Slashdot Mirror


After Rick Perry's Stem Cell Treatment, Misplaced Enthusiasm?

oxide7 writes "Presidential candidate Rick Perry underwent a controversial stem-cell treatment this past month, prompting some doctors to fear the high-profile event would send the wrong signal to desperate patients. 'As a highly influential person of power, Perry's actions have the unfortunate potential to push desperate patients into the clinics of quacks,' Dr. George Q. Daley said."

340 comments

  1. God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't use Stem Cells. Mr. Perry - please explain yourself.

    Your Friends,
    ~The Tea Party

    1. Re:God fearing men... by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't use Stem Cells. Mr. Perry - please explain yourself.

      Your Friends,
      ~The Tea Party

      Sigh. Looks like my comment didn't make it in time to educate this ignorant AC. Here it is again:
      Yes, Rick Perry is against embryonic stem cell research. Yes, this treatment did NOT use embryonic stem cells.

      Please do not say that Republicans or conservatives are against stem cell research. Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research. Embryonic stem cell research is still government funded provided that it uses old stem cell lines or adult derived stem cells.

      With that said, let's leave the straw-men in the field.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Tea Partiers like myself are all for the use of adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell therapy.

      Scientists like myself support methods that work, which again is adult / umbilical cord stem cells.

      Embryonic Stem Cells don't work. It's bad science. Adult / umbilical cord stem cells, on the other hand, show a remarkable success rate.

      That is good science.

    3. Re:God fearing men... by elrous0 · · Score: 0

      He didn't use the really high-quality dead baby ones, so Jesus said okay.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:God fearing men... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's true. I made a similar post further down the page. However, republican opposition to embryonic stem cells is still absurd. It comes to the assumption or belief or whatever you want to call it that something without a brain is somehow human. It's just another tally in the table of republicans don't understand or believe science and the act on that

    5. Re:God fearing men... by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As we all know, life begins at ejaculation.

      That's why masturbation is wrong.

      If you masturbate, you've committed lust in your heart and spilled an innocent life on the ground.

    6. Re:God fearing men... by drjones78 · · Score: 2

      Embryonic stem cells do actually work - in fact, they are known to produce full blown human beings, under the right conditions.

    7. Re:God fearing men... by Tharsman · · Score: 2

      Generalism is a common human sin. But there is a large group of extremist conservative republicans that have zero science education that think all stem cell research is evil.

      Note I say this as a Catholic that believes in Evolution and also feels annoyed every time atheists label every religious person in the planet as cavemen worshiping the flame. I know how it is to be in the wrong end of these generalizations.

    8. Re:God fearing men... by Tharsman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Science has proven there are hundreds of life seeds in a single batch of sperm. If you masturbate you didn't spill an innocent life, you committed genocide!!! :P

    9. Re:God fearing men... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Are you confirming that Conservatives, as a group, are now entirely made up of Fundamentalist Christians?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:God fearing men... by Duradin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Men are genocidal monsters (even if there is a pregnancy there will never* be a 1:1 sperm to baby ratio) and women are serial killers.

      *standard /. disclaimers for pedants who don't understand common usage

    11. Re:God fearing men... by Amouth · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember - Jesus died for our sins, if we don't sin his death will have been for nothing.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    12. Re:God fearing men... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Embryonic stem cells do actually work - in fact, they are known to produce full blown human beings

      "Got spinal damage? Try Embriostem! (Side effects may include vomiting, diarrhea, and budding of another human being within your spinal cord.) Ask your doctor if Embriostem is right for you!"

    13. Re:God fearing men... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That's a rather broad claim, don't you think? I have a feeling you're a Tea Partier, but I think you're lying through your sorry teeth about being a scientist.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:God fearing men... by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      It comes to the assumption or belief or whatever you want to call it that something without a brain is somehow human.

      I see plenty of humans walking around (or posting on the internet) with no evidence that they have a brain.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    15. Re:God fearing men... by jdpars · · Score: 2

      The argument here can't be boiled down to "This is or is not a person." The real argument is whether it is in your personal values to consider a fetus at whichever point to be close enough to be considered worth saving. The arguments over whether it is a woman's right to choose, whether the process is humane, etc. are all secondary to that main point. And the answer here is that every person's response is somewhat unique. The difficulty arises when this spectrum of personal values is polarized to a single yes or no question: should abortions be allowed to happen? Almost everyone's (real) answer, is "Yes, but...". Some are "Yes, but only in extreme cases." or "Yes, but only very early." or "Yes, but only with after a serious discussion with a therapist and a doctor." Even those who support abortion at points considered to be very late in the usual arguments (third trimester, for example) would probably say that aborting two weeks before the expected due date would be wrong, or at least a poor choice. So rather than saying that anyone who is against abortion is a "republican who [doesn't] understand or believe in science," understand that there is really no right answer to this question. Human gestation is not a simple process, but it is definitely connected to our personal beliefs and values about life and humanity. Disregarding that connection will only alienate you.

    16. Re:God fearing men... by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

      But apparently not against the embryos being destroyed in a furnace instead since that is what happens if they are not used in the research.

    17. Re:God fearing men... by Tharsman · · Score: 2

      I can't live with this guilt anymore.... I must end my life... I'll commit suicide by watching Fox News until my brain gets flooded with clots.

    18. Re:God fearing men... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      If you masturbate you didn't spill an innocent life, you committed genocide!!! :P

      Even if you had sex for the purposes of procreation and even if you succeeded... you still wasted "hundreds of life seeds"

    19. Re:God fearing men... by khallow · · Score: 1

      The incentive to create embryos for research also goes up in the furnace. You might not feel squeamish about me paying women to have abortions at my clinic and then reselling those embryos to research centers, but apparently there's a lot of people who do.

    20. Re:God fearing men... by RobertLTux · · Score: 2

      My personal problem with embryonic stem cells is we can not have any kind of profit in using the UnBorn. (not create a market for UnBorn corpses)
      Now my views on Abortion come from being a Caucasian Male with a Conservative background and are as follows

      1 It is the responsibility of the Father to A support his children B keep his [redacted} fly shut PERIOD
      2 Abortion should be the result of a doctor having to choose between the mother and the child (as in both will die RIGHT NOW) not any kind of "convenience"
      3 We need to fund research into artificial "Creche" tech to allow for premies to be supported (and in cases where a C-Section has to be done to save the mother)
      4 Penalties for raping an adult needs to be severe (Life No Parole or Death) and Penalties for raping minors needs to be epically severe (when LNP is used due to no Death in a state then when he gets shived in prison it should count FOR the shiver at his next parole hearing)
      5 any org that is anti-abortion should also fund adoption centers (you have to do something with the kids)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    21. Re:God fearing men... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It will be somewhat interesting to see if anything happens to him. Horrible spine-babies are unlikely; but the thin dividing line between stem cells and good old fashioned cancer(or sometimes 'benign' non-metastasizing tumors in and around the insertion site) is some sort of touchy cellular signallying that is, as yet, not as well understood as it might be...

      I know that my 'bad back' would have to be pretty bloody bad to risk growing a nest of tumors around my spine.

    22. Re:God fearing men... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      But there is a large group of extremist conservative republicans that have zero science education that think all stem cell research is evil.

      Really, have you ever met any? I do not know of any.
      It would not surprise me to learn that, because of the way the press reports on all stem cell research, there are a few who are unaware that there are any stem cells that are not derived from embryos (or, if they are aware are under the impression that our knowledge of them derives from embryonic stem cell research*). However, I doubt there are any that would be opposed to adult stem cell research once it was clearly explained to them.

      *Considering how many posters on here have indicated a belief that this treatment probably derives from embryonic stem cell research that does not indicate any particular ignorance on their part.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    23. Re:God fearing men... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      they don't work FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES they obviously work for the purpose of creating people

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    24. Re:God fearing men... by thesh0ck · · Score: 0

      millions

    25. Re:God fearing men... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I think you're greatly underestimating the stubborn stupidity of the small handful of nutcases who constantly get attention from the media because of their controversial views.

    26. Re:God fearing men... by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      Ok. How many children from orphanages in Africa have you adopted recently?

      Or maybe you're selling all your disposable income to them? That would be not as good, but we can overlook it.

    27. Re:God fearing men... by Tharsman · · Score: 1

      I actually do. Quite a few. And you would be shocked but the one I know the best is a preacher, who is also a computer programmer and huge scifi geek (but he has a grudge against anything magic related, like Lord of The Rings) that feels that way. It is indeed ignorance, but its an ignorance due to a religious barricade. Not only will he refuse to talk to you off the topic or allow you to tell him about the many forms of stem cell research, but he will go and preach about it at his church every time the topic is in the news, and his "flock" will take his word as the word of the lord and argue with anyone that opposes what he says.

      Yes, it all goes down to ignorance, but not in a way where educating them will do any good because they just cover their ears and go "nya nya I dont hear ya."

    28. Re:God fearing men... by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Too late.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    29. Re:God fearing men... by MakinBacon · · Score: 1

      I fail to understand the connection between orphans in Africa and abortions in the United States. Please, enlighten me.

    30. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the babies were black?

    31. Re:God fearing men... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 2

      It comes to the assumption or belief or whatever you want to call it that something without a brain is somehow human.

      I see plenty of humans walking around (or posting on the internet) with no evidence that they have a brain.

      So, you see plenty of non-breathing people who cannot independently control their bodies ... in the process of controlling their bodies?

    32. Re:God fearing men... by PPH · · Score: 2

      spilled an innocent life on the ground.

      Same as dropping a bowl of yogurt.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    33. Re:God fearing men... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Whatever you believe about a Fetus and it's value the reality is that Abortion is a medical procedure that is between the doctor and their patient. One of the greatest avenues to government intrusion into peoples personal lives is the propensity of both parties to regulate the medical establishment.

      All the nut jobs that want to put restrictions on abortions absolutely fail to consider the situation when that abortion is not only warranted, but needed to save a life. The most volatile of those is the third trimester abortion, yet in the vast majority of those cases those abortions are not only medically necessary they are required to save the life of the mother. The vast majority of the public is completely unaware of the genetic diseases, conditions and medical dangers that can present themselves during human gestation and the results that not only kill the fetus but the mother as well. Yet these same individuals are willing to exact a death sentence on an innocent woman because they feel it's their moral imperative to dictate the medical needs of others with the full force of the guns and prisons of government.

      Abortion like all the other legislation that involves dictating morality to others is a personal choice that revolves around medical discussions between doctors and their patients. I personally don't believe abortion should be used as a birth control method in this day and age but I'm not stupid enough to believe that it's the role of government to dictate medical choices on the populace.

    34. Re:God fearing men... by RingDev · · Score: 1

      If everything you know about stem cell research comes from the South Park episode where Cartmen makes a pizza joint out of aborted featuses, you should seek additional education.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    35. Re:God fearing men... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      well my personal problem is that i have exactly ZERO disposable income so i have not done so HOWEVER if i do ever have any i will of course donate to my local community first.

      (and im working with a shelter making nonprofit as it happens)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    36. Re:God fearing men... by Grygus · · Score: 1

      The incentive to create embryos for research also goes up in the furnace. You might not feel squeamish about me paying women to have abortions at my clinic and then reselling those embryos to research centers, but apparently there's a lot of people who do.

      But that would be slow and inefficient, and possibly expensive. Surely if research went forward we would try to figure out a better way to grow the cells needed; if they're nearly as useful as projected we will need to manufacture them on industrial scales, and once they could be replicated quickly and/or cheaply, your natural fetuses would be worthless again. I'm not really a believer in the market as a universal panacea, but it seems like it would address this problem relatively quickly.

    37. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *standard /. disclaimers for pedants who don't understand common usage

      You can't do that. The set of misinterpretations is essentially unbounded. You could try disclaiming every word in your post; but that would render the entire post meaningless. In fact, there are an infinite number of Slashdot posts that wink into existence, and then wink out again because of this. I could explain further; but you'll have to wait for me to finish my PhD in physics.

    38. Re:God fearing men... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      There has always been a large amount of distortion around the stem-cell debate... probably inevitable, once it became a political issue. Another oft-promulgated falsehood was the idea that stem-cell research was banned. It never was, not even fetal stem-cell research. The issue was purely about government funding.

    39. Re:God fearing men... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Yes, Rick Perry is against embryonic stem cell research. Yes, this treatment did NOT use embryonic stem cells.

      But yes, this treatment DID use Science, which is something that Governor Perry has long opposed.

      Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

      I don't think that is an exhaustive list of the things which Conservatives are against. You might want to add,

      1. Science
      2. A Middle Class
      3. Black Presidents
      4. Immigration
      5. Science
      6. Climatology
      7. Geology
      8. Education
      9. Women's Rights
      10. Environmental Protections
      10b. Science
      11. Renewable Energy
      12. Civil Rights for anyone but Corporations
      13. Free and Fair Elections
      14. Jobs that pay more than minimum wage
      15. Marriage Equality
      16. Homosexuality for anyone but themselves, and then only when part of a discreet financial transaction

      The list goes on and on. Opposition is a state that conservatives have perfected. These are just some of the highlights.

      It should be noted that opposition to the above are not traditional conservative positions. That seems to be a special innovation of those Americans that call themselves "Conservatives".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re:God fearing men... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      But there is a large group of extremist conservative republicans that have zero science education that think all stem cell research is evil.

      Really, have you ever met any? I do not know of any.

      The idea that liberals are less apt to unreasonable faith than conservatives is an unreasonable faith that many liberals hold.

    41. Re:God fearing men... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Conservatives can't read, or don't pay attention. The embryos used for this type of thing are the waste product of in-vitro fertilization. Are these folks also against these kinds of fertility treatments?

    42. Re:God fearing men... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with a fetus. It is only about a persons right to get the medical treatment they desire.

    43. Re:God fearing men... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Your personal problem is fictional. These embryos come from in-vitro fertilization, they will be discarded if not used. Do you also appose fertility treatments?

      Also #4 proves you to be a terrible person. Our justice system like all humans things is not 100% flawless. This means you are advocating not only crime in prison and murder, but the eventual murder of an innocent person.

    44. Re:God fearing men... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Who they vote for seems to indicate that, or at least make it appear very likely.

    45. Re:God fearing men... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That does not happen, who told you this bullshit?
      These embryos are the waste from in-vitro fertilization. They will be discarded if not used.

    46. Re:God fearing men... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

      Worth pointing out that since these are leftovers from IVF, the alternative is simply the incinerator. Scientific research or trash. That's the choice here, life is not a possibility for these embryos. Embryonic stem cells do not come from abortions, nor can they ever: by the time one would realize they had an unwanted pregnancy, the embryo's cells have begun to differentiate and are not useful pluripotent cells anymore.

      People do need to be reminded that stem cells =/= embryonic stem cells, but they also need to be reminded that these embryos are going to be discarded one way or the other, and ESC research does NOT encourage abortion. Sadly, all three misconceptions are all too common among voters.

    47. Re:God fearing men... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If so, would you care to name/reference a few of these people? I hear people make claims like that all the time, yet I rarely, if ever, hear the basis for their claim.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    48. Re:God fearing men... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well, that is unusual, because as I said, I know quite a few people who oppose embryonic stem cell research, yet I do not know anyone who opposes adult stem cell research.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    49. Re:God fearing men... by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've gotten quickly off-topic. Embryonic stem cells do not come from abortion. Ever. Don't confuse the two issues.

    50. Re:God fearing men... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well said, what little research I have seen on the subject indicates that the reverse is true, but it is a poorly studied subject.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    51. Re:God fearing men... by Tharsman · · Score: 1

      I don't think thats unusual. How many pro-wrestlers do you know? Or hollywood superstars? Or Patent lawyers? It all depends on what circles you walk, and sometimes is just pure random luck (or lack of it.) If it was not for this specific guy and connections associated with him, I would not know any one that opposed all forms of stem cell research either (outside of TV.)

    52. Re:God fearing men... by khallow · · Score: 1

      But that would be slow and inefficient, and possibly expensive.

      And yet it could still be feasible with the right price point

      It's not clear to me why people don't have a more nuanced view of religious objections to certain kinds of medical research. For example, most of the objection to stem cell research seems to be the concern that we were creating and then destroying life that could otherwise become living humans. In other words, the objection is more to embryonic stem cell research rather than general stem cell research.

      Sure, you have the people who are opposed to medicine in general, much less any form of medical research. And there's the squeamish factor where people are uncomfortable about the latest development until they get accustomed to it.

      But it seems to me that a number of these objections are ethically sound and limited enough that they can be worked around without actually degrading the overall quality of research.

    53. Re:God fearing men... by khallow · · Score: 1

      These embryos are the waste from in-vitro fertilization. They will be discarded if not used.

      So the method of generating embryos is slightly different. The point is that there is a financial incentive to create viable fetuses. They have some value and I have some reason to generate them.

      A similar situation is organ harvesting. Society throughout most of the world has chosen to ban the selling of organs from humans even though implementing the practice would probably save thousands of people a year.

    54. Re:God fearing men... by Genda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I'm surprisingly close to your mind here I would however tweak things just a wee bit... try to follow :-)

      Since 80% to 90% of the zygotes created for invitro fertilization are simply disposed of, there is a wonderful source for embryonic stem cells that will never, ever become a human being under any circumstance. No moral dilemma here. Moreover, if you want to take the fear of profit out of the equation, make it voluntary (like an organ donor card) for the parents of the zygote to donate the cells to help others in need (this is exactly like saying, yes my son/daughter is brain dead, you may save lives with his or her organs.) Again, no moral dilemma. With the ability to split the first few division up into individual seed cells, you now have the ability to serve hundreds or thousands of people from a single zygote. There will never be a shortage of stem cells. No need to touch abortions, ever, period... take it off the table.

      Agreed, make a baby, support the critter, its not just a good idea, its the law... enforce the heck out of it. Moreover, make such a public stink about being a Dad who won't do his duty that the shear weight of being a pariah makes him do the right thing.

      I agree, abortions are an abomination. An equally or even greater abomination, is bringing a crack addicted premature fetus (of non-white) parents into the world, who will never know love, never be adopted, at best get passed around in child welfare system that is woefully inadequate to the need, and ultimately grow up into a drug addicted, angry, violent sociopath who either ends up committing suicide by cop or spending the rest of a short and violent life in our prison system. For starter I would make dead certain every child in the public school system knew and could get contraceptives and basic health care. There are high schools out where 50% of the girls get pregnant before graduating. THAT IS GROTESQUE. Teach kids to abstain, they haven't the physical, mental or emotional maturity to deal with parenthood, but knowing that they're going to have sex anyway, teach them to avoid pregnancy and STD with proper contraception. Also provide counseling, if the child has a relationship with its parents that isn't adversarial or abusive, bring the parents into the conversation, and by all means take the stigma off this conversation. Sex is a fundamental human design, stop making it the focus of shame and embarrassment, and also using it sell products or titillate teenagers into buying banal crap.

      We can now save babies under a pound. The technology has gotten pretty good. The energy would be better spent preventing the causes for preemies and sick mothers. Proper education, nutrition, drug rehabilitation, prenatal care and counseling to ensure young mothers to be are creating a great future for their children whether they keep them or not.

      Rape is a violent crime. One in three girls in college gets date raped. Date rape drugging is out of control. Our entire economy is based on sexualizing everything and whipping young men into a semi-permanent sexual frenzy. Case in point a televised spring beak bash in Huntington Beach, CA broke into a sexual riot when girls dancing in tiny bathing suits were suddenly attacked by drunken frat boys, stripped naked, assaulted and in some cases raped. The ensuing riot caused millions in damages, and not only traumatized the girls, but ruined the lives of a number of young men who simply got sucked into the mob and were later identified as perpetrators. If you really mean to deal with rape to its logical extreme, you're going to need to define rape, and does that include bands of young men who engage in games where they get girls drunk, slip them ruffies, coerce, bully or bludgeon girls into having sex as some sick game, all the while their Father beaming that's my boy the stud. There are some pretty ugly social dynamics that should be getting addressed in our schools, and its high time parents became part of the solution and not part of the problem.

      As

    55. Re:God fearing men... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Slightly?
      The point is there is 0 incentive to create viable fetuses for this purpose. They are garbage, this is just saving them the trouble of disposing of them.

      These embryos will be destroyed, or used that is it. They were made for in-virto fertilization. What part of that do you not understand?

      Organ sales should be legal, especially in the case of kidneys and lobes of liver. The organs of the dead, should all be salable goods and part of the estate. The only issue is regulation and proper tracking.

    56. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly, even if all abortion were deemed homicide (whether manslaughter or murder, it doesn't matter), there's still an affirmative defence available. In cases where the life of the mother really is at risk, it's justified as self-defence, and I've never heard anyone proposing to take that away.

      So your plea to consider the mother's life is so many valiant blows against a strawman (unless someone, somewhere is actually proposing to limit the justification of self-defence, and then it's valid only against that deranged effort), and we're right back where we were -- people extinguising a fetus because the resulting baby will be inconvenient, and everyone arguing about how to discretize the continuum from zygocyte to infant into the binary condition of person/non-person and the attendant state protection against slaughter of persons. And since it is in fact a continuum, it's not clear that the issue will ever be settled to the full satisfaction of a majority.

    57. Re:God fearing men... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Well, you want to force women to conform to your "morality". Because you think that unborn children are precious.

      In that case your morality should compel you to give your income to children. It'd be only fair, why the right to chose where you spend your money should be more important than the right of women to chose what they do with their bodies?

    58. Re:God fearing men... by Cyberax · · Score: 0

      Well, you're writing on Slashdot. So you do have disposable income and/or free time.

    59. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

      Worth pointing out that since these are leftovers from IVF, the alternative is simply the incinerator. Scientific research or trash. That's the choice here, life is not a possibility for these embryos. Embryonic stem cells do not come from abortions, nor can they ever: by the time one would realize they had an unwanted pregnancy, the embryo's cells have begun to differentiate and are not useful pluripotent cells anymore.

      So, the argument against ESC research is very much the same as the arguments against selling human organs, or using non-donated organs from fresh corpses?

      Not saying that either argument is sound, or that most ESC opponents realize it has nothing to do with aborted fetuses, just saying there'd likely be a rather large contingent who'd remain opposed if they did realize it.

    60. Re:God fearing men... by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 1

      I know you just meant that as a joke, but there's actually a verse about that in Romans.
      "What then? Shall we go on sinning that grace might increase? By no means! If we have died to sin, how can we continue in it?"

      --
      Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    61. Re:God fearing men... by Moryath · · Score: 2

      Indeed. According to the Retardicans, my aunt would have had to die right now (her first pregancy was aborted because my unborn cousin was severely deformed, missing half his brain and most of his skull, and likely to die and go septic in utero which would have resulted in her death along with him).

      Without a "one or both" exception - e.g. to save the life of the mother - in place, the Retardicans will never get me to so much as admit they have some good-faith reason to get between a woman and her doctor regarding medical procedures.

    62. Re:God fearing men... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Surely Abortion is a medical procedure between a doctor and their patient and the fetus? Surely it's a legitimate funciton of government to protect the weak?

      You simply can't dodge the fundamental philosophical question: "how human is a fetus". Clearly this is not a yes-no question, and likely the answer changes by degrees as the fetus develops (unless you believe strongly in a soul that enters the body at some particular time, which would be a rare belief on /.).

      Given that this is an important question that it's pretty silly to be sure of the answer to, I do think the government has some role to play, much as it outlaws you risking others' lives in other ways, even when it's not at all certain that you would kill someone.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    63. Re:God fearing men... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure, research involves embryos from in-vitro fertilization. But as I understand it, treatment would require stem cells from an embryo made to order, and that's more than a little creepy. Anyone working in the field who can clarify?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    64. Re:God fearing men... by Moryath · · Score: 2

      Agreed, make a baby, support the critter, its not just a good idea, its the law... enforce the heck out of it. Moreover, make such a public stink about being a Dad who won't do his duty that the shear weight of being a pariah makes him do the right thing.

      Unfortunately, then we get into cases like this.

      How many men are paying child support right now because they were falsely named on a birth certificate and not given a proper chance to demand a paternity test?

    65. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're writing on Slashdot. So you do have disposable income and/or free time.

      Free time != disposable income, dumbass.

    66. Re:God fearing men... by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that the Tea Party is made up of FISCAL conservatives, including Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Yes, the Tea Party has some social conservatives, but that's not what the party is all about.

      Please inform yourselves before jumping to conclusions.

    67. Re:God fearing men... by khallow · · Score: 1

      The point is there is 0 incentive to create viable fetuses for this purpose. They are garbage, this is just saving them the trouble of disposing of them.

      No value to them? Then throw them away. I call your bluff on this one.

    68. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr

      Summary - he's a long-winded racist.

    69. Re:God fearing men... by petteyg359 · · Score: 1

      Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

      But they've got nothing against destruction of an embryo by throwing it in the garbage... Would you tell your kid to throw their life away, or try to benefit society and civilization? What message is being sent, here?

    70. Re:God fearing men... by NeoMorphy · · Score: 2

      1 It is the responsibility of the Father to A support his children B keep his [redacted} fly shut PERIOD

      I think it has been repeatedly proven that a lot of potential father and mothers cannot be expected to act responsibly when it comes to procreation. To not acknowledge this fact would irresponsible in itself.

      My problem with the "Conservative Mindset" is that they tend to be against all forms of birth control and instead preach abstinence as a way of preventing unwanted pregnancies. To actually believe that teenagers have full control while experiencing the peak of hormones that they have only a few years experience with is irresponsible. They want to set people up to fail with their short sighted doctrines, and then when the expected mistake happens, they place all the blame on the teenagers without taking any of the blame themselves. I'm not saying that the teenagers are blameless, but if it was possible to neutralize their hormones before they went out on a date, I'm guessing they might have a better chance.

      If the Conservatives are incapable of taking responsibly for the end result of the laws they want to impose on others, then why should the victims of their laws be considered responsible for the end result? I would love to see the Conservatives(and only the Conservatives) forced to pay for all child care/education/etc. If they can handle paying for what they wanted, I would respect them a lot more.

    71. Re:God fearing men... by MakinBacon · · Score: 1

      Well, you want to force women to conform to your "morality". Because you think that unborn children are precious.

      In that case your morality should compel you to give your income to children. It'd be only fair, why the right to chose where you spend your money should be more important than the right of women to chose what they do with their bodies?

      Because I don't want to control womens' bodies, I want to protect an innocent life. I'm willing to make exceptions for cases of rape and cases where childbirth poses a risk to the mother's life, but for every other aborted fetus out there, there are two people who should be forced to take responsibility for what they created. I don't feel that abortion should be allowed to be used as a backup for when birth control fails or is forgotten.

      I don't have an orphan for the same reason that I don't have any offspring of my own: I don't want to become a parent at this moment of my life. If I made a woman pregnant, though, I would take responsibility for raising the child. I might make the best parent, but I would do my best and I'm pretty sure the child would be happier than if it was dead.

      As for Africa, I'm really not very educated on their current social problems. I give some of my money to charities, but they're usually domestic because I'd rather take care of the downtrodden in my own country than those on another continent.

    72. Re:God fearing men... by Zirbert · · Score: 1

      The embryos used for this type of thing are the waste product of in-vitro fertilization. Are these folks also against these kinds of fertility treatments?

      Yes, many of us are.

    73. Re:God fearing men... by khallow · · Score: 1

      According to the Retardicans

      I suppose their natural opponents the Strawmanians, who, among other things, support 100% post-birth abortion of everyone right now, would disagree.

    74. Re:God fearing men... by NeoMorphy · · Score: 2

      That's a pretty good list!

      Can I add a couple?

      • Teaching of Evolution.
      • Anyone who does not worship the Christian Religion
      • Gun Control
      • Taxing the rich
    75. Re:God fearing men... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Here's two questions for you. What's the "tea party" that the Tea Party is named after? What were those people protesting? That should give you a hint what the Tea Party is about.

    76. Re:God fearing men... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      But as I understand it, treatment would require stem cells from an embryo made to order, and that's more than a little creepy.

      Why is it any more creepy than an organ transplant ?

    77. Re:God fearing men... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      There are high schools out where 50% of the girls get pregnant before graduating. THAT IS GROTESQUE

      Name two.

    78. Re:God fearing men... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      I agree, abortions are an abomination. An equally or even greater abomination, is bringing a crack addicted premature fetus (of non-white) parents into the world

      But crash addicted premature white fetuses are fine and dandy?

    79. Re:God fearing men... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      A similar situation is organ harvesting. Society throughout most of the world has chosen to ban the selling of organs from humans even though implementing the practice would probably save thousands of people a year.

      Somehow I think if we could grow an effectively infinite number of organs on demand, without any risk to "donors", organ harvesting would become unbanned pretty quickly.

    80. Re:God fearing men... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Somehow I think if we could grow an effectively infinite number of organs on demand, without any risk to "donors", organ harvesting would become unbanned pretty quickly.

      That's a good point. It's very likely that this current moral dilemma will resolve itself in a few decades with my current point becoming merely a historical curiosity like bleeders in Middle Age medicine.

    81. Re:God fearing men... by ideonexus · · Score: 1

      Thank you for posting this. My mother had a similar condition, where the fetus was so horribly deformed that it would have killed her had she carried it to term. As it was, the abortion almost killed her and she spent a month in hospital recovering.

      The worst part was her Christian friends who begged her to forego medical science and trust god to save her and the protesters at the clinic who screamed at her that she would burn in hell. Lovely people.

      As for Perry, it will be interesting to see if he gets cancer in a few years like other stem cell recipients. There would be some justice in a man so thoroughly anti-science dying from that ignorance.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    82. Re:God fearing men... by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      once it was clearly explained to them.

      oh.

    83. Re:God fearing men... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Surely Abortion is a medical procedure between a doctor and their patient and the fetus? Surely it's a legitimate funciton of government to protect the weak?

      Good point! It's perfectly obvious the government should force people to be incubators against their will.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    84. Re:God fearing men... by victorhooi · · Score: 1

      heya,

      Haha, if you're going to correct somebody, at least try not to be wrong yourself:

      "Disposable income is total personal income minus personal current taxes"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_income

      So yes, you do have disposable income, "dumbass" (sic)...

      Also - you're on Slashdot, meaning you have access to a internet-connected computer. Last time I checked, that isn't even essential like say food, water and shelter - so you also have discretionary income as well.

      So now by your own admission you're greedy, stupid and a "dumbass"...oh, and posting an AC. It all makes sense now.

      You realise if you hadn't come out guns blazing like that, and calling people names, people would be more forgiving of your ignorance?

      Cheers,
      Victor

    85. Re:God fearing men... by Danse · · Score: 1

      I know you just meant that as a joke, but there's actually a verse about that in Romans. "What then? Shall we go on sinning that grace might increase? By no means! If we have died to sin, how can we continue in it?"

      I can't even parse that. I even looked up an explanation of it, and it still made no sense.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    86. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember - Jesus died for our sins, if we don't sin his death will have been for nothing.

      He didn't do it right. He didn't stay dead. So it doesn't count.

    87. Re:God fearing men... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

      It would be rather pointless - the big benefit of embryonic cells was supposed to be that they could be made via nuclear transfer, and so would be a perfect match to the patient. The idea was rendered obsolete once someone figured out you could induce pluripotence in adult cells, which is easier than screwing around with cloning.

    88. Re:God fearing men... by Xaositecte · · Score: 2

      If the law doesn't explicitly allow for cases where the mother's life is in danger, any abortion would still result in an arrest and a trial, whereupon a jury would decide whether or not they believe the doctor is telling the truth that the procedure was still medically necessary. Self-defense or not, that's still months of your life thrown into turmoil, massive legal bills, and an enormous emotional burden on someone who is already in a pretty precarious place.

      Your attitude towards things would ruin lives for absolutely no benefit to society.

    89. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a conservative AND an serial infant killer, so I contest your generalization!

    90. Re:God fearing men... by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      and another:
      Rational thought

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    91. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, here you are posting on slashdot.. Allu Akhbar!

      Also, your mom.

    92. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      4 Penalties for raping an adult needs to be severe (Life No Parole or Death) and Penalties for raping minors needs to be epically severe (when LNP is used due to no Death in a state then when he gets shived in prison it should count FOR the shiver at his next parole hearing)

      Except that if you take it this far it increases the chances of a rape becoming a rape+murder since the death penalty is already is already looming over the rapist's head and a corpse is less likely to tell anyone that there was a rape. Which is to say nothing of all the false accusations of rape in Western society.

    93. Re:God fearing men... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The thing is, I know a lot of people who oppose embryonic stem cell research on religious/moral grounds. I, also, know a lot of conservative Republicans. Not only do none of either of those groups that I know hold the belief that all stem cell research is evil, but all of those I know are unaware of any in either group who do so. Therefore, while it may be that this one preacher you know (and perhaps his congregation) believe that, it is not a "large group of extremist conservative republicans", it is, at most, a small group.
      The point is, the circles I walk in include a lot of conservative republicans, and an even larger group of conservative Christians, yet it contains none who believe that all stem cell research is evil, and none who are aware of anyone who believes that all stem cell research is evil.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    94. Re:God fearing men... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

      Stop making ridiculous blanket statements. I consider myself a conservative and have no problem with stem cell research at all. Keep your blatantly incorrect generalizations to yourself.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    95. Re:God fearing men... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Because I don't want to control womens' bodies, I want to protect an innocent life. I'm willing to make exceptions for cases of rape and cases where childbirth poses a risk to the mother's life, but for every other aborted fetus out there, there are two people who should be forced to take responsibility for what they created. I don't feel that abortion should be allowed to be used as a backup for when birth control fails or is forgotten.

      Which is EXACTLY why drugs like RU486 should be allowed instead of protested against thinking it is the same as abortion. The more actual abortions that are prevented the better, but I agree there will always be legitimate reasons to allow an abortion.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    96. Re:God fearing men... by pnewhook · · Score: 2

      That's one of the most ridiculous biased articles I've ever read on Fox.

      A father is not just a paternity test, its who is in the relationship with the mother. You cannot be there one minute playing daddy, then decide it is not working out an claim there is no need of support cause 'dem brats aint mine'. If you decide to enter a relationship with children, then you are taking on the responsibility of raising those children both now and in the future. Man up for fuck sakes.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    97. Re:God fearing men... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/12504-teen-pregnancy-rates-usa/#ixzz1Vr1hzt00

      That's just ridiculous. The religious Republican nutbars need to get their act together and stop resisting the teaching sex ed in class and provide free birth control in high school to those who want it.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    98. Re:God fearing men... by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 1

      Read it in context. Preferably the whole book.
      At this point, Paul has said that when God told us what he wanted from us (by means of the Old Testament Law), mankind as a whole rejected it and did our own thing. Paul's basically addressing exactly what the other poster said - if God can forgive our sin, why don't we just sin more so God can forgive more? He answers that by saying that when God forgives our sin, we are supposed to be different in the future. It would be wrong to take advantage of it.
      If this doesn't help, hit me on XMPP at mcivor@jabber.org and I can try again.

      --
      Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    99. Re:God fearing men... by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Did you even do the most rudimentary reading?

      The man named on the birth certificate DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE MOTHER. He was never actually served with papers, they dumped them on the doorstep with some woman who wasn't even related to him and claimed "surrogate service of paperwork." He never had any relationship with the not-his-child.

      I swear. Slashdot's gone to shit. Morons like you can't even be bothered to check their facts.

    100. Re:God fearing men... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

      1 It is the responsibility of the Father to A support his children B keep his [redacted} fly shut PERIOD

      And why is it not also the responsibility of the Mother to do the same?

      Regardless, what you are saying is that no one should ever have sex unless prepared to have children. That is a bit extreme, especially when you later encourage adoption centers. I'm really not sure how it's more responsible to give a child up for adoption.

      2 Abortion should be the result of a doctor having to choose between the mother and the child (as in both will die RIGHT NOW) not any kind of "convenience"

      Your use of the word "child" already gives your opinion away. At what point does it stop being a zygote or an embryo and start being a person?

      If you said "conception", you have a pretty absurdly low bar for "person".

      3 We need to fund research into artificial "Creche" tech to allow for premies to be supported (and in cases where a C-Section has to be done to save the mother)

      Still going to be cases where your #2 happens.

      4 Penalties for raping an adult needs to be severe (Life No Parole or Death)...

      So you're "pro-Life", but you support the Death penalty? Interesting.

      I'm also not sure what this has to do with the issue where a girl has been forcefully violated and is now going to be forced to bear the rapists' child for nine months, go through the incredibly painful process of childbirth, then choose to either raise the rapists' spawn as her own or give it up for adoption, and I'm sorry, but that is disgusting.

      5 any org that is anti-abortion should also fund adoption centers (you have to do something with the kids)

      Given that being anti-abortion already tends towards a higher birth rate, what you're suggesting would lead to a higher population overall, and also relatively fewer potential adopting parents.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    101. Re:God fearing men... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Nope. You want to control women's bodies, not protect children. A fetus is no more "innocent life" than a flake of skin or an extracted tooth.

      If you really wanted to protect children you'd be donating significant part of your income to orphanages and other charities. I somehow don't see you doing this. Abortion opponents all talk about responsibility, but somehow it applies to anybody but them.

      But OK. How about a law requiring father to be castrated if a woman dies in a childbirth? After all, it should teach responsibility to men!

    102. Re:God fearing men... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      OMG ZOMBIES!

      Good thing I bought all that shotgun ammo. Any un-brained corpses walking around (or posting on my FaceTubes!) is getting 2.75 inches of 01 Buckshot to the face!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    103. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, but I will pass.

    104. Re:God fearing men... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, all the people actually running for office carrying that Tea Party tag have to run to the right on social issues in order to get nominated by the Republican Party; to say nothing of being electable in a general election.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    105. Re:God fearing men... by jkflying · · Score: 1

      He never said no value. Perhaps better stated, "They *were* garbage". There is no other possible use for them *except* stem cell research. Really. This is the only place where they might otherwise have value, and they are instead being thrown away because of religious nutcases who are arguing the same points that you are.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    106. Re:God fearing men... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      but for every other aborted fetus out there, there are two people who should be forced to take responsibility for what they created

      And if they don't have the means?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    107. Re:God fearing men... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      That doesn't even name one school where 50% of the girls get pregnant before graduating.

    108. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I consider myself a conservative and have no problem with stem cell research at all. Keep your blatantly incorrect generalizations to yourself.

      Quite. People should wise up to the fact that there are intelligent, educated republicans.

      Maybe one day we'll meet both of them.

    109. Re:God fearing men... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      The man named on the birth certificate DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE MOTHER

      There is no such claim at all in the article. None whatsoever. Stop making shit up and blaming it on others.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    110. Re:God fearing men... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      50% is a massive exaggeration (I didn't state that number) but that doesn't mean teen pregnancy is not a problem

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    111. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for Perry, it will be interesting to see if he gets cancer in a few years like other stem cell recipients.

      Doubtful, as he had adult stem cell treatment. His adult stem cells, extracted from fatty tissue elsewhere in his back.

      But please, continue letting your partisan hatred of all things not Obama cloud your judgment.

    112. Re:God fearing men... by operagost · · Score: 1

      The brain and heart become functional by the fourth week.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    113. Re:God fearing men... by operagost · · Score: 1

      And here I thought I wouldn't see this ridiculous straw man argument here. Sperm isn't going to form a human being by itself. A zygote will.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    114. Re:God fearing men... by operagost · · Score: 1

      If there are any republicans who don't believe in that exception, they are exceedingly few and thus, it's probably unfair to characterize the entire party by a few extremists. It's like lumping all Democrats in with incompetent nutjobs like Maxine Waters and crooks like Barney Frank.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    115. Re:God fearing men... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That is what they do with them otherwise. Thanks for proving my point.

    116. Re:God fearing men... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Dammit, blew my last mod point in an earlier discussion.

      This is my point as well. When people say that women should not be allowed to have an abortion, they are using the power of the government to force women to have children, whether they want to have a child or not.

      For all the talk about cutting the size of government, the right is perfectly happy to use big government to dictate to women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    117. Re:God fearing men... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      My point is the if a "boy" decides to play the field then he needs to "Man Up" when she gets pregnant. What im against is some Jock sleeping his way through the Cheerleading Squad (and then having some fun with one of the "smart" girls so he can pass his math/science courses).

      DO THE "CRIME" DO THE TIME

      can't do the time then figure out how to keep your fly zipped (it is possible if you have the needed support)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    118. Re:God fearing men... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      you still wasted "hundreds of life seeds

      hardly. He ejaculated into 'ThunderVagina'. Hundred sperm enter, one sperm leaves.

      That the hundreds were not strong enough is hardly his fault.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    119. Re:God fearing men... by lgw · · Score: 1

      And that's a perfectly fine argument - if you completely write the fetus off as non-human. That seems like a very silly thing to do. Absolutes are always a mistake. :)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    120. Re:God fearing men... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Generally, harvesting the needed organ from random bystanders is frowned upon. Creating a human life simply so that you can kill it for your own benefit seems creepy to me, and the argument "but we kill it so early it doesn't feel a thing" seems awfully convenient. So a treament that would require that you produce and kill a new embryo in order to be treated - why would we even research that if non-embryonic stem cells treatments seem likely to be possible?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    121. Re:God fearing men... by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      And here I thought I wouldn't see this ridiculous straw man argument here. Sperm isn't going to form a human being by itself. A zygote will.
      No, no, it won't. You are arguing (I guess) that a sperm requires an egg. A zygote requires successful implantation-- so it requires a live uterus, etc.
      Stop trying to draw a line in non-demarcable sand.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    122. Re:God fearing men... by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      To 99% of Americans, embryonic stem cell = stem cell. The key words "stem cells" is all that is latched on to, regardless of political or religious affiliation. And before you come back and say that everyone you personally know do know the difference between the two - good for you for having scientifically literate companions. But keep in mind that this is a country where 37% of the population couldn't locate their own country on a map - yet you expect a vast majority of the electorate to know the difference between types of stem cells?

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    123. Re:God fearing men... by Moryath · · Score: 1

      The county says it made "substitute service" of its complaint by leaving a copy of the summons with "Jane Doe," who was identified as Navarro's "sister" and "co-tenant." Another copy was sent by first-class mail. ...

      In July 2001, Navarro filed a motion to set aside the court's judgment because a blood test proved he was not the boys' father. Although both the federal and state "challenge periods" had long passed, he argued that the mother had committed fraud by naming him.

      He also claimed to have never received the original complaint or default judgment. The court denied the motion.

      Here's a PDF of the court ruling:
      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b155166.pdf

      You're a lying asshole, so shut the fuck up.

    124. Re:God fearing men... by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      Oh egg on my face. The link is fake. :-)

      The actual figure is "only" 6%. Not 37%.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    125. Re:God fearing men... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Read it in context. Preferably the whole book. At this point, Paul has said that when God told us what he wanted from us (by means of the Old Testament Law), mankind as a whole rejected it and did our own thing. Paul's basically addressing exactly what the other poster said - if God can forgive our sin, why don't we just sin more so God can forgive more? He answers that by saying that when God forgives our sin, we are supposed to be different in the future. It would be wrong to take advantage of it. If this doesn't help, hit me on XMPP at mcivor@jabber.org and I can try again.

      I haven't read it cover to cover, but I've read more than enough of it over the years to know that aside from some common sense stuff and good old folksy wisdom, much of which predates the Bible anyway, most of the rest of it is just very boring or very crazy. That these things have been reinterpreted (read: spun) so much over the years that people get less of the crazy in sermons is probably a good thing. I'm not entirely convinced of that though, as it also allows them to have misunderstandings about their religion. Then again, religion is rather meaningless in the overall scheme of things, as it is only actions that matter. Most Christians haven't read the Bible cover to cover anyway. If they could make any sense of it, they'd probably be rather shocked by some of what they find.

      There are about as many interpretations of the scripture as there are believers. People generally believe what they want. Of course these days it seems that these fringe groups are growing larger and embracing the crazy wholeheartedly. Look at Perry or Bachmann and the crazy stuff that they believe. Look at who was leading Perry's prayer event. These guys are truly nuts, and they're running for the most powerful position in the world.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    126. Re:God fearing men... by DetriusXii · · Score: 1

      Because having consensual sex without pregnancy is much more than damaging a teenager economically at a point in their lives when they aren't prepared for the responsibilities of children.

    127. Re:God fearing men... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      And absolutely NOTHING in there says he never knew the mother, jackass. Stop trying to twist things into your own personal agenda. YOU"RE the liar.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    128. Re:God fearing men... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I do not believe that that is true, despite the best efforts of the media to give people that impression. The reason that you, and many other people, are under the impression that people think that "stem cell" equals "embryonic stem cell" is because the media has done its best to blur the distinction, rarely noting the difference. The media often drop the word "embryonic" from the statements of opponents of embryonic stem cell research.
      The thing is, the people who oppose embryonic stem cell research do so because they believe that it involves the taking of a human life. They do not oppose it because they are luddites, who oppose all new technology and all scientific research. There has been a concerted effort by the media to make the terms "stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research" interchangeable in most people's minds.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    129. Re:God fearing men... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      By making women have babies they do not want you are not only forcing them to use their body in a manner they do not want, you are also making them slaves to the resulting human being.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    130. Re:God fearing men... by lgw · · Score: 1

      By making women have babies they do not want you are not only forcing them to use their body in a manner they do not want, you are also making them slaves to the resulting human being.

      Well, adoption is a different option. As an aside, it amazes me that we've come to expect freedom from all the consequences of our actions. You should rationally expect long term negative consequences to your poor choices, not someone who makes those vanish, yes? But it's all about bailouts, and walking away from stupid mortgages, and everything-insurance-for-everyone and so on.

      Fundamentally, however, this must be looked at as a trade-off: the gain in freedom to a woman seeking consequence-free sex (given the many other means available for such) vs the risk that we might be killing someone. None of that is at all clear-cut; few of the answers are easy or obvious.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    131. Re:God fearing men... by MakinBacon · · Score: 1

      Abortion opponents all talk about responsibility, but somehow it applies to anybody but them.

      My argument is based on the concept of responsibility, so you say that me and those who hold similar opinions should take responsibility for all the world's unwanted children. Let's put your side of the argument through a similar challenge:

      Hypothetical situation: a man impregnates a woman. He wants to have the baby, but she doesn't, so she gets an abortion regardless of his opinion. Now let's reverse the genders: She wants the baby, but he doesn't. She decides not to get the abortion, so she takes him to court and he has to either help raise the child or pay child support payments.

      How come being pro-choice only works one way?

    132. Re:God fearing men... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Your argument is still wrong.

      "Hypothetical situation: a man impregnates a woman. He wants to have the baby, but she doesn't, so she gets an abortion regardless of his opinion."

      To which she is totally entitled. Let's see the responsibilities:
      Woman: 9 months of hardship with dangerous childbirth (it's one of the most dangerous activities, in fact).
      Man: one fuck. Then sit and wait.

      So I totally agree that a woman can decide what to do with her body. If a man wants a child, he can adopt one. There's no shortage of orphans, unfortunately.

      "Now let's reverse the genders: She wants the baby, but he doesn't. She decides not to get the abortion, so she takes him to court and he has to either help raise the child or pay child support payments."

      Which she won't get, most probably. And I'm totally OK with that. Also please note, that this is not a pro-choice issue, child payments, in fact, long precede abortions.

    133. Re:God fearing men... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. Ironically, there seems to be a big overlap between anti-abortion types and those who oppose welfare, public healthcare, etc. The obvious hole in the argument that a foetus is a full human being is the fact that, separated from the mother, the foetus can't survive, so the mother is forced to provide food, shelter, warmth, etc. If you told most anti-abortion types that the government planned to force them to take in homeless people in the winter, they would almost certainly be rabidly against it, but they're fine with doing it to pregnant mothers even though those same mothers would be able to surrender the child to the state to take care of the moment it's born. The argument is complex. Maybe someday we'll have some sort of artificial womb that the foetus can be implanted into with a medical procedure that's as safe as an abortion. Then the debate may change significantly. Then again, maybe someday we'll have such good medical care and monitoring that _all_ potential children can be brought to term. Given that more than half of conceptions don't result in a full pregnancy, and that miscarriages occur even in full pregnancies, etc. that should triple the birth rate if we don't allow abortions. For that matter, what about identical twins? There's evidence that identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc. might actually be a quite common phenomenon, except that it's biologically dealt with early on by re-absorption. What if medicine gets so good that every single potential human life can be brought to full birth? Would every conception end up in identical quintuplets? More? Where do you draw the line exactly? What if it turned out that, with proper medical care, every conception could result in billions of potential children? Would we be obligated to make sure every one of them was born?

    134. Re:God fearing men... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Really? As far as I can tell, the Democrats and Independents that were in the Tea Party all left it sometime ago in utter disgust. What's left is basically a subset of the Republican Party. You're basically talking about a group of people here that consider Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Glenn Beck to be their unofficial spokespeople.

    135. Re:God fearing men... by phalcon352 · · Score: 1

      And they all believe in the god myth too!

    136. Re:God fearing men... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Poor choices could also be called weak choices. Didn't you say above that a legitimate function of government was to protect the weak?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    137. Re:God fearing men... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      And I didn't say it wasn't a problem.

    138. Re:God fearing men... by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Please do not say that Republicans or conservatives are against stem cell research. Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

      Lets accept for the sake of argument that destruction of an embryo is indeed capital-E Evil. In fact lets explicitly equate it to the Evil of slavery. They are still idiots and their crusade is still idiotic.

      Fighting to end slavery makes sense. Tacitly accepting slavery itself while battling specifically to prohibit slaves from going to medical school is totally idiotic. Targeting the "best" of a bad situation while ignoring the "evil" itself is dumb.

      99.99% of the embryos that are destroyed are thrown in the trash as fertility treatment waste products.

      If they believe the destruction of embryos is evil, then they should be trying to outlaw the destruction of embryos. That would primarily affect the legality of fertility treatments.... that it would also effect stem cell research is almost not worth mentioning in comparison.

      There are various subjects where I respect the other side as having a reasonable rational position with which I disagree. However these embryonic-stemcell crusaders are blindly fighting a nonsensical battle. It's neither reasonable nor rational.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    139. Re:God fearing men... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Read it in context. Preferably the whole book.

      Should I start from the beginning with the story about the walking-talking-snake and the magic-fruit? Or is it ok if I start with something more important like the Ten Commandments... the first of which has God declaring Himself to be a "jealous" bastard who promises to spitefully inflict punishment upon innocent children if the parent pisses Him off?

      That Jesus guy generally seems to be a pretty Righteous Dude, but that God guy is an extremely evil fucker. He seems to spend a couple of chapters ordering armies around to various cities to slaughter the men, women, and boys.... while authorizing the rape of the captured girls. At various times it uses euphemisms for rape such as taking the girls as "wives", but Deuteronomy 21 makes it explicit that such captives are not willing wives, and and that these unwilling "wives" may be raped and discarded at will:

      you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

      As for "give her her freedom", the other Deuteronomy verses detail how her "husband" just slaughtered her mother and father and brothers, how he just burned her former home to the ground, how he stole all of her family's animals and goods. So after forcibly "marrying" and raping her, if he "loses his liking" for her then he should to toss her on the street at will, penniless. I'll assume she gets to keep the clothes she's wearing.

      Many times God is directly quoted giving these orders, and when it's not God speaking directly it is generally Moses speaking with authority of God.

      Like I said, Jesus is generally a pretty good guy. But there's no excusing that evil wrathful jealous fucker God.

      Paul has said that when God told us what he wanted from us (by means of the Old Testament Law), mankind as a whole rejected it and did our own thing.

      Have you ever read Old testament Law? Any person with half a brain or a scrap of morals would reject it and do "their own thing". Stoning your own children to death? Forbidden to wear mixed fiber clothes? Seriously? The level of immorality in there is only rivaled by the level of stupidity.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    140. Re:God fearing men... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Its certainly true that not all Republicans have one identical position. However not only have many Republicans opposed the safety-of-the-mother exception, there have many cases of actual elected Republicans writing legislation specifically excluding it.

      It may be a generalization of Republicans, however it can hardly be dismissed as a strawman when there are very real very relevant very dangerous bills being seriously fought over containing that language. I may be mistaken, but I think multiple bills have in fact been passed into law in the last few years containing such language, but if so I believe so far have been struck down by "activist judges".

      I would be most fascinated if you could establish the existence of even a single opponent who in fact supports "post-birth abortion".

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    141. Re:God fearing men... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      If there are any republicans who don't believe in that exception, they are exceedingly few and thus, it's probably unfair to characterize the entire party by a few extremists.

      You apparently have been following the abortion issue even less than I have. I know of multiple Republican-written bills have specifically excluded the safety-of-the-mother exception, and the Republicans specifically battled to prevent the bills from being amended to correct it. I could be mistaken, but I think one or more bills were in fact passed into law without safety-of-the-mother exception. I believe "activist judges" had to step in to strike it down.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    142. Re:God fearing men... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Based on the article and linked court document, Moryath comment that he didn't know the mother appears to be unfounded as far as I could find. There is no indication either way. However your original comment pnewhook, bashing the guy involved and calling it the most "most ridiculous biased articles I've ever read on Fox" is at least as wrong. Setting aside the question whether he even know the mother or not, your original criticism was:

      You cannot be there one minute playing daddy, then decide it is not working out an claim there is no need of support cause 'dem brats aint mine'. If you decide to enter a relationship with children, then you are taking on the responsibility

      The court documents states he "has always denied paternity and has no relationship with the boys".

      So no, he was never there playing daddy. No, he never decided to enter any relationship with the children.

      I'd say it was one of the LEAST biased articles on FOX News. A woman was required to fill in a "father's name" in order to get state aid, and she filled in the name of a man who was not the actual father and who had no relationship (father figure or otherwise) with the boys. And then the state proceeded to persecute this man and steal his money to avoid supplying welfare aid itself, and persisted in persecuting him and trying to steal his money even when they knew for a fact that there were going after the wrong man. The government had the unbelievable gall to use bureaucratic red tape as the sole justification to argue in court to continue seizing substantial sums of money from from a random innocent man and handing that money over to a woman who filed a false statement naming him as the father.

      Seriously, how do you possibly justify calling it a biased article and proceed to condemn the guy involved? If anything I would fault the article for failing to raise even more holy-hell over the gross travesty of the government knowing they were screwing over a random uninvolved guy and fighting him though court and appellate court to continue draining his bank account with argument that yeah the government was wrong and know it was wrong but notification and correction of that mistake didn't make it through their bureaucratic red tape quickly enough therefore ... holy-fuck... they should deliberately continue making that mistake.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    143. Re:God fearing men... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      The court documents states he "has always denied paternity and has no relationship with the boys". So no, he was never there playing daddy. No, he never decided to enter any relationship with the children.

      He doesn't *currently* have a relationship with the boys, but he did when he was with the mother. That's my point - the Fox news article is written like it was a case of mistaken identity which it is NOT. He DID have a relationship with the woman, contrary to the false assertions of Moryath. The only thing done wrong was her assertion that he fathered the boys which he did not. The article on Fox does not make that clear at all and simply makes it seem like this guy was hounded by the courts unfairly. It is biased.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    144. Re:God fearing men... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The right to make poor choices is called "freedom". Any time you try to protect people from the consequences of their poor choices, the government eventually hits budget constraints and starts trying to limit people's choices for the sake of keeping the programs going (those poor choices are expensive!), sacrificing freedom for money. It's a pattern we see a lot of right now.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    145. Re:God fearing men... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      He doesn't *currently* have a relationship with the boys, but he did when he was with the mother.

      According to this article "Navarro had never met the children."
      Why are you insisting he did?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    146. Re:God fearing men... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Nope. The bill you're thinking of excludes using federal funds for abortions. It does not ban them, which we know is virtually impossible with RvW hanging over us.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    147. Re:God fearing men... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      So the bottom line is you want the government to protect the weak as long as it doesn't cost you? Seriously I'm all for banning abortion of a fetus that is viable as long as the government will pay for the cost of incubating and raising it.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    148. Re:God fearing men... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Why is Moryath insisting he never knew the mother AT ALL?

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    149. Re:God fearing men... by lgw · · Score: 1

      SO the bottom line is, protecting everyone's freedom needs to be the top requirement. That should make one wary of proposals where it's in the governments financial interest to chip away a freedoms in small degrees, because that never ends well.

      And that fetus didn't there by accident: if a fetus has some non-trivial % of the rights of a human, allowing abortion as birth control seems like a poor moral choice.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    150. Re:God fearing men... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I agree what he wrote came out quite badly. However I suspect it wasn't meant the way it sounded. I think he was awkwardly referring to the fact that non-white babies with health issues are particularly difficult to place into adoption. Families looking to adopt are generally skewed to the upper half of incomes (and thus skewed white), and families willing and prepared to adopt babies with health issues are even more heavily skewed to upper incomes (and thus even more heavily skewed white). It is unfortunate but factual that there just aren't enough families willing and prepared to take on the double challenge of cross-racial adoption of a baby with health issues. It is unfortunate but factual that such babies are at high risk of winding up trapped in the governmental care system... often with painfully poor outcomes.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    151. Re:God fearing men... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Nope. The bill you're thinking of excludes using federal funds for abortions.

      No, I'm not. I'm well familiar with that. I am talking about batshit insane anti-abortion Republican legislators in both US Congress and in state legislators who have deliberately excluded health-of-the-mother exceptions in multiple pieces of legislation. Not leaving it out by accident or oversight, but specifically battling against all efforts to amend the bills to add an exception to permit life-saving procedures. I'm pretty sure at least one such bill passed (perhaps it was one of the state level laws) and had to be struck down by the courts.

      One of the batshit insane legislators is Rick Santorum: "When I was leading the charge on partial birth abortion, several members came forward and said, 'Why don't we just ban all abortions?'Tom Daschle was one of them, if you remember. And Susan Collins, and others. They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective."

      And just to drive up the batshit-insane fucktard hypocrite factor, Santorum's own wife had one of those "uberevil" late-term abortions where they vaginally deliver the still-living-fetus abortions. Without it she would have died.

      ban them, which we know is virtually impossible with RvW hanging over us.

      Yeah, much like the difficulty banning interracial marriages with LvV hanging over us.

      Damn those pesky activist judges. Constantly striking down all sorts of laws passed by state legislatures and the US Congress.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    152. Re:God fearing men... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I have no idea, and I already asked about that.
      As far as I can tell both of you are just making shit up. LOL

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    153. Re:God fearing men... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      The government forcing people to be incubators is one humongous chip. Are you at least okay with abortion in cases of rape? What about birth control failure?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    154. Re:God fearing men... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure, sure, but reaistically most abortions are just after-the-fact birth control (and realistically if a state were to outlaw abortion except in case of rape, there'd be an amazing stasistical anomoly in the rape rate in that state). Heck, I'm probably OK with abortion in most cases - relative to the infanticide that humanity used for most of our history, abortion is certainly kind.

      I'm just saying anyone who thinks they have a clear and definite answer here probably hasn't thought about it much. You don't have the right to kill someone simply becaue it's inconvenient to keep taking care of them, especially if its your fault they need that care, so thinking this is just a matter of the convenience of the mother is ... awfully convenient.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    155. Re:God fearing men... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      So you're "pro-Life", but you support the Death penalty? Interesting.

      Generally, pro-lifers are against the taking of "innocent" life. The death penalty for criminals is totally fine with them.

    156. Re:God fearing men... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      3. Black Presidents

      I don't think they're against black presidents. They're most definitely against liberal presidents, black or not.
      What's going on with Obama is pretty much an extension of what they were trying to do to Clinton.

      I don't think they'd have that big a problem with a Presidential Candidate Condalezza Rice, or Presidential Candidate Ward Connelly.

    157. Re:God fearing men... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the Tea Party was conquered by the Republican Party by the end of the last decade, so that all you have there now are "traditional Republican + some small amount of fiscal discipline."

    158. Re:God fearing men... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I don't think they'd have that big a problem with a Presidential Candidate Condalezza Rice, or Presidential Candidate Ward Connelly.

      They'd have a huge problem with any black president.

      As far as their treatment of Obama being "an extension" of how they treated Clinton, I think that's a huge understatement. I never would have believed there would be such derangement over any president, no matter the color or how liberal. I'm hard to shock, but I admit to being shocked at how crazy the level of hatred for a sitting president has been, and how nakedly racist.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    159. Re:God fearing men... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      It does, however, show that they are not pro-Life period. If they can put conditions on it (the life must be innocent), so can I (the life must be intelligent).

      Or we can change the conversation and stop insisting that life alone is what's valuable.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  2. Dayum.... WTF by Marble68 · · Score: 0

    So now a person's personal heath care decisions are game for criticism and would count against them for political consideration?

    What's next?

    "Candidate's love of tuna + mac-n-cheese is extreme and wildly outside the mainstream..."

    Seriously - when did we get to a point where there is only one right way to think, talk, and act?

    Sad - very few people would even *know* about this if they were trying to use it as some type hit piece..

    If Dr. George Q. Daley would keep his f*cking mouth shut, maybe people wouldn't be *aware* of this.

    Jackassery all around.

    --
    /me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
    1. Re:Dayum.... WTF by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, if you're going to be The Decider, your decisions will be under a lot of scrutiny. If you've fallen prey to false claims in the medical field, you're likely to be manipulated by political quacks too.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Dayum.... WTF by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but being gullible to quacks does not speak well of one's suitability to hold perhaps the world's most powerful office.

    3. Re:Dayum.... WTF by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      "Candidate's love of tuna + mac-n-cheese is extreme and wildly outside the mainstream..."

      If the candidate has a political platform against tuna + mac-n-cheese, then yes.

      (However, the embryonic vs non-embryonic is the difference at stake here)

    4. Re:Dayum.... WTF by StandardAI · · Score: 1
      You missed the point entirely. Basically what is being said is "rich man who can afford exotic procedure from well trained professionals will cause poor people with life threatening conditions to seek the same type of treatment but will only receive scams from doctors who have no idea how to do stem cell procedures."

      According to TFA, the surgery was a complete success and is doing what it was supposed to do.

    5. Re:Dayum.... WTF by jdpars · · Score: 1

      TFA did not say Rick Perry went to a quack. TFA said that there is a fear that people will think stem cells are magic cures and will seek out quacks who claim to heal them, all because they "heard Rick Perry did it."

    6. Re:Dayum.... WTF by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I had no idea that stem cell treatments are false claims in the medical field.

      I know there ARE those who claim false things about them, but wasn't "stem cell research" a huge issue in the last few years ... with most people, especially the medical field, fighting for more? especially embryonic?

      Here's the actual procedure:

      The Republican contender, who has access to the best medicine, chose to get stem cells removed from his fat from his back and then reinserted in attempts to fix a bad back.

      And the criticism:

      "As a highly influential person of power, Perry's actions have the unfortunate potential to push desperate patients into the clinics of quacks" who are selling unproven treatments "for everything from Alzheimer's to autism," Dr. George Q. Daley, of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute told the Associated Press.

      There's no statement that it's a quack. It has not been "thoroughly vetted by researchers or approved by the FDA." ("thoroughly" seems like a key word there).

      So, according to Daley, I guess presidential candidates can never try an experimental treatment? Progress: only allow the lesser people (peasants) to have somewhat experimental/unproven medical procedures done; the upper class should wait.

      If it was someone else (no, I'm not referring to any other political figure), I wonder if we would herald him as being brave enough to further science by allowing his problem be tested on for a cure.

    7. Re:Dayum.... WTF by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Context matters a lot. Is the experimental treatment part of the process to get the treatment FDA approved? Or is it a couple of guys a strip mall with a syringe and a centrifuge?

      I guarantee you it's a lot more like the latter than the former. The FDA would like to shut these guys down, but your own cells aren't legally considered a drug. The FDA is going to court to try to change that.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:Dayum.... WTF by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I RTFA, the average Tea Party Mind will hear "Stem Cells", and make a life decision there; regardless of fact. If Parry should debate the President, Obama's accusation of Parry not spending funds set aside to help the poor just so Parry could bank roll personal projects in a failing Texas sized state economy will be stinging. Like wise, people want to go to work, and will vote for the candidate that get them work.

      I am reminded of an old joke, "Most Tea Party Types will not change their mind on Thursday given new information discovered on Wednesday for a personal judgement made on Tuesday."

    9. Re:Dayum.... WTF by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I have no idea exactly how it was "experimental." It wasn't done by a random dude in a mall:

      Perry underwent a spinal fusion procedure from Stanley C. Jones, MD, a Houston orthopaedic surgeon. But it wasn’t as routine as it sounds. During the operation, Jones gave Perry an infusion of adult stem cells in an effort to speed recovery.

      (source).

      Exactly how sanctioned that is I suppose is debatable... companies in other countries Japan, China, South Korea) are mentioned.

    10. Re:Dayum.... WTF by Hatta · · Score: 1

      He is some random dude. Just because he has an MD doesn't make him a researcher. MDs "prescribe" treatments like homeopathy all the time. Not effective, not FDA approved, but the government can't do anything about it. That's exactly what's happening here.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Dayum.... WTF by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      What's next? "Candidate's love of tuna + mac-n-cheese is extreme and wildly outside the mainstream..."

      I seem to recall Bush the first getting in trouble for saying he didn't like broccoli. So... no, not next, that already happened over a decade ago.

    12. Re:Dayum.... WTF by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      No, TFA is talking exactly about this procedure, which is expensive and incredibly dangerous. It's a procedure with no evidence of any benefit and many documented dangers, but banning is being fought in court because "it's just cells from the patients own body, you cannot ban a man from having his own cells in his own body!" He's recovering from the surgery, but it's far too early to tell whether or not his body is going to be riddled with tumorous growths, which happens with this sort of quackery. Hence, in TFA, actual researchers saying they'd never allow anybody they know to do it. In a way this is far worse than the chiropractors who "cure" HIV and cancer (because all disease is caused by pinched nerves, you know), because at least chiropractors (almost) never kill patients.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    13. Re:Dayum.... WTF by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      Seriously - when did we get to a point where there is only one right way to think, talk, and act?

      When Roger Ailes teamed up with Rupert Murdoch in 1996.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    14. Re:Dayum.... WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chine and Korea are horrible about snake oil. Japan slightly less so.

    15. Re:Dayum.... WTF by khallow · · Score: 1
      You quote the Rolling Stone as an authority on the "Tea Party Mind"? To say the least, that is a waste of your time. The name, "Tea Party" comes from a Revolutionary War era tax protest and fundamentally that is what the current group is about, protesting taxation and government spending. A hit-and-run propagandist looking for dirt isn't going to give you useful insight beyond that.

      If Parry should debate the President, Obama's accusation of Parry not spending funds set aside to help the poor just so Parry could bank roll personal projects in a failing Texas sized state economy will be stinging.

      What's stinging about the use of the funds? Balancing Texas's budget is important while sending kickbacks to the poor for electricity is not. You have to prioritize.

      And it's worth noting that Texas is not a "failing Texas sized state economy," but is doing well relatively with significant economic growth compared to other large states.

    16. Re:Dayum.... WTF by khallow · · Score: 1

      As an aside, I note the Rolling Stone piece is just another story claiming all sorts of moral faults with the Tea Party. Here, the author decries the alleged hypocrisy of people who advocate benefit cuts for others than themselves. But guess what I don't see? I don't see someone with the guts to call the Tea Party on its supposed bluff.

      Maybe those tea partiers will fold the moment they realize that their own government largess has to be cut in order for a spending cut to occur. My bet is that you'll find that most tea partiers are willing to sacrifice for the general good. I know I am.

    17. Re:Dayum.... WTF by Marble68 · · Score: 1

      Hrm - he doesn't seem too much like "some random dude" - or any more random than other specialists in their field and who run a hospital backed research treatment center.

      This is political bullshit of the highest order - and full of hypocrisy. This has *nothing* to do with factual relevance - and has *everything* to do with trying to manufacture something about a politician because you don't him. This is birther insanity in reverse.

      Seems kinda lame and weak that there was an instant down-shift to ad hominem to attack the doctor as a quack because they don't like Rick Perry's political positions.

      Basically - this argument is "some scientists criticize a politician because he went to another scientist for an experimental treatment using adult stem cells to help alleviate back pain; so because we don't like him, we want to use this criticism as a justification to question his decision making ability."

      I think there are a lot of people who've benefited from adult stem cell research that would disagree that this is quackery.

      Because someone who wants to be "The Decider" is open to medical research and treatments, even for himself, this is a bad thing? Because you don't agree with his decision to try and alleviate his back pain? *THIS* is a politically justifiable position? I strongly disagree and find it very narrow minded.

      I don't care either way about this and don't understand why others do - I know people with chronic pain will try just about anything to help alleviate it. Frankly, I sort of find it a plus in someone wanting to be "The Decider" has hit the limits of modern medical practice and has had to try procedures "outside the system". They would likely be more apt to consider the patient's needs when it comes to making decisions about such matters better than someone who's never experienced such a scenario.

      It sucks when a doctor says there's nothing we can do for your pain.

      Having lost a family member to cancer, I can tell you with absolute certainty that criticizing someone for seeking pain relief by any means necessary is ignorant, short-sighted, and selfish. I don't care how many letters there are behind someone's name; they do not know everything and cannot say with *any* certainty how someone body will react. I've seen it first hand so if you think I'm wrong you can suck it. My sister battled intestinal cancer and they couldn't manage her pain for shit with normal treatments.

      You wanna criticize for this - nice ... why not just tell people in constant pain "fuck you, you're a dumb ass because some scientists don't agree".

      When my sister was dying, we hit the end of the "approved treatments". From acupuncture to drugs - we tried anything and everything to alleviate the pain from her intestinal cancer. The solution was experimental and caused blisters in her mouth - but it was fucking worth it.

      Politicizing medicine is a *really*, *really* bad idea and borders on unconscionably fascist thinking. It ignores the plight of many, be them janitors or governors, who can't find a treatment that works and whose only hope of relief is an experimental treatment.

      If I were in his position, I would weigh the benefits and the risks and make the right decision for me. For people in this thread, or in the press, or scientists who have *NO* direct knowledge of the circumstances or of his medical condition to act like they have the moral authority to judge is just silly, hateful rhetoric founded not in sound decision but instead in partisan attacks.

      Hell, I don't even like Perry that much. I live in Texas and even I, not _even_ the smartest guy in the room, know that this is a f*cking joke of an issue and only makes the people jumping on it look unreasonably partisan.

      --
      /me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
    18. Re:Dayum.... WTF by Javit · · Score: 1

      He may or may not have been duped. He definitely agreed to undergo a medical procedure regarded as risky by respected practitioners, but that's not the same thing. Furthermore, if making a personal decision that most people wouldn't agree with disqualifies one from political office, clearly no one would be truly qualified. Instead, there seems to be a more basic rule at play: if we are sympathetic towards the politician, the mistake is unrelated; if we are not, it's not.

      --
      Support NRA, America's oldest civil rights group.
    19. Re:Dayum.... WTF by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Blindly injecting stem cells into your body in the hopes they'll do something useful is quackery. Did you RTFA? "Daley, who is the previous president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, added: "I would never in a million years accept for one of my family members to undergo this."

      Focusing concern on possible copycats instead of Perry himself is just a way to avoid accusations of taking sides politically. As a voter representing only myself, I don't have that concern. Perry's "treatment" is little different than Nancy Reagan's practice of astrology.

    20. Re:Dayum.... WTF by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I agree, it begins by one person standing up and saying, "No More, I draw the line here." I now call the Tea Party followers, "a group of selfish, self serving, hypocrites, proudly ignorant; Cowards, All." As evidence of my acid belch, I give Dick Parry himself. Where did this government worker of over 12 years get the funds to use for a therapy involving stem cells? From a government subsidized medical plan? And which Medical Plan is it? I find myself more than willing to cite case on this issue. Lets begin with the heat murdered lower income citizens of Texas, all because Parry's political business model needs money so it can fail more.

      But the Tea Party is a false beard. The Tea Party are the minions of a group of American Business owners that have traded their citizenship for 13 pieces of silver. These are the true Plague of Locus that are ravaging our noble country. These "money first, then country" ego-villains are far more sinister than the leaders of failed Fascist states. When these cancerous leeches have sucked Ireland dry, they will move on; and from the news reports, they have already begun.

      Proud Republican since 1971. And Damn the Tea Party.

    21. Re:Dayum.... WTF by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Stand tall Non Texas Tea Party believer. Don't accept any money from the U.S. government. Renounce your SSI, Medicaid, Medical benefits, and Tax Exemptions. And when you need help, ignore your community, because? Because you made a "Bad Decision."

      Your own words betray your lack of clarity. You think its OK to let those who need life giving help during Texas's current heat wave, to not receive help at all? Rolling Stone Magazine an authority? For a group of writers, they sure nailed the Tea Party Demographics. And lets just take a look at Dick Parry's political business model. If it was so great, then why does he steal money's from the poor to maintain it? The Tea Party, and Mrs. Governor Dick Parry are not your friend; these people are like Alligators. They'll will eat anything you give them, then they'll eat you. Their community is only made of one person, themselves.

    22. Re:Dayum.... WTF by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      If his company's website is to be believed (http://www.spinecareusa.com/dr-stanley-jones.php), he isn't some random dude but somebody with a decent record.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    23. Re:Dayum.... WTF by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      You say "Dick Parry" instead of "Rick Perry". Surely your arguments must be correct.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    24. Re:Dayum.... WTF by khallow · · Score: 1

      Stand tall Non Texas Tea Party believer. Don't accept any money from the U.S. government. Renounce your SSI, Medicaid, Medical benefits, and Tax Exemptions. And when you need help, ignore your community, because? Because you made a "Bad Decision."

      That's a deal as long as the US stops taking the money out of my check. Call my bluff. As to my community, it's not Uncle Sam so I'm not going to do that.

      Your own words betray your lack of clarity. You think its OK to let those who need life giving help during Texas's current heat wave, to not receive help at all?

      Nope, that's not the issue. It's money in a fund not Texans in yet another heat wave. There's this amazing naivety that assumes that when some politician spends money that the money goes to the stated purpose. Well, here's a story that proves that just isn't so.

      There's also a group of people that seem to take the crap Ayn Rand wrote and use it as an instruction manual. There's always going to be Texans in heat waves. And the more money there is to fund their lifestyle, the more of them there'll be and the hotter the heat wave they'll be in. Pay people to be in need and you create a long term problem.

      For a group of writers, they sure nailed the Tea Party Demographics.

      And so what? Do I have to be white and elderly (as described in the article) to make the right choice for the future of the US? Is that really the only ethnic group that cares?

      I doubt it. Most other ethnic groups have the problem that Republicans and maybe the Tea Party don't represent them so well. But they got to be worrying about what's going to happen to themselves and their children too. I figure they won't vote Republican, but nor will they vote for Obama. They'll just not vote at all.

      The Tea Party, and Mrs. Governor Dick Parry are not your friend; these people are like Alligators.

      That's ok with me. I got a little gator in me too. Needless to say, I'm not looking for a friend for president either. I'm looking for an adult to clean up after this latest batch of kids.

      They'll will eat anything you give them, then they'll eat you. Their community is only made of one person, themselves.

      Thanks for the kindergarden level fable. You have a point? As I see it, all politicians are dangerous. But I'd rather have gators in office than the current load of tapeworms. Tapeworms eat what you just ate, consuming you from the inside; skimming a little off the top of everything you make; making your life a little harder and you a little thinner.

      At least a gator will eat the easy food first, like political merchants (or seisho as the Japanese would call it). I'm looking for a little blood in the water as all the business- and labor-side parasites get chewed for their cooperation with the current administration. I'm not looking for major retribution, just political tit for tat commensurate to the level of graft they picked up. As long as they receive enough punishment so that it gets factored into the next feeding frenzy at the public trough even with short horizon thinkers in charge.

      And if the gater gets a bit too hungry? There's 2014 and 2016 to keep the gators in line. That's the hope and change I believe in.

    25. Re:Dayum.... WTF by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      he's gullible by default as demonstrated by his religious stance.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    26. Re:Dayum.... WTF by khallow · · Score: 1

      I read bullshit like what you've just wrote and I have to ask, do you really not have a clue what's going on? The US spends way more than it takes in for years and it spends most of that money on garbage. This is all public record.

      But you're in Animal Farm territory wondering what went wrong while your porcine masters keep blaming the humans (here, rich people in Ireland). Maybe you're somewhat improved, realizing that you've been exploited all along, and have advanced to a state of helpless, hysterical cynicism. Or maybe you have growths in your brain where common sense would be in a normal human.

      All I know is that you don't grasp the US's fiscal situation. The US spends a lot more than it takes. And more than half of what it takes is in no sense an investment, a payment made with the expectation of a greater return. That just by itself is a giant, glaring sign that there's too much spending. Sure, raise taxes a little or make them fairer, if that floats your boat. Just don't forget that the fundamental problem is that we're spending too much and on the wrong things.

      Or maybe you think someone, someone other than yourself, that is, should be paying for this swag. The rich already have that solved. They moved their money to Ireland.

      I'm tired of the Orwellian nonsense. Keep blaming the rich rather than fixing the problems and the US will keep circling the drain. We're chasing off the people who make jobs, build things, and do stuff. We're spending vast sums of money on pointless stuff. And your response is impotent ranting about betrayal. All I can say in response is that you aren't worth 13 pieces of silver to betray.

    27. Re:Dayum.... WTF by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Well, this is not so strange. He's a fundamentalist Christian. He believes in Creationism. He is a Global Warming denier. Opposes taxes, Social Security and public education, supports anti-sodomy laws (yeah, that's right, he supports laws ruling what people do in the privacy of their beds), etc.

      I mean, this guy believes in retarded fairy tales and is a major douchebag. What's so surprising about him believing stem cell quackery?

      Elect this guy and he'll turn the USA into a Third World country. But hey, it's your choice.

    28. Re:Dayum.... WTF by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      And being a strong believer in Intelligent Design does?

    29. Re:Dayum.... WTF by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      It's a procedure with no evidence of any benefit and many documented dangers, but banning is being fought in court because "it's just cells from the patients own body, you cannot ban a man from having his own cells in his own body!" He's recovering from the surgery, but it's far too early to tell whether or not his body is going to be riddled with tumorous growths, which happens with this sort of quackery. Hence, in TFA, actual researchers saying they'd never allow anybody they know to do it.

      Are you sure this isn't a natural selection system to keep stupid people out of our gene pool?

      chiropractors who "cure" HIV and cancer (because all disease is caused by pinched nerves, you know), because at least chiropractors (almost) never kill patients.

      They kill them by turning them away from appropriate treatments.

    30. Re:Dayum.... WTF by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I don't even care about Perry. There are plenty of other reasons not to vote for him and this one won't change anyones mind. I'm honestly more appalled that anyone could think that this quackery is medicine than that Perry would make a good president. In fact, the chances that Rick Perry will be the best president this country ever had dwarf the chances that this is effective medical treatment.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    31. Re:Dayum.... WTF by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I like your point that a president having gone through such a problem would "likely be more apt to consider the patient's needs". Alas, experience shows that what significant politicians experience when it comes to medical freedom seldom reaches the public. After his failed campaign, someone in Goldwater's family wanted an abortion, and Goldwater supported that decision, and thenceforth abortion generally. That had no effect on other politicians, particularly conservatives. Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama all admitted to mind-altering drug use, and all explicitly rejected loosening laws.

      The FDA and DEA are more powerful than, and almost as abusive as, the mafia. They aren't going to submit to any reduction in their power.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    32. Re:Dayum.... WTF by jkflying · · Score: 1

      That's a deal as long as the US stops taking the money out of my check. Call my bluff. As to my community, it's not Uncle Sam so I'm not going to do that.

      I hope you don't expect any roads to be fixed, any borders to be enforced, any gas to be subsidized or any laws to be upheld. I hope you don't want a firetruck to come when your house is on fire. I hope you don't mind of every little bit of forest being clearcut. The government is there for a reason. Fool.

      But I'd rather have gators in office than the current load of tapeworms. Tapeworms eat what you just ate, consuming you from the inside; skimming a little off the top of everything you make; making your life a little harder and you a little thinner.
       

      This sounds like a quote from Team America. But to continue the metaphor, I'd rather have a tapeworm problem than an alligator problem, thank you very much.

      And if the gater gets a bit too hungry? There's 2014 and 2016 to keep the gators in line. That's the hope and change I believe in.

      Do you really think you could hold out the US military if it descended into a Nazi-Germany style government? Alligators kill you. Your argument is invalid.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    33. Re:Dayum.... WTF by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      While I don't like Governor Perry either he isn't the only one telling people what they can and can't do. Both parties do it, it is just with different issues, why should government decide that my kid can't have a stupid happy meal the one or two times a month when neither my wife or I have the energy or time to cook a proper dinner and just want some cheap quick food. As far as turning our country into a third world nation both parties have been doing that for a while with the various trade agreements, rampant spending, playing world police, and general nutjobbery. These have been done by both parties with the exception of spending during the Clintion era.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    34. Re:Dayum.... WTF by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe your government won't let you give fast food to your kids once a month. I live in Europe and I could raise my kids on fast food only, if I wanted to. So, what's your point?

      About playing world police, I'm totally on your side. Please find more people like you and squeeze your politicians' nuts to end the stupidity. The rest of the world will be very thankful. Unfortunately, American corporations and their pet corrupt politicians around the globe don't feel the same.

    35. Re:Dayum.... WTF by jojoba_oil · · Score: 1

      And it's worth noting that Texas is not a "failing Texas sized state economy," but is doing well relatively with significant economic growth compared to other large states.

      Oh, really?

    36. Re:Dayum.... WTF by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      So now a person's personal heath care decisions are game for criticism and would count against them for political consideration?
      You bet they do, *when* : Perry preaches that all America's political and personal problems will be solved thru prayer. The fact that he went for scientific treatment shows his hypocrisy. Same as when some old fart joins the TeaBagger movement despite collecting medicare benefits.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    37. Re:Dayum.... WTF by khallow · · Score: 1

      I hope you don't expect any roads to be fixed, any borders to be enforced, any gas to be subsidized or any laws to be upheld. I hope you don't want a firetruck to come when your house is on fire. I hope you don't mind of every little bit of forest being clearcut. The government is there for a reason. Fool.

      And I hope sometime you learn to read the past of the thread. Here's your original question:

      Stand tall Non Texas Tea Party believer. Don't accept any money from the U.S. government. Renounce your SSI, Medicaid, Medical benefits, and Tax Exemptions. And when you need help, ignore your community, because? Because you made a "Bad Decision."

      Note I rejected only the first group (SSI, Medicaid, Medical benefits, etc). This is reasonable because these don't have net societal benefit. They aren't an investment, but rather money that society is paying for stuff I can and should pay for.

      Social Security has nothing to do with the roads, crime, etc. Nor do any of the other things on that list with the list of services you put down above. And I reasonably request that I not pay for taxes on services I do not consume. The obvious fair converse is that I do pay for services that I do consume. So yes, I will willingly pay for roads, police protection, etc. I'll just chalk this up to thrill of the kill excitement and maybe sloppy wording on my part.

      My point here is that not everything the government does is of equal importance. I don't consider the entitlements such as Social Security, Medicaid, etc to be as important as police protection or (to a lesser degree) road maintenance. I'd rather not fund entitlements at all even though that might result in considerable hardship for me or people I care about.

      Do you really think you could hold out the US military if it descended into a Nazi-Germany style government? Alligators kill you. Your argument is invalid.

      Ah, we're playing yet another round of "Who's wearing the jackboots!" You might find it interesting to note that I have read on the internet people who speculated like that for every president since Clinton that the president would close down democracy. "Slick Willy" (the less than affectionate name for Bill Clinton) was going to dodge his crimes. Bushilter was going to exercise his natural fundamentalist tendencies, unless he nuked us first. Obamaniac treats the Constitution like toilet paper and now we're looking to have gator problems in the DC sewers. It's a never ending stream of baseless worry.

      I imagine someone was worried that Bush elder was going to use his CIA connections to take over or Reagan was just going to get propped up in the corner so some puppetmaster took over.

      I'm not going to vote for Obama because some poster on Slashdot has bad vibes about Perry. While I can still be fooled, I do have instincts about the integrity and reliability of a candidate. For example, Obama started tripping that instinct when he causally reversed his stance on FISA, a national security bill. At that point, I knew he'd say whatever it'd take to get elected. My vote for McCain has been vindicated, year after year.

      At some point, you have to realize that dictatorship is not the only threat. In history, several democracies have grown so incompetent or criminal that their overthrow was inevitable. No, I don't want dictatorship. Nor do I want a democracy that is so loathsome, the people embrace dictatorship.

      And that brings us to the tapeworm, Obama. A shallow, feckless guy with creepy fascist-style slogans and deceptive propaganda. He turns also to be vastly incompetent and surrounded by people with similar issues. Oh well. But someone is going to have to clean up his mess. And that looks to be a gator. Do you see cause (Obama) and effect (gator)? I do. Obama is probably going to end up as the butt of jokes ("the best Republican candidate in the election").

      I'll remember Obama as a president who intentionally or not brought us one step closer to tyranny.

  3. that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...bastard.

  4. !surprise by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A candidate who has prayer rallies as part of his campaign is into quackery? Gee, who possibly could have seen this coming.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:!surprise by CannonballHead · · Score: 2

      Stem cell research that apparently has helped is not quackery.

    2. Re:!surprise by hedwards · · Score: 1

      A broken clock is right two times a day.

      Sometimes quacks do get it right, but hoping that they'll accidentally get it right is not a good idea. In this case it's a matter of how much evidence do you need to take the risk and at what point is anything better than doing nothing.

    3. Re:!surprise by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      It was experimental. It appears that Perry was not promised any benefit, like a quack would do. How is an experimental operation a quack?

    4. Re:!surprise by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Yes, Rick Perry is religiously extreme. If he went to Revered White's church, then he could at least claim to be a moderate.

    5. Re:!surprise by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yeah I mean. How many times can you listen to the ol'Rev scream about death to america, death to whites, and be a racist piece of shit?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:!surprise by hedwards · · Score: 1

      If that's truly the case, then he has no right to be President, anybody looking to be President has to understand that there are certain responsibilities that come with that job. And undergoing experimental medical procedures of this type is a no no.

      But at any rate, it doesn't sound like the medical community thinks it was a wise decision to make, which doesn't prove quackery, but it doesn't scream reputable medical advise either.

    7. Re:!surprise by arose · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt it went like this: "Hey, want do this as well? We have no idea what it will do..."

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    8. Re:!surprise by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      There are numerous US presidents who've had profound medical issues. The range is described well at http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/t_roster.htm, and it's enlightening. Considering that they're middle aged or older, and the stress of the kind of active life necessary to campaign for president, it's not surprising that they had illnesses or traumas that were at the limit of their era's abilities to treat.

      Expecting a presidential candidate to weigh every decision in the light of "what will the voters think" is, itself, political suicide at the highet levels. It will mark a candidate as incapable of making a policy.

    9. Re:!surprise by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      No, the medical community doesn't say anything about his particular decission.
      What it says is that it fears other people might start making unwise decissions about stem cell treatment.
      It fears many people are unable to understand that what might (or might not) be a wise decission in one particular situation is not automagically a wise decission in every situation.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    10. Re:!surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, it's flamebait posts like this that get rated so high that make me seriously consider dropping Slashdot. Surprise! You're an atheist! You must be soooo smart. Won't you come down from your ivory tower and bless us with your infinitesimal knowledge of the created world! I feel sorry for people like you, I really do. You likely don't have many friends and are fairly anti-social.

    11. Re:!surprise by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Experimental procedures are experimental.

      Medical advances come slowly, and methodically. You don't just end up with open heart surgery one day, it takes years, and thousands of procedures to proclaim it "routine". How many millions of people are alive today because of that used-to-be experimental procedure?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    12. Re:!surprise by operagost · · Score: 1

      Is he president right now? No? Wow, some people should listen to themselves.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    13. Re:!surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A candidate who has prayer rallies as part of his campaign is into quackery? Gee, who possibly could have seen this coming.

      How is this insightful? MrEricSir deliberately mischaracterizes the summary. TFS says that "Perry's actions have the unfortunate potential to push desperate patients into the clinics of quacks" NOT that Perry is a quack or engaged in quackery. Learn to read MrEricSir.

    14. Re:!surprise by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      If he's not allowed to get risky medical procedures while he's president, that means he'd better get all of his problems cleared up now, doesn't it?

    15. Re:!surprise by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      You can label me an "atheist" all you like, but if atheist means I don't believe in bullshit, then I can't understand why you make it sound like such a bad thing.

      Maybe you have a lot of friends, but if they all believe in nonsense then what's the point? If I wanted to hang out with people who said stupid shit all day I'd join the crowd of druggies by the bus stop. Hey, at least they're trying to quit instead of being proud to be in such poor shape.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    16. Re:!surprise by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Whereas holding a prayer rally is different how again?

      Oh right, it's not. But keep accusing people of not being able to read when you clearly are making the same mistake.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  5. He is not being a hypocrite by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, he isn't being too much of a hypocrite. Rick Perry earlier said he was against embryonic stem cell research http://www.chron.com/news/article/Perry-speaks-out-against-abortion-stem-cell-1498123.php So instead he's using his own stem cells in a poorly studied and as yet not very well understood process. He could have been a real hypocrite and done something with embryonic stem cells. But nope, he's pushed for the screwing over of science and medicine and he's going to stick with it. Of course, there's the secondary problem that even reliable, well-studied adult stem cell research is based to a large extent on information we got from studying embryonic stem cells. So even if this does work he will be benefiting from the research he despises. So I guess there is a small bit of hypocrisy but it isn't nearly as bad as it could have been.

    1. Re:He is not being a hypocrite by i.am.delf · · Score: 1

      This is what I don't understand about the "but they aren't embryonic so its ok" argument. Thats not how science works. We didn't go back and forget how to reprogram embryonic stem cells and then relearn how to program iPSC. We used all the data from the old embryo destroying techniques to figure out how to use them. In essence, you are benefiting from the destruction of embryos.

    2. Re:He is not being a hypocrite by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Neither the article nor the summary accused him of being a hypocrite.

      The complaint is that there's a lot of quackery surrounding stem cell treatments, and Perry's procedure could be seen as an endorsement of those quack treatments.

      Now I don't know enough about Perry's specific treatment to know if his treatment is legit, or how much it might fuel the quacks, but there's no hypocrisy with the embryonic stem cell debate.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:He is not being a hypocrite by Toonol · · Score: 2

      We used all the data from the old embryo destroying techniques to figure out how to use them. In essence, you are benefiting from the destruction of embryos.

      And even the Bush ban on embryonic stem cells allowed research to continue with the existing strains. Just not creating new ones from new fetuses. Nobody was trying to suppress knowledge or cover over damage that had already been done. It was just an effort to avoid continuing to pay (out of public funds) for something a large percentage of the public has an ethical problem with.

    4. Re:He is not being a hypocrite by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Car analogy:

      Someone dies in a car wreck. Should we just ignore that that happened and only rely on safe Crash Test Dummy data because it is data collected that didn't kill someone?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:He is not being a hypocrite by Exclamation+mark! · · Score: 1

      But people supporting Rick aren't exactly scientists who would know the difference are they?

      --
      I'm a wanker.... and loving it!
    6. Re:He is not being a hypocrite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, there's the secondary problem that even reliable, well-studied adult stem cell research is based to a large extent on information we got from studying embryonic stem cells. So even if this does work he will be benefiting from the research he despises.

      So by this logic, any scientist who claims to be an atheist is a hypocrite because modern science is built on many past scientists who were motivated by their religion (Isaac Newton, for example).

    7. Re:He is not being a hypocrite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but he is being a teeeny-weeenie ity-bitty one, no?
      and thanks for a too funny and too true analysis!!!

    8. Re:He is not being a hypocrite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, look on the bright side. Maybe the treatment will kill him, and that will be an object lesson to deniers everywhere.

    9. Re:He is not being a hypocrite by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      There's also the Nazi and Japanese human experimentation projects. We didn't burn the data.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

    10. Re:He is not being a hypocrite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So even if this does work he will be benefiting from the research he despises.

      Yes, just like "Not tested on animals!" cosmetics still benefit from all their ingredients having been tested on animals by others before them. But that's the sort of non-distinction that some people prefer to gloss over.

  6. Fix your nervous system FIRST! by Dr.Bob,DC · · Score: 0, Funny


    Rick Perry, like almost all other sick people, needs to do one thing FIRST and FOREMOST. Namely: FIX YOUR NERVOUS SYSTEM!

    I will absolutely guarantee his spine and nervous system is replete with subluxations and blockages which are causing all his problems. No, BigPharma will hear none of this. Go for their expensive ~drugs~ and ~therapies~ that prolong the suffering but have cured NOTHING.

    Modern Chiropractic is your gateway to good health. Drugs keep you enslaved.

    Bob

    --
    Chiropractic Saves Lives!
    1. Re:Fix your nervous system FIRST! by XanC · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Then there are others whose main problem is their *central* nervous system. Had yours checked lately?

    2. Re:Fix your nervous system FIRST! by couchslug · · Score: 0

      You must REALLY hate chiropractors. Please post many similar letters to editors. Copypasta is fine.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Fix your nervous system FIRST! by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Fifth post, Dr. B? Used to be that you were reliably #1. Looks like you're slowing down, perhaps you need to take a break from posting online to sort out your sublaxations to get back to your peak.

    4. Re:Fix your nervous system FIRST! by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      Bob, you're slipping you're usually the first post in a medical related topic.

  7. Before anyone points this out... by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, Rick Perry is against embryonic stem cell research. Yes, this treatment did NOT use embryonic stem cells.

    Please do not say that Republicans or conservatives are against stem cell research. Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research. Embryonic stem cell research is still government funded provided that it uses old stem cell lines or adult derived stem cells.

    With that said, let's leave the straw-men in the field.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Before anyone points this out... by allometry · · Score: 1

      If I had some mod points, I'd hand them over to you as insightful.

      --
      http://www.allometry.com
    2. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Adult stem cell research benefited from previously performed embryonic stem cell research. It did not arise on its own. Frankly, I'd ok the destruction of any number of embryos if it meant large medical gains for existing human beings.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    3. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the conservative position on funding research, any cell research? Is there support for NIH? Support for basic research necessary to even know what an adult stem cell was?

      I think saying, "well, he didn't use embryonic stem cells, so all is fine" is missing several points.

    4. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you ventured out of your closed minded circle of acquaintances once in a while... just maybe you would actually have a chance to encounter what the left considers the fabled creatures of open minded, well educated conservatives.

    5. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Chemisor · · Score: 2

      Most embryonic stem cell research is done on mouse embryos, not human ones. Human embryonic stem cells are finicky about their environment and are generally a royal PITA to work with. There is very little benefit to working with human cells when you're researching basic mechanisms of pluripotency, since they are the same in the mouse cells. Frankly, the main reasons for pushing the switch to human cells are political, and even if you don't need them or want them, the boss may push it on you anyway because the results would look "better" when you try to submit them to Nature.

    6. Re:Before anyone points this out... by PPH · · Score: 1

      the fabled creatures of open minded, well educated conservatives.

      Extinct in their natural habitat, having been driven out by the more aggressive Tea Party species*. A few are still on display in a zoo near you.

      *Evolution at work.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:Before anyone points this out... by utkonos · · Score: 1

      I think you can answer your own question if you just stop at funding:

      "What is the conservative position on funding --------?"

      The answer is they are against funding things. Period. Oh wait, except if they can make money from funding weapons programs. Or, make money from funding drilling in wildlife refuges. Perhaps we have to come up with some way that Halliburton could make billions of dollars through embrionic stem cell research, conservatives would change their tune.

    8. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, please don't assume that everyone who votes Republican is against embryonic stem-cell research. Or attends church for that matter.

      Sometimes I vote Democrat - like when there's no other candidate, or the Republican is under indictment. But Democrats have this weird notion that government is the question and answer to everything. Must be something in the water.

    9. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Adult stem cell research benefited from previously performed embryonic stem cell research. It did not arise on its own. Frankly, I'd ok the destruction of any number of embryos if it meant large medical gains for existing human beings.

      I'd ok the destruction of any number of human embryos, period.

      Fully half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.

      If God has decided to discard half the entire human race this way, then I don't think He'll begrudge us a handful of our own.

    10. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Toonol · · Score: 2

      Every conservative I encounter assumes stem cells = dead babies, so apparently they don't even know what they're against.

      Except for every conservative you've encountered in this thread. Now that your statement is no longer true, please don't repeat it anywhere.

    11. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the classic conservative, so eager to tell everyone else what to do, but so pissed if anyone tries to tell them what to do.

      Or, in language more attuned to your educational level: Fuck you.

    12. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

      Embryonic stem cell research uses embryos that were discarded after in vitro fertilization. These embryos will be destroyed regardless so might as well put them to use.

    13. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh so you know what all conservatives believe?

    14. Re:Before anyone points this out... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research. "

      Their actual track record of supporting science of the non-weapony variety is a bit slim...

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    15. Re:Before anyone points this out... by arose · · Score: 1

      Embryonic stem cell research is still government funded provided that it [..] or adult derived stem cells.

      It's not that hard to write a logically consistent sentence. Also, why is destroying the embryos to get rid of them (the alternative unless they want to outlaw in vitro fertilisation) any worse than doing it for Franken-research?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    16. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

      No, religious nutjobs are against it.
      One can be a "conservative" without being anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti-embryonic stem cells.

    17. Re:Before anyone points this out... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Embryonic stem cell research doesn't use embryos destroyed "for the purposes of scientific research" though... it uses embryos that were already being destroyed as redundant. Artificial fertilization is not an exact science yet, so any given attempt at the process has a considerable chance of failure. To avoid unreasonably long delays and high costs, multiple attempts are made in parallel. Typically, more than one succeeds, but all except one are disposed of.

      ESC lines were created from these excess successes, not from anything that was either created or destroyed for purposes of research. The alternative was letting them go to waste. The ban on creating any new lines with government funding just means we're back to throwing them in the garbage, impairing progress toward medical cures without having any impact on the number of embryos created whatsoever.

      Clearly, a win for morality and all of humanity! ~

      Yes, I know you didn't directly claim otherwise, but you strongly implied it. I'm not opposed to a ban on "the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research" since there are so many other sources that are currently being wasted, but I'm strongly opposed to anybody getting up on their moral high horse to impede scientific progress based on a pack of lies (such as that ESC lines come from abortions [stated], or that embryos were being created purely for destruction [implied]).

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    18. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans and conservatives are against stem cell research. Republicans and conservatives are against stem cell research. Republicans and conservatives are against stem cell research. Republicans and conservatives are against stem cell research.

      What are you going to do about it?

    19. Re:Before anyone points this out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that any different. The most useful stem cells are embryonic.Fuck his religion and all other religions they have been holding humanity back for too long.

    20. Re:Before anyone points this out... by operagost · · Score: 1

      A hard Calvinist, I see?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re:Before anyone points this out... by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      Rick Perry is often the target of political shenanigans. His order to have Gardasil added to the vaccination list stirred up a huge hornets nest of political crap too. I thought that was a good decision. The opportunity to significantly reduce the number of cervical cancer cases? Good! Even Rick Perry dismissed the religious folks saying that this would just lead to girl having more sex. The "left" jumped all over this because of some flimsy ties he had to a pharmaceutical company. It was the stupid anti-vaccine dipshits that started crowing real loud about it too.

      I'd rather that a few people listen to Rick Perry, who will admit that he's wrong about something, than that fucking moron Jenny McCarthy who still believes the repeatedly debunked vaccine-autism link and regularly spreads false information. The anti-vaccine twerps are more of a threat to healthcare than Rick Perry is. :/

    22. Re:Before anyone points this out... by benhattman · · Score: 1

      How about a really weird thought experiment. The interest in stem cells is that they can become any cell in the body. In an embryo, that's expected, but in an adult it's not. However, when you remove the cell and begin reprogramming it, you've essentially turned it into something that is functionally closer to an embriotic cell than an adult cell.

      If that reprogrammed adult stem cell is only a couple steps a way from being reprogrammed into actual embryotic cells, which could be implanted and result in pregnancy, what's the real difference? It seems to me that the "right" is using technological limitations and their own ignorance to split hairs so they can reach the desired conclusion that - embryos are special clumps of cells because they have a soul whereas individual adult cells do not.

    23. Re:Before anyone points this out... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.

      Wrong. The "Religious-Right" is against that. "Conservatives" who don't fall under that sub-group generally have no issue with it - at least no more so than the average person on the other side of the political spectrum. This is primarily a religious disagreement.

  8. Not embryonic by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    preface: Rick Perry's public statements have lead me to believe he is a very ill-informed or decietful person with regards to his political views. That is not what this post is about.

    Before anyone jumps the gun and goes for the "hippocrite" line, the stem cells used were adult, not embryonic as his party as absurdly become opposed to for poorly informed reasons. Just worth noting.

    1. Re:Not embryonic by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's just focusing on the very tail end of the research process.

      You still need to ask whether or not any of this could have happened at all without research he doesn't approve of over religious grounds that aren't even that well founded in doctrine to begin with. (thus the problem of embedding religious doctrine in public policy)

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Not embryonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before anyone jumps the gun and goes for the "hippocrite" line, the stem cells used were adult, not embryonic as his party as absurdly become opposed to for poorly informed reasons.

      Pics or it didn't happen.

    3. Re:Not embryonic by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      There are two things I would like to point out. The first is that whenever I point out that all current approved treatments using stem cells use adult stem cells and none use embryonic stem cells someone points out that adult stem cells have been studied significantly longer than embryonic stem cells.
      The second point is that the treatment that he received is an experimental treatment, not quackery. It may become quackery in a few years if the doctors continue administering after the studies are run, if the studies fail to prove its efficacy and safety. This is a treatment that current medical theory says has significant promise, but it has not yet undergone sufficient testing to determine if it works as currently administered. It may turn out that the theory is flawed, or that the procedure does not work as currently administered.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Not embryonic by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      Ill-informed you say? Pot, meet kettle. *Deceitful *Hypocrite *embryonic, *has

    5. Re:Not embryonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. What do you expect from someone whose username is "i kan reed"?

      You forgot *led, and it looks like he spelled embryonic correctly. If you're gonna be pedantic, the entire GP needs rewriting. Let me have a go:

      Rick Perry's public statements have led me to believe that his political views are those of a very ill-informed or deceitful person.

      His party has become opposed to embryonic stem cells for reasons which I think are absurd. Howver, in this case he used his own, adult, stem cells and thus he is not being hypocritical.

      I have no idea what extra information "preface:" and "just worth noting" are meant to convey.

    6. Re:Not embryonic by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > that adult stem cells have been studied significantly longer than embryonic stem cells. ...that doesn't address the question.

      It also is a little circular given the suppression of research that has gone on in this area. The point also may be entirely irrelevant due to timing.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:Not embryonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opposition to embryonic stem cell research is due to the destruction of embryos that is necessary to harvest the cells. While most of the vocal opponents of embryonic stem cell research are religious, it is incorrect to blame religion. A logical argument against embryonic stem cell research can be made without invoking religion.

      This is based on the premise that it is unacceptable to destroy one human life, even if to save another. Another necessary premise is that the embryo is a human life. This can be argued by noting that the embryo is a human embryo and that it is not merely a part of its father or mother. The latter of those assumptions is reasonable because the embryo contains genetic material from both the father and the mother. If destruction of a human life is unacceptable, then the ends cannot justify the means.

      The question of when an embyro or fetus becomes a human life is not merely a religious question. The frequently held position that human life begins at birth is hardly supported by scientific research about fetal development and advances in the ability of medical technology to keep premature babies alive outside the womb. It is a legitimate ethical question that has not adequately been addressed.

      Certainly you can debate the premises of my argument, but they do not require invoking religion to support them.

    8. Re:Not embryonic by tsotha · · Score: 1

      You still need to ask whether or not any of this could have happened at all without research he doesn't approve of over religious grounds that aren't even that well founded in doctrine to begin with. (thus the problem of embedding religious doctrine in public policy)

      The problem with this statement is embryonic stem cells have been pretty much a dead end, clinically. And what, exactly, have we learned from them we couldn't just as easily have learned from adult stem cells?

    9. Re:Not embryonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean that you would be ok with the holocaust if you found that some data was taken from Joseph Megele's experiments and later was part of an effort to cure a disease that you have?

  9. Dr Bob? by XanC · · Score: 1

    "clinics of quacks" actually appeared in the summary, and yet NOTHING from "Dr" Bob yet?

    1. Re:Dr Bob? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      He beat you by 5 minutes.

    2. Re:Dr Bob? by XanC · · Score: 1

      Aw dang, he got modded down so quickly I missed him!

  10. For anyone thinking of voting by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

    For anyone thinking of voting for Mister Perry let me inform you as someone who has met the man and lived in the state he's governed for most my life he is not someone you want in your white house. He's managed to distance himself over the last few years from Bush Jr but that's only political maneuvering they are still part of the same good old boys club and move in the same circles. He's even using the same tactic as bush and trying to get in good with the religious circles to try and get votes. The one time I met and spoke with the met I came away feeling dirty, he's got the feeling of a snake oil salesman.

    1. Re:For anyone thinking of voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also killed an innocent man on death row, who by modern science, did not commit arson and was innocent. Even with the mountain of evidence that cleared the man from arson, he continued with the sentence because he believed Texas should never compromise...

    2. Re:For anyone thinking of voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's Bush Lite vs. Bush Redux. God, I hope Nader is going to run.

    3. Re:For anyone thinking of voting by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

      ... using the same tactic as bush

      Like Bush Jr, he is looking to bail after driving his charge into the ground. Now that the federal dollars that propped up the Texas budget have dried up, things are really coming apart. To "balance" the current budget the rainy day fund was used, public workers fired and education gutted. As a result, unemployment is now on the rise (now 8.4% vs national 9.1%).

      He's even using the same tactic as bush and trying to get in good with the religious circles to try and get votes.

      He is worse than Bush Jr on this, with his connections to dominionists. Shrub focused on appearing religious to get elected, Perry's efforts seems geared to subjugation of government to the authority of radical Christianity.

    4. Re:For anyone thinking of voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've met a few politicians in my day. I'm racking my brain to think of one of them that did not give me the same impression as a used car salesman. Maybe my local city counsel guy who was just a coworker a couple offices down the hall.

    5. Re:For anyone thinking of voting by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Wow, you managed to write all that without making a single substantive criticism.

    6. Re:For anyone thinking of voting by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      What's your point? Politicians manage to say and do a lot without saying or doing anything substantive.

    7. Re:For anyone thinking of voting by tsotha · · Score: 1

      So you think the rest of us should too, then?

    8. Re:For anyone thinking of voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you born stupid, or did your mother fuck you that way?

  11. Topic for discussion by gstrickler · · Score: 1

    If God is the creator of life, and the one who decides when your time is up, then isn't tricking your cells into becoming stem cells again defying God's will (or playing God)?

    No, I don't have an answer to that, it's just a question. Just wondering where people draw the line between medicine and "playing God", since "God's will/province" is a central concept in the fight against embryonic stem cell research and abortion.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    1. Re:Topic for discussion by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      If its your time to go, its your time to go, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    2. Re:Topic for discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then isn't tricking your cells into becoming stem cells again defying God's will

      Pull out a hair from your head. See that white clump on the end that used to be attached to your head? There are stem cells in there.

      I thought liberals were supposed to be all smart and stuff.

    3. Re:Topic for discussion by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Pull out a hair from your head. See that white clump on the end that used to be attached to your head? There are stem cells in there.

      You insensitive clod, I'm practically bald and you want me to pull out some of my remaining hair?

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    4. Re:Topic for discussion by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I think this is one of those logic questions that basically doesn't make sense. There are those who have come to this conclusion, so don't practice any medicine whatsoever.

      Here's one way to answer it. You're drowning in the ocean. A boat comes by and tries to pick you up; you refuse, saying you're trusting God and that when He wants you to die, you'll die. A second boat; same thing. A third; same thing. You drown. You ask God, "Why didn't you save me?" He asks you, "Why did you pass up the three boats I sent?"

      Story aside, there's some pretty hard to figure out questions lumped into this question. Basically, it comes down to questions of human responsibility and God's decisions. Biblically, God never seems to say that you need to "let go and let God" as the silly 60s/70s thing went. God clearly expected people to be active in life. It's like living by eating food; if you decide you're going to "depend on God" and not eat and expect God to miraculously sustain your body the rest of your life ... you're probably going to die. It's ridiculous to "assume" that God is going to save you in the face of your reckless presumption on Him when He has clearly expected you to be responsible for your own actions.

      Basically, this question boils down to: if God is in control of everything, then why do we need to do anything, why can't He just "make" it happen the way He wants.

      I suppose He "could." But He didn't chose to do it that way?

      As for me, the "playing God" thing... that seems to be an un-reasoned out response to something that someone has a gut feeling against. As for embryonic stem cell research and abortion, that's a Biblical stance that aborted babies were actually human beings, and thus abortions are an abomination to God. Like murder. That really has nothing to do with "playing God."

      Nor, incidentally, is genetics "playing God." Of course, if you choose to try to change your baby's eye color through a dangerous genetic operation? That seems ... shall we say, ludicrously dangerous and disrespectful of human life, which God clearly significantly values.

    5. Re:Topic for discussion by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Religious types have a bunch of stock phrases they turn to whenever the inevitable contradiction pops up. In this case they'd use "God helps those who help themselves" or something similar.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Topic for discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If its your time to go, its your time to go, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

      That's silly. In a car wreck and hemorrhaging the paramedics show up on the scene. 'Well it's his time to go, nothing we can do to stop it.' You've got an infection and go to the doctor. 'Yes, it's your time, nothing we can do to stop it.'. When is it 'your time to go'? You may not be able to stop death, but the time you can certainly delay more times than not (you can only die once, you can delay it several times). There are lives saved everyday because people believe there is something you can do to stop a specific instance of 'your time to go'.

    7. Re:Topic for discussion by artor3 · · Score: 1

      You're looking at it backwards. If, for some reason, God really wants you dead, then there's nothing you can do to stop it. If God is out to get you, neither medicine nor surgery is gonna save you. Therefore, we should use all the medicine and surgery we can to try to save lives, instead of worrying that we might be defying God's will. If it really was God's will, we wouldn't be able to defy it.

      I always point this out when anti-abortion religious extremists try to argue "What if Jesus was aborted!?". Even if you assume God wouldn't force someone to carry a child against their free will, wouldn't he know ahead of time that that woman would choose an abortion, and simply pick a different mother?

    8. Re:Topic for discussion by ascrewloose · · Score: 1

      If its your time to go, its your time to go, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

      Go where?

    9. Re:Topic for discussion by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I always point this out when anti-abortion religious extremists try to argue "What if Jesus was aborted!?".

      There would have been enough Jews to stand up to the germans and the holocaust would never have taken place.

      Oh, and the inside of churches would have been a heck more tasteful.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    10. Re:Topic for discussion by operagost · · Score: 1

      It works better when you use scripture instead. The rest is just conjecture.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  12. A slimy politician?? No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Name one politician who isn't in a good ol boys club.

    The very act of getting elected induces them into the "goodest, oldest" boys club there is: that of the people who rule over us with impunity.

    Or are you operating under the illusion that there is one group of politicians who are the good guys and another that are the bad guys? Then why do big corporations contribute to them equally? Why does neither side support any kind of real campaign finance reform? Why do both sides fight so hard to maintain the status quo? Answer: because the status quo is their club.

    1. Re:A slimy politician?? No way! by deathtopaulw · · Score: 1
    2. Re:A slimy politician?? No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can name several, on both sides of the political spectrum. Not to say that they aren't marginalized and cast aside by their respective political parties at every opportunity, but they do exist.

  13. physician error on leading cause of death list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stem cells have not hurt anyone, & have had positive results (permanent cures), previously unavailable, for many. you call this 'weather'?

  14. Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by OutSourcingIsTreason · · Score: 2

    Stem cells are people.
    Corporations are people.
    Therefore, by transitivity, stem cells are corporations.

    --
    "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
    1. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We must cut taxes on the blob creating stem cells.

    2. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soylent Green is People!

    3. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good evening.

      The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife. "All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood." This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. "Oh yes," one would think.

      However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.

      For example, given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if she buys kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love her any more." This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap", and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical.

      "There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home. "Why not?" I will ask. "Because I have been screwing the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made. "But," I will wearily point out, "even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may, logically, be got." " You don't love me any more," she will now often postulate. "If you did, you would give me one now and again, so that I would not have to rely on that rancid Pakistani for my orgasms." "I will give you one after you have got me my supper," I now usually scream, "but not before" -- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper.

      "God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!" she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat. "Fuck supper!" I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yoghurt.

      I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell:

      Sex is more fun than logic -- one cannot prove this, but it "is" in the same sense that Mount Everest "is", or that Alma Cogan "isn't".

      Goodnight.

      --Python (Monty)

    4. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not the way you wrote it. Wiki it.

    5. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men are people.
      Women are people.
      Therefore, by transitivity, men are women.

    6. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      syllogisms are too hard for me.
      i'm posting anonymously on the internet.
      therefore, by transvestivity, you're a gay fag.

    7. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFLMAO - aptly put!

    8. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Stem cells are people.
      Corporations are people.

      Homosexuals are not people.
      The poor are not people.
      Illegal immigrants are not people.

      --The Republican party platform, in five lines or less.

    9. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your transitive is lost due to failure to account for scope and size.

      Stem Cells People

      Therefore, Stem Cells are (tiny) Corporations, just as Corporations are (big) people.
      FTFY

    10. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by sorak · · Score: 1

      Stem cells are people.

      Corporations are people.

      But somehow poor people are racoons.

    11. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if abortion is murder, is there first degree, second degree and third degree abortion?

    12. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by okooolo · · Score: 1

      Corporations are people. Stem cells are people. Therefore, by transitivity, corporations are stem cells

    13. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stem cells are people.
      Corporations are people.
      Therefore, by transitivity, stem cells are corporations.

      Wrong.. Here's a counter example,

      OutSourcingIsTreason is a living human
      A retarded moron is a living human
      Therefore, by transitivity, OutSourcingIsTreason is a "retarded moron"??

      Let A and B be subsets of Z. It is trivial to show that there exist A and B that are not equal if Z is larger than 1 elements.

    14. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the same logic, my spleen is a corporation.

    15. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      Nono
      Stem cells are people.
      Corporations are people.
      Therefore, by transitivity, corporations are stem cells, so he probably just got "injected" by some big corporations.

    16. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      The jury is still out on if politicians are people, though.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    17. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gonged for poor mathematical reasoning. Syllogism, anyone?

    18. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stem cells are people.
      Lawyers are people.

      Stem cells are Lawyers?

    19. Re:Stem cells are corporations! Oh the humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, you got the joke -- congratulations! Now, go have a cookie...

  15. The Stem Cells Were Taken From +4, Helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

        the remaining part of Perry's brain, leaving Perry with NO brain.

          Rick Perry: The Texas IDIOT !

    Yours In Krasnoyarsk,
    K. Trout

  16. He should have done what JFK did for his back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a small dose of Marilyn Monroe!

  17. embryo == "potental for individual being" by tizan · · Score: 1

    Thus conservatives does not want an embryo destroyed which is just a few cells.

    But with cloning a booger with a few living cell in it can be potential to make a new
    individual...thus shall we not destroy any booger or piece of skin ?

    I think conservatives have to decide, why an embryo should not be destroyed or when/which few cells == "potential of living babies"
    or life.

    1. Re:embryo == "potental for individual being" by operagost · · Score: 1

      Boogers... OK. So I assume you think that a stem cell, that might become another piece of living tissue, is equivalent to an embryo that, during a normal pregnancy, would become a complete human being? That seems even sillier than the "masturbation is murder" argument.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  18. ALERT! by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    The pot just called the kettle black!

  19. My god! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any evil the Republicans are NOT responsible for? Now they're going to have people running to quack physicians for quack treatments!

    I can't wait until we find out which teapublican b@stard flapped his arms and caused the earthquake/tsunami in Japan!

  20. Better headline... by gstrickler · · Score: 1

    Rick Perry considered a bad role model for poor people.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    1. Re:Better headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike most poor Texans, he has government-supplied health insurance, which he views as unconstitutional.

  21. does it really surprise anyone. by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

    When a public figure is caught doing something he was telling other people not to do?
    why? because 'i don't want anyone else but me and my buddies getting it instead of you.' or 'all other (insert group like gays or lesbians here) are evil except for me so that's why'. Neither gets people to follow you nor votes.

  22. Perry - Hypocrite Baby Killer - VOTE BIDEN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honest Baby Killers! Yes, we are and proud of it! Look at Biden who recently said he supports China's One Child Policy even though it would mean he would be without his three siblings (Biden is a first born male for those who don't know) Biden is someone who is honest about his beliefs and more than ever we need honesty. I hope he runs against Obama.

  23. Prayer Rallies Aren't Bad by Greyfox · · Score: 2
    Claiming your prayer rally can cure cancer (Or effect any other outcome, really) is. Also bad: putting your faith in some guy who claims his prayer rally can cure your cancer.

    Likewise, trusting someone who claims that injecting stem cells into you can help anything in any way is quite dangerous. At the current time, we know very little about how the damn things actually work. Thanks, largely, to people like Rick Perry. But what did those guys expect, that science would magically continue to progress after all the roadblocks they put in its path? So here we are, with a technique that, had we started studying it 15 years ago when we first started talking about it, may have extended the lives of old people (like many members of Congress,) but Congress shut all that down. And now they're turning to us* with their hands outstretched, expecting salvation. Sorry guys, science doesn't work that way. Even if you put your faith in it.

    Of course, from what *I* understand about stem cells, injecting yourself with them all willy-nilly is as likely to lead to cancer as it is to a positive outcome. Or possibly growing an eyeball in the affected area. I bet Rick Perry will come to the taxpayer for some of that awesome government health care that the rest of us can't have, if he's suddenly afflicted with a case of back-eyeballs.

    * Well, biologists. I went into computer science so I wouldn't have to deal with squishy biological things.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Prayer Rallies Aren't Bad by Pope · · Score: 1

      * Well, biologists. I went into computer science so I wouldn't have to deal with squishy biological things.

      Like women?

      *rimshot*

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    2. Re:Prayer Rallies Aren't Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least it would improve his hindsight.

    3. Re:Prayer Rallies Aren't Bad by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      Of course, from what *I* understand about stem cells, injecting yourself with them all willy-nilly is as likely to lead to cancer as it is to a positive outcome. Or possibly growing an eyeball in the affected area. I bet Rick Perry will come to the taxpayer for some of that awesome government health care that the rest of us can't have, if he's suddenly afflicted with a case of back-eyeballs.

      While Rick Perry with a terrible case of back-eyeballs is an amusing picture (and I look forward to seeing it on the campaign trail), that's not really how stem cell therapies work. You see, there are stem cells, and there are stem cells.

      Fundamentally, stem cells are any cells that are capable of self-renewal -- that is, they can divide to make more stem cells like themselves, as needed. Most are also capable of some sort of differentiation: their daughter cells can form other cell types. The range of cell types that a stem cell can spawn (differentiate into) depends on the type of stem cell you're dealing with. The kind of stem cell that can differentiate into heart muscle, or nerve tissue, or back-blood cells, or back-eyeballs, is a pluripotent or totipotent stem cell; it can be coaxed into making just about any cell in the body. (Embryonic stem cells fall into this category; you can use them to make any part of a full-blown human, given the right biochemical signals. This is why embryonic stem cells are of such great interest to medical researchers.)

      Once you get to an adult human, you don't (as far as we know) have any of these pluripotent stem cells left. Instead, we have partially-differentiated and fully-differentiated populations of multipotent and even unipotent stem cells: stem cells that can make just a few types - or even just one type - of daughter cells. In the bone marrow, for instance, we have (multipotent) hematopoietic stem cells: stem cells which can only make blood and blood-forming cells. In the skin, we have stem cells that can only make more skin and skin-forming cells.

      In the case of Governor Perry, adipose (fatty) tissue was extracted, and adipose stem cells were isolated and reinjected. Presumably, they shouldn't be capable of making anything but soft tissue. (That said, I suppose there is the possibility of partial de-differentiation of the stem cells so that they can produce a larger range of cell types; the technique he used is poorly characterized and not supported by proper clinical trials.) In theory, the presence of adipose stem cells circulating in the blood could lead to the formation of lipomas--tumors made of fat cells experiencing uncontrolled division. In practice, I suspect that the injected stem cells will quickly recognize that they are out of their appropriate habitat and die off shortly after injection: a useless, politically-motivated therapeutic intervention that risks infection and wastes money.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  24. The real question is by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Can the base that cares about this sort of thing (pro-life, anti-science Christians) could make the distinction?

    It's a real golden opportunity. An honest to God politician to make a mess of Perry's campaign. One of his Republican challengers might do it even if the Dems are wishy-washy to do it.

    Then again, here we have someone who's dedicated to seeing the poor don't have access to healthcare utilizing the best we've got to offer.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  25. Look on the bright side by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    Those treatments would probably use somatic cell nuclear transfer of modified material. IE they'd take the genetic information out of your cell, fix whatever was wrong with it and create a new embryo out of that. So you can sit back and enjoy the show as righties flip out because it involves cloning and creation of embryos for destruction while lefties will flip out over that it uses genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms.(Because if there's any form of science liberals hate it's genetic engineering. Oh well, -1 for being a troll, right?)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:Look on the bright side by lgw · · Score: 1

      If they're taking your cells and modifying them, that's by definition non-embryonic stem cells (and such treaments seem quite promising, probably revolutionize medicine). A treatment that specifically required embryonic stem cells seems to raise moral questions that other treatments don't.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Look on the bright side by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

      What I'm talking about is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCNT Basically taking a fertilized egg, which is an embryo, and gutting out its genetic material and replacing it with new genetic material. (Making a new embryo) Then growing that embryo up a bit to use for ESC. (I'd think this is what you'd want to do with real ESC Therapy to avoid rejection.)

      --
      Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    3. Re:Look on the bright side by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that does raise all those creepy moral questions. If stem cell treatments that don't require embryo sacrifice can revolutionize medicine, maybe we should give the creepy treatments a miss for a while while we give non-trivial philosophical and ethical consideration to them.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  26. Let's cut to the chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liberals are assholes and losers who are determined to drag the rest of the country down with them. Obama is going to lose next year, and no amount of sniping at his opposition is going to prevent it. He has it coming.

  27. Worst headline... ever. by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Subby, your headline doesn't parse in English. What language was that supposed to be? Question headlines suck as a rule, but this... wow, this is just terrible. Try forming a complete thought next time. Maybe start with basic grammar like: subject, verb, object. What are the teaching in schools these days?

    On a site that is supposedly for nerds/geeks who are supposedly people of above average intelligence, i expect the writing to be at least up to the fifth grade level.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  28. You're far more hopeful than I am by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    Since I figure people will just find yet another reason to get P.O.'ed about it. (But I'm pretty jaded and cynical)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.