I can't allow you to be wrong, Frank. No matter how badly you want to.
McGentrix wrote:I can't allow you to be wrong, Frank. No matter how badly you want to.
As I cannot allow you to be wrong, McG...no matter how much you insist on doing so....which is why I responded to what you wrote. :wink:
Frank Apisa wrote:McGentrix wrote:I can't allow you to be wrong, Frank. No matter how badly you want to.
As I cannot allow you to be wrong, McG...no matter how much you insist on doing so....which is why I responded to what you wrote. :wink:
Glad we understand each other!
sozobe wrote:Sofia, howsabout you turn something up that shows he is FOR stem cell research -- now. Because the thing with that is the existing lines are contaminated with French mouse poop (or something) and are close to useless, research-wise. So if he's for stem cell research, they need stem cells to research. And guess where they get them?
You can get them from adults. He commissioned a scientific study of the subject of adult v embryonic cells and so on...
As far as turning something up--if you fund it, you're obviously for it. Being FOR something doesn't mean you have to approve every aspect of it. He has spoken many times about the positive benefits of stem cell research.
Some people will find fault with, or create conspiracies about, whatever he says.
Quote:You can get them from adults.
Adult stemcells are not the same thing as embryonic stemcells. Embryonic stemcells are far more promising.
Quote:As far as turning something up--if you fund it, you're obviously for it.
Or you're putting up a smokescreen.
Quote:Being FOR something doesn't mean you have to approve every aspect of it.
You know, in a way it does.
Lash -
You're quite the Republican shill, you know that?
Bush was STRONGLY against stem cell research until he bowed to political pressure to change his stance. This is EXACTLY the sort of flip-flopping he continually accuses his opponents of.
Bush didn't provide adequate funding, and his arbirtary and useless selection of stem cell lines that he didn't understand has limited the avenues of research our scientists can persue. He's not for it. He's against it. That you could think any differently shows just how blind you are, how willing to accept that your leaders are right because they tell you they are right...
He was the first to provide funding, simply because we didn't even know it NEEDED funding before. Now that we do know, he provides a paltry amount, limits the science greatly, and you call it support? I don't think so...
Cycloptichorn
"You know, in a way it does," einherjar said with a devious snarl...
"No it doesn't," the effervescent Sofie piped up idealistically--and more to the point, correctly. "I am for abortion in the 1st trimester, but violently opposed to late term and Partial Birth abortion."
einherjar pondered this, rubbing his chin hair.
"I am for gun ownership, and the second amendment--but bitterly opposed to assault weapons. I also advocate waiting periods and a couple of other restrictions. But, don't think for a minute I'm against gun ownership," she breathed deep, and unholstered her Smith and Wesson.
Almost every major issue has degrees. So does stem cell.
The end.
Oooh, good, the guns finally showed up.
Sofie, define assault weapon.
As I have stressed in the past, how about testing on mice and rats first. Prove that you can have repeatable positive results and THEN we start using higher animlas and acheive repeatable positive results, and THEN try using esiting Human embryo's, THEN new lines...
The science is too young at this stage to be worried as we are.
Quote:Excerpts from 24 August LA Times article "U.S. to Fund Controversial Stem Cell Research" by Aaron Zitner, Times Staff Writer:
WASHINGTON--The federal government announced Wednesday that for the first time it will fund medical research using human embryo cells, touching off a bitter debate between anti-abortion groups and patients with diabetes, heart disease and other ailments. President Clinton said the research had "breathtaking" promise and added: "I think we cannot walk away from the potential to save lives and improve lives."
...Under the NIH plan released Wednesday, researchers would have to submit their stem cell proposals to a new review committee, whose members have not been named and who will not meet until December. The first dollars would not reach researchers until next year.
That gives opponents time to try to stop the agency, said Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), a leading critic of the NIH plan. He said opponents might sue the agency on grounds that its plan violates a law prohibiting federal funding for research in which embryos are destroyed. The NIH says its plan is legal because researchers will not be able to spend federal money to dissect embryos and harvest stem cells, but only to work with cells already created at private facilities.
Opponents also could appeal to the next president, who will have the power to stop the NIH plan with an executive order. Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, supports stem cell research, while Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican nominee, has said through surrogates that he opposes it.
To what degree is George Bush opposing stem cell research here, Lash?
You'll have as hard a time being for stem cell research, yet against stem cell harvesting as you will have being for abortion, yet against killing embryos.
It's a lot like being for anatomic research back in medival times, but being against dissection.
Quote:As I have stressed in the past, how about testing on mice and rats first. Prove that you can have repeatable positive results and THEN we start using higher animlas and acheive repeatable positive results, and THEN try using esiting Human embryo's, THEN new lines...
The science is too young at this stage to be worried as we are.
I disagree. There already have been many proven, repeatable results showing that stem cells show great promise during animal testing. It IS time to move to stronger testing.
But, I agree; it's a difference of opinion, so I don't want to argue on that. It's the arbitrary ban on lines that I don't see how any reasonable scientist could support.
Cycloptichorn
Maybe if I yell it...
THERE IS NO BAN ON STEM CELL RESEARCH! THERE IS NO BAN ON NEW LINES!
The federal government simply refuses to fund it. Maybe if people like G. Soros used his money funding research instead of wasting it on the election, researchers could do the work they want. Private money has no limits.
Refusal to fund science with public money = ban. Don't play word games. Our public universities RELY on that federal money (paid for by taxpayers), and to withold that money is the same as a ban. You know as well as I do that applied research and University-style informational research are two different things.
You can shout all you want, it doesn't change the facts.
Cycloptichorn
The facts?! You mean the facts that there is NO BAN ON STEM CELL RESEARCH?
Can you shout it louder?
There IS an effective ban on stem cell research. Period. You are reduced to yelling, as your arguments have failed.
Cycloptichorn
<funny>
Saying there is a ban when there is not= political propaganda
