Champ. If I knew a baby was deliberately killed to do the research, then yes, I would decline to have any part of it. If it could be determined the embryo was not a viable life, then that would be different. It would be pretty hard to tell after the fact.
 
Squawker said:
That is a silly question Champ. If I knew a baby was deliberately killed to do the research, then yes, I would decline to have any part of it. If it could be determined the embryo was not a viable life, then that would be different. It would be pretty hard to tell after the fact.
That does not compute? I said would you use a cure that was derived from embryonic stem cells which, according to the zealots would be from a "dead baby" then you would allow yourself to die, right? Since there would be no way to determine the source of the embryonic stem cell for you to follow your conscience you would have to let yourself die despite knowing that there was a cure for your disease.

Do you think, in truth, you would stick to your guns rather than live?
 
Do you think, in truth, you would stick to your guns rather than live?
As you have noted, I am pretty stubborn, so I might. I won't know until I am there.
 
Squawker said:
As you have noted, I am pretty stubborn, so I might. I won't know until I am there.
I appreciate your candor. I do think that virtually anyone facing the choice of cure or death would almost always choose to live. After all, how hard is it to first deal with the fact that you have a fatal disease? To then choose to not live when a cure is there for you would seem to me to be almost impossible.

My opinion? I value people who are alive over something in petri dish or stored in a freezer. The concept of allowing myself or a loved one to die to preserve an embryo is mind boggling.

I also believe that part of God's gift to mankind is the ability to reason, to make hard choices, to ultimately choose to live. Abortion is arguably a different moral issue than an embryo, and I just cannot accept anyone allowing themselves or their loved one to die, perish, cease to exist in order to preserve a test tube embryo.

Our gift from God makes us too smart to make such a stupid decision.
 
26 X World Champs said:
May I ask you a question? If science is allowed to use an embryo that is left over from a couple's In Vitro process INSTEAD of having them THROWN AWAY, why would you be against that?

How about harvesting organs from babies killed during Partial Birth Abortions, surely if you believe it's OK to use the embryo's that will be thrown away you wouldn't object to using the organs that will be thrown away.

And just to be clear scientist AND use embyros to produce stem-cells right now, there is NO restriction. This is ONLY about federal money. If you believe in this so strongly then go set up a charity to raise money to invest in it or better yet invest your own money in it.
 
from 26x
If you were dying from a disease and the cure had been discovered thru stem cell research you would have to decline the treatment, right?

If it required the killing of a embryo to do it I would, which is the correct question to ask.

Let me ask you, if your wife became pregnent with twins and you had a child that needed some stem cells, would you have one of the embryos removed so that you could get the stem cells? It's just an extra one isn't it?
 
Stinger said:
How about harvesting organs from babies killed during Partial Birth Abortions, surely if you believe it's OK to use the embryo's that will be thrown away you wouldn't object to using the organs that will be thrown away.
What are you talking about? Your comparison makes zero sense. You also answered my question with a question. How about answering the question with an answer? To wit...if the embryo's are being thrown away why shouldn't we use them to heal the living? What is it about this that confuses you so much? Garbage or healing? You find that a tough choice?
Stinger said:
And just to be clear scientist AND use embyros to produce stem-cells right now, there is NO restriction. This is ONLY about federal money. If you believe in this so strongly then go set up a charity to raise money to invest in it or better yet invest your own money in it.
You see I for one have diabetes, and I for one would appreciate it very much if my government would invest some of our money to help cure me and the millions like me. Are you saying that you prefer to "save" a non-living embryo that will be flushed down the toilet versus millions of people? Having the government in the game gets the cures to us all faster, hence less people die. Why are you having so much trouble understanding that I prefer money to be spent finding cures for diseases by our tax money rather than building more B-1 bombers, or buying corn that from farmers that will rot in a silo somewhere to protect their pricing, or a million other things that I value less than curing diseases.

Did you ever stop to think how much physical pain people go through when stricken with diseases. You don't just die, first you suffer, greatly. I want to see our money spent to reduce this suffering way, way before we reduce the infant mortality rate in Iraq, get it?
 
Stinger said:
from 26x


If it required the killing of a embryo to do it I would, which is the correct question to ask.

Let me ask you, if your wife became pregnent with twins and you had a child that needed some stem cells, would you have one of the embryos removed so that you could get the stem cells? It's just an extra one isn't it?

What are you talking about Stinger?
They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body, stem cells and the research that its attracted are derivitives from in vitro fertilization. Further more embryonic stem cells when cultured or even in it practial inhertant state are undifferentuated cells (meaning that they are cells that have no particular function...or blank slate cells).
I mean comon your little hypathetical about "taking" stem cells from a pregrant women (who for some unknown and unspecified reason was caring twins) doesnt even make sense, because technically speaking embryo's are not even destroyed when this process occurs, embryonic stem cells are utilized from inner lining of blastocyst's ---these havent even progressed/developed to a embryo stage. And that concludes this session of Embryogenesis 101.

The attributes of embryonic stem cells: long duration/hibernation periods in which they can indure and the regenerative properties during natural cell multiplication make laying into the feilds of medicine almost second nature to these cells....this is what they are designed for.
 
Stinger said:
Let me ask you, if your wife became pregnent with twins and you had a child that needed some stem cells, would you have one of the embryos removed so that you could get the stem cells? It's just an extra one isn't it?
What are you talking about? What you wrote is nonsense! Is there some reason you're unable to grasp that we are discussing the use of embryonic stem cells taken from embryos that would otherwise be destroyed? It's not that hard to understand, is it?

It would be a good thing if you would stick to the reality here rather than making up crazy what ifs.....
 
Putting aside Stinger and his well.......should we say ...uhm....well ....uneducated nonsense.
A real topic that has not been addressed here on this topic foroum is the potential economic blowback the US could see by not funding stem cell research on a federal level. Our economy (The US's) is hugely fueled by our pharmaceutical/med-tech industries. This topic has the potential to unseat US hegemony. What is going to happen when a country like China, South Korea, Israel, England, Japan, or any number of EU countries all of which fund stem cell research on a federal level, announce one day in a press conference somewhere that they have just cured cancer, parkinson, heart and liver disease, Diabetes, and any other number of medical problems that to this day pleague millions of people worldwide.
Stem cell research is the 21st century's equlivent to the cotton jin, the lightbulb, the PC, the moveable type printing press....and well any other past invention/discovery that has profoundly impacted the world.

-Do we need to fuel China's economy any more then what it is doing all on its own??
-In 2004, South Korea announced they have been able to clone and culture embryo's for stem cell harvesting ---Do we need yet another potential economic powerhouse in Asia like South Korea??
 
Last edited:
Madhatter said:
Putting aside Stinger and his well.......should we say ...uhm....well ....uneducated nonsense.
A real topic that has not been addressed here on this topic foroum is the potential economic blowback the US could see by not funding stem cell research on a federal level. Our economy (The US's) is hugely fueled by our pharmaceutical/med-tech industries. This topic has the potential to unseat US hegemony. What is going to happen when a country like China, South Korea, Israel, England, Japan, or any number of EU countries all of which fund stem cell research on a federal level, announce one day in a press conference somewhere that they have just cured cancer, parkinson, heart and liver disease, Diabetes, and any other number of medical problems that to this day pleague millions of people worldwide.
Stem cell research is the 21st century's equlivent to the cotton jin, the lightbulb, the PC, the moveable type printing press....and well any other past invention/discovery that has profoundly impacted the world.

-Do we need to fuel China's economy any more then what it is doing all on its own?
-In 2004, South Korea announced they have been able to clone and culture embryo's for stem cell harvesting ---Do we need yet another potential economic powerhouse in Asia like South Korea?
I agree 100%. In earlier posts I talked about this very subject. Is there any reason that anyone can think of to convince me that the USA should be in the forefront of virtually all scientific and medical discovery? What would the 20th century had been like if not for the USA's leadership?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs
May I ask you a question? If science is allowed to use an embryo that is left over from a couple's In Vitro process INSTEAD of having them THROWN AWAY, why would you be against that?
Stinger - How about harvesting organs from babies killed during Partial Birth Abortions, surely if you believe it's OK to use the embryo's that will be thrown away you wouldn't object to using the organs that will be thrown away.


26 X World Champs said:
What are you talking about?


Why not use the organs of the babies killed in PBA then, their just bigger that's all.


Your comparison makes zero sense.

Why do you say that? One is only more developed than the other, both are killed so why not use the organs form the baby killed in a PBA since they will just be thrown away, just as you stated with the embyro's.


You also answered my question with a question.

I tested your stated position with a question, how about an answer.

How about answering the question with an answer? To wit...if the embryo's are being thrown away why shouldn't we use them to heal the living?

They can be, go invest the money in it if you support it.


You see I for one have diabetes,

So does my mother.

and I for one would appreciate it very much if my government would, take other peoples money and invest some of their money to help cure me



Are you saying that you prefer to "save" a non-living embryo

They are living.

Having other peoples money in the game gets the cures to us all faster, hence less people die.

Why are you having so much trouble understanding that I prefer other peoples money to be spent finding cures for my diseases by other peoples money rather than building more B-1 bombers, or buying corn that from farmers that will rot in a silo somewhere to protect their pricing, or a million other things that I value less than curing diseases.

You are perfectly free to invest your money and to convince others to feely invest thier own money. And I have no trouble at all understanding you, I do note you have trouble stating the reality, that government has no money, it can only confiscate others money and spend it, in this case, on your behalf. Why are YOU having so much trouble understanding it is morally and ethically wrong to force others to fund the killing of a life in order to help you if such a killing is morally wrong in thier view.

Did you ever stop to think how much physical pain people go through when stricken with diseases. You don't just die, first you suffer, greatly.

DUH. Did you ever stop to think that condesending attitudes do not win over other people?

I want to see our money spent to reduce this suffering way, way before we reduce the infant mortality rate in Iraq, get it?

Then invest your money in it.
 
You and everyone who responded to this post are missing the real point. The issue is not about embryonic stem cell research, it is about power and the vote of the religious right. Science has nothing to do with it. When science contradicts religion, religion will do its best to crush the science. Just ask gallileo (not sure of the spelling here) he had the gall to say that the earth went around the sun instead of the other way around and the church jailed him for it. right now the republicans are doing everything they can to woo the vote of the religious right. The right and wrong of the situation is not material to them. The vote of the religious right is. So indirectly the religious right has the power and therefore they will stop stem cell research. They have the power and they will use it. they are using it in other ways: sex education, evolultion, "creation science" (what a peversion of the word science). etc. The new dark ages are comming
Here is a little tidbit from history to give you an idea of what is comming. The first doctor in europe to experiment with ether to put patients to sleep during an operation was forced to move out of his home town to another city and change his name. The reason? The church decided that he was going against God's will. It was God's will that people remain awake during operations and suffer so that they would more greatly appreciate God's kindness when they got well.
 
The religous right see's this as killing a life, the foundation of this viewpoint lies within the teachings of the Christian church. But I have yet to see God on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, or FOX News (I think god is more of a CNN type of guy...buts that me :) ) talking about how this is taking a life. I havent see god on the lecture circut talking about the ills stem cell research.
If this was against god's will why are we able to do this...I mean if he/she/it thought this was so bad why is it even possible?
Maybe god is in favor of stem cell research and the ones that recorded his so called wants and his "guide" to living a good and sinless life got it wrong, maybe they were just spreading there own agenda. After all, "they" were/are only human.

-these are cells that are geared towards medical research, their attributes make medical discovery almost second nature to these types of cells.

-Finally
We kill life everyday --- this is what life does best - it dies, whether its in the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the eggs we eat, the bugs we step on, the plants we dont water, the trees we cut down, and the paper we write on.
 
You and everyone who responded to this post are missing the real point. The issue is not about embryonic stem cell research, it is about power and the vote of the religious right. Science has nothing to do with it. When science contradicts religion, religion will do its best to crush the science. Just ask gallileo (not sure of the spelling here) he had the gall to say that the earth went around the sun instead of the other way around and the church jailed him for it.


I agree with you that it has nothing to do with neither science and I would add that it has nothing to do with religion of morality either. It is all about votes and power.

It is true that religion will do its best to crush the science, however history shows that it has never been successful at it., becausde you can't stop progress and you can't stop people from thinking.
BTW Galileo spent his time in jail because he recanted. Had he not done so, he would have been burnt at the stake (which was what happened to Giordano Bruno)
 
LazarusLong said:
right now the republicans are doing everything they can to woo the vote of the religious right. The right and wrong of the situation is not material to them. The vote of the religious right is. So indirectly the religious right has the power and therefore they will stop stem cell research. They have the power and they will use it. they are using it in other ways: sex education, evolultion, "creation science" (what a peversion of the word science). etc. The new dark ages are comming
Here is a little tidbit from history to give you an idea of what is comming. The first doctor in europe to experiment with ether to put patients to sleep during an operation was forced to move out of his home town to another city and change his name. The reason? The church decided that he was going against God's will. It was God's will that people remain awake during operations and suffer so that they would more greatly appreciate God's kindness when they got well.
Republicans don't have to favor the religious right. Who are they going to vote for, a Liberal? You sound a bit paranoid talking about going back to the dark ages. That isn't going to happen, so rest assured. America is quite civilized, except for the decadent left wing. lol :catapult:
 
Squawker said:
LazarusLong said:
Republicans don't have to favor the religious right. Who are they going to vote for, a Liberal? You sound a bit paranoid talking about going back to the dark ages. That isn't going to happen, so rest assured. America is quite civilized, except for the decadent left wing. lol :catapult:
Quite civilized are we? You think it's civilized to start a war? You think it's civilized to try to control another person? You think it's civilized to value an embryo slated for the trash heap over a soldier in Iraq? You think it's civilized to deny a woman birth control over religious reasons? You think it's civilized to cut taxes and Medicaid in the same bill?

Pathetic maybe, civilized, definitely not...
 
you make good points. I had never really thought of it before but who decided that life begins at fertilization, some believe it is when the fetus can live unassisted outside the mothers body, some say at some other unspecified time in the process. And after all,Catholics believe it is even a sin to prevent the possibility of life, hence no contraception. Who is right? how do they know they are right? Who told them they are right? If it is implicit in the Bible, where is that(and which version of the Bible)? Even if so, why does the whole nation have to adhere to Christian beliefs, even if they are not christian?If life is sacred how can most of these people support the death penalty? Isn't that life? If the answer is that criminals are evil and deserve to die, who says they are evil? How do you define evil?(what happened to turn the other cheek) Whoever decides,it what gives them the authority to make that decision? Some Christians use the Bible to justify stem cell research, this conflicts with those that use it to deny stem cell research, which is right and how does either know they are right.

Since I am on the subject. What is the great moral sin about human cloning? It does not appear much differnt than IVF to me. IF a baby is genetically identical to someone, so what? it is still a baby. If the problem is the old slippery slope deal, then when the science clearly crosses a line then deal with it , don't stop it in its tracks. But make sure you define where than line is and more importantly WHY it is drawn where it is. To say that human cloning is morally wrong is not enough, why is it wrong? Who says so? Who gets hurt if someone is cloned? Anytime the answer is that something is morally wrong, that is not an answer because then you must define whose moral guidlines you are using, why you are using them and why should everyone else be required to follow your version of morality

Should we morally stop IVF. For some couples that is the ONLY way they can have kids. IF embryos are destroyed as part of IVF is this murder? If a pregnant woman has a difficult delivery and it comes down to saving either the mother or the baby, which one do you choose and why? Do people who sign do not resucitate forms before an operation committing a form of suicide if they fall into a coma? When children sign the same forms for their elderly parents are they committing murder? Does a culture of life mean preserving some form of a heartbeat at all cost and no matter what the circumstances? Under what circumstances should someone be allowed to die? why is assisted sucicide wrong? Isn't it their life to do with as they see fit? If I am in intense pain and will stay that way for months and will finally die What gives ANYONE the right to say that I cannot end my life now or that it is morally wrong to do so.

There are a lot of questions here but I really would like to see at least some of them answered. I have often wondered if I just have a lot of moral blind spots and I hope someone out there can answer a few of these things

Here's a couple for ya. A man was driving his car and he knew the brake pad were bad, a child ran in front of his car and the brakes failed because of it, the child was killed. If you drive your car and you know the pads need replacing but eventually you get the car fixed and nothing bad happened, aren't you morally equivalent to the guy who was negligent in getting his brakes fixed? After all the only difference is one of luck. His bad luck that a kid ran in front of him and your good that it did not happen to you. Morally you are just as guilty of negligent homicide as the guy who hit the kid. right? because it sure could have happened to you. If you believe that there should be no gun control laws in this country arent you at least partly responsible when someone is killed with a gun. After all if we had background checks at gun shows and a few other common sense items columbine may not have happened. if you vote for guys who oppose any control whatsoever, what is your part of the guilt?
 
Back
Top Bottom