What means? The conducting of the research doesn't cause the death of the unborn. The means in this case is the scientific research. There is no causal connection between the research and what happened before.

 

By obstructing the opportunity (i.e. scientific research) for a beneficial outcome, no benefit is derived whatsoever.

 

That doesn't pass the common sense test, IMO.

If you don't get it I sure can't explain it. I guess as long as you get the result you want you are allowed to throw your beliefs out the window.

Biden tried to distinguish the two parties by claiming that the other side won't allow stem-cell research. McCain has been in favor of stem-cell research, so he was talking about Palin. His staffers denied they were talking about Palin. That is a lie. What more needs be said, I don't know. Their really is nothing valid about the point.

What means? The conducting of the research doesn't cause the death of the unborn. The means in this case is the scientific research. There is no causal connection between the research and what happened before.

 

By obstructing the opportunity (i.e. scientific research) for a beneficial outcome, no benefit is derived whatsoever.

 

That doesn't pass the common sense test, IMO.

Do Republicans oppose all forms of stem-cell research? If they are against all forms of stem cell research, then I agree with you. I am unclear on what most GOP party members feel about them.

 

I have zero problem with adult stem cell research, umbilical-chord stem cell research, amniotic fluid stem cell research, and any other form of stem cell research (I am not familiar with what other stem cells are extensively studied).

 

First of all, I find it ethically irresponsible and morally wrong to do embryonic stem cell research.

 

Aside from that, see what the American College of Pediatricians has to say about embryonic stem cell research:

 

The American College of Pediatricians (http://www.acpeds.org) calls for an end to embryonic stem cell research and recommends the exclusive support of already proven effective adult stem cell research. “Not only does embryonic research require taking the life of human embryos, it also prolongs needless suffering by delaying the development of more promising adult stem cell treatments and cures,” states Michelle Cretella, MD, Fellow of the American College of Pediatricians.

Research using non-embryo sources of stem cells, including amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, placenta and adult blood, fat and various organs, have yielded impressive results.

 

Adult stem cells are now routinely used in certain forms of cancer therapy. Over the last decade, these cells have been used to successfully treat spinal cord injuries, heart failure, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and dozens of other conditions in human trials.

This has not been the case with any embryonic stem cell trial. Instead, there have been catastrophic results with these cells producing the wrong tissue, forming tumors and triggering immune rejection.

 

Every dollar spent on the failed and unnecessary process of embryonic stem cell research steals resources away from the established utility and potential of adult stem cell research. This is fiscally irresponsible and medically unconscionable.

 

If the GOP position is against ALL stem-cell research, then I am in line with your views.

 

However, if the GOP position is strictly against EMBRYONIC stem-cell research, which has provided poor results and wasted resources, then I agree with them.

If you don't get it I sure can't explain it. I guess as long as you get the result you want you are allowed to throw your beliefs out the window.

 

 

Oh, please spare me the dismissive my beliefs are morally superior to your beliefs stuff. Bottom line is, your argument doesn't make a lot of sense. If there is potential for significant human benefit from the research, and there is no direct harm inflicted by the research, why not do it? Are you also against organ transplant? What about med school students dissecting cadavers to learn how to heal?

Oh, please spare me the dismissive my beliefs are morally superior to your beliefs stuff. Bottom line is, your argument doesn't make a lot of sense. If there is potential for significant human benefit from the research, and there is no direct harm inflicted by the research, why not do it? Are you also against organ transplant? What about med school students dissecting cadavers to learn how to heal?

 

Organ transplants do not kill the life they come from, or the donor is already dead. Cadavers, ditto.

 

To "research" stem-cells, you must harvest and kill an embryo, which both Woodsrider and I feel devalues life.

 

I therefore dismiss your beliefs because my beliefs are morally superior.

Oh, please spare me the dismissive my beliefs are morally superior to your beliefs stuff. Bottom line is, your argument doesn't make a lot of sense. If there is potential for significant human benefit from the research, and there is no direct harm inflicted by the research, why not do it? Are you also against organ transplant? What about med school students dissecting cadavers to learn how to heal?

Just because you don't have a problem with it doesn't mean it's right. Just because you have a problem with it doesn't mean it's right. It is your right to believe one way or the other. And to me Biden's comments don't make sense. It is possible to have, love, and care about special needs individuals and be against harvesting embryos for research.

 

As to the bolded part, to use your words, weak arguement.

Organ transplants do not kill the life they come from, or the donor is already dead. Cadavers, ditto.

 

To "research" stem-cells, you must harvest and kill an embryo, which both Woodsrider and I feel devalues life.

 

I therefore dismiss your beliefs because my beliefs are morally superior.

 

 

The process of in-vitro fertilization results in large numbers of unused embryos that will never become human beings and will ultimately be destroyed anyway. I fail to see how using this opportunity (as opposed to squandering it) in the pursuit of knowledge that could benefit mankind is wrong.

 

The "devalues life" argument is a weak one, IMO. We have, on numerous occasions in the last 7 years, elected to launch military strikes on individual human targets knowing full well that the result will be the killing of innocent human life. Obviously, we take every measure to avoid innocent human collateral damage and our military and techology is the best in the world at precision operations. But the fact remains that we have imperfect capabilities, and we knowingly carry out operations with in full view of the fact that innocent life will be taken as a result.

 

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't use our military to protect ourselves. Not at all. But I don't know how you can use the rather ambiguous "devalues life" argument in relation to scientific research intended to "protect ourselves" from disease, but reject its obvious application to the use of military force in situations where our actions could easily be construed as "devaluing life". So the question is, do you think that use of the military in situations that are certain to result in the killing of innocent human life is morally justified?

Biden tried to distinguish the two parties by claiming that the other side won't allow stem-cell research. McCain has been in favor of stem-cell research, so he was talking about Palin. His staffers denied they were talking about Palin. That is a lie. What more needs be said, I don't know. Their really is nothing valid about the point.

:thumb:

I understand the point Biden is trying to make but as usual he takes the wrong avenue to address it. I've never been a big fan of him mainly because of his undying love for the taste of his foot. This isn't really a big issue imo though.

You mean like "The superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down"?

Oh, please spare me the dismissive my beliefs are morally superior to your beliefs stuff. Bottom line is, your argument doesn't make a lot of sense. If there is potential for significant human benefit from the research, and there is no direct harm inflicted by the research, why not do it? Are you also against organ transplant? What about med school students dissecting cadavers to learn how to heal?

H, you have anything to say about my post, where the American College of Pediatricians says that embryonic stem-cell research is a waste of money and time?

I am always comforted by the religious enlighted and the all knowing moral claims on what medical research may or may not be valid. Discovery must be something for someone who acts like they already know the answer.

I am always comforted by the religious enlighted and the all knowing moral claims on what medical research may or may not be valid. Discovery must be something for someone who acts like they already know the answer.

 

That's not what anyone is saying IMO. If someone's religious beliefs prevent them from believing something is morally right or wrong, why is that a bad thing? That's not saying my beliefs are any more right or wrong than the next person's, but that each person should be able to take stances on issues based on their personal beliefs and values.

H, you have anything to say about my post, where the American College of Pediatricians says that embryonic stem-cell research is a waste of money and time?

 

 

My first response was "who?" It took a while to find out what the American College of Pediatricians is. The organization's website says it was founded in 2002, which means that it not exactly a traditional pillar of the authoritative medical research community. If you read the "About Us" statement on their website, the ACP was evidently formed by a splinter group of pediatricians who didn't approve of the policy positions of the longstanding medical organization establishment (i.e. the American Medical Association et al). A group with preconceived policy positions is not exactly the underpinning of a scientifically open-minded organization.

 

I will grant more weight to time-honored, universally recognized organizations such as the AMA, the American Diabetes Association, the American Pediatric Society, and many others than I will to a relatively new group that seems to be in business mainly to promote a social agenda. John McCain has

his discussions with medical experts as a significant reason behind his support for expanded research using embryonic stem cells.

My first response was "who?" It took a while to find out what the American College of Pediatricians is. The organization's website says it was founded in 2002, which means that it not exactly a traditional pillar of the authoritative medical research community. If you read the "About Us" statement on their website, the ACP was evidently formed by a splinter group of pediatricians who didn't approve of the policy positions of the longstanding medical organization establishment (i.e. the American Medical Association et al). A group with preconceived policy positions is not exactly the underpinning of a scientifically open-minded organization.

 

I will grant more weight to time-honored, universally recognized organizations such as the AMA, the American Diabetes Association, the American Pediatric Society, and many others than I will to a relatively new group that seems to be in business mainly to promote a social agenda. John McCain has

his discussions with medical experts as a significant reason behind his support for expanded research using embryonic stem cells.

Ok. Maybe I just like keeping you busy. Since the time-honored institutions are the ones you prefer, find the bias in this one:

Research reported this week by three different groups shows that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice1, 2, 3. The race is now on to apply the surprisingly straightforward procedure to human cells.

 

All I am saying is that why are we spending American tax dollars on something that is A) ethically questionable B) limited in its results and C) can be mimiced with less questionable (ethically) means, especially when we have more effective alternatives.

Ok. Maybe I just like keeping you busy. Since the time-honored institutions are the ones you prefer, find the bias in this one:

 

All I am saying is that why are we spending American tax dollars on something that is A) ethically questionable B) limited in its results and C) can be mimiced with less questionable (ethically) means, especially when we have more effective alternatives.

 

 

There are plenty of experts who believe that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to yield medical benefits that are not possible with other methods.