minx Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041103/us_nm/election_california_stemcells_dc_7 LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A controversial California ballot measure that would fund a decade of stem cell research with $3 billion in state money was headed for a resounding victory on Wednesday, initial returns showed. The initiative, which was endorsed by popular California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) in a move that put him at odds with his Republican party and the Bush administration, was carrying 59 percent of the vote with about 74 percent of precincts reporting. Backers of the measure say the funding program would jump start scientific work that could help cure diseases and establish California as a hub for leading-edge research on a par with Singapore and Britain. The stem cell measure had been closely watched nationally, and attracted even wider attention after the sudden death of paralyzed actor and stem cell research advocate Christopher Reeve. Meanwhile, actor and "Passion of the Christ" filmmaker Mel Gibson came out against the measure, which had also been opposed by the Catholic church and groups that argued it would divert money from more urgent causes. The California ballot initiative would establish a pool of money that would dwarf other U.S. public funding for such research. The measure, known as Proposition 71, would float $3 billion in tax-exempt bonds to set up an Institute for Regenerative Medicine and fund 10 years of research. It would also establish a constitutional right within California to conduct stem cell research while outlawing research on reproductive cloning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 While I applaud this measure, I also know that throwing a lot of money at a problem involving basic research won't necessarily solve it. The best example is AIDS research. We have little to show for the huge sums of money spent on this. There is still no vaccine 20 years after the discovery of the virus. We do have a large number of very expensive drugs that control, but do not cure the disease. The big discoveries often don't come from targeted expenditures. They sometimes come from related areas of research and from serendipidy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Likewise, scientists have discovered much from years of AIDS research, and have applied what they have learned to other parts of medicine. Even if they don't solve the problem that they're throwing the research money at, they'll still discover some nifty stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 That is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalX Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 yea and not only that but now people can live their life on AIDS. It's much more a chronic problemn than a fatal one. 20 years ago, everyone died that got AIDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I fucking love how people are against this, all you Bush supporters with cross in one hand and AK-47 in the other, saying that we are playing with gods work or whatever and we are abusing human life. Forget how you just went to the pharmacy to pick up your Viagra, Rogain, Claritin, Vioxx and all your other different drugs. Oh Steve has low sperm count and you can't get prego? It's ok we can invitro you and now you can have kids, no sin in that. We just take out a couple of eggs, Steve can watch some porno and jackoff in the petri dish, and then we will stick the stuff in you, it's all natural man. Wait until your liver gives out or something and you need a transplant but there are no donors that are your tissue type, then we will see how against it you are. Meanwhile we are polluting the earth with estrogen mimics so you daughter has her first period at age 6. Women having kids at age 43 and shit because dad wants to live a little before settling down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 oh and one more thing - old, fat, balding ,bible toting MALE conservatives are deciding what a woman can and can't do with her own body. I'd love for one of them to have an unwanted pregnancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa_Eagle Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 One of them did, you may have heard of him: George Bush... (remember his girlfriend in Houston with the abortion?) But that never happened, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 I fucking love how people are against this, all you Bush supporters with cross in one hand and AK-47 in the other, saying that we are playing with gods work or whatever and we are abusing human life. Forget how you just went to the pharmacy to pick up your Viagra, Rogain, Claritin, Vioxx and all your other different drugs. Oh Steve has low sperm count and you can't get prego? It's ok we can invitro you and now you can have kids, no sin in that. We just take out a couple of eggs, Steve can watch some porno and jackoff in the petri dish, and then we will stick the stuff in you, it's all natural man. Wait until your liver gives out or something and you need a transplant but there are no donors that are your tissue type, then we will see how against it you are. Meanwhile we are polluting the earth with estrogen mimics so you daughter has her first period at age 6. Women having kids at age 43 and shit because dad wants to live a little before settling down. yeah! what he said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 oh and one more thing - old, fat, balding ,bible toting MALE conservatives are deciding what a woman can and can't do with her own body. I'd love for one of them to have an unwanted pregnancy. I disagree ChrisT---the electorate, who apparently are more fundamentalist than any of us may want to believe, are deciding that. It ain't pretty, but it's true. This morning I tried to make a hotel reservation to travel on business next week to Memphis. Every decent hotel is booked. I asked a reservations gal what's going on in Memphis. She said "Church of Gawd in Christ Convention." I replied "oh Lord," to which she sweetly said "He'll probably be there...I know he's invited!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Women having kids at age 43 and shit because dad wants to live a little before settling down. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- yeah! what he said! bullshit and bullshit. Women are firmly in control of the reproductive end of things in a relationship. Women are the ones choosing to have babies later because they want to 'have a career' a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 (edited) That wasn't the point Rob, although I can see why you could see that from my post. Every single one of those things I listed are things that we have invented in the last couple decades effect human evolution. For tens of thousands of years women got pregnant at an age when they were able to fend for themselves and their newborns. It wasn't a matter of abortion rights, what mommy or daddy would think, it purely boiled down to genetics and ensuring the survival of superior gene sets. Now women are having children at ages that they would normally be dead at. In this last century human evolution has undergone something very radical, and mainly a result of the industrial revolution. Through the modernization of medicine and pharmacalogy we have basically extended the lifespan of people that would otherwise be dead or incapable of reproducing. Through our inventions including cars and grocery stores we are having to quickly adapt genetically speaking to a way of life that is far different than it was thousands of years ago let alone hundreds. Stem cell research is just the next step in human evolution. Edited November 3, 2004 by jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Yes there are some profound issues pertaining to reproduction and evolution. For instance, more couples are opting to abort potential physically and mentally disabled fetuses, something you don't hear a lot about. I predict in the future we'll probably see less people with physical birth defects, but possibly more with mental defects - maybe around the time that everything becomes handicap accessible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Actually I agree with what you're saying, Jon. And I have a little girl who we hope to keep from becoming 'mature' by age 9, but I'm afraid you can't fight today's environment. (I was hoping that organic milk would keep that phenomenon from happening, but I don't think it's gonna work.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 there's a lot of factors in early onset of menstruation and the biggest one is diet - 100lb and 20% body fat you'll start your period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjd Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 It's wonderful to live in a state with massive budget deficits. What do we do while bitching about all of the cuts in spending, rising tuitions, and decreased services? We decide to spend billions of dollars subsidizing private equity firms and no accountability for how the money is spent. I fucking hate this state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markinore Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Is anyone out there opposed to stem cell research? (Let me clarify: stem cell research that requires new cell lines obtained from the destruction of frozen fertilized eggs. You know. The stuff that the Religious Right doesn't think should be allowed.) If you are opposed to this on principle, will you make this promise? "I vow that I will refuse to accept any drug, operation, or other medical treatment that was developed in whole or in part through stem cell research." Didn't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The JW's do that stuff, like dying instead of having blood transfusions. Maybe that will kill them all off eventually. Way to take a stand! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyoldman Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 The JW's do that stuff, like dying instead of having blood transfusions. Maybe that will kill them all off eventually. Way to take a stand! Funny story: I'm a doctor, and sometimes I've been asked to operate on JWs without using any blood. Now, I think I'm pretty good and sometimes I think I can do some operations without losing enough blood to have to give you a transfusion, so I say okay. Here's the funny part. Often, when I meet in private right before the operation with the patient--who in front of his family and often his pastor said no way no how no tranfusions even if it kills me--he says to me, "Hey, Doc, if I really need it, give me blood." See, principles can be, well, flexible sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Yes there are some profound issues pertaining to reproduction and evolution. For instance, more couples are opting to abort potential physically and mentally disabled fetuses, something you don't hear a lot about. I predict in the future we'll probably see less people with physical birth defects, but possibly more with mental defects - maybe around the time that everything becomes handicap accessible. Its a Brave New World... just ask my buddy Aldous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.