PDA

View Full Version : now, conservative Sen. Frist backs stem cell research



sonnylarue
07-29-2005, 01:21 PM
I guess Dr Frist has finally been blinded by science , watch the angry
pro-lifers drop him like a bad habit.

From the AP


WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday threw his support behind legislation to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, breaking with President Bush and religious conservatives in a move that could impact his prospects for seeking the White House in 2008.

“It’s not just a matter of faith, it’s a matter of science,” Frist said on the floor of the Senate.

Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who opposes abortion, said modifying Bush’s strict limitations on stem cell research would lead to scientific advances and “bridge the moral and ethical differences” that have made the issue politically charged.

“While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitation put into place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases,” the Tennessee lawmaker said in his speech.

“Therefore, I believe the president’s policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding ... and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully, staying within ethical bounds,” he said.

White House reaction

At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said Frist had given Bush advance notice of his announcement. “The president said, ‘You’ve got to vote your conscience,”’ McClellan said.

“The president’s made his position clear,” the spokesman said when asked if Bush stands by his threat to veto a pending bill that would liberalize federal support for stem cell research. “There is a principle involved here from the president’s standpoint when it comes to issues of life,” McClellan said.

Bush and Frist appeared together at the White House shortly after Frist’s speech as the president signed a bill that allows health care professionals to report information on medical errors without fearing that it will be used against them in lawsuits.

Bush introduced him as “Doctor Bill Frist” and afterward, Bush shook Frist’s hand and said something that made the majority leader laugh. As Bush was leaving the room, he summoned Frist to join him.

The Christian Defense Coalition lambasted Frist’s change of position.

“Sen. Frist should not expect support and endorsement from the pro-life community if he votes for embryonic research funding,” it said.

“Senator Frist cannot have it both ways. He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding,” said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the group. “Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008.”

Praise from some peers
But Frist’s decision brought immediate praise from some Senate colleagues.

“It is a decision that will bring hope to millions of Americans,” said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. “I know there’s still a long ways to go with the legislation, but a large step has been taken by the majority leader today ... and I admire the majority leader for doing it.”

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who is fighting cancer, called Frist’s talk “perhaps the most important speech made on the floor this year, and perhaps the most important speech made in many years ... It has an enormous impact.”

Said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.: “As a physician, Sen. Frist has a moral calling to save lives and alleviate suffering. He honors his Hippocratic Oath today by recognizing the unique healing power of embryonic stem cells.”

A bill to finance more stem cell research has passed the House, but has been stalled in the Senate. Frist’s support could push it closer to passage and set up a confrontation with Bush.

It also could impact Frist’s own political future. As a likely presidential candidate in 2008, Frist has been courting religious conservatives who helped make Bush a twice-elected president and generally consider embryonic stem cell research a moral equivalent to abortion. But the announcement, coming just a month after Frist said he did not support expanded financing “at this juncture,” could help him with centrist voters.

With those political realities in mind, Frist argued that his positions on stem cell research and abortion were not inconsistent.

‘Treat the embryo with dignity’
According to recent polls, some two-thirds of Americans say they support embryonic stem cell research and a majority of people say they would like to see fewer restrictions on taxpayer funding for those studies.

“From those cells we have the potential for looking at those diseases that everybody knows about, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and others,” Frist said Friday.

“I give huge moral significance to the human embryo, it is nascent human life,” he said. “What that means is as we advance science, we treat that embryo with dignity, with respect.”

He credited Bush with opening the doors for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and said when this policy was announced in 2001, policy-makers thought 78 stem cell lines would be available. Since then, the number has dropped to 22.

“Those 22 cell lines are not of the quality for human application or human therapy, and that’s why today I believe we need to modify that policy,” Frist said.

When Bush announced his position on stem cell research, he said the government should pay only for research of stem cell colonies, or lines, that had already been created at that time, so that the “life or death” decision had already been made.

Frist said additional stem cells should be used, so long as there was a careful process of informed consent in which the parents had decided that the embryos should be discarded, not adopted or frozen.

Ray G.
07-29-2005, 01:22 PM
Wow. I just gained a world of respect for him.

Bill?
07-29-2005, 01:23 PM
well, good for him. whatever else I think of the guy, this could save lives.

TheTravis!
07-29-2005, 01:25 PM
Frist must have just been diagnosed with something pretty fucking serious.

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 01:33 PM
I don't feel strongly on the issue of stem cell research, but I supported Bush's stance for several reasons. Among them I don't think the federal government should be funding this research at all, so his ends matched with mine.

Jamie Howdeshell
07-29-2005, 01:45 PM
Frist must have just been diagnosed with something pretty fucking serious.

:lol:

that's what i was thinking too.

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 02:05 PM
:lol:

that's what i was thinking too.

I actually think Nancy Reagan had a great deal to do with this.

Jastermereel
07-29-2005, 02:29 PM
Flip Flopper!
[waits to see how many conservatives hail that as the pinnacle of intelligent debate now that the election is over]

Amos Moses
07-29-2005, 02:30 PM
"Fuck stem cell research, it's evil!

"Holy shit! My (insert family member) has (insert disease) we must fund stem cell research!"

RODGER
07-29-2005, 02:42 PM
bout fucking time

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 03:00 PM
Flip Flopper!
[waits to see how many conservatives hail that as the pinnacle of intelligent debate now that the election is over]

Seem that he has taken this position before.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070200975.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070200975.html)

Jastermereel
07-29-2005, 03:05 PM
Edit: Accidently broken in quoting elsewhere. See below.

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 03:08 PM
How quickly they foreget. Making this stance means I don't have to listen to facts. I just get to yell FLIP FLOPPER!!!

Are you always this irrational?

Bill?
07-29-2005, 03:08 PM
I actually think Nancy Reagan had a great deal to do with this.

dear lord! Nancy Reagan got Bill Frist sick!?!? :eek:


;)

Jamie Howdeshell
07-29-2005, 03:24 PM
Are you always this irrational?


do you truly not realize the point he is trying to make? or are you being intentionally obtuse?
:dunno:

Jastermereel
07-29-2005, 03:28 PM
Are you always this irrational?
Only when imitating republicans.

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 03:42 PM
do you truly not realize the point he is trying to make? or are you being intentionally obtuse?
:dunno:


Only when imitating republicans.

He's imitating no Republicans I know of. He called Frist a flip-flopper. IF he was, fine. But the Post article shows he wasn't. Sooo....

Jamie Howdeshell
07-29-2005, 03:44 PM
He's imitating no Republicans I know of. He called Frist a flip-flopper. IF he was, fine. But the Post article shows he wasn't. Sooo....

were you alive during the last presidental election?

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 03:45 PM
were you alive during the last presidental election?

Yes. And Kerry DID flip-flop and Republicans showed it. Frist, apparently, did not.

Taxman
07-29-2005, 04:03 PM
I don't feel strongly on the issue of stem cell research, but I supported Bush's stance for several reasons. Among them I don't think the federal government should be funding this research at all, so his ends matched with mine.I see no relevance to your position. If the money doesn't go to stem cell research, it will go to some other medical research. Preventing this funding will not impact the overall budget at all.

Amos Moses
07-29-2005, 04:05 PM
Yes. And Kerry DID flip-flop and Republicans showed it. Frist, apparently, did not.


You're proud of the GOP for all their "attack attack attack" campaign style?

Jastermereel
07-29-2005, 04:07 PM
He's imitating no Republicans I know of. He called Frist a flip-flopper. IF he was, fine. But the Post article shows he wasn't. Sooo....
I'll reiterate.

Making this stance means I don't have to listen to facts. I just get to yell FLIP FLOPPER!!!

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 04:20 PM
I'll reiterate.

Making this stance means I don't have to listen to facts. I just get to yell FLIP FLOPPER!!!

Okay. But such "statement" wasn't part of your original post...which is why I felt like posting that article. That's all.


You're proud of the GOP for all their "attack attack attack" campaign style?

When it has merit, unlike the leftwing attacks. Such as Dean attacking Bush for the LIBERAL Supreme Court member's decision on eminent domain.

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 04:21 PM
I see no relevance to your position. If the money doesn't go to stem cell research, it will go to some other medical research.

Why assume this at all?


Preventing this funding will not impact the overall budget at all.

It's symbolic.

Taxman
07-29-2005, 05:09 PM
Why assume this at all?



It's symbolic.

Symbolic of what? Bush is a big supporter of government funding of private enterprise, just look at the energy bill he just pushed through Congress. It seems that you are at odds with such policy, but I hear no objection.

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 05:15 PM
Symbolic of what?

Of not spending. Look, sometimes we support the same things for different reasons. I support not funding stem cell research since that means one less thing the government is funding. Plus, it's controversial, a significant segment of the population opposes it. I don't believe that people who be forced to fund an illigetimate government action that they don't personally believe in. IF the money will be spent no matter what (and that's not a forgone conclusion), I'd rather that money go towards something like, say, NASA that is less controversial yet just as "worthy."

Lesser of two-evils sort of thing.

DigiEmissary
07-29-2005, 05:16 PM
Yes. And Kerry DID flip-flop and Republicans showed it. Frist, apparently, did not.

who was it who said he was against using American military power for regime change during the 2000 presidential debates?

I think i remember him choking on a pretzel a few years later...

Taxman
07-29-2005, 05:20 PM
who was it who said he was against using American military power for regime change during the 2000 presidential debates?

And nation building.

Bill!
07-29-2005, 05:20 PM
Of not spending. Look, sometimes we support the same things for different reasons. I support not funding stem cell research since that means one less thing the government is funding. Plus, it's controversial, a significant segment of the population opposes it. I don't believe that people who be forced to fund an illigetimate government action that they don't personally believe in. IF the money will be spent no matter what (and that's not a forgone conclusion), I'd rather that money go towards something like, say, NASA that is less controversial yet just as "worthy."

Lesser of two-evils sort of thing.
Being forced to fund an illegitimate government action? Sort of like your hero's invasion of Iraq?

All I see when you post anymore is "blah blah blah love Bush".

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 05:21 PM
who was it who said he was against using American military power for regime change during the 2000 presidential debates?

But...but...I thought Bush was planning for regime change in Iraq before 9/11! How could he be againsts it in 2000?

Changing policy after September 11th and changing policy after you're nominated to be President are two different things.

DigiEmissary
07-29-2005, 05:22 PM
And nation building.

well, to be fair, we're not really doing much of that in Iraq... probably because that would require some kind of plan.

DigiEmissary
07-29-2005, 05:23 PM
But...but...I thought Bush was planning for regime change in Iraq before 9/11! How could he be againsts it in 2000?

Changing policy after September 11th and changing policy after you're nominated to be President are two different things.

Oh, that's right, because the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, not bush's saudi friends. :roll:

Bill!
07-29-2005, 05:25 PM
But...but...I thought Bush was planning for regime change in Iraq before 9/11! How could he be againsts it in 2000?

Changing policy after September 11th and changing policy after you're nominated to be President are two different things.

So Bush isn't a flip flopper, he's just a fucking damn liar? That's what I thought.

I like the 9/11 reference too, still clutching desperately to the idea that Iraq was somehow connected to it. Again I say "blah blah blah love Bush."

Taxman
07-29-2005, 05:26 PM
Of not spending. Look, sometimes we support the same things for different reasons. I support not funding stem cell research since that means one less thing the government is funding. Plus, it's controversial, a significant segment of the population opposes it. I don't believe that people who be forced to fund an illigetimate government action that they don't personally believe in. IF the money will be spent no matter what (and that's not a forgone conclusion), I'd rather that money go towards something like, say, NASA that is less controversial yet just as "worthy."

Seeking treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer and various forms of organ failure is not "worthy."

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 05:27 PM
Seeking treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer and various forms of organ failure is not "worthy."

No more so than the millions of other causes any do-gooder Congressman might propose we fund.

Let the private sector handle it.

Bill!
07-29-2005, 05:28 PM
Seeking treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer and various forms of organ failure is not "worthy."

Remember though, Nate is the one who said Native American culture probably wasn't worth saving anyhow. So...

Taxman
07-29-2005, 05:28 PM
well, to be fair, we're not really doing much of that in Iraq... probably because that would require some kind of plan.

Sorry. my bad.

Taxman
07-29-2005, 05:32 PM
No more so than the millions of other causes any do-gooder Congressman might propose we fund.

Let the private sector handle it.

You speek as if this is the only private sector activity that the government funds. The truth is that billions of tax dollars go to the private sector each year in grants, contracts, subsidies, and god knows what else.

Taxman
07-29-2005, 05:33 PM
Remember though, Nate is the one who said Native American culture probably wasn't worth saving anyhow. So...Really? Well, Sean Hannity said that there was nothing of value in the Bagdad Museum, so Nate's still all right in my book.

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 05:39 PM
You speek as if this is the only private sector activity that the government funds.

No, I'm not.


The truth is that billions of tax dollars go to the private sector each year in grants, contracts, subsidies, and god knows what else.

I know this. Why would you think this fact change my position? I don't like that funding either.

Jastermereel
07-29-2005, 05:44 PM
I know this. Why would you think this fact change my position? I don't like that funding either.
Any of it? What about the funding being used for private sector activity in Iraq?

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 05:45 PM
Any of it? What about the funding being used for private sector activity in Iraq?

In relation to military operations, it is legitimate.

Bill!
07-29-2005, 05:45 PM
No, I'm not.



I know this. Why would you think this fact change my position? I don't like that funding either.

I just find it odd and would like an explanation from someone who obviously hates all types of government funding and spending, yet whole heartedly supports a over a hundred billion dollar war that has solved nothing? But of course, we never get answers to the hard questions. I'm sure if there was a response, it would be some twist or play on words, or perhaps a clever jab at liberal inabilities in an attempt to deflect his hyopcrisy and lack of credible foundation and intelligence.

Bill!
07-29-2005, 05:46 PM
In relation to military operations, it is legitimate.

How very very convenient. I have a feeling if Bush was fully behind stem cell research, Nate would be too. Afterall,

"blah blah blah love Bush."

Taxman
07-29-2005, 05:47 PM
I know this. Why would you think this fact change my position? I don't like that funding either.

I just find your expression of this view to be rather selective.

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 05:49 PM
I just find your expression of this view to be rather selective.

In what way?

Taxman
07-29-2005, 05:53 PM
In what way?

This is the only issue on which I have seen you raise this point. Not that I follow you around like some others do.

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 05:55 PM
This is the only issue on which I have seen you raise this point. Not that I follow you around like some others do.

Heh. You'll see I've argued in other threads for limiting government spending to defense and the courts, and other limited, legitimate functions.

Jastermereel
07-29-2005, 06:11 PM
Lets make it still clearer...

I just find your expression of this view to be rather selective.
In what way?
You'll see I've argued in other threads for limiting government spending to defense and the courts, and other limited, legitimate functions.
Clearly, you were able to answer the question yourself. You freely acknowledge that your position on government spending is selective. Sometimes you're against it. Sometimes you're for it. Its selective.

Why were you unable to grasp your own views when he asked you about them?

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 07:08 PM
Lets make it still clearer...

Clearly, you were able to answer the question yourself. You freely acknowledge that your position on government spending is selective. Sometimes you're against it. Sometimes you're for it. Its selective.

Selective how? I think government spending should be limited to legitimate government programs. That's not selective, that's consistant.

However, there are times when I'll choose the lesser of two evils if I'm forced to make a choice (such as supporting one spending bill over the other).

I don't see how that's "selective." Maybe you, or Taxman, would like to define what you mean by that.

Jastermereel
07-29-2005, 07:16 PM
Selective how? I think government spending should be limited to legitimate government programs. That's not selective, that's consistant.

However, there are times when I'll choose the lesser of two evils if I'm forced to make a choice (such as supporting one spending bill over the other).

I don't see how that's "selective." Maybe you, or Taxman, would like to define what you mean by that.
You call some legitimate and others not. The difference between the two is dermined by what? Your Opinion. I'll agree that it is consistantly your opinion, but you opinion is selective on what is legitimate and what is not. How is this so hard to understand?

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 07:36 PM
You call some legitimate and others not.

Why they are legitimate is not arbitrary, but very carefully determined by philisophical anlysis.

The legitimate functions of government are only those which protect people from the threat of force (i.e. crime). So the police, court system & military. You'll find that my positions on government spending are very consistant against anything that does not fall into that category.


I'll agree that it is consistantly your opinion, but you opinion is selective on what is legitimate and what is not. How is this so hard to understand?

That's not selective at all.

Out of curiosity, how would you describe your determination of what the government should or should not fund? Do you support funding everything, or are you selective? :)

Amos Moses
07-29-2005, 07:38 PM
Nate, why haven't you responded to any of the points Bill has made?

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 07:38 PM
Nate, why haven't you responded to any of the points Bill has made?

Bill has been an asshole in the past and I have him on ignore.

Jamie Howdeshell
07-29-2005, 07:42 PM
Bill has been an asshole in the past and I have him on ignore.


you're a classy guy, ain't ya.

:lol:

Captain Nate
07-29-2005, 07:48 PM
you're a classy guy, ain't ya.

:lol:

Sure.

Taxman
07-29-2005, 07:48 PM
Nate, why haven't you responded to any of the points Bill has made?

Because he's just a Bill
Yeah, he's only a Bill . . .

Jamie Howdeshell
07-29-2005, 07:51 PM
Because he's just a Bill
Yeah, he's only a Bill . . .

hell, if we stay up late enough and twist enough arms/bribe enough congressmen, we gotta a good shot at making him a law!!

http://www.postdiluvian.org/~gilly/Schoolhouse_Rock/pix/bill.jpg

Taxman
07-29-2005, 08:11 PM
Life is a creation of God, not a commodity to be exploited by man.I'm guessing that this line doesn't go over all that well with the cattle farmers.

Taxman
07-29-2005, 08:12 PM
hell, if we stay up late enough and twist enough arms/bribe enough congressmen, we gotta a good shot at making him a law!!

http://www.postdiluvian.org/%7Egilly/Schoolhouse_Rock/pix/bill.jpgThe innocence of childhood lost forever!:(

DigiEmissary
07-29-2005, 08:41 PM
I'm guessing that this line doesn't go over all that well with the cattle farmers.

Given his commercial supporters, that's quite a hypocritical statement.

Bill!
07-29-2005, 09:46 PM
Bill has been an asshole in the past and I have him on ignore.

Said the rectal opening.

Nah. I called his severely right leaning friend who he calls a moderate a "loon". He claims to ignore me, but I think he's just scared. He might be able to twist your words or beat you in a useless semantics debate, but rarely will he address the real issues or questions, because he's a flip flopper.

Seltzer Water
07-29-2005, 10:02 PM
frist is weak. he has no core beliefs

Amos Moses
07-29-2005, 10:16 PM
Said the rectal opening.

Nah. I called his severely right leaning friend who he calls a moderate a "loon". He claims to ignore me, but I think he's just scared. He might be able to twist your words or beat you in a useless semantics debate, but rarely will he address the real issues or questions, because he's a flip flopper.


I love you in the sexy places Bill.

Xander Boune
07-30-2005, 07:20 AM
Of not spending. Look, sometimes we support the same things for different reasons. I support not funding stem cell research since that means one less thing the government is funding. Plus, it's controversial, a significant segment of the population opposes it. I don't believe that people who be forced to fund an illigetimate government action that they don't personally believe in.

But the majority of Americans do support federally funding stem-cell research. Shouldn't the government reflect the wishes of the majority who do? It's mind boggling that Bush would veto a bill with both bipartisan support and a clear majority of public support.

And if you didn't know, the vast majority of funding for most biological research comes from federal funding. Private funding is not enough to keep America at the forfront of technological breakthroughs, which should be obvious now that South Korea is significantly ahead of us in embryonic stem cell research (and many of our best scientists in the field are now going overseas). Do you want America to remain the leader in biology research, or would you rather have other nations develop drugs and techniques that will cost us more time and money (not to mention potential lost profits) in the long run to aquire?

Captain Nate
07-30-2005, 07:29 AM
But the majority of Americans do support federally funding stem-cell research. Shouldn't the government reflect the wishes of the majority who do?

We just had this debate with Thudpucker. If the majority wanted to violate my rights, it shouldn't be allowed to.


And if you didn't know, the vast majority of funding for most biological research comes from federal funding.

And that is wrong.


Private funding is not enough to keep America at the forfront of technological breakthroughs,

It would be had the private sector not become addicted to the federal doleouts.


which should be obvious now that South Korea is significantly ahead of us in embryonic stem cell research (and many of our best scientists in the field are now going overseas). Do you want America to remain the leader in biology research, or would you rather have other nations develop drugs and techniques that will cost us more time and money (not to mention potential lost profits) in the long run to aquire?

Socialism is a bigger threat to medical breakthroughs than less federal funding.

Jamie Howdeshell
07-30-2005, 07:54 AM
And if you didn't know, the vast majority of funding for most biological research comes from federal funding.



And that is wrong.
.

nate, do you have any actual sources to back that up or is this more of your wishful thinking? cause from what i've read and heard, xander's statement is wholly correct.

corporations and other private interests are usually too concerned about their bottom lines to risk pursuing pure research which often results in non-marketable findings. we absolutely need the goverment to fund these things. it is fucking crucial.

Xander Boune
07-30-2005, 07:55 AM
We just had this debate with Thudpucker. If the majority wanted to violate my rights, it shouldn't be allowed to.

Well, I missed your debate. I (and apparently the majority of Americans and their elected representatives) disagree that anyone's rights are being violated.


And that is wrong.

I should have have added a qualifier for research in academic labs. The fact remains that especially for embryonic stem cell research, private investment is low because companies that fund research prefer to invest in quick fix/universal drugs that are applicable to everyone. Because this involves a technique that requires producing individual lines for the afflicted, private companies have been hesitant to invest in this research. Without federal funding, embryonic research is incredibly hindered. Our slow progress in the area is proof of that, and America is no longer on top.


It would be had the private sector not become addicted to the federal doleouts.

Well, our system already is dependent on mixture of private and federal funding of research. Shaking it up with libertarian fantasies of cutting federal funding of all reasearch would severely damage our ability to make future breakthroughs and would completely cripple research done in academic institutions.


Socialism is a bigger threat to medical breakthroughs than less federal funding.

You believe that federally funding stem-cell research will lead to socialism?

Xander Boune
07-30-2005, 08:05 AM
nate, do you have any actual sources to back that up or is this more of your wishful thinking? cause from what i've read and heard, xander's statement is wholly correct.

corporations and other private interests are usually too concerned about their bottom lines to risk pursuing pure research which often results in non-marketable findings. we absolutely need the goverment to fund these things. it is fucking crucial.

In total dollars spent, he's probably right that the majority of research in the field of biology does not come from the government. However, you are right when it comes to pure/basic research. I believe that research done in academic institutions (where most basic research is done) recieve the majority of their funding from federal grants. I know for a fact that's the case with the labs I have worked in. Embryonic stem cell cloning breakthroughs (like Hwang Woo-suk's work) have come from academic institutions.

Captain Nate
07-30-2005, 08:07 AM
I should have have added a qualifier for research in academic labs.

Why would that qualifier change my position?


The fact remains that especially for embryonic stem cell research, private investment is low because companies that fund research prefer to invest in quick fix/universal drugs that are applicable to everyone.

Well, this isn't an excuse to fund it. I could also argue there's not enough funds in X good cause, or Y good cause. Doesn't mean taxpayers should then subsidize the endless amounts of medical experiments that could use a few more dollars.

I have seen some argue that there is no enough promise in Embryonic stem cell, which is why it doesn't recieve more funding whereas other alternatives do.


Because this involves a technique that requires producing individual lines for the afflicted, private companies have been hesitant to invest in this research. Without federal funding, embryonic research is incredibly hindered. Our slow progress in the area is proof of that, and America is no longer on top.

So what?


Well, our system already is dependent on mixture of private and federal funding of research. Shaking it up with libertarian fantasies of cutting federal funding of all reasearch would severely damage our ability to make future breakthroughs and would completely cripple research done in academic institutions.

We'd survive this doomsday scenario you've cooked up. 'Cause, in most likelyhood, it wouldn't happen. In fact, it'd probably lend towards a more productive and efficient use of research funds and result in even more effective treatments than pursuing only those who have the biggest Congressional lobby.




You believe that federally funding stem-cell research will lead to socialism?

No. I was merely saying spending on healthcare, destroying medical patent rights and socializing medicine is a bigger threat than cutting illegitimate funding.

Xander Boune
07-30-2005, 08:24 AM
I should have have added a qualifier for research in academic labs.
Why would that qualifier change my position?


Well, it probably wouldn't change your position, but it's worth pointing out that most breakthroughs in this particular research (and very many others) come from academic labs. However, since you would probably want to do something crazy like get rid of the majority of basic research in academic institutions (since they require federal funding), I doubt that you would care.



Without federal funding, embryonic research is incredibly hindered. Our slow progress in the area is proof of that, and America is no longer on top.
So what?


I would think that much should be obvious.

Captain Nate
07-30-2005, 08:28 AM
Well, it probably wouldn't change your position, but it's worth pointing out that most breakthroughs in this particular research (and very many others) come from academic labs. However, since you would probably want to do something crazy like get rid of the majority of basic research in academic institutions (since they require federal funding), I doubt that you would care.

Require federal funding? No, I don't think they do. I think that mindset is the problem.




Without federal funding, embryonic research is incredibly hindered. Our slow progress in the area is proof of that, and America is no longer on top.


So what?

I would think that much should be obvious.

According to my research just now, the US remains the leader in such research. The European nations which don't have fascist, right-wing religious governments aren't attracting much investment in stem cell research, while millions have been raised in the U.S.

Scare tactics such as "the US is no longer on top" don't worry me -- if there is merit in stem cell research, it will attract funding.

Xander Boune
07-30-2005, 08:39 AM
According to my research just now, the US remains the leader in such research.

A lab in South Korea is now capable of cloning embryonic stem cell lines (using somatic cell nuclear transfer) that are genetically identical to the patient. Unless we've made some leaps and bounds in the last few months that I'm not aware of, there are no labs in the US that can currently do that.

NickT
07-30-2005, 08:45 AM
Personally, the whole area of stem cell research unsettles me. I would give the benefit of the doubt and back it though, because of the benefits it could bring. However, it would need to be heavily moderated.

Captain Nate
07-30-2005, 08:56 AM
A lab in South Korea is now capable of cloning embryonic stem cell lines (using somatic cell nuclear transfer) that are genetically identical to the patient.

So? A singular lab does not a leader make. There are more and better funded labs in the United States, yet sometimes just having money isn't the solution to the problem.


Unless we've made some leaps and bounds in the last few months that I'm not aware of, there are no labs in the US that can currently do that.

Yawn. Peddle your scare tactics somewhere else.

The Cheap-Arse Film Critic
07-30-2005, 09:02 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/glima/popcorn1.gif

Ray G.
07-30-2005, 09:05 AM
I'm just glad that someone is standing up for medical progress. If it can help a lot of people, I don't really care much about anything else.

Xander Boune
07-30-2005, 09:10 AM
Yawn. Peddle your scare tactics somewhere else.

South Korea researchers are the leaders in the field of embryonic stem cell research, with the most amazing breakthroughs. American scientists are no longer at the forfront, as we are not at their technological level, and most in the field will tell you it's because of the lack of federal funding supporting the research. Some great scientists in the field are leaving America to do it elsewhere. These are facts. If you wish to call them "scare tactics," go ahead and go nuts. It won't change them from what they are: facts.

Yano
07-30-2005, 09:21 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/glima/popcorn1.gif

My thoughts exactly.

Taxman, I have a newfound respect for you.

Xander, I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed with how you are approaching this subject. You're not just saying things like "So what?!?" and "No, you're wrong!" or "I'm not scared of you!" You are presenting your argument clearly with facts (well, I hope they are) and without putting down the other person. I am really impressed.

I would love to debate this and talk about how important I think stem cell research is to save lives, but I'll just say, "Whatever Xander said..." because I have no idea how to debate.

Xander Boune
07-30-2005, 09:24 AM
Xander, I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed with how you are approaching this subject. You're not just saything things like "So what?!?" and "No, you're wrong!" or "I'm not scared of you!" You are presenting your argument clearly with facts (well, I hope they are) and without putting down the other person. I am really impressed.

Thanks, Yano, I appreciate the kind words. I'm in biological research, so this topic is fairly important to me. And with that, I'm off to Connecticut. More debating tomorrow night.

Captain Nate
07-30-2005, 09:46 AM
South Korea researchers are the leaders in the field of embryonic stem cell research, with the most amazing breakthroughs.
American scientists are no longer at the forfront,

Says who? All the scaremongers say we risk losing leadership, not that we have.


If you wish to call them "scare tactics," go ahead and go nuts. It won't change them from what they are: facts.

None of it changes the fact that it's improper for government to fund what should be private research, especially with a huge segment of the population opposed to it. I really don't care about the scientific implications, but whether or not the government should be funding any of it at all. And they shouldn't be.

Jamie Howdeshell
07-30-2005, 10:00 AM
you might as well give it up, xander.

captain nate is an expert at dodging the actual questions, constructing strawmen, semantical dithering, condescension, and just generally being a fucking "expert" about anything under the sun.

you've done good.
let him have the last word.
he'll insist upon it.

Jastermereel
07-30-2005, 10:04 AM
South Korea researchers are the leaders in the field of embryonic stem cell research, with the most amazing breakthroughs. American scientists are no longer at the forfront, as we are not at their technological level, and most in the field will tell you it's because of the lack of federal funding supporting the research. Some great scientists in the field are leaving America to do it elsewhere. These are facts. If you wish to call them "scare tactics," go ahead and go nuts. It won't change them from what they are: facts.
My initial, satiricaly taken, stance wasn't the only one that precludes listening to facts.

Your work is done here.

Captain Nate
07-30-2005, 10:15 AM
you might as well give it up, xander.

captain nate is an expert at dodging the actual questions, constructing strawmen, semantical dithering, condescension, and just generally being a fucking "expert" about anything under the sun.

you've done good.
let him have the last word.
he'll insist upon it.

:roll: I don't claim to know much about stem cells, but what I do know is that government financing should be limited to the proper functions of government.

Jamie Howdeshell
07-30-2005, 10:20 AM
:roll: I don't claim to know much about stem cells, but what I do know is that government financing should be limited to the proper functions of government.


so you're apparently an expert on what the proper functions of goverment are? people have been puzzling over this quandry since the dawn of civilization.

and you have the answers!!

sweet!

:surrend:

Captain Nate
07-30-2005, 10:35 AM
so you're apparently an expert on what the proper functions of goverment are?

It doesn't take any expertise to learn philosophy. But biology takes years of study.

Taxman
07-30-2005, 11:32 AM
We just had this debate with Thudpucker. If the majority wanted to violate my rights, it shouldn't be allowed to.I fail to see in this instance how your rights are vilated.







And if you didn't know, the vast majority of funding for most biological research comes from federal funding. And that is wrong.And if you could Nate, point us to some examples of countries where their thriving technological industries are not being subsidised by the government because, frankly, my knowldge fails me here. I have been led to believe that all of the other countries with strong tech sectors were getting even more money pumped into them by the government.

SethInAz
07-30-2005, 11:44 AM
If I may interject in this tawdry love affair...

I keep hearing on the radio that there is more beneficial research coming from the adult line stem cell research than the embryonic. I don't know what exactly that means, but I would doubt that the reason is simply because there isn't federal funding yet for embryonic research.

I think Nate is referring to the fact that the government would be spending EVERYONE'S money on something that has a clear moral dillema behind it. People feel that they are having something forced upon them. The science is valuable and debateable, but I think it is one thing to allow research to happen, and another to say people must ignore their personal values and be forced to fund it. I'd say the same thing for other areas of moral consequence... people should not be forced to pay for someone else's abortion, euthenasia, or stem cell research through the levying of taxes.

As much as people cry out here about "forcing something on other people" I'd think that would be pretty clear.

Jamie Howdeshell
07-30-2005, 11:47 AM
If I may interject in this tawdry love affair...

I keep hearing on the radio that there is more beneficial research coming from the adult line stem cell research than the embryonic. I don't know what exactly that means, but I would doubt that the reason is simply because there isn't federal funding yet for embryonic research.

I think Nate is referring to the fact that the government would be spending EVERYONE'S money on something that has a clear moral dillema behind it. People feel that they are having something forced upon them. The science is valuable and debateable, but I think it is one thing to allow research to happen, and another to say people must ignore their personal values and be forced to fund it. I'd say the same thing for other areas of moral consequence... people should not be forced to pay for someone else's abortion, euthenasia, or stem cell research through the levying of taxes.

As much as people cry out here about "forcing something on other people" I'd think that would be pretty clear.


so you're against the war in iraq which has a clear moral dillema behind it and is being funded by taxpayer's money.

you're consistent, right?

Taxman
07-30-2005, 11:49 AM
so you're against the war in iraq which has a clear moral dillema behind it and is being funded by taxpayer's money.

you're consistent, right?National defense is a clear primary mandate of the government, so this really in not relevant.

Taxman
07-30-2005, 11:54 AM
If I may interject in this tawdry love affair...

I keep hearing on the radio that there is more beneficial research coming from the adult line stem cell research than the embryonic. I don't know what exactly that means, but I would doubt that the reason is simply because there isn't federal funding yet for embryonic research.No chance that you are listening to conservative talk radio is there? This is another case of subjective science not unlike the global warming argument. You have one group of scientist saying that this adult research is just as promising as the embryonic stuff, and another group saying that their opinion is rubbish. I suppose that both groups have something to gain through their positions as well. I am not going to tell you who to believe I am just suggesting that this information is not something that is going to bring about a resolution to this issue.

Jamie Howdeshell
07-30-2005, 12:02 PM
National defense is a clear primary mandate of the government, so this really in not relevant.

but the iraq war had nothing to do with national defense. or at the very least, it is highly debatable.

so yes... it is completely relevant to the point raised by seth and nate.

SethInAz
07-30-2005, 12:04 PM
No chance that you are listening to conservative talk radio is there? This is another case of subjective science not unlike the global warming argument. You have one group of scientist saying that this adult research is just as promising as the embryonic stuff, and another group saying that their opinion is rubbish. I suppose that both groups have something to gain through their positions as well. I am not going to tell you who to believe I am just suggesting that this information is not something that is going to bring about a resolution to this issue.

Is NPR conservative radio? This is also something that my dad has mentioned to me, and he is also part of the medical community. I was just offering it as an attempt to contribute something that hadn't been mentioned before in this thread.

I have issues with the war in Iraq too, but defense and the military are necessities for the survival of a nation. Iraq and stem cell research really are apples and oranges.

Bill!
07-30-2005, 12:51 PM
Iraq had nothing to do with our national security. Anyone who thinks contrary needs to go back to grade school so they can relearn how not to be a complete retard.

Ray G.
07-30-2005, 12:53 PM
Iraq had nothing to do with our national security. Anyone who thinks contrary needs to go back to grade school so they can relearn how not to be a complete retard.

Iraq was a threat to our national security. The only thing I'll agree with is that it wasn't the paramount threat. We should have gone after Iran and North Korea first, if only because they were further along in their ability to harm us. But Iraq was led by a psychopath who hated America and dreamed of getting Nukes to attack us with. He needed to be dealt with eventually.

Jastermereel
07-30-2005, 01:01 PM
Iraq was a threat to our national security. The only thing I'll agree with is that it wasn't the paramount threat. We should have gone after Iran and North Korea first, if only because they were further along in their ability to harm us. But Iraq was led by a psychopath who hated America and dreamed of getting Nukes to attack us with. He needed to be dealt with eventually.
I think you have a type-o in that first sentence. Correct me if i'm mistaken but wasn't it supposed to read: Iraq could have become a threat to national security at some time in the future, had saddam found a way to aquire such weapons or the materials and the way to process themhe could, at some later time, become a threat and had the intent to use them, even ignoring the idea that he would use them against us knowing what would happen given that, while evil mean and nasty, he enjoyed remaining alive and in power, either or both of which would have been discontinued should he have done anything crazy.

Now, I know the grammar was a little convoluted in my correction, but i think it better expresses what you meant to say in that first line...no?

Ray G.
07-30-2005, 01:03 PM
I think you have a type-o in that first sentence. Correct me if i'm mistaken but wasn't it supposed to read: Iraq could have become a threat to national security at some time in the future, had saddam found a way to aquire such weapons or the materials and the way to process themhe could, at some later time, become a threat and had the intent to use them, even ignoring the idea that he would use them against us knowing what would happen given that, while evil mean and nasty, he enjoyed remaining alive and in power, either or both of which would have been discontinued should he have done anything crazy.

Now, I know the grammar was a little convoluted in my correction, but i think it better expresses what you meant to say in that first line...no?

You are aware that the only reason he didn't have nukes already was because Israel dealt with his nuclear power plant 20 years ago? They guy wasn't one to be subtle. And whether or not he had them on him when we invaded, he was making efforts to obtain them.

Jastermereel
07-30-2005, 01:12 PM
You are aware that the only reason he didn't have nukes already was because Israel dealt with his nuclear power plant 20 years ago? They guy wasn't one to be subtle. And whether or not he had them on him when we invaded, he was making efforts to obtain them.
Wait, first off, Israel wasn't the only reason. Secondly, if you admit in the first line that he didn't have them, doesn't it sort of weaken your post to question that in the second line (regarless of any investigations we've had that show that he didn't have anything). Third, "making efforts to obtain them"? Was this the third or fourth level that the administration's line fell to? Wasn't it something like "he has weapons" to "he has facilities to make weapons" to "he is looking to aquire weapons" to "sometimes he sits awake at nights dreaming of having weapons"? Seriously dawg, that was a weak attempt at an arugment...

Amos Moses
07-30-2005, 02:44 PM
You are aware that the only reason he didn't have nukes already was because Israel dealt with his nuclear power plant 20 years ago? They guy wasn't one to be subtle. And whether or not he had them on him when we invaded, he was making efforts to obtain them.


I think he was doing that so Iran would back off. He was just bluffing.

Taxman
07-30-2005, 03:18 PM
Iraq had nothing to do with our national security. Anyone who thinks contrary needs to go back to grade school so they can relearn how not to be a complete retard.Again, this really doesn't matter because the President was charged with the responsibility of National defense decisions.

Captain Nate
07-30-2005, 06:15 PM
And if you could Nate, point us to some examples of countries where their thriving technological industries are not being subsidised by the government because, frankly, my knowldge fails me here.

There probably aren't any but that's because there aren't any truly free capitalist nations. Were there, the tech industries would be able to stand on their own.

-


so you're against the war in iraq which has a clear moral dillema behind it and is being funded by taxpayer's money.

you're consistent, right?

National defense is a clear primary mandate of the government, so this really in not relevant.

Yup.

If you want to debate whether or not Iraq was justified, I'm not interested (had that argument before, during and after the war. At this point, I'm tired of it). But the US thought Saddam was a threat and made a decision for the sake of our national security, you may disagree with the final decision but you cannot act like the government doesn't have the authority to make that decision and act upon it.

Stem cells? Not, as Taxman put it, a "primary mandate" or a mandate at all.

BWC Boston
07-30-2005, 06:43 PM
If you want to debate whether or not Iraq was justified, I'm not interested (had that argument before, during and after the war. At this point, I'm tired of it).
How did you have the argument "after" the war?

Captain Nate
07-30-2005, 06:44 PM
How did you have the argument "after" the war?

Well, after the War to topple Saddam Hussein, not the current battle with the insurgents and terrorists.

BWC Boston
07-30-2005, 06:47 PM
Well, after the War to topple Saddam Hussein, not the current battle with the insurgents and terrorists.
Fair enough.