I hope so, it'll take a lot of him to even begin to argue with any statements just one of us Conservatives can bring about.

__________________
Honor role student at the Limbaugh Institute for advanced Conservative studies.

Why be amused, it seems that most stem cell opponents and proponents here seem to like the idea. Seriously, if the cells are the same or at least work the same AND cause no ethical backlash, then what's the problem?

There is no reason not to be hopeful.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

Agreed. Hopeful and amused.

My disapproval of Embryonic stem cells comes purely from their consistency in failure. Adult stem cells are yielding success in the private sector. Also, I completely disagree with the government funding this sort of thing. I believe that we should leave it in the private sector where it will flourish and the scientists responsible will reap the benefits, not the government. My argument basically comes from my philosophy on the role of government. I still don't understand why the Dems push Embryonic so hard. The pure concept of publicly funding a form of medicinal cure is what I disagree with.

This has nothing to do with babies

Perhaps potential babies, but that's it.

Not a single "BABY" will be saved.

[quote=todd93;887573]There wouldn't be if everybody would recognize the fact that abortion takes a human life for the "convenience" of the mother, making it into murder, thus making it illegal.



[quote] Before it can be recognized as a Fact, it has to be true.
you have three inaccuracies in one very short statement. THEY ARE NOT TRUE.

[quote=todd93;887745]




I'm sorry to hear that, but the child is alive from the miracle of conception on.



QUOTE] That is impossible since it is not yet a child. Can you say "Potential Child"????

Cell therapy with adult stem cells is successful because it deals with known techniques and doesn't present the biggest hurdle in stem cell research, which is differentiation. Adult stem cells range from unipotent to multipotent, which means that if you extract stem cells from bone marrow and transplant them into damaged bone marrow tissue, you can be pretty sure that they will act as and renew the bone marrow tissue without any need for you to influence a differentiation.

Until differentiation of pluripotent or even totipotent stem cells has been fully researched and techniques have been developed, adult stem cell therapy will of course continue to be successful for renewal of homogeneous tissues. That does not mean that there isn't a need for renewal of complex tissues such as veins, neural tissues or otherwise entire organ parts. What it does mean is that for simple tissues there may currently be a cure in form of somatic stem cell therapy but for complex tissues there isn't any other alternative than the usual dependence on donor organs, usual surgery or death. In short: People currently die of diseases and malfunctions that can be treated when differentiation of progenitor cells is fully understood and developed.

So your disapproval doesn't carry much weight (and, as always, kinetic's approval or disapproval of any subject carries none). I think you'll find that far the most will approve of general advancement in healthcare and of saving lifes.

So you don't think government (aka. 'the agent of the people' as someone around here called it earlier) has or should have an interest in healthcare?

What about science in general? Does government have an interest in advancing science?

[quote=doniston;887849][quote=todd93;887573]There wouldn't be if everybody would recognize the fact that abortion takes a human life for the "convenience" of the mother, making it into murder, thus making it illegal.




Well are you saying that murder is ok?

__________________
Honor role student at the Limbaugh Institute for advanced Conservative studies.

[quote=doniston;887854]It doesn't matter if it's not yet a child, it's still a human life that's taken away only for the convenience of the living. Adults are not children either and it's illegal to murder them. So why not for children that aren't born yet? Truth be told, there are serious consequences for those that do harm to the innocent. an unborn child, due to the fact that life does begin from the fertilization of the egg, is innocent, it's not a tissue mass, it's a human life. There has never been a credible argument for the pro-abortion crowd, I have yet to hear one and I've heard them all.

__________________
Honor role student at the Limbaugh Institute for advanced Conservative studies.

[quote=todd93;888263][quote=doniston;887849] No way, I am saying:

1. that abortion is never for the convenience of the mother(that can't be called convenience)
2. it is not murder, and therefore
3. It is Not illegal.

[quote=todd93;888266] I was disagreeing with YOUR WORDS

YOU referred to a "Child" I agree it is a Human life (such as it is)

But just for curiosity, what are these Serious consequences you speak of????

No, Life does not begin at conception. it starts long before that, there is human life in the mothers ovums, whic are an extention of her mother and her......" and there is life in the spermatoza before it makes contact with the ovum. Tissue mass or not it is human life, but until it becomes a human being (by any of several definitions,) it has no rights, and is not considered a person/child/human being/ etc.

I do not believe that the government should pur research into something in order to hopefully stimulate its success. I believe that private companies and funding should at least begin to succeed before we invest the taxpayers' money into something such as embryonic stem cell research.

Furthermore, no, I do not believe that the role of government is to control the flow of advancement in most cases. This is one of them. I do not see the government nationalizing the pharmaceutical business, and I strongly disagree with them doing anything of the sort. Therefore, I do believe that the government's role is to give private investors more room for R&D via cutting taxes.

Embryonic stem cell research has been unsuccessful for eight years(maybe I'm wrong on the exact time?). If I had to choose, I would be much quicker to support funding for this new technology over that of embryonic stem cells.

There are two kinds of research that people should really learn to distinguish between. One is basic research. This kind of research is driven by a desire for knowledge. No more and no less. It's acquisition of knowledge for the sole sake of acquiring knowledge.

The other kind of research is called applied research. This kind of research is driven by needs for solutions to specific problems. Needs such as a treatment, a new source of energy or a competition-improved crop.

For the first kind of research, what you would probably consider to be unsuccessful research is in fact just as successful as what you'd otherwise call successful research. It's just as important to know how things don't work as it is to know how they work.

Since applied research is a spin-off from basic research, success is far the most common measure simply because the application that names this kind of research is closely tied to other spin-offs, namely commercialism and profit. Yet other spin-offs are technology, know-how, industry, employment, healthcare, infrastructure, military .. well, you finish the list yourself. I think you'll find things that are quite valuable to society and therefore highly subjected to political interest. And of course, governmental interests.

So, while a person who dedicates time and perhaps an entire life to the joint effort of running a nation may not have an interest in spending the tax payers money on improving the fiscal report of any specific company, that person will most certainly have an interest in one of the cornerstones that enable companies to present fiscal reports in the first place.

Said in other words: Profit, practical benefits, estimated values and other such pleasant expectations need not be a justification for government to fund basic research.

Not true. Embryonic stem cell research has been unsuccessful for millions of years. Adult stem cell research only for millions of years minus a couple.

Seriously though, this is like saying you'll be quicker to support insulin treatment of diabetes than research in malignant tumorigenic cancers. Simply because insulin treatment works while research in malignant tumorigenic cancers has not yet resulted in any consistent cure. You're mixing apples with oranges.

Adult stem cell therapy works because of the limited potential of adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cell therapies have not been developed because they have potentials that are not yet understood. Would you have disapproved of adult stem cell research as well before the therapy worked??

I'm ready to bet all I own (not much) that anyone who utters such a thing isn't evaluating any health-improving potentials but solely his or her own dogmatic moral assertions. Which may be absolutely fine. No problem. But do not call it disapproval of the research itself. Call it what it is, - a disapproval of ethical views contrary to your own.

Anyhow, as the topic title states, you may not have to disapprove anymore.

Well, the House passed a bill yesterday ordering the Health Department to conduct and support research on embryos donated from unused fertility clinics. While I have no problem with research on unconcious embryos, I do have a problem with the Federal govt paying for it. Hopefully Bush will veto it if it makes it through the Senate.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.