Embryonic stem cell research
-
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:
Read the advantages and disadvantages of both. Then see why embryonic stem cell research is inferior. That link agrees with me...not you.
That link "agrees" with neither side. It lists advantages and disadvantages of both. However, toward the end of the article (guess you didn't get that far) it says, "The potential of embryonic stem cells to provide other differentiated cell types needs to be investigated. The production of cardiac muscle cells, which have thus far been evasive, would hold tremendous promise for the number one killer: heart disease." I get the impression that, while you are obviously trying to maintain the appearance of analytical objectivity and rational thought, every comment on this issue brings you one step closer to breaking into a rousing chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred".
-
dennisd45 wrote:
There has not been extensive use of fetal stem cells in human therapy
Why is that? And why has industry apparently rejected investment in fetal stem cell research but embraced adult stem cell research?
dennisd45 wrote:
The 'left' is not some monolithic group that follows the orders of some 'leader of the left'.
For the most part they are.
dennisd45 wrote:
Many people support the research because it holds out the promise of therapies or cures to many diseases - parkinsons and diabetes to name two.
But that's my point. Again, this is just from a single MIT professor, but embryonic stem cell research does not hold this promise as was initially believed. But the left continues to embrace it because of its association to fetal destruction. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: The 'left' is not some monolithic group that follows the orders of some 'leader of the left'. For the most part they are.
So, who would be the Lefties' Grand Poobah? 'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
-
ihoecken wrote:
Yes it's alive.
It may be technically alive, but it's definitely less alive than a 3-month embryo. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
3-month embryo
there's no such thing. By three months, it's progressed to become a fetus.
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
-
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:
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
-
espeir wrote:
Read the advantages and disadvantages of both. Then see why embryonic stem cell research is inferior. That link agrees with me...not you.
That link "agrees" with neither side. It lists advantages and disadvantages of both. However, toward the end of the article (guess you didn't get that far) it says, "The potential of embryonic stem cells to provide other differentiated cell types needs to be investigated. The production of cardiac muscle cells, which have thus far been evasive, would hold tremendous promise for the number one killer: heart disease." I get the impression that, while you are obviously trying to maintain the appearance of analytical objectivity and rational thought, every comment on this issue brings you one step closer to breaking into a rousing chorus of "Every Sperm is Sacred".
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
That link "agrees" with neither side. It lists advantages and disadvantages of both. However, toward the end of the article (guess you didn't get that far) it says, "The potential of embryonic stem cells to provide other differentiated cell types needs to be investigated. The production of cardiac muscle cells, which have thus far been evasive, would hold tremendous promise for the number one killer: heart disease."
And adult stem cells can do the same thing (per the same link). Again, if you were literate at all, you would realize that the question I'm asking is why does the left so blindly support embryonic stem cell research as a universal panacea when it's not based in any sort of scientific reality. Adult stem cells have yielded much better results and that article (if you actually do read it) lists far more advantages for adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells. So why the overwhelming support for inferior science? Is the left anti-science in order to support a political position? I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for that position. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Unless it's a virus :) An all encompasing minimum definition of life is tricky. 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
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
-
I know people disagree (as will the research). I was saying that each individual who has given it thought should consider a specific point of development the point at which an egg becomes human. We aren't fully developed until we're in our 20s. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
We aren't fully developed until we're in our 20s
Another issue for debate. Different ages apply depending on the criteria looked at, for instance 1. Sexual maturity 2. Emotional Maturity and so on
espeir wrote:
egg becomes human
After many biological processes from inception, which implies a fertilized egg, the point where it becomes human is where delivery occurs, until then, it is a foetus. And usually a foetus is not a viable proposition for delivery until around 25 weeks into pregnancy, although at that age of gestation, in some countries, abortion is perfectly legal, but that's another issue. I know there are documented cases of live births at earlier gestation but these children have horrendous existences from multiple problems due entirely to under development. Here comes those references I said I would give. 1. [^] 2. [^] 3.[^] In total the references give around 1000 items of research and other documents, mostly open source, but you will be required to register with biomed to read any o
-
I am all for adult stem cell research. I am against embryonic stem cell research because it commoditizes human life. Sorta like apples and oranges are commodities. Potential sentient life, which is what a human embryo is, is far to precious to make it a commodity. Could you really imagine that women would become "factories" for producing embryos for medical procedures? Or have embryos grown in a "petrie" dish for the same purpose? Where would they get the sperm for such things? Some wacko spanking his meat in one of those "clinics", no doubt. And if it's true that there is no proven medical benefit, then what's the point? It's all a bit disgusting to me.
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
ahz wrote:
And if it's true that there is no proven medical benefit, then what's the point?
I don't know that there is no medical benfit. But from this one MIT researcher, he claimed that there is no benefit of embryonic stem cells that adult stem cells cannot provide, and adult stem cells are compatible with adults while embryonic stem cells are not. So I don't get the political push for such research. "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
Indeed. Irrefutable logic. The fertilized human egg is only the first step in an unbroken biological continuum that represents a human life. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
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
I don't know...Alvaro said that babies in the womb are parasites, much like a virus. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
It's not my opinion. I provided you with a link to support what I said.
The only advantage over adult stem cells listed in your link related to abundance. Disadvantages include minor things like inevitable tumors and automatic rejection by adults.
dennisd45 wrote:
Simply because he is not morally opposed to the research does not make everything he says on the subject correct.
No, but it means that he is not motivated by anything other than his research. You, however, have conducted no research, are no a professor at MIT and are motivated by only politics.
dennisd45 wrote:
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.
I should correct myself and say no results specifically related to humans. Federal funding has not been banned at all...just the number of stem cell lines that were permitted for use. There are differences between adult and embryonic stem cells. Per your own link, adult stem cells are far more useful (just less abundant).
dennisd45 wrote:
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.
My opinion is morally based and irrespective of the impartial professor's opinion. What I'm pointing out is my curiosity over the left's eagerness for this research. I have a reason to oppose it, but the left really has no reason for such eager endorsement. I'm proposing a theory to explain this eagerness. Nothing more. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
The only advantage over adult stem cells listed in your link related to abundance. Disadvantages include minor things like inevitable tumors and automatic rejection by adults.
Automatic rejection - not stated anywhere. The possibility of rejection is one disadvantage of fetal cells. Inevitable tumors - not stated anywhere. One of the disadvantages of Adult stems cells is possible genetic mutation for disease or otherwise become defective.
espeir wrote:
No, but it means that he is not motivated by anything other than his research. You, however, have conducted no research, are no a professor at MIT and are motivated by only politics.
By your own admission this discussion is political. Again you are descending to attack me personally, rather that what I say. While I have not done medical research, I know a bit more about the topic than what some guy said on a right wing talk show.
espeir wrote:
My opinion is morally based and irrespective of the impartial professor's opinion.
I have not once said anything about your moral stand on this issue.
espeir wrote:
What I'm pointing out is my curiosity over the left's eagerness for this research.
I have tried to point out to you why there are reasons to persue this reseach that have nothing to do with "The Monolithic Left".
espeir wrote:
Per your own link, adult stem cells are far more useful (just less abundant).
A value judgement by you that is not endorsed by anything on the link. It doesn't draw a conclusion on one type or the other being "better".
-
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:
You can get defensive with me then. It is fucking stupid to compare a bacteria to a human fetus at any stage of developement simply because the bacteria isn't a human fetus and will never become one regardless of how long you wait for it to. They are two completely different and distinct entities. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
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
-
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
If I were someone that could possibly benefit from treatment based on embryonic stem cells, for whatever reason, I would choose not to get the treatment.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
I know people disagree (as will the research). I was saying that each individual who has given it thought should consider a specific point of development the point at which an egg becomes human. We aren't fully developed until we're in our 20s. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
We aren't fully developed until we're in our 20s
Another issue for debate. Different ages apply depending on the criteria looked at, for instance 1. Sexual maturity 2. Emotional Maturity and so on
espeir wrote:
egg becomes human
After many biological processes from inception, which implies a fertilized egg, the point where it becomes human is where delivery occurs, until then, it is a foetus. And usually a foetus is not a viable proposition for delivery until around 25 weeks into pregnancy, although at that age of gestation, in some countries, abortion is perfectly legal, but that's another issue. I know there are documented cases of live births at earlier gestation but these children have horrendous existences from multiple problems due entirely to under development. Here comes those references I said I would give. 1. [^] 2. [^] 3.[^] In total the references give around 1000 items of research and other documents, mostly open source, but you will be required to register with biomed to read any o
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
After many biological processes from inception, which implies a fertilized egg, the point where it becomes human is where delivery occurs, until then, it is a foetus. And usually a foetus is not a viable proposition for delivery until around 25 weeks into pregnancy, although at that age of gestation, in some countries, abortion is perfectly legal, but that's another issue. I know there are documented cases of live births at earlier gestation but these children have horrendous existences from multiple problems due entirely to under development.
That's commonly known. But a fetus' dependence on its mother does not, in my mind, make it inhuman. Babies are biologically incapable of self-sustainment after birth for many years, so this logic suggests that infanticide can be morally acceptable (Katie Couric seems to believe this). "Humanity" is a very flexible term that is more subject to social definition than a scientific one. We can't detect when at what point we acquire a soul, if you believe in that sort of thing. We can determine other aspects such as the rough age when a fetus can feel pain, when the egg implants, the progression of the nervous systems' development, etc. Does consciousness denote humanity? If so, are babies not human (as I can't remember anything before age 4)? I prefer to accept that life begins at an early stage, regardless of developmental milestones because those are pretty arbitrary. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion.
I believe it has been the right which has made this association, which means the truth is probably that both have done so for pretty obvious reasons that are solely political and not scientific. There is one case and one case only in which I have no problem with folks who are against stem cell research: if they are also against in vitro fertilization, which happens to be the last hope for millions of people to have their own kids. For you see, that process is where the fertilized eggs for stem cell research comes from. These embryos would otherwise be destroyed anyway and are being destroyed today, but with no scientific benefit whatsoever. If you are against in vitro, fine, be against stem cell research, but realize there are millions of real, happy children who would not exist today without it. I give credit to anyone who is truly against both practices (as is the Catholic church, officially, I believe), but I cannot in good conscience be against in vitro. A friend has beautiful twin girls thanks to it (identical twins actually, almost unheard of with in vitro). Hey, let parents keep the unused embroys frozen forever if they want to for some reason, but when it comes time to destroy them, why not use them to look for a cure instead?
Sorry, I don't agree. Couples have sex and produce fertilized eggs all the time that never implant and never produce a pregnancy. So I don't see in vitro fertilization (IVF) as any different than that. The fact that some will be used and some "destroyed" is really no different than when a pregnancy miscarries or when a pre-embryo "mass" fails to attach to the uterine wall. That is why I am for IVF. I am troubled by embryonic stem cell research because it commoditizes human life.
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
-
espeir wrote:
The only advantage over adult stem cells listed in your link related to abundance. Disadvantages include minor things like inevitable tumors and automatic rejection by adults.
Automatic rejection - not stated anywhere. The possibility of rejection is one disadvantage of fetal cells. Inevitable tumors - not stated anywhere. One of the disadvantages of Adult stems cells is possible genetic mutation for disease or otherwise become defective.
espeir wrote:
No, but it means that he is not motivated by anything other than his research. You, however, have conducted no research, are no a professor at MIT and are motivated by only politics.
By your own admission this discussion is political. Again you are descending to attack me personally, rather that what I say. While I have not done medical research, I know a bit more about the topic than what some guy said on a right wing talk show.
espeir wrote:
My opinion is morally based and irrespective of the impartial professor's opinion.
I have not once said anything about your moral stand on this issue.
espeir wrote:
What I'm pointing out is my curiosity over the left's eagerness for this research.
I have tried to point out to you why there are reasons to persue this reseach that have nothing to do with "The Monolithic Left".
espeir wrote:
Per your own link, adult stem cells are far more useful (just less abundant).
A value judgement by you that is not endorsed by anything on the link. It doesn't draw a conclusion on one type or the other being "better".
dennisd45 wrote:
Automatic rejection - not stated anywhere. The possibility of rejection is one disadvantage of fetal cells. Inevitable tumors - not stated anywhere. One of the disadvantages of Adult stems cells is possible genetic mutation for disease or otherwise become defective.
Those came from the professor.
dennisd45 wrote:
By your own admission this discussion is political. Again you are descending to attack me personally, rather that what I say. While I have not done medical research, I know a bit more about the topic than what some guy said on a right wing talk show.
I'm overtly stating that I oppose embryonic stem cell research for moral reasons. It's not a matter of "admission" as that's my position. I'm stating that I believe the left is being disingenuous because there appears to be no scientific or moral reason so eagerly support embryonic stem cell research. My question is...Why the enthusiasm. I'm also suggesting my answer.
dennisd45 wrote:
I have tried to point out to you why there are reasons to persue this reseach that have nothing to do with "The Monolithic Left".
I never used the term "monolith left", so why put it in quotes? I understand that you're trying to make a case for the research (which is allowed to continue, just no federal dollars go towards embryonic destruction), but I disagree with its level of importance. If it were as important as you claim, we would see a lot of corporate money going into research, but it's headed more towards adult stem cells.
dennisd45 wrote:
A value judgement by you that is not endorsed by anything on the link. It doesn't draw a conclusion on one type or the other being "better".
Why am I not permitted to make a value judgement based on that web site? That's exactly what you did (and why you posted that link). "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy -- modified at 13:20 Thursday 20th July, 2006
-
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
President Bush stated that a moral boundary would be crossed so it was vetoed. Do you know the exact boundary he is not prepared to cross and where does this differ from statements made Sept 2004 during the Bush/Kerry presidential debates not forgetting the support for stem cell research by Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation that has many high profile supporters. Two points of view from BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4038281.stm[^] and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4054733.stm[^]
-
You can get defensive with me then. It is fucking stupid to compare a bacteria to a human fetus at any stage of developement simply because the bacteria isn't a human fetus and will never become one regardless of how long you wait for it to. They are two completely different and distinct entities. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
You can get defensive with me then. It is f****ing stupid to compare a bacteria to a human fetus at any stage of developement simply because the bacteria isn't a human fetus and will never become one regardless of how long you wait for it to. They are two completely different and distinct entities.
Okay, so when is that magic moment at which the fertilized embryo is no longer potentially human and suddenly becomes human? A human has very specific characteristics that make it human - characteristics not shared by a fertilized human egg. Obviously 50-100 cells in a clump are not capable of individual thought.
