Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: soda72 on August 23, 2006, 09:08:55 PM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5272648.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5272648.stm)
If GWB didn't stick with the 'ethical' policy on stem cell research, would scientists have even tried to develop/pursue this type of method?
-
The whole GWB argument is silly IMO
Politically he did the right thing
He didnt outlaw research.
He simply wont provide federal funding for certain types of the research.
Means you can do it. You just cant get and use federal taxpayer money for it
-
from the above link
In 1995, the US Congress passed an amendment stating that the government would not fund research in which human embryos were destroyed.
In 1995? So when GWB announced his policy, it just preserved the status quo? He didn't change the Fed's policy at all? hmm...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In 1995? So when GWB announced his policy, it just preserved the status quo? He didn't change the Fed's policy at all? hmm...
Hmmm if thats the case.
Im wondering why Clinton agreed to it
Still it isnt a ban on it. Just that the givernment wont fund it.
If you can fund it yourself as most pharmaceuticals should be doing anyway considering what they charge for medicine.
Have at it
-
but, but, nothing can happen without govt funding.
-
Originally posted by john9001
but, but, nothing can happen without govt funding.
...and this board must be a figment of our imaginations, unless it gets gov't funding.
-
except where war is concerned....
Government funding or interferance just slows research.
lazs
-
I don't care who they hack up to get the cells. Its the only thing which is going to cure diabetes, seeing as how that is effecting my life - **** ethics.
Wolf
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
I don't care who they hack up to get the cells. Its the only thing which is going to cure diabetes, seeing as how that is effecting my life - **** ethics.
Wolf
Or cancer or whatever they can cure by poking cells.
Poke away and keep holy men away from the labs.
-
Quite right too, lets also make sure that every child comes with a spare clone child, so that if one of our organs fails we can take one of theirs. Until then though, I think it would be best if we adopted the Chinese policy and simply harvested the organs from prisoners. After all, what is most important is that we continue to survive with the highest possible quality of life, eh?
Can't have the "holy men" raising all sorts of ethical considerations that might interfere with our ability to continue to live by whatever means we deem necessary.
Did it ever occur to you that the people who create all those irritating bioethical roadblocks and argue for those who have no capacity to argue for themselves are what separate our society from following in the train of say China or Nazi Germany and simply using the weak and defenseless (or purging them entirely) as those in power see fit?
You just might find that one day when we have successfully eliminated the concept of the inherent value of all human life, and when humans who are embryos, fetuses, severely retarded or brain damaged, quadrapalegics, terminally ill, or aged no longer have an inherent right to life that your particular category is next in line to be declared "worthless" by the young, healthy, and ethically unconstrained or that they simply determine its your liver that will be harvested to keep them alive.
At one point everyone on this board was an embryo, did they have no inherent right to live at that point? Is it just that society grants you the alienable right to life based on your being outside the womb, healthy and reasonably productive? If so, then the Declaration was wrong to declare that all men "are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." All we have in that case are societal permissions that are mutable and granted to a favored few who meet the current criteria.
- SEAGOON
-
Stem cell research is fine by me.
I am also pro abortion, but against the death penalty whatever the crime is. Funny world isnt it, but im no more right or wrong than anyone else with the complete oposite view.
-
At one point everyone on this board was an embryo, did they have no inherent right to live at that point?
No.
They lived at the whim of the person carrying that embryo. which is why you should honor your parents. They let you live.
-
Nilsen,
All laws, law codes, and constitutional systems are founded upon concepts of morality. One cannot walk too far down the road of moral relativism without placing these very laws and systems in jeopardy.
Those who propose the legalization of stem-cell research are basing their proposals on their own concepts of morality. They are, in essence, insisting that the laws of the nation be changed to fit their own beliefs. It is all well and good to believe in interpreting the Constitution loosely, as long as one realizes, as Seagon implies, that building law codes on such shifting philosophical and moral sands can lead to disaster.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Nilsen,
All laws, law codes, and constitutional systems are founded upon concepts of morality. One cannot walk too far down the road of moral relativism without placing these very laws and systems in jeopardy.
Those who propose the legalization of stem-cell research are basing their proposals on their own concepts of morality. They are, in essence, insisting that the laws of the nation be changed to fit their own beliefs. It is all well and good to believe in interpreting the Constitution loosely, as long as one realizes, as Seagon implies, that building law codes on such shifting philosophical and moral sands can lead to disaster.
Regards, Shuckins
Indeed.
However, if the majority of a population within a nation wants the law to change in favor of their belivefs then it should. Im not sure what the majority of the population in America belives, but here the vast majority belives that these celles are just tissue and code without soul or thoughts.
Lets say for a minute that research in these things had lead to a cure for cancer. Would you then refuse to take that cure if you got ill because of some moral values that you yourself hold?
-
Delaying research means more people dying in the mean time.
-
Nilsen,
You asked if I would refuse treatment for a life-threatening disease if that treatment involved some moral issue. I have thought about that, and would like to believe that I would have the moral strength to say "no."
But humans are weak...and none of us could know the answer to that until the actual time came to make such a decision.
Some of those calling for such research are doing so for selfish reasons, and don't give a fig for the moral dilemma that such research raises. We are a spoiled nation. An embryo can't talk; ergo it isn't human. The potential humanity of that embryo be dammed...gimme my cure!
Others who support this research do so because the research agencies, news agencies, and political groups pushing for federal funding of this research have been very effective in convincing the public that it has tremendous potential.
Well...maybe...but so far, despite massive amounts of time and money being spent on it, embryonic stem-cell research has yet to produce a single successful cure of a suffering patient. Not one. Indeed, the cells are wildly unpredictable and unmanageable in their growth. If it wasn't for the blogs, such monumental failures would seldom be heard about. It is intellectually dishonest for the researchers to continue to lobby for federal funding for a research program that some feel will ultimately turn out to be a dead end.
On the other hand, ADULT stem-cell research shows immense promise, and has already produced numerous success stories, for adult stem-cells are NOT wildly unpredictable in growth and development, and involve no moral and ethical problems.
The type of research mention at the start of this thread, which extracts stem cells from an embryon without ending or marring its potential development also raises fewer moral and ethical questions.
So the question arises, why are we still beating our heads together over federal funding for the stem-cell research that has yet to produce a single success? Other lines of research exist, as I have shown, that have vastly more potential and far fewer ethical points to divide American citizens.
Regards, Shuckins
-
nelson... you got your innocent people and you got your guilty people...
I say let the innocent live and kill the guilty... you say the opposite.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nelson... you got your innocent people and you got your guilty people...
I say let the innocent live and kill the guilty... you say the opposite.
lazs
no i dont
i guess a stem cell is "people" to you
-
You didn't say stem cell... you said abortion.
Abortion can be anything from a few days to a few seconds before the last toes leave the mom.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You didn't say stem cell... you said abortion.
Abortion can be anything from a few days to a few seconds before the last toes leave the mom.
lazs
The topic is stem celles
But lets take abortion. Legal abortion does not take place just before the toes leave mom. Im not sure how many weeks into the pregnancy you can have one but its just a lump of flesh within the legal timeframe.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Those who propose the legalization of stem-cell research are basing their proposals on their own concepts of morality. They are, in essence, insisting that the laws of the nation be changed to fit their own beliefs. It is all well and good to believe in interpreting the Constitution loosely, as long as one realizes, as Seagon implies, that building law codes on such shifting philosophical and moral sands can lead to disaster.
Regards, Shuckins
Since when was stem-cell research illegal???
-
BigGun,
Oops, sorry. You caught me in a gaffe. What I meant to say was that some people wanted the government to change its position on funding stem-cell research.
I typed that first post right after waking up this morning...I was kinda in a fog.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The topic is stem celles
But lets take abortion. Legal abortion does not take place just before the toes leave mom. Im not sure how many weeks into the pregnancy you can have one but its just a lump of flesh within the legal timeframe.
(http://www.frontlineint.com/ringofconfidencesml.jpg)
from Wikipedia
Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there is no exact data for the number of abortions performed after viability. In the United States, 1.4% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later (approximately 18,000 per year). In 1997, the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions past 24 weeks to be 0.08% (approximately 1,032 per year).
And,
from Premature Baby Website (http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/newborn/premature_babies.html)
In general, babies born after 24 to 25 weeks of gestation are mature enough to survive, although they will need a prolonged period of intensive care.
Hence, much of the controversy...