Posted on 06/09/2004 6:27:12 PM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
We do know all the limitations of adult stem cells, although researchers have been able to push them a bit. But you don't know that embryonic stem cells are useless. We won't know for sure without the research that you want to block! And the potential payoff is huge.
We do not know the limitations of adult stem cells. The article says as much.
Why is your hope so unlimited in embryonic stem cells but so narrow in the case of adult stem cells? Why can't scientists who you hope will be able to solve the induction problems, the propensities of embryoninc stem cells to develop chromosomal and genetic defects and to form tumors in vivo, and the probability of tissue incompatibility also solve/ instead solve the problem of de-differentiation and induction in adult stem cells?
BTW,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29561-2004Jun9.html
""Stem Cells An Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer's
Reagan-Inspired Zeal For Study Continues
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A03
Ronald Reagan's death from Alzheimer's disease Saturday has triggered an outpouring of support for human embryonic stem cell research. Building on comments made by Nancy Reagan last month, scores of senators on Monday called upon President Bush to loosen his restrictions on the controversial research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. Patient groups have also chimed in, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) on Tuesday added his support for a policy review.
It is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum.
But the infrequently voiced reality, stem cell experts confess, is that, of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit. ""
Actually, my hope is quite high for both. Adult stem cells appear to be easier to work with and yield short-term solutions. Pluripotent stem cells hold the hope for fixing what multipotent ones can't, plus they have the capacity for telling us what happens in the beginning of cell formation (adult ones can't do that, they're too far developed).
There are just some steps we should not take - we ought not take.
We do not need to know what happens at the beginning of life if it means that we must deliberately kill those lives we study - what we would actually be studying would be the death that we are inducing.
Take a look at this article and the one above. Do you trust these minds that can twist themselves around the abandonment of "First, do no harm"? Why would you believe that they are doing good in any form, if they are willing to do this evil?
Bush's big mistake was opening the door a crack. And I can't tell you how disappointed I am in Frist. Worse than disappointed.
I'm so tempted to say that we should clone 99 Rick Santorums.
The President was stuck with the results of Clinton's actions. I agree that the labs should have been stuck with those embryonic cells, but some might have frowned at renegging on what was authorized by prior "law" in the shape of Clinton's executive order.
Our President said no more from now on, it stopped that night, with his EO.
This is why I advocate a comprehensive ban before any more harm is done.
Don't get me wrong, I am a GWB supporter. BUT Bush was not held to Clinton's executive order. Objectively speaking, it was morally wrong for him to approve the scientific use of those cell lines.
Bush got out of the Kyoto Accord, and he could have gotten out of this. Although I give him credit for seriously seeking a moral solution, he still opened the door. Right now, with all of this "new tone" garbage, I feel I can't trust him not to cave.
I'm so sorry the situation is such that I have to say this.
Here's something about NYPD Detective Steven McDonald, who doesn't spend his time lobbying for baby killing, so he can get himself a cure:
See the Steven Mc Donald portion
Sometimes, he's on the Steve Malzberg radio show (77WABC), here in NY. He's an incredible man.
I agree with you about a comprehensive ban. I also think the FDA should ban the current Rubella vaccine, which uses cell lines from aborted babies.
I'm not "yelling" at *you*. I just hope GWB has spine enough to stand up to what will be a very big and emotional fight.
I don't see working with blastocysts as an evil, so that falls apart for me.
"Working with" is euphemistic, don't you think? The literature calls it "destroying."
Why should society follow your personal belief about evil and good? What has been condemned as evil in the past when it comes to the destruction of any human life? How does society look on prior cases of any discrimination between the human rights of one human being and another?
Why should it follow yours?
Because, independent from any faith considerations, hocndoc holds the logical, and correct, position.
BTTT!
When Human Life Begins - The American College of Pediatricians
“At the completion of the process of fertilization when the male and female pronuclei of the human progenitors’ sperm and ovum are indistinguishable and lose their nuclear envelopes, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic human organism. This individuated human organism actually has the natural capacity for the person-defining activities of reasoning, willing, desiring, and relating to others.So a blastocyst (a small group of cells inside an outer shell of cells) has the capacity for reasoning, willing, desiring and relating to others? There's no brain, heart or even placenta yet. They lost credibility right there.
No they didn't. You are drawing the line at act, as the 1973 SCOTUS drew the line at viability, while the authors have made the case that potency is criteria enough for knowing that a blastocyst is a human being, who, by its very nature, has intrinsic worth.
If one continues along your line of thinking, the line for establishing when one is a human being can erroneously be drawn anywhere. For example, the age of reason is generally placed at age seven, but a seven year old usually doesn't know how to drive a car. Although seven year olds can't drive cars, they have the potential to learn how. Furthermore, five year olds, generally speaking, have the potential to reason, and drive a car as well. Depending on where the line is drawn (and the agenda of the one drawing it), there can be a justification argued for offing 5 year olds, 7 year olds, babies with only their heads unborn, and anyone else who doesn't meet the established criteria.
Such lines of establishing who is a human being are always subjectively and artificially drawn, and humans are killed if the one with the agenda does it in secret, has a good PR campaign, or has enough power.
At any rate, the true answer lies not in act, or viability, for that matter, but rather in potency.
I say we draw the line further back. A woman has eggs with the potential to become human, all it requires if fertilization. A man has sperm with the potential to become human, all it requires is fertilizing an egg. Any waste of egg or sperm should be considered homicide.
Why not? All it takes for a blastocyst to achieve its potential to become human is successful implantation in a uterus. My examples just take it back one step further in the process.
Why not? All it takes for a blastocyst to achieve its potential to become human is successful implantation in a uterus.
The blastocyst (baby - lest we lose sight of his/her humanity by the exclusive use of a scientific term) is already a human being by virtue of conception, and therefore its humanity is not dependent on a successful implantation in a uterus.
One can forgive Nancy Reagan for ignoring her husband's deep commitment to unborn children in the hopes of curing her husband. She truly loved her husband and my heart goes out to her. Anyone else who uses President Reagan's memory to justify using babies as spare parts factories is at best a crass opportunist. At worst, well let's just say that decency prohibits e from using that sort of language here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.