Stem Cell Research
 

I ran into this Micheal J Fox political ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo&eurl=

Mr Fox was a well known actor. He has Parkinsons at an unusually young age. You can see what it does to his nervous system in the above ad.

On the issue of "Stem Cell Research", McCaskill is in favour, while Talent puts forward anti-stem cell/cloning arguments like "I don't want to be walking down the street and run into myself".

I suspect opposing "Stem Cell Research" was a short-term gain, and a medium and long-term mistake on the part of the Republicans in congress. People sick with fatal deseases can quite blatantly say "slowing stem cell research will kill me, and kill others like me". It is a pretty damn powerful message.

The short term gain the Republicans cashed in on was the support of Zealot Christian groups, who view any kind of scientific advancement (especially in the Biological sciences) with extreme fear and prejudice.

Finally, I salute Mike. Standing up in front of a State or a Nation and saying "I'm crippled, look at me" is not the easiest thing in the world.

Edit: moved
"Gah -- this was supposed to be in Politics, not Philosphy. It could be a decent Philosophical debate, but I was focused on the Politics of the issue...

Could a moderator move this to Politics please?"
from the start of the post. Moderator moved the post. Thanks!

Yeah, i'm always amazed at how much "respect for life" the social conservatives have concerning anything reproductive compared to their almost complete disregard for life when it comes to many things political and economic.

If only there was some way that we could blame fetuses (feti?) for their predicament... Then this whole issue wouldn't exist. We could do to the fetuses what we do to all "parasitic classes" and let them twist in the wind, maybe grudgingly throw them a bone now and then.

Embryonic stem cell research should be ditched and the focus turned solely to adult stem cell research, as the latter has produced more results (Someone correct me if I'm wrong). If that were to happen, most-- If not all-- Of the opposition to stem cell research would dissipate, as the moral obligation to the fetus would be gone (No fetus = No moral obligation).

The American people are ignorant about the facts of embryonic stem cell research. There are people in this country (and on this very board) that think research on ESC is banned and that is not the case at all. They dont even understand the issue is. The most successful stem cell research being done now is on adult stems cells and stem cells umbilical cord blood. I wonder if Michael Fox knows that, and if he does, has no problem pimping out his illness for a political candidate?

I'm against abortion but pro stem cell research. Isn't that wierd?!

Not really. I think most people, including myself, are on the same boat

Yes, but you are a social conservative and I am a social liberal. I'm also anti-death penalty, and anti-war.

Well, regardless of labels, the fact remains that most people agree with the position on abortion and SC research

And those people are wrong too. Maybe the cure can be found in those stem cells from dead babies, maybe not, but thats an invalid stance to take. Stem cell research is going on in other parts of the globe, guess what, those guys are still crippled. Now mind you the capitalistic medicine system in the US does make our research better than most socialist systems you see in the western world, but there is still nothing to say stemcell research will cure ANY disease. If my kid had a digenerative disease I'd be first in line pushing for stem cell research, but thats just pure selfish motivation. I'd beat you to death with your own arms if it meant saving my child, so we need to step back from the emotionalism.

My personal stance is that if people are flushing their babies we might as well use them as they have already been killed, and even if I were a fundamentalist Christian I would have that stance. Much like using the Nazi hypothermia research, it would be research gained from an evil source but the evil was already done, and I'm all for some good comming out of evil. Its even easier since I don't view the act as evil but simply a new form of genetic selection.

stranger things have happened, but not in a while..but

i agree wtih ustwo..again

I just don't see how using the remains for research could be negative. it's a tragedy that they occur, but something good could come from it. What is the problem with that?

btw, i did not know Michael J Fox's condition had deteriorated so much. Gotta agree with Yakk..the repubs screwed up royally for a short term gain. wasn't reagan's son at the DNC in 2004?

Well see, according to Rush Limbaugh it hasn't. Fox was simply off his meds to make his appearance more dramatic, the liberal bastard.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/1...tor-after-all/

Honestly, Limbaugh has to be the scum of the earth...

Rush speaks on this.

i think rush needs more vicodin

As I stated earlier, just do away with embryonic stem cell research and only focus on adult stem cell research, as not only is it more productive but the moral implications which are involved in embryonic stem cell research don't exist with adult stem cell research (As you're mainly using skin and spinal cord cells).

I don't know very much on this topic, but this sounds reasonable to me.

We wont know the value of embryonic stem cell research until more research is conducted on embryonic stem cells to determine for a fact that adult stem cells are equally productive. There is no conclusive evidence that I have seen to support this conclusion.

And I have a hard time seeing the moral implications. It is not like embryos are being created for the purpose of stem cell research, which should never be allowed. The idea is to utlize the thousands of existing embryos created "in vitro" and that will otherwise be disposed. The potential life saving possibilities, as slim as they may be until we know more, is a reasonable alternative to disposal.

Just as an aside, would we even have millions of couples that have benefited from in vitro fertilization if we had been prevented from exploring the boundaries of medical science as a result of the moral concerns expressed by a less than majority segment of society?

DC, you make some interesting points but I would like to know more. How do you know it is less than a majority of the population that has a moral concern with this issue? Also, even if it is less than a majority, would that matter? After all, there have been case in the past where the majority was not in the right.

It's a complex issue butI think there can be a compromise there. More discussion and civil debate is definitely a good thing.

I genuinely, honestly don't understand what the problem is with stem cell research. Being that it is a science with great potential like any other, I am for supporting it fully and wholeheartedly; to the extent that scientists are willing and able to pursue this research, I can think of no reason to limit them and plenty of reasons to positively support them, without reservation.

So can someone who thinks otherwise (whether you're against it, or simply have reservations or qualifications) please explain their position to me?

This isn't meant as a rhetorical challenge; I'm actually curious and just would like to hear frank responses. I'm not asking you to prove anything to me.

I was looking at the variety of polls on stem cell research. Most show a majority supporting embryonic stem cell research.

http://pollingreport.com/science.htm#Stem

I believe that if it was explained that it doesnt mean creating new embryos for the research but using existing embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, the numbers would be even higher...but that is conjecture.

Cutting edge science always has to deal with the moral implications regardless of the level of public support. But in this case, there are potential medical benefits that cant be fully determined without research and public support.

Actually I did think of a problem with stem cell research that I had forgotten about.

I will NEVER EVER support discarded human fetuses as a commodity. If anyone is making money off them, I do view that as wrong, and I can just imagine if it became a market where breeder women sell the right to their abortion.

That is one horror I would not abide by.

The bill that Bush vetoed with the statement "these boys and girls are not spare parts" restricts the research:

So I am not accused of taking the Bush statement out of context:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet we must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed themselves. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life, with inherent dignity and matchless value. We see that value in the children who are with us today. Each of these children began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization, but remained unused after fertility treatments were complete. Each of these children was adopted while still an embryo, and has been blessed with the chance to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts.

According to the background from the Castle bill, only 10 percent of the "in vitro" embryos not used by the primary parents are "adopted" and the rest destroyed.

Well I suppose I am against it by default. But I am not blindly opposed to it. It's just that I am unsure because I simply do not understand it. I get so many different takes on the issue.

My starting point would be abortion. I am against abortion through and through. No compromise there. My reason is that for me, I need science or a consensus by clergy determine when life actually began (i.e. - at conception or at birth or somewhere in between). But until then, I believe life to begin at conception. SO abortion to me would be murder plain and simple.

Stem cell research as I understand it thus far, requires the stem cells from an embryo or fetus. That's where things get murky for me. I hesitate because while I understand that those embryos or fetuses are to be discarded regardless, I share the same concern as UsTwo with the potential for trade or commerce in fetuses and embryos. This I cannot abide. Especially if there were to be a trade in aborted fetuses etc....

Now this new info you guys are talking about, the adult stem cell research stuff, is definitely intriguing to me. I don't know anything about it really but I am open-minded enough to listen.

That's it for now, I need to take a break, but I hope that helps you understand one opposing opinion, HiredGun.

To put it simply: Embryos are human life and scientific research requiring the destruction of human life is wrong.

I agree with Ustwo's point, too, but that isn't the main thing for me.

And yes, I also have a problem with in vitro fertilization.

edit: seems that jorgelito put together a much more thorough explanation, feel free to address his post instead... I'll only add that I don't see any good reason for opposing adult stem cell research and don't personally know anyone who opposes it. It's the embryonic stuff that gets a minority of religious folk and secular oddities like me upset.

There is a ban against using federal funds to do embriotic stem cell research.

Now, on the face of this, it doesn't seem to be that huge of a ban.

But you have to remember something. Not one penny.

Not one penny of federal funds, from the past or the present, could have been used in any equipment, buildings, administration, or salaries. If the building was made 20 years ago, paid for from a fund that got 1% of it's input from Federal funding -- you can't do any stem cell research in that building.

Even if it is just one penny of Federal funding that went into the building, using it for stem cell research is illegal.

So, either you have to do a huge accounting backtracking check to find and guarantee a research building is federal-funding free, from now and back to the beginning of time, and then sequester it off from the main revenue of the research institution (to prevent it from being contaminated with Federal funds), or you have to build a completely seperate and sequestered research institution and avoid contaminating it with Federal funds.

Don't get me wrong -- this is being done. There are US universities that refuse Federal funding, and I believe there has been some attempts in California to build stem cell research buildings.

But the Federal ban on stem cell research isn't just "the Fed's won't earmark any funds for Stem Cell research" -- it means that anyone who ever accepted Federal money is retroactively constrained (to a greater or lesser extent) in what they can do.

...

I was actually under the impression, after doing some research, that M.J.F.'s rocking behaviour during that add was a side effect of a drug that helps him speak more clearly. (the claim is that without his meds, at the current time, MJF cannot effectively speak)

The drug kills the small-scale tremours, and allows speech -- but it causes a significant low-frequency rocking motion.

So you need a new building and some research eq? Few million, its covered, paying the lab people would be more in the long run of course. Having worked in such labs there is not much too them really.

Perhaps rather than spending ones effort to elect people to publicly fund, the best course of action would be to privately fund it, if there is such a public desire to see it happen.

Maybe a stem-cell telethon ;)

A quote from your link:

But FROM HIS OWN WEBSITE:

http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/arti...p?id=153&sec=2

I'm not against stem cell research, and I don't mind that he went off his meds. Once again, though, Rush is called "the scum of the earth" for thinking that Michael might have done something he admitted to in the past.

They're not "tireless," but it seems obvious who the "crooks and liars" are, and the lies they're willing to tell to influence the next election.

How dare people try to cure Parkinson's! Damn crooks. :rolleyes:

How about what we do is give Limbaugh Parkinson's, then we can let him see what it's like when you are dying slowly from a crippling disease. He'd be rallying for stem cell research in a split second, and then O'Reilly would be all over his ass. Then we give O'Reilly Parkinson's, and someone else is on his ass. The whole thing is dispicable. How about instead of shooting down a possible cure, these idiot pundits get off their fat asses and try to fucking help?

Using a disease for your political purposes while dangling the possibility of a cure that no one is even sure will come of the research at all isn't exactly nobel. Its exploitative. Vote for me and you will walk again! No not really but thanks for the vote.

This might be hard for you to gasp but SOME people view abortion as murder, I'm not going to fault them for this, I'm not so sure myself. I'm just evil and think that if people want to murder their children more power too them as those people won't be teaching their children their own fucked up values in the next generation.

Sorry, but look up the bill that he is trying to get passed.

It's not to legalize stem-cell research, that research is legal and Talent has stated he has NO plan to criminalize it.

It's a constitutional bill which is labeled the Stem-Cell Research and Protection (or something similar), look it up and you'll realize that this mis-label is actually to constitutionally protect cloning.

Michael J. Fox thinks he is helping stem-cell research when in reality he's helping cloning research. While I support stem-cell, I am completely against cloning.

Perhaps you can explain how the bill that both the House and Senate passed and Bush vetoed contitutionally protects cloning.

Thanks to those who clarified their stance for me.

Seaver, do you have a link on that info?

UsTwo: Of course a cure isn't a sure thing, but no research ever is. The point is that there's a possibility, and that possibility is too valuable not to be pursued. If the lives of our adult, fully human soldiers are worth the possibility of whatever we think we're achieving in Iraq, is the use of a few dead fetuses not an acceptable price for the possibility to preserve life by fighting disease?

I'd say that there's one big difference between those two situations: consent.

The people in the armed forces - as it's currently all-volunteer - all consented to be enforcers of United States foreign policy. You could say that they didn't consent to this particular war - and perhaps there's a good argument there - but there is basic, general consent. An embryo cannot consent. I don't see the donor's consent as being sufficient for life-discarding medical research, just as I wouldn't consider consent from the parent of an infant sufficient (which is not to say that there aren't differences between the two situations, just not any relevant differences in my view).

We're not talking about "dead fetuses".....the issue is embryos from in vitro that would otherwise be discarded.

Which is why I also have a problem with in vitro fertilization in its current form (and possibly all other feasible forms).

I'd agree that use for research is better than destruction for extra space or destruction according to the donor's wishes, but I don't believe that any of these should be legally permitted. Let alone taxpayer-funded.

Stem cell research looks, to experts, like the most promising route to go for a cure to Parkinson's. Experts. Not politicans or actors or pundits or even message board posters. While the rest may bicker, the opinion that matters belongs to the experts, scientists that understand Parkinson's and stem cells better than you or I or Rush. When I say that stem cells can cure something, it's meaningless. When Rush states that Michael J. Fox is this and that, it's meaninless and cruel. At the end of the day, people should learn to listen to doctors and scientists, not assholes on the radio, or people on a forum.
Actually it's not hard for me to grasp at all. From the fifth post in this thread:
I'm against abortion except in the cases of incest, there being no chance that the baby will be born alive, or maybe, MAYBE rape - but the victim better have taken that morning after pill, and if a hospital refused to give her the pill, that hospital should be promptly closed. I belive in sexual accountability, even though most other liberals disagree with me on this issue. There are other sources of stem cells, too. Did you know that the umbilical cord blood is a great source of stem cells? We've know about this for years. And babies are born almost every minute of every day. If we were able to immediatally collect all the umbilical cords (after the infant is done with it), I doubt we'd need another source for stem cells. I even just came up with a motto: Save a life, donate an umbilical cord. Or maybe: Save an embryo, donate an umbilical cord. Whatever. The point is: stem cells isn't really a devisive topic, or at least it shouldn't be. The only reason it's a deviceive issue, of course, is to distract people. It's like gay marriage or "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays". It's stupid, and I don't know why people walk right into the trap. It's another device to spread the partisan epidemic, and the longer this kinda stuff is allowed to fly, the longer it will take under democrat leadership to get back to normal.

Fine. What about the lives of Iraqis?

(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.


These stem cells are pretty much worthless for any disease research, its basically nothing beyond an egg. They are totally non-differentiated, and there isn't much we can do with them except let them differentiate, aka develop. This is very useful for the study of cloning (an identical twin is a natural clone) but won't make M.J. Fox stop shaking.

:hmm:

That comparison is a weee bit of a stretch. The obvious counter argument is that the fetuses didn't volunteer to be killed.

Don't you think that this has occurred to the experts as well? My understanding is that these stem cells aren't suitable for the needs of the scientists. Granted, I'm just a message board poster too, but if you came up with this idea, don't you think that the people paid to think about this topic all day every day have already come up with it?

/threadjack and rational thought

Ustwo: I refer you to the post right above yours. If we're willing to sacrifice the lives of Iraqis, I don't understand the unwillingness to use these embryos.

The comparison is a huge stretch, imo; on the one hand you have discarded embryos that have never been born or lived, and on the other you have adult humans who have lives, memories, and families.

Well here's a bit more rational thought for you: who funds most scientists? Is it more scientists?

Ustwo....can you source that please....wtih a credible medical source?

Sure hes my source:

Ustwo, B.S. D.D.S. M.S., worked in a genetics lab for two years as well. Now taking out the pure dentistry stuff, that’s 11 years of biology study after high school. Its also something anyone who was a basic biology major should be able to figure out on their own without any advanced work. What they are talking about is a fertilized egg, or at most a blastocyst. There isn't much we are going to learn from a human fertilized egg beyond what we know in other mammals because the initial stages of development are all almost identical. The only real use I can see of it is to perfect human cloning.

:lol:

Ok this is quite funny really. Instead of Iraqi's you could use someone who died in a police hostage standoff, or maybe the 40k a year who die in car crashes in the US every year.

Lets try it on for size....

If you are willing to sacrifice 40,000 people a year in traffic accidents I don't understand the unwillingness to use those embryos.

Or maybe this one.....

If you are willing to eat apples I don't understand your unwillingness to eat oranges.

Ok now that I got that silliness aside, I am IN favor of using those dead babies but I can respect those who view it as murder. The difference is I don't play philosophical games to sooth my conscious over it. I think abortion is murder, I just don't care that much since I view it as genetic selection removing undesirable traits from humanity. If people want to step out of the gene pool in such a selfish and brutal manner I don't want those genes in the next generation, and we might as well get some good from their irresponsibility.

That doesn't make any sense.

The Iraqi deaths I'm talking about were preventable and are a direct result of a political decision to go to war, one that you support. In this case, the loss of life is, to you, worth what we might potentially achieve (but so far have not done).

But when it comes to stem cell research, it appears that the possible or potential benefits to medicine are not worth the loss of mere embryos.

You don't see a contradiction there when it comes to the value placed on life? What's 'silly' about this?

Now I'm really confused. You have experience in the field that pertains to this discussion, so you get to call upon and cite your training and experience in order to make you an expert, but meinwhile:
...you ignore other prople's expertise, training and experience. A BA, and well on my way to getting a Masters in psych puts what I say above "psychobabble", doesn't it? Just like your 11+ years of bio training after high school means that you are qualified to give an (basically) expert opinion on stem cells?

So either you have to start listening to other experts, or you yourself will cease to be an expert. You can't have it both ways.

:lol: The funding fairy? Alan Greenspan? Ustwo? :p

Just kidding about that last one. We all know he wouldn't fund anything that wasn't already pure evil. :D

Seriously, I don't see the point of your question to my response. Mine was more of "the good ideas have already been thought of already" variety. If scientists figured out how to do their research with more readily available materials, they're going to do it, especially if the results are going to yield easy cures for fatal diseases. If you're implying that scientists are ignoring easily available material in pursuit of more funding, let's see your proof. I assume that's not what you're trying to tell me, though.

/interruption of the dick-measuring contest

Hey, he called mine small....


The idea is that scientists and researchers might be hindered in their abilities and exploration by those that fund them is nothing new. I know that scientists and researchers are out there to cure this and that, but they have to pander to their benificiaries or lose their funding. We all know that. It would be niave to say that science isn't effeced by politics. Did we already forget about the Dickey Amendment? Clinton signed federal legislation that prohibited the HHS from using appriopriated funds for any stem cell research in which the embryo is destroyed. I'm sure Ustwo can tell you that does cut a lot of funding for stem cell research, and it's a decision made on (religous?) morality, not science. They aren't ignoring anything, they simply aren't funded so they CAN'T do their research.

Yes, you'd have to build up a completely different instuition in order to do research unretricted by the Federal ban provisions on fetal stem-cell research.

This is basic research. The kind that helps everyone in the USA -- a damn good use of Federal money. Instead, Federal money is making it harder to do the research.

The fetal stem cells are the least differentiated human cells out there. Learning how to convince them to differentiate and turn into arbitrary tissue is ridiculously interesting research.

Do you object to having the Federal government fund fundamental scientific research? Do you understand the economic basis for why funding fundamental scientific research is a damn good idea?

Will, are you seriously telling me that there's a vast conspiracy amongst the research institutions of the world to use embryonic stem cells solely? Or that umbilical stem cells and embryonic stem cells are even the same thing (I honestly don't know).

Then should no trouble citing a collaborating source.

*Sigh* I'm not here to do your homework, look it up yourself. You posted the bill, I showed you why it has nothing to do with 'stemcell research' as a cure for a disease, and you want me to prove to you basic developmental biology?

If I'm wrong show me, otherwise accept it from someone who has forgotten more biology than you will learn in your lifetime.

Perhaps this letter of support for the bill in question from the American Association of Medical Colleges:

And since I didnt know what pluripotent stem cells are:
hmmmm....weighing the credibility....Dr two v AAMC

Worst strawman ever. So I say that some researchers are and could be losing funding because of legislation, then I cite prescedent, then you claim that I am suggesting that there is a massive conspiracy? Are you and Ustwo doing a tag team thing now? It's like I can't say anything without people trying to valiently stop me from making another far-fetched conspiracy claim. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, people.

What is more important, in the short term, than the ethics of stem cell research is the political impact.

The banning of any institution accepting federal funding from doing embryonic stem cell research -- what have been, and will be, the political effects of it?

It did enhearten the anti-abortion troops -- it was a concrete step in vaguely that direction. In the short term, it couldn't help but bring volunteers to the Republicans, and motivate the anti-abortion voters to come out to the polls.

The other hand is the emotional impact of ads like Fox's. Getting in the way of extremely promising medical research that could cure thousands if not millions of people -- one can make political hay against the Republicans using that arguement.

The worst possible case would be if one of the non-Federal funded Embryonic Stem Cell research institutions where to pull off a breakthrough. This isn't likely in the short term -- we are talking about basic research -- but it would probably make a heck of alot of political ammunition.

...

As for the ethics of it... There are 4 kinds of stem cells:
Adult stem cells are only 2 of the above 4 types. I am not aware of that any Pluripotent or Totipotent stem cells exist in adults. Maybe one can transform existing Puripotent stem cells backwards and to other kinds?

Possibly cutting open human brains and scraping out brain stem cells could be used for research. Personally, I'm against cutting peoples brains open and using an ice cream scoop. Somehow, I think that using fertilized eggs that are going to be discarded anyhow seems like a cleaner way to get nerve-cell precurors...

I suppose they could just scoop the brains of brain-dead people to harvest neuron stem cells?

That still doesn't get us access to nerve-cell (as opposed to brain-cell) precursors, as far as I know there aren't any in an adult body...

Thank you, thank you all. I'm so excited to have even been nominated! There are so many people to thank that I hope that the orchestra doesn't play me off. Top of the world, ma! :love:

No, what you suggested was that all scientists working on a problem were deliberately ignoring a potential source of material and that in their hellbent scheme to secure funding for embryonic stem cell research they buried the concept of using umbilical stem cells. Now I was a history major and I'm an insurance guy so I have no idea if that's even viable. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm, as you already put it, just a poster on a message board not a scientist. Maybe Ustwo can tell you, but I'm sure that he's off drinking more water to keep his urine production up to keep pissing in everyone's Cheerios. Again, if you've got evidence that umbilical stem cells can fit the purpose of embryonic ones, I'd love to here it.

Speaking of Ustwo, I'm sure he's as offended as I am at the thought of being tag team partners. Don't make me go all Randy Macho Man Savage on you.

So I said all? Show me, or end the theadjack.

See your posts #35 and #46. Relevant quotes:

Maybe I read to much into it, but given our exchanges, these are the starting points of your arguements. See my post #45 for earlier confusion in your point and trying to clarify.

Well, it depends.

The Iraqis who attempt violence against U.S. troops and/or other Iraqis? Self-defense. Whatever their reasons, no matter how noble, a response to lethal force can still fall into the realm of self-defense.

The Iraqis who didn't attempt violence, yet were killed? It's that unfortunate, not-yet-eliminated cost of war known as collateral damage.

I'm suddenly a little confused as to what you consider the great big inconsistency here, and moreover I'm wondering why it's relevant to this thread if there's an inconsistency. It's possible to be wrong about one issue and right about another. Would you prefer a foolish consistency?

Who's dime is it all on?

I'm all for making it legal so Michael J. Fox can invest his money in discarded fetuses to try to cure a disease he didn't care about until he realized he had it, but, please, keep my tax dollars out of this.

Would I prefer a shred of internal consistency over seeming hypocrisy? Yes, actually.

And the reason I introduced the idea into this thread is because it's a relevant criticism of people's objections to this research. What's stopping you from considering embryos to be the collateral damage of curing disease and advancing human knowledge? It is, by any measure, a smaller toll than the lives of full grown humans.

Despite Ustwo's unsupported claim that embryonic stem cells are pretty much worthless for any disease research, the greatest benefit of public funding is to ensure that the intellectual property rights gained from such research is accessible for both further public and private research to build on.

When did I say that?

You don't understand the biology at all, yet have strong opinion on it, and thats just wonderful.

If you don't know the difference between a fetus, a embryo, a blastocyst or a fertilized egg, and what is going on at that point you have absolutely no business trying to discuss it beyond the most vague terms. If you have such a strong opinion that you feel the need to voice it here do some reading first and then come back.

I'll even do the first google for ya...
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...velopment.html

Now when you have a grasp of cell differentiation, and development and what that bill you posted entails, come back.

I don't see the value of consistency when it's a consistency composed of bad ideas. Hypocrisy strikes me as preferable.

Or, instead, a relevant criticism of people's acceptance of collateral damage. The problem: you don't really have any control over which it is.

I could say: "Okay, you're right, both collateral damage and embryonic stem cell research should be legal."

Or I could say: "Okay, you're right, both collateral damage and embryonic stem cell research should be illegal."

Or - and this'll be my final answer, Regis - I could respond in this way:

War, in its entirety, should be an act of self-defense and/or defense of others. If it's neither, it is an unjust war. Collateral damage is a cost of such defense. If the war is properly justified, then the collateral damage is justified. Or rather, less worse than the alternative of no military response ever.

Embryonic stem cell research, on the other hand, cannot be properly considered self-defense or defense of others. The aggressor is nature, not man, and to respond to the injuries of nature by attacking man is wrong. Think of it this way: you wouldn't approve of harvesting organs from healthy infants in order to sustain the life of a sick adult, would you? Obviously this isn't a comparison of identical situations, experimenting with a clump of cells is a hell of a lot easier to rationalize for one, but I see a valid comparison there with no relevant difference. Beating nature isn't worth nonconsensual sacrifices of human life.

And that, I believe, is where our truly relevant disagreement lies. We may disagree on the whether collateral damage is acceptable in war, but I'm betting that we actually agree that collateral damage isn't acceptable in medical research. If not, well, then we have two relevant disagreements...but collateral damage in war remains irrelevant. Even if there is inconsistency remaining, it says nothing about whether I'm right on this issue.

The big question reverts back to this: does the lethal use of embryos for medical purposes differ in a morally significant way from doing the same with infants?

Perhaps from the perspective of the victims' friends (embryos aren't very social), but not for the victims.

I was simply referring to your analysis of the section of the bill I posted:

You are absolutely correct that I have no expertise in cell biology.

I do understand the public policy process fairly well, which requires interested observers, including members of Congress who ultimately make the decisions, to objectively evaluate the testimony and analysis of the experts on this or any subject up for public debate. I choose to give more credence to experts other than you.

Where, exactly, is the "collateral damage" in taking discarded human cells, and using it?

The cells are going to be killed. You may object to the process that led to cells going to be killed, but once you have some being who has no ability to think, is doomed to die, and has useful organs or cells -- where is the ethical problem with harvesting it?

You do know that what I described is the source of almost all human organ transplants.

Sadly, it appears that MJF was not as informed as he thought he was.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/10/...ng-initiative/

I dont particularly care if Fox read the details of the MO initiative or not. He was aware that it allows only stem cell research that complies with federal laws and regulations and that it prohibits human cloning.

That said, the position of Senate candidates on federal stem cell legislation should be more important to the rest of the country (whether you are for or against a federal bill) and the current Senator in MO voted against the bill that passed in both the House and Senate.

You certainly nailed that down. Today more news came out along these lines, but squirt posted it first. Here is a different link than his, plus a quote:

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/2...ell-amendment/

Yeah, but i would wager most politicians don't know the page-to-page content of most bills.

Not according to George Stephanopoulos and Jim Caviezel.

Yes, you would be well advised to attempt a subject change.

Then if George Bush misspeaks on an issue, or doesn't choose the best course of action, he's doing nothing worse than the rest of Congress.

Nice to know you'll be cutting him slack for the rest of his term.

Magic. I wonder if you or Squirt have you read the MO initiative?

I am sure we can find competing analyses of the MO initiative, but the fact is that Fox said in a later interview that he knew it was limited only to stem cell research that complies with federal laws and that is why it is important for MO to have a senator that supported the bill that the majority of Congress (and the American people) wanted.

Yes. In much the same way that you seem to have been too busy to click on Squirt's link, you were also too busy to read the entire initiative.

I won't post the link to the initiative again. You didn't read it when you posted it yourself.

And, the following from Squirt's link:

I'm sure Filtherton would be willing to give the framers of the initiative a break. They were probably too busy to read what they were writing.

Some of the state legislators in Missouri are batshit crazy religious fundamentalists. IMO, the purpose of the Missouri initiative 2 on the Nov.7 ballot is to prevent the legislature from narrowing whatever stem cell research federal law allows, and to prevent the state government from using funding restrictions to further narrow federal law:
The argument that the amendment proposition "allows adult human cloning" is a key provision of the disinformation campaign of those who oppose the amendment's passage. IMO, if there were not "fringe" legislators who have already introduced state legislation proposals to officially designate Missouri as "Jesus Land", there would be no need for this amendment.....

Here's the relevant portion of Michael J. Fox's ABC interview transcript:

Magic.....You and I can read Squirts link, Host's link or any number of differing analysis, and its not likely to change either of our opinions.

I will continue to support candidates who would vote for the stem cell bill that Bush vetoed, against the majority support of Congress and the people, and I appreciate Michael J Fox's active involvement in the issue, particularly in light of the ridicule and criticism he has encountered.

Are you trying to bust me out because you think i have more deference to congress than the president? Oooh, burn. They're all full of shit.

Anyways, i hope that you revile the president with as much vitriol as you have for mr. fox the next time he does something stupid, which, you know, should be any fucking minute now.

The religious right and elected republican officials in Missouri have a track record of interfering with women's access to reproductive information, treatment, and contraceptives...to a much more radical extent than at the federal level:

<b>At the following link, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt allows the display of a deliberate, inciting falsehood:
RU-486 is never dispensed by pharmacists to prescription holders....</b>

<a href="http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t51505.html">"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.</a>

The deliberation in the Missouri state senate in 2005 over this bill was the motivation for the vote on a constitutional amendment. Republicans who are not batshit crazy from religious influences, including gov. Matt Blunt, are presumably in favor of keeping the state on an equal footing with the rest of the countryas far as in the development of this science:

<b>Two pieces follow that helped me to understand the science better, and potential treatment of disease:</b>

There may be a very good point here. Two caveats:

1. The cells that "are going to be killed" - are they to be killed because they can no longer be implanted successfully, or killed by request or for storage issues? If it's one of the latter two, then I don't see the inevitability that you do. I would argue that destruction of cells with a potential future should not be allowed. And that just goes back to my problem with in vitro in general. If it's the former, though, then I'm close to agreeing with you.

2. The only remaining problem I'd have - and I'm undecided on this - is that I might still oppose the use of the embryos because it could encourage/increase the creation of nonviable embryos. Tossing that around in my head right now.

what a strange statement.
do you mean this?

edit: Oh, I see. Context is needed.

By 'cells', I mean the cells of an embryo. I don't mean just any ordinary collection of cells - I mean a human organism.

read to today in the paper (Metro) Fox admits that he doesnt even know what the stem cell legislation will do. Always nice to support something when you know nothing about it. Gives you lots of credibility.

Read my posts.....you aren't adding anything to the discussion, IMO. Why not go the rest of the way.... and comment on the other "content" on the linked page that xxSquirtxx posted earlier:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/10/...ng-initiative/
This campaign issue is not a partisan issue....it is fueled by religion influenced ignorance.... The partisan dimension is that one party panders to the issues of religious zealots in order to attract their political support.

In Missouri, there is a running political battle between religious zealots who are trying to transform that state into a "Jesus Land". Michael J. Fox is interested in all Americans enjoying the same potential for medical research breakthroughs to bring relief from symptoms of illness, and to reverse deterioration and death that too often is the result of disease that medicine has inadequate or no treatment for.

<h3>That is his "agenda"....what is yours? Why are you posting a repetition of earlier attacks on Michael J. Fox, here, and by Rush Limbaugh?</h3>
<b>Why not add to this discussion, instead of attacking Michael J. Fox? Your post and others of similar vein are unseemly. You're attacking a very ill man with an incurable disease who is using his celebrity to attempt to counter the political influence and activities of religious zealots who have abridged the access to medical research, medical appliances, medicine, hygenic education, and to safe, approved, medical procedures that their relgious beliefs influence them to object to and motivate them to attempt other people from receiving.....IMO, Michael J. Fox is being much too polite in his response to the efforts and the propagandizing of these misguided, ignorant, selfish, and religiously intolerant people. In Missouri, they've already succeeded in keeping birth control options from the working poor.....options routinely offered in many other states to low income workers who are poor, but do not qualify for medicaid..... aid that was offered in Missouri clinics before these religiously energized folks were elected to the state legislature....</b>

Holy shit. Enough hate in this post or what?

How dare you sit there and accuse me and others of "attacking" MJF when all we are doing is pointing out his inconsistency AND the inconsistency of Amendment 2, which is about human cloning.

Sick though he may be, he entered the political arena uninformed about the candidates' positions. Pointing that out is not attacking him. Somehow I doubt you would use kid gloves with Limbaugh if the situation were reversed and he was doing a commercial about prescription pain meds or some such BS.

You and others are clearly the ones with an ax to grind when it comes to people who are opposed to killing babies for stem cells. Your post appears to be nice and tidy, but those issues are NOT very tidy at all. There are many facets to things like stem cell research and abortion.

You continue to berate certain people here who have beliefs different from yours. You had better expect a vigorous response when you distort the issues and spew untruths.

I would only suggest that your assessment that Amendment 2 is about human cloning is just that -- AN OPINION based on your interpretation of the initiative. There are other interpretations by medical and bio-ethic experts that are equally valid.

It is also a shame the blog reference in your earlier post did not present the complete ABC interview with Michael J. Fox:

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=2613377&page=1

He demostrated alot more tolerance and understanding of those who dont share his position than I have seen demonstrated by those who characterize any embryonic stem cell research as "baby killing."

Indeed, I did not mean to imply that it is solely about human cloning.

Killing babies for stem cells? Are you kidding me? Stem cells for research are made by the same method that is used for in vitro fertilization. When someone goes to the fertility clinic, does some right-winger say that they are killing babies to make a baby?

I understand.....I was typing off my reply in quite a hurry.

The rather funny thing in all this I didn't bring up is that there may not even be a need to harvest fertlized cells as there are already stemcell lines out there. These are the pluripotent cell types.

The best cells for curing disease would come from fetuses which are further developed. We don't really understand what makes a liver become a liver, but if you had a fetus at the exact stage the liver started to form, those cells would be most valueable to study.

The pluripotent stem cell research is really just that, pure research. I'd put more money on adult stem cells for curing SOME disease, and for the fetal ones for curing many diseases.

My thoughts though is that once using the basic stem cell lines are 'accepted' the next step will be to use fetal cells. THAT is going to be a fun debate.

If of course you believe life begins at conception, then its all a moot point.

Is your point compatible with these:

From post #75:

I remember reading an article on an experiment that may have sucessfully turned human skin cells into stem cells (I'll keep searching for the article).

Edit: Here are some recent breakthroughs for your pleasure.