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: "Mike Goodrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
05 Oct 2004 09:53:50 AM |
|
|
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Groves" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
08 Oct 2004 07:01:20 PM |
|
|
(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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael S. Goodrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
11 Oct 2004 08:33:24 AM |
|
|
(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):
Kerry, and the Politics of the Big Cruel Lie
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george200410090039.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "dandelion" |
|
| Title: OT Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
11 Oct 2004 08:59:46 AM |
|
|
"Michael S. Goodrich" <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> 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):
I won't It isn't. Prohibiting research on ideological grounds is unethical
when so many could benefit so profoundly.
Kerry, and the Politics of the Big Cruel Lie
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george200410090039.asp
By Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence.
A layperson.
The 'catch-word' seems to be 'embryo-destructive'. AFAIK, once the stammcels
have been isolated, they can be grown in vitro. So the 'catch-word' is a big
cruel lie for the most part.
Other niceties: The author claims: "There are profound - perhaps
insuperable - problems with the therapeutic use of these cells." without
even so much as a whisper as to what those profound and perhaps insuperable
problems are.
And then
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "H,R.Gruemm" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
11 Oct 2004 02:40:59 PM |
|
|
(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>...
(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):
According to whose ethics ? Yours ?
HRG.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
11 Oct 2004 03:43:31 PM |
|
|
"H,R.Gruemm" <psychotech@xpoint.at> wrote in message
news:5662bb3.0410111146.1de2a45f@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):
Reposted unmarked snip:
Kerry, and the Politics of the Big Cruel Lie
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george200410090039.asp
According to whose ethics ? Yours ?
Beats the hell out of yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Groves" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
12 Oct 2004 11:29:42 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-qlCad.23$py.53716@news.uswest.net>...
"H,R.Gruemm" <psychotech@xpoint.at> wrote in message
news:5662bb3.0410111146.1de2a45f@posting.google.com...
goodrich_ms@yahoo.com (Michael S. Goodrich) wrote in message
news:<d92ac81f.0410110539.6029c508@posting.google.com>...
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message
news:<991ea4ae.0410081606.3ba5cd04@posting.google.com>...
goodrich_ms@yahoo.com (Mike Goodrich) wrote in message
news:<d92ac81f.0410050658.7391bc5f@posting.google.com>...
Kerry on record with blatant distortion about Bush's position on
stem cell research:
http://tinyurl.com/6b9t5
Bush's position on human stem cell research is scientifically
flawed
and ethically incoherent. Deal with it.
Andy
Kerry's position on stem cell research is unethical (deal with it):
Reposted unmarked snip:
Kerry, and the Politics of the Big Cruel Lie
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george200410090039.asp
According to whose ethics ? Yours ?
Beats the hell out of yours.
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn...... the point I was making was not who was
ethically better. I was questioning ethical consistency.
Bush's policy says that it is bad (well, illegal, actually) for a
researcher to create a new human stem cell line with government money,
but it is legal for the same researcher to walk across campus to his
or her privately funded lab annex and create new human stem cell lines
there. And you're saying that is ethically OK?
Any pro-lifers want to step up to the plate and defend Glenn's
position?
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
12 Oct 2004 12:51:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:29:42 +0000 (UTC),
Andy Groves <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-qlCad.23$py.53716@news.uswest.net>...
"H,R.Gruemm" <psychotech@xpoint.at> wrote in message
news:5662bb3.0410111146.1de2a45f@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):
Reposted unmarked snip:
Kerry, and the Politics of the Big Cruel Lie
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george200410090039.asp
According to whose ethics ? Yours ?
Beats the hell out of yours.
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn...... the point I was making was not who was
ethically better. I was questioning ethical consistency.
Bush's policy says that it is bad (well, illegal, actually) for a
researcher to create a new human stem cell line with government money,
but it is legal for the same researcher to walk across campus to his
or her privately funded lab annex and create new human stem cell lines
there. And you're saying that is ethically OK?
Any pro-lifers want to step up to the plate and defend Glenn's
position?
What I want to know is what the ethical US government (we know it's ethical
because Mike Goodrich says so and Glenn Sheldon apparently agrees) is going
to do if this unethical research (we know it's unethical because Mike
Goodrich says so and Glenn Sheldon apparently agrees) starts showing
extraordinary promise. Will the US government refuse to fund in any part
any therapies that might aid Alzheimer's and Parkinson's sufferers? Is the
US government going to prevent governemnt scientists from analyzing such
therapies?
I dunno. When I President Reagan's family pleeding for stem cell research
(and there ain't no one gonna tell me that Nancy Reagan is some sort of
card-carrying-baby-murdering-godless-atheist) it's very hard to see how the
President's position is anything more than a fundementalist Christian
policy.
But that's alright, because Mike Goodrich (and no less than Glenn Sheldon
agrees) states the government's position is ethical.
--
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 |
13 Oct 2004 11:15:38 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:51:35 +0000 (UTC), AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:29:42 +0000 (UTC),
Andy Groves <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-qlCad.23$py.53716@news.uswest.net>...
"H,R.Gruemm" <psychotech@xpoint.at> wrote in message
news:5662bb3.0410111146.1de2a45f@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):
Reposted unmarked snip:
Kerry, and the Politics of the Big Cruel Lie
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george200410090039.asp
According to whose ethics ? Yours ?
Beats the hell out of yours.
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn...... the point I was making was not who was
ethically better. I was questioning ethical consistency.
Bush's policy says that it is bad (well, illegal, actually) for a
researcher to create a new human stem cell line with government money,
but it is legal for the same researcher to walk across campus to his
or her privately funded lab annex and create new human stem cell lines
there. And you're saying that is ethically OK?
Any pro-lifers want to step up to the plate and defend Glenn's
position?
What I want to know is what the ethical US government (we know it's ethical
because Mike Goodrich says so and Glenn Sheldon apparently agrees) is going
to do if this unethical research (we know it's unethical because Mike
Goodrich says so and Glenn Sheldon apparently agrees) starts showing
extraordinary promise. Will the US government refuse to fund in any part
any therapies that might aid Alzheimer's and Parkinson's sufferers? Is the
US government going to prevent governemnt scientists from analyzing such
therapies?
I dunno. When I President Reagan's family pleeding for stem cell research
(and there ain't no one gonna tell me that Nancy Reagan is some sort of
card-carrying-baby-murdering-godless-atheist) it's very hard to see how the
President's position is anything more than a fundementalist Christian
policy.
But that's alright, because Mike Goodrich (and no less than Glenn Sheldon
agrees) states the government's position is ethical.
Since when has either ethics or honesty been part of their makeup?
--
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: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
13 Oct 2004 04:46:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:15:38 +0000 (UTC),
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:51:35 +0000 (UTC), AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:29:42 +0000 (UTC),
Andy Groves <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-qlCad.23$py.53716@news.uswest.net>...
"H,R.Gruemm" <psychotech@xpoint.at> wrote in message
news:5662bb3.0410111146.1de2a45f@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):
Reposted unmarked snip:
Kerry, and the Politics of the Big Cruel Lie
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george200410090039.asp
According to whose ethics ? Yours ?
Beats the hell out of yours.
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn...... the point I was making was not who was
ethically better. I was questioning ethical consistency.
Bush's policy says that it is bad (well, illegal, actually) for a
researcher to create a new human stem cell line with government money,
but it is legal for the same researcher to walk across campus to his
or her privately funded lab annex and create new human stem cell lines
there. And you're saying that is ethically OK?
Any pro-lifers want to step up to the plate and defend Glenn's
position?
What I want to know is what the ethical US government (we know it's ethical
because Mike Goodrich says so and Glenn Sheldon apparently agrees) is going
to do if this unethical research (we know it's unethical because Mike
Goodrich says so and Glenn Sheldon apparently agrees) starts showing
extraordinary promise. Will the US government refuse to fund in any part
any therapies that might aid Alzheimer's and Parkinson's sufferers? Is the
US government going to prevent governemnt scientists from analyzing such
therapies?
I dunno. When I President Reagan's family pleeding for stem cell research
(and there ain't no one gonna tell me that Nancy Reagan is some sort of
card-carrying-baby-murdering-godless-atheist) it's very hard to see how the
President's position is anything more than a fundementalist Christian
policy.
But that's alright, because Mike Goodrich (and no less than Glenn Sheldon
agrees) states the government's position is ethical.
Since when has either ethics or honesty been part of their makeup?
Oh come one now! We're talking about *THE* Pope Goodrich, Highe
Pontificator and Personal Consultant to Yahweh, not to mention Soldier for
Christ Glenn Sheldon, given special dispensation from behaving like a
Christian so he can wage war upon evolutionists, atheists, Democrats, the
Amazing Randi, etc. ad nausem.
--
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 |
15 Oct 2004 11:43:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:46:33 +0000 (UTC), AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:15:38 +0000 (UTC),
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:51:35 +0000 (UTC), AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:29:42 +0000 (UTC),
Andy Groves <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-qlCad.23$py.53716@news.uswest.net>...
"H,R.Gruemm" <psychotech@xpoint.at> wrote in message
news:5662bb3.0410111146.1de2a45f@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):
Reposted unmarked snip:
Kerry, and the Politics of the Big Cruel Lie
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/george200410090039.asp
According to whose ethics ? Yours ?
Beats the hell out of yours.
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn...... the point I was making was not who was
ethically better. I was questioning ethical consistency.
Bush's policy says that it is bad (well, illegal, actually) for a
researcher to create a new human stem cell line with government money,
but it is legal for the same researcher to walk across campus to his
or her privately funded lab annex and create new human stem cell lines
there. And you're saying that is ethically OK?
Any pro-lifers want to step up to the plate and defend Glenn's
position?
What I want to know is what the ethical US government (we know it's ethical
because Mike Goodrich says so and Glenn Sheldon apparently agrees) is going
to do if this unethical research (we know it's unethical because Mike
Goodrich says so and Glenn Sheldon apparently agrees) starts showing
extraordinary promise. Will the US government refuse to fund in any part
any therapies that might aid Alzheimer's and Parkinson's sufferers? Is the
US government going to prevent governemnt scientists from analyzing such
therapies?
I dunno. When I President Reagan's family pleeding for stem cell research
(and there ain't no one gonna tell me that Nancy Reagan is some sort of
card-carrying-baby-murdering-godless-atheist) it's very hard to see how the
President's position is anything more than a fundementalist Christian
policy.
But that's alright, because Mike Goodrich (and no less than Glenn Sheldon
agrees) states the government's position is ethical.
Since when has either ethics or honesty been part of their makeup?
Oh come one now! We're talking about *THE* Pope Goodrich, Highe
Pontificator and Personal Consultant to Yahweh, not to mention Soldier for
Christ Glenn Sheldon, given special dispensation from behaving like a
Christian so he can wage war upon evolutionists, atheists, Democrats, the
Amazing Randi, etc. ad nausem.
Have they had their 'urination ceremony?'
--
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: "Michael S. Goodrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
12 Oct 2004 08:05:14 AM |
|
|
(H,R.Gruemm) wrote in message news:<5662bb3.0410111146.1de2a45f@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):
According to whose ethics ? Yours ?
Why don't you ask Groves?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
12 Oct 2004 01:47:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:40:59 +0000 (UTC),
(H,R.Gruemm) wrote:
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):
According to whose ethics ? Yours ?
Christians, whose deity promises eternal torture and they worship it,
drooling 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: "H,R.Gruemm" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
11 Oct 2004 02:41:26 PM |
|
|
(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>...
(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):
According to whose ethics ? Yours ?
HRG.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Groves" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
11 Oct 2004 03:58:47 PM |
|
|
(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>...
(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. The question of whether to use human
embryonic stem cells for research is an ethically interesting question
on which there is no consensus. 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. If something is
ethically wrong when paid for by the taxpayer, it is equally ethically
wrong when paid for by a drug company.
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
11 Oct 2004 04:55:46 PM |
|
|
"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.
If something is
ethically wrong when paid for by the taxpayer, it is equally ethically
wrong when paid for by a drug company.
So if it's OK to have a stip club on Broadway, it's OK for the
government to financially support strip clubs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
11 Oct 2004 06:05:50 PM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in
news:glennsheldon-dpDad.27$py.58946@news.uswest.net:
"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.
If something is
ethically wrong when paid for by the taxpayer, it is equally
ethically wrong when paid for by a drug company.
So if it's OK to have a stip club on Broadway, it's OK for the
government to financially support strip clubs.
I believe the industry got some much needed tax relief in the recent
revamping of the corporate tax code.
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: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
11 Oct 2004 11:10:26 PM |
|
|
"Chris Thompson" <rockwallaby@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in message
news:Xns957FC34829F4Crockwallabyerolscom@207.69.189.191...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in
news:glennsheldon-dpDad.27$py.58946@news.uswest.net:
"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.
If something is
ethically wrong when paid for by the taxpayer, it is equally
ethically wrong when paid for by a drug company.
So if it's OK to have a stip club on Broadway, it's OK for the
government to financially support strip clubs.
I believe the industry got some much needed tax relief in the recent
revamping of the corporate tax code.
I plumb forgot - the strip club grants.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
12 Oct 2004 06:17:14 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:glennsheldon-dpDad.27$py.58946@news.uswest.net...
"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.
But you just said eithics are determined by society. Do privately funded
companies not form part of our society or can they do whatever they like
ethically speaking?
Since when has ethics been decided by who pays the most tax? By this logic
if I declare Murder Inc to be private company in the US can I get away with
killing people (I'm not government funded therefore as long as I'm also
killing other people not funded by the government then everything should be
fine)?
If something is
ethically wrong when paid for by the taxpayer, it is equally ethically
wrong when paid for by a drug company.
So if it's OK to have a stip club on Broadway, it's OK for the
government to financially support strip clubs.
This argument doesn't even make sense Glenn. Care to elaborate?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Von Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
12 Oct 2004 08:31:59 PM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-dpDad.27$py.58946@news.uswest.net>...
"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.
If the ethical principle being violated is supposedly that it is wrong
because it needlessly destroys/degrades/commodifies human life (and
these are the moral objections I usually hear urged against stem-cell
research) then it doesn't matter where the money comes from; it's
wrong regardless of who does it, and shouldn't be allowed. Bush's
compromise is inconsistent with his supposed ethical rationale for
it(it does, after all, allow federal funding of *some* ES research)
and does not stake any moral high ground at all.
You need a brain transplant.
More amply provoked abuse, eh?
If something is
ethically wrong when paid for by the taxpayer, it is equally ethically
wrong when paid for by a drug company.
So if it's OK to have a stip club on Broadway, it's OK for the
government to financially support strip clubs.
If you are saying that, if it is not morally wrong to own a strip
club, then it is not morally wrong for the government to financially
support one, I would actually agree. It might be inappropriate to
give such support if a significant portion of the voters and taxpayers
disapprove, but that is not the same as saying that it is unethical.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Groves" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
12 Oct 2004 11:24:56 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-dpDad.27$py.58946@news.uswest.net>...
"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.
Indeed. A point Mike missed.
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.
As I said, it is an ethically interesting question.
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.
I am aware of the difference. What I am not aware of is the ethical
difference. You don't seem to be able to tell me.
If something is
ethically wrong when paid for by the taxpayer, it is equally ethically
wrong when paid for by a drug company.
So if it's OK to have a stip club on Broadway, it's OK for the
government to financially support strip clubs.
Well, I don't know what a stip club is, but I would agree in
principle. If a government decides to allow stipping by private
individuals, then I'm sure it would be ethically OK to fund stipping
from government sources if there was a need. Of course, if people's
stipping needs were taken care of by the private sector, then there
would be no need. I could imagine, however, that the private sector
might not want to conduct basic research into stipping, or might not
fund it to the extent that the government tinks is appropriate. It
might be that the private sector would keep the results of their
stipping work to themselves, without making it available to the
public.
My point is that it is ethically incoherent for a president to warble
on about stipping and a "culture of life", when he knows full well
that stipping goes on unabated in the private sector.
Note that I am not coming down on one side or another on the issue of
whetehr stipping is an ethical thing to do. I'm simply saying that
stipping is stipping, no matter who pays for it. And I am unanimous in
that.
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
12 Oct 2004 04:59:45 PM |
|
|
"Andy Groves" <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:991ea4ae.0410120831.428ed5e6@posting.google.com...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:<glennsheldon-dpDad.27$py.58946@news.uswest.net>...
"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.
Indeed. A point Mike missed.
I fail to see how you could have arrived at that conclusion.
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.
As I said, it is an ethically interesting question.
Also whether the government should be able to fund researchers to do
anything they want without evidence of any benefit or potential harm to
society and individuals.
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, and until this is elucidated, the government should be very
careful in what they fund. I find Kerry's "I'll get it done" somewhat
irresponsible.
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.
I am aware of the difference. What I am not aware of is the ethical
difference. You don't seem to be able to tell me.
Many behaviors in the private sector are legal yet viewed by some people
as unethical. I gave you an example below of strip clubs. There is a
clear difference between certain individual behaviors that are tolerated
in some form, and government funding of those behaviors. There is
nothing "ethically incoherant" about it.
If something is
ethically wrong when paid for by the taxpayer, it is equally
ethically
wrong when paid for by a drug company.
So if it's OK to have a stip club on Broadway, it's OK for the
Well, I don't know what a stip club is,
"...government to financially support strip clubs."
but I would agree in
principle. If a government decides to allow stipping by private
individuals, then I'm sure it would be ethically OK to fund stipping
from government sources if there was a need.
What? If there is private stripping, there is a "need". Perhaps you
should elaborate.
Of course, if people's
stipping needs were taken care of by the private sector, then there
would be no need.
How the hell could you determine that these needs were "taken care of"
adequately?
I could imagine, however, that the private sector
might not want to conduct basic research into stipping, or might not
fund it to the extent that the government tinks is appropriate. It
might be that the private sector would keep the results of their
stipping work to themselves, without making it available to the
public.
I don't believe that you are ignorant of my example, regardless of the
*first* typo. You've created a strawman of my example of "strip clubs".
They don't do "research" comparable to scientific research. Strip club
funding might come under the heading "National Endowment for the Arts",
or "Technology in Education" :-) But government funding basically is
aimed at benefits to society. Can you give me some real;ized benefits to
society from embryonic stem cell research? I am aware that there
potential benefits are compelling.
My point is that it is ethically incoherent for a president to warble
on about stipping and a "culture of life", when he knows full well
that stipping goes on unabated in the private sector.
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. Bush is who "warbled" to allow this research to be
funded at all, and "stipping" does not go on "unabated", by the way
Just because something is not illegal does not mean it is "ethical", or
that it should be declared ethical to society as a whole and government
funded. Your claim is incoherant and you've failed to make it any more
coherant.
Note that I am not coming down on one side or another on the issue of
whetehr stipping is an ethical thing to do. I'm simply saying that
stipping is stipping, no matter who pays for it. And I am unanimous in
that.
It doesn't matter in the slightest what you come down on. What does is
that some people do have opinions and different ethical values, but not
all those values are or should be federally funded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Groves" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
13 Oct 2004 11:28:19 AM |
|
|
"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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
13 Oct 2004 01:43:08 PM |
|
|
(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?
--
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 |
13 Oct 2004 06:27:34 PM |
|
|
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.
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
13 Oct 2004 10:56:02 PM |
|
|
"Andy Groves" <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
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?
Can you explain to me how you came to the conclusion that Bush thinks
the destruction of life is acceptable at all?
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.
You have no point. What you have are innuendos and a seeming lack of
interest in the intracacies of the subject. If Bush wanted to "have his
cake and eat it too" then he would probably not have supported any
research. So much for your innuendos.
I've already explained to you that anything not illegal should not
automatically be thought of as ethical, and that there are many things
going on in the "private sector" that is not allowed to be federally
funded or supported.
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/chapter5.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy Groves" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
14 Oct 2004 11:45:17 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-1Tmbd.22$tH5.6250@news.uswest.net>...
"Andy Groves" <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
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?
Can you explain to me how you came to the conclusion that Bush thinks
the destruction of life is acceptable at all?
Because he permits what *he* regards as the destruction of human life
to be carried out by the private sector.
For a bonus point, can you tell me what this has to do with
promoting
"a culture of life"?
<snip>
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.
You have no point. What you have are innuendos and a seeming lack of
interest in the intracacies of the subject. If Bush wanted to "have his
cake and eat it too" then he would probably not have supported any
research. So much for your innuendos.
No. That would not be having his cake and eating it. Having your cake
and eating it is when you say one thing and do another. That is what
Bush has done. That's not innuendo. That's fact.
I've already explained to you that anything not illegal should not
automatically be thought of as ethical, and that there are many things
going on in the "private sector" that is not allowed to be federally
funded or supported.
You are confusing law with ethics. Bush has banned the creation of new
human ES cell lines with public money because he feels it is a
destruction of human life that is morally wrong. The ethical part of
that judgement is in the destruction, not the finance.
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/chapter5.html
You have cited a report from a panel that Bush packed with
ideologically sympathetic figures, and from which he removed less
biased figures such as Liz Blackburn from UCSF. You do realize that
you're making my point for me, don't you?
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Kerry attacks Bush's 'extreme right-wing ideology' in banning stem cell research |
14 Oct 2004 07:03:05 PM |
|
|
"Andy Groves" <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:991ea4ae.0410140851.195b8acf@posting.google.com...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message
news:<glennsheldon-1Tmbd.22$tH5.6250@news.uswest.net>...
"Andy Groves" <grovesa@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
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?
Can you explain to me how you came to the conclusion that Bush
thinks
the destruction of life is acceptable at all?
Because he permits what *he* regards as the destruction of human life
to be carried out by the private sector.
Now the executive branch gets to make laws? Tell me how he could remove
this permission.
For a bonus point, can you tell me what this has to do with
promoting
"a culture of life"?
<snip>
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.
You have no point. What you have are innuendos and a seeming lack of
interest in the intracacies of the subject. If Bush wanted to "have
his
cake and eat it too" then he would probably not have supported any
research. So much for your innuendos.
No. That would not be having his cake and eating it. Having your cake
and eating it is when you say one thing and do another. That is what
Bush has done. That's not innuendo. That's fact.
Since research is allowed to be funded, I am curious as to how you can
say that he "had his cake." The fact is that this is the first
President to support funding for embryonic stem cell research. You might
want to stick to the facts. And you quoted him above: "...I too hope
that we'll discover cures from the stem cells and from the research
derived." That is what he "said and did". So it appears that your figure
of speech "fact" comes down to innuendo.
I've already explained to you that anything not illegal should not
automatically be thought of as ethical, and that there are many
things
going on in the "private sector" that is not allowed to be federally
funded or supported.
You are confusing law with ethics. Bush has banned the creation of new
human ES cell lines with public money because he feels it is a
destruction of human life that is morally wrong. The ethical part of
that judgement is in the destruction, not the finance.
You are well aware of the fact that this research is not illegal and
Presidents don't make laws. Using federal money *is* the issue. You
can't say the reason he limited research funding is that he feels the
d | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
