Obama to Lift Ban on Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[STLRamsFan]

A little surprised that no one posted this:



President Obama is planning to sign an executive order on Monday rolling back restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, according to sources close to the issue.

Although the exact wording of the order has not been revealed, the White House plans an 11 a.m. ceremony to sign the order repealing one of the most controversial steps taken by his predecessor, fulfilling one of Obama's eagerly anticipated campaign promises.

The move, long sought by scientists and patient advocates and opposed by religious groups, would enable the National Institutes of Health to consider requests from scientists to study hundreds of lines of cells that have been developed since the limitations were put in place -- lines that scientists and patient advocate say hold great hope for leading to cures for a host of major ailments.

Administration officials would not comment immediately other than to say "there will be a stem cell-related event on Monday." But an e-mail sent out today from the White House stated that officials were planning a ceremony on Monday "on stem cells and restoring scientific integrity to the government process. At the event the president will sign an executive order related to stem cells." Sources close to the issue, asking not to be named because they were not authorized to discuss the plan, said the order would lift the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cells.

Because stem cells obtained from very early embryos are believed capable of becoming any tissue in the body, scientists believe they could lead to fundamental insights into the underlying causes of many diseases and repair damage caused by many ailments, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease and spinal cord injuries. But extracting them destroys the embryo.

In an effort to prevent tax dollars from encouraging the destruction of more embryos, President Bush imposed the restriction on Aug. 9, 2001, limiting federal funding to studies of what turned out to be 21 cell lines that were already in existence as of that date.

The limitation, welcomed by those who believe that destroying human embryos is immoral, has been denounced by many scientists as severely hindering research one of the most promising fields of biomedical research.

The 21 cell lines that scientists have been permitted to study under the Bush policy have a variety of shortcomings, critics say. Many, for example, might have defects that could make them dangerous to transplant into people. But perhaps more important, hundreds of newer lines have been developed that offer a host of opportunities. Many, for example, carry defects for specific diseases.

Because of his long support for such research and repeated promise to repeal the restrictions, proponents expected Obama to lift the restriction in his first week in office, when he issued a flurry of executive orders to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, make government less secretive and lift a ban on funding international family planning groups that support abortion, among other things. But Obama did not, raising concern among advocates that he might be reconsidering his promise.

Opponents have argued that research on human embryonic stem cells has become unnecessary because of scientific advances in the interim, including promising studies involving adult stem cells and the ability to turn adult cells into cells that appear to have many of the properties of embryonic cells. But many scientists say it remains far from clear which cells will ultimately lead to the most important advances, making it crucial to continue to study both kinds.

Some opponents have suggested that Obama might qualify his executive order to try to take the sting out of the move as part of his effort to find common ground on divisive issues. But proponents expect Obama will simply lift the restriction without caveats and let the NIH work out the details. In anticipation, the NIH has started drafting guidelines that would address the many ethical issues raised by the research, using as models templates compiled by the National Academy of Sciences and the International Society for Stem Cell Research.

Advocates were especially concerned that the delay could force stem cell scientists to miss an opportunity to apply for some of the new funding the NIH is receiving as part of the stimulus package.

Despite the executive order, Congress is also likely to get involved by considering legislation designed to prevent any future presidents from reinstating restrictions.

[RobertGraham]

What's wrong with Stem Cell research? It might be a religious thing, so I wouldn't know what the big controversy of it is.

[paladin]

Because it's done with fetus.

[teh lag]

Fucking finally. I've been waiting quite some time for our country's bullshit policy on this to be changed.


What's wrong with Stem Cell research? It might be a religious thing, so I wouldn't know what the big controversy of it is.

The idea is that since an embryo is a "human life" (heh), it's immoral to destroy one.

[paladin]

I wonder if they'll start fetus farming?

[RobertGraham]

Oh, okay, I guess that's bad then. I think we should be super stem cell hating nazis and fire bullets through their heads, see how they like killing people.

[paladin]

Why, if you weight the pros and cons of stem cell research the pros out weight the cons 10000000000000000:1. Im all for it, I just wish there were other ways, or other life forms, to do the research on. Im not a genealogist or or a biologist, but if monkies have a 98% match to our genome, why can't we figure out a way to use them.

[jngrow]

This is really old news, but cool.

[Choking Victim]

Oh, okay, I guess that's bad then. I think we should be super stem cell hating nazis and fire bullets through their heads, see how they like killing people.
How's it bad? When your a fetus, your not self aware. Do you recall being a fetus? The scientific advances resulting from the research outweighs any morality issues that any deeply religious person can conjure up.

[paladin]

ding ding ding, winner...

[RobertGraham]

I guess no one saw the sarcasm in that. We really need tags

[Choking Victim]

I guess no one saw the sarcasm in that. We really need tags
Welcome to the internet, my name here is Choking Victim. O btw, sarcasm isn't a concept when I can't see your face or hear the tone of your voice. Happy surfing.

[Sel]

Good.

Religion is no excuse to prevent scientific research that could lead to the ability to cure infinite diseases and disorders.

[sdavis117]

Considering most of the embryoes that would be used for research would have just been thrown out anyways, I see absolutely no reason not to do this.

Bravo Obama, another Bush fuck-up that is being reversed.

[RobertGraham]

Good.

Religion is no excuse to prevent scientific research that could lead to the ability to cure infinite diseases and disorders.
Agreed. With this, we could make Master Chief come to life.
/no sarcasm

[SnaFuBAR]

PS you don't have to destroy embryos to get stem cells hth.

[CN3089]

Because it's done with fetus.

Embryonic. http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-eng101.gif

[paladin]

Fetus. Ill shove one down your ass holes....

[DrunkenSamus]

Zygote.

[Huero]

Wouldn't you have to shove one UP our assholes?
But yeah, glad to see this happen. Tired of stupid fucking regulations motivated only by morals major Christian churches deem fit.

[jngrow]

How's it bad? When your a fetus, your not self aware. Do you recall being a fetus? The scientific advances resulting from the research outweighs any morality issues that any deeply religious person can conjure up.

While I'm for stem cell research and everything, this argument isn't the best one. I sure as hell don't remember when I was one year old, but must would agree I was sentient at the time.

[Heathen]

Fucking finally.
And here I thought that I was gonna be the only one saying "Fucking Finally"

[CN3089]

While I'm for stem cell research and everything, this argument isn't the best one. I sure as hell don't remember when I was one year old, but must would agree I was sentient at the time.

there's just a slight difference between an embryo and an infant

[Choking Victim]

While I'm for stem cell research and everything, this argument isn't the best one. I sure as hell don't remember when I was one year old, but must would agree I was sentient at the time.
At the age of one I would agree, you are sentient. But when your nothing more than a cluster of cells in a petri dish, you don't have the capacity to reason, you don't have the capacity to feel, you don't have any concept of what you are or what your going to become. At this stage none of your vital features that actually define you and I as "human" have developed, I believe the whole issue of morality was brought up by creationists that feel "god" made us for a purpose. During the early 1900's Russian scientists executed all kinds of immoral experiments on dogs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSrIkUXwsNk) and other animals, the fact is, these experiments paved the way for modern medical knowledge. Stem cell research is the modern equivalent of those experiments, in the sense that they can lead to new discoveries.

CAUTION: The linked video is quite graphic, watch at your own risk.

[paladin]

there's just a slight difference between an fetus and an infant


ftfy :eng101:

[Heathen]

alive or not, its stupid to halt research to save lives because of some crazy cultist beliefs.

[RobertGraham]

alive or not, its stupid to halt research to save lives because of some crazy cultist beliefs.
^If I said this, TeeKup would give me bad Rep :( and fuss me out

[ThePlague]

alive or not, its stupid to halt research to save lives because of some crazy cultist beliefs.
This post is what I think.

[paladin]

It doesn't come down to a religious ideal. Its a morality and ethics issue. Last time I checked, Atheists had morals and ethics too.

[ThePlague]

It doesn't come down to a religious ideal. Its a morality and ethics issue. Last time I checked, Atheists had morals and ethics too.
Science doesn't exactly follow morals and ethics. And it is a religious ideal, and it isn't at the same time. Most scientists believe in god, and yet they try to figure out "scientifically" how we could've been created by another method, other than the extremely wincestal way of the Bible.

[paladin]

Science doesn't exactly follow morals and ethics. And it is a religious ideal, and it isn't at the same time. Most scientists believe in god, and yet they try to figure out "scientifically" how we could've been created by another method, other than the extremely wincestal way of the Bible.

You just proved what I said. Its not a religious ideal. Some religion might strongly appose it, but in the end it has to do with what people think is right and whats wrong. ANYONE can think its right or wrong, anyone from a certain denomination or any scientist. I know people who do not practice a religion and still strongly oppose it.

EDIT: And yes, by law, science, at least in the US, is held to some degree of morals and ethics.

[kid908]

took long enough. for what i care, a fetus, zygote, and embryo are tumors until they exit into this "world," then it's considered an infant. Besides, isn't our world over populated enough?

[paladin]

Wow, just wow....

[kid908]

Wow, just wow....

i could also call it a parasite. but yeah. this will increase our knowledge and give more to learn for the following generations. woot!

[RobertGraham]

Wait, we learn stuff?

Science is Science the way I look at it. Atheists can't say they don't believe in anything, because they "believe" in nothing. So what is nothing? Is there a definite definition? No. Its still being argued. Kind of like life = 42.

[TeeKup]

^If I said this, TeeKup would give me bad Rep :( and fuss me out

No I wouldn't have you dolt. This is absolutely true. it's about goddamn time someone did this.

[STLRamsFan]

I can understand why some people are against it religiously speaking and such. However, my feeling on it is if there more good than negatives to this research, then lets do some research. If doing research on this can save/help hundreds, if not thousands then in my book it's a good investment in the long run. I'm actually pretty curious to see what this research brings.

[kid908]

I can understand why some people are against it religiously speaking and such. However, my feeling on it is if there more good than negatives to this research, then lets do some research. If doing research on this can save/help hundreds, if not thousands then in my book it's a good investment in the long run. I'm actually pretty curious to see what this research brings.

nerve transplant. that's what it'll bring or nerons regeneration.

[cheezdue]

nerve transplant. that's what it'll bring or nerons regeneration.


But is it worth it as some people believe the fetus is a living being?

[rossmum]

Because it's done with fetus.
Last I checked they used rejected IVF embryos anyway, so it's not like it makes sweet fuck all difference, in either case they'll die

[RobertGraham]

Who cares? People have moved on from "cells are living things inside your body". What makes a Fetus, and a living Fetus [I think it would be dead] any different? It will pass over time.

[rossmum]

IT TURNS INTO A HUMAN ONE DAY

by this logic it is also immoral to build quarries because one day sandstone may evolve into an intelligent race of rock people

[paladin]

Im just messing with Cn.

BTW, the movie the Island. Yeah. That could happen.

[Con]

finally, we should see some good come out of this soon

[Heathen]

It doesn't come down to a religious ideal. Its a morality and ethics issue. Last time I checked, Atheists had morals and ethics too.
We do, but we also have a grasp of logic.

I mean shit, its not like we are saying "rip the little bastards out, crack 'em open, and pour the goulies inside into a cup." People are gonna get abortions, people will have miscarriages. People will. And you cant, by YOUR morals, just throw the crap out.

Regardless of whether or not I believe a ball of cells is a person or not is not the point. If you throw it out, its being wasted. Its the miscarriages, abortions, etc. that are going to be used for research and use. By disapproving you are basically allowing, and helping them, waste the unborn cellbabies.


No I wouldn't have you dolt. This is absolutely true. it's about goddamn time someone did this.
Teek of all people is rational and logical enough to understand the usefulness and obviousness of allowing this to happen.


IT TURNS INTO A HUMAN ONE DAY

by this logic it is also immoral to build quarries because one day sandstone may evolve into an intelligent race of rock people

That's a terrible way of explaining it because its ridiculous but you have the right idea.

[CN3089]

Science doesn't exactly follow morals and ethics.

what

[sdavis117]

Science doesn't exactly follow morals and ethics.

You mean other then the codes of ethics that most fields of science have? And all of those doctors who have morals while doing their research?

Science has morals and ethics. Just because they don't have some flying invisible magic skyman enforcing them does not mean that they are not there.

[JunkfoodMan]

The research on embryo's is actually performed on a blastocyst. This is a collection of about 150 cells. If by "killing" these cells you are offended because these could be potential human lives, thanks to modern science scratching your nose could be the equivalent of a potential human life holocaust.

[Syuusuke]

And also newsflash: Everytime you jack off, you're killing a bunch of Vinny's and Sally's and Debby's.

Oh? Those are only sperm cells?

Everytime a lady has her moment she sheds her fuggin uterus.

1/2 + 1/2 = 1.

Good bye "potential"-ality.

[n00b1n8R]

by this logic it is also immoral to build quarries because one day sandstone may evolve into an intelligent race of rock people
But evolution is a blasphemous lie promoted by dirty liberals!!

[JunkfoodMan]

But evolution is a blasphemous lie promoted by dirty liberals!!

communists

[Mr Buckshot]

Finally, it's about time that religion stopped blocking scientific progress that can actually save lives. No offense to Christianity (I'm atheist btw), but those Christians who oppose stem cells are as retarded as this religious dude who refused a blood transfusion due to his religion, and now his face is one giant tumour.

Although embryos aren't the only way to get stem cells...University of Toronto researchers found out how to use skin cells for those.

[Vern125]

Stem cells do repair the bodies tissues damaged from cancer or diseases. I have talked to the Chinese doctors who specialize herbal medicine about this and saying its a great sucess. Yes they do live in the U.S. and they are helping this country for the sick. They have use to be able to reconstruct the DNA into one's self to prevent any disease, cancer, etc. They use hyberbaric chambers and other methods to cure the uncurable, like Austin, Lyme Disease, Arthitis, etc. Diabeties research is still underway, but they have so far improved their lives with the treatment. Heres the big problem. FDA are destroying research equipment, taking records, taking people off treatment and causing most of them to die, things like that. Why? For the money. Once you find a cure of a uncurable disease, and you tell them this, you get no money out of it. Why would they do this for? The FDA is using the money from breast cancer funds, like foods with a pink ribbon saying that a portion goes to research for example, use that money for big fat paychecks to the workers. Yes the workers get sued, but the problem is the fact the money continusly being given to the FDA. That is why the FDA isn't finding many cures of things, as well as the fact that their are more contaminants in foods than ever.

But anyway's, there has to be a catch with this stem cell business Obama is proposing. Like will the government completly regulate it? Will it cost a lot more per use? We don't know yet. Lets wait and find out. Sure its a good idea, but there has to be something behind it all.


Finally, it's about time that religion stopped blocking scientific progress that can actually save lives. No offense to Christianity (I'm atheist btw), but those Christians who oppose stem cells are as retarded as this religious dude who refused a blood transfusion due to his religion, and now his face is one giant tumour.

Although embryos aren't the only way to get stem cells...University of Toronto researchers found out how to use skin cells for those.

As for skin cells, they are greatly decreased in the amount of help it would give to a patient and wouldn't have enough power to cure barely anything altogether.

[Xetsuei]

Finally, it's about time that religion stopped blocking scientific progress that can actually save lives.
Not everyone who opposes stem cell research is Christian (or religious for that matter).

I have talked to the Chinese doctors who specialize herbal medicine about this and saying its a great suscess.
lolwut

But anyway's, there has to be a catch with this stem cell business Obama is proposing. Like will the government completly regulate it? Will it cost a lot more per use? We don't know yet. Lets wait and find out. Sure its a good idea, but there has to be something behind it all.
:tinfoil:

[rossmum]

honestly is nothing safe from conspiracy fairy stories

[sdavis117]

Stem cells do repair the bodies tissues damaged from cancer or diseases. I have talked to the Chinese doctors who specialize herbal medicine about this and saying its a great sucess.

Wait, how do they know it is a success? Usually doctors in that field of work use herbs, not specialized electronic equipement and stem cells.


Also Rossmum, you'd be suprised.

[Syuusuke]

One thing though, we're halting natural selection, yet again.

Unless nature has this under her control

[ICEE]

PS you don't have to destroy embryos to get stem cells hth.


^^this


Also, best thing Obamas done so far.

[RobertGraham]

IMO, he may not have much experience in the Presidential Field, but he makes one hell of a president. Better then Bush was.

[Choking Victim]

IMO, he may not have much experience in the Presidential Field, but he makes one hell of a president. Better then Bush was.
He's been in office for a few weeks, wait a couple of years before you start comparing the two.

I'm in no way praising Bush.

[Reaper Man]

Because it's done with fetus.
Actually, they use the fertilized egg when it's in the form of a blastocyst - basically a ball of pluripotent stem cells.. It has absolutely 0 human characteristics besides its DNA.

They use the word fetus for emotive effect.

:eng101:

Well, they ideally use blastocysts, but aborted fetuses are another source.

[Vern125]

Wait, how do they know it is a success? Usually doctors in that field of work use herbs, not specialized electronic equipement and stem cells.


Also Rossmum, you'd be suprised.

They use that too, and these doctors DO NO work with FDA because listed above and they use it for their own little pleasure. Did you know if you have eaten enough artifical coloring and flavors, that it can lead to cancer and other diseases? And did you know that if you reuse the same bottle of water for your drinks, and having it either roasting in the sun or in the fridge, it would cause the plastic stuff from the inside to flake slightly and causes you to have problems in the future? The plastic bottle thing was knowledge even before these bs commericals come up and talk about it. The idea was just one of the things stolen from the FDA and do you see any credit from that? No.

[SnaFuBAR]

Heres the big problem. FDA are destroying research equipment, taking records, taking people off treatment and causing most of them to die, things like that. Why? For the money. Once you find a cure of a uncurable disease, and you tell them this, you get no money out of it. Why would they do this for? The FDA is using the money from breast cancer funds, like foods with a pink ribbon saying that a portion goes to research for example, use that money for big fat paychecks to the workers. Yes the workers get sued, but the problem is the fact the money continusly being given to the FDA. That is why the FDA isn't finding many cures of things, as well as the fact that their are more contaminants in foods than ever.

Proof, please. I take everything you say with a serving of salt, because by your rediculous user title, avatar and sig, you're another one of those tinfoil hat kiddies.

I want a real source not some youtube "documentary" bush911illuminaticiafbijfkufoworldbanktinfoil.com 2 hour assumption rants.

[TeeKup]

Vern are you insane?

[Xetsuei]

No, he's probably just a troll.

[sdavis117]

No, he's probably just a troll.

The avatar is a dead give-away.

Vern: The food coloring one I have not heard about, and I seriously doubt, considering how much food coloring a normal person consumes (alot). The plastic bottle one is obvious, and it has been addressed. You ever wonder what those numbers on the bottom of a plastic container are for? Maybe you should look that up yourself.

[rossmum]

They use that too, and these doctors DO NO work with FDA because listed above and they use it for their own little pleasure. Did you know if you have eaten enough artifical coloring and flavors, that it can lead to cancer and other diseases? And did you know that if you reuse the same bottle of water for your drinks, and having it either roasting in the sun or in the fridge, it would cause the plastic stuff from the inside to flake slightly and causes you to have problems in the future? The plastic bottle thing was knowledge even before these bs commericals come up and talk about it. The idea was just one of the things stolen from the FDA and do you see any credit from that? No.
Everything gives you cancer these days. Scientists have no idea why some things previously thought good for you (such as wine) are suddenly turning out to be carcinogenic, whereas other things which were once considered bad are now magical healing agents.

Honestly, if you want to remain on this site, take your conspiracy theories and mindless ranting somewhere it's appreciated, like the nearest mental institution. I don't doubt the government doesn't tell us everything, but you're just getting off into the realms of fantasy.

[RobertGraham]

Everyone is born with cancer cells. Its scientifically proven. It's what nature does that triggers it to spread. Some say it might be pollution.

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=119

[TeeKup]

To throw a rock at the equation. It could be our bodies adapting to changes we make to the environment around us.

[TVTyrant]

I'm not opposed to stem cell research, even if I am opposed to abortions. However, I do believe I've seen several reports about adult stem cells, which I support fully:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1637528.ece
http://www.cogforlife.org/adultStemCellSuccess.htm
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
Just some interesting information about stem cells I've looked at. I don't care if I get -repped about abortion or whatever, I just think its wrong. And yes, I'm aware that the list is empty on embryonic stem cells because they haven't had them available for research.

[Vern125]

Proof, please. I take everything you say with a serving of salt, because by your rediculous user title, avatar and sig, you're another one of those tinfoil hat kiddies.

I want a real source not some youtube "documentary" bush911illuminaticiafbijfkufoworldbanktinfoil.com 2 hour assumption rants.

http://www.sierraintegrative.com/

While you at it, visit them if you think your so damn smart.

[Bodzilla]

This unique approach to wellness continues to grow in popularity as doctors and patients recognize the effectiveness of treating the whole person - in body, mind and spirit.
errr.....

[SnaFuBAR]

http://www.sierraintegrative.com/

While you at it, visit them if you think your so damn smart.
I'm not going to sift a whole site for your bullshit conspiracy theory. I asked for proof and you're not proving anything.

[Heathen]

One thing though, we're halting natural selection, yet again.

Unless nature has this under her control
I see it like...our mastery of genes and the processes of nature is us using our evolutionary powerhouse we call the brain. We didn't evolve tusks or powerful jaws, we evolved a highly advanced brain so we can survive as a species.

We doing pretty damn well.

[RobertGraham]

I see it like...our mastery of genes and the processes of nature is us using our evolutionary powerhouse we call the brain. We didn't evolve tusks or powerful jaws, we evolved a highly advanced brain so we can survive as a species.

We doing pretty damn well.Until SANDSTONE EVOLVES!!!

[Vern125]

I'm not going to sift a whole site for your bullshit conspiracy theory. I asked for proof and you're not proving anything.

Its the real thing idiot and like I said, you won't even bother looking at the site because you have no knowledge of medicine and technology they use. So saying that I'm using conspiracy theories just proves to you that your more of an idiot and not even look at the truth of things.


Vern, that site makes non-specific and vague health claims; an immediate red flag. I suspect that all their treatment is unproven or unregulated by the FDA, meaning they are not allowed to make specific claims.

The FDA screws everyone! You have no idea what they have done to people, how many lives they have ruined. They are trying to help people, and the FDA just steps in ruining their treatment for survival. My mother had breast cancer and because of them, she died! Her life was extended because of this treatment and she could of had it cured if it wasn't for the FDA ruining her life, so by telling me I am using conspiracy theories, you thought wrong!

[SnaFuBAR]

Its the real thing idiot and like I said, you won't even bother looking at the site because you have no knowledge of medicine and technology they use. So saying that I'm using conspiracy theories just proves to you that your more of an idiot and not even look at the truth of things.

I was engaged to a doctor, so I know a little more about medicine and disease than the average person, as I attended classes with her.

I told you link me to proof of the FDA destroying equipment and killing patients. You can't deliver. Just shut up.

[paladin]

The Snafhammer

[Heathen]

I was engaged to a doctor, so I know a little more about medicine and disease than the average person, as I attended classes with her.

I told you link me to proof of the FDA destroying equipment and killing patients. You can't deliver. Just shut up.
AAAh, delicious post.

Controversial thread is controversial.

[Xetsuei]

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/02.09/13-breast.html

Old but :pervert: (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/02.09/13-breast.html)

[sdavis117]

AAAh, delicious post.

Controversial thread is controversial.

Surprising bit is is that it's not the stem cell research itself that is causing the controversy, but the conspiracy theories being thrown into this thread.

Vern: Please back up your actual Conspiracy claims. I really doubt that the FDA is stopping people from getting lifesaving cures. If your story about your mother is true (and sorry if it is, but I hope you can understand why I have my doubts), I bet that it was because of a nasty side effect, or because the cure was dangerous.

[Ifafudafi]

Oh lawdy. This is a fun subject.

It's hard to form a practical opinion here. As far as I'm concerned, the moment a zygote is created (that's when the sperm fertilizes the egg, for those who don't know), a life is born. That life will then develop into a human baby, kid, and then adult. HOWEVER, if the parent was orignally going to abort the fetus, or something prevents it from living outside of the mother, then yeah, go ahead and do your research.

I'm not really solidly aligned either way. On one hand, you've got so many potential cures and medical/scientific breakthroughs; on the other hand, you're essentially mutilating a living being for science. I'll leave it up to the mothers to decide which one is right.

[RobertGraham]

Oh lawdy. This is a fun subject.

It's hard to form a practical opinion here. As far as I'm concerned, the moment a zygote is created (that's when the sperm fertilizes the egg, for those who don't know), a life is born. That life will then develop into a human baby, kid, and then adult. HOWEVER, if the parent was orignally going to abort the fetus, or something prevents it from living outside of the mother, then yeah, go ahead and do your research.

I'm not really solidly aligned either way. On one hand, you've got so many potential cures and medical/scientific breakthroughs; on the other hand, you're essentially mutilating a living being for science. I'll leave it up to the mothers to decide which one is right.
Oh no, were screwed

[Bodzilla]

if using aborted fetus's is the destruction of a potential life..... well then abstinence has a fucking lot to answer for.

abstinence is murder.

[rossmum]

if using aborted fetus's is the destruction of a potential life..... well then abstinence has a fucking lot to answer for.

abstinence is murder.
I really like this logic, for some reason...

e/ Vern, I take it you're the kind of dozy twat who thinks that because a man who had a marrow transplant due to cancer became cured of AIDS, all AIDS patients should undergo marrow transplants with those resistant to the virus, right? Nevermind the fact that it's an extremely dangerous op and the mortality rate is still ridiculously high compared to your average procedure? I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a few extra years at least than risk it.

[RobertGraham]

I really like this logic, for some reason...

e/ Vern, I take it you're the kind of dozy twat who thinks that because a man who had a marrow transplant due to cancer became cured of AIDS, all AIDS patients should undergo marrow transplants with those resistant to the virus, right? Nevermind the fact that it's an extremely dangerous op and the mortality rate is still ridiculously high compared to your average procedure? I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a few extra years at least than risk it.
I have to agree.

[Vern125]

Surprising bit is is that it's not the stem cell research itself that is causing the controversy, but the conspiracy theories being thrown into this thread.

Vern: Please back up your actual Conspiracy claims. I really doubt that the FDA is stopping people from getting lifesaving cures. If your story about your mother is true (and sorry if it is, but I hope you can understand why I have my doubts), I bet that it was because of a nasty side effect, or because the cure was dangerous.

The cure was not dangerous period! The stem cells and medicine she was receiving has helped her survive and has improved her life! The FDA prevented her last treatment and they have refussed to use stem cells here in Iowa! We had to take her cross country in a van because of her condition with the fluids filling her lungs, on constant oxygen, and was dying quickly. The FDA stepped in and preveneted her with anymore treatment and that treatment was the only way for her to survive and she died! I am mad that the FDA has done this to her, I am mad how people don't understand that the government is doing with the FDA in all this, I am mad that your telling me that these are conspiracy claims, even though I have witnessed this myself and with these doctors! :mad:


I really like this logic, for some reason...

e/ Vern, I take it you're the kind of dozy twat who thinks that because a man who had a marrow transplant due to cancer became cured of AIDS, all AIDS patients should undergo marrow transplants with those resistant to the virus, right? Nevermind the fact that it's an extremely dangerous op and the mortality rate is still ridiculously high compared to your average procedure? I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a few extra years at least than risk it.

You have never been in my position of loosing two parents with cancer! So how would YOU know about death? She was helped out form these doctors and all your doing is criticizing me of what has happened and of my life!

[TeeKup]

Your emotional anger is clearly blinding you. Please take this else where.

[rossmum]

You have never been in my position of loosing two parents with cancer! So how would YOU know about death? She was helped out form these doctors and all your doing is criticizing me of what has happened and of my life!
You don't know fuck about me, so how are you so sure? In fact, how can I be sure you're not just talking out your arse like other kids who have tried to use made-up sob stories about deaths in the family to make us feel sorry for them? I could be wrong, you could be telling the truth, but you sure as hell don't know the first thing about me.

How about this? I lost one grandfather to kidney failure when I was 6. He'd come down with malaria while he was up fighting in PNG during the war, and he'd been on a fucking dialysis machine for years. How about that? Or three years later, when my other grandfather died after a series of heart attacks? Or how about the other fucking day, when I found out my best mate from primary school was killed in a work accident, you prick? I know a bloody lot about death, so don't you come crying to me with your shit. If it's true then that's too bad, but if you're just another whiny kid making tragedies up to try and push their agenda, you are lower than pondscum and should go dive off the nearest tall building.

On the matter of your conspiracy theories, don't try and tell me that just because the FDA found some reason to block a treatment, it's some massive cover-up by the government which is somehow tied to a new president who is reversing the very fucking legislation that would've resulted in such a thing. You've demonstrated time and time again that your grasp of politics is as about as firm as the average two-year-old's, yet you persist in spouting utter shite about things you don't understand at all. Keep it up and you'll find yourself very unwelcome here, and I speak from experience.

e/ PS - if you are spinning us one, I suggest you go quietly now. If I find out, I will personally see to ripping you a new one.

[RecycleBin]

I don't see why it was made illegal. The fetus is now dead, what else are they going to do with it? Put it in a bag and hit people with it?


Also i can safely say Obama is a way better president than bush seeing as though it has only been 2 months and Obama has already done more than fucking Bush has done in the whole 8 years he was in office.

[p0lar_bear]

I don't see why it was made illegal. The fetus is now dead, what else are they going to do with it? Put it in a bag and hit people with it?
It's an ethics issue. The Hippocratic Oath.

Medically, though, a fetus is a parasite. Yes, it will grow into a human being someday, but at the time, it's a parasite. Plus, most stem cells are retrieved from the fetus long before it even grows any human features.

[Jean-Luc]

It's a Christian Morals issue.

ftfy

Separation of Church and State my ass :mad:

[RecycleBin]

To be honest i think churches should worship whoever they believe in and shut the fuck up. If i had diabetes or something i don't want someone to say "We don't want you to try and find a cure cause we think it is unethical".
That is so many kinds of wrong. We shouldn't have to wait and suffer all because you want to bitch about the whole thing.

[Jean-Luc]

To be honest i think churches should worship whoever they believe in and shut the fuck up. If i had diabetes or something i don't want someone to say "We don't want you to try and find a cure cause we think it is unethical".
That is so many kinds of wrong. We shouldn't have to wait and suffer all because you want to bitch about the whole thing.

Agreed. I believe the Church should have a say when it comes to matters of the religion itself, HOWEVER, that does not mean they have the right to impose their morals and beliefs on others.

It was the late George Carlin who said in his performance "Complaints and Grievances:" "So long as they add one additional Commandment: 'Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

[RecycleBin]

We are lucky enough to have freedom of religion. Is that not good enough for them?

[Bodzilla]

To be honest i think churches should worship whoever they believe in and shut the fuck up. If i had diabetes or something i don't want someone to say "We don't want you to try and find a cure cause we think it is unethical".
That is so many kinds of wrong. We shouldn't have to wait and suffer all because you want to bitch about the whole thing.

i dont think you grasp what the real issues are here.

[RecycleBin]

i dont think you grasp what the real issues are here.

Actually i do, i think i chose the wrong words.

[Jean-Luc]

i dont think you grasp what the real issues are here.

Maybe not fully, but he is right that the church has had a profound impact on this decision in past times.

[Xetsuei]

ftfy

Separation of Church and State my ass :mad:

Why can't people understand that other people besides Christians are opposed to abortion?

[RobertGraham]

Why can't people understand that other people besides Christians are opposed to abortion?
I agree. I only dislike abortion because some girls think of it as the easy way out.

[RecycleBin]

Because Christians are EVIL!
jk
I think it is because the main religion is Christian and people will not count the Catholics, Buddhist, Hinduism, Islam, Mormon, Jewish, Presbyterian, Atheist, Judaism and Jehovah's witnesses. I am not sure if all those religions are against stem cell research.

[paladin]

Just blame everything on Christianity..... we're you atheists' scape-goat.

[teh lag]

Because Christians are EVIL!
jk
I think it is because the main religion is Christian and people will not count the Catholics, Buddhist, Hinduism, Islam, Mormon, Jewish, Presbyterian, Atheist, Judaism and Jehovah's witnesses. I am not sure if all those religions are against stem cell research.

Uh, pretty sure sure those ones are also "Christian."

Do you perhaps mean "Protestant"? (Which doesn't make any sense either).

Never mind how hopelessly ignorant it is to say that an entire religion is against stem-cell research. It's all about interpretation; there are certainly sects of the groups you mentioned that are against it as well as there are quite a few Christian groups that aren't.

[Jean-Luc]

Why can't people understand that other people besides Christians are opposed to abortion?

I understand that perfectly, and I also understand the moral issues here.

My reasoning behind saying "Christian" morals was that they have had a considerable impact on this issue, and it's the Christian conservative opposition I've heard about the most often.

I'll admit that I could have used better wording.



E: http://www.examiner.com/x-1172-Birmingham-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d10-GOP-is-against-stem-cell-research-What-is-the-GOP-for

Case in point^^^^

[DaneO'Roo]

Eh, I wouldn't classify the 8 - 18 year olds on my bus to work as "people" if not glorified ambient sound, let alone fetuses.

If smooshing a few means the difference between us having replaceable organs and eternal life and eternal cancer and unoperable spine tumours, then I think those "people" died for a greater good.

Then again, do we really want EVERYONE to just, stay alive for an extended period of time?


Uh, I don't know what the fuck I want anymore.

[RobertGraham]

Then again, do we really want EVERYONE to just, stay alive for an extended period of time?
Chuck Norris, so he can kick ass forever

[Heathen]

ftfy

Separation of Church and State my ass :mad:
This.

Still, ethically would you rather defile a dead baby and save millions of other lives, or just let it die?

Kinda obvious for your choice, even for religion tards. Although it isn't just the religious people who are opposed to abortion. Its also the idiots who don't know what they are saying no to.

[RecycleBin]

If i was the unborn fetus that helped the scientist develop a cure for a disease i would think "Oh fuck yeah! take that stupid born babies, while you were popping out from a crotch i helped cure a major disease also i can talk and think even though i am dead......bitchin"

[TeeKup]

Maybe not fully, but he is right that the church has had a profound impact on this decision in past times.

Proposition 8...

[Jean-Luc]

Proposition 8...

Case in point, thank you.

[RecycleBin]

Proposition 8...


They are still rallying about that.

[paladin]

The gay community is really pissed at California's bigotry.

[nooBBooze]

Even though stemcell research itself might be ethically justifyable, I still think it's a slippery slope that will lead us right back to Mengele. Or Portal. lol

[rossmum]

There are places in the US which are basically trying to set couples up with their ideal baby - I'd say that's pretty bloody far down the slippery slope already, myself.

[TeeKup]

I saw a video on that. Parents having the ability to choose genetic markers that will give their baby their ideal aesthetic and physical abilities. That's where the line is crossed.

[Dwood]

As long as Stem cells require a fetus which is aborted I say no.

If they're going to do it, take it from fetuses from Planned Parenting.

If they're going to pay people to get an abortion to get the stem cells I say NO. I don't like abortion but might as well put those dead babies to use, neh?

[SnaFuBAR]

As long as Stem cells require a fetus which is aborted I say no.
Then you must be saying yes, because it doesn't require an aborted fetus.:omfg:

[TVTyrant]

Yeah, adult stem cells, which are taken from bone marrow(?). MOst awesome thing ever, tbh.

[Dwood]

Then you must be saying yes, because it doesn't require an aborted fetus.:omfg:

That's where you are misinformed. Embryonic Stem Cells (The useful ones)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5376892



Is it necessary to destroy an embryo to obtain embryonic stem cells?
Yes, for now.
To derive embryonic stem cells, it is necessary to take critical cells out of the embryo. What is left no longer has the capacity to produce a baby if transplanted into a uterus.
Critics of embryonic stem-cell research say the destruction of an embryo is murder. Whether it is or not is a social and ethical question, not a scientific one.
Several teams of scientists are working on methods to create embryonic stem cells without destroying an embryo. Although the work is promising, success is most likely many years off, if it is ever achieved.
In 2006, the Massachusetts biotech company Advanced Cell Technology showed that it may be possible to remove a single cell from an embryo created by IVF before the embryo is transferred into a woman. That single cell could then be used to derive embryonic stem cells.

[SnaFuBAR]

Goon sir, adult stem cells have been used for a long time now as treatments. Who's misinformed now?

[Huero]

ugh
i can't imagine the pain associated with a bone marrow removal
i heard transplants are incredibly painful WITH painkillers

[rossmum]

That's where you are misinformed. Embryonic Stem Cells (The useful ones)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5376892
They won't go paying people to get abortions just for stem cells, what kind of idiot would actually go through the bother of trying for a baby and then decide 'fuck this gonna abort it and make some cash aw yiss'? Even if some sort of blackmarket fetus trade pops up, you can bet your life the government would never allow the legal funding of abortions purely for stem cells. They use existing aborted embryos, or the leftovers from IVF which are as good as dead anyway. In any case, adult cells can be used.

Seriously, put some thought into your posts.

[SnaFuBAR]

Also, how about this: If you are opposed to stem cell research/treatment how about not getting it if you, God forbid, ever were in a position to need it to make a recovery? Perhaps bigots blinded by "morals and religiosity" step back and shut the fuck up about what could help their fellow man survive? You are out of touch with the suffering of your fellow man, and your bigoted, blind opposition, and voicing of it, prevents the progression of humanity, extends the suffering of the ill and degrades their hope.

Some morals you lot have.

[Bodzilla]

oh snap.

[p0lar_bear]

But... but... but you're killing babies!!!

:saddowns:

Joke post

[CN3089]

As long as Stem cells require a fetus which is aborted I say no.

If they're going to do it, take it from fetuses from Planned Parenting.

I don't think you know what 'embryonic' means



hint: it means 'having to do with embryos'



If they're going to pay people to get an abortion to get the stem cells I say NO.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-what.gif

The embryos for stem cell research (in the United States) come from failed/rejected IVFs, hth~

[rossmum]

Also, how about this: If you are opposed to stem cell research/treatment how about not getting it if you, God forbid, ever were in a position to need it to make a recovery? Perhaps bigots blinded by "morals and religiosity" step back and shut the fuck up about what could help their fellow man survive? You are out of touch with the suffering of your fellow man, and your bigoted, blind opposition, and voicing of it, prevents the progression of humanity, extends the suffering of the ill and degrades their hope.

Some morals you lot have.
this, p sure there's nothing in the bible that says you can't use otherwise doomed embryos to help people with otherwise terminal conditions survive

[Bodzilla]

this, p sure there's nothing in the bible that says you can't use otherwise doomed embryos to help people with otherwise terminal conditions survive

but god moon walks in mysterious ways rossypoo.

[Warsaw]

I like stem-cells. Why? Because given enough time and research with stem-cells, I may be able to have my degenerate right optic nerve repaired thus granting me the ability to actually use my right eye to some degree instead of it being completely overpowered by the left. If that means destruction of a few invalid/doomed embryos, so be it.

[Dwood]

The embryos for stem cell research (in the United States) come from failed/rejected IVFs, hth~


I use the terms interchangeably even though scientifically speaking they are different. I apologize for not making that clearer. I will remember not to do that.

Note that my only problem with the research is how the scientists get the cells to research. So calm down on quoting Paul from the Bible polar.

I believe life begins at conception, and since you never know what those embryos could be.

[SnaFuBAR]

Note that my only problem with the research is how the scientists get the cells to research.

see CN quote, hth

I believe life begins at conception, and since you never know what those embryos could be.

lol, potential human lives from rejected/failed IVF's. Too bad they'll never be anything. You're wanting to protect something that has a 0% chance of becoming a person under any circumstance, and still would rather extend the suffering of real people. Again, you are blindly ignorant and disconnected from actual human suffering. Look how dumb you are.



The embryos for stem cell research (in the United States) come from failed/rejected IVFs, hth~
.

[Matooba]

Honestly, I think its because DNA tests would be void due to the ability to recreate DNA. Think, how many court cases based on DNA would now have the ability to be questioned?

[rossmum]

Yeah, except you can't magically conjure up someone else's DNA and plant it at the scene, nor can you safely and reliably integrate it into yourself. Ever heard of organ transplant rejections? Your body doesn't like something that comes from someone else. Hell, womens' immune systems treat a developing embryo as some sort of alien body in the first place - so I don't think there's much risk of people magically changing their DNA to get away with murders.

[Warsaw]

I use the terms interchangeably even though scientifically speaking they are different. I apologize for not making that clearer. I will remember not to do that.

Note that my only problem with the research is how the scientists get the cells to research. So calm down on quoting Paul from the Bible polar.

I believe life begins at conception, and since you never know what those embryos could be.

But you can decide what they will be :haw:.

I kid. I understand this stance, but said embryo is an unknown quantity, even less known than the stem-cells we would be shaping. Thus, the stem-cells are immediately more useful than an undeveloped embryo.

[rossmum]

Especially one which never will be developed, like an unwanted IVF one.

[Phopojijo]

I believe life begins at conception, and since you never know what those embryos could be.So you instead take the failed IVFs and burn them in a medical incinerator o.O

[RobertGraham]

People kill people. Science doesn't, unless you are a mad scientist who destines to find out how they made "I am Legend"

[Warsaw]

People don't kill people, sudden traumatic shock and/or bodily systems failure kill people...:downs:.

[TVTyrant]

I saw a video on that. Parents having the ability to choose genetic markers that will give their baby their ideal aesthetic and physical abilities. That's where the line is crossed.
Don't see anything wrong with that, tbqh.

[Warsaw]

Neither do I. Hell, I don't even have a problem with cloning, though what we really need first is the ability to upload a conscious into a cybernetic brain, Ã* la Ghost in the Shell. Then clones would be worthwhile...:-3.

[Xetsuei]

Don't see anything wrong with that, tbqh.

Go watch the movie Gattaca.

[sdavis117]

That's what happens when you can READ genetic markers. The whole point is that the guy is doomed because his parents chose NOT to forgoe the treatment, he was born with a heart-defect, and people have the ability to tell using genetic testing techniques. The whole thing about the movie is that it is bad to be able to READ genetic code.

[Xetsuei]

That's what happens when you can READ genetic markers. The whole point is that the guy is doomed because his parents chose NOT to forgoe the treatment, he was born with a heart-defect, and people have the ability to tell using genetic testing techniques. The whole thing about the movie is that it is bad to be able to READ genetic code.

Nice job reading the wikipedia article. If you actually watched the movie you'd realize he gets around that problem, fairly easily too. Go watch the movie before making stupid comments, and you'll know the point I'm trying to get across.

[Heathen]

Don't see anything wrong with that, tbqh.
Neither do I.

Let people do what they want. Shit.

If you dont want it dont do it to your kid.

[Ifafudafi]

If every kid under the sun was a super-smart, super-strong super-person, you lose the kind of intense focus people with a specific field of work. Jacks-of-all-trades are certainly handy, but people's ability to pursue a single path of interest and ability is part of what defines the human race. Granted, kids could "follow their interests" anyways, but with proper genetic modification, what's to stop parents from finding how and then subsequently choosing what their kids want to be interested in? Let's say dad's a doctor. He wants little Billy to be a doctor, and takes all steps (including gene therapy) to ensure that that happens. I just don't like it.

Now, preventing potential life-threatening diseases, sure. But any "enhancements" beyond preventing critical system failure is just taking it a step too far.

[Phopojijo]

http://torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_david/obay_collegesontario.jpg

[n00b1n8R]

If you consider "free will" to simply be biological impulse, there's not much difference.

[sdavis117]

Nice job reading the wikipedia article. If you actually watched the movie you'd realize he gets around that problem, fairly easily too. Go watch the movie before making stupid comments, and you'll know the point I'm trying to get across.

I did watch the movie last year. Not that bad either. I know how he gets around it, I'm just telling you he has to get around it because people can READ his genetic code. If they couldn't, they would have to chose him based on his actual abilities, not his heart defects.

Was the doctor by any chance the guys dad?

[TeeKup]

Don't see anything wrong with that, tbqh.

You're taking away the most valuable thing a person has, their free will. When free will is infringed upon that person no longer has individuality. How the hell can you not see anything wrong with that.

[Warsaw]

We get that. The question is, does an embryo actually have the right to free will? It's an embryo...it has not a brain yet, nor a mind, nor much semblance to a human yet.

[TeeKup]

It's still an embryo that has a good possibility of becoming a life form, taking away it's individuality ahead of time is no better.

[Warsaw]

You could say the same for any animal, like a cat, for instance (and don't tell me cats don't have individuality...as much as I hate them).

[TeeKup]

If a child is born this way and later finds out that he could have been something different if his parents hadn't intervened, he's going to start questioning his whole life. What could have been and what couldn't. That's putting an extreme amount of distress on someone. To me that's like playing god, your choosing his future, his destiny.

I'm sorry, but it isn't right.

[Warsaw]

You already get that when parents tell their kids that they were an accident, or when parents lie to adopted children about being the real parents. It's really not much different. I believe that when we have the power to override nature, use it, because nature will always be trying to override you.

[Dwood]

Humans are the only animal (depending on your mindset of whether or not humans are animals) without major instincts that affect day-to-day life. Everything we do is from past experiences. Animals are so ingrained in their dna they need to do something that they can't get out of it. Every dog does their little loop before they lay down.

Not every human does a loop around their bed before they lay down do they? We don't pick bugs off each others' backs either do we?

[Jean-Luc]

Humans are the only animal without instincts. Everything we do is from past experiences. Animals are so ingrained in their dna they need to do something that they can't get out of it. Every dog does their little loop before they lay down.

Not every human does a loop around their bed before they lay down do they? We don't pick bugs off each others' backs either do we?

What? Humans have instincts, but we're more adapted to the world we live in due to our high level of intelligence. We can chose to override instinct if the need be, but when it comes to things like self-preservation, instinct will take complete control.

[TeeKup]

You already get that when parents tell their kids that they were an accident, or when parents lie to adopted children about being the real parents. It's really not much different. I believe that when we have the power to override nature, use it, because nature will always be trying to override you.

Well this is something we'll have to agree to disagree. There are just somethings I believe humans shouldn't do, this being one of them.

[Warsaw]

What? Humans have instincts, but we're more adapted to the world we live in due to our high level of intelligence. We can chose to override instinct if the need be, but when it comes to things like self-preservation, instinct will take complete control.

Not to mention, our instincts manifest themselves in less obvious forms than in other animals.

@Dwood: As for picking things off each others' backs, we do that, albeit metaphorically. You are taking it too literally now.

@TeeKup: Deal. *handshake*

[Phopojijo]

Humans are the only animal (depending on your mindset of whether or not humans are animals) without major instincts that affect day-to-day life. Everything we do is from past experiences. Animals are so ingrained in their dna they need to do something that they can't get out of it. Every dog does their little loop before they lay down.

Not every human does a loop around their bed before they lay down do they? We don't pick bugs off each others' backs either do we?No but we do sleep, we know how to eat, etc.

Also animals aren't run by instinct... if a dog on a leash walks past a tree -- they'll (probably after a few accidents) go on the side that prevents the leash from being wrapped around the tree or electrical pole.

People do things subconciously all the time... and people exploit that.

-When you moderate forums or teach/discipline children -- you witness pack mentality instinct.
-When a politician wants to blame something... they blame what their demographic doesn't understand -- because that plays on the fear instinct.

Seriously... if you begin rationalizing human behavior -- it mostly goes down to instinct.

[TVTyrant]

You're taking away the most valuable thing a person has, their free will. When free will is infringed upon that person no longer has individuality. How the hell can you not see anything wrong with that.
WTH are you talking about? It has nothing to de with personality, the way there mind works, or what their interests are. Its traits. If I want twin boys, then me and my wife should be able to choose that option.

[Xetsuei]

WTH are you talking about? It has nothing to de with personality, the way there mind works, or what their interests are. Its traits. If I want twin boys, then me and my wife should be able to choose that option.

I'm all for stem cell research and things like that, but that is taking it to far. Playing God/Mother Nature/Whatever the fuck you do or don't believe in is not our job.

[CN3089]

What's so bad about trait selection?

[Warsaw]

I'm all for stem cell research and things like that, but that is taking it to far. Playing God is not our job.

That's twice now that I've seen it assumed that all of humanity believes in a deity that we should not emulate (even though according to the relevant texts, we were created in his image). If you wanna travel that road, let me put it to you like this: we are not creating life, we are altering it, which is something we do all the time on a day-to-day basis. Half the food you eat has probably been genetically altered.

[Xetsuei]

That's twice now that I've seen it assumed that all of humanity believes in a deity that we should not emulate (even though according to the relevant texts, we were created in his image). If you wanna travel that road, let me put it to you like this: we are not creating life, we are altering it, which is something we do all the time on a day-to-day basis. Half the food you eat has probably been genetically altered.

God was just an example, get over it. When we alter human traits we lose the exact thing that makes us human, being unique.


If every kid under the sun was a super-smart, super-strong super-person, you lose the kind of intense focus people with a specific field of work. Jacks-of-all-trades are certainly handy, but people's ability to pursue a single path of interest and ability is part of what defines the human race. Granted, kids could "follow their interests" anyways, but with proper genetic modification, what's to stop parents from finding how and then subsequently choosing what their kids want to be interested in? Let's say dad's a doctor. He wants little Billy to be a doctor, and takes all steps (including gene therapy) to ensure that that happens. I just don't like it.

Now, preventing potential life-threatening diseases, sure. But any "enhancements" beyond preventing critical system failure is just taking it a step too far.

[Heathen]

If every kid under the sun was a super-smart, super-strong super-person, you lose the kind of intense focus people with a specific field of work. Jacks-of-all-trades are certainly handy, but people's ability to pursue a single path of interest and ability is part of what defines the human race. Granted, kids could "follow their interests" anyways, but with proper genetic modification, what's to stop parents from finding how and then subsequently choosing what their kids want to be interested in? Let's say dad's a doctor. He wants little Billy to be a doctor, and takes all steps (including gene therapy) to ensure that that happens. I just don't like it.

Now, preventing potential life-threatening diseases, sure. But any "enhancements" beyond preventing critical system failure is just taking it a step too far.
Whats wrong with wanting a better race?

I think its perfectly fine to tamper with the laws of nature.

Being the smartest creatures on the planet we have the ability to do so, and in my eyes, every right also.

And interests aren't genetic. The superchild will still have free will...

[Xetsuei]

We can't progress if everyone is the same.

And even then if everyone is perfect then it will make life extremely hard for the kids whos parent's wanted them to be "natural".

[Ifafudafi]

And, if anything, a world full of people who all have the same attributes, no matter how good, would be pretty boring.

[CN3089]

We can't progress if everyone is the same.

Who says everyone will be the same? Even if they were, why wouldn't we be able to progress?

[rossmum]

Whats wrong with wanting a better race?
Given the sheer, astounding stupidity of the general human populace, everything.

[Warsaw]

God was just an example, get over it. When we alter human traits we lose the exact thing that makes us human, being unique.

Because everybody will pick the same traits for their children because everybody has the same desires as the next bum...:downs:.

People will still be plenty unique, you just now get a say in what characteristics you wish to alter...some people may want to completely alter them, others may do just a few or none at all.

[Bodzilla]

lets back to the topic at hand.

has he signed this shit yet?

[Warsaw]

Not to my knowledge.

[CN3089]

lets back to the topic at hand.

has he signed this shit yet?

What, lifting the ban? He did that a week ago.


super-prez~~

[Warsaw]

Man, am I out of it then. I should watch more news, but the blatant bias turns me off, especially when they show the mass cheering of Obama cultists...

I would've voted for him had I been able to, but this fan-club thing is ridiculous.

[Dwood]

Man, am I out of it then. I should watch more news, but the blatant bias turns me off, especially when they show the mass cheering of Obama cultists...

I would've voted for him had I been able to, but this fan-club thing is ridiculous.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Warsaw]

Sometimes I think America voted the wrong man in office, but most of the time I think the alternative was worse. Personally, I would like to see a major independent party spring based on a general platform like the current two instead of an issue-based platform. With the right faces and words, that party could eventually supplant one of the current ones.

Still, I like a lot of the policies the democrats have right now (including this one), except those concerning our nuclear arsenal and not weaponizing space (if we don't do it, someone else will first, and I'm thinking China is that one).

[rossmum]

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Not really.

Give Americans (as a whole) anything new that they can relate to even on the remotest level, and they'll be out flag-waving and blowing their life savings on commemorative cups. Same thing happens every US election I've ever seen.

[Warsaw]

And the elections that have introduced something new have been few and far between, so you can imagine that a lot of the masses need to let it out.

[Heathen]

Who says everyone will be the same? Even if they were, why wouldn't we be able to progress?
Exactly, they still have a life that will change their beliefs, experiences, and even the way they look.
No one is, or ever will, be the exact same.
Not a race of genetically superior superpeople, not twins, not even clones.

Given the sheer, astounding stupidity of the general human populace, everything.
So let them be stupid?
Whats wrong with that?

E: oh snap...my bad.

[TVTyrant]

Just because people will be similar doesn't mean they will be the same. Everyone developes slightly differently. I know a couple guys on my football team who are twins, and looked exactly the same til we got to high school. Now ones a 240 pound 6 foot beast, and the other is a 5'8'' 170 pound reciever. Even if we modify their traits, our children will still be individual people because people will always be people.

[rossmum]

Yes, but why would you want to? No matter how they grow up, isn't it still true that you had a child the way you wanted, regardless of what they feel? What's so terrible about just having a kid and waiting until it comes out and grows up to see what colour hair it has, how strong or smart it is, or so on?

[TVTyrant]

:O Who wants to change natural hair color anyways? Thats just the cool part about having kids...
No, but I want my kids to be strong and smart. And if we had this option available, we just may have more intelligent people. And as a future educator, that sounds like a great prospect.
Anyways, I'm not saying I'm going to change my kids traits anyways. It would be pretty cool to be able to choose to have twins though...

[CN3089]

Yes, but why would you want to? No matter how they grow up, isn't it still true that you had a child the way you wanted, regardless of what they feel? What's so terrible about just having a kid and waiting until it comes out and grows up to see what colour hair it has, how strong or smart it is, or so on?

Because you could be disappointed? He could be weak and dumb and red-haired? Do you think most children want to be born stupid? http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-psyduck.gif

[Xetsuei]

Because you could be disappointed? He could be weak and dumb and red-haired? Do you think most children want to be born stupid? http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-psyduck.gif

Now I understand, you're in a similar situation so that's why you're for it.

[CN3089]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/downsdance.gif

Hey thanks for that contribution Xetsuei I'm sure glad we can have good intellectually mature discussions without idiots ruining it http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-allears.gif

[Bodzilla]

Hey thanks for that contribution Xetsuei I'm sure glad we can have good intellectually mature discussions without idiots ruining it http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-allears.gif
Fucking owned.

I dont really like the idea of choosing people's characteristics for them, i'd prefer to have them just come out with 10 fingers and toes and not be retarded.

but if i ever become a dad (hell i'd like to) i dont think i could deal with having a retarded kid with something like downs or crazy aspergers. I'd love to be able to interfere with them before they had to deal with something like that.

[Warsaw]

Yes, but why would you want to? No matter how they grow up, isn't it still true that you had a child the way you wanted, regardless of what they feel? What's so terrible about just having a kid and waiting until it comes out and grows up to see what colour hair it has, how strong or smart it is, or so on?

Even if it does become a possibility, there's nobody saying you HAVE to alter your child. Doctors may know the traits if left alone, but it's just like knowing the sex of the baby; you can have the doctors keep quiet and let it be a surprise.

[p0lar_bear]

If genetic-level diseases like diabetes, Downs, etc can be detected and prevented long before the embryo is even concieved, by all means, go ahead.

I'm not for altering traits by any means, but I'm for preventing genetic debilitations.

[rossmum]

crazy aspergers.
you what


If genetic-level diseases like diabetes, Downs, etc can be detected and prevented long before the embryo is even concieved, by all means, go ahead.

I'm not for altering traits by any means, but I'm for preventing genetic debilitations.
Pretty much the same here.

[Bodzilla]

you what

so i see you picked up on that :smug:

But i mean like fucking crazy shit.
your just twitchy, not crazy.

[TVTyrant]

Fucking owned.

I dont really like the idea of choosing people's characteristics for them, i'd prefer to have them just come out with 10 fingers and toes and not be retarded.

but if i ever become a dad (hell i'd like to) i dont think i could deal with having a retarded kid with something like downs or crazy aspergers. I'd love to be able to interfere with them before they had to deal with something like that.
This. Best post so far.

[sdavis117]

I have a brother with Autism, and I always wonder what he would be like if he didn't have Autism.

I sometimes even wonder what I would be like if he didn't have Autism, and I had grown up with an average brother.

We don't even know what genes cause Autism (or some other genetic disorders), so we are a far ways off from finding a way of preventing it.

[TVTyrant]

But thats what's important about trying, and using stem cells, and doing research. Because one day we just might be able to.

[Bodzilla]

^ thats it.

Autism was another of the things that just shock me to the core.

[Heathen]

http://images.theweek.com/dir_21/the_week_10916_27.jpg

[Pooky]

What's so terrible about just having a kid and waiting until it comes out and grows up to see what colour hair it has, how strong or smart it is, or so on?

Oh come on ross. Aesthetic traits sure, but you of all people must see the value of eliminating stupidity as a human condition.

[rossmum]

Oh come on ross. Aesthetic traits sure, but you of all people must see the value of eliminating stupidity as a human condition.
I support natural selection, most definitely not designer kids. There's a very, very big difference.

[Pooky]

I support natural selection, most definitely not designer kids. There's a very, very big difference.

I don't see how there's anything wrong with ensuring that no fundamentalist christians will ever exist again because no one will be born retarded.

[rossmum]

I don't see how there's anything wrong with ensuring that no fundamentalist christians will ever exist again because no one will be born retarded.
Don't be cruel to retards by grouping them with those fuckwits, seriously. There's a very big difference between someone with a genuine handicap and someone who's just an idiot out of choice or upbringing.

[ICEE]

I'd really have liked a bit of genetic engineering for myself. I have a fairly debilitating condition that I'd really rather not have. Too late for that I guess, but I'd like to ensure that my kids never have it.

[DarkHalo003]

I don't honestly have a problem with Stem Cell Research, despite my religious views. IF the pre-maturely pre-mature "baby" will die, then use the embryo as possible ways to save other people. I mean, I don't like it when people aren't given chances to live, but if there is no chance, then give the chance to someone else to live. Get what I'm saying?

By Fundamentalist Christians, you mean the extremely radical ones that cause uproars when they have no authority or right to (like how they try to condemn people), like that Westboro Church, correct?

[rossmum]

I'd really have liked a bit of genetic engineering for myself. I have a fairly debilitating condition that I'd really rather not have. Too late for that I guess, but I'd like to ensure that my kids never have it.
I have Asperger's, but even if I could assure my kids didn't have it for free I wouldn't bother. It's not doing any harm anyway, so unless it's something really, really major, there's no real point. Nobody's perfect and nobody should be.


By Fundamentalist Christians, you mean the extremely radical ones that cause uproars when they have no authority or right to (like how they try to condemn people), like that Westboro Church, correct?
Pretty much, they're like the Christian Taliban

[blind]

Nobody's perfect and nobody should be.
o god i agree with rossmum :embarrassed:

[p0lar_bear]

I don't see how there's anything wrong with ensuring that no fundamentalist christians will ever exist again because no one will be born retarded.

Fundamentalist Christians are a result of being raised by horrid trolls, not a result of a birth defect.

[CN3089]

Nobody's perfect and nobody should be.

Why not? Isn't perfection what we should be striving for? Why be imperfect if you don't have to be? Besides, different people have different definitions of perfect, anyway.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-can.gif

[p0lar_bear]

Why not? Isn't perfection what we should be striving for? Why be imperfect if you don't have to be? Besides, different people have different definitions of perfect, anyway.

There is no such thing as perfect when it comes to humanity, and there never will be. No matter how much we try to screw with nature and work things our way, we will always have some glaring weakness, fatal flaw, imperfection, etc.

Besides, imagine a society where everyone could do everything. It would be boring as fuck and everyone would be useless.

[Disaster]

Something I'd like to throw out there is over population. If stem-cells can cure a number of diseases and make them virtually eliminated, then people will live alot longer and could cause a shitload of overpopulation especially with the crowding we have right now in large cities.

It probably won't be that severe but I'd just like to throw that out there.

E: I'm all for stem-cells btw

[Warsaw]

Something I'd like to throw out there is over population. If stem-cells can cure a number of diseases and make them virtually eliminated, then people will live alot longer and could cause a shitload of overpopulation especially with the crowding we have right now in large cities.

It probably won't be that severe but I'd just like to throw that out there.

E: I'm all for stem-cells btw

Wars will keep that in check...there's no way to end all conflict.

[Disaster]

True.

[DarkHalo003]

Maybe if we find cures and stuff, then we won't have to waste money on delayers for inevitable deaths (money which is in the billions), that way NASA can get off their asses and develop decent space ships that don't always screw over in some way or another (never reusable). AKA, we'll find new habitable services to put people on, thus solving over populations. Slipspace anyone?

My first statement isn't in anyways meant to be vain at all. I'm just saying that if or when we find a cure for these diseases, we can finally take our billions upon billions of dollars from the old meds to find new planets and colonize those planets with a newly better ship.

[TVTyrant]

I'd say that we're a long way off from that, but your point is in the right place.

[English Mobster]

Maybe if we find cures and stuff, then we won't have to waste money on delayers for inevitable deaths (money which is in the billions), that way NASA can get off their asses and develop decent space ships that don't always screw over in some way or another (never reusable). AKA, we'll find new habitable services to put people on, thus solving over populations. Slipspace anyone?

My first statement isn't in anyways meant to be vain at all. I'm just saying that if or when we find a cure for these diseases, we can finally take our billions upon billions of dollars from the old meds to find new planets and colonize those planets with a newly better ship.
I have an uncle who works at Edwards Air Force Base, in California. This weekend they were testing what they call "Space Ship One", or the Space Shuttle replacement.
He says that based on the test results, they should have a smaller, more cost-effective, improved version of the Space Shuttle running by the end of this year.

[rossmum]

My first statement isn't in anyways meant to be vain at all. I'm just saying that if or when we find a cure for these diseases, we can finally take our billions upon billions of dollars from the old meds to find new planets and colonize those planets with a newly better ship.
sweet we can go ruin other planets as well

[DarkHalo003]

sweet we can go ruin other planets as well Meh, we'll find a way I'm sure not to totally fuck everything up.lol.

[TVTyrant]

sweet we can go ruin other planets as well
To be on the top, you must be the consumer, not the consumed. So basically yeah :P

[Huero]

sweet we can go ruin other planets as well

mind suggesting a better and more badass alternative?

[DEElekgolo]

Everyone gets a discarded fetus!