Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 51112131415
Results 141 to 148 of 148
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    X <-- You are here
    Posts
    1,641
    Rep Power
    58772

    Default Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

    Quote Originally Posted by mcmcallister View Post
    i was once a lump of cells, I thank God im still here
    So were all of us. The question is "is there a difference between an 8 cell lump in a petri dish and an 8 cell lump in a uterus?"

    Why aren't IVF clinics, that destroy more embryo's than any abortion clinic, on the target list of pro-lifers? Looks like hypocrisy to me ... but that's probably just me.


    Jan
    So long and thanks for all the fish.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    (Philadelphia County)
    Posts
    3,007
    Rep Power
    1686266

    Default Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

    Quote Originally Posted by kunsunoke View Post
    Yes, but the Feds, like any other entity funding research, ultimately have the discretion about what they choose to fund and what they don't. They may choose to discontinue funding based on ethical concerns, and doing so is entirely appropriate. They may also choose to fund more profitable means for achieving the same goal.

    Just because the Feds decide to waste money on crap research all the time doesn't mean we should in this case as well. Researchers aren't entitled to soft money, even though they think they should be.

    And there is nothing pre-emptive about choosing to de-fund something with as poor of a track record. ONE END RESULT
    The government is within its rights to not fund research. But when it does so for ethical reasons, it and its supporters should be frank about that fact. An ethical decision stands on its own merits if it is based upon sound principles. There is no need to prop it up with the circular argument that embryonic stem cells are useless because we don't know how to use them therapeutically therefore we won't fund research on how to use them therapeutically.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fleetwood, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    875
    Rep Power
    34782

    Default Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

    Quote Originally Posted by Philbert View Post
    The government is within its rights to not fund research. But when it does so for ethical reasons, it and its supporters should be frank about that fact. An ethical decision stands on its own merits if it is based upon sound principles. There is no need to prop it up with the circular argument that embryonic stem cells are useless because we don't know how to use them therapeutically therefore we won't fund research on how to use them therapeutically.
    Well, I think the premise is more "Science has tried the embryonic route in the past, and up to now the investment hasn't been worth it."

    There's plenty of embryonic stem cell research going on around the globe, and up to now none of it has been an unqualified success. Some of it has been downright fraudulent (as in the South Korean case and Chinese efforts). Compare / contrast against cord blood & adult stem cell research, which has been grinding out the cures on a regular basis.

    So from that premise the government could use the success / failure rate argument.
    These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for. LMAO

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seneca, South Carolina
    Posts
    1,413
    Rep Power
    163256

    Default Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

    Hardly any new technology is a success in the beginning, especially when it comes to complex biological and biochemical mechanisms that we are only beginning to understand.

    However, life is governed by the same laws of physics that govern everything else. So, just like computers and other technology, it will be only a matter of time before we understand how stem cells work and how they will be used for real human benefit. It's just a more difficult than average problem to solve.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fleetwood, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    875
    Rep Power
    34782

    Default Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

    Quote Originally Posted by MostlyHarmless View Post
    So were all of us. The question is "is there a difference between an 8 cell lump in a petri dish and an 8 cell lump in a uterus?"
    By eight cell lump are you talking about an embryo or tissue extracted from another live source?

    Why aren't IVF clinics, that destroy more embryo's than any abortion clinic, on the target list of pro-lifers? Looks like hypocrisy to me ... but that's probably just me.

    Jan
    IVF has long been on the radar screen.

    LifeSite News report

    Minnesota pro-life group advocating the adoption of IVF embryos

    RC Church ruling on the issue of IVF

    Jill Stanek's archives on IVF

    Stanek's op-ed on the issue - USAToday

    SBC position - "Vast human tragedy"
    These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for. LMAO

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    (Philadelphia County)
    Posts
    3,007
    Rep Power
    1686266

    Default Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

    Quote Originally Posted by kunsunoke View Post
    Well, I think the premise is more "Science has tried the embryonic route in the past, and up to now the investment hasn't been worth it."
    No, it's not. If it were, then the research would be getting rejected by NIH and not by politicians. NIH rejects a large majority of research applications based on their scientific merits. They do this without help from the president. The only time you need politicians to intervene is to make sure that things don't get funded even if they are scientifically sound.

    If it was just about the science there would have been no blanket ban on funding new ESC research.


    There's plenty of embryonic stem cell research going on around the globe, and up to now none of it has been an unqualified success. Some of it has been downright fraudulent (as in the South Korean case and Chinese efforts). Compare / contrast against cord blood & adult stem cell research, which has been grinding out the cures on a regular basis.

    So from that premise the government could use the success / failure rate argument.
    Bush banned funding of any research not using the cells that predated his 2001 order. He could have let NIH do its job and evaluate embryonic vs adult stem cell research on the merits of the individual study. But instead he issued an outright ban. Bush's own statements admitted the scientific potential of ESC.

    But religion and trying to make the hardline "life begins at conception" case is much less convincing than science, so here you are attempting to pretend there is a scientific reason to ditch ESC research for good. Just like PETA claim that they can "prove" animal research doesn't work, and oh by coincidence that position just happens to serve their ideological agenda, well isn't that a surprise.

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Fleetwood, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    875
    Rep Power
    34782

    Default Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

    Quote Originally Posted by Philbert View Post
    No, it's not. If it were, then the research would be getting rejected by NIH and not by politicians.
    You're assuming that no politicking ever occurs at NIH. It's a government agency, so anything goes.

    NIH rejects a large majority of research applications based on their scientific merits. They do this without help from the president. The only time you need politicians to intervene is to make sure that things don't get funded even if they are scientifically sound.
    The converse is also true.

    Politicians (those in name as well as bureaucrats at NIH and other scientific organizations) insist that we fund research into anthropogenic global warming despite evidence of outright fraud at NASA-GISS and the IPCC. There is a definite conflict of interest there, because those same government agencies stand to benefit from increased funding, and government itself stands to become more powerful as a result of the fraud.

    As Rahm Emmanuel is of wont to say - no point in wasting a good crisis. Especially if it's one you concocted out of the ether.

    If it was just about the science there would have been no blanket ban on funding new ESC research.
    Never said that the Bush ban was about science alone. I'm sure his faith had a lot to do with his support for the ban. I did suggest, however, that ESC should be de-funded on the basis of success/failure rates - which is precisely what (IMO) should occur in the sciences when no politicking is present. There is also the larger issue of whether we are destroying more human lives than we save in the process - which again brings us back to the issue of where human life begins in gestation.

    Obviously if you de-fund on religious basis alone you're going to take some flack for it. That's not a bad thing. However, IMO you're better off arguing the ethical, individual liberty and scientific points - which are inescapable.

    Bush banned funding of any research not using the cells that predated his 2001 order. He could have let NIH do its job and evaluate embryonic vs adult stem cell research on the merits of the individual study. But instead he issued an outright ban.
    Bush's own statements admitted the scientific potential of ESC.
    Perhaps erroneously. GWB wasn't of sound scientific background on that or most other issues (anthropogenic global warming was a particular soft spot in his head).

    But religion and trying to make the hardline "life begins at conception" case is much less convincing than science, so here you are attempting to pretend there is a scientific reason to ditch ESC research for good.
    Phil, it's not pretense - it's based on evidence which suggests that the practice is not only a waste of time (vs. other, more successful stem cell research programs) but dangerous as well. We also run a substantial risk of violating the rights of unborn people (having never bothered to determine where life actually begins in gestation).

    As I said, don't just take my word for it. Check out the support links.
    These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for. LMAO

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    (Philadelphia County)
    Posts
    3,007
    Rep Power
    1686266

    Default Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

    Quote Originally Posted by ehidle View Post
    Hardly any new technology is a success in the beginning, especially when it comes to complex biological and biochemical mechanisms that we are only beginning to understand.

    However, life is governed by the same laws of physics that govern everything else. So, just like computers and other technology, it will be only a matter of time before we understand how stem cells work and how they will be used for real human benefit. It's just a more difficult than average problem to solve.
    It is, and it is more difficult when there is political interference. The scientific agencies of the US are world leaders in research sponsorship. For the past eight years, their hands have been tied with respect to funding embryonic research. It is ridiculous to attempt to declare conclusions about the potential of adult vs embryonic cells at this early stage, and that folly is compounded when the research into embryonic cells has been deliberately curtailed. Note that nobody is trying to deny the usefulness of adult stem cells. But it is too early to declare that they are the best option for all applications.

    As the National Academies of Science has put it:

    Both adult and embryonic stem cells can contribute to the development of regenerative medicine. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) have the advantage of multipotency and have shown themselves to be readily culturable in the laboratory. Although the degree of plasticity of adult stem cells is still unknown and there are difficulties in purifying and culturing them, the only proven stem cell-based medical therapies that are currently available rely on adult-derived stem cells from bone marrow and skin, and adult stem cells from other tissues might someday provide therapies that stimulate the body’s own regenerative potential. Because of a misunderstanding of the state of knowledge, there may be an unwarranted impression that widespread clinical application of new therapies is certain and imminent. In fact, stem cell research is in its infancy, and there are substantial gaps in knowledge that pose obstacles to the realization of new therapies from either adult or embryoderived stem cells.
    Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine (2002)

    This was written in 2002, a year after ESC research funding was cut by Bush. Since then there has been some progress, though to my knowledge there is still no FDA-approved treatment using stem cells (there have been several trials using both adult and embryonic cells).

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 51112131415

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 41
    Last Post: March 12th, 2009, 04:03 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 24th, 2008, 11:53 AM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 11th, 2008, 03:05 PM
  4. Replies: 48
    Last Post: July 8th, 2008, 08:19 AM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 8th, 2007, 10:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Local gun shops | Local shooting ranges | Philadelphia Shooting Ranges | Philadelphia Gun Shops | Pittsburgh Shooting Ranges | Pittsburgh Gun Shops