Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
Two lawsuits seek to invalidate the law that created the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, which is authorized to hand out an average of $300 million in research grants annually.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1667604&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ethical issues aside, I don't see much of a ROI for Cali on this issue. It certainly does not seem to be a good expenditure of state taxes.

What keeps the companies that develop such technology from moving out of state once they have spent the money? What keeps the jobs in Cali? Does this money create jobs or is it simply a form of corp welfare?

300 million a year could do a ton for Cali schools and infrastructure. If you are going to spend the money, that seems a better place for it (of course, I would rather see the 300 million returned to the taxpayers but that is irrelevant to this topic).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2


You are correct that California is doing the country and the world a big favor by funding stem cell research. Californians are funding it because our executive federal branch is an abject failure that does not have sense enough to fund this as they would rather kill insurgents during a civil war in Iraq. There are no ethical issues except in the imaginations of the Creationists and they should be laughed at and ridiculed because they are almost as ridiculous as Bush. Staying in Iraq is morally objectionable and wrong with no positive payback for the USA. How come the Right does not have "moral issues" regarding Iraq? Government has no business in "moral issues." We are not a theocracy and we should not rely on morally reprehensible Bush to tell us how to live.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Wow, you have quite a bit of pent-up hostility don't you? I stated ethical issues aside to keep any ethical comments out of the thread, not to include them, as such was not relevant to the topic of my post.

Have a cup of coffee, perhaps a danish, err a donut and enjoy the day.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

We have put up with so much BS for so long that side comments literally touch six years of hostility. This administration is the worst in our history. Period. Sorry you were caught in the crossfire. We are so sick of being given the "morals" argument by the most immoral administration in our history. Separation of Bush and State.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
{{There are no ethical issues except in the imaginations of the Creationists and they should be laughed at and ridiculed because they are almost as ridiculous as Bush.}}


I believe that support for stem cell research is reasonable. However, I believe that your statement declaring there to be no ethical issues is irrational. Scientifically and biologically, a human embryo is just as much a human organism as is a human adult, they are just at different points of biological development. However, the ethical issue is not so much what is a human organism, the ethical issue is what is a human being. That is not a scientific or a biological distinction. That is a ethical/philospohical/religious distinction. Therefore your declaration that there is not ethical issue is irrational.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
...the ethical issue is what is a human being. That is not a scientific or a biological distinction. That is a ethical/philospohical/religious distinction.

Actually, it's both. Declaring it not to be a biological issue means that we could form a philosophical argument based on the fact that a bag of cement is a human being.

The truth is, that stem cell research puts creationists in a bind.

They have to argue to save microscopic embryos rather than the potential possibility of saving actual human beings and are thus caught between a rock and a hard place. They attempt to grasp the moral high ground but fail.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
{{Actually, it's both. Declaring it not to be a biological issue means that we could form a philosophical argument based on the fact that a bag of cement is a human being.}}


That is not a reasonable argument. No one is declaring a non human organism to be a human being. The ethical decision is at what points is a human organism a human being.



c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No one is declaring a non human organism to be a human being. The ethical decision is at what points is a human organism a human being.


Define "human organism" without using science and specifically biology.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
{{Define "human organism" without using science and specifically biology.}}


You completely missed my point. Science and biology can determine a human organism. However, it is philosophy/ethics/religion which define a human being.


c
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It is irrational and immoral to throw away frozen embryos that could save life.
Print the post Back To Top