An end to the Stem Cell Debate

[PackerAttacker 0]

We should be praising GWB for sticking to his guns on this one. If in 2001 he would have given scientists the authority to just use stem cells from embryos for research there is no way breakthroughs like this would have been made that will make everyone happy. At least theres no way it would have happened as quickly. Apparently they can now revert normal skin cells back into Stem Cells. Next step is humans. No embryos killed, no ethical dilemma.

 

Story about stem cell research breakthrough

 

Dems want to veto embryonic stem cell ban

- You think in light of the new research the Dems would at least be interested in giving this new research a bit of time to see if we can avoid using embryos all together. I guess that would make too much sense.

[JT 137]

"The findings generated tumult on Capitol Hill, where the House is set to vote today on a bill that would loosen President Bush's 2001 restrictions on the use of human embryos in stem cell research.

 

Acutely aware that their new work could undermine that key political goal, scientists cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells. They called for legislators to pass the bill, which would give federally funded researchers access to embryos set for destruction at fertility clinics.

 

"A human is not a mouse, so a lot more work has to be done," said Marius Wernig, who led one team with Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass."

 

Yes! God will love us so much more if we simply continue to destroy those embryos, rather than use them for potentially life saving research. Maybe then he'll make us powerful enough to vanquish our enemies!

[peenie 1,915]

also there was scientist who came to give a talk that had done a lot of work on cardiac cell replacement using embryonic stem cells. he found that they in fact were no more specific than using another type of cell (don't remember the kind, perhaps like the one in the article). in fact the embryonic stem cells were problematic.

[Snoopy1 0]

We should be praising GWB for sticking to his guns on this one. If in 2001 he would have given scientists the authority to just use stem cells from embryos for research there is no way breakthroughs like this would have been made that will make everyone happy. At least theres no way it would have happened as quickly. Apparently they can now revert normal skin cells back into Stem Cells. Next step is humans. No embryos killed, no ethical dilemma.

 

Story about stem cell research breakthrough

 

Dems want to veto embryonic stem cell ban

- You think in light of the new research the Dems would at least be interested in giving this new research a bit of time to see if we can avoid using embryos all together. I guess that would make too much sense.

 

 

Thank focking god for GWB sticking to his guns and for this breakthough. It's a great day when scientists get to spend 6 years trying to create something that's readily available and most likely WOULD HAVE BEEN FOCKING DESTROYED AS MEDICAL WASTE.

 

 

God damn dems, wanting scientists to be working on diseases like diabetes, alzheimers, spinal chord injuries instead of the important stuff, turning skin cells into stem cells...

 

Way to protect human life, Georgie.

[PackerAttacker 0]

Obviously the scientists are still going to push for the bill to pass. Stem cell research is their life and they would stand to make alot of money if it passed. All im saying is that the ban has certainly produced some groundbreaking stuff. Id imagine the same thing would happen if we suddenly put a huge limit on fossil fuel usage. I bet it wouldnt take long before a major breakthrough was found. Obstacles motivate... And causes innovation.

 

Also, Id like to point out i dont oppose stem cell research because of any religious reasons..

 

Thank focking god for GWB sticking to his guns and for this breakthough. It's a great day when scientists get to spend 6 years trying to create something that's readily available and most likely WOULD HAVE BEEN FOCKING DESTROYED AS MEDICAL WASTE.

God damn dems, wanting scientists to be working on diseases like diabetes, alzheimers, spinal chord injuries instead of the important stuff, turning skin cells into stem cells...

 

Way to protect human life, Georgie.

 

Certainly isnt wasted time. The article even mentions how much greater there understanding of stem cells are now because of the last few years of research.. "The new experiments reveal the remarkable degree of control that scientists have recently gained over the highly complex inner workings of living cells." This is all research they would have had to done and understood before they even began the venture of using these cells to cure the diseases you mentioned.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

God damn dems, wanting scientists to be working on diseases like diabetes, alzheimers, spinal chord injuries instead of the important stuff, turning skin cells into stem cells...

 

Way to protect human life, Georgie.

Newsflash for the uninformed, scientists in the US have been working and using embryonic stem cells without limitation for the last 6 years. HTH.

[Snoopy1 0]

Obviously the scientists are still going to push for the bill to pass. Stem cell research is their life and they would stand to make alot of money if it passed. All im saying is that the ban has certainly produced some groundbreaking stuff. Id imagine the same thing would happen if we suddenly put a huge limit on fossil fuel usage. I bet it wouldnt take long before a major breakthrough was found. Obstacles motivate... And causes innovation.

 

Also, Id like to point out i dont oppose stem cell research because of any religious reasons..

 

 

So then what's your point, you are happy that 6 years of time was wasted and a possible solution to this idiotic idea to save embryos,embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, maybe developed in, what 2 years, 4 years, 6 yeas... and you want us to "praise" GWB for this.

 

 

By the way, did I mention that those embryos would otherwise by thrown into an incerator!.

 

Sorry, this is your "I'm going to be a president who believes in science." He's a president who throws little bones to his fundmentalist supporters, damning logic, reason or progress.

 

Newsflash for the uninformed, scientists in the US have been working and using embryonic stem cells without limitation for the last 6 years. HTH.

 

 

Federally funded scientists, those in universities?? These scientists had complete access to all stem cell lines too..huh.

 

 

 

Obviously the scientists are still going to push for the bill to pass. Stem cell research is their life and they would stand to make alot of money if it passed. All im saying is that the ban has certainly produced some groundbreaking stuff. Id imagine the same thing would happen if we suddenly put a huge limit on fossil fuel usage. I bet it wouldnt take long before a major breakthrough was found. Obstacles motivate... And causes innovation.

 

Also, Id like to point out i dont oppose stem cell research because of any religious reasons..

Certainly isnt wasted time. The article even mentions how much greater there understanding of stem cells are now because of the last few years of research.. "The new experiments reveal the remarkable degree of control that scientists have recently gained over the highly complex inner workings of living cells." This is all research they would have had to done and understood before they even began the venture of using these cells to cure the diseases you mentioned.

 

 

But they still don't have those cells yet, do they?

[Toro 1]

I thought they had access to the stem cells, just not the federal funding?

[MDC 7,406]

If the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not put them to good use?

[edjr 6,580]

If the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not put them to good use?

 

 

That's what I can't understand.

[Saint Elistan 106]

Using embryos set to be destroyed anyway makes sense, yes, but research involving those is only going to lead to scientists creating life with the purpose of destroying it. Turning human life into a natural resource is not something we want to do. Ever.

 

Let them research it all they want...but don't use my tax dollars on something completely unethical. Besides, the article says that only federally funded researches weren't allowed access to the embryos. What about the privately funded?

[JT 137]

Using embryos set to be destroyed anyway makes sense, yes, but research involving those is only going to lead to scientists creating life with the purpose of destroying it. Turning human life into a natural resource is not something we want to do. Ever.

 

Let them research it all they want...but don't use my tax dollars on something completely unethical.

 

Huh? That's a bit of a leap. Sounds like pulpit tak.

[wiffleball 4,790]

So then what's your point, you are happy that 6 years of time was wasted and a possible solution to this idiotic idea to save embryos,embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, maybe developed in, what 2 years, 4 years, 6 yeas... and you want us to "praise" GWB for this.

By the way, did I mention that those embryos would otherwise by thrown into an incerator!.

 

This is one of many reasons why I have such a low opinion of the Radical Right - and of Religous Nut-Jobs in General. They're just plain stupid. They listen to idiots like Pat Robertson who tell them that the Liberals are going to forcibly rip your fetus from your womb and skull fock it - and all the idiot Evangelicals buy it hook, line and sinker.

 

Most of these idiots don't know that it's not even a focking 'embryo' at the point the stem cells are harvested. It's a GD blastocyst that gets harvested. And that blastocyst is about the size of the tip of a pen.

 

But to hear the zealots tell it, the next logical step is 'baby farms'.

 

And, as you emphasized, all of this material is material that is GOING TO BE DESTROYED ANYWAY!!!

 

Do we really think God prefers the by products from fertility clinics be destroyed rather than used to ease the pain and suffering of his children? What kind of sick, twisted God do these nuts believe in?

 

Just another reason why the Radical Religous Right - and George Bush - looks so stupid to so many people.

 

[JT 137]

And that blastocyst is about the size of the tip of a pen.

 

 

We call her 'Tippy'.

[Snoopy1 0]

 

 

Just another reason why the Radical Religous Right - and George Bush - looks so stupid to so many people.

 

 

 

Was just reading some points of the opposition. Besides the opposing using embroyos for research, those that were donated by parents who had successfully concieved using IVF, some of these nuts are completely against IVF also, because when undergoing the procedure, doctors create more embroyos then needed to guard against the chance of failure. They are opposed to this cause the extra embroyos eventually will be destroyed.

 

[Saint Elistan 106]

Huh? That's a bit of a leap. Sounds like pulpit tak.

 

Well, my beliefs range anywhere from Atheism to the Bahia religion depending on my mood...but Christian I am not. It's not a leap. Label it "baby farms" if you wish to lump us all together as crazy evangelicals, but having a sense of morality when it comes to taking science to far doesn't make you whacko.

 

The fact that we're so set on wasting our lives trying to prolong it says enough about our society.

[football_scooter 0]

the Liberals are going to forcibly rip your fetus from your womb and skull fock it

 

Somehere dark and cold, phillybear is reading this sentence and masturbating furiously.

[Cdub100 3,903]

but Christian I am not.

 

At least you named yourself appropriately.

[Saint Elistan 106]

At least you named yourself appropriately.

 

Bah, I'm a fantasy nerdzor. Ever read the Dragonlance Chronicles? Amazing trilogy.

[Snoopy1 0]

Well, my beliefs range anywhere from Atheism to the Bahia religion depending on my mood...but Christian I am not. It's not a leap. Label it "baby farms" if you wish to lump us all together as crazy evangelicals, but having a sense of morality when it comes to taking science to far doesn't make you whacko.

 

The fact that we're so set on wasting our lives trying to prolong it says enough about our society.

 

 

Wasting lives...

 

One facility that does IVF has over 400,000 embroyos, just sitting there, in storage cause the parents have conceived.

 

Exactly where is the waste if these are given to scientists at the Univerisity of Wisconsin, one of the leading research facilities, who are currently limited to the 8 or so lines developed before 2001.

 

I guess it makes more sense to incinerate those embroyos.

[JT 137]

Well, my beliefs range anywhere from Atheism to the Bahia religion depending on my mood...but Christian I am not. It's not a leap. Label it "baby farms" if you wish to lump us all together as crazy evangelicals, but having a sense of morality when it comes to taking science to far doesn't make you whacko.

 

The fact that we're so set on wasting our lives trying to prolong it says enough about our society.

 

But what evidence is there to even remotely suggest that the available supply of blastocysts or discarded embryos is so limited that the logical next step is "only going to lead to scientists creating life with the purpose of destroying it"?

[wiffleball 4,790]

Somehere dark and cold, phillybear is reading this sentence and masturbating furiously.

 

LOL.

[Cdub100 3,903]

Bah, I'm a fantasy nerdzor. Ever read the Dragonlance Chronicles? Amazing trilogy.

 

No, but I too am a fantasy nerd so I'll look into it.

[JT 137]

Bah, I'm a fantasy nerdzor. Ever read the Dragonlance Chronicles? Amazing trilogy.

 

“I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me”

(Luke 22:34)

 

That's twice...

[Saint Elistan 106]

But what evidence is there to even remotely suggest that the available supply of blastocysts or discarded embryos is so limited that the logical next step is "only going to lead to scientists creating life with the purpose of destroying it"?

 

There is enough for the research. Of that, there is no question. But world population undoubtedly exceeds the mass production capacity once that research yields results.

[JT 137]

There is enough for the research. Of that, there is no question. But world population undoubtedly exceeds the mass production capacity once that research yields results.

 

Given the story that started this thread, isn't it reasonable to assume that, while potentially life saving research is being conducted with the available supply, other means will be discovered/approved for human use? It's also not like the number of available samples is stagnant. They will continue to be generated, just as they have been to this day, without the need for 'baby farms'.

[Saint Elistan 106]

Which is kinda the point I make...there are many alternatives to embryonic cells in stem cell research...all of which lack any ethical dilemma.

[wiffleball 4,790]

There is enough for the research. Of that, there is no question. But world population undoubtedly exceeds the mass production capacity once that research yields results.

 

Actually, one harvest yields enough for thousands of applications. There's a reason why we've been able to get by for so long with only the handful of strains that GWB was kind of enough to 'let' government researchers use.

 

...So that argument doesn't hold water.

[mayhem39 3]

If the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, why not put them to good use?

 

 

Because that would make too much sense.

[JT 137]

Which is kinda the point I make...there are many alternatives to embryonic cells in stem cell research...all of which lack any ethical dilemma.

 

I don't believe there are 'many' currently approved alternatives.

 

What are the ethical ramifications of telling the people dying from diseases that might be successfully treated with the benefit of stem cell research that all they have to do is hold on a few more years until we make the jump from mice to humans?

 

"Can't help you now...well, maybe we could...but we're hesitant to use these resources that we're going to throw away anyway. Keep your chin up! I mean, what's 6 years, give or take?"

 

I guess I don't understand why those living, breathing beings don't have precedence over what you're so concerned about saving?

[Sparkling Wiggles 0]

Nice thread title. I guess the debate is over.

[MDC 7,406]

I don't believe there are 'many' currently approved alternatives.

 

What are the ethical ramifications of telling the people dying from diseases that might be successfully treated with the benefit of stem cell research that all they have to do is hold on a few more years until we make the jump from mice to humans?

 

"Can't help you now...well, maybe we could...but we're hesitant to use these resources that we're going to throw away anyway. Keep your chin up! I mean, what's 6 years, give or take?"

 

I guess I don't understand why those living, breathing beings don't have precedence over what you're so concerned about saving?

 

If the government gets to make a meaningless protest against abortions that have already happened, it's worth it!

[wiffleball 4,790]

Help me reconcile something here:

 

If a Radical Religous nut-job from says he/she doesn't want his/her tax dollars going to something they believe to be unethical - it's a moral stance.

 

If someone says they don't want their tax dollars to go to a pointless war that kills tens of thousands of innocent ACTUAL lives. - They're a traitor??

 

Our government does all kinds of shiit with our tax dollars that are at best morally ambiguous. We kill innocent people, we sell weapons to others to kill more innocent people. We send horrible shiit into our water supply to build rockets. We support corrupt and brutal dictators. - Nobody gets a say in whether their tax dollars are used for that, do they? We gave millions to pinochet and noriega (to name a few). Is there some 'carve out' process for not using our tax dollars on OTHER things we believe to be unethical? - Or is it just the ones that might actually save lives that don't deserve federal funding??

 

[JT 137]

Help me reconcile something here:

 

If a Radical Religous nut-job from says he/she doesn't want his/her tax dollars going to something they believe to be unethical - it's a moral stance.

 

If someone says they don't want their tax dollars to go to a pointless war that kills tens of thousands of innocent ACTUAL lives. - They're a traitor??

 

Our government does all kinds of shiit with our tax dollars that are at best morally ambiguous. We kill innocent people, we sell weapons to others to kill more innocent people. We send horrible shiit into our water supply to build rockets. We support corrupt and brutal dictators. - Nobody gets a say in whether their tax dollars are used for that, do they? We gave millions to pinochet and noriega (to name a few). Is there some 'carve out' process for not using our tax dollars on OTHER things we believe to be unethical? - Or is it just the ones that might actually save lives that don't deserve federal funding??

 

 

If only Haliburton, Lockheed Martin or GE would start making babies, we could resolve your concerns.

[Cdub100 3,903]

Nice thread title. I guess the debate is over.

 

Welcome back 14 words