Stem Cells

[Zogo]

I'm trying to figure out the thought process on this one. politicians are saying it's murder and that's why it can't be funded. If it's murder why isn't it banned outright?

also, doesn't IVF destroy embryos too as a byproduct?

The science here is about 100 years ahead of these politicians. not to mention we've got politicians that think the internet is fed through pneumatic tubes.

[hawk]

John Stewart to the rescue: http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/21/tds-stem-cell-redux/

[sparkz]

snowflake babies.

[FireWall]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/21/tds-stem-cell-redux/

Awesome.

[leg]

This is how it works

Bush -> Catholic -> Any destruction of cells after conception is murder -> Destroying/Experimenting with stem cells is murder

Separation of church and state prevents it from being banned, but I would like to see anyone point out where the Bible says that stem cell research is wrong. Unless you really believe that those old men with crosses around their necks are scientists.

[dook]

bush is not catholic... i'd honestly be surprised if he could list the ten commandments but that's another thread.

The main reason some politicians don't support it is because a certain type of stem cell research involves destroying embryos, and if you're against abortion but not against destroying embroys then the pro-life wackos are going to see you as soft. There's also the smaller issue of where the research is going. One goal is to ultimately be able to grow replacement tissue and organs, which some say is a stepping stone to cloning humans.

I'm all for stem cell research, and I voted for the measure. Now California heavily funds such research.

[Stayne]

A little clip from crooks and liars:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/23/josh-bolten-squirms-during-stem-cell-questions/

Interesting to see Bolten try to dodge the "murder" issue.

[paing]

There's also the smaller issue of where the research is going.

The previous college I attended for three semesters received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money, but nothing changed. That money aparently went into the pockets of random people (I have no proof, I just spread rumors). My current college receives millions in grants, but at least we see many changes each semester, and have proof (published reports, etc.) that the grants aren't being wasted. (The fact that many faculty receive $120,000+ for working two days out of the week, 3 hours a day, only use Scantrons to grade students, and read verbatim from pre-made slides, ... is a different rant... ;))

Maybe what would help is having more proof that the money isn't being wasted. That won't solve the anti-murder / anti-choice debate, but it'd be good to know that the $800,000 is going toward telescopes and new technology instead of Pepsi, donuts and hookers.

Just my thoughts... maybe I'm too ignorant and need some a couple face slaps to come to my senses. :)

[dook]

The fact that many faculty receive $120,000+ for working two days out of the week, 3 hours a day, only use Scantrons to grade students, and read verbatim from pre-made slides

most ignorant comment ever

[Stayne]

The fact that many faculty receive $120,000+ for working two days out of the week, 3 hours a day, only use Scantrons to grade students, and read verbatim from pre-made slides, ...

There are very few faculty members who do that, despite appearance. But, in addition to thier teaching assignments, professors generally maintain research programs, serve on journal review boards, serve on college commitees, and serve as student councellors, just to name a few off the top of my head. The time you see professors working in class is generaly a tiny proportion of the time they are required to put in. There are always a few exceptions, however. I've only known one professor who fit the above description, but he became that way after a really nasty battle with a dean of the college, and that was his way of getting back at the school (his excuse at least).

but this is all really off-topic.

[paing]

most ignorant comment ever

Indeed, that was the most ignorant comment ever. You let me off too easy. :(


but I would like to see anyone point out where the Bible says that stem cell research is wrong.

The Bible says a lot of things are wrong --- Leviticus comes to mind. For example, if a woman gives birth to a male, she is "unclean" for 2 weeks and cannot enter a sanctuary (she's unclean for even longer if she gave birth to a female) (12:4-6). And you cannot shave the corners of your beard (21:5). And you can't get a tattoo or cut yourself (19:28). But I see nothing related to stem cells (maybe my copy is abridged...).

[dummy]

bush is not catholic... i'd honestly be surprised if he could list the ten commandments but that's another thread.

The main reason some politicians don't support it is because a certain type of stem cell research involves destroying embryos, and if you're against abortion but not against destroying embroys then the pro-life wackos are going to see you as soft. There's also the smaller issue of where the research is going. One goal is to ultimately be able to grow replacement tissue and organs, which some say is a stepping stone to cloning humans.

I'm all for stem cell research, and I voted for the measure. Now California heavily funds such research.

Apparently they could clone like an arm/leg or something for people who need them, no idea exactly how theyd attatch a new arm for someone... but if it was possible to do that (and the many other possibilites of stem cell research) id be behind it ;O

[Zogo]

Bush -> Catholic -> Any destruction of cells after conception is murder -> Destroying/Experimenting with stem cells is murder

but I think people are still allowed to do that..it's just that the veto stopped it from being funded.

The main reason some politicians don't support it is because a certain type of stem cell research involves destroying embryos, and if you're against abortion but not against destroying embroys then the pro-life wackos are going to see you as soft.

but doesn't IVF destroy embryos too? I haven't heard many (if any) complaints on it. and bush surrounded himself with IVF babies?
is this the twilight zone?

[Zogo]

The Bible says a lot of things are wrong --- Leviticus comes to mind. For example, if a woman gives birth to a male, she is "unclean" for 2 weeks and cannot enter a sanctuary (she's unclean for even longer if she gave birth to a female) (12:4-6). And you cannot shave the corners of your beard (21:5). And you can't get a tattoo or cut yourself (19:28). But I see nothing related to stem cells (maybe my copy is abridged...).

that's the OT..most don't follow that anymore. they only cite the OT when it's in agreement with something in the NT (kind of like reinforcing it.)

Apparently they could clone like an arm/leg or something for people who need them, no idea exactly how theyd attatch a new arm for someone... but if it was possible to do that (and the many other possibilites of stem cell research) id be behind it ;O

they have to attach the nerve endings..the bigger the appendage the harder it is to do. but they've done it with fingers.

[puFf]

Here's an interesting article/interview on the topic.

http://www.discover.com/issues/jun-05/features/doug-melton-crossing-boundaries/

I think a lot of people have the misconception when it comes to embryonic stem cells that these scientists are hanging out at abortion clinics dumpster diving for fetuses when it really has nothing to do with abortion.

[xero]

This whole stem cell 'debate' is ridiculous.

1) An embryo is not a person. It's not even close. Equating a frozen embryo with a living human being is obscene, especially when that human being is suffering from a debilitating illness.
2) They're going to be destroyed anyways, either as discarded medical waste or in IVF treatment.
3) It's a huge business opportunity for the medical industry, which is going nowhere fast right now.
4) We need to make sure we stay on the forefront of medical care. This is where the forefront is going to be for the next hundred (or more) years.
5) It can end the suffering/prevent the deaths of countless millions of people, including children.

I could go on, but thinking about how we're [mis]treating stem cell research is really depressing.

(Disclosure: This is an issue that strikes close to home, as my mother has serious heart problems that stem cell treatment could fix. She's already on a waiting list in case she needs a transplant, and is also on experimental medication that raised her life expectancy from 6 months to maybe a decade if she's lucky.

My little sister was born blind in one eye, and she's had to have several surgeries to try and deal with the bad eye, which wildly expands and contracts in size, and causes her severe pain [they're probably going to end up removing it altogether in the next year].

However, almost every single person in this world knows someone or will know someone who stem cell treatments could help in a big way, so I don't know how much a disclosure statement like this really matters.)

On a side note, I also find it hilarious that Bush has publically said on many occaisions that he doesn't approve of stem cell research because he doesn't believe in destroying lives to save lives -- yet, he's also repeatedly said he believes in the death penalty because it has the minute statistical possibility of saving lives [presumably by acting as a deterrant].

[Yesbama]

I wish someone could have a 1 on 1 with bush and just point out how big of a douche bag he is, air it live on every tv channel in the world and have everyone ponder why they voted for him.

[MV8]

The bill does not stop the science from happening. It only prevents the Gvmt. from paying for it.

If it is possible for this science to save lives, it will still happen, because "big money medicine" would like to make profit. This is why the science is still being done. What is not happening, is the Gvmt. is not underwriting the research.

Why underwrite something that is already being funded by business?

[puFf]

The bill does not stop the science from happening. It only prevents the Gvmt. from paying for it.

If it is possible for this science to save lives, it will still happen, because "big money medicine" would like to make profit. This is why the science is still being done. What is not happening, is the Gvmt. is not underwriting the research.

Why underwrite something that is already being funded by business?

Not disagreeing with you in the least. Trying to find a link to the actual bill but so far unsuccessful. Just talk and news articles about it. I suppose that's where many of us on both sides of the fence get into trouble and start treating assumtions/hear-say like facts. I.e., reading more into it.

Like I was under the assumption that this bill was also prohibiting new embyronic stem cell lines from being created and used in research. Which would effect all researchers, public and private. You just made me question that assumption though. Would like to find out.

"Big money medicine" aside though, a lot of researchers still rely on government grants, particulairly in universities.

[Zogo]

I wish someone could have a 1 on 1 with bush and just point out how big of a douche bag he is, air it live on every tv channel in the world and have everyone ponder why they voted for him.

that would be pretty funny..but every time someone calls him on his BS he gets up and walks away (remember when he got stuck in that room in china a few months ago?)

The bill does not stop the science from happening. It only prevents the Gvmt. from paying for it.

the logic/reasoning behind it is ridiculous. the politicians believe it's murder..why aren't they trying to ban it outright?

it's like a politician refusing to stop murder.

Why underwrite something that is already being funded by business?

I agree..but we already have gov't programs and research for a billion other things and THIS is the one bush kills?

[SteelValor]

I'm trying to figure out the thought process on this one. politicians are saying it's murder and that's why it can't be funded. If it's murder why isn't it banned outright?

also, doesn't IVF destroy embryos too as a byproduct?

The science here is about 100 years ahead of these politicians. not to mention we've got politicians that think the internet is fed through pneumatic tubes.

I've done IVF four times all over the country, this time it stuck :D , basically all IVF does is harvest eggs, fetilize them and plant them into a uterus. Sometimes they make it sometimes they dont. I've had it happen both ways, but you have to realize that this happens all the time in nature. You can have a fertilized egg that never implants or it implants then dies. So IVF is not truly murdering embryos any more than nature is. Personally, I no longer believe in god because of this whole issue. Why? Murder is premeditated and if god is all knowing he's at the very least an accomplice to murder and a hypocrite or he/she/it doesn't exist or follow the rules we've been taught that he/she/it wrote. Either way I don't see how god has any bearing on this issue. Yes, I believe that an embryo is precious, but at the sametime I also know that millions die everyday because they never implanted or were killed off by the woman immue system (my wife's problem). To be totally open, I'm not sure how I feel, but I do know this. Religon is the cause for more deaths on this planet than anything else. So until religon learns to play by it's own rules it should STFU about everything it claims to fix/govern/rememdy.

I hope I didn't offend anyone, but I have personal interests in this topic.