Hmm, this actually sounds rather interesting. -1

I do agree in allowing stem-cell research, + 1 Especially considering that now viable techniques have been discovered which do not require tissue from fetuses.

Another fun one you might want to post would be this question; Do you agree that the age of the earth is somewhere on the order of 4.5 billion years old and homo sapiens (modern day humans) originated somewhere on the order of 150,000 to 200,000 years ago? (+1 for yes -1 for no)

Ah, this is a good point. I should have refered to this. Scientists have been rapidly working around the necessity of using embyronic stem cells. I think some wicked smart Japanese scientist almost hit the nail on the head last time I checked, generations ahead of his time. But these methods are not as good, and even more recently, Obama signed a bill allowing the use of IVF embryonic stem cell lines for research.

Here's a cool article on the attempts of scientists to create their own stem cells, if you are interested in that kind of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell

A broadly stated question (subject to many conditional arguments) with tightly constrained answers is not gonna tell you much.

So, +1.

i agree with it as long as its not used for reproduction. therapeutically i support it. so

+1

btw does this mean we add all the +1s with +1s and all the -1s with -1s and first to reach 20+or-  ends it?

Yes

first of all: +1

Now to respond to the quoted text. The thing is, you really can't find a way of replacing embryonics with non-embryonics until you know the full information about how the process works in detail. An extreme example would be a stone age man trying to refine titanium. Sure, it is physically possible, but without an extensive knowledge of how to refine more basic materials it would take one heck of a 'Eureka!' moment. The same is true of most technologies. You need the intermediaries to give insight into more advanced technology.

And second, he didn't sign a bill to allow the use for research. Research has been going on for years (since before Bush). However, bumbling Bush made a law so they could not use new lines and still get federal funding. Obama just had the good sense to repeal that pointless law.

Why is the law so silly? Well, proponents of the law were afraid of "creating life to destroy it," when in fact it is destroying life which would have been destroyed anyway. IVF procedures almost always have embryos left over, since if they used them all the average IVF patient would have about as many children as Nadya Suleman. And so the embryos are either destroyed when the procedure is over or stay in a freezer until a later date at which time they are destroyed. I don't know about you, but I would prefer using them to improve the quality of life and save lives rather than just be wasted.

Also note, off topic forums are across all Stardock forums, and so it will be more than just JU.

Edit to psychoak(post #10):
Taxes are not mandatory. Just ask Obama's nominees.
And jokes aside, it is the role of government to act in the best interest of the people, even if some of them do not understand it is in their best interest. We aren't the Borg; there will be no universal agreement. Democracy must be based on majority, since a unanimous decision will never be arrived at. But people will benefit when the research yeilds results which impact them in their daily lives, of that there is no question.

+1

Qualifiers.

Stem cell research is and has been legal in all forms.

Embrionic stem cell research is not stem cell research in general, and has been legal.

Federal funding of research does not make the research legal, it makes it taxpayer funded.

Federal funding of an objectionable project amounts to coercion of the taxpayer.

Embrionic stem cell research is an objectionable project to a large percentage of the taxpayers.

You should ask something relevant, like "Do you support coercing taxpayers into funding experiments they deem objectionable?"

Educate thyself, heathen!

Edit: Alway, you bastard, type slower!

Edit again:  Alway is wrong, as usual the media snowjob wins.  Bush made no new restrictions, there were no federal funds going to any embrionic stem cell research before he opened the old lines up.  It was all barred before hand.

It's truly sad how poorly informed the public is...

People were pretty shocked when Yamanaka made so much progress. But, yes, not enough is known to make embryonic stem cells from scratch.

True. I should have written new lines. Anyway, my point remains the same. And the legislation was not "silly" to some.

Daiwa was saying something similar to this. a) That's a loaded question.  b ) I'm trying to make the game as simple as possible.

A loaded quesiton would be if I asked whether you had come out of the closet or not.

For that to be a loaded question, you need to disprove one of two things.  That taxes are compulsory, or that embrionic stem cell research is objectionable to a portion of the tax base.

Good luck with your simple game.