Obama to repeal stem cell funding ban on March 9th

[Brandon H]

Ugh.

My grandfather had Alzheimer's, and it eventually killed him, as did his older brother.  How can you, being pro-life, not approve of something which will save more lives in the future than you can possibly imagine?

Stem cells may save lives, but not at the expense of the lives of others. Besides, if I did support stem cell reasearch, then I would be accused of being a hypocrite, because destroying embryos is OK for stem cells, but not for abortion.

Not to mention that ESCR has produced zero cures or treatments, while ASCR has produced at least 70 cures. (Though the federal government should not be funding either of these things at all.)

[Smash255]

Ugh.

My grandfather had Alzheimer's, and it eventually killed him, as did his older brother.  How can you, being pro-life, not approve of something which will save more lives in the future than you can possibly imagine?

Stem cells may save lives, but not at the expense of the lives of others. Besides, if I did support stem cell reasearch, then I would be accused of being a hypocrite, because destroying embryos is OK for stem cells, but not for abortion.

You do realize that these cells are leftover embryonic cells which have no chance at ever becoming life, and will be thrown away...

[Tender Branson]

Okay, so research that was perfectly legal in the past now gets federal funding.  Great!  Superb!  What a visionary Obama is.

[Holmes]

Okay, so research that was perfectly legal in the past now gets federal funding.  Great!  Superb!  What a visionary Obama is.

No funding means no quick and efficient results.

[opebo]

Okay, so research that was perfectly legal in the past now gets federal funding.  Great!  Superb!  What a visionary Obama is.

No funding means no quick and efficient results.

Or more likely that the research doesn't happen at all.

[Holmes]

Okay, so research that was perfectly legal in the past now gets federal funding.  Great!  Superb!  What a visionary Obama is.

No funding means no quick and efficient results.

Or more likely that the research doesn't happen at all.

Unless the scientists are rich, or are getting funded by some other organization that's not the goverment.

[Coburn In 2012]

He is not only an inept economist and a foreign policy coward, he is a butcher of human life.  This is not a surprise.  At least he was honest and told us he would do this.

Liberals always whine about how stem cell is gonna cure diseases.  Well guess what?  ADULT stem cells are being used in research and have been successfull in getting cures.  Killing babies for research has never helped in a single case.  What does that tell you???

[Landslide Lyndon]

He is not only an inept economist and a foreign policy coward, he is a butcher of human life.  This is not a surprise.  At least he was honest and told us he would do this.

Liberals always whine about how stem cell is gonna cure diseases.  Well guess what?  ADULT stem cells are being used in research and have been successfull in getting cures.  Killing babies for research has never helped in a single case.  What does that tell you???

I understand where you come from.
Even stem cell research can't find a cure for stupidity.

[Holmes]

He is not only an inept economist and a foreign policy coward, he is a butcher of human life.  This is not a surprise.  At least he was honest and told us he would do this.

Liberals always whine about how stem cell is gonna cure diseases.  Well guess what?  ADULT stem cells are being used in research and have been successfull in getting cures.  Killing babies for research has never helped in a single case.  What does that tell you???

Except for the fact that every time scientists tried to turn skin cells into stem cells, the cells became cancerous, and I dunno about you, but I don't want my stem cells having cancer in them. But yeah, they recently possibly found a way to better turn skin cells into stem cells, so you should stop whining and support the funding because it could lead to them not having to use embryonic cells in the first place.

And, embryos aren't babies.

[Coburn In 2012]

He is not only an inept economist and a foreign policy coward, he is a butcher of human life.  This is not a surprise.  At least he was honest and told us he would do this.

Liberals always whine about how stem cell is gonna cure diseases.  Well guess what?  ADULT stem cells are being used in research and have been successfull in getting cures.  Killing babies for research has never helped in a single case.  What does that tell you???

Except for the fact that every time scientists tried to turn skin cells into stem cells, the cells became cancerous, and I dunno about you, but I don't want my stem cells having cancer in them. But yeah, they recently possibly found a way to better turn skin cells into stem cells, so you should stop whining and support the funding because it could lead to them not having to use embryonic cells in the first place.

And, embryos aren't babies.

WRONG AGAIN LIBERALS...
(don't you guys get tired of it?)

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/statement/statement.htm

[Landslide Lyndon]

(don't you guys get tired of it?)

Correcting morons like you?

No.

[Holmes]

He is not only an inept economist and a foreign policy coward, he is a butcher of human life.  This is not a surprise.  At least he was honest and told us he would do this.

Liberals always whine about how stem cell is gonna cure diseases.  Well guess what?  ADULT stem cells are being used in research and have been successfull in getting cures.  Killing babies for research has never helped in a single case.  What does that tell you???

Except for the fact that every time scientists tried to turn skin cells into stem cells, the cells became cancerous, and I dunno about you, but I don't want my stem cells having cancer in them. But yeah, they recently possibly found a way to better turn skin cells into stem cells, so you should stop whining and support the funding because it could lead to them not having to use embryonic cells in the first place.

And, embryos aren't babies.

WRONG AGAIN LIBERALS...
(don't you guys get tired of it?)

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/statement/statement.htm

OH SNAP YOU SCHOOLED ME I SHOULD DROP OUT OF MY MAJOR PROGRAM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4465717.stm

Let's see, yours is from 1999 and mine is from 2005. Hmm. If you had any respect for science, you wouldn't oppose this research. Even Nancy Reagan supports stem cell research because if it were better funded, maybe Ronald would still be alive today.

[Sibboleth]

If you had any respect for science, you wouldn't oppose this research.

It is perfectly possible to have a great deal of "respect" for science and, yet, still have ethical qualms about research that crosses (or approaches) certain lines.

[Holmes]

If you had any respect for science, you wouldn't oppose this research.

It is perfectly possible to have a great deal of "respect" for science and, yet, still have ethical qualms about research that crosses (or approaches) certain lines.

Of course. Another example would be animal testing. It revolutionized medical and science research. Before that, we had to dig up bodies in the middle of the night and cut them up. We've always done the "unethical" way of research and we're probably all here because of it.

[Sibboleth]

If you had any respect for science, you wouldn't oppose this research.

It is perfectly possible to have a great deal of "respect" for science and, yet, still have ethical qualms about research that crosses (or approaches) certain lines.

Of course. Another example would be animal testing. It revolutionized medical and science research. Before that, we had to dig up bodies in the middle of the night and cut them up. We've always done the "unethical" way of research and we're probably all here because of it.

I would rather not list here even a small section of the horrors caused by unethical medical and scientific practices over the years, although I'm more than prepared to do so. If you don't think that ethics matter, you have no business ever being in any position in which you might seriously influence the life of another.

The lack of even a basic level of mealy-mouthed toleration on this issue is disturbing... although, I guess, it's a reflection on what western (and especially American) political discourse has turned into in recent decades.

[Frodo]

Better late than never.

[Holmes]

If you had any respect for science, you wouldn't oppose this research.

It is perfectly possible to have a great deal of "respect" for science and, yet, still have ethical qualms about research that crosses (or approaches) certain lines.

Of course. Another example would be animal testing. It revolutionized medical and science research. Before that, we had to dig up bodies in the middle of the night and cut them up. We've always done the "unethical" way of research and we're probably all here because of it.

I would rather not list here even a small section of the horrors caused by unethical medical and scientific practices over the years, although I'm more than prepared to do so. If you don't think that ethics matter, you have no business ever being in any position in which you might seriously influence the life of another.

The lack of even a basic level of mealy-mouthed toleration on this issue is disturbing... although, I guess, it's a reflection on what western (and especially American) political discourse has turned into in recent decades.

It'd definitely be a scary list. I'm not trying to say that ethics don't matter, but I've said before that, I wanna be against these sort of unethical procedures, but it's not as easy as that. It's because of them that the medical field was revolutionized, that we have efficient remedies, or that we even know more about any sort of science in general. It's not easy to just say "we'll stop testing these remedies on others and just hope there won't be any bad side effects or consequences". I mean there are obvious instances, like cosmetic animal testing. Give me a break. But when it comes down to important things, like finding cures to save lives for example, it's really difficult for me to be against that. And believe me, I'd just love for all diseases, disabilities, whatever, to just disappear, but it's kinda naive to hope for that.

Although the good news is that some countries have put stricter rules and regulations for such practices for the better, so that's a good thing.

[Smash255]

If you had any respect for science, you wouldn't oppose this research.

It is perfectly possible to have a great deal of "respect" for science and, yet, still have ethical qualms about research that crosses (or approaches) certain lines.

Of course. Another example would be animal testing. It revolutionized medical and science research. Before that, we had to dig up bodies in the middle of the night and cut them up. We've always done the "unethical" way of research and we're probably all here because of it.

I would rather not list here even a small section of the horrors caused by unethical medical and scientific practices over the years, although I'm more than prepared to do so. If you don't think that ethics matter, you have no business ever being in any position in which you might seriously influence the life of another.

The lack of even a basic level of mealy-mouthed toleration on this issue is disturbing... although, I guess, it's a reflection on what western (and especially American) political discourse has turned into in recent decades.

Perhaps, but the detractors in this state basically state a bold faced lie as the reason they are opposed to the research.  You would think based off the reasoning that we would all these dead babies when in fact we are generally talking about cells which are about to be thrown into the garbage.

[yoman82]

Although I'm a libertarian by heart, I have a special place in my heart for science, and I truly approve of this. It could save potentially millions of lives.

[Lunar]

I think you can be libertarian but still support federally funded science, especially for science that doesn't necessarily fall into the capitalist system (not viagra).  Science improves business and stuff.

[Prez Duke]

I agree with this move. However, I disagree with those hollering on how the war on science was over. This was never banned during Bush's years. The government just didn't pay for it.

[Marokai]

I agree with this move. However, I disagree with those hollering on how the war on science was over. This was never banned during Bush's years. The government just didn't pay for it.

De-facto ban, let's not delude ourselves.

[Lunar]

Huh?  It was a ban on federal research dollars.

Did it even go so far as to ban companies receiving federal dollars to have no part in stem cell research?  Because, if so, this is a bigger deal.  It reminds me of the refusal to give any money to international health agencies that also give family planning advice*

*ish