Guy Incognito
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 11,216
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Leftovers from fertility clinics with the biological parents approval would be Ok since they'll be destroyed anyway.
Is the human embryo more valuable than the human fetus? It's legal to suck the life out of a pre-born child yet illegal to harvest an embryo to save a babies life.
Wow, is this country ever screwed up....
Even if it is true that adult stem cells produce "greater strides," there are nevertheless qualities of embryonic stems cells that adult stem cells do not have. Adult and embryonic stem cells are different, so different research can be achieved with both. Why foreclose any avenue of research?
We simply don't have enough embryonic stem cell lines under the ban to do meaningful research on them, so who knows what is waiting around the corner.
We absolutely need to fund stem cell research some more, this stuff is fascinating and could really pave the way for future health care.
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.
Apples and Oranges buddy. WWII is not the same as this, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed TO SAVE LIVES, or did you miss that part?I hate these debates. Precious regard for human life? Most of the people talking about all this regard for human life are the same people that would say "damn right we bombed Hiroshima!"
The problem, and why you hate these debates it would seem, is that you lack perspective, historical understanding or even common sense it would appear.In other words, we can kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in other countries, but within America it's wrong to use discarded embryos to further scientific research that could pave the way for cures to cancer, parkinson's and alzheimers. I know, it sounds sooo awful.
On the other hand, some people who disagree with me are actually consistent in their viewpoints, and I appreciate that. And also on the other hand, this is about money. Awwell. You win some, you lose most.
Don't really want to debate this with you because I'm no expert. I've just heard things that say the opposite. That great strides are being made with adult, and embryonic has been quite a disapointment.
Either way I'm still against creating life to destroy it with tax payer money. Leftovers from fertility clinics with the biological parents approval would be Ok since they'll be destroyed anyway.
But it isn't more promising. I've also looked into the research, and we have having more advances in living adult stem cells and de-differentiating current cells. Again, it's not illegal for the private sector to find the research, they just don't because embryonic stem cell research is not as promising as other things. We can now de-differentiate a skin cell down to a partially differentiated stem cell. Not only is using current cells humane, but there is also no worry for the body rejecting any organs and other tissues that would be grown from them.Actually, adult stem cells are not any more promising than embryonic research. While I have not worked with somatic lines, I can tell you from firsthand experience that embryonic research is very exciting stuff.
No we don't, what is paving the way for future therapies is genetic therapies and making advances using the stem cells of the patient.We absolutely need to fund stem cell research some more, this stuff is fascinating and could really pave the way for future health care.
But it isn't more promising. I've also looked into the research, and we have having more advances in living adult stem cells and de-differentiating current cells. Again, it's not illegal for the private sector to find the research, they just don't because embryonic stem cell research is not as promising as other things. We can now de-differentiate a skin cell down to a partially differentiated stem cell. Not only is using current cells humane, but there is also no worry for the body rejecting any organs and other tissues that would be grown from them.
I worked many years in adult stem-cell research and can tell you that it matters not whether a stem-cell comes from and embryo or an adult, they serve the same function. Once the stem-cell is programmed with the DNA in question or grafted into the host area, it functions much the same. So to say that one is more promising than the other is not accurate. A stem-cell is a stem-cell. Now, whether or not there is the same promise in the future after newer discoveries are made is hard to say because embryonic stem-cells have been held back due to social issues thus have much more ground to make-up in order to have the same usage levels as adult stem-cells.
Apples and Oranges buddy. WWII is not the same as this, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed TO SAVE LIVES, or did you miss that part?
Embryonic stem cells are less promising because they are harder to harvest. Plus it's unethical. There would be no rejection of organs and other things grown from an adult's stem cells. They wouldn't function the same, in that the cells from the adult would have the same DNA, and thus no rejection. Something grown from embryonic cells would have different DNA, and will be rejected to some degree by the body. We cans kip immune-suppressors and won't have to worry about rejection. Not only this, but de-differentiating adult cells is more efficient in that they are always available. We would only need to de-differentiate it to the level required for medical workers to signal the cell to grow into a desired tissue. Again, private companies can invest in embryonic stem cell research, they merely don't because it's less promising and more advances have been made in using adult stem cells and studying methods of cellular de-differentiation. My grandfather was saved by stem cell therapies, and they used his own stem cells in order to save his live through the treatment.
U.S. court rules against Obama's stem cell policy | Reuters
After all the hoopla, Obama get's smacked down.
We don't want any activist judges. None at all....... Wait, we can make an exception here, and wherever else we think we need them. But otherwise, no activist judges. :mrgreen:
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.
"(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling.
I am well aware of the uses of stem-cell research and worked in FDA clinical trials to put stem-cells from the bone marrow of kidney and other donors into that of the recipients in order that the recipients bone marrow would begin to produce the same WBCs of the donor so that the immune system of the recipient would recognize the organ from the donor. The fault I find in your position is that the body would not recognize the embryonic stem-cells. Embryonic stem cells are wiped clean of their DNA and a new DNA is introduced through vectors which allows them to be grafted into any patient. The main reason private industry has stayed away from embryonic stem-cells, and you can ask anyone working in the biotech industry of which I work, is because companies want to avoid any bad publicity such research may bring due to social issues over the matter.
But it isn't more promising. I've also looked into the research, and we have having more advances in living adult stem cells and de-differentiating current cells. Again, it's not illegal for the private sector to find the research, they just don't because embryonic stem cell research is not as promising as other things. We can now de-differentiate a skin cell down to a partially differentiated stem cell. Not only is using current cells humane, but there is also no worry for the body rejecting any organs and other tissues that would be grown from them.
No we don't, what is paving the way for future therapies is genetic therapies and making advances using the stem cells of the patient.
Yes I do oppose the ban if it's leftover embryos from fertility clinics. Did I miss something? Even Bush allowed that.Hey, that's pretty reasonable of you! I'm glad to hear itSo you must oppose the federal ban then, because the leftovers from the fertility clinics with the biological parents' approval are the ones being banned.
Yes I do oppose the ban if it's leftover embryos from fertility clinics. Did I miss something? Even Bush allowed that.
I only oppose creating them for research.
U.S. court rules against Obama's stem cell policy | Reuters
After all the hoopla, Obama get's smacked down.
This is being appealed, and the government has an excellent case where it comes to settled law around the issue of "administrative deference".
Read the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision, and you will see why this court order will be quickly overturned, and upheld by SCOTUS, if it should even get that far.
As the judge who issued this order is ignoring judicial precedent of the administration of statute of the last 3 presidents, this does make him an activist judge, not because I argue it is so, but because of the facts in the case, the precedent of previous Supreme Court decisions on the issue of administrative deference, and his ignoring them.
SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells)
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?