or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush vetos stem cell bill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush vetos stem cell bill - Page 2

post #41 of 262
Let's all laugh at Frank who can't see the writing on the wall.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #42 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No. Only lines up to August 2001 are funded (about 20). This bill would have extended the number of lines funded to currently available lines. Not future existing lines from destroyed embroynic sources.

linky

Gotcha. Still, it's not inconsistent. Those were lines created beyond the standard established for funding, so Bush didn't want to fund them now. To allow it now would allow circumventing of his original decision.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
You know. Something with at least fingers and toes and a brain. Until then it just ain't there.

But I know it's the old Monty Python argument. " Every sperm is sacred ".

Geez!

Maybe we should write that into the law. "Something with at leats fingers and toes and a brain." Sounds like a good standard to me. We should also qualify it with "until then it just aint' there." Sorry, but you sound like an idiot.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #44 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Gotcha. Still, it's not inconsistent. Those were lines created beyond the standard established for funding, so Bush didn't want to fund them now. To allow it now would allow circumventing of his original decision.

So we allow murder as long as we dont fund it, and as long as it was instigated before a set time. Yah!
post #45 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
So we allow murder as long as we dont fund it, and as long as it was instigated before a set time. Yah!

Who says it's murder? I haven't said that. Bush hasn't said that. Who has said it?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #46 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Maybe we should write that into the law. "Something with at leats fingers and toes and a brain." Sounds like a good standard to me. We should also qualify it with "until then it just aint' there." Sorry, but you sound like an idiot.

No I'm sorry but you sound like an idiot. Have you ever killed any lower lifeform? Because that lower lifeform had more intellect and feeling than this clump of cells we're talking about. Believing anything else at least needs a reason ( born of logic ) behind it. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #47 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Who says it's murder? I haven't said that. Bush hasn't said that. Who has said it?

If that's not the reason what is it? Yes I'm trying to pin you down. Come on tell me.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #48 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777


Let's stop briefly and all share a laugh at Marc, who thinks people convert to Christianity because they have diabetes.

Why stop briefly, when infact you have stopped being relavent for about 1700 years?

Perhaps its because you have been comatose for such a long time that you cannot answer the question of wether we should fund research into non-embryonic stem cells?

And just to clarify my point for the numb, I was making the point that evangelizing Christianity largely fails when you meet with successful, confident happy people, and thus you prey on the suffering, sick, weak, and mentally infirm. And those that dont have issues, you try to bring them down to that level so that you can prey on.

Infact, much of the subtext of Jesus' teaching, is to destroy a persons sense of wellbeing so that you can specifically rebuild them in the image of something apparently 'better'. Muchlike - it is well known that a lack of, or guilt of sex, causes many neorotic and psychotic instabilities, and lo and behold Fundies sure have an agenda regarding denying sex.
post #49 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Who says it's murder? I haven't said that. Bush hasn't said that. Who has said it?

Whitehouse spokesman for Bush stating Bush's opinion.

And even if that didn't happen, you dont have to be a genius to work out that because you are arguing that life is as equally valid from fertilization as it is to a full grown adult, then as the killing of an adult is murder then as it is murder to an embryo.
post #50 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
If that's not the reason what is it? Yes I'm trying to pin you down. Come on tell me.

It's "killing life". Not necessarily "murder". Wait. Shit.

Yeah, it's murder.

On another note. What I find ironic is how SDW is willing to use completely arbitrary numbers to draw the line between what is groovy stem cell research and what is cold blooded killing. But laughs at those who want to draw an arbitrary line between what is "human life" and what isn't.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #51 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Why stop briefly, when infact yada..yada...yada...

I'd answer, but I'm busy doing missionary work.

Anybody have the number for the Hindu Diabetic Association?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #52 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
No I'm sorry but you sound like an idiot. Have you ever killed any lower lifeform? Because that lower lifeform had more intellect and feeling than this clump of cells we're talking about. Believing anything else at least needs a reason ( born of logic ) behind it. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.


Jimmac, I'm the Evangelical here, not SDW.

I first raised the issue of Embryonic research being "ethically wrong" and mentioned why I opposed it in the 14th post in the thread.

I didn't describe it as murderous. Perhaps you could be so kind as to say whether you think my stated reasoning is logical.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #53 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Gotcha. Still, it's not inconsistent. Those were lines created beyond the standard established for funding, so Bush didn't want to fund them now. To allow it now would allow circumventing of his original decision.

It cannot possibly have an ethical component, though since the offensive act is already done...

I know that is not what you are arguing...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #54 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Jimmac, I'm the Evangelical here, not SDW.

I first raised the issue of Embryonic research being "ethically wrong" and mentioned why I opposed it in the 14th post in the thread.

I didn't describe it as murderous. Perhaps you could be so kind as to say whether you think my stated reasoning is logical.

But as has been established now Bush did describe it as murderous.

Your reasoning is extremely illogical because the comparisons and reasons you listed were so removed from the subject as to be silly. About this being " Human experimentation " well it's not. The reason is the clump of cells we're talking about aren't human yet. They might be someday but might and are isn't even close to the same thing.

It has potential but that's not the same either.

Sorry but there it is.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 262
But who gets to decide when they become human?
What about erring on the side of caution?

How close to the sun do we fly before our wings begin to melt?

My point was that embryonic research of this type breaches a firewall that we erected ourselves to ensure that it doesn't lead to further, deeper abuses.

Are the next generation of researchers going to colour inside our newly-drawn lines, or push for more flexibility in the hope of more cures?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #56 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Your reasoning is extremely illogical because...The reason is the clump of cells we're talking about aren't human yet.

This is your presupposition.

Others hold the presupposition that life begins at conception/fertilization.

Neither position is "provable".

Both are faith-based presuppositions. Both are beliefs.
post #57 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
But who gets to decide when they become human?
What about erring on the side of caution?

How close to the sun do we fly before our wings begin to melt?

My point was that embryonic research of this type breaches a firewall that we erected ourselves to ensure that it doesn't lead to further, deeper abuses.

Are the next generation of researchers going to colour inside our newly-drawn lines, or push for more flexibility in the hope of more cures?

150 cells do not a human make. They obtain embryonic stem cells from absolutely tiny blastocysts -- literally a ball of cells that when in a uterus haven't attached themselves to the womb. These are the balls of cells that are lost when a woman becomes impregnated near the beginning of her period.

It is safe to say that this ball of cells isn't human -- and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of these balls are lost each year naturally...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #58 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This is your presupposition.

Others hold the presupposition that life begins at conception/fertilization.

Neither position is "provable".

Both are faith-based presuppositions. Both are beliefs.

No Chris one's built on facts and common sense the other is built on faith.
And even though no definition of the start of human life has been established one can deduce the obvious here about what we're talking about. Give me some reason to believe the other. If not you've really just said nothing.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #59 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
But who gets to decide when they become human?
What about erring on the side of caution?

How close to the sun do we fly before our wings begin to melt?

My point was that embryonic research of this type breaches a firewall that we erected ourselves to ensure that it doesn't lead to further, deeper abuses.

Are the next generation of researchers going to colour inside our newly-drawn lines, or push for more flexibility in the hope of more cures?

Look when we get into " Live Organ Transplants " like on Monty Python's " The Meaning of Life " I'll say you've got something there. But this isn't even remotely close to that. And once again you've made a leap to something that's far removed and not likely because of this.

But when it isn't there yet it isn't there yet. During development embryos resemble lots of things. This is so early in the development you run into all sorts of reasons why this argument just doesn't hold water.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #60 of 262
When these embryos are created in a lab (and they are) they have no potential to become human unless there is unnatural procedure that follows implanting them in a willing woman in the luteal phase of her menstrual cycle. Of course this means the woman's egg cell is wasted... oh the humanity...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #61 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
No Chris one's built on facts and common sense the other is built on faith.

And then you say this...

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
And even though no definition of the start of human life has been established

Do you even read what you write?

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
one can deduce the obvious here about what we're talking about.

But those "deductions" are faith-based.

There is no "facts" that human "life" begins at 8 weeks or 10 or 14 or whatever. No matter what you say. There just aren't. These are arbitrary (far moreso, in fact, than the point of conception) points in time.
post #62 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
When these embryos are created in a lab (and they are) they have no potential to become human unless there is unnatural procedure that follows implanting them in a willing woman in the luteal phase of her menstrual cycle. Of course this means the woman's egg cell is wasted... oh the humanity...

" Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is good! Every sperm is sacred in your neiborhood ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #63 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And then you say this...



Do you even read what you write?



But those "deductions" are faith-based.

There is no "facts" that human "life" begins at 8 weeks or 10 or 14 or whatever. No matter what you say. There just aren't. These are arbitrary (far moreso, in fact, than the point of conception) points in time.

Chris go back and read some of the comparisons I made earlier. Also we are talking about one week! It's a clump of cells. A piece of tissue. Get it! At that point it has the potential to turn into anything. But more than a piece of tissue yet? Nope!

I'm not talking about 13 weeks down the road. You can say we don't know where the human starts but it's clear it's not there. It's not there because anything you could use to define as human hasn't happened yet. It's not much different than tearing a piece of skin from your hand. That skin has genetic code from both your mother and father. It's human in nature but not a complete human. And you wouldn't care about discarding it.

Well maybe depending where it came from!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #64 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Also we are talking about one week! It's a clump of cells. A piece of tissue. Get it! At that point it has the potential to turn into anything. But more than a piece of tissue yet? Nope!

I understand what your belief is. You have made it very clear. But it is a belief.
post #65 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Chris go back and read some of the comparisons I made earlier. Also we are talking about one week! It's a clump of cells. A piece of tissue. Get it! At that point it has the potential to turn into anything. But more than a piece of tissue yet? Nope!

I'm not talking about 13 weeks down the road. You can say we don't know where the human starts but it's clear it's not there. It's not there because anything you could use to define as human hasn't happened yet.

It isn't even tissue... It is a colony. None of the cells have differentiated, they are all exactly the same (and are totipotent because of that)...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #66 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I understand what your belief is. You have made it very clear. But it is a belief.

But I used facts to build that belief. What did you use?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #67 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It isn't even tissue... It is a colony. None of the cells have differentiated, they are all exactly the same (and are totipotent because of that)...

Even better.

For Chris :

Totipotent

Having to do with cells that are able to develop into any type of cell found in the body.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #68 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
But I used facts to build that belief. What did you use?

No you didn't. You simply say "It's a clump of cells. A piece of tissue. Get it! At that point it has the potential to turn into anything. But more than a piece of tissue yet? Nope!" Those are not facts the support your presupposition it isn't a human being. Jeez...we are all basically a "clump of cells"..."a piece of tissue".
post #69 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No you didn't. You simply say "It's a clump of cells. A piece of tissue. Get it! At that point it has the potential to turn into anything. But more than a piece of tissue yet? Nope!" Those are not facts the support your presupposition it isn't a human being. Jeez...we are all basically a "clump of cells"..."a piece of tissue".

Technically no. You aren't a clump of identical cells.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #70 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No you didn't. You simply say "It's a clump of cells. A piece of tissue. Get it! At that point it has the potential to turn into anything. But more than a piece of tissue yet? Nope!" Those are not facts the support your presupposition it isn't a human being. Jeez...we are all basically a "clump of cells"..."a piece of tissue".

Chris you're just being stubborn.

Look above at the definition of " Totipotent ".

At that point it could " potentially " ( since that seems to be so important to you ) turn into anything.

Not specifically human. Get it?

The rinse repeat routine won't work with this.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #71 of 262
I understand your belief.

Furthermore...I even understand why you need to hold that belief.

No harm. No foul. Now worries.
post #72 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Chris you're just being stubborn.

Look above at the definition of " Totipotent ".

At that point is could " potentially " ( since that seems to be so important to you )turn into anything.

Not specifically human. Get it?

Under certain circumstances it could become a mouse, it is true, but amongst cells like itself it will become a human...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #73 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I understand your belief.

Furthermore...I even understand why you need to hold that belief.

No harm. No foul. Now worries.

A little backpeddling.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #74 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Under certain circumstances it could become a mouse, it is true, but amongst cells like itself it will become a human...

But the point is it hasn't happened yet.

Thanks for the facts!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
A little backpeddling.

Not by me. Perhaps by you someday...but I doubt it.
post #76 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Not by me. Perhaps by you someday...but I doubt it.

Chris we've already had this conversation. That's not potential. It's happened.

No I understand your need to retreat ( no matter what ) into your core beliefs in the face of anything. I'm ok with that as long as it doesn't make policy in the government. But you have a right to believe anything. That's what this country is all about.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #77 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Scissors: Sperm and Human embryos are different things, look it up.

obviously you are not a fan of monty python's meaning of life or you would have caught the reference.
post #78 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
No I understand your need to retreat

But I haven't. That's the problem.

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I'm ok with that as long as it doesn't make policy in the government.

But your beliefs should be enacted into government policy?

I got it.
post #79 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla


But your beliefs should be enacted into government policy?

I got it.

How would not restricting funds to embryonic stem cell research be enacting any policy?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #80 of 262
Quote:
Originally posted by running with scissors
obviously you are not a fan of monty python's meaning of life or you would have caught the reference.

Sorry, never seen it.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush vetos stem cell bill