Supporting Canibalism???

[xotoxi]

Cannibalism is enough of a problem.

But even worse is human veal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not many people know about him ya know - I believe the Shelley family never mentioned him due to, ahem, well you know, him being transported to Botany Bay...

So, If I read you right, if President Kennedy had visited Botany Bay, his speech would have been "I am a jail-bird"??

 

[Care4all]

I've noted in the past that the first step in liberal-debate is vile language, Thank you for omitting that step.

Step two is to avoid the point and distract from your ignorance by pointing elsewhere.

Now, where is your list of embrionic stem cell successes? Oh, is that you shouting:

" I ALWAYS MOUTH WHATEVER LIBERAL BABBLE I CAN FIND."

Actually they were pointing out that your source is biased. It is true that they did not address your challenge, though. There's a reason for that.

Embryonic stem cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The world’s first human trial was approved less than a month ago. It would seem that could be a reason they don’t have much yet. Incidentally, the policy difference between this and the last administration is shortly after that: So no, Bush did not ban ES research, he merely restricted federal funding conditions. But much of the early research side of R&D is government-funded.

Adult stem cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stem cell controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The jury is still out on whether there is any actual advantage for using ES versus adult in certain situations because the research needed to evaluate that hasn't been adequately done. While it is true that adult stem cells is more of a proven technology, that does not mean we shouldn't pursue whatever avenues we can within ethical limitations.

And that's where the real argument begins. Your problem is really with fertility clinics if you believe embryos in early development need rights, because they're the ones producing many of these embryos that they know will never be implanted. Stem cell research gives them a use instead of just being wasted.

Stem cell controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure embryos are technically "alive," but I'm not sure how you can call them a person merely by combining that with the idea that they have unique DNA. Do you believe the soul is injected at conception or something? DNA is merely instructions, it's our minds that make us unique in a meaningful way. And souls? Well there's no way to verify they even exist.

And some disadvantages of using human embryonic stem cells:
"First, one minor complication is that use of human embryonic stem cells requires lifelong use of drugs to prevent rejection of the tissue. Second, another more serious disadvantage is that using embryonic stem cells can produce tumors from rapid growth when injected into adult patients."

Actually the first one doesn't have to be true. A bit over a year ago some scientists found a way to create embryos from adult cells, essentially making cloned embryos. There would be no need for immunosuppressant drugs there, unless the disease was autoimmune. Stemagen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure about the second objection right now.

It may also be possible to get embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, or to induce adult cells back into an embryonic state. But the fertility clinics would still be discarding embryos.

Nice work.
I think the points that I would like to make are that, as you point out, "the jury is still out." Every story that I have read re: embryonic SC refers to 'potential' or 'future' or 'may...."
So there is every reason to continue with science that we know is efficacious, and...
the point of the OP is the creation of embryos only to be used as lab material is, in a way, cannabilism. So, philosophiclly, where do we draw the line?

The federal government has a law in place that doesn't allow federal funding for cloning on something like Embryos, is my understanding?

Is this law not good enough?

Dickey Amendment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Dickey Amendment is the name of an appropriation's bill rider attached to a bill passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. HHS funding includes the funding for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Technically the Dickey Amendment is a "rider" to other legislation, which amends the original legislation. The rider receives its name from the name of the Congressman that originally introduced the amendment, Representative Jay Dickey. The Dickey amendment language has been added to each of the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations acts for FY1997 through FY2004. The original rider can be found in Section 128 of P.L. 104-99. The wording of the rider is generally the same year after year. For FY2005, the wording prohibits HHS from using FY2005 appropriated funds for:

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code). For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually they were pointing out that your source is biased. It is true that they did not address your challenge, though. There's a reason for that.

Embryonic stem cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The world’s first human trial was approved less than a month ago. It would seem that could be a reason they don’t have much yet. Incidentally, the policy difference between this and the last administration is shortly after that: So no, Bush did not ban ES research, he merely restricted federal funding conditions. But much of the early research side of R&D is government-funded.

Adult stem cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stem cell controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The jury is still out on whether there is any actual advantage for using ES versus adult in certain situations because the research needed to evaluate that hasn't been adequately done. While it is true that adult stem cells is more of a proven technology, that does not mean we shouldn't pursue whatever avenues we can within ethical limitations.

And that's where the real argument begins. Your problem is really with fertility clinics if you believe embryos in early development need rights, because they're the ones producing many of these embryos that they know will never be implanted. Stem cell research gives them a use instead of just being wasted.

Stem cell controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure embryos are technically "alive," but I'm not sure how you can call them a person merely by combining that with the idea that they have unique DNA. Do you believe the soul is injected at conception or something? DNA is merely instructions, it's our minds that make us unique in a meaningful way. And souls? Well there's no way to verify they even exist.



Actually the first one doesn't have to be true. A bit over a year ago some scientists found a way to create embryos from adult cells, essentially making cloned embryos. There would be no need for immunosuppressant drugs there, unless the disease was autoimmune. Stemagen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure about the second objection right now.

It may also be possible to get embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, or to induce adult cells back into an embryonic state. But the fertility clinics would still be discarding embryos.

Nice work.
I think the points that I would like to make are that, as you point out, "the jury is still out." Every story that I have read re: embryonic SC refers to 'potential' or 'future' or 'may...."
So there is every reason to continue with science that we know is efficacious, and...
the point of the OP is the creation of embryos only to be used as lab material is, in a way, cannabilism. So, philosophiclly, where do we draw the line?

The federal government has a law in place that doesn't allow federal funding for cloning on something like Embryos, is my understanding?

Is this law not good enough?

Dickey Amendment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Dickey Amendment is the name of an appropriation's bill rider attached to a bill passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. HHS funding includes the funding for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Technically the Dickey Amendment is a "rider" to other legislation, which amends the original legislation. The rider receives its name from the name of the Congressman that originally introduced the amendment, Representative Jay Dickey. The Dickey amendment language has been added to each of the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations acts for FY1997 through FY2004. The original rider can be found in Section 128 of P.L. 104-99. The wording of the rider is generally the same year after year. For FY2005, the wording prohibits HHS from using FY2005 appropriated funds for:

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code). For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

President Obama has announced an executive order allowing funding for cloning that does not result in reproduction. Thus cloning is allowed, with federal funds, for laboratory purposes.

 

[Care4all]

Nice work.
I think the points that I would like to make are that, as you point out, "the jury is still out." Every story that I have read re: embryonic SC refers to 'potential' or 'future' or 'may...."
So there is every reason to continue with science that we know is efficacious, and...
the point of the OP is the creation of embryos only to be used as lab material is, in a way, cannabilism. So, philosophiclly, where do we draw the line?

The federal government has a law in place that doesn't allow federal funding for cloning on something like Embryos, is my understanding?

Is this law not good enough?

Dickey Amendment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Dickey Amendment is the name of an appropriation's bill rider attached to a bill passed by United States Congress in 1995, and signed by former President Bill Clinton which prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed. HHS funding includes the funding for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Technically the Dickey Amendment is a "rider" to other legislation, which amends the original legislation. The rider receives its name from the name of the Congressman that originally introduced the amendment, Representative Jay Dickey. The Dickey amendment language has been added to each of the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations acts for FY1997 through FY2004. The original rider can be found in Section 128 of P.L. 104-99. The wording of the rider is generally the same year after year. For FY2005, the wording prohibits HHS from using FY2005 appropriated funds for:

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code). For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

President Obama has announced an executive order allowing funding for cloning that does not result in reproduction. Thus cloning is allowed, with federal funds, for laboratory purposes.

WHERE IN THE WORLD, do you get these LIES from...who is feeding them to you?

Whoever it is, i think you need to evaluate the truth in their stories before passing on their lies...please, you are a smart cookie/chicky PC....go further than your political sources to find out TRUTH....truth will set you free from this political bondage, ya know?

I think you have it in you to go further in research than what you are told....besides your beauty, you got a lot of brains too Chicky, and I ain't patronizing or anything like that...i can see you do!

READ THIS: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96QJLPO0&show_article=1



WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says human cloning is "dangerous, profoundly wrong" and has no place in society.

Obama made the comments as he was signing an executive order that will allow federal spending on embryonic stem cell research.

Some critics say the research can lead to human cloning. Obama said the government will develop strict guidelines for the research because misuse or abuse is unacceptable.

He said he would ensure that the government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.


cloning that does not allow the creation of a human has been in place for a while....?

 

[Care4all]

of course you can use cloning for things that do not produce a human being...they clone cells all the time?

I don't get it? what is wrong with cloning cells?

care

 

[PoliticalChic]

of course you can use cloning for things that do not produce a human being...they clone cells all the time?

I don't get it? what is wrong with cloning cells?

care

Taking human embryos and producing more human life to use as lab material is, by some, considered immoral.
And you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

of course you can use cloning for things that do not produce a human being...they clone cells all the time?

I don't get it? what is wrong with cloning cells?

care

Have you had time to review the article that I posted in the Barney Frank thread?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cannibalism is enough of a problem.

But even worse is human veal.

I was wondering when you'd have your fill at the salt-lick Aggie-boy.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm all for cannibalism ... when we run out of space to grow food I'll still eat while all the squeamish become food.

 

[Care4all]

of course you can use cloning for things that do not produce a human being...they clone cells all the time?

I don't get it? what is wrong with cloning cells?

care

Taking human embryos and producing more human life to use as lab material is, by some, considered immoral.
And you?

it is my understanding PC that the stem cells are cloned, reproduced, multiplied- NOT the embryo.

this allows the doctors to use LESS of the embryos that are being discarded,

and this went on with the embryo stem cells that president bush allowed funding to continue on...the stem cells are cloned....it's called a stem cell ''line'' i believe?

care

 

[Old Rocks]

baby bush used his first ever veto to kill stem cell research
the religious right should stay away from science.

thanks.

Wrong again.

Now, would you like to crawl away from your left-wing dogma and admit that President Bush, at no time, "killed stem cell research"?

No answer is fine, as your silence would be a welcome addition to an honest discussion.

No, he didn't kill it, he just denied it major government funding. He did not kill his No Child Left Behind initiative, either. He just denied it funding.

Now it will get that funding, and much will be learned from the research. And fools like you will screech and cry big crocodile tears. But if something is learned that directly benifits you, you will be the first to use it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gosh, Obama is in favor of using embryos for scientific research that might lead to the ability to cure Parkinsons, and maybe repair nerve damage, so that paraplegics can walk again.

The moral thing to do, of course, is to throw the embryos away, maybe just flush them.

How immoral of him.

Sarcasm hides the fact that you are unimformed.

Did you know that adult stem cell use has the following successes:
"current clinical applications of adult stem cells are abundant! They include treatments for the following: corneal restoration, brain tumors, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, liver disease, leukemia, lupus, arthritis, and heart disease. Thousands of patients are treated and cured using adult stem cells."

And some disadvantages of using human embryonic stem cells:
"First, one minor complication is that use of human embryonic stem cells requires lifelong use of drugs to prevent rejection of the tissue. Second, another more serious disadvantage is that using embryonic stem cells can produce tumors from rapid growth when injected into adult patients."

Damn, you are one purposely stupid individual. The idea is research, not use as you described.

I fully realize that as a Conservative, you are fully committed to willfull ignorance, but your obvious lying concerning this issue is getting to be a bit much. What is being used is embryos that will never be put into a womb. If not used in this manner, they will be destroyed.

If you wish to object on moral grounds to this, then you had best start a movement to prevent the in vitrio fertilization of human egg cells. Otherwise, you are simply proving the basic stupidity of Conservatives once again.

 

[KittenKoder]

baby bush used his first ever veto to kill stem cell research
the religious right should stay away from science.

thanks.

Wrong again.

Now, would you like to crawl away from your left-wing dogma and admit that President Bush, at no time, "killed stem cell research"?

No answer is fine, as your silence would be a welcome addition to an honest discussion.

No, he didn't kill it, he just denied it major government funding. He did not kill his No Child Left Behind initiative, either. He just denied it funding.

Now it will get that funding, and much will be learned from the research. And fools like you will screech and cry big crocodile tears. But if something is learned that directly benifits you, you will be the first to use it.

Completely different topic ... but that "No Child Left Behind" was a joke, that's why he killed the funding, he knew he fucked up with it and just decided to no longer waste money with it (a smart thing to to actually). He tried to shift gears, but being as unintelligent as he was he just couldn't figure it out, and now Obama basically wants to refund that failed policy ... oh yeah, that's smart. Every day I actually find Jr. less repulsive than Obama.

As for killing the research, that was a media grab for sensationalism, and all the Bush haters latched onto it, it's a sound bite and nothing more. He cut funding to some forms of acquiring, nothing more, the research itself was still funded and many still got private funding to continue unimpeded. Feel lucky he didn't just go with what people were pushing him to, which was ban it all. Anyhow ... India surpassed us in medical advancements a long time ago, we are playing catch up because the ones who are actually holding us back are the FDA ... started by who I might point out?

 

[Old Rocks]

PC;

President Obama has announced an executive order allowing funding for cloning that does not result in reproduction. Thus cloning is allowed, with federal funds, for laboratory purposes

.............................................

Don't know what you are talking about here, but if it is cloning of organs, from cells harvested from the person needing the organ, then it would seem to me to be a very wonderful use of cloning research. As for cloning whole individuals, while an interesting concept, as President Obama has pointed out, to fraught with moral problems to be allowed.

 

[KittenKoder]

PC;

President Obama has announced an executive order allowing funding for cloning that does not result in reproduction. Thus cloning is allowed, with federal funds, for laboratory purposes

.............................................

Don't know what you are talking about here, but if it is cloning of organs, from cells harvested from the person needing the organ, then it would seem to me to be a very wonderful use of cloning research. As for cloning whole individuals, while an interesting concept, as President Obama has pointed out, to fraught with moral problems to be allowed.

It could be ... as long as they are careful. Morals aside (I tend not to let those idiotic ideals get in the way myself) we still do not know how viable a cloned organ will be. The possibility of mutation is very high in such cells which could end up being worse for the patient than a standard transplant. We may need the cloning of entire beings sooner than people want to realize ... but it won't happen because of peoples idiotic fears, so when it's needed we will likely not have the technology advanced far enough to save us. But oh well.

 

[Old Rocks]

of course you can use cloning for things that do not produce a human being...they clone cells all the time?

I don't get it? what is wrong with cloning cells?

care

Taking human embryos and producing more human life to use as lab material is, by some, considered immoral.
And you?

Lordy, lordy. More human life? Where do you get this infernal BS? The stem cell lines are no more human life than are the blood cells that hit the ground when I bark my knuckles.

You have no moral ground here, just shrill insistance that somebody, somehow, is committing mortal sin by using embryonic cells that were due to be discarded in any case.

If you are that committed to human life, work hard to get all of our children here in the US adaquate access to medical care. Did you hear me? If you really care for the children, work to prove that care. But, for you, ideology is far more important than caring for real children. That is, sadly, really the case. And you, as are most Conservatives, really have no morals at all, just political ideology.

 

[Old Rocks]

PC;

President Obama has announced an executive order allowing funding for cloning that does not result in reproduction. Thus cloning is allowed, with federal funds, for laboratory purposes

.............................................

Don't know what you are talking about here, but if it is cloning of organs, from cells harvested from the person needing the organ, then it would seem to me to be a very wonderful use of cloning research. As for cloning whole individuals, while an interesting concept, as President Obama has pointed out, to fraught with moral problems to be allowed.

It could be ... as long as they are careful. Morals aside (I tend not to let those idiotic ideals get in the way myself) we still do not know how viable a cloned organ will be. The possibility of mutation is very high in such cells which could end up being worse for the patient than a standard transplant. We may need the cloning of entire beings sooner than people want to realize ... but it won't happen because of peoples idiotic fears, so when it's needed we will likely not have the technology advanced far enough to save us. But oh well.

Actually, I see an arguement for cloning. Replicating an individual that has already proven to be a useful and productive citizen sounds better than the genetic crap shoot that is natural reproduction.

However, as our understanding of biological machinery and abilities in Nano-tech increase, I see a time when we not only have indefinite lifespans, but can change, and control, our own genetics. Or possibly, create a horror, a la "Blood Music".

 

[PoliticalChic]

of course you can use cloning for things that do not produce a human being...they clone cells all the time?

I don't get it? what is wrong with cloning cells?

care

Taking human embryos and producing more human life to use as lab material is, by some, considered immoral.
And you?

Lordy, lordy. More human life? Where do you get this infernal BS? The stem cell lines are no more human life than are the blood cells that hit the ground when I bark my knuckles.

You have no moral ground here, just shrill insistance that somebody, somehow, is committing mortal sin by using embryonic cells that were due to be discarded in any case.

If you are that committed to human life, work hard to get all of our children here in the US adaquate access to medical care. Did you hear me? If you really care for the children, work to prove that care. But, for you, ideology is far more important than caring for real children. That is, sadly, really the case. And you, as are most Conservatives, really have no morals at all, just political ideology.

Silly Old Rock

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, I see an arguement for cloning. Replicating an individual that has already proven to be a useful and productive citizen sounds better than the genetic crap shoot that is natural reproduction.

However, as our understanding of biological machinery and abilities in Nano-tech increase, I see a time when we not only have indefinite lifespans, but can change, and control, our own genetics. Or possibly, create a horror, a la "Blood Music".

Humans are highly adaptable animals, we'd even get used to that, provided it was gradual.