There haven't been enough batches of the vaccine produced to cover even you, Mr. Middleclass.
Between Chrion and Sanofi-Aventis, millions of vaccinations have already been produced. I think I'll be fine. Want to bet?
There are no corporations interested in spending the money necessary to properly research stem cell treatment.
That's odd since corporations throughout Europe and SE Asia have invested much in stem cell research and will continue to do so.
As it stands now, there is no profit to be made from research findings...not to mention, the majority of research is occurring in the laboratories of academia, aka non-profits.
No profit in curing Alzheimers? Ok.
A much larger investment in this research by the government would save them money in the long run.
Perhaps. Problem is, it would cost me and my neighbors money.
The enormous costs billed to government for treatments on diseases which could be cured by stemcell treatment could be wiped clean.
:rolleyes:
Stem cell treatment will not make you immortal.
The "enormous costs" you speak of can be wiped clean by simply eliminating the right of the government to steal that money to begin with. What you're proposing is the opposite -- giving them the right to steal even more.
Once the treatment is understood and manipulated to a commercial form, it will present a huge boon to the economy.
So?
Also, as I mentioned before, this is the kind of thing that will help other nations to once again look favorable upon the US.
:rolleyes:
Just like the AIDS drugs we invented, right?
I'm not as fiscally conservative as you, but I am a conservative. You live in much the same utopic mindset as those on the far left that you lambaste day in and day out.
Strange since what I'm proposing is exactly what we're doing now -- using no government money for stem cell research. We must be in a utopia, huh?
Between Chrion and Sanofi-Aventis, millions of vaccinations have already been produced. I think I'll be fine. Want to bet?
That's odd since corporations throughout Europe and SE Asia have invested much in stem cell research and will continue to do so.
No profit in curing Alzheimers? Ok.
Perhaps. Problem is, it would cost me and my neighbors money.
:rolleyes:
Stem cell treatment will not make you immortal.
The "enormous costs" you speak of can be wiped clean by simply eliminating the right of the government to steal that money to begin with. What you're proposing is the opposite -- giving them the right to steal even more.
So?
:rolleyes:
Just like the AIDS drugs we invented, right?
Strange since what I'm proposing is exactly what we're doing now -- using no government money for stem cell research. We must be in a utopia, huh?
We just 300 million people in the US...a few million probably doesn't mean that "we'll be okay".
And our government isn't funding stem cell research now because of moral objections, not any sort of grand fiscal conservative high road.
I'm done. Whatever, man.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
I think people should be allowed to make the choice and in the event they choose abortion, why not use the stem cells?
But, what I understand about stem cells is they have to actually be from your body, you can't just stick anyone's stem cells in your body. I'm not sure if the host would reject the foreign stem cells, but probably.
So, if you want to have your own stem cells, you need to extract your DNA from a skin sample or something, then extract the DNA from a female human egg and inject your DNA. Or if you are a woman just extract your egg. Then you put it in a microwave for 3 minutes on high and watch the cells grow.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
We just 300 million people in the US...a few million probably doesn't mean that "we'll be okay".
I didn't say "we'll be okay". I said I'll be ok. However, I will bet you any amount of money right now that in the event of a bird flu pandemic, there will be no bird flu vaccination shortage in this country in the next 15 years.
And our government isn't funding stem cell research now because of moral objections, not any sort of grand fiscal conservative high road.
Hey, you're the one who brought up the "grand fiscal conservative high road". If you go back and read my posts, you'll find out the reason I do not support government-funded stem cell research is because I do not believe the government has a right to force those with moral objections to pay for it.
Abortion is killing a life no matter what you want to believe. Its a fact, Its reality. You abort a baby, you killed the baby. Abortion in my opinon should not be a right for people. There is such thing as too many rights in life and killing a baby is abortion.
How is it a fact? Do you have data to support this? Look we can sit here till the end of time debating wether a fetus is a living being or not. The way I see it a fetus which is 24 weeks of gestation and under can not survive outside of the womb no matter how much medical assistance or intervention is a applied, that is fact and I can provide data to prove so. To me that does not constitute a living being. It is an extension of the mother since it can not sustain life on it's own or with medical assitance outside of the mother. After that point, once the fetus has matured enough and is capable of life apart from the mother, even if it means that it needs medical assistance, it is considered a living being. Now this doesn't mean that I'm right and your wrong or vice versa, it's just my opinion and everyone is entitled to one. What I do disapprove of is when people insist on ramming their opinion down my throat.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
How is it a fact? Do you have data to support this? Look we can sit here till the end of time debating wether a fetus is a living being or not. The way I see it a fetus which is 24 weeks of gestation and under can not survive outside of the womb no matter how much medical assistance or intervention is a applied, that is fact and I can provide data to prove so. To me that does not constitute a living being. It is an extension of the mother since it can not sustain life on it's own or with medical assitance outside of the mother. After that point, once the fetus has matured enough and is capable of life apart from the mother, even if it means that it needs medical assistance, it is considered a living being. Now this doesn't mean that I'm right and your wrong or vice versa, it's just my opinion and everyone is entitled to one. What I do disapprove of is when people insist on ramming their opinion down my throat.
Good post. I haven't come to the same exact conclusion that you have, but when coming up with a conclusion, you used the right rationale, and reasoning to get there, and I totally respect your opinion.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
I don't believe the two issues are mutually exclusive, especially now that scientists have demonstrated that they can extract stem cells without destroying embryo's.
As for abortion, it's not my right as a man to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Also, I think that part of the problem with the world today is that clearly there are people that were not aborted who should have been.
i am pro choice and pro stem cell research. i am also anti death penalty.
i never understood how all of these people who are against abortion can be so pro death penalty. and most of the people that i know that are pro life were big iraq war hawks as well. i am not generalizing anyone here, i am just speaking about my personal experience and people i know. in the US society culture of life applies only to the unborn i guess.
i believe that it is our moral obligation to try to preserve the lives of the people that are living, ie. out of the womb. there are certain diseases that affect our species that can not be treated with current medical interventions. i feel that it is our duty to examine other possibilities for possible treatments and cures and stem cell research is the most promising to date. i think we would be doing the human race a disservice if we did not examine these possibilities. in my perfect world faith should not get in the way of science.
in a few weeks we in the state of missouri will be voting on the stem cell initiative that would allow funding to go to stem cell research. there are conditions that run in my family that may be helped with stem cell research. if i were to develop one of them, how could you in good conscience vote to deny me that opportunity for treatment or a cure?? if your dad had parkinsons you would want a cure. if your daughter was paralyzed in an auto accident you would want a cure. ask yourself this... if a cure comes from stem cells, would you oppose the remedy or would you suffer with your condition based on your morals. its a tough question. in my opinion people should put themselves in the shoes of the people that need these treatments and don't deny the rest of us based on a moral foundation.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i never understood how all of these people who are against abortion can be so pro death penalty.
Of course you do. Look at this statement you make:
i believe that it is our moral obligation to try to preserve the lives of the people that are living, ie. out of the womb.
See, instead of saying "I believe that it is our moral obligation to try to preserve life", you add a qualificiation ("out of the womb"). Similarly, those who support the death penalty or a war would make a similar statement with a different qualificiation.
Just as you classify a fetus as having no right to life, others would classify terrorists or murderers or Iraqis or whatever as having no right to life. It's not complicated.
The reason I wanted to know was, how could you be for both???? One has to do with killing life and the other has to do with saving life, so how could someone be for both?
amazing really. b/c if one is pro-CHOICE...than obviously, they are pro-killing? pleeeeeezzzze. many, masny things are 'alive'...and yet we kill them all the time, w/o a thought. so i fail to see the relevance of this analogy. to end the possibility of life outside a mother, to a cluster of cells......and what?....being FOR medical research/advancement/cures....are mutually exclusive? seems a VERY narrow view to say the least.
but sure, i'll turn this tired bebate right into more tired debate...how about those pro-lifes who are pro-death penalty? same thing right? one is about saving life, the other is about killing life. yea....sometimes too simplistic eh?
btw - i am pro-CHOICE...and in favor of stem cell research. go figure.
Comments
Between Chrion and Sanofi-Aventis, millions of vaccinations have already been produced. I think I'll be fine. Want to bet?
That's odd since corporations throughout Europe and SE Asia have invested much in stem cell research and will continue to do so.
No profit in curing Alzheimers? Ok.
Perhaps. Problem is, it would cost me and my neighbors money.
:rolleyes:
Stem cell treatment will not make you immortal.
The "enormous costs" you speak of can be wiped clean by simply eliminating the right of the government to steal that money to begin with. What you're proposing is the opposite -- giving them the right to steal even more.
So?
:rolleyes:
Just like the AIDS drugs we invented, right?
Strange since what I'm proposing is exactly what we're doing now -- using no government money for stem cell research. We must be in a utopia, huh?
We just 300 million people in the US...a few million probably doesn't mean that "we'll be okay".
And our government isn't funding stem cell research now because of moral objections, not any sort of grand fiscal conservative high road.
I'm done. Whatever, man.
I think people should be allowed to make the choice and in the event they choose abortion, why not use the stem cells?
But, what I understand about stem cells is they have to actually be from your body, you can't just stick anyone's stem cells in your body. I'm not sure if the host would reject the foreign stem cells, but probably.
So, if you want to have your own stem cells, you need to extract your DNA from a skin sample or something, then extract the DNA from a female human egg and inject your DNA. Or if you are a woman just extract your egg. Then you put it in a microwave for 3 minutes on high and watch the cells grow.
I didn't say "we'll be okay". I said I'll be ok. However, I will bet you any amount of money right now that in the event of a bird flu pandemic, there will be no bird flu vaccination shortage in this country in the next 15 years.
Hey, you're the one who brought up the "grand fiscal conservative high road". If you go back and read my posts, you'll find out the reason I do not support government-funded stem cell research is because I do not believe the government has a right to force those with moral objections to pay for it.
How is it a fact? Do you have data to support this? Look we can sit here till the end of time debating wether a fetus is a living being or not. The way I see it a fetus which is 24 weeks of gestation and under can not survive outside of the womb no matter how much medical assistance or intervention is a applied, that is fact and I can provide data to prove so. To me that does not constitute a living being. It is an extension of the mother since it can not sustain life on it's own or with medical assitance outside of the mother. After that point, once the fetus has matured enough and is capable of life apart from the mother, even if it means that it needs medical assistance, it is considered a living being. Now this doesn't mean that I'm right and your wrong or vice versa, it's just my opinion and everyone is entitled to one. What I do disapprove of is when people insist on ramming their opinion down my throat.
Good post. I haven't come to the same exact conclusion that you have, but when coming up with a conclusion, you used the right rationale, and reasoning to get there, and I totally respect your opinion.
As for abortion, it's not my right as a man to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Also, I think that part of the problem with the world today is that clearly there are people that were not aborted who should have been.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
i never understood how all of these people who are against abortion can be so pro death penalty. and most of the people that i know that are pro life were big iraq war hawks as well. i am not generalizing anyone here, i am just speaking about my personal experience and people i know. in the US society culture of life applies only to the unborn i guess.
i believe that it is our moral obligation to try to preserve the lives of the people that are living, ie. out of the womb. there are certain diseases that affect our species that can not be treated with current medical interventions. i feel that it is our duty to examine other possibilities for possible treatments and cures and stem cell research is the most promising to date. i think we would be doing the human race a disservice if we did not examine these possibilities. in my perfect world faith should not get in the way of science.
in a few weeks we in the state of missouri will be voting on the stem cell initiative that would allow funding to go to stem cell research. there are conditions that run in my family that may be helped with stem cell research. if i were to develop one of them, how could you in good conscience vote to deny me that opportunity for treatment or a cure?? if your dad had parkinsons you would want a cure. if your daughter was paralyzed in an auto accident you would want a cure. ask yourself this... if a cure comes from stem cells, would you oppose the remedy or would you suffer with your condition based on your morals. its a tough question. in my opinion people should put themselves in the shoes of the people that need these treatments and don't deny the rest of us based on a moral foundation.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Of course you do. Look at this statement you make:
See, instead of saying "I believe that it is our moral obligation to try to preserve life", you add a qualificiation ("out of the womb"). Similarly, those who support the death penalty or a war would make a similar statement with a different qualificiation.
Just as you classify a fetus as having no right to life, others would classify terrorists or murderers or Iraqis or whatever as having no right to life. It's not complicated.
amazing really. b/c if one is pro-CHOICE...than obviously, they are pro-killing? pleeeeeezzzze. many, masny things are 'alive'...and yet we kill them all the time, w/o a thought. so i fail to see the relevance of this analogy. to end the possibility of life outside a mother, to a cluster of cells......and what?....being FOR medical research/advancement/cures....are mutually exclusive? seems a VERY narrow view to say the least.
but sure, i'll turn this tired bebate right into more tired debate...how about those pro-lifes who are pro-death penalty? same thing right? one is about saving life, the other is about killing life. yea....sometimes too simplistic eh?
btw - i am pro-CHOICE...and in favor of stem cell research. go figure.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow