Religions > Atheism > Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
05 Oct 2004 03:45:26 AM |
| Object: |
Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem
cell research
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=568925
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
05 October 2004
John Kerry opened a crucial week in his bid for the White House
yesterday with a broadside against George Bush on one of the most
emotive issues of the campaign, saying the President had jettisoned
science for "extreme right-wing ideology" by curbing federal funding
on stem cell research.
Rupert Cornwell
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0401220342.3fdaa14c%40posting.google.com
stem cells OR cell
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=stem+cells+OR+cell&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=stem+cells+OR+cell&sa=N&tab=nw
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=stem+cells+OR+cell&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=stem%20&as_oq=cells%20cell&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Enemies of Science & Knowledge
http://tinyurl.com/9nb0
and thread
A Blueprint for the Future
http://tinyurl.com/9vga
.
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
14 Oct 2004 12:02:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:57:24 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncms6ul.jn.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:04:19 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmrrua.ch.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:16:19 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in
news:991ea4ae.0410131533.2005d94d@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns958196D279650fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in
news:991ea4ae.0410130834.7b0f98a4@posting.google.com:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:<glennsheldon-9zYad.13$y75.342@news.uswest.net>...
<Snip>
You've given no reason for that other that to make the claim:
"If something is ethically wrong when paid for by the
taxpayer, it is equally ethically wrong when paid for by a
drug company." That is incoherant, and deceptive. Bush has not
said that it is ethically wrong to fund embryonic stem cell
research, nor is it illegal or not allowed at all to be
funded.
I have not claimed that Bush said it was ethically wrong to
fund stem cell research. But he certainly seems mightly wobbly
on the issue. Can you explain to me why he has limited the
creation of new stem cell lines using public money? Can you
explain the following comments by Bush in the last presidential
debate:
"Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life
to create a stem cell. I'm the first president ever to allow
funding -- federal funding -- for embryonic stem-cell
research. I did to because I too hope that we'll discover cures
from the stem cells and from the research derived.
But I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the
ethics and the science.
And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money
beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because
science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing
life. To destroy life to save life is -- it's one of the real
ethical dilemmas that we face. "
and
"Let me make sure you understand my decision. Those stem- cells
lines already existed. The embryo had already been destroyed
prior to my decision.
I had to make the decision to destroy more life, so we continue
to destroy life -- I made the decision to balance science and
ethics. "
Can you explain to me why he feels the destruction of life is
acceptable when funded by private money, but not by the
taxpayer?
For a bonus point, can you tell me what this has to do with
promoting "a culture of life"?
Andy
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I believe
them or support them myself. Do you think you can manage to
discuss them on that basis?
My point to Glenn and Mike is that Bush's position is ethically
inconsistent. One can hold an ethical position on either side of
the stem cell debate. Bush seems to want to have his cake and eat
it. Glenn and Mike have yet to explain to me how Bush's position
is consistent. If you feel you can do that, go ahead.
Nobody ever said political positions had to be consistent. :-)
It's a compromise between those who support stem-cell research and
the hard-liners who think anything to do with embryonic research is
ethically similar to abortion.
Why should anyone compromise with people who are attempting to push
their religious beliefs as law, Fred?
Umm, because there's a lot of them and they vote?
Do you think it appropriate for the head of a secular state with
separation of church and state written into its most fundemental law
to court the vote of those who, intentionally or otherwise, seek to
undermine that fundemental law?
Separation of church and state doesn't mean that religious persons may
be denied representation, nor that their concerns should be ignored by
the government.
Should government be pandering to religious objections? Yes or no.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
14 Oct 2004 02:32:39 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmtck5.13c.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:57:24 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncms6ul.jn.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:04:19 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmrrua.ch.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:16:19 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in
news:991ea4ae.0410131533.2005d94d@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns958196D279650fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in
news:991ea4ae.0410130834.7b0f98a4@posting.google.com:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:<glennsheldon-9zYad.13$y75.342@news.uswest.net>...
<Snip>
You've given no reason for that other that to make the
claim: "If something is ethically wrong when paid for by the
taxpayer, it is equally ethically wrong when paid for by a
drug company." That is incoherant, and deceptive. Bush has
not said that it is ethically wrong to fund embryonic stem
cell research, nor is it illegal or not allowed at all to be
funded.
I have not claimed that Bush said it was ethically wrong to
fund stem cell research. But he certainly seems mightly
wobbly on the issue. Can you explain to me why he has limited
the creation of new stem cell lines using public money? Can
you explain the following comments by Bush in the last
presidential debate:
"Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of
life to create a stem cell. I'm the first president ever to
allow funding -- federal funding -- for embryonic stem-cell
research. I did to because I too hope that we'll discover
cures from the stem cells and from the research derived.
But I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the
ethics and the science.
And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money
beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because
science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing
life. To destroy life to save life is -- it's one of the real
ethical dilemmas that we face. "
and
"Let me make sure you understand my decision. Those stem-
cells lines already existed. The embryo had already been
destroyed prior to my decision.
I had to make the decision to destroy more life, so we
continue to destroy life -- I made the decision to balance
science and ethics. "
Can you explain to me why he feels the destruction of life is
acceptable when funded by private money, but not by the
taxpayer?
For a bonus point, can you tell me what this has to do with
promoting "a culture of life"?
Andy
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I
believe them or support them myself. Do you think you can
manage to discuss them on that basis?
My point to Glenn and Mike is that Bush's position is ethically
inconsistent. One can hold an ethical position on either side
of the stem cell debate. Bush seems to want to have his cake
and eat it. Glenn and Mike have yet to explain to me how Bush's
position is consistent. If you feel you can do that, go ahead.
Nobody ever said political positions had to be consistent. :-)
It's a compromise between those who support stem-cell research
and the hard-liners who think anything to do with embryonic
research is ethically similar to abortion.
Why should anyone compromise with people who are attempting to
push their religious beliefs as law, Fred?
Umm, because there's a lot of them and they vote?
Do you think it appropriate for the head of a secular state with
separation of church and state written into its most fundemental law
to court the vote of those who, intentionally or otherwise, seek to
undermine that fundemental law?
Separation of church and state doesn't mean that religious persons
may be denied representation, nor that their concerns should be
ignored by the government.
Should government be pandering to religious objections? Yes or no.
Yes. Calling it "pandering" doesn't make it wrong.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
15 Oct 2004 01:50:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:32:39 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmtck5.13c.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:57:24 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncms6ul.jn.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:04:19 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmrrua.ch.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:16:19 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in
news:991ea4ae.0410131533.2005d94d@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns958196D279650fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in
news:991ea4ae.0410130834.7b0f98a4@posting.google.com:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:<glennsheldon-9zYad.13$y75.342@news.uswest.net>...
<Snip>
You've given no reason for that other that to make the
claim: "If something is ethically wrong when paid for by the
taxpayer, it is equally ethically wrong when paid for by a
drug company." That is incoherant, and deceptive. Bush has
not said that it is ethically wrong to fund embryonic stem
cell research, nor is it illegal or not allowed at all to be
funded.
I have not claimed that Bush said it was ethically wrong to
fund stem cell research. But he certainly seems mightly
wobbly on the issue. Can you explain to me why he has limited
the creation of new stem cell lines using public money? Can
you explain the following comments by Bush in the last
presidential debate:
"Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of
life to create a stem cell. I'm the first president ever to
allow funding -- federal funding -- for embryonic stem-cell
research. I did to because I too hope that we'll discover
cures from the stem cells and from the research derived.
But I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the
ethics and the science.
And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money
beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because
science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing
life. To destroy life to save life is -- it's one of the real
ethical dilemmas that we face. "
and
"Let me make sure you understand my decision. Those stem-
cells lines already existed. The embryo had already been
destroyed prior to my decision.
I had to make the decision to destroy more life, so we
continue to destroy life -- I made the decision to balance
science and ethics. "
Can you explain to me why he feels the destruction of life is
acceptable when funded by private money, but not by the
taxpayer?
For a bonus point, can you tell me what this has to do with
promoting "a culture of life"?
Andy
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I
believe them or support them myself. Do you think you can
manage to discuss them on that basis?
My point to Glenn and Mike is that Bush's position is ethically
inconsistent. One can hold an ethical position on either side
of the stem cell debate. Bush seems to want to have his cake
and eat it. Glenn and Mike have yet to explain to me how Bush's
position is consistent. If you feel you can do that, go ahead.
Nobody ever said political positions had to be consistent. :-)
It's a compromise between those who support stem-cell research
and the hard-liners who think anything to do with embryonic
research is ethically similar to abortion.
Why should anyone compromise with people who are attempting to
push their religious beliefs as law, Fred?
Umm, because there's a lot of them and they vote?
Do you think it appropriate for the head of a secular state with
separation of church and state written into its most fundemental law
to court the vote of those who, intentionally or otherwise, seek to
undermine that fundemental law?
Separation of church and state doesn't mean that religious persons
may be denied representation, nor that their concerns should be
ignored by the government.
Should government be pandering to religious objections? Yes or no.
Yes. Calling it "pandering" doesn't make it wrong.
So banning abortion because it is viewed as a sin against God is a-okay?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
15 Oct 2004 02:17:46 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncn07cc.2pm.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:32:39 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmtck5.13c.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:57:24 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncms6ul.jn.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:04:19 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmrrua.ch.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:16:19 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in
news:991ea4ae.0410131533.2005d94d@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns958196D279650fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in
news:991ea4ae.0410130834.7b0f98a4@posting.google.com:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:<glennsheldon-9zYad.13$y75.342@news.uswest.net>...
<Snip>
You've given no reason for that other that to make the
claim: "If something is ethically wrong when paid for by
the taxpayer, it is equally ethically wrong when paid for
by a drug company." That is incoherant, and deceptive.
Bush has not said that it is ethically wrong to fund
embryonic stem cell research, nor is it illegal or not
allowed at all to be funded.
I have not claimed that Bush said it was ethically wrong to
fund stem cell research. But he certainly seems mightly
wobbly on the issue. Can you explain to me why he has
limited the creation of new stem cell lines using public
money? Can you explain the following comments by Bush in
the last presidential debate:
"Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of
life to create a stem cell. I'm the first president ever to
allow funding -- federal funding -- for embryonic stem-cell
research. I did to because I too hope that we'll discover
cures from the stem cells and from the research derived.
But I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the
ethics and the science.
And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money
beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because
science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing
life. To destroy life to save life is -- it's one of the
real ethical dilemmas that we face. "
and
"Let me make sure you understand my decision. Those stem-
cells lines already existed. The embryo had already been
destroyed prior to my decision.
I had to make the decision to destroy more life, so we
continue to destroy life -- I made the decision to balance
science and ethics. "
Can you explain to me why he feels the destruction of life
is acceptable when funded by private money, but not by the
taxpayer?
For a bonus point, can you tell me what this has to do with
promoting "a culture of life"?
Andy
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I
believe them or support them myself. Do you think you can
manage to discuss them on that basis?
My point to Glenn and Mike is that Bush's position is
ethically inconsistent. One can hold an ethical position on
either side of the stem cell debate. Bush seems to want to
have his cake and eat it. Glenn and Mike have yet to explain
to me how Bush's position is consistent. If you feel you can
do that, go ahead.
Nobody ever said political positions had to be consistent. :-)
It's a compromise between those who support stem-cell research
and the hard-liners who think anything to do with embryonic
research is ethically similar to abortion.
Why should anyone compromise with people who are attempting to
push their religious beliefs as law, Fred?
Umm, because there's a lot of them and they vote?
Do you think it appropriate for the head of a secular state with
separation of church and state written into its most fundemental
law to court the vote of those who, intentionally or otherwise,
seek to undermine that fundemental law?
Separation of church and state doesn't mean that religious persons
may be denied representation, nor that their concerns should be
ignored by the government.
Should government be pandering to religious objections? Yes or no.
Yes. Calling it "pandering" doesn't make it wrong.
So banning abortion because it is viewed as a sin against God is
a-okay?
The various states' bans on abortion were overturned by the Court not
because of separation of church and state but on privacy grounds.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
13 Oct 2004 04:50:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:43:08 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I believe them or
support them myself. Do you think you can manage to discuss them on that
basis?
I'd love to hear your take on this, Fred. Why does GWB and his cronies
dislike stem cell research when no less a Republican than Nancy Reagan
herself has come out in support of it?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
13 Oct 2004 05:56:22 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmr94p.1pq.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:43:08 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I believe them
or support them myself. Do you think you can manage to discuss them
on that basis?
I'd love to hear your take on this, Fred. Why does GWB and his
cronies dislike stem cell research when no less a Republican than
Nancy Reagan herself has come out in support of it?
Nancy Reagan is seen as being too emotionally involved.
First, it's only *embryonic* stem cells that are in question, and it's
not the research itself but the use of federal research money for
studies that create *new* stem cell lines by the destruction of embryos
that is the problem.
That act is seen as crossing the same ethical line that prevents them
from supporting federal funding for abortions. The hard liners within
the Republican party who take the position of opposing abortion on the
"life begins at conception" wish to ban outright anything that resembles
abortion (with exceptions for the health of the mother, maybe, but
*PLEASE* let's not go there). If they had their way, fertility clinics
wouldn't be allowed to flush unused embryos either but that's obviously
impractical. They have compromised to reach the position that Federal
funds not be used to pay for abortion or anything crossing that line.
Similar argument for human cloning, not only to get stem cells but the
ethics of human cloning for reproductive purposes before the technique
is made less error-prone and its long-term effects on the clones is
fully understood.
There is also the argument that *adult* stem cells can do almost
anything that embryonic stem cells can do, so why take on the ethical
challenges that result from the use of "living" embryos?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Groves" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
14 Oct 2004 02:32:23 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9581C1C14F413fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmr94p.1pq.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:43:08 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I believe them
or support them myself. Do you think you can manage to discuss them
on that basis?
I'd love to hear your take on this, Fred. Why does GWB and his
cronies dislike stem cell research when no less a Republican than
Nancy Reagan herself has come out in support of it?
<snip>
There is also the argument that *adult* stem cells can do almost
anything that embryonic stem cells can do, so why take on the ethical
challenges that result from the use of "living" embryos?
There are currently scientists who work on ES cells from humans and
other mammals, and others who work on adult stem cells from different
tissues. Some labs do both. I think it is a fair statement to say that
none of these groups think one avenue of research is so promising that
research on the other avenue is unnecessary.
The statement that adult stem cells can do almost anything that
embryonic stem cells can do is demonstrably wrong. My former colleague
Amy Greenwood summed this up quite nicely.
http://www.amygreenwood.blogspot.com/2004_03_21_amygreenwood_archive.html
For the record, I have worked in the field of stem and progenitor
cells for fifteen years. I'm not saying that to clinch the argument
with authority; just to say that I'm not talking entirely out of my
bottom......
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
14 Oct 2004 03:19:26 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Andy Groves <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9581C1C14F413fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmr94p.1pq.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:43:08 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I believe them
or support them myself. Do you think you can manage to discuss them
on that basis?
I'd love to hear your take on this, Fred. Why does GWB and his
cronies dislike stem cell research when no less a Republican than
Nancy Reagan herself has come out in support of it?
<snip>
There is also the argument that *adult* stem cells can do almost
anything that embryonic stem cells can do, so why take on the ethical
challenges that result from the use of "living" embryos?
There are currently scientists who work on ES cells from humans and
other mammals, and others who work on adult stem cells from different
tissues. Some labs do both. I think it is a fair statement to say that
none of these groups think one avenue of research is so promising that
research on the other avenue is unnecessary.
The statement that adult stem cells can do almost anything that
embryonic stem cells can do is demonstrably wrong. My former colleague
Amy Greenwood summed this up quite nicely.
http://www.amygreenwood.blogspot.com/2004_03_21_amygreenwood_archive.html
For the record, I have worked in the field of stem and progenitor
cells for fifteen years. I'm not saying that to clinch the argument
with authority; just to say that I'm not talking entirely out of my
bottom......
How can you do that and manufacture so many integrated circuits
at the same time?
(Who was that, Schlafly?)
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
13 Oct 2004 10:09:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:56:22 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmr94p.1pq.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:43:08 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I believe them
or support them myself. Do you think you can manage to discuss them
on that basis?
I'd love to hear your take on this, Fred. Why does GWB and his
cronies dislike stem cell research when no less a Republican than
Nancy Reagan herself has come out in support of it?
Nancy Reagan is seen as being too emotionally involved.
Considering that her husband, a man regarded by most Republicans as one of
the best modern-day Presidents the US has seen, died of a disease that
stem-cell research may someday cure, I can't imagine why. If it was just
Nancy Reagan, it might no be so compelling. But there are these guys called
scientists.
First, it's only *embryonic* stem cells that are in question, and it's
not the research itself but the use of federal research money for
studies that create *new* stem cell lines by the destruction of embryos
that is the problem.
Why is it a problem, Fred?
That act is seen as crossing the same ethical line that prevents them
from supporting federal funding for abortions.
Abortions are legal in the US, Fred.
The hard liners within
the Republican party who take the position of opposing abortion on the
"life begins at conception" wish to ban outright anything that resembles
abortion
Do you think that's a legitimate reason to withhold funding from important
research?
(with exceptions for the health of the mother, maybe, but
*PLEASE* let's not go there).
Let's go there, after all, your president seems to lean pretty heavily in
that direction.
If they had their way, fertility clinics
wouldn't be allowed to flush unused embryos either but that's obviously
impractical.
I'm sure if these people had their way, much of what makes the United States
the United States wouldn't exist any more.
They have compromised to reach the position that Federal
funds not be used to pay for abortion or anything crossing that line.
Do you think that is legitimate, Fred/
Similar argument for human cloning, not only to get stem cells but the
ethics of human cloning for reproductive purposes before the technique
is made less error-prone and its long-term effects on the clones is
fully understood.
Cloning and stem-cell research are two different areas, Fred. How does the
problems with vertebrate cloning, and in particular, human cloning, relate
to stem-cell research?
There is also the argument that *adult* stem cells can do almost
anything that embryonic stem cells can do, so why take on the ethical
challenges that result from the use of "living" embryos?
Do you feel feel this is a valid argument, Fred? How do you propose to find
out whether this contention is emperically valid without research, Fred?
More importantly, do you think religion might have something to do with
this, Fred? You seemed to go out of your way to avoid mentioning that,
though I can presume by "hardliners" you are referring to the Fundies that
seem to have such a huge voice nowadays. Is that a correct observation on
my part?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
13 Oct 2004 10:55:48 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmrrr0.ch.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:56:22 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmr94p.1pq.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:43:08 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I believe
them or support them myself. Do you think you can manage to discuss
them on that basis?
I'd love to hear your take on this, Fred. Why does GWB and his
cronies dislike stem cell research when no less a Republican than
Nancy Reagan herself has come out in support of it?
Nancy Reagan is seen as being too emotionally involved.
Considering that her husband, a man regarded by most Republicans as
one of the best modern-day Presidents the US has seen, died of a
disease that stem-cell research may someday cure, I can't imagine why.
If it was just Nancy Reagan, it might no be so compelling. But there
are these guys called scientists.
Even the scientists are more divided than you think on this one.
First, it's only *embryonic* stem cells that are in question, and
it's not the research itself but the use of federal research money
for studies that create *new* stem cell lines by the destruction of
embryos that is the problem.
Why is it a problem, Fred?
I explain that below.
That act is seen as crossing the same ethical line that prevents them
from supporting federal funding for abortions.
Abortions are legal in the US, Fred.
Federal funding for them is still controversial. Especially among the
religious right.
The hard liners within
the Republican party who take the position of opposing abortion on
the "life begins at conception" wish to ban outright anything that
resembles abortion
Do you think that's a legitimate reason to withhold funding from
important research?
(with exceptions for the health of the mother, maybe, but
*PLEASE* let's not go there).
Let's go there, after all, your president seems to lean pretty heavily
in that direction.
I don't agree with him and I didn't offer to explain that part of the
platform.
If they had their way, fertility clinics
wouldn't be allowed to flush unused embryos either but that's
obviously impractical.
I'm sure if these people had their way, much of what makes the United
States the United States wouldn't exist any more.
That's the Pat Robertson wing for you.
They have compromised to reach the position that Federal
funds not be used to pay for abortion or anything crossing that line.
Do you think that is legitimate, Fred/
Personally, no, I don't.
Similar argument for human cloning, not only to get stem cells but
the ethics of human cloning for reproductive purposes before the
technique is made less error-prone and its long-term effects on the
clones is fully understood.
Cloning and stem-cell research are two different areas, Fred. How
does the problems with vertebrate cloning, and in particular, human
cloning, relate to stem-cell research?
They both involve experimentation with embryonic tissue.
There is also the argument that *adult* stem cells can do almost
anything that embryonic stem cells can do, so why take on the ethical
challenges that result from the use of "living" embryos?
Do you feel feel this is a valid argument, Fred? How do you propose
to find out whether this contention is emperically valid without
research, Fred?
I don't propose it. I'm personally in favor of fully funding all aspects
including human cloning for embryonic research.
As I said in the prior message, I only offered to try to explain my
understanding of the Religious Right's side of the argument. I don't
agree with it or support it myself, although I would still draw the line
at human reproductive cloning. Give us a few generations of rhesus
monkeys first and then we'll see.
Given that the ban is only on federal funding for such research, it
would appear to them to be quite a liberal policy. Plenty of private
funding is available in the US.
More importantly, do you think religion might have something to do
with this, Fred?
Yes, very much so.
You seemed to go out of your way to avoid mentioning
that, though I can presume by "hardliners" you are referring to the
Fundies that seem to have such a huge voice nowadays. Is that a
correct observation on my part?
Yes, they're probably mostly fundies of various stripes. Not all
religious fundamentalists are political hardliners.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
14 Oct 2004 01:17:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 03:55:48 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmrrr0.ch.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:56:22 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmr94p.1pq.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:43:08 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I believe
them or support them myself. Do you think you can manage to discuss
them on that basis?
I'd love to hear your take on this, Fred. Why does GWB and his
cronies dislike stem cell research when no less a Republican than
Nancy Reagan herself has come out in support of it?
Nancy Reagan is seen as being too emotionally involved.
Considering that her husband, a man regarded by most Republicans as
one of the best modern-day Presidents the US has seen, died of a
disease that stem-cell research may someday cure, I can't imagine why.
If it was just Nancy Reagan, it might no be so compelling. But there
are these guys called scientists.
Even the scientists are more divided than you think on this one.
Sounds like the need for further research is very great. Where there is
wide disagreement, the only way to reach any sort of consensus is to gather
more data, and the only way to gather more data is to do more research.
First, it's only *embryonic* stem cells that are in question, and
it's not the research itself but the use of federal research money
for studies that create *new* stem cell lines by the destruction of
embryos that is the problem.
Why is it a problem, Fred?
I explain that below.
That act is seen as crossing the same ethical line that prevents them
from supporting federal funding for abortions.
Abortions are legal in the US, Fred.
Federal funding for them is still controversial. Especially among the
religious right.
Do you think it is right for a the head of a secular state where seperation
of church and state is part of the basic law of the land to defer in any
measure to what amounts to a religious objection? Is this the behavior you
expect of the head of a secular state?
The hard liners within
the Republican party who take the position of opposing abortion on
the "life begins at conception" wish to ban outright anything that
resembles abortion
Do you think that's a legitimate reason to withhold funding from
important research?
(with exceptions for the health of the mother, maybe, but
*PLEASE* let's not go there).
Let's go there, after all, your president seems to lean pretty heavily
in that direction.
I don't agree with him and I didn't offer to explain that part of the
platform.
Do you find it troubling that the head of a secular state is willing to
court such individuals and groups?
If they had their way, fertility clinics
wouldn't be allowed to flush unused embryos either but that's
obviously impractical.
I'm sure if these people had their way, much of what makes the United
States the United States wouldn't exist any more.
That's the Pat Robertson wing for you.
Do you think it appropriate for the head of a secular state to be courting
the Pat Robertson wing?
They have compromised to reach the position that Federal
funds not be used to pay for abortion or anything crossing that line.
Do you think that is legitimate, Fred/
Personally, no, I don't.
That's reassuring. However, as I last looked, you do live in a secular
state, with the seperation of church and state. Do you think it appropriate
that the head of a secular state should be catering to a religious element?
Similar argument for human cloning, not only to get stem cells but
the ethics of human cloning for reproductive purposes before the
technique is made less error-prone and its long-term effects on the
clones is fully understood.
Cloning and stem-cell research are two different areas, Fred. How
does the problems with vertebrate cloning, and in particular, human
cloning, relate to stem-cell research?
They both involve experimentation with embryonic tissue.
And the reason for this objection by the, what did you call it? ah yes, the
Pat Robertson wing is a religious one. Yes?
There is also the argument that *adult* stem cells can do almost
anything that embryonic stem cells can do, so why take on the ethical
challenges that result from the use of "living" embryos?
Do you feel feel this is a valid argument, Fred? How do you propose
to find out whether this contention is emperically valid without
research, Fred?
I don't propose it. I'm personally in favor of fully funding all aspects
including human cloning for embryonic research.
So do you feel that it is appropriate, even with a purely political context,
for the head of a secular state with a Constitution separating church and
state, to court those putting forth a religious agenda?
As I said in the prior message, I only offered to try to explain my
understanding of the Religious Right's side of the argument. I don't
agree with it or support it myself, although I would still draw the line
at human reproductive cloning. Give us a few generations of rhesus
monkeys first and then we'll see.
So you're objection in that case is simply that we don't have the necessary
skills or technologies to guarantee a healthy human clone. I agree, by the
way. I think that there is a substantive ethical dilemna to cloning a human
where the risks to the cloned individual are potentially grave.
That particular ethical dilemna does not exist for embryonic stem cell
research. You said it yourself, and I am happy you have, that it is the
Religious Right that objects to this, and it is the President of the United
States, the head of a secular state, with a clear separation of church and
state, who is throwing them this bone. Do you think this is appropriate
behavior?
Given that the ban is only on federal funding for such research, it
would appear to them to be quite a liberal policy. Plenty of private
funding is available in the US.
Something as important as stem cell research, something that may offer
therapies to sufferers of a number of diseases, and the US government is
essentially saying they have a limited interest. And what is the reason?
The Pat Robertson wing is pushing a religious agenda, and the President of
the United States, the head of a secular state, with a separation of church
and state written into its most basic legal document, goes along.
More importantly, do you think religion might have something to do
with this, Fred?
Yes, very much so.
Do you think it appropriate that (and please tell me if this reminder annoys
you) the head of a secular state with separation of church and state written
into its constitution is throwing them this juicy morsel?
You seemed to go out of your way to avoid mentioning
that, though I can presume by "hardliners" you are referring to the
Fundies that seem to have such a huge voice nowadays. Is that a
correct observation on my part?
Yes, they're probably mostly fundies of various stripes. Not all
religious fundamentalists are political hardliners.
Apparently a number of important ones, the "Pat Robertson wing" as you
called them, are political hardliners, and are having a substantial effect
on US government policy in an area of research that may provide potentially
revolutionary therapies to millions of Americas, and the President of the
United States, the head of a secular state with separation of church and
state built into its most basic and fundemental law, is going along with
them.
I guess that leaves us with two options here. Either George W. Bush is a
religious fundementalist himself and agrees with the "Pat Robertson wing",
or he is cynically playing the "Pat Robertson wing" for votes at the
potential expense of valuable research that may lead to new therapies for a
whole host of diseases. I leave it up to others to decide which of these
two possibilities is actually worse.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
14 Oct 2004 09:55:06 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncms6sd.jn.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 03:55:48 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmrrr0.ch.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:56:22 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmr94p.1pq.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:43:08 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I can explain the party line on those points, not that I believe
them or support them myself. Do you think you can manage to
discuss them on that basis?
I'd love to hear your take on this, Fred. Why does GWB and his
cronies dislike stem cell research when no less a Republican than
Nancy Reagan herself has come out in support of it?
Nancy Reagan is seen as being too emotionally involved.
Considering that her husband, a man regarded by most Republicans as
one of the best modern-day Presidents the US has seen, died of a
disease that stem-cell research may someday cure, I can't imagine
why.
If it was just Nancy Reagan, it might no be so compelling. But
there
are these guys called scientists.
Even the scientists are more divided than you think on this one.
Sounds like the need for further research is very great. Where there
is wide disagreement, the only way to reach any sort of consensus is
to gather more data, and the only way to gather more data is to do
more research.
They don't want to ban the research, they just don't want to pay for it.
First, it's only *embryonic* stem cells that are in question, and
it's not the research itself but the use of federal research money
for studies that create *new* stem cell lines by the destruction of
embryos that is the problem.
Why is it a problem, Fred?
I explain that below.
That act is seen as crossing the same ethical line that prevents
them from supporting federal funding for abortions.
Abortions are legal in the US, Fred.
Federal funding for them is still controversial. Especially among the
religious right.
Do you think it is right for a the head of a secular state where
seperation of church and state is part of the basic law of the land to
defer in any measure to what amounts to a religious objection? Is
this the behavior you expect of the head of a secular state?
Yes, I expect the head of a representative government to address the
concerns of *all* his constituents.
The hard liners within
the Republican party who take the position of opposing abortion on
the "life begins at conception" wish to ban outright anything that
resembles abortion
Do you think that's a legitimate reason to withhold funding from
important research?
(with exceptions for the health of the mother, maybe, but
*PLEASE* let's not go there).
Let's go there, after all, your president seems to lean pretty
heavily in that direction.
I don't agree with him and I didn't offer to explain that part of the
platform.
Do you find it troubling that the head of a secular state is willing
to court such individuals and groups?
No. Why, do you? Are they to be denied their right to representation on
the grounds of their religion?
If they had their way, fertility clinics
wouldn't be allowed to flush unused embryos either but that's
obviously impractical.
I'm sure if these people had their way, much of what makes the
United States the United States wouldn't exist any more.
That's the Pat Robertson wing for you.
Do you think it appropriate for the head of a secular state to be
courting the Pat Robertson wing?
Sure. Even Pat Robertson has the right to be represented in the
government. No one may be denied representation on religious grounds.
They have compromised to reach the position that Federal
funds not be used to pay for abortion or anything crossing that
line.
Do you think that is legitimate, Fred/
Personally, no, I don't.
That's reassuring. However, as I last looked, you do live in a
secular state, with the seperation of church and state. Do you think
it appropriate that the head of a secular state should be catering to
a religious element?
You've repeated the same question several times now. I'll skip the rest
of your reps from here on.
Similar argument for human cloning, not only to get stem cells but
the ethics of human cloning for reproductive purposes before the
technique is made less error-prone and its long-term effects on the
clones is fully understood.
Cloning and stem-cell research are two different areas, Fred. How
does the problems with vertebrate cloning, and in particular, human
cloning, relate to stem-cell research?
They both involve experimentation with embryonic tissue.
And the reason for this objection by the, what did you call it? ah
yes, the Pat Robertson wing is a religious one. Yes?
There is also the argument that *adult* stem cells can do almost
anything that embryonic stem cells can do, so why take on the
ethical challenges that result from the use of "living" embryos?
Do you feel feel this is a valid argument, Fred? How do you propose
to find out whether this contention is emperically valid without
research, Fred?
I don't propose it. I'm personally in favor of fully funding all
aspects including human cloning for embryonic research.
So do you feel that it is appropriate, even with a purely political
context, for the head of a secular state with a Constitution
separating church and state, to court those putting forth a religious
agenda?
As I said in the prior message, I only offered to try to explain my
understanding of the Religious Right's side of the argument. I don't
agree with it or support it myself, although I would still draw the
line at human reproductive cloning. Give us a few generations of
rhesus monkeys first and then we'll see.
So you're objection in that case is simply that we don't have the
necessary skills or technologies to guarantee a healthy human clone.
I agree, by the way. I think that there is a substantive ethical
dilemna to cloning a human where the risks to the cloned individual
are potentially grave.
That particular ethical dilemna does not exist for embryonic stem cell
research. You said it yourself, and I am happy you have, that it is
the Religious Right that objects to this, and it is the President of
the United States, the head of a secular state, with a clear
separation of church and state, who is throwing them this bone. Do
you think this is appropriate behavior?
Given that the ban is only on federal funding for such research, it
would appear to them to be quite a liberal policy. Plenty of private
funding is available in the US.
Something as important as stem cell research, something that may offer
therapies to sufferers of a number of diseases, and the US government
is essentially saying they have a limited interest. And what is the
reason? The Pat Robertson wing is pushing a religious agenda, and the
President of the United States, the head of a secular state, with a
separation of church and state written into its most basic legal
document, goes along.
More importantly, do you think religion might have something to do
with this, Fred?
Yes, very much so.
Do you think it appropriate that (and please tell me if this reminder
annoys you) the head of a secular state with separation of church and
state written into its constitution is throwing them this juicy
morsel?
You seemed to go out of your way to avoid mentioning
that, though I can presume by "hardliners" you are referring to the
Fundies that seem to have such a huge voice nowadays. Is that a
correct observation on my part?
Yes, they're probably mostly fundies of various stripes. Not all
religious fundamentalists are political hardliners.
Apparently a number of important ones, the "Pat Robertson wing" as you
called them, are political hardliners, and are having a substantial
effect on US government policy in an area of research that may provide
potentially revolutionary therapies to millions of Americas, and the
President of the United States, the head of a secular state with
separation of church and state built into its most basic and
fundemental law, is going along with them.
I guess that leaves us with two options here. Either George W. Bush
is a religious fundementalist himself and agrees with the "Pat
Robertson wing", or he is cynically playing the "Pat Robertson wing"
for votes at the potential expense of valuable research that may lead
to new therapies for a whole host of diseases. I leave it up to
others to decide which of these two possibilities is actually worse.
I would remind you that the separation of church and state does not
extend to the denial of representation to church members nor to the
ignoring of their concerns on religious grounds.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
14 Oct 2004 12:01:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:55:06 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
<snip>
I would remind you that the separation of church and state does not
extend to the denial of representation to church members nor to the
ignoring of their concerns on religious grounds.
And I will remind you that it also means that motives of a solely religous
nature have no place in a secular government. Do you think the Pat
Robertson wing can provide a non-religious reason to ban federal funds?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
14 Oct 2004 02:37:52 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrncmtcj0.13c.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:55:06 +0000 (UTC),
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
<snip>
I would remind you that the separation of church and state does not
extend to the denial of representation to church members nor to the
ignoring of their concerns on religious grounds.
And I will remind you that it also means that motives of a solely
religous nature have no place in a secular government. Do you think
the Pat Robertson wing can provide a non-religious reason to ban
federal funds?
I'm not entirely sure you're on solid Constitutional ground there. I am
far from being a Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that as long
as there are religious organizations there will be religious interests
with opinions about governmental issues. Those interests cannot just be
ignored, neither can they be allowed to *prejudice* the government
against other religious interests. The government is the government of
everybody, not just of those who aren't religious.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SortingItOut" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
14 Oct 2004 12:42:29 AM |
|
|
(Andy Groves) wrote in message news:<991ea4ae.0410130834.7b0f98a4@posting.google.com>...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-9zYad.13$y75.342@news.uswest.net>...
<Snip>
You've given no reason for that other that to make the claim: "If
something is ethically wrong when paid for by the taxpayer, it is
equally ethically wrong when paid for by a drug company." That is
incoherant, and deceptive. Bush has not said that it is ethically wrong
to fund embryonic stem cell research, nor is it illegal or not allowed
at all to be funded.
I have not claimed that Bush said it was ethically wrong to fund stem
cell research. But he certainly seems mightly wobbly on the issue.
Can you explain to me why he has limited the creation of new stem cell
lines using public money? Can you explain the following comments by
Bush in the last presidential debate:
"Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to
create a stem cell. I'm the first president ever to allow funding --
federal funding -- for embryonic stem-cell research. I did to because
I too hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells and from the
research derived.
But I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and
the science.
And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the
70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important,
but so is ethics, so is balancing life. To destroy life to save life
is -- it's one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face. "
and
"Let me make sure you understand my decision. Those stem- cells lines
already existed. The embryo had already been destroyed prior to my
decision.
I had to make the decision to destroy more life, so we continue to
destroy life -- I made the decision to balance science and ethics. "
Can you explain to me why he feels the destruction of life is
acceptable when funded by private money, but not by the taxpayer?
Rather than taking what looks like a confused ethical stance on stem
cell research, it seems to me that he's doing nothing more than being
political, and somewhat diplomatic on this issue. Rather than staying
with his initial stance of using public funds to pay for the research,
he's now acknowledging that many people have serious objections to
this research and those people should not be "forced" to pay for the
research with their tax dollars.
In other words, he's compromising. For those with strong ethical
objections to the research, he's allowing them to opt out of
participating with their tax dollars. For those who want to see
benefits from the research, he's allowing it to continue. His
personal ethics don't enter into it, at least exclusively.
It's like someone supporting the right to abortion but not supporting
public funds to pay for it, and taking that stance about public
funding purely on the grounds that it's too strong an emotional issue
for too many people.
It's a compromise position. It seems reasonable for a president,
regardless of how good or bad his/her other qualities.
Of course, I'm not "explaining" Bush. I'm only trying to interpret
your quotes of him.
For a bonus point, can you tell me what this has to do with promoting
"a culture of life"?
Andy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Tang" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
12 Oct 2004 11:53:58 PM |
|
|
In article <glennsheldon-9zYad.13$y75.342@news.uswest.net>,
Glenn <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
I don't agree that government controls should not exist and be enforced
for say, experimentation with anthrax. And it occurs to me that
embryonic stem cell research should be including in these
considerations, even though at the present time there is not the same
understanding of any potential dangers and regulation of stem cell
research as there is with anthrax. It is at least part of the
controversy,
No, it isn't.
and until this is elucidated, the government should be very
careful in what they fund.
Hypocrite.
How do you know what the dangers are if you don't research
and study them?
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banningstem cell research |
11 Oct 2004 06:02:52 PM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
"Andy Groves" <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:991ea4ae.0410111304.76314061@posting.google.com...
goodrich_ms@yahoo.com (Michael S. Goodrich) wrote in message
news:<d92ac81f.0410110539.6029c508@posting.google.com>...
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message
news:<991ea4ae.0410081606.3ba5cd04@posting.google.com>...
goodrich_ms@yahoo.com (Mike Goodrich) wrote in message
news:<d92ac81f.0410050658.7391bc5f@posting.google.com>...
Kerry on record with blatant distortion about Bush's position on
stem cell research:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9t5
Bush's position on human stem cell research is scientifically
flawed
and ethically incoherent. Deal with it.
Andy
Kerry's position on stem cell research is unethical (deal with it):
That's a matter of opinion.
That is ethics for you.
The question of whether to use human
embryonic stem cells for research is an ethically interesting question
on which there is no consensus.
That depends on whether a majority are pro-life. There is certainly a
large base that do, and this research is highly controversial. Ethics
are determined by society.
To limit human ES cell research in the
public sector but not in the private sector is ethically incoherent,
no matter what side of the argument you come down on.
That is nuts. Government funding comes from taxpayers, whereas private
funding does not. You need a brain transplant.
So business owners do not pay taxes? I own some stock; can I quit
paying?
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
11 Oct 2004 09:33:46 PM |
|
|
Michael S. Goodrich wrote:
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message
48 Nobel Prize Winners slam Bush
48 Nobel Prize winners slam Bush, back Kerry
Tue Jun 22, 9:40 AM ET Add Top Stories - Chicago Tribune to My Yahoo!
By Jill Zuckman Tribune national correspondent
Forty-eight Nobel laureates denounced President Bush (news - web sites)
on Monday for "compromising our future" when it comes to scientific
research and the environment, and said Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)
"will restore science to its
appropriate place in government and bring it back into the White House."
The star-studded scientific endorsement for Kerry came on a day when the
presumptive Democratic nominee stood in Civic Center Park and told several
hundred rain-soaked voters that the way to build the economy is to invest
in science, technology and
higher education.
"We need a president who will once again embrace our tradition of
looking toward the future and new discoveries with hope based on scientific
facts, not fear," said Kerry, vowing not to let "ideology and fear stand in
the way."
Many scientists have complained that the Bush administration has filled
science advisory panels with conservative ideologues rather than
individuals with sterling scientific credentials.
In an open letter to the American public, Nobel Prize winners including
Caltech President David Baltimore and cancer researcher Harold Varmus said
"the Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the
policy-making that is so
important to our collective welfare."
Burton Richter, who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1976 and helped
organize the letter of support for Kerry, said laureates don't usually take
such a public stand on non-scientific matters. "It's unusual, and I hope
you take this as a sign of how
seriously all of us think the errors of our present course are," said
Richter.
Among the others signing the letter were physicists James Cronin of the
University of Chicago and Leon Lederman, former director of Fermilab.
Kerry's focus on science, and his push for stem cell research, comes
shortly after the death of former President Ronald Reagan (news - web
sites), who had Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites). Stem cell research
is seen by some as a way of spurring
discoveries that could cure Alzheimer's and other diseases.
And Kerry praised Nancy Reagan, noting that "her pleas for stem cell
research joined the pleas of millions across this country and reinforces in
all of us the need to tear down every wall today that keeps us from finding
the cures of tomorrow."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/chitribts/20040622/ts_chicagotrib/48nobelprizewinnersslambushbackkerry
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
12 Oct 2004 09:41:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:33:24 +0000 (UTC),
Michael S. Goodrich <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote:
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message news:<991ea4ae.0410081606.3ba5cd04@posting.google.com>...
goodrich_ms@yahoo.com (Mike Goodrich) wrote in message news:<d92ac81f.0410050658.7391bc5f@posting.google.com>...
Kerry on record with blatant distortion about Bush's position on stem cell research:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9t5
Bush's position on human stem cell research is scientifically flawed
and ethically incoherent. Deal with it.
Andy
Kerry's position on stem cell research is unethical (deal with it):
Channeling God again, Mike?
Kerry, and the Politics of the Big Cruel Lie
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george200410090039.asp
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
12 Oct 2004 01:48:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:41:47 +0000 (UTC), AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:33:24 +0000 (UTC),
Michael S. Goodrich <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote:
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message news:<991ea4ae.0410081606.3ba5cd04@posting.google.com>...
goodrich_ms@yahoo.com (Mike Goodrich) wrote in message news:<d92ac81f.0410050658.7391bc5f@posting.google.com>...
Kerry on record with blatant distortion about Bush's position on stem cell research:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9t5
Bush's position on human stem cell research is scientifically flawed
and ethically incoherent. Deal with it.
Andy
Kerry's position on stem cell research is unethical (deal with it):
Channeling God again, Mike?
Since when does Mike have the slightest clue about ethics?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
09 Oct 2004 12:42:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 00:01:20 +0000 (UTC), (Andy
Groves) wrote:
goodrich_ms@yahoo.com (Mike Goodrich) wrote in message news:<d92ac81f.0410050658.7391bc5f@posting.google.com>...
Kerry on record with blatant distortion about Bush's position on stem cell research:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9t5
Bush's position on human stem cell research is scientifically flawed
and ethically incoherent. Deal with it.
Goodrich can't.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
05 Oct 2004 03:13:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:53:50 +0000 (UTC), (Mike
Goodrich) wrote:
Kerry on record with blatant distortion about Bush's position on stem cell research:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9t5
also:
http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200409090835.asp
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith042302.asp
Reagan mischaraterizes situation:
http://tinyurl.com/52boz
The national reveiw factual? You've got to be kidding!
Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
05 Oct 2004 07:11:09 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:41640118.7834656@news-west.newscene.com:
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:53:50 +0000 (UTC), (Mike
Goodrich) wrote:
Kerry on record with blatant distortion about Bush's position on stem
cell research:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9t5
also:
http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200409090835.asp
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/articles/condic.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith042302.asp
Reagan mischaraterizes situation:
http://tinyurl.com/52boz
The national reveiw factual? You've got to be kidding!
Try again.
I read the firstthings.com article. It is a masterpiece of weaseling.
I figure that's why it appeals to Goodrich.
Chris
--
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
05 Oct 2004 05:54:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:45:26 +0000 (UTC), (maff)
wrote:
Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem
cell research
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=568925
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
05 October 2004
Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem
cell research
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
05 October 2004
John Kerry opened a crucial week in his bid for the White House
yesterday with a broadside against George Bush on one of the most
emotive issues of the campaign, saying the President had jettisoned
science for "extreme right-wing ideology" by curbing federal funding
on stem cell research.
Shifting focus from international to domestic issues, Mr Kerry
delivered his attack in a speech in New Hampshire, a state narrowly
carried by Mr Bush four years ago, but which the Democrats have hopes
of winning on 2 November. Alongside him was the actor Michael J Fox,
who suffers from Parkinson's disease, one of the diseases for which a
cure could be hastened by stem cell technology.
The Democratic candidate, who promises annual spending of $100m on
stem cell research, said that with his ban on funding for new cell
lines, Mr Bush had "tied the hands of our scientists" and "made the
wrong choice to sacrifice science for extreme right-wing ideology."
Mr Kerry went on to list a series of other areas, ranging from water
and air quality to global warming and high-tech jobs, where, he
claimed, the Bush administration had ignored science and evident fact
for purely political ends.
Mr Bush was in Iowa yesterday, a state he lost to Al Gore in 2000. At
a stop in Des Moines, he signed into law the fourth round of tax cuts
of his Presidency - re-inforcing his campaign message that money
should be spent by those who earn it, rather than by government.
"Families will spend this money much more wisely than we can," Mr Bush
declared.
The Working Families 2004 Tax Relief Law signed by Mr Bush extends
some of the tax cuts passed earlier in his Presidency. The $145bn
measure will affect over 90 million Americans by extending child tax
credits and slightly reducing taxes for married couples.
The competing claims came at the start of a week that sees two
candidates' debates: one between the Vice-President, ***** Cheney, and
his would-be successor, Senator John Edwards, in Cleveland tonight;
the second between the Presidential candidates at a "town-hall
meeting" on Friday at Washington University in St Louis.
They come amid polls showing that Mr Kerry is now level with Mr Bush
after his strong performance in the first debate on foreign policy in
Miami on Thursday last week. Mr Kerry's supporters believe that their
man can regain the initiative, as the debate topic shifts to domestic
issues such as the economy and health care, which usually favour
Democrats.
The tightening contest has given extra importance to an already
intriguing match-up between the youthful Mr Edwards and the dour Mr
Cheney, probably the most powerful Vice-President in recent US
history.
Normally the Vice-Presidential debate would make few sparks fly. Four
years ago Mr Cheney and his then Democratic opponent, Joe Lieberman,
were criticised for being "too nice" to each other. This time,
however, the atmosphere could be far less gentlemanly.
Mr Edwards will try to brand Mr Cheney the misguided architect of the
Iraq war, with his claims about Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons
of mass destruction and the unproven links between Saddam and
al-Qa'ida.
Mr Edwards received more ammunition this weekend with an article in
The New York Times that raised new doubts about the aluminium tubes
imported by Saddam. Mr Cheney used the tubes as evidence that the
Iraqi dictator was "reconstituting" nuclear weapons but, since the
war, it has become clear that Iraq's nuclear programme had been
abandoned.
Mr Edwards will also use the shortcomings of reconstruction in Iraq to
highlight Mr Cheney's five-year stint as the chairman of Halliburton,
the oil services company which has allegedly been favoured in the
awarding of business contracts in Iraq. For Democrats the very name
Halliburton is shorthand for the corporate greed and cronyism they say
is the hallmark of the Bush administration.
For his part, the Vice-President will try to portray his opponent as
too inexperienced to be allowed near the levers of foreign and
security policy. But Mr Cheney cannot afford to be too gruff and
imperious. If he is, "the Republican ticket will risk looking like a
couple of grumpy, ill-tempered old men", said one political analyst,
referring | |
