Embryonic stem cell research
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral
Excellent, because you are exactly who I want as a moral compass... the same guy that said there are no innocent people in the Middle East. X|
-
thealj wrote:
So it's on the same level as bacteria and paramecium. I suppose we had better stop using those in scientific experiments. By that measure, we should also ban antibiotics.
You mix up apples with pears! Nish asked if embryos are alive and I said yes. Of course bacteria is alive too, but what in hell has it to do with his question? ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
You mix up apples with pears! Nish asked if embryos are alive and I said yes. Of course bacteria is alive too, but what in hell has it to do with his question?
It has everything to do with this question. I am asking you to tell me the difference between why a 5 day old embryonic stem cell (ESC) is unfit for use in medical research while bacterium are not. You claim it is because a stem cell is alive and provided me with a definition of life. I claim that your definition of life cannot distinguish between an ESC and a bacterium. Therefore, I argue that stem cells are okay to use for research as, by your definition of life, they are no different from bacteria. Bacteria grow, bacteria require nourishment, bacteria respond to outside stimulus...both are alive, so since we already use bacteria in research (and we agree that they are alive) then it is perfectly justifiable to use stem cells.
-
led mike wrote:
And of course there are no innocent people in the Middle East.
Actually I said Lebanon. Don't misquote me, moron. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
So how does this equate to abortion equals life. The embryos that might be used for stem cell research are already destined to be destroyed, fetility clinics routinely destroy left over embryos. There is no abortion involved.
Because it equates to fetal destruction and has a sole purpose of making the destruction of fetuses palatable to the public.
dennisd45 wrote:
Completely ignored my point. My point was not about AIDS. My point was that research results do not occur over night.
You ignored mine. The issue is adult vs. embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research has proven more productive because adult stem cells have the benefits of embryonic stem cells, but also possess some developmental properties that make implant into adults possible. That's why adult stem cells have been so successful and and embryonic stem cells have yielded no results to date. So why make such a big hooplah over embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells?
dennisd45 wrote:
Proves my point. He wasn't random, the host called him.
I see you chose to ignore the part about him not being morally opposed to embryonic stem cells.
dennisd45 wrote:
What a bizarre world view.
It's a bizarre world. Sometimes you need that view to be right. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
You ignored mine. The issue is adult vs. embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research has proven more productive because adult stem cells have the benefits of embryonic stem cells, but also possess some developmental properties that make implant into adults possible. That's why adult stem cells have been so successful and and embryonic stem cells have yielded no results to date. So why make such a big hooplah over embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells?
I have not ignored your point. I have addressed it several times, in fact. Adult and fetal stems cells are not the same and each has it areas where it could be valuable.
espeir wrote:
I see you chose to ignore the part about him not being morally opposed to embryonic stem cells.
I didn't ignore it. It simply doesn't matter.
espeir wrote:
Because it equates to fetal destruction and has a sole purpose of making the destruction of fetuses palatable to the public.
Pretty pointless, it it were true. The public is already use to it. In virto fertilization leads to the destruction of countless fetuses. But, of course, everything you hypothisize is based on a completely invalid assumption. There is no monolithic left.
espeir wrote:
embryonic stem cells have yielded no results to date.
Completely false. Do some research on the web. Review Vincents link. Review my link.
-
ihoecken wrote:
When you have no arguements you must post rubbish, he isn't the first in soapbox.
I am still waiting for you to provide me with a definition that distinguishes how a bacteria is different from a 5 day old embryonic stem cell.
thealj wrote:
I am still waiting for you to provide me with a definition that distinguishes how a bacteria is different from a 5 day old embryonic stem cell.
Why should I do that? I didn't said that there is a difference (and I din't said that there isn't)! If you can't read I'm sorry for you. I never said those things you want me to. So it is still rubbish what you are talking. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Nish asked: "The embryo is extracted when it's 2-3 weeks old, correct? Would a 3 week embryo be alive? I think it'd just be like a body part - even the brain may not have formed yet!" My answer was: "Yes it's alive." You asked then: "By what criteria?" Then I said: "The criteria is that it grows. It has cells, there are also reactions on special influences. So it is alive." So this is my arguementation: embryos are living. Of course Bacterias are living, too, but what the hell has it to do with his question?! I started no ethic debate, you did! So don't complain! ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
I started no ethic debate, you did! So don't complain!
okay. Sorry.
-
espeir wrote:
You equate bacteria with human beings?
By his definition of life, yes. Interestingly, bacteria and homo sapiens have the same population dynamics.
thealj wrote:
By his definition of life, yes.
No, he stated that like living bacteria they're both alive. However, one is bacteria and the other is a person. You decided to equate those two.
thealj wrote:
Interestingly, bacteria and homo sapiens have the same population dynamics.
Welcome to Introduction to Differential Equations. What's our lesson for tomorrow? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
I admit that I could be wrong, but you've provided no evidence to the contrary. It's your word against an MIT professor who has researched stem cells since 2000. Given that he specifically stated that there is no evidence that embryonic stem cells hold any more possibilities than adult stem cells (and actually hold fewer), I'll take his word over yours until I see otherwise. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
ihoecken wrote:
You mix up apples with pears! Nish asked if embryos are alive and I said yes. Of course bacteria is alive too, but what in hell has it to do with his question?
It has everything to do with this question. I am asking you to tell me the difference between why a 5 day old embryonic stem cell (ESC) is unfit for use in medical research while bacterium are not. You claim it is because a stem cell is alive and provided me with a definition of life. I claim that your definition of life cannot distinguish between an ESC and a bacterium. Therefore, I argue that stem cells are okay to use for research as, by your definition of life, they are no different from bacteria. Bacteria grow, bacteria require nourishment, bacteria respond to outside stimulus...both are alive, so since we already use bacteria in research (and we agree that they are alive) then it is perfectly justifiable to use stem cells.
thealj wrote:
It has everything to do with this question. I am asking you to tell me the difference between why a 5 day old embryonic stem cell (ESC) is unfit for use in medical research while bacterium are not.
Show that! Where did I wrote that? Nowhere!
thealj wrote:
You claim it is because a stem cell is alive and provided me with a definition of life.
No! You can't read. I said that embryos are alive that's all.
thealj wrote:
I claim that your definition of life cannot distinguish between an ESC and a bacterium.
And? Did I say anything against it? You mismatch who wrotes what! I didn't wrote the things you to foist on me. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
espeir wrote:
You ignored mine. The issue is adult vs. embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research has proven more productive because adult stem cells have the benefits of embryonic stem cells, but also possess some developmental properties that make implant into adults possible. That's why adult stem cells have been so successful and and embryonic stem cells have yielded no results to date. So why make such a big hooplah over embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells?
I have not ignored your point. I have addressed it several times, in fact. Adult and fetal stems cells are not the same and each has it areas where it could be valuable.
espeir wrote:
I see you chose to ignore the part about him not being morally opposed to embryonic stem cells.
I didn't ignore it. It simply doesn't matter.
espeir wrote:
Because it equates to fetal destruction and has a sole purpose of making the destruction of fetuses palatable to the public.
Pretty pointless, it it were true. The public is already use to it. In virto fertilization leads to the destruction of countless fetuses. But, of course, everything you hypothisize is based on a completely invalid assumption. There is no monolithic left.
espeir wrote:
embryonic stem cells have yielded no results to date.
Completely false. Do some research on the web. Review Vincents link. Review my link.
dennisd45 wrote:
I have not ignored your point. I have addressed it several times, in fact. Adult and fetal stems cells are not the same and each has it areas where it could be valuable.
Not according to the MIT guy. Again, I'll take his opinion over yours.
dennisd45 wrote:
I didn't ignore it. It simply doesn't matter.
Yes it does, as that's the basis of neutrality.
dennisd45 wrote:
Pretty pointless, it it were true. The public is already use to it. In virto fertilization leads to the destruction of countless fetuses. But, of course, everything you hypothisize is based on a completely invalid assumption. There is no monolithic left.
As pointless as pushing for federally funded embryonic stem cell research? Not quite.
dennisd45 wrote:
Completely false. Do some research on the web. Review Vincents link. Review my link.
List some actual medical trials, not tricks. There have been 65 with adult stem cells. There have been none with embryonic stem cells. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
thealj wrote:
By his definition of life, yes.
No, he stated that like living bacteria they're both alive. However, one is bacteria and the other is a person. You decided to equate those two.
thealj wrote:
Interestingly, bacteria and homo sapiens have the same population dynamics.
Welcome to Introduction to Differential Equations. What's our lesson for tomorrow? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
However, one is bacteria and the other is a person.
Oh, so a 5 day old embryonic stem cell is a person now? Please enlighten me as to how that is possible. Maybe start with a definition of "person" and we can work from there.
espeir wrote:
Welcome to Introduction to Differential Equations. What's our lesson for tomorrow?
Nonlinear stochastic partial differential equations with solutions lacking the Markov property. To make it interesting, we will further assume that possible candidate solutions are only semi-continuous martingales on the Borel sigma algebra. You can start with the basics. I'm listening.
-
No evidence to the contrary as long as you refuse to look at the links provided by myself and Vincent. Here is the link again: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pecorino2.html[^]
Read the advantages and disadvantages of both. Then see why embryonic stem cell research is inferior. That link agrees with me...not you. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral
Excellent, because you are exactly who I want as a moral compass... the same guy that said there are no innocent people in the Middle East. X|
Stop misquoting me, moron. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
thealj wrote:
It has everything to do with this question. I am asking you to tell me the difference between why a 5 day old embryonic stem cell (ESC) is unfit for use in medical research while bacterium are not.
Show that! Where did I wrote that? Nowhere!
thealj wrote:
You claim it is because a stem cell is alive and provided me with a definition of life.
No! You can't read. I said that embryos are alive that's all.
thealj wrote:
I claim that your definition of life cannot distinguish between an ESC and a bacterium.
And? Did I say anything against it? You mismatch who wrotes what! I didn't wrote the things you to foist on me. ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
You mismatch who wrotes what! I didn't wrote the things you to foist on me.
Yes, okay. I'm sorry. I have spent too much time in the Soapbox and automatically get defensive by default. :doh:
-
Stop misquoting me, moron. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Everybody believes that life begins at different times. Personally, I accept conception as the time life should be respected and therefore oppose abortion at all stages. If you disagree, I think you should at least determine a specific point of development at which time life begins. Since development is continous (and not done in absolute distinct stages...the brain doesn't just appear one day), I think this is necessary or it simply leads to the conclusion that a person's life does not begin until after puberty. But that's a different subject. I was just stating why I oppose embryonic stem cell research. I'm more curious as to why the left so emphatically supports it when it does not yield results like adult stem cell research. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
The problem is that in some studies they do show progress. They recently treated a mouse who was intentionally paralyzed. After treatment he was walking almost normally. Cancer tests didn't yield results in the beginning either, but we are further today than we were 10 years ago. Where will stem cell research be in 10 years?
-
No. Many conservative Republicans (including senate majority leader Bill Frist) voted in favor of this bill and I disagree with those conservatives. My point was that it seems to me that the left has very eagerly pushed for embryonic stem cell research without any real understanding of its potential benefits. I believe that the reason for this was purely political and done to alter the perception of abortion from life-destroying to life-supporting because the rhetoric points in that direction. I'm testing that theory here, but naturally this thread has diverged. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
I have not ignored your point. I have addressed it several times, in fact. Adult and fetal stems cells are not the same and each has it areas where it could be valuable.
Not according to the MIT guy. Again, I'll take his opinion over yours.
dennisd45 wrote:
I didn't ignore it. It simply doesn't matter.
Yes it does, as that's the basis of neutrality.
dennisd45 wrote:
Pretty pointless, it it were true. The public is already use to it. In virto fertilization leads to the destruction of countless fetuses. But, of course, everything you hypothisize is based on a completely invalid assumption. There is no monolithic left.
As pointless as pushing for federally funded embryonic stem cell research? Not quite.
dennisd45 wrote:
Completely false. Do some research on the web. Review Vincents link. Review my link.
List some actual medical trials, not tricks. There have been 65 with adult stem cells. There have been none with embryonic stem cells. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Not according to the MIT guy. Again, I'll take his opinion over yours.
It's not my opinion. I provided you with a link to support what I said.
espeir wrote:
Yes it does, as that's the basis of neutrality.
Simply because he is not morally opposed to the research does not make everything he says on the subject correct.
espeir wrote:
As pointless as pushing for federally funded embryonic stem cell research? Not quite.
You may be right. As long as that dead head bush is in the White House.
espeir wrote:
List some actual medical trials, not tricks. There have been 65 with adult stem cells. There have been none with embryonic stem cells.
What tricks? You said that fetal stem cell research had produced no results. The links previously provided show there are results. Now you say you need clinical trials. Federal funding has been banned for years. How do you expect to get the research to the point of human clinical trials without research and money? There seems to be a core assumption in your argument that there is no difference between adult and fetal stem cells. From the very beginning of my postings I have made it clear that there are many significant differences. And I have provided you with a link to one site that addresses those differences. It is interesting that you have developed such strong opinions on the topic since you don't know anything about it outside of what you heard some guy say on a right wing talk show.
-
espeir wrote:
However, one is bacteria and the other is a person.
Oh, so a 5 day old embryonic stem cell is a person now? Please enlighten me as to how that is possible. Maybe start with a definition of "person" and we can work from there.
espeir wrote:
Welcome to Introduction to Differential Equations. What's our lesson for tomorrow?
Nonlinear stochastic partial differential equations with solutions lacking the Markov property. To make it interesting, we will further assume that possible candidate solutions are only semi-continuous martingales on the Borel sigma algebra. You can start with the basics. I'm listening.
thealj wrote:
Oh, so a 5 day old embryonic stem cell is a person now? Please enlighten me as to how that is possible. Maybe start with a definition of "person" and we can work from there.
Well the next I say could be misunderstood. It shall be no personal attack I just gathered some thoughts, that came up to my mind. What is a person? Ok, let's say an embryo is no person (I think this is right) but it's a human being of some kind, isn't it? When it's not a human beeing, what is a human beeing then? When it's born? Or after 90 days? So a 89 day old embryo is not and some hours later it is? That reminds me on some earlier ages: the white man said "black" or "coloured" people weren't human beings. Then the Nazis said that Jews weren't human beings. They invented Gen Technology. Yes it were the Nazis - they wanted a tool to differ between the higher "Ariern" and the "lower" forms of Life... Well. I can understand that some people aren't agaist stem cell research and there are good reasons for it, even I'm not sure that there aren't better reasons against. But when someone says this is no human being but that is, then we come to point the mankind some time earlier already was: definition of higher valued human life and lower valued human life. I eat animals (yes, I do) but anyhow I think a animal lives. I won't torture any animal, because I respect them, that doesn't mean I won't kill and eat them. I can accept abortion, but I don't have to like it and I still think that it's like killing. So, irrelevant if someone is pro or contry for stem cells or - something totally different - abortion, he should consider well, if he want to say that somesort of life isn't real or from a lower value. Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
ihoecken wrote:
You mismatch who wrotes what! I didn't wrote the things you to foist on me.
Yes, okay. I'm sorry. I have spent too much time in the Soapbox and automatically get defensive by default. :doh:
thealj wrote:
Yes, okay. I'm sorry. I have spent too much time in the Soapbox and automatically get defensive by default.
Thank you, for telling that. :) Regards, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.