One interesting thing with the link to your results, is that anyone who takes the test first, can then go to your link and see what their results are. My results are here:
You are in support of stem cells (good, IMO). But is this support inclusive of embryonic stem cells? If so, how do you reconcile this view w/ your anti-choice/pro-life view?
Jon I broke the system it flashed up "reporting your URL to FBI,NSA,IAB DMI, homeland security,US customs, National guard, white supremacists, KKK, NRA,ASPCA, Nasa,The better Business Bureau, the mental heath Assn and the Catholic Church!" ......" sigh" then printed out - Jill Stein - Obama - Rocky - Bullwinkle? ;-) The surprising thing was that It said 53% of America ??
Paul Stem cell research does not JUST mean embryonic. In fact one of the most promising research is that with 'growing' human hearts on a pig hearts 'scaffold' using one's own stem cells harvested from their bone marrow. So far they've managed to grow a rat's heart. No rejection drugs etc Likewise ones own stem cells are being used to regenerate nerve cell in spinal injuries. Also stem cells from axolotles are being being experimented with in 'regrowing fingers' there is some success but it is still early stages. Having said that unwanted IVF embryonic stem cells are used for medicines. Particularly is the recipient's stem cells are affected by genetic issues or radiation therapy. I accept it can be a hard one but it all depends on when you believe a foetus becomes a 'person'. I tend to think at the time when it has discernible higher brain functions...which is (in reverse) the medical definition of death for organ harvesting (transplant) At the IVF stage it's generally seen as just cells.
Paul, do you think my pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell research views are inconsistent? To tell you the truth I haven't thought it through too carefully.
I guess just speaking off the cuff I'd say I don't think it should be legal to kill fetuses, but since it is and since the embryonic stem cells are available to potentially help others, isn't that the right thing to do?
If I were sentenced to death for a crime I didn't commit and another person said to me "Look, I know you're innocent, and I think what they are doing is wrong, but I can't stop it. Also there's a person that needs a liver transplant. Can we use your organs?" I'd say donating is the right thing to do. Similarly for the fetus.
Ex - I know that stem cell research is not just embryonic. That is why I was explicit in my question to Jon. To clarify whether he supported that specific type.
Jon - Yes I do tentatively find your pro-life view and your pro (embryonic) view inconsistent. I suppose I can understand the clarification (analogy) you tried to make. Which I take it as roughly as such: if the embryo's from which the stem cell have already been created and these embryo's are likely to eventually be destroy anyway might as well make good use of them. That makes sense somewhat. But let me restate the question. Are you ok w/ creating embryo's for purposes of stem cell research and similarly are you ok w/ IVF?
Related question - for you does *human* life begin at conception?
This program is a good giggle but it's so simplistic as to be as much worth in picking your candidate as a jockey colors are for picking a wining horse in the Kentucky Derby .
It's programmatic logic is to judge how seriously or not you rank issues then relates it broadly to stated policy. e.g. it asks how serious do you think AGW is ...I rated it serious BUT does that mean I agree with Jill's policies?.....not even with the intensity of a gnats sneeze! Do I agree with Obama's policies ….similar answer. So when it says I should vote for her ….I am deeply disquieted.
Perhaps if I were the average couch potato then the program represents about the right level of thought that goes into their vote. In terms That Chad would well understand, that's a bit like employing a person because I agree with his ranking of issues! Competence, objectivity, the greater good and the Context under which the prez can act are extremely relevant. My 87 yo mother may agree with me but would I want her to run the country? Sorry mom not for a moment! Let's be real look at the disaster that the neo-con zealotry and their one eyed (read incompetence caused) Two mired money pits (wars) and the deepest recession since the 1920/30's (which took a war in Europe to extricate the US). Have no doubts the Prez was looking for an entrance into.
I would suggest this program reflects two things of extreme importance;
The level of emotional reasoning that loaded Obama or in fact ANY president, with such stupid/naive levels of 'saviour ' expectation that is has lead to the disappointment with his running (sic) of the empire. Mind you his (and any candidate for the position's) rhetoric certainly encourage(d) such naivety .
The key question is 'why is it so'? The answer is abidingly obvious...it facilitates 'spin' and thus obscures the 'what and how' the goal will be achieved. In short the specifics as is the PURPOSE of spin advertising,PR, image control, obscure the truth i.e. the back room deals that may give some indication of who's butt is/will be kissed and why? (BTW both side are ALLWAYS EQUALLY committed to externalities). Let us be absolutely clear vague/ horrendously expensive elections ultimately serves one cause....Profit at the expense of democracy. One example who do you think benefits most from the super pacs? The media and the associated industries. The more conflict the better for them....it is naïvety at it's worst to not be aware that they would encourage what benefits them most ? Doesn't it make you wonder how come all these corporations and wealthy can spend obscene amounts on policy but yet claim that any change in say wages would destroy them and life as we know it?
Paul, My apologies,I wasn't assuming YOU were dumb. As this is a public /open forum you would be stunned by the number of those who don't. I was intending to clarifying the issue.
One interesting thing with the link to your results, is that anyone who takes the test first, can then go to your link and see what their results are. My results are here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.isidewith.com/results/57075957
No big surprise here. Gary Johnson 98% . Ron Paul 95%.
ReplyDeleteTook it again with more detailed answers. 99% with Ron Paul. 97% Gary Johnson.
ReplyDeleteMe, Jill Stein, but I already knew that!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.isidewith.com/results/58716116
Ron Paul 91%, Mitt Romney 89%, Gary Johnson 81%.
ReplyDeleteJill Stein here as well. Interesting....
ReplyDeleteJon -
ReplyDeleteYou are in support of stem cells (good, IMO). But is this support inclusive of embryonic stem cells? If so, how do you reconcile this view w/ your anti-choice/pro-life view?
Similar question if you support IVF.
Jon
ReplyDeleteI broke the system it flashed up "reporting your URL to FBI,NSA,IAB DMI, homeland security,US customs, National guard, white supremacists, KKK, NRA,ASPCA, Nasa,The better Business Bureau, the mental heath Assn and the Catholic Church!" ......" sigh" then printed out
- Jill Stein
- Obama
- Rocky
- Bullwinkle? ;-)
The surprising thing was that It said
53% of America ??
Paul
Stem cell research does not JUST mean embryonic.
In fact one of the most promising research is that with 'growing' human hearts on a pig hearts 'scaffold' using one's own stem cells harvested from their bone marrow.
So far they've managed to grow a rat's heart.
No rejection drugs etc
Likewise ones own stem cells are being used to regenerate nerve cell in spinal injuries.
Also stem cells from axolotles are being being experimented with in 'regrowing fingers' there is some success but it is still early stages.
Having said that unwanted IVF embryonic stem cells are used for medicines.
Particularly is the recipient's stem cells are affected by genetic issues or radiation therapy.
I accept it can be a hard one but it all depends on when you believe a foetus becomes a 'person'.
I tend to think at the time when it has discernible higher brain functions...which is (in reverse) the medical definition of death for organ harvesting (transplant)
At the IVF stage it's generally seen as just cells.
Paul, do you think my pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell research views are inconsistent? To tell you the truth I haven't thought it through too carefully.
ReplyDeleteI guess just speaking off the cuff I'd say I don't think it should be legal to kill fetuses, but since it is and since the embryonic stem cells are available to potentially help others, isn't that the right thing to do?
If I were sentenced to death for a crime I didn't commit and another person said to me "Look, I know you're innocent, and I think what they are doing is wrong, but I can't stop it. Also there's a person that needs a liver transplant. Can we use your organs?" I'd say donating is the right thing to do. Similarly for the fetus.
Ex - I know that stem cell research is not just embryonic. That is why I was explicit in my question to Jon. To clarify whether he supported that specific type.
ReplyDeleteJon -
Yes I do tentatively find your pro-life view and your pro (embryonic) view inconsistent. I suppose I can understand the clarification (analogy) you tried to make. Which I take it as roughly as such: if the embryo's from which the stem cell have already been created and these embryo's are likely to eventually be destroy anyway might as well make good use of them. That makes sense somewhat. But let me restate the question. Are you ok w/ creating embryo's for purposes of stem cell research and similarly are you ok w/ IVF?
Related question - for you does *human* life begin at conception?
Jon and others,
ReplyDeleteThis program is a good giggle but it's so simplistic as to be as much worth in picking your candidate as a jockey colors are for picking a wining horse in the Kentucky Derby .
It's programmatic logic is to judge how seriously or not you rank issues then relates it broadly to stated policy.
e.g. it asks how serious do you think AGW is ...I rated it serious BUT does that mean I agree with Jill's policies?.....not even with the intensity of a gnats sneeze!
Do I agree with Obama's policies ….similar answer.
So when it says I should vote for her ….I am deeply disquieted.
Perhaps if I were the average couch potato then the program represents about the right level of thought that goes into their vote. In terms That Chad would well understand, that's a bit like employing a person because I agree with his ranking of issues! Competence, objectivity, the greater good and the Context under which the prez can act are extremely relevant. My 87 yo mother may agree with me but would I want her to run the country? Sorry mom not for a moment! Let's be real look at the disaster that the neo-con zealotry and their one eyed (read incompetence caused) Two mired money pits (wars) and the deepest recession since the 1920/30's (which took a war in Europe to extricate the US).
Have no doubts the Prez was looking for an entrance into.
I would suggest this program reflects two things of extreme importance;
The level of emotional reasoning that loaded Obama or in fact ANY president, with such stupid/naive levels of 'saviour ' expectation that is has lead to the disappointment with his running (sic) of the empire. Mind you his (and any candidate for the position's) rhetoric certainly encourage(d) such naivety .
The key question is 'why is it so'? The answer is abidingly obvious...it facilitates 'spin' and thus obscures the 'what and how' the goal will be achieved. In short the specifics as is the PURPOSE of spin advertising,PR, image control, obscure the truth i.e. the back room deals that may give some indication of who's butt is/will be kissed and why? (BTW both side are ALLWAYS EQUALLY committed to externalities).
Let us be absolutely clear vague/ horrendously expensive elections ultimately serves one cause....Profit at the expense of democracy.
One example who do you think benefits most from the super pacs? The media and the associated industries. The more conflict the better for them....it is naïvety at it's worst to not be aware that they would encourage what benefits them most ? Doesn't it make you wonder how come all these corporations and wealthy can spend obscene amounts on policy but yet claim that any change in say wages would destroy them and life as we know it?
Paul,
ReplyDeleteMy apologies,I wasn't assuming YOU were dumb. As this is a public /open forum you would be stunned by the number of those who don't. I was intending to clarifying the issue.