Slashdot Mirror

How do I figure, I figure because it was on the news, being reported by mainstream media, talked about by candidates and so on.

The media has presented polls. ABC, CBS, USA Today, and others show consistent support for stem cell research.

The reason for denying embryonic stem cell research funding is the same as right to life anti abortion arguments, it kills life.

As before: not all embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of embryos. And, in the case where embryos are destroyed anyway (such as in vitro fertilization), why not put them to use? For this reason, many against abortion are in favor of stem cell research, including Orrin Hatch and prominent catholics.

Aren't we at war? Doest that involve plenty of killing and plenty of tax dollars?

And you point is what exactly? People rationalize things however they want. Someone saying they don't want to murder or kill innocent life might not see war as innocent. But it doesn't matter to me. I never said I was prowar and anti stem cell.

Right. What you said was that the voting U.S. public was somehow "against killing" and that stem cell funding policy matched this. But that argument doesn't hold water from polling or from inconsistent policy.

I personally object to it because of how close it is to raising people just to haves parts form them in the name of helping others. It would suck 200 years from now to find out that your new born baby is going to be harvested in order to provide a healthy heart for your 140 year old grandpa and no body thinks twice about it.

It sounds as if we both hope that neither one of us will be around in 200 years to find out. I never liked this "slippery slope" argument & can't understand how you live your life that way. One can contrive to make any situation seem to lead to Utopia or to Hell.

There was funding of science well before the government got involved with it.

Government has been funding science for a very long time. Ancient science was driven by agricultural and accounting needs of the state. Pre-enlightenment patronage often came from political and religious leaders. Yes, science has also had a history of self-funding. But I think that commercial funding comes later than either of these other sources (I can't think of anything significant before the industrial revolution).

A good majority of the science that made the world as we know it today was funded by sources other then the government.

If you mean that it came from both the government & other sources of funding, I might agree. If you would contend that most advances had no governmental funding, I'd definitely disagree. A lot of progress is made from militaristic funding. Cryptography and other mathematics; thermodynamics (from cannons); nuclear and other energy research; computing and networking...

Science needs to be communicated to the public so that other researchers can test it and build on it. In commercially-funded research, this rarely happens--everything becomes a trade secret. The vast number of papers in science journals are government funded. Just look at the authors and the acknowledgements to see this. I think many scientists would agree with you that these journals can afford to be more open in-general, but all national labs and funding agencies have a system for internal reports that (assuming that nothing needs to be classified) the public has access to. Preprint and self-archiving is fairly

When was the last time that the Catholic church impeded science?

harry potter is evil. Just like d&d. In all honesty, there are a ton of nutbags who make out everything to be evil. They're very insecure in their belief and think everything that offers a slightly different view is EBIL! MMO's or anything that have non-Christian's in them... are legitimate targets for these nutter butters.

Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.

Err... no. It was actually an Atheist leader who reckoned that Euthanasia “might not be bad”.

Maybe next month? You might get one of the people from a Persian or Babylonian religion, who advocate human sacrifices for Christmas.

Are you saying that the U.S. has forced abortions,

political executions

Do you know the chinese are hauling ethnic chinese by the trainload into tibet to overrun the place?

the fucking chinese have clubbed to death the entire population of tibet's beautiful native dogs

Are you saying that the U.S. has forced abortions, political executions (with the executee's family being billed for the fucking bullet), wholesale cultural genocide (Do you know the chinese are hauling ethnic chinese by the trainload into tibet to overrun the place? Look up "tibetan spaniel" sometime to see how the fucking chinese have clubbed to death the entire population of tibet's beautiful native dogs), wholesale censorship of the press and Internet, massive "reeducation" (read: concentration) camps, support for mass-murderer dictators (Pol Pot, "Our Dear Leader", etc.).

Yeah, America is so much better.

A - I was trying to be appropriately radical, not reasonable. The stuff I was writing isn't my actual belief. It's my actual beliefs magnified beyond recognition. I'm conservative, but that was over the top (on purpose). However...

B - Clump of cells? You are REALLY uninformed.

* Day 1 - conception takes place.
* 7 days - tiny human implants in mother's uterus.
* 10 days - mother's menses stop.
* 18 days - heart begins to beat.
* 21 days - pumps own blood through separate closed circulatory system with own blood type.
* 28 days - eye, ear and respiratory system begin to form.
* 42 days - brain waves recorded, skeleton complete, reflexes present.
* 7 weeks - photo of thumbsucking.
* 8 weeks - all body systems present.
* 9 weeks - squints, swallows, moves tongue, makes fist.
* 11 weeks - spontaneous breathing movements, has fingernails, all body systems working.
* 12 weeks - weighs one ounce.
* 16 weeks - genital organs clearly differentiated, grasps with hands, swims, kicks, turns, somersaults, (still not felt by the mother.)
* 18 weeks - vocal cords work - can cry.
* 20 weeks - has hair on head, weighs one pound, 12 inches long.
* 23 weeks - 15% chance of viability outside of womb if birth premature.*
* 24 weeks - 56% of babies survive premature birth.*
* 25 weeks - 79% of babies survive premature birth.*

To put this in perspective, the most common American abortion procedure is performed in the 8 - 12 week range. So, at that point, we've got a "clump of cells" with a beating heart, a "clump of cells" with it's own circulatory system, a "clump of cells" that can suck its thumb, a "clump of cells" with brain waves, a "clump of cells" with all major body parts present (arms, legs, fingers, toes, head, heart, lungs, stomach, etc.). By the end of the time range of suction aspiration (after 12 weeks they need to manually rip the fetus apart and then vacuum because the vacuum (29 times more powerful than one in your house) is not powerful enough to rip the fetus into bits anymore without being exteremly dangerous to the mother) the body systems are not only present, but functional. You have an interesting definition of "clump of cells".

If you want to see deeply disturbing pictures of what this "clump of cells" looks like after suction aspiration (most common method of abortion) then go here: http://www.lifesite.net/abortiontypes/. This site is NOT work safe, and it is not for the faint of heart. I don't recommend going there, I just leave it as an option.

If you want happier, and in my opinion more educational pictures, go here: http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopmen t1.php#week1 or just do a google images search for "fetal development".

-stormin

Because they're much more usable than adult stem cells. Get over it.

Sorry, but a citation please? Because I've found a few to the contrary for you:

1) http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.h tm
      (with it's own reference list a mile long)

2) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/stemcells2.php
A snippet:
"These latest results show that the ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation. There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities."

3) http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interr ogatory022601a.shtml
(An interview with the same scientist (for those lefties among you who love to hate the conservative rags):

4) http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03112001.html (If you like canadian docs' opinions...)

Contrary to how I'm sure it sounds, I'm not yet categorically opposed to using embryonic stem cells for research. I'm for science- and this mice story is absolutely incredible.

But cut the unsupported, non-cited one liners. They bring nothing to the table.

Then how do you explain that a considerable number of pregnancies end in "spontaneous abortions"? A great deal of perfectly viable embryos just don't survive.

here: http://www.physorg.com/news67783446.html
or, a site you trust: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06060508.html

According to the second site there, only 10-15% of preganncies "spontanteous abort", "Ninety percent of all such abortions are due to rejection of a maldeveloped embryo or fetus".

That means 1%-2% of healthy babies are naturally aborted for no reason.

If God considered every embryo that important, and I'm assuming you think this to be more or less under his control, he would make sure that the viable embryoes lived.

I don't believe in God, but I respect people that do. The problem I have with this situation is that people like you are attempting to stop my friends and family members from getting the treatment that could be possible.

We simply do not have a culture of a government that oversteps it's boundaries, nor a culture of hostile dealings with other countries.

Except for those forced sterilisations there. You know, against the rebellious. Ah Sweden, also the place to be if you want to sexually abuse animals. Bestiality on the rise? Nice.

Moreover, there are three separate questions:

1. Is the planet becoming warmer? A tough question, knowing that calorimetry is the most delicate kind of physical measurement. What do you measure, when, for how long? Methods and opinions differ. Magic satellites giving you a single figure for easy comparison are wishful thinking. You need a data interpretation method, and that's where opinions and tempers flare.
2. Is it a long-term trend? Also a tough question. Historical data is sparse and sometimes dubious. Not to mention that the methods and instruments have changed. For instance, the Albany, NY weather bureau reports average temperatures decreasing since the start of the century. Does that prove anything? Is this a fluke?
3. Is the observed change man-made?Again, a difficult question. It's not like you can run a parallele experiment on a second Earth devoid of mankind, although some people are planning it. Earth went through extreme temperature swings before the first ape showed up. The Deep Core ice-sampling project showed variations of about 7C (14F) in less than a century, several times over the last 200,000 years or so. That's huge. More over, the sun activity is not a constant. Sun activity variations wiped out the Maya (see "Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands" and google for more.). Astronomers think that the Mars icecap hasn't grown up as large in the last Martian winter as compared to pictures sent by the Viking probes: If that's true, it's not because of human activity. Then of course there is the well-known CO2 effect. How do we separate the natural and man-made causes? What's predominent?

I don't have answers, and serious scientists are very cautious too. Good data is too scarse, and too much money is involved for rational debate.

Most debates on the subject don't even acknowledge the existence of these separate questions, so how can they even be constructive? Both sides end up yelling at each other, but they aren't talking about the same thing.

While I applaud the efforts of these individuals who are trying to reduce their energy demands, I really don't think that they can do much for global warming. They can however reduce their own costs for/use of energy, which is a Good Thing in any case.

The former: resignation, the latter takes a bit longer to explain:
The US is, compared to any other western society, extremely religious (that Bush actually used the word "crusade" to refer to the Iraq War didn't exactly help, either). Granted, there are quite religious countries in Europe, too (Poland, Ireland and Italy), but not to the same extend, and they seem to be more successful separating it from politics.
You can compare survey data of various aspects of life between countries, and you will find that religion is not as important in Europe as it is in the US. For example, if you look at the results of the question "How important is god in your life?" for the US, Iran, and secular European countries like France or Germany ("Old Europe") the US' relative similarity to Iran, compared to Europe, is striking (sorry, no direct link to the graphs is possible, but trust me it's worth the effort).
I also found a poll that said 45% of Americans believe in the biblical creation, 38% in ID creationism, and only 13% that no god had part in it. In a German poll with the same questions the results were 12%/25%/61% (link in German).
The relatively common references to god even by mainstream US politicians, along with the Good/Evil classification, let many things appear religiously motivated, even if not intended. I assume those Americans that don't share the mainstream's religiousity perceive that rhetoric as as frightening as I do.

When there's a culture that believes westerners are the devil, peaceful integration is very difficult to accomplish.

Well, bombing them probably doesn't help making them see us in a more positive light, either.
Peaceful integration is the only way. You can't force somebody to share your believes.

[Bush] had a very difficult decision to make. He could either let things continue to happen organically and knowingly face more 9/11 incidents or he could make a desperate attempt to speed up the integration.

The key to preventing "more 9/11 incidents" lies in understanding the terrorists' motivation. The US' military presence in the Middle East, along with the support for oppressive regimes as in Saudi Arabia and what is seen as agressive Israeli politics/military actions, is a major factor.

I'd like to expand on Iraq in particular because it seems to bring out the most cynical of viewpoints. There are so many people blaming us for the current state of Iraq. I can understand blaming us for Iraq no longer being under Saddam's control and therefore introducing freedoms that the people never had. Nobody seems to want to put any responsibility on the Iraqis themselves.

The US chose to attack Iraq, and as the occupying power carries the responsibility to provide security for the parts of the population not taking part in the fighting. The US created a power vacuum and different factions try to fill it -- that was predicted by many people who opposed the war from the very beginning. You can put some of the blame on Jaafari & Co., on the terrorists, or on the insurgency if you believe resistance was unexpected, but not on the Iraqi people as a whole.

They have many more freedoms that they never had before.

That depends. Actually many women, especially in the Shiite south, probably would point out several freedoms they have lost. Saddam was bad, but he was secular (which, incidently, is why the islamists hated him).
Also, elections are not the same a

OK, here's a couple of facts backing his speech.

    Antactic ice IS increasing."

    Banning DDT DID kill people.

   

    My take is that Crichton's already made freaking millions, doesn't need the money that bad, he's actually a pretty conscientious guy, and yes, his fiction does suck. But this is a legitimate cause with plenty of facts to back itr. Try actually searching/reading with an open mind past what politically driven figures have to say, what Greenpeace/World Watch wants you to think. Realize we're in a 35 year cooling period, that the Pleistocene carbon dioxide levels mirrored TODAY without any bad, evil, evil humans meddling with the global climate.

Ah yes, Canada, land of the free, where thought crimes are severely punished.

No but they have equally bad or worse things.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jan/03011005.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/9/ 202829.shtml

I won't post the entire long article but I trust you'll read it.

Oops, looks like it wasn't jail after all (heard about it from someone else and didn't read the article until now).. Rephrased: Canada suspends earned teaching licenses (which shouldn't be necessary anyway) if they speak against sexual perversions off duty.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05061408.html

1.) The purpose of the federal government is fairly fluid, but it's good that you've been able to resolve this very complex constitutional issue for us. "Congress shall make all laws necessary and proper..." Lots fits under that, it's complicated. Don't insult us all by making dogmatic statements because you can't be bothered to investigate details.

2.) California passes a law that costs a lot of money but might save a lot of people and it's derided as partisan politics by Bill Gates and Barbara Streisand. The US Congress and President puts tax cuts into place that cost the US billions upon billions of dollars and it's what? Good economic policy?

3.) Private grants are few and far between. Most high end research gets done on the government's dollar. I wonder how far the Manhattan Project would have gone on private grants.

4.) The Clinton administration certainly allowed and funded stem cell research. In fact here is an article from what would appear to be a rabbidly right wing site decrying that the Bush administration didn't do enough to GET RID of stem cell funding programs enacted under Clinton.

Sounds like while I've been drinking the Kool-Aid you've been doing lines with W. Democrats have historicaly applauded advances in science and medicine as they help people. It would seem that Democrats are for that... helping people as it were.

I call BULLSHIT.

The $1500 was for an advertisement, not for a letter to the editor, and was not endorsed by any church.

It's important to admit when you're wrong. I made a mistake, and you are correct; it was a paid advertisement that got the guy fined. So "Freedom of Speech" only matters when you express a popular viewpoint? That's not freedom at all.

Cite a major media source or fuck off.

"A British Anglican bishop, for instance, who suggested that homosexuals seek psychological counseling was the target of a police investigation" Oops, that was England, not Canada. Same thing - "hate speech" used to persecute a religious group. The bishop's quote is in the article. You decide if that's "hate speech." At least they dropped the charges. They still accomplished the point of making people worry about being prosecuted for expressing their religious beliefs.

"The first conviction under the Swedish law" at the bottom. While he said some very unkind things about homosexuals, he still did not cross "the line" into advocating violence. Some people like their religion with a little more fire and brimstone than others. Who are you to judge?

"Swedish Pastor Sued For So-Called Hate Speech". A different pastor, same result.

Oh wait, I'm still not coming up with examples in Canada. I think I might not be able to find any. The references I was remembering were in opposition to C-250 which was eventually passed. While it was being debated, people raised their concerns that this law would be used by homosexuals as a weapon against churches. The provisions in the bill to "protect" pastors have all sorts of wiggle-room in them which can allow the crown to threaten pastors all the same.

I could go on, but I'm stopping at the first page of google results for "church hate speech homosexuality."

I don't care whether you are gay or not; leave me alone to live my life, and I'll leave you alone to live yours. Don't flaunt your homosexuality in my face, and I won't tell you to your face that I think it's wrong. But don't ever expect me to actually approve of your choices. I have my standards, and no amount of whining or legislation is going to change my mind.

-paul

Nah, not there...

I don't hear screams and shouts all the time here about people being unfairly silenced; the most recent incident I remember is Ernst Zundel being jailed for anti-semitist speech (he is a holocaust denier).

Of course, that doesn't stop right-wing religious nuts from screaming bloody murder.. the people in the link are upset that they can no longer say that homosexuality is evil. Is there a problem here?

Hahahah!!!!

Canada is NOT the land of the free any more than the US is the land of the free, it just has different views of how to weaken freedoms.

Canada passes a law banning speech that criticizes homosexuals

... unless you guys put a full stop to right wing teocratic politicians.

Lemme explain: where was the first human clonning achieved? US? UK? Germany? Nope, South Korea

In a recent survey by the BBC, South Korea was found to be one of the countries less concerned with religion.

In the meantime in the US there are people trying to ban steem cell research, granting legal rights to fetuses as human beings and doing all what they can to ban teaching evolutionary theory (cornerstone to work in any biological related discipline. Spare me the creationist bullshit, scientists use evolutionary theory as a matter of fact in fields as diverse as microbiology and genetically engineered crops.).

China and India just have to catch up to the level of sophistication of South Korean scientists and research instirutions, but if the US does not do anything to get rid of its ayatollahs from the political map, lack of action will have a direct effect in US people level of life.

• Bill Gates donates $100 million to AIDS research
  
• Bill Gates donates $25M for AIDS vaccine
  
• Bill Gates Donates $37 Million to Combat Hepatitis B in China
  
• Gates Donates Millions to Schools
  
• BILL GATES DONATES $2.2 BILLION TO POPULATION CONTROL