Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
So I said all? Show me, or end the theadjack.
|
See your posts #35 and #46. Relevant quotes:
Quote:
|
There are other sources of stem cells, too. Did you know that the umbilical cord blood is a great source of stem cells? We've know about this for years. And babies are born almost every minute of every day. If we were able to immediatally collect all the umbilical cords (after the infant is done with it), I doubt we'd need another source for stem cells. I even just came up with a motto: Save a life, donate an umbilical cord. Or maybe: Save an embryo, donate an umbilical cord.
|
Quote:
|
The idea is that scientists and researchers might be hindered in their abilities and exploration by those that fund them is nothing new. I know that scientists and researchers are out there to cure this and that, but they have to pander to their benificiaries or lose their funding. We all know that. It would be niave to say that science isn't effeced by politics. Did we already forget about the Dickey Amendment? Clinton signed federal legislation that prohibited the HHS from using appriopriated funds for any stem cell research in which the embryo is destroyed. I'm sure Ustwo can tell you that does cut a lot of funding for stem cell research, and it's a decision made on (religous?) morality, not science. They aren't ignoring anything, they simply aren't funded so they CAN'T do their research.
|
Maybe I read to much into it, but given our exchanges, these are the starting points of your arguements. See my post #45 for earlier confusion in your point and trying to clarify.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
Last edited by The_Jazz; 10-25-2006 at 03:22 PM..
|