I remember when Bush first made his decision about stem cell research on television. Everyone was expecting him to fall flat on his face on what was basically an unwinnable political situation, and most of the reaction to that televised speech was, "Well, that sounds fair enough." It seemed like a sensible compromise, and it was the first time I was really impressed with Bush. I'm kinda surprised it has come up as an issue.
Edwards claims Kerry presidency will help people like Reeves walk again.
- Thread starter Cooter
- Start date
- Status
:lol @ Link too many numbers
more money was spent on the bill clinton sex investigation than is being allocated to stem cell research in this country.
out of the 70 lines bush promised, only about 19 are in actual research because the rest are too contaminated.
i'd sacrifice myself in a instant for the greater developement and good of stem cell research.. i think a lot of people suffering with these diseases would, too.
depends on when you think life actually "begins". i see 200,000 frozen embroys sitting around in labs across the country, and wonder why they're just sitting there. either they'll be destroyed, or maybe one day fertilized.
why destroy an embryo when it could be used for so much more?
not everyone is pro-life.
that is probably one of the most retarded things i've ever seen on this forum, and that's saying a lot. sacrifcing embryos to further research in this promising field is akin to what the nazis did?
are you serious?
more money was spent on the bill clinton sex investigation than is being allocated to stem cell research in this country.
out of the 70 lines bush promised, only about 19 are in actual research because the rest are too contaminated.
i'd sacrifice myself in a instant for the greater developement and good of stem cell research.. i think a lot of people suffering with these diseases would, too.
depends on when you think life actually "begins". i see 200,000 frozen embroys sitting around in labs across the country, and wonder why they're just sitting there. either they'll be destroyed, or maybe one day fertilized.
why destroy an embryo when it could be used for so much more?
not everyone is pro-life.
that is probably one of the most retarded things i've ever seen on this forum, and that's saying a lot. sacrifcing embryos to further research in this promising field is akin to what the nazis did?
are you serious?
HalfPastNoon said:
Embryos are already fertilized.
For what it's worth, I think this is just a case of tactless political expediency; I can much more accept Raoul Duke's rephrasing of what Edwards SHOULD have said than what he actually said. But that sort of hyperbole is just Edwards' southern trial lawyer shining through.
You can just picture him before a jury, shouting "the crippled shall walk and the blind shall see! Hallelujah! Vote Kerry!" 
-- unfortunately, the American public is about as gullible and suggestible as your average jury, and laps stuff like this up. This is not to say, as others have pointed out, that progress along these lines is not more likely to be made under a Kerry regime (obviously), but the way he phrased that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He knows better.JoshuaJSlone
Member
I'm reminded of when Jon Stewart's take on this view: "Cures will take a lot of time and hard work... so why bother?"Cooter said:
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
I do agree with Edwards... Well, that voting Kerry will give a much greater chance for wheelchair bound people to one day walk again. That much is obvious with Bush slowing the progression of stem cell research in the U.S. to a crawl. Edwards choice of wording on this issue is beyond lackluster though. He should have really known better.
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
Matt said:
BURN IN HELL!
Your web browser is not rendering <sarcasm> tags properlyShadowRed said:I already know the answer to this but still I can ask. Can we get a ban for this? Others have been releaved of their posting duties for less, including myself. He isn't even trying to debate, he's just hurling inflamatory rheteric at another poster.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
It wouldn't be despicable at all if Kerry mentioned Reeve tomorrow night. I just heard on TV that Reeve called Kerry a short time before he died and left a msg on Kerry's answering machine telling him to keep pushing the stem cell research issue. Some democrats are calling on Kerry to play the recording sometime tomorrow night before the debate.
Outlaw Pro Mod
Member
You are a certified moron.
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
Outlaw Pro Mod said:
Do you somehow think that re-electing Bush is going help in furthering the progress of stem cell research? Bush has done nothing but create road blocks to hault advancement. At least with Kerry in office more stem cell lines will be available, and hopefully more government funding. Though no one can guarantee that with Kerry will come cures for all of these horrible illnesses, advancements in stem cell research will happen at a much faster rate with him in office. The possibility is there at least.
Anyway, I guess I'm a certified moron.
How can people be offended by that statement? He said people LIKE Reeve, not Reeve himself. Obviously he isn't talking about Christopher; nobody's that stupid (that statement's going to bite me right in the ass later in life I guarantee). Geez, anything for sensationalism I guess.
And my take on the stem cell issue is likened to a guy stuck in the middle of the ocean, some regular people miles away who may or may not know he's in the ocean, and the Coast Guard that definitely knows he's in the ocean, and that the powers that be say that he can live as long as he likes, but the Coast Guard isn't allowed to go help him.
I thought we were DONE with the Dark Ages?
And my take on the stem cell issue is likened to a guy stuck in the middle of the ocean, some regular people miles away who may or may not know he's in the ocean, and the Coast Guard that definitely knows he's in the ocean, and that the powers that be say that he can live as long as he likes, but the Coast Guard isn't allowed to go help him.
I thought we were DONE with the Dark Ages?
videogamer
Banned
JC10001 said:
Yeah, I wouldn't be suprised if Reeve wanted Kerry to push stem cells with the Reeve name, even after his death.
The fundamentalist Christian right wing has no moral grounds to complain on this. None at all. There were no complaints when the Bush campaign put this up as the front page for their campaign site, which makes the sudden outrage at exploiting the dead somewhat less credible.
Christopher Reeve supported stem cell research in life, and as much as this is a case of cheap and cheesy political symbolism, at least it's an honest one (whereas Ronald Reagan would never have supported it).
Christopher Reeve supported stem cell research in life, and as much as this is a case of cheap and cheesy political symbolism, at least it's an honest one (whereas Ronald Reagan would never have supported it).
It's not the liberals who are shitting on his memory here.
Who's aborting embryos just to get stem cells? The stem cells would come from embryos that are being aborted anyway, rather than just tossing them in the trash. Or do you think that funding this research would make women get pregnant just so they can have abortions in the name of science?
samus4ever
Banned
I'm a Bush supporter, and I don't agree with him on Stem Cells, but I do agree with him on one thing in the issue, that human life should be valued no matter what stage of life a person is in. I really do not know much on the issue, but I believe that you can use the Egg for stem cell research. If, in fact, that is the case then I have to say that Bush is in the wrong. I mean, every woman in the US over the age of 13 (i hope, lol) produces a egg every month that is never used. I mean if that is the case then I don't think that anything is wrong with Stem Cell Research, but I've also heard you need an actual embryo to do this. That, then, makes me believe that killing a life that could be formed in search of healing a present person alive is wrong. Please, inform me on this issue. I am braindead from work. 
.
.videogamer
Banned
samus4ever said:I'm a Bush supporter, and I don't agree with him on Stem Cells, but I do agree with him on one thing in the issue, that human life should be valued no matter what stage of life a person is in. I really do not know much on the issue, but I believe that you can use the Egg for stem cell research. If, in fact, that is the case then I have to say that Bush is in the wrong. I mean, every woman in the US over the age of 13 (i hope, lol) produces a egg every month that is never used. I mean if that is the case then I don't think that anything is wrong with Stem Cell Research, but I've also heard you need an actual embryo to do this. That, then, makes me believe that killing a life that could be formed in search of healing a present person alive is wrong. Please, inform me on this issue. I am braindead from work.
If people could use eggs, then there wouldn't be much controversy over this.
If you want to study stem cells, then Pubmed is the best place to go. Review artilces are the best for the beginner.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
And the stem cells are like these cells taken from these really small people, ain't I right? The evil libruls want to murder all these little people... :OThe Internets said:
I despise the newspeak created to defend anti-stem cell and anti-abortion stances. "Pro-Life" is a stupid abstraction that should never have been accepted into mainstream speech.
Not being from America I see the stem-cell issue as another Bush decision affecting the lives of people all over the world. My friends who have diabetes were stunned when he banned federal funding on technically religious grounds - and the research that would have been done in the US would have ultimately benefited people everywhere.
If you don't carefully look at the issue of what is life and what is just... a clump of cells, just for the sake of principle, then your principle is denying millions and millions of people around the world the hope and chance for a cure for ailments that plague them and probably not you.
Infact, an principle or ideal that isn't carefully examined and applied practically is but a corruption.
If you think about it logically, at somepoint, a fetuse *will* develop significant neural connections that effectively mark them as 'alive'. But the stemcell research occurs way before then, when the fetuse is nothing more than a blastose; a collection of cells, that just happen to have the ability to divide according to a genetic blueprint.
True, the potential for human life is there in the blastose, but at that point, if you froze it's development, it would be far far from anything you can consider human life. And that's essentially what frozen embroys are; and research on these have been denied.
The practical effect is that... for protection of frozen clumps of cells; that were to be destroyed anyway, the progress of technology is halted, it's positive benefits wasted, the efforts of human learning and understanding wasted or at best stalled... and the hopes of millions and millions of people extinguished.
To espouse your view so strongly... without carefully looking at the issues properly. That's ignorance. It's one of the biggest evils the world has ever faced.... and will continue to face.
Infact, an principle or ideal that isn't carefully examined and applied practically is but a corruption.
If you think about it logically, at somepoint, a fetuse *will* develop significant neural connections that effectively mark them as 'alive'. But the stemcell research occurs way before then, when the fetuse is nothing more than a blastose; a collection of cells, that just happen to have the ability to divide according to a genetic blueprint.
True, the potential for human life is there in the blastose, but at that point, if you froze it's development, it would be far far from anything you can consider human life. And that's essentially what frozen embroys are; and research on these have been denied.
The practical effect is that... for protection of frozen clumps of cells; that were to be destroyed anyway, the progress of technology is halted, it's positive benefits wasted, the efforts of human learning and understanding wasted or at best stalled... and the hopes of millions and millions of people extinguished.
To espouse your view so strongly... without carefully looking at the issues properly. That's ignorance. It's one of the biggest evils the world has ever faced.... and will continue to face.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Cooter said:
I doubt you are that old.
So a guy who started a war responsible for 20k civilian deaths, 1000k military deaths, is against life saving medical research, fights for unhealthy environmental conditions, protects negligent and dangerous corporations, and strives to keep americans away from free healthcare--Values human life?
I think using Reeve's name is only half of what I find offensive. The fact that he can stand up there and tell wheelchair bound people that in 4-8 years if Kerry is elected they will be walking again is what I find most sickening. Its a promise that simply cannot be fulfilled.
Damn, you got me.
Cooter said:
You're a fucking retard aren't you.
Even if the cure isn't developed in 4-8 years, the motion to get it happening will mean that there WILL be a chance of a cure.
If you elect kerry/edwards, the chance is there.
If you don't, well fuck it, you'll have to wait at least another 4 years to get something like that started.
I find it sickening that you think the interest of disabled people is really in wordplay and not in the actualization of something that could cure their disability.
That's not what he said sir, go read it again.
It can't be much more clear. He doesn't mention chances or possibilities. He says people will be walking when John Kerry is President and it is a hollow promise.
If he meant what you interpreted then why didn't he just say it. Quit twisting his words to what you want them to say.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Kerry = Good
Stem Cell Research = Good
Stem Cell Research = Good
Which can be readily interpreted as, electing Kerry *will* help you get a cure again.
If you want to be pedantic about this shit, going all fucking roll-eyes and omg, because of what's essentially a poor way of phrasing something, then you sir can go kill yourself. For the betterment of mankind.
The world ill needs a person like you.
The ability to discern intent from words, and weigh it carefully with the situation, is a vital skill to have.
If you're that hopping mad about a throw away phrasing of words...
where the fuck to you stand on George Bush's wording of having found WMDs pre-iraq invasion?
Fucking hypocrite.
If you want to be pedantic about this shit, going all fucking roll-eyes and omg, because of what's essentially a poor way of phrasing something, then you sir can go kill yourself. For the betterment of mankind.
The world ill needs a person like you.
The ability to discern intent from words, and weigh it carefully with the situation, is a vital skill to have.
If you're that hopping mad about a throw away phrasing of words...
where the fuck to you stand on George Bush's wording of having found WMDs pre-iraq invasion?
Fucking hypocrite.
Cooter said:
Well, the other option is having a cure hindered by Bush's Bible-blinded beliefs. Kerry may be overstating the speed at which stem cell research would find cures for things like spinal injuries, but it's better than giving a big ol' "Fuck you!" to the medical community by cutting off federal dollars for generating new lines.
impirius said:
I thought it was pretty funny actually. I was just thinking of Castlevania Symphony of the Night.
That line "The world ill needs a saviour like you" is pretty famous for it's bad english. So along with comments about how words twisted in some sort of hypocritical outraged indignation, I thought it went quite well.
And cooter, good work once again missing the intent of those words.
If you'd like me to restate dryly;
The world is better off without that kind of ignorance. Think clearly about the issues and what's important before you spout of your nonsense.
impirius said:
And as I've said before...
Is it really the sanctity of human life they're trying to preserve?
They don't look at the specifics closely enough; if they defined it clearly, then human life can be reasoned to be something that starts once brain neural connections start making significant formations. But the embryos are way way before that point, so there should be little problem with harvesting blastose for scientific research. In order that we better preserve human life and give it a better quality of living.
If you don't take the time and effort and instead choose to draw lines arbitarily and erroneously... then where's the sanctity in that?
Im not arguing the validity or need for stem cell research. Like I stated earlier, I disagree with Bush on this issue. I merely reject what Edwards said yesterday.
Oh, its my fault I didnt know what you meant Zap.
Most times when someone tells me the world doesnt need a person like me I take that as whishing death upon myself or at the very least being indifferent about the issue.. I know when I say the world doesnt need child molesters I dont mean it doesnt need their perversions rather it doesnt need them period. Including their very existence.
Oh, its my fault I didnt know what you meant Zap.
Most times when someone tells me the world doesnt need a person like me I take that as whishing death upon myself or at the very least being indifferent about the issue.. I know when I say the world doesnt need child molesters I dont mean it doesnt need their perversions rather it doesnt need them period. Including their very existence.
This may not or never be a perfect world, but we can strive towards making it better.
Taking your example, punishing the child molester directly has little effect in the grand scheme of things. Revenge is exacted, but the damage is done.
To not recognise that it's a systemic problem that requires a complex answer to solve (destroying the perversion, and the factors that create that perversion)...
Moreover, you've been missing my point continually.
What's the point in discrediting someone by missing their point and attacking their words? You don't, and infact discredit yourself.
Learning how to percieve intent from a given context... and weighing it carefully with the situation is an important skill. I suggest you learn it.
Taking your example, punishing the child molester directly has little effect in the grand scheme of things. Revenge is exacted, but the damage is done.
To not recognise that it's a systemic problem that requires a complex answer to solve (destroying the perversion, and the factors that create that perversion)...
Moreover, you've been missing my point continually.
What's the point in discrediting someone by missing their point and attacking their words? You don't, and infact discredit yourself.
Learning how to percieve intent from a given context... and weighing it carefully with the situation is an important skill. I suggest you learn it.
What if my perceived intent from the given context is that Edwards is lying and making false promises in order to get more votes? Can you rightly tell me that is incorrect?
About the child molester situation, I agree to an extent. Yes, me must strive for a better world but we also must never let blind optimism cloud our historically based fact on human nature.
What if a child molester rapes an eight-year old and it is deemed after 25 years in therapy that he is cured and no longer a threat to society. He is subsequently released on the streets and two years later he rapes and kills a child. How do you justify your need for redemption with the public safety of society and vulnerable children?
About the child molester situation, I agree to an extent. Yes, me must strive for a better world but we also must never let blind optimism cloud our historically based fact on human nature.
What if a child molester rapes an eight-year old and it is deemed after 25 years in therapy that he is cured and no longer a threat to society. He is subsequently released on the streets and two years later he rapes and kills a child. How do you justify your need for redemption with the public safety of society and vulnerable children?
Cooter said:
Yes. The lie is only true on a surface level. It's best worded strongly for emotional impact and 'clarity' of message (does everyone understand the implication of forwarding stem-cell research? I think not). If you want to examine it, then examine it strongly; give the argument it's best chance, or don't bother at all.
Obviously that means under Kerry-Edwards, research that explores all possible (reasonable) avenues, including stem-cell research will be done, where as under Bush, this would not be true.
Do you think that he doesn't deserve the votes from people who's primary interest in voting would be to see an eventual cure for that kind of disability? More so than Bush?
- Status