Funny how the same people who don’t want a mosque in New York because, among other things, they are afraid of Muslim Sharia law eventually being enacted here have no problem imposing their religion-based laws on us.

A U.S. district judge on Monday blocked the federal government from funding all research involving human embryonic stem cells on the grounds that it violates a 1996 law intended to prevent the destruction of of human embryos.

The ruling came in the form of a preliminary injunction in a case involving two scientists who challenged the Obama administration’s stem cell funding policy, which was designed to expand federal support for the controversial research.

Embryonic stem cell researchers said the decision would throw the field into turmoil.

“The long-term practical impact is a massive halt to most embryonic stem cell research in the U.S.” said Dr. Irving Weissman, director of the Stanford Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine.
[…]
The scientists who challenged the guidelines argued that Dickey-Wicker also forbids the use of federal funds for any subsequent research on those stem cells, even if the embryos they came from had been destroyed years before.
[…]
Advanced Cell Technology Inc. is using the cells to grow retinal pigment epithelium cells that restored vision in rats and mice with a rare childhood disease called Stargardt’s macular dystrophy. […] “This is criminal,” Lanza said. “We are talking about people going blind, people who are dying from a terrifying array of diseases.”

Wouldn’t it make sense for the people who now won’t be helped by this research be taken care of financially and otherwise by those who oppose this research?




  1. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    #61–Benji==you do crack me up. Good man. Like most forms of “high culture” don’t confuse what the rich would have us believe what your own experience would contradict.

    When it comes to things gourmet, the only thing that counts is your own personal taste.

    Its good to know that “connoisseurs” may prefer and recommend red over white and dry over sweet, but if your own taste differs====screw em. Every 3-4 years you might try the accepted wisdom but never accept it just because it is given.

    I’m not going to drink white wine just because I’m eating pork. I’ll drink sangiovese every chance I get over fume blanc. And I personally can’t stand the bitterness of tannic acid gained from “fine oak barrel storage.” Give me stainless steel which is why Australian and South American wines can be quite excellent while cheap.

    Keep the faith.

  2. Traaxx says:

    You know it’s mistake to try and talk to Uncle Davie Stalin, just don’t respond to his posts and he’ll cease to be allowed to post. Dvorak only has him here because he generates controversy.

    By the way can anyone name one treatment that’s been proven by this research?

    Whatever…………………………………
    Traaxx

  3. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    “By the way can anyone name one treatment that’s been proven by this research?” /// Its been demonstrated that Born Again Christians can’t stand the possibility of same?

  4. Aurangzeb says:

    I’m with US court! I think this should’ve been done before. I’m also against those who say “boy or girl? you choose”, you know what they do? if parents want girls the kill the boys before they’re born. and if parents want boys then they kill girls before their birth. This is absolute crime. I don’t know how people openly practice this horrendous crime and no-one stops them.

    Aurangzeb
    http://takht-e-sulaiman.eseaf.com/311-research-funding-stem-cells-research-blocked-by-us-court

  5. Jeff says:

    The judge denied the funding on based on a 1996 law. Repubs had the legislative branch and Clinton was in office during that time. A religious organization may have brought it up, but the law still stands. If you don’t like the law, then convince enough people to have Congress change it. The Dems have control of both houses of the legislative branch and a Dem is the president.

  6. Benjamin says:

    #66 Jeff said, “The Dems have control of both houses of the legislative branch and a Dem is the president.”

    Good point. The judge is upholding the law, not legislating from the bench. If it is so important to Democrats, then pass a bill in Congress. The Democrats can move anything through because they have the majority.

    Bobbo going on about how this is a religious decision when it is actually in the hands of his favorite political party, the Democrats.

    I do like that a judge is not making law. He is pointing out who truly has the power to change the law, Congress.

  7. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Now Benji===so disappointing. The decision is just as you say: straight forward application of the law. Its the LAW, not the decision, that is religiously motivated.

    I will digress and also comment the BS spin the Pukes give the “Dems Control” when if there was a shred of honesty it would be admitted that the Pukes filibustering everything removes control from a party that only has a majority of representation.

    You are so dishonest.

    Nasty Humans.

  8. Father says:

    Agree with Camacho.

    Still Right,

    By being partisan, I think you are ducking the question, and looking like an ass.

    If life is as valuable as you claim, then you would be against the killing of children by US in war. My point that we, supposedly enlightened, predominately white (not for long), Americans would never do anything like those “backward” people you used for an example. Yet our history is the history of a people that will do litteraly anything to anyone to get what we want. Native Americans, African Americans, Countries, we are no better than the British at the height of their power.

    Yet you blushed when I brought up the truth we all know is hidden in our collective past.

    I just accept that our humanity is an illusion, and you preach the gospel that we are loving and generous to everyone, and should protect life at all costs.

  9. Breetai says:

    Ya know, if the Constitution wasn’t a “Living Document” and actually meant what it actually said, this case would have been thrown out as meritless a long time ago.

  10. Sea Lawyer says:

    Hopefully we reach the day when we devise a way so that we can never die… except from starving to death.

  11. Father says:

    Morality is a social contract that the strong dictate to the weak.

  12. Dallas says:

    #73 It doesn’t have to be. Most of the 5,000 religions see their special list as absolute guides for human behavior – everyone. This view doesn’t allow for individuals to disagree or for the possibility that other groups are correct in their differing views.

    Thank goodness we are a nation of laws and not a nation of religious loons – although too much overlap for my liking.

  13. Father says:

    Dallas,

    Steven Covey advocates a “Win-Win or No Deal” strategy in life, meaning: walk away from people or events that refuse to deal fairly with you.

  14. soundwash says:

    We really need to get on with learning how to create matter from energy..

    this whole “harvest the human” thing is too easily corrupted..and well, sooO 19th century.

    -s

  15. Faxon says:

    Bobbo, BOBNO, BLABBO, DUMBO,

    Morality vs religion. Two different things, BLABBO.

  16. Party is Irrelevant says:

    Bobbo- Dude, where do you find the time to post so much? Get a job or something 😉 I can only imagine your significant other tapping you on the shoulder:
    “come to bed, honey”

    “I can’t. Someone is *wrong* on the internet”
    (props to XKCD.com)

    I agree this is an ethical dillema…Bobbo is right, the science does show when life begins…at fertilization.

    So to cover this argument from another angle- An adult is in a coma, but that person’s doctor believes it can be reasonably expected he/she will come out of it in 7-9 months. Is it okay to harvest his/her organs, or just pull the plug since he/she is incapable of stopping it, just because it is inconvenient or expensive to keep them alive? This is not a straw man argument–the fertilized egg (zygote/embryo whatever) has ever bit as much potential for contribution to humanity as the adult.

    An incarcerated, convicted murder/rapist/child molester currently has more protection and “civil liberties” under federal law than an unborn fetus of 6 months. And they don’t have to pay for cable… 🙂

    And since the constitution was brought up by so many of you– Moslems (or whoever) have a right to build a house of worship anywhere they can afford it. The whole “separation of church and state” argument was designed to keep the government out of places of worship, not to keep theist beliefs out of government.
    Please read Common Sense, The Federalist Papers and the Constitution, and if you still have the time to opine so strongly, perhaps you can add something even more productive to the discussion…

    …and he wipes is brow and gets off his high -horse….

  17. Dallas says:

    #75 “Win-win or No deal”. I like it!!

    Now I definitely need to read that book. I have at least one of his books somewhere.

  18. sargasso_c says:

    Nice photo of a blastula. Does it have a soul yet?

  19. Bmorebadboy says:

    I’m sure I’ll offend many on this blog by saying this, but it’s all pretty simple to me. Embryos, stem cells, etc belong to two people, the provider of the sperm and the provider of the egg. They are joint, equal and exclusive owners. Whatever happens to the embryo or any of its parts is solely to be determined by the joint owners. Judges, religious fanatics and society be damned. It’s none of their business. If the joint owners decide to sell or donate their property to science or flush it down the toilet, it’s none of your business. Until that embryo is born and old enough to declare its independence from its parents/owners, all the decisions regarding that creation rests on its creators or those with whom decision making has been conferred.

    Now, I’m sure you moralists will come out the woodwork to exclaim how immoral this viewpoint is. Let me ask you this question: what makes your morals any better than mine? As far as I’m concerned, the best people to make a decision for a child are its parents until it is old enough to make its own decisions. And the number of children who suffer from incompetent parents would far underweigh (is that a word?) the amount of children who do suffer under the present system of foster care, underground child exploitation, and the like.

  20. Bmorebadboy says:

    Oh, and to address the issue at hand, I HIGHLY disagree with federal research funding of ANYTHING. These funds are stolen monies and should be returned immediately. Those individuals who want to support this research should be able to do so and those who oppose it shouldn’t be forced to. Government likes to make things complicated so we can get into arguments of what should and shouldn’t be done with “government funding”.

  21. Bernard_Marx says:

    Why does Americans United for Life want to kill grandma?

    It seems to me that many of the same people who were fear mongering over “death pannels” which would “kill gandma” are the same people that want to prevent research which would save grandma.

  22. Skippy says:

    Camacho, #69:

    “Stem-cell research is about making money, creating hybrid slaves, and supermen.”

    That’s a slipperly slope argument if I ever heard one. Try again.

    “It is unethical. They don’t care about people with problems. If they do, they are going to charge for it like hell.”

    That argument has been made for all sorts of things, where it didn’t turn out to be the case. And who is to say it’s unethical? According to whose code of ethics? Bible thumpers? Yeah, right. Research itself is not unethical; science is neutral…it’s what you do with the results of that research that might be considered unethical.

  23. Mr. Fusion says:

    Irrelevant,
    So to cover this argument from another angle- An adult is in a coma, but that person’s doctor believes it can be reasonably expected he/she will come out of it in 7-9 months. Is it okay to harvest his/her organs, or just pull the plug since he/she is incapable of stopping it, just because it is inconvenient or expensive to keep them alive? This is not a straw man argument–the fertilized egg (zygote/embryo whatever) has ever bit as much potential for contribution to humanity as the adult.

    Nope, that is a straw man argument. Unless you can link to a case where a doctor accurately predicted the person would be in the coma for a specific number of months.

    A person gains specific rights and recognition upon birth. So your coma patient has rights and expectations a fetus doesn’t.

    An incarcerated, convicted murder/rapist/child molester currently has more protection and “civil liberties” under federal law than an unborn fetus of 6 months. And they don’t have to pay for cable… 🙂

    Another bull shit straw man argument. A fetus isn’t a person. Nor is a dog and the murderer has more rights than a dog too.

    And since the constitution was brought up by so many of you– Moslems (or whoever) have a right to build a house of worship anywhere they can afford it. The whole “separation of church and state” argument was designed to keep the government out of places of worship, not to keep theist beliefs out of government.
    Please read Common Sense, The Federalist Papers and the Constitution, and if you still have the time to opine so strongly, perhaps you can add something even more productive to the discussion…

    The way the Constitution was written, and interpreted by the Supreme Court, you are wrong again. That is what matters, not what someone living at the time wanted it to mean. Wanting your theocracy to control the government is what the Taliban and Iranian Ayatollahs want. But, that isn’t what our Constitution allows or America stands for. And we are thankful for that.

  24. Joe Dirt says:

    Looks like the oats I blew all over Hillary’s stomach

  25. allah cash says:

    Tax ALL organized religion and either our money problems will be solved and/or the religion as government will also.

    Interesting bumper sticker…
    IF IT AIN’T KING JAMES IT AIN’T BIBLE
    Is that seen anywhere outside the South? Do those people know anything about King James and “his” bible?

  26. AppleIIGuy says:

    So legalize murder?

    That is a religious law that is imposed on us all..

  27. Somebody_Else says:

    Dipshit conservatives strike again.

  28. soundwash says:

    Where’s the Stem?

  29. JMRouse says:

    Again, the scientific community as a whole, supports embryonic stem cell research and believes it’s needed right now to advance their research.

    All the other back and forth here is just noise.

  30. bmorebadboy says:

    @AppleIIguy, #91 – You don’t need religion to determine murder is wrong. An example of a religious law is recognizing a holy day or not eating pork. Examples of secular law is do not steal, kill or defraud others. I can see how you can get confused because both types of law are exemplified in your holey bible. Try to stop and think for a second before posting next time…

    Why are you all so pressed? Is anyone forcing you to give up your embryos for scientific research? The owners of those embryos donated them. It has nothing to do with you. Mind your own business. How much better the world would be if people just minded their own business. Sheesh!


3

Bad Behavior has blocked 5374 access attempts in the last 7 days.