Opinion Talk

By MB

March 7, 2006 06:58 AM | Link to this

Once we’ve cured all diseases and repaired all the injuries, then we have reached the limit and should not go any further.

By charles huff

March 7, 2006 07:49 AM | Link to this

I hope the AJC readers took the time to analyze what State Senator David Shafer (Confusion Stalls Stem Cell Bill. March 7th, 2006 AJC) was actually saying about human cloning before making their minds up about his proposed bill. Republicans like Schafer need to take a basic freshman logic course so they can define fallacies when they say or hear them; his whole argument is a false analogy. He starts his argument off by trying to compare scientists in the 20’s who proposed the science of eugenics, with those who propose stem cell science. His proposition that eugenics was wrong and therefore so is stem cell science compares two completely different subjects; just because eugenics is wrong that doesn’t mean stem cell research is also wrong. He makes the same fallacy in one sentence when he says: “Legislation was introduced this year in the Georgia Assembly, Senate Bill 537 that would have specifically allowed human cloning so long as the cloned embryos were killed and used only in experimentation”. If the embryos were being “killed” they couldn’t have been humans because they hadn’t yet achieved human status by continuing until gestation; embryos are by scientific definition just that, embryos… they are not humans. The fact is Schafer only wants stem cells taken from umbilical cords and placentas, he says that later in the article. All of what was written by Schafer was nothing more than a ruse in an attempt to hide those facts from the general public. It should scare all of us in this state that Schafer heads the Science and Technology Committee as he shows no ability for logic and reason which are the basics of scientific investigation. I’ll close by making a fallacy of my own; Schafer is a Christian who bases every decision in his life on his private and personal religious beliefs. That is a false assumption fallacy but I’m willing to bet my stem cells on it by using the evidence in his editorial. It’s not what the state needs but what God wants isn’t it Schafer? I hope for the day this state wakes up and realizes that the Republican Party is nothing more than a Christian Taliban more than willing to place their religious beliefs in every private matter they can get their claws into; we need to wake up before mandatory church service becomes part of the state lexicon.

Charles Huff 180 Tibbetts Street Athens, Georgia 30601 770-380-0356

By candide

March 7, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

The State of South Dakota has been taken over by the Taliban. Is Georgia next?

By Lynda Barnes

March 7, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

Senator Shafer has refused to listen to the experts in the field of the scientific research. He also seems to have committee members that thinks the way he does. The senator has no scientific background, in his bio for the state, his occupation is listed as Public Relations. How does someone with no science in their political resume get to be chair of the Science and Technolgy Committee? I was at the meetings and watched how he and the members acted. It was certainly an eye opener for how the politcal system works. I will no longer be silent in issues that I feel strogly about. Research needs and has to continue. All, even those so violently opposed to the stem cell research, will benefit. If you do not have an illness in your family now…you will, no one is immune. When you or your loved ones’ life in on the line you will want and take what ever science can and will give you to make them or you whole again. Lynda Barnes Marietta, GA

By Syed

March 7, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

Candide Couldn’t agree more. I bet my small pay check, if they get away with this, the next bill would be “No Gay in the state of SD” that bill will be followed by another bill “No Jews or Muslims in SD” . This is the first step of making Bigotry a law. I just pray that Justice Paul steven stay alive and healthy to see this, other wise we will see another Religious freak in Supreme Court

MB Agree with you 100 %. Until we cure all diseas and illness, there should not any limits on anyreasearch including stem cell.

By Lynda Barnes

March 7, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

Senator Shafer has refused to listen to the experts in the field of the scientific research. He also seems to have committee members that thinks the way he does. The senator has no scientific background, in his bio for the state, his occupation is listed as Public Relations. How does someone with no science in their political resume get to be chair of the Science and Technolgy Committee? I was at the meetings and watched how he and the members acted. It was certainly an eye opener for how the politcal system works. I will no longer be silent in issues that I feel strogly about. Research needs and has to continue. All, even those so violently opposed to the stem cell research, will benefit. If you do not have an illness in your family now…you will, no one is immune. When you or your loved ones’ life in on the line you will want and take what ever science can and will give you to make them or you whole again. Lynda Barnes Marietta, GA

By Dan

March 7, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Syed Your last statement really gets to the crux of the matter. No limits on research until all diseases are cured? Taken literally that would mean you would support for instance using people as guinea pigs, I don’t recall the name of the movie but it starred Gene Hackman and he snatched homeless people off the street bathed and fed them then tested various treatments on them, his characters statement was if you had to kill a person to save a 1000 shouldn’t you do that. Clearly this is a slippery slope. Or did you mean all research that you deem acceptable?

By Brian Curtis

March 7, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

I’m not aware of any compelling arguments to put ANY limits on stem cell research.

Using humans as test subjects… yes, I’d want limits on that. Animal cruelty? Sure, that’s a legitimate issue. But stem cells? Not feelin’ a lot of concern here.

By Dan

March 7, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

Part of the problem like many others is misuse of the language. For instance it seems to be being used identically for cord blood and tissue as well as fetal tissue. The danger lies in creating “test tube fetuses for this use. I think regardless of your stand on abortion for instance, that looms as a potential abuse of the research. Better more specific definitions should be used to differentiate.

By Gavilan

March 7, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Here’s a question for Mr. Shafer:

If you were a fireman who rushed into a burning lab and saw 5 fertilized eggs in a petri dish and an infant screaming on the other side of the room, which would you save?

By charles huff

March 8, 2006 06:06 AM | Link to this

Thank God for all of who’ve written in on this important issue. I thought I was alone out here. Huff

By Van

March 8, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

As with most things, this proposed law is not clearly explained.

Is it about state funding, is it about state guidelines or some combination of both?

By Syed

March 8, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Dan If you consider a Zygote a person, then a pregnant woman should use the HOV lane, should pay for two persons in Airplane, movies theaters and so forth. It’s Ridiculous how someone compares a embryo to an actual person. Here is the problem with extreme right wing, they believe things, which they have every right to, but then they want to force everyone to believe that. Just like abortion. If you think abortion is worng, fine, don’t do it, why Ask someone else to go by your belief, sounds like Taliban to me. If you want staright answer, NO, I don’t think embryo is a person, it a live body part of the woman, just like other body parts.

By Thomas

March 8, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Republicans value life so much but they’re the first to send our kids to foreign lands to be slaughtered by the thousand for nothing.

Republicans value life so much they’re opposed to abortion, but want to cut funding for public schools, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to assist caring for the children once they are born.

Republicans value life so much; but practically all are in favor of the death penalty.

Republicans value life so much, but if a person can’t afford to go to the doctor or hospital…well, that’s their problem. It’s their fault for not saving enough money and having a better job (and growing up in the suburbs in a middle to upper-class household with two parents who could afford to send them to college, but that’s beside the point.)

The only things Republicans value more than life are tax cuts.

By Dan

March 8, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

So Syed you have no problem with an abortion at 8.5 months? Because if you do have a problem we have a tacit agreement that there is a point somewhere between conception and birth that denotes the acknowledgedment of a sentinent being. (If you don’t have a problem with that you are far more extreme than the right wing you speak of) I submit that the large majority of humans believe that self awareness occurs sometime in the gestation period prior to birth, the differences are all in when that time is. That is really where the argument lies and if you were to read roe v wade you would see that while they concur a babies rights are attached sometime prior to birth the inability to scientifically determine that point consistently entire crux of the opinion and their limits on first second and third trimester abortions reflect that. The slippery slope occurs when zygotes for research become embryonic research becomes fetal research that becomes spare parts from preemies. The further along that line you go the more people get queasy. (Except for someone who would opine that putting a child born a couple of weeks early in a dumpster is ok) oh and stop and think about how childish your HOV lane plane and movie analogies sound. Come on

By Syed

March 8, 2006 08:00 PM | Link to this

Dan The HOV lane incident happened, I forgot the city name, but happend few weeks ago. A pregnant women got a ticket for driving in HOV and she tried to defend it in court saying the baby should count. Judge didn’t buy that. Also, about 9 month or 1 months , it doesn’t matter; what I believe is Its not our [guys] business. The woman goes through the whole pain and stress. So, we should not impose any law on them. Bottom line, whether what I believe doesn’t matter, it should absolutely be the woman’s call

By Dan

March 9, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Syed Yes I heard of the HOV thing and that woman’s logic is as vacant as yours. In actuality given the reason for HOV lanes is to incent carpooling to lessen traffic, the logical position would be that anyone under the driving age would not count, since it doesn’t reduce traffic. But as is typical, when forced to examine a logical position people of your ilk change the subject you Still didn’t answer the question. And if you believe a woman should have the right to abort a baby right up to the actual due date you are indeed a sick individual, maybe we should start euthanizing disabled babies too.

By Syed

March 9, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

Dan Again, I didn’t say I am Pro Abortion. Pro Choice. Difference is, I just don’t want to force someone else to believe what I believe. If that makes me a sick person, I am ok with that. I am moderate religious muslim. I wouldn’t like to see a baby aborted in 8-9 month, but it’s not my call, it should be Mom’s choice. Basis of this country is freedom, right to choose; that gives you the right to be a Christian, muslim or jew, gives you the right to choose your sex partner. I don’t like homosexuality, but I am not homo phobic, If a guy is happy with another guy, he has every right to be. If they wanna call it marriage, I don’t have problem. Marriage might have a different defintion in my Quran or Bible, but he doesn’t have to go by it, his choice.

By Van

March 9, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Thomas,

Typical leftie.

Conservatives value life so much, we are grateful for the sacrifice when someone enlists to serve their country.

Conservatives value life so much, we feel children should be brought into this world by choice, and not the result of unplanned, unprotected or irresponsible sex. Being pro-adoption is where I stand on this issue.

Conservatives value life so much, that when one is taken in anger, it should be punished. If the punishment is the death penalty, so be it.

Conservatives value life so much, that anyone in trouble can go to an Emergency Room, hence the name.

Thomas, your talking points are old and full of holes. Your logic of equating a condemned criminal to abortion and the fine folks serving and dying in the military service of this country is shameful.

By Brian Curtis

March 9, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

Van: And you’re providing typical right-wing dodges in reply.

How DO you square the “valuing life” notion with being keen on needless wars (killing brave American citizens) and the death penalty (ending human life when other options are available)? Isn’t killing as payback for “the crime of killing” the pinnacle of hypocrisy for someone who claims to value life?

And I didn’t see that conservatives should get the credit for our emergency rooms. As I recall, every extension of our social programs—education, healthcare, public sanitation and clean air & water laws—were made over the express (and strenuous) objections of conservatives.

Your argument is the one that’s full of holes. And what does this have to do with stem cells, anyway?

By Dan

March 9, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Syed we are not as far apart as it may seem I too agree in freedom, but freedom to do as one chooses stops when it infringes on the freedoms of another which is the whole gyst of the argument. When an abortion, or fetal tissue research, to stay on topic, infringes on anothers right in this case the baby there is an issue. While the birth of a baby is a convenient delineation it is certainly not any more widely accepted than conception as a deliniation. The truth lies between and thus the danger of venturing their

Carlton The differences in what you call hypocrisy are plainly evident in the end goals. In the case of a war or the death penalty they are intended to safe guard society. There is of course the potential for error, however a strong case can be made that those deaths in the case of war or the death penalty resulted in others being saved. Abortions end reason is primarily selfish, it is because someone doesn not want the financial or personal responsibility at that time. (yes I know some are medical but the large majority are not) and I cannot think of an argument where disallowing that one life caused others to be saved. So your comparisons are really the ones full of holes

By Dan

March 9, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

OOps part of my last reply was to curtis not carlton (sometimes I get you guys confused)

By charles huff

March 12, 2006 08:26 PM | Link to this

I doubt Dan will ever read this since it’s a late post… I think most of us are confused when someone like Dan talks about war… Are you talking about this current war where 30K civilians have died and where the end result is nothing more than a gamble or other wars that were actually justified becasue we were defending ourselves? I have been stedfast in my disgust of the Iraq war for over 3 years having studied in the field of foreign policy; continuing to ask the question no one in this administration had to brains to ask… what happens after we take out Saddam? I’m not certain they’ve asked that even today. So while Dan fears for the life of non-thinking embryos, if he was for this war he’s more than willing to kill human life on the gamble that a government that suits US interest may somehow emerge in Iraq and that this gamble will in some way result in a net of life saved. Dan is willing to gamble actual humans for a benefit but unwilling to gamble the lives of embryos in a petridish in order to save exisitng lives with cures for dieseses. And people wonder why I vote liberal! Huff

By Syed

March 13, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Charles, Totally agree with you. I wonder, how thick someone’s skull need to be to think the war in Iraq is a “Self Defence” or “War on Terror” . I am a dumb, but this is what I see- The terrorists responsible for 911 were all in Afgan-Pak region, govt send 12000 soldiers there and then send 200000 to Iraq, the country which couldn’t defend itself in it’s own soil, the country which has nothing to do with 911, but the country which has oil and who’s president tried to have Sr. Bush killed. Now, is Saddam a bad guy, Yes. But there are hundreds of dictators in the world. Now, I am a math student, this is wah I see- the ratio of importance between national security and spreading so called democracy is 12:200 . Here is another lesson for the stupids, “Democracy” don’t work for everyone, in some part of the world you need dictator. Example- Iran, Pakistan, Palestine.

By Dan

March 13, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

No charles I was responding in general to Curtis’ example of hypocrisy. As far as your comments apparently 3 years of studying liberal opinons has you confused of the facts. Even if 30000 civilians wer killed it is better than the fate of Iraquis under saddam as evidenced by the overwhelming support exhibeted by the elections. Now if you want to take the discussion to Syeds point that in some areas democracy doesn’t work that may be a legitamate discussion but it also means we should be isolationists. Of course Syed’s examples are a bit off since Iran has had successful democratic processes in it’s past as has pakistan and there never was a palestine so that is a moot point

By charles huff

March 15, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Dan, Syed’s comments are his own, I’ll make my own statements and Syed will make his. If you want to respond to me Dan, do it, but don’t try and make Sayed’s comments mine. Calling my comments “liberal” opinions… That’s the best you can do Dan? I was against this war, predicted the insurgency and civil war o follow, questioned how the people of Iraq might fare in a democracy. I did this because I’m educated in that perticular field; you’re makinf assumptions on how this war will end-that the Iraqis will be better off. I see that you failed to respond to my quiery concening gambling with zygotes but being willing to gamble with actual human life-30K Iraqis civilians killed-typical conservative. Do you actually have any valid points to offer over anything Dan? Doubtful! Huff

By Dan

March 15, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

No Huff I was simply responding to to posts with one. Very simple really. And your opinons are clearly skewed to liberal, as evidenced by your bringing up of subjects we weren’t talking about. Where did you get your numbers? and even assuming they are correct (despite your so called education) yeah 30K civilians represents a good year for Saddam, so even using simple math you are still wrong. And your zygote reference is just another clue to your real ignorant agenda here as I already said it was to another posters comment regarding war in general and the dath penalty, and my point was they are not comparable to in the least to abortion slash, zygote issues. Go find some other lemmings to cavort with on moveon or the democratic underground if you aren’t going to stay on topic

By charles huff

March 16, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

Dan, Your moronic president cauaually used those numbers (30K civilian deaths)in a recent speech-I think many more than that have actually died I was trying to be fair and use his numbers! I doubt you een keep up with it anyhow, too bust worrying your deep thinking mind over zygotes. 11 more innocent victims were killed yesterday by one of our “smart” bombs so you can add these unnecessary deaths to the tally. Yet you will not answer why you think gambling with their lives is fine while you want to refrain from expiermenting on cells in a dish. Dan, you are such an idiot that you forgot that it was you that was defending this war long before I ever asked you the question you refuse to answer-simply scrool up and read what you previously wrote. Listen smart guy, 500 people have been killed in Iraq this last week, do they not count in the tally? How many more will die Dan? You can’t answer that can you genius? Again, it was a gamble to go there, one that you and your cohorts were willing to take with actual human lives. Yet you take the time to defend the poor lives of cells in a dish… That’s why you refuse to respond to the questin posed, you have no logical answer and know it. Huff

By Dan

March 16, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

Huff your name says it all I have responded to all questions posed. At least those on topic, Give me a call some time about 3 am while I am sleeping and we can have an even discussion. At this rate it is just boring I think Euripedes had you in mind when he coined this phrase “Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” Euripides

By charles huff

March 16, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

Yes Dan, your above comment shows that you have truly taken the logical approach to your thinking. If I called you at 3 and you were asleep I doubt you’d sound any different than you do while awake. Thank you for proving that you are incapaible of answering my quesion. Calling me foolish does nothing to answer my question and thus reduces you to the fool. Zygotes is the correct definition of fertilized eggs, they aren’t human beings. The 11 innocent lives that were killed yesterday in Iraq by our troops were humans-with absolutly no end in sight and more deaths to follow proves that there will be no net gain by our actions there. You make assumptions that Saddam killed over 30K a year, yet give no evidence to support that. In fact he’s only being tried for the deaths of 147. It was a gamble with human life that you supported, yet are unwilling to support research on zygotes, not humans, that may cure thousands. Then you call me a “leeming and a fool”. You are insane yet somehow entertaining as all clowns are. HUff