Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Finally!

mikeandgerry wrote:

stockingfull wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:As for the embyros and stem cells, I don't really care. I don't believe an embryo is human until the ninth week in utero. Until science and religion define that which is human we will argue about abortion, cloning and stem cells.

What I care about is the unknown ramifications of stem cells in cloning humans, human organs and prolonging life beyond what nature intended for the sake of our future and our decendants. Bush was right to halt the research until the ethics have been settled.

(italics are mine)

So ... you're a Christian Scientist?

Every surgical and/or pharmaceutical advance could be argued to do likewise. Certainly organ donations do.

Are you against organ donation?

No and no.

I have no physical church. The primitive church had no walls, no priests, no wealth, no structure. It relied only on the heart of mankind to pass on the story of Christ. That story has survived, relatively unscathed and relatively unadulterated for two thousand years. It has survived war, famine, flood, oppression, pestilance, plague, it has been scribed and inscribed, told and retold, yet, it is relatively intact and as humanistically relevant today as it ever was: The science of the bible is mostly irrelevant as is the ritual of the Torah (all due respect to Jews who practice) and the new testament (all due respect to christians who practice).

The issue I am talking about is the ethical/moral ramifications of playing God with creationary technology; Of prolonging existing life without bringing in new life and of creating new life without benefit of human love.

How about if we find out if, and how stem cell research can help people first, then hash out the the ethical/moral ramifications.

tvb wrote:You don't know that they were deists. The writings of Jefferson are all over the map when it comes to religious beliefs and where our world came from. Claiming otherwise is a tool of the religious right based upon a few passages of his work.

However, if you really want to believe that, do you also think that the 2nd amendment applies as written? If so, tell me about your muzzle loader.

Jefferson vascillated to be sure, however his Declaration was worded as a Deist. He was either tolerant of religion or a believer. Like Jefferson, the good founding father, Why aren't you one or the other?

The second amendment applies as written:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What is says is that under the authority of the people, the people have the right to secure a free state. If the federal government, over time, abuses and removes that state of freedom from the people they have the right to near parity in armament for the purpose of taking the state back by force. The are entitled by this law to have a well regulated militia which means that all the trappings of a basic army are reserved to them as a right. The people, through an organized non-state, non-federal militia have the right to rocket launchers, canons, machine guns, tanks, communications equipment, stinger missiles and any armament or equipment that can conceivably repel, with the determination of a people's united rebellion, the forces of the oppressive renegade federal government.

efo141 wrote:How about if we find out if, and how stem cell research can help people first, then hash out the the ethical/moral ramifications.

Letting the genie out of the bottle without a plan for containing it is an imprudent idea.

Case in point: Nuclear technology. Reactors good. Weapons bad.

Don't you wish you had that one back?

mikeandgerry wrote:

efo141 wrote:How about if we find out if, and how stem cell research can help people first, then hash out the the ethical/moral ramifications.

Letting the genie out of the bottle without a plan for containing it is an imprudent idea.

Case in point: Nuclear technology. Reactors good. Weapons bad.

Don't you wish you had that one back?

Good point, but i think your view on this might be different if you or a someone close could be helped by this reseach

The people, through an organized non-state, non-federal militia have the right to rocket launchers, canons, machine guns, tanks, communications equipment, stinger missiles and any armament or equipment that can conceivably repel, with the determination of a people's united rebellion, the forces of the oppressive renegade federal government.

This is wayyyyyy off topic, but do you really want your neighbor to be storing rocket launchers (and the rockets) in the garage next to yor house?

My point was that when the constitution was written, the weapon of choice was a musket loader. The founding fathers had no way of knowing what the weaponry of 2009 would be, just like we don't know what it will be in 2209. They wrote the 2nd amendment thinking our nation would be protected by muzzle loaders, not nuclear bombs. At what point is the line drawn?

Should every family be issued a nuclear bomb to protect themselves from a possible rogue government or imagined intruder?

tvb wrote:My point was that when the constitution was written, the weapon of choice was a musket loader. The founding fathers had no way of knowing what the weaponry of 2009 would be, just like we don't know what it will be in 2209.

Should every family be issued a nuclear bomb to protect themselves from a possible rogue government or imagined intruder?

I'm sure the founding fathers had some knowledge of the history of arms, they were learned men that knew plenty about weapons. That is why they did not write it up as musket, sword, cannon or weapon of choice, what they did write it up as was arms.

Your last sentence is ridiculous, detonating a nuke in your home is no way to protect it. A light saber would be more appropriate.

Now back to topic or this thread will get a battle axe.

You all miss the point we were all were embryos at one time. An egg is an egg until the moment it is fertilized it then multiplies cells and then grows I'd say life has begun. I hope your all glad your parents didn't think as you think or we wouldn't
be having this discussion. The unfertilized is naturally ejected from the womans body once a month that the way it's been done since the beginning of man so whats wrong with just disposing them? There has been much other research done on many other ways of making stem cells such as umbilical cord blood and certain skin cells you do the research it's available on the internet.
As for freedom of religion you need to take a trip to your capital and look whats written on the buildings and in the buildings I want you to also take note to the murals in these buildings and then tell me we don't stand on CHRISTIAN VALUES. The Constitution is very plain the first words are WE THE PEOPLE which means if we agree OK if we don't it don't get done. Christians don't impose their beliefs on you, you take offense to their faith and belief. You are imposing you beliefs on them because you think your right on your beliefs. You can agree to disagree because we all have that right. We do not live in a democracy (by the government) we are a republic (for the people by the people). Remember history dictates hospitals were started by christian missionary's most hospitals still have christian names, many of our colleges were started by Christians and the original public schools were started to teach reading which was the Bible in particular. So do we have a christian history if you look beyond the revisionists you'll find all these truths to be absolutely true. So tell me how tolerant you really claim to be?

tvb wrote:... do you really want your neighbor to be storing rocket launchers (and the rockets) in the garage next to yor house?

NO

But the alternative is worse.

BillMarti wrote:As for freedom of religion you need to take a trip to your capital and look whats written on the buildings and in the buildings I want you to also take note to the murals in these buildings and then tell me we don't stand on CHRISTIAN VALUES. The Constitution is very plain the first words are WE THE PEOPLE which means if we agree OK if we don't it don't get done. Christians don't impose their beliefs on you, you take offense to their faith and belief. You are imposing you beliefs on them because you think your right on your beliefs. You can agree to disagree because we all have that right. We do not live in a democracy (by the government) we are a republic (for the people by the people). Remember history dictates hospitals were started by christian missionary's most hospitals still have christian names, many of our colleges were started by Christians and the original public schools were started to teach reading which was the Bible in particular. So do we have a christian history if you look beyond the revisionists you'll find all these truths to be absolutely true. So tell me how tolerant you really claim to be?

Bill,

That was work of art.

Thank you.

mikeandgerry wrote:

efo141 wrote:How about if we find out if, and how stem cell research can help people first, then hash out the the ethical/moral ramifications.

Letting the genie out of the bottle without a plan for containing it is an imprudent idea.

Case in point: Nuclear technology. Reactors good. Weapons bad.

Don't you wish you had that one back?

No, because we'd be speaking German.

And the same goes for stem-cell research. We either participate and have a say in the medico-ethical development of it, or we leave it to others and become customers.

But, then again, why not? We've become customers for nearly everything else, right?

ken wrote:Pvolcko, I don't care what the articles says about ESC lines used. The "presidential" ESC lines were contaminated and useless. Geron used their own financial resources to develop their own ESC research with no federal monies.

In the articles I've read Geron says they use stem cells from the lines you say are useless. You are either confused or Geron is.

Pvolcko, trust me, bush had a block on any federal funds used for research or the equipment used for research on ESC, through the FDA and the NIH. Like I posted just a bit ago, Geron did this on their own. About 6 or 8 months ago, the FDA stepped in and halted Geron's clinical trials for ESC. Geron had to submit tons of info to try and convince the FDA to release the hold which never happened.

Geron did this on their own, though it isn't at all clear why. As I said, they use cells from the approved lines and thus could have applied for federal funding, but apparently the decided not to or they were denied the funding. Since the articles and Geron themselves aren't saying they were denied funding, I suspect they went private for their own reasons. Perhaps not wanting to share freely results of the research and trials? I'm all for profit motive.

Now that the FDA no longer has a restriction on ESC research and funding, the clinical trials are moving forward.

Can you supply evidence that there was a block or restriction on approval for this by dictate of the Bush administration? Every article I've read has made no mention of overzealous approval process or any kind of Bush block on approval for this study, only that the FDA put them through a more rigorous approval process than other studies because this was a first for ESC and they looked for additional information, presumably about safety, expected failure rates, side effects, differences between past failed trials and this trial proposal, trial protocols, etc. I read a reuters version of the article that actually quoted the Geron rep saying that this approval's timing is not linked to the recent change of power. While they do believe that federal funding will become more available with less rules restrictions under Obama and the heavily democrat congress, there was nothing said to indicate a specific block put in place by Bush to prevent this approval from happening.

And this isn't directed at you specifically, Ken, but can we please not personalize this debate with "if you had someone in your family who could benefit" type of statements? It is offensive to assume that those against this kind of research, or at least less restricted federal funding of it, aren't impacted by personal situations where such a discovery wouldn't be highly desired. People of reason and good conscience often argue for policy counter to their personal or family interests.

stockingfull wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:

efo141 wrote:How about if we find out if, and how stem cell research can help people first, then hash out the the ethical/moral ramifications.

Letting the genie out of the bottle without a plan for containing it is an imprudent idea.

Case in point: Nuclear technology. Reactors good. Weapons bad.

Don't you wish you had that one back?

No, because we'd be speaking German.

And the same goes for stem-cell research. We either participate and have a say in the medico-ethical development of it, or we leave it to others and become customers.

But, then again, why not? We've become customers for nearly everything else, right?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I am glad that the US beat the germans to the bomb. It's the wackos that scare me. What I am glad about is that there were damn few bleeding heart liberals around in the press while the manhattan project was in full swing. Otherwise, we would be speaking German and Japanese.

Let's get that "medico-ethical" discussion going. I'll start.....

It's going to cause more problems than it's worth if we don't limit the applications to tissue and organ replacements and regrowth. The rest is too risky unknown and scary. Let's draw that line in stone NOW, ok? Anything else we can take up later. Agreed?

(See how easy it is! If only the democrats could listen to reason!)

Pvolcko, you are a smart cookie and I respect that. Kinda late right now, but I will get back to you on this tomorrow.

mikeandgerry wrote:Let's get that "medico-ethical" discussion going. I'll start.....

It's going to cause more problems than it's worth if we don't limit the applications to tissue and organ replacements and regrowth. The rest is too risky unknown and scary. Let's draw that line in stone NOW, ok? Anything else we can take up later. Agreed?

(See how easy it is! If only the democrats could listen to reason!)

(italics are mine)

I don't think you abort research because you might have an ethics problem, only if you know you'll have one.

And while I might agree on cloning, I just don't on ESC research. There simply are too many areas where these highly-adaptive cells could work wonders to mend spinal cords, re-grow bone marrow or any of a broad range of other cell-growth therapies and either save or restore the quality of life. I just don't see the downside.

stockingfull wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:Let's get that "medico-ethical" discussion going. I'll start.....

It's going to cause more problems than it's worth if we don't limit the applications to tissue and organ replacements and regrowth. The rest is too risky unknown and scary. Let's draw that line in stone NOW, ok? Anything else we can take up later. Agreed?

(See how easy it is! If only the democrats could listen to reason!)

(italics are mine)

I don't think you abort research because you might have an ethics problem, only if you know you'll have one.

And while I might agree on cloning, I just don't on ESC research. There simply are too many areas where these highly-adaptive cells could work wonders to mend spinal cords, re-grow bone marrow or any of a broad range of other cell-growth therapies and either save or restore the quality of life. I just don't see the downside.

Gosh, we are close to agreement.