you cant has funds for stemcell research. funding, not yours

[Senoska]

Again qouting Sam Harris from the book Letter to a Christian nation (go buy this book, good read, somewhat short tho):

"Your qualms about embryonic stem-cell research are similarly obscene. Here are the facts: stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic break-throughs for every disease or injury process that human beings suffer--for the simple reason that embryonic stem cells can become any tissue in the human body. This research may be also essential for our understanding of cancer, along with a wide variety of developmental disorders. Given these facts, it is almost impossible to exaggerate the promise of stemcell research. It is true, of course, that research on embryonic stem cells entails the destruction of three-day-old human embryos. This is what worries you.

Let us look at the details. A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more then 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are destroyed in stem cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. It is worth remembering, in this context, that when a person's brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs (Provided he has donated them for this purpose) and bury him in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a
human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about the suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties then killing a human blastocyst.

Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter's potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential to become a fully developed human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Everyone time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell's potential gets you absolutly nowhere.

But let us assume, for the moment, that every three day old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. Embryos at this stage occasionally splint, becoming separate people (Identical twins). Is this a case of one soul splitting into two? Two embryos sometimes fuse into a single individual called a Chimera. You or someone you know may have developed in this way. No doubt theologians are strugging even now to determine what becomes of the extra human soul in such case.

Isn't it time we admitted that this arithmetic of souls does not make any sense?? The naive idea of souls in a petri dish is intellectually indefensible. It also is morally indefensible, given that it now stands in the way of some of the most promising research in the history of medicine. Your beliefs are about the human soul are, at this very moment, prolonging the scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings.

You believe that "Life starts at the moment of conception". You believe that there are souls in each of these blastocyst and that the interest of one soul--the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, say--cannot trump the interest of another soul, even if that soul happends to live inside a petri dish. Givin the accommodations we have made to faith-based irrationality in our public discourse, it is often suggested, even by advocates of stemcell research that your position on this matter has some ddegree of moral legitimacy. It does not. Your resistance to embryonic stem cell research is, at best, uninformed. There is, in fact, no moral reason for our federal government's unwillingness to fund this work. We should throw immense resources into stem-cell research, and we should do so immediatly. Because of what Christians like yourself believe about souls, we are not doing this. In fact, several states have made such work illegal. If one experiments on a blastocyst in South Dakota, for instance, one risk spending years in prison.

The moral truth here is the obvious: anyone who feels that the interest of a blastocyst just might supersede the interest of a child with a spinal cord injury has had his moral sense blinded by religious metaphysics. The link between religion and "morality"--so regularly proclaimed and so seldom demonstrated--is fully belied here, as it is wherever religious dogma supersedes moral reasoning and genuine compassion.

I was a bit off on the numbers of a cell and the fly brain, my bad.

Oh come on man this took me like 25min to copy (Had to write it ><) COMMENT ON IT, READ IT, USE ITTTTTTTTT

[MF Perm]

Haha, I read it man and it's exactly dead on. I just don't see how there could possibly be an argument against it. It's all right there.

My argument is now semi-derailed into private vs public sector and vs policy now lol. I think that means we won the life battle because my FETUDUDE pokemon just levelled.

[Ivve]

Haha, I read it man and it's exactly dead on. I just don't see how there could possibly be an argument against it. It's all right there.

My argument is now semi-derailed into private vs public sector and vs policy now lol. I think that means we won the life battle because my FETUDUDE pokemon just levelled.

Life begins when you can name a pokemon after it.

[Septimus]

What happened at Walter Reed was more of military bearucratic fuckups than total government fault. I admit that there are several levels of blame on this but you're providing one case when there are several private hospitals that routinely fail inspection and standards, yet I don't see you mentioning those.

Actually, what happened at Walter Reed was because the government outsourced the hospital to be run by an for-profit contractor. We support our troops in as much as our profit margin will allow.

[MF Perm]

Haha, I read it man and it's exactly dead on. I just don't see how there could possibly be an argument against it. It's all right there.

My argument is now semi-derailed into private vs public sector and vs policy now lol. I think that means we won the life battle because my FETUDUDE pokemon just levelled.

Life begins when you can name a pokemon after it.

Then I need to go find me a rock with some arms so I can make me some money and 8 year old friends.

[Ivve]

[quote=MF Perm]

Haha, I read it man and it's exactly dead on. I just don't see how there could possibly be an argument against it. It's all right there.

My argument is now semi-derailed into private vs public sector and vs policy now lol. I think that means we won the life battle because my FETUDUDE pokemon just levelled.

Life begins when you can name a pokemon after it.

Then I need to go find me a rock with some arms so I can make me some money and 8 year old friends.[/quote:3b716]

http://img166.exs.cx/img166/8400/pedobear6lp.jpg

I'll help.

[MF Perm]

What happened at Walter Reed was more of military bearucratic fuckups than total government fault. I admit that there are several levels of blame on this but you're providing one case when there are several private hospitals that routinely fail inspection and standards, yet I don't see you mentioning those.

Actually, what happened at Walter Reed was because the government outsourced the hospital to be run by an for-profit contractor. We support our troops in as much as our profit margin will allow.

Thanks Septimus, and there you have it. The impenentrable fortress of liberal propoganda now complete!

[MF Perm]

[quote=Ivve]

Haha, I read it man and it's exactly dead on. I just don't see how there could possibly be an argument against it. It's all right there.

My argument is now semi-derailed into private vs public sector and vs policy now lol. I think that means we won the life battle because my FETUDUDE pokemon just levelled.

Life begins when you can name a pokemon after it.

Then I need to go find me a rock with some arms so I can make me some money and 8 year old friends.

http://img166.exs.cx/img166/8400/pedobear6lp.jpg

I'll help.[/quote:a9ea7]

lol

[Gregorio]

Are you kidding me? We're in a system thats abject to profit, so a pharmaceutical company can make a drug that cures one thing but "may" cause 18 other symptons and charge you $200 a pill is ok? Wrong answer, the health and welfare of human life should not be for profit plain and simple. If you can't get past that concept you have alot more to worry about than what determines the beginning of life.

You could have just said "I have no evidence to support my claim because it was purely speculation". A relationship does not always imply causation.

You're abusing context here. The point I tried to carefully explain to you was that it against Big Pharma's shareholders interests for a universal cure to several ailments to be available. They make money off of supplying drugs to ease symptoms, not off of cures. This is a very basic concept at its core, intention aside. If there was an apple tree that all we needed to do was eat one apple from it and never be hungry again, do you think they would can that shit with Chef Boyardee?

I could have sworn the point you've tried to carefully explain was that...well you said it yourself: "The only reason it is being veto'd is because of regressive religious conviction plain and simple."

The point you're now trying to make is a possibilty, but you have no proof of it. Why do we have vaccines for other non-lethal diseases when the terrible medical industry could instead make money off treating them too? Yes medical companies probably don't want to shoot themselves in the foot, but to think they are solely in charge of researching and witholding cures is pretty far fetched.

What happened at Walter Reed was more of military bearucratic fuckups than total government fault. I admit that there are several levels of blame on this but you're providing one case when there are several private hospitals that routinely fail inspection and standards, yet I don't see you mentioning those.

You also fail to mention the positive results of government funding science such as I had previously mentioned including nuclear theory and space flight among others.

And you brought up the point that it's a policy point about government funding, which brings along with it every other case of what the government has funded up to and including the war in Iraq. So it is extremely relevant to this debate you and I are having.

I also didn't mention the countless cases of where private research in science, medicine, engineering, and all other aspects of life where the private arena has trumped government.

And about government funding...this argument could go on forever. Just because the government has funded ---- does not mean it was right, or that they now must fund ----. I'd prefer that the government stopped funding everything. But then again I consider myself more of a libertarian and disagree with the government spending any of my money.

[MF Perm]

You could have just said "I have no evidence to support my claim because it was purely speculation". A relationship does not always imply causation.

Why do you think there is such a large cry for nationalized healthcare? Are you deaf, blind, and dumb? The evidence is everywhere, just because you're losing an argument and want to imply I have no evidence because I won't google every single case in the past 10 years that proves my point doesn't mean you have a case.

I could have sworn the point you've tried to carefully explain was that...well you said it yourself: "The only reason it is being veto'd is because of regressive religious conviction plain and simple."

The point you're now trying to make is a possibilty, but you have no proof of it. Why do we have vaccines for other non-lethal diseases when the terrible medical industry could instead make money off treating them too? Yes medical companies probably don't want to shoot themselves in the foot, but to think they are solely in charge of researching and witholding cures is pretty far fetched.

Again, you're losing footing here and you're playing word games and disassociating context. Do really believe yourself here? You don't need to lie to make a case. That statement you quoted regarding religious conviction was from a previous argument regarding policy and stem cell research. The one regarding Big Pharma and the conflict of interest private funding would have with stem cell research was within our debate on public versus private funding.

You've basically lost all credibility with me as you obviously cannot maturely or concisely deal with a debate in proper form. You decide to fall back on switching words and context to try and prove a point to yourself which is not the reason we're doing this here. You also exemplify the reason shit never gets done in D.C. and why issues like this are even issues - PEOPLE CAN'T JUST FUCKING ADMIT WHEN THEY ARE WRONG OR MADE A MISTAKE.

Have fun in that club.

I also didn't mention the countless cases of where private research in science, medicine, engineering, and all other aspects of life where the private arena has trumped government.

Ok, here's your opportunity then hotshot. Prove me wrong on this. The only area the private sector seems to be better at doing is manipulating media and lying, and the government is sure catching up to that bus in a well-timed manner.

And about government funding...this argument could go on forever. Just because the government has funded ---- does not mean it was right, or that they now must fund ----. I'd prefer that the government stopped funding everything. But then again I consider myself more of a libertarian and disagree with the government spending any of my money.

Fair enough, that is your mindset. The only problem is you approach to this entire topic was off balance from the get if that is your case. What you should have been saying is, because of the size of government and the power of corporations in the US there are several departments and regulations which should be abolished. This in turn would make a true free market where the consumer wields the power and not the merchant. In this case we wouldn't have to worry about government fuck ups and corruption because the market would have to compete to please the worker and the consumer setting everything right and paving the way for innovation. Corporation has such power because it can limit true free market through government.

Obviously the ideal society is a co-operative free market, but you can't hide from the fact that we are where we are now and if we're going to fund a war, and weapons research, and oil refineries for profitable oil companies then we can sure as hell divert that money to something useful to humanity and society.


So take a lesson here and learn how to approach a topic in a broad angle so we don't have to do a 4 page tango for you to end up twisting words to try to force your point. A good debate ends with concession on both sides, and you completely ruined the opportunity of that. Maybe now you see how that can be avoided.

[Khamsin]

Are you kidding me? We're in a system thats abject to profit, so a pharmaceutical company can make a drug that cures one thing but "may" cause 18 other symptons and charge you $200 a pill is ok?

It's not quite THAT bad.

16 of those symptoms are things like dry mouth, diarrhea, muscle cramps, fatigue, etc.
1 is like heart failure if you're on some other drug for kidney problems.
1 is like turning inside out and spontaneously combusting in a shower of skittles, reported by 0.1% of patients.

[MF Perm]

Are you kidding me? We're in a system thats abject to profit, so a pharmaceutical company can make a drug that cures one thing but "may" cause 18 other symptons and charge you $200 a pill is ok?

It's not quite THAT bad.

16 of those symptoms are things like dry mouth, diarrhea, muscle cramps, fatigue, etc.
1 is like heart failure if you're on some other drug for kidney problems.
1 is like turning inside out and spontaneously combusting in a shower of skittles, reported by 0.1% of patients.

I know it's not that bad but, why treat the symptom when you can find the cure is my point.

[sephir]

And about government funding...this argument could go on forever. Just because the government has funded ---- does not mean it was right, or that they now must fund ----. I'd prefer that the government stopped funding everything. But then again I consider myself more of a libertarian and disagree with the government spending any of my money.

it would be nice for government to stop collecting tax but reality its a necessary evil. Although I do believe alot of it is wasted on useless programs, much of it goes to Schools, healthcare, military, roads, and research and development. Sure you could have the government collect no tax, but its like buying a ferrari to drive on a dirt trail.

[Gregorio]

Why do you think there is such a large cry for nationalized healthcare? Are you deaf, blind, and dumb? The evidence is everywhere, just because you're losing an argument and want to imply I have no evidence because I won't google every single case in the past 10 years that proves my point doesn't mean you have a case.

There's just as large of a cry against nationalized healthcare as well. Why do you think no major candidate (to my knowledge) has proposed Canada's health care system as ours? I ask you for a source for your claim that infant mortality rates are beacause of our heath care system and you respond "Pills are bad!" If it's so widespread you can show me one study at least, as I honestly wanted to know.

Again, you're losing footing here and you're playing word games and disassociating context. Do really believe yourself here? You don't need to lie to make a case. That statement you quoted regarding religious conviction was from a previous argument regarding policy and stem cell research. The one regarding Big Pharma and the conflict of interest private funding would have with stem cell research was within our debate on public versus private funding.

You've basically lost all credibility with me as you obviously cannot maturely or concisely deal with a debate in proper form. You decide to fall back on switching words and context to try and prove a point to yourself which is not the reason we're doing this here. You also exemplify the reason shit never gets done in D.C. and why issues like this are even issues - PEOPLE CAN'T JUST FUCKING ADMIT WHEN THEY ARE WRONG OR MADE A MISTAKE

The interest of private funding is exactly why I got into this. People claiming "The government is banning stem cells!!!!" because they aren't funding it when it's completely not true.

Where did I lie in that statement? The statement I quoted of yorus was in response to me, and I haven't mentioned religion at all today. I haven't switched tracks, you're the one who's been jumping all over the map ranting. I've stayed on the point that private donations will outweigh any government funding that would have been granted. The only time I even mentioned "Big Pharma" is when you claimed they don't want cures for diseases. You can't prove the private industry is against stem cell research because they don't want to lose money, if you could then that'd be a different story.

And OMG I have no credibility with you what am I going to do. It's funny you think I cannot maturely deal with debate when you're the one who's insulted me multiple times where I haven't said anything remotely offensive.

Ok, here's your opportunity then hotshot. Prove me wrong on this. The only area the private sector seems to be better at doing is manipulating media and lying, and the government is sure catching up to that bus in a well-timed manner.

Where has the private sector surpassed the government? The best example would probably be schools. There are a few exceptions, but private schools on the whole are leaps and bounds ahead of public schools. From 1st grade all the way to Law/Medical school.

So take a lesson here...

Thanks for the lesson, but I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you. I don't feel it's necessary to outline my entire political theory when all I need to say is "the private arena could do it better, government funding isn't necessary", which is what I have been saying the whole time.

[MF Perm]

There's just as large of a cry against nationalized healthcare as well. Why do you think no major candidate (to my knowledge) has proposed Canada's health care system as ours? I ask you for a source for your claim that infant mortality rates are beacause of our heath care system and you respond "Pills are bad!" If it's so widespread you can show me one study at least, as I honestly wanted to know.

There's a cry against national healthcare? Oh you mean the republican candidates and Bush's 23% approving base? There isn't nearly the amount of people against nationalized healthcare as there are for it.

3 candidates have outlined socialized healthcare systems. No ones saying to copy another countries.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthn ... wsid=43094

If you can't understand how healthcare for profit is responsible for high infant mortality rates among other things after reading those facts, we may as well just give up here.

The interest of private funding is exactly why I got into this. People claiming "The government is banning stem cells!!!!" because they aren't funding it when it's completely not true.

Nobody said the government is banning stem cells not once. We were arguing about ethics and the destroying of the cell line, which is a reality. So wherever you read banning it wasn't here. Maybe it's something else you made up?

Where did I lie in that statement? The statement I quoted of yorus was in response to me, and I haven't mentioned religion at all today. I haven't switched tracks, you're the one who's been jumping all over the map ranting. I've stayed on the point that private donations will outweigh any government funding that would have been granted. The only time I even mentioned "Big Pharma" is when you claimed they don't want cures for diseases. You can't prove the private industry is against stem cell research because they don't want to lose money, if you could then that'd be a different story.

You quoted me a line about religious conviction that I didn't use once in our argument and used it as a base to say I'm changing topics. You're full of shit and thats the bottom line, don't try to talk your way out of it. You are trying to lie and abuse context, it's all there for everyone to read. You can take it as an insult but it's fact.

And OMG I have no credibility with you what am I going to do. It's funny you think I cannot maturely deal with debate when you're the one who's insulted me multiple times where I haven't said anything remotely offensive.

Don't lie. That's all there is to it. Concede points when you know you're wrong or see a different perspective. It's not hard. Blatantly lying and changing facts doesn't make you seem any more right or change the direction of your argument.

Where has the private sector surpassed the government? The best example would probably be schools. There are a few exceptions, but private schools on the whole are leaps and bounds ahead of public schools. From 1st grade all the way to Law/Medical school.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12532678/site/newsweek/

The top 2 schools are public. THANKS.

[arlania]

People do realize that the choice being made still results in the embryos being discarded and destroyed right?

Where are your ethics for the alternative? O LORD NO WE CAN'T EXPERIMENT ON UNUSED EMBRYOS, THAT WOULD BE CRUEL, DUMP THEM DOWN THE DRAIN FAST. And I'll always love when something not even resembling life gets more thought than those already living, dying from diseases everyday. I'd rather heal the sick than worry about timmy the embryo whos existance will end in the garbage anyway.

Wins the fucking thread.

[Metah]

Man this thread is all over the place, stick on one focus!

[Senoska]

Man this thread is all over the place, stick on one focus!

Lets try this:

How can god kill if he cannot sin? Does god not follow his own law? If this is true, that god's actions are not sin, does this not mean that god can in fact be a homosexual? Maybe being bent over by Jesus and taking it in the poopshoot?

[Ivve]

Man this thread is all over the place, stick on one focus!

Lets try this:

How can god kill if he cannot sin? Does god not follow his own law? If this is true, that god's actions are not sin, does this not mean that god can in fact be a homosexual? Maybe being bent over by Jesus and taking it in the poopshoot?

God is above sin, and we know he's not gay because he hates fags. Plus, God and Jesus are the same, so it would technically be masturbation. But we know he's not bending over for the angels because he hates fags. That's really in the Bible. Look in the index under "homos are going to hell."

[MF Perm]

Man this thread is all over the place, stick on one focus!

Lets try this:

How can god kill if he cannot sin? Does god not follow his own law? If this is true, that god's actions are not sin, does this not mean that god can in fact be a homosexual? Maybe being bent over by Jesus and taking it in the poopshoot?

God is above sin, and we know he's not gay because he hates fags. Plus, God and Jesus are the same, so it would technically be masturbation. But we know he's not bending over for the angels because he hates fags. That's really in the Bible. Look in the index under "homos are going to hell."

It's by the picture of Pat Robertson in a g-string.