• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama To Alter Abortion Policy

Wessexman said:
Of course it is emotional we are talking about ethics and humanity not geology. It will be a sad day when these kinds of problems are not greeted with emotion.
Click to expand...

We should take emotions into consideration, but shouldn't let them get in the way of scientific progression.
 
dclxvinoise said:
We should take emotions into consideration, but shouldn't let them get in the way of scientific progression.
Click to expand...

Why? Is Science not meant to benefit humanity? Morality should govern science otherwise humanity will be lost in this "progression".
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Okay that was pretty good and I see a use for that. But I disagree they can replace embryonic stem research.

I know you are going to ask why but I'm about to walk out of the house.
Click to expand...

You asked me "Why????" You are right--I ask "Why not???"
 
Last edited:
Felicity said:
Embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary and a waste of money. There's your "non-religious argument" against it. We can't afford to waste money.
Click to expand...

That's for the scientists to decide.

The removal of the ban does not mean more money is spent (as you falsely assert), it just means money can be allocated for ESCR.

If appropriators determine ESCR is not worth the money then they won't allocate money toward it. No one is forcing money into ESCR. Obama is simply allowing money to be spent on ESCR if appropriators wish to.
 
Wessexman said:
Why? Is Science not meant to benefit humanity? Morality should govern science otherwise humanity will be lost in this "progression".
Click to expand...

Science is absolutely meant to benefit humanity. This is precisely why we shouldn't let morality dictate our decisions in science. Like I said, they should be taken into consideration, but shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of progress because morality differs from person to person. I also think there are varying degrees of moral objections. In this particular case I think people are going overboard by acting like an embryonic cell is a living person. And I fail to see how humanity could get lost to progression. That sounds silly to me.
 
Felicity said:
You asked me "Why????" You are right--I ask "Why not???"
Click to expand...

I bookmarked this so I'll get back to you on that. It is time for me to make up beds, do laundry and go to happy hour;)
 
winston53660 said:
I bookmarked this so I'll get back to you on that. It is time for me to make up beds, do laundry and go to happy hour;)
Click to expand...

You've got that in reverse order.;)
 
scourge99 said:
That's for the scientists to decide.

The removal of the ban does not mean more money is spent (as you falsely assert), it just means money can be allocated for ESCR.

If appropriators determine ESCR is not worth the money then they won't allocate money toward it. No one is forcing money into ESCR. Obama is simply allowing money to be spent on ESCR if appropriators wish to.
Click to expand...

There is a strong lobby to do the unnecessary and unneeded to placate and salve the "feelings" of those suffering horrible afflictions. There's another "appeal to emotion" on the pro-killing embryos" side of the debate.;)
 
dclxvinoise said:
Science is absolutely meant to benefit humanity. This is precisely why we shouldn't let morality dictate our decisions in science. Like I said, they should be taken into consideration, but shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of progress because morality differs from person to person. I also think there are varying degrees of moral objections. In this particular case I think people are going overboard by acting like an embryonic cell is a living person. And I fail to see how humanity could get lost to progression. That sounds silly to me.
Click to expand...
Basically you are arguing for the morality of scientific progression, oh the irony. Morality has a lot to do with our civilisation and science should be made a wholesome and not destructive part of our civilisation which itself shapes science.

Humanity can get lost in scientific progression when science is not made to serve the needs of humanity and society, particularly when it is held up as some sort of secular god.
 
JMak said:
Embryonic stem cells. Not adult stem cells. Please try to get the terminology correct. Opponents of Bush's funding policy have deliberately mischaracterized Bush's policy as restricting stem cell research generally when, in fact, Bush's policy permitted using fed funds on existing embryonic stem cell lines and restricting fed funding on new embryonic stem cell lines.

There's are important distinctions between embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research and the policy implications of each. The way you drafted your initial post completely blurred those distinctions.
Click to expand...

No need to insult me. I know the difference, and am not mischaracterizing anything. Fact is, Bush DID place limitations on stem cell research, which is what I originally said, although I did not specify the nature of his limitations. You said he didn't. Embryonic stem cells happen to the the important stems cells here, as you can't do as much with non-embryonic stem cells. The embryonic stem cell lines that Bush allowed researchers to keep were not very good lines at all, and practically worthless. With the change in policy comes the opening up of ALL embryonic stem cell lines.
 
Wessexman said:
Humanity can get lost in scientific progression when science is not made to serve the needs of humanity and society, particularly when it is held up as some sort of secular god.
Click to expand...

I don't consider science a god by any stretch. And science can serve the needs of humanity while remaining secular. The problem with religion (Christianity in this instance) is that they feel the need to instill their beliefs into all facets of life even if they have no place there. I would have no problem with religion if it could keep to itself and not try to influence everything from legislation, science, what is considered obscenity, etc. There are many people in this country from a wide variety of cultures and belief systems. Their opinions should be heard just as much as Christians are. This only underlines the fact that science needs to be kept secular.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Science is absolutely meant to benefit humanity.
Click to expand...
Benefits like... the atom bomb, VX gas and weaponized pathogens?

Science, like many other things, isn't inherently beneficial or detrimental -- its what you -do- with it.

This is precisely why we shouldn't let morality dictate our decisions in science. Like I said, they should be taken into consideration, but shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of progress because morality differs from person to person.
Click to expand...
The definition of "progress", like morality, differs from person to person, and, often, for the same reasons. There's no sound argument that someone's definition of progress should be allowed to trample someone's defintion of morality.
 
dclxvinoise said:
I don't consider science a god by any stretch. And science can serve the needs of humanity while remaining secular. The problem with religion (Christianity in this instance) is that they feel the need to instill their beliefs into all facets of life even if they have no place there. I would have no problem with religion if it could keep to itself and not try to influence everything from legislation, science, what is considered obscenity, etc. There are many people in this country from a wide variety of cultures and belief systems. Their opinions should be heard just as much as Christians are. This only underlines the fact that science needs to be kept secular.
Click to expand...
The problem is that all men operate on what can called be "metaprinciples" ie spiritual, ethical and metaphysical beliefs including athiests and these cannot and should not be ruled out of discussions that includes human society and ethics. Society requires morality and science should serve society.

As much as athiests and liberals like to pretend they are talking scientifically in these discussions they can't help but enter the realms of philosophy. Someone already mentioned the unconsciousness of embyros as a reason why killing them is okay, but that is not a fully scientific argument it includes ethical and spiritual ideas about personhood and rights and such.

The strange thing is that some people don't think society shapes technology and ways of looking at science. They really should read their Lewis Mumford.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Benefits like... the atom bomb, VX gas and weaponized pathogens?

Science, like many other things, isn't inherently beneficial or detrimental -- its what you -do- with it.
Click to expand...
It is also interestingly how you develop it. There are always many means and ways of developing ideas and usages and it is partly society that decides what is and isn't developed. Hence Hero of Alexandria's steam engine was not developed because the society of the time had all the cheap slave labour it needed and there was little use for it.

We live in a very centralised society and so no surprise the centralised options tend to be ones developed by the large institutions like gov't and corporations that dominate our society.
 
Last edited:
Felicity said:
There is a strong lobby to do the unnecessary and unneeded to placate and salve the "feelings" of those suffering horrible afflictions.
Click to expand...
ok, then fight the lobby but don't make asinine bans on ESCR to achieve such ends.

You solution is like banning the republican party from politics because you disagree with their platform even though its enitrely legal.
 
scourge99 said:
ok, then fight the lobby but don't make asinine bans on ESCR to achieve such ends.

You solution is like banning the republican party from politics because you disagree with their platform even though its enitrely legal.
Click to expand...

What don't you understand about waste of money? There is nothing necessary to destroy embryos. AND There is a vested interest in obtaining the leftover embryos of IVF treatment. It is like a new vein of gold for people who want to do research on the cheap and to hell with ethics of buying and selling of body parts (even though it's actually buying and selling of complete human organisms--also known as slavery).
 
Last edited:
What hurts is killing babies is not even necessary.......They have found out they can get the same outcome from adult stem cells.........Why is the left so anxious to kill babies? I will never understand that.........
 
Felicity said:
What don't you understand about waste of money?
Click to expand...
What don't you understand about how government money is appropriated? Once again, the repeal of the ban does not change the total amount of funding allocated for scientific research, ESCR or otherwise.

If you got a problem with the method in which government officials appropriate funding then make your argument. But its got nothing to do with ESCR.

There is nothing necessary to destroy embryos. AND There is a vested interest in obtaining the leftover embryos of IVF treatment. It is like a new vein of gold for people who want to do research on the cheap and to hell with ethics of buying and selling of body parts
Click to expand...
what's wrong with buying or selling body parts as long as they are acquired legally?

(even though it's actually buying and selling of complete human organisms--
Click to expand...
Yea, and? Do you care about brain-dead people this much as well? Should we not harvest the organs and itssues of the braindead for the benefit of others?

also known as slavery).
Click to expand...
:2rofll: yea, my other non-cognizant belongings such as my computer and toilet are slaves too.

Let's try to be mature here.
 
Last edited:
Felicity said:
Induced pluripotent stem cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Okay here is something that scares me about what you posted:

Unfortunately, one of the four genes used (namely, c-Myc) is oncogenic, and 20% of the chimeric mice developed cancer. In a later study, Yamanaka reported that one can create iPSCs even without c-Myc. The process takes longer and is not as efficient, but the resulting chimeras didn't develop cancer.[7]
Click to expand...

I think both adult and embryonic research should be funded seeing that we just don't know enough about this yet.
 
scourge99 said:
What don't you understand about how government money is appropriated? Once again, the repeal of the ban does not change the total amount of funding allocated for scientific research, ESCR or otherwise.
Click to expand...

if the total amount of funding allocated for research is fixed, wouldn't the repeal of this ban mean said money was spread much more thinly? in that case, it would really have to be worth it, wouldn't it?

scourge99 said:
:2rofll: yea, my other non-cognizant belongings such as my computer and toilet are slaves too.

Let's try to be mature here.
Click to expand...

hmmm.
 
winston53660 said:
Okay here is something that scares me about what you posted:



I think both adult and embryonic research should be funded seeing that we just don't know enough about this yet.
Click to expand...

You did see that has been dealt with--it's in your quote. It just takes a little longer to produce...OH NO!!!:shock:
 
emdash said:
if the total amount of funding allocated for research is fixed, wouldn't the repeal of this ban mean said money was spread much more thinly?
Click to expand...
No, not necessarily! That's my point. Appropriators decide where government money goes. They may decide that all ESCR research grants requests aren't viable and thus not appropriate any money toward research requests. Its up to the appropriators to decide based upon the merits of the requests.

in that case, it would really have to be worth it, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Exactly. That's for the appropriators to decide who are experts in their relative fields.



hmmm.
Click to expand...
mmrummff
 
Felicity said:
Embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary and a waste of money. There's your "non-religious argument" against it. We can't afford to waste money.
Click to expand...

Yes, we can.
In fact, we need to waste money in order to stimulate the economy.
I just read it yesterday in TIME.
I'd rather waste it on this than on abstinence-only education.
You just had eight fracking years of "your way".
Now it's time for me to have it my way.
Surely you didn't think the conservative fundamentalist idyll could last forever?
You guys nearly destroyed the @#$%ing world.

Our turn.
 
Navy Pride said:
What hurts is killing babies is not even necessary.......They have found out they can get the same outcome from adult stem cells.........Why is the left so anxious to kill babies? I will never understand that.........
Click to expand...

To decrease the surplus population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom