- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
U.S. court rules against Obama's stem cell policy | Reuters(Reuters) - A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction on Monday stopping federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, in a slap to the Obama administration's new guidelines on the sensitive issue.
The court ruled in favor of a suit filed in June by researchers who said human embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of human embryos.
Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.
U.S. court rules against Obama's stem cell policy | Reuters
After all the hoopla, Obama get's smacked down.
U.S. court rules against Obama's stem cell policy | Reuters
After all the hoopla, Obama get's smacked down.
That's all that really matter to you? How Obama looks.
You couldn't care less about Stem Cell research or the real issue, but as long as it can be used against Obama...
That's all that really matter to you? How Obama looks.
You couldn't care less about Stem Cell research or the real issue, but as long as it can be used against Obama...
This only stops federal funding of embryonic research. Besides more strides have been made with adult stem cells than embryonic ones. Less chance of rejection etc.
I do have a question though. Whenever this subject comes up, headlines are Stem Cell research funding cut off by Bush, for example. then you read the artical and they are talking embryotic stem cells.
Maybe cause I think Obama was wrong and it's good to see this happen?
Maybe I believe that Embryonic Stem Cell is morally corrupt?
Not everyone has such little regard for human life as you do.
Dr. James Sherley of Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of Washington-based AVM Biotechnology, who both work with adult stem cells, filed the original suit saying the guidelines would harm their work by increasing competition for limited federal funding. They both oppose the use of human embryonic stem cells.
The lawsuit is not about human life it is a battle over money:
Maybe cause I think Obama was wrong and it's good to see this happen?
Maybe I believe that Embryonic Stem Cell is morally corrupt?
Not everyone has such little regard for human life as you do.
This only stops federal funding of embryonic research. Besides more strides have been made with adult stem cells than embryonic ones. Less chance of rejection etc.
As you appear to be one who has some knowledge of this type of science, I have a question for you.I've always been curious about these types of responses. Do you feel this way because you think the embryos are forcibly removed from a woman for research purposes, or do you realize that the embryos destroyed were headed into the dumpster anyway? If you realize that the latter is the truth, are you equally opposed to fertilization procedures that millions of Americans will attempt in order to make a baby this year alone?
It seems that the only way one can be opposed to embryonic stem cell research is to simultaneously oppose IVF, which pretty much kills the "I have more regard for human life than you do argument". I'm not making fun of your argument by any means, but I am understandably curious.
Is there a difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research? As in, is there a noticeable difference between the stem cells from different sources, potentially offering different results/rewards?
Personally, I think the main disagreement most people have with embryonic stem cell research is that those embryonic stem cells have/had? the potential to become a human (through the correct process, obviously).
Most of them probably object to the majority of abortions for similar reasons, and the issues are tied together (for them, at least).
I can see that, if you believe embryo = human (or the potential to be human?), or something similar/related, how you might have an issue.
I've always been curious about these types of responses. Do you feel this way because you think the embryos are forcibly removed from a woman for research purposes, or do you realize that the embryos destroyed were headed into the dumpster anyway? If you realize that the latter is the truth, are you equally opposed to fertilization procedures that millions of Americans will attempt in order to make a baby this year alone?
It seems that the only way one can be opposed to embryonic stem cell research is to simultaneously oppose IVF, which pretty much kills the "I have more regard for human life than you do" argument. I'm not making fun of your argument by any means, but I am understandably curious.
I realize the source of the eggs, the source of the cells. The issue isn't the source, but the moral and ethical grounding for taking what would be an otherwise viable human and using it for research.
If the Embryonic Stem Cell research is as potentially productive as the claims would have it, then private funding can have it. Federal Funds should not have anything to do with it.
The lawsuit is not about human life it is a battle over money:
Tax payer money. Lots of pro-lifers don't want to see life created just to be destroyed. Adult stem cells are much more promising. Lets not take from that research to fund something that is less promising and so many are against.
It seems that you create logic boxes that demand I accept your pre-conceived conclusion or admit I'm an uneducated hypocritical dolt.
Where are people getting the idea that "life is created just to be destroyed?"
Many of the embryos come from fertility clinics, where life is being created... to create life. That process leaves leftover embryos, if you'll forgive the term, because the success rate is so low they have to attempt multiple embryos at a time. These embryos can either go in a burner or into a lab where they might help save lives. Unless you oppose IVF, in which case your opposition to use of these embryos almost makes sense.
Where are people getting the idea that "life is created just to be destroyed?"
Many of the embryos come from fertility clinics, where life is being created... to create life. That process leaves leftover embryos, if you'll forgive the term, because the success rate is so low they have to attempt multiple embryos at a time. These embryos can either go in a burner or into a lab where they might help save lives. Unless you oppose IVF, in which case your opposition to use of these embryos almost makes sense.
Actually this is not entirely true. There is no evidence that adult stem cells are any more likely to be rejected by the host body than their embryonic counterparts. More strides have been made with adult stem cells simply because they've been funded longer, but the potential for embryonic stem cells is very exciting. Adult stem cells are also a pretty big pain to keep around from what I understand (I never personally worked with the adult model, so you'd have to ask someone more familiar with them than myself). Embryonic stem cells are pretty simple to keep up in my experience.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?