FDA OKs 1st Embryonic Stem Cell Trial - US News and World Report
We'll soon find out if it is indeed the cure all that many hope it will be. I know I'll be waiting in fascination:)
Printable View
FDA OKs 1st Embryonic Stem Cell Trial - US News and World Report
We'll soon find out if it is indeed the cure all that many hope it will be. I know I'll be waiting in fascination:)
Its about time. I cant wait to see the results of these experiments and future experiments.
Just read where Obama is planning to lift the ban on U.S. funded abortions in other countries. Is it just me, or does it sound like he's not really too worried about our economy?
Cheap shot. If you read your history, this is something that gets changed whenever there's a switch in which party inhabits the White House. Reagan banned it. Clinton unbanned it. Bush rebanned it. Obama just unbanned it again. The Prez simply signs a piece of paper. Takes no time away from dealing with other issues...Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird
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.
Contrary to your misbelief this is not correct. But your statement doesn't even attempt to be related to any facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
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.
I fail to see how my post is childish or relates at all to any of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
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:HJ
Well I interpreted your post as sarcasm which I find childish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Orange
Verbatim from the article:
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Orange
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.
EXACTLY! Which, if I remember correctly, was to be priority one for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
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:nono: (and yes, that last bit was sarcasm)
I agree on this point. As for the expenditure of our tax dollars go, think how many Medicaid dollars we will save if FOCA passes, when thousands of Catholic hospitals will close when told they must perform abortions. Yes, the sarcasm intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by freebird
No, I don't think feeling morally superior is a bad thing - for one helps to make for a coherent patriotic nation. It's a good thing, all of us try to be good and not bad. But of course at the level these decisions are made I don't think this is all that important of a factor.
I think the abortion issue is presented in a very politically colored light. I don't know how many read the article on foxnews but it makes it fairly clear what this is.
This is not about the business of abortions, but about whether the availability of an abortion as a tool should automatically disqualify from government funding.
Whether we like it or not, abortions have always existed and will continue to be performed everywhere in the world, and people choose them for their own reasons.
The ban just seems like something put into place for purely ideological reasons. I think that the decisions what gets funded and what doesn't should be made based on merit, not ideology.
I really find completely unfounded the implied suggestion that the existence of such ban is the only thing preventing some southpark like scenario of free US funded abortions for the world's population.
And finally without any numbers, discussion like this is really just a lot of wind on our part as the only arguments can be based on a 'principle' and thus likely very irrelevant for all practical purposes.
You guys'll have some catching up to do, us lot over the pond have been prodding around with stem cells some time now. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Orange
Or maybe you mean now that you guys are on it, you'll solve the problem pretty quick? :p
I don't want to get embroiled in a political thread, but I'll set the facts straight. Obama did not OK US funding of abortions. The ban, which was removed, was on providing ANY funding for any international organization that provided abortions. Let's say, for example, that there was an organization in Thailand, or some such, dedicated to the rescue of women involved in the sex industry involuntarily (we could probably all agree that this is a good thing). A noble endeavor, but if the organization should choose to provide abortions, even under accounting practices that clearly demonstrate that none of the funding for abortions came from the US government, that organization would still be ineligible for US funds during the ban. It was, is, and shall remain illegal (I think since 1973 (***update, actually 1961)) for international organizations to provide abortions using US government funds.
Of course we'll solve it faster. We're Americans, duh";"Quote:
Originally Posted by majurey
The real kicker to this one is that the Bush position -- of de-funding organizations that offered abortion services in addition to family planning services -- actually resulted in increases in the number of abortions in some of the countries affected -- in some cases large increases. It seems that when you deny women access to family planning services, they tend to get preggers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottS
This, of course, has bolstered the notion that the Bush position on abortion was about ideology, not about reducing the number of abortions.
j
Definition:Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
Foreign Aid-- The process of taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.
j
So, how about just providing support for contraceptice services alone then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Not funding for abortion as a means of contraception using my tax money.
The agencies offered that as a solution -- funding for family planning services only, with transparent bookkeeping to keep things on the up-and-up. The ideologues in the Bush administration said no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
j
And now we have the idealogues of the Obama administration saying "no" to providing it without also funding abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
Nope, sorry. Not the same thing at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
Obama supports reproductive freedom; Bush opposed it. Therefore, Obama supports funding of abortion, which Bush opposed. Fair enough.
But Bush also de-funded any organization that had anything to do with abortion, even though he wasn't being asked to support the abortions themselves. He did this as a sop to one of his constituencies, even though it was manifestly not in the national interest, and had the effect of increasing the number of abortions anyway. With the third world population explosion as it is, this was not only stupid, it was bad for the nation and the world community.
That's the difference.
j
I hope that soon we'll all be able to go to the phrarmacy and purchase pre-packaged stem cell injections over the counter. That way if a person is injured, they can just inject themselves and have the recuperative powers of Wolverine. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Wielder
Everyone knows stem cells aren't worth a damn unless you snap the head off a fetus and suck them out of the spine fresh. Wolverine. Honestly. What childishness!
:rofl2::rofl2:
-Rob