Stem Cell Research

[Phred]

The House and the Senate are going to pass bills overturning the President's limitations on stem cell research and the President is going to veto it. Why? Because he values human life too much to destroy it.

What a crock!!! Err on the side of life but invade Iraq. Err on the side of life but let an assault weapons ban expire. This administration makes choices all the time about the relative value of life. American lives are more valuble than Iraqi lives it would seem. But in the case of stem cells there can be no choice. No matter the cost it must be allowed to "live".

An embryo... if it's human life and it's being killed, someone please tell me... how do you know? Most would say, most reasonable people would say, that an embryo is dead when it stops dividing. Guess what? An embryo in a freezer has stopped dividing. It's dead and stands no chance of ever starting to divide again unless it's implanted. Something unlikely to ever happen.

So why the debate? It's simple... religious reasons. Bush and his ilk believe that a human receives its soul at conception. Thus, every embryo is as human as any 40-year old car salesman. So... because Bush believes this everyone must live with the results. If you believe this then you're forcing your religious belief upon everyone else.

Tell you what. If you believe this so strongly you are free not to partake in any stem-cell based treatments. You can refuse to let your bodily parts be used in any manner relating to this issue. You can even stop trying to get pregnant with medical help. But what makes you think you have a right to stop me from doing the opposite?

.

 

[trunks2k]

I support stem cell research not so much for the reasons you describe, but mostly because one way or another the embryo is going to be destroyed. The embryos come from the left overs from artificial insemination attempts. If those embyos are going to be destroyed anyways, why not at least put them to good use?

 

[Spherical Time]

I support stem cell research not so much for the reasons you describe, but mostly because one way or another the embryo is going to be destroyed. The embryos come from the left overs from artificial insemination attempts. If those embyos are going to be destroyed anyways, why not at least put them to good use?

I agree. There are so many embryos that will simply be trashed, so why they can't contribute to our understanding of human biology seems indefensible.

If you're lying on the operating table, and the doctor says "You're not going to live, do you want to donate your organs," why should you say no? Are you going to be using those organs after death?

 

[Archivist]

Thus, every embryo is as human as any 40-year old car salesman.

Are car salesmen human???

BTW, I agree that stem-cell research should be funded.

 

[Code-Monkey]

Why are folks so intent on having the federal government fund it?

The government is just the middle-man -- if you want to fund research, then you don't need the federal government. And on the flip side, clearly some people have moral issues with it, why do folks feel like they need to force others to do stuff they're morally uncomfortable with when they can do it themselves without any problem?

 

[Seaside Mists]

The House and the Senate are going to pass bills overturning the President's limitations on stem cell research and the President is going to veto it. Why? Because he values human life too much to destroy it.

What a crock!!! Err on the side of life but invade Iraq. Err on the side of life but let an assault weapons ban expire. This administration makes choices all the time about the relative value of life. American lives are more valuble than Iraqi lives it would seem. But in the case of stem cells there can be no choice. No matter the cost it must be allowed to "live".

An embryo... if it's human life and it's being killed, someone please tell me... how do you know? Most would say, most reasonable people would say, that an embryo is dead when it stops dividing. Guess what? An embryo in a freezer has stopped dividing. It's dead and stands no chance of ever starting to divide again unless it's implanted. Something unlikely to ever happen.

So why the debate? It's simple... religious reasons. Bush and his ilk believe that a human receives its soul at conception. Thus, every embryo is as human as any 40-year old car salesman. So... because Bush believes this everyone must live with the results. If you believe this then you're forcing your religious belief upon everyone else.

Tell you what. If you believe this so strongly you are free not to partake in any stem-cell based treatments. You can refuse to let your bodily parts be used in any manner relating to this issue. You can even stop trying to get pregnant with medical help. But what makes you think you have a right to stop me from doing the opposite?

.

I agree with and support stem cell research for the same way I agree with and support organ donation. I think that there is nothing immoral about a person, or a person's family, or parents, to opt to donate the organs of a loved one or child to help the life of another. What a beautiful gift to give to somebody. In a way, one can almost comfort themself with the thought that their loved one hasn't completely died, since their body continues to help the lives of others.

I also feel there's nothing immoral about a couple deciding that an embryo of theirs should go to help the life of another person. I think in cases such as this, where the subjects who're doing the donating are obviously not in a position where life is a reasonable to expect. If life isn't a reasonable outcome of the situation, it is pointless to use the sancity of life as an excuse against the situation.

 

[Archivist]

Why are folks so intent on having the federal government fund it?

The government is just the middle-man -- if you want to fund research, then you don't need the federal government. And on the flip side, clearly some people have moral issues with it, why do folks feel like they need to force others to do stuff they're morally uncomfortable with when they can do it themselves without any problem?

I might agree were it not for the fact that the federal government is already in the medical research business.

We could also eliminate many government programs--from water treatment to nuclear weapons to school funding--if the government got out of every activity to which some people were morally opposed.

 

[Seaside Mists]

I might agree were it not for the fact that the federal government is already in the medical research business.

We could also eliminate many government programs--from water treatment to nuclear weapons to school funding--if the government got out of every activity to which some people were morally opposed.

I didn't know that people were morally opposed to funding schools? What possible reason could people be opposed morally to funding schools?

 

[Monica02]

Every person walking around was an embryo. Human embryos are human beings. Bush, the Senate and House's decision to go to war with Iraq does not make an embryo not human. In some peoples eyes this might make Bush a hypocrite, but embryonic stem cell research is still wrong. If embryonic stem cell research would yield lucrative cures for the pharmecutical industries then they would fund the research themseves, instead of expecting taxpayers to pay for it. Federal or state funding just will allow the drug companies to not pay for the research, and when it proves to be a dismal failure, they will be out less money.

 

[Monica02]

I didn't know that people were morally opposed to funding schools? What possible reason could people be opposed morally to funding schools?

Most public schools are inefficient money pits. I would like to see the entire public school system given over to private or parochial systems, which would manage the money better, and allow parents to sent their children to the schools of their choice. Public schools increasingly are teaching morals and ideas which are contrary to a family's beliefs.

 

[billwald]

I'm morally against the Fed govt funding anything not in the origional Constitutional mandate - roads, Post Office, Bureau of Standards, Navy. Anythng I forgot?

The states can fund most anything they choose.

 

[Seaside Mists]

Most public schools are inefficient money pits. I would like to see the entire public school system given over to private or parochial systems, which would manage the money better, and allow parents to sent their children to the schools of their choice. Public schools increasingly are teaching morals and ideas which are contrary to a family's beliefs.

So not funding them anymore would make them less inefficient money pits?

This is like the stem cell thing where people say that we shouldn't use embryos for research because that would ruin somebody's life, ignoring the fact that by not doing stem cell research somebody else's life gets ruined.

 

[Monica02]

So not funding them anymore would make them less inefficient money pits?

This is like the stem cell thing where people say that we shouldn't use embryos for research because that would ruin somebody's life, ignoring the fact that by not doing stem cell research somebody else's life gets ruined.

Not funding the public schools would privatize the system and force competition. Right now the public schools and the teacher's unions have a monopoly on tax monies for education. I really do not see how having six adults, some making about $85,000/ year reading stories and supervising five playtimes in a half day, 9 month, kindergarten class of 13 kids could be efficient. One teacher should be able to handle 13 5 year olds for five hours.

I noticed your Catholic icon. You should do some studying on your faith and perhaps you will understand your Church's teaching on human life.

 

[maha]

Yeah, stem cell research could do a lot of good. Bush is an idiot and I didn't vote for him, but at least he kicked Sadaam Hussein's butt. That's the one thing that I can give him credit for.

 

[gaijin178]

I didn't know that people were morally opposed to funding schools? What possible reason could people be opposed morally to funding schools?

You would be surprised I think Seaside Mists. The president hasn't made it a priority. He has supported the cutting of many federally funded programs which help students get ahead and have more opportunities and acces to a college education. A lot of people feel that education shouldn't be the problem of the Federal government and should rely on state funding. My governor has not done much better and has not supported educational programs to improve our public education in California. He has cut back similar programs as the president. We are the 47th in the country as far as funding per pupil in california, 47th in the country as far as performance, and have a counselor to student ratio of 1:1041.

Some people don't feel that education is something everyone needs but at least everyone should have access to it. Now with the No Child Left Behind Act, the provision allowing the military to gather information about students for recruitment purposes is changing as well. It has since been outsourced to a private company that does the marketing for Tower Records. These folks will gather student information such as Names, numbers, SSN, Addresses, grade point averages and if they wanted to, what CD's and DVD's they are buying for recruitment purposes. The sad thing is that these recruiters often make the GI bill look like a good way to help pay for college when in reality, they will never get the $50-70,000 promised unless they are in a highly skilled position such as being a doctor or a lawyer. So since other federally funded programs are being cut which allow access to higher education, they are being put in place by signing up for the military. Sounds moral? Not at all.

Not to hijack the thread too much, I think that it is the same with stem cell research. Americans are so quick to fight anything that scares them. More money is being spent on a pointless war than on education and research for it's citizens. That is a morality which I cannot support. More research and education is what we need. Especially since we are so far behind other "Westernized" countries based on standardized test scores in math and science.

 

[comana]

Not funding the public schools would privatize the system and force competition. Right now the public schools and the teacher's unions have a monopoly on tax monies for education. I really do not see how having six adults, some making about $85,000/ year reading stories and supervising five playtimes in a half day, 9 month, kindergarten class of 13 kids could be efficient. One teacher should be able to handle 13 5 year olds for five hours.

I noticed your Catholic icon. You should do some studying on your faith and perhaps you will understand your Church's teaching on human life.

You should take that up with your school board. Most school districts do not have that kind of money and teachers average less that 40K a year. My school district happens to be excellent and I would gladly approve that kind of salary. Teachers deserve more money for their job.

As to stem cell research, drug companies already charge too much for their products. A little offset by the government serves to benefit more at a lower cost in the end.

 

[Monica02]

You should take that up with your school board. Most school districts do not have that kind of money and teachers average less that 40K a year. My school district happens to be excellent and I would gladly approve that kind of salary. Teachers deserve more money for their job.

As to stem cell research, drug companies already charge too much for their products. A little offset by the government serves to benefit more at a lower cost in the end.

I would be less upset with the kindergarten example if the teacher did not tell me (I was subbing that day) to quit correcting the children's incorrect spelling. She told me that the teaching method they use allows the kids to simply sound out words, any thing is okay, even if the word was not spelled correctly. Yeah - six adults, all kinds of school supplies, nice building and playground - all so the kid can spell crab --crb-- and not be corrected.

Taxpayers paying the salaries of 1000 or so Chicago teachers and subs (minimum $90,000 for the sub salaries) so the teachers could travel to Springfield for a day of lobbying for the union? Huh?????

I do not believe that my tax mony should be used to fund embryonic stem cell research (I do not believe it should be done at all). It should be illegal. Regarding cost, research costs a certain amount of money, whether it comes from taxes or private funding. Even if the drug companies will charge less for a drug, the research was paid for by someone. I would prefer that I not be forced to fund such an immoral activity.

 

[comana]

Fair enough with your moral objection, however, the government paying for the research spreads the cost over all taxpayers vs drug companies who focus on those who use their drugs. I am not for government involvement in many things, but when it serves to benenfit the majority I am.

And if your schools pay that kind of money to teachers you should consider a career change and teach. And as a side note, I understand your concern with the spelling methods, but at the K level it can actually be quite beneficial. It encourages the child to think about sounds and letters before memorization.

 

[gaijin178]

Everything that I can tell from what I have read about stem cell research as proposed by those in legislation who support it would be from embryos which have expired due to natural causes or because they were legally aborted for whatever reason. I will never understand why people will say that it is immoral to use something which was already expired to further research to help humans. It's the same reason why I don't understand the Jehova's Wittness folks who would rather die than take a blood transfussion. It just doesn't make any sense. On the other hand, I understand some peoples personal convictions to seem weird as is why I have made the choice not to eat meat. But because I choose not to eat meat doesn't effect your right to eat meat. The same way with stem cell research. You don't want stem cell research to be federally funded yet an unjust war might be ok? (BTW, I don't know your views on the war and don't want to get the debate more off topic, just using an example)

 

[Seaside Mists]

Not funding the public schools would privatize the system and force competition. Right now the public schools and the teacher's unions have a monopoly on tax monies for education. I really do not see how having six adults, some making about $85,000/ year reading stories and supervising five playtimes in a half day, 9 month, kindergarten class of 13 kids could be efficient. One teacher should be able to handle 13 5 year olds for five hours.

Man, you must not be involved with the education system. When I was, teachers weren't being paid $85,000 a year (the highest paid teacher I knew made $42,000). I don't think I've ever met a teacher that was paid that much. And I worked at a private school!

As to the ease of 1 teacher handling 13 kids... I think that question is easily answered by asking you if you think that you alone could handle 13 kids, some of whom have disabilities, social problems, behavior issues, violence issues, and so on.

Take a field trip to your local school and see what teachers deal with on all fronts, from the students, the parents, the administration, and the out-of-pocket and donated time that teachers put into teaching that they don't get paid for. I bet you'll be shocked. When I worked as a teachers aide, I was paid $12 an hour to help a teacher handle 31 students with varying degrees of social difficulties and issues (non-existant to extreme). I worked 40 hours on the clock each week, and an average of 15 off the clock that I didn't get paid for a week. My co-teacher worked an average 20 over without pay each week.

And the things that happen during those 15 hours... Yikes. Everything from grading papers, putting together lesson/activity plans, coordinating after school projects, in school parent meetings, at home phone calls from angry parents, shopping trips for resources and tools for school that are paid for out of pocket and not reimbursed by the school... It's just nuts!! There's nothing like spending 45 minutes on the phone with a disgruntled parent who's upset that the red marker and the "x" marks next to incorrect questions on homework makes their child feel bad about themselves. Or the furious parent who calls at 9pm because they're upset their child got restrained after trying to stab a student with a pencil after a temper tantrum because "teachers should know how to talk to kids without touching them," just after you get off the phone with the parent of the kid who was almost stabbed because "what kind of class are you running where kids can try to stab other kids." And of course, interestingly both parents want the other kid thrown out for "provoking the situation."

Ah... One day out of the life of a assistant teacher to K graders in a private school.

Anyway, we're losing sight of the OT, so I'll let it drop there.

I noticed your Catholic icon. You should do some studying on your faith and perhaps you will understand your Church's teaching on human life.

~sigh~ I'm well aware of my faith and I'm well aware of what modern day teachings on these politically charged issues are. However, being a Catholic Mystic I believe that the church's stance on these issues is not in line with what Jesus would want for us and I believe that the church has become too clouded by politics, allowing them to merge dangerously as a religious practice.

I appreciate what some Catholics believe and I respect their right to believe it, and likewise I'd hope that the same courtesy be extended the opposite direction.