backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 140 comment(s) - last by Moishe.. on Jun 28 at 10:04 AM
As one door comes to a close in U.S. stem cell policy, a group of Japanese researchers lay the blueprints for a technique that may bury the ethical stem cell hatchet forever

A bill recently passed by the Senate, which would lessen restrictions on embryonic stem cell research by allowing federally funded experimentation on frozen embryos that fertility clinics currently throw away, is expected to soon be vetoed by U.S. President Bush.

"If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would for the first time in our history be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos," stated the president. Bush vetoed a similar bill last year, and instituted a ban in 2001 on federally funding the creation of new embryo-derived stem cell lines.

Stem cells are cells that are pluripotent: they are undifferentiated, and have the ability to become almost any kind of tissue. During the differentiation process, certain stem cells respond to different growth factors and signals and evolve into terminally differential cells such as skin cells or immune cells. Stem cells are also unique in that they are endlessly replicative, dividing faster and for longer periods of time than other cells.

Scientists found that stem cells could be induced in vitro to form different kinds of tissues. It was believed that only stem cells had this ability, but as research evolved, it was discovered that somatic cells, or those that have already differentiated into body tissue, could be reprogrammed into embryo-like stem cells.

A group of scientists at Whitehead Medical Center in Massachusetts confirmed the "reprogramming" theory when they published a paper on a new method of converting a normal cell line into a stem cell-like colony in the magazine Nature on June 6, 2007. This group, Wernig et al., modified a process previously used by Takahashi & Yamanaka in 2006.

According to Richard Doerflinger, a spokesman on stem cell issues for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, using the Takahashi & Yamanaka method for creating the pseudo-stem cells, “raises no serious moral problem, because it creates embryonic-like stem cells without creating, harming or destroying human lives at any stage.”

The psuedo-stem cell creation technique was proven to work on mice skin cells.  Both teams are confident any eventual efforts on human skin cells will also yield similar results.  However, perhaps most importantly, this research will continue even with the president's upcoming veto on embryonic stem cell bill.

Kathrin Plath, one of the U.S. researchers that confirmed Takashi & Yamanaka's experiment, claims, "It’s opened up an entire field of research. There will be so many who will find this interesting who can [do] it."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Great news
By Clienthes on 6/14/2007 7:05:31 AM , Rating: 3
I'm very glad to hear that they found a way to get stem cell-like effects without the moral dilemma.

I wonder if this would have been done as quickly without the ban on embryonic tissue research.




RE: Great news
By James Holden on 6/14/2007 7:10:40 AM , Rating: 4
The original research wasn't done in the US, and embryonic cells are pretty hard to get no matter what country you're in. So my inclination is this probably would have happened anyway - but im glad it did.


RE: Great news
By dever on 6/17/2007 3:00:27 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, there's not actually a ban that I'm aware of. But, the restrictions on confiscating the earnings of citizens to fund morally questionable practices probably has helped to spur research in competing technologies.

The main issue here is government funding. Any time you tax individuals and distribute that money to a favored specific industry, everyone loses.

If you are a reasonable person and believe life does not begin until birth, then please realize that there are other reasonable people who believe that life may begin earlier.

Forcing those people to pay, through taxation, for something that they might find to be morally repugnant, is depriving them of essential liberties.

This is a great issue for people to stand back and see the many problems that occur when government is involved in redistributing our money, no matter how you perceive the morality of embryonic stem cell research.


RE: Great news
By Schadenfroh on 6/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Great news
By DocDraken on 6/14/2007 8:06:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I can understand the concern that some people have about where it might lead in terms of commercial fetal harvest (possibly paying people to have abortions).


That's rediculous. It's not a binary issue where it can only be completely unregulated mayhem or nothing. Of course there have to be laws and regulations so there can be nothing like commercial fetal harvesting, but that doesn't mean you can't do research on embryons that would have been thrown away anyway.


RE: Great news
By RShick on 6/14/2007 9:21:09 AM , Rating: 5
A breakthrough, yes, but far from a suitable alternative at the moment...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/06/stem.cells.ap...

quote:
In any case, scientists said, the advance does not mean that research that involves getting stem cells from human embryos should now be abandoned. "We simply don't know which approach ... will work the best," said researcher Konrad Hochedlinger of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, who led one of the three teams.


quote:
The technique used in the mouse studies could promote cancer in any patients getting therapy based on iPS cells, so researchers emphasized that a new approach that avoids that hazard would have to be developed.


The DT article didn't mention anything about the increase in the risks of cancer using this therapy, I just wanted to get across that while similar to stem cells, they are not identical; and they pose riks that regular stem cells have not shown to this point.

Food for thought...


RE: Great news
By Leona on 6/14/2007 4:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
I have not heard anything about how the new technique can promote cancer.

Stem cells, when mutated enough to turn into cancerous cells, are highly malignant simply because of their "enlessly replicative" abilities. Is this the cancer-promoting factor, or does it have to do with the genes that are engineered into the skin cells that make them stem cell-like?

I would love a reference, if you have one. The one you posted does not give a reason.


RE: Great news
By brandonmichael on 6/15/2007 8:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
It was in the article.

"The technique used in the mouse studies could promote cancer in any patients getting therapy based on iPS cells, so researchers emphasized that a new approach that avoids that hazard would have to be developed."

Read the link.


RE: Great news
By bioorganic on 6/16/2007 1:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
This is nothing close to a "therapy" at this point. Anytime you ectopically express new genes you're pretty much eliminating the possibility that it will be used clinically. At this point, these results are in the proof of principle stage. The next step will be duplicating these results in human cells. Then the goal will be to slowly mimic the effects of each transcription factor w/ small molecules. Then and only then, will something like this have any practical relevance.


RE: Great news
By DocDraken on 6/14/2007 8:02:37 AM , Rating: 3
What moral dilemma? The only reason the US has such a restrictive policy on stem cell research, whereas the rest of the world doesn't, is that religious fruitcakes have too much power in the States. But I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise, considering that about 50% of the population still believes the earth is less than 10000 years old and that evolution doesn't exist.

When religion is not kept in check and away from politics it starts to suppress knowledge and science that goes against the religious dogmas. If you're not careful the US faces it's own dark age of ignorance, religious intolerance and suppression of science and free thinking. Quite like what happened during the middle ages. Best case scenario, you just get left behind with regards to biotech.


RE: Great news
By Moishe on 6/14/2007 8:29:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What moral dilemma? The only reason the US has such a restrictive policy on stem cell research, whereas the rest of the world doesn't, is that religious fruitcakes have too much power in the States.

You're obviously very tolerant and reasonable... and a troll. After all, all religious people are "fruitcakes"... right? Your arrogance and intolerance are disgusting.

Like it or not the U.S. is the largest superpower on earth (right now) and it got it's start from a lot of people, especially including the religious. You've got no backup to prove that religion and science are mutually exclusive. There have been *some* religious folks in history who have railed against science and I'll admit that they were as foolish as can be, but you cannot truthfully say that it has been the majority. Many people in science today are religious.
quote:
But I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise, considering that about 50% of the population still believes the earth is less than 10000 years old and that evolution doesn't exist.

I like how you imply that anyone who believes this is an idiot. I'm guessing that you are a believer in evolution and that in your arrogance you think anyone who believes otherwise is a fool... right? Thanks for showing us who you really are.

What we're talking about here (and what you're ranting against) is ethics. People care about moral questions. People have valid concern for ethics because science is all about fact and there needs to be a balance. Science is not concerned with feelings or morals.

If you weren't so shortsighted you might see that ethics is what keeps you from being trampled under in the name of science. It's ethics and morality that are saving your life if you're damaged and it costs more to fix you than it would cost to steal your heart for the person in the next room. Who is "science" to determine who is to live and who is to die?

Agree or not, the idea that we build and kill human life in the name of science is a scary thing. What keeps it from being YOUR heart, liver, arm, lung that they harvest because it's good for science? As a society we can't be so callous about "life" in general without it coming back to bite us.


RE: Great news
By thebrown13 on 6/14/2007 9:10:11 AM , Rating: 3
"You're obviously very tolerant and reasonable... and a troll. After all, all religious people are "fruitcakes"... right?"

Uhh, yeah?


RE: Great news
By DocDraken on 6/14/2007 10:20:32 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
all religious people are "fruitcakes"... right?


No, just the ones that try to apply their religious notions to politics and science instead of keeping it to themselves. I don't care what people believe as long as they don't impose their ideas on others and try to restrict rational thought.

quote:
Like it or not the U.S. is the largest superpower on earth (right now) and it got it's start from a lot of people, especially including the religious.


Well actually the founding fathers specifically wanted to separate religion from politics.

quote:
You've got no backup to prove that religion and science are mutually exclusive.


I didn't say that it was. People have a remarkable ability to be irrational and rational at the same time. It's hard to throw off notions that's been brainwashed into you from childhood.

quote:
I like how you imply that anyone who believes this is an idiot.


If you believe that the earth is 10,000 years old and evolution doesn't exist in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, then yes you are either an idiot or delusional. Of course a lot are just ignorant because they've never been exposed to real knowledge about evolution or geology, just religious propaganda.

quote:
I'm guessing that you are a believer in evolution


It's not a belief, seing as evolution is not a religion, but scientific fact, in spite of what the creationists are trying to claim. Whenever you show a creationist another piece of evidence for evolution they just say something like "well that's just because god made it appear like that".

quote:
What we're talking about here (and what you're ranting against) is ethics.


No, religion and ethics are not the same. I know that the religious have the rediculous idea that religion somehow has a patent on morals.

quote:
People have valid concern for ethics because science is all about fact and there needs to be a balance.


We're talking about a specific issue here. Stem cell research. Not whether ethics are important or not, which they of course they are. But we shouldn't let religious notions interfere with ethics. We should try to look at things rationally. We have a lump of cells that we can either choose to use for research into cures for widespread diseases or we can just throw it out.

quote:
It's ethics and morality that are saving your life if you're damaged and it costs more to fix you than it would cost to steal your heart for the person in the next room.


Heh, interesting that the most secular country in the world probably also has the most ethical health system. Everybody here get's health care if they need it and on equal terms. Doesn't matter if you're a bum on the street or a millionaire. You get the same treatment when you come to the ER here. I wonder where that fits with your ideas of religion and morals?

quote:
Agree or not, the idea that we build and kill human life in the name of science is a scary thing.


You actually think an embryo is a human being?? It's not even a friggin fetus!

Man, if I had known you were one of those fundamentalists I wouldn't have bothered to reply in the first place.

quote:
What keeps it from being YOUR heart, liver, arm, lung that they harvest because it's good for science?


I sincerely hope my organs can be put to good use and maybe save a life when I don't need them anymore.


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great news
By Ringold on 6/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great news
By brandonmichael on 6/14/2007 3:45:20 PM , Rating: 3
We dont live in 1787 anymore... The founding fathers would have written a different document if they had todays country to deal with.
You need to put away your Ayn Rand for alittle while... She's turned you sour.


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great news
By brandonmichael on 6/14/2007 4:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
I rest my case.


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Great news
By brandonmichael on 6/14/2007 6:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
No it was the Rand quote... She's completely laughable... She named her philosophy objectivism and yet exhibits the most un-objective reasoning.
Your quote alone is so dramatic, so over the top... Who says men can only relate to each other with guns and whips? Capatalism is the best system we have found so far, but it is far from perfect. Until our capatalist desires can unite with our moral necessaries, we must continue to challenge and question the system.


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 6:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
Then we agree on something as I was being sarcastic with a quote from her.


RE: Great news
By brandonmichael on 6/14/2007 6:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
ok.


RE: Great news
By brandonmichael on 6/14/2007 5:44:09 PM , Rating: 3
Well look, the constitution was written to allow for changes to it. Its not a set in stone list of mandates. We amend the constitution to set order to the expanding, changing society. The original constitution had no provision against slavery... so we amended it.
The supreme court was established as to constantly interpret and reinterpret our constitution and our laws.

Maybe I'm misreading your post but you seem to think we shouldn't be able to change our interpretations of the constitution or amend them when it is necessary to define a new constitutional issue...

and thats just crazy talk Kemosabee...


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 5:56:11 PM , Rating: 3
No, I think when such things warrant change and are carefully debated and voted on, then a change(amendment) is made. If you historically look at how many times the actual document has been changed, it is very little. 27 I think it is. It is not taken lightly, changing the Constitution. Surely it must have been a pretty sound document for so little changes. These changing interpretations as you call them would lead to chaos if changed often enough. It would degrade its purpose and meaning. Same as if you kept changing your opinions and values when ever the mood struck you. Remember the phrase: flip flopper?
And who's interpretations are valid? Who's are not? Who decides? If most wasn't set in stone, our very core freedoms could be taken away for your (or anyone's) interpretations. Very slippery slope going down this path.
Let me ask this: What would you change and why?


RE: Great news
By dolcraith on 6/17/2007 3:51:47 PM , Rating: 3
I think a key piece of history that you're forgetting is Prohibition! You know that period of time where the "moral" religious groups convinced the nation's leaders that alcohol was evil and immoral and should be outlawed? Yeah, please do note that there is one amendment enacting it and another undoing it (after a large amount of organized crime has developed). While not the same, it relies on the same basis that we as americans cannot allow our government only listen to one opinion on any given subject, or let special interest groups steam roll the government. There needs to be more individual participation to prevent this.

</tangent>

But something you have to think about is that the concept of using embryos for stem cell research isn't going away, it will need to be re-addressed again and again and again, as should all moral dilemmas.


RE: Great news
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 4:17:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I believe this means Congress can't pass any laws for or against. Freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion.
I wholeheartedly agree. Nobody is saying the first amendment prevents any private citizen from doing whatever they believe God wants them to do (a bunch of wingnuts claim that people are, but no one has actually said it.) It doesn't give you freedom from religion, only from government entities supporting religion. The problem is that you want to remove the second part, at least so far as government entities are supporting your religion. See how fast you'd be running to the ACLU if someone tried to put a Satanic Bible class into your local high school.


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great news
By Ringold on 6/14/2007 2:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
Waiting times for various important procedures and doctor & nurse shortages are a fact of life in just about every country with "single payer" medicine I've ever bothered to check. In Canada, in fact, it would be illegal to enter in to a business arrangement with a doctor such that one would pay for immediate service rather than waiting in line. I would say denying those with the ability to pay to be served and forcing thousands of Europeans and Canadians every year to seek world-class medical treatment in the United States and increasingly India borders on unethical itself. Neither system is perfect.


RE: Great news
By zombiexl on 6/14/2007 4:06:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
No, just the ones that try to apply their religious notions to politics and science instead of keeping it to themselves. I don't care what people believe as long as they don't impose their ideas on others and try to restrict rational thought.


While I dont disagree with you entirely, I think you show lack of rational thought by refusing to let anyone who does believe differently from you have an opinion without *trying* to look like you know something they don't.

quote:
Well actually the founding fathers specifically wanted to separate religion from politics.


Have you read the founding documents or did you just get that from moveon.org or the like?

Why is believing that scientist might overstep their bounds if the US gov was paying for everything such a crazy notion, scientists are in-fact human after all. The fact is we (people living in the US) live in a representative democracy and there are many points of view on this subject and all should be taken into account.

Embryonic stem cell research is not illegal, its just not funded by the US Government. When there is such a divide in a Country where the tax payers are so divided thats really the only way to be fair to those who would be footing the bill.

You should also realize that its not only religious people who are against abortion and stem cell research. A good many non-religious people have moral questions over these issues as well.


RE: Great news
By BMFPitt on 6/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great news
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 5:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I defy you to show me anywhere in the Constitution where it states "Separation of church and state" as you claim.
I defy you to show me anywhere in my post where I claim any such thing.
quote:
You may want to read about the Danbury Baptists letter to Thomas Jefferson.
What makes you think I haven't?
quote:
They wanted a state religion but Jefferson stated the Constitution about Congress shall make no law concerning religion. If I'm not mistaken, Jefferson wrote the Bill of Rights, had no part in the Constitution.
As I recall Jefferson, Adams and Paine were the primary authors of the main text of the constitution. But in any case, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, as are all subsequent Amendments (other than prohibition arguably, since it was later repealed.) It wasn't even ratified until they were put in, so the government has never operated under the Constitution without the Bill of Rights.


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Great news
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 8:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
Your reply made me dizzy. To the one retort I was able to extract from that mess of text:

quote:
Bill of rights is a separate document but no less important.


I ask you, what was the Bill of Rights a set of 10 of?


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Great news
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 10:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you stating the Bill of Rights is in fact IN the Constitution?
Yes. I guess what it comes down to is that you don't understand what an amendment is. It's not supplementary reading material, it's a change to the document. Any amendment to the Constitution becomes part of the Constitution.


RE: Great news
By pcornotpc on 6/14/2007 10:31:19 PM , Rating: 1
Then you show me a copy of the Constitution where the Bill of Rights is penned in the actual writing.. I have yet to see one. I do know what an amendment is, obviously you do not. It is an amendment not actually IN the Constitution. Really, is this all the argument you can muster? If so, I see no reason to reply further.
Geeezzz...talk about nothing........


RE: Great news
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 10:53:54 PM , Rating: 3
I am not responsible for the way that people present it, but I'll let the Constitution speak for me.

ARTICLE V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Great news
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 11:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is as you said an Amendment. You still are comparing apples to apples and focusing on the trivial.
I wouldn't have had to if you didn't decide to insist that amendments were not part f the Constitution.
quote:
You still haven't proved it was written it with the original Constitution, which was my main question.
Where was that question? I read my way up the chain of posts and I see nothing of the kind.
quote:
Congrats, many posts for basically nothing.
Many posts to get you to try to change the subject when you're proven wrong.


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 11:24:39 PM , Rating: 1
here id something YOU quoted of me: quote:
Are you stating the Bill of Rights is in fact IN the Constitution?
I guess you failed remedial reading too?
As Yoda would say: Wrong you have proven me not.
I also never said Amendments were not PART of the Constituiton but rather not IN the original. The Constitution was already written and was being debated when the Bill of Rights were introduced.
You trying to twist your own words into meaning? You are failing.
Seems YOU went from a bunch of half truths and lies to this silly topic. My guess is to try to deflect your actual ignorance. Maybe I should put together a post with your drivel?


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 11:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
Where to begin,
BMFPitt
I've read them. I've also read various histories of the period. It was a lot like now - a bunch of people wanted to be a Christian nation, and a bunch wanted separation of church and state. The secular crowd won and the Constitution was written that way. The losers have been doing their best at revisionist history for the last 70 years.
Silliest analogy I have ever heard and incorrect.

As I recall Jefferson, Adams and Paine were the primary authors of the main text of the constitution. But in any case, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, as are all subsequent Amendments (other than prohibition arguably, since it was later repealed.) It wasn't even ratified until they were put in, so the government has never operated under the Constitution without the Bill of Rights.
Wrong on the Constitution framers.

Yes. I guess what it comes down to is that you don't understand what an amendment is. It's not supplementary reading material; it's a change to the document. Any amendment to the Constitution becomes part of the Constitution.
I have only disputed your claim that the Bill of Rights was written in with the Constitution.
I wouldn't have had to if you didn't decide to insist that amendments were not part f the Constitution.
See above.
Where was that question? I read my way up the chain of posts and I see nothing of the kind.
You can’t see, look again.

I'm sure that the ban will be lifted by the end of February 2009, anyway. Whoever the new guy is, they won't want to throw away support by vetoing something 70% of America believes in.
Wrong to go by a poll of 2012 to “speak for all Americans”

Actually right now the opposite is true. A vote in Montana or Alaska is worth far more than one from New York or California.
To the winner of the state go the Electoral votes, what is so hard to understand?

Divide Montana's 3 electoral votes by the population of Montana. Divide California's 55 by its population.
Again, silly argument.
To the winner of the state goes the votes. Simple. No math required.

Wyoming has a population of 509,294. It has 3 electoral votes. So one of Wyoming's electoral votes represents 169,765 people.
First you say Alaska and Montana then change up with Wyoming? You’re all over the place here, see above.

I know exactly why. My point is that those 2 automatic votes give much greater weight to the individual voters in small states. I really have no idea what tangent your mind has gone off in or what you're even trying to argue.

Not only a silly argument but you got the votes wrong as well.
All this being written, I still agree with several of your posts.


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 11:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
And I forgot this one:
As I recall Jefferson, Adams and Paine were the primary authors of the main text of the constitution. But in any case, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, as are all subsequent Amendments (other than prohibition arguably, since it was later repealed.)

Even you state here it isn't part of the "main text". This was my point. SIMPLE.


RE: Great news
By BMFPitt on 6/15/2007 1:00:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also never said Amendments were not PART of the Constituiton but rather not IN the original.
If that is what you were arguing, you should have said "original." Absent any modifier, common sense dictates that you are talking about the whole Constitution.

So now your argument has simply changed from being on a false pretense to making absolutely no sense, because who cares what was in the original draft?

I believe this all started with you talking about the Danbury Baptists letter to Thomas Jefferson. They were written when Jefferson was President, in 1801, years after the Bill of Rights had been ratified.

quote:
Silliest analogy I have ever heard and incorrect.
You thought there was an analogy in there? Maybe you should get some sleep.

quote:
I have only disputed your claim that the Bill of Rights was written in with the Constitution.
I think I'm done arguing the definition of "in."

quote:
Wrong to go by a poll of 2012 to “speak for all Americans”
As soon as you get done asking all 300 million, let me know. On the other hand, I know some pretty hardcore Republicans and not a single one is against stem cell research.

quote:
First you say Alaska and Montana then change up with Wyoming? You’re all over the place here, see above.
I came up with Montana off the top of my head as a low population state. When I looked it up to do the math after my point went right over your head, I found that Wyoming was the least populated so I used that.

quote:
Not only a silly argument but you got the votes wrong as well.
Once again, you fail at reading comprehension.

quote:
All this being written, I still agree with several of your posts.
Which ones? You seem to have disputed all of them.


RE: Great news
By ZmaxDP on 6/14/2007 6:51:15 PM , Rating: 5
"It's not a belief, seing as evolution is not a religion, but scientific fact, in spite of what the creationists are trying to claim."

Actually, Evolution is still considered a "Theory" by scientists. it is only considered a "Fact" be people who don't know the difference between the two. By the way, Humans causing Global Warming, Warm Blooded Dinosaurs, Cold Blooded Dinosaurs, and an Earth-centric universe are/were all prominent scientific theories that have/had some level of factual data to back them up. None of them are facts, one is just plain wrong, and the other three we're trying to decide on. Chances are, none of those three or your fourth will be proven as "fact" any time soon.

And while you're preaching through one side of your face about Scientific principles, you are of course stereotyping all "religious" people as the same - and we all know how "accurate" stereotypes are.

Oh, and while Religion and Ethics are not the same, Religion does have some relationship with Ethics and Morals, and while it would be silly to assume that Religion had sole grasp on either, it would be much sillier to try and suggest that there is no relationship. As such, someone citing their religious influenced ethics as a reason for not doing something does not mean they are forcing their religion on you, or politics, or science.

In short, you have no one to blame, so stop pointing fingers for no reason.


RE: Great news
By BMFPitt on 6/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Great news
By EODetroit on 6/14/2007 12:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I like how you imply that anyone who believes this is an idiot. I'm guessing that you are a believer in evolution and that in your arrogance you think anyone who believes otherwise is a fool... right?

[chasing amy]
But isn't it true?
[/chasing amy]


RE: Great news
By Misty Dingos on 6/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Great news
By Moishe on 6/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Great news
By Comdrpopnfresh on 6/14/2007 1:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
still can't burn a draft card though! although you can spit burn, and dookie on the flag.
Freedom of speech is an illusion handed to us by those with power. Choice boils down to allowances that those with power extend to those without. Which is exactly why governments should be run by the people more so than "in the system" individuals.


RE: Great news
By Ringold on 6/14/2007 2:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
Since when did getting a draft card mean mandatory military service? Since when did having your number called even mean mandatory military service?

There's a provision for cowards that don't understand or don't care that the draft exists to raise men in order to defend the nation and it's people or its vital interests, and it's called conscientious objection. Though as I understand it there needs to be some kind of established record of cowardice/objection in order to qualify, so, best get on establishing it.


RE: Great news
By brandonmichael on 6/14/2007 3:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
Cowardice... Would you send your children to Iraq? Does it make me a coward to not want my children there? Are we supposed to blindly support our leaders in their every endeavor, regardless of our own personal freedom to object? I've heard you rally against federal government intruding on our personal freedoms, isnt the draft a prime example of that?

And obtaining Conscientious Objector status is made
intentionally difficult...

Pulled from objector.org

1) If you register with SS, write that you are a CO on the card before sending it in. Photocopy the card and send it to yourself and leave it sealed.

2) Write a statement of beliefs that explain why, how, when, where, etc. that you became a CO. List anything that could have influenced your beliefs against war and killing, such as religion, films, books, events you attended, etc.

3) Find 3 people who know you very well who can write a letter on your behalf supporting your beliefs as a CO.

4) Write a letter to CCCO explaining that you are a CO, keep a copy for yourself, with the receipt of it being mailed. We don't archive these letters but we will send you a letter confirming we have received your letter. Keep that letter from us as part of your CO file. You can send your CO file to the Center on Conscience & War to be archived.

5) Compile all of these documents and get them notarized.

6) Put them in a safe place and if you get drafted you can present this claim to your local draft board and your chances of getting a CO exemption will be much stronger.

You need to build a paper trail and document everything possible that could help define you as a person who could not go to war. If you go to any anti-war events, document them somehow as proof that you went, keep the flyers, have your photo taken at the event, etc. They basically want to see that you are genuinely opposed to war, and not just somebody who doesn't want to fight. You must be opposed to all wars, this doesn't mean you can't use violence in personal self defense.


Why is it necessary to make people jump through all the hoops... I certainly dont need a coward watching my back. Do you want a coward defending our nation?
Really, why have draft provisions at all?


RE: Great news
By zombiexl on 6/14/2007 4:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
When was the last draft? Serously our military is voluntary.

What bothers me is that people join for all the benfits (GI bill, sign on bonus's, 20 year retirement, low interest home loans, etc), but then dont want to do what they signed on for.


RE: Great news
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/14/2007 4:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
A (former) friend of mine recently went AWOL. He had his entire college paid for and was entering his senior year of college. The national guard called him for duty in Kuwait, and the next morning he had a friend break his arm so he wouldn't have to go.

Interestingly enough, the national guard kept him in the program, but didn't ship him out. When they called his new unit, he was scheduled to ship to Baghdad. After hiding out for about six months, he turned himself in and was court martialed. He will have to repay his college tuition, and will likely serve some prison time.

Long and short of it -- if he had just gone to Kuwait and sat on the beach for a few months, he would have already been back before he got deployed a second time. It must be a terrifying thought to go to war, but this kid's life is pretty much ruined now. He can't finish college, he's in debt about 50k, and anyone who calls up his service record will see that he's not only a felon, but dishonorably discharged for fleeing. Despicable really.


RE: Great news
By brandonmichael on 6/14/2007 5:27:44 PM , Rating: 1
The military sells very aggressively... Do you remember being courted right after graduation? They employ coersive tactics that have frequently come under fire and I have known a few people who enlisted who were plain just tricked into it... through intimidation and misrepresentation of the facts. Granted they weren't the brightest bulbs, but Uncle Sam does not discriminate nor does he think its unfair to rope in the dopes.


RE: Great news
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 5:38:38 PM , Rating: 3
Are we supposed to feel sorry for your friend? I save my sympathy for those who have been stop-lossed, recalled from retirement, been given 2nd and 3rd tours. Your friend simply tried to get a free ride and bailed on his unit and his country when asked to hold up his end of the deal. He also helped to create the troop shortages that screw over those who serve honorably.


RE: Great news
By brandonmichael on 6/14/2007 6:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
No, Kris said he thought his friends behavior was despicable.


RE: Great news
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/14/2007 6:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
And I highlighted the fact that he is now my former friend. I lost all desire to converse with him after I found out he had someone break his arm just to avoid service.


RE: Great news
By TheGreek on 6/15/2007 3:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He can't finish college, he's in debt about 50k, and anyone who calls up his service record will see that he's not only a felon, but dishonorably discharged for fleeing. Despicable really.

But he can still be vice president.


RE: Great news
By TheGreek on 6/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great news
By Moishe on 6/28/2007 10:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
God forbid I should agree with someone... or disagree with someone else :)


RE: Great news
By TSS on 6/14/2007 9:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
and then create a few more freedoms so that they can contradict eachtother and it will all be settled in court (cant say the N word, because thats discrimination which everybody has a right to be protected against yet freedom of speech says i can say it. so can i say it or cant i say it?)

though he is a despickable troll that should be shot, just to make that clear, he does raise a point. while science works on intelligence and moral works on emotions, they need eachtother to balance them out. in this case, it's all moral. currently frozenembryo's are thrown away, and that's ok. so it's ok, to kill babies. *potential babies*. not even killed just thrown aside without purpose and without a life, without anybody caring for them. but it's not ok to atleast make their existance have meaning by helping others, helping further research and such.

i mean cmon, getting a baby to just have it aborted for money is sick. anybody caught doing that should be sterilized then locked up for a long time. but unless you classify the majority of the american people as sick in their heads, as bush does (hey, he's the one saying americans are compelled to abort children for money unless their stopped by the law), what is so wrong by usuing those that are going to cease to exist anyway to help those who already had a life to keep having it?

i don't really care if people are reasonable or not. but a little practicallity never hurt nobody.


RE: Great news
By James Holden on 6/14/2007 9:56:02 AM , Rating: 2
You can most certainly say the N word. Where did you read that was illegal? Although, if you happen to shout it while killing someone, you've just bumped yourself up from felony murder to felony murder hate crime.

The limitations on freedom of speech are very clear in the US. You can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.


RE: Great news
By Misty Dingos on 6/14/2007 1:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think some one is confusing politically correct speech with Freedom Of Speech. One is a freedom and the other is an anti-freedom.

I really think that many of the poorly informed opinions on DT can be traced back to ignorance of what is a Constitutionally held right and what is just public education (relax I went to public school too) drivel.

Also I am certain that many of the reader/raters of the posts just don't get sarcasm. Which is sad because sarcasm can be so effective at pointing out hypocrisy and prejudice. Perhaps not understanding or appreciating sarcasm is a lack of good English skills? Which goes back to that public education issue again. Anyway, freedom of speech is what I was posting about. Honestly the whole debate over abortion, embryos, fertilized eggs, stem cells, stem cells from mouse skin, or even stem cells from pickled pumpkin eating dinosaurs just is not something that produces much interest in me. People are so diametrically opposed that there is little or no middle ground to meet on. It will not be decided in our generation.

My only issue was that some people would like to silence other people because they don't want to hear what they say, how they say it, how they base their opinion and if we start doing that in anyway we will soon only hear one voice. That voice won't be asking for our input it will be telling us what to do. The only thing that voice will be interested in is that we behave ourselves or they will take us away.


RE: Great news
By therealnickdanger on 6/14/2007 8:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
Sheesh. You actually believe that about religious people? Scientific discovery and free thought has historically flourished in Judeo-Christian nations (nations where the overwhelming majority identifies with those values). Granted, theocracies are a whole different ball game, but the U.S. is far from becoming a theocracy, despite what Al Franken or CNN would have you believe.

It doesn't come down to whether you believe in God or not, but rather the value that you place on human life. Do I think that a 1-week old embryo is a human? No, but it WILL be under the right conditions. Many people are more sensitive to this than I am, so what's wrong with being TOLERANT (a word you like to use) of their beliefs in order to find a solution that everyone can live with, one in which stem cells can be grown independent of destroyed embryos or fetuses? Once you cross that threshold, the process for scientists becomes less regulated and moral issues no longer apply... to most anyway.


RE: Great news
By chsh1ca on 6/14/2007 10:00:42 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, you're dead on. Except for that whole Dark Ages bit where anything science was deemed an affront to God and you were burned/hung/otherwise had your life ended for pursuing it. That whole period of about 800 years where no real new scientific advancements were being made in the "Judeo-Christian" nations? How is that explained?

If you actually read up on the history of a lot of scientific advancements, you begin to see one pattern: they were made in spite of the dominant religions in the area. It was blasphemy to suggest the sun didn't revolve around God's Creation.

I don't necessarily agree with the poster's idea that all religious people are fruitcakes -- that's just silliness. As in all things there are extremes to either end of the scale.

Mostly, I think people in general are confused. I have met people who will violently protest the testing of makeup on bunnies, but who have no qualms with abortion. That seems counterintuitive to me, but I long ago stopped wanting people to make sense in my frame of reference.

I say we do away with intolerance AND tolerance. APATHY is the key!


RE: Great news
By straycat74 on 6/14/2007 1:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages
quote:
The Middle Ages form the middle period in a traditional schematic division of European history into three "ages": the classical civilization of Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Modern Times. They were a period of great cultural, political, and economic change in Europe.


RE: Great news
RE: Great news
By bodar on 6/15/2007 9:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I may have jumped the gun. Please tell me you didn't post that link thinking that everything was all hunky-dory back then?


RE: Great news
By encryptkeeper on 6/14/2007 10:25:40 AM , Rating: 1
Well, remember it is a lot easier to complain about things when everything is going to hell anyway. The biggest reason people are screaming theocracy is that they'd rather be over cautious. I personally don't agree with the troll that the entire church feels this way. I'm in the bible belt so I get to meet plenty of people from different churches, and most of the time churches are doing things like bake sales, car washes, donating their members time to community projects, visiting retirement homes, along side of Sunday services. Very few are out actively condemning laws of human rights or trampling on science. But there's something about Western culture that LOVES to read about church scandals and crazy ideas one out of a thousand churches may have. Maybe it's just that I went to a very open minded church, and I liked that. But the reasoning for Bush to deny this bill is just fucking stupid.

A bill recently passed by the Senate, which would lessen restrictions on embryonic stem cell research by allowing federally funded experimentation on frozen embryos that fertility clinics currently throw away, is expected to soon be vetoed by U.S. President Bush.

"If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would for the first time in our history be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos," stated the president.

It says right in the article, that these materials are going to be thrown away! Why NOT use them! And no, the whole, "clinics will pay for abortions to make money off stem cells" shouldn't happen. Just add that clause to the damn bill, so that no one can get rich off this. It's a pretty easy solution.


RE: Great news
By DocDraken on 6/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Great news
By Schrag4 on 6/14/2007 11:18:04 AM , Rating: 2
It would appear that the whole abortion/stem cell research issue for you is about where the line is drawn. So, just out of curiosity, where do you draw the line? You wouldn't draw it at 3 months after birth, right? If that's the case, please enlighten me on where that line should be drawn...


RE: Great news
By Comdrpopnfresh on 6/14/2007 1:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
actually, much of the modern math we have (if you leave newton out of the equation) is a result of the middle east flourishing at a time where christian society in europe was pooping in their hands and writing on the wall with it. It was called the dark ages and middle ages.


RE: Great news
By Lightning III on 6/14/2007 9:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
there is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion

be careful not to sail off the edge of the world as the universe revolves around us


RE: Great news
By encryptkeeper on 6/14/2007 11:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
Some of the stuff people believe blows my mind. There are still flat-earthers out there. There are people who believe the holocaust didn't happen. There are people who think the Moon landings never happened, that they were recorded on some soundstage. There are people who want Jericho to come back for another season. Crazy stuff!


RE: Great news
By ralith on 6/14/2007 9:45:08 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps before posting something like this you should get all of your ideas down. You seem to imply to it is obvious there would have to be laws/regulations for stem cell research/use from this post.
quote:
I can understand the concern that some people have about where it might lead in terms of commercial fetal harvest (possibly paying people to have abortions).

That's rediculous. It's not a binary issue where it can only be completely unregulated mayhem or nothing. Of course there have to be laws and regulations so there can be nothing like commercial fetal harvesting, but that doesn't mean you can't do research on embryons that would have been thrown away anyway.

But you don't mention this fact in the post I'm replying to. From this quote I'll go ahead and ASSUME you think it would be barbaric, unethical, and immoral to allow people to go create embros for the express purpose of curing someone in your family by sacrificing a potential child of that same family. Notice I didn't say sacrilegious even though it would be to many religions. The fact of the matter is since religion forms most peoples moral and ethical compasses it ends up looking like it is a religious issue, but it is not. It should be obivious to anyone that you don't kill an innocent to save yourself. You find some other solution, which is what the people this article is talking about have done. It is very odd that you don't seem to be happy about this fact, and almost seem pissed off that they found this solution to the problem.


RE: Great news
By TheDoc9 on 6/14/2007 10:29:57 AM , Rating: 2
I’m glad someone else noticed how unhappy he was. When I first read the story I was hopeful and glad that science has been able to reasonably make people happy with a possible new solution to this issue. Rest assured it’s likely that as long as the research money pours into it, the possible cancer side effects will likely disappear.

As I began to read posts and expecting to see how excited everyone else was at this, and most seem to be, there then appears the voice of doubt. Someone so negative that they have to try and bring everyone else around them down as well. I think that the original poster was actually angry that an alternative has been likely found in the first place, almost as if to say, “If only these religious nut cases wouldn’t have been so pro-life then we wouldn’t have had to have find the alternative”. Science is about progress and alternatives, but the original troll’s selfish mindset didn’t see that at all. If being destructively closed minded is what it takes to NOT be religious and therefore somehow ‘enlightened’, then I myself want no part of it.


RE: Great news
By brandonmichael on 6/14/2007 2:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
You didnt read the response that stated the technique could result in cancer in anyone it is used on... It is not a real replacement for stem cell research. Not to say that it might not lead to one.

You stated that morality is dictated by religion... Incorrect. Society dictates morality, culture dictates morality. Most religious texts contradict themselves when it comes to morality... sufficed to say, you can look at the bible and find justification for just about any set of morals you want (regardless of how amoral).
Although it doesnt out and out say in the bible that slavery is amoral, we as a society have come to it as a moral given. It is silly to think that the only reason we have a sense of right and wrong is because we read it somewhere in a book. We come to that sense because of a shared experience as human beings.

I never went to church and yet my morals are similar to yours... Not because religion has pervaded every corner of society, but because social morality has pervaded religion.

I'm alittle afraid of the person whos only reason for not going on bloody rampages is because God told him not too...

I cant speak for the Doc but I can understand frustration with a society that hinders the progress of life saving studies simply because their religious leaders have a problem with it. Stem cell research should be years ahead, not behind schedule...


RE: Great news
By kruege311 on 6/14/2007 7:21:14 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, you really have a hard time seeing the moral dilemma? I'm sure even complete atheists can see what the moral dilemma is that other people have an issue with. Whether you want to believe in the dilemma or not is your choice. Your choice of the "religious fruitcakes oppressing all the knowledge" defense is a pretty weak argument in itself and definitely not one I'd open with if you want people to take you seriously. Start off with something a bit more calm, professional, and rational and you'd be surprised how many more people will take you seriously.

People believe the world is less than 10,000 years old? You bet. People believe they didn't come from monkeys? Of course. Evolution is fact? Say what? People don't believe in evolution because they have been spoon fed religious nonsense? I come from a background of eight years of private school at a Lutheran school and eight years of public school after that. I've had the opportunity to see both sides of the coin and have not seen any more proof from the evolution side than I have with the religious side. There seem to be just as many "convenient" answers with evolution as there are with religion. To a certain extent I actually saw less proof with the evolution theories, but that whole "religious spoon feeding" argument really won't get anybody anywhere.

Bottom line is on both sides of the fence it's just as easy to disprove what the other side of the fence is saying. The only "fact" I see is that you can't really disprove any particular evolutionary/religious event unless you were there when it happened. Was anybody witness to the "big bang"? To God's creation? No? Then how do we know what really happened. Was anybody hanging around when a certain monkey gave birth to something that looked human? Doubt it, so you can't prove it. Even the age of the earth is just really an educated guess. Obviously no one alive today existed at day one of the earth so they can't say. Scientists just come up with their best educated guesses from theories and equations they created over time, of which even those theories and equations themselves had been scientists best guesses at the time.

And remember for every "religious" fruitcake there are just as many "evolutionist" fruitcakes out there. Everyone is free to choose their side. Both sides have contributed to knowledge in the world. And let's be honest here, religion doesn't suppress knowledge. It may not agree with the moral implications of all aspects of science but it is by no means preventing the bright minds from still thinking outside the box. If religion were really suppressing knowledge then how would anyone have thought up this whole stem cell thing in the first place. Some religious organizations may try to prevent the use of technology that has been created by scientists but the use of the technology can only come after someone with the knowledge creates the technology. So the knowledge is always there regardless of religion.

Well there you have it. This man's opinions on the matter. Apparently one of the many opinions spawned off by Doc's original post. Ah well, we live, we breathe, we argue.


RE: Great news
By bpwilldo on 6/15/2007 7:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if I should be happy for them or afraid of them. I remember fruitcakes from my youth. They were abandoned at our home during the holidays. Many were orphaned on market shelves. Today I learn that they have formed a religion. And, they influence U.S. government policy. That's why I don't see them any more around here. They have moved to Washington D.C. Why haven't I heard about this before. This is revolutionary evolution.