What is Digg?55 Comments
- shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -12/+45this is what happens when you let religious fundementals into government....
hey america, i feel your pain, here in Australia our health minister Tony Abbott is a religious nut too, and he's making life very difficult for stem cell researchers :(
hasn't religioun already been responsible for enough death/destruction and pestilence? - wobitnobby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Ummm, embryonic stem cells most certainly do not come from aborted fetuses.
Embryonic stem cells are harvested from the 100-cell stage of the blastocyst or earlier, in order to obtain totipotent or pleuripotent stem cells (that's fancy jingo for "completely undifferentiated and can therefore be encouraged to grow into any and every cell type"). This stage happens 5-7 days after the meeting of sperm and egg.
A woman cannot be diagnosed as pregnant until implantation of the conceptus into the wall of her uterus. This happens around day 10. Therefore, any product of abortion is not useful for harvesting embryonic stem cells.
What people can use, however, are zygotes leftover from all the infertile couples using IVF, as they are often simply flushed. - hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19"Hopefully the next president will be smart and lift the ban. Which one would it be? Edwards? Hillary?"
Don't forget Obama: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060717-statement_of_support_for_stem_cell_research/index.html
The morality of stem cell research is debated using religion as ammo instead of logic. Just because you may think that stem cell research is contradictory to your religion, Mr. President, doesn't justify the imposition of your beliefs on the welfare of the many Christian and Non-Christian people whose lives depend upon cures only possible through such research. - Phr00t, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Science was the answer to every cure to date.
Science was the answer to all the technology we have.
Science will be the answer to future questions, including any benefits from stem cell research.
My heart pumps blood to my brain, so my brain can do what it is suppose to -- think. Well, that is at least what science says.
Human beings have souls? That is questionable.
Human beings generally want to live, and live healthily. That is not questionable.
So many useful things, like praying? Science disproved how useful that is.
But then again, it's only science... the same science that figured out how this whole Internet works. - SilenceGold, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17That is very smart of those scientists dodging the ban on the federal funds. There should already be a bunch of large private companies that are already working on the research of human embryonic stem cell lines.
Hopefully the next president will be smart and lift the ban. Which one would it be? Edwards? Hillary? - gostars, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Yet another attempt to make the public think that "embryonic stem cell research" encompasses all that is "stem cell research". That FACTS are that *adult* stem cell research carries more promise, not to mention an actual track record of success, than embryonic stem cell research ever has. And adult stem cell research is pressing forward in earnest.
Those that try to make "stem cell research" strictly an embryonic issue are using politics to smother the technological breakthroughs they purport to serve. - countmandible, on 11/15/2007, -5/+10Bush is driven by outside interests 100%.
It's okay to bomb the ***** out of people who are outside of the womb.
It's okay to bomb the ***** out of people who might be pregnant (I don't think our bombs can tell the diff).
It's NOT okay to harvest stem cells from the fetus though because it is 'living'.
Somehow the hypocrisy smacks a little too hard in my face, so I am just thankful that other nations are smart enough to realize the healing potential of this research, and that the scientific community shares its advances. - Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12I really hate the faith-based approach the Bush administration is taking on every issue. Left him high and dry in Iraq and in the senate and congress department after the last election
Before the 2004 elections, I recall Laura bush saying, "We don't know that stem cell research will yield any useful results." That's why we research, Laura.
2008, just can't wait! - mocheeze, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Unfortunately we live in a society where a person like Octavius can oppress our science programs and research because of his own personal (and irrational) opinion of morality. I really hate when someone's mythologies or superstitions are the governing voice of a nation who needs all the help it can get in order to stay on the same level as the rest of the modern world.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To be fair, no one outlawed stem cell research. They just decided there was enough opposition to it in society that people's money, who oppose it, shouldn't fund it.
If there is that much support for it, form a non-profit organization to collect money from all of the people that support it and fund it. No one is stopping you. - WilliamTanksley, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10This article is silly. Although this particular reason for restrictions was invented by Bush, this type of restriction is OLD. The protocols for dealing with it are well-established.
It so happens that most people who give money, don't want it used in just ANY manner and for just ANY purpose; honest R&D has always had to jump through hoops when dealing with other people's money.
So can the whining. If you don't think the restrictions are right, by all means complain about them -- but don't pretend that THESE restrictions are special and different from all the other ones that have been there all along.
-Billy - Cymrubeats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Some fear that certain types of genetically engineered crops will further reduce biodiversity in the cropland, and eventually even lead to the extinction of certain species; this has already been observed in the past, for example after humans have introduced species into habitats that were not prepared for them; herbicide-tolerant crops will, for example, be treated with the relevant herbicide to the extent that there are no wild plants ('weeds') able to survive, and plants toxic to insects will mean insect-free crops. This could result in declines in other wildlife (e.g. birds) which feed on weed seeds and/or insects for food resources.
As i said, be careful what you wish for. If you think for a minute it will be all flowers and sunshine when stem cell research etc takes hold, then you're in for a big shock. - DontSayFanboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Where are the ethics in discarding stem cells rather than using them for the benefit of all mankind?
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@geronimo
Yes, let's all look back and laugh at our honor and integrity. - sotopheavy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I strongly feel that our government should fund stem cell research. We are a modern society that will continue to rely on new discoveries in science and technology to comfortably support our ever growing population. Each citizen has an obligation to support America's progress in these fields. If they do not they should not be entitled to any benefits that science and technology produce. The president has put a major hurdle in the path of progress by banning federal funding on certain types of stem cell research, but I know he would take advantage of a future cure produced by it if it would save his life or ease his suffering one day. We need to know which candidates wholeheartedly support scientific progress in the 2008 presidential election. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for competence as a leader of our nation.
- rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It might have been sarcasm, but it was still a stupid thing to say.
- svartbjorn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Bill Clinton is a religious zealot? That's what you're saying when you claim that the one who banned Federal Funding for stem cell research is a religious zealot. George Bush liberalized the ban on funding for stem cell research to only include lines that had yet to be created. Bill Clinton had banned all stem cell research Federal Funding.Look it up before you spread some more disinformation and propaganda. By the way it's just one form of funding, there is NO BAN ON STEM CELL RESEARCH in the US.
Private funding is thin because the promise is more hype and hope than substance.
Check your facts before you form your opinions. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"here in Australia our health minister Tony Abbott"
You are copying what America once was. After the last election, we have told our religious right to get lost. We've had enough. In 2008 we will reiterate our feelings to more politicians who try to tell us they're more moral or more christian than other people. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is what I have been saying for a year now although this article says it more eloquently. Although Bush did not ban embryonic stem cell research, he did strike a huge blow to it.
- hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I would guess that a majority of the food we eat is GM. We have already accepted genetically modified crops, and I suppose they weren't all that hard to swallow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Abundance_of_GM_crops - catstack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Since I'm not an evangelical, perhaps I'm not the right person to respond to this, but I'll take a stab at it...
You object to the term "embryonic stem cell". It seems the guys doing the research use the term too. This is a quote from the original article:
"Embryonic stem cells are the basic building blocks created when an egg is fertilised. About 100 cells cluster to form a ball known as a blastocyst, and at this stage each cell is capable of turning into any organ or tissue of the body."
I don't think changing the name to "blastocyst stem cell" research changes the debate anyway.
Besides, such terms are merely labels that people invent because we like to categorize things. All of us have gone through or will go through each of these labels:
blastocyst, embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult, red/blue-state voter, senior citizen
Every senior citizen was once a blastocyst too. - catstack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1(Sorry for the long post, but this is something I've being thinking about for a while and finally got it down in writing. I know it's not going to be popular, but please read the whole thing before digging me down to oblivion. Thanks)
So what's the big deal about embryonic stem cell research? There's the promise that this research could lead to treatments and cures for some really dreadful diseases. But I ask you, at what cost to our humanity? If you're a pro-lifer then destroying an embryo is killing an unborn person. If you're a pro-choicer (is that a word?), then its no big deal because embryos aren't "viable".
Now, I'd like to engage in a thought experiment or two with you.
Thought Experiment 1: Terminally ill patient.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine a terminally ill patient on life support (say a feeding tube) who has 3 months to live. Researchers suspect that this patient (and others like him) hold the key to curing cancer. The problem is that patient's brain must be harvested *now* to be helpful. Waiting until the patient is dead is too late (perhaps because the interesting tissues will have degraded too much to be useful).
Now, I've got a couple questions for you:
1) Is it ethical and legal for a third party (the state, drug company) to authorize the harvesting of the patient's brain without obtaining the patient's consent? Keep in mind, this patient isn't "viable" without life support and could help treat/cure thousands of others.
2) Is it ethical and legal to even ask a patient for their informed consent to harvest their live brain?
3) What if the patient says "no". Does the state have the right to go ahead anyways "for the greater good"?
4) Can we declare the patient incompetent, then appoint someone else to give consent?
I sincerely hope that we live in a world where everyone agrees that the answers to all 4 questions is a resounding NO. If not, then the concepts of human rights and dignity are mere farces that can be discarded whenever convenient.
So what does this thought experiment have to do with embryonic stem cell research? Let's rerun the experiment again, this time substituting the embryo for the terminating ill patient.
Do you reach the same conclusions? Why, or why not?
Keep in mind that at least some of these embryos could be successfully implanted, grow to full term and go on to live a full and happy life.
Thought Experiment Two: Change in the definition of viability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court found that abortions are legal in the first trimester. During the second trimester, states may impose various restrictions on abortion. Finally, during the third trimester, abortions are heavy discouraged (restricted except for life/health of the mother issues). I think the basic reasoning here, is that during the 1970s, a baby born prematurely during the third trimester had a reasonable chance at living. In other words, they were viable. Infants born during the first and second trimesters were not viable. My own daughter was born a month premature and I can assure you, she is quite viable.
With improvements in medical science, the point of viability keeps getting pushed back further into the second trimester. According to one study on preterm infant mortality (ok, the first one I found in Google), 6% of infants born at 22 weeks survived. Note, this is in the middle of the second trimester. Granted, 6% isn't great odds, but it is 6% that didn't exist 30 years ago. Also by the last week in the second trimester 33% of babies survive. You can read the study yourself at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7217/1093 . There's also an interesting graph of survival rates vs gestational age and birth weight: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content-nw/full/319/7217/1093/F1
Question Time:
1) Now that the age of viability has been pushed back, should the Supreme Court revisit its guidance? Presumably, abortions were OK before third trimester because fetuses weren't viable. If now, they are viable I think this needs to be revisited.
2) It doesn't really take that much imagination to envision a time in the not too distant future (say 50 or 100 years from now) where medical science has advanced to the point where artificial wombs are possible. A baby could be conceived in a test tube, transferred to the artificial womb, grow for 9 months, then be born into the world.
When this happens, the artificial womb technology just becomes another form of high tech life support much like respirators, heart/lung machines and even feed tubes.
Does this mean that embryos/fetuses/babies (call them what you will) are viable from conception?
If so, are we allowing the state of medical science to define our humanity?
Or rather, should a person's humanity be a constant regardless of which century (19th, 21st, 25th) they were conceived in?
If you agree that it is possible to stretch viable back to the moment of conception, then aren't we required to grant the unborn the same rights as the terminally ill? - compucomp2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I wish the next president does not let the religious right have such an influence on his administration, Republican or Democrat. Before Reagan the religious right never had a hold on the Republican party.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Catstack;
#1; The ends never justify the means. If the means are wrong, you should not use them to achieve your end, regardless of the good of the end. This is not a religious argument, it's an ethical one.
#2; This is why I oppose abortion. You simply cannot draw a line saying that from here on out, it's viable. Because that line moves based on our scientific advances, it's arbitrary and has no bearing on whether or not the thing is alive. Say we revisit it and decide that viability starts at the end of the first trimester. Does that mean 20 years ago all of those fetuses were not alive during the second trimester but now they are? Viability based on our capabilities has nothing to do with the definition of what is 'alive'. These are logical, non-religious based arguments. I hate how people straw-man anti-abortion into a religious argument. - jpowell180, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have no problem w/Stem Cell research so long as the bodies of unborn babies are not used.
Stem cells can also be obtained from umbilical cords, as well as bone marrow - the potential of using these types of stem cells should be exploited to the fullest.
But not from murdered unborn babies. - Chesterfield, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Geez, why does the Bush gang remind me of the dim-wit teens in an old Star Trek episode, ('Miri', where all adults are dead, and when they hit puberty they get a disease that makes them insane and die).
When the crew comes to help with their 'science', they say "Bla-bla-bla" and "Bonk-Bonk-on-the-head" - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>It seems that you never actually made a convincing argument that the
>poster's reasoning was driven by religion. You seem to be more driven
>by religion.
ya actually i did. i was very specific. i crammed a lot in a small space. but i answered. and no, i’m not religious. i don’t even like being called an atheist because its derived from the point of view of a theist and confuses theists who think i am “a”them. the semantics imply an organization of people that are like them but on the other side. i really would like to never hear another word about religion. i wouldn’t have dreamed it up on my own and i belong to no anti religion groups. i am just among those people who are having religion inflicted on them.
>The poster asked a very good question and did so in a very reasonable
>way (saving, of course, calling folks idiots), and your rebuttal
>didn't even remotely address it. I don't know if you'll come back to
>read this, but where do /you/ draw the line?
the question was an obfuscation. s/he wanted the answer framed in terms s/he decided on. i didn’t cooperate. the question is irrelevant if you aren’t arguing that it deserves rights like you and me.
if it deserves those rights... then it follows that you can’t destroy them whether its for science or just taking out the trash.
having been given rights - if anything happens to them imperptuity whoever was in charge of protecting those human cells is guilty of manslaughter to murder.
if it isn’t reasonable to keep them forever... the odds are probably 100% something will happen sometime before impurpetuity... under those ethical constraints... it must be carried and allowed to develop into a baby.
so now you have to require someone to carry it. there are a lot more cells out there than available women. you have to have a draft. you are going to require a woman to risk death... diabetes... any number of complications from child birth.
so now you have a draft to make women carry these cells and let them turn into babies.
if you say no to any of these circumstances then the argument falls apart for lack of consistency. period.
now we’ve got these women bearing all these embryonic cells you have to ask what makes them different than all those eggs a woman carries? not much. in fact science can make eggs turn into embryonic cells. no sperm necessary. if your argument is consistent then we are obligated to those eggs as they could be made into babies in the same way these other cells can. they certainly are alive... they certainly are from a human... as he said and you said...
again. say this scenario is wrong anywhere and you are saying that they aren’t really humans with rights. you now agree with the rest of us.
crossing the line where a woman controls her body leaves no distinct place to draw the line because the reasoning leads to that unworkable place described above. you increase the risk to the woman by requiring she carry to term and considering the number of these cells there are we’ll have to make all women involved in this production line. there are any number of situations where a woman required to carry to term would endanger an embryo and hurt or kill some cells and becomes guilty of... negligence... manslaughter... murder... ?
this all sounds ridiculous because it is. it is where you go if you follow the chain of logic to its end.
and that is known as barefoot and pregnant. i doubt most fundimentalists would like the wording but they do by in large have a beleif that lands somewhere in the vacinity... using other words.
religion is the only place where all good sense can be thrown out the door for the sake of a point that is ridiculous. i’ve not heard anyone argue against it that wasn’t making a religious statement. certainly people will deny that in order to avoid that argument... like this person did.
trying to make a case where its ok to allow a real walking and talking human suffer and die from things that could be fixed using a few undifferentiated cells in the deep freeze is completely unreasonable. trying claim some high ground ethical position with that argument... religion is the only place where reason and logic are not necessary. if you want me to say... ya... maybe somebody somewhere might think this way but is not religious... ok... probably an insignificant few and i bet they are using some neutered religious argument. but there are no obvious, reasonable ethics involved in letting someone die for this belief in some cells sitting in the freezer.
where do i draw the line? i draw it at a womens right to control her own body. very clear delineation. giving birth is more dangerous than having an abortion. cross that line and you are on the slippery slope we are now discussing without any concern for the risk to women it is inflicted.
the conceptual distance from a woman being in charge of her body to having those basic rights taken away from her and forcing her into acts that risk her health... is a lot larger than the distance between this cell and that... and eggs that could be people... using the alive and human criteria. but thats what is being considered even if its uncomfortable to acknowledge it as the conclusion of this chain of logic.
>While it's obvious you
>don't feel it necessary to considered an embryo a life merely by
>virtue of the fact that it exists, it's also clear that any reasonable
>person wouldn't "abort" a 12 year old.
as far as i know a 12 year old would have been carried to term 12 years ago. i don’t understand what this means. there are any number of cells that are alive and exist. so unless you want to expand the argument to every cell everywhere... because they exist... and are alive... then this statement is irrelevant.
>So where in between is the sweet spot and are you able to provide a,
>for lack of better word, convincing argument?
done. - hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Screwy
Lookup sarcasm. The quotation marks might've tipped you off.
Of course I wasn't telling Laura Bush to blindly believe in science, as she does in religion. I was merely using irony to explain how Laura can have such faith in such unproven things as religion, but cannot believe in such logical and proven things as science. - mars2017, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You are perpetuating the Media Myth that Bush is against stem cell research. During the Clinton administration Pres. Clinton signed the law banning all forms of stem cell research. Pres. Bush signed the bill allowing all forms of stem cell research with one exception. Federal tax dollars may not be used for new lines of fetal tissue. All other research is allowed and funded. Even new lines of fetal tissue are allowed if the money comes from private sources.
- Spr0k3t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am for stem cell research and the means to achieve the required materials at almost all cost. The death of a child is too far. Cloning the cells needed for further research is okay in my book. Hell, I'm waiting to sign up somewhere so I can have a clone of myself made. Stem cell research has the potential to unlock thousands of medical mysteries, if one cure for any terminal illness is found from this type of research then it is all worth it.
- darkspire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Most researchers in the field seem to agree that the reason embryonic stem cell research is lagging is due directly to the public debate and lack of federal funds. Had embryonic stem cell research had as much time/funding put into it at this point we would likely be seeing similar progress.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@hbweb
No one should have 'faith' in science, as you say. I hope someday you can see how dreadfully you contradict the basic philosophies science with your comments. - martinrs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0America can always buy him to come over and do more research. Many of the technology breakthroughs in America were done this way. Unless the genius is overly patriotic about his Scandinavian country, he will no doubt take the wealth to honor his/her new country.
It's cheaper and less headache dealing with ethical issues. By the time people realize there are more benefits to the research (at the expense of other country's research money and time), there will be less opposition to the research. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1>You guys are idiots (i mean that in the nicest way possible.) Forget
>religion for a moment. this is about ethics. Where do we draw the line
>on studying human life?
sorry guy... you're the idiot. what are the ethics that allow people to die for lack of research on a few cells. you can't separate this out as non religious. bush has knee capped U.S. funded research. its not illegal to do research if you can find the funding... there is no law against it. therefore the arguement falls back to a religious prejudice.
so i want to know where do you draw the lines? do we need make sure all the cells in a culture are dead before flushing them? do we need to kill them before flushing them? should we thaw them out before flushing them? are the flushers guilty of murder? the position you take here seems to me to require that we keep the cells forever. if thats not true then you have no point. which, of course, is fundimental to all religious arguements.
are women that are runners that get pregnant and abort guilty of a crime? because running has an impact on fertility as a result of weight, fat and calories? should we make all activities not condusive carrying to term a crime? should we make women prove they aren't pregnant before doing anything that might jeapardize a pregnacy? no point...
if these cell have a right to live then who do require to carry them? again, if this isn't what you have in mind whats the point? if we require women to carry these to term where do you draw the line? its a pretty short step from your current position to the position that all eggs have a right to be fertalized. you will tell me there isn't but there is no part of you position that precludes sliding to the next step... just as you've incrementally slipped to the current position. that of course fits the fundimentalist religious view about women being barefoot and pregnant. thats a biblical function.
seriously, this religion stuff is going to kill us all. its clouded your ability to reason. its muddle up your priorities and you all want to drag us to the grave with you.
god... i hate religion. - lebouf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@starmanjones:
It seems that you never actually made a convincing argument that the poster's reasoning was driven by religion. You seem to be more driven by religion.
The poster asked a very good question and did so in a very reasonable way (saving, of course, calling folks idiots), and your rebuttal didn't even remotely address it. I don't know if you'll come back to read this, but where do /you/ draw the line? While it's obvious you don't feel it necessary to considered an embryo a life merely by virtue of the fact that it exists, it's also clear that any reasonable person wouldn't "abort" a 12 year old.
So where in between is the sweet spot and are you able to provide a, for lack of better word, convincing argument?
Now that I think about it, I would like anyones opinion on this.
Also, I just realized this isn't wholly relevant to the topic at hand. - Clevinger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@ SilenceGold: Hopefully Obama.
- PrestonM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Just look at how this close minded thinking can affect the future American economy. When a free thinking country or countries develop really progressive medical breakthroughs, the U.S. will no longer be on the forefront to innovation. Innovation drives commerce, commerce drives the economy. It is just a matter of time that some European or Scandinavian genius makes a stem cell breakthrough and will spearhead research that will in time save countless lives and leave the US thinking what happened to the American dollar!
- hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"Before the 2004 elections, I recall Laura bush saying, "We don't know that stem cell research will yield any useful results." That's why we research, Laura."
Just have "faith" in the research, Laura. Ironic that she believes so vehemently in religion, yet cant take the leap of faith in such things as science. - t0ny, on 10/12/2007, -17/+17Wtf is wrong with people?
Embryonic stem cell are not bad they come from aborted fetuses. So what? What else are those did babies going to do? Rot in a hole? Come one. If they are used in research they have a to cure thousands if not millions of people. If want to ban something ban abortion not the research. - Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5We're a country who can justify the sacrifice of America's finest in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. We can justify the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that needlessly die in the wake of our will. We can justify stripping man of their freedoms and have them tortured by "re-interpreting" the Geneva conventions.
Heaven forbid we sacrifice the life of one for the benefit of another. - custerfluck, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10You guys are idiots (i mean that in the nicest way possible.)
Forget religion for a moment. this is about ethics. Where do we draw the line on studying human life?
It's not a religious dogma that life begins at conception. It is fact. Just because you do not define a human embryo as a human does not make it any less human. It's certainly not a banana embryo. It's not just a clump of cells. It is a HUMAN BEING at it's earliest stage of development. What is the latest stage of development that would be acceptable to use for experimentation? I say it's any stage. That's exactly why I am glad that I am not being forced to pay for this crap! - SgtAl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The term "embryonic stem cell" itself was invented by the evangelicals to fight what they didn't understand but felt was wrong. The cells are harvested before an embryo is formed. One more reason not to elect evangelicals to public office.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2And those who tend to discount the promise of embryonic stem cell research are also making a political issue out of it. How about we number one allow embryonic stem cell research to happen in earnest(vs claiming it's not banned when in fact it effectively is). You can't say it holds no promise when there hasn't been enough research done on it yet.
It's also what voters want. Look at California, they approved embryonic stem cell research funds. And right wing attack groups, who probably like to talk about freedom and democracy, are holding up the proposition in courts using circuitous legal tactics. That doesn't sound like supporting democracy at all. After the last election it's clear voters have had enough of the right wing and its moral crusades, except now these monsters lingers like relics of the past. After the dust is settled we will all look back and laugh at our idealistic honor, integrity and Christianity phase, full of pedophiles and charlatans. - Cymrubeats, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4It opens quite the pandoras box though....something else that will become an economic venture as opposed to medical (rest assured, plastic surgery was not devised so women could have big *****). Anyway, once you accept this, you have to accept GM crops into your life too, and whatever follows. Or are you silly enough to believe you can just pick and choose?
- svartbjorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I am reluctant to do this since I assumed a digg user could use Google and judgment but I see the evidence is overwhelmingly against me here. Here is a short quote regarding the so called ban on stem cell research from Wikipedia. (good enough?) I'm not making this up, but thanks for giving me a glimmer of hope that you are willing to examine what is told you even if it is contrary to your biases.
Q. Why was it that my credibility was questioned but not others?
"Neither Congress nor any administration has ever prohibited private funding of embryonic research. Also, public and private funding of adult stem cell research has no restriction whatsoever. Moreover, public and private funding of cord blood stem cell research has no restriction either."
Here is the complete story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy - iam413x, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I actually think McCain supports stem cell research as well, along with 3/4ths of the American public. I see no way that stem cell research will remain unfunded with the next president.
- rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Look it up where? Where's your source? How do we know you didn't just make that up?
- reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Yeah but the problem is, the religious right does make up the majority of republicans...they are the base. Without their support the republicans will never be in office.
Unless Christians become a minority gay marriage/govt. support of stem cell research/etc. will never become a reality. - DeaPeaJay, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2hit the wrong reply button, digg down please.
- reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1C'mon people you have to agree with the right wingers. It's because God says so that's why. Sheesh you lefties...what with your gay-lovin and "baby-killin".
/sarcasm. -
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is