Stem Cell Research Money stays in California

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by sympatheticear, Nov 3, 2004.

Loading...
  1. The stem cell research proposition has passed in California. It is now my personal mission to do everything to assure that this money stays in California and is not outsourced to another state or country. Since states such as Georgia voted for Bush, they are clearly against stem cell research and should not get any of California's money. I will not object to sharing the money with researchers at the Mayo Clinic, located in forward-thinking Minnesota.
     
  2. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    I am glad it passed with such a large margin. It is a slap in the face to GW's quackery. (GW was a poor businessman, I bet he is even a poorer scientist).

    Yes - keep the money in CA. We have quite a few research campuses such as USF, UC Davis and others that could spend the money wisely. If other states want to fund their own research, go for it.
     
  3. gkillion

    gkillion New Member

    Forward thinking? From a state that elected a cross-dressing wrestler. Bush received more votes than any other candidate in history. The last democrat to receive a majority of the popular vote was LBJ, 40 years ago.

    Which side is forward thinking?
     
  4. Splas

    Splas New Member

    A sad note in a other wise beautiful night of music.

    It is a shame what people are willing to do to others just so they can have a better life. Would you prohibit me from living if it gave you the ability to walk? I hope the answer would be no, but it seems many do not even see this as an ethical issue.

    Im affraid the American people will play the Ostrich on this issue, and refuse to think about what acctualy being done.
     
  5. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    As Jon Stewart said, if you really think that embroyonic stem cell is a baby, then stick it in your uterus and bring it to full term.

    I think it is GW that is playing osterich. Of course you know if it was his daughter with Parkinsons, or dad with Alzheimers, his view would change (look at Cheney - he hated gays until he found out his daughter was a lesbian. He think figured out that homosexuals are people too)
     
  6. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Splas, you don't understand the issue.
     
  7. Splas

    Splas New Member

    Tom,

    I'm talking about embryo stem cells not adult. If the issue in California is adult stem cells then I'm not against it.

    Please elibrate on my misunderstanding of the issue, thank you.

    Mr. Engineer,

    how does Bush have his head in the sand, and what does Cheney's gay daughter have to do with anything?
     
  8. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I abstained on the stem-cell issue.

    I strongly support stem-cell research and think that the government should fund it on its merits, like any other kind of biomedical research funding. So I didn't want to vote 'no'.

    But I wasn't comfortable with issuing $3 billion in bond indebtedness that will have to be paid in the future, and then restricting the proceeds only to stem-cell research approved by some new "California Institute of Regenerative Medicine". I question whether research priorities should be politicized like that. So I was hesitatant to vote 'yes'.

    But I'm not particularly upset that it passed.
     
  9. oxpecker

    oxpecker New Member

    Thanks. I think I'll go down to my local pub and elibrate myself a little. Cheers!
     
  10. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Your argument is with abortion (if I may be presumptuous). Embryonic stem cell research is not causing abortion. What "causes" abortion is unique to every woman who makes that choice. The Supreme Court says that choice is her's to make The research uses stem cells from embryos that are going to be discarded. If your problem is with abortion per se, then say it. That's another argument in itself (that I won't touch right now).

    But to say that stem cell research is preventing people from living so that others might walk (or whatever), is like saying organ donation is immoral because maybe we can put those hearts back into accident victims and bring them back to life.

    Incredibly, some have argued that stem cell research will “promote” abortion. I think this borders on the insane, and is outlandish at best. I can't think of any sane person that would choose to have an abortion in order to further scientific research.
     
  11. Splas

    Splas New Member

    oxpecker,

    Have you never misspelled a word before :p.

    Elaborate.

    E-L-A-B-O-R-A-T-E

    Elaborate. There now all the english teachers are happy.

    Tom,

    Please do not think of me as an extreme nut with the inability to think beyond the inside of some box. I am very pragmatic and open minded, I simply am not as optimistic as you are about mankind.

    I am unclear on the point you are trying to make with that statement.

    People give their own permission to have their organs donated (as it should be) these aborted babies had no such right (or any right for that matter). They will simply be murdered and harvested.

    If this becomes what I fear it will (big money) then, yes, babies will be killed for the simple reason of harvesting. If you don't think so, then your living in a fantasy world. Call me insane if you want, but just wait and see.

    There is too much money on the table here (universities, doctors, researchers, bio's, wealthy patients, etc) and these innocent lives have no money on their table.

    They are finished if stem cell research becomes completely legal and funded. Its like a really bad horror novel :(.
     
  12. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Ok, yes you are insane. But seriously, your logic is all screwed up. There may indeed be lots of money associated with the fruits of stem cell research. It will not, however, flow to women who have abortions, or the doctors who perform abortions. Money flows to those who provide the innovation and unique skills in a process. While the embryo is a key element in the process, the act of getting pregnant and the process of terminating the pregnancy are both relatively mundane tasks (mundane in an economic sense).

    If there were riches due to abortion makers, then it would only be a result of embryos remaining relatively scarce. If, as you assert, people would suddenly go insane and start mass producing and harvesting abortions, then embryos would no longer be scarce, and there would be relatively little value in it.

    Blood products are pretty important for the many thousands of people who undergo (and perform) surgery every day. No one is getting rich by donating blood. Why? One reason is that almost anyone can do it. What's the result? Not enough people actually do it. That's why you can make SOME money by donating blood or plasma. If everyone was donating blood, no one would pay for it.

    I can see it now, "Get pregnant; have an abortion; make a million bucks." Does that really seem plausible? Not likely. I'm sorry, but if there is a fantasy world, you're the inhabitant. You need to think a little deeper on this one.
     
  13. grgrwll

    grgrwll New Member

    Bush's opposition to stem cell research has nothing to do with abortion.

    He is simply protecting the pharmacutical companies, who have contributed 100's of millions of dollars to his campaigns. If we can cure diseases, people will no longer need their drugs. That's all that this is really about.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2004
  14. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    That's pretty fanciful. It seems to me that novel stem-cell-related therapies have the potential of generating tremendous revenue. That's especially true if they turn out to be the magic-bullets that their enthusiastic champions promise.

    It's hard for me to imagine that the big pharma companies are more pro-Bush than the biotech firms that are experimenting with stem-cells, or that companies like Pfizer won't move into stem-cells bigtime if the field shows signs of moving from high-risk theoretical speculation towards realistic potential therapies.

    In fact, I'm sure that the big pharma firms are already deeply involved. I know for a fact that they pump all kinds of research money into small Bay Area biotech firms in exchange for getting a first chance at anything commercializable that the smaller companies perfect. I'd be very surprised if stem-cells weren't already part of that mix.

    Besides, this is all international. If stem-cells are really such a wonderful thing, and if American pharmaceutical firms refuse to touch them in order to protect aging therapies, foreign firms will simply drive the Americans out of business. Merck and Pfizer aren't stupid, they see that.
     

Share This Page