• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Needs Stem Cells to Cure HIS Alzheimers

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In yet another offensive assault against SCIENCE, President Bush has threatened to veto his very first bill, one that LIBERALIZES (love that word) the use of embryonic stem cells that are LEFT (love that word) over from in vitro fertilization, stem cells that would otherwise never be used for anything, that would be thrown away.

This bill is not about cloning, or the destruction of life, it is about forwarding science so that the millions of people suffering with many diseases may one day have their disease cured thru this incredible research. In today's Washington Post one of their EDITORIALS says:
Next Step on Stem Cells

Saturday, May 21, 2005; Page A18

THIS WEEK SOUTH Korean scientists announced an impressive breakthrough in the promising but still nascent field of "therapeutic cloning." Using donated human eggs and skin tissue from multiple patients suffering from various diseases or injuries, they were able to generate genetically individualized stem cell lines for each of the patients. These lines are capable of generating the specific types of cells that may be used in promising therapies for devastating conditions. The science is still a long way from providing cures -- and nobody knows whether it ever will -- but it is evidently developing quickly and impressively. For this reason, Congress needs to pass an important bill to liberalize President Bush's restrictive policy on stem cell research.

Research such as the South Korean experiment cannot take place with federal support in this country. President Bush's policy on stem cell research prevents federal money from funding stem cell work that doesn't use one of a handful of cell lines whose creation predated the policy's announcement. And the House has twice voted to criminalize human cloning -- even in the context of research that, like the South Korean project, is intended not to generate cloned people but to help cure the seriously ill.

A bill sponsored by Reps. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) would not permit federal money to fund cloning research in which embryos are created to generate stem cells. It would, however, take the critical first step of allowing federal support for research on any stem cell line generated from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization, provided donors give their consent. These are small clusters of cells (not yet even a fetus) that will never grow into a baby because they will never be implanted in a woman's uterus. For this reason, support for liberalizing policy toward stem cell research is growing, even among those staunchly opposed to abortion. The bill, which Mr. Bush promised to veto yesterday, has a serious chance of passing the House, and supporters such as Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) are pushing for a vote in the Senate.

Mr. Bush's policy on stem cells was not the sellout to the religious right that his critics sometimes contend; it opened the door for federal funding, after all. But at this point, the policy has outlived its usefulness, and the president shows no sign of relaxing it on his own. Congress needs to do it for him.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001381.html

Considering that Bush has never vetoed anything it is shocking that this bill is the one he elects to veto? Our country is speeding dangerously toward theocracy, and assholes like Bush are pandering to this movement.

The Religious Right (Jesus Freaks) whose asses Bush is kissing are trying to prevent SCIENCE. This is incredible. Supposedly "saving" the souls of embryos that will never, ever become a human being in lieu of saving lives of human beings is a sin against mankind.

Religion has no place in government, the bible has no place in lawmaking. How ironic will it be when Bush's Alzheimer progresses to the point that he will crave/wish that he had allowed the research to go forward? If that happens, would that mean that God is punishing him for being the complete asshole that he is? :rofl

One other important point to consider? As a nation we will fall seriously behind in this research. The advances will therefore come from outside the USA, so the technology and the industries that will be created will develop outside of America, costing all of us jobs, taxes and medical advancement. We will no longer be the world's leader in medical research, we will be losers.

Oh....and nothing Bush does will stop the development of this science. It will happen, just not in the USA.

This is not about abortion, this is about SCIENCE vs. THE BIBLE. IF we allow the Bible to prevent Science then we will all suffer, period.
 
Last edited:

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Personally, I'm against abortion. But if for some reason we don't want to stop killing babies, I think we should use the stem cell research to discover what we can.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is an alternative to using embryos. I am repulsed by any attempt to use humans for research. :2sick1:

Bush supports research on adult stem cells, but placed a ban on using federal money to do research on the embryonic stem cells created after August 2001. These stem cells are extracted from days-old embryos, which are destroyed in the process. Bush and some religious and conservative groups who believe life begins at conception are offended by the research and don't think tax money should be used to finance it.
House Republicans are throwing their weight behind an alternative bill that encourages stem cell research that uses blood from umbilical cords. Extracting stem cells from cord blood does not require the destruction of an embryo.
Source
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
There is an alternative to using embryos. I am repulsed by any attempt to use humans for research. :2sick1:


Source
Totally missing the point! Did you read the story? The bill that Bush is going to Bushwhack allows using embryos that otherwise would be thrown away. How can you be against that? It also requires the permission of the donor.

To be blanketly against it is to be against mankind, sorry. Being dogmatic and unable to see that this has ZERO to do with "using humans" is exactly the ignorance that Bush and his Bible Thumpers are promoting.

Can't you step back, take a deep breath, and think about the facts here? This has nothing to do with abortion or "using humans." It is about using a resource that otherwise would be flushed down the toilet to save lives, create jobs, and allow for a better life. You're against that? Sqauwker? C'mon, reread the facts and think about it, will you please?
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Gandhi>Bush said:
Personally, I'm against abortion. But if for some reason we don't want to stop killing babies, I think we should use the stem cell research to discover what we can.
I think you need to reread the original post? This has absolutely NOTHING to do with abortion, zero, zilch, nada.

I do appreciate that you are showing the common sense to use resources that are available to further science. This is not some Frankenstein thing, and anyone who thinks it is must be undereducated or delusional.

This is a very black and white issue. Bush and this Moral Minority are trying to prevent the majority from being healthier, and their using Jesus as their weapon of defense. The reality is that bringing religion into a scientific discussion is exactly what's wrong with this lame thinking.

It's a disturbing pattern! Assholes out there are trying to get schools to stop teaching Evolution, trying to stick their God up everyone's ass. To me, that is "religious rape." Please do not force this sick theology up my butt. If you want to believe it, go for it, I would never suggest that you should disavow your faith or not follow your conscience. The difference is that my thinking allows for adult choice. If you don't want to use medicines that cure your disease based on religious principles, don't, but you better not stop me from getting healthy!

Please, spare me the "where does it stop" argument! This bill talks about recycling nothingness into life, the lives of humans who are alive.

I also get the feeling that all of this is a Karl Rove ploy. What do I mean? Well, let's say Bush does veto this bill but in the backrooms he already knows that his veto will be reversed. If that's the case then it is all being done for politics, to satisfy the Jesus Freaks who cannot be satisfied on the Abortion front since Abortion will always be legal. Somehow the Thumpers have locked onto this stem cell issue as their new line in the sand, making up that the use of stem cells kills babies! Talk about hypocritical! Unborn stem cells that will be otherwise destroyed can be used to save lives, and Religious Freaks are against this?
:hm
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Totally missing the point! Did you read the story? The bill that Bush is going to Bushwhack allows using embryos that otherwise would be thrown away. How can you be against that? It also requires the permission of the donor.

To be blanketly against it is to be against mankind, sorry. Being dogmatic and unable to see that this has ZERO to do with "using humans" is exactly the ignorance that Bush and his Bible Thumpers are promoting.

Can't you step back, take a deep breath, and think about the facts here? This has nothing to do with abortion or "using humans." It is about using a resource that otherwise would be flushed down the toilet to save lives, create jobs, and allow for a better life. You're against that? Sqauwker? C'mon, reread the facts and think about it, will you please?
This is just another step in the liberal agenda to devalue human life. The people who see nothing wrong with “flushing” an embryo down the toilet can justify anything. Today stem cell research, tomorrow cloning for body parts. That is the reality of the “progressive” ideology, Champ. :fyi: I am not a “bible Thumper”, just a realist.
 

neccy60

New member
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago, Illinois.
Let me just make my humble opnion heard. I am against using embryonic stem cells for research, even if it is for the betterment of the living. This is the perhaps most difficult issue to take sides on, because either way, someone's suffering. ;-;

The main reason I'm against it is because you're using actual human babies (in my opnion) to better yourself. This is why this issue is forever tied with abortions, no matter how you spin it. Now, why should we kill children, to aid someone, even if they are disabled, or have a diesase? We're KILLING HUMAN LIFE, and that's why so many find this a hard issue. I'm for adult stem cells and all, but that's it.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Champ:

Nothing to do with abortion? Where do stem cells come from? Neverland Ranch?

Neccy:

Considering Roe v Wade looks like it aint going anywhere anytime soon, shouldn't we put these otherwise destroyed lives to use?
 

neccy60

New member
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago, Illinois.
Gandhi>Bush said:
Champ:

Nothing to do with abortion? Where do stem cells come from? Neverland Ranch?

Neccy:

Considering Roe v Wade looks like it aint going anywhere anytime soon, shouldn't we put these otherwise destroyed lives to use?
Neverland Ranch... :rofl

Well, in the case that we should put already-technically-dead embryos to use, I agree with you. However, this will encourage people to abort all the time, because they probably won't think that fetus is life, and therefore, they can put what would otherwise be a burden to good use. Whcih is why, therefore, I'm overall against stem cells.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
This is just another step in the liberal agenda to devalue human life. The people who see nothing wrong with “flushing” an embryo down the toilet can justify anything. Today stem cell research, tomorrow cloning for body parts. That is the reality of the “progressive” ideology, Champ. :fyi: I am not a “bible Thumper”, just a realist.
Hey Squawk....seriously...isn't it unfair of you to make generalizations like this? This bill is very specific, and it is well written. All it says is that it will allow the use of stem cells that otherwise would be thrown away. Not having this bill does not save anything. This bill is a step to save lives. How come you cannot separate your rhetoric from this single issue?

Though you and I disagree on almost everything political, I don't perceive you as robotic in your thinking. On this issue, IMHO, you seem to be missing the point, the specific point of this legislation. If the stem cells would simply be tossed out, why can't they be used for science? What is it about this specific use that makes you prefer intolerance to science? I don't get it.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
neccy60 said:
Let me just make my humble opnion heard. I am against using embryonic stem cells for research, even if it is for the betterment of the living. This is the perhaps most difficult issue to take sides on, because either way, someone's suffering. ;-;

The main reason I'm against it is because you're using actual human babies (in my opnion) to better yourself. This is why this issue is forever tied with abortions, no matter how you spin it. Now, why should we kill children, to aid someone, even if they are disabled, or have a diesase? We're KILLING HUMAN LIFE, and that's why so many find this a hard issue. I'm for adult stem cells and all, but that's it.
I cannot understand how all of you disagreeing with this keep tying it to abortion? This has NOTHING to do with abortion! Can't you understand? Do you know what the bill proposes? You're saying that this bill is "forever tied to abortion" just does not compute. The embryos that would be used are left over from in vitro fertilization, do you understand? They are not from aborted fetus. They are from embryos donated by couples going thru in vitro fertilization, and these embryos will not be used for anything else. Either they're used for science or they are discarded. Do you understand? Science or discarded. Abortion has no part in discussion.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
neccy60 said:
Neverland Ranch... :rofl

Well, in the case that we should put already-technically-dead embryos to use, I agree with you. However, this will encourage people to abort all the time, because they probably won't think that fetus is life, and therefore, they can put what would otherwise be a burden to good use. Whcih is why, therefore, I'm overall against stem cells.
I'm sorry but I do not see the connection. How many people that you know of get an abortion for the purpose of furthering stem cell technology? That is simply not true.

I'm glad to read that you agree that using otherwise discarded embryos for research is right! A voice of reason! My point to you is that this bill, the one that Bush has chosen worthy of his first veto has nothing in it that has to do with abortion. All that it does is further the advancement of science.

It's pathetic that Bible Beaters are so blind, so ignorant, so horribly lame that they think that science is anti-God. That line of thinking is from the Dark Ages, and that's where it belongs.

Questions for all you Bibleholics who believe that science is evil? What happens to the USA if we fall dramatically behind the scientific process due to Jesus? Are you all OK with having the modern world pass us by? Is it more important to "praise Jesus" than to save your mother from Alzheimer's? Is it more vital to fear God's "wrath" than to find a cure for diabetes?

Maybe the "Praise the Lorders" need to secede from our country and start a new nation somewhere that is a theocracy, where free speech and free choice are not permitted, where everyone must believe in Jesus or face eternal hell while on Earth? Sure sounds like the Taliban to me.....
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Though you and I disagree on almost everything political, I don't perceive you as robotic in your thinking. On this issue, IMHO, you seem to be missing the point, the specific point of this legislation. If the stem cells would simply be tossed out, why can't they be used for science? What is it about this specific use that makes you prefer intolerance to science? I don't get it.
I know where it will lead. The following may benefit mankind also, shall we authorize that now or is that planned for later? That is what I mean by “progressive”. It doesn’t stop, because there is always something new to explore. When science leads to legislation, I am on the side of caution.
In addition to providing another reproductive option, clones could be created to donate non-essential organs like kidneys or bone marrow.39 In fact, this technology could be used to develop cells that would not be rejected by a transplant patient’s immune system. Examples include production of Islets Cells to be transplanted into a diabetic, the production of healthy skin grafts for burn patients, or even the generation of an HIV therapy whereby cloned HIV resistant leukocytes replace the patient's immune system.40
12 Despite some of the outlandish possibilities and the somewhat extreme points of view of a number of the proponents of human cloning, the technology does offer some significant and realistic possibilities for the treatment of disease. Accordingly any type of ban or regulation of this technology must be narrowly tailored so as not to inhibit a rational scientist from using this technology to search for cures.
All in the name of Scientific exploration.
Source
 

Fu_chick

Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
Squawker said:
This is just another step in the liberal agenda to devalue human life. The people who see nothing wrong with “flushing” an embryo down the toilet can justify anything. Today stem cell research, tomorrow cloning for body parts. That is the reality of the “progressive” ideology, Champ. :fyi: I am not a “bible Thumper”, just a realist.

Do not give me this sh!t about devaluing human life. My grandma died of Parkinson's, one the those diseases that could be cured by stem cell research. Have you ever known someone will Parkinson's? It is not a condition you live with, it is a disease you DIE from. In four years she went from running mini-marathons to being unable to feed herself. Our only comfort is that she didn't know what was going on at the end. Do you know how Parkinson's patients die? If they do not want to spend their final years on life support they will either starve to death or suffocate. If it would have saved her I would have given all the eggs they needed and never looked back.

If Bush continues to block action that could save lives and eliminate suffering, then as far as I'm concerned the blood of all those people who will suffer and die as a result of the slowing of this research is on his hands, as well as the hands of the insane so-called "pro-lifers." You are choosing the life of an embryo, which in all likelihood wouldn't even develop into a human anyway over the life of a living, breathing person. Really, whose life is being devalued here?
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Squawker:

I know a twelve year old who died because he never got a heart. If cloning body parts is wrong and would save his life, bring it on.

Neccy:

Once a baby is aborted it's gone. There's nothing you can do once that's happened. If America won't undo Roe v Wade, and stop the killing of children, as you and I both see it, wouldn't it be logical that these children death's are made to help the research of disease. This does not decrease that value of human life, as there is not life in an already aborted infant. Do you see?

Champ:

Stop making this anti-christian. Anyone who values life may be concerned about such an issue. I am not christian, but this issue concerns me.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Gandhi>Bush said:
Champ:

Stop making this anti-christian. Anyone who values life may be concerned about such an issue. I am not christian, but this issue concerns me.
Bush's stance is based on Christianity, and he is kissing the Rabid Right's Ass by destroying the potential to cure serious diseases that have tormented mankind throughout history.

I do agree with you that a very small minority of people who side with Bush are not religious fanatics, but they are the exception to the rule.

What we're entering into under Bush is a cultural and religious war right here in the USA. When we, as a country allow religion to dictate science then it is time that we who are PRO-SCIENCE & PRO-LIFE (YES! Being PRO-STEM CELL research is most definitely PRO-LIFE) take a hard stand and do whatever is necessary to preserve the American way of life. America is not about Christianity, and anyone who thinks Christianity has a place in our government is someone I disagree with.

I don't know how many times I've posted that freedom of religion is an absolute right guaranteed under our Constitution? I also know that freedom to not have religion in one's everyday life is also an absolute right guaranteed under the very same Constitution. It IS illegal for our government to enact or bock legislation based on religious dogma, ALWAYS, no exceptions.

Gandhi my friend, do you want our government to teach you religion in school? Do you want them to avoid exploring medical breakthrough because of misguided and incorrect religious zealots trying to make us into a theocracy? Think about it what America would be like if the Rabid Right's beliefs were allowed into US law? Do you think we'd still be the USA? I don't! We would be on a par with all the other theocracies around the world, we'd be backwards, controlling, and without dissent...That is quite scary.

If you think I'm wrong, just consider that our President is going to veto a bill that would allow for the furthering of medical miracles, and would create these miracles as a side benefit or a recycling of genetic materials that would otherwise be garbage. How fuc*ed up is that?

To argue that this leads to cloning is absurd. That means that you have no faith in our system whatsoever, and that despite there being a clear Republican majority in all branches of government that somehow Dr. Frankenstein will be anointed king and he will then create a new master race of superior human beings? Give me a break!

The use of fear mongering to discard out scientific truth is the core of Bush's agenda, and the core of anyone who believes that this bill will lead to cloning! :screwy
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The use of fear mongering to discard out scientific truth is the core of Bush's agenda, and the core of anyone who believes that this bill will lead to cloning!
What did you use to bolster your argument for it? The research will get done in other countries. It won't be the end of the US economy. Donate to the research all you want. All Bush is saying is he won't allow the use of taxpayers money to fund it, or extend the availability of embryos. Good for him. I don't know what the legalities of allowing people who wish to donate their embryos to science is. Perhaps that is the option rather than having the government involved. President Bush was the first to allow even limited research in this area, so why are you insisting he go further? Are you not making my point about the "progressive" nature of this?
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
What did you use to bolster your argument for it? The research will get done in other countries. It won't be the end of the US economy. Donate to the research all you want. All Bush is saying is he won't allow the use of taxpayers money to fund it, or extend the availability of embryos. Good for him. I don't know what the legalities of allowing people who wish to donate their embryos to science is. Perhaps that is the option rather than having the government involved. President Bush was the first to allow even limited research in this area, so why are you insisting he go further? Are you not making my point about the "progressive" nature of this?
What exactly are you afraid of? What will happen if we discover cures to diseases? Who gets hurt by this bill? Let's focus specifically on this legislation. What in it do you think is so wrong that it outweighs the incredible potential of this science?

Are you against finding cures for diseases? Are you against finding the BEST cures for diseases? If an embryo is not going to be used why can't it be used to save lives? I don't understand. You seem to be suggesting that the human race's survival is at stake here? Do you have so little faith in scientists that you believe they will ignore their Hippocratic Oath to create ghoulish creatures? And they will do so illegally?

As for the industry of stem cell research, or more importantly, the industries that will develop around it you're OK with letting another lucrative future technology based business slip away from the US job force? Why? Where are you creating new jobs? You don't think the USA should be in the forefront of technology industries? You think we'll be better as a nation by being a non-participant in scientific research?

Imagine if this line of thought occurred last century? Tell me where our Pharmaceutical industry would be today if any of our Presidents had prevented their growth due to religious dogma?
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As for the industry of stem cell research, or more importantly, the industries that will develop around it you're OK with letting another lucrative future technology based business slip away from the US job force? Why? Where are you creating new jobs? You don't think the USA should be in the forefront of technology industries? You think we'll be better as a nation by being a non-participant in scientific research?

Imagine if this line of thought occurred last century? Tell me where our Pharmaceutical industry would be today if any of our Presidents had prevented their growth due to religious dogma?
Why do you insist that using embryos is the only way to do stem cell research? There are other sources that are just as effective. The lack of federal funds won't interfere with the research at all. This line of thought did occur in the last century. The Clinton administration set limits on embryonic research.
1994: President Clinton says he will not allow funding of the special creation of embryos solely for research purposes, but panel chairman Muller notes that this will affect "just one little part" of the proposed research. Federal funds would still be used to manipulate and destroy human embryos, as long as the embryos were created using private funds or were originally designated for reproductive purposes.
I have less faith in scientists than I do politicians. They are too analytical and too weak in the ethics department.
1968: As abortion laws become more permissive in Europe and the United States, researchers increasingly use the aborted child as a guinea pig for risky experiments. One experiment, using an "artificial womb" to prolong the painful dying of children born alive during late-term abortions, wins a major award from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Source
 
Last edited:

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
Why do you insist that using embryos is the only way to do stem cell research? There are other sources that are just as effective.
Simply untrue, sorry. Don't believe me? How about some facts from the NIH (National Institute of Health)
Why not use adult stem cells instead of using human embryonic stem cells in research?
Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells.
This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be.
Now, as to your assertion that "there are other sources that are just as effective" the NIH says:
Which research is best to pursue?
The development of stem cell lines that can produce many tissues of the human body is an important scientific breakthrough. This research has the potential to revolutionize the practice of medicine and improve the quality and length of life. Given the enormous promise of stem cells therapies for so many devastating diseases, NIH believes that it is important to simultaneously pursue all lines of research and search for the very best sources of these cells.

What classes of stem cells are there?
There are three classes of stem cells: totipotent, multipotent, and pluripotent.

* A fertilized egg is considered totipotent, meaning that its potential is total; it gives rise to all the different types of cells in the body.
* Stem cells that can give rise to a small number of different cell types are generally called multipotent.
* Pluripotent stem cells can give rise to any type of cell in the body except those needed to develop a fetus.
Source: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp#whatare
Squawker said:
The lack of federal funds won't interfere with the research at all.
Again, simply not true. It is obvious that federally funded programs will excel the rate of discovery and will increase the number of scientists who can participate. For you to make a unsubstantiated comment like that seems to me that you did so for one purpose only, to mislead people as to the truth, because the truth is that Federal funds do make a difference!

Want to know what Harvard says about stem cell research?
Overview

Imagine a world in which physicians could give diabetics new insulin producing cells, replace the brain cells lost in Parkinson's disease, provide cells to replace those healthy cells destroyed by cancer chemotherapy, and repair the damage caused by a heart attack. All of those medical advances and more are why stem cell biology is such an exciting, promising science, a science that holds to potential to treat or cure diseases that impact the lives of a 100 million people in the United States alone.

Established in 2004, the Harvard Stem Cell Institute is dedicated to advancing the science of stem cells from the laboratory bench to patient bedsides around the world. In order to make this vision a clinical reality, the Institute supports research into all aspects of stem cell biology, including both embryonic and adult stem cells, with particular emphasis on those areas with the greatest potential for saving and improving people's lives.

There are two types of stem cells, adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are found in mature tissues (bone marrow, skin, brain etc) that can self-renew and give rise to other cell types from their tissue of origin, thereby producing a steady supply of new cells to maintain that tissue throughout life. In general, adult stem cells from one organ do not give rise to cell types from other organs.

However, the embryonic stem (ES) cell warrants special attention as it is uniquely malleable and can make any part of the body. In some sense, ES cells represent the parent of all stem cells and provide a window into the first stages of the life. It is also important to note that mouse ES cells have precipitated a virtual revolution in our understanding of the relationship between genes and their function in intact animals. A close association of researchers working on ES cells and adult stem cells is critical to accelerate the understanding that will engender stem cell therapies.
Source: http://stemcell.harvard.edu/
Squawker said:
I have less faith in scientists than I do politicians. They are too analytical and too weak in the ethics department.
You trust President Bush and politicians (including President Clinton) more than you trust the NIH & Harvard University? I feel it is necessary for me to say that I consider your lack of faith in scientists vs. politicians to be, kindly, INSANE! You must have typed that by mistake, right? I mean, really, Bush knows more about stem cell research than the NIH & Harvard? The NIH (our GOVERNMENT) and Harvard are conspiring to create a master race of clones?

I think that your mind is fogged, sorry....
 

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This is just another step in the liberal agenda to devalue human life.

That's something I really don't understand.....
who is devaluing life: those who want to throw away unused embryos, or those who want to use them to research cures for disease?
those who are in favor of torture or those who are not?
those who believe in the death penalty or those who believe in imprisonment for life?
those who promote wars or those who think that war should be the last resort?
those who care about the environment or those who don't?
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
vandree said:
That's something I really don't understand.....
who is devaluing life: those who want to throw away unused embryos, or those who want to use them to research cures for disease?
those who are in favor of torture or those who are not?
those who believe in the death penalty or those who believe in imprisonment for life?
those who promote wars or those who think that war should be the last resort?
those who care about the environment or those who don't?
Great post! Good job! I agree!
:applaud :agree
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Very interesting reading from all of you. I appreciate the genuine attitudes and responses from both sides of the issue.

I do hope Congress has the foresight to pass this bill over a Bush veto.

I admit to not being very up on this issue, but I've read that the existing stem cell lines, that Bush authorized, are corrupted with mouse DNA, and are useless for continuing research.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Champ, you're always in a :2fog: Buddy. :lol:

In the third quarter of 2004, there are 22 human embryonic stem cell lines that federally supported researchers can purchase.
The only thing the Democrats are squawking about is additional funding for cells outside of this group? Maybe it has more to do with providing money to places like “Harvard” than the research itself.
Research on human embryonic stem cell lines may receive NIH funding if the cell line meets the following criteria: Removal of cells from the embryo must have been initiated before August 9, 2001, when the President outlined this policy; and the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived must no longer have had the possibility of developing further as a human being. The embryo must have been created for reproductive purposes but no longer be needed for them. Informed consent must have been obtained from the parent(s) for the donation of the embryo, and no financial inducements for donation are allowed.
In order to ensure that federal funds are used to support only stem cell research that is scientifically sound, legal, and ethical, NIH examines stem cell lines and maintains a Stem Cell Registry of lines that satisfy the criteria.
Here is the link to the NIH site if anyone needs their questions answered.
Source

Vandree said:
That's something I really don't understand.....
who is devaluing life: those who want to throw away unused embryos, or those who want to use them to research cures for disease?
They both are.
those who are in favor of torture or those who are not?
Who is in favor of torture?
those who believe in the death penalty or those who believe in imprisonment for life?
Those who believe the innocent should die via abortion and the guilty should live.
those who promote wars or those who think that war should be the last resort?
I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe war should be the last resort.
those who care about the environment or those who don't?
Who doesn’t care about the environment?
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Squawker said:
The only thing the Democrats are squawking about is additional funding for cells outside of this group? Maybe it has more to do with providing money to places like “Harvard” than the research itself.
Hmm...are you saying that Harvard research does not carry any creditability to you? Again, when I read the stuff that you write I find it hard to take you seriously, sorry. You believe politicians over scientists. You think Harvard needs to be surrounded by quotation marks. You answer my long post without so much as a mention to the SCIENCE of Stem Cell research.

Instead, you address the politics. Smart move! After all, there really is no disputing the facts, now is there? So if you can't make the facts to be what you want them to be you divert your reply to politics.
Squawker said:
Here is the link to the NIH site if anyone needs their questions answered.
Source
I certaintly read that statement before I posted. Did you? Did you read the FAQ on the NIH website? The NIH is forced by Bush's law to obey the rules, DUH! Of course you already wrote that you don't trust the NIH to obey the laws, but you then cite a quote that lists what rules they must follow. Isn't that being what Republicans call a FLIP FLOPPER? :rofl

I also want to remind you that you're saying that the NIH & Harvard are not to be trusted, that their science is flawed, yet you provided a link to a 1998 document from a right to life site, using that source as fact? I just want to be clear, NIH & Harvard are not be trusted and their science is flawred, but
Richard Doerflinger is associate director for policy development at the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Your boy Richard Doerflinger knows his sh*t, without flaws? How about this time you actually address my posts with facts and opinions instead of cute smilies? You claimed that you don't need embryonic stem cells to get the same results that you get from adult stem cells. I clearly explained thru the NIH & Harvard that you are wrong. How come you're not posting your proof that the NIH and Harvard are wrong?

Is it because you can't find proof and your pride forbids you from simply accepting the truth?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom