Posted on 06/10/2004 2:21:32 AM PDT by MadIvan
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:39:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The nation should honor President Reagan by committing itself to finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, Rep. Chris Smith said yesterday, but not by using embryos for stem cell research.
Smith, R-Washington Township, who was first elected with Reagan in 1980, yesterday blasted those who have used Reagan's death on Saturday after a decade-long bout with Alzheimer's to advocate embryonic stem cell research.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Sperm do not.
If you cannot get the difference then get in line for embryonic corneas and ovaries.
Exactly correct. Very well said.
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?
Victimhood and moral relativity.
It all depends on what the definition of alive is....
Not to my mind.
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.
Where's the scientific proof for this?
O.K. Will you let the scientists experiment on growing them?
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?
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.
SUBJECT: Stem Cell Statements should lead to the REAL Question...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Our Republic...If we can keep it... |
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.
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.
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...
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.