<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_07_2027238</id>
	<title>US Finalizes Stem Cell Research Guidelines</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246963080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from Cosmos Magazine, to wit: <i>"The US government unveiled <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2844/us-finalises-stem-cell-research-guidelines">final rules for embryonic stem cell research</a>, laying out ground rules for 'ethically responsible, scientifically worthy' studies eligible for federal funds. The new rules, which go into effect today, follow President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order <a href="//science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/07/057220&amp;tid=272">lifting a ban</a> on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. ... The US National Institutes of Health's (NIH) guidelines are slightly less restrictive than those outlined in a <a href="//science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/15/1426220&amp;tid=272">draft document released in April</a> in that they allow the use of existing stem cell lines, in addition to new ones derived from IVF procedures. ... The NIH received some 49,000 comments from patient advocacy groups, scientists, medical groups, and other interested parties before issuing the guidelines."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from Cosmos Magazine , to wit : " The US government unveiled final rules for embryonic stem cell research , laying out ground rules for 'ethically responsible , scientifically worthy ' studies eligible for federal funds .
The new rules , which go into effect today , follow President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. ... The US National Institutes of Health 's ( NIH ) guidelines are slightly less restrictive than those outlined in a draft document released in April in that they allow the use of existing stem cell lines , in addition to new ones derived from IVF procedures .
... The NIH received some 49,000 comments from patient advocacy groups , scientists , medical groups , and other interested parties before issuing the guidelines .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from Cosmos Magazine, to wit: "The US government unveiled final rules for embryonic stem cell research, laying out ground rules for 'ethically responsible, scientifically worthy' studies eligible for federal funds.
The new rules, which go into effect today, follow President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. ... The US National Institutes of Health's (NIH) guidelines are slightly less restrictive than those outlined in a draft document released in April in that they allow the use of existing stem cell lines, in addition to new ones derived from IVF procedures.
... The NIH received some 49,000 comments from patient advocacy groups, scientists, medical groups, and other interested parties before issuing the guidelines.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>NecroPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1246967100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is that if the bans were there, then the embryos wouldn't be destroyed in the first place.</p><p>This, of course, ignores comepletely that most embryos held by fertility clinics (and other sources) are ultimately destroyed anyway.</p><p>My view is simple:  Why not recycle?  If another use can be found for them, great.  If not, that's fine too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that if the bans were there , then the embryos would n't be destroyed in the first place.This , of course , ignores comepletely that most embryos held by fertility clinics ( and other sources ) are ultimately destroyed anyway.My view is simple : Why not recycle ?
If another use can be found for them , great .
If not , that 's fine too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that if the bans were there, then the embryos wouldn't be destroyed in the first place.This, of course, ignores comepletely that most embryos held by fertility clinics (and other sources) are ultimately destroyed anyway.My view is simple:  Why not recycle?
If another use can be found for them, great.
If not, that's fine too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615755</id>
	<title>Re:NEVER WAS BANNED!</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1246969920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FALSE.</p><p>Adult stem cells are useful, but ultimately nowhere near as effective as embryonic lines. The science of this is well understood. The site you linked to there is a shill site that isn't really science, and is just designed to muddy the waters and try to convince people without a science background that what they say is "fact" when really it's just cloaking the agenda it's trying to push (that killing embryos is wrong).</p><p>Bush *effectively* banned stem cell research by attaching some really petty, nasty limitations of federal money to *any* research (not just stem cells, not just biology even) in an institution that went ahead and found private funding for research on new cell lines. Even if they did this research with no federal money, all of the federal money for *all other programmes* would be removed because of it.</p><p>So, the choice was funding the research privately and doing without any federal money *for any scientific research whatsoever*, or not doing it. Or setting up an entirely new lab just for the stem cell work (very expensive and silly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FALSE.Adult stem cells are useful , but ultimately nowhere near as effective as embryonic lines .
The science of this is well understood .
The site you linked to there is a shill site that is n't really science , and is just designed to muddy the waters and try to convince people without a science background that what they say is " fact " when really it 's just cloaking the agenda it 's trying to push ( that killing embryos is wrong ) .Bush * effectively * banned stem cell research by attaching some really petty , nasty limitations of federal money to * any * research ( not just stem cells , not just biology even ) in an institution that went ahead and found private funding for research on new cell lines .
Even if they did this research with no federal money , all of the federal money for * all other programmes * would be removed because of it.So , the choice was funding the research privately and doing without any federal money * for any scientific research whatsoever * , or not doing it .
Or setting up an entirely new lab just for the stem cell work ( very expensive and silly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FALSE.Adult stem cells are useful, but ultimately nowhere near as effective as embryonic lines.
The science of this is well understood.
The site you linked to there is a shill site that isn't really science, and is just designed to muddy the waters and try to convince people without a science background that what they say is "fact" when really it's just cloaking the agenda it's trying to push (that killing embryos is wrong).Bush *effectively* banned stem cell research by attaching some really petty, nasty limitations of federal money to *any* research (not just stem cells, not just biology even) in an institution that went ahead and found private funding for research on new cell lines.
Even if they did this research with no federal money, all of the federal money for *all other programmes* would be removed because of it.So, the choice was funding the research privately and doing without any federal money *for any scientific research whatsoever*, or not doing it.
Or setting up an entirely new lab just for the stem cell work (very expensive and silly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615535</id>
	<title>Waste of resources either way</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1246968540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So much for good Karma. Not opposed to it for moral OR ethical reasons, but there are too many people on the planet to begin with.  The industry that is medicine seems to exist more for the purpose of serving itself than patients.  Best medicine in the world that few can afford - remember McAllen <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8137085.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8137085.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>So much for good Karma .
Not opposed to it for moral OR ethical reasons , but there are too many people on the planet to begin with .
The industry that is medicine seems to exist more for the purpose of serving itself than patients .
Best medicine in the world that few can afford - remember McAllen http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8137085.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much for good Karma.
Not opposed to it for moral OR ethical reasons, but there are too many people on the planet to begin with.
The industry that is medicine seems to exist more for the purpose of serving itself than patients.
Best medicine in the world that few can afford - remember McAllen http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8137085.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28622287</id>
	<title>More Misinformation</title>
	<author>pbizannes</author>
	<datestamp>1247068140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is ironic that everyone thinks the Bush government banned Human Embryonic Stem Cell (HESC) research when the Bush government was actually the first US government to allow Federal Funding for HESC research. Further, under the Bush Administration, State Governments were not limited by the law on federal funding for HESC. Otherwise, how can you explain the wasteful California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, whose mandate was to do HESC research with 3 billion dollars of tax payer money (which is now run by an Australian scientist, Alan Trounson, who has admitted that he lied to the Australian parliament in order to get Australia to support HESC - I still remember that fake video of the rat rhat he said was cured with HESC which was broadcast all around Australia), and which has been investigated for fraud and money laundering,</p><p>Of course, with private funding, which is the main source of funding in the area of stem cells, scientists could do whatever they wanted. It is further ironic that, during the supposed "Bush ban on HESC research", American scientists managed to somehow produce more papers on HESC than all other countries combined.</p><p>In truth, America has had a lack of laws to guide stem cell research in general and has only merely limited federal funding to approved stem cell lines. Obama has merely allowed the a;ready existing funding to be used for more stem cell liknes. This is hardly a cause for claiming the U.S. conducts ethically responsible research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is ironic that everyone thinks the Bush government banned Human Embryonic Stem Cell ( HESC ) research when the Bush government was actually the first US government to allow Federal Funding for HESC research .
Further , under the Bush Administration , State Governments were not limited by the law on federal funding for HESC .
Otherwise , how can you explain the wasteful California Institute of Regenerative Medicine , whose mandate was to do HESC research with 3 billion dollars of tax payer money ( which is now run by an Australian scientist , Alan Trounson , who has admitted that he lied to the Australian parliament in order to get Australia to support HESC - I still remember that fake video of the rat rhat he said was cured with HESC which was broadcast all around Australia ) , and which has been investigated for fraud and money laundering,Of course , with private funding , which is the main source of funding in the area of stem cells , scientists could do whatever they wanted .
It is further ironic that , during the supposed " Bush ban on HESC research " , American scientists managed to somehow produce more papers on HESC than all other countries combined.In truth , America has had a lack of laws to guide stem cell research in general and has only merely limited federal funding to approved stem cell lines .
Obama has merely allowed the a ; ready existing funding to be used for more stem cell liknes .
This is hardly a cause for claiming the U.S. conducts ethically responsible research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is ironic that everyone thinks the Bush government banned Human Embryonic Stem Cell (HESC) research when the Bush government was actually the first US government to allow Federal Funding for HESC research.
Further, under the Bush Administration, State Governments were not limited by the law on federal funding for HESC.
Otherwise, how can you explain the wasteful California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, whose mandate was to do HESC research with 3 billion dollars of tax payer money (which is now run by an Australian scientist, Alan Trounson, who has admitted that he lied to the Australian parliament in order to get Australia to support HESC - I still remember that fake video of the rat rhat he said was cured with HESC which was broadcast all around Australia), and which has been investigated for fraud and money laundering,Of course, with private funding, which is the main source of funding in the area of stem cells, scientists could do whatever they wanted.
It is further ironic that, during the supposed "Bush ban on HESC research", American scientists managed to somehow produce more papers on HESC than all other countries combined.In truth, America has had a lack of laws to guide stem cell research in general and has only merely limited federal funding to approved stem cell lines.
Obama has merely allowed the a;ready existing funding to be used for more stem cell liknes.
This is hardly a cause for claiming the U.S. conducts ethically responsible research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616383</id>
	<title>Answers to a couple of questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone asked why on earth anyone would object to embryos being used for research - since they would be destroyed anyway.<br>.<br>The best way I can answer this is to ask why we don't take organs when people on death row are executed.  The people are going to die anyway, so why not take their organs and use them for someone else's benefit.<br>.<br>I think the answer to this question is that are afraid that juries might be more likely to pass the death penalty if they are aware that there is a potential benefit to other people from the death of the prisoner.  This might not be a conscious thought, but lets say you were 95\% sure that the person was guilty, but you weren't totally sure.  If you knew that the organs would be used to help someone else, you might think - "Hey, I'm pretty sure this person is guilty, and even if he (or she) isn't guilty, at least someone will benefit."<br>.<br>For those who think that embryos have a moral value, it is never right to use them as a means to an end.  Using them (and destroying them), even for a good purpose, devalues them.<br>.<br>I know that many folks won't agree with that, and that's ok.  I just wanted you to understand why people don't want them used for another purpose, even if they will be destroyed anyway.<br>.<br>The second thing I wanted to bring up is that researchers have discovered ways to "reprogram" cells, so that adult cells can be made to behave like embryonic stem cells.  (See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090227112303.htm)  Furthermore, any therapies based on this technique could lead to new organs or tissues that are an exact DNA match for the patient, which would probably eliminate the risk of organ rejection.  As I said, these reprogrammed adult cells seem to have all of the characteristics of embryonic stem cells, which means that there may no longer be any scientific need to use embryonic stem cells.  In that case, the reverse of the ban could just be a cheap political ploy to devalue the embryo and to make Bush look bad - even though there is not scientific benefit.  (I agree that more research may be necessary to make sure that the reprogrammed adult cells do indeed have all of the same capabilities as embryonic stem cells).<br>.<br>Finally, I have to point out that even though Obama claimed to eliminate the false choice between ethics and science, he still implemented some ethical rules - specifically a ban of reproductive cloning.  I happen to agree with this, but I thought it was disingenuous of him to pretend to get rid of ethical barriers that restricted science.  All he did was eliminate the barriers that he disagreed with and retain the barriers that he did agree with.  He had the right to do that, of course - he is the president - I just wish that he had spoken more clearly about what he was doing.<br>.<br>In fact, I think this whole debate suffers from major political posturing.  I think that most American are completely unaware of the advances that I wrote about earlier - for the reprogramming of adult stem cells.  If people were aware that there was a valid alternative to embryonic stem cells, I think there would be much less support for the destruction of embryos.  Even if you aren't pro-life, I would guess that if you had two equal choices - one which destroyed an embryo, and one which did not - then you would pick the one that did not destroy the embryo.<br>.<br>I have probably written too much already.  In addition to all of that, I just want to say that I hope that all of the folks who are desperately waiting for cures are able to find some help from the research.  I just wish that it didn't have to come at the expense of an embryo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone asked why on earth anyone would object to embryos being used for research - since they would be destroyed anyway..The best way I can answer this is to ask why we do n't take organs when people on death row are executed .
The people are going to die anyway , so why not take their organs and use them for someone else 's benefit..I think the answer to this question is that are afraid that juries might be more likely to pass the death penalty if they are aware that there is a potential benefit to other people from the death of the prisoner .
This might not be a conscious thought , but lets say you were 95 \ % sure that the person was guilty , but you were n't totally sure .
If you knew that the organs would be used to help someone else , you might think - " Hey , I 'm pretty sure this person is guilty , and even if he ( or she ) is n't guilty , at least someone will benefit .
" .For those who think that embryos have a moral value , it is never right to use them as a means to an end .
Using them ( and destroying them ) , even for a good purpose , devalues them..I know that many folks wo n't agree with that , and that 's ok. I just wanted you to understand why people do n't want them used for another purpose , even if they will be destroyed anyway..The second thing I wanted to bring up is that researchers have discovered ways to " reprogram " cells , so that adult cells can be made to behave like embryonic stem cells .
( See http : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090227112303.htm ) Furthermore , any therapies based on this technique could lead to new organs or tissues that are an exact DNA match for the patient , which would probably eliminate the risk of organ rejection .
As I said , these reprogrammed adult cells seem to have all of the characteristics of embryonic stem cells , which means that there may no longer be any scientific need to use embryonic stem cells .
In that case , the reverse of the ban could just be a cheap political ploy to devalue the embryo and to make Bush look bad - even though there is not scientific benefit .
( I agree that more research may be necessary to make sure that the reprogrammed adult cells do indeed have all of the same capabilities as embryonic stem cells ) ..Finally , I have to point out that even though Obama claimed to eliminate the false choice between ethics and science , he still implemented some ethical rules - specifically a ban of reproductive cloning .
I happen to agree with this , but I thought it was disingenuous of him to pretend to get rid of ethical barriers that restricted science .
All he did was eliminate the barriers that he disagreed with and retain the barriers that he did agree with .
He had the right to do that , of course - he is the president - I just wish that he had spoken more clearly about what he was doing..In fact , I think this whole debate suffers from major political posturing .
I think that most American are completely unaware of the advances that I wrote about earlier - for the reprogramming of adult stem cells .
If people were aware that there was a valid alternative to embryonic stem cells , I think there would be much less support for the destruction of embryos .
Even if you are n't pro-life , I would guess that if you had two equal choices - one which destroyed an embryo , and one which did not - then you would pick the one that did not destroy the embryo..I have probably written too much already .
In addition to all of that , I just want to say that I hope that all of the folks who are desperately waiting for cures are able to find some help from the research .
I just wish that it did n't have to come at the expense of an embryo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone asked why on earth anyone would object to embryos being used for research - since they would be destroyed anyway..The best way I can answer this is to ask why we don't take organs when people on death row are executed.
The people are going to die anyway, so why not take their organs and use them for someone else's benefit..I think the answer to this question is that are afraid that juries might be more likely to pass the death penalty if they are aware that there is a potential benefit to other people from the death of the prisoner.
This might not be a conscious thought, but lets say you were 95\% sure that the person was guilty, but you weren't totally sure.
If you knew that the organs would be used to help someone else, you might think - "Hey, I'm pretty sure this person is guilty, and even if he (or she) isn't guilty, at least someone will benefit.
".For those who think that embryos have a moral value, it is never right to use them as a means to an end.
Using them (and destroying them), even for a good purpose, devalues them..I know that many folks won't agree with that, and that's ok.  I just wanted you to understand why people don't want them used for another purpose, even if they will be destroyed anyway..The second thing I wanted to bring up is that researchers have discovered ways to "reprogram" cells, so that adult cells can be made to behave like embryonic stem cells.
(See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090227112303.htm)  Furthermore, any therapies based on this technique could lead to new organs or tissues that are an exact DNA match for the patient, which would probably eliminate the risk of organ rejection.
As I said, these reprogrammed adult cells seem to have all of the characteristics of embryonic stem cells, which means that there may no longer be any scientific need to use embryonic stem cells.
In that case, the reverse of the ban could just be a cheap political ploy to devalue the embryo and to make Bush look bad - even though there is not scientific benefit.
(I agree that more research may be necessary to make sure that the reprogrammed adult cells do indeed have all of the same capabilities as embryonic stem cells)..Finally, I have to point out that even though Obama claimed to eliminate the false choice between ethics and science, he still implemented some ethical rules - specifically a ban of reproductive cloning.
I happen to agree with this, but I thought it was disingenuous of him to pretend to get rid of ethical barriers that restricted science.
All he did was eliminate the barriers that he disagreed with and retain the barriers that he did agree with.
He had the right to do that, of course - he is the president - I just wish that he had spoken more clearly about what he was doing..In fact, I think this whole debate suffers from major political posturing.
I think that most American are completely unaware of the advances that I wrote about earlier - for the reprogramming of adult stem cells.
If people were aware that there was a valid alternative to embryonic stem cells, I think there would be much less support for the destruction of embryos.
Even if you aren't pro-life, I would guess that if you had two equal choices - one which destroyed an embryo, and one which did not - then you would pick the one that did not destroy the embryo..I have probably written too much already.
In addition to all of that, I just want to say that I hope that all of the folks who are desperately waiting for cures are able to find some help from the research.
I just wish that it didn't have to come at the expense of an embryo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615399</id>
	<title>if only</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246967760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NIH received some 49,000 comments from patient advocacy groups, scientists, medical groups, and other interested parties before issuing the guidelines."</p><p>if they would have eliminated "advocacy groups" and  "other interested parties" we would have got a sane plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NIH received some 49,000 comments from patient advocacy groups , scientists , medical groups , and other interested parties before issuing the guidelines .
" if they would have eliminated " advocacy groups " and " other interested parties " we would have got a sane plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NIH received some 49,000 comments from patient advocacy groups, scientists, medical groups, and other interested parties before issuing the guidelines.
"if they would have eliminated "advocacy groups" and  "other interested parties" we would have got a sane plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28619181</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247047380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soylent Green.<br>Hey I'm all for food sources that violate thermodynamics &amp; are offensive at the same time</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soylent Green.Hey I 'm all for food sources that violate thermodynamics &amp; are offensive at the same time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soylent Green.Hey I'm all for food sources that violate thermodynamics &amp; are offensive at the same time</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28618611</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>antic</author>
	<datestamp>1246996560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If another use can be found for them, great."</p><p>Says someone called NecroPuppy!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If another use can be found for them , great .
" Says someone called NecroPuppy !
: o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If another use can be found for them, great.
"Says someone called NecroPuppy!
:o</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28623877</id>
	<title>Never Was a Ban on Stem Cell Research in U.S.</title>
	<author>withoutfeathers</author>
	<datestamp>1247073780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>George Bush did not impose a ban on stem cell research (of any kind) in the United States.  There has never been a ban on stem cell research -- including hESC research in the United States.
<br> <br>
In 1998 -- three years before Bush took office -- the Clinton administration prohibited federal funding of hESC research citing the Dickey Amendment as the reason.
<br> <br>
In 2001 President Bush lifted the absolute ban on federal funding and implemented a set of rules for the money could be spent, including restrictions on how the stem cells could be obtained.
<br> <br>
Please, just stick to the facts on this contentious issue and perhaps we might get to the truth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>George Bush did not impose a ban on stem cell research ( of any kind ) in the United States .
There has never been a ban on stem cell research -- including hESC research in the United States .
In 1998 -- three years before Bush took office -- the Clinton administration prohibited federal funding of hESC research citing the Dickey Amendment as the reason .
In 2001 President Bush lifted the absolute ban on federal funding and implemented a set of rules for the money could be spent , including restrictions on how the stem cells could be obtained .
Please , just stick to the facts on this contentious issue and perhaps we might get to the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George Bush did not impose a ban on stem cell research (of any kind) in the United States.
There has never been a ban on stem cell research -- including hESC research in the United States.
In 1998 -- three years before Bush took office -- the Clinton administration prohibited federal funding of hESC research citing the Dickey Amendment as the reason.
In 2001 President Bush lifted the absolute ban on federal funding and implemented a set of rules for the money could be spent, including restrictions on how the stem cells could be obtained.
Please, just stick to the facts on this contentious issue and perhaps we might get to the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28618037</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>JeanPaulBob</author>
	<datestamp>1246989780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The point is that if the bans were there, then the embryos wouldn't be destroyed in the first place.<br>
<br>
This, of course, ignores comepletely that most embryos held by fertility clinics (and other sources) are ultimately destroyed anyway.<br>
<br>
My view is simple: Why not recycle? If another use can be found for them, great. If not, that's fine too.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I take it you are unfamiliar with <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=embryo+adoption" title="google.com">embryo adoption</a> [google.com].  It doesn't have to be that way--people killing these human organisms rather than letting them implant &amp; continue developing.<br>
<br>
But even if there weren't that option, it wouldn't be meaningless or ignorant to oppose using them for research.  Suppose that you lived in a country where street bums were euthanized, and some wanted to use the wasted biological resources for research.  They'll be destroyed either way.  Is it meaningless to say, "No, we shouldn't do that"?  Honestly, it's not a 100\% straightforward question to me.  But it seems that there would still be a point to making a stand, and saying, "We should not be treating them like this."  Because everything that solidifies their dehumanization in people's minds will make it that much harder to resolve the injustice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that if the bans were there , then the embryos would n't be destroyed in the first place .
This , of course , ignores comepletely that most embryos held by fertility clinics ( and other sources ) are ultimately destroyed anyway .
My view is simple : Why not recycle ?
If another use can be found for them , great .
If not , that 's fine too .
I take it you are unfamiliar with embryo adoption [ google.com ] .
It does n't have to be that way--people killing these human organisms rather than letting them implant &amp; continue developing .
But even if there were n't that option , it would n't be meaningless or ignorant to oppose using them for research .
Suppose that you lived in a country where street bums were euthanized , and some wanted to use the wasted biological resources for research .
They 'll be destroyed either way .
Is it meaningless to say , " No , we should n't do that " ?
Honestly , it 's not a 100 \ % straightforward question to me .
But it seems that there would still be a point to making a stand , and saying , " We should not be treating them like this .
" Because everything that solidifies their dehumanization in people 's minds will make it that much harder to resolve the injustice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that if the bans were there, then the embryos wouldn't be destroyed in the first place.
This, of course, ignores comepletely that most embryos held by fertility clinics (and other sources) are ultimately destroyed anyway.
My view is simple: Why not recycle?
If another use can be found for them, great.
If not, that's fine too.
I take it you are unfamiliar with embryo adoption [google.com].
It doesn't have to be that way--people killing these human organisms rather than letting them implant &amp; continue developing.
But even if there weren't that option, it wouldn't be meaningless or ignorant to oppose using them for research.
Suppose that you lived in a country where street bums were euthanized, and some wanted to use the wasted biological resources for research.
They'll be destroyed either way.
Is it meaningless to say, "No, we shouldn't do that"?
Honestly, it's not a 100\% straightforward question to me.
But it seems that there would still be a point to making a stand, and saying, "We should not be treating them like this.
"  Because everything that solidifies their dehumanization in people's minds will make it that much harder to resolve the injustice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615235</id>
	<title>anonymous coward finalizes first post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246966860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you know the drill.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you know the drill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know the drill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616359</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>iPhr0stByt3</author>
	<datestamp>1246974600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, let's recycle you... seems you're running a little ineffecient right now anyway.  I feel there's an ethical problem with "recycling" human bodies.  If stranded in the arctic, I'm not sure I could eat the first person to croak even if it were the only way to stay alive myself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , let 's recycle you... seems you 're running a little ineffecient right now anyway .
I feel there 's an ethical problem with " recycling " human bodies .
If stranded in the arctic , I 'm not sure I could eat the first person to croak even if it were the only way to stay alive myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, let's recycle you... seems you're running a little ineffecient right now anyway.
I feel there's an ethical problem with "recycling" human bodies.
If stranded in the arctic, I'm not sure I could eat the first person to croak even if it were the only way to stay alive myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615799</id>
	<title>Discrimination against human-animal hybrids</title>
	<author>greenreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1246970280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry\_fandom" title="wikipedia.org">furry</a> [wikipedia.org], I'm disappointed in section IV of the guidelines. Who will give us our fluffy tails, or make Piccinini's <a href="http://www.patriciapiccinini.net/wearefamily/index.php?sec=yf&amp;pg=01" title="patriciapiccinini.net">disturbing sculptures</a> [patriciapiccinini.net] a reality now? At this rate I might as well just buy my own island and experiment there . . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as a furry [ wikipedia.org ] , I 'm disappointed in section IV of the guidelines .
Who will give us our fluffy tails , or make Piccinini 's disturbing sculptures [ patriciapiccinini.net ] a reality now ?
At this rate I might as well just buy my own island and experiment there .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as a furry [wikipedia.org], I'm disappointed in section IV of the guidelines.
Who will give us our fluffy tails, or make Piccinini's disturbing sculptures [patriciapiccinini.net] a reality now?
At this rate I might as well just buy my own island and experiment there .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615739</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of resources either way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246969800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You put it extremely crudely, but this is more a problem than most people realize.  Hospitals are not a strong business.  They lose money on a lot of cases because the current costs of treating patients are ridiculous, and many insurers refuse to pay such costs - so the hospital swallows it.  The most common surgery, cataract removal, typically costs its hospital thousands more to perform than they get paid, and they can't just turn the patients away.  It's not all going to filthy-rich doctors and their heated pools.  So many physicians are being sued for malpractice in some MSAs that the definition of "malpractice" has lost all meaning.  I learned from my father (rated the 2nd best physician in the state, at what he did, when he was in practice) that there's more money in being a 100K-a-year engineer than a 400K-a-year physician -- and a much less-stressful life to live.<br> <br>
New technology means better healthcare means more costly healthcare means we either A) Cannot treat everyone or B) must reduce the quality of healthcare we are dispensing to sustainable levels.  If these sciences find cheaper ways to fix a broken hip or perform a bicuspid valve replacement then they will aid society.  If they simply come up with more expensive (albeit better) ways of current healthcare we have, then we're only digging the hole deeper.  When it's 100 times cheaper to give you a 90\% chance to live than to give you a 91\% chance to live, they are typically compelled to spend 100 times more -- and who is going to pay for that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You put it extremely crudely , but this is more a problem than most people realize .
Hospitals are not a strong business .
They lose money on a lot of cases because the current costs of treating patients are ridiculous , and many insurers refuse to pay such costs - so the hospital swallows it .
The most common surgery , cataract removal , typically costs its hospital thousands more to perform than they get paid , and they ca n't just turn the patients away .
It 's not all going to filthy-rich doctors and their heated pools .
So many physicians are being sued for malpractice in some MSAs that the definition of " malpractice " has lost all meaning .
I learned from my father ( rated the 2nd best physician in the state , at what he did , when he was in practice ) that there 's more money in being a 100K-a-year engineer than a 400K-a-year physician -- and a much less-stressful life to live .
New technology means better healthcare means more costly healthcare means we either A ) Can not treat everyone or B ) must reduce the quality of healthcare we are dispensing to sustainable levels .
If these sciences find cheaper ways to fix a broken hip or perform a bicuspid valve replacement then they will aid society .
If they simply come up with more expensive ( albeit better ) ways of current healthcare we have , then we 're only digging the hole deeper .
When it 's 100 times cheaper to give you a 90 \ % chance to live than to give you a 91 \ % chance to live , they are typically compelled to spend 100 times more -- and who is going to pay for that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You put it extremely crudely, but this is more a problem than most people realize.
Hospitals are not a strong business.
They lose money on a lot of cases because the current costs of treating patients are ridiculous, and many insurers refuse to pay such costs - so the hospital swallows it.
The most common surgery, cataract removal, typically costs its hospital thousands more to perform than they get paid, and they can't just turn the patients away.
It's not all going to filthy-rich doctors and their heated pools.
So many physicians are being sued for malpractice in some MSAs that the definition of "malpractice" has lost all meaning.
I learned from my father (rated the 2nd best physician in the state, at what he did, when he was in practice) that there's more money in being a 100K-a-year engineer than a 400K-a-year physician -- and a much less-stressful life to live.
New technology means better healthcare means more costly healthcare means we either A) Cannot treat everyone or B) must reduce the quality of healthcare we are dispensing to sustainable levels.
If these sciences find cheaper ways to fix a broken hip or perform a bicuspid valve replacement then they will aid society.
If they simply come up with more expensive (albeit better) ways of current healthcare we have, then we're only digging the hole deeper.
When it's 100 times cheaper to give you a 90\% chance to live than to give you a 91\% chance to live, they are typically compelled to spend 100 times more -- and who is going to pay for that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257</id>
	<title>Existing lines</title>
	<author>JobyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1246966980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never understood the opposition to using existing stem cell lines for research.<br> <br>

Assuming there is a moral problem with destroying embryos, the damage is done.  At this point you're pretty much saying "don't eat that cow" when the cow is already dead.  Once it's dead you can either eat the cow and have a delicious steak or waste the cow and let it rot.<br> <br>

Same thing with a stem cell.  Once the embryo is destroyed you can either waste it...or maybe find ways to cure a zillion diseases. Either way the embryo is still dead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never understood the opposition to using existing stem cell lines for research .
Assuming there is a moral problem with destroying embryos , the damage is done .
At this point you 're pretty much saying " do n't eat that cow " when the cow is already dead .
Once it 's dead you can either eat the cow and have a delicious steak or waste the cow and let it rot .
Same thing with a stem cell .
Once the embryo is destroyed you can either waste it...or maybe find ways to cure a zillion diseases .
Either way the embryo is still dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never understood the opposition to using existing stem cell lines for research.
Assuming there is a moral problem with destroying embryos, the damage is done.
At this point you're pretty much saying "don't eat that cow" when the cow is already dead.
Once it's dead you can either eat the cow and have a delicious steak or waste the cow and let it rot.
Same thing with a stem cell.
Once the embryo is destroyed you can either waste it...or maybe find ways to cure a zillion diseases.
Either way the embryo is still dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28664381</id>
	<title>Re:That's how it goes with tax funding.</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1247317320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>looks like jcr's friends got a lot of mod points recently...;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>looks like jcr 's friends got a lot of mod points recently... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>looks like jcr's friends got a lot of mod points recently...;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28624139</id>
	<title>"First", by hook or by crook</title>
	<author>Kaseijin</author>
	<datestamp>1247074860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.</p></div><p>Human embryonic stem cells were isolated in 1998. The NIH published final guidelines for hESC research in August 2000. Bush blocked their implementation in 2001, delaying funding until 2002.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.</p></div><p>Adult stem cells have been studied for longer than embryonic stem cells. Clinical therapies aren't "better" than the basic research needed to produce them. Also, if not for hESC research, we would not understand adult stem cells as well as we do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.Human embryonic stem cells were isolated in 1998 .
The NIH published final guidelines for hESC research in August 2000 .
Bush blocked their implementation in 2001 , delaying funding until 2002.Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.Adult stem cells have been studied for longer than embryonic stem cells .
Clinical therapies are n't " better " than the basic research needed to produce them .
Also , if not for hESC research , we would not understand adult stem cells as well as we do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.Human embryonic stem cells were isolated in 1998.
The NIH published final guidelines for hESC research in August 2000.
Bush blocked their implementation in 2001, delaying funding until 2002.Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.Adult stem cells have been studied for longer than embryonic stem cells.
Clinical therapies aren't "better" than the basic research needed to produce them.
Also, if not for hESC research, we would not understand adult stem cells as well as we do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615881</id>
	<title>Re:NEVER WAS BANNED!</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1246970700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.</p> </div><p>You wonder then why so many researchers at premier institutions are trying to study ESC when such credible sources as stemcellresearchfacts.com could tell them they're dead ends.  I mean, it has FACTS right in the title!</p><p>I bet they the research will never lead anywhere so they can keep the gravy-train of state grants coming.</p><p>Sarcasm aside, no, the above statment is as wrong as you'd expect from such a biased source.  hESCs are being used as research models in labs currently.  If you want to study cell differentiation for example, you need to be studying some type of ESC.  Studying embryonic cells maturing into, say, neurons will tell you something about how that happens naturally.</p><p>If you only care about applied research and think basic science research is worthless, you're in the wrong corner of the internet, and you should also keep in mind that embryonic stem cell research has already given us induced pluripotent stem cells, which are more promising for treatments than adult stem cells OR embryonic stem cells.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed .
You wonder then why so many researchers at premier institutions are trying to study ESC when such credible sources as stemcellresearchfacts.com could tell them they 're dead ends .
I mean , it has FACTS right in the title ! I bet they the research will never lead anywhere so they can keep the gravy-train of state grants coming.Sarcasm aside , no , the above statment is as wrong as you 'd expect from such a biased source .
hESCs are being used as research models in labs currently .
If you want to study cell differentiation for example , you need to be studying some type of ESC .
Studying embryonic cells maturing into , say , neurons will tell you something about how that happens naturally.If you only care about applied research and think basic science research is worthless , you 're in the wrong corner of the internet , and you should also keep in mind that embryonic stem cell research has already given us induced pluripotent stem cells , which are more promising for treatments than adult stem cells OR embryonic stem cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.
You wonder then why so many researchers at premier institutions are trying to study ESC when such credible sources as stemcellresearchfacts.com could tell them they're dead ends.
I mean, it has FACTS right in the title!I bet they the research will never lead anywhere so they can keep the gravy-train of state grants coming.Sarcasm aside, no, the above statment is as wrong as you'd expect from such a biased source.
hESCs are being used as research models in labs currently.
If you want to study cell differentiation for example, you need to be studying some type of ESC.
Studying embryonic cells maturing into, say, neurons will tell you something about how that happens naturally.If you only care about applied research and think basic science research is worthless, you're in the wrong corner of the internet, and you should also keep in mind that embryonic stem cell research has already given us induced pluripotent stem cells, which are more promising for treatments than adult stem cells OR embryonic stem cells.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615949</id>
	<title>Re:NEVER WAS BANNED!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246971180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "</p><p>President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research. He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time. No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.</p><p>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.</p><p>BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.<br><a href="http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html" title="stemcellre...hfacts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html</a> [stemcellre...hfacts.com]</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "</p><p>President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research. He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time. No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.</p><p>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.</p><p>BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.<br><a href="http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html" title="stemcellre...hfacts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html</a> [stemcellre...hfacts.com]</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "</p><p>President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research. He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time. No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.</p><p>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.</p><p>BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.<br><a href="http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html" title="stemcellre...hfacts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html</a> [stemcellre...hfacts.com]</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "</p><p>President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research. He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time. No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.</p><p>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.</p><p>BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.<br><a href="http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html" title="stemcellre...hfacts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html</a> [stemcellre...hfacts.com]</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "</p><p>President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research. He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time. No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.</p><p>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.</p><p>BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.<br><a href="http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html" title="stemcellre...hfacts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html</a> [stemcellre...hfacts.com]</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "</p><p>President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research. He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time. No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.</p><p>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.</p><p>BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.<br><a href="http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html" title="stemcellre...hfacts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html</a> [stemcellre...hfacts.com]</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "</p><p>President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research. He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time. No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.</p><p>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.</p><p>BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.<br><a href="http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html" title="stemcellre...hfacts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html</a> [stemcellre...hfacts.com]</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "</p><p>President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research. He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time. No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.</p><p>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.</p><p>BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.<br><a href="http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html" title="stemcellre...hfacts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html</a> [stemcellre...hfacts.com]</p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "</p><p>President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research. He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time. No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.</p><p>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.</p><p>BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.<br><a href="http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html" title="stemcellre...hfacts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html</a> [stemcellre...hfacts.com]</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. " President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research .
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time .
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW : Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http : //www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures \ _failures.html [ stemcellre...hfacts.com ] " President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. " President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research .
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time .
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW : Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http : //www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures \ _failures.html [ stemcellre...hfacts.com ] " President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. " President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research .
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time .
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW : Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http : //www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures \ _failures.html [ stemcellre...hfacts.com ] " President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. " President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research .
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time .
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW : Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http : //www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures \ _failures.html [ stemcellre...hfacts.com ] " President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. " President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research .
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time .
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW : Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http : //www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures \ _failures.html [ stemcellre...hfacts.com ] " President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. " President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research .
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time .
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW : Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http : //www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures \ _failures.html [ stemcellre...hfacts.com ] " President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. " President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research .
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time .
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW : Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http : //www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures \ _failures.html [ stemcellre...hfacts.com ] " President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. " President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research .
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time .
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW : Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http : //www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures \ _failures.html [ stemcellre...hfacts.com ] " President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. " President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research .
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time .
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW : Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http : //www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures \ _failures.html [ stemcellre...hfacts.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research.
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time.
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html [stemcellre...hfacts.com] "President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research.
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time.
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html [stemcellre...hfacts.com] "President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research.
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time.
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html [stemcellre...hfacts.com] "President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research.
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time.
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html [stemcellre...hfacts.com] "President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research.
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time.
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html [stemcellre...hfacts.com] "President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research.
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time.
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html [stemcellre...hfacts.com] "President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research.
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time.
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html [stemcellre...hfacts.com] "President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research.
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time.
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html [stemcellre...hfacts.com] "President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research.
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time.
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html [stemcellre...hfacts.com] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615565</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246968780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because the opposition want to shove there made up religious moral code down everyone's throat. The same reason the want to ban gay marriages, force people to teach lies in school, and make everyone pray to their god.<br>really no different then any radical religious group. "Do it our way and shut up." pretty much wraps up their whole argument.</p><p>Some of these people believe jacking off is the same as killing babies.</p><p>The same logic that got a lot of people tortured and burned at the stake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because the opposition want to shove there made up religious moral code down everyone 's throat .
The same reason the want to ban gay marriages , force people to teach lies in school , and make everyone pray to their god.really no different then any radical religious group .
" Do it our way and shut up .
" pretty much wraps up their whole argument.Some of these people believe jacking off is the same as killing babies.The same logic that got a lot of people tortured and burned at the stake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because the opposition want to shove there made up religious moral code down everyone's throat.
The same reason the want to ban gay marriages, force people to teach lies in school, and make everyone pray to their god.really no different then any radical religious group.
"Do it our way and shut up.
" pretty much wraps up their whole argument.Some of these people believe jacking off is the same as killing babies.The same logic that got a lot of people tortured and burned at the stake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616147</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1246973100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine, run after your society that has no morals; 25 years down the road your country will be on the brink of disaster as corporate greed-without-restraint and political spending-without-discretion leave your country in a heap of political constituent-pandering and a financial wreck that's only half done* when you think it's nearly over...</p><p>Oh, wait...</p><p>Also, before you mention that the guys who deregulated the banks, and dropped our rates to bubble-creating-levels-- that these people were those who claimed to be representing the Christian America, keep in mind many (all) of us, who are aware of what occurred, are immensely frustrated (to say the least) with what they did. If I call myself a Christian and do evil things, does that disprove Christianity? No, it proves I'm evil. For an example of Christianity, look to the life of love Jesus lived, not to the life of sin many Christians live...</p><p>*(Only halfway through; with the Option ARM recasts coming up we'll have \_at least\_ just as many defaulting on their Option ARMs as we did on their subprimes. 80-90\% of these negatively-amortizing loans originated in 2005-2007 were Option A...guess when the monthly payment people make recasts and resets? Four and a half to 5 years from origination...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine , run after your society that has no morals ; 25 years down the road your country will be on the brink of disaster as corporate greed-without-restraint and political spending-without-discretion leave your country in a heap of political constituent-pandering and a financial wreck that 's only half done * when you think it 's nearly over...Oh , wait...Also , before you mention that the guys who deregulated the banks , and dropped our rates to bubble-creating-levels-- that these people were those who claimed to be representing the Christian America , keep in mind many ( all ) of us , who are aware of what occurred , are immensely frustrated ( to say the least ) with what they did .
If I call myself a Christian and do evil things , does that disprove Christianity ?
No , it proves I 'm evil .
For an example of Christianity , look to the life of love Jesus lived , not to the life of sin many Christians live... * ( Only halfway through ; with the Option ARM recasts coming up we 'll have \ _at least \ _ just as many defaulting on their Option ARMs as we did on their subprimes .
80-90 \ % of these negatively-amortizing loans originated in 2005-2007 were Option A...guess when the monthly payment people make recasts and resets ?
Four and a half to 5 years from origination... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine, run after your society that has no morals; 25 years down the road your country will be on the brink of disaster as corporate greed-without-restraint and political spending-without-discretion leave your country in a heap of political constituent-pandering and a financial wreck that's only half done* when you think it's nearly over...Oh, wait...Also, before you mention that the guys who deregulated the banks, and dropped our rates to bubble-creating-levels-- that these people were those who claimed to be representing the Christian America, keep in mind many (all) of us, who are aware of what occurred, are immensely frustrated (to say the least) with what they did.
If I call myself a Christian and do evil things, does that disprove Christianity?
No, it proves I'm evil.
For an example of Christianity, look to the life of love Jesus lived, not to the life of sin many Christians live...*(Only halfway through; with the Option ARM recasts coming up we'll have \_at least\_ just as many defaulting on their Option ARMs as we did on their subprimes.
80-90\% of these negatively-amortizing loans originated in 2005-2007 were Option A...guess when the monthly payment people make recasts and resets?
Four and a half to 5 years from origination...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617389</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1246984260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't a large chunk of the embryos taken from fertitlity clinics etc., basically stuff that's scheduled to be destroyed anyway? If it's going to get shitcanned it may as well do some good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't a large chunk of the embryos taken from fertitlity clinics etc. , basically stuff that 's scheduled to be destroyed anyway ?
If it 's going to get shitcanned it may as well do some good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't a large chunk of the embryos taken from fertitlity clinics etc., basically stuff that's scheduled to be destroyed anyway?
If it's going to get shitcanned it may as well do some good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28623753</id>
	<title>A ban on funding, not research</title>
	<author>prisoner-of-enigma</author>
	<datestamp>1247073360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><i>The new rules, which go into effect today, follow President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order <b>lifting a ban</b> on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush.</i></p>  </div><p>This is one of the most oft-misquoted "facts" on stem cell research.  The Bush stance was <b>not</b> a ban on research.  It was a ban on <b>federal funding</b> for such research.  Private companies were free to do whatever research they felt like doing so long as taxpayer money wasn't spent on it.  Yes, I'm aware that the lack of federal funding stymies getting research done, but the article synopsis <b>as written</b> is factually incorrect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The new rules , which go into effect today , follow President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. This is one of the most oft-misquoted " facts " on stem cell research .
The Bush stance was not a ban on research .
It was a ban on federal funding for such research .
Private companies were free to do whatever research they felt like doing so long as taxpayer money was n't spent on it .
Yes , I 'm aware that the lack of federal funding stymies getting research done , but the article synopsis as written is factually incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new rules, which go into effect today, follow President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush.  This is one of the most oft-misquoted "facts" on stem cell research.
The Bush stance was not a ban on research.
It was a ban on federal funding for such research.
Private companies were free to do whatever research they felt like doing so long as taxpayer money wasn't spent on it.
Yes, I'm aware that the lack of federal funding stymies getting research done, but the article synopsis as written is factually incorrect.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617391</id>
	<title>Re:NEVER WAS BANNED!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246984260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bush was the first, except for Clinton, Bush senior, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon.  Research on human embryonic stem cells dates back to the 60's and was funded by US federal tax dollars by not later than 1972.  Also, <b>all research on so-called adult stem cells is based on actual embryonic stem cell research</b>.  Republicans flee from truth like cockroaches from light.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush was the first , except for Clinton , Bush senior , Reagan , Carter , Ford , and Nixon .
Research on human embryonic stem cells dates back to the 60 's and was funded by US federal tax dollars by not later than 1972 .
Also , all research on so-called adult stem cells is based on actual embryonic stem cell research .
Republicans flee from truth like cockroaches from light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush was the first, except for Clinton, Bush senior, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon.
Research on human embryonic stem cells dates back to the 60's and was funded by US federal tax dollars by not later than 1972.
Also, all research on so-called adult stem cells is based on actual embryonic stem cell research.
Republicans flee from truth like cockroaches from light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616141</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1246973040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't personally believe this, but from what I understand, a lot of people who oppose the use of human embryos for stem cell research oppose it because they see those embryos as having the human potential or BEING human. Again, I don't personally endorse it -- it's just how I understand the "other side's" beliefs.
<br>
<br>
If that's the case, then it's not so much like the GP's suggestion that we eat a cow that's already been killed; it's more like... "Well, this guy died in an accident, let's eat him so we don't waste his meat." Or, to put it in more of a medical perspective -- "This guy died in an accident. Nobody knows who he is and we don't have permission on file, but let's just harvest his organs anyway." The first is incredibly abhorrent to a lot of people, right? And a lot of people would probably be disgusted at the second as well -- it's pretty disrespectful. Well, using embryos is probably seen in much the same way by opponents of embryo usage in stem cell research.
<br>
<br>
Again, not my personal views, but I feel like someone had to speak up for the other side here on Slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't personally believe this , but from what I understand , a lot of people who oppose the use of human embryos for stem cell research oppose it because they see those embryos as having the human potential or BEING human .
Again , I do n't personally endorse it -- it 's just how I understand the " other side 's " beliefs .
If that 's the case , then it 's not so much like the GP 's suggestion that we eat a cow that 's already been killed ; it 's more like... " Well , this guy died in an accident , let 's eat him so we do n't waste his meat .
" Or , to put it in more of a medical perspective -- " This guy died in an accident .
Nobody knows who he is and we do n't have permission on file , but let 's just harvest his organs anyway .
" The first is incredibly abhorrent to a lot of people , right ?
And a lot of people would probably be disgusted at the second as well -- it 's pretty disrespectful .
Well , using embryos is probably seen in much the same way by opponents of embryo usage in stem cell research .
Again , not my personal views , but I feel like someone had to speak up for the other side here on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't personally believe this, but from what I understand, a lot of people who oppose the use of human embryos for stem cell research oppose it because they see those embryos as having the human potential or BEING human.
Again, I don't personally endorse it -- it's just how I understand the "other side's" beliefs.
If that's the case, then it's not so much like the GP's suggestion that we eat a cow that's already been killed; it's more like... "Well, this guy died in an accident, let's eat him so we don't waste his meat.
" Or, to put it in more of a medical perspective -- "This guy died in an accident.
Nobody knows who he is and we don't have permission on file, but let's just harvest his organs anyway.
" The first is incredibly abhorrent to a lot of people, right?
And a lot of people would probably be disgusted at the second as well -- it's pretty disrespectful.
Well, using embryos is probably seen in much the same way by opponents of embryo usage in stem cell research.
Again, not my personal views, but I feel like someone had to speak up for the other side here on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615587</id>
	<title>Re:NEVER WAS BANNED!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246968960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.</p></div><p>I've never actually taken the time to delve into the details of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (under any president) so I don't know to what extent your comment is factually accurate.</p><p>But let's assume that your comment is correct. Let's assume, as your comment implies, that under Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton no federal funds were used for embryonic stem cell research. Then let's assume, which you state as fact, that Bush Jr came along and started funding embryonic stem cell research for the first time ever.</p><p>I may be missing something here but I would assume that, if this were actually, the case then the social conservatives would have been outraged with Bush Jr. But as far as I know the social conservatives actually quite liked Bush Jr.</p><p>Further, based on your comment, it seems that, when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, there is no significant difference between Bush Jr and Obama. Somehow I had the impression that social conservatives (and the "pro-life" crowd, in particular) strongly preferred Bush Jr to Obama.</p><p>Anyway, if it's really true that social conservatives don't see much of difference between Bush Jr and Obama when it comes to embryonic stem cell research then that's an interesting insight that I wasn't previously aware of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.I 've never actually taken the time to delve into the details of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research ( under any president ) so I do n't know to what extent your comment is factually accurate.But let 's assume that your comment is correct .
Let 's assume , as your comment implies , that under Carter , Reagan , Bush Sr , and Clinton no federal funds were used for embryonic stem cell research .
Then let 's assume , which you state as fact , that Bush Jr came along and started funding embryonic stem cell research for the first time ever.I may be missing something here but I would assume that , if this were actually , the case then the social conservatives would have been outraged with Bush Jr. But as far as I know the social conservatives actually quite liked Bush Jr.Further , based on your comment , it seems that , when it comes to embryonic stem cell research , there is no significant difference between Bush Jr and Obama .
Somehow I had the impression that social conservatives ( and the " pro-life " crowd , in particular ) strongly preferred Bush Jr to Obama.Anyway , if it 's really true that social conservatives do n't see much of difference between Bush Jr and Obama when it comes to embryonic stem cell research then that 's an interesting insight that I was n't previously aware of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.I've never actually taken the time to delve into the details of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (under any president) so I don't know to what extent your comment is factually accurate.But let's assume that your comment is correct.
Let's assume, as your comment implies, that under Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton no federal funds were used for embryonic stem cell research.
Then let's assume, which you state as fact, that Bush Jr came along and started funding embryonic stem cell research for the first time ever.I may be missing something here but I would assume that, if this were actually, the case then the social conservatives would have been outraged with Bush Jr. But as far as I know the social conservatives actually quite liked Bush Jr.Further, based on your comment, it seems that, when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, there is no significant difference between Bush Jr and Obama.
Somehow I had the impression that social conservatives (and the "pro-life" crowd, in particular) strongly preferred Bush Jr to Obama.Anyway, if it's really true that social conservatives don't see much of difference between Bush Jr and Obama when it comes to embryonic stem cell research then that's an interesting insight that I wasn't previously aware of.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615297</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246967160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once it's dead you can either eat the cow and have a delicious steak or waste the cow and let it rot.</p></div><p>You SHOULD actually let the cow rot.</p><p>Supermarkets (or rather, their butchers) generally let the carcass rot for 21 days, whereas specialty butchers may let it rot for up to 35 days for that extra jucy and tender feeling.</p><p>If you let it rot more than that though, you're a sick, SICK individual.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once it 's dead you can either eat the cow and have a delicious steak or waste the cow and let it rot.You SHOULD actually let the cow rot.Supermarkets ( or rather , their butchers ) generally let the carcass rot for 21 days , whereas specialty butchers may let it rot for up to 35 days for that extra jucy and tender feeling.If you let it rot more than that though , you 're a sick , SICK individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once it's dead you can either eat the cow and have a delicious steak or waste the cow and let it rot.You SHOULD actually let the cow rot.Supermarkets (or rather, their butchers) generally let the carcass rot for 21 days, whereas specialty butchers may let it rot for up to 35 days for that extra jucy and tender feeling.If you let it rot more than that though, you're a sick, SICK individual.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617675</id>
	<title>killing of the defenseless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246986420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can rationalize the idea that a fertilized egg (embryo) is not a life with a soul all you want. My position is that life begins at conception, and the willful and UNNECESSARY fertilization of eggs and subsequent destruction of human life constitutes murder. At least have the intellectual honesty and fortitude to call this what it is...</p><p>Now, if you just don't give a damn and are all for killing defenseless humans to serve your own research purposes, fine. Just say so. But don't give me any of your "tolerance" BS. No, I will -not- be any more tolerant of the killing of humans prior to the "birth process" than I am after the mother has given birth. I'm all about having honest intellectual discussion about this, but I'm getting more than a little tired of the other side simply resorting to proclaiming everyone who disagrees the "extreme pro-life fringe". Here are a few thoughts...</p><p>God (if you believe in God) is pro-life.<br>You would not exist if someone had destroyed you when you were an embryo.<br>There are many many other means of gathering stem cells, fertilizing and killing embryos is unnecessary.<br>Destroying human life, or potential human life, is wrong.<br>Creating human embryos for the sole purpose of killing them, to support research, is wrong.</p><p>I've heard most of the arguements from the opposition, so far I am extremely unimpressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can rationalize the idea that a fertilized egg ( embryo ) is not a life with a soul all you want .
My position is that life begins at conception , and the willful and UNNECESSARY fertilization of eggs and subsequent destruction of human life constitutes murder .
At least have the intellectual honesty and fortitude to call this what it is...Now , if you just do n't give a damn and are all for killing defenseless humans to serve your own research purposes , fine .
Just say so .
But do n't give me any of your " tolerance " BS .
No , I will -not- be any more tolerant of the killing of humans prior to the " birth process " than I am after the mother has given birth .
I 'm all about having honest intellectual discussion about this , but I 'm getting more than a little tired of the other side simply resorting to proclaiming everyone who disagrees the " extreme pro-life fringe " .
Here are a few thoughts...God ( if you believe in God ) is pro-life.You would not exist if someone had destroyed you when you were an embryo.There are many many other means of gathering stem cells , fertilizing and killing embryos is unnecessary.Destroying human life , or potential human life , is wrong.Creating human embryos for the sole purpose of killing them , to support research , is wrong.I 've heard most of the arguements from the opposition , so far I am extremely unimpressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can rationalize the idea that a fertilized egg (embryo) is not a life with a soul all you want.
My position is that life begins at conception, and the willful and UNNECESSARY fertilization of eggs and subsequent destruction of human life constitutes murder.
At least have the intellectual honesty and fortitude to call this what it is...Now, if you just don't give a damn and are all for killing defenseless humans to serve your own research purposes, fine.
Just say so.
But don't give me any of your "tolerance" BS.
No, I will -not- be any more tolerant of the killing of humans prior to the "birth process" than I am after the mother has given birth.
I'm all about having honest intellectual discussion about this, but I'm getting more than a little tired of the other side simply resorting to proclaiming everyone who disagrees the "extreme pro-life fringe".
Here are a few thoughts...God (if you believe in God) is pro-life.You would not exist if someone had destroyed you when you were an embryo.There are many many other means of gathering stem cells, fertilizing and killing embryos is unnecessary.Destroying human life, or potential human life, is wrong.Creating human embryos for the sole purpose of killing them, to support research, is wrong.I've heard most of the arguements from the opposition, so far I am extremely unimpressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616695</id>
	<title>The cynic in me says...</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1246977360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That the opposition to stem cell research will continue even after horrible diseases are cured. But once a cure for baldness or some other cosmetic application is found most of the opposition will dissappear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That the opposition to stem cell research will continue even after horrible diseases are cured .
But once a cure for baldness or some other cosmetic application is found most of the opposition will dissappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That the opposition to stem cell research will continue even after horrible diseases are cured.
But once a cure for baldness or some other cosmetic application is found most of the opposition will dissappear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617419</id>
	<title>Re:The cynic in me says...</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1246984500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once they use stem cell research to figure out how to make G the new standard cup size for women in particular, I will enthusiastically offer my support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once they use stem cell research to figure out how to make G the new standard cup size for women in particular , I will enthusiastically offer my support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once they use stem cell research to figure out how to make G the new standard cup size for women in particular, I will enthusiastically offer my support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333</id>
	<title>NEVER WAS BANNED!</title>
	<author>thejuggler</author>
	<datestamp>1246967400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "
<br> <br>
President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research. He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time. No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.
<br> <br>
The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.
<br> <br>
BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.
<a href="http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html" title="stemcellre...hfacts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html</a> [stemcellre...hfacts.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" President Barack Obama 's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research , an order that went into effect under his predecessor , George W. Bush. " President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research .
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time .
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines .
The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research .
BTW : Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed .
http : //www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures \ _failures.html [ stemcellre...hfacts.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"President Barack Obama's March 9 executive order lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research, an order that went into effect under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "
 
President Bush DID NOT ban embryonic stem cell research.
He did limit Federal money to only the existing lines of embryos that had already been created at the time.
No new money was to be spent on creating new embryo lines.
The fact remains President Bush was the first President to ever Federally fund embryonic research.
BTW: Far better research is being done with adult stem cells and there are actual cures and treatments in testing or completed.
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures\_failures.html [stemcellre...hfacts.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28624903</id>
	<title>Re:Answers to a couple of questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For those who think that embryos have a moral value, it is never right to use them as a means to an end. Using them (and destroying them), even for a good purpose, devalues them.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That contradicts. The means to an end already exists with IVF embryos; they are created to maybe become a human, some are allowed to continue and others are not - so is the devaluing not greater merely by allowing more than one embryo to be created for IVF? Their moral value is increased by using them for genetic material when not selected for fertilization instead of just throwing them away. No?
<br> <br>
Unless you're advocating burials for embryos, or presume the worse of human nature and that embryos will have more commercial value than moral value and be mass produced solely for the purpose of experimentation and take IVF out of the picture, I can't see how the moral value is reduced by stem cell research.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who think that embryos have a moral value , it is never right to use them as a means to an end .
Using them ( and destroying them ) , even for a good purpose , devalues them .
That contradicts .
The means to an end already exists with IVF embryos ; they are created to maybe become a human , some are allowed to continue and others are not - so is the devaluing not greater merely by allowing more than one embryo to be created for IVF ?
Their moral value is increased by using them for genetic material when not selected for fertilization instead of just throwing them away .
No ? Unless you 're advocating burials for embryos , or presume the worse of human nature and that embryos will have more commercial value than moral value and be mass produced solely for the purpose of experimentation and take IVF out of the picture , I ca n't see how the moral value is reduced by stem cell research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who think that embryos have a moral value, it is never right to use them as a means to an end.
Using them (and destroying them), even for a good purpose, devalues them.
That contradicts.
The means to an end already exists with IVF embryos; they are created to maybe become a human, some are allowed to continue and others are not - so is the devaluing not greater merely by allowing more than one embryo to be created for IVF?
Their moral value is increased by using them for genetic material when not selected for fertilization instead of just throwing them away.
No?
 
Unless you're advocating burials for embryos, or presume the worse of human nature and that embryos will have more commercial value than moral value and be mass produced solely for the purpose of experimentation and take IVF out of the picture, I can't see how the moral value is reduced by stem cell research.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28618273</id>
	<title>Here we go again...</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1246992960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how your type doesn't seem to want government to do much of anything, and views the Constitution so narrowly that such a course of action (course of inaction?) seems like the only thing that's "allowed".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how your type does n't seem to want government to do much of anything , and views the Constitution so narrowly that such a course of action ( course of inaction ?
) seems like the only thing that 's " allowed " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how your type doesn't seem to want government to do much of anything, and views the Constitution so narrowly that such a course of action (course of inaction?
) seems like the only thing that's "allowed".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617163</id>
	<title>Bimodal politics - a way to address controversy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246981980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish to propose an approach to political controversies that I call Bimodal Politics.<br>Technology could be used to manage controversial political issues, for which the distribution of voters is bimodal and for which there is essentially no middle ground.</p><p>Such issues include abortion rights, stem cell research and gay marriage. Through the system of bimodal politics, voters would live in parallel legal and political worlds, with different rights and obligations to the state depending on how they voted.</p><p>In outline, a national database would be  maintained of voter preference on controversial issues that are designated bimodal issues. Your vote is recorded by the bimodal voter database. Your vote determines your rights and obligations to the state on that particular issue in parallel with those voters who voted oppositely, and who may have (and probably have) different rights and obligations under the state.</p><p>Consider stem cell research. Under the proposed system, stem cell research would be designated a bimodal issue. During an election, your vote on stem cell research would be entered into the database. If you voted in favor of stem cell research, you may be taxed to support it, your embryos may be harvested for stem cells (these may be from embryos slated for destruction in any case) and if you develop a disease that requires stem cell derived therapy for its treatment, you will be eligible for it.</p><p>If you voted against stem cell research, you will not be taxed to support it, your embryos will not be harvested for stem cells and if you develop a disease you will be prohibited from pursuing treatments derived from stem cell research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish to propose an approach to political controversies that I call Bimodal Politics.Technology could be used to manage controversial political issues , for which the distribution of voters is bimodal and for which there is essentially no middle ground.Such issues include abortion rights , stem cell research and gay marriage .
Through the system of bimodal politics , voters would live in parallel legal and political worlds , with different rights and obligations to the state depending on how they voted.In outline , a national database would be maintained of voter preference on controversial issues that are designated bimodal issues .
Your vote is recorded by the bimodal voter database .
Your vote determines your rights and obligations to the state on that particular issue in parallel with those voters who voted oppositely , and who may have ( and probably have ) different rights and obligations under the state.Consider stem cell research .
Under the proposed system , stem cell research would be designated a bimodal issue .
During an election , your vote on stem cell research would be entered into the database .
If you voted in favor of stem cell research , you may be taxed to support it , your embryos may be harvested for stem cells ( these may be from embryos slated for destruction in any case ) and if you develop a disease that requires stem cell derived therapy for its treatment , you will be eligible for it.If you voted against stem cell research , you will not be taxed to support it , your embryos will not be harvested for stem cells and if you develop a disease you will be prohibited from pursuing treatments derived from stem cell research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish to propose an approach to political controversies that I call Bimodal Politics.Technology could be used to manage controversial political issues, for which the distribution of voters is bimodal and for which there is essentially no middle ground.Such issues include abortion rights, stem cell research and gay marriage.
Through the system of bimodal politics, voters would live in parallel legal and political worlds, with different rights and obligations to the state depending on how they voted.In outline, a national database would be  maintained of voter preference on controversial issues that are designated bimodal issues.
Your vote is recorded by the bimodal voter database.
Your vote determines your rights and obligations to the state on that particular issue in parallel with those voters who voted oppositely, and who may have (and probably have) different rights and obligations under the state.Consider stem cell research.
Under the proposed system, stem cell research would be designated a bimodal issue.
During an election, your vote on stem cell research would be entered into the database.
If you voted in favor of stem cell research, you may be taxed to support it, your embryos may be harvested for stem cells (these may be from embryos slated for destruction in any case) and if you develop a disease that requires stem cell derived therapy for its treatment, you will be eligible for it.If you voted against stem cell research, you will not be taxed to support it, your embryos will not be harvested for stem cells and if you develop a disease you will be prohibited from pursuing treatments derived from stem cell research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615401</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246967820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think anyone but the most foaming at the mouth religious fanatics had an issue with using existing lines.  Even Bush couldn't see any harm in "eating the dead cow".  The Bush administration opposed using new lines for federally funded research, even though the cells were going to be dumped anyway.  I think the idea there was that there was no way to determine which cells were "legitimate waste" and which were "accidental waste" that was created for the purpose of doing stem cell research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone but the most foaming at the mouth religious fanatics had an issue with using existing lines .
Even Bush could n't see any harm in " eating the dead cow " .
The Bush administration opposed using new lines for federally funded research , even though the cells were going to be dumped anyway .
I think the idea there was that there was no way to determine which cells were " legitimate waste " and which were " accidental waste " that was created for the purpose of doing stem cell research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone but the most foaming at the mouth religious fanatics had an issue with using existing lines.
Even Bush couldn't see any harm in "eating the dead cow".
The Bush administration opposed using new lines for federally funded research, even though the cells were going to be dumped anyway.
I think the idea there was that there was no way to determine which cells were "legitimate waste" and which were "accidental waste" that was created for the purpose of doing stem cell research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616861</id>
	<title>That's how it goes with tax funding.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246978740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anytime an activity is funded involuntarily, it's going to be a political issue.  This is the case whether we're talking about whether or not to fund medical research, or whether to teach science or religion in public schools.</p><p>The moral question here isn't whether stem cell research will lead to life-saving cures or whether it's killing babies, the question is whether it's OK for the federal government to take money from us forcibly, and then spend it on any activity that's not within its enumerated powers that we granted to it in the constitution.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime an activity is funded involuntarily , it 's going to be a political issue .
This is the case whether we 're talking about whether or not to fund medical research , or whether to teach science or religion in public schools.The moral question here is n't whether stem cell research will lead to life-saving cures or whether it 's killing babies , the question is whether it 's OK for the federal government to take money from us forcibly , and then spend it on any activity that 's not within its enumerated powers that we granted to it in the constitution.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime an activity is funded involuntarily, it's going to be a political issue.
This is the case whether we're talking about whether or not to fund medical research, or whether to teach science or religion in public schools.The moral question here isn't whether stem cell research will lead to life-saving cures or whether it's killing babies, the question is whether it's OK for the federal government to take money from us forcibly, and then spend it on any activity that's not within its enumerated powers that we granted to it in the constitution.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617379</id>
	<title>Bimodal politics and stem cell research</title>
	<author>Vectorius</author>
	<datestamp>1246984140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish to propose an approach to political controversies that I call Bimodal Politics. Technology could be used to manage controversial political issues, for which the distribution of voters is bimodal and for which there is essentially no middle ground.</p><p>Such issues include stem cell research, abortion  and gay marriage. Through the system of bimodal politics, voters would live in parallel legal and political worlds, with different rights and obligations to the state depending on how they voted</p><p>In outline, a national database is maintained of voter preference on controversial issues that are designated bimodal issues. Your vote is recorded by the bimodal voter database. Your vote determines your rights and obligations to the state on that particular issue in parallel with those voters who voted oppositely, and who may have (and probably have) different rights and obligations under the state.</p><p>Consider stem cell research. Under the proposed system, stem cell research would be designated a bimodal issue. During an election, your vote on stem cell research would be entered into the database. If you voted in favor of stem cell research, you may be taxed to support it, your embryos may be harvested for stem cells (these may be from embryos slated for destruction in any case) and if you develop a disease that requires stem cell derived therapy for its treatment, you will be eligible for it.</p><p>If you voted against stem cell research, you will not be taxed to support it, your embryos will not be harvested for stem cells and if you develop a disease you will be prohibited from pursuing treatments derived from stem cell research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish to propose an approach to political controversies that I call Bimodal Politics .
Technology could be used to manage controversial political issues , for which the distribution of voters is bimodal and for which there is essentially no middle ground.Such issues include stem cell research , abortion and gay marriage .
Through the system of bimodal politics , voters would live in parallel legal and political worlds , with different rights and obligations to the state depending on how they votedIn outline , a national database is maintained of voter preference on controversial issues that are designated bimodal issues .
Your vote is recorded by the bimodal voter database .
Your vote determines your rights and obligations to the state on that particular issue in parallel with those voters who voted oppositely , and who may have ( and probably have ) different rights and obligations under the state.Consider stem cell research .
Under the proposed system , stem cell research would be designated a bimodal issue .
During an election , your vote on stem cell research would be entered into the database .
If you voted in favor of stem cell research , you may be taxed to support it , your embryos may be harvested for stem cells ( these may be from embryos slated for destruction in any case ) and if you develop a disease that requires stem cell derived therapy for its treatment , you will be eligible for it.If you voted against stem cell research , you will not be taxed to support it , your embryos will not be harvested for stem cells and if you develop a disease you will be prohibited from pursuing treatments derived from stem cell research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish to propose an approach to political controversies that I call Bimodal Politics.
Technology could be used to manage controversial political issues, for which the distribution of voters is bimodal and for which there is essentially no middle ground.Such issues include stem cell research, abortion  and gay marriage.
Through the system of bimodal politics, voters would live in parallel legal and political worlds, with different rights and obligations to the state depending on how they votedIn outline, a national database is maintained of voter preference on controversial issues that are designated bimodal issues.
Your vote is recorded by the bimodal voter database.
Your vote determines your rights and obligations to the state on that particular issue in parallel with those voters who voted oppositely, and who may have (and probably have) different rights and obligations under the state.Consider stem cell research.
Under the proposed system, stem cell research would be designated a bimodal issue.
During an election, your vote on stem cell research would be entered into the database.
If you voted in favor of stem cell research, you may be taxed to support it, your embryos may be harvested for stem cells (these may be from embryos slated for destruction in any case) and if you develop a disease that requires stem cell derived therapy for its treatment, you will be eligible for it.If you voted against stem cell research, you will not be taxed to support it, your embryos will not be harvested for stem cells and if you develop a disease you will be prohibited from pursuing treatments derived from stem cell research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616265</id>
	<title>cheaper for corporations, not for us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big corporations love technologies that keep costing customers after the customers have made their initial purchase. In the case of stem cell procedures, if a cloned organ or other implant is based off stem cells not derived from the hosts on body, then the big corporations get to profit off a life time of drugs necessary to prevent rejection of said medical treatment.</p><p>Don't fool yourself. Big business does NOT want technologies developed that allow stem cells to be created from patients own bodies. Making embryonic stem cells more accessible will lead to miraculous treatments that BTW require a life time of expensive procedures / medications that wouldn't have been needed if the technology for converting patients own cells into stem cells had been available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big corporations love technologies that keep costing customers after the customers have made their initial purchase .
In the case of stem cell procedures , if a cloned organ or other implant is based off stem cells not derived from the hosts on body , then the big corporations get to profit off a life time of drugs necessary to prevent rejection of said medical treatment.Do n't fool yourself .
Big business does NOT want technologies developed that allow stem cells to be created from patients own bodies .
Making embryonic stem cells more accessible will lead to miraculous treatments that BTW require a life time of expensive procedures / medications that would n't have been needed if the technology for converting patients own cells into stem cells had been available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big corporations love technologies that keep costing customers after the customers have made their initial purchase.
In the case of stem cell procedures, if a cloned organ or other implant is based off stem cells not derived from the hosts on body, then the big corporations get to profit off a life time of drugs necessary to prevent rejection of said medical treatment.Don't fool yourself.
Big business does NOT want technologies developed that allow stem cells to be created from patients own bodies.
Making embryonic stem cells more accessible will lead to miraculous treatments that BTW require a life time of expensive procedures / medications that wouldn't have been needed if the technology for converting patients own cells into stem cells had been available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615607</id>
	<title>Re:NEVER WAS BANNED!</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1246969080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your entire post is misleading. President Bush was the first President who had to make a decision regarding stem cells. He limited federal funds to existing adult stem cells because of misplaced moral considerations. The embryos would have been destroyed by the fertility labs anyway, but when signing the bill, Bush was flanked by children conceived from embryos. There was no <i>scientific</i> reason to limit the federal funding. It's not even clear the moral justification was that great, either.</p><p>After Bush crippled competing research, it's no wonder that adult stem cells are ahead in the race. Imagine what would have happened if stem cell research was not limited out of political considerations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your entire post is misleading .
President Bush was the first President who had to make a decision regarding stem cells .
He limited federal funds to existing adult stem cells because of misplaced moral considerations .
The embryos would have been destroyed by the fertility labs anyway , but when signing the bill , Bush was flanked by children conceived from embryos .
There was no scientific reason to limit the federal funding .
It 's not even clear the moral justification was that great , either.After Bush crippled competing research , it 's no wonder that adult stem cells are ahead in the race .
Imagine what would have happened if stem cell research was not limited out of political considerations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your entire post is misleading.
President Bush was the first President who had to make a decision regarding stem cells.
He limited federal funds to existing adult stem cells because of misplaced moral considerations.
The embryos would have been destroyed by the fertility labs anyway, but when signing the bill, Bush was flanked by children conceived from embryos.
There was no scientific reason to limit the federal funding.
It's not even clear the moral justification was that great, either.After Bush crippled competing research, it's no wonder that adult stem cells are ahead in the race.
Imagine what would have happened if stem cell research was not limited out of political considerations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615493</id>
	<title>Re:Existing lines</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1246968360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take it a step further:<br>A zillion diseases ARE cured by stem cells.</p><p>Now we have hundreds of millions of people looking for stem cells.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take it a step further : A zillion diseases ARE cured by stem cells.Now we have hundreds of millions of people looking for stem cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take it a step further:A zillion diseases ARE cured by stem cells.Now we have hundreds of millions of people looking for stem cells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28618273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28624139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28664381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28618611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28619181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28624903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2027238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28618037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2027238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2027238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2027238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28624139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2027238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2027238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28624903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2027238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28664381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28618273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2027238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28615293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28619181
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28618611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28618037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2027238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2027238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28616695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2027238.28617419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
