Posted on 06/20/2002 8:22:35 PM PDT by Valin
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:36:35 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In a remarkable series of experiments, University of Minnesota researchers have shown for the first time in mice that rare stem cells taken from bone marrow can form the tissue of many different organs.
The research, led by Dr. Catherine Verfaillie of the University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute and published in advance online Thursday by the journal Nature, is a major advance in adult stem-cell research, with implications for future medical treatments.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
And "Greed is GOOD!"
Think about it.
In my home state (TN) there's a tax war (for a state income tax - we have none now) and demonstrations for and against.
You may wonder who would demonstrate for a tax? It's the greedy. The dependents of the State (ie - teachers, Democrats, the greedy) and people with agendas that use other people's money (ie - teachers, Democrats, the greedy).
Nothing, except in this case where a better, moral route is being ignored because it won't be quite the cash cow the poor, immoral route will be.
patent
>>>>>>> The use of fetal stem cells alows a company to mass produce cells and sell them at a huge profit.
At my company, we celebrate profits. It means we did good.Of course if you have to kill a few babies to make some money, hey, they were small anyway. Just make sure your stock doesn’t tank affecting my 401K and I won’t have any problem with a little killing here and there. No offense, but profits aren't the highest good. It is fine to seek profits, and a company has a duty to do so, but that duty must be sought by moral means, and creating/killing fetuses for profit is not moral.
patent +AMDG
I think the others missed what the article was about.
Adult stem cells were shown to have the same functionality as fetal cells.
Your reaction is right.
The same company may be paying three times the amount of profits in taxes. That's the tragedy.
It's loser's envy that they attack. Politicians on both sides of the isle create laws that empower bureaucrats to rip at market-driven and profit-driven businesses. The right denounces the market driven while the left denounces the profit driven, IMO
It is fine to seek profits, and a company has a duty to do so, but that duty must be sought by moral means, and creating/killing fetuses for profit is not moral.
From post #14 above, how do you reconcile?
"If a parent could save their child's life but the only medical procedure that would save the child's life was in part derived from embryonic stem cells, should the parents save their child's life? What if the child was yours?"
From post #14 above, how do you reconcile?It is fine to seek profits, and a company has a duty to do so, but that duty must be sought by moral means, and creating/killing fetuses for profit is not moral.
"If a parent could save their child's life but the only medical procedure that would save the child's life was in part derived from embryonic stem cells, should the parents save their child's life? What if the child was yours?"The question of whether to use the fruits of murder is far different than the question of whether to murder in the first place, which is what I was addressing above. Is it moral to murder for increased profit? No.
As to whether to utilize the fruits of that murder after the fact, that question is frequently debated, at least in the circles I run in, regarding certain vaccines. IMHO it’s a factual situation. In other words, you need to consider the facts of each situation, the potential harm to the child (high in your scenario) the moral evil that you are benefiting from, whether your actions will tend to encourage future moral evils, etc. In the case of the vaccines, we have rejected some of them.
In order to answer your question I would need to know more. I would probably not use the procedure if they actually had to kill more embroyos for my child’s procedure. I might if the embryos were killed some time ago, and the treatment was derived from that but no longer depended from more killing. It just depends, but I’ve tried to give you an outline.
Now that I’ve done that, a question back to you:
"If a parent could save their child's life but the only medical procedure that would save the child's life was in part derived from sacrificing a child from some group society no longer cared for, say a Christian, a Jew, or a black person in Hillary Clinton’s ideal world, should the parents save their child's life? What if the child was yours?"Thanks,
patent +AMDG
It is envy to attack a process you regard as murder for profit? Are you being serious? Do you think someone could reject corporate murder for any reason other than envy? Is that possible?The same company may be paying three times the amount of profits in taxes. That's the tragedy.It's loser's envy that they attack.
patent +AMDG
"The UF investigators have found that glioblastoma tumor cells derived from brain tumors of patients can maintain their stem cell properties and may be induced to differentiate (mature) at least in the test tube," May said. "This suggests that under appropriate therapeutic conditions, any brain tumor cells lurking after surgery and radiation therapy could be induced to turn into normal cells if the right conditions were identified and could be administered."
. . .
"If a parent could save their child's life but the only medical procedure that would save the child's life was in part derived from sacrificing a child from some group society no longer cared for, say a Christian, a Jew, or a black person in Hillary Clinton’s ideal world, should the parents save their child's life? What if the child was yours?"
No, if somebody is forcing the child to give up their life.
Yes, if the child wasn't forced or coerced to give up his or her life.
I choose not to engage in discussion with a person that has such a warped version of what constitutes murder.LOL. First, you chose to ask the questions of me, so you chose the conversation and are now running away. Your choice.
Second, you are willing to take the life of a child to save yours, if it is voluntary? ("Yes, if the child wasn't forced or coerced to give up his or her life.") That is barbaric, yet you call me warped. Children aren't generally mature enough to volunteer their lives any more than a child is mature enough to consent to sex.
patent
I stand correct again. With guardian consent.
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.