Embryonic Stem Cells Poll - Test Your Principles

[Navy Pride]

The really sad part is how many times the MSM states that Bush is "Opposed to federal funding of Stem Cell Research" when we all know it only applies to Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In fact President Bush has released more stem cells for research then any other president....

 

[Navy Pride]

The really sad part is how many times the MSM states that Bush is "Opposed to federal funding of Stem Cell Research" when we all know it only applies to Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In fact President Bush has released more stem cells for research then any other president....

 

[26 X World Champs]

I am all for stem cell research. I am completely against the government funding it.

To me your statement is an oxymoron. The head of the NIH the leading medical agency in the USA said this:

"I think it is important for us not to fight with one hand tied behind our back," NIH Director Elias Zerhouni told the Senate subcommittee that oversees spending for the agency that funds much of U.S. biomedical research.

Source: Log In Problems

I think it's telling what he said: "not to fight with one hand tied behind our back."

This is not a small issue. We're talking about saving people's lives and without government funding is it thousands or millions of people who would suffer deaths of diseases that could have been cured years earlier?

 

[26 X World Champs]

I compromise my principles all the time.

For instance - having dependents shouldn't give me favorable tax status - but that doesn't mean I don't claim my kids at tax time.

The poll is nonsensical - sorry to say. That I don't approve of government funding doesn't mean I'm not paying for it anyway. And if I'm paying for it - why would I deny myself care that I paid for?

The poll is clear. It says "Test Your Principles." Taxes are a fact of life. We can all come up with countless examples of our taxes being spent on things we disapprove of. That does not mean that one is OK with it or that one cannot take a principled stance.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I guess you don't read any of the previous posts before you throw your two cents in.


Which is why ASC research should continue. Not that you are doing this, but I find it disingenuous when those against ESC imply that by funding ESC, funding for ASC will stop. Just like I find it disingenuous when those who support ESC paint those opposed as against ALL stem cell research and not ESC.

You're right because this bill calls for funding all kinds of stem cell research including Embryonic stem cells.

I would love to see someone on their death bed refuse a cure created by the US government scientists. I sincerely believe that 99% of those people who are saying they would refuse the cure are being disingenuous.

 

[26 X World Champs]

You need to get educated on ASC and the difference.....

:rofl OK Navy Pride! Let's do it! Let's educate each other and have a one on one debate on the difference between Adult Stem Cells versus Embryonic Stem Cells. Are you going to debate me or cut and run, again?

Here's something for you to debate me on Navy Pride. Do you agree with these facts from the NIH or are you prepared to call the NIH "lefties" like you regularly do when someone or something disagrees with you?

What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells?

Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.

Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.

A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient's own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs.

Embryonic stem cells from a donor introduced into a patient could cause transplant rejection. However, whether the recipient would reject donor embryonic stem cells has not been determined in human experiments.

Source: What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? [Stem Cell Information]

No one is saying that Adult Stem Cells are not important and mandatory to invest in but they are not the answer alone. If we're going to conquer diseases it is mandatory to use all means available and that definitely includes Embryonic Stem Cells.

OK Navy Pride now it's your turn to write an extended rebuttal to my post. I wold like to know what you think, in detail, please?

 

[ARealConservative]

The poll is clear. It says "Test Your Principles." Taxes are a fact of life. We can all come up with countless examples of our taxes being spent on things we disapprove of. That does not mean that one is OK with it or that one cannot take a principled stance.

oh - the poll is crystal clear.

I just don't believe the following posters for one second: adamanarch, Navy Pride, TOJ, WI Crippler

They all claim they would choose death and I will never believe them in a million years.

 

[jallman]

I am all for stem cell research. I am completely against the government funding it.

I would prefer to have the government both fund and regulate the ethical guidelines....

 

[26 X World Champs]

oh - the poll is crystal clear.

I just don't believe the following posters for one second: adamanarch, Navy Pride, TOJ, WI Crippler

They all claim they would choose death and I will never believe them in a million years.

Agreed! It's so easy to hide behind the firewall of the Internet and to pretend to have lots of bravado, courage and principles but when the REALITY is knocking on their doorstep there is no way they would refuse treatment and no amount of posts here will change my mind.

Now if they were Amish I would believe them but I just don't think any of them are Amish....

 

[26 X World Champs]

:rofl OK Navy Pride! Let's do it! Let's educate each other and have a one on one debate on the difference between Adult Stem Cells versus Embryonic Stem Cells. Are you going to debate me or cut and run, again?

Here's something for you to debate me on Navy Pride. Do you agree with these facts from the NIH or are you prepared to call the NIH "lefties" like you regularly do when someone or something disagrees with you?


Source: What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? [Stem Cell Information]

No one is saying that Adult Stem Cells are not important and mandatory to invest in but they are not the answer alone. If we're going to conquer diseases it is mandatory to use all means available and that definitely includes Embryonic Stem Cells.

OK Navy Pride now it's your turn to write an extended rebuttal to my post. I wold like to know what you think, in detail, please?

I'm wondering why Navy Pride has not rebutted my debating points? Isn't it a shame that we can't engage in an intelligent debate on this subject?

 

[jallman]

I'm wondering why Navy Pride has not rebutted my debating points? Isn't it a shame that we can't engage in an intelligent debate on this subject?

Intelligent would have been to just let it go...what is your hard-on over Navy Pride?

 

[talloulou]

:rofl OK Navy Pride! Let's do it! Let's educate each other and have a one on one debate on the difference between Adult Stem Cells versus Embryonic Stem Cells. Are you going to debate me or cut and run, again?

Here's something for you to debate me on Navy Pride. Do you agree with these facts from the NIH or are you prepared to call the NIH "lefties" like you regularly do when someone or something disagrees with you?


Source: What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells? [Stem Cell Information]

No one is saying that Adult Stem Cells are not important and mandatory to invest in but they are not the answer alone. If we're going to conquer diseases it is mandatory to use all means available and that definitely includes Embryonic Stem Cells.

OK Navy Pride now it's your turn to write an extended rebuttal to my post. I wold like to know what you think, in detail, please?

I'd prefer research that doesn't steal from the healthy to aid the sick. I certainly wouldn't want to kill a young human in order to take their parts and use them for my benefit and its hard to view embryonic research in a different light. I realize an embryo that is not implanted in a womb has ZERO chance of survival long term yet the thought of cloning embryos and mass producing human organisms for the sake of "parts" makes me cringe. I realize many embryos are destroyed and since they are going in the trash anyway it does seem wasteful not to use them however I also dislike the idea of drs. fertilizing more embryos than a woman can possibly use for the sake of capitalism and supply and demand. I think it's important that with all the marketing and research we don't forget that the organisms in question are in fact humans. I also adamently despise the fact the fetal females are aborted and then their eggs are taken from their ovaries to be fertilized and used for "research." It's a path that should be tread very carefully with keen ethical discussions and that's not something people seem willing to do honestly.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I'd prefer research that doesn't steal from the healthy to aid the sick. I certainly wouldn't want to kill a young human in order to take their parts and use them for my benefit and its hard to view embryonic research in a different light. I realize an embryo that is not implanted in a womb has ZERO chance of survival long term yet the thought of cloning embryos and mass producing human organisms for the sake of "parts" makes me cringe. I realize many embryos are destroyed and since they are going in the trash anyway it does seem wasteful not to use them however I also dislike the idea of drs. fertilizing more embryos than a woman can possibly use for the sake of capitalism and supply and demand. I think it's important that with all the marketing and research we don't forget that the organisms in question are in fact humans. I also adamently despise the fact the fetal females are aborted and then their eggs are taken from their ovaries to be fertilized and used for "research." It's a path that should be tread very carefully with keen ethical discussions and that's not something people seem willing to do honestly.

This law has pretty strict guidelines that only allows for using the embryonic stem cells that would otherwise be destroyed, no exceptions. Therefore there would not be any "farming".

Regarding the need for couples to have "X" amount of embryos available to them as they try to become pregnant is it no where near a perfect science. Surely you must know people who spend years trying to have a baby? There's no way to know how many embryos are needed per couple.

I think it's a talking point of the people who are against science to try to scare the public into thinking that there are evil mad scientists who are plotting to create armies of clones and embryo soldiers in order to make money and alter civilization...and I think that tactic is abominable and should be exposed as false.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Intelligent would have been to just let it go...what is your hard-on over Navy Pride?

I disagree. What is the point of this site if people post inaccurate allegations and are then asked to debate the subject but instead move on to another thread to start over and do the same sort of sniping?

I like to debate and I would especially like to debate those in this Forum that I disagree with the most because I can then prove that their talking points are untrue and thereby, perhaps, alter the opinion of some who might be misled by their illegitimate talking points.

 

[jallman]

I disagree. What is the point of this site if people post inaccurate allegations and are then asked to debate the subject but instead move on to another thread to start over and do the same sort of sniping?

I like to debate and I would especially like to debate those in this Forum that I disagree with the most because I can then prove that their talking points are untrue and thereby, perhaps, alter the opinion of some who might be misled by their illegitimate talking points.

Yeah, but it just always seems to be Navy Pride you are after. You two get a room for pete's sake. :rofl

 

[talloulou]

This law has pretty strict guidelines that only allows for using the embryonic stem cells that would otherwise be destroyed, no exceptions. Therefore there would not be any "farming".

Embryonic stem cells come from embryos. Now if they are taking eggs from dead fetal females and fertilizing them creating embryos than they are CREATING life with the sole purpose of destroying it. This is done today.

Regarding the need for couples to have "X" amount of embryos available to them as they try to become pregnant is it no where near a perfect science. Surely you must know people who spend years trying to have a baby? There's no way to know how many embryos are needed per couple.

No there is no way to know. However if drs. get paid more $$$ for any excess embryos on the market then they may begin taking and fertilizing even more eggs than they do normally. Plus what is to stop women from selling their eggs for this very purpose? Should that be against the law? Men can sell sperm so how can you really stop women from selling eggs? And if sperm is used to fertilize eggs and life is created for the sole purpose of "parts" how is that not farming?

I think it's a talking point of the people who are against science to try to scare the public into thinking that there are evil mad scientists who are plotting to create armies of clones and embryo soldiers in order to make money and alter civilization...and I think that tactic is abominable and should be exposed as false.

That's fair. However I also think it's fair to say some aren't willing to honestly look at certain things and discuss the ethical ramifications. Embryos are used to make chimera animals today! Animals of other species that they then use parts of human embryos to give the animal human DNA. Dead fetal females are used as breeding stations for making more embryos. If you're not willing to look at the ethics of embryonic stem cell research then you're not willing to have an honest intellectual discussion. Just because we can create mice with human DNA does not mean we should. Embryos are also cloned which is in itself the cloning of humans yet that is generally disguised and hidden but one need only look beyond the semantics games to see the truth.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Yeah, but it just always seems to be Navy Pride you are after. You two get a room for pete's sake. :rofl

I think that's because the error rate in his posts, at least to me, seem so very high and it's like he's getting away with something if not corrected. All that I want to do is DEBATE the things he posts and I want to do it intelligently and in depth...

 

[26 X World Champs]

Embryonic stem cells come from embryos. Now if they are taking eggs from dead fetal females and fertilizing them creating embryos than they are CREATING life with the sole purpose of destroying it. This is done today.

No there is no way to know. However if drs. get paid more $$$ for any excess embryos on the market then they may begin taking and fertilizing even more eggs than they do normally. Plus what is to stop women from selling their eggs for this very purpose? Should that be against the law? Men can sell sperm so how can you really stop women from selling eggs? And if sperm is used to fertilize eggs and life is created for the sole purpose of "parts" how is that not farming?



That's fair. However I also think it's fair to say some aren't willing to honestly look at certain things and discuss the ethical ramifications. Embryos are used to make chimera animals today! Animals of other species that they then use parts of human embryos to give the animal human DNA. Dead fetal females are used as breeding stations for making more embryos. If you're not willing to look at the ethics of embryonic stem cell research then you're not willing to have an honest intellectual discussion. Just because we can create mice with human DNA does not mean we should. Embryos are also cloned which is in itself the cloning of humans yet that is generally disguised and hidden but one need only look beyond the semantics games to see the truth.

Here's a link to the actual bill. Please note the objections that you're expressing are not legally possible with this legislation.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[Jerry]

Embryonic Stem Cells are all over the news again this week as the Senate debates new bills, one sponsored by the Democrats (Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act - SR5) passed through the Senate Wednesday 63-34 (still not enough to override a presidential veto but very close to getting there). This bill would allow ONLY for using Embryonic Stem Cells that are going to be thrown away by fertility clinics. No cloning, nothing but using stem cell lines that would be otherwise tossed into the garbage.

There's a competing Republican bill that is a bogus attempt by the Bushies to appease the anti-science crowd by passing a bill that is, in reality not changing any of the policies that Bush created in August of 2001.

The Poll question is simple yet complicated.

If you are against public financing for Embryonic Stem Cell research but a cure for a disease that you contract is discovered through these public funds would you refuse treatment or would you sacrifice your principles to save your own life. Yes or No?

Stem cells can be acquired without fetal demise, so sure, I would accept treatment.

 

[talloulou]

Here's a link to the actual bill. Please note the objections that you're expressing are not legally possible with this legislation.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Link didn't work.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Link didn't work.

Sorry!

Try this:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s5pcs.txt.pdf

 

[talloulou]

Sorry!

Try this:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s5pcs.txt.pdf

hmmm well I do appreciate that the bill is only supporting embryonic stem cells left over from in vitro and not supporting the creation of embryos from aborted females or the cloning of embryos. And I also appreciate that it strictly states that those donating can't be paid for their donations.

However its still not hard to view this as a step that, once accepted, will quickly lead to more steps. Once embryonic stem cell research is federally funded it will be easier to argue that we should fund other sources of embryos. It will be harder to argue that it is okay to use the embryo left over from in vitro while maintaining the belief that it is not okay to create embryos from aborted females or cloning. What would be the logical argument for explaining why it was ethical to use embryos left over from in vitro but not okay to actually create embryos from the eggs of a female fetus, clone embryos, buy and sell embryos, ect.... ?

Also this bill doesn't get into the types of research that would be done and I have a real problem with the creation of chimera animals which goes on currently.

 

[talloulou]

Chimeric techniques are not a new concept in the U.S. In 1998, Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology’s widely publicized attempts to create human-cow chimeras prompted President Clinton to pen a letter to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission saying, in part: “This week’s report of the creation of an embryonic stem cell that is part human and part cow raises the most serious of ethical, medical, and legal concerns. I am deeply troubled…”

Now, nearly ten years later, some suggest it’s only a matter of time before American scientists move ahead with chimera research. “The chimera issue is definitely coming [to the U.S.] – it’s on the horizon,” predicts Moreno. In large part, the debate over chimeric techniques in America will be informed by what happens with Minger and Armstrong’s petition in the U.K.

Scienceline » Chimera Controversy

 

[talloulou]

Biological mixing of species:
But the biological co-mingling of animal and human is now evolving into even more exotic and unsettling mixes of species, evoking the Greek myth of the monstrous chimera, which was part lion, part goat and part serpent.

In the past two years, scientists have created pigs with human blood, fused rabbit eggs with human DNA and injected human stem cells to make paralyzed mice walk.

Particularly worrisome to some scientists are the nightmare scenarios that could arise from the mixing of brain cells: What if a human mind somehow got trapped inside a sheep’s head?

The “idea that human neuronal cells might participate in 'higher order' brain functions in a nonhuman animal, however unlikely that may be, raises concerns that need to be considered,” the academies report warned.

Mice with human brains:
In January, an informal ethics committee at Stanford University endorsed a proposal to create mice with brains nearly completely made of human brain cells. Stem cell scientist Irving Weissman said his experiment could provide unparalleled insight into how the human brain develops and how degenerative brain diseases like Parkinson’s progress.

Scientists create animals that are part-human - Stem Cell Research - MSNBC.com

Scientists announced Monday that they had created mice with small amounts of human brain cells in an effort to make realistic models of neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease.

Led by Fred Gage of the Salk Institute in San Diego, the researchers created the mice by injecting about 100,000 human embryonic stem cells per mouse into the brains of 14-day-old rodent embryos.

Mice Created With Human Brain Cells

 

[26 X World Champs]

hmmm well I do appreciate that the bill is only supporting embryonic stem cells left over from in vitro and not supporting the creation of embryos from aborted females or the cloning of embryos. And I also appreciate that it strictly states that those donating can't be paid for their donations.

However its still not hard to view this as a step that, once accepted, will quickly lead to more steps. Once embryonic stem cell research is federally funded it will be easier to argue that we should fund other sources of embryos. It will be harder to argue that it is okay to use the embryo left over from in vitro while maintaining the belief that it is not okay to create embryos from aborted females or cloning. What would be the logical argument for explaining why it was ethical to use embryos left over from in vitro but not okay to actually create embryos from the eggs of a female fetus, clone embryos, buy and sell embryos, ect.... ?

Also this bill doesn't get into the types of research that would be done and I have a real problem with the creation of chimera animals which goes on currently.

I do not think it's a "fair" argument to be against this bill, a bill that could forever change medical care in the USA and the world in anticipation of events that have not happened and have never, ever been suggested in any Congressional legislation.

I guess my point is what is more important and likely to happen?

#1 The bill gets thru Bush's veto and we're on the fast track to medical breakthrough OR

#2 The bill gets past Bush's veto and all hell breaks loose and all of a sudden ethics and medical ethics especially are tossed aside OR

#3 The bill doesn't get past Bush's veto and medical breakthroughs are delayed thereby causing more suffering and more death?

I would choose option #1 every single time.

I have "faith" in the medical community in America much more than I do in Bush. If the health experts, including the Bush appointed head of the NIH say that this bill is vital, mandatory and incredibly important versus Bush's pandering to his base for political reasons then once again there is no doubt to me which argument is right and which one is wrong.