Stem Cells

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:12 pm

I'm all for \"stifling science\" when it chucks ethics out the window. 20 years ago, this would have been unimaginable by most. Yet as society grows more callous it becomes nothing to cover the conscience with the thin veneer \"for the sake of science\".

To take an example from an unlikely source: there was an episode of Babylon 5 that illustrates this rather well. The sole survivor of a dead species finds the \"key\" to immortality for the human race. This species had been extremely pernicious. The key was found within Human DNA and required that one had to die in order to create the treament that would give another immortality. On her way to deliver the formula to the Earth Defence Alliance, (how was very eager to get thier hands on it) a Vorlon ship popped out of hyperspace and destroys her shuttle just before it entered a hyper-gate. Kosh, whom was watching this take place with everyone else, told a startled crowd. \"You are not ready for immortality\". the human race race was spared of destroying itself.

See the parallel?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:32 pm

So wait a minute, let me get this straight, a 60 year old man with cancer has to eat it because you want to save a clump of cells that is about a week old?

Why is trying to find a cure for something that afflicts millions of people unethical? Are we messing maybe with natural selection?

Explain to me what is so unethical about this please.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:46 pm

Duper wrote:I'm all for "stifling science" when it chucks ethics out the window. 20 years ago, this would have been unimaginable by most. Yet as society grows more callous it becomes nothing to cover the conscience with the thin veneer "for the sake of science".

To take an example from an unlikely source: there was an episode of Babylon 5 that illustrates this rather well. The sole survivor of a dead species finds the "key" to immortality for the human race. This species had been extremely pernicious. The key was found within Human DNA and required that one had to die in order to create the treament that would give another immortality. On her way to deliver the formula to the Earth Defence Alliance, (how was very eager to get thier hands on it) a Vorlon ship popped out of hyperspace and destroys her shuttle just before it entered a hyper-gate. Kosh, whom was watching this take place with everyone else, told a startled crowd. "You are not ready for immortality". the human race race was spared of destroying itself.

See the parallel?

So stem cells make you immortal, kickass!

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:39 pm

Zuruck wrote:So wait a minute, let me get this straight, a 60 year old man with cancer has to eat it because you want to save a clump of cells that is about a week old?

Why is trying to find a cure for something that afflicts millions of people unethical? Are we messing maybe with natural selection?

Explain to me what is so unethical about this please.

you missed the point. "Natural selection" has nothing to do with it. I've been trying to explain, but you don't seem to understand what "ethical" is.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:04 pm

I don't think most of the country knows what ethical is...

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:37 pm

Duper wrote:
Zuruck wrote:So wait a minute, let me get this straight, a 60 year old man with cancer has to eat it because you want to save a clump of cells that is about a week old?

Why is trying to find a cure for something that afflicts millions of people unethical? Are we messing maybe with natural selection?

Explain to me what is so unethical about this please.
you missed the point. "Natural selection" has nothing to do with it. I've been trying to explain, but you don't seem to understand what "ethical" is.

Ethics are what people believe are right and wrong. The majority of this country believes that the scientific benefits of this overpowers the possibility of the fetuses being used as new babies. Just because one person in the white house believes it is unethical, shouldnt stand in the way of what everyone believes is ethical. Please tell me why we should stop research on stem cells on fetuses that will be never used for anything else? Sure some could be turned into kids, but that possibility is low. Without this research, about 400,000 fetuses will be of waste. Now "killing babies" is one thing, but what about not even using them for something that could save people?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:04 pm

Dakatsu, that's what I was getting at. The conservative right would LOVE to say that you're killing babies with embryonic research. This man's hypocritical view of life and death is going to ruin, at least for two more years, advanced research. Will the research end up with anything? You never know, but you have to think that the Wright brothers, if they were asked, would never believe in a plane that could fly into space and then come back again.

*edit - What ethics?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/bangbangbang.html

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:10 pm

Zuruck wrote:Dakatsu, that's what I was getting at. The conservative right would LOVE to say that you're killing babies with embryonic research. This man's hypocritical view of life and death is going to ruin, at least for two more years, advanced research. Will the research end up with anything? You never know, but you have to think that the Wright brothers, if they were asked, would never believe in a plane that could fly into space and then come back again.

The ironic thing is, many republicans voted for this bill! They are normally against this, but look, even the republicans who I normally think are idiots, are smart enough to see that the least they could do is use the dead babies for science. But Bushitte is a god damn idiot and vetoed it!

I even said "Look a it this way, if you dont like abortion, vote to ban it. But stem cells only come from abortions, and dont cause it. So vote this bill in, even if you are pro-life!"

The US finally agrees on something, and this retard has to screw it all up!

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:24 pm

Please don't even infer that Bush is pro-life. He most certainly is not.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:07 pm

CUDA wrote:...the Private sector has always ALWAYS been a better and more efficent way of handeling things like this....

Don't bet on that one!

Found the following while looking into this. It appears that the federal dollars spent on research like this not only make up a big part of the total spent but unlike the dollars spent by private companies, which focus their spending to perfect a product, the federal dollars are usually spent on the broader scope of discovering the cures in the first place (like the stem cell research Bush wants to exempt from federal spending) which the private companies then spend money learning how to refine it into a workable, profitable product...
**********************
"Some perspective:

Federal funding in the broad field of health-related research was slightly less than $16
billion in 1999. R&D investments by research-based pharmaceutical companies were 21.1 billion in 1998.

Private sector investment by all of the pharmaceutical companies combined was only 30% higher than the federal funding. And private sector investment focuses on relatively narrow business goals and treatment, not very speculative, black box research.

Read all of this for more:

http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/pne/pubs/f ... ummary.htm"
*********************

So it looks to me like the lack of federal funding will be detrimental to the development of medicines, treatment and cures based on stem cell research!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:42 pm

First off Bush did not outlaw stem cell research. all he did was veto a bill funding GOVERNMENT research of it. as I have stated and no one has yet contradicted or even addressed, was that Private funding for it will total 20 billion $$ in 4 years, and this does not include foreign government research of it. all some us here want to do is bash the Christians and Republicans while being blinded to thier own biases

edit: dang Will you posted before I could get this finished

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:48 pm

someone check the temerature in hell.. because I just agreed with will.

There is a process called cryopreservation. After IVF (Invitro fertilization), embryos are treated with cryoprotectants and then placed in liquid nitrogen. there are hundreds of these vials with embryos in storage. At this point, the embryo is in a form of suspended animation and is not alive in the traditional sense. Some of these embryos are not used and they expire, and so the fertility clinics dispose of them. Now these excess embryos could just sit in the trash melting and going to waste.. or they could be used for stem cell research. Even at the stage where they're frozen, there's at least one stem cell ready to go.

Here's a FAQ about stem cells I recently dug up

Bush would love the entire population to think that the doctors involved with fertility are killing adopted children when the expired embryos are disposed off. Sorry mister bush, but the embryo has to construct itself into the systems that a human body is made up of in order to start life.

By him vetoing this, he told everyone 'my wants and the wants of my crazy supporters are more important than curing cancer and MS.' Come next election, kick his monkey butt out.

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:49 pm

Dakatsu wrote:stem cells only come from abortions,

Didn't we already decide that this wasn't necessarily the case.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:07 pm

Ferno wrote:someone check the temerature in hell.. because I just agreed with will.

There is a process called cryopreservation. After IVF (Invitro fertilization), embryos are treated with cryoprotectants and then placed in liquid nitrogen. there are hundreds of these vials with embryos in storage. At this point, the embryo is in a form of suspended animation and is not alive in the traditional sense. Some of these embryos are not used and they expire, and so the fertility clinics dispose of them. Now these excess embryos could just sit in the trash melting and going to waste.. or they could be used for stem cell research. Even at the stage where they're frozen, there's at least one stem cell ready to go.

Here's a FAQ about stem cells I recently dug up

Bush would love the entire population to think that the doctors involved with fertility are killing adopted children when the expired embryos are disposed off. Sorry mister bush, but the embryo has to construct itself into the systems that a human body is made up of in order to start life.

By him vetoing this, he told everyone 'my wants and the wants of my crazy supporters are more important than curing cancer and MS.' Come next election, kick his monkey butt out.

Come next election, he cant be elected again.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:10 pm

Ferno wrote:Come next election, kick his monkey butt out.

Aye aye cap'm!

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:42 pm

ok.. well if he can't get back in.. make sure his successor doesn't get in.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:57 pm

Ferno wrote:ok.. well if he can't get back in.. make sure his successor doesn't get in.

Oh ★■◆● we have our governor of Florida too...

FYI: I am a Floridian, whose governor happens to be the brother of Georgie here... sucks dont it? At least the beaches own and the girls are hot.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:40 pm

\"Gov. Jeb bush ordered all floridians to register for a state-wide ID program... oh wait look at the hot girls!\"

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:53 pm

Ferno wrote:ok.. well if he can't get back in.. make sure his successor doesn't get in.

.er..way to be on top of things there Ferno..

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:47 pm

Ferno wrote:...By him vetoing this, he told everyone 'my wants and the wants of my crazy supporters are more important than curing cancer and MS.'....

Exactly. He's pandering to the anti-abortion crowd because the process is akin to abortion in their mind.
but don't think for a minute that the other side of the two-parties-disguised-as-one don't do the same thing. right now there are politicians on the left who would vote to come down on the right side of the War on Terror if not for their political survival depending on them towing the democrat party line...

The best way to keep politicians from sacrificing the good of the people in exchange for gaining re-election is to radically reform campaign finance and if you combine that with abolishing the tax code and impliment the Fair Tax you will take away the ability of the parties to hold so much influence on the elected representatives.

In this case Bush would still do what he did because he has no campaign to run and he believes he's doing the right thing but you would most likely see plenty of votes to override his veto. Votes from representatives who are afraid to lose their parties support and thus their re-election bid if they cross the line....

Lose the lobbiests, the corporate and other soft money from the campaign process. Lose the ability of congress to write a bazillion tax code exemptions as bribes for election funds and watch the representatives all jump in line to start representing the people instead of the party!!!

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:52 pm

You know what really cracks me up about this? On one hand, you have adult-derived stem cells, which are currently being used in treatments for 70+ (and counting) conditions, hold no moral issues at all, and (recent research suggests) could turn out to be more useful in the long run than those derived from embryos. On the other, you have said embryonic stem cells, which carry a moral stigma, have not been used to cure a single person up until this point, and may not be a reasonable source for treatments at all. To add to that, any benefit that they may give humanity is at least fifteen to twenty years down the road. All the while, adult stem cells will be what are curing actual people. And yet, despite all of that, which one of the two gets praised as an absolute panacea, and which one gets virtually ignored? Am I the only person who sees something wrong here?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:08 pm

I can tell you didn't read the FAQ I linked to Top gun.

XThermonucleusX · Post by **XThermonucleusX** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:02 am

In response to the original thread topic question posed by the thread creator, my answer is no: Bush shouldn't force his personal predilications to get in the way.

Also, since we have three branches in our government, the judicial, executive, and legislative branch, hopefully checks and balances will preclude Bush from making a hasty decision. I think that if senate majority agrees with any decision passed up to Bush, then he will be strongly advised not to veto (if the stem cell related bill is proposed again, assuming it has already been vetoed).

As far as stem cell research, I believe it is a very interesting subject, and think that it should be carried out. As with all major cell-biological research, indirect benefits not pertaining directly to complete cell restructuring and recreation can come about and benefit fields like medicine and other technological fields. I think what we need to be careful of is the IMPLEMENTATION of stem cell research, because only then will we have a tangible problem on our hands.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:05 am

Duper wrote:But it's painfully obvious that people have grown cold to the value of human life or existance

oh no you don't, i'm not letting you pull a "holier than thou" here on the topic of "sanctity of life". Christianity has been the cause of death of too many people for anyone to allow it to take the moral high ground on "sanctity of life".
- Religious rhetoric used as justification for wars
- Faith healing
- Medical Conservatism (as this topic is yet another example of)

Christianity (and it's Conservative ideological base) does NOT hold the moral high ground.

Ferno wrote:
Genghis wrote: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.

Duper wrote:I'm all for "stifling science" when it chucks ethics out the window. 20 years ago, this would have been unimaginable by most.

hehe. okok i'm just gonna ruin the whole inside joke and announce to those here who don't know: it was the CHRISTIANS who used to accuse people of NECROMANCY when they disected cadavers for research. Leonardo Da Vinci risked being burned at the stake for his research, and was often threatened by the church.

Dakatsu wrote: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!

The embryonic stemcells are not comming from abortions. They are comming from unused embryos that are a sideeffect of In-Vitro Fertilization (they always make more embryos than they need). These embryos have never even seen a falopian tube, they are not "abortions".

Duper, in response to the news of the veto, wrote:good

Yeah? well ★■◆● you. What condition rules your life that could be alleviated by this research? I'm betting NONE.
So sure, celebrate your victory. You know nothing of the other side of the fence, but one day you just might - (if you don't circum to denial) your perfect little world will be shattered and then your selfishness will change. But it will be too late for you.
But for now, sleep well on your silk sheets in your ivory tower, kiss your "god's gift" Auran children goodnight. Tell yourself that they will never get sick, it won't be on your head. Afterall, who gives a ★■◆● about EARTH if you're retirement plan reads HEAVEN.
"Leave earth for those filthy pagans and negros, we'll be too busy kickin martinis with Jesus to care"

and to think you mortal-coil tourists collectively try to play the moral high ground.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:21 am

roid wrote:oh no you don't, i'm not letting you pull a "holier than thou" here on the topic of "sanctity of life". Christianity has been the cause of death of too many people for anyone to allow it to take the moral high ground on "sanctity of life".
- Religious rhetoric used as justification for wars...

I wonder why you would single out christianity as a catalyst for starting wars when something like 90% of all war zones on the planet today involve muslims and I can't think of one christian leader alive today or in recent history who started a war for religious reasons. however there are numerous islamic leaders alive today who have done so!

As to christians objecting to using cadavers, how many centuries did you have to go back to find that behavior? Now, by comparison, how many days would you have to go back to find islamc leaders taking a similarly backwards positions that would stifle the advancement of human kind?

Pssst, your knee jerk christian-phobia is showing!
If you held all religions to the same standard you have for christianity then by comparison you would be so outraged with islam you would be on the front lines with rifle in hand trying to kill as many islamo-fascists as you could! Instead you seem to selectively practice your own moral highground dance when religion is involved....

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:09 am

Will wrote:I wonder why you would single out christianity...

Roid's aim was to point out hypocracy in Christians' "sanctity of life" bit. Maybe if Duper was Muslim or if Muslims were actively against stem cell research under the guise of "sanctity of life," I could see how any of your knee-jerk reaction is relevant.

In fact, a quick Google reveals that most Muslims do support stem cell research, so it would have been silly to have castigated Muslims for not supporting it.

http://www.islam101.com/science/stemCells.htm
http://www.islam-online.net/english/Vie ... cle6.shtml (author says it's not against Islam, but it contradicts his preferred role of government)
http://www.pfaith.org/islam.htm
http://www.crescentlife.com/wellness/st ... ective.htm

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:18 am

Will Robinson wrote:
roid wrote:oh no you don't, i'm not letting you pull a "holier than thou" here on the topic of "sanctity of life". Christianity has been the cause of death of too many people for anyone to allow it to take the moral high ground on "sanctity of life".
- Religious rhetoric used as justification for wars...
I wonder why you would single out christianity as a catalyst for starting wars when something like 90% of all war zones on the planet today involve muslims and I can't think of one christian leader alive today or in recent history who started a war for religious reasons. however there are numerous islamic leaders alive today who have done so!

As to christians objecting to using cadavers, how many centuries did you have to go back to find that behavior? Now, by comparison, how many days would you have to go back to find islamc leaders taking a similarly backwards positions that would stifle the advancement of human kind?

Pssst, your knee jerk christian-phobia is showing!
If you held all religions to the same standard you have for christianity then by comparison you would be so outraged with islam you would be on the front lines with rifle in hand trying to kill as many islamo-fascists as you could! Instead you seem to selectively practice your own moral highground dance when religion is involved....

I havn't had any personal experience with MUSLIMS i've met IRL or online cramming their beliefs down my throat. Christianity however...

I also don't have any experience with a sovereign nation who loudly & patiotically advertises itself as the Epitome of Democracy and Freedom, letting it's biggoted ISLAMIC morals paint itself a fool in the world's eyes. Christianity however...

As Jeff pointed out, the comment was reactionary to a perceived move by the christian base to take a standpoint of moral highground - my drunken state saw such a move as completely inapropriate, and my sober state agrees (but may have felt it nessesary to be more elequaent)! No Muslims here have attempted such a move - so i deemed Muslims irrelevant in my reactionary commentary and did not mention them.

i was a wee bit drunk and tongue loosened when i posted my last post. My main beef is with conservatism - Christianity is SOOOO often used to ideologically justify it, so it often draws my fire (and frankly it's rarely undeserved. I smell american conservatism - i smell christians).
Drunk roid = Unapologetic ranty tapestry complete with weave of timesaving yet unfortunately non-PC generalisations. So, to the kindhearted christians among us who are undeserving of such insensitivity - i apologise for you nice people getting caught in the crossfire targeted at hardliners

If you held all religions to the same standard you have for christianity then by comparison you would be so outraged with islam you would be on the front lines with rifle in hand trying to kill as many islamo-fascists as you could! Instead you seem to selectively practice your own moral highground dance when religion is involved....

dude, do NOT give me a gun if i'm drunk

. Just let me harmlessly swing my fishts around.

along the line of what Jeff250 just brought up:
in a wiki article dedicated to the stem cell controvacy it mentioned some stunning figures suggesting that, when averaged out, christians are actually MORE pro stem-cell research than the average person! which could indicate a possability of a NON-CHRISTIAN anti-stem cell research ideological base which could throw my entire worldview out the window. As such suggestions are incredibly damaging to my worldview, i shall therefore choose to internally-deny such statements at this time

.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:57 am

Will Robinson wrote:
roid wrote:oh no you don't, i'm not letting you pull a "holier than thou" here on the topic of "sanctity of life". Christianity has been the cause of death of too many people for anyone to allow it to take the moral high ground on "sanctity of life".
- Religious rhetoric used as justification for wars...
I wonder why you would single out christianity as a catalyst for starting wars when something like 90% of all war zones on the planet today involve muslims and I can't think of one christian leader alive today or in recent history who started a war for religious reasons. however there are numerous islamic leaders alive today who have done so!

As to christians objecting to using cadavers, how many centuries did you have to go back to find that behavior? Now, by comparison, how many days would you have to go back to find islamc leaders taking a similarly backwards positions that would stifle the advancement of human kind?

Pssst, your knee jerk christian-phobia is showing!
If you held all religions to the same standard you have for christianity then by comparison you would be so outraged with islam you would be on the front lines with rifle in hand trying to kill as many islamo-fascists as you could! Instead you seem to selectively practice your own moral highground dance when religion is involved....

edit, (written prior to roid's reply above):

will, roid is not singling out christianity. he's singling out Duper, who happens to espouse a fundamentalist christian viewpoint. object to stem cell research on the basis of the koran and i'm sure roid would be happy to call bull$h!t on islam.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:46 am

personally I am not opposed to stem cell research. contrary to what a certain member of this board would like to think. I expouse to the Klingon thought on the human body, after death it is meerly an empty shell dispose of it as you see fit. but I am anti abortion, tho the two are uncontrolably linked together. I feel that once the abortion is performed and the life is terminated. it is just an empty shell and we should dispose of it as we see fit. I just feel that with all the other funding that it has here and world wide I would like my Tax dollars to go else where

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:25 pm

pssst, they're not from abortions...

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:32 pm

Well Cuda, unfortunately, they are not linked together. You're believing exactly what your group wants you to believe. Your personal ideas of what happens to a human life before or after death is not shared by every single person. That is why you don't get to make decisions for all of us, hence why Bush should not make this kind of decision so haphazardly.

Top Gun, that's exactly why we have to have funded research. 15 years is a long ways sure, but too long to cure cancer? What's the timeframe then? 6 months? Two days?

Sadly, and I tried not to do this, the problem we have again is religion. There is nothing unethical about this, absolutely nothing, and yet we find ourselves stymied by ONE single faction. If this issue was opposed by more we would not have seen the bipartisan support that this bill did indeed have.

Anyone here have a close family member that died of cancer / leukemia / or anything else that still has no cure? If you have, then you're like me in espousing Bush's lies. Get him out...get 'em all out. Ferno for president.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:09 pm

Palzon wrote:will, roid is not singling out christianity. he's singling out Duper, who happens to espouse a fundamentalist christian viewpoint....

I was taking issue with roids complaint that christians are waging wars for religious reasons. please note the part of his post I quoted and responded to...

He often goes off on christians as the cause of all ills in the world. I just wanted to point out to him that if he wants to blame the followers of a religion for starting wars he really shouldn't pick on christianity since he's quite a few centuries late however if he looks at the islamic variation of religious leadership he would find his warlords....

And roid, we here in america think that al Queda blowing up nearly three thousand of our countrymen to be a very severe form of 'cramming their beliefs down our throats.'

I believe some of your countrymen suffered similar fates in a nightclub in Malaysia. so I'm sorry if someone has tried to get you to accept jesus as your savior, that must have been wicked scary but it probably didn't hurt as much as a car bomb or a 747 fully laden with fuel dropping on your head!

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:39 pm

Zuruck wrote:Top Gun, that's exactly why we have to have funded research. 15 years is a long ways sure, but too long to cure cancer? What's the timeframe then? 6 months? Two days?

But why spend the money on something that's, at best, that period of time away, when proven treatments for cancer, and yes, possibly even flat-out cures, could be found much more quickly? Month after month, I've heard of studies suggesting that adult stem cells are more and more adaptable and capable than was ever thought at first. That's the technique that's proven to work, so why shouldn't we be throwing money at it instead, to push it further on and potentially eliminate the need for embryonic stem cell research altogether? I'm trying to not bring personal ethical views into this (even though that is admittedly difficult), but even from a pragmatic, practical standpoint, I don't see how chasing an unproven hope is more valuable than pursuing a current reality that holds even greater promise in the future. Looking at it from that angle, completely ignoring the ethics or morality, it wouldn't follow that embryonic stem cell research should cease entirely, but it would follow that the federal dollars should be directed toward the adult side. To me, it seems like too many of those calling for the passage of bills like this are ignoring what's right under their noses while reaching for something that might not even exist. It'd be akin to pouring billions into finding a way to perfect cold fusion while almost completely brushing over research involving tokamaks; in other words, it doesn't make scientific sense.

Ferno, I did briefly glance at that FAQ, and according to what I saw, some of that info is definitely outdated. An article in the most recent issue of Time stated that the newest research suggests that adult stem cells could potentially be prompted to move into a wholly "omnipotent" form of growth, which would make them completely akin to embryonic stem cells. (Admittedly, that process might require a small degree of research on embryonic stem cells, but you'd have to think that something like that could be taken care of with existing lines.) Even without that, though, the whole rigid "pluripotent" limitation of adult stem cells doesn't hold as true as it once was; newer research is finding that they are, in fact, more adaptable than once thought. Like I said above, that's why the whole discussion about this makes even less sense to me.

Look, I've lost loved ones to cancer too. I know how absolutely horrible the disease is. But I don't see how the passage of a bill like this will necessarily change anything. Treatments involving embryonic stem cells are a hope, at best; in contrast, I know someone personally whose cancer treatment involved the use of her own adult stem cells. To me, that's the way of the future, and that's where the main bulk of research, particularly the government-funded category, should be focused.

P.S. Regarding the fact that said embryos would be those frozen in fertility clinics, and not the direct result of an abortion, ethically speaking, there are a lot of people out there who believe that those embryos shouldn't exist to begin with. The very idea of creating hundreds of embryos, only to implant one or two into the mother's womb, really is incredibly wasteful, even without the morality issue,and especially considering the amount of children out there looking to be adopted. And who's to say that things would end there? Who's to say that some day, women might be able to sell embryos fresh out of the womb for stem cell research? If demand were to skyrocket, and if the majority of those frozen embryos are as medically useless as has been claimed, is that really that much of a stretch? You may dismiss the "slippery slope" argument as bunkum, but it's not a big leap here. Are we giving a blanket "end justifies the means" pass to this whole issue?

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:30 am

Yes yes Will, Islam sucks too.
But please try to remain on topic.

TopGun:

Your comments on embryonic vs adult stem cells are apt and you seem close to understanding (imo) the true issue here. This is a war between Secular society and the \"religious authoritarian right\".

i beleive it's Secular society primarily calling attention to this issue of embryonic stem cells, because they believe that it is a good example of the doubletalk and hypocracy of the incumbent Religious camp. It's ammo.

The reason Secular society is making an issue of this topic is because they are sick of being bossed around by an incumbent religious ideology in society who justifys their standpoint with a religious textbook and is therefore immune to \"reason\" (Secular society's main weapon).
It's incredibly frustrating dealing with such inconsolable intellectual differences, it's no wonder both sides hate eachother so.

bleh, wax poetic. this post added nothing to the thread.... i'll follow with an article.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:49 am

http://blogs.salon.com/0000014/2006/07/19.html#a1068
(linked from boingboing.net yesterday)

...Here is why Bush's position is a joke: Thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded. If Bush and his administration truly believe that destroying an embryo is a kind of murder, they shouldn't be wasting their time arguing about research funding: They should immediately shut down every fertility clinic in the country, arrest the doctors and staff who operate them, and charge all the wannabe parents who have been wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn. But of course they'll never do such a thing. (Nor, to be absolutely clear, do I think they should.) Bush could not care less about this issue except as far as it helps burnish his pro-life credentials among his \"base.\"...

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:26 am

I wouldn't say that Bush is a problem. I would say that folks desperate to have childeren are. Try adoption.

Thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded.

This is just wrong.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:37 am

Roid, I think you hit upon an issue of humanity in stating the difficulties between christians and non-christians. I think you see the symptoms, and incorrectly guess at the causes.

1) You state that christians and non-christians hate each other- in theory it should be the non-christians hate christians, but not vice-versa. In practice, many times it ends up being two sided. Doctrinally, this hate is caused by the presence of God in christian's lives. Non-christians hate God, thus they are put off by those that have God in them.

2) You often mention hypocracy and sin in christian's lives, and try to undermine the belief system because it's followers can't stick to what they say is right. In fact, that is one of the most central items in the christian system of belief. Nearly every sermon ever preached in history has been aimed at encouraging those who call themselves christians to stop doing what they shouldn't, and start doing what they should. The primary step involved in being saved is admission of one's own guilt. Christians shouldn't be taking the moral high ground because they themselves always follow it, but because that's what they believe is demanded of them, and they admittedly fall short of. The christian who is truely walking with God will still make mistakes, will openly admit it, and will humbly accept anyone's rebuke when they get called out on their sin- quite simply we are all sinners, christian and non-christian alike- the difference is what you do with that fact that makes the difference. In real life, I would say that probably the majority of christians arn't seeking that position of fixing their own sin enough, and as a result you get christians who blindly think that they are somehow better than others. The difficulty with truely following God is that it requires a huge amount of sacrifice and change, because the belief system pervades all aspects of life, and thus being truely consistant in living requires change in almost all aspects of life. Furthermore, the majority of christians think that it's good enough to simply stop at the obvious sins, but the Bible teaches that sin should be dealt with at all levels, from actions, to thoughts, to attitudes. The point is, a true christian aspires to the higher moral ground because God calls us to it, but admittedly never makes it to where we are called to be.

3) back closer to topic- I see invetrio fertilization as abortions just as much as pulling a fetus out of a mother's womb. As I said, the disagreement is at the point of what set of physical parameters are necessary to define individual human life, and what level of destruction constitutes the taking of that life. Here are some things to consider in answering that question:

a) The definition shouldn't be arbitrary. Thus, I think it's invalid to define it as time in the life. Why? Because then different people can pick different times, thus leading to perpatual disagreement.
b) The definition has to somehow take into account natural loss of calls, etc. For example, if you where to say that killing a person involves simply the death of a single cell, then by cutting yourself you technically killed yourself. I would suggest that killing someone should be defined as either directly causing one's brain wave to cease, or directly causing the vast majority of one's cells to die.
c) I would define individual life as an organism with a unique set of human DNA. (not sure how cloning would affect this) Others would define it as the above plus other things- a brain wave, breathing, etc.

As a result of my definition of individual life, I don't agree with those fertility techniques, and wouldn't participate in them. Really, if christians are going to be internally consistant, they should be putting up just as much of a stink about it as they do about abortion... abortion is more of a hot topic, though, so it gets more attention.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:48 am

Duper it may be wrong in your view but it is legal so the president really shouldn't be shutting down federal funding to that field of medical research based on his personal belief that the law should be different!

He should campaign to change the law or live with it like all the everyday citizens have to do with so many laws that they don't agree with! If he wouldn't try to outlaw abortion because america isn't, in his view, \"ready for that\", then logic would dictate that america isn't ready to outlaw using throw away tissue for research.

He's not engaged in leadership he's merely pandering to the anti-abortion voter. If it was a principled stance he would be asking congress for all sorts of changes to protect the throw away tissue and stop abortion etc...
It was just cheap lazy politically motivated posturing and the only material result of his ploy will be to set back finding the cure for some really horrible diseases! It won't stop the destruction of one single frozen embryo!! They will still be thrown away without extracting one bit of good from them!!

If we wanted that kind of bull★■◆● leadership we would have voted for Al Gore and John Kerry.
The anti-abortion voter should be insulted by this veto.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:52 am

Duper wrote:
Thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded.
This is just wrong.

I don't understand. how is this wrong?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:58 am

snoopy wrote:Non-christians hate God

I don't know a single non-christian that hates god. Non-christians hate christians.

If you don't have a conciousness, you aren't human. 50 cells you can't see without a microscope is not a person. If you are that desperate about polluting this planet with people, then you better make a law that requires every woman to submit every egg they pass during their period to be checked for fertilization, because guess what? Over 50% of a woman's fertilized eggs get flushed with the tampon. (Oh the horror! Oh, the agony!) Not every orgasm deserves a name.