|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2004 : 15:12:15
|
I know I'm probably preaching to the choir here.... but G.W. Bush, our appointed president, really pisses me off.
The latest....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5210186/
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 16:16:08 [Permalink]
|
| Yet another reason to vote that dipshit out of office. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
 |
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 16:53:41 [Permalink]
|
That is unbelievably hurtful and disrespectful to the people who suffer from Alzheimer's and the like--and the families that must suffer along with them.
More evidence that our president is a narcissist, a dry drunk, or perhaps even a sociopath. How can supposedly have empathy for an embryo, yet no empathy for fully developed humans? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 19:34:52 [Permalink]
|
Yeah.... why isn't he pissed off about the invitro clinics throwing away the unused fertilized eggs? Which is what happens, since they can't donate them to any federally funded research programs.
I believe the root cause of this can be traced to money. Several of the large pharmacuticals have a multi-billion dollar anual industry treating diabetes (one of the major targets of stem cell research), the federal gov pays them a large percent of this money from the medicare bank accounts. These companies have no interest in curing diseases like diabetes, only in "treating" them. Bush placates two of his big contributors (radical fundies and pharacutical industries) by blocking this research from recieving federal money. Other people who might invest in this kind of research are reluctant to do so with the federal ban in place, they don't want to be seen publicly opposing the president.... especially if they have other interests (like current profit, tax incentives, ect...) to worry about.
I can only hope that Nancy Reagan stands up and tells people to vote for Kerry over this. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 20:13:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Yeah.... why isn't he pissed off about the invitro clinics throwing away the unused fertilized eggs? *bla*
This mystifies me the most every time I hear or follow debates about this. "Just throw them away guys, it's unethical to use them to try and save lives." Right. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 00:46:16 [Permalink]
|
DUDE-- "I believe the root cause of this can be traced to money."
Or basic morality.
RANDY-- " Yet another reason to vote that dipshit out of office."
Oh how I love an intelligent argument.
RENAE-- "That is unbelievably hurtful and disrespectful to the people who suffer from Alzheimer's and the like--and the families that must suffer along with them.
More evidence that our president is a narcissist, a dry drunk, or perhaps even a sociopath. How can supposedly have empathy for an embryo, yet no empathy for fully developed humans?"
It's more hurtful to the babies being killed. Even if they don't realize what a travisty is happening with there short lives, all thanks to some who think that there better than them.
All I can say is 9/11 is nothing compared to the millions and millions of souls lost through abortion. |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 05:31:12 [Permalink]
|
C88, this isn't about abortion. It's about embryos that are discarded in the process of fertility treatments. From the NIH:
quote:
They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst.
Perhaps you could sit down with Michael J. Fox or someone else with Parkinson's Disease, and explain that these embryos are more important than the pain and disability he faces.
Please explain why we should show more compassion for a cluster of cells than for real live people. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 06:31:48 [Permalink]
|
Renae wrote:quote:
Perhaps you could sit down with Michael J. Fox or someone else with Parkinson's Disease, and explain that these embryos are more important than the pain and disability he faces.
I think it's really important here to stress hard to people like creation88 that the embryos in question are going to be thrown away. I mean, stressed much more than your "this isn't about abortion" line, Renae. These "babies" will never breathe or otherwise live no matter what. Whether they're used for stem-cell research or not, the end result is that most of the embryo will wind up discarded.
C88 needs to sit down with someone with a disease for which this research could possibly do some good, and tell them, point blank, that it's more important to throw the embryos away entirely than it is to use parts of them to (we hope) relieve others' pain.
(And then he needs to explain to me how he knows that abortion is not a part of God's Plan, anyway. "Millions of souls lost" my ass - they're with GOD now! Can't he keep his own frigging religious principles straight?) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 11:23:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
It's more hurtful to the babies being killed. Even if they don't realize what a travisty is happening with there short lives, all thanks to some who think that there better than them.
All I can say is 9/11 is nothing compared to the millions and millions of souls lost through abortion.
Since I'm getting tired of this argument, let me repeat this once more, loud and clear, even though Dave already pointed this out.
This is NOT about abortion. This is about blastocysts used for implantation for the use of In Vitro Fertilisation. Normally, some 10 to 20 blastocysts (lumps of about 8 to 16 cells) are formed, of which a maximum of (IIRC) 5 is implanted in the mother's womb. The rest is going to be discarded, UNLESS they use them for embryonic stem cell research.
So, once again, NOT abortion but the use of embryonic stem cells OTHERWISE DISCARDED.
If you want to be somewhat ethical, in stead of downright hypocritical, you should protest against the discarding of these cells, not against using them in experiments. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 12:32:33 [Permalink]
|
| GW and all the political policy he represents have got to go. I once saw a documentary about the rise of Arab culture when Europe was in the Dark Ages. The assertion was that the vibrant early Arab/Islamic culture ground to stagnation essentially due to the imposition of strict religous restrictions on ideas. The religous right in the US, and anywhere in the world for that matter, is attempting to do the same thing. We've enjoyed the cutting edge in everything economic and scientific for so long that we forget how we got here: freedom and separation between government and religion. This type of policy, if not rejected, will result in the US falling behind the rest of the world in technological development and will result in the further (I believe it's already begun) socio-economic decline of our nation. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 14:48:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
It's more hurtful to the babies being killed. Even if they don't realize what a travisty is happening with there short lives, all thanks to some who think that there better than them.
All I can say is 9/11 is nothing compared to the millions and millions of souls lost through abortion.
God himself performed abortions if I interpret some verses correctly, and killed people including babies. Of course, he doesn't exist in real life, but anyway. Also, why not use the embryos for research if they're not being used at all anyway? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 14:48:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
DUDE-- "I believe the root cause of this can be traced to money."
Or basic morality.
C88....
I have to seriously restrain myself from the use of a series of ad-hom abusive remarks in this instance.
It seems that you have been seriously misled by whatever source you obtain your info from.
It has been pointed out by many here, and you can verify it with one call to your local fertility clinic, that the excess material from invitro fertilization is thrown away.
I will agree there is a serious issue of morality here. That being the deliberate attempt to stop the most promising line of research in the search for cures for some seriously debilitating diseases. When you examine the financial aspect (i.e. who profits from this policy) it becomes clear that the moral issue is one of corporate/political greed.
The treatment of diabetes alone is a multibillion dollar industry. The pharmacutical companies who manufacture the medicine and other products have no interest in curing the disease. They also are large contributors to G.W. Bush's campaign. And what pays these companies the most for these treatments? Medicare. Your and my tax dollars.
The fundie religious groups who oppose stem cell research also are large contributors to W's election efforts. They also have no idea, for the large part, what stem cell research entails. You, C88, have been misled. Stem cells for research do not come from abortions or abortion clinics. They are donated by people who use the services of invitro clinics. People who would rather see their eggs/sperm put to use in efforts to combat some of the most crippling diseases we know of than see them just discarded.
Does your version of basic morality include the needless suffering of people?
I, for one, feel that G.W. Bush and his policy are directly harmfull to my family and myself personally. Diabetes and Alzheimer's have both been experienced by people I care about. The possibility of these diseases effecting me (or my children if I chose to ever have any) is one that I don't care for.
It is in everyones best interest (except for the companies that treat these diseases) to find cures.
Stem cell research is the most promising area we have for this. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 18:43:57 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
The pharmacutical companies who manufacture the medicine and other products have no interest in curing the disease.
I believe you are incorrect with this premise of your argument, although I haven't run the appropriate numbers for diabetes, and admit complete cluelessness regarding drugs used to treat Alzheimer's (I didn't think there were any).
I have, however, run an analysis for psoriasis medications, as the same argument (that drug companies aren't interested in curing psoriasis, since treatment is allegedly better for their bottom lines), and found it to be incorrect. The article I wrote about it - copied whole into an industry report two years after I wrote it - can be found on my personal web site, titled The Economic Effects of a Psoriasis Cure. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 21:42:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 18:43:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pharmacutical companies who manufacture the medicine and other products have no interest in curing the disease.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave W. wrote:
I believe you are incorrect with this premise of your argument, although I haven't run the appropriate numbers for diabetes, and admit complete cluelessness regarding drugs used to treat Alzheimer's (I didn't think there were any).
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/3/917
quote:
Direct medical expenditures alone totaled $91.8 billion and comprised $23.2 billion for diabetes care, $24.6 billion for chronic complications attributable to diabetes, and $44.1 billion for excess prevalence of general medical conditions
That's just for one year. When the babyboomers have their full impact on our healthcare system (in the next 10-20 years) the numbers will only go up.
This is an immense ammount of money.... If you think that a cure is going to provide more that 23.2 billion a year for the people who find and sell it.... I would have to disagree. Even if they could make this much money initially (while I am not an expert in medical cost analysis, I don't think a cure could generate this kind of $$), it would have a steep dropoff as the number of people needing the cure drops.
Also, due to the multiple complications attributed to diabetes and the resultant impact on the overall cost of the treatment for the disease, you cannot draw a reasonable comparison between psoriasis and diabetes when calculating the impact of a cure. Chronic complications of diabetes cost as much as the care for the disease, and the general poor health of diabetics costs as much as both combined.
I understand that these are overall cost numbers, and the share of the drug companies themselves is less... (I can't find the exact info for just supplies/drugs) the number is still going to be signifigant. Once you add in the drug/supply costs to treat the direct complications of diabetes the number gets even bigger. Add in the drug/supply costs for the chronic/long term debilitating effects, and it's higher yet. (much higher than the treatment for psoriasis, for example)
What I fail to find is a motivation for companies to trade multibillion dollar a year sales for a cure. This (even in your psoraisis example Dave) fails to consider longterm profitability. Why trade $2B a year (for the forseable future) for uncertain profit beyond the immediate demand for the cure?
Yes, the company that finds one will profit greatly over the short term. Yes, the scientist who discovers the cure will prob win a Nobel Prize. However, the longterm interest is not served.
--------------------------------------------------------------
And yes, there are a few new drugs in the works for treatment of Alzheimer's symptoms. Also, there are several now in use (AChE inhibitors, for example). None can stop or reverse the disease, only slow it's progress....
As to the financial aspects of treatment vs cure for Alzheimer's? I have no idea. This one may verywell have a higher profit margin if there were a cure.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/15/2004 22:08:06 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 04:43:09 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I have to chime in here about biotech companies. I was an Executive Assistant to some of the top biotech scientists in town. I saw no evidence of a large conspiracy to hide scientific information or to studiously avoid a cure.
I don't know if you realize it, but your opinion essentially indicts the entire biotech scientist community. You're slamming their ethics as scientists and as humans; as with the 'liberal' media charge, you're saying that an entire profession can't do the job it's trained to do.
A true scientist will purse the science wherever it leads, even if it leads to "failure"--ie, that a drug doesn't work or that a line of research is fruitless. Are there unethical or inept scientists? Of course. But I fail to see how indicting an entire profession could be in any way fair or accurate. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
