Science News
Obama lifts stem-cell funding ban in latest shift on ethics
Mar 9, 2009, 17:13 GMT
U.S. President Barack Obama, with lawmakers and doctors, signs an Executive Order on stem cells after delivering remarks on the importance of maintaining scientific integrity in health research in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., USA 09 March 2009. EPA/SHAWN THEW
Washington - US President Barack Obama on Monday reversed an eight-year long government block on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a promising but controversial science, and rejected what he called a 'false choice' between science and morals.
Obama signed an executive order that overturned former president George W Bush's policy limiting research on the cells, which was put in place during his first year in office back in 2001. Fulfilling a 2008 campaign promise, Obama said his administration would 'vigorously support' scientists who pursue stem cell research.
In a separate memorandum, Obama directed government agencies to restore 'scientific integrity' to their decision making in another implicit attack on the Bush era, which critics said put political ideology over science.
Obama's actions marked the latest shift in government policy on hot-button ethical issues. Obama last month reversed Bush's ban on funding for international family planning organizations that perform abortions.
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research believe the method could lead to cures of a variety of diseases, including Parkinsons and cancer. But religious conservatives consider the destruction of human embryos involved in the process to be immoral.
Bush had restricted the use of government money to research on existing colonies of stem cells and barred the use of such money on new colonies.
'While such research is unfortunately legal, taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life,' said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
Perkins urged Obama to seek 'common ground' by focussing on more ethical methods such as using adult stem cells. Supporters of the science argue both avenues should be open to research.
Obama said the promise of embryonic stem cells 'should not be overstated' and said he respected the objections of religious groups. But he argued the ethical pitfalls were not as deep as the debate would suggest.
'In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,' Obama said.
Obama also slammed the Bush administration for ignoring science when it conflicted with administration policy on issues such as climate change.
Obama directed his top science advisor in the White House to put together a strategy for 'restoring scientific integrity to government decision making' in all federal agencies.
'It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,' he said.
The Bush administration was long viewed as skeptical of the science behind climate change. Obama by contrast supports mandatory controls on the carbon-dioxide emissions blamed for warming the earth.
Obama last month reversed another Bush-era policy that limited the input of government scientists on construction projects that could harm endangered species.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Science
- 1. Space Shuttle Enterprise arrives in New York City Pictures
- 2. Africa and Australia battle for giant radio telescope
- 3. Care-providing robot helps severely disabled to work
- 4. Solar Flare Pictures
- 5. Brazil's forests at risk under proposed law, critics say
Older Talkback
page: 1
Gaiacomm International to develop Defeat IED technology
Gaiacomm International will develop Counter (defeat) IED technology for the US Military to be used in Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflict zones. This technology is currently classified because of its accurate nature of detection. When deployed it will be able to detect and disable any device in the ground, on person (suicide bombers), inside vehicle or building's within a determined range, also classified. Soldiers are dying thus, the emphasis on accurate detection. Other technologies currently in the field simply do not operate as planned, thus the need for Gaiacomm's technology.
Gaiacomm also designs arcane electromagnetic weapons systems for use in large areas for complete destruction.
.
Using the murdered to help the living is not progress. If it were, the third Reich would have gotten a Nobel prize. Using aborted children to further life, is positively Menglian.
We understand your concern dear SP0,as embryonic cells are involved your future looks bleak .Are you already a blastula ,or are you still trying ...
... Obama votes NOT to throw embryos into the garbage.
The Vatican cries that they are not allowed to force everyone to dispose of ALL embryos into the garbage.
... well, I probably should be more accurate there:
The vatican votes to force embryos to be incinerated like the medical waste and biological hazard they will be marked as.
Hum, that is fitting. An ex-nazi-youth-camp pope wanting to incinerate embryos. The picture is becoming clearer. Do jew-embryos get the same treatment as christian-embryos?
I am confused by all of this.
Bush never said people couldnt invest and do research - right? He simply LIMITED the amount of TAX DOLLARS that could be spent for the purpose.
PErsonally, I think we should use human corpses to produce food forthe hungry - or at least animal feed. Why do people want to waste so much quality protein that we need for LIFE.
I would agree..that Bush did exactly that and that the rest of these chuckleheads are unaware of it....and that you are really confused about the 'Soilant Green' proposal of yours....
Sister Lance of the Immaculate Misconception, and true disciple of the Church of the Rosy Palm. Once more going Onan on, beating his teeny 'hobbyhorse' to death on the science page too!
Lance, the last resort of the Catholic clergy, (_*_)
Eh, 'sweetcheeks!'
'beating his teeny 'hobbyhorse' to death on the science page too!'
What's your problem? It is obvious that the Vatican wants embryos to go in the garbage. There is no question about it. They value life even less than their nemeses: scientists.
'you are really confused about the 'Soilant Green' proposal of yours....'
It wasn't serious of course.
Just trying to shed light on issue from another angle.
So many think its ok to use tissue from an aborted human baby/embryo for research or whatever in the hope that someday some cure for some disease may be obtained that will prolong a sick persons life.
Why not extend that logic a bit further?
Killing the baby so its mother can lead a more comfortable life, and taking its tissue so that someone else in some far off abstract future may lead a more comfortable life, is really that much better and more reasonable than utilizing the tissue of humans who died of natural causes?
We already utilize their tissue. Its culturally acceptable to use them for healthcare purposes.
How about keeping kids from starving to death? Is that a health reason?
Soylent green is people. But it is VERY nutritious.
Is there some logical reason why we think its gross? Or just cultural?
'the Vatican wants embryos to go in the garbage.'
That's an odd interpretation.
I thought it was pretty cut and dry that they are against abortion. I think they strongly prefer keeping human embryos in the place that they believe god designed for them.
But that is how I interpret their position.
Maybe you are correct.
I dunno.
'Maybe you are correct.'
You need to open up your mind man!
There is not one choice, but two choices for these embryos:
(a) Flush down toilet or dispose in garbage.
(b) Use in medical miracle research.
There is no third choice. You choose either (a) or (b). You can not not-choose. It doesn't work that way.
Scientists choose (b), others choose (a).
You can't say that you choose life for the embryos, because that choice does not exist.
Even the gods chooses to flush (at least) two out of three abortions and embryos down the toilet. Most abortions are natural!
Interesting that you use the word 'miracle' to justify your position. How scientific.
So should we eat dead people? It would provide immediate benefit of keeping hungry people alive. Otherwise the protein just rots or is burned.
'There is not one choice, but two choices for these embryos:'
Choice 3: Or have the government protect the rights of unborn child and punish anyone who murders it. Let the child live. Certainly do not do anything to promote the trade and use of human embryos. Isn't that an option?
If you get the government involved in financially supporting an industry that develops a market for embryos, how long do you think it will be before the embryos get peddled for cash? Especially if the technology is developed to allow the 'deployment' of these embronic stem cells. How long before some women either voluntarily or involuntarily become embryo factories? We are talking about a boutique high value added industry.
Who knows, maybe its just progress and we should all applaud it. But dont try to gloss over what a profound moral question this is.
Eating people, and finding other efficient/economical uses for tissue from corpses would provide x1000000 more benefit immediately than potentially finding the cure for some obscure disease that impacts a miniscule portion of the population.
'Choice 3: Or have the government protect the rights of unborn child and punish anyone who murders it.'
About two million babies are flushed down the toilet in natural abortions.
The government needs to install anti-abortion sensors in all toilets, both private and public, to catch the fetus and insert it into a life-chamber for incubation. It can be done!
Obviously your third choice is ridiculous and meaningless.
... that is: about two million babies PER YEAR! Since 9/11 that would be about 12 million U.S. citizen babies aborted down the toilets of America's sewers!
... your third choice is very ridiculous.
There is no way to preserve embryos, they are disposable biological material that nature (god) designed to be waste product.
'About two million babies are flushed down the toilet in natural abortions.'
Wow - you should invent your own dictionary!
So you mean when an unviable embryo is naturally evacuated it is the same as an abortion? Really? In what realms of fancy do you reside?
I'm not sure how the data for those statistics is gathered anyway.
I think an abortion is when a human consciously and with premeditation intervenes physically to terminate an otherwise viable pregnancy.
But as I have tried to make clear before, let's assume it is perfectly normal and reasonable to set up hugely profitable industries for processing human embryos into injectable wonder drugs, or milk shakes, etc., so that some relatively small number of people can live longer, or run faster, etc. Of course there are no tangible benefits right now - its all conjecture, but let's assume we can get to that pot of gold.
Why is that OK and eating/processing/industrializing discarded corpses wrong and/or unthinkable? You say 2 million embryos per year. How many people die of perfectly natural causes? How much valuable protein etc. is just being left to rot or burned to ashes while real people starve?
How do you assess the value of each tissue reprocessing solution?
Is it how many lives are saved/improved?
Surely you can't imagine that processing and utilizing corpses would provide less benefit?
Or perhaps its not a cost/benefit calculation at all, but rather some ideological/quasi-religious fervor that makes people so determined to pursue this 'science'?
What holy grail could be so compelling?
Eating corpses, even with ketchup, is not compelling. Saving millions from starvation is not compelling. Most of us don't really care about other people's lives. Right?
Who here can guess what it is that drives this no holds barred quest?
I have a hunch.
Can anyone else figure it out? Three gold star stickers if you do.
'Eating corpses, even with ketchup, is not compelling.'
Most people eat corpses, just not human corpses. To me, a human corpse is no different than a cow corpse. Of course, I am a vegetarian.
As for your other insipid questions: You better get a hold of your thinking, otherwise you will be going down the path of absurdity. Just one example:
The number of natural abortions can be reduced by stringing women up like incubation chambers and injecting them with appropriate drugs. They can be denied fats and other non-optimal food products in order to decrease the chance of an abortion. Millions of embryos can be 'saved' this way with a good deal of medical attention and factory automation of incubation chambers (otherwise known as female humans).
Where do you draw the line?
Woman abort embryos all the time and more often than they need to because they live non-optimal lives from the perspective of said embryo.
You are still trying to conflate natural evacuation, and deliberate termination.
They are not the same thing.
You need to get over that hurdle (it isn't very high) to start.
'You are still trying to conflate natural evacuation, and deliberate termination.'
No I'm not:
Most people commit suicide deliberately because they are stupid and can't stop smoking zigs, drinking alcohol, and eating to excess. Deliberate acts that kill them.
What you call 'natural', I call 'deliberate' because I am not part of the 'willfully ignorant' masses.
I look at a pregnant woman drinking alcohol and not exercising and I say to my self: 'Stupid bitch, she is purposely increasing the chances of aborting her child', while the normally 'willfully ignorant' joins in and starts drinking and eating.
There are a lot of things I can do to decrease natural abortion, but the bitches that are stupid won't like it. I could 'save' millions of embryos from abortion simply by regulating their incubation chambers (otherwise known as female humans).
OK Lance. Reductio ad absurdum.
You take the position that eating a big mac is the same as going to doctor to have an abortion.
I guess we are all going to die anyway so nothing at all matters to a rock on the far side of the moon.
I'm not sure how this discussion can proceed if that is your position.
Oh - a little Russian humor:
'He didn't drink, he didnt smoke - he died healthy.'
'He didn't drink, he didnt smoke - he died healthy.'
Exactly. Embryos die healthy too. All of your hypothetical comments are immaterial.
The raw fact is this: The embryos in question in the article are either going to: (a) die in the garbage or (b) die while scientists use them to research miracle cures. You can only choose (a) or (b). There is no present technology that will allow them to survive past choice (a) or (b).
Which brings me back to my conclusion: The pope and followers choose: (a) - throw the little boogers into the garbage.
'Embryos die healthy too.'
They die or are killed?
'All of your hypothetical comments are immaterial.'
Which ones? I have the feeling that if something doesn't fit into your monotone mantra, you label it as 'immaterial,'
'The raw fact is this: The embryos in question in the article are either going to: (a) die in the garbage or (b) die while scientists use them to research miracle cures. You can only choose (a) or (b).'
Those are hardly facts. There are many facets to this debate - even if you choose to keep your blinders on. The embryos could certainly be left intact in the womb. That is part of the debate.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understood it that Bush never regulated whether or not there could be scientific research, he just balked at FEDERALLY FUNDED research beyond certain limits. Right? There actually were federally funded stem cell programs under Bush. Right? Wrong?
This whole thing is actually exaggerated to the point where people denouncing Bush dont even know what they are denouncing him for. Right?
Mengele can sit in his lab all day slicing and boiling embryos. Its just the gov't won't (wouldn't) pay him for it.
'There is no present technology that will allow them to survive past choice (a) or (b).'
Except for not tearing them out of the womb to begin with. That strategy would work - right? You have created a nice little circular argument for yourself Lance.
'Which brings me back to my conclusion: The pope and followers choose: (a) - throw the little boogers into the garbage.'
The pope would rather them stay in a womans womb as nature - or 'god' as he might say - intended.
In any case, I was just trying to look at the issue on a more fundamental level. You prefer chasing your tail.
They are after all - just 'boogers' - right?
When pray tell do they become human children? Can you at least answer that for me?
'Those are hardly facts. There are many facets to this debate - even if you choose to keep your blinders on. The embryos could certainly be left intact in the womb.'
The embryos in question are legally in freezers.
State concretely what you want done with them. Make your answer realistic. We are only discussing the embryos in freezers at this time.
I see you use the word 'realistic,' la-la. Wherever did you learn that!
'Bush had restricted the use of government money to research on existing colonies of stem cells and barred the use of such money on new colonies.'
This article indicates, albeit barely, that the debate is about tax payers funding the development of new colonies - not existing ones in freezers as you suggest. The MSM always emphasizes an erroneous position that Bush made stem cell research illegal.
I certainly don't have a clear answer on the general issue. I think it is complicated. You avoid my questions about when we should consider them 'living humans' because you can't handle the complexity. You pretend some sort of scientific objectivity and snidely consider them lumps of snot. We know full well that humans can easily rationalize that other humans are lumps of snot and it rarely ends well.
There are a lot of very serious moral implications for the development of an industry for creating, exploiting, processing, and deploying human embryos for the benefit of 3rd parties.
'There are a lot of very serious moral implications for the development of an industry for creating, exploiting, processing, and deploying human embryos for the benefit of 3rd parties.'
Yes Charles. I agree, as would almost any rational and intelligent human being. All human interactions are potentially complex and multi-faceted.
The conclusions that one draws derive ultimately from one's own viewpoint anent the uniqueness of the species as a whole and the personal
'sovereignty,' -not too strong a word, I think, that is to be accorded to individual humans as complex, self aware, reasoning entities.
Yet, you have, you must remember, been arguing the point with Sister lance of the Immaculate Misconception. M&C's answer to Sesame Street and Mrs Malaprop rolled into one, purveyor of non sequiturs extraordinary, and font of simplistic adolescent morality. Ever open 'mouthpiece' of his Porcelain God.
Others of us, having already been through a somewhat analogous process have decided to reward his tiny efforts with the sort of response they merit. None, or for the ones that are (on his part, inadvertantly, I'm sure) comical, low satire. I can sense your increasing frustration in the above as your cogent points and requests for a substantive response are ignored and you are faced with flood after flood of, at best, tangential tripe instead. Give it up Charles! Argue intelligently with other intellectuals. La-la is best viewed as a sort of 'prompt' allowing one to exercise ones talent for wit and repartee. Think of M&C as a school, and Lance as the 'playtime' bell. You'll feel much better, I assure you.
a stem cell from a leaf cell.
I like mine scrambled or over-easy with a rasher of bacon and a mound of toast. Of course I'm talking chicken embryos, or eggs, if you will. But, my dear lance, if human embryos are sacrosanct, should not the same apply to chickens? After all, it is life. And ALL life is Holy, is it not? The chicken had no choice in it's position on the evolutionary ladder, just like you had no choice in being rooted in ignorance, as a cannibalistic rutabaga.
Or a Brain cell from a wet cell! I have been wondering if 'sister lance' is battery powered for some time. Must be Duracell in his case the way he rants on!
Duracell. Are you familiar with the EverReady battery bunny? He keeps going and going, and going. If you put the batteries in backwards he keeps coming and coming and coming.
Rance is merely exercising his right.
ROFLMAO!
Exercising his right hand anyway.
Indeed.
..what you think of Roman Catholics, their stance on life is unassailable: They are against abortion, Capital Punishment, against Murder, and against the prolongation of death by natural causes. They actually have nothing whatsoever against stem cell research, only the harvesting of stem cells via aborted fetuses. They are not against the harvesting of organs from dead doners, or medical research on human cadavers, only those tht are killed for this purpose. They have stated that evolution '...is a viable scientific principle and that it is worthy of study'...and that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape and incest. In the future, try and get it right.
Now I'm sure Lance has an angle that is somehow skewed by the tinfoil beanie on his head and the music playing inside it, but that is the Catholic position, whether he thinks so, or not.
I think pro-abortion people should obfuscate with the 'its just snot' argument rather than 'its just like a chicken egg' argument.
The chicken egg argument can be countered with - 'well, would you eat them like chicken eggs if thats all they are?'
If you tried that against snot argument they can simply respond 'I don't eat snot!'
Even though they are lying, there really isn't much left to argue about at that point.
True, Charles, very true.
I have never been certain about, and have always sought to avoid adopting a definite stance on the abortion issue. There are compelling moral arguments put forward by both sides. Yet surely it is better to explore the matter in a non-adversarial manner, conceding when appropriate that those who take a different position from oneself do have valid points to make. Of course, I'm not referring to lance who exhibits all the mental dexterity and penetrative reasoning of Winnie-The-Pooh, but what of those who stress the concept of a woman's right to choose and exercise sovereignty over her own body? Has that no validity at all?
Stem cell research is another, but related matter. Those who, like yourself I think, would stress that from the moment of conception the embryo, as a potential human being, should be imbued with certain inalienable rights must still have trouble when considering the immense practical benefits that this type of research could confer on humanity as a whole.
'must still have trouble when considering the immense practical benefits that this type of research could confer on humanity as a whole.'
I suppose we all generate a cost/benefit calculation. With something like this, its hard because the 'immensity' of the practical benefits has not been established. If someone could please enumerate this immense benefit then it would be much easier to discuss.
I think the drivers behind all of this are an innate desire to live forever. Not for people at large - but rather for the person exhibiting 'supreme faith in the miracles of science' when they unquestioningly support these initiatives. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that desire, but what will we sacrifice in pursuit of this holy grail?
that a woman carries over 100,000 eggs? How many are discarded through the monthly cycle? How many spontaneously abort(misnamed as miscarry)? How many live-births, on average per woman? When a woman reaches menopause(not mental pause as in lance's case)those remanining 100,000 minus a few, go where? That is one h*ll of a lot of roe that goes to waste.
I think there are many technologies in development now that do not need embryos to create stem cells.
One of them actually uses human eggs I think. Others can convert regular cells back into stem cells.
The crux is when can we call it human life, and how much do we respect human life.
Regarding former, I think its VERY tough. How can you arbitrarily say 12 weeks? Does that mean 11 weeks and 6 days doesn't qualify? Or is it 24 weeks and 23+ 6 days doesn't qualify?
If there isn't a firm answer - then I think that is the answer. If we don't or can't know this, then we aren't qualified to make that decision to terminate. Unless of course we don't respect innocent himan life. Then all bets are off.
Let's start arbitrarily qualifying people based on their income, or IQ, etc., and get rid of those that don't meet our qualifications. How about old people? What the hell are they good for? Fat people? No thanks...
'The crux is when can we call it human life, and how much do we respect human life.'
Things are either animal, vegetable or mineral. Which one are you? A human is nothing more than just another hunk of meat. One cannot respect human life, without respecting all life. Further, regarding respect, I respect the animal that I kill in order to eat. But I kill it anyway. There is nothing special about being human, that can't be accorded to all life.
There is nothing special about being human, that can't be accorded to all life.
Except for lance.
'A human is nothing more than just another hunk of meat.'
There are a fascinating range of ideas presented here.
please expand your idea.
I was being a bit sarcastic. Mostly anyway.
The person who claims that he thinks humans are just peices of meat doesn't really believe that. Its just the latest world view they play act with on the internet.
Biologically that is all they are. Soft, sloppy bags of mostly water with a few chemical compounds and minerals scattered about. Just like any other animalistic life form. Absolutely nothing special about humans. There is nothing new about this at all. It is not the latest fad amongst the illiterati.
Here is something far older than the internet:
Shakespera's Hamlet Act IV, scene iii, lines 17 t0 41
KING CLAUDIUS Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius?
HAMLET At supper.
KING CLAUDIUS At supper! where?
HAMLET Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain
convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. Your
worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all
creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for
maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but
variable service, two dishes, but to one table:
that's the end.
KING CLAUDIUS Alas, alas!
HAMLET A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a
king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.
KING CLAUDIUS What dost you mean by this?
HAMLET Nothing but to show you how a king may go a
progress through the guts of a beggar.
KING CLAUDIUS Where is Polonius?
HAMLET In heaven; send hither to see: if your messenger
find him not there, seek him i' the other place
yourself. But indeed, if you find him not within
this month, you shall nose him as you go up the
stairs into the lobby.
KING CLAUDIUS(To some Attendants) Go seek him there.
HAMLET He will stay till ye come.
Shakespera's should have read Shakespeare's
what Charles' world view is? The universe is only 2000 years old and came from a floating bag of water, that burst one day giving forth with all? Evolution is Heresy that needs to be rooted out with the Rack and the Pyre?
I'm sure his world view is positively myopic and Neanderthal.
Possibly, though not necessarily a tad harsh on poor Chuckles! It is true that humans are biological machines like any other form of life, yet by virtue of their complex central nervous systems (sister rancid excepted of course) may or may not still be regarded as operating on a higher level qualitatively, as well as quantitatively, than most other species.
In the end it comes down to humans making human value judgements about humanity, and, on occasion, other individual humans, vis a vis other life forms: And more often vis a vis the often irrational dictates of various 'faith based' preconceptions.
Hmmm! Someone once asked me what I would do if I was standing, equiped with a high powered rifle, watching a large rare predator (say an Amur Tiger) which was about to pounce on some poor unsuspecting sod. Despite my circumlocutions the interrogator, who had really formidable forensic skills, tied me down eventually to the following admission. Were the target myself, blood kin, a friend, or valued acquaintance, the cat would be unceremoniously shot. Were it someone I dislike heartily, pussy would most likely get to enjoy an interesting culinary experience. The other 99.999 (recurring)% of humanity would have to wait along with Tigger and take their chances if the situation ever actually arose!
Make of that what you all wish!
Chuckles would send in the CIA, Delta Force, the Rangers, The Green Berets, 7 combat brigades, the Marines, the navy with 1,500 mile range Cruise Missiles, the Air Force, a partridge in a pear tree and sanitize the area of any and all tigers. Your friend/family member/yourself would be written off as collateral damage. So sorry you're dead, but you shouldn't have been standing under that bomb. But we must think of the greater good. After all, aren't Tigers an Al Qaeda splinter group?
ROFLMAO
Excellent post, sir.
I suppose that at least they all would be aiming the weaponry at kitty, rather than me! Such a comfort to have been shuffled off this mortal coil 'collaterally.'
Yes, to be collaterally lost in the shuffle. What an epitaph.
To the person who really thinks people are just hunks of meat, I propose a similar hypothetical to that the brit proposed.
There is a goat tied to the railroad tracks alongside [fill in the blank: your daughter, mother, teacher, stranger, etc.] and a train is rapidly approaching.
You have time to save only one.
My guess is that if you are still a lucid, sane human, you will frantically try to save the person every time.
Of course some of you here would either save the goat, or get popcorn to watch the show. But then again you lack the above mention prerequisite qualifications.
And for the record, I am not in the slightest religious.
Charles,
The point of my own 'hypothetical' was that it would depend entirely on the individual person, and / or, to paraphrase your good self, perhaps the individual goat: And I can think of some cases where, yes, I might be inclined simply to reach for the popcorn.
PS: Has anyone noticed that some of La-la's posts are disappearing? Either lance has set off in pursuit of a comet or the editor has discovered a shred of humanity. Or, then again, someone may be tending to a very lucky goat!
Nah, you are trying to be too clever.
All things being equal, any reasonable person would try to save the person EVERY time if they could. You included. Even if you did not know them.
It has nothing to do with religion. Sometimes you guys are way too quick with assumptions and way to flippant. That's ok though. Heck, its the internet.
I will go further and say that if it were a live goat, and a kilo of ground beef, most people would try to save the goat if it didnt put them in too much danger.
People do not equal hunks of meat.
Ok Charles, I will concede that I would really have to detest the person before I rescued the goat instead. Yet, were an Amur Tiger involved, the choice may not be quite so clear cut!
Let's just agree that the scenario you present is highly unlikely.
They shoot poachers anyway - dont they? I'm not sure about Russia, but they do in many parts of Africa. Just imagine the poor fellow getting chewed on is a poacher.
have you been smoking EssPee's drugs? Do you have any sense of reality at all? Let's just agree that you don't.
try to save Chuckles, not even from himself. To carry Chuck's fantasy a little farther, ie: humans being just a sack of meat, one could speculate that they could be bought and sold down at the deli. All except for Americans. Too much lard on the morbidly obese fatheads. Besides, they would never pass quality inspection as they died prematurely from heart disease, not the Stocker's hammer.
come out and play. The bad man has gone away. Bye, Chuck. It hasn't been a pleasure knowing you.
American lard-arses? Not even worth the investment in some Fava beans and a nice Chianti!
If you weren't such a loser pumpkin, I'd be flattered by the attention.
Your mistaken assumptions, and back of the bus antics, are just boring at this point.
Can anyone here recall a post from pumpkin that even tried to engage the topic? There must be at least one - right? Perhaps he thinks his spittle filled rants are actual discussion?
The man posts much more intelligent posts than you do. While you may have a low opinion of him, because you crossed swords with him and lost, doesn't mean that he is as useless as you. Look at it this way Charles, he got tired of pulling your wings off and left a not unkind farewell message, you come back with a snide comment. Who is the better man, Charles? Not you. I can see why he took a dislike to you and punctured you whenever you raised your presence here with your Charlie Brown moniker and mind. I just might continue, where he left off.
LOL.
' Mike '.
'The man posts much more intelligent posts than you do.'
Really? Could you please identify one post on this thread where he intelligently shared his opinion on the topic at hand?
'crossed swords with him and lost'
Lost what? He hasn't once tried to debate a single point. If you mean he is better at ranting insults, then I concede. That doesn't interest me.
'doesn't mean that he is as useless as you.'
Ouchy Mike/Pumpkin.
'I just might continue, where he left off.'
Feel free. Just try to stay on topic.
Oh, I see now, Charles. I see you clearly. You are an idiot. You raised no points that could be debated. You dropped your pants, squatted and shat, calling that a position. Enjoy your ignorance and stupidity. You aren't worth any more of my time. Bloody wanker.
Really Pumpkin? Or is it Mike?
So there isn't one thing I said that you agreed/disagreed with?
My goodness there are a lot of issues on the table in this thread.
From the simple:
Did George Bush make stem cell research illegal?
To the complex:
When does human life begin?
Under what circumstances should innocent human life be exploited and destroyed to benefit another?
Do you have an opinion on any of these things? If you don't then you probably should leave this thread.
yeah, right. Whatever you say, little man.
page: 1
JustMeMar 10th, 2009 - 03:04:05
Once again, science wins over dogma. Civilization advances. Humanity is elevated. Suffering is diminished. Diseases once uncurable will be cured. The dark ages move further into the past.
Report this comment