"A recent national survey indicates that sixty-two percent of Americans support Roe v. Wade". A bigger percentage than that thinks that if Roe vs. Wade were overturned abortion would be illegal in the U.S. You’re probably one of them. If not then you’re one of the leftist ranters trying to convince people that it’s true.

"sixty-one percent support the use of stem cells for medical research". Is there someone trying to stop the use of stem cells for research? Again, you’re either one of the dim-wits that believes Bush is trying to stop all stem-cell research or one of the ranting leftists trying to make political hay out of the lie.

"Global warming. Iran. Iraq. Bird-flu. Al-Quida. Osama. Water shortages. China. India. Outsourcing. Health-care. Illegal immigration. $5 a gallon gasoline."
You have a lot on your little mind, Ray. Crawl back under you rock in Alpharetta where you’ll be safe from the “vocal fringe”.

Maximus
__________________________

Stop Global Whining

"Again, you’re either one of the dim-wits that believes Bush is trying to stop all stem-cell research or one of the ranting leftists trying to make political hay out of the lie."

He did lie.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=22479

Bush initially said that there were more than 60 embryonic stem cell lines that would qualify for federal funding under the regulation. The actual number he used was 78.

However, according to an unpublished NIH analysis and interviews that "circulat[ed]" on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, 17 of those cell lines have been withdrawn or failed to grow, 31 of the lines belong to foreign labs that NIH says have "no interest" in shipping them to U.S. researchers, seven lines have been shown to be duplicates of other lines and eight lines currently are unavailable to researchers but may become available later. According to the NIH analysis, there are only 15 stem cell lines currently available for federally funded research.

You know exactly what I meant. The implication by the left in the last election was that Bush was banning stem-cell research, and that's the same way alpharetta ray presented it. He has attempted to do no such thing, only to deny federal funding to embryonic stem-cell research. A move I fully support. I only wish he would try denying federal funding to about $1 trillion worth of other projects.

Maximus
__________________________
Stop Global Whining

If the US keeps chocking off funding research will die. U.S. scientists are going oversees to continue their work.

As of today there are only 17 stem cell lines that the U.S. Govt. will allow federally funded research dollars to be spent on.

I believe the number world wide is now close to 127+/- viable stem cell lines.

US stem cell research lagging US stem cell research lagging

Of those cell lines, 94 were created abroad, and 34 were created in the United States. Under current policy, all of these new cell lines are off-limits to US laboratories that receive federal funding.

Let me make it easier on you.

In FY02 the NIH had a budget of $386.6 mil. allocated for stem cell research. Of that, only 10.1 mil. was allocated to embryonic stem cell research.

In FY03 it was 516.6 / 20.3 respectfully.
In FY04 it was 552.5 / 24.3 respectfully.

As of July, 2006 the EU's research budget is $64 billion, for 2007 to 2013.

You can’t have it both ways.

Bush’s speech on the veto of stem cell research:

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said Wednesday afternoon. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it.”

During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.

So much for the moral high-ground.

Denying federal funding is not the same as banning stem-cell research any more than denying federal funding for oil exploration is a ban on gasoline.

Maximus

ps
all your links go back to "the citizen".
__________________________
Stop Global Whining

They are all showing """ in the source code.

That happened to me once before.

Bad_PTC,
Rather than blaming Bush, it may be more logical to blame capitalism.
Currently almost all private research funding is going into adult stem cell (and cord blood)research.

Both sides admit that,at present, Adult Stem Cell research offers treatments that can brought to the market sooner that ESC research.

Ergo, smart investment funding has moved away from ESC. Of course, I would never call the Federal government a smart investor!
_________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

It's the Christian Coalition and similar groups that he uses as his moral compass that I have a problem with. When the religious factions of this country start to dictate policy they need to start paying taxes.

I can only surmise that there are fewer Christians in the EU.

Not to go off topic, but fighting a war that will never end, allowing the VP to go off the deep end with secrecy, singing statements and sanctioning torture are not exactly great examples of morality. I myself have had enough of Bush’s idea of morality to last a lifetime. Lately I’ve thought that Bush is the best thing to happen to the Democratic party in a long time.

The bottom line is that saying federal money can’t be spent on ESC research, beyond the 17 “approved” cell lines, is ludicrous.

That’s like saying all medical knowledge gathered by the Nazis during WWII can’t be used in the medical profession in this country because it was obtained in an immoral fashion.

What’s going to be the policy when a medical breakthrough is made in another country that used ESC’s as the basis for their discoveries? Will the FDA ban the treatment in this country because Bush didn’t like the way they achieved it? Let’s see what the good people with high moral fiber think about that.

I’m of the opinion that 400 cells don’t constitute a person. If they did then every time you trim your finger nails you’re guilty of murder.

Arguing that adult stem cells are a better option as per current research is self fulfilling as less than 8% of the available funding, in this country, has been spent on ESC research.

I noticed that neither of you tried to argue that federal tax dollars are being spent to provide abortions in this country. If we can fund that with federal tax dollars then we can fund ESC research and I won’t lose any sleep over it.

As for the “free market” approach I would suggest that you read up on the tariffs this country imposes on others that subsidize industries in there own countries. The airline manufacturing and steel industries are great examples. The “whine” industry in this country pitched a fit about it a few years ago.

Are you suggesting that the U.S. impose trade sanctions/tariffs on medicine derived from ESC research that was governmentally funded in another country?

You hit the nail on the head concerning what's going to happen when other countries move forward with stem cell research. If cures are found people will rush for them. It will be interesting to see how the FDA will react to this.

That’s like saying all medical knowledge gathered by the Nazis during WWII can’t be used in the medical profession in this country because it was obtained in an immoral fashion.

Not many people know that is exactly what doctors said at the Nuremberg trials.

The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments

I’m of the opinion that 400 cells don’t constitute a person. If they did then every time you trim your finger nails you’re guilty of murder.

You have to understand the difference between parts and a whole. You're right in that a skin cell from your hand contains your entire unique DNA code, but skin cells are just part of a whole human. Where your logic fails is contained in the fact that the embryo is a whole, unique,functioning, growing ,human being needing only time and nutrition to become, physically, just like you. No new genetic material is added to the embryo after conception. You have the same DNA now as you did when you were the same age as the embryo.

The real question that needs to be addressed tends to get glossed over.

Show me medical science the proves that the embryo is not innocent human life and I don't care what experiment you want to fund.

However, if they are whole, distant, living, human beings, then there can be no justification for taking innocent life.

_________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

As per the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research “Prior to the 4th week of development the zygote, by this time made up of about 500 cells, is now known as a blastocyst.”

The main difference in ESC and ASC is that in the former cells have the ability to form just about any part of the body. In the latter the cells need to be forced back into a state that they can once again be reformed into another body part.

Because both types of cells have the “potential” to form a unique individual I can’t see how you can ethically make a distinction. How can you justify the difference of allowing something to form verses forcing something to form differently out of something other than what it already was?

”Not many people know that is exactly what doctors said at the Nuremberg trials.”

I understand exactly what happened at those trials. That’s why I mentioned it.

Although many may find the ethical use of such knowledge utterly revolting that hasn’t stopped medicine in this country or Israel for that matter from using that knowledge. The standard treatment for broken bones and burns that is used almost world wide today was born from such atrocities’. This process of medical discovery predates Roman, Aztec, Mayan or Egyptian cultures.

”Show me medical science the proves that the embryo is not innocent human life”

As is usually the case, semantics is getting in the way.

An embryo is defined as the product of conception from implantation in the uterus through the eighth week of development.

The cells that are needed for ESC research are less than 5 days old and were never fertilized in a woman. They’re fertilized in a dish!

What are embryonic stem cells?

“What stages of early embryonic development are important for generating embryonic stem cells?

Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. The blastocyst includes three structures: the trophoblast, which is the layer of cells that surrounds the blastocyst; the blastocoel, which is the hollow cavity inside the blastocyst; and the inner cell mass, which is a group of approximately 30 cells at one end of the blastocoel.”

To keep “telling the lie” that ESC’s are the result of killing babies is just plane stupid. It would be nice if people would at least try to educate themselves on a subject before they make complete fools of themselves.

I’m not aiming that barb at you Paul as you at least seem to have made the effort to become educated on the subject. By far, the majority of people that are arguing that ESC research is immoral don’t even know what it actually is or how it’s done.

bad_ptc,

I missed addressing a couple of your points in the prior post

I noticed that neither of you tried to argue that federal tax dollars are being spent to provide abortions in this country. If we can fund that with federal tax dollars then we can fund ESC research and I won’t lose any sleep over it.

I actually agree with your logic, but not your conclusion. If the unborn are whole,distinct,living humans, it's just as wrong to fund abortions with tax dollars as to fund esc research. Thus, a position of protecting innocent life would ban both.

As for the “free market” approach I would suggest that you read up on the tariffs this country imposes on others that subsidize industries in there own countries. The airline manufacturing and steel industries are great examples. The “whine” industry in this country pitched a fit about it a few years ago.

Are you suggesting that the U.S. impose trade sanctions/tariffs on medicine derived from ESC research that was governmentally funded in another country?

I am suggesting that the position be that of the Jewish doctors I linked to in the prior post. They believed that medical advances gained by killing innocent life were not ethically obtained.

The Constitution provision for tariffs was to:
1-Provide the main source of revenue
2-Combat other country's (i.e. England at that time) attempts to undermine our economy with slave labor et al.

This is question of value and ethics far more than economics. Science can tell us that Canadians (including embryos in Canada) are fully human.
Science cannot tell us whether they have a right to life. That's a question of ethics,value, and natural rights. These concepts can't be addressed by operational science.

America,more than any other nation, was founded on the belief that "life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness" belong to members of the human race. Without the right to life, the other two are without meaning.

Don't take this as antagonistic , but as a test of the consistency of your logic, what if we force people to participate in medical research without their consent and the research always kills them in the process. Is that the path you really want to take to provide "cures" for those who survive the selection process.?
_________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

I am suggesting that the position be that of the Jewish doctors I linked to in the prior post. They believed that medical advances gained by killing innocent life were not ethically obtained.

You’ll get no argument from me on the point that these medical advancements were not ethically obtained. Yet I submit to you that current, widely practiced and generally accepted treatments that were derived from them are currently being used by almost all civilized countries in the world today.

I can’t see the point of your argument. You consider some current medical practices to have been acquired immorally yet you still utilize them. If I follow that logic you consider ESC research immoral yet if a medical advancement is derived from it you use it too.

”Don't take this as antagonistic , but as a test of the consistency of your logic, what if we force people to participate in medical research without their consent and the research always kills them in the process. Is that the path you really want to take to provide "cures" for those who survive the selection process.?”

No it’s not a path I would subscribe to; but to my point, neither is ESC research. (see previous post)

ESC research doesn’t involve “people”. It involves cells. The egg and sperm are combined in a petri dish by a lab technician. There was/is no chance that these cells could ever develop into a person by any definition.

”if we force people to participate in medical research without their consent”

Why do you use the word “if”? It’s already been done, by the U.S. and other governments, for 100’s of years.

Do some research on, human exposure to radiation, hallucinogens and nerve/viral agents.

Look up “The Plutonium Files: America's Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War”.

Try History of human experimentation. This will scare the dog poop out of you.

how about Iraq for starters

do you have one?