[quote]pookie wrote:
You’re getting your science news from “The journal of religion, culture and public life” and political/religious blogs?
Is this supposed to be a serious thread, or are you starting a new “Joke du jour” thread?
Thanks for the laugh anyway…
[/quote]
Yes, because unless it comes from one or your approved sources its obvious drivel. Tell us oh enlightened one from whence is the only source we should trust our limited understanding of the truth to?
There have been at least a half dozen other “breakthroughs” promising to obsolete the need for embryonic stem cells which haven’t lived up to their media hype. Until this one proves itself different, there’s no point in getting worked up one way or another.
I’m as pro-life as the come but I’m not sold on the stem cell hype.
Gentlemen, allow me to weigh in on this subject (or pissing match, however you prefer to define it). Most who have posted here may know a little about me, for those who don’t; a little background on why this subject is so close to home for me and why it matters:
I hold three science degrees; including an MS in biology, a BS in the Natural Sciences and a minor in chemistry. Therefore, I understand the science behind the debate.
In 2004, my husband was diagnosed with cancer and received a stem cell transplant which has saved his life. He is still in remission today. Therefore, I have a loved one who has benefited from this research. Granted, his transplant was using adult stem cells, but the theory and science have been derived from the research on embryonic stem cells.
I currently have an incurable degenerative disease and am waiting for a treatment that is an alternative to the one currently available (which is worse than the disease for many). Therefore, I am waiting for a cure that may arise from this research.
Lastly, I am a 52 year old female, and I remember when abortion was illegal and the limited options women had, married or unmarried, to control their own reproductive rights. It wasn’t pretty. Unfortunately, many young women today who enjoy reproductive freedom do not understand how their lives and their options will change if they lose it. Control a woman’s reproductive freedom and you control the woman. Simple as that - and you see it all over the world.
Religion: None. I believe that religious freedom includes freedom FROM religion, and I wish the religious right (or left) would stay the hell out of our political system.
Political party: None. I cast my vote for whom I think is the best candidate for the job. And no, that does not include Hillary (I didn’t vote for her husband either). The problem with our political system is that it very quickly culls out those with honor and character. I have yet to be impressed with any of the candidates on either side of the aisle. But I’ll still vote, I always do.
So, to the meat of things. First of all, what everyone here needs to remember is that you are reading these articles in the press. I don’t care what the source is, take it all with a grain of salt. We are in the midst of a political season, and don’t for a minute think that the news is not being biased by it. I work for a government agency that is in the local news all the time, yet I have NEVER come across a story or a reporter who got the facts straight or was willing to keep the spin out of it. So, my advice to you is to do your research carefully and try to keep your own spin out of it also.
Stem cells research - the bottom line is that we should not limit ourselves to certain lines or types. This is where good science comes from; from unbiased, unlimited research. However, the Bush adminstration has limited our ability to do this. The article being debated here infers that embryonic stem cells may not be needed for said research, but I guess we won’t know that because the scientific community is not allowed to fully determine if this is the case. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Lastly, I find it ironic that this administration, which calls itself “pro-life”, would limit our ability to find cures for disabling and degenerative diseases, yet has no qualms about sending young men and women into the meat grinder that is Iraq. Cut the crap and call it what it is; an anti-abortion movement based upon religious and political motivation.
Hey, and here’s a show stopper for ya. Don’t want an abortion? You don’t have to get one: plain and simple.
I believe it’s called Freedom of Choice.
Freedom of Choice is fine. Governmental subsidizing of that choice is not.
Bush is not against ESC research. He is against government-paid research.
If you want to kill babies and call it “reproductive freedom” knock yourself out. But why does the government need to subsidize this freedom?
The religious right/left in this country has every right to voice their beliefs about hoe the country should be run.
There is no such thing as freedom from religion. You are not any more entitled to a life free from religion than I am a life free from the influences of “Dikes on Bikes” rallies, or the horrific image of Hillary’s face.
P.S. Welcome back Gojira. Nice to see you around again.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Freedom of Choice is fine. Governmental subsidizing of that choice is not.
Bush is not against ESC research. He is against government-paid research.
If you want to kill babies and call it “reproductive freedom” knock yourself out. But why does the government need to subsidize this freedom?
The religious right/left in this country has every right to voice their beliefs about hoe the country should be run.
There is no such thing as freedom from religion. You are not any more entitled to a life free from religion than I am a life free from the influences of “Dikes on Bikes” rallies, or the horrific image of Hillary’s face.
P.S. Welcome back Gojira. Nice to see you around again.
[/quote]
Good to see you too, RJ (but isn’t it time for you to change that avatar?).
Well, I haven’t been to a “Dikes on Bikes Rally”, LOL. But I certainly have seen my share of Christian Motorcycle clubs. So, do you think Jesus would have been an Abate member?
Another freedom of choice issue.
[quote]gojira wrote:
Good to see you too, RJ (but isn’t it time for you to change that avatar?).
Well, I haven’t been to a “Dikes on Bikes Rally”, LOL. But I certainly have seen my share of Christian Motorcycle clubs. So, do you think Jesus would have been an Abate member?
Another freedom of choice issue.
[/quote]
I have thought about changing the avatar, but I can’t seem to find anything that captures the aura that is RJ.
I would much rather JC be a member of ABATE than some damn drifting club pretending he is the star of “Fast and Furious”.
But honestly, WWJD is not really a motto I subscribe to.
[quote]gojira wrote:
Gentlemen, allow me to weigh in on this subject (or pissing match, however you prefer to define it). Most who have posted here may know a little about me, for those who don’t; a little background on why this subject is so close to home for me and why it matters:
I hold three science degrees; including an MS in biology, a BS in the Natural Sciences and a minor in chemistry. Therefore, I understand the science behind the debate.
In 2004, my husband was diagnosed with cancer and received a stem cell transplant which has saved his life. He is still in remission today. Therefore, I have a loved one who has benefited from this research. Granted, his transplant was using adult stem cells, but the theory and science have been derived from the research on embryonic stem cells.
I currently have an incurable degenerative disease and am waiting for a treatment that is an alternative to the one currently available (which is worse than the disease for many). Therefore, I am waiting for a cure that may arise from this research.
Lastly, I am a 52 year old female, and I remember when abortion was illegal and the limited options women had, married or unmarried, to control their own reproductive rights. It wasn’t pretty. Unfortunately, many young women today who enjoy reproductive freedom do not understand how their lives and their options will change if they lose it. Control a woman’s reproductive freedom and you control the woman. Simple as that - and you see it all over the world.
Religion: None. I believe that religious freedom includes freedom FROM religion, and I wish the religious right (or left) would stay the hell out of our political system.
Political party: None. I cast my vote for whom I think is the best candidate for the job. And no, that does not include Hillary (I didn’t vote for her husband either). The problem with our political system is that it very quickly culls out those with honor and character. I have yet to be impressed with any of the candidates on either side of the aisle. But I’ll still vote, I always do.
So, to the meat of things. First of all, what everyone here needs to remember is that you are reading these articles in the press. I don’t care what the source is, take it all with a grain of salt. We are in the midst of a political season, and don’t for a minute think that the news is not being biased by it. I work for a government agency that is in the local news all the time, yet I have NEVER come across a story or a reporter who got the facts straight or was willing to keep the spin out of it. So, my advice to you is to do your research carefully and try to keep your own spin out of it also.
Stem cells research - the bottom line is that we should not limit ourselves to certain lines or types. This is where good science comes from; from unbiased, unlimited research. However, the Bush adminstration has limited our ability to do this. The article being debated here infers that embryonic stem cells may not be needed for said research, but I guess we won’t know that because the scientific community is not allowed to fully determine if this is the case. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Lastly, I find it ironic that this administration, which calls itself “pro-life”, would limit our ability to find cures for disabling and degenerative diseases, yet has no qualms about sending young men and women into the meat grinder that is Iraq. Cut the crap and call it what it is; an anti-abortion movement based upon religious and political motivation.
Hey, and here’s a show stopper for ya. Don’t want an abortion? You don’t have to get one: plain and simple.
I believe it’s called Freedom of Choice.
[/quote]
Was their an argument here? It sounds like a baseless emotional diatribe to me. There is only one question, is the fertilized embryo a life or not? If you believe it is, you cannot support it’s destruction, if it is not, you can. In either case it doesn’t matter how you feel about it or what is or is not pretty or whether or not you like it or not. Is it a life or not?
[quote]gojira wrote:
In 2004, my husband was diagnosed with cancer and received a stem cell transplant which has saved his life. He is still in remission today. Therefore, I have a loved one who has benefited from this research. Granted, his transplant was using adult stem cells, but the theory and science have been derived from the research on embryonic stem cells.[/quote]
Given that I don’t know what specific treatment your husband underwent; The vast majority of ASC therapies in use today were developed before ESCs were even cultured in mice. Human ESCs are a very recent research phenomenon and to say that any FDA-cleared ASC application is based on ESC research is akin to saying many of the carburetor applications we see today is based on research into hybrid passenger-vehicle technology.
Opportunity cost says we are limited no matter what. Given your education, I don’t need to imagine for you the research of greater potential and requisite priority that could equally yield treatments that are easier to control, study, and administer (religious popularity aside). I agree with the derision of the Bush Administration’s religious hypocrisy however, the ‘allow the blind to see and lame to walk’ rhetoric that usually composes the ESC sales pitch is equally backwards.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Freedom of Choice is fine. Governmental subsidizing of that choice is not.
Bush is not against ESC research. He is against government-paid research.
If you want to kill babies and call it “reproductive freedom” knock yourself out. But why does the government need to subsidize this freedom?
The religious right/left in this country has every right to voice their beliefs about hoe the country should be run.
There is no such thing as freedom from religion. You are not any more entitled to a life free from religion than I am a life free from the influences of “Dikes on Bikes” rallies, or the horrific image of Hillary’s face.
P.S. Welcome back Gojira. Nice to see you around again.
[/quote]
This point deserves to be emphasized.
There is no ban on any type of stem cell research in the U.S. There is merely a restriction on federal government funding for embryonic stem-cell research that is not undertaken on one of the grandfathered embryonic stem-cell lines.