stevestojan Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 Hey guys, hopefully this wont stir up too much debate, just a seemingly simple question. I have heard that Bush is against all stem cell research. Is this true, and if so, what is Kerry's stand on this issue? Links would be great. Thanks Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 No, he is agaist using embryonic stem cells, not adult stem cells. The ban is on using federal money for embryonic stem cell rsearch. People can do all the research they want with private funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Bush has approved of using stem cells from strains that already existed, where the embryo was already destroyed when he took office. Scientists have stated that these strains are inadequate to perform meaningful research in reasonable timeframes. As Wacka stated there will be no federal funding for embryonic stem cell research but private research is ok. Welcome to the dark side. Nice to see you again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyLee Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Hey guys, hopefully this wont stir up too much debate, just a seemingly simple question. I have heard that Bush is against all stem cell research. Is this true, and if so, what is Kerry's stand on this issue? Links would be great. Thanks Steve 66069[/snapback] Kerry is for embryonic stem cell research. He wants to help find a cure for parkinsons and spinal cord injuries (paralysis) and the like. I'm looking for a link that I saw earlier today, I'll post it, if I can find it again. By the way, I love your avatar. Go Yankees! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyLee Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Here's a link: Christopher Reeve His name was mentioned by Sen. John Kerry during Friday's presidential debate when the talk turned to stem cell research. Reeve himself was vocal on the subject. In 2001, while President Bush considered a decision on stem cell research -- he eventually allowed federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines -- Reeve spoke to CNN's John King about the impact of delaying study. "That would be a big mistake because you could spend the next five years doing research on the adult stem cells and find that they are not capable of doing what we know that embryonic cells can do now," he said. "And five years of unnecessary research to try to create something that we already have would cause -- well, a lot of people are going to die while we wait." Unfortunately, Christopher Reeve has died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 do a search on this forum (when available). There was a long thread about it a while back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 NJ Sue Back? Wanting us to do his/her...ooops homework? WADR, If you took the time Steve, you'd know the issues by now, and the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Hey guys, hopefully this wont stir up too much debate, just a seemingly simple question. I have heard that Bush is against all stem cell research. Is this true, and if so, what is Kerry's stand on this issue? Links would be great. Thanks Steve 66069[/snapback] That was discussed in the last debate. Too bad you don't watch them. Now piss off, and go do your own !@#$ign homework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 As stated above... Bush is against using Federal money to fund stem cell research. However he won't ban it. I think for the most part Kerry is for stem cell research. After all, he's friends with Superman. However, didn't he kind of flip flop around on this issue during the debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Kerry must be "channeling" like Edwards. On the 11AM PDT ABC Radio news, they said that Kerry said he got a voicemail message from Reeve on Saturday. In other reports, it has been said that Reeve was comatose since Thursday. Mmmmmm....Interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Hey guys, hopefully this wont stir up too much debate, just a seemingly simple question. I have heard that Bush is against all stem cell research. Is this true, and if so, what is Kerry's stand on this issue? Links would be great. Thanks 66069[/snapback] I did a LOT of research on this topic for a 20-minute speech last semester. To clarify some of the nuance: Embryonic stem cells are much different from adult stem cells. Embryonic SC can become any type of cell in the body human; adult SC have a limited scope b/c they've already differentiated into a cell type. There are NO adult stem cells for heart, nerve and other cell types, which are some of the MAIN areas for use in the biggest diseases like heart disease, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, etc. Embryonic SC are created from week-old embryos derived from in-vitro fertilization that aren't selected for implantation into the mother. After the procedure, they are frozen or destroyed. The lines that have been created have received full permission from the donors. Bush allowed federal funding for stem cell lines created before his speech in August 2001. There were about 70; researchers report that anywhere from 10 to 20 are viable, but that these have been cultivated using mouse cells as starters, which makes future transplantation to humans dubious (they can now create lines w/o using the mouse cells). Researchers also report that the NIH has stone-walled on distribution of the lines. And yes, private research is allowed. But do private researchers publish their findings frequently in journals about some procedure that has been successful for them? No. Universities are the places where the pure research, not for $ gain, occurs. As it is described, university researchers basically have to set up a different privately-funded lab to use the newer stem cell lines, and have to use entirely seperate equipment if federal funds put 1 cent into something. That's literally having to buy another microscope when you already have one sitting on the counter. That's BS. Kerry has supported responsible, ethically-guided embryonic stem cell research all along. Bush has seen this issue through the lens of the abortion issue, which is the wrongest way to look at it. He imposed a glass ceiling with a compromise that wasn't a compromise at all. This is a president who does not believe in science. Instead, this is going to be another job sector that's outsourced to India. And this is a big one in the myriad reasons he'll not be getting my vote. Sad that it took the passing of Christopher Reeve to put the spotlight on an issue that deserves more debate than 30 seconds. I hope it's talked about on Wed. b/c Bush is going to get schooled. This is a good article on the subject. You'll have to have to click on the "Free Day Pass" and go through a small ad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Bump. (This one's for you, Rich. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I did a LOT of research on this topic for a 20-minute speech last semester. 66449[/snapback] Wow! No offense, but I hope you didn’t get graded on that speech because you present very little facts and several false statements. Here are some facts for you to think about adult stem cell research: Studies using non-embryonic stem cells, derived (ethically) from umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, brain tissue and fat, have moved well beyond theory to application. Clinical studies offer solid benefits to patients suffering from heart disease, blood disorders and other afflictions. Adult stem cells have already been used successfully with patients: to treat cartilage defects in children; restore vision to patients who were legally blind; relieve systemic lupus, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons and rheumatoid arthritis; and to serve as an aid in numerous cancer treatments. A doctor in Portugal used adult stem cells to treat patients suffering paralysis after traumatic accidents. After this therapy, some of these patients, who at one point expected never to walk again, can now walk with the assistance of leg braces. In 2001 (yes, adult stem cells have success stories dating years back) umbilical cord stem cells completely cured a Sickle Cell patient. At the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Andrew Yeager injected stem cells from the umbilical cord into a child with advanced Sickle Cell Anemia – a year later the sickle cells in his body had disappeared. Now let’s look at some facts about embryonic stem cell research that you failed to cover. How many humans have been treated by embryonic stem cells? Zero! Before human trials can even be safely undertaken researchers will have to overcome two serious difficulties that stand between patients and embryonic-cell regenerative medicine: 1) ES cells cause tumors, and 2) ES cells may be rejected by the immune system (use of human embryonic stem cells requires lifelong use of drugs to prevent rejection of the tissue). ES cells have yet to demonstrate a single human therapeutic benefit. The most recent studies in animals have shown ES cells to be unstable and unpredictable. Contrast those problems with adult stem cells. The use of a patient's own stem cells is preferable to using ES cells because it avoids the problem of the body rejecting cells other than its own. So far, adult-stem-cell therapy does not appear to cause tumors. Add to that the scientific results, proven on humans and this puts adult therapies years ahead of the game. So why are ES cells so hyped up? Since ES cells derive from the embryo, they are capable of forming all the tissues of the body. Therefore, researchers have long felt that human ES cells hold the greatest potential for treatment of degenerative diseases. This is hope and potential, but there have been minimal proven results. Even now, this one potential advantage – that ES cells are capable of forming all tissues of the body, is being matched by adult stem cell research. It has recently been shown that certain types of stem cells are not limited to producing cells for the tissue in which they reside. For instance, bone marrow stem cells can produce skeletal muscle, neural, cardiac muscle, and liver cells. Bone marrow stem cells can even migrate to these tissues via the circulatory system in response to tissue damage and begin producing cells of the appropriate tissue type. This is exactly why ES cell supporters have to use people like Ronald Reagan, Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeves – they are appealing to hope and potential by seeking sympathy. They can’t show case after case of proven results because there are none! The vast amount of private funding of stem cell research is going into adult stem cells, because that is where the results are. Drug companies and venture capitalists do not want to take the risks associated with the use of ES cells in real patients. The only reason ES cell supporters are seeking governmental funding is because they can’t get enough in the private sector! There is hundreds of millions of dollars going into stem cell research, but because the majority is correctly going to the more scientifically valid research (adult stem cells), ES cell supporters need to find another financial supporter. That fact right there should say something to the general taxpayer – if anything, the government should fund adult stem cell research! Let me ask you something - when adult stem cells have proven, scientific results (on humans) and ES cell have minimal results and still have serious problems to overcome, which presidential candidate “does not believe in science”? It certainly seems to me that GW has science on his side, not Kerry. “Bush has seen this issue through the lens of the abortion issue, which is the wrongest way to look at it.” If anything, it is Kerry and people like you who are looking at this through the “lens of the abortion issue”. There is a moral and ethical alternative to ES cell therapy, one that has proven, scientific results and one that is years ahead of ES cell therapy. The reason you and others do not want to give up hope on ES cell research is very much related to abortion. If you concede that ES cell research has ethical problems and should not be federally funded, you are conceding to the pro-life viewpoint. ES cell research will lag further behind adult stem cell research as the months and years pass, but people like Kerry and other pro-choice people will not give in because by doing so they will cede ground to the pro-life side and that is not an option for them. “Sad that it took the passing of Christopher Reeve to put the spotlight on an issue that deserves more debate than 30 seconds. I hope it's talked about on Wed. b/c Bush is going to get schooled.” In the last debate, Kerry was asked why he supports ES cell research when thousands of proven therapies have happened with adult stem cells. Kerry completely ignored the reference to “proven” results of adult stem cell research because he can’t argue against that. Yet he did not come back with any proven results of ES cell research, because he can’t argue that either. All he emphasized were people like Christopher Reeves – trying to play up sympathy, not facts. All Kerry has on his side is sympathy, hope and potential – GW has science. So who is going to get schooled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Sniffer Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Wow! No offense, but I hope you didn’t get graded on that speech because you present very little facts and several false statements. Here are some facts for you to think about adult stem cell research: Studies using non-embryonic stem cells, derived (ethically) from umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, brain tissue and fat, have moved well beyond theory to application. Clinical studies offer solid benefits to patients suffering from heart disease, blood disorders and other afflictions. Adult stem cells have already been used successfully with patients: to treat cartilage defects in children; restore vision to patients who were legally blind; relieve systemic lupus, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons and rheumatoid arthritis; and to serve as an aid in numerous cancer treatments. A doctor in Portugal used adult stem cells to treat patients suffering paralysis after traumatic accidents. After this therapy, some of these patients, who at one point expected never to walk again, can now walk with the assistance of leg braces. In 2001 (yes, adult stem cells have success stories dating years back) umbilical cord stem cells completely cured a Sickle Cell patient. At the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Andrew Yeager injected stem cells from the umbilical cord into a child with advanced Sickle Cell Anemia – a year later the sickle cells in his body had disappeared. Now let’s look at some facts about embryonic stem cell research that you failed to cover. How many humans have been treated by embryonic stem cells? Zero! Before human trials can even be safely undertaken researchers will have to overcome two serious difficulties that stand between patients and embryonic-cell regenerative medicine: 1) ES cells cause tumors, and 2) ES cells may be rejected by the immune system (use of human embryonic stem cells requires lifelong use of drugs to prevent rejection of the tissue). ES cells have yet to demonstrate a single human therapeutic benefit. The most recent studies in animals have shown ES cells to be unstable and unpredictable. Contrast those problems with adult stem cells. The use of a patient's own stem cells is preferable to using ES cells because it avoids the problem of the body rejecting cells other than its own. So far, adult-stem-cell therapy does not appear to cause tumors. Add to that the scientific results, proven on humans and this puts adult therapies years ahead of the game. So why are ES cells so hyped up? Since ES cells derive from the embryo, they are capable of forming all the tissues of the body. Therefore, researchers have long felt that human ES cells hold the greatest potential for treatment of degenerative diseases. This is hope and potential, but there have been minimal proven results. Even now, this one potential advantage – that ES cells are capable of forming all tissues of the body, is being matched by adult stem cell research. It has recently been shown that certain types of stem cells are not limited to producing cells for the tissue in which they reside. For instance, bone marrow stem cells can produce skeletal muscle, neural, cardiac muscle, and liver cells. Bone marrow stem cells can even migrate to these tissues via the circulatory system in response to tissue damage and begin producing cells of the appropriate tissue type. This is exactly why ES cell supporters have to use people like Ronald Reagan, Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeves – they are appealing to hope and potential by seeking sympathy. They can’t show case after case of proven results because there are none! The vast amount of private funding of stem cell research is going into adult stem cells, because that is where the results are. Drug companies and venture capitalists do not want to take the risks associated with the use of ES cells in real patients. The only reason ES cell supporters are seeking governmental funding is because they can’t get enough in the private sector! There is hundreds of millions of dollars going into stem cell research, but because the majority is correctly going to the more scientifically valid research (adult stem cells), ES cell supporters need to find another financial supporter. That fact right there should say something to the general taxpayer – if anything, the government should fund adult stem cell research! Let me ask you something - when adult stem cells have proven, scientific results (on humans) and ES cell have minimal results and still have serious problems to overcome, which presidential candidate “does not believe in science”? It certainly seems to me that GW has science on his side, not Kerry. “Bush has seen this issue through the lens of the abortion issue, which is the wrongest way to look at it.” If anything, it is Kerry and people like you who are looking at this through the “lens of the abortion issue”. There is a moral and ethical alternative to ES cell therapy, one that has proven, scientific results and one that is years ahead of ES cell therapy. The reason you and others do not want to give up hope on ES cell research is very much related to abortion. If you concede that ES cell research has ethical problems and should not be federally funded, you are conceding to the pro-life viewpoint. ES cell research will lag further behind adult stem cell research as the months and years pass, but people like Kerry and other pro-choice people will not give in because by doing so they will cede ground to the pro-life side and that is not an option for them. “Sad that it took the passing of Christopher Reeve to put the spotlight on an issue that deserves more debate than 30 seconds. I hope it's talked about on Wed. b/c Bush is going to get schooled.” In the last debate, Kerry was asked why he supports ES cell research when thousands of proven therapies have happened with adult stem cells. Kerry completely ignored the reference to “proven” results of adult stem cell research because he can’t argue against that. Yet he did not come back with any proven results of ES cell research, because he can’t argue that either. All he emphasized were people like Christopher Reeves – trying to play up sympathy, not facts. All Kerry has on his side is sympathy, hope and potential – GW has science. So who is going to get schooled? 67891[/snapback] Nice copy and paste of ONE article. Do you have any idea what goes into a research paper? I suggest you go pick up a couple more books on the subject instead of a 3 second google search to try and prove your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Nice copy and paste of ONE article. Do you have any idea what goes into a research paper? I suggest you go pick up a couple more books on the subject instead of a 3 second google search to try and prove your point. 67900[/snapback] If that is ONE article, go find it for me and print it here to prove me wrong. Before you make such an ignorant claim, you better have the facts to prove it. Did I pull ideas from other articles - you bet I did. The first half of the post was part of research I did on my own time (I'm not in college anymore). I didn't think TBD required footnotes and a bibliography! The second half of the post was all a response to the earlier post. What kind of response is this anyway? You know nothing about me - I have researched and looked into this subject a ton. Books, news, science journals, magazines, etc. I've looked into this from both sides, because to be honest with you, a couple years ago I didn't know anything about the issue. I continue to research it now, becuase it makes me angry that people are ignoring scientific facts. Do I have to state all my credentials so I don't get an idiotic response like this? I noticed you didn't even respond to the post or the subject matter at all. Instead of attacking my credibility, why don't you help me and everyone else interested in this subject and give some opinion or facts. Otherwise, lay off your flippant remarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I never argued that the benefits of ASC aren't great news in preventing diseases, but as rosy a picture as you try to paint, there are limitations on it. So, your main argument is that ESC haven't been proven to be effective. Well, no stevestojan, when it's not given much funding to do the early research. ASC have been used for quite a bit longer than ESC, I'm WELL aware of that. There were problems back when they were first developed that they've worked to correct. The same can be done for ESCs if you give researchers the time and some funding and not place hurdles in the way. I suppose the Romans could have continued to build with wood and never developed concrete b/c before it was it wasn't PROVEN to work. It took people to say, 'Hey this concrete might be really good for underground foundations...' You're saying let's always just go with what we've got now, and not try to develop things that could work better. It's called attacking from multiple fronts. The speech in August 2001 was a big sign to researchers and biology students, that it wouldn't be worth their time to work with ESC b/c of red tape. Bush has a a fundamental problem with accepting science and the application of it to policy. Global Warming, to him, isn't a problem despite melting ice caps, rising CO2 in the air and oceans (which will eventually kill off sea life). Evolution is bunk to him despite archaelogical, skeletal, carbon-dating, DNA, etc. evidence. Science is about collecting data and making logical conclusions based on the facts, something his administration hasn't been very good at all around. "In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." WTF! Effing READ the posts before you respond! I never said I support abortion. I said they're different issues -- and most Americans agree. I support life and finding ways to cure diseases that kill millions! There's too much political BS here. I can't really fault Kerry for his answer b/c the debates give you 90 seconds to talk about it. Same as all of the other simplistic responses both sides need to give. I've looked into this from both sides, because to be honest with you, a couple years ago I didn't know anything about the issue. I continue to research it now, becuase it makes me angry that people are ignoring scientific facts. Do I have to state all my credentials so I don't get an idiotic response like this? Ditto for me, except I'm something of an optimist and I think in broader terms and with an eye toward the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Nice copy and paste of ONE article. Do you have any idea what goes into a research paper? I suggest you go pick up a couple more books on the subject instead of a 3 second google search to try and prove your point. 67900[/snapback] Here are some articles you can read in the mean time, from the mainstream media that you probably didn't hear about: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/26/...ain619728.shtml http://cbsnewyork.com/healthwatch/health_s..._277115626.html http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus....R20020325g.html http://www.nbc17.com/health/2949989/detail.html Here is ONE article that outlines success stories from adult stem cell research, with all the footnotes and bibliographies to satisfy even you: http://www.cqnet.com.au/~user/dancasey/Adu...ss%20story.html That is what I call "copy and paste". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I never argued that the benefits of ASC aren't great news in preventing diseases. I agree and I didn't mean to imply you did. My point in emphasizing the success of ASC is that the average Joe does not know this and it is being deliberately hidden by the media to put pressure on advancing ESC funding. A couple years ago when I started looking into this, all I knew from the media and such was that GW was not willing to fund ESC research. I thought it must have been a hard stance to take since this research obviously has potential. It was only after I did research on my own that I found out about ASC research and the success they are having. ESC supporters are trying to advance their cause by invoking sympathy from people like Christopher Reeves and also by downgrading the advancement of ASC research. The same can be done for ESCs if you give researchers the time and some funding and not place hurdles in the way. ESCs and ASCs are different options along a similar approach. Both have the same funding options. ASC research did have problems and still does, but it has advanced far beyond ESCs, under the same funding and research conditions. I'm not opposed to looking to the future, but when it is rather obvious that ASCs is far exceeding any success of ESCs and ESCs has serious ethical concerns, why should the government fund it? There is no ban and ESCs can continue to be studied, but there is no reason to do so with government money. Bush has a a fundamental problem with accepting science and the application of it to policy. Sorry, I just don't agree with you here. I agree with GW on this and agree with him on Creation as opposed to evolution and in no way do my beliefs ignore science. Its too big a subject to get into here though. WTF! Effing READ the posts before you respond! I never said I support abortion. I said they're different issues -- and most Americans agree. I apologize, you did not say you support abortion. You did however say that "Bush has seen this issue through the lens of the abortion issue" and my point was simply that if anyone is seeing it through the abortion issue it is people like John Kerry. GW has scientific facts and successes to back him up - Kerry has potential and hope. But he does know giving in on this issue is a slip and gives ground to the pro-life side. Ditto for me, except I'm something of an optimist and I think in broader terms and with an eye toward the future. I don't see anything about my perspective that is not optimistic toward the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 ASC research did have problems and still does, but it has advanced far beyond ESCs, under the same funding and research conditions. 68028[/snapback] I don't know what kind of research you did, but that is blatantly false. NIH funding, in the last year reports were available, said that ASC research gets ~$150 million in funding, vs. ~$17 million for ESC. That's the same funding? Researchers who have labs that receive federal funding cannot do testing with ESC lines created after August 2001 (that does not have mouse cells mixed in) in those same labs, with those same microscopes, those same petri dishes, those same assistants. They literally need to buy different microscopes, lab space, etc. to do the research. Those are the same research conditions? That's like trying to compete in a marathon with your feet tied together. Sorry, I just don't agree with you here. I agree with GW on this and agree with him on Creation as opposed to evolution and in no way do my beliefs ignore science. Its too big a subject to get into here though. I think you've said quite enough right there. You can base your life and actions on a book of fiction written 2,000 years ago (written quite well, and some based on historical evidence, I admit. A lot written in parables and metaphor that too many people take literally). We all know how Islam has progressed being tied to the same thing. I don't advise replying to this paragraph b/c you're not going to influence me. I basically agree with the teachings w/o deifying the teacher. You have your beliefs, I have mine. I apologize, you did not say you support abortion. You did however say that "Bush has seen this issue through the lens of the abortion issue" and my point was simply that if anyone is seeing it through the abortion issue it is people like John Kerry. GW has scientific facts and successes to back him up - Kerry has potential and hope. But he does know giving in on this issue is a slip and gives ground to the pro-life side.I don't see anything about my perspective that is not optimistic toward the future. Somehow, I give him more credit than that. The issue is saving lives by ethically using the technology you're given. There are many differences and nuances b/w stem cells and abortion, scientifically and morally, that can stand the test of Candidate A saying Candidate B is giving up his or her beliefs. X is not Y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arondale Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I don't know what kind of research you did, but that is blatantly false. You are missing my point. I'm not talking about federal funding. I was making the point that both forms of stem cell research are not restricted within the private sector. There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research, despite what many people think. The discrepancy in federal funding and private funding proves my point . ASC is getting more because it is ethically viable, less risky and has proven results. A couple of the cases I mentioned in my first post were prior to 2001. Before any funding decisions were made, ASC advanced farther than ESC. To be honest, I would be fine if there was not federal funding for either. That way, the government is staying neutral and science will prove which is the best choice. I think you've said quite enough right there. You can base your life and actions on a book of fiction written 2,000 years ago (written quite well, and some based on historical evidence, I admit. A lot written in parables and metaphor). We all know how Islam has progressed being tied to the same thing. I don't advise replying to this paragraph b/c you're not going to influence me. I basically agree with the teachings w/o deifying the teacher. You have your beliefs, I have mine. Thats convenient. You take the chance to ridicule my beliefs, but advise me not to reply. Thanks for the respect. My beliefs have nothing to do with any of the facts I have stated, do they? I'm not pulling these scientific facts from the Bible am I? The Bible could be a fictional book as you say, but does that in any way change any of the facts I have given you? There are many differences and nuances b/w stem cells and abortion, scientifically and morally, that can stand the test of Candidate A saying Candidate B is giving up his or her beliefs. X is not Y. The core issue with stem cells and abortion is the right to life. People try to make nuances, but that is the foundational issue. The moral question behind any pre-born human life can be stated simply: is it wrong to kill pre-born humans? Most informed Pro-lifers affirm that both abortion and ESCR kill innocent human beings; therefore, both abortion and ESCR are wrong. Pro-choicers, by and large, deny it because to them, no bona fide human being is sacrificed. I could get in a completely new discussion on this if you like, but as for now I'll leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts