http://www.indystar.com/articles/9/168998-5709-010.html

http://internetweekly.org/images/laura_bush_just_say_no.jpg

This is one of the sides of Bush I dislike most.

Oh nos, the government doesn't give money out to people who want to clone humans.

You'd think Bush outlawed science or something.

Could someone inform me, has Bush placed a ban on stem cell research or has he just cut government funding for it? If he placed a ban that would kinda suck, but if he cut government funding that would be good, private insitutions are able to do the research and the government won't have their nose in it.

The first lady weighed in on the highly charged issue on the third anniversary of President Bush's decision to limit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to the 78 stem cell lines in existence Aug. 9, 2001.They are able to use the 78 stem cell lines that were in existence on and before August 9, 2001. The concern of many scientists is that these will not be enough to further research steadily. One of the most common misconceptions about stem cells is that they only can come from human embryos. This is not true, as it is said to be possible to get them from things like umbilical cords, etc.

Bush's policy only prevents federal funding of the murder of babies in the name of science/disease cures. Some people obviously think it's ok to murder babies if doing so might lead to the cures of some diseases. Bush obviously doesn't. His EO doesn't prevent adult stem cells from being used from what I understand.

Curious here, exactly how are you murdering a baby by taking his umbilical cord post birth? Thats right you aren't.

Curious here, exactly how are you murdering a baby by taking his umbilical cord post birth? Thats right you aren't.
Bush encourages THAT kind of research Kinu, it's the embryonic ones that aren't being federally funded. In fact, there was zero $$$ federal funding for any stem cell research until Bush's first term. To say he's anti science is just bullshit and L2 continues to show his ignorance.

Fertilizing an egg with a sperm, watching it grow a few million stem cells, and then putting a knife to it, that's murder in my opinion. BUT, there's scientists out there doing it every day with their own funds, they're just not getting it from the government.

In fact, there was zero $$$ federal funding for any stem cell research until Bush's first term.
Holy Shit!
You mean they werent funding it before they understood it? WOW..
DAMN YOU JIMMY CARTER FOR NOT FUNDING STEM CELL RESEARCH!
DAMN YOU THOMAS JEFFERSON FOR NOT FUNDING STEM CELL RESEARCH!
The first lady weighed in on the highly charged issue on the third anniversary of President Bush's decision to limit federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to the 78 stem cell lines in existence Aug. 9, 2001.
But think of the possibilites, with Stem Cell research, maybe they can grow a new set of Balls for George to replace the ones he had to give to Religious Right for his win in Texas over Ann Richardson!
http://hometown.aol.com/asscs1/election2000.html

Holy Shit!
You mean they werent funding it before they understood it? WOW..
DAMN YOU JIMMY CARTER FOR NOT FUNDING STEM CELL RESEARCH!
DAMN YOU THOMAS JEFFERSON FOR NOT FUNDING STEM CELL RESEARCH!...

...

What does the word research mean to you?

It means if JESUS wanted to that little boy to walk he would have stopped that Bus!

http://internettrash.com/users/therail/stemcells.gif

And your right, why should FEDERAL MONEY (AKA our tax dollars) go to such silly things as curing Alzheimers and other genetic diseases, helping cripple people walk and other useless things
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Oct-15-Wed-2003/photos/2stem.jpg

The proper and right uses of Taxpayer money is to fight wars based on bad intel and give Iraqis stock markets and Circus' or whatever the heck you were so proud about!
http://mrgiantrobot.tripod.com/skfartx/stemcells.jpg Above: An embryo cell, containing the stem cells.
Not pictured: Tiny hat and lollipop imagined by pro-life organizations.

Yeah so wtf didn't Clinton fund it then? Im sure they understood how to do some research back in the year 2000. So by your gorilla logic Clinton is anti-science too? Also L2 you act as if we did more than 60 research cells there would be a cure to all those diseases in a week or something. Many people have said that there is a slim chance of curing diseases anytime soon. Not to mention there are many other diseases out there like cancer and AIDS that kill many more people that we should focus on first.

Also your little poster about being able to cure alzheimers is pretty much on par with Moore's bullshit, even Ron Reagen himself said alzheimers will probably never be cured from Stem Cell Research. Not to mention we can already give fake joints, do skin grafts for burn victims, have vacinations for hepatits, treatment for diabetis, surgery for the heart, and rehab to regro muscle cells(most of the ailments stem cell research will cure). Sure Stem Cell Research may do the job more effectively, but things like cancer and AIDS are much more important to cure or treat atm, millions are dying from cancer and aids and millions more have already died. Government funding should goto Cancer and AIDS before Stem Cell Research. If private companies want to do Stem Cell Research that is fine with me.

Yeah so wtf didn't Clinton fund it then? Im sure they understood how to do some research back in the year 2000. So by your gorilla logic Clinton is anti-science too? What does Clinton have to do with this? George Bush is President.

Also L2 you act as if we did more than 60 research cells there would be a cure to all those diseases in a week or something. Many people have said that there is a slim chance of curing diseases anytime soon. What is "soon?" Next week? No one thinks we'll have a cure next week. Next year? I doubt any scientists think that's plausible either. 5 years? Now we're in a more reasonable timeline. But the truth is, the sooner the better, and research that receives greater funding and greater access to necessary materials returns faster results.

Not to mention there are many other diseases out there like cancer and AIDS that kill many more people that we should focus on first. There's no reason we have to prioritize our research. Do you want to cancel all projects (or funding for those projects) related to cystic fibrosis because it kills fewer people than cancer? It can all be done simultaneously.

even Ron Reagen himself said alzheimers will probably never be cured from Stem Cell Research. http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,63814,00.html

Lol. I love catching the right in misquotes. Ron Reagan said that there are other probable methods that will probably cure Alheimers BEFORE stem cell does, he never said it wasnt worth pursuing.

Clinton is anti-science because he had 0 stem cell research cells and Bush has 60. Clinton is evil! He wants to kill all that have diseases! Clinton assinates scientists and was in a plot to destroy all kinds of science known to mankind! He even takes part in midnight book burning with nazi's in his plot to abolish science from the face of the earth. :cool:

/sarcasm off

Yeah thats what you fucking sound like L2.

Again, why should our federal money go towards the murder of babies?

The proper and right use of federal money is, as L2 puts it, set out in Art. 1 Sec. 8, "to provide for the common defense." I'd rather use taxpayer money to prevent more 9/11s as and protect U.S. citizens as Bush is doing now than to use taxpayer money to kill babies/embryos in the name of science.

Again, why should our federal money go towards the murder of babies? What Babies?
http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/sltfrag13.jpg
THATS a baby?

Using umbilical cords that would have been thrown away anyway? Cool.

Using embryos? Not cool at all. For some reason, the thought of that reminds me of all the back story about the company in Doom3.

heh that brings into question if we are ready to start sacrificing morals for the good of civilization, and weather sacrificing morals is going to be good for it or not

Scarey.....
to me it all sounds like something from an Aldous Huxley story.....


Brave New World anyone?

Amazing, and he has this insight in 1932.

The statement that Bush is "anti-science" is not entirely true. He has raised NASA funding to some extent:
'01-'02 http://www.aip.org/fyi/2001/138.html
Ditto for subsequent years, will look up cites if requested.

Though as of a few weeks ago, Congress has passed cuts for said budget, and the frontier of space may well be explored by...

http://picture.funnyjunk.com/pics/0322.jpg

Not that I oppose the cuts or anything. The pic just needed a bit of factual context ;)

The proper and right use of federal money is, as L2 puts it, set out in Art. 1 Sec. 8, "to provide for the common defense." I'd rather use taxpayer money to prevent more 9/11s as and protect U.S. citizens as Bush is doing now than to use taxpayer money to kill babies/embryos in the name of science. Riiiighhhhht..
And Iraq being invaded helps us how?
Maybe this "life is precious" bullshit would carry more weight coming from someone other than the man how executed more people than any other Governor in the history of the United States.
Maybe it would have more meaning coming from a man who decided that Collateral Damage (http://portland.indymedia.org/icon/2003/08/269953.jpg) was acceptable in an offensive invasion that had almost negligible benefit to our security.

Once you prove to me a 1 minute old fetus has consciouness, Ill gladly admit it is a baby, until then it is a unformed mass of cells.

substitute cloned fetal pigs> problem solved (images of Swamp Thing).

But... ISNT THAT LIFE!@!!!!ONEonewon

That could potentially be the smartest pig EVA!

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:90DxkivpmvEJ:members.aol.com/daf118/images/talking%2520pig.jpg

As your preferred VP candidate pointed out Lluric, "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

I hope Bush and, god forbid Kerry if he is elected, continue to fight "serious and imminent threat[s] to our country." Clinton's refusal to do so led to 3,000+ U.S. civilian deaths on 9/11.

Oh and to me (and a large number of other people), a fertilized egg = a baby. I don't want to require a consciousness test, an intelligence test, a race test, or any other government determined "test" to decide when a life is considered worth protecting and when a life can be used for experimental purposes.

I have a question... by saying that federal funding was being used to murder babies, are you saying these eggs were deliberately being fertilized and farmed for t-cells or were they just using the byproducts of abortions that were performed for other reasons or even miscarriages? I'm just looking for clarification here.

As far as I know they are delibrately being fertalized. Also if was possible to obtain a cure in 5 years there would be tons of private companies jumping on stem cell research. Since not many private companies are jumping on the idea it seems to me that it is unclear on how long it would take to develope something helpful or even if it is possible to do so.

even Ron Reagen himself said alzheimers will probably never be cured from Stem Cell Research.

What? Is the former president a genetic scientist? Or, are you saying that because he has Alzheimer's, a debilitating disease that limits the brain's ability to function, he's better able to form opinions about this than the scientists performing stem cell research?

Roliel im sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about. Former president Ronald Reagan is dead, Ron Reagan is his son and he is supposedly an expert and big advocate on stem cell research. So yes, I would think Ron Reagan has at least some idea what he is talking about, he even gave a speech on it at the DNC.

Ron Reagan is as qualified to make that statement regarding stemcells as I am to call you a homosexual. I have no scientific proof, it's just something I've concluded by observation.

Sorry, basing your defense on 'The guy who did some research, but doesn't work in the field...so he really just read some thesis on the topic thinks it isn't possible within a short time frame' is just silly.

You guys realize that stem cell research is over twenty years old, right? They were growing mouse stem cells in 1981.

This simply isn't some kind of new issue that Bush is solely in charge of having chosen a direction on. It's just a current hot topic that has more use as a political tool than it does a medical one.

Like someone else pointed out... If it really had a clear and imminent benefit to usher in a new age of medicine, private companies would be all over it; as it would create the next Bill Gates.

edit: It's a great idea on their part, since it inevitably leads into a discussion about abortion and the related issues that people will always disagree about. All they're doing is bonding a questionable science to a debate that ends up religious, and people are falling for the trick left and right. It's sad how easy people are manipulated these days. :(

If it really had a clear and imminent benefit to usher in a new age of medicine, private companies would be all over it; as it would create the next Bill Gates. Why come up with a cure when selling drugs to alleviate symptoms is so much more profitable?

anyway.. not to disrupt this orgy of misinformation... BUT...
http://www.hhmi.org/bulletin/stemcells/
At the most basic level, we still need to characterize the stem cells of all human tissues. To begin with, we need molecular markers that can separately identify the small pool of stem cells from the far larger number of their descendant cells. We also need more information about the interactions between stem cells and the niches in which they live, and how those niches respond to the body's needs. Such information, which we currently have only for the hematopoietic, or blood-producing, stem cells of the bone marrow, may suggest therapies to increase the number of residual stem cells in a damaged tissue. Already, such knowledge allows us to recreate a person's blood system from a few harvested hematopoietic stem cells.

What about a worst-case scenario, in which a chronically ill patient has lost most of the stem cells in a tissue and needs replacements to survive? Today, the most feasible option would be to supply stem cells from the same kind of tissue, but obtained from an unrelated donor. This approach involves the same serious risks of rejection associated with any organ transplant from an unrelated donor.

A better approach would be to supply so-called autologous stem cells, those that are genetically identical to the patient. This is not currently feasible, but we have ideas about how to accomplish the feat. One way would be isolate and grow stem cells from a different tissue of the same patient, such as the bone marrow or skin, and reprogram them in vitro. To learn how to reprogram stem cells efficiently we need to study a whole range of experimental systems in which previously silent genes are reactivated and active ones switched off. Clues may come, for example, from studies on how the cells of an early embryo become restricted to different lineages. If we can understand the genetic circuits that control normal development, it may become easier to flip the switches in the laboratory.

A second approach is to use pluripotential stem cells lines derived from embryos at the blastocyst stage, reached soon after fertilization of the egg and before implantation into the uterus. Blastocysts, which consist of about 100 cells, contain a few unspecialized stem cells that can be coaxed to multiply indefinitely in culture. Under appropriate conditions these cells will give rise to many different cell types. The first human pluripotential stem cells were derived from blastocysts obtained from an in vitro fertilization clinic because they were in excess of clinical need. This milestone occurred in 1998 in James Thomson's lab at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. A group at Monash University in Australia has recently achieved similar results. Both groups are currently characterizing the cells and their differentiated descendants.

These studies will provide invaluable data about gene function during early human development. Woefully little is known about this topic at present, due in part to restrictions on federal funding for embryo research. Although developmental mechanisms have been highly conserved in evolution, enough differences in detail have been seen among vertebrate species to suggest that not all genes will function identically in mouse and man. Thus, research with animals only cannot reveal everything we need to know about how to manipulate human stem cells. So wait, a major breakthru didnt occur till 1998! When Clinton was besieged by a Republican control congress headed by the likes the Reverand Tom Delay! Whoa! Lets blame him some more!
Wait,, there is more!
The use of human pluripotential stem cell lines is controversial because they are derived from fertilized human eggs, and for some people human life begins at fertilization. Theoretically, then, the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer to generate autologous pluripotential stem cells should be less controversial. This technique would involve injecting the nucleus from a patient's adult cell into an unfertilized egg from which the nucleus has been removed. In the laboratory, this egg would then grow into a blastocyst from which researchers could derive pluripotential stem cell lines. Apparently, the researchers from Monash University have recently achieved this technical tour de force with mouse cells. The scientists created one embryonic stem cell line after injecting almost a thousand eggs with nuclei from genetically marked cells. There seems to be no reason why this "therapeutic cloning" would not work with humans if it could be made more efficient.

This method for making stem cells might be ethically more acceptable to some people since the recipient eggs lack nuclei and are unfertilized. Thus the creation of a unique combination of genetic material from two people never occurs. Moreover, embryonic stem cells are not embryos, since by themselves they are unable to give rise to a complete fetus. Nevertheless, it is still theoretically possible to clone a human by implanting the blastocysts derived by somatic nuclear transfer into a woman's uterus, rather than using them to make stem cells. Any attempt to do this is contrary to all existing guidelines and violates some state laws. Moreover, such an action would require extensive collusion among many irresponsible people and would be ethically indefensible, given the likelihood that if a baby were to develop it would be malformed.

Nevertheless, these arguments are irrelevant to some detractors, who believe that nuclear transfer into an enucleated egg still brings into existence for research purposes only a human being who is subsequently killed. A great deal more public debate, based on mutual respect for strongly held beliefs, probably lies ahead before federal funds can be used to explore the potential of human pluripotential stem cells, both for therapeutic purposes and for basic knowledge. Quick... lets play a game of "find the baby"!
http://www.hhmi.org/bulletin/stemcells/images/3.gif

Human embryos in excess of clinical need and donated with informed consent are cultured to the blastocyst stage. The surrounding trophoblast layer is selectively removed by exposing cells successively to anti-human antibodies and complement, a component of the immune system.

Why come up with a cure when selling drugs to alleviate symptoms is so much more profitable?
You're kidding, right? A first to market private company with a practical application of this supposed holy grail of medicine would stand to make an amazing fortune.

Joe off the street can't take a few hundred million in investment and become much of a player in the pharmaceutical industry at this point, but he could put half of those companies out of business with stem cell technology if it were really as important as some would have you believe. This is very basic economics. What you're saying is like saying that Ford shouldn't have built his Model A, because the horse carriage companies weren't doing it already.

The rest of your post was just slicing up science down the party lines and then turning the whole thing into a theological/religious debate. Thanks for exactly proving my overall point about the political trickery behind the entire debate (albeit with other people's words, more than your own).

Sanchek...sarcasm check

/bow talid

"find the baby" immediately followed with "human embryos"Looks like you answered your own question. I don't care if the babies/embryos were donated with "informed consent" or if they are "in excess of clinical need"

Every time you jack off, you're going to have to find the individual sperm and name them. I bet you have a ton of little Sally's and Tommy's on your keyboard :(

http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/every_sperm_is_sacred1.jpg
DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
MEN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN:
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.
PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!
NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.
EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/every-sp.mp3

http://www.axis-of-aevil.net/archives/img/2002_03/fert-small.jpg

So, let me get this straight, Furtivus. If embryos are created and 'killed,' as you put it, for the expressed purpose of stem cell research, you're against that?

I just don't see why. It's not a loss of life; even if they weren't used for stem cell research, they wouldn't develop into human beings anyways. Furthermore, since those cells have not developed an advanced nervous system yet, they're not capable of experiencing pain or consciousness. So, why specifically are you against the use of stem cells for medical research? Is it just some irrational feeling you have?

He wasn't being sarcastic Talid, unless you use the Bowler definition.He was arguing the same point through the entire thread. Being sarcastic in that post would mean he agrees with the side he's been arguing against the whole time.

No, Cristo. Lleauric was being sarcastic.

Quote:
If it really had a clear and imminent benefit to usher in a new age of medicine, private companies would be all over it; as it would create the next Bill Gates.

Why come up with a cure when selling drugs to alleviate symptoms is so much more profitable?


When he was arguing for the use of stem cell research to possibly alleviate the problems then turns around and says 'Why do X if we can do Y" which is the antithesis of his prior argument...that is sarcasm. The problem is - Sanchek apparently missed it amid the rest of L2's ridiculously long post/quote.

If that was supposed to be sarcasm, then it even more clearly illustrated my point that private business would swarm all over the stuff if it were as good as you people would have us believe... Either way, it made no sense.

Gee, I need to learn to post a few paragraphs of loosely related information and a random song to completely not back up my points, instead of actually posting some thoughts of my own.

Gee, I need to learn to post a few paragraphs of loosely related information and a random song to completely not back up my points, instead of actually posting some thoughts of my own.

You need to take the lump of coal out of your sphincter before you wind up as uptight and humorless as some of the neo con pinatas around here. Its never gonna be a diamond =(

If that was supposed to be sarcasm, then it even more clearly illustrated my point that private business would swarm all over the stuff if it were as good as you people would have us believe... Stem cell research is a promising line of research for a cure to numerous devastating illnesses. But you can't treat it like the underwear gnomes from South Park.
Step 1: Collect underwear!
Step 2: ....
Step 3: Profit! Step 2 is a forbidding amount of investment that might not see a return for five years or 20 years or...who knows? Stem Cell research doesn't have a Jerry Lewis telethon or March of Dimes campaign to support it. In any case, while federal funding would be welcome, biologists are most interested in increased access to new stem cell lines. That would allow further private exploration of this field.

Some people need to learn what an embryo is. A sperm is not an embryo. An egg is not an embryo. Fertilize the egg with a sperm and you have an embryo or as I believe, a baby human being. I don't require an advanced nervous system, a consciousness, an IQ, capability of feeling pain, or any other "test" to determine whether it is a human being. I merely require a fertilized egg/embryo.

So yes I am against embryos (baby human beings) being created and killed (destroyed) for the purpose of medical research. How is that irrational?

Would you object if the baby/embryo was 8 months developed instead of 1 week developed?
If so, at what point of embryonic development do you draw the line at medical experimentation? 4 weeks? 3 months?

If so, at what point of embryonic development do you draw the line at medical experimentation? 4 weeks? 3 months? Someone could use any of the criteria you mentioned in the first paragraph to describe their "comfort point."

EDIT: An additional criterion many point to is "viability outside the womb."

To expand on the Bill Gates example:

Bill Gates would not have been able to develop and profit from windows if the groundwork had not been done for the 40 (perhaps longer) years before he decided to drop out of school.

Likewise, it takes (on average) about 15 years of development to research and develop a new drug- and pharmacology is a science that has been around for hundreds of years.

Also, as an aside, the drug industry does make a lot of money- but that is primarily because people are willing to spend a great deal of money so they don't die. By the same token, some of these companies will give away their drugs if somebody needs it but can't afford it: http://bridgestoaccess.gsk.com/

If so, at what point of embryonic development do you draw the line at medical experimentation? 4 weeks? 3 months?

I don't. I'm for medical experimentation on people of all ages ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ is a good site ). I'm also for post-mortem organ harvest.

I can understand (and respect) wanting to nourish and preserve human life- especially defenseless human life. However, (and I am speaking as someone who does not think of humans as anything more than thinking meat sacks) I can't see the point in getting more worked up about stem cell research on zygotes than (for example) the plight of starving children in the United States (and they are out there). So before anyone starts jumping up and down about how immoral stem cell research is, they had better be doing everything in their power to ensure that the people who are living on this planet NOW have everything they need.

"An additional criterion many point to is 'viability outside the womb.'"

Sadly, I acknowledge that some of the posters here and perhaps Kerry/Edwards and other democrats would be in favor of the medical experimentation (and federal funding thereof) of babies/embryos/fetuses up to the point prior to 'viability outside the womb' or the point prior to the natural gestation period.

"An additional criterion many point to is 'viability outside the womb.'"

Sadly, I acknowledge that some of the posters here and perhaps Kerry/Edwards and other democrats would be in favor of the medical experimentation (and federal funding thereof) of babies/embryos/fetuses up to the point prior to 'viability outside the womb' or the point prior to the natural gestation period.
Hmmm, this seems to be a slippery slope. I have a cousin-in-law who is a nurse at a hospital who's main specialty is labor/delivery/ob/gyn/neo-natal and she works in the NICU (neo natal intensive care). She describes babies that are premature which she cares for that are ~1lb. 10 years from now viability will be even better.... makes me wonder.

So yes I am against embryos (baby human beings) being created and killed (destroyed) for the purpose of medical research. How is that irrational?

Well, I guess you'll have to explain why it's not irrational. Keep in mind, my definition of 'rational' means you're able to explain your point of view without falling back on your own instinctual feelings and beliefs, or an arbitrary set of values. Can you do that?

Seperating rationality from "beliefs" is not really meaningful. A person acts rationally according to their culture/upbringing, not someone elses.

I can intellectually see his viewpoint. According to some religions, the uniqueness and value of humanity lies in it's possession of a soul. If the soul comes into being upon the physical fertilization of an egg to become an embryo (which is not an unreasonable expectation if there are indeed souls), then destroying an embryo intentionally would constitute murder.

So, if you are a member of a religion that has such beliefs, it would be rational of you to oppose using embryos for research. If you have no such beliefs, then you are more likely to embrace experimentation since it may benefit you or your descendants.

That would be an acceptable response; I wouldn't discount beliefs (including religious beliefs) as long as the individual has made an intellectual attempt at comprehending them, as opposed to blindly swallowing whatever that person's elders shoved down his/her throat.

The only problem is, we're debating whether or not the Government - which is not, nor should be, a religious institution in any way shape or form - should help fund stem cell research. Since strictly religious beliefs should not (according to our constitution) influence the decisions of Government, using that argument in the defense of Bush's stance on stem cell research is null and void.

Since strictly religious beliefs should not (according to our constitution) influence the decisions of Government, using that argument in the defense of Bush's stance on stem cell research is null and void.No. Our government operates on the idea that the leaders are elected by the people. Most people in the US have some kind of religious belief. Since those very people are electing those who make policy, religion plays a part in it.

To state it more clearly: The Government is not supposed to interfere with the free exercise of religion (either by hindering it or endorsing one particular creed). However, it is silly to think that the individuals in office are going to ignore the opinion of those who elect them- or fail to act upon their own religious belief when making decisions.

The belief that life begins at conception is not necessarily a religious belief (at least it's not in my case). Regarding the government's involvement, just because one of the commandments forbids murder doesn't preclude the government from also outlawing murder.

I'm the same way as Furt. My views are completely non-religious. I'm not a religious person at all. My views aren't even politically driven (if only half of you could say that). I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortion.

I still see institutionalizing the practice of farming embryos for stem cell use as somewhat Matrix-esque.

it is silly to think that the individuals in office are going to ignore the opinion of those who elect them- or fail to act upon their own religious belief when making decisions.
I'm well aware that political parties will do what's necessary to yield the most votes, and I don't think that Republicans, or even Democrats, will stop catering to the needs of religion. I'm also well aware that elected officials have and will continue to act on their own religious beliefs when making decisions. My point is, they shouldn't. Perhaps I'm being too much of an idealist; I will accept that criticism. However, this fact remains: the United States Constitution calls for a seperation of Church and State. That can obviously be interpreted in a number of different ways, but I don't think that it allows for an elected official acting on his own religious beliefs.

The belief that life begins at conception is not necessarily a religious belief (at least it's not in my case).
I never said that you had religious beliefs, I simply asked you to explain your stance on stem cell research, and follow your logic to its foundation without falling back on an argument you cannot specifically explain.

Regarding the government's involvement, just because one of the commandments forbids murder doesn't preclude the government from also outlawing murder.
Once again, that's not something I said, either. I think just about everyone, religious or not, can see why generally, killing a human being should be illegal. You put that person through pain, you put that person's loved ones through pain, and you limit their ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

On the other hand, 'killing' a stem cell does not put the embryo through pain. It doesn't put the embryo's non-existent loved ones through pain. It doesn't discourage it in its ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. In fact, with more research, it could make easier, for millions of people, the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

Once again Furtivus, please explain why the use of stem cells for medical research is bad.

I'm not saying that we should have female assembly lines for embryos...but refusing the research by saying 'Sorry..this is a baby here,' is a bit extreme. I wish that life could be defined as something that would allow both side to be happy. But saying life starts when/if the condom breaks isn't the way to do this. It's a fertilzed egg at some point before it becomes a baby.

Just on a religious basis, didn't Saint Jerome say that it was about 8 weeks(56days) into pregnancy, which is when the fetus forms and begins to take on the shape of a human? And didn't Pope Gregory the 14th say that it was okay to terminate a child before the 'Quickening' or first feeling of movement by the fetus, which he said was the 116th day?

Somewhere between the two, 90 days, is roughly the end of the first trimester. That's what Roe V. Wade said was the effective 'cutoff' for unrestricted abortion.


As I type this, I'm killing skin cells on my body because of a mosquitoe bite, does that make me a murderer? That cell is just as developed as the embryo.

Taking this line of argument as 'support' for the banning of new stem cell line creation (that destroying embryos, whether created in a petri dish or not, is murder), wouldn't this create a not-small issue with the thousands of embryos that are created every year for the purpose of in vitro fertilization, but are not used, and which are routinely destroyed after several (usually 5) years? Significant 'excesses' of embryos are created via this process, and people receiving IVF are routinely given more then one embryo (up to seven was common in the early years of the procedure) as 'insurance' because successful implantation rates are low.

If we applied the 'logic' being used by the Bush administration to justify banning, or refusing to allow federal funds to be used in connection with, stem-cell line creation to, say, infertility clinics, these places, simply put, would not be able to function. I can just imagine the hue and cry, however, if similar bans were put in place regarding the creation and handling of embryos for the treatment of infertility ('every sperm is sacred' indeed!); while this may have been controversial 25 years ago, folks have gotten rather used to their having options other than adoption when nature fails their attempts to spread their genes...

Taking such a stance against IVF would be political suicide (since we're talking about *creating* life here, it seems that folks are willing to accept that you have to break a few eggs so to speak ;) ), and yet, the overwhelming majority of embryonic stem cells that are harvested for the purpose of stem cell research are obtained from *surplus* embryos that would eventually be destroyed anyway. It seems to me very peculiar to consider the one act 'moral' and the other act 'immoral', as both procedures result in the creation of embryos which *will* be destroyed, and that the reasoning for the distinction must be either based in ignorance or in political posturing. Regarding the last line of argument in this thread, whether a President has the 'right' to issue executive orders that are based in religious 'reasoning', there's no question that our current President has done so, but it is my understanding that if he/she tries to use religious dogma as *justification* for such actions, then such *is* at odds with the Constitition.

Finally, if one is going to be consistent in one's logic concerning the issue (that destroying a created embryo is something that the government should not support or fund), then what about the morning after pill and IUDs while we're at it? Both prevent implantation of a successful conception... I haven't mentioned abortion in this case as the current administration already has very punitive rules in place regarding even the *mention* of the word abortion by any agency associated with the US anywhere in the world and funding.

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous Collective

P.S. I'm really intrigued by the couple of posters (Sanchek, et al), who have said that they have issues with this line of research because of 'Matrixesque' feelings about it. To you I would submit: The future has already been with us for over 30 years :). What do you think happens whenever someone gets, say, a bone marrow (or any other organ for that matter) transplant now? Bone marrow transplants work because undifferentiated bone marrow cells (stem cells) are pluripotent (can become several different types of cells), and so can replace, by reproducing and differentiating into the red blood cells, lymphocytes, platelets, macrophages, and other blood cell types that were destroyed due to the person's genetic condition, cancer, chemotherapy, etc. The likely 'near-term' disease treatments (for Type I diabetes, new spinal cord injuries, etc) based on stem cell therapies are scarcely different from this...

For me, the difference in transplant scenarios is that it's consentual or someone who's died a death that they would have died regardless of the transplant. In other words, they weren't created and harvested, just for their bone marrow or liver or whatever.

Your points about the fertilization clinics and some methods of birth control are well placed, though I know people who are morally opposed to them as well for exactly the same reason they oppose stem cell research. I suspect the fact they receive less scrutiny/publicity is the reason there has not been a movement by some factions to outlaw them as well. You may still see it.

Back to Roliel's point, pain has never been a defining factor of murder. If you kill a comatose patient with no family or friends it is still murder even if the person can't feel the pain and has no notion he is dying. It all depends on what you define as a person. Some folks define it as conception, others as self awareness, even others as viability outside a womb. If you consider it to be conception, then farming embryos is morally the same as farming people for organs. If you define it as self awareness or viability, then farming embryos is nothing special.

People who think that Bush is anti-science for limiting the amount of funding that goes to Stem Cell research are mad. Bush is the first president to ever give any funding at all to stem cell research. He wants to have scientists try it out with a very small number of stem cells to see if there is even a possibly of it working out rather than going full steam ahead and wasting thousands of stem cells and millions of dollars. At this point I am not convinced that Stem Cell research is capable of producing results, it seems like some type of urban legend where people have the idea that we are going to cure many diseases within the decade with stem cell research. As someone has already mentioned we have been doing stem cell research since 1981 privately, where are the results and progressions we have made over the past 23 years? is there even any? have we cured a prominent disease or found effective treatment as a direct result from stem cell research?

Tidbit.
Read the literature. The major breakthrough for stem cell research came in 1998. thats when all these new possiblities were opened up and people got really excited. There isnt just one type of stem cell work. Of course Bush is the first president to fund it.. another important aspect is that computers werent powerful enough until recently to do the work necessary. Projects like mapping the genome illustrate this.

That can obviously be interpreted in a number of different ways, but I don't think that it allows for an elected official acting on his own religious beliefs.
The opposite thought is required to get some people elected (ie: unless they support the correct religion, they won't get elected).

Unlike England, a priest could be elected President of the US. It is unlikely, but it could happen. As long as they don't craft policy that favors one religion over another or prohibit people's freedom to worship, they are free to act (and make crucial choices) based on their own spiritual beliefs.

Its a good thing that politicians really are not in the business of encouraging sciences beyond what gives their nation an edge from a military background. Even the US space program, born of perching a brave human on top of an ICBM in place of its thermonuclear payload, will eventually be superceeded by ambitious and aspiring private enterprise. Burt Rutan and SpaceShip 1 could end up being more important to Humanity and its quest to reach the stars than even the likes of Robert H. Goddard, Wernher von Braun, Yuri Gregarian, Neal Armstrong, and the Saturn V.

Big government loves red tape and doesn't know how to create something that could be cheap, reusable and accessable by the masses for a reasonable cost, since most government science in NOT meant to be all inclusive and tends to bedevoid of much in the way of the cutting edge risk taking and daring that a big payoff offers. Instead the projects get smothered in issues of safety, which senator's under the desk dealing gets the big contract, and what lobby or special intrest group opposes the expendature of the people's money. The end result is an overpriced, ineffective piece of shit that probably doesn't even fullfill its original mission or does so at a status that is by far a disappointment compared to what was originally envisioned. See:Space Shuttle.

So, let the Bushes do the world of science a favor by gratefully not offering federal money and all those politically charged attached strings along with all those mountains of paperwork. Let the government be a consumer of science, but not a producer. Besides, if they won't buy it, cutting edge technology always has a buyer, and in the end, the government will want to buy or impose some kind of tariff on it to maintain what it will feel is valuable intellectual property of the US...even if created by privately funded labs.

There are lots of inaccuracies on this thread. For the record, I support the current policy. I don't have any nifty web sites to quote from to support my position, it is just how I feel about it. More than anything else, I feel it could create an air of apathy in future generations to what is the beginning of life. While my opinions on when life actually begins are a tad more convoluted, I don't think anyone denies that life does eventually come from a fertilized egg.

The problem is that, in general, both sides of this argument have the best intentions. While I feel it is ultimately wrong and could have dangerous moral implications for our future society, I do not believe that proponents of embryonic stem cell research are evil. They just have a different view, one that could be morally sustained by the potential lives saved.

Since I am somewhat divided, I have avoided posting on this topic. But, there are a couple things I think should be cleared up. Finding any sort of middle of the road literature on this topic is difficult at best. While it is slightly slanted, a fair presentation of most of the pro and con arguments, along with the state of the research can be found at http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/index.html Yes, it was written with a general eye to supporting current policy. I urge anyone that is interested in this topic to read it.

First, it should be noted that "stem cell research" is a bit of a misnomer. There is adult stem cell research ( which is a misleading name in itself, stem cells isolated from umbilical cords are "adult" ). Then there is embryonic stem cell research, which didn't exist until researchers with a grant from Geron isolated them in 1998. There are Embryonic Stem Cells ( ES ) that must be cultivated within 7 days of fertilization and Embryonic Germ Cells ( EG ) that must be cultivated within 9 weeks of fertilization. Adult stem cells are all partially differentiated, which in general means that while they can form more specialized cells, generally it must be within the same broad cellular type. Even with this limitation, they have already been used in some amazing clinical trials.

At this point I am not convinced that Stem Cell research is capable of producing results, it seems like some type of urban legend where people have the idea that we are going to cure many diseases within the decade with stem cell research. As someone has already mentioned we have been doing stem cell research since 1981 privately, where are the results and progressions we have made over the past 23 years? is there even any?

That was from Tibbert, though he isn't the only person to express similiar views. This argument is mostly what made me post. While I have reservations about whether embryonic stem cell research is morally right, I feel questioning the usefullness of the overall body of knowledge to be like questioning if the wheel would ever become useful.

Here is some congressional testimony: (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1268&wit_id=3673)

The surgery involved the removal of tissue from my olfactory sinus area and transplanting it into my spinal cord at the injury site..... was also starting to regain feeling in my upper body and within six months I had regained feeling down to my abdomen....Another one of the most evident improvements has been my ability to stand and remain standing, using a walker, and with minimal assistance.

This is from an extremely anti-embryonic web site ( http://www.stemcellresearch.org/ )

When processed properly, adult stem cells can be used to create a whole new immune system after the malfunctioning one is destroyed. First, some of the patient's own stem cells are saved and high-dose chemotherapy kills off the bad immune system. Then, the stem cells are put back in to grow a healthy new immune system.

The treatment worked for Matt Kruysman, who suffered from multiple sclerosis. He is in almost total remission from the disease, which had caused bouts of blindness and made walking difficult. He said he feels like "a million dollars" and now walks briskly and can see the world vivdly again.

"Wow, you know, to feel this breeze and look at the way the sky looks and the trees and all of this other stuff, and I remember when I couldn't see any of that," he said.

That's a real person. He can see. There are other such articles linked from that web page. I hope this will put to rest the "this may never pan out" argument. There isn't a doubt whether embryonic or adult stem cell research has a future. Adult stem cell research has already shown that there are some amazing things possible.

I also categorically reject the "private companies would be investing if it were viable" argument, because private companies are investing. Quite heavily. The Bush paper I linked earlier makes that clear. Who's Who in Stem Cell Research ( 2003 ) lists 65 companies in the field. The 2004 edition has 616 unique entries ( though some of those are pure research entities, like universities, so that isn't totally private enterprise growth ). While it would be nice if I could state how much that grew, each of those costs $179, and I don't feel like spending that much on an internet debate. Remember, the 1998 breakthrough in embryonic research began with a grant from a private company ( Geron ).

As for some "Joe off the street", sure, if he has a couple billion to blow establishing a new biomedical research firm. No one is going to start doing stem cell therapy out of their garage ( Gates reference ). Breaking into a field that has many large established corporations already is much different from what Gates was able to do during the boom of consumer electronics. To compare this to the computer revolution, its more like ENIAC at the moment than the IBM XT. And anything medical related is going to require a lot more patience than your average startup entrepeneur is going to have ( wouldn't it have been nice if Gates had been required to test Windows 98 for 5 years before releasing it? )

As for the whole "Bush is the first president to provide funding," read the bioethics paper I linked. Chapter 2 has a very good history of how we got to where we are today.

So, if adult stem research already shows so much promise, why are these people squawking about embryonic research? Well, for one, we know that a few things work, but we don't know how they work. From a completely scientific standpoint, starting with a completely undifferentiated stem cell ( I would love it if Nydia could prove me wrong, but bone marrow, and any adult stem cell from cord blood on up, is partially differentiated and multipotent, not pluripotent ) is the best place to start. Another is any adult stem cell can in general only be used within a subset of the type of stem cell that it came from ( ie. bone marrow isn't going to form brain tissue ) and there are some cellular types we don't have the ability to get stem cells from yet. Embryonic stem cells, at least in mice, can form any type of tissue, even full organs. Other problems with adult stem cells include identifying and extracting them from the other cells that surround them. As great as adult stem cells have been shown to be, embryonic stem cells do show even more promise.

I'm sure several people are wondering how I can say I'm against this and still present the arguments. None of those arguments outweigh my moral problems. I just don't fear the arguments so much that I have to resort to calling people who generally want to save lives, "babykillers". I am quite content standing on my moral ground and saying that I disagree. I still think the state of the science is such that I can't morally approve of it. Using an unfertilized egg in the way that L2 linked might be something I could live with, I need to look into it more. Yes, my stance could delay cures for people in the future. But the concern I have for what it could do to our society in its present form outweighs, to me, those possible cures, even if I were the one needing that cure.

In short, this is going to be the most important area of research in the near future. The stakes are way too high to let it become politicized with myths about it not being viable.

Fil

Talid, if you are going to be the semantics police..learn to get it straight.

When Leauaric said "Why come up with a cure when selling drugs to alleviate symptoms is so much more profitable?" in response to the question about why aren't private companies jumping all over it, he is simply stating that it IS an extremely promising field(which has been his argument all through this) and that companies are ignoring it simply because they get more money that way.

In order for that statement to be sarcastic, it has to be meant in an ironic sort of way..ie that the field really isn't promising, or that private companies aren't really ignoring it. Both of those situations would be either incorrect or disagree with his stated and oft repeated opinions(private companies ARE for the most part ignoring it, and he believes it is the devils work to not federally fund every aspect of it).

Now, what he DID do was the Bowler definition of sarcastic...as in he made a statement he believes is true, is then beaten over the head with the reality stick...and tries to backpedal with, "I was being sarcastic!".

It's ironic in that the quote isn't something that LLeauric would say, especially when the other posts int he topic are of the complete opposite.

This is Irony.

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.

You would not expect Lleauric to say 'Why come up with a cure..' based upon what he had posted previous.

This is sarcasm
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound

Emphasis mine.

How about this...
because some people around here were tragically born without the gland that produces the chemical which allows people to understand sarcasm or humor. Ive devised an ingenious color code for people.


Normal Tone
Sarcasm
Anger
Humor
ennui
A sympatico mixture of the sanguine and flippant, sprinkled with a dash of morbid curiosity
Hopefully these will be helpful in future readings and will prevent crist0s hemmeroids from acting up again.

What I find most ridiculous about the whole thing is that most opponents of government funded stem-cell research don't know enough about the science to know which potential cures they won't be allowed to get from thier doctors.

Everyone is focused on the "here and now" of the debate."Oh no! You can't use MY tax dollars to fund baby killing!" Few people bother thinking about the consequences of their opposition.

Great, your tax dollars won't fund any of the research. Its going to happen anyway unless the government outlaws it. Even then research will happen, just not in America. And if that research bears fruit? A cure for MS, reversing the effects of Alzheimer's, new therapy for spinal cord injuries and a host of other potential benefits.

And when these things eventually become available for treatment, as I have no doubt they will, are all the people opposed to the research also going to oppose the cures? To the point of not accepting treatment?

Yeah, that'll happen.

Now, what he DID do was the Bowler definition of sarcastic...as in he made a statement he believes is true, is then beaten over the head with the reality stick...and tries to backpedal with, "I was being sarcastic!".
At least I wasn't the only one that noticed that backpeddal.

Fertilizing an egg with a sperm, watching it grow a few million stem cells, and then putting a knife to it, that's murder in my opinion

Me, I call it lunch.
I had bacon & eggs today, cholestorol be damned!

Sorry to interrupt, but how the fuck do you KNOW what I meant.
Why would I backpeddle? Maybe im afraid of confrontation?
Oh Noz! Not teh Sanchek! Maybe he will come to my house and beat me up!

I think Im pretty comfortable saying controversial things. And I dont back down from what Im saying. There are LOTS of problems with drug companies, and we can go into a whole LITANY of them. But the extreme that I used as a sarcastic aside isnt one of them.
Now if you two want to continue to pull each other E-Puds in some mutually affirming display of intellectual homosexuality... go right ahead.. I make no judgements.

The reason I called it a backpedal is because it completely didn't fit the rest of your stance on the issue. I said that if it were such a truly promising science, with realistic, foreseeable practical applications; more private for-profit companies would be all over it. Then, you posted a reason why private money goes to pharmaceuticals instead of researching alternate methods of curing disease.

If you meant that sarcastically, then the only thing you could be pointing out is that yes coming up with a cure would be more profitable than any other possible "product". In that case, where's the private sector in this, other than private universities? The private sector jumps in head first on similarly daunting projects like space flight and quantum computing, with practical applications far in the future; but not stem cell. There's a lot more reason for that than because of it being a long term investment.

That was my point, and if you were really being sarcastic then you were helping my argument. Thanks, I guess.

LL, their (Sanchek etc) rep status is higher than yours, so they must be right with more people in agreement, and you are of course, wrong! :rolleyes:

Or

LL, their (Sanchek etc) rep status is higher than yours, so they must be right with more people in agreement, and you are of course, wrong! :D

Please note the post was color coded by your system for the benifit of those who can't guess the tone of a post.

Solving the tough problems of the world should never be left to politicians. Period. What the heck does a career politician know about science? They probably don't know the difference between a beaker and a graduated cylinder, unless of course a lobbiest tells them or they have (or own) a factory that makes lab equipment in their district.

Also, medical science has long been performed on cadavers and those that voluntarily gave their bodies to research. The technology is going to advance REGUARDLESS of current issues of religion or morality, because ultimately we all want to live forever, don't we? Unless you are some religious nutbag extremist, pretty much everyone wants their stay here as a living breathing sentient independant being to be as long as possible, with the least amount of physical suffering due to ailments as possible. If its going to lead to cures and other lifesaving, life prolonging treatments, it will happen reguardless of what Bubba Dubba Bush says.

Red box you need to relize L2 is an idiot
Oh, one more thing to add. If you feel the need to give a bad anon rep hit just due to difference of opinion, than you are a dickless, cowardly piece of shit. The rep system isn't here to be some kind of popularity contest. Its here to weed out trolls and other trouble makers, is it not? Stop the abuse of that system already. I really should not care what my rep is at this point, but damn. Grow some balls and at least realize that not everyone is going to agree on everything. If you have something to say, especially when it was about what is almost a 3rd party comment, then post it here.
/rant off.

with that spelling ability, it could only have been 1 person..

/wave Tibbert

Hey, I wonder if that was from the same person that gave me a positive one saying "L2 is acting like an idiot"?

Though, you've gotta appreciate the irony of making a sarcastic comment about how rep status doesn't matter, and then following it up with a complaint about getting a negative rep hit.

Hey, I wonder if that was from the same person that gave me a positive one saying "L2 is acting like an idiot"?

doubtful, no spelling errors

Rocks... Glass house...

Sanchek, its not the rep hit that pisses me off as much as the anon BS. The Rep system really is nothing more than a place to post anon flames and insults that might otherwise be moderated off this board. I posted that little bullshit comment because not only did it insult me, but it also insulted L2 who did not even have the benifit of defending himself. I guess I could have done my harmless little rib at you with a truncated anon rep post, but I just assume stay in topic and keep with the continuity of the thread (although it seems kinda derailed now and perhaps by my own doing) . I have nothing against you, Sanchek, but I am not here to worship you either, like so many others, so don't ask me to take anything you say as being anything resembling divine.

Anyways, we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, all ready in progress.

Dont believe the hype on Sanchek, he started with like 50 rep points for being a mod.

It wasnt his witty repartee, bold use of the cliche and mastery of crist0s nob. It was his knowledge of computer stuff and message boards, which he will not hesitiate to remind you of on any and all occasions.

I get anon negatives often enough too. I've never left anyone an anon negative myself, but they don't bother me either. I guess I don't see the big deal. It's easy enough to get into the user group that can see who leaves rep hits though.

And, I'm sure no one's here to worship me. That's just a weird comment to make.

Dear Filatal:

I would love it if Nydia could prove me wrong, but bone marrow, and any adult stem cell from cord blood on up, is partially differentiated and multipotent, not pluripotent
You're correct in essence, but slightly off in your use of terminology, if I recall correctly. Bone marrow stem cells are what we call pluripotent: that is, capable of differentiating into one than more cell type (they can differentiate into T or B cells, macrophages, red blood cells, platelets, all of which are quite different from each other). They are not, however, *totipotent*, that is to say, capable of developing into *any* cell type, because, as you said, they come from a tissue that has already partially differentiated - basic germ/tissue level migration and organization of cells happens early in embryologic development. This is what makes embryonic stem cells unique and why these cells are harvested very early in development (before tissue layer organization commences).

If you've ever had any embryology in your biology coursework, you might know that the really amazing thing is what happens next: as a blastula begins to differentiate, a cell 'decides' what path to start taking (to become ectoderm, endoderm, or mesoderm, and what to continue to differentiate into) not because of something special about its genetic programming, as folks might think (all the cells contain the total organism's DNA and are physically *and* genetically identical, down to gene activation, at this point) but because of *where* it is physically positioned, relative to the other cells in that blastula! They do this both based on their position at the point that initial cleavage is complete (inside or outside? top or bottom?) and by cell-cell surface interaction and feedback with the other cells in the gastrulating embryo.

Throughout their lives, cells display a wide variety of glycoproteins and other markers on their cell surfaces that function as a 'name tag', used by the immune system as a self/nonself check and for numerous other purposes (stimulating reproduction for wound healing after injury for example, then shutting it off), and embryonic cells use those name tags as feedback that they're doing the right thing by 'feeling' what their neighbors are differentiating into and following suit. (Well, my neighbors are developing into muscle cells, I must be... a muscle cell! (some genes switch on, others off)). Very early on in development, embryonic cells become 'committed' to one lineage or another, and once this happens their plasticity becomes greatly reduced - this, again, is what makes embryonic stem cells unique, and an exciting potential therapy for treating diseases wherein the adult, differentiated tissue is normally nondividing (nervous, pancreatic).

Bone marrow, cord blood, and other post embryo stage stem cells have also differentiated sufficiently that they display their MHC and other immunologic 'name tags' on their surface, so these cells, when donated, must be matched for compatibility with the recipient; my knowledge gets fuzzy here, but my understanding is that this is less of an issue with embryonic stem cells as well (although I'm very curious about how this would play out because even though the stem cell should take its cues from its new environment, MHC markers are genetically determined).

As far as my personal ethical stance goes on this line of research goes, my personal feeling is that while a blastula/gastrula is a potential life, is not sufficiently developed enough even to have tissues and organs, much less self-awareness or viability, if one wants to use such nebulous terms, and therefore is not entitled to 'personhood' considerations. While that may sound a bit arbitrary at first glance, understanding the reality that women in their day to day lives very frequently have successful fertilizations and lose them at this stage due to implantation failure (unintentionally, although some methods of birth control act at this stage) or gross defects in the embryo, without even being aware of it, helps put this stage of potential life into perspective. Finally, that embryos are routinely created for other purposes (IVF, as previously mentioned) suggests that if this 'therapeutic' use for embryo creation, which also relies on the destruction of embryos for its success, is considered legitimate use, why not create, or at least use embryos already created (and which will eventually be destroyed anyway), for the purpose for stem cell research? The potential, not only for future therapies, but to increase our understanding of cell physiology, genetics, and immunology, is enormous...

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous Collective

Nydia, could you please stop trying to get this mess on track? We had succesfully derailed is 1 and a half pages ago..

You guys realize that stem cell research is over twenty years old, right? They were growing mouse stem cells in 1981.

This simply isn't some kind of new issue that Bush is solely in charge of having chosen a direction on. It's just a current hot topic that has more use as a political tool than it does a medical one.

Like someone else pointed out... If it really had a clear and imminent benefit to usher in a new age of medicine, private companies would be all over it; as it would create the next Bill Gates.

edit: It's a great idea on their part, since it inevitably leads into a discussion about abortion and the related issues that people will always disagree about. All they're doing is bonding a questionable science to a debate that ends up religious, and people are falling for the trick left and right. It's sad how easy people are manipulated these days.


The worthwhile part of this thread ended with this post by Sanchek. It's a sideshow to get libs worked up and try to scare undecideds.


The President balanced this decision with the position that we should not cross a fundamental moral line by using federal funds to encourage or support the destruction of a human embryo. This principle receives broad support internationally, with many European countries--including France, Germany, Austria, Spain and Ireland--banning altogether the destruction of human embryos to create stem cell lines.



Charles Krauthammer said of Kerry's claim, "Look, I personally support expansion of some of the federal funding of stem cell research. But you're absolutely right, the ban that they speak about is simply a lie. It is legal in the country of course; it always has been. Private universities are working hard on it. Secondly, there was a ban on the federal funding right through the Clinton years. They never spent a penny on stem cells. The person who lifted the ban was President Bush when he made his speech in August of 2001. So, the federal, right now the federal government is spending $25 million on stem cell research. So, to talk about a ban I think is simply to mislead Americans deliberately."



Dr. Kilner further noted that “all that Ron Reagan advocated can be achieved through adult stem cell research. But he amazingly never mentioned adult stem cells. Instead, his misleading language covered up the fact that producing the cells he seeks requires cloning human beings and then destroying them. Cloning and killing are too high an ethical price to pay, particularly when there is another safe way to develop the same cures.”


Rather than work together to further stem cell research, libs have been saving it up to use as a political football to gain the whitehouse. Way to be pawns in their game.

The worthwhile part of this thread ended with this post by Sanchek. It's a sideshow to get libs worked up and try to scare undecideds.

And you still believe this after reading my post? The one that describes testimony in front of the United States Senate from a girl that was paralyzed from the neck down and has regained partial feeling from stem cell technology.

You really believe that private companies aren't investing in this?

You really believe this is "questionable science"?

There's deluding yourself, and then there is this whole new level you have found.

Fil

Yes I believe it after reading your post. Yes I believe it after talking with doctors working in the field extensively. Yes I believe it after participating in a research project with a doctor receiving Federal funding to work in the field.


You're confusing the issue because you don't understand it. The case of the Ms. Dominguez is a good example of what the libs are doing with this issue. Notice it's Adult Stem Cell origin. How is that relative? It's not but it fools the unwise. Look in the mirror... it says SUCKER across your forehead.



My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.


Embryonic dude. Don't be a pawn.

You're confusing the issue because you don't understand it. The case of the Ms. Dominguez is a good example of what the libs are doing with this issue. Notice it's Adult Stem Cell origin.

From my post:
Adult stem cell research has already shown that there are some amazing things possible.

I was actually the first person on this thread to note the difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research.

Oh, and your quote about Bush lifting the ban is refuted by Bush's own bioethics paper I linked.

Fil

If you understand the difference, why do you try to counter with an example of an adult stem cell transplant?

What quote about Bush lifting the what ban? What are you talking about?

Embryonic stem cell research is a political football, and a research curiosity. Most experts agree that multipotent adult progenitor cells are an area of research with a vastly higher clinical potential... so why all the hoopla around ESCs? Politics. ASCs are continuously being found at their source... with no need for incredibly complex differentiation protocol as well. Also an area of research that is far less speculative.

The difference between ASC research and MAPC research and ESC research is that ESC research is so speculative and unlikely that the university research machinery that is in place is 100 percent dependent on the government piggy bank... because it's clinical application is so unlikely and distant if at all. It's a University funding game with high paid lobbyists in congress and medical journals with a stake in the dole as well. There is no money in pushing the truth that ASC and MAPC research have far greater clinical viability, but there is a lot of money at stake in the ESC game.

Every time the libs intentionally confuse ASC breakthroughs with the ESC issue they're risking the diversion of funds away from the far more promising ASC research which... as you so kindly pointed out... is already producing results which ESC technology could not hope to achieve within the next 20 years. Even in the unlikely case that it eventually could, it's likely that ASC technology will have already achieved the a better and less technically demanding result.

I'm not really in this aspect of the debate - I'm more interested in debating the 'moral issues' that stem cell research has, but this does have my interest. Can you post any links backing up your claims, Winterworg?

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993723

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2001news/stemcells.htm

http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/guide/focus.php?id=68

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/152/21.0.html

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031228-114541-5034r.htm


Defenders of embryonic stem cell use say progress has been hindered by the Bush administration's policy to limit federal funding of such research to certain existing embryonic stem cell lines.
"The president's policy ... is delaying cures," said Sean Tipton, vice president of communications for the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, a group of universities, patient and scientific organizations pushing for embryonic stem cell research, including the cloning of human embryos to produce stem cells for medical research.


Classic rationalization. If you give him money he will save you from teh deth. His group exists to lobby for ESC funding and human cloning.

The fact is that ASC and ESC research are not mutually exclusive even. ASC technology will apply to ESC technology in terms of mechanisms of differentiation. Similarly, research on currently available stem cell lines adds to the overall knowledge and potential to manipulate future lines should ESC research (yes its still going on vigorously) begin to show superior fruitfulness to ASC (not likely.)

Interesting. Thanks. ;)

It's ironic in that the quote isn't something that LLeauric would say, especially when the other posts int he topic are of the complete opposite.
It is exactly like something he would say, has said, and will say again. He uses the conspiracy argument over and over. Say..from this post:

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=27677&postcount=129


Think about it this way. Assume XYZ company manufactures lightbulbs. One of their researchers comes up with a light bulb that will NEVER burn out. Do you think think we will ever see that lightbulb?
Just as an example.

And let's also point that his other posts do not disagree with this, as you contend they do:

His first post, to start the thread, is about how Bush is satan himself because he isn't fully funding stem cell research. You can tell this is a serious issue for him, because he posted a photoshopped picture, his highest form of debate.

He then proceeds to use more pictures to tell his story, and then gives this quote:


And your right, why should FEDERAL MONEY (AKA our tax dollars) go to such silly things as curing Alzheimers and other genetic diseases, helping cripple people walk and other useless things
THAT is sarcasm Talid..and he is using it to show how important he thinks stem cell research is.

So no, his statement:


Why come up with a cure when selling drugs to alleviate symptoms is so much more profitable?
Does not disagree with the point he is arguing, and it IS something he would say(we know because he's used the same type of argument in the past, as shown).

In conclusion, no, it is not ironic in that sense.

Derail my hijacking will you.

It's an argument to influence the ignorant masses. The libs know that its a no lose situation for them since there is no danger that the American public can come to understand the complexities of the issue anytime soon. It's like a lot of political issues. It only exists because it can strike an emotional cord in the minds of a factually overburdened public. Oh noz... the republicans hate handicapped people and poor people and black people. Oh noz... the democrats are communists and want to kill babies.


Personally, on this issue I think Bush made the perfect compromise.