stem cell research

Discussion in 'Green Room' started by Perris Calderon, May 25, 2005.

  1. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    I know I'm gonna take allot of heat from this, but I agree with the president.

    ya, I know the promise of this research is boundless.

    if there were no existing lines of stem cells to research, I'd disagree with the presidents stand, but there are.

    I grant there aren't enough...I think the solution would be to pick a random week, and harvest what could be harvested from already gone fetuses for research.

    this would eliminate the concern that we are trading a promised life for one living.

    I know he's going to veto the bill, and I don't think the veto will get an override

    I wonder if he wants to allow the "nuclear option" and remove forever his power of veto

    if he's consistent with his philosophy of romoving long standing checks and balances provided by the constitution, then his power of veto should be eliminated for ever I think

    but that's another discussion isn't it
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2005
    Mainframeguy likes this.
  2. muzikool

    muzikool Act your wage. Political User

    Hahaha :p
     
  3. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    There are two bills. He's going to veto the one that draws them from babies, and he's promised to sign the one that draws cells from placentas and umbilical cords. Harvesting them from already gone fetuses might not be a bad idea, though. Miscarriages are on the rise, and would provide plenty of cells for research.

    He's never vetoed anything. Ever.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2005
    muzikool likes this.
  4. muzikool

    muzikool Act your wage. Political User

  5. Mastershakes

    Mastershakes Moderator

    Messages:
    1,721
    Location:
    Montreal
    The rest of the Western world has embraced it.

    Get on the bandwagon, let's cure some shizz !!

    I also did not know he's never vetoed.... thanks for the link unwonted !
     
  6. muzikool

    muzikool Act your wage. Political User

    Hmm?
     
  7. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    Does he have to veto anything with the senate and congress as his rubberstamp? Please read between the lines people :)

    With regards to the research, what is the problem in doing research on embryo's in fertility clinics which are going to be discarded anyways? They are sitting in petri dishes and are going to be destroyed by being tossed in the garbage.

    I find it odd that there is no outcry about THAT but when we talk about research using the same embryo's that are going to be thrown away ANYWAY there is an issue.

    What gives people? Why the hypocrisy?
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2005
  8. LeeJend

    LeeJend Moderator

    Messages:
    5,291
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    Eventually, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

    I may have miss-read it but I thought the bill he is vetoing only allowed taking cells from dead fetuses. Which to me is a perfect compromise.

    The last time the religious right meddled in science Galileo spent years in prison and everyone continued to think the earth was flat. There are too damn many crippled, blind, senile and motor impaired people out there for an elected leader to be playing religious demagogue (and yes I voted for George junior because "non of the above" was not on the ballot).

    I envy the Brits and their "vote of no confidence" option.
     
  9. Steevo

    Steevo Spammer representing. Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    2,566
    /leaves quietly
     
  10. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    Cells from dead embryo's do nothing for research. The lines currently in use are mostly tainted.

    New lines are needed for additional research.
     
  11. Mainframeguy

    Mainframeguy Debiant by way of Ubuntu Folding Team

    Messages:
    3,763
    Location:
    London, UK
    I know I've been quiet here lately - but this is one I feel strongly about. Seems to me (OK a layman, but we are all somewhat of that in this advanced field) that stem cells have the most incredible potential for medical advancement and pioneering treatments that enable damaged tissues to self repair and regenerate. To me this has the smell of a real potential and I know from a recent new story here that it has already restored sight to a blind child with a damaged cornea. I am not sure what the American vote or veto is, but I say anythung standing in the way of this research would need to be a really serious ethical no-no.... this is nothing like genetic engineering - I can only see good coming of this.
     
  12. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    Here is a short test on stem cell research.
    1. Embryonic stem cells are used to cure/treat (or create cures/treatments for) __________________________ .

    People say, "There is so much potential in this research, but so far, stem cell research has yielded nothing in a century outside of bone marrow transplants. Embryonic stem cell research is a relatively new field, but has yielded nothing in its 20-30 years.

    Why don't they research animals first to determine what kinds of advancement, if any, can be made from embryonic stem cells? Isn't that the normal scientific way--to see if it works on animals before experimenting on human subjects? Why do they start with embryos before adult stem cells? There are too many safety steps they are skipping when scientists start with human embryos.

    Galileo's situation was a matter of fact. Where human life begins is a matter of philosophy. If one accepts the premise that human life begins at conception, then embryonic stem cell research is equal to the human experiments of Japan and Germany on live soldiers in WWII.

    If a person doesn't accept the premise of life at conception, that is a different view. It doesn't make their view right or wrong, and it doesn't make the other side's view right or wrong. It's a matter of philosophy, not a matter of fact.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2005
  13. LeeJend

    LeeJend Moderator

    Messages:
    5,291
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    When the US House and Senate pass a law the President has to agree with it also. If he doesn't he can Veto it (stop it from going into law). If the House and Senate feel there is compelling need for the law they can override the veto with a 2/3 majority vote.

    The house and senate fall well short of the 2/3 veto override right now but could be pressured into raising enough votes if there is a popular uproar. Say 10,000 people in wheel chairs blockading the house and senate buildings while they are in session. Wouldn't hurt to circle the wagosn around the White House either.
     
  14. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    ya, and there's the rub in my delema

    I think a solution is to choose a random week and harvest what could be harvested

    the problem with allowing the research and harvesting stem cells at will is that it will create a market for these cells, and it might encourage women to go forward with a decision to terminate their pregnancy which they might not otherwse have made

    I agree with that line of thought
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2005
  15. Mastershakes

    Mastershakes Moderator

    Messages:
    1,721
    Location:
    Montreal
    muzi - what I'm getting at.... several other countries already research stem cells. There is also massive $$$ in private research in the US....

    From: http://www.newsbatch.com/stemcells.htm

    The decision will certainly limit the number of government funded research projects but it has no effect on private stem cell research except that there will be a continuing ban on the cloning of embryos for the purpose of extracting stem cells. Because this technology is so promising, it is likely that there will be privately funded research.

    so, who cares what he does....
     
  16. muzikool

    muzikool Act your wage. Political User

    I know, but to say
    is kind of a blanketing statement, isn't it?
     
  17. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    Insert anything, parkinsons, alzheimers, spinal injury research. Stem cell research has led to very promising results in animals thus far.

    I think you might want to look up some of the breakthroughs made over the past 2 years.

    Again please look up the information about the breakthroughs made. They are not making stuff up, there are ACTUAL and TANGIBLE benefits. Google is your friend since you are more than adept at finding links.

    This is simple. Embryonic cells are more easily manipulated and act faster.

    The embryo's in the petri dishes at fertility clinics are going to be thrown away anyways. Where is the philosophy in that? Further this is a fertility clinic setup we are talking about, what is the philosophy about playing god and creating life in a petri dish?

    There was research done obviously to be able to get these cells to become live beings in a dish, is that also abhorent and since it was done with the destruction of life?

    These are simple questions as well, almost as simple as yours except not as one-sided and biased.

    It's a matter of ignorance and PR, not philosophy because the philosophy you speak of is hypocritical by its very essence.

    Without ignorance and lack of education on the matter it is very easy to have judgements clouded.
     
  18. Mastershakes

    Mastershakes Moderator

    Messages:
    1,721
    Location:
    Montreal
    Yes, yerright... little too broad. ;)
     
  19. muzikool

    muzikool Act your wage. Political User

    I'd like you to elaborate on this point a bit. I believe life begins at conception, how is that a matter of ignorance and PR? Can you prove that life does not begin when conception occurs? If you can prove that, undeniably, then anyone who argues could be considered ignorant. PR?
     
  20. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    To hold a belief that life begins at conception is not hypocritical. Philosophy is not an action.

    Hypocrisy is "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness".

    So I googled like you said. Check this out:
    And nobody had to terminate an embryo.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2005