Smith: No embryonic stem cells

NJ.Com ^ | June 10, 2004 | TOM HESTER JR.

[eleni121]

Embryos are human beings carry a complete set of DNA.

Sperm do not.

If you cannot get the difference then get in line for embryonic corneas and ovaries.

[r9etb]

We used to believe that eternal life was possible without the use of advanced science. Now, we need to spend billions of dollars, and nullify our own humanity, to obtain mere extensions of time.

Exactly correct. Very well said.

[shhrubbery!]

And saying embryonic stem cell have not shown "any promise" is a BS statement.

I could just as well say that my left toenail shows "promise" of turning into a pumpkin.

There is no "promise" until someone shows, with at least animal studies, that such experiments have provable and lasting benefits. Sweden and many other countries have been experimenting with embryonic stem cells in human subjects for many years. So far the results have been disastrous, with patients' nervous systems going horribly and irreversibly out of control.

You'll say that problem will likely be "solved" with more experimentation. But there are precedents in this area. I heard an recently with Dr. Oliver Sachs, the neurologist who wrote "Awakenings" and who has many, many years experience with patients who have Parkinsonism.

Sacks's interviewer recalled the great hoopla surrounding what was hoped to be the "miracle cure" for Parkinson's, L-Dopa. Sadly, although L-Dopa seemed to hold great "promise" at first, it too caused patients' nervous systems to go out of control.

After all these many years of work with L-Dopa, it has never fulfilled its "promise"; and Sacks believes that it never will. Some things, Sacks said, are simply beyond our control.

Would someone please give me a factual argument, with links, showing why stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood don't show just as much "promise" as stem cells dissected from unborn babies?

[visualops]

Victimhood and moral relativity.

[Lysander]

Only if the accident victim is already dead. Huge difference

It all depends on what the definition of alive is....

[Not A Snowbird]

It all depends on what the definition of alive is....

Not to my mind.

[Lysander]

Embryos are human beings carry a complete set of DNA.

Sperm is human and carries the soul. Isn't the soul the important thing? If I pull some DNA out of one of my cells, the soul remains behind. DNA is just a substance. My human soul is what counts.

[Not A Snowbird]

Sperm is human and carries the soul.

Where's the scientific proof for this?

[Lysander]

If you cannot get the difference then get in line for embryonic corneas and ovaries.

O.K. Will you let the scientists experiment on growing them?

[Lysander]

Where's the scientific proof for this?

Where is the scientific proof that a glob of cells has a soul?

[Not A Snowbird]

Where is the scientific proof that a glob of cells has a soul?

Okay, let me rephrase. Where's the scientific and/or biblical proof for your statement?

[eleni121]

Isn't the soul the important thing?... My human soul is what counts.

The soul alone is not sufficient. In order for the soul to incarnate into the physical being of humans, it does so through the creation of a physical body which is the 3rd third element of the trinity.

My Christian faith is totally congruent with the sanctity of life from conception to death. Science confirms this as well.

[Dimensio]

So you support the taking of innocent human life? Have you ever seen how human the embryos from where stem cells are taken look?



How can you look at that and not see a human being!?

[Dimensio]

Sperm is human and carries the soul.

You're not one of those people who says that masturbation is mass-murder, are you?

[PatrickHenry]

[Your Nightmare]

I could just as well say that my left toenail shows "promise" of turning into a pumpkin.

Come on. Be reasonable.


There is no "promise" until someone shows, with at least animal studies, that such experiments have provable and lasting benefits.

Yes there is. The promise is why they try to prove there are benefits. Sometimes the promise pans out, sometimes it doesn't. That's the scientific process.


You'll say that problem will likely be "solved" with more experimentation.

I didn't say that.


Sacks's interviewer recalled the great hoopla surrounding what was hoped to be the "miracle cure" for Parkinson's, L-Dopa. Sadly, although L-Dopa seemed to hold great "promise" at first, it too caused patients' nervous systems to go out of control.

It didn't "seem" to hold great promise, it did hold great promise. "Promise" is not an outcome, it's an indication of future success. When the research was done it turns out the indications were wrong. That's science. So should we stop all research trying to cure Parkinson's because L-Dopa didn't fulfill it's promise?


Would someone please give me a factual argument, with links, showing why stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood don't show just as much "promise" as stem cells dissected from unborn babies?

So you are admitting embryonic stem cells show promise. That's a start.

I think they both show promise and both should be studied.

[kjenerette]

SUBJECT: Stem Cell Statements should lead to the REAL Question...

"Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question: What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely?
			...would this change the argument? or, at this point will the argument really just begin?" - Van Jenerette from Ten Foundations for America's Future

HUMAN LIFE and RIGHTS		We have to respect and Protect All human life
		To each individual their life is sacred. As a people, to begin to pass judgement or sentence on human life by age, quality, position or potential has the effect of placing a price or a measure on what can only be deemed a gift from our creator. However, there is a paradox of life and rights: Our rights as a people for individual-self-government are based upon the uniqueness of human life with rights granted by 'nature's God,' which in turn are protected by our Constitution. One must follow the other, or else the entire argument of human rights becomes based on man's opinion. Either life with rights is given at the same time that life begins or we have no rights beyond which other men or governments are willing to allow us. If we as a people do not respect the sacred notion of human LIFE how can we expect to have respect for RIGHTS that are dependent upon the concept of human LIFE itself? Any society that diminishes the value of one life from another risks its very existence. thoughts on human stem cells... Nearly every discussion about the stem cell question has centered on the question of the sources of stem cells - adult versus embryonic - and the potential each has with regards to medicine - and of course the argument that some embryonic research had ended in disaster during research. To see the truth, I personnally believe that we should look at the stem cell argument from a totally new perspective. I don't think that any of the questions so far are going to the heart of the matter. Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question: What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely? Would this change the argument? Or, at this point would the argument really just begin? Does it matter if embryonic stem cells are proven to be the medical equivalent of the elusive 'fountain of youth?' Most civilized nations and people throughout history have been willing to sacrifice themselves so that the next generation will survive. Are we on the verge of becoming a people who are willing to sacrifice the next generation so that our current generation can continue to survive? I don't think that it matters if we are capable of creating or using one life so that we can save another life. Either we respect all human life or we respect no human life. We cannot have it both ways at the same time. The reason we as a people must have moral judgment and values which are clearly defined is that any action we take can and could be 'justified' from some practical standpoint. Our morality forces us to draw a line that we won't cross. It is only our sense of morality that allows us to be called human and it is only that which separates us from the jungle. Once the line is moved from the moral high ground the very concept of morality becomes prosituted and becomes a matter of group or power opinions. For example, if the Titantic were to sink today, using today's standards of morality and ethics - who would get to climb into the lifeboats first and who would be expected to go down with the ship? I'm not sure that today's society or medical community would stand back and save the women and children... Any people who move from the position of protecting human life from its beginning to its end becomes just another part of the immoral mob - no better with any opinion - no worse without one. Just a mob. In the end, the line that we draw on the argument of individual human life will become the line that is drawn to define individual human rights. ...post thoughts part I As for the argument about the eventual destruction of frozen embryos - the 'they are going to die anyway' logic - history is full of examples of this 'foot-in-the-door' argument. For background, read about the post WWII 'ethical' use of medical information that resulted from Nazi experiments on institutionalized and concentration camp men, women, and children. For starters, read about the following 'respected 'members of the WWII medical community including one who was a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation: Dr. Julius Hallervorden a distinguished academician, who occupied the Chair of Neuropathology at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut in Berlin-Buch throughout the war years and following the war was a neuropathologist at the Max Planck Institute in Frankfurt. The following is a post-war quote from Hallervorden during an interview: "I heard that they were going to do that and so I went up to them and told them, 'Look here now, boys, if you are going to kill all those people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized'." He is also is documented to have directed the selection of certain children for extermination and subsequent pathological studies as their brains were suitable for a research project. Dr. Sigmund Rascher a researcher in neurophysiology and originally a Captain in the Luftwaffe Medical Service he wrote of his 'Experiments on Escape from High Altitude' where he had vivisection carried out on his subjects even prior to the heart completely stopping. He also experimented on exposure to hypothermia by the immersion of subjects in ice cold water and took part in a top secret report entitled "Freezing Experiments with Human Beings." Rascher was quite proud of his work with humans. "I am the only one in this whole crowd who really does and knows human physiology because I experiment on humans and not on guinea pigs or mice." Dr. Georg Schaltenbrand a pre-eminent German clinical neuroscientist who had served as a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation who used humans for multiple sclerosis experiments designed to find a cure for the disease. "If the physician presumes to take into consideration in his work whether a life has value or not, the consequences are boundless and the physician becomes the most dangerous man in the state." - Christopher Hufeland, 18th century German physician ...post thoughts part II To the great celebrities like Chistopher Reeves - Michael J. Fox - Mary Tyler Moore - or any pro-stem cell politicians if you really support the use of human embryonic stem cell please follow these instructions: #1) Go to a clinic with your 'better half' and create a fertilized child embryo. #2) Use that particular embryo for your own research and your own cure or to help others. OPTION: If you are past the production point ask one of your children or grandchildren to provide(or be) the raw materials for your miracle cure. Regardless of the Presidential decision, we can be certain of one thing: those who support and yell the loudest for embryonic stem cell research funding will NOT be the people who will provide their embryonic offspring to the research laboratory.

Our Republic...If we can keep it...

�

[shhrubbery!]

The promise is why they try to prove there are benefits. Sometimes the promise pans out, sometimes it doesn't. That's the scientific process

Semantics. What you're talking about is not "the scientific process," but your own definition of "promise."

The clamor for federally funded embryonic stem cell research (remember, privately funded research is completely unimpeded) originates from (1) pro-abortionists, who seek to justify the evil that they do by "promising" that good will come of it; and (2) the desperately gullible families of victims who are sucked in by the pro-aborts' siren song.

So you are admitting embryonic stem cells show promise. That's a start.

Bunk. To ask why we hear so little about research using umbilical cord stem cells, as compared with the hype over embryonic stem cells, is not to "admit" anything about embryonic stem cells.

Indeed, many researchers believe there more potential for good in using adult stem cells, since their growth is less rapid and undifferentiated.

The utterly catastrophic and irreversible effects we have already seen in human subjects was caused by embryonic stem cell implants, NOT adult or umbilical cord stem cells.

[Your Nightmare]

Semantics. What you're talking about is not "the scientific process," but your own definition of "promise."

Actually, I went to the dictionary to get my definition of "promise." Where did you get yours.

The clamor for federally funded embryonic stem cell research (remember, privately funded research is completely unimpeded) originates from (1) pro-abortionists, who seek to justify the evil that they do by "promising" that good will come of it; and (2) the desperately gullible families of victims who are sucked in by the pro-aborts' siren song.

That's your opinion. But it seems to be based more on your personal morals than science.

Bunk. To ask why we hear so little about research using umbilical cord stem cells, as compared with the hype over embryonic stem cells, is not to "admit" anything about embryonic stem cells.

I quote: "Would someone please give me a factual argument, with links, showing why stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood don't show just as much 'promise' as stem cells dissected from unborn babies?"

The utterly catastrophic and irreversible effects we have already seen in human subjects was caused by embryonic stem cell implants, NOT adult or umbilical cord stem cells.

Here's a story for you:

In December of 1967, a South African surgeon, Dr. Christiaan Barnard, transplanted the heart of a 23-year-old woman killed in a motor vehicle accident into the chest of a middle-aged man. He lived for eighteen days, until the powerful drugs used to suppress rejection weakened him and he died of pneumonia. The second patient to receive a heart transplant, at the hands of Dr. Adrian Kantrowitz in the United States, lived only six hours. But Dr. Barnard's next heart-transplant patient lived for 18 months and became a symbol of hope for victims of heart disease. All over the world patients were asking and receiving the new miracle operation.

But these surgical triumphs proved short-lived. Patients began dying of either rejection or infection. By 1971, 146 of the first 170 heart transplant recipients were dead. What first looked like another surgical miracle had turned into a disaster. Heart surgeons who had promoted the operation admitted defeat.

Only one American surgeon would continue -- Dr. Norman Shumway. Throughout the 1970's, he built a team of scientists and doctors to tackle the complex biological problem of tissue rejection in a careful, scientific manner. His team devised a way of spotting rejection attacks, by feeding a catheter into the heart and removing a piece of heart muscle for examination. Only when signs of rejection were seen were doses of the dangerous immuno-suppressive drugs increased. And Shumway benefited from a chance discovery made in another part of the world.

In the soil of Norway's Hardaanger fjord, a fungus was found which contained a compound that would revolutionize transplant surgery. The substance, called cyclosporin, appeared to have exquisite immuno-suppressant properties -- controlling organ rejection without knocking out all resistance to infection. In the hands of Dr. Shumway, cyclosporin transformed the picture for heart transplant recipients. Hospitals around the world began to re-open their heart transplant units and their patients began to survive and prosper.

source

[Lysander]

No, we were never a sperm. The sperm, separate from the the egg, existed before we did. When the sperm fertilized the egg, we began to exist.

No, we were never a zygote. The zygote, separate from the mother, existed before we did. when the zygote attaches to the mother we began to exist...