backtop


Print 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.


RE: Great news
By brandonmichael on 6/15/2007 8:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
See that little 2 next to your name? Well that would be a 3 if I had any votes left... I hate to say it but... LOL.


RE: Great news
By blaster5k on 6/14/2007 9:21:25 AM , Rating: 2
There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research -- just federal dollars to support it. It kind of makes sense actually. If half the people in the country are appalled by destroying embryos for research and worry about the cloning aspects of it, why should their share of the tax dollars go into supporting it? If you're a supporter of embryonic stem cell research, I'd recommend making a donation to one of groups conducting the research and get others to do so as well.

It seems like a lot of people think embryonic stem cells are a magical cure. Adult stem cells have been used very effectively for different kinds of procedures, but it remains to be seen if embryonic stem cells will be useful at all. Some people think there's potential, but it's expected to be many years before any developments emerge in the area -- if they do. That's a very big "if". If treatments were anywhere near imminent, you'd see more companies pouring money into it. Right now, it's politically popular and I fear the issue is heavily distorted as a result -- much like global warming.


RE: Great news
By corduroygt on 6/14/2007 12:10:41 PM , Rating: 3
If half the people in the country oppose the war, why should their tax dollars go to it then?


RE: Great news
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 12:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
IMHO, it should be brought to a national vote. Perhaps included in the next elections or even before. But what will the consequences be for either side that wins? That in itself would be a good debate.


RE: Great news
By blaster5k on 6/14/2007 1:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
If I had my way, there be just about zero federal dollars going into any form of research. I'm not a fan of government dictating things like this since it's inefficient. You throw too much money into researching something and you get to the point of diminishing returns and extravagant conferences while other areas are neglected. I'd prefer to see private research investment through non-profits. Scientists have to sell the merits of their research to them, who in turn, need to sell themselves to the public to get donations. If done properly, the areas of the greatest monetary need are more likely to get it that way. All the people who whine that "government" should do this or that should take initiative on their own and put their money where their mouth is. It's not perfect, but better than lawmakers putting big bucks into the politically popular thing of the moment.

The war... well, that's another matter. Somehow I don't think we're getting a good return on our investment, but let's not go there.


RE: Great news
By corduroygt on 6/14/2007 2:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well, what did you expect, GWB never got any good returns from any investments when he was running oilco's in TX.


RE: Great news
By bfonnes on 6/16/2007 3:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
Your post was great until you added the little comment about global warming at the end. Global warming has only become a political issue because their are various special interest groups that are self serving that lobby the government and provide misinformation to serve there own self interests. Just like people from power companies that heavily lobby the federal government that want to say that EM fields can't cause cancer. And thumbs down to the guy that said that evolution is a fact. All science is based on theory, and I don't believe that anyone has proved yet that evolution is a law of nature because it has never been directly observed, so it is still theory. Any article or book that you read refers to it as "the theory of evolution." Thank you DocDraken for bringing religion into and evolution into something that is not a debate, i.e. an article showing the progress of stem cell research, which has NOTHING to do with evolution.


Pretty soon
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 7:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
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.




RE: Pretty soon
By James Holden on 6/14/2007 7:16:51 AM , Rating: 2
But this is America. You only need about 250 people to believe in your cause to pass legislature.


RE: Pretty soon
By Moishe on 6/14/2007 8:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
true... a lot of the stuff going on now is small portion of the population being louder than the rest. Congress does not represent the general population, they represent their special interests and those tend to be the loudest, smallest group of people.


RE: Pretty soon
By Clienthes on 6/14/2007 7:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
something 70% of America believes in.


Got a link to that poll? I'm curious about how the voting public really feels about this.


RE: Pretty soon
By Suomynona on 6/14/2007 8:28:42 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Pretty soon
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 11:03:20 AM , Rating: 2
As I read this "poll" I noticed this at the top: "These are some of the results of a Harris Interactive® online survey of 2,012 U.S. adults conducted between May 25 and 27, 2005 for The Wall Street Journal Online’s Health Industry Edition."

Where was this poll taken? I hardly think 2012 people constitutes a majority of the US. Also, where are the rest of the results?
Please, anyone can find a "poll" for or against anything. And the last few elections showed us how viable they really were.


RE: Pretty soon
By ghost101 on 6/14/2007 12:07:24 PM , Rating: 3
So anyone can find a poll for or against something, ergo all polls are crap.

Since when was a sample of 2012 not good enough. You go around asking 250 million or so Americans if you want.

The only decent argument that you could have made is the bias in the sample. Who are the type of people likely to read the Wall Street Journal Health Industry Edition? Most probably educated people with a profession related to the health industry.


RE: Pretty soon
By ghost101 on 6/14/2007 12:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected. There shouldnt even be a bias. This wasnt conducted with readers, but it was conducted for the journal. And if the statistician had any sense, he/she would have ensured that the sample was completely random.


RE: Pretty soon
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 12:40:38 PM , Rating: 1
Correct, ergo, polls aren't worth much.


RE: Pretty soon
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 12:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
If you poll 2000 atheists with this question: Do you believe in God? What do you think the answer will be? Most of the polls for the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections had Bush WAY behind. So, what happened? Were the polls wrong? If you used the polling info from NYC or CA then sure he lost. I'm sure if I dug a bit I can find a few polls that show the majority of Americans are against stem cell research.
And yes, most polls ARE crap. Even much of the media has conceded their polls and techniques are flawed.
One question for you: Where you or anyone you know polled with this topic? I know I wasn't.
"Since when was a sample of 2012 not good enough." Need I really comment on this logic when the statement of claimed 70% approval was made?


RE: Pretty soon
By Comdrpopnfresh on 6/14/2007 1:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
polling lines are redrawn every couple of years. this is illegal if swayed towards one party, but it happens anyhow.
A state only gets so many electoral votes, which go to a candidate for a plurality vote (largest of all percentages). So say california's voting population has 80% agreement on an issue, and other states are the same way. but other states that give their votes to the other candidate did so after he won a plurality with 40% of the votes. This is exactly how it is possible for a candidate to be elected with more people not wanting them than do. case in point- bush's election


RE: Pretty soon
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 2:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
I believe it's call the Electoral College. I don't want only the largest cities in the US voting for me. After all, wouldn't this be Voter Disenfranchisement? It's how some people get elected.
Presidents that won the Electoral and not the popular vote include:
1824 John Quincy Adams
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes
1888 Benjamin Harrison
2000 George W. Bush
Each party will try to get the upper hand on redistricting. I think this needs to be addressed.


RE: Pretty soon
By Schrag4 on 6/14/2007 2:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
True, in the 2000 election, nearly 544,000 more people voted for Gore than for Bush. However, in 2004 Bush had more votes than Kerry by over 3 million votes. In fact, 2004 was the first election since Bush Sr. got elected in 1988 that any candidate had a majority of all votes.

At any rate, I think a lot of us agree that the whole electoral college thing is outdated and no longer needed. In my mind it's a huge distraction and opens things up for corruption (redistricting, etc). Doesn't our government have bigger things to worry about and spend our hard earned money on than this?


RE: Pretty soon
By Schrag4 on 6/14/2007 3:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
"Doesn't our government have bigger things to worry about and spend our hard earned money on than this?"

Oops, I just read my question and realized that getting themselves re-elected is the #1 priority of most politicians in our government. So, no, in their minds this is where the money is best spent I guess...


RE: Pretty soon
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 4:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it's (Electoral college)outdated. Without it a lot of us would have no actual vote. All the major cities would vote for us thus causing the candidates to bypass everywhere there's a small population. Have you seen a map that shows population? Unless you lived in a big city, your vote wouldn't count. That being said, if we overhauled the way "we the people" and the states are represented, it could work. Our founders weren't dumb by any means. This was thought through pretty well and debated. but once the voters found they could "vote themselves money", it was all downhill. So really, people will always find the money angle in everything.
MAP: http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/thematic-maps/usa-p...


RE: Pretty soon
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 5:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually right now the opposite is true. A vote in Montana or Alaska is worth far more than one from New York or California.

But that's also before you take swing states into account as far as candidate attention. If you live in a deep blue or deep red state, nobody will even bother with you because they know they won't tip the balance.

So tell me why only people from small swing states should count?


RE: Pretty soon
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 6:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
Every vote should count. Without the Electoral, only the places with the most population will count.
The votes each state has is directly related to the population. Alaska only has 3 votes to cast and Montana 3. New York has 31 and California 55. I don't know where you're getting your info but maybe you need to look elsewhere unless I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Can you clarify?


RE: Pretty soon
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 7:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
Divide Montana's 3 electoral votes by the population of Montana. Divide California's 55 by its population.


RE: Pretty soon
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 8:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Please read below as to how this works.
" Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives , which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment."
This is outlined in the Constitution.


RE: Pretty soon
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 10:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
Wyoming has a population of 509,294. It has 3 electoral votes. So one of Wyoming's electoral votes represents 169,765 people.

California has a population of 36,132,147 and 55 electoral votes. That means one electoral vote for every 656,948 people.

Getting through now?


RE: Pretty soon
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 10:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
I did not write the law, maybe you should ask a scholar? I was merely state the obvious. I am also suspecting you like to argue just to argue.You obviously don't do any info checks on your own. If you had actually read a few posts, " Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives , which varies according to the state's population." I have proven (actually, with your terrific help)how little of US history and law you really know and all you can do is ask why a few states have smaller Electoral votes that others? Stop being lazy, look it up.


RE: Pretty soon
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 10:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am also suspecting you like to argue just to argue.
I certainly do, but that's besides the point.

quote:
I have proven (actually, with your terrific help)how little of US history and law you really know and all you can do is ask why a few states have smaller Electoral votes that others?
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.


RE: Pretty soon
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 11:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
I fail to see how a state with 3 Electorals is a threat to your way of life. "My point is that those 2 automatic votes" It's 3 not 2. Again, you're worried about what?
I like to argue when it's worthwhile but this borders close to the absurd. Tangent? LMAO, please, do yourself a huge favor and actually read what you have posted. Again, LOOK IT UP.


RE: Pretty soon
By BMFPitt on 6/15/2007 1:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's 3 not 2.
2 "free" votes. I'm not arguing with the one vote they get based on population.

And in any case, we wouldn't need this argument if they scrapped the electoral college and went to an instant run-off system.


RE: Pretty soon
By Schrag4 on 6/15/2007 9:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
"Every vote should count. Without the Electoral, only the places with the most population will count."

It seems to me that the states with very few electoral votes are overlooked by presidential candidates anyway. Why campaign in a state with 3 electoral votes when you can spend all your time in CA and NY? Your argument can be made the other way around...

Not only that, but I don't think anyone can counter the argument that living in a hard red or blue state gives those with the opposite opinion absolutely NO REASON to go to the voting booth on election day, at least when it comes to the presidential vote.

The electoral college was put in place because 200+ years ago we didn't have the nightly news and the internet where every citizen could stay informed like we do now (if we want to anyway). Candidates had no visibility, as all the people just slaved away on their farms or in their workshops to feed their families. These days anyone in America can read up about all the candidates if they just spend a little time. All the info is freely and easily available to everyone. Why do we need representatives to vote for us nowadays?


RE: Pretty soon
By Ringold on 6/17/2007 5:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
The system shouldn't be abolished simply because it's not presently trendy. Today it may seem strange but a century down the road it may come in handy through some unforeseen event.

It'd also be a mistake, I believe, to suggest American's are somehow well informed. Information throughout much of America's history was somewhat decently distributed, though at times it came directly from campaigns themselves. Given that newspaper readership is down significantly, TV viewship up significantly, and various media sources becoming partial extensions to political parties and agendas I really honestly do not believe American's today are any better informed than the American's who participated in the elections in, say, 1860.

As an aside, it was also a mistake to devolve the responsibility of electing Senator's from state legislatures to the people directly. Senators were never intended to be held so directly responsible to the changing whims of the people (that was for the House, not for the Senate), and for those that would think it would mean somehow a stagnate irresponsible Senate one need only look at the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates which occured under just that system but which would never be replicated today. Even if it were, most of the electorate wouldn't likely understand half of what was said anyway. But, it wasn't trendy in the 20th century, so got rid of it. Now we've got a Senate as gridlocked and bloody useless as the House. Good intentions don't necessarily lead to good results.


RE: Pretty soon
By Comdrpopnfresh on 6/14/2007 1:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
then your car doesn't get the rated mpg it is listed under. No president in history was truly voted for, and the nutrition facts on every bit of food you consume are absolutely wrong.

Polling everyone, or large amounts of people is stupid. You'd spent more time polling than actually releasing data. The effect of this can be seen in the drug industry where this type of prudence is necessary, and it takes up to 20 years for potential miracle cures to be released to market.


RE: Pretty soon
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 1:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
"Correct, ergo, polls aren't worth much."
If they can't be done without bias, they are worthless.


RE: Pretty soon
By Comdrpopnfresh on 6/14/2007 10:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
computers work without bias, not people


RE: Pretty soon
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 10:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
Corrupt(biased) data in, corrupt (biased) data out.


RE: Pretty soon
By Suomynona on 6/15/2007 9:03:44 AM , Rating: 2
Could you find a poll that is overwhelming against embryonic stem cell research?

With polling, they do not ask every single person in the country. They strive to get a fair mix of people in the hope that they adequately represent the larger group. That is why most polls will also include a +/-X%.

You can choose to believe all polling is wrong if you want, but this is how they are typically done. And again, I'd like you to find one that gives the opposite result by a respectable publication.


RE: Pretty soon
By DigitalFreak on 6/14/2007 8:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
Pwnd!


RE: Pretty soon
By bkiserx7 on 6/14/2007 11:30:18 AM , Rating: 3
simply put.....bush is a moron!


Quick Question
By comradeiggy on 6/14/2007 10:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
What is so wrong wrong with doing research on embryos that are going to be destroyed anyways?




RE: Quick Question
By James Holden on 6/14/2007 10:15:45 AM , Rating: 2
The thinking from Bush, I think, is that embryos in the future would be made specifically to be destroyed, and then used in this research.

I'm not sure I agree with him, but if this Japanese research pans out, I'm not so sure how much it will matter.

Does anyone know if there's a raindance you can do to make Masher appear? Or does he just come and go as he pleases :) I can tell this is going to be a topic he has a lot to say about.


RE: Quick Question
By nekobawt on 6/14/2007 12:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The thinking from Bush, I think, is that embryos in the future would be made specifically to be destroyed, and then used in this research.


That would be a possibility, but I should think that that's the kind of thing that would necessitate some kind of release form or waiver being signed by the prospective parents from whom the embryos in question come (if I recall, the embryos are being made in fertility clinics and such). It's not like the research labs are doing midnight runs on sperm banks or anything. Real people and their prospective children are involved (and now I want a t-shirt that says "Sperm are real people too.")

They would be given the option of whether or not their destined-to-be-discarded embryos to be used for the research. And if someone wants to go to the time and expense to go through the fertility process for the sole purpose of all the resulting embryos being used for stem cell research, that's their prerogative. Seems like it all comes down to the battle of "Life" vs. "Choice."

It's like donating your organs to science after you die; you're not using them anymore...


RE: Quick Question
By Myg on 6/14/2007 5:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
"What is so wrong wrong with doing research on embryos that are going to be destroyed anyways?"

Notice the similarity between the above and an example I would like to use from history:

"What is so wrong with doing research on Jews that are going to be sent to the gas chamber/killed anyways?"

------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------

I do not imply that the above reflects your character. I just wish to point out that your lack of depth in thought concerning the value of life can be quite scary if put in proper context (taking someone's life).

Embryo's are people too, as supported from the basics of reproduction+DNA. Its just the words that we use to describe their developmental stages seem to allow for easy dehumanisation. Which was never the collective intent of scientific methodology, but unfortunatly has been used by many agenda to justify actions/desires that only serve their inner selves. In saying, words are very powerful, and the looking-glass of history has shown us many a time, that even a fairly educated society can be told that a "fork is actually a spoon" with enough repetition and enforcement (agendas at work).

[I have mentioned "agendas" many times, and i do not define them as all bad. It would take a few pages to extrapolate and explain the basic intricacies of weighing agendas, but I will leave that till another post/time.]

I do imply though that your current train of thought may be just as blind as those who justified such acts in history to themselves with such logic of arguement.

Be careful what you allow yourself to continue to think and say. We will one day look back at all this anti-life mentality and see the folly of our ways. Much to our own shame; Since alot of us are all at fault to let it happen/continue to happen.

Otherwise, I am glad to see the direction of this abstract concept, which we call "progess" :) , going in a somewhat right direction. It has been a while since any heart lifting news has come from this particular field.

This news is a prime example of putting the "easy way" aside and looking for similar potential in other domains of a concept; which try to maintain our humanity.


RE: Quick Question
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 5:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is so wrong with doing research on Jews that are going to be sent to the gas chamber/killed anyways?
They are fully developed people who feel pain and have feelings. They also have no justification to be killed in the first place.

Are you opposed to organ donation? If not. why is it OK to take organs from the brain dead, and not to take stem cells from an embryo?


RE: Quick Question
By RaisedinUS on 6/14/2007 6:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. For me here's the problem. It's not the stem cells as much as the money issue. Everyone knows, admit it, if theres a demand for said cells (or anything else) people will find a way to make more money, by legal or hook and crook. This would very well create a market for stem cells and greedy people will obtain them any way they can without any regards to what, who, when, how or where. The government has no business in these types of things, leave them to the private sector. I thought most anted LESS gov, not more.


RE: Quick Question
By Myg on 6/14/2007 10:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
"They are fully developed people who feel pain and have feelings. They also have no justification to be killed in the first place."

And so, one of the underlying agendas surfaces; human embryos, because of their name/stage of development are seen not to be alive and human. What inherent justification/right is there to end the lives of embryos?

No one among us humans can rightfully do so, and we musnt try. It would be wisest to sit on the safe side and not idly tamper with life as we so stubbornly do.

You do realise, that most people actually grow, and chemically change as they get older? That is called development. So, how do you define "fully developed"? Surely, based on your way of thinking about this; people who suffer from retardation or other situations like that arent human either. Do you still claim to support your previous statement after reading that situation?

People are not mathematical equations, they are not a scalar liner measurement of 1,2,3,4,5... or so on. Being alive is a continual experience and existance from the beginning (conception) to death. There isnt some "magical" stage where you are not alive during any of that.

The methadology of science only named certain recognisable changes as a "developmental stage", so we can follow it in mathematical terms (which is the basis of modern education). The names were not created to define what the essence of whats being observed is. It is only a measuring tape with easy to understand labels, the words dont contain the definition of the actual life itself (A comparison in programming: The current index of an array is just a scalar number representing the position its currently on, and has no relevance as to whats actually stored in that array. An abstract reference, so to say.)

The big problem these days, is what constitutes "alive" in most people's minds. What is continually thrust down all our throats in western society, is that living is only being able to interact/experience the world, taking what you "want" all the time and being able to "feel" being the most important virtue there is. This way of thinking simplifies people's perspective on life and unfortunatly leads to people acting like a shallow, self-indulged, obsessive, spoilt child. This leads to ruined relationships/families and strips people of human dignity and value. Again, that is another topic for another time, but it is directly connected to most things being mentioned here.

But, I do understand; Being alive, is a hard concept to explain, but this is my feeble attempt:

- As humans we have a unity of mind, body, and soul. They are all interconnected and each depend on the other to sustain the other. The mind exerts control over the body, the body sustains the mind, the soul sustains and invigorates the mind and body and the body/mind house the soul.

- Without going into much detail, I wish to convey that the moment the unity of the mind/body/soul is broken, is the moment we die. Not until then. Your body will usualy expire first, then your mind, and then there is no longer anymore lodging for your soul. It is not something that is precicely tangable simply as a function of your heartbeat or mind, everything must be fully taken into account to fully respect humanity and life.

Hope that has provided some insight.


RE: Quick Question
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 11:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And so, one of the underlying agendas surfaces; human embryos, because of their name/stage of development are seen not to be alive and human. What inherent justification/right is there to end the lives of embryos?
Most certainly and undeniably alive and human.
quote:
What inherent justification/right is there to end the lives of embryos?
They're frozen cells stored for a specific purpose that for whatever reason has been filled by another embryo, or no longer applies.
quote:
So, how do you define "fully developed"?
Capable of survival as an independent entity.


RE: Quick Question
By Kragoth on 6/14/2007 11:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
So, how do you define "fully developed"?

Capable of survival as an independent entity.


This has to be the best example of brainwashing! So you are saying that fully developed is being able to survive independently. I guess this must mean that all micro organisms are not developed and anything that feeds of another animal is not fully developed? Seeings as they cannot survive without their source of food?

Or what if we put you on Mars? How long would you last? And I'm assuming that you consider yourself "fully developed".

But, wait! The best example would be yourself. Let's just assume that all tools, electricity, and anything developed by humans is taken away from you. Let's put you in the jungle so that you are entirely with nature. I'm pretty sure that you would be dead within the week. So, as you can see, fully developed is not about survival. Survival is about experience and your environment. Most embryos would become a "fully developed" human being if left in their appropriate environment. Just like you stay alive by being left in your environment and not put on Mars.

So, let's be serious here, an embryo is a "fully developed" embryo and capable of becoming a "fully developed" human being just as you are a "fully developed" human being.

So, maybe you need a new argument, cause the way I see it there are no living things on Earth that can survive independent of all other entities.

And this is why the argument is not a black and white argument.

Thanks


RE: Quick Question
By nekobawt on 6/15/2007 11:19:42 AM , Rating: 2
I just want to point out a couple of things:

"Capable of becoming" does not mean "is" . I'm capable of becoming program manager of the AZ DES. That doesn't mean that at the moment I'm anything but a mildly disgruntled state employee at the bottom of the feeding chain.

Also, the "appropriate environment" of an embryo is a mother's womb, yes? What about all the embryos that begin their existence in a pitri(sp?) dish?


RE: Quick Question
By BMFPitt on 6/15/2007 11:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess this must mean that all micro organisms are not developed and anything that feeds of another animal is not fully developed?
I don't see where you're going with that. A microorganism is independent at the stage of mitosis when it can survive on its own. Until then it is part of the other cell.
quote:
Or what if we put you on Mars? How long would you last? And I'm assuming that you consider yourself "fully developed".
I sincerely hope you're lying about being so stupid as to think my statement resembes yours in any way.
quote:
So, maybe you need a new argument, cause the way I see it there are no living things on Earth that can survive independent of all other entities.
Ever heard of plants? They seem to do quite well with just sunlight and water.


I don't understand
By straycat74 on 6/14/2007 9:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
why people feel defeated by finding ways around using human embryos. And why Bush is a bad man for not wanting the government to not fund embryonic research. It isn't a ban on it, just a lack of public funding. Is viewing life as sacred that bad of a thing, or is abortion and embryonic research just a matter of choice, like what type of vehicle to drive - hybrid or SUV?




RE: I don't understand
By blaster5k on 6/14/2007 9:56:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think a great number of people have been led to believe that there's a ban on "stem cell research", even though it is entirely untrue. The only restriction is federal funding in support of embryonic stem cell research.

Sometimes I wonder if people seriously think money is all it takes to speed up cures for illnesses, or we'd stop global warming with Kyoto or by buying hybrids and using public transportation. If only it were so simple. In the case of global warming, doing an accurate carbon/pollutant lifecycle analysis on everything we use is a very complex problem, but we can't hope to implement the proper changes without understanding it (ie. buying a hybrid to replace a relatively new car may yield greater overall emissions when you take lifecycle into account). In software, it's like "optimizing" code without profiling first -- It usually doesn't produce the results you're looking for.


RE: I don't understand
By BMFPitt on 6/14/2007 10:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
Partially true. If an institution that gets any type of government funding wants to do privately funded stem cell research, they must create a whole separate entity to do it. New physical labs, all kinds of admin expenses. Since almost any research lab gets some federal funding, it becomes prohibitively expensive to do this research.


Case and point
By Suriel on 6/14/2007 11:22:00 AM , Rating: 2
Moishe I hate to call this into a case and point but

You say this,

quote:
Many people in science today are religious


then you state this

quote:
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.


How can you say Science is not concerned with morals? Science is a word, its the people in science who make the moral decisions. Now saying all Scientist are immoral or lack feel is no different then saying all religious people are fruitcakes.

Yes you can say the word science is only concerted with fact, but its a word, its the people in it that make it what it is.




Don't rejoice yet
By patentman on 6/14/2007 3:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
A friend of mine at work worked for one of the research groups responsible for developing the reprogramming method and he said it is far from perfect. We were just talking about this the other day at lunch. A big step for sure, but still a long way to go.




A little too much?
By Kragoth on 6/14/2007 5:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
Hey guys, interesting thread, especially all the talk about religion and science. So, here's a few things I'd like to say.

Both camps have relevant points but the big problem I have with all the arguments against religion is that you are taking a VERY small proportion of religious people and making them out to be the dividing force in science! MOST religious poeople have nothing against science when there is no harm done to human beings.
With embryo stem cell research many NON religious people are hesitant about it because they do not understand where the stem cells are coming from. And maybe the biggest concern is not really about the frozen embryos but more about where is the line drawn for further research. As it is the abortion debate is still a very touchy topic, and now we are bringing more to it. When does a embryo become a human. I don't really know where I stand on this argument but I don't really feal comfortable with people using what would be an unborn child to further science.

I think the real issue here is to educate the general public so that they understand the rules in which the research will be conducted so that people will know that their morals will be upheld. And just so there is no confusion, people that are not religious can have quite high morals too!

But, with regards to a whole lot of talk about how religion has pushed science back, my goodness me! How you can talk so one sided is amazing! What about the 2-3 centuries where religious people were put to death because they didn't worship the ruler of their country? What about countries where it is still the death penalty if the government finds out you are a Christian? Is that being TOLERANT? I mean come on, lets look at all of history not just the relevant sections to back up your own argument. The fact of the matter is that a lot of science has been carried out by religous people as well! (Go do your homework, many scientists believed in God, like Thomas Edison, oh wait, we didn't need the light bulb did we?) Gosh, if religon has been so bad for science why do so many religious people get involved in science?

What is needed is a balanced look at the problem, and that is that there are a few religious people that take science out of perspective and try to say that science is causing society harm, but on the other hand there are a few people who think that science should be left unchecked, which if you have any commen sense you would know that nothing should ever be left unchecked or it will eventually come back to hurt you. Balance is the key, that is what is needed. And no argument from either side is 100% correct, both have valid points and thus that is why both sides are needed. Science has done many WRONG things in the past, maybe not so open in the US but we all know about trials done on humans that should never have happened. So, don't tell me that science has all the morals that is required. They DON'T, that is why a balancing "force" is needed.

Go read writings from both camps, I do that to help me understand better why I believe the things that I do.

Oh btw, for the person stating evolution is a fact.... I'm sorry but where did science ever state a fact? As it stands evolution is a theory and will always be a theory until at such time someone invents a time machine to go have a look. However, no matter how good the theory is they still have never explained where the original matter came from, and until they can explain that, then it will have to remain a theory.

Just for the record, I do believe in Creation, I do believe in God, and all I have to do is look around me at the beautiful world to know that I would have to have a whole lot more *faith* to believe that this all came about by "chance" then to believe in a supreme designer. But hey, if you want to believe that you are here on earth only cause some dna rolled the right way billions and billions of times over again ... go right ahead. I just think that that really makes the value of life incredibly low.

Have a good day:)




Please dont shoot me.
By brandonmichael on 6/15/2007 2:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
Notice how the same people who think that global warming is a hoax are suddenly such advocates for the value of human life... The same people who want to abolish all of the social programs that keep poor families in our own country from falling off the map completely are now champions of morality. The same people who's darwinian economics dictate a ruthless social policy are now telling us that it is a crime to do harm to a frozen cluster of cells.

This is not a moral issue, its an issue forced on us from the church, because the church doesnt like birth control, doesnt like abortion or anything that might stop it from acquiring new numbers. The church feeds on the desperate and impoverished... Presicely what we'll have scores of should we all "value" human life like they want us too.

This is hypocrisy... If you value life so much, lets protect our ecosystem, lets help those with no quality of life, lets protect our right to make decisions which will positively effect our society... Not growing every unborn embryo and prohibiting every abortion till we're up to our eyeballs in children we can neither afford nor manage, who will never enjoy a quality of life beyond serving the agendas of the church.




Bush is stupid
By Comdrpopnfresh on 6/14/07, Rating: 0
“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki