d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Official Political Picture Thread
Prev1178817891790179117925001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 55,374
Joined: Mar 6 2006
Gold: 220.48
Mar 3 2018 04:05pm
Quote (Surfpunk @ Mar 3 2018 04:55pm)
I believe it should be studied. Maybe Congress should repeal the Dickey Amendment that prevents the CDC from doing just that?


The Dickey amendment doesn't prevent the CDC from studying it, it prevents the CDC from dictating policy. This is a common misconception being constantly pushed by democrats and the media.

http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2016/06/28/the-ama-should-forget-the-dickey-amendment-for-now/

Quote
From a practical perspective, this framing is unfortunate because it implies that the Dickey Amendment has to be repealed for the CDC to conduct gun violence research, which — as Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) noted in his recent letter to the CDC — is simply not the case. The CDC can and does perform firearm-related violence research. The main obstacle to more research is not the Dickey Amendment — it’s the fact that Congress no longer appropriates enough money to the CDC for these studies. As CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard put it, “It is possible for [the CDC] to conduct firearm-related research…But our resources are very limited.”


This post was edited by Arsenic_Touch on Mar 3 2018 04:10pm
Member
Posts: 105,148
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Mar 3 2018 04:38pm
Quote (Surfpunk @ Mar 3 2018 04:55pm)
I believe it should be studied. Maybe Congress should repeal the Dickey Amendment that prevents the CDC from doing just that?



That's not exactly what I meant.

Nurture in this case means things that "might" cause mental instability, that are due solely to the child's upbringing.
Nature meaning... everything else NOT due to upbringing.

The Dickey Amendment really doesn't have much to do with this issue.

Quote

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for--

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code).

(b) For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).



I think that sufficient research can still be done without allowing the willy nilly creation of human embryos JUST for research purposes.

I think one of the main reasons for the Dickey–Wicker Amendment, was possibly to prevent various organizations from growing humans, just for their organs.
I don't think I'd want to be an embryo allowed to develop for x amount of time, just for organs or even for research.

Where do we draw the line? How long is the newly created human allowed to exist before destruction? 3 weeks? 3 months? 3 years? Where do we draw the line.
I think allowing embryos to be created just for later destruction opens up a whole new can of worms relating to tons of other issues, that we can't even agree on at this time.

Scientifically, creating embryos for this purpose is a good idea. However, we need to consider the consequences of this being allowed to be done. I mean just because most of the folks allowed to do this might be upstanding, honorable folks, doesn't mean there won't be a few who want to go overboard (not within the bounds of human decency) with this.
Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Mar 3 2018 05:09pm
Quote (Arsenic_Touch @ Mar 3 2018 04:05pm)
The Dickey amendment doesn't prevent the CDC from studying it, it prevents the CDC from dictating policy. This is a common misconception being constantly pushed by democrats and the media.

http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2016/06/28/the-ama-should-forget-the-dickey-amendment-for-now/


I stand corrected. Thx for the deets.
Member
Posts: 40,852
Joined: Sep 17 2011
Gold: 0.00
Mar 3 2018 05:20pm
Quote (dro94 @ 3 Mar 2018 19:47)


:rofl:
Member
Posts: 33,771
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 3.33
Mar 3 2018 08:08pm
Quote (tonerbond @ Mar 3 2018 08:59pm)
Cant tell if satire anymore


Why would leaving a huge trading market to get more trade with Mesopotamia be satirical? It's common sense, we're going global.
Member
Posts: 49,872
Joined: Dec 23 2006
Gold: 0.00
Mar 3 2018 10:49pm
:zzz:
Member
Posts: 53,359
Joined: Jan 20 2009
Gold: 4,383.11
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Mar 4 2018 02:22pm
Quote (Surfpunk @ Mar 3 2018 05:55pm)
I believe it should be studied. Maybe Congress should repeal the Dickey Amendment that prevents the CDC from doing just that?



>CDC doesnt do its job
>give it more money

#liblogic
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Mar 4 2018 04:46pm
Still true after 100 years...

Member
Posts: 8,160
Joined: Dec 28 2016
Gold: 0.00
Mar 4 2018 04:54pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Mar 4 2018 02:46pm)
Still true after 100 years...

http://i.magaimg.net/img/2sjq.jpg



Happy 100th anniversary twitter
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1178817891790179117925001Next
Closed New Topic New Poll