There are hundreds of existing cures that spring from adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have so far produced only negative results. The results of the only human embryonic stem cell (that I'm aware of) test was on parkinson's patients...the outcome was called "horrific". Fetal stem cells grow too rapidly, forming tumors and the stem cells can still be rejected by the body. By using adult stem cells, they can extract the cells from YOU. No chance of rejection. Also, adult stem cells reproduce at a more reasonable rate, so they don't produce tumors or destroy other tissues.

Also, all Bush did was cut funding for embryonic stem cell research. Private companies can still fund the research, but they choose not to. The smart money is on adult stem cell research. They have made the paralysed walk with Adult stem cells, the best that fetal research has done is amplify parkinsons symptoms to the point that the patients were a danger to themself and others.

Also, Bush wasn't our first Christian president. Carter, Reagan and Clinton were all very publically, Christian.

And I, am astonished by YOUR responce. In accordance with what you beleive, an aborted embryo or the discarded invitro embryo are entitleed to preform the "obligation" you are supportive of.

How do you know, that their sole purpose was not to be born, but to fulfill the oblication of dying to save other human life?

Your sence of logic is inadequate. You will never be able to face the challenge of all that has been said, without a bias that you fear to release.

You think you see beyond a one sided picture, but all you see is the OTHER side, which is all those, who have firm and unbending opinions, will ever see.

These are not morals, nor is it logic, these are judgments formed, when there are only two sides that the limitations of perpetuated belief systems allow to be seen.

The 'host' wrote:


I'll be happy to address your clarifying questions. Given that you clearly '... don't understand my point at all...', I'm suprised to that you have none.

It is clear that you are completely misunderstanding my point, since I am squarely addressing Prager's point. If you make an effort, you might notice that our current disagreement, and the source of your misunderstranding, may be a lot simpler than you make it out to be.

You have it that Prager makes a legitimate and valid point, and you argue strongly for it.

I, on the contrary, see Prager's point, and supporting arguments as juvenile, unfounded, not honest at all (approximate comments, out of context 'quotes'), and a manipulative attempt, strictly aimed at establishing one's fabricated and personal moral code, as superior to some other imaginary moral code.
A totally fabricated 'Divide and Conquer' MORAL WAR!!! If you like oxymorons, this is one 'apologetics' warriors must address.

Of course not. That is exactly my point. I totally agree, '... Many folks...', ... including all christian fundamentalists, without exception.

The proselitizing apologetics soldiers, amongst others, are 100% exclusively feelings and 'Heart' driven. They are confusing 'god' as a real person. They are 'really' conversing with 'her', and truly follow the delusional orders (from their talking 'god') to stop at nothing to proselitize the world on the presumed absolute and final 'word for word' book of 'god' herself.

If you suggest that any version of this delusion, turning a belief into fact, and imposing it verbatim on the world, isn't pure 'feelings' and 'emotion' driven, there is a 10 step program you'll want to ask me about.

If you suggest that Prager's comments are perfectly pragmatic, fact based ...
(someone said '... I'd save my dog!!!...' and somebody else said '... I follow what my heart tells me...'),
... and intelligently support the absurd sociological thesis he proposes on the status of modern contemporary morality, then I suggest that this not a case of misunderstanding on your part, but more a case of bad faith.

Faulty logic, half baked and unfounded arguments, out of context and out of integrity mischaracterizations, do not lend legitimacy to any point.

These dishonest practices do not help to demonstrate the validity of one's position in a public 'debating' forum. It wouldn't matter how many of you would agree, nor would it matter if no one were there to call you on the BS.
Faulty logic, half-baked, and unfounded arguments remain so forever, no matter the mass of misharacerizations you throw at it.

And you're damn right I agree 100% with your observation that terrible consequences take place daily, due to the fake morals of fundamentalists falling under the emotional dictate of their chosen religious dogma.

Fundamentalists, insisting on their 'absolutism', are profoundly emotional. No better, nor worse then the people Mr. Prager invented and manipulated into his self-serving construction.

The problem really starts when fundamentalists confuse their emotional beliefs for facts, and self-appoint themselves as their own invented 'god's warriors. Then and only then, do you inherit a dangerous and undesirable situation which you describe as :
'... When they (fundamentalists) are guided JUST by their emotions then they may end up with terrible consequences...'


It's rigged. It's loaded. It's manipulative. It's self-serving.

If I were equally dishonest, I would say to you that I asked apologetics fundamentalists what they suggested should be done with homosexual 'way of life'?
They answered (3 of them so far) that the 'sinners' should be given a chance to 'change thair way'.
Should they not agree to change their way, there should be laws and tribunals to deal with the crime.
I asked further, in your ideal world, how should these tribunals deal with these so called 'crimes' and 'sinners-criminals'?
They answered, without hesitation, it should be dealt with as a capital crime, assorted with a capital sentence for the criminal! What do you mean? I asked.
'... Capital punishment. They should receive the just penalty for going against 'god's laws...'

Given your hero's position, and should I sink to equal dishonesty in my approach (and I am not), ...
... that 'fundamentalists' interpret the bible and their 'god's laws to the extent where it should give human tribunals the right to 'exterminate' some of our brothers and sisters simply because they do not follow THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THEIR GOD'S LAWS,
... I would offer that the 'emotional' and 'delusional' factor involded in fundamentalists demonstrates clearly that the bible and its god are dangerous, and represent a real threat to the superior morality in our civilized and democratic nations.


You answer the issue please, ... for I have done so plenty!!!

Was busy writing a reply to our 'host' and missed out on some additionnal posts.

THANKS WOULDEE!!!

I think the future of humankind rests in the very spirit of this healthy 'same team at the end of the day' dialogue between you and me, and so many others, here on this forum and beyond.

Different beliefs, or faith, or religious convictions should never rise as defensive walls, or agressive 'moral' armies between people.

On the contrary. It should all serve the purpose of true dialogue and 'rapprochement'. That is the only thing the human race is 'condemned' to succeed at!!!

Your research is behind. There are dozens of new articles just this month. There are different kinds of stem cells and the ones needed can only be found in the embryo. The fact that stem cells have been used to treat blood cancers is what has driven the research. It is research, but the number of benefits to humantiy that it holds are worthy of continuing the effort.




LOGIC requires that you have an understanding of the subject, before you make such statements. If it were possible to extract the stem cells needed from an adult human, why would they use embryos? So there is the question you should seek to answer. I will not be your guide! My time is at least as valuable as yours, and I did do the research.




In August of 2001, Bush passed a “presidential law” making embryonic research illegal, using any human embryo that was not in existence, prior to the passing of that law.

YOUR ARE WRONG ONCE AGAIN, funding continues, and the research is being done internationally, but the embryos are no longer available. The funding of this research is now geared toward the technologically created embryo that will yield the stem cells needed. Does it matter if the embryo is “created” through technology, are they not just as dead after the stem extraction? Why kill more, when there are plenty of viable, legally (existing)and obtainable, embryos available?



No other President has allowed their religious beliefs to interfere so profoundly with the ethicality demanded of the Presidency. Bush has abused the power entrusted in him and, as I previously stated, when one can see only two sides of a picture, there is a blinding force within; is it in the name of the power he has claimed for himself, or in the name of the power he claims extends from his belief? Does it matter?

Let the blind believe whatever they will and let the sighted look without judgment, and let the judges be those who serve humanity and not a god.

Hi Voil, thoroughly enjoyed reading you responce. You are indeed an artist in the written word.

By the way you were right, amazing history in the lives of Sartre and Simone B.

Glad you're back my luminous friend !!!

Guess the 'grade' pressure is off for a little while?!?!

JPS and SB, glad you're on their trail. It is quite fascinating. The individual lives and achievements, but also the incredibly brilliant period: second quarter of the 20th century, and all the other amazing contributors around their 'dinner table' at home, or at the mythique Café 'Les deux Magots'.

"An obligation is a requirement to take some course of action."

Exactly. But what constitutes or justifies a requirement?

In those terms to answer your question I believe it is a moral obligation to love G-d as it is to love your parents. It is also an obligation for G-d to love humans as parents are obligated to love their children.

I disagree.

A creator most certainly is under an obligation to love it’s creation. That obligation comes automatic as the responsibility of having created something. A creator should be responsible for what it creates.

What about the child of the creator? Does the child have any responsibility to love it’s creator?

No!!!

The creator might even be evil!

Consider the parent/child scenario. What if your parent is a demon, a madman who is creating offspring for vile purposes. Is the child obligated to love and serve that creator. NO!

The child didn’t ask to be created and therefore has no responsibility toward to the creator. The creator must earn the child’s love and be worthy of it.

In the same way, is a child then responsible for saving the lives of other things that the child did not create. No, the child is not obligated to save anyone’s life.

However, the child may choose to save the life of another if it wishes to be so kind.

I have no obligation to save anything I did not create.

That doesn’t mean that I won’t try. It just means that I’m not obligated. If I do try, it was my free choice, not an obligation.

And when it comes to things like pregnancies due to rape, even if you want to talk in terms of obligations you need to consider everyone’s life. Not just the fertilized egg.

Life is more than just beating hearts.

Life is also the quality of the experience. If you save a fertilized egg, only to emotionally destroy the woman you forced to bring that egg to gestation then your moral values suck IHMO.

You’ve lost sight of the real meaning of life in favor of technicalities. Why draw the line with a fertilized egg? What about all the unfertilized eggs they die every day simply because they missed their chance to be fertilized.

You draw your own lines for morals. You draw your own definitions for the meaning of life.

There are no absolutes in life. It’s the greatest fallacy of mankind to think that the Bible contains some kind of absolute law of an all-wise creator. It does not. It was clearly written by prejudiced hand of male-chauvinists men. Not by any all-wise supreme being.

Your post is completely false, but I will only address this one point. I will use sarcasm, since you have decided to set that tone.

Does that "presidential law" prevent other countrys from doing embryonic stem cell research? Surprisingly, no. It turns out that President Bush is only the President of the United States.

Is the US the only country with embryos? No, actually they are quiet easy to make, all you need is an egg and a sperm.

How many cures are there that use Embryonic stem cells? 0

How many cures are there that use Adult stem cells? 73, as of April 11, 2007.

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm



As I said, it is perfectly LEGAL for privately funded ESCR. It's only illegal to use federal dollars.

I would appreciate if we could maintain a civil tone. Your response to mine was unduly rude.

My rudeness was unintentional, there was little emotion as I typed except to present information. SIGH!!!

However, I am tired so my apologies if I was rude.

In light of your post, I re-read my comments. YOU ARE CORRECT!

Common smile - you are right, Stem Cell Research is NOT illegal and as you said, the material used for the research can not attain Federal Funds, unless it follows the guidelines set forth by the NIH. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/resources.asp



Actually the NIH which was created in responce to the Presidential law, is international. You see, the Federal Govmt. OUR Federal Government, actually does fund "international" projects. So Yes - "presidential law" can prevent other countries from "benefiting" from federal funds.

Actually, embryos no longer need an egg and a sperm at all.



I don't know how you mangage to do it, but you always find the most biased web site to support your theories.

This cite you have quoted has a multitude of issues, most, specifically they emphatically maintain a postition that even a blastocyst (the early formation of cells that will eventually form a fetus) is a human and their stand is adament.

Further, the "peer reviewed" PROOF they offer is a guise to those who search only to confirm their bias, and are not interested in following up or understanding the issues.

If you think I am accusing you, perhaps I am, but it is only an accusation of ignorance.

The majority of the references they give include the accepted and ORIGINAL research of the first ADULT stem cells found. These were found exceptionally worthy of treating abnomalities and cancers of the bone and blood. This was prior to the isolation of and maintenance of other stem cells discovered in the embryo.

For the rest of those "peer reviewed" references, the ones I looked up refer to old research, (the research that blew the door open to all future stem cell research) or to studies and trials. Just because one report of a particular case is peer reviewed does no make it a cure - it is just one case in very small test peramiter.

If you are really interested in the 'facts' begin with the NIH website that I have included above. Be sure to read the Q & A about stem cell research, there you will find the reasons, in laymans terms, of why embryonic stem cells are considered, by far the best choice for continued research. Their links are reviewed and should also provide more "un-biased" information.

I return this topic back to whence it came.

Something about using "unbiased" logic instead of emotionally charged judgments based on a religiously designated moral code?

yup

it is also to make clear the need for mutual respect and dignity

for all of mankind in all pluralistic societies.

Finding the balance of moral and ethical equivalence may very well prove untenably difficult. Beliefs and cultures collide.

but individual rights aren't always astablished by the benevolent either.

There is this tendency in our present world village to legislate advantage and privelege.

My concerns are more deeply rooted in the needs of the disenfranchised and underpriveleged of all peoples and cultures and faiths.

it seems simple enough, but it still a messy business.

mutual respect and dignity. as you say, same team.