Embryonic stem cell research
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And people get killed every day in car wrecks also, so why not just arbitrarily kill adult humans?
huh? WTF are talking about? You're comparing things that aren't comparable, Mr. Strawman.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
No they are related, but I'll let espeir Stan [edit] Don't ask, I'm getting old. [/edit] do the explaining. It's not difficult to see really. Jeremy Falcon
-
A virus is never going to develope into a human being. Thats a pretty encompassing minimum definition. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
What? I was talking about a minimum description that fits all living things. Not equating a virus with an embryo, though they are both alive. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
What? I was talking about a minimum description that fits all living things. Not equating a virus with an embryo, though they are both alive. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I was talking about a minimum description that fits all living things.
We're not talking about living things. We're talking about living humans. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
If
Huge word there... "if". You have no idea what you would do in a situation you do not face. None of us do. What if your wife or child faced such a situation? What about a grandchild? Do some serious research on the topic before you apply your "morals". "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
I do know what I would do. I just told you. If my wife or child faced such a situation, it would not be only my decision.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Do some serious research on the topic before you apply your "morals".
What makes you think I haven't researched the topic? Our morals guide us in every decision, whether you like to admit it or not. My morals say not to do it. Period.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
espeir wrote:
And adult stem cells can do the same thing (per the same link).
Again, according to the article, one of the advantages of embryonic stem cells is that they are: "Flexible: They have the potential to make any body cell." This is not true of adult stem cells, and is one of the reasons research should proceed on both fronts. The mere fact that the advantages differ at all would seem to indicate as much. Again, you ignore the fact that embryonic stem cell research is supported by a majority of the scientific community, consensus within the biomed field, the American public (by a 2:1 margin), and congressional vote, instead choosing to cite a single researcher interviewed on right-wing radio, couple that with your own biased speculation, and turn it into yet another pointless rant against the left. It's not "the left" that supports it. It's the majority. The majority of scientists, the majority of citizens, and the majority of our elected representatives.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he majority of scientists, the majority of citizens, and the majority of our elected representatives.
That's tyranny! "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Because more research is required. Advances do not occur overnight.
Research in embryonic stem cells has been continuing for over 5 years with zero results while adult stem cells have yielded about 65 successful clinical trials in that time. Results may progress slowly but should progress if there is truly any promise.
dennisd45 wrote:
And who is your fearless leader of the monolithic right?
I don't have one. Republicans voted for this bill and I part with them because I'm not blind.
dennisd45 wrote:
There is no evidence that that is true. Research is in it's infancy, and to say, at this early date, that it is a dead end, is way to permature.
Again, I'm not an expert. That's just what the random molecular biologist from MIT who has been conducting stem cell research since 2000 has said.
dennisd45 wrote:
That is ridiculous. Many people, on the left and right, support research because of the potential to cure many diseases. Nancy Reagan support the research.
Many people support it, but the left specifically uses rhetoric that now equates abortion to life. I consider their position anti-science. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Again, I'm not an expert. That's just what the random molecular biologist from MIT who has been conducting stem cell research since 2000 has said.
And since you heard this expert on right wing talk radio, do think there just might be the smallest chance that they shopped for an opinion they liked? That he would agree to be part of such a forum makes him highly suspect. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I was talking about a minimum description that fits all living things.
We're not talking about living things. We're talking about living humans. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
..By the criterias biologists call something alive
Not in the nearest ancestor mate. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
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
-
Stop misquoting me, moron. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
Again, I'm not an expert. That's just what the random molecular biologist from MIT who has been conducting stem cell research since 2000 has said.
And since you heard this expert on right wing talk radio, do think there just might be the smallest chance that they shopped for an opinion they liked? That he would agree to be part of such a forum makes him highly suspect. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
Tim Craig wrote:
That he would agree to be part of such a forum makes him highly suspect.
Why? Are scientists supposed to discriminate against conservatives now? "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
Actually I said Lebanon. Don't misquote me, moron.
No you didn't asshole. fuck off I'm not asshole. fuck off.
espeir wrote:
Nobody there is innocent. If they were, they wouldn't be in their current condition.
led mike wrote:
No you didn't asshole. f*** off
The thread was about Lebanon being bombed by Isreal, moron. I said "there" as in "Lebanon". Using your same level of illiteracy, you could assume that I said nobody in the Milky Way is innocent. Retard. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
Stop misquoting me, moron.
I'm not asshole. fuck off.
espeir wrote:
Nobody there is innocent. If they were, they wouldn't be in their current condition.
led mike wrote:
I'm not asshole. f*** off.
Yes you are. Learn to read. Moron. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he majority of scientists, the majority of citizens, and the majority of our elected representatives.
That's tyranny! "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
That's tyranny!
That's about what I expected. By the way, you apparently still haven't familiarized yourself with the origin or the true meaning of the phrase "tyranny of the majority". To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means." Do some reading, and you'll understand why I'm not bothered by your signature.
-
espeir wrote:
That's tyranny!
That's about what I expected. By the way, you apparently still haven't familiarized yourself with the origin or the true meaning of the phrase "tyranny of the majority". To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means." Do some reading, and you'll understand why I'm not bothered by your signature.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
That's about what I expected.
I'm just applying your view of our government. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
thealj wrote:
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.
Allow me to interject a personal opinion here. A fetus can be proven to be alive by subjective standards. In function at that stage it is no different than any mulicelluar life form with one outstanding difference. It has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human. It is the only object in the universe that does have that property. It is unique and as such should be viewed in perspective of its potential outcome. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
Richard Stringer wrote:
It has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human.
How do you explain the current crop of world leaders then, or even Link2006?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Potential is not the right word. You are correct than an unfertalized egg, or a sperm have the potential to become human. But that is only a statistical probability. A fertilized egg is the moment of beginning, of creation. The process of an actual human life has begun. It is underway. It is on the road. It has set sail. It has taken off. Its good to go. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
So, is multi-cellular life (a fetus) different from unicellular life? It takes approximately 24 hours from the time a sperm penetrates the outer barrier of the egg for the cell to commence division. Until the initial division it is considered a zygote - a unicellular object. Yet it is a unicellular object with the potential to become human and thus falls under the auspices of your definition - if you allow me to include multicellular objects in there as well. I could even take this further and bring up the Catholic church's stance on condoms and birth control, but I won't. Now, unfertilized eggs also have the potential of becoming human and they are also unique objects. When a female menstruates, such objects "go to waste", so to speak, in that they also fall under your definition. They have the potential to become human, are unicellular (like zygotes) and are the only object in the universe that has the potential to become human as such. So we cannot use unicellular vs. multicellular as a criteria for human life. So there is a problem here. Where is the distinction between life, potential life, and non-life? Let's forget about the bacteria bit as I was just using that for illustrative purposes. The inherent problem is at what point do we have something human? Clearly fertilization is an important event, but I do not believe that there is a distinct line drawn at some "magic fertilization moment" that occurs during fertilization. Obviously the situation is complicated. That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
thealj wrote:
Until the initial division it is considered a zygote - a unicellular object. Yet it is a unicellular object with the potential to become human and thus falls under the auspices of your definition
I would assume that until celluar division had taken place that it was simply an egg. Once the egg had attached to the womb (planceta or whereever it attaches as I am no MD ) and began division that it was a potential human.
thealj wrote:
Now, unfertilized eggs also have the potential of becoming human and they are also unique objects. When a female menstruates, such objects "go to waste"
An unfertilized egg is simply that - its kinda like a quark in isolation - rather useless without its pals.
thealj wrote:
Where is the distinction between life, potential life, and non-life
This is pretty much covered in the literature is it not. It may well be, in its finer points , a subjective subject to differentiate between potential life and life itself but the difference between life and non life is fairly concrete. I am a believer in the saying "Anything that can happen - will happen" and view potential life in that light. I really don't view life in the religious portent of "the immortal soul" crapola and don't see any difference in context between a human and a sea turtle in biological processes so I assume that once a fertilized egg gets going its just a work in progress until the completed organisim is attained.
thealj wrote:
That being said, it is difficult to accept the veto of a president who allows abortion clinics to operate legally in the U.S. while banning embryonic stem cell research. It is hypocritical and I have a problem with that.
While I also do not agree with President Bush on this subject as to the reason that he vetoed the bill I do believe that he was correct in vetoing it. He cited what, to me , was basically religious grounds while I believe that the bill should be vetoed on more pragmatic grounds that the Federal Gov. has no place in funding spectulative research that will not benefit the taxpayer. If for example there is a signifigent breakthrough found by researchers using public monies would this benefit be shared by the taxpayers or would it benefit some drug company. Would the patents derived from research paid for by public mo
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
but it may be best to fix the beginning of human life more accurately - perhaps when the embryo is 90 days old.
So if your wife gets pregnant, you'd be ok with giving up a 30 day old embryo in the name of science? I doubt it. I bet you any amount of money you'll see it then. And you could see it now if you allow yourself. Jeremy Falcon
But no one is harvesting embryos from unwilling women. If my wife lost the embryo for medical reasons, I would rather see it used to further medical research and potentially have some benefit to mankind than just be disposed of as medical waste.
-
I do know what I would do. I just told you. If my wife or child faced such a situation, it would not be only my decision.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Do some serious research on the topic before you apply your "morals".
What makes you think I haven't researched the topic? Our morals guide us in every decision, whether you like to admit it or not. My morals say not to do it. Period.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote:
If my wife or child faced such a situation, it would not be only my decision.
No, but you'd certianly have an opinion.
Jason Henderson wrote:
What makes you think I haven't researched the topic? Our morals guide us in every decision, whether you like to admit it or not. My morals say not to do it. Period.
These embryos are being destroyed one way or another for reasons that have NOTHING to do with stem cell research. Which of your morals objects to a potential good coming from an inevitable destruction? "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
If my wife or child faced such a situation, it would not be only my decision.
No, but you'd certianly have an opinion.
Jason Henderson wrote:
What makes you think I haven't researched the topic? Our morals guide us in every decision, whether you like to admit it or not. My morals say not to do it. Period.
These embryos are being destroyed one way or another for reasons that have NOTHING to do with stem cell research. Which of your morals objects to a potential good coming from an inevitable destruction? "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
How do I know where they are coming from if this research takes off? Will they start harvesting clones? I'd rather not pay for that with my tax money.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog
