Video: Caviezel et al. respond to Michael J. Fox’s stem-cell ad; Update: Talent surges ahead of McCaskill?
posted at 6:54 pm on October 24, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Sort of. Fox’s spot is a campaign ad for Claire McCaskill. Caviezel’s clip is an ad opposing Amendment 2, the stem-cell initiative on the ballot in Missouri.
If you believe in “ensoulment,” you’re probably with Caviezel. If, like me, you don’t, you’re probably with Fox. And if you’re worried about slippery slopes, you should probably revisit your logic for supporting the CIA’s authority to belly-slap Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.
I’ve watched this vid six times now and I still can’t understand what Caviezel says at the beginning. Is that … Aramaic? Is he actually doing a little JC reprise to lean on Missouri’s Christian voters? Talk about playing the infallibility card.
Be sure to follow that last link and read Barnett, by the way. He’s catching hell from the Ministry of Tolerance for not having unthinkingly defended a fellow “victim.” That sort of thing seems to be going around, alas.
Update: Don’t miss Tinti’s MJF parody ad.
Update: Republican Rep. Barbara Cubin introduces a novel way of disagreeing with the handicapped. Good lord.
Update: Talent up by three in Mizzou? Mary K says the national tide’s a-turning. I want to believe — but I don’t.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
I’ve only ever heard the term “ensoulment” used by Christians trying to justify abortion by arguing that a child doesn’t get a soul until later in development (somewhere before or at birth but after conception). I just think it’s a slippery-slope when you say human life can be summarily ended at any point. I’ve never given much thought to when a person gets a soul, though.
frankj on October 24, 2006 at 7:01 PM
I thought it meant that a soul is created at the moment of fertilization, i.e., life begins at conception. Did I misspeak?
Allahpundit on October 24, 2006 at 7:02 PM
Bottom line is: Liberal atheists for death. Christian conservatives for life. Make your choice and live with the consequences.
liberty on October 24, 2006 at 7:03 PM
And what’s the relation between a slippery-slope about ending life and a slippery-slop with belly-slapping terrorists?
frankj on October 24, 2006 at 7:03 PM
So wait, you’re for embryonic stem-cell research AP?
RightWinged on October 24, 2006 at 7:04 PM
Allahpundit,
I honestly don’t know. I’ve only heard the term used by anti-abortion people making fun of tortured logic (or faith) of pro-abortion people.
frankj on October 24, 2006 at 7:08 PM
I think one of the people at the Youtube site implied that it means “I am Jesus, and I approve this message”
Kind of funny, really.
BlueStateBlues on October 24, 2006 at 7:08 PM
AP,
I looked it up and, generically, ensoulment means the creation of the soul, so whoever believes in souls believes in ensoulment (but may argue on the timing). As for who actually uses that term, I dunno.
frankj on October 24, 2006 at 7:12 PM
It’s not about your position on “ensoulment.” It’s whether many others have a legitimate moral based reason to object to using FEDERAL FUNDING to do the research. That’s the issue. It’s no different that saying federal funding can’t be used to erect a Church or Synagogue.
TheBigOldDog on October 24, 2006 at 7:13 PM
Sure. Why close off a potentially fruitful area of research? Two tracks, one adult, one embryonic.
The relation is that people often trot out the slippery slope argument when they have no better argument. That’s the left on belly-slapping: they can’t really object to belly-slapping a guy to foil terrorist plots, so they have to invoke the slope. Same here: if using fertilized eggs for stem-cell research will lead inevitably to Nazi-like euthanasia policies, as some maintain, then they should explain why. Don’t just holler “slippery slope.”
Allahpundit on October 24, 2006 at 7:17 PM
Sure, they have a moral based reason to object. Many others have a moral based reason to support it. That’s what the vote is for, no?
Allahpundit on October 24, 2006 at 7:19 PM
I don’t really see that as any sort of direct response, as MJF’s ad is for Claire McCaskill while the ad linked herein is against Prop. 2 in Missouri. I can see the overlap though.
In the end though, I don’t see why somebody doesn’t start an charitable organization to collect donations to fund research privately (similar to other organizations that do the same for other types of research) instead of having such a hard-on for government funding. It’s not as if said research is actually banned.
thirteen28 on October 24, 2006 at 7:23 PM
Wishful thinking is more like it.
RightWinged on October 24, 2006 at 7:25 PM
I think it is Aramaic, but it doesn’t say anything about being Jesus. Not sure about the approving the message part though.
tikvah on October 24, 2006 at 7:27 PM
Pablo brought this up on the MJF thread:
BlueStateBlues on October 24, 2006 at 7:27 PM
I am truly sorry that Michael J. Fox has Parkinson’s, but appalled that anyone would go off medication just to elicit sympathy. It would be different if he never took medication to control the symptoms, but to only leave off meds in front of congress or the cameras of a political ad? Yikes. Good to see other trusted names and familiar faces rebutting the MJF ads, especially since the rebuttal makes good points and educates viewers instead of just tugging at heartstrings. Hopefully voters will use their intelligence to decide this matter, rather than just sympathy for Alex Keaton / Marty McFly.
eucher on October 24, 2006 at 7:27 PM
Listen to The Jesus!
Drtuddle on October 24, 2006 at 7:33 PM
From Barnett’s piece:
Sorry, Dean. While spending increases have been small the last couple of years, the NIH is playing with $28.6 billion a year, and the grant approval process is competitive. The NIH has been the big dog in funding all basic medical research for a good long time, and that isn’t likely to change anytime soon.
Well designed research projects that ask good questions and have good scientists with good facility support and a good chance of doing what they propose to do will get funded. Less well desigend projects suffer from their deficiencies in these areas.
The only thing expanded ESC funding (such as HR 810) would do to the process is allow ESC projects to compete for available funds. If it isn’t good science, we’re not going to pay for it. The peer review groups will see to that.
Pablo on October 24, 2006 at 7:35 PM
Hell, listen to Kurt Warner … he’s thirteen, you know ;)
thirteen28 on October 24, 2006 at 7:35 PM
You only cross bright morally contentious lines at great risk. Slavery was lawful (plenty of people voted for it) but it was immoral and it torn the nation apart. Better it be left to the private sector than to reap the whirlwind that results from forcing people to pay for something they find morally and religiously repugnant. That’s what breeds animosity and conflict.
TheBigOldDog on October 24, 2006 at 7:40 PM
I believe the argument here is the point at which any life becomes cheap or expendable for others or any reason. I’ve heard it (reasonably) argued that if infant life is expendable for convenience or science, then society can potentially progress to finding other lives expendable.
thedecider on October 24, 2006 at 7:44 PM
There goes our foreign policy. I thought we all decided that majority vote would rule. This rocks for Blackwater, though!
Pablo on October 24, 2006 at 7:45 PM
I have no problem with someone invoking Jesus into the debate. While I consider myself a Christian, I am not a ‘regular’ church going toe the line kind of one. What I do NOT have to worry about is Jim Caviezl cutting off my head. I DO have to worry about a doctor killing a HUMAN to fix his patient.
Limerick on October 24, 2006 at 7:45 PM
Ugh… What terribly oversimplified logic. So it is ok to destroy human life unless you believe that a soul is present at conception?
It is quite possible to oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research without believing in ‘ensoulment’. I would know, because I don’t believe life has equal value from the point of conception forward, and I am also against government funding on embryonic stem cell research. Why?
1 - It is a waste of money. Embryonic stem cell research, like global warming, is surrounded by mountains of hype and misinformation. It is not a promising avenue of research at this point, as evidenced by the lack of private sector investment. Adult stems cell research holds far more promise, had yielded results, and research has indicated that the one major advantage of embryonic stem cells: pluripotency, also exists in adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are every bit as versatile as embryonic stem cells without the presently insurmountable problems of rejection by the host. The only thing ebryonic stem cells can do that adult stem cells cant, is be used as a political weapon against the ‘religious right’, hated enemy of liberal academics everywhere. It is little wonder these very academics are the one championing this inferior research, and doing it with our tax dollars because they can’t trick the private sector into giving them any money!
Every dollar wasted on embryonic stem cell research is a dollar that is not spent on more promising adult stem cell research, or any number of other better uses.
2 - Embryonic life may not have as much value as a human life after the point of viability or birth, but a human embryo is not worthless. This life has SOME value, and the creation and destruction of embryonic human life for research purposes should be seen as ethically questionable REAGRDLESS of one’s belief of when a soul comes into play. Medical professionals have been making this point regarding ethics since the very beginning of this debate.
No. Sometimes the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, and sometimes it is not. Belly slapping does not make it more likely that worse forms of torture will be adopted. It is not as if the American public will naturally drift to increasingly torturous methods by some invisible inertia. I think, in that case, slippery slope is a fallacy that is countered by “we can cross that bridge when we come to it”. The left can draw the line at what is, and what is not torture, and then they can invoke their arguments when that line is crossed, but not before.
By contrast, destroying embryos in a lab is crossing a line, it is not merely the first step on a path that may or may not lead to a line being crossed. The idea that human life is sacred is ETHICALLY ingrained in medical research. That is why we don’t see risky human testing except in places like Nazi Germany and China. I think the slippery slope argument regarding embryonic stem cell research is a legitimate one as long as it is not taken too far, because if the scientific community begins to treat the creation and destruction of life for stem cell research as routine and devoid of moral and ethical quandries, that makes it that much more likely that OTHER controversial areas of research, like human cloning, which is controversial ethically for the same reasons, will be undertaken.
So, not all slippery slope arguments are invalid, and it was wrong for AP to treat slippery slope arguments as either all wrong, or all right.
kaltes on October 24, 2006 at 7:49 PM
The constitution(s) rule. In a nation 80% Christian, you could get majority votes for all sorts of things I’m sure you’d find morally repugnant.
TheBigOldDog on October 24, 2006 at 7:51 PM
I don’t believe the tide is turning either - the latest Mason Dixon poll (10/17-10/19) has McCaskill up by three.
SisterToldjah on October 24, 2006 at 7:54 PM
Wow AP, I think you just stepped in it! And you have the nards to criticize Bush for not listening to his base….hmmm
Great time to piss off(on?) a large and committed part of your readership.
Slippery slopes indeed.
TBinSTL on October 24, 2006 at 7:55 PM
What’s ensoulment got to do with anything. False flag dude.
We’re talking human experimentation plain and simple.
Iblis on October 24, 2006 at 7:57 PM
AP,
Maybe slippery-slope is the wrong term. You have to draw a line somewhere and say “This is a human life; you no kill” and there is no clearer point that conception. Everything else is subject to fudging (including birth, since I’ve heard of many abortionists who go on to smother a infant that survives an abortion, because, really, what’s the difference?).
frankj on October 24, 2006 at 8:05 PM
Why are you putting your faith in polls, which have become increasingly unreliable?
thirteen28 on October 24, 2006 at 8:08 PM
The tide is turning and ABC and whoever was in on the Foley plot will very much regret Sept. 30th, 2006, the pre-October surprise.
Entelechy on October 24, 2006 at 8:09 PM
Strange advertisement.
Tom Shakely on October 24, 2006 at 8:10 PM
Allah, do you live in DC too?
Topsecretk9 on October 24, 2006 at 8:11 PM
AP - Don’t you worry about the potential for embryo farming? That is, creating a market for aborted fetuses?
Indy Mark on October 24, 2006 at 8:17 PM
What? No comments on my WY Representative telling a disabled man who also happens to be a jerk, that she would slap his face if he wasn’t in that chair? What do you mean by “Good Lord”, Allah?
I’m only sorry that she apologized. Cubin is a class act and this Rankin fellow is classless. One can only imagine what the freak said to her, and then of course he lied about not saying anything to provoke her. One more instance of playing the victim card — but don’t you dare attack me! I’m a freakin victim! Idiot.
wytammic on October 24, 2006 at 8:18 PM
First time poster, long time viewer.
I am a Nuclear Medicine technologist, so pathology is not my field, but I did what any one else would do, go research the subject. I find a lot of support for harvesting embryo stem cells based on a belief and a hope that they will yield pliant cells that will accept an activation in to a beneficial and compatable replacement cell to allieviate the targeted disease. The problem is, the actual triggering mechanism has yet to be identified, isolated or even defined properly. It is hoped be some that just by experimenting with the embryonic stem cells that results will present themselves.
Over at WebMD (a nice resource)is Dr. Michael Shelanski, MD, PhD who on part says,
“The debate that is going on in the public today is over, if you will, a sub-issue of “How do we obtain stem cells?” and it is confused by the fact that the term “stem cell” does not have one single meaning; they all share this multipotential ability, but many people, by “stem cells,” mean the very primitive cells taken from an embryo. In fact, you can obtain stem cells from the human umbilical cord; you can obtain them from the adult brain (although no one has obtained them from the human brain, but in principle you could do it), and you can obtain stem cells from the blood.”
The full interview is here at , well worth a read.
So this makes me ask, why is it exclusively embryonic stem cells that are so desireable? If stem cell research is so ripe with potential, why not use exhaust the more humane alternatives before turning to one that has no more promise than the others? While Dr. Shelanski believes that embryonic research may give results that may not be gained from human or umbilical stem cell research, he states too that the latter research has yet to be fully exploited, in fact it has barely begun.
So my question is, why not exhaust the many alternatives we still have before we turn to the one line of that field of research that destroys the basic componants of a potential living being? And more to the point, why are politicians and celebrities so sure that embryonic is the way we must go right now, this minute? No one involved in this area of work is saying that a cure is even within sight; why the desperate pleas for a line of research that shows no more promise than the others?
Finally, an emotional arguement: We won’t test products on animals in America. We get riotous over interrogation techniques. Whole families will split apart on the subject of the Death Penalty. Scraping eggs out of a woman to experiment with is supposed to be proper? Maybe I am a neanderthal, but my gut check just says “no”. We come from that stuff. My babies (my own and my patients) come from that stuff. Just because it might save us, is it right? Is that the criteria that trumps all other arguements, that we might benefit from the result?
I can’t pay that check.
Sorry for the long post; I had been saving up.
Texan on October 24, 2006 at 8:25 PM
While I don’t disagree with the intent, give AP more credit than that, he understands what he’s saying, and it isn’t a “false flag”.
If embryos are human, then it’s human experimentation. If they aren’t, it isn’t. The ensoulment concept tries to decide WHEN an embryo becomes human by suggesting either that the soul is “infused” at conception, or else sometime during gestation.
Respectfully, it is not an acceptable criterion upon which to make an ethical judgement, precisely because we have no method of determining ANYTHING scientific or medical regarding a soul. Not when it begins, not what it is made of, not even where it “resides” in the body.
Since humans, in our limited knowledge, cannot make determinations about the soul, the only ethical and consistent position is to not use embryos, which you equally cannot prove are NOT human, for anything other than developing them into fully-formed lives. To make the claim that if we cannot know then we can “believe” they are ethically expendable, most assuredly is a definitive example of a slippery slope toward broader desctructions of humanity.
TBinSTL, I don’t see how AP expressing his personally held opinion will anger anyone. He runs a blog, and is entitled to an unpopular view if he believes it. He is consistent to his worldview. I don’t agree with it, but so what?
Freelancer on October 24, 2006 at 8:26 PM
Amendment 2 on the ballot in Missouri this comming election day is a SCAM. It claims to BAN Cloning, BUT IN FACT DOES JUST THE OPPOSITE !! It also REQUIRES State funding of Cloning. I cann’t believe such a blatantly dishonest measure is allowed on the ballot, BUT IT IS !!
Please see the details at Human Events:
Maxx on October 24, 2006 at 8:28 PM
Hmmmm I obviously don’t know how to use the “Link” feature in this editor:
The address for the story at Human Events (which was suppose to go in the above post is):
http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?id=17088&title=missouri_the_clone_me_state
Maxx on October 24, 2006 at 8:31 PM
frankj sez:
frank, how about “growing within a woman and advancing toward birth”?
That’s pretty much where I am. Those embryos? Those are the ones God decided He wasn’t gonna make. We made them in the process of overriding His design. We’re not quite as good at it as He is, and we still do not have the capability to produce a baby outside of one of His factories.
I’d submit that they’re not His until He says so, and He never says yes to anything occupying a glass tube.
Pablo on October 24, 2006 at 8:33 PM
The folks that did the research for this ad actually might have spent some time in Missouri. Every single one of the people in the add said “Missouri” not “Missoura”. While it’s a common misperception that all the people in MO say it “Missoura”, it’s quite nice when political people (especially people coming from outside the state….ESPECIALLY actors) pronounce it correctly rather than mispronouncing it because that’s how they think all us “stupid hicks” say it.
Having said that, I must say, the Aramaic at the beginning of the ad is very odd. I know we tend to be religious, but, you could probably only find three people in MO that speak Aramaic (if you’re lucky)…so….that’s a miss. Although it is the first time a dead language has been used in a modern political ad (to my knowledge) so congratulations to them for being experimental.
I hope they do form a charity group for ESC research. I won’t donate to it, but I am running low on those address labels that the medical charities always send.
JadeNYU on October 24, 2006 at 8:34 PM
Is there any law against embryonic stem cell research? Why is it that these researchers demand our tax money to do this? If there was any kind of forseeable ROI, there would be billions in venture capital pouring into the effort.
So here it is: if you take my tax money to perform the experiments to which I object and you come up with a new cure for something, I get a 1000x return on my “investment”. That should shut’em up.
-FFOG
Fogpig on October 24, 2006 at 8:47 PM
Pablo,
Technology will eventually blur any other line, including that one.
What? We’re not allowed to slap the handicap anymore? When did that happen?
frankj on October 24, 2006 at 8:48 PM
So where do you think the little buggers will squirt out of? Robot baby shooters would be cool. Europe needs them, stat!
Pablo on October 24, 2006 at 8:53 PM
You know the left uses the ’slippery slope’ argument for embryonic stem cell research just as much as the right. It’s both the moral and political issues at play. Alot of pro-choicers know that partial-birth abortion is killing and brutal, but if they try to ban it they yell “slippery slope” because it will lead to women losing their right to
killchoose. Same here. If they admit that embryonic stem cell research is actually killing then…cue slippery slope music…women will start to lose their right tokillchoose.vcferlita on October 24, 2006 at 8:54 PM
Its not a “stem-cell” amendment, its a mandatory taxpayer-funded “cloning” amendment. There are no bans on stem-cell research anywhere in this country.
And since when is it so imperative that taxpayers have to pick up the bill for any kind of medical research that getting a (state) constitutional amendment is mandated.
Neo on October 24, 2006 at 8:54 PM
Thanks Kaltes and Texan for putting into words what I feel is/are the central issues of this debate. Until we exhaust all avenues of research with adult stem cell (and any other non-embryonic stem cell) this becomes another turf war for the left to exploit,
Bic on October 24, 2006 at 8:58 PM
Actually the choice in this thread is intelligent discussion vs. religious dogma. I choose the former.
BTW, that ad may be for a good cause, but it is totally lame.
infidel4life on October 24, 2006 at 9:03 PM
Here is the text of the Amendment. An excerpt:
I don’t see mandatory cloning anywhere in there. Anyone know how this mandates cloning?
Pablo on October 24, 2006 at 9:06 PM
Well the GOP out celebrity the DNC. They got a guy that won the state a Super Bowl and guy that just won them a Pennant.
harmonica on October 24, 2006 at 9:10 PM
Infidel did you bother reading the threads? Someone disagrees, so it is religious dogma. Did you read Kaltes in the above thread? Where is the religious dogma?
Bic on October 24, 2006 at 9:11 PM
I quoted it in liberty’s post.
infidel4life on October 24, 2006 at 9:20 PM
Allah, if you’re going to attack Wyoming’s only representative on the first day (that I know of) that she’s mentioned on DrudgeReport, at least give her an entire thread instead of throwing it randomly in the middle of a post about stem-cell research.
Furthermore, maybe you could give the subject a little more thought than going along with the left and assuming that handicapped people ought to be immune from dissagreements. Contrary to leftist beliefs, this man does not have absolute moral authority just because he is handicapped. In the same way, if someone disagrees with him, they ought to be able to say it to his face. Is he such a baby that he can’t handle a little verbal sparring? If that’s the case, he shouldn’t be trying to run for political office - especially in Wyoming.
In my personal experience from hearing Cubin at a local Lincoln Day dinner and also following her record in Washington, she is not one to disagree so vocally without just cause. An earlier article (before the apology that I wish hadn’t happened) stated that Rankin had insulted Cubin’s integrity. In Wyoming we don’t take those kinds of insults lightly. I’m glad Cubin said what she did and like wytammic, I wish she hadn’t apologized. I think Rankin should consider himself lucky that Cubin didn’t slap him. That’s what I call compassionate conservatism.
tiekitwist on October 24, 2006 at 9:23 PM
IMO, kaltes post is intelligent discussion, I was taking issue with what seems to me like a blanket condemnation of any view that deviates from the so called Christian conservative view.
infidel4life on October 24, 2006 at 9:25 PM
Props to Patty Heaton and the rest for taking a stand unpopular with the intelligentsia in their career fields.
Valiant on October 24, 2006 at 9:26 PM
AP,
I wish it was true that cynicism made you the smartest guy in the room…I like the blog though!
mbredmond on October 24, 2006 at 9:27 PM
The only argument more intellectually lazy than the classic slippery slope argument … is a causal dismissal of the possibility that - in a specific case - a literal slippery slope may exist.
If you don’t think that the slippery slope paradigm is valid in some specific cases, you have clearly not been paying attention for the last 40 years.
Professor Blather on October 24, 2006 at 9:54 PM
infidel4life, the facts regarding the ineffectiveness of embryonic stem cells is overwhelming. The facts also support the effectiveness of adult stem cells. This is almost entirely a political issue, which liberals presume to have the upper hand. I’d much rather live in a country that treats life with dignity. Destroying life to pursue faulty research is not a path this country should walk.
liberty on October 24, 2006 at 10:03 PM
Then argue the facts as you see them, rather than making blanket condemnations. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your side of the issue, I just think pronouncing ‘consequences’ on those who may disagree is counterproductive and contrary to the spirit of intelligent debate.
infidel4life on October 24, 2006 at 10:13 PM
Embryonic stem cells are not the panacea most people think. The reason some biologists are pressing for funding for embryonic stem cell research is because they cannot earn any grants based on their preliminary work. There is an ample supply of embryonic stem cells available for their research, but their work has produced nothing but tumors, and the embryonic cells are frequently rejected by the body’s immune system almost immediately. These facts go largely unreported in the media but are well documented in the scientific journals.
The most successful developments in this field have come from adult stem cells, particularly bone marrow stem cells, which can be cultivated from an ordinary sample of blood. In fact, human trials using adult stem cells are already underway. Those scientists who are working with adult cells have no need to go around begging for funding because the big corporations have opened their wallets to their more promising research. It’s all about the bottom line, and scientific research is no different from any other big business when it comes to money.
IrishEi on October 24, 2006 at 10:22 PM
I believe.
rockdalian on October 24, 2006 at 10:22 PM
It’s arguements such as this that make me glad I’m a raging Independent. As a person with a family member who has suffered from Parkinsons for years, the lack of compassion I see from the religious right makes me confident they are neither.
Tell you what, when you get the first Christ blessed President to stop giving $15 billion to Africa for AIDS, a disease unless I am mistaken derived from monkeys and gay sex, then you can preach about morality to me.
JackStraw on October 24, 2006 at 10:30 PM
(clearing throat)
Ahem, AHEM!!
Sorry about the bandwidth waster, but I want the libs’ full attention.
What is the big deal here? Let’s do with this science the same thing we do with the others.
I fully support the use of embryonic stem cells… of little bunnies. When the kinks are worked out then we’ll worry about applying the technology to people.
Thanks and have a nice day.
DuffBeer on October 24, 2006 at 10:45 PM
That’s repugnant. The continent is being destroyed by this disease, and it really doesn’t matter where it came from. The majority of the pandemic in Africa is from heterosexual sex, blood, and breast milk, not from homosexuality or monkeys. There are millions of orphans and women who are affected through no fault of their own. The infrastructure is being destroyed because those hardest hit are the working adults, leaving the kids and elderly to care for themselves. They need our money more than we do.
tikvah on October 24, 2006 at 11:06 PM
Ah. So now we are in a debate of degrees and no longer morality. Lovely. A disease that nobody will debate, because they can’t, comes from man having sex with animals, is worthy of our undying compassion and most of all money, because its now a pandemic spreading across all social and economic borders. Super. Then as I said, ignore the fact that it originates from man having sex with animals a few years back and then was spread through homosexual sex into the population at large. Let’s continue to fund the hell out of research to cure it.
Just get off the religious preaching when it comes to stem cell research. Ox, gore and all that.
What’s truly repugnant is mindless morality.
JackStraw on October 24, 2006 at 11:27 PM
Allah,
Hate to rain are your parade but there is the 17 day rule in polling.
You can use all the weighted sophisticated methodoligies in correcting poll repsonses but in the industry they all stop doing that 17 days before the polls and ACTUALLY WRITE DOWN what they respondants are saying.
Thats why Zogby, Rasmuessen, Mason Dixon, McCalthey are all showing this Republican “Wave” not a wave - the base is finally being recorded and the Republicans will probably gain or lose a very few seats in both houses.
Chaffee, is in a blue state - reading waves of Dem takeovers based upon a Republican in a statewide Blue state is silly and specious.
EricPWJohnson on October 25, 2006 at 12:20 AM
Having said that, I must say, the Aramaic at the beginning of the ad is very odd. I know we tend to be religious, but, you could probably only find three people in MO that speak Aramaic (if you’re lucky)…so….that’s a miss. Although it is the first time a dead language has been used in a modern political ad (to my knowledge) so congratulations to them for being experimental.
No matter what he says in Arabic he is invoking the Jesus like mind. I think Missouri folks get the connection. Pretty up front and to the point. If your a Biblical Christian you believe “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:4-5). And of course the classic “Thou shall not Kill” So there ya go!
MJFox probably not moral authority but he did play a doctor in one of the worst movies ever “Doc Hollywood”.
Allah, BP needs to plant a little Jesus seed in you! You’d make one hell of a Christian! Don’t let all that “Christians are hypocrites” stuff get in the way. It probably would increase your chances with Bethany. Religion with benefits.
Drtuddle on October 25, 2006 at 12:33 AM
The idea that religious belief cannot be intelligent is pure ingnorance. I am surprised at the level of Christian bashing that I see on this website.
Rose on October 25, 2006 at 12:52 AM
Arabic is not a dead language love is.
“So here’s to us all who were born too late
and here’s to the promise of a life alone
you’ve blessed us with such comfort in knowing
love is a dead language”
Drtuddle on October 25, 2006 at 12:58 AM
AP:
I think life begins at conception, but it has no religious component. An embryo is a living organism. I think it’s artificial to try to divide the life cycle of living things into ‘development’ and ‘built’ and then declare any living organism in ‘development’ not a member of the species. I began my life as a single cell with its own unique genetic code, and so did you. And so did every other living thing.
None of this to enter the argument; I don’t wanna. I’m just inferring from your comments that you think the “life begins at conception” crowd bases its ideas on religion, but many of us don’t.
PS: SAP ALERT: I think guys like Barnett are heros. The people that get it done when guys like me struggle, and haven’t any excuse for the struggling. Stevenson, etc. Bloody humbling.
Axe on October 25, 2006 at 4:27 AM
Now that’s funny! And wrong!
Pablo on October 25, 2006 at 5:01 AM
Not sure if any of them were born in the state (Patricia Heaton apparently was), but Jeff Suppan is a St. Louis Cardinal’s Pitcher (currently 2-1 in the Series vs the Tigers), and Kurt Warner was a quarterback for the St. Louis Rams for six seasons.
The phrase “religious dogma” gets aimed as if a spear at the heart around here lately. The term does not presuppose ignorance or lack of intellect, as many of you read into it. For a person to have an established belief in support of the doctrinal convictions of their faith is not automatically divided from reason.
Yes, there are Christian hypocrites. Guess what, anyone here can find a hypocrite anytime they wish, by peeking at a mirror. Anyone who accepts a law, rule, standard, or other measure of behavior as correct, and fails to adhere to it can be rightly accused of hypocrisy. Humans fail, and they disappoint. But mostly, most of us try.
A larger hypocrisy is expecting mercy and leniency for your own failures, while offering none for the failures of others.
Not a lot of love for AP of late in this thread. Amazing that someone accused him of “going along with the left”. That’s a mischaracterization of his opinion. You read his articles and posts, how can you imagine that AP “goes along” with any group on any issue? He studies as anyone should, and forms an opinion which he believes is honest to what he understands about it. Everyone here should have his integrity.
Freelancer on October 25, 2006 at 5:27 AM
What research has shown pluripotency in ASC’s? Unlesss there’s a process that can un-differentiate them and drive them back to the primacy of ESC’s, it seems impossible.
Since when is rejection an insurmountable problem? We’ve been dealing with innune response rejection issues in transplant patients for decades.
If there’s a scientist in the field that agrees with this, I’d sure like to hear from him. This would be an enormous surprise to the ones I’ve met.
Pablo on October 25, 2006 at 5:32 AM
I apologize for the obviously shallow comment–but if Jim Caviezel told me to get naked and wash his feet—in any language—-I’d be on my knees in a minute. Men of faith are HOT….but HOT men of faith are HOTTER than Hell…so to speak.
seejanemom on October 25, 2006 at 5:48 AM
First of all, why would anyone want to “debate a disease”? Is that really how we go about deciding what to cure and who to help? Second of all, I really don’t understand why you’re so hung up on how it originated, even if it actually did come about in the way that you claim. Even if it did originate through immoral activity, does that mean it should be allowed to have its way with humanity and that anyone who gets it deserves it and should be left to die?
The majority of the 40 million who are currently infected have it through NO fault of their own (wives of men who’ve been unfaithful, children, people poked with infected needles, etc). And what about to the 14 million orphaned children left to fend for themselves? An entire continent is being ravaged by this disease, not to mention Asia and the rest of the world. You really don’t think that is worthy of our attention and compassion? Would you only think that once you or one of your family members became infected? As devastating as Parkinsons (which my grandfather died of) and other diseases are (and I’m not saying we shouldn’t be funding and researching those as well, through stem cells if nec.) they’re not destroying communities and continents. How is it “mindless morality” to give resources where there is a clear need?
tikvah on October 25, 2006 at 8:15 AM
Not your fault. Everything is bigger in Texas.
Axe on October 25, 2006 at 8:50 AM
I’ve read some very misleading information on both sides of this amendment, mostly on the side against it. While that irritates me highly, and I am not dreading the bills passage anymore, I am still against it. My primary reason has absolutely nothing to do with the morality. It is based on my ideals of government use of tax dollars. I personally don’t approve of using our tax dollars for anything that has a very limited chance of success. In addition, I don’t approve of spending our money on programs etc., that could be either profitable, or be considered a financial investment.
This amendment certainly falls in the category of limited chance of success, and it falls in the category of financial investment. If we Missourians pay for this research, are we going to receive the profits from the cures? No, of course not. The company that did the research on our dime will. Frankly that always pisses me off.
aelhues on October 25, 2006 at 8:55 AM
I use the slipper slope but only in that I believe that if we fund already discarded embryos that we will likely begin to create life for the purpose of destroying it, which is where I have a moral objection.
I don’t really see how it is any different than abortion.
But then again, I’m not actually against torture anyway, at least torture that is done with a reasonable belief of guilt, not torture for the hell of it or torture for sexual purposes…
Esthier on October 25, 2006 at 9:57 AM
That’s nice. Either we agree with you, or we’re full of religious dogma.
Well, if that’s the choice, call me “Zealot”.
Esthier on October 25, 2006 at 10:05 AM
Since when is rejection an insurmountable problem? We’ve been dealing with innune response rejection issues in transplant patients for decades.
Yes and with disasterous results. When an organ is rejected, the patient can die. We have the same problems here.
So why pick the one with a risk of being rejected over the one that can be taken directly from the person with no risk of rejection?
Sure we’ve been dealing with transplant rejections, but we’d rather not have to deal with it. It is an unnecessary risk when we’re talking about stem cells.
Esthier on October 25, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Sorry, I tried to do a quote within a quote.
That should read as Pablo quoting the quote with the first two lines being his response and my response beginning with “Yes and with disasterous results”.
Esthier on October 25, 2006 at 10:13 AM
A good example of a slippery slope actually happening is the smoking ban. First, we were told that only a separate smoking section on planes would be needed. Then, a separate smoking section in restaurants, closely followed by no smoking in planes at all. Add in no smoking in places of business; the latest is smoking bans in restaurants and bars; in ‘public places’ outdoors. Some people are now saying we should ban smoking in a persons’ private vehicle, fer cripes sake. Slippery slopes aren’t valid? Uh, yeah, they are.
BTW, great first post Texan!
dalewalt on October 25, 2006 at 10:16 AM
Pablo:
From Forbes, “Medicine & Markets”, July ‘06:
IrishEi on October 25, 2006 at 10:50 AM
Good one. I hadn’t thought of that one.
Esthier on October 25, 2006 at 11:24 AM
Apples and oranges, again. And yes, we do transplants every day, even with a rejection risk. We use radiation everyday, even with its cancer risk.
If I’m missing a leg, and there’s a risk of getting a new leg that I wouldn’t have if I got a new arm, getting a new arm still isn’t an option. ASC and ESC are not the same thing, for the bazillionth time. They are not interchangable. If they were, why would a scientist bother with them?
As for risks, as long as informed consent is done, which it must be before any surgical intervention or clinical therapy is done, who ought to decide to take the risk? I say it’s the patient. What if the risk of not using a therapy is certain death?
An IVF embryo in a freezer is not in the process of becoming a child. It isn’t growing, it isn’t taking nourishment and it can’t possible ever do either without human intervention, a mother to do it in and the grace of God. The majority of them do not ever become children. Abortion stops a beating heart. Abortion stops an ongoing process. ESC reasearch does not, ever.
Pablo on October 25, 2006 at 11:41 AM
IrishEi, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Earlier, you seemed to be arguing that you can tell ESC research is bunk because scientists had to beg for funding. (BTW, scientists are always begging for funding. It’s at least 1/3 of their job.) Now you’re quoting an article that talks about private funding pouring into ESC research.
Which is it?
Pablo on October 25, 2006 at 11:48 AM
The article is talking about funding for adult stem cell research.
ESC research is a dead end and gets no funding.
ASC research has produced results and does get funding.
IrishEi on October 25, 2006 at 11:56 AM
I personally have to wonder if MJF has even read the amendment he is supporting. If anything, doesn’t this amendment impose more restrictions than those that already exist? Just read Section 2, specifically:
Do these restrictions currently exist? This amendment says nothing about funding, with the exception of making sure that those who conduct stem-cell research will not be discriminated against when seeking funding for other areas…
What am I missing?
lan astaslem on October 25, 2006 at 12:07 PM
That’s the question I’ve been asking. It’s long been beleived that ESC are more versitile than ASC, but as I showed in a few of the articles I posted in the last thread, that simply is no longer the case.
ASC seem now to be as if not versatile than ESC. So I agree, why would a scientist bother with them? That’s been my question all along.
Because if you’re missing a leg and have the option of either risking rejection or not risking rejection with a transplant, obviously you’d take the one with the least amount of risk involved.
Now, I’m only assuming versatility is the only difference being given between ESC and ASC, because that’s all I’ve seen (even from you if I remember correctly).
If there is something else, feel free to educate me, but please do so with links.
Esthier on October 25, 2006 at 12:14 PM
OK, but only the lack of nourishment and the lack of a womb keep it from growing. Whether or not most become children, they do have the coding to become children if put in the right environment.
It seems to me, from what you’re saying anyway, that the only differences is that they are stored in a freezer as opposed to being stored within a woman.
I’m personally a little conflicted on this issue as clearly in this particular instance, embryos are being created, knowing full well that many will simply be destroyed.
It just feels too Brave New World for me, though please forgive the slippery slope inference of my alluding to the book.
Esthier on October 25, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Esthier, ESC’s are pluripotent. They can become any type of cell in the body. ASC’s are differentiated. They have differentiated and can only become certain cells. ASC’s will fall into some classification, such as Neural Stem Cells or Marrow Stem cells, or some other type of stem cell. They are not pluripotent, and each type has the limitations of its diiferentiation. ASC’s are not pluripotent. ESC’s are.
Let’s use wheat as an example. You can take raw grain wheat and do a million different things to it and make a million different things with it. Now one we take it and mill it flour and bleach it and send it down the path to becoming Wonder Bread, we can still do a number of things with it. We could make a cake with it. We could make donuts. We could make white paste.
But we couldn’t make beer with it, and we couldn’t make granola with it, nor brown bread.
ESC’s are the wheat. ASC’s are the white flour. They are NOT pluripotent and do NOT have the same capabilities that ESC’s have.
Some basics are here.
So, what you’re seeing in what you’re looking at is that they’re finding more plasticity in ASC’s than previously suspected. That is not to say that they are the same, or have the same potential as ESC’s. Wanna find out absolutely, totally 100% for sure? Let’s do the research!
Pablo on October 25, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »