U.S. Stem Cell Research Finally Unshackled

[Terry Penrod]

.

I was very happy to read in the article linked below that the severe restrictions on stem cell research in America will finally be lifted starting on Monday.

Not being able to access new, unwanted embryos from fertility clinics has seriously stalled this critical work. Work that could lead directly to a wide variety of revolutionary medical treatments for crippling injuries.

With the ability to use those highly morphable embrionic stem cells and no longer hampered by ridiculous finiancial limitations, researchers can hopefully make much more progress faster. For anyone stuck in a wheelchair, this will come as the best news they've heard in a long time - perhaps ever.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090306/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stem_cells

Cheers, Terry

[chip5541]

So another program for the tax payers to fund.

[Terry Penrod]

.

So another program for the tax payers to fund.

We taxpayers are already funding stem-cell research Chip.

Only now, the people doing that important work here in America will no longer be seriously hampered by such a fundamental restriction on what type of cells they can access.

They will also no longer be required to maintain separate records and facilties. So we will actually be saving a lot of money while also giving these scientists the essential tools they need to develop cures for paralysis from spinal injuries and other crippling conditions.

There is a reasonable chance they might even be able to cure blindness by stimulating new optic-cell growth and possibly repair severe brain damage, failing human hearts, kidneys, livers and other vital organs. Think about that Chip.

Cheers, Terry

[cci]

.




There is a reasonable chance they might even be able to cure blindness by stimulating new optic-cell growth and possibly repair severe brain damage, failing human hearts, kidneys, livers and other vital organs. Think about that Chip.



Yeah, and think about how it will be accomplished at the expense on the destruction of human embryos --- destroying life to prolong, save and/or give life. How ironic is that? not to mention this oxymoron of sorts: Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital --- or is this hospital a hospital for the harvesting of children?

[Rob]

destroying life to prolong, save and/or give life. How ironic is that? You mean like defending ourselves during war or even instigating it in the name of defending ourselves like in Iraq?

I always wondered how many people who are against stem cell research have ever intentionally squashed a bug.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Yeah, and think about how it will be accomplished at the expense on the destruction of human embryos --- destroying life to prolong, save and/or give life. How ironic is that? not to mention this oxymoron of sorts: Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children's Hospital --- or is this hospital a hospital for the harvesting of children?

Using UNWANTED embryos destined for the medical waste bins of fertility clinics is NOT "destroying life" CCI. It is a perfectly ethical, wise and very humane use of a basic biological component that possesses the POTENTIAL for self-sustaining life - as well as the ability to advance research for badly needed cures.

Let's examine the choices here. Throw the embryos away or use them to help blind people see and paralyzed people walk.

That's a no-brainer for me.

Too bad some people like Sarah Plain and other pentecostally inflicted idiots can't think their way through the actual scenario.

Hey, here's a thought - Perhaps if we use some of these embryos to help people like poor, mentally deficient Sarah grow some extra brain cells, she might be able to see reality a bit more clearly.

Cheers, Terry

[Mighty Pirate]

They are making steady progress in working with ordinary body cells so in a couple of years the embryo part will be unneccessary.

This is important medical research that will alleviate the suffering of millions from diseases like diabetes, Parkingson's, Alzehimers and other nasties we presently have no cure for. Treatments, medications and care for these patients is already draining our medical budgets and will continue to do so as the population ages.

So there is a pressing financial incentive as well as a humane one.

As for wasting life - more babies die in miscarriages than in stem cell research so just how bloody special is an embryo to 'The Creator'?

And without a host the embroys can never become human beings. In fact, I recall when IVF first occurred (Louise Brown was the first baby) the Vatican was against such forms of conception and lots of people said those babies would be born without souls. I'm old enough to remember similar stuff being said when the first heart transplant happened as well.

[chip5541]

Wow! Just think of the Carbon Footprint of all the people that will be helped.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Wow! Just think of the Carbon Footprint of all the people that will be helped.

You mean the ones that may finally now be able to walk and see, hold a wider range of jobs, take care of themselves and their families, and more fully contribute to society as opposed to being a huge drain on the "system"?

Are those the people you're referring so crassly to Chip? The ones you seem to view as nothing more than a burden and a numerical source of added pollution?

Serious or not man, that is a disgustingly cold thought.

I'll take happy, healthy, productive human beings over crippled, blind, unhappy ones any day.

Cheers, Terry

[Mighty Pirate]

Wow! Just think of the Carbon Footprint of all the people that will be helped.

Ahh.... the voice of a youngish person in good health who thinks old age won't happen to him. Time will soften your callousness.

In the meantime, have you stopped to consider the carbon footprint of a modern hospital?

[Lou Cypher]

Too bad some people like Sarah Plain and other pentecostally inflicted idiots can't think their way through the actual scenario.

Hey, here's a thought - Perhaps if we use some of these embryos to help people like poor, mentally deficient Sarah grow some extra brain cells, she might be able to see reality a bit more clearly.

Why pull a Plainsman and turn this thread into a polical bashfest, theres no need for it, it's verging on trolling.

Lou :globe:

[chip5541]

Now you know how I feel concerning Embrionic Stemcell Research. To destroy what makes up life to prolong the life of others is wrong. Stem cells can be collected from other sources including the ambilical (sp??) cord or even using adult stem cells.

I am well aware of the ravages of aging. As a minor stroke survivor myself and family members with issues, it has hit very close to home.

And BTW. I hate the term Carbon Footprint. It's a damn slogan.. a bumper sticker.

[Rob]

Ahh.... the voice of a youngish person in good health who thinks old age won't happen to him

Chip is already old and can therefore tell us to get off his damn lawn whenever he wants.

[chip5541]

Better yet, ask my Grandma. She is 102 and loves playing Hot Shots Golf :thumbup:

oh wait a minute.. Chip is already old

yeah, Homie don't think so :crazy:

[Terry Penrod]

.

Why pull a Plainsman and turn this thread into a polical bashfest, theres no need for it, it's verging on trolling.

Lou :globe:

I started this thread Lou and I had a very good reason for bringing politics into it.

First of all, the ONLY reason embrionic stem cell research was put back eight years, is because George Bush agreed with self-righteous morons like Sarah Palin who can't understand the difference between an unwanted embryro (that was going to be destroyed anyway) and a fully developed baby.

This entire issue has been about rigidly archaic religious beliefs governing political policy, which in turn has directly hurt legitimate medical research and caused countless human beings to suffer much longer than necessary.

Every year lost to this ban was another year that our brightest scientists could not fully use the single best chance we have for discovering cures to a complete spectrum of crippling conditions. The people who caused this delay - and all the additional human suffering that came with it - deserve to be called out on the carpet.

This idiotic ban was been the most tragic waste of scientific resources I can think of. It served absolutely no purpose other than to seriously retard critically important medical research for eight long years.

Cheers, Terry

[pcfreak]

I'm on the fence with this debate.

On one side I think that scientists who are tryng to find ways to prolong human life shouldn't be allowed to do so. We die for a reason, to make way for our offspring. As much as we would all like to live that much longer, I find this worrying. The planet we live on has a finite amount of resources available for us to exploit, and also a finite amount of land on which we can all live. Prolonging life genetically could, and in my opinion would, be a very dangerous thing.

On the other side, I welcome the research into diseases and disabling conditions. If we can find cures or treatments, then we have a moral responsibility to do so. But I hope we can find another way without having to use human embryos.

[Terry Penrod]

.

The problem Stuart is that stem cells from human embryos are far and away the best material to work with for finding these cures.

Containing the core DNA coding for 210 different types of body tissue, they are much more "morphable" than adult stem cells and medical advancements will accelerate sharply now that our best research scientists can access them.

That having been said, I am as concerned as anyone else with the possibility of abuse. I only support the use of stem cells from unwanted embyros that were destined for the waste bin anyway. I do not want us to aggressively create and harvest new human embyros for the sole purpose of experiments - let alone profit. There are already more than enough of those produced at fertility clinics and as recently illustrated in the "octomom" case, we have already seen an extreme example of another, opposite kind of abuse - using too many embryos on a mentally unbalanced women who already had six kids she can't support.

By lifting this restriction, starting tomorrow some of the best minds in the world can finally begin working with embryos like the extra ones that should never have been implanted in Nadya Suleman to begin with

In most cases, far more embryos are created than actually needed for legitimate fertility procedures. So many of them are disposed of like garbage. I say we have an obilgation not to throw them away, but instead to use them in helping crippled people walk and blind people see.

Cheers, Terry

.

[chip5541]

Reminds me of FMA

at @ 2:40 mark.

W5cfeSb18Vw

Listen to what Tucker says when Al asks him why. When you lose sight of the creation of life and the price of life is no more than what you see laying in the dish then we begin the patch of self destruction as a species.

[Mighty Pirate]

The entire argument that we should live (and die) as naturally as possible - get back to our natural roots as a species, etc, etc, falls apart when you think of how far we have already come.

We wash therefore all sorts of bugs no longer kill us. Is this a natural thing?

We medicate therefore all sorts of diseases are fought and defeated. Should we be interferring like this?

We operate. Isn't that playing God? Should we stop getting above ourselves?

And we manipulate our environment - we build houses, gp exploiring, make clothes, tools and machines and travel beyond our physical capacity.

In short, we no longer adhere to the physical limitations our species was born to. Why stop developing now?

Improving our health will enhance our lives but I don't expect immortality will ever happen.

Are people really afraid that we'll step on God's toes or that our scientists will accidentally unleash upon us something that will destroy us?

[chip5541]

WASHINGTON (AP) - A family desperate to save a child from a lethal brain disease sought highly experimental injections of fetal stem cells—injections that triggered tumors in the boy's brain and spinal cord, Israeli scientists reported Tuesday.

Considering how many reports of infected rats, monkeys and other animals that have escaped into teh public, yeah I do believe that even with all the care in teh world something bad could be released.

Eith way I think you miss my point. I am not saying that we should not do anything but when stem cells can be harvested by other means (adults stem cell or ambilical cord) then why screw with fetal stem cells? Now, please correct me if I am wrong but the ban on fetal stem cell research did not stop the research but just stopped federal funding. They could still do stem cell research, it just was not federaly funded.

[pcfreak]

We wash therefore all sorts of bugs no longer kill us. Is this a natural thing? We medicate therefore all sorts of diseases are fought and defeated. Should we be interferring like this?

Actually, we haven't defeated quite alot of the diseases that we thought we had. There are quite a few infectious disease causing organisms that have become immune to some antibiotics, due to over-prescription of these drugs. Some diseases are seeing worrying increases. Tuberculosis, gonorrhea, malaria, and childhood ear infections amongst others are all becoming much harder to treat with antibiotics. In fact some disease causing organisms have become resistant to all known and established forms of antibiotic treatment, and the only other treatments for these are experimental and potentially toxic drugs.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be looking for cures, but we could be facing the task of having to rediscover new cures all over again. And the reason for this is because we got so cocky that we thought we had beaten mother nature. Doctors were dishing out the new wonder drugs willie nillie, without truly knowing the consequences of doing so. Some doctors were willing to prescribe antibiotics before they had even given their patients a full and thorough checkover. Some were even prescribing for viral illnesses, which antibiotics have no effect on.

From the World Health Organisation's fact sheet (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs268/en/) on the antimicrobial resistance problem:

The widespread use of antimicrobials outside human medicine is of serious concern given the alarming emergence in humans of bacteria, which have acquired, through this use, resistance to antimicrobials. Most of the rising antimicrobial resistance problem in human medicine is due to the overuse and misuse of antimicrobials by doctors, other health personnel and patients.

However, some of the newly-emerging resistant bacteria in animals are transmitted to humans; mainly via meat and other food of animal origin or through direct contact with farm animals. The best-known examples are the foodborne pathogenic bacteria Salmonella and Campylobacter and the commensal (harmless in healthy persons and animals) bacteria Enterococcus. Research has shown that resistance of these bacteria to classic treatment in humans is often a consequence of the use of certain antimicrobials in agriculture.

Further study is required to investigate other possible ways of transmission of antimicrobial resistant bacteria to humans. For example, the impact on human health of the widespread distribution of non-metabolized antimicrobials through manure and other effluents from farm animals into the environment is still unknown.

This is one of the reasons that genetic research worries me. As a human race, we are constantly striving to push the boundaries, but we often do so without being able to see the larger picture and the ramifications of our actions. I would love to be able to see cures being found for the major diseases and conditions. But I also worry that playing god may come back to bite us on the bum in the future, as it seems to be doing regarding antibiotics. Don't take this as me saying we shouldn't be carrying out research, because I'm not. What I am saying is that it does worry me enough to question it.

[Terry Penrod]

.

I understand and share your overriding concerns Stuart. But we can not let fear of a doomsday scenario stop legitimate medical research aimed at finding cures for specific existing diseases or conditions.

Regarding Chip's previous comment about using stem cells from other sources, they simply are not as effective. Embryonic stem cells are unique in their properties and they represent the best chance we have for finding these cures.

Since we produce far more of them than needed for normal fertility procedures, many get thrown away. Why not use them for a good cause instead of flushing them down the toilet?

Cheers, Terry

[Rafal Dudek]

There is no reason to be using embrionic stem cells when adult stem cells are pretty much the same. Easier to work? Sure, because they don't have to change anything. Bringing adult stem cell down to act as embrionic stem cell is not that difficult and it doesn't destroy life in the process.

Thats about as far as I know about the stem cells. My wife knows a hell lot more on this topic and she is totally against embrionic stem cell research.

[Terry Penrod]

.

There is no reason to be using embrionic stem cells when adult stem cells are pretty much the same. Easier to work? Sure, because they don't have to change anything. Bringing adult stem cell down to act as embrionic stem cell is not that difficult and it doesn't destroy life in the process.

Thats about as far as I know about the stem cells. My wife knows a hell lot more on this topic and she is totally against embrionic stem cell research.

Rafal, who told you that altering adult stem cells to revert back to the same pluripotent state of embryoinc stem cells is "not that difficult"?

That aside, we know adult stem cells are rare compared to embryonic stem cells. The latter are already pluripotent (morphable) and plentiful. They also multiply very easily and maintain their unique properties in the process. This is important because researchers need so many of them to conduct a wide array of tests during this experimental phase.

Later (perhaps) we can learn to extract, alter and accelerate growth of adult stem cells, which may also lead to donor-specific procedures in which organ / tissue rejection in eliminated. But until we reach that point, embryonic stem cells are by far the best chance we have for scientific advancement in this area.

More to the point, how is throwing away the exact same stem cells from fertility clinics not also "destroying life"? Why shouldn't we use them for a good purpose if they are going to be disposed of anyway?

Cheers, Terry

P.S.

Here is a link to a great web page on the HIH site that clearly explains all these issues, including the current problems of using adult vs. embryonic stem cells.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1.asp

P.P.S.

This debate is now moot because the executive order has just been signed by President Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090309/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_stem_cells

.

[Mighty Pirate]

Stuart,
Not only do we corrupt our food chain by including anti-biotics in animal feed but hormones as well. :(:


Stem Cell research has already progressed in Japan to the point where they will one day develop techniques for converting a patient's own cells into anything. America may have lost the leading edge on this one.

http://http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/07/asia/cell.1-70767.php

[Terry Penrod]

.

As expected, the same people who have tried endlessly and utterly failed to bestow legal "personhood" on single-cell embryos are back at it again - this time, as covered in the news article copied below, in an attempt to attack vital stem cell research at the state level.

Odd isn't it that these same self-righteous activists rarely if ever protest when abortion clinics are bombed (sometimes killing doctors and nurses in the process). Many are also very strong supporters of U.S. military policies that kill and maim lots of innocent people halfway around the world.

Even more incredible is that some of these people use fertility clinics to get pregnant. As we all know, the very same clinics produce many, many embryos well in access of what is actually needed and many of them are simply tossed in the medical waste bin. They are not wanted or needed, but they are necessary in order to service clients.

Matter of fact, as far back as early 2003, it was estimated that over 400,000 human embryos were already in frozen storage at fertility clinics around America. More recently, a survey of fertility clinic users revealed that, "The majority of infertility patients are in favor of using left-over embryos for stem cell research and would also support selling left-over embryos to other couples..."

ABOVE QUOTE FROM: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924162942.htm

It's good to know that at least some people have their heads on straight.

Cheers, Terry


Some states push back against stem cell research

By SHANNON McCAFFREY, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA – A showdown is shaping up in some of the nation's most conservative states over embryonic stem cell research, as opponents draw language and tactics from the battle over abortion to counter President Barack Obama's plan to ease research restrictions.

Legislation granting fertilized embryos "personhood" has gained momentum in at least three state legislatures. The strategy — which has been used to try to undermine the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion — is now aimed at embryonic stem cell research. The scientific field uses stem cells from human embryos, which can develop into different kinds of adult cells, to seek answers about human health.

Opposition to both abortion and stem cell research hinges on the same issue: When does life begin? As a result, embryonic stem cell research has become the latest front in the decades-old battle over abortion.

"If you are someone who believes that a single cell embryo is a person then you are looking for any opportunity you can to make that argument. But as a country, legally, we've never accepted that," said Michael Werner of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research. "The legislative tactics are the same."

Abortion opponents believe embryonic stem cell research is an assault on life in its earliest form. Fertilized embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted from them for research.

"No one's right for a cure supersedes someone else's right to life," said Dan Becker, president of Georgia Right to Life.

The opponents expect to push for restrictions in conservative-leaning states. And they say states must take the lead in pushing the abortion and stem cell issues into the increasingly conservative federal courts.

Legal experts said the state measures restricting stem cell research raise constitutional concerns in a largely untested area of law.

Alta Charo, professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, said a new line of legal thought holds that scientific inquiry should be protected by the First Amendment, "like a political or religious statement or activity."

She said the measures restricting the use of fertilized embryos also raise questions about the right to procreation.

"The courts haven't settled this yet," Charo said.

While Louisiana already bans the destruction of fertilized embryos, the courts have not yet weighed in, Charo said.

In Georgia, a measure that would ban some forms of stem cell research on fertilized embryos is moving quickly through the state Senate. The bill would outlaw the destruction of fertilized embryos, which the legislation defines as a person. It is expected to face a vote in the full state Senate on Thursday.

Similar "personhood" measures have cleared one chamber each in Montana and North Dakota.

They come in the wake of a Colorado ballot initiative that said human life begins at conception. It failed to win voter approval last year.

David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, said Obama's announcement Monday that he will free federal funds for embryonic stem cell research will rally conservatives.

"This is the beginning," Prentice said. "I think there will be more to come."

In 2001, President George W. Bush limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to 21 stem cell lines already in existence. Because they were already being used for research, Bush allowed work on them to continue.

Obama's new approach will enable federally funded researchers to use hundreds of new embryonic stem cell lines. Supporters believe the research could lead to treatments for major disorders, such as Parkinson's disease and spinal injuries.

Eight states bucked the Bush administration limits and allowed state money to be spent on the research: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.

Some of them, struggling with gaping budget deficits, may rein in state funding for those research programs, now that federal dollars will again be flowing.

Sean Tipton, director of public affairs at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said legislation that would affect stem cell research has been introduced in several states, including Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota and South Carolina.

"It's clearly part of a national strategy and at some point it will probably succeed," Tipton said.

Tipton said advocacy groups are targeting states where they have the best chance of success.

One of those is Georgia, where Gov. Sonny Perdue has said he opposes embryonic stem cell research, even as he tries to lure biotech companies to state.

"I am absolutely opposed to creating embryos to cure a disease," Perdue told reporters this week.

The Georgia bill cleared the Senate Health and Human Services Committee by a close 7-6. The religious conservatives pushing it are influential with Georgia's Republican-led Legislature.

Opponents say the Senate bill would be a blow to the state's thriving research universities, as well as fertility clinics that perform thousands of in-vitro treatments every year.

"We have the president of the United States saying he is going to put science ahead of politics and unfortunately in Georgia we are moving in the opposite directions," said state Sen. David Adelman, a Democrat from Decatur.

FROM: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_us/stem_cell_states

.

[Mighty Pirate]

Why not go the whole hog and give the unborn the right to vote and own property? Hey, what a tax dodge that might turn out to be....

[Terry Penrod]

.

Why not go the whole hog and give the unborn the right to vote and own property? Hey, what a tax dodge that might turn out to be....

Not just in-womb embryos Caroline, but single-cell organisms in petri dishes created specifically for fertility clinic procedures that number in the thousands each year.

According to these protestors, each one should be given full legal "personhood" status. I suppose that would virtually eliminate the whole IVF process because it takes multiple embryos per procedure and usually multiple procedures per successful impregnation. Is this then premeditated mass murder?

So what about the legal rights of all those embryos that die in the process, not to mention all the extra ones that are regularly tossed in the garbage? Should each one get a criminal trial so we can prosecute every doctor, nurse and technician that "wasted" a "person" so another could possibly live? And what about all the willing donors and recipients? Surely they are - at the very least - accessories to these crimes.

Cheers, Terry

[Mighty Pirate]

Furthermore, some of these embroyos are created from donations - if they are then persons with rights, oughtn't that to include inheritance rights?

What about compensation paid to those embryos that are sold to infertile couples? What if they grow up to hate their adopted parents? Who can they blame and demand money from?


I wouldn't be surprised though if the same anti-research folk turned out to be against the entire IVF discipline anyway on the basis that conception must only take place in a woman's body. At least that was the official Vatican position back in the 1970s when it all started.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Compensation for embryos sold to other parents? How about prison terms for all those involved? After all, they would be guilty of trafficking in human beings.

Cheers, Terry

[Impresario]

We''re very much still mired in a transitional stage (in the USA) where politicians and often public policy pays homage to our long standing American tradition of purported godliness.

It's a peculiarly American characteristic compared to the continental Europeans. I wonder if that makes us hypocrites, provincial, or something else?

[Terry Penrod]

.

We''re very much still mired in a transitional stage (in the USA) where politicians and often public policy pays homage to our long standing American tradition of purported godliness.

It's a peculiarly American characteristic compared to the continental Europeans. I wonder if that makes us hypocrites, provincial, or something else?

I am very happy to report that numerous recent studies indicate the percentage of Americans who claim to be "devoutly religious" has dropped sharply over the past two decades.

My hope is that the residual resistance to legitimate scientific discovery, beneficial modern medicine, and social acceptance of women and gays as equals dies out with the present holdovers to a bygone era of strict intolerance and fear of unbiased independent thinking.

Whether we're talking about stem cell research, birth control, early-term abortions, the right to die with dignity, or gay / gender rights, far too many Americans still cling to a set of rigid "moral" views dictated by religious dogma that IMO impedes their ability to think clearly.

The issue of using existing embryos with the donors' full consent for badly needed medical advancements instead of simply throwing them away demonstrates just how irrational these people can be. It also illustrates the degree of their hypocrisy in that many of them strongly support a wide range of other laws, policies and behaviors, which directly conflict with their claims to respect the sanctity of life above all else.

To some of them, it's okay to bomb occupied abortion clinics, invade foreign nations without provocation, and ignore appalling conditions in third-world countries (not to mention our own ghettoes). But it's absolutely unthinkable to use unwanted single-cell organisms for legitimate medical research to cure blindness, paralysis and a number of crippling diseases.

Cheers, Terry

[Impresario]

I'm cautiously optimistic too--still I see a world where Xian and Islamic ideology continue their age-old paranoid tango exclaiming my god is better than your god, and on a geo-political scale, it wreaks havoc. It trickles down from religious leaders (who have their own agenda) when they vomit up their scriptural interpretations upon the masses, and then they (the flock) mask their own ignorance under the guise of piety. It's like what Stevie Wonder said--"When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer--Superstition ain't the way.”

[Terry Penrod]

.

I know Impresario, blind adherence to oppressive religious laws and beliefs is one of the biggest obstacles mankind faces in evolving to a higher plane. It severely retards independent critical thinking and ironically, it diminishes free will.

Not to say there aren't some real exceptions like the more astute Jesuit scholars. But honestly, when hundreds of millions of average people with average or lower educations cling tightly to religious dogma that has essentially remained unchanged for so many centuries, the cumulative effect is to lower the common intellectual denominator of the entire human race by a number of points.

We here in America suffer from a relatively mild strain of this for the most part. However, we also have our share on fundamentalist fanatics and they unfortunately insist on inflicting their detestable opinions on everyone else. If they would simply live and let live, I would still feel very sorry for their children, but they would not really bother me that much.

Too bad that as religious fervor heightens, so generally do ignorance, self-righteous hypocrisy and the obsession to aggressively convert and oppress others. It is my opinion that this well-documented behavior stems directly from deeply seeded feelings of personal inadequacy fed by good, old jealousy and vanity.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Impresario]

The irony is that both Islam and Christianity have a rich scholastic history--Islam preserved the works of Aristotle (via meticulous translation) when they were almost permanently lost and Christianity followed up by expanding on his ideas with centuries long studies on reason and faith (Aquinas etc.). All that knowledge seems lost on some of today’s zealots.

[Mighty Pirate]

.
[...]
We here in America suffer from a relatively mild strain of this for the most part.

Sorry chaps, but from the outside America is mired in religion and religious hypocrisy.

Don't forget - we only get to see you via the movies and the TV and it really boggles my mind the way all the politicians have to be religious even if it means pretending and sprinkling their words with God Bless and other phrases. And as we've just seen with Obama, it wasn't enough that he went to church, no, even the priest's background and reputation was taken apart and examined and weighed as part of the equation.

So, all this God stuff is mostly spouted to appease the masses who like the idea of a religious leader but only if he's following the right religious ideas. Jeeeeezzzz.....

I'd feel much happier with a chap in the White House who doesn't take instructions from the invisible guy in the sky and doesn't dream of armaggeddon or the new Jerusalem.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Sorry chaps, but from the outside America is mired in religion and religious hypocrisy.

Don't forget - we only get to see you via the movies and the TV and it really boggles my mind the way all the politicians have to be religious even if it means pretending and sprinkling their words with God Bless and other phrases. And as we've just seen with Obama, it wasn't enough that he went to church, no, even the priest's background and reputation was taken apart and examined and weighed as part of the equation.

So, all this God stuff is mostly spouted to appease the masses who like the idea of a religious leader but only if he's following the right religious ideas. Jeeeeezzzz.....

I'd feel much happier with a chap in the White House who doesn't take instructions from the invisible guy in the sky and doesn't dream of armaggeddon or the new Jerusalem.

Don't believe everything you see on TV Caroline.

Yes there are still some pockets of religious zealotry here in America, but most people are pretty tolerant of other beliefs and as mentioned above, there is a rapidly growing trend away from any formal religious affiliation. People simply aren't falling for the same old line that says belonging to a church and following its peculiar rules equates to having good moral values.

Cheers, Terry

[Gary V.]

I figured this would evolve into a bashing of the religious. I'm tired of seeing comments like "I'm glad to report devoutly religious Americans dropping in numbers."

I think I may leave this place. I'm tired of seeing my religion and my country insulted.

[chip5541]

I figured this would evolve into a bashing of the religious. I'm tired of seeing comments like "I'm glad to report devoutly religious Americans dropping in numbers."

I think I may leave this place. I'm tired of seeing my religion and my country insulted.

You are not the only one.

[Terry Penrod]

.

I figured this would evolve into a bashing of the religious. I'm tired of seeing comments like "I'm glad to report devoutly religious Americans dropping in numbers."

I think I may leave this place. I'm tired of seeing my religion and my country insulted.

YOUR religion?!?! YOUR country?!?!

Right Gary, we should all keep our mouths shut tightly about any topic involving religious zealotry or any other influence that has a negative impact on America - just in case YOU might possibly take it personally.

This thread isn't about you man and this subject affects billions of people around the world who do NOT share your religious beliefs. It is about curing deadly diseases and healing people of all races, all creeds and all beliefs who are blind and crippled.

So please stop putting your precious theological beliefs ahead of them. Millions of them are suffering terribly and many are dying right now. They need our help very badly and this research is critically important to aiding those human beings at the earliest possible time.

Cheers, Terry

[Impresario]

Isn't it implied that in heated discussions someone usually is going to be mildly offended--hence the name heated. The topics are often controversial and absent personal attacks anyone can weigh in w/ a POV. I'm always willing to listen to the other side of an issue b/c it makes for a spirited debate. After all, without that it would be a snooze-fest.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Isn't it implied that in heated discussions someone usually is going to be mildly offended--hence the name heated. The topics are often controversial and absent personal attacks anyone can weigh in w/ a POV. I'm always willing to listen to the other side of an issue b/c it makes for a spirited debate. After all, without that it would be a snooze-fest.

Yes it is implied, Impresario.

More to the point though is that we can not simply eliminate religious beliefs and the direct effect they have on government policy from this topic. They are after all the only reason stem cell research in America has been seriously hampered for the last eight years.

Thank goodness President Obama has reversed that astonishingly inhumane and wasteful policy. We can't ever get back that lost time or make up for all the additional human suffering it caused. But at least medical science can now get back on track much faster in finding cures for so many deadly diseases and horrible conditions.

I wonder if those who are currently crying foul will someday refuse life-saving treatment for themselves or their loved ones because it was developed using unwanted embryonic stem cells from fertility clinics.

Cheers, Terry

[Rob]

Gary never even mentioned anything pro or con about stem-cell research and he never cried foul on this thread. All he said was he was tired of being treated like a second class citizen here because his beliefs have been trashed and blamed repeatidly through the years.

Come on Terry, do you honestly believe religion is the ONLY reason stem cell research has been banned? Remember, it is politics that made the law, not religion.

[Gary V.]

I'm actually in favor of stem cell research. My family has a history of Parkinson's disease.

My issue is with a few members' here constant, wholesale bashing of people who believe in something more than themselves.

[pcfreak]

Come on Terry, do you honestly believe religion is the ONLY reason stem cell research has been banned? Remember, it is politics that made the law, not religion.

I agree. I don't see religion as the only issue that stem cell research has had to face. I think alot of people are worried fo all different kinds of reasons. It's unfair to blame everything on those who are religious and it is starting to sound like some kind of witchhunt. I bet quite a few of those who are conducting the research have religious beliefs themselves. I am cautious about stem cell research because I feel that 'cures' may be rushed out before they have had time to prove themselves. As I menioned earlier, we have a habit of doing this, and it will be our children and theirs who have to try and clean up the mess we may make. Just as we are doing now with our previous generation's mistakes.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Gary never even mentioned anything pro or con about stem-cell research and he never cried foul on this thread. All he said was he was tired of being treated like a second class citizen here because his beliefs have been trashed and blamed repeatidly through the years.

Come on Terry, do you honestly believe religion is the ONLY reason stem cell research has been banned? Remember, it is politics that made the law, not religion.

Yes Rob, I positively hold that religious beliefs dictated Bush's highly restrictive policy on stem cell research in America.

Virtually ALL of the influencial groups that publically pushed so hard for this decision were religion-based. They were and still are by far the most vocal and the most aggressive in terms of organized effort, money and power to ban all such research. They also lobby very strongly against abortion rights and in many cases against gay rights. The more fanatical amongst them use extreme violence as a tool to get their way.

You know who they are as well as I do Rob. You can not escape the constant din of their self-righteous rhetoric, and all during the Bush administration, they had a direct channel to the White House.

Again, I am so very pleased that President Obama reversed that dreadful decision and opened the way for much faster progress on this vitally important medical research here in America.

Also again, I hold each and every one of the people who lobbied so hard to ban this extraordinarily humane work for all of the additional pain, suffering and death caused by this utterly disgraceful and totally unnecessary eight-year delay.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Terry Penrod]

.

I'm actually in favor of stem cell research. My family has a history of Parkinson's disease.

My issue is with a few members' here constant, wholesale bashing of people who believe in something more than themselves.

Gary, people's belief in God has exactly NOTHING to do with my objections to these continuous, aggressive, organized attempts by religious groups to dictate government policy in areas like stem cell research, abortion rights and gay rights.

I know many, many good Christians right here in Houston who fully support true equal rights, the right to die with dignity, limited abortions, and medical research using existing, unwanted stem cells. I also know several Jews and Muslims just as devout in their faith, who also fully support those same principles.

There is a very big difference between a fundamental belief in God and what these people are doing - and in this case, they have very much infringed upon other people's rights to life and to health.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.

I agree. I don't see religion as the only issue that stem cell research has had to face. I think alot of people are worried fo all different kinds of reasons. It's unfair to blame everything on those who are religious and it is starting to sound like some kind of witchhunt. I bet quite a few of those who are conducting the research have religious beliefs themselves. I am cautious about stem cell research because I feel that 'cures' may be rushed out before they have had time to prove themselves. As I menioned earlier, we have a habit of doing this, and it will be our children and theirs who have to try and clean up the mess we may make. Just as we are doing now with our previous generation's mistakes.

As stated already Stuart, I share those very same concerns - especially in the areas of human cloning and DNA engineering.

But those very legitimate fears have nothing to do with my reasons in assigning blame for this eight-year delay to the people who caused it. They were and still are part of several very large, powerful, organized religious groups that pushed hard to ban embryonic stem cell research.

In general, I honestly don't care what a person believes in. But when they organize into large activist groups that directly impact key government policy, then they directly infringe on others. In this case, they infringed quite literally on people's rights to life and the pursuit of badly needed cures.

Cheers, Terry

[Mighty Pirate]

Gary said: My issue is with a few members' here constant, wholesale bashing of people who believe in something more than themselves.

That isn't what I've seen happening here. Individual religious tenets have not been examined and trashed. The objections voiced here are solely about the religious lobbyists' desire to curb science because it contravenes their own personal religious beliefs.


To Gary

I feel certain you are aware that throughout man's history religious leaders have sought and used political power to shape the society they ruled over.
If not, I could certainly supply you with a few examples from just about any century.

I can quite understand how to the religious person, this interference is acceptable, possibly even desirable guidance but to the non-believer it is intolerable, an insult to our rational intelligence and our right to make our own decisions.

If you find the expression of opinions that conflict with your belief-system offensive, then might I suggest that you consider that feeling of alienation as an insight into how many non-believers feel when religion is rammed down their throats as if it were a universal truth and must not be contradicted.


Impressario brought up the fact that Islamic scholars had preserved Aristotle's teachings. When those texts became known to Christendom (basically after they evicted the Muslims from Spain and raided their libraries) the Vatican banned the new knowledge as subversive. University students throughout Europe went on strike and rioted demanding unrestricted access to knowledge. (so what's new about students, eh?)

You see, knowledge erodes the power of superstition and mysticism - two elements all religions need and once people start thinking for themselves.... well, the pews aren't as full as they used to be.

I would feel a greater confidence in the statement 'God says ....' if God himself would care to make an appearance and say it. Until then, I shall regard any human who claims to have divine insight into God's mind as being either delusional or devious and on some sort of power kick.

For ordinary folk such as yourself who derive comfort from your personal religious beliefs I mean no offense or insult. But I believe wholeheartedly that a secular govt is the best system to deliver a society where individuals are free to pursue their own path to religious enlightenment while humanity in general is allowed to pursue equality, knowledge and scientific advancement.

[Lou Cypher]

Stem Cell reaserch has never been banned, just the use of taxpayers money.

Lou :globe:

[Gary V.]

Religious people, Christians, have been painted here with broad strokes by a select, vocal, and I must say eloquent group. I will not go back and drag up every instance. I have better things to do. I will, on occasion, point out that there are some here on these forums who believe and think differently than many of you. I will also not stand by while being religious or merely believing in God is derided. At my core, I am not offended. The things said here are expected. I only wish to point out to others who may be reading anonomously that not all who frequent this forum believe that religion or a belief in God is the root of all evil. The bible I read is full of instructions on how to be good to people. The church I attend has helped a whole lot more folks than it has hurt(which I believe is none).

For a couple of years I was a little shaky on my beliefs. Not anymore, I'm on solid ground. What concerns me is someone who is struggling with their spirituality being influenced by some of you guys. I think anyone who contributes to a person losing faith has truly done that person a disservice.

So rail against me, say what you will, break out the thesaurus and write big words. Chances are if you write more than 2 or 3 paragraphs nobody's gonna read it anyway.

Also, I know I'm a hypocrite because I said I was leaving this forum and yet I'm still here. Hypocrite Christian Alert! Hypocrite Christian Alert!

[Rob]

That isn't what I've seen happening here. Individual religious tenets have not been examined and trashed. The objections voiced here are solely about the religious lobbyists' desire to curb science because it contravenes their own personal religious beliefs. Gary has been here for years and over the time, yes, he has had to defend his beliefs time and again.

Stem Cell reaserch has never been banned, just the use of taxpayers money.
I knew that, I just poorly worded my statement.

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Terry Penrod
I started this thread Lou and I had a very good reason for bringing politics into it.

First of all, the ONLY reason embrionic stem cell research was put back eight years, is because George Bush agreed with self-righteous morons like Sarah Palin who can't understand the difference between an unwanted embryro (that was going to be destroyed anyway) and a fully developed baby.
I have no qualms about you bringing politics into this thread, it’s your right too, It’s just unnecessary to be so vitriolic, it just seems your being vitriolic for no other reason than to try and get a reaction.

And Gary, I really hope you stick around; I do see where you’re coming from. If people would go back and see why Bush made the decision that he did on federal funding of stem cell research by reading his speech as a whole, would not be so harsh.


Lou :globe:

[chip5541]

It is funny. There are those that say we should raise the cost of gas and oil to the point that businesses will looking for alternatives. In a way that is what the President did.

Looking back on his presidency, Bush said he was proud that he kept the federal government from crossing an important moral line and allowing federal funding of new embryonic stem cell research involving the destruction of human life.

"We believe that all human life is precious and deserves to be protected," he said.

"In 2001, I had a grave decision to make on the question of embryonic stem cell research. I believed we could empower scientists and researchers to discover cures for terrible diseases -- without crossing a moral line," Bush explained.

"So I authorized research on existing stem cell lines, and stood against any effort to use federal tax dollars to support the destruction of human life," he said.

"They thought my defense of life was short-sighted and harmful. When I vetoed two bills that sought to use tax dollars to destroy human embryos" Bush said they called his decision "ridiculous and scientifically naive."

In the end, the president said new advances have vindicated his position.

"Last November, scientists announced a landmark achievement," he said. "They found a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells."

"This discovery has the potential to end the divisive debate over stem cell research. It will allow us to expand the frontiers of medicine, while maintaining a culture of life," President Bush said.

[Mighty Pirate]

President Bush's claims that he believes all human life is sacred and should be protected, .... must have slipped his mind when he decided to invade Iraq and murder - yes, murder, tens of thousands of ordinary civilians by bombing the hell out of their homes.

And whenever a politician uses the words 'I'm not spending tax-payers' money' you can bet it's because he has no other acceptable explanation so he falls back onto the illusion of being financially cautious. It's intended to reassure the population that he's not wasting your money. So did it work? Were you reassured?

Because spend your money is exactly what he has done. Bush has left America with a HUMUNGOUS debt - even without the recession you'd be in major trouble. So is everyone happy with the way he spent tax-payers' money on all the other projects that he engaged in? Pity the war in Iraq and Afghanistan sucked it all up and left none for all those other worthwhile projects like fixing medicare and improving education....

[Lou Cypher]

Because spend your money is exactly what he has done. Bush has left America with a HUMUNGOUS debt - even without the recession you'd be in major trouble. So is everyone happy with the way he spent tax-payers' money on all the other projects that he engaged in? Pity the war in Iraq and Afghanistan sucked it all up and left none for all those other worthwhile projects like fixing medicare and improving education....
Well speaking of debt, in the the next 20 months Obama will spend more of our money than Bush did in the 8 years he was in office, and that includes 9-11 and the cost of two wars, so that aurgument goes out the window.


Lou :globe:

[Terry Penrod]

.

Religious people, Christians, have been painted here with broad strokes by a select, vocal, and I must say eloquent group. I will not go back and drag up every instance. I have better things to do. I will, on occasion, point out that there are some here on these forums who believe and think differently than many of you. I will also not stand by while being religious or merely believing in God is derided. At my core, I am not offended. The things said here are expected. I only wish to point out to others who may be reading anonomously that not all who frequent this forum believe that religion or a belief in God is the root of all evil. The bible I read is full of instructions on how to be good to people. The church I attend has helped a whole lot more folks than it has hurt(which I believe is none).

For a couple of years I was a little shaky on my beliefs. Not anymore, I'm on solid ground. What concerns me is someone who is struggling with their spirituality being influenced by some of you guys. I think anyone who contributes to a person losing faith has truly done that person a disservice.

So rail against me, say what you will, break out the thesaurus and write big words. Chances are if you write more than 2 or 3 paragraphs nobody's gonna read it anyway.

Also, I know I'm a hypocrite because I said I was leaving this forum and yet I'm still here. Hypocrite Christian Alert! Hypocrite Christian Alert!

Gary, I have no idea if anyone else on this forum has claimed that a basic belief in God is the root of all evil, but I have never so much as implied it. In fact, I have frequently mentioned close friends and associates who are devout Christians, Muslims and Jews while describing myself as an agnostic with a leaning toward theism.

I have however often derided and at times ridiculed U.S.-based religious activist groups for their involvement in aggressive anti-abortion campaigns and other very specific issues like the right to die with dignity, gay rights and now, embryonic stem cell research. I have also harshly criticized the Catholic Church on these same matters as well as birth control and hypocrisy / negligence connected to a long list of pedophile priests. Additionally, I have lashed out at radical Islamic factions and the terrorist groups they spawn while also expressing disgust with the overall treatment of women in the Muslim community.

All of these things are related to very specific issues that in most cases have a negative affect on many people outside these relgious organizations. When that impact reaches a certain point, I express my opinions in the clearest and most forceful terms possible. I also express my strong personal feelings about people that regularly try to force society into strict conformity by manipulating public policies and laws - especially when they infringe on basic human rights.

If that upsets you Gary, well.., perhaps you should steer clear of serious discussions about serious issues in the heated forum. Most all of them involve politics and/or religion on some level, and in some cases religion is at the very center of the issue.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.

Well speaking of debt, in the the next 20 months Obama will spend more of our money than Bush did in the 8 years he was in office, and that includes 9-11 and the cost of two wars, so that aurgument goes out the window.

Lou :globe:

Actually Lou, a lot of the proposed expenditures are specifcally for programs designed to fix the mess that Bush left - including our remaining involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as badly needed work on America's sagging infrastucture and an enormous debt-service obligation that can not be avoided. There is also the extension of a huge financial community bailout that Bush started.

In other key areas like education, healthcare and alternate energy, these are vital to America's future and the initial costs are absolutely necessary if we are going to survive (let alone prosper) as a country. Moreover, many new jobs will be created in all those sectors and each one of the programs will pay a real dividend in the long term.

Whether it is to make federal buildings more energy efficent, reform our public school system to suit the needs of the 21st century economy, stimulate faster development of renewable energy so we can start getting out from under OPEC's thumb, or to modernize and streamline our healthcare system - all of these efforts are fully justified and badly needed.

In fact, if Bush had done a better job of maintaining the infrastructure and advancing improvements in these critical areas, the needs wouldn't be so pressing and the costs wouldn't be so high.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.

I have no qualms about you bringing politics into this thread, it’s your right too, It’s just unnecessary to be so vitriolic, it just seems your being vitriolic for no other reason than to try and get a reaction.

And Gary, I really hope you stick around; I do see where you’re coming from. If people would go back and see why Bush made the decision that he did on federal funding of stem cell research by reading his speech as a whole, would not be so harsh.

Lou :globe:

Yes Lou, I genuinely hope Gary decides to stick around too - but perhaps heated discussions that involve religion are something he might want to avoid in the future.

Speaking of that, my intention was not to get a reaction. It was to express my honest opinion about who caused this eight-year delay and what their motives were.

In this case, it was the same religious groups that also campaign aggressively against abortion rights and the right to die with dignity. I don't like them and I make no bones about it. Although I voted for him twice, I have also expressed my deep disappointment in many of the decisions Bush made and make no bones about that either.

Cheers, Terry

[cci]

You mean like defending ourselves during war or even instigating it in the name of defending ourselves like in Iraq?

I always wondered how many people who are against stem cell research have ever intentionally squashed a bug.

The destruction of human life at its earliest stages is just plain wrong (yeah, chuck this one up to abortion, and whatnot).

And what is more valuable, a bug's life or that of a human?

[cci]

.



Using UNWANTED embryos destined for the medical waste bins of fertility clinics is NOT "destroying life" CCI. It is a perfectly ethical, wise and very humane use of a basic biological component that possesses the POTENTIAL for self-sustaining life - as well as the ability to advance research for badly needed cures.

Let's examine the choices here. Throw the embryos away or use them to help blind people see and paralyzed people walk.

That's a no-brainer for me.

No. Here's the no-brainer: these unwanted embryos should not have existed in the first place if these scientists and doctors had not decided to play God in the first place --- then there would not be any unwanted embryos to begin with.

Too bad some people like Sarah Plain and other pentecostally inflicted idiots can't think their way through the actual scenario.

Too bad people like you who cannot know the belief in the existence of God can't think their way through this.

Here's a thought - Perhaps if we use some of these embryos to help people like poor, mentally deficient Sarah grow some extra brain cells, she might be able to see reality a bit more clearly.

Cheers, Terry

Naw, try this one instead.

How about actually trying to make a rational leap of faith instead of relying on proofs that will actually make you believe in things unseen. Perhaps then, and only then, will you truly truly understand where the religiously inclined truly view this stem cell research issue.

[cci]

The entire argument that we should live (and die) as naturally as possible - get back to our natural roots as a species, etc, etc, falls apart when you think of how far we have already come.

How so? The human condition is still what it is.

We wash therefore all sorts of bugs no longer kill us. Is this a natural thing?

I'd say we are being hygenic.

We medicate therefore all sorts of diseases are fought and defeated. Should we be interferring like this?

Interferring at the expense of what? In stem cell research, this would be the destruction of unborn human embryos.

We operate. Isn't that playing God? Should we stop getting above ourselves?

Don't know about you but I've never known anyone who's viewd operating as playing God. Playing God falls more in the realm of manipulating and creating, that sort of thing.

And we manipulate our environment - we build houses, gp exploiring, make clothes, tools and machines and travel beyond our physical capacity.

Save for the last point, those incorporate the basic necessities of life and the need to survive.

Are people really afraid that we'll step on God's toes or that our scientists will accidentally unleash upon us something that will destroy us?

To this I can only state that mankind should know its limitations --- but they don't due to foolish pride.

[Terry Penrod]

.

The destruction of human life at its earliest stages is just plain wrong (yeah, chuck this one up to abortion, and whatnot).

And what is more valuable, a bug's life or that of a human?

An early-stage embryo - whether created in a petri dish or in the womb - is NOT a human being. Even in the womb, it does not begin the fetal stage until after the eight week.

Until it begins to take form, an embryo is simply a mass of cells with the potential to become a fully developed human being. It has no brain, no spinal chord, no limbs and no eyes or other organs.

More to the point, many embryos created specifically for invitro fertilization are simply thrown away. Instead of doing that, we can use them for advancing life-saving medical research must faster.

Throwing them away is a total waste. Using them for a very good cause is not. In fact it is a completely humane thing to do.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.

...

To this I can only state that mankind should know its limitations --- but they don't due to foolish pride.

It is hardly foolish pride to use our "God-given" abilities and free will to improve quality of life, to stop human suffering and to save lives.

And having supposedly been "created in HIS image", we are endowed with those traits by "HIM" - traits that "HE" obviously intended for us to use as we see fit.

Of all mankind's many endeavors, developing and employing those innate tools for such a fundamentally humane purpose as curing crippling conditions and deadly diseases is perhaps the best way we can honor "HIS" wishes.

Cheers, Terry

[Terry Penrod]

.

No. Here's the no-brainer: these unwanted embryos should not have existed in the first place if these scientists and doctors had not decided to play God in the first place --- then there would not be any unwanted embryos to begin with.

Too bad people like you who cannot know the belief in the existence of God can't think their way through this.

Naw, try this one instead.

How about actually trying to make a rational leap of faith instead of relying on proofs that will actually make you believe in things unseen. Perhaps then, and only then, will you truly truly understand where the religiously inclined truly view this stem cell research issue.

These embryos "SHOULD" not have existed in the first place?!?!

Every single one of those embryos was created from 100% all-natural human material by fully consenting adult human beings for the specific purpose of creating more human beings. They exist to create new human life and in order to do that, fertilization clinics need to produce a lot of embryos. Some never get used and are simply thrown away. Many of the legal donors (parents) do not want to them wasted. They want those embryos used to help find cures for a number of horrible diseases and conditions.

I for one respect their wishes and completely support this important and altogether humane work.

Your problem CCI is that you're clinging to a stone-age mentality that relies on pure superstition and abject fear instead of embracing the fact that mankind has long since evolved and can now render aid through modern medical science - again, using the "God-given" abilities we have been endowed with.

Cheers, Terry

[Impresario]

To this I can only state that mankind should know its limitations--
Whenever science and technology opens up new frontiers, concurrent ethical questions may arise. Those ethical concerns play an important role in shaping a consensus or defining the parameters of the debate.

Still, advocating for the pursuit of ignorance and limiting knowledge per se is to diminish the logos and truth. To be afraid of new answers b/c they may affect the old ways, requires transferring doubts about one's personal belief system onto the rest of humanity. It is witch burning.

[Mighty Pirate]

Whenever science and technology opens up new frontiers, concurrent ethical questions may arise. Those ethical concerns play an important role in shaping a consensus or defining the parameters of the debate.

Still, advocating for the pursuit of ignorance and limiting knowledge per se is to diminish the logos and truth. To be afraid of new answers b/c they may affect the old ways, requires transferring doubts about one's personal belief system onto the rest of humanity. It is witch burning.

Very nicely said. And I agree that moral/ethical debate is desirable at all these momentous junctions.

Every new step in human progress has been decried by the Church as a step beyond our natural limitations.

People were killed for claiming the world was a) round and b) revolved around the sun instead of being the centre of all Creation.

Sailing over the edge of the world was not a wise move before they discovered America.... but the same churches propagated the idea of a hierarchy of mankind that allowed them to approve of slavery.

Going faster than the speed of a galloping horse on the first steam train was decried by the religious as likely to 'blow the soul right out of a man' and people were urged not to do it ...

Blood transfusions were the work of the devil - and until they discovered blood types, more often resulted in death than survival.... but dissection of dead bodies was forbidden by religious ideology. Mankind was supposed to remain ignorant. Afterall, it had been the quest for knowledge that got him kicked out of Eden....

Death in childbirth was considered natural and God's will while the agonies of labour were accredited to Eve's punishment for tempting Adam in the Garden of Eden....

The first heart transplants, the first IVF babies - all decried by the religious as being against what God wanted for mankind - the natural existence.

I hesitate to think what sort of world we'd all be living in if the Churches had had their way. :scared:

[Gary V.]

Sort of related to the topic:

I was at Starbuck's this morning people were lined up on either side of the street with "Pray for an end to abortion" signs. The guy working behind the counter said "We'll, the crazy people are out today." Hehe. I didn't say anything, just paid for my frap and left. As I was driving away I honked my horn in support and gave the good folks a thumbs up.