Stem Cells

[Zuruck]

Well, Bush's FIRST veto is going to be used on stem cell research. What you guys think? The extremely limited lines of research that Bush allowed years ago just doesn't cut it...should Americans allow a former cokehead's personal feelings stand in the way of potential innovation?

[snoopy]

Should we use the technological advances that Germany developed during the holocaust using Jews as test subjects? Should we condone medical research that by nature requires the murdering of full grown adults? That's what the other side of the argument will come back with.

You ignore the real issue, the real debate when you simplify things to a level of \"Bushes personal feelings.\" The real question is: Are fetuses (or any other given stage of human life) people? If they are, then stem cell research that requires their death is equal to research that requires the murder of full grown adults- something I doubt you would dismiss as easily. If they are not, then Bush needs to be educated about the fact that they are not. Either way, the real issue is when a living organism with human DNA becomes a person in and of itself, and thus when is it an illegal act to end said life. We've already discussed these questions at length, and obviously havn't come to any agreements, so please spare us from your whining about Bush when you refuse to recognize his reasoning for what he did.

[DCrazy]

The main source of stem cells is fertility clinics, from embryos that are being discarded. They throw ten ova and a bajillion sperm in a petri dish in the hopes that they get septuplets, because that means there's a better chance at least one of the embryos will survive.

To deny science the ability to perform research based on religious posturing is a sad sign.

[Palzon]

The real question is: Are fetuses (or any other given stage of human life) people?

the embryo is not a fetus and not a person.

[Duper]

who here on this board DIDN'T start out as an embryo?

besides, it's unnecessary and unstable. You get beter results from adult stems cells drawn from fat tissue.

[Gooberman]

Oh Snap.

[Kilarin]

To deny science the ability to perform research based on religious posturing is a sad sign.

the embryo is not a fetus and not a person.

A few vitally important points:

How we define personhood is not by any means settled. For EITHER side in this debate to claim that the issue is straight forward or settled is simply silly.

Saying that we must not let "religion" have any part in this decision implies that we should let "science" determine who is and who is not a person. BUT, the question of personhood is, by it's very essence, ethical, not scientific. It's not a question science can answer. Science can provide us with information we can use in making our decision, but science does NOT provide definitions.

To give a very mundane example, science can not tell us what a planet is. Science can tell us all kinds of interesting facts about how big and massive an object is, what its orbit and rotational period are. But DEFINING what a planet is is something humans must do. Once we have a definition, science will tell us what fits into it and what doesn't.

Pluto is a good example of this, there is still debate in the scientific community as to whether the definition of planet should be changed to exclude Pluto. "Personhood" is in exactly the same boat. Once we have decided exactly what a person is, science MAY be able to help us determine what fits into that category, but creating the definition, setting the parameters, science has nothing to say on that.

And another point, while I am STRONGLY in favor of the separation of church and state, the issue of personhood is a matter that the government has a vital interest in since it is related to citizenship.

Finally, NO ONE has said that scientist must stop research. All that has been said is that the federal government won't fund it. The money from the fed comes from every US citizen. It is entirely reasonable for the Fed to say they will not take money from me by force and use it to fund research I think is evil unless they absolutely have to.

We fund nuclear weapons research because it is a defense issue. If you don't approve of nukes, vote against them, but we WILL use your tax dollars to fund defense until enough people vote to change that.

Medical research doesn't fit into that category. Not by any stretch of the imagination. If the government would only fund the things it had to, we could avoid a lot of these problems.

[Zuruck]

Guys, I wasn't trying to start another 'is it or is it not a life' debate, more or a look at a president that has yet to veto one bill, but will veto one that could be the path to breakthroughs in science and technology, for the simple fact that HE doesnt' like it...doesn't the majority of the population support this kind of research?

[Spooky]

░

[Mobius]

...should Americans allow a former cokehead's personal feelings stand in the way of potential innovation?

You don't get a choice.

That's why it's called a "Presidential Veto".

If you weren't comfortable with anb ex-coke addict as your president, then you shouldn't have allowed him to be elected. Twice!

[Duper]

there is a choice Mobius. It can be reintroduced what ... 3 times before the President can no longer veto a bill?

If it's THAT important to the people, then they need to get a hold of thier representatives and senitors and let them know how they feel. That DOES work. I've seen it work.

That is our choice in the States. Use it.

[Will Robinson]

Unless they (the government, and this goes to all parties) are willing to declare \"Life begins at \"X\" and therefore murder occurs at the death of....\"
Unless they have the balls to do that they have no business stopping the funding of stem cell research based upon the argument that we are fooling around with peoples lives.

Either it's someones tissue that was almost a human life (post abortion) / destined to become human life (prenatal), or it is life that deserves protection just as it is under the law.
So tell the politicians to either ★■◆● or get off the pot I'm tired of this two-faced dance they keep pulling!

In the meantime Bush is a tool if he breaks out the veto on this one! A principled misguided tool perhaps, but a tool none the less!

[Shadowfury333]

who here on this board DIDN'T start out as an embryo?

besides, it's unnecessary and unstable. You get better results from adult stems cells drawn from fat tissue.

Am I the only person who noticed this. It could solve the ethical problems and stop the nth repetition of the "what defines a person" argument. Also, these days fat loss—often through liposuction—is so popular, they'd have an abundance of stem cells.

[Zuruck]

The man has no principles. He eeked through life on coke and his name and never thought twice about anything. He woke up one day and thought \"hell, i could be president, aint that hoot\"

Makes me mad that the countless spending bills he had no problem signing, sending this country into debt and allowing China to buy a good portion of our economy, are less important than this bill.

Although I'm not sure on one thing, how did this get so much support in the House? I'm surprised to see such a division during an election year, for some reason, even with his ratings, can manage some pull. I just don't understand it.

[Kilarin]

Unless they (the government, and this goes to all parties) are willing to declare "Life begins at "X" and therefore murder occurs at the death of...."

They don't have the testicular fortitude to make a decision.

Unless they have the balls to do that they have no business stopping the funding of stem cell research based upon the argument that we are fooling around with peoples lives.

They had no right to take my money by force and spend it on medical research to begin with. If I want my money to go to medical research, I'll send it there.

Unfortunantly the tax and spend politicians (both parties) simply don't recognize that it's MY money they are stealing. So we are left with, at LEAST they should have the decency not to spend my money on something controversial.

[Palzon]

kilarin, my response was intentionally silly. people here are often hypocrital about choosing life when it suits them and not when it doesn't. as i recently posted elsewhere, outlawing handguns would save tens of thousands of lives per year (and no one can debate the personhood of the victims).

in a democracy we have to bear the price of certain evils. like it or not, the freedom to choose what happens or does not happen to your own body cannot be sacrificed. (nor can the right to bear arms)

the line must be drawn somewhere. in this day and age, the line is generally drawn at around the second trimester. and that's about as good a place as any.

so if you want the government to be allowed to order to you to undergo medical procedures, or order you to have a chip implanted in you or your children, or order you to be sterilized, or order you to be licensed in order to reproduce - then keep going down this path. or suck it and move to vatican city. otherwise, accept the fact that some freedoms cannot and should not be abrogated in an imperfect world.

edit: and one more thing...

if you want to talk about ultimate causes then consider that the retarded tea-totallers who outlawed booze in the early 20th are the biggest mass murderers of all time since booze has been the ultimate cause of so much f*cking. May be the question should be, \"How many here did not come into the world because our parents were drunk out of their gourds?\" Some of you were undoubtedly the result of a night of drunken debauchery.

embryonic stem cells are not people any more than are the skin cells in the dust bunnys stuck to your PC fan. we are talking about micoscopic cellular tissue that is not visible to the naked eye, not a developing fetus. Maybe we need a constitutional ammendment to protect Jack Daniels so that the rutting can continue unabated.

[Will Robinson]

When asked about abortion before he was elected he said 'america isn't ready to outlaw abortion so he wouldn't pursue that path'.

Well, if we aren't ready to quit sucking the little fetus' out of the womb while their heart is still beating then we sure as hell aren't going to complain about making good medicine out of the already dead embryos from fertility clinics!!

Has anyone asked him to reconcile why stopping abortion isn't on his agenda but stopping stem cell research is? That would be a great question for some wanna be journalist to ask!

[Duper]

embryonic stem cells are not people any more than are the skin cells in the dust bunnys stuck to your PC fan.

No, but the embryos they come from CAN be. It's unethical. That should be a no brainer. But it's painfully obvious that people have grown cold to the value of human life or existance.

Whales are treated better than we treat each other.

And Yes Shadow. You seem to be the only one.

[Palzon]

embryonic stem cells are not people any more than are the skin cells in the dust bunnys stuck to your PC fan.

No, but the embryos they come from CAN be. It's unethical.

we cannot make laws against everything that is "unethical" and continue to be a free country. do you notice that?

That should be a no brainer.

to me the no brainer is that democracies permit their people sovereignty over their own body.

[Ferno]

What is it with a stem cell research topic that ends up turning into an abortion debate?

are you (generally speaking) comfortable with seeing someone who has an advanced case of Cystic Fibrosis (that could have been cured with Stem cell research) as long as you feel good about yourself in the morning because your morals weren't compromised?

[Jeff250]

Saying that we must not let "religion" have any part in this decision implies that we should let "science" determine who is and who is not a person. BUT, the question of personhood is, by it's very essence, ethical, not scientific. It's not a question science can answer. Science can provide us with information we can use in making our decision, but science does NOT provide definitions.

Of course, the reverse is also true. Just because the question cannot be answered scientifically, that does not mean that it is a religious question.

To give a very mundane example, science can not tell us what a planet is. Science can tell us all kinds of interesting facts about how big and massive an object is, what its orbit and rotational period are. But DEFINING what a planet is is something humans must do. Once we have a definition, science will tell us what fits into it and what doesn't.

I think that this is the perfect example. The definition of "personhood" may be just as arbitrary as the definition of "planet." Scientists, with mostly utility in mind so that they can have a useful classification of large space objects, attempt to come up with a definition of a planet that will suit their purposes. There is no right definition though. I think that personhood is the same way. It's an error to even think that we can be right or wrong in our definition of it. We should just create a definition that balances the values that we hold as a society.

[Duper]

geez plazon.

give me a break. How on earth is tearing apart an embryo qualify as the scientists \"own body\"??

[Genghis]

The whole fetus-life-abortion thing is a red herring. You can't compare this to Nazi experiments. What you can compare it to is organ donations. When a cadaver can be used by science to teach (in a med school) or to heal (organ transplants) it generally is, unless the surviving relatives are cockbites. Same goes here, except that the cadaver is tragically young.

People are trying to tie stem cell research into the murder of fetuses. Well its beyond the province of researchers to track down how a subject died. If my dead mom could give her liver or my dead baby could give his stem cells to save others' lives, that's a good thing. It is a separate question of how my mom or kid died.

On a larger scale, this is a classical dual use problem. Is nuclear power good or bad? Just because it can be very harmful when used irresponsibly, should we outlaw it entirely?

[Ferno]

The whole fetus-life-abortion thing is a red herring.

I thought it was something like that

When a cadaver can be used by science to teach (in a med school) or to heal (organ transplants) it generally is, unless the surviving relatives are cockbites. Same goes here, except that the cadaver is tragically young.

you have me wondering if anyone tried to stop medicine from using cadavers as teaching tools. I'm not disagreeing with you at all on this part, but it's a question that came up when I read it.

People are trying to tie stem cell research into the murder of fetuses. Well its beyond the province of researchers to track down how a subject died. If my dead mom could give her liver or my dead baby could give his stem cells to save others' lives, that's a good thing. It is a separate question of how my mom or kid died.

yea, pretty much

On a larger scale, this is a classical dual use problem. Is nuclear power good or bad? Just because it can be very harmful when used irresponsibly, should we outlaw it entirely?

The same could be argued with guns. Now i'm not trying to turn this into a gun control issue.. that's for another time. But just because guns can be fatal when used incorrectly, should those be banned?


What bothers me most of all is most people who are pro-life/anti-abortion and use stem cell research to bolster their position are more often than not thinking only of themselves.

[Dakatsu]

Lets just pretend that the scientists are pulling the fetuses out of thin air, or not using fetuses at all. Stem cells are a good thing, they heal people, and save lives. Abortions are being done, and if you like it or not, those fetuses will go to waste. If stem cell research can happen, then the fetuses will be of use, if not, there is no point.

I personally think abortion should be allowed, but shouldn't be done alot or rarely. But even if you dont approve of it, it isnt as if abortion happens because a couple decides they want to donate to stem cell research. It happens because they get knocked up, or raped, or something. Allowing stem cell research just makes the fetuses of use. If you want to ban abortion, I wont be happy, but dont kill stem cell research just because the cells can come from a fetus. Even religious nuts should understand that stem cell research is good. The least religious nuts can do is realize that stem cells dont just come from dead babies!

[Testiculese]

you have me wondering if anyone tried to stop medicine from using cadavers as teaching tools.

Yes...and it took 500 years to get it back.

Also, stem cell research is NOT performed on a fetus! There is more mass in a virus than these embryonic jellies.

edit:: cells=mass

[Ferno]

um testi? viruses aren't cells.

[snoopy]

Getting back to the issue that started this- Bush's veto threat- the threat is to veto a bill that would allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, so stem cell research using other cell sources is out of the scope of the discussion. clicky

Stating that the researchers are not responsible for the cause of death is, in this case, somewhat of a fallacy. Embryonic stem cell research can have a very real effect on the decision a person may make concerning an abortion, simply by nature of the fact that there is premeditation involved in the act. I suppose the same premeditation can be applied to organ doners in some cases, but any of those cases will have their own ethical questions (euthenasia, for example). For the most part, organ donation and using cadavers for training is simply a means of making the best of a death that was beyond anyone's control, or making the best of an illegal act performed by others. You don't kill people for their organs, but a pregnant woman can be made to feel justified in an abortion by the thought that it will lead to good medical research. So, while your argument sounds nice Genghis, it's essentially flawed- embryonic stem research is just as much akin to Nazi experiments as it is to organ donations- because people do consciously decide the fate of the embyro. Furthermore, it is a dual use question, but at the root of it lies the question of breach of human rights, not environmental neglect. Justifying any breach of human rights is a slippery slope toward exactly what this country was founded to gain freedom from.

[Ferno]

Getting back to the issue that started this- Bush's veto threat- the threat is to veto a bill that would allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, so stem cell research using other cell sources is out of the scope of the discussion. clicky

Stating that the researchers are not responsible for the cause of death is, in this case, somewhat of a fallacy. Embryonic stem cell research can have a very real effect on the decision a person may make concerning an abortion, simply by nature of the fact that there is premeditation involved in the act.

Can you tell me exactly how a researcher is involved in the decision of a woman deciding wether or not to abort the pregnancy when the two parties have nothing to do with each other?

[Behemoth]

I was actually interested in seeing how the research would turn out, somewhere in the near future i would say it looks benefitial to say the least

you think about the possibilities and tell me you think it is a bad idea.


BTW, lets try to actually stay on subject for once in a blue moon

[Dakatsu]

★■◆●, the fucker vetoed the bill, and the house didn't override it!

Anyone here think this is total crap?

[Jeff250]

We humans are set back, but at least $deity is happy.

[Duper]

good

[Ferno]

more like a handful of people.

\"whee we were able to put our selfish wants over an entire population. go us!\"

makes me sick.

[CUDA]

I was watching a show last night that was talking about stem cell research. first off last year in the private sector there was $100 million spent on stem cell research. and they estimate by 2010 there will be $20 billion in private money invested. I say my tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere. escpecially with as wasteful as our government is with our $$ and with as much of a hot button topic this is, I say keep the Government out of it let private companies fund it.

should Americans allow a former cokehead's personal feelings stand in the way of potential innovation?

Zurich grow up! I dont think I've seen a post from you in this forum for at least 6 months now that didnt personally insult someone that was the slightest bit from the right. it you wish to discuss a subject then act like an adult doing it, your starting to sound like a Howard Dean wanna-be

[Zuruck]

Because I can Cuda, because the man is a puppet of so many things that are absolutely vile in this world. His entire life was full of debauchery, the kind of life I wish I had, and then one day he decided to run for president. That was after bankrupting multiple businesses, a couple DUIs, plenty of eight balls, and skipping national guard duty. His crazed following (Christians) think the man is doing the right thing by nullifying all federal funding for potentially curable diseases that just need some research.

Hah, another two years and then the biggest failure in the 100 years will be gone, hopefully whoever it is after him can fix a few of the things that Bush and his crazed christian right following have screwed up.

*edit - I almost forgot. Cuda, would you like a southside Chicago crack whore making decisions for you? What if she said she had found god? Would you believe her? That's what the president is...a crack man-whore Like you

[Palzon]

I say my tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere. escpecially with as wasteful as our government is with our $$...

no kidding! who needs the cure for cancer anyway?

[CUDA]

I say my tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere. escpecially with as wasteful as our government is with our $$...

no kidding! who needs the cure for cancer anyway?

LOL come-on Palz, do you REALLY think that if the government funded stem cell research that most of those tax dollars wouldn't be wasted???? it is being funded by private dollars soon to be to the tune of 20 billion, thats BILLION with a B. Yep thats just want I want my government to do throw more money at a problem, like they have ever had success by doing that. just like the $125 hammer or the $450 toilet seat. the Private sector has always ALWAYS been a better and more efficent way of handeling things like this. PLUS "our" money could be better spent elsewhere. this doesnt even account for the foreign Government dollars that would be spent on research in this matter that our scientists would benefit from also

[CUDA]

Because I can Cuda, because the man is a puppet of so many things that are absolutely vile in this world. His entire life was full of debauchery, the kind of life I wish I had, and then one day he decided to run for president. That was after bankrupting multiple businesses, a couple DUIs, plenty of eight balls, and skipping national guard duty. His crazed following (Christians) think the man is doing the right thing by nullifying all federal funding for potentially curable diseases that just need some research.

"QUOTE"Hah, another two years and then the biggest failure in the 100 years will be gone, hopefully whoever it is after him can fix a few of the things that Bush and his crazed christian right following have screwed up.

*edit - I almost forgot. Cuda, would you like a southside Chicago crack whore making decisions for you? What if she said she had found god? Would you believe her? That's what the president is...a crack man-whore Like you

I would debate you on this Zurich, but I'd be wasting my time, first off you dont debate, you spout venom. second you are so full of hate for anything that doesn't fit into your narrow little leftists view of life that I'd be better served talking to my monitor. you see to have a debate it takes both side.

"QUOTE"de·bate Audio pronunciation of "debate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.

# To consider something; deliberate.
# To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
# A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
# Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
# A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition."UN-QUOTE"

first, off you dont consider the opposing side on anything.
second, you dont discuss you name call, insinuate, and bash anyone that is even slightly opposed to your viewpoint.
third, consideration means you must have a open mind regarding the subject, which you have proven because of your hatred for the President that you do not have an open mind
forth, its a formal contest of two teams defending thier positions. a contest means you must patricipate in said discussion. see point #2

[Zuruck]

First, I'm not a leftist, when have you seen me defend something that Pelosi is doing? That's the difference between you and me, you feel as if the Dems are the problem and that this country would be one big happy bowl of soup if it were Repubs only...don't you get it!! They are all corrupt!!

There is no debate when it comes to Bush. There is no debate with regards to this decision on stem cells. It's stifling science, science that has the potential to do some very, very good things. Nobody knows what the full capacity could be of these stem cells, yet, our govt won't even give it a try.

You see, I rarely agree with Will, yet he is a guy that I wouldn't mind having a beer with and talking about stuff because he gets it in the end. Yes, we disagree about lots and lots of things but unlike you, he seems to have some intelligence behind it.

And finally, yes, my hatred for the president is very large. In the last 6 years, I've seen this guy divide this country so incredibly much, throw everything in the dumps, try to force religion into everything, stifle science, murder the environment, and do everything imaginable to take away the once great country we had. This stem cell thing is only the latest apple in the orchard but people like you would vote for him, again.