Thread: FDA approved embryonic stem cell trials

Originally Posted by freebird

Not exactly a cheap shot, think about it, he just took the ban off of U.S. funded (our tax dollars) abortions in other countries. I for one would rather my tax wouldn't go to kill babies in other countries. And if we're in such a financial mess, then wouldn't that tax money be better spent here? He could've just left it alone, at least until we're out of the financial mess we're in.....and that was supposed to be his priority when he took office.

Firebird: That comes from the petty cash money, like the $150 M for the inauguration.

Don't forget, we have $1,000,000,000,000 to throw away

"Is it just me, or does it sound like he's not really too worried about our economy?"

Yeah. It's just you and it really was a cheap shot. There's no correlation between Obama's decision to rescind the government's "Mexico City policy" on disbursing family planning funds and his actions/concern over the economy. The policy regarding the disbursement of these funds changes every time there's a change in terms of which political party wins the White House. Your obvious disagreement with the issue of government funded abortion is fine. But to state that because Obama did exactly what Bush did when he took office (reverse the policy of his political predecessor) means he's not as concerned as he should be over the economy is a cheap shot. Read the news-the new administration is initiating a host of steps/programs in an effort to deal with the current economic crisis. You don't have to agree with the actions being pursued, but to say there's a lack of concern is just plain inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Navaja

Firebird: That comes from the petty cash money, like the $150 M for the inauguration.

Contrary to your misbelief this is not correct. But your statement doesn't even attempt to be related to any facts.

As far as the abortion thing goes, it seems to me that the current policy is better than the old one, based on just not being hypocritical. Abortion is legal in United States, therefore I don't see a reason for an abortion litmus test to be imposed on any government aid. This is consistent with US law and if the law was reversed the proper policy in my view would be the opposite one which was followed by the former administration.

Back to the original topic, we've recently had a long-running stem-cell discussion.
In my view the stance in the first post is as childish as "since the Bush administration was so big on absitnence-only sex ed, the problem of unwanted pregnancies and STDs must've been erradicated". Yes, there are more tools available now and from a scientific point of view this is a very positive thing, no matter whether it helps directly or indirectly.

Originally Posted by gugi

Back to the original topic, we've recently had a long-running stem-cell discussion.
In my view the stance in the first post is as childish as "since the Bush administration was so big on absitnence-only sex ed, the problem of unwanted pregnancies and STDs must've been erradicated". Yes, there are more tools available now and from a scientific point of view this is a very positive thing, no matter whether it helps directly or indirectly.

I fail to see how my post is childish or relates at all to any of that.

What Freebird is saying is that funding international abortion and abortion promotion is a waste of money. What exactly is so childish and cheap about that? Anyway

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

I fail to see how my post is childish or relates at all to any of that.

Well I interpreted your post as sarcasm which I find childish.
Verbatim from the article:

The goal of this first trial is to see if injecting embryonic stem cells into humans is safe.
However, the researchers will also be looking for signs of improvement in the patients' ability to feel sensation in or move their legs.
The treatment is not expected to restore full function to patients, but the researchers hope to see modest gains.

The article is more than clear that the reason this is important is not that it is a cure of some sort, but because it is the first ever clinical trial of this novel type of treatment. The goals for the trials are rather modest and will more than likely not provide cure.
Any possible cures are long term and it seems clear, that's why your post looked more as a sarcasm. Anyways, I apologize if I misinterpreted it.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

What Freebird is saying is that funding international abortion and abortion promotion is a waste of money. What exactly is so childish and cheap about that? Anyway

I think I addressed this already - any foreign aid is waste of money under this standard. But that was not presented as a problem, only that now there is no limit based on, in my view, very arbitrary 'abortion related' criteria.
I personally think the US international AID is an important tool for the US national security, and as I already said I believe in "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", so no need for restrictions which would be unlawful in US.

I think the biggest issue being expressed in this thread is the idea of foriegn aid, we cant afford it until we get our own house in order.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

I think the biggest issue being expressed in this thread is the idea of foriegn aid, we cant afford it until we get our own house in order.

EXACTLY! Which, if I remember correctly, was to be priority one for him.

Well, indeed that is a valid concern and it may need a separate thread. I'm not sure that's the case though. Isolationist US, while good from certain point of view is not really a winning position in my view. And if US would remain very active foreign relations the aid is by far the cheaper solution than letting the proverbial SHTF.
Plus all this foreign aid does make americans feel morally superior. I know I should shut up, probably.
In any case the new administration has shown intent to pursue soft power to a much larger extent than the last one. The history will show if that would be successful strategy, it seems to me that it may be - a balanced approach almost always works much better than the extremes.

I don't know whether US can afford foreign aid, but I think it certainly cannot afford not to. The country is in the red and if all the creditors demand their money it will be essentially bankrupt. And a lot of it's creditors will be bankrupt as well. We'll have to wait and see what happens, after all that's why we pay the politicians the big bucks.

Sticky subject indeed. About the foreign abortion aid– I agree with Gugi that it's a good idea to lift the BAN on US aided foreign abortion, but I agree with others that The US should not even be involved in foreign abortion issues. Why they are kind of boggles my mind and I really don't care to know any more about that whole situation. Ignorance is bliss.

As for stem cell research– I hope more than anything that something good comes of it. I too will be waiting intently.

My original post was not sarcastic. If you'll reference the last sentence as well as the smiley, I am waiting in fascination. In which case, apology accepted

Perhaps cure was too strong of a word, but I like modest gains too. I have slight spinal injury from surgery which really isn't bad, but it could be better. I'll take a modest gain, and I think those that might benefit from it will take a modest gain as well. Cure? No. A hell of a lot better than nothing? Absolutely.

As for foreign aid, I think it's a fallacy to call it an all or nothing deal. I believe any country has the right to give aid to some causes/countries and not others. If I want to give my change to the beggar on 23rd and Penn but not to the one of 10th and Penn, then that's my prerogative. I support breast cancer research but not AIDS research. Would it be better for me to just cut everyone off?

You make it sound like feeling morally superior is a bad thing. Don't you feel good about yourself when you help someone out? I know I do. I'm such a bastard, I know (and yes, that last bit was sarcasm)