+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Stem Cell (/thread-216155.html)
- GeForce2 - 11-11-2004 01:53 AM
I was wondering how many of you that voted for Bush are against stem cell research?
- Ninerfan1 - 11-11-2004 09:25 AM
I am against embryonic stem cell research. I have no problem with adult.
- flyingswoosh - 11-11-2004 10:48 AM
i have the same stance on this as our president. I don't want it to be funded by the government.
- GeForce2 - 11-11-2004 03:01 PM
Well let me ask you this,if embryonic stem cell research does is in fact lead to the cure of numerous diseases will you also be opposed to getting any sort of treatment deriving from this research, assuming you might needed?
- flyingswoosh - 11-11-2004 03:54 PM
GeForce2 Wrote:Well let me ask you this,if embryonic stem cell research does is in fact lead to the cure of numerous diseases will you also be opposed to getting any sort of treatment deriving from this research, assuming you might needed?why would i be opposed to receiving treatment? i never said i was against it. i said i was against the government funding it. or were you asking ninerfan? i couldn't tell.
- GDawgs88 - 11-11-2004 05:08 PM
GeForce2 Wrote:Well let me ask you this,if embryonic stem cell research does is in fact lead to the cure of numerous diseases will you also be opposed to getting any sort of treatment deriving from this research, assuming you might needed?I wouldn't, but it's not an issue any way since embryonic stem cells have never cured one human.
- Guest - 11-11-2004 05:10 PM
I wouldn't have voted for Bush, but I am against embryonic stem cell research. I have no problem with adult stem cell research. Right now, the only real fruits of stem cell research have been from adult stem cells.
- MAKO - 11-11-2004 06:35 PM
Here's the dirty little secret the anti-science crowd doesn't want you to know about.
Nobody is talking about purposely fertilizing eggs to perform research on stem cells. But, there are something like 100,000 fertilized eggs in fertility clinics. Very, very few of these fertilized eggs will ever be implanted in the female donor. When she is beyond child bearing age, they are tossed out with other biological waste. So, here's your two choices and you only have two.
1. Toss them in the trash.
2. Utilize them in research for the potential cure of disease.
- Schadenfreude - 11-11-2004 06:45 PM
MAKO Wrote:Here's the dirty little secret the anti-science crowd doesn't want you to know about.I was about to post that, but you have a much crisper command of the facts, Mako.
Nobody is talking about purposely fertilizing eggs to perform research on stem cells. But, there are something like 100,000 fertilized eggs in fertility clinics. Very, very few of these fertilized eggs will ever be implanted in the female donor. When she is beyond child bearing age, they are tossed out with other biological waste. So, here's your two choices and you only have two.
1. Toss them in the trash.
2. Utilize them in research for the potential cure of disease.
This opposition to stem cell research is freakishly extreme. These fetilized eggs consist of only a few cells each.
- DrTorch - 11-11-2004 07:15 PM
GDawgs88 Wrote:To be fair the original poster asked if in the future embryonic stem cell research provided a necessary treatment...GeForce2 Wrote:Well let me ask you this,if embryonic stem cell research does is in fact lead to the cure of numerous diseases will you also be opposed to getting any sort of treatment deriving from this research, assuming you might needed?I wouldn't, but it's not an issue any way since embryonic stem cells have never cured one human.
As for the present, this source is grossly biased and has lost a great deal of credibility, but here goes:
Policy Leader of the Year -- Douglas A. Melton, Thomas Dudley Cabot
Professor of the Natural Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
To compensate for tight federal restrictions on embryonic stem cell
research, Melton working with private funds greatly expanded the number
of stem cell lines available for research. He helped co-found the new
Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Melton's work also points to a critical
role for embryonic stem cells in cultivating the pancreatic cells that
secrete insulin, a discovery highly significant for future diabetes
therapies.
From Scientific American
- T-Monay820 - 11-11-2004 07:41 PM
Schadenfreude Wrote:This opposition to stem cell research is freakishly extreme. These fetilized eggs consist of only a few cells each.Which are still genetically complete humans.
- ccs178 - 11-11-2004 08:45 PM
MAKO Wrote:Here's the dirty little secret the anti-science crowd doesn't want you to know about.Not exactly a secret. However, keep in mind, you are the one who characterized it as "dirty."
Nobody is talking about purposely fertilizing eggs to perform research on stem cells. But, there are something like 100,000 fertilized eggs in fertility clinics. Very, very few of these fertilized eggs will ever be implanted in the female donor. When she is beyond child bearing age, they are tossed out with other biological waste. So, here's your two choices and you only have two.
1. Toss them in the trash.
2. Utilize them in research for the potential cure of disease.
What you don't mention is that those fertilized eggs belong to the donor, not the government and not the clinic. It is at the sole discretion of the donor to either destroy or donate these eggs. So, this isn't exactly the solution. On the contrary, it actually brings up more questions. The option to donate these eggs to science is already available (and has been since the first day these clinics started operating) and is an option rarely chosen by the donors. How do propose to change that? Pass legislation removing ownership of unused eggs from the donor to the government? Offer substantial rewards for egg donations? How do you address this to the rather sizable segment of the population that considers life as beginning the exact moment the eggs are fertilized? We can use stem cells from umbilical cords instead. After birth the material is destroyed as waste most of the time. The same question arises. This is an option already available, yet rarely chosen. Maybe we can legislate that? Sure, pass a law that forces me to give up genetic material against my will. What are the guarantees that the eggs and other genetic material won't be used in cloning experiments? So many questions.
- MAKO - 11-11-2004 09:53 PM
I'm not by any means removing any choice at all from the donor female. But, I imagine that a fair number would choose to further science rather than simply having them tossed out with the trash. The anti-science crowd has provided absolutely no solution at all for all of these fertilized eggs. Someone with more knowledge than me may refute this but I would think that implanting them in anyone other than the donor female is not an option as her body would reject it. So, I reask my question. Do you prefer they be tossed in the trash or do you prefer that women at least have the option of donating them for scientific purposes?
- Ninerfan1 - 11-11-2004 10:02 PM
I find it hilarious that because someone is against embryonic stem cell research they're labled anti-science. I don't consider myself anti-science, I consider myself pro ETHICAL science.
No one is prohibiting private funding for stem cell research. MAKO you and SF can start a private fund today to fund reserach. If you're so morally superior to the rest of us why don't you take the money that isn't taxed and start said fund? Why? Because it's easier to piss and moan about it here than actually stepping up and doing something about it yourself.
The fact is embryonic stem cell research has yielded no significant scientific gains in finding cures, it's never cured a single human. It has, however, killed them when used. Creating, the destroying life to save another's life is morally reprehensible. And those who advocate it skirt the issue by calling a living being "cells". I guess that's their way of easing their conscience.
I would never accept any treatement that came from embryonic stem cells. Period.
- ccs178 - 11-11-2004 10:28 PM
MAKO Wrote:I'm not by any means removing any choice at all from the donor female. But, I imagine that a fair number would choose to further science rather than simply having them tossed out with the trash. The anti-science crowd has provided absolutely no solution at all for all of these fertilized eggs. Someone with more knowledge than me may refute this but I would think that implanting them in anyone other than the donor female is not an option as her body would reject it. So, I reask my question. Do you prefer they be tossed in the trash or do you prefer that women at least have the option of donating them for scientific purposes?The donors already have the option. The vast majority chose to destroy the eggs. My guess would be because they can't stomach the idea of having their genetic material passed around the scientific community to be tested on. No big ethical, moral or religious point to the decision. They probably aren't comfortable with the concept.
The "donate to science" option has always been there. The vast majority either store the eggs for their own future use or have them destroyed.
- Rebel - 11-11-2004 11:04 PM
MAKO Wrote:Here's the dirty little secret the anti-science crowd doesn't want you to know about.pssst, I have a degree in Biology and a fertilized egg is an embryo to me. Your candidate feels the same way.....remember, "I believe life begins at conception"
Nobody is talking about purposely fertilizing eggs to perform research on stem cells. But, there are something like 100,000 fertilized eggs in fertility clinics. Very, very few of these fertilized eggs will ever be implanted in the female donor. When she is beyond child bearing age, they are tossed out with other biological waste. So, here's your two choices and you only have two.
1. Toss them in the trash.
2. Utilize them in research for the potential cure of disease.
I have an idea, I think all liberals should be used as organ donors before their time of death. Cool?
- 99Tiger - 11-11-2004 11:24 PM
Ninerfan1 Wrote:The fact is embryonic stem cell research has yielded no significant scientific gains in finding cures, it's never cured a single human.Since I can guarantee that I am much, much more familiar with stem cell research than >99% of the people on this board, I'll add a few thoughts.
The technology is still so new that there has not been time to even try to implement stem cell research to help humans.
At this point, there are no possible applications because sceintists are still trying to figure out what they are capable of and how to care for them...but that's out the window because Bush cut off the research at the knees. At this point, stem cell research is a pure scientific topic because there are so many things that have to be learned before anything can be applied.
However, pure scientific endeavors are not economically viable. In other words, no private company is going to take on the task because they will go bankrupt. Virtually all important medical and scientific breakthroughs are funded by government money...Viagra does not qualify as important. The simple fact is that without government money, medicine would not be nearly as advanced as it is.
The ban on the use of government funds for new lines is a bit out of hand. If a laboratory has EVER purchased anything with gov't money (lab space, equipment, etc.), they cannot use any of it for stem cell research beyond the dwindling number of lines available at the time of Bush's decision.
In the end, Bush's apparent attempt to span the gap between science and moral crusaders was only lip service. He effectively killed (or at least delayed by 6 or more years) stem cell research.
If someone has a moral objection to stem cell research, that's one thing...but don't try to back it up with non-sense reasoning...just say you're morally opposed to it. The same thing goes for those who say "I just don't want any government money going towards it"...just admit that you're morally opposed to it, because in the end, that's all it boils down to.
- Rebel - 11-11-2004 11:27 PM
Was Bush not the first President ever to provide funding for Stem Cell research??? :rolleyes:
- Rebel - 11-11-2004 11:28 PM
Guess I'm part of the "1%"
- 99Tiger - 11-11-2004 11:32 PM
RebelKev Wrote:Guess I'm part of the "1%"You could be...I'm not saying that I am the ultimate authority...but I know more than the average bear!