Posted on 01/02/2007 9:36:36 PM PST by Coleus
Great news! Physicians in Toronto have discovered a cure for diabetes in mice. Thinking outside the box, Dr. Hans Michael Dosch and Dr. Michael Dalter injected the active ingredient in hot chili peppers, capsaicin, into the pancreatic sensory nerves in mice that had an equivalent of Type 1 diabetes. To their shock, the mice began producing insulin immediately. This amazing discovery was made by doctors at the Hospital for Sick Children who had long concluded that a similarity exists between diabetes and multiple sclerosis, a disease of the central nervous system. The best thing about the discovery is that no embryos were dissected to achieve it. To my knowledge, no known cures have been attributed to embryonic stem cell research.
The doctors' work is now being published in medical journals and, Dr. Salter said, "it will no doubt cause a great deal of consternation." I'll say. All those Dr. Frankenstein wannabes who can't wait to get their hands on government-funded embryonic stem cells will have a tougher time convincing the public that this type of research is the only hope for the future. Embryonic stem cell research was on a roll last summer and was used to influence the November elections. Actor Michael J. Fox worked the campaign trail in two states spouting lies about how the Republicans were criminalizing stem cell research and impeding research for Parkinson's disease, with which he is afflicted.
The fact that there is no ban — I repeat, no ban — on embryonic stem cell research doesn't seem to have made much difference to voters in Missouri and Maryland,
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
I would definitely support a ban on ESC research -- I wish there were one now. I also support the current "ban" on taking vital organs from healthy, living people even if such organs could save someone else.
Your entire argument is about "utility." If it is "useful" (read beneficial; "saves lives"; helps "me"), then so be it. To relegate the science community to make the decisions is idiotic (or don't you remember how US scientists once liked to practice on inmates in prisons which was finally banned?). And that did not only occur in the Deep South!
Science must follow moral guidelines. Just because we "can" do it does not mean we "should" do it. If a physicist has a bright idea about an experiment that will ignite the entire atmosphere, is he justified in doing it because he "can?"
We can solve this of course. If you wish to use the utilitarian approach, let's have registers in which people can sign up their own babies for termination if the parts are needed by adults. That makes sense. The kid is not as "valuable" to your way of thinking while the adult is far more valuable. Then, only those who sign up can profit by sacrificing their own progeny. I find that revolting. It smacks of Moloch and Baal, but that is where society is headed in this post-pagan age.
Dr. Condic was pointing out that science has no idea how to control an incredibly complex process. Rather than throw money after bad science, why not use the adult stem cells that are now available in abundance? Her argument is framed in finances, but it is actually about a Greek term called "hubris."
Ping to post above.
* baffle * I'm amazed that some people are able to dress themselves in the morning.
*************
The fact that you can pose such a question illuminates your misunderstanding of the issue.
1. They are available for research.
2. The government is not punishing facilities that conduct Embryonic research.
3. Are you suggesting that taxpayer money be freely given to "scientists" just because they want it with no input from the taxpayer and no regard for the ethical questions involved?
Question: Have you contributed any of your money to facilities conducting embryonic research?
In its effort to achieve pluripotentiality it may only serve those who desire to create cloned human beings, human/animal hybrids, eugenics, DNA-recombinant human gene somatic and germ line therapy, and biological/chemical warfare screening research. >>>
I agree and to add one more social/religious item: to promote the culture of death in science and in humanity.
And yet, I have no problem at all with destroying that one celled embryo if it will help researchers develop treatments that can help people. I guess that makes me one cold-hearted SOB. I’m no philosopher but I can see a difference between a cell and a person. Regardless of semantics, society can and will make a determination as to what constitutes a human being. If society as a whole determines that rights should begin at conception, well so be it. As far as I’m concerned, that’s just as arbitrary as saying it begins at three, six, or nine months regardless of what it says in “any embryology resource”. Of course real people might have to pay for it with their lives, but what the hell, at least you’ll feel better about yourself.
Of course real people might have to pay for it with their lives, but what the hell, at least you’ll feel better about yourself. >>
and you feel better about yourself killing a human being, God's Image in the embryonic stage.
Absolutely. I believe it is the right thing to do, and I don’t think God has a problem with it. I believe this so much I’m willing to stake my soul on it.
Read what I wrote. Scientists have the expertise and experience to make scientific decisions, such as whether a particular line of experimentation is likely to yield results. You and I don’t. Citizens in a democracy have the responsibility to make moral decisions such as whether it is ethical to fund (or allow) such research.
Science must follow moral guidelines..
I Agree.
We can solve this of course. If you wish to use the utilitarian approach, let's have registers in which people can sign up their own babies for termination if the parts are needed by adults. That makes sense. The kid is not as "valuable" to your way of thinking while the adult is far more valuable. Then, only those who sign up can profit by sacrificing their own progeny. I find that revolting. It smacks of Moloch and Baal, but that is where society is headed in this post-pagan age.
I don’t have a moral problem with harvesting embryonic stem cells. If you wanna call a couple hundred cells a baby, go ahead. You can give it a name and write out a little birth certificate for all I care because yes, in this case the “kid is not as ‘valuable’”. So while you’re congratulating yourself on your moral superiority I’ll be writing checks to help researchers develop treatments that will help people live better lives. And I sleep very well at night.
Your person may not be a person to the next person with more power than you. Someone who may be more of a "cold hearted SOB" than you are.
You make a distinction between an embryonic and a born human. Some make a distinction between a 46, XX and a 46,XY or between either of these and a third human with a duplication in his 21st chromosome. Neither of these distinctions is really limited by birth status and I don't believe that they can be if we follow your rule of "helping people."
After all, if sacrificing wife number one or two helps Mohammed to find a better wife, then that's helping people. If wiping out every Down's syndrome child makes some geneticist happy, then that's helping people.
Supposedly, the lives of lots of real adult women and men are enhanced by careful harvesting in China and the Ukraine.
There's the useful discrimination to "help people" by condemning certain groups to death in order to harvest organs in Chinese prisons. From all accounts, thousands of religious Chinese have been imprisoned and harvested in order to "help people" - thousands of other cash-heavy organ recipients.
And then there are the stories coming out of Eastern Europe about late term abortions and babies who disappear after birth. I'm sure cosmetic rejuvenation helps people who are willing to pay for it.
I agree, Gerfang, if "cold hearted SOB" means someone who will purposefully advocate the intentional sacrifice of what he knows to be human lives, then you are a "cold hearted SOB." However, if you believe that embryonic stem cell research will ever be more than a laboratory experiment, you don't have any data to back you up.
Back in 2003, she commented on the dismissal of the human embryo as "not a human,"
Embryos are genetically unique human organisms, fully possessing the integrated biologic function that defines human life at all stages of development, continuing throughout adulthood until death. The ability to act as an integrated whole is the only function that departs from our bodies in the moment of death, and is therefore the defining characteristic of “human life.”
This month, Dr. Condic notes that embryonic stem cells most often simply die when implanted in post-natal animal models. If they don't die, they do not yield any therapeutic benefit. Instead, they cause benign and embryonal tumors, there's no evidence that this concern will be resolved in the near future and there really is no way to determine whether any stem cell line is harmless or useful or non-tumerigenic until it's implanted.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0701/articles/condic.html
""The failure of embryonic stem cell–derived tissues to survive when transplanted to adult tissues strongly suggests that science has not yet determined how to generate normal adult tissue from embryonic stem cells.""
and The hubris of scientists in the field of embryonic stem cell research who confidently asserted “Give us a few years of unrestricted funding and we will solve these serious scientific problems and deliver miraculous stem cell cures” was evident in 2002, and it is even more evident today. For the past five years, researchers have had completely unrestricted funding to conduct research on animal embryonic stem cells, and yet the serious scientific problems remain. They have had every conceivable tool of modern molecular research available to them for use in animal models, and yet the serious scientific problems remain. Millions of dollars have been consumed, and hundreds of scientific papers published, and yet the problems still remain. The promised miraculous cures have not materialized even for mice, much less for men.". . .“there is no compelling scientific argument for the public support of research on human embryos.”Serious scientific challenges are, by definition, problems that have stubbornly resisted the best attempts of science to resolve them. Over the past thirty years, hundreds of billions of dollars and countless hours of research by dedicated professionals worldwide have been devoted to solving the problems of immune rejection and tumor formation, yet these issues remain serious scientific and medical challenges. The mysteries of embryonic development have been plumbed for more than a hundred years by some of the most brilliant biologists of history, and yet, despite the clear progress we have made, we are nowhere near the point of having a “recipe book” for cooking up cellular repair kits to treat human disease and injury. Immune rejection, tumor formation, and embryonic development have proved themselves to be profoundly serious scientific challenges, and they are likely to remain so for decades into the future.
Agree with your points doc.
Don't lump me in with the "new Hitler Youth" who would throw children into freezing water just to see how long they survive. In fact, they did do that in WW-II. If memory serves me correctly, there was a huge debate over whether those "research results" could be used to "benefit humanity." I believe the answer was "no" in view of how they were obtained.
F
I understood your viewpoint. I was just being polite with a ping. Thanks for standing up for the truth.
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.