sikis
porno izle
porno videolar
porn videos

Eugenics is such a progressive idea, of course. Exclude people based on their “choice” of genes, kill off some elderly, reduce diversity. That’s not right-wing Nazi crap, no. Progressives include no one and have one idealogy.

As long as none of the Stem Cells are in any way related to Mr. Beck, we should be safe, as use of his DNA would be against the interest of the country!

As all the right wing crazies continue to talk nonsense, it shows their ignorance, or their willingness to lie to the American People about the real research that can be advanced with the availability of new stem cell lines.

It is sad that the GOP continues to wallow in the mud in the attempt to keep their extreme members agitated. When will they learn that they are distancing themselves from the real voters? Not any time soon!

Also too!! Doesn’t Beck have a child with downs syndrome?? So this research would possibly improve the life of that child, and he is ranting AGAINST that?? Some people really do amaze me sometime.

from- livemint
However, the president’s support of embryonic stem cell research comes at a time when many advances have been made with other sorts of stem cells. The Japanese biologist Shinya Yamanaka found in 2007 that adult cells could be reprogrammed to an embryonic state with surprising ease. This technology “may eventually eclipse the embryonic stem cell lines for therapeutic as well as diagnostics applications”, Kriegstein said. For researchers, reprogramming an adult cell can be much more convenient, and there have never been any restrictions on working with adult stem cells.
For therapy, far off as that is, treating patients with their own cells would avoid the problem of immune rejection.

Despite a Food and Drug Administration-approved safety test of embryonic stem cells in spinal cord injury that the Geron Corp. began in January, many scientists believe that putting stem cell-derived tissues into patients lies a long way off. Embryonic stem cells have their drawbacks. They cause tumours, and the adult cells derived from them may be rejected by the patient’s immune system. Furthermore, whatever disease process caused the patients’ tissue cells to die is likely to kill introduced cells as well. All these problems may be solvable, but so far none have been solved.

http://www3.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=489953
Adult cells are behind much of stem cell success so far

IN SHORT, YES, STEM CELLS do have the potential to turn into more specialized cells (that is what we mean by a stem cell). But after eight years of trial and error, scientists have not yet shown that they know how to nudge or coax or direct any given cell in a desired direction — for example, into the dopamine producing cells that are needed to combat Parkinson’s disease.

Living, breathing people who have been treated by stem cells — some who would have otherwise died — are signs of the great hope of stem-cell research. Take Doug Rice, a bear of a man who was told he had months to live because of heart disease, yet after being treated with his own blood stem cells, his heart function is almost normal. Then there’s Dave Foege who also received the same treatment for his ailing heart, after his doctors had sent him home to hospice. And accident victim Jacki Rabon can walk with the aid of braces after she had her own nasal stem cells injected into her spinal-cord injury. Carol Franz is an incredible woman who suffered from multiple myeloma, a bone cancer, until she had her bone-marrow stem cells transplanted. Stephen Sprague has been free from leukemia after having a cord blood stem cell transplant. And Keone Penn no longer has sickle-cell anemia after receiving a cord-blood stem-cell transplant.

In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama’s term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, are obsolete. The most sobering: a report from Israel published in PLoS Medicine in late February that shows embryonic stem cells injected into patients can cause disabling if not deadly tumors.

The report describes a young boy with a fatal neuromuscular disease called ataxia telangiectasia, who was treated with embryonic stem cells. Within four years, he developed headaches and was found to have multiple tumors in his brain and spinal cord that genetically matched the female embryos used in his therapy.

His experience is neither an anomaly nor a surprise, but one feared by many scientists. These still-mysterious cell creations have been removed from the highly ordered environment of a fast-growing embryo, after all. Though they are tamed in a petri dish to be disciplined, mature cells, research in animals has shown repeatedly that sometimes the injected cells run wildly out of control—dashing hopes of tiny, human embryos benignly spinning off stem cells to save grown-ups, without risk or concern

The importance of stem cells for medical research has never been greater, and the scientific and public clamor for unimpeded research is fully understandable. But it’s important that Obama and everyone supporting a lifting of the ban be clear with the public on what is involved in this decision; it’s more complex than advertised. The ban Bush became famous for restricted the use of federal research dollars just to adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells already in existence at the time of his executive order. Lifting this ban so that researchers can use frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded—they’ve been donated by couples who have had in vitro fertilization treatments—has drawn wide and bipartisan support from Congress. It’s an easy lift.

The more ethically charged decision—less understood by the public and one Congress has avoided—involves the ban on creating human embryos in the laboratory solely for research purposes. In fact, President Clinton is the one who balked at allowing scientists to use government money for embryo creation and research on stem cells harvested from such embryos; Bush only affirmed the Clinton ban. The scientific community has been able to attract nonfederal money for such work, and it is going on all the time in stem cell institutes. Scientists want relief from the inconvenience and expense of keeping that work and the money that supports it separate from federal dollars.

Reversing the executive orders of two prior presidents on embryo creation, which even the Congress has been unwilling to tackle, is a far bigger issue than lifting the ban on the use of IVF embryos slated for destruction. Obama stands for transparency, and it’s important for him to make sure the public understands his decision, including that all stem cells are not the same or created equally.

His early life was pitted with tragedies. His mother committed suicide when he was 13. One of his brothers-in-law also committed suicide. Another sibling reportedly had a fatal heart attack.[7]

Beck is a self-described reformed alcoholic. In the aftermath of those three family tragedies, Beck said he used “Dr. Jack Daniels” and marijuana to cope. He and his first wife divorced amid his struggle with substance abuse. Beck cites the help of Alcoholics Anonymous in his sobriety, and he eventually converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which teaches against the consumption of alcohol.

Beck has spoken often of his religious beliefs and conversion. “God stalked me!…He had a giant baptismal rifle,” Beck said. “I thwarted him. I led people astray as much as I could, but he kept putting Mormons in my way.”[8]

Can’t be they were born this way – God would not be that cruel

Your entire specious argument was ludicrous. It rests on the fanciful and imaginitive assumption that I think there is a small cadre of plotters brainwashing people for a specific agenda. Nowhere in my post was any such implication. You are getting paranoid here. Becks audience is his product. It is what he can sell to advertisers and what makes him worth paying. He KNOWS them and knows they will buy whatever transparent idiocy he tosses out. I didnt say he didnt believe it, the point is he doenst even TRY to make it logical which this is not. It is a slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy by definition. There is NO more a conspiricy theory that he wants to toss red meat to his audience to entertain them IN A SPECIFIC way than to say Ford is in a conspiricy theory to sell cars. He WANTS to say outrageous things because THAT is what he is selling to the audience which he hopes will be big enough to sell to his employer. He knows those drawn to THAT dynamic dont really care much about logic. I am sure he believes at least some of what he says and BASICALLY what he is saying though he may sell himself as more extreme than he really is because he IS SELLING. Lets talk about another logical fallacy. You seem to love them. The STRAWMAN. This is when you argue some delusional version of the argument I made instead of the ARGUMENT I MADE. See your post for an example. As for punctuation. I make myself understood if that isnt good enough for you read someone elses posts.

You are completely wrong. Dogma and ethics are simply NOT the same thing I didnt say nor need they BE mutually exclusive. Again your binary thinking has misled you. Things dont have to be mutually exlusive to not be the same thing. That there is some overlap doesnt mean they are the same or can be used interchangably. Your definitions say the ethics are MORAL principles on the one hand and principles OR TENETS on the other. Tenets CAN be but are not ALWAYS ethically or morally based. AGAIN until you can show with something other than your BELIEF that a blastocyte is a child or has a seperate life and conciousness then you cant even BEGIN to make an ETHICAL argument based on something other than DOGMA which IS NOT THE SAME AS AN ETHIC. The Church TEACHES that is it is DOGMA that the ONLY way to be saved is by accepting Jesus many teach that is it is DOGMA that you must be baptized NEITHER of these are moral arguments. Some Dogma is and some isnt. The sets of Dogma and ethical teachings overlap but ARE NOT THE SAME. Look at the fourth definition of dogma 4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle. Are you REALLY claiming that all accepted beliefs and opinions are ethical?

The fact that a system is dogmatic does not in any way remove statements about ethics any less ethical.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A bad example. It becomes an ethical argument when it becomes WHY IT IS WRONG. See Humes An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, which I have here somewhere. The Ethical argument concerns as an oversimplification WHO IT HURTS. It is quite obvious SOMEONE is being hurt by theft whether you argue from private property or not. Someone is being deprived of something they have. Now Proudhon made a moral argument when he said ‘property is theft’. It was an ethical argument that most would disagree with but it WAS a moral argument. He based it on who was being deprived and WHY IT WAS WRONG. Not all dogma is based on why something is wrong. Explain the ethical argument for dogma in Leviticus about planting two crops together or making your wife leave the house during menstruation. This WAS Dogma it was NOT ethical.

What you folks are doing is inventing a tendentious and incorrect distinction between your own thoughts and “religion,” which you regard as brainless and invalid. You’re entitled to your opinions about religion, but you’re not entitled to invent artificial distinctions between ethics from your philosophy and ethics from theirs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is clearly and FLATLY wrong. First of all I am a Christian and in no way believe religion is brainless nor invalid. That is your Manichean binary thinking misleading you AGAIN. You just assume since I disagree with you I am hostile to religion when I consider myself a religious person I just disagree with you and NO it is YOU trying to conflate two DIFFERENT things as if they were the SAME thing. Not that they are mutually exlusive but they are NOT THE SAME THING and this is patently obvious. They are NOT the same thing it really is that simple. Just because SOME dogma is ethically based in no way means ALL dogma is the same thing as ethical.

And if you want to know, your error occurs at the point where you dismiss religion as brainless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I didnt make an error YOU did and repeating this insulting assumption is just compounding your error.

All the great civilizations in history were built by religions, including ours. The very concept of ethics arises out of religion.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

This is patently false. You cannot show that ethics comes from religion that is a baseless assertion. I know several athiests and agnostics and some of them are among the most ethical people I know. It is counterintuitive. It is absurd to claim all great civilizations were built BY religions. Just because Religions were part of these societies. PROVE to me that it was the RELIGIONS of the Sumerians and Etruscans that built their civilizations.

Your attempt to dismiss it wholesale IS the error of the 20th century that made that century the bloodbath we’d all prefer to forget; and it’s good of Mr. Beck not to let us forget it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Beck is a moron, its that simple. Again you run with an absolutly absurd assumption that I am trying to dismiss religion. I love my Religion and I love God. That doesnt turn an argument of Domga into one of ethics. Nowhere in the bible doest it say life begins at conception. Even if it DID that would be a belief according to the Bible I would not expect the entire country to conform to unless I could back that belief up with EVIDENCE. That evidence would HAVE to come from science IF I expect other citizens. Muslims, Hindus, Agnostics, and Confucists to be bound by.

Please think this statement through to a proper conclusion: “No he doesnt he knows his audience. He knows they arent very bright and will take his propaganda at face value no matter how ludicrous it is.” (And consider correcting your punctuation.)

If conservatives are so completely stupid, where does Beck obtain the intelligence to correctly analyze and deceive them? And how does the conservative movement develop the “smart deceivers” out of the mass of “stupid followers?” Do they have a “deceiver farm,” where they deliberately grow the smart ones to deceive the dumb ones?

The notion that any major political grouping consists of a tiny cadre of deceivers who are “in the know,” and a mass of followers who know nothing, rests on a model that really only works in smaller movements. You need to apply Occam’s Razor to this problem: the most likely explanation for conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism, Marxism, progressivism, or whatever political grouping, is that they genuinely believe what they say. Conspiracy theories may be fun, but they’re seldom worth spit.

From dictionary.com:

eth?ics
? –plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

dog?ma
–noun, plural
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

There is nothing in the definition of either word that makes them mutually exclusive. Indeed, most theological systems contain dogmatic statements that easily fall into the category, “ethics,” and it’s the easiest thing in the world to make an ethical system dogmatic. The fact that a system is dogmatic does not in any way remove statements about ethics any less ethical.

Just for a simple example, what does it matter if the ethical precept, “Don’t steal,” comes from a dogmatic system or from a logical syllogism based on the presuppositions of Materialism? For that matter, if your articulation of private property rights arises from, say, Blackstone’s Commentaries and Burke’s Vindication of Natural Society, and are part of a cohesive system of thought, in what way is that not dogma?

What you folks are doing is inventing a tendentious and incorrect distinction between your own thoughts and “religion,” which you regard as brainless and invalid. You’re entitled to your opinions about religion, but you’re not entitled to invent artificial distinctions between ethics from your philosophy and ethics from theirs.

And if you want to know, your error occurs at the point where you dismiss religion as brainless. All the great civilizations in history were built by religions, including ours. The very concept of ethics arises out of religion. Your attempt to dismiss it wholesale IS the error of the 20th century that made that century the bloodbath we’d all prefer to forget; and it’s good of Mr. Beck not to let us forget it.

A Master race is coming? (I thought they were already here? Limbaugh Hannity Ann Coulter…)

If they are, hopefully they’ll be a good master race this time.

====

Ridiculous

If the Obama administration had rejected the position of the Bush administration regarding embryonic stem cells by saying “We disagree with their ethical reasoning, and think THIS policy is more ethically sound,” Beck would have been off base. But that’s not what Obama said; what he said was, “The Bush administration substituted dogma for science, and what we’re doing instead is science rather than dogma.” It’s an ad hominem fallacy intended to demonize those who agree with Bush’s assessment of the ethics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Your mistake is substituting dogma with ethics as CageyCreting pointed out. They are not anywhere NEAR the same thing. You would need more science to even MAKE the ethical argument. You would need to show that a blastocyte is indeed a person and that is far from having any scientific foundation. What was made was rather a religious argument from DOGMA. Since this mistake was the basis for your entire argument it is a logical fallacy since no argument made from a faulty premise can be a valid argument.

Unfortunately, if accepted as stated, this has the effect of demonizing anybody who thinks the acquisition of knowledge through science ought to be limited by ethical considerations of any sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No it doesnt not even close it has the effect of saying that the aquisition of science ought not to be limited by the considerations of DOGMA not ethics again mistaking the two renders your entire argument ridiculous.

And it’s the progress of science unbounded by any ethical consideration at all that led, once, to experiments like those of Josef Mengele, or (closer to home) to the sterilization of American convicts in an attempt to improve the gene pool. Glen Beck, for all his apparent hysteria, knows his history.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No he doesnt he knows his audience. He knows they arent very bright and will take his propaganda at face value no matter how ludicrous it is.

Ethics do not arise from science, nor can they, and any good scientist knows it. If it’s “anti-science” to allow ethics to govern the practice of the sciences, then it’s correct to warn that science will be turned to unethical purposes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Again your inability to tell the difference between dogma and ethics makes your argument meaningless

Don’t dismiss Beck’s warning; what happened in Germany can happen here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It CAN in the sense anything is possible short of George Bush Jr joining MENSA other than that this statements is ludicrous on the face of it. If you take seriously the idea that stem cell research is the first step to torture deaths in the name of science then get help. FAST.

Dogma does not imply ethics. Dogma is theology. Ethics are morality. Just because a person follows a dogam, does not mean that they have ethics.

Religion does NOT equate to morals — there are those with strong religious beliefs, yet who lack ethics and morals, and there are those who are strongly anti-religious who have very stable and sound morals and ethics.

Bush (and conservatives in general) decry stem cell research based on DOGMA, not based on morals — the “morals” presented as argument are ALL BASED ON DOGMA, therefore it is dogma that drove Bush (and conservatives in general) to stop stem cell research. Morals and ethics were simply the justifications to try to bring on board those who are not staunchly enmeshed in their dogma: justification and rationalization of a position based solely in dogma, not based solely in ethics.