1
   

Laura Bush vs. Science

Forums: Politics, Stem Cell Research, Laura Bush
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 01:34 pm
I missed that quote, Rick. Displays the man's ignorance more so than usual.

Hey, Karzak, you know what they did to Communists in Nazi Germany?
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 01:35 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
LOL. OK, let's get back to the topic: Again I ask, Karzak, what qualifies you to determine that enough research is being undertaken in this area. Because Laura Bush says so?


What qualifies anyone to determine that stem cell research shouldn't be shelved and the money spent on some other project?

Stem cell research is still going on, with public funds, it wasn't eliminated or even reduced by Bush, and most of the people complaining are either the ABB crowd who complain and blame Bush if the sky is too blue, and the people who are hoping for more public money to go their way.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 01:44 pm
Bush has determined that no more stem cells should be harvested based on the belief that because "a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource."

That's kind of like killing a deer for it's antlers and not eating the meat out of respect for the dead...doesn't make any sense. Better to use everything of benefit that would be thrown out - in everyday life I think it's called 'recycling'.


Jer wrote:
Bush on Stem Cells wrote:
And to the other crucial question, if these [embryos] are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose -- I also found different answers.

Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential.

Others will argue there's no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 01:55 pm
I love his line: "I also found different answers."

I can just picture Bush, our little scholar, staying up late poring over complex scientific and ethical texts. Open-minded as always, he knows he must spend as much time as needed to formulate the right decision.

"Aren't you coming to bed?" Laura asks. "You've been up 'til dawn all week with those darn books."

"Sorry, honey," Bush says with a yawn. "I can't rest until I've figured this out. There's just so much I have to read..."

Yeah, right...
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 01:56 pm
Jer wrote:

That's kind of like killing a deer for it's antlers and not eating the meat out of respect for the dead...


Hardly, it's more like taking grandmas dead carcass and using it as a doorstop. Heck, why not?
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 01:58 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
I love his line: "I also found different answers."

I can just picture Bush, our little scholar, staying up late poring over complex scientific and ethical texts.


Nothing complex about ethics.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 02:01 pm
As a doorstop? So you're comparing using an embryo for scientific research which could lead to important findings with using a dead grandma as a doorstop? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 02:01 pm
El-Diablo wrote:
SOunds good. Theres not logical reason to be opposed to stem cell, exept for petty religious motives.

1. It's not really the stem cells that are the focus of the argument. It's where they come from. Generally embryonic stem cells have been obtained in two different ways: one is from germ cells from aborted fetuses and the other is from cells from embryos not used in IVF. In the former case, one ethical issue is that of cooperation with abortion, which some people regard as inherently evil. Also, it has been proposed to clone embryos to assure a steady supply. Many people believe that deliberately creating human life, only to mine it for spare parts is immoral. Whether you agree with this or not, it's not petty. Also, your assertion that this opinion is always based on religion is false, since, I, myself, am an athiest.

2. There is something about the way you phrased your post which leads me to suspect that you consider all religious motives to be petty. Is this so, and if it is, why? Since people often base their opinions regarding public policy on their ethical beliefs, why should religious people not be allowed to?
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 02:11 pm
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
As a doorstop? So you're comparing using an embryo for scientific research which could lead to important findings with using a dead grandma as a doorstop? Rolling Eyes


Hey, using a dead grandma as a doorstop could lead to important findings as well, give me a big government grant, a few dead grandma's, and 20 years and I'll prove it... Or not.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 02:14 pm
What a fabulous sense of humor Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 02:31 pm
Karzak wrote:

Nothing complex about ethics.


Well, that comments explains a lot, too. Must tell that to a friend who earned a master's in philosophy.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 03:11 pm
Yes, you tell him that. If he is smart enough he will agree.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 03:15 pm
Karzak,

What's your reason for using a2k?
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 03:28 pm
Jer wrote:
Karzak,

What's your reason for using a2k?


Political discussion. What's yours?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 03:30 pm
It's not discussion if you have all the answers.

Not to mention the "LOL" whenever someone has another point of view...
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 03:32 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
It's not discussion if you have all the answers.


So you don't discuss here? You should leave then

D'artagnan wrote:
Not to mention the "LOL" whenever someone has another point of view...


LOL, So I am a happy guy, I guess the libs hate happy guys?
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 03:34 pm
Karzak wrote:
So you don't discuss here? You should leave then

Although I understand you meant this to be sarcastic, I want to say that he was talking about you. Just to make sure.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 03:36 pm
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Karzak wrote:
So you don't discuss here? You should leave then

Although I understand you meant this to be sarcastic, I want to say that he was talking about you. Just to make sure.


Ah, another guy with all the answers! I'm confused, dis this mean you are leaving as well?
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 03:38 pm
I did not say I know all answers. Answers are subjective.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 03:41 pm
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
I did not say I know all answers.


No, I said it for you, just like it was said for me.

If you guys want to stop posting substance, and post this crap then I will play right along. At least for a while.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Laura Bush vs. Science
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 09:33:33
▲ ▼