[quote]pookie wrote:
What do you propose we do with all those thousands of frozen embryos that are sitting in cryogenic storage?
[/quote]
I don’t think they should be there in the first place.
No one has proven the efficacy of using embryonic stem cells to cure or prevent ANY disease!
So why should we have our tax dollars go to fund research that we have no idea will yield any results? Why can’t the medical industry use their own money to fund research when they are the ones who will make the profits from it if it does turn out to be helpful?
The government funding embryonic stem cell research is nothing more than lobbyists trying to get passed a Corp welfare scheme to help the pharmaceutical and medical industry to potentially make millions without any risk. They are just capitalizing on all the hype to get the research costs paid for them.
Also, just so everyone knows, you all have your own stem cells in you right now. A stem cell is just a “pre-cell” that supports growth of new cells. And as I stated already, there is no proof that embryonic stem cells are better than any other stem cells for curing or preventing disease.
BUSH DID THE RIGHT THING, VETO CORPORATE WELFARE!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
BUSH DID THE RIGHT THING, VETO CORPORATE WELFARE!
[/quote]
Yes - I think this keeps getting lost in the shuffle.
People have mixed emotions on this issue, including myself - but I see absolutely no reason for the government to fund any of it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
BUSH DID THE RIGHT THING, VETO CORPORATE WELFARE!
Yes - I think this keeps getting lost in the shuffle.
People have mixed emotions on this issue, including myself - but I see absolutely no reason for the government to fund any of it.
[/quote]
Exactly. If you want to support the research, donate your money. If you don’t, then you don’t have to worry about the government making the decision for you.
[quote]pookie wrote:
The bill prevents federal funds from being used for stem cell research. It does not prevent private funded research from being done, right?
[/quote]
It prevents federal funding be used to start new lines of embryonic stem cells.
Nothing is illegal.
The US governmeent is far and away the biggest funder of embryonic and other stem cell research in the world.
Private funding of new stem cell lines is perfectly legal.
This is much ado about nothing.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
I don’t think they should be there in the first place.[/quote]
Yeah, well they are. So, what do we do we with them? Pretend they don’t exist? Wait for the preservation contracts to expire and flush them? Even if you don’t use them for research, you still have to deal with them somehow, eventually.
Government funds earmarked for research will still get spent. Only it will be on different research.
I see no problem with that. There’s enough research to be done in myriads of domains without having to invest in ethically difficult areas.
Breakthroughs, if breakthroughs there are to be, will come, only later and/or abroad. You can’t really put back the genie in the bottle once you’ve pulled the cork.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Exactly. If you want to support the research, donate your money. If you don’t, then you don’t have to worry about the government making the decision for you.[/quote]
Although government funding is important in two particulare cases.
-
Research that’s prohibitively expensive even for the largest corporations. Fusion reactors and/or high energy colliders come to mind.
-
Research with no immediate pay-off. Private funded research is often done on a near-term profit agenda, which is quite understandable. Research that appears “promising,” but only in a mid to long term future, will often be left aside by private interests. Stem cell research falls in that category. Colliders too, for that matter.
The embryos which would be used to create stem cells have been labeled as “extra” since they’re leftover after a couple has had the desired number of children, they’re destined to be incinerated anyway. Of course, there’s the rare instance where unused embryos are adopted by other couples.
Either way, more lines need to be opened up for use even by private entities. Anyway, a good compromise would be a national or at least a state-by-state implementation of a tax on elective cosmetic surgery determined to be for reasons other than birth defects, disfigurements, etc. I’m sure there aren’t a ton of members of the Christian Right lining up to get boob jobs…then again, what do I know.
[quote]J-Sood wrote:
I’m sure there aren’t a ton of members of the Christian Right lining up to get boob jobs…then again, what do I know.[/quote]
Unfortunately, I wouldn’t be the least bit shocked if the numbers were exactly the same.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
J-Sood wrote:
I’m sure there aren’t a ton of members of the Christian Right lining up to get boob jobs…then again, what do I know.[/quote]
I don’t know where this came from but, frankly, you’d be surprised!
[quote]pookie wrote:[quote]
JPBear wrote:
I don’t think they should be there in the first place.[/quote]
Yeah, well they are. So, what do we do we with them? Pretend they don’t exist? Wait for the preservation contracts to expire and flush them? Even if you don’t use them for research, you still have to deal with them somehow, eventually.[/quote]
I once considered myself on the side of “Right to Life”. Now, even if I pretty much agree with them in context, by and large, they’re morons and, at best, misguided.
Anyway, JPBear has a point. If you’re going to have a moral issue, that issue should be the selfish creation of dozens of (potential?) little lives just to glorify our human vanity - just because we can. This is what I mean by misguided and is my biggest problem with this veto - it’s insincere and purely political. I’m not really faulting “W” because you wont find a president or any politician, no matter how well intentioned, who’s note held hostage by such political realities - reality being the sometimes-psychotic political power weilded by my RTL friends (case in point - Terri Schaivo).
On another side, I also work for an organization that could potentially benefit greatly (in terms of mission, not profit - I work for a major non-profit) by what we could learn from stem cells - but we’re also lobbying our brains out for a lot of the same federal research money at stake here. Like it or not, the federal government is the primary funding source for biomedical research . . . private funding is fantastic but it just can’t even come close - hence the heavy duty push to pass this bill in Congress.
Personally, I think if we’re going to allow people to create these embryos in their selfish attempt to perpetuate their own genes, I guess when they get what they want, they should be able to donate the “leftovers” to research - better than destruction!! Do I want the government funding it? I’m not sure - but that’s because I’m not crazy about more competition out there for those dollars.
The biggest problem, as usual in Washington, is not with what they say or do but that it’s just disingenuous and they talk circles around the real issues and most people just don’t get it.
[/quote]
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
On top of that, abortion and stem cells are different issues. [/quote]
The most interesting comment on the thread thus far.
Just out of curiousity, where do you draw the line between the two, and how did you come to that conclusion? BTW, I’m guessing you’re talking about embryonic stem cells, not any other type…
Here is an interesting take on this topic which echos many of my feelings on this as well.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Here is an interesting take on this topic which echos many of my feelings on this as well.
[/quote]
Good article. It cuts through the BS. I wish this thread could do the same. I hate politics, all sides.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Exactly. If you want to support the research, donate your money. If you don’t, then you don’t have to worry about the government making the decision for you.[/quote]
True, after I make my 46th billion, I’ll donate 45 (just to beat Buffett) and keep the last billion (a guy’s gotta eat).
[quote]JPBear wrote:
pookie wrote:
harris447 wrote:
And calling microscopic clumps of cells “babies” is beneath you.
Yeah, why not simply call them “potential family support and loving parents” while we’re at it.
About 60% of fecunded ovum are eventually evacuated, totally naturally, for some reason or other. In other words, nature itself aborts about 60% of all pregnancies at the very early (and sometimes not so early) stages.
I don’t see many people filtering their wive’s menses to find and rescue those “potential lives.”
Are you serious?
Do I really need to point out to you that what happens naturally is a different issue than what man orchestrates?
[/quote]
You mean what hapens naturally like IVF implanting?
Very natural.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
You mean what hapens naturally like IVF implanting?
Very natural.
[/quote]
What are you talking about? Go back and read my posts.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
BUSH DID THE RIGHT THING, VETO CORPORATE WELFARE!
Yes - I think this keeps getting lost in the shuffle.
People have mixed emotions on this issue, including myself - but I see absolutely no reason for the government to fund any of it.
[/quote]
Great point. A good veto by the President. Pity he hasn’t wielded it in the countless other situations (pork-laden energy bills, highway bills, defense appropriations, etc.) where he should have…
[quote]JPBear wrote:
harris447 wrote:
You mean what hapens naturally like IVF implanting?
Very natural.
What are you talking about? Go back and read my posts. [/quote]
You have one other post on this thread; it’s for the most part just an assault on Irish’s character.
You also make a point about advances being made from adult stem cells and from umbilical cells, as if because these two avenues seem promising, we should abandon all research into ebryonic stem cells.
Then there’s some nonsense about “your side,” which I guess means the pro-science folks who don’t ascribe “immortal souls” to a microscopic clump of cells.