I said, "the low 20s" and hence I have provided the quote of where you did assert just that.
(Now what to do with my newly owned poster....)
House Passes Stem Cell Bill
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
I said, "the low 20s" and hence I have provided the quote of where you did assert just that.
(Now what to do with my newly owned poster....)
I can see where you would think that is what I ment.
Its not, they were two seperate thoughts incorrectly joined.
My mistake.
fair enough.
The way I read Ritter's position, is that his position is exactly like mine and Ted Kennedy's: stem cells that would otherwise be discarded can be used for research.
I don't think any sane person wants to create embryos SOLEY for the purpose of research. There's no need too. There are hundreds of thousands sitting around in storage facilities that are going to be discarded anyway.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Right now, yes, you're right. There's no need to clone embryoes solely for research. There is a possibility, however, that there might be some call to do so should embryonic stem cells go into wide therapeutic use.
Not when studies show that amniotic and umbilical cells can create the same type of lines.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Not the same types. Trust me in this much: I work for a company that banks "adult" (umbilical) stem cells and conducts that research. Cord blood stem cells are technically adult stem cells, as counter-intuitive as that may seem.
Embryonic and adult stem cells are quite different. Embryonic stem cells are totipotent: they can differentiate into any other type of cell. Adult stem cells are only pluripotent: they can differentiate into some other types of cells.
It is not yet known whether there are therapeutic applications that absolutely require embryonic stem cells. Many researchers think there are, others think not. We have to do the research to find out. Therein lies the rub.
IF it turns out that there are therapeutic regimens that require embryonic stem cells, specifically, then the demand for embryonic stem cells will rise exponentially. Right now, there are plenty for research purposes. There won't be if they go into regular therapy, however.
This is, in turn, why cloning is so exciting.
I notice you didn't pay any attention to the Amniotic cells that have been shown to have the same significant characteristics as Embryonic and have no need for destruction of a blastocyst.
They clone the current lines don't they? Those same lines that are okey-dokey to Bush?
They clone the current lines don't they? Those same lines that are okey-dokey to Bush?
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Stem cells are *very* sparse in amniotic fluid. That's why they went unnoticed for so long. And "some of the characteristics" is not the same as true totipotentiality.
Embryonic stem cells, harvested from a viable blastocyst, are unique. As I said, it isn't yet known whether there are therapeutic regimens that absolutely require embryonic stem cells -- as opposed to other stem cells -- or not. Unfortunately, because embryonic stem cells are unique, it's quite likely that such therapeutic applications will be found. What I'm saying is that, IF such applications are found, THEN the demand for embryonic stem cells will exponentiate and other sources will be in demand. And by the inflexible law of supply and demand, a supply will be found.
No, cloning of human embryoes is not yet feasible. It will be soon, but not yet. What can be done is to culture embryonic stem cells -- undifferentiated, totipotent stem cells -- in a non-human matrix. Usually, mouse eggs. The trouble with this techinique is that the human DNA is frequently contaminated with the host DNA. That's what's wrong with the Shrubbie's famous "stem cell lines."
Once again you cannot assume that I have some sort of dog on Bush's side on this one. I do not.
However, I do remember a report that they were able to create embryonic cells from adult skin cells.
Let's see...
Oh yes, here's an article on it... Article...
In light of such actual information that cloning humanity is not necessary to promote such research I'd assume that we could take a different path toward the same studies without such destruction or creation. Pretending that people with moralistic views are just moronic and that there is and can be no other way is disingenuous. It is unnecessary to take create and take the life of a blastocyst to continue such study.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
The blastocyst is not a human being, and I find any suggestion that it is to be immoral in the extreme. I really do find it morally offensive, by the way: I'm not simply being obnoxious this time. That, however, was not my point.
I was not suggesting that you, personally, have a dog in that fight. The fight is already decided should it prove that embryonic cells are therapeutically necessary. In that eventuality -- which is not yet, but is likely -- then at least half of the public support for bans on human cloning and the like will wither away. Should embryonic stem cells prove to be the grail that some people assume they will then you can kiss legal sanctions against their use goodbye.
What I was originally objecting to was the idea that fertility clinics alone will necessarily provide a source for all the embryonic stem cells we could ever need. Too many people on my end of the spectrum make that assumption.
I think that there can be an argument in either direction about a blastocyst being human life. What other life could it possibly be? A human being? Clearly not yet. But that is a religious view, others may see it differently. I find it immoral to make an assumption that their morality is necessarily wrong if there is another option. If it is unnecessary to create the lines in that way it would be wrong to take that action because you refuse to give their morality questions validity.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Of course there can be arguments either way. That's what the whole abortion debate is about, after all, or what keeps it going anyway. Personally, I find it immoral to force one's own moral judgment on others by means of law, on the one hand, and also immoral to equate a lump of cells of species homo sapiens with a complete human being. A human being is more than just the sum of his or her cells. A human being is a social animal, not merely an organism. To imbue the unformed lump of tissue that is an embryo with the same rights and dignity as a fully human person is to demean humanity.
But, as I said, that's beside the point. Or points, since you've raised another.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
This should get vetoed. There is NO reason that the federal government needs to be involved in this line of research. It is not the most promising line, funding can be done privately, new developments in amniotic fluid stem cells make it less likely to provide a cure/aide that other lines cannot provide and developments in embryonic stem cell research to allow use without destroying embryos is near completion. We have enough bills to pay, we do not need to be funding research that will get funded anyway privately.... IF it shows enough promise to actually do so.
Name ONE good reason we need to use tax dollars for this research.
Name ONE good reason we need to use tax dollars for this research.
I find it immoral to force perceived immorality on others when another option is feasible. When there is a choice enforcing by government approval perceived immoral action on others is, in itself, an immoral act.
We can create from adult skin cells embryonic stem cells.
It becomes less an argument of the humanity of the blastocyst, and becomes a "we are right so stuff it" argument when choices that do not conflict with the perceived morality of others come into play.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Because, if we don't, it will ONLY be done in other countries. This kind of research is exceedingly expensive. It is almost quintessentially "Big Science."
Private industry is historically very poor at funding basic research, even moderately inexpensive basic research. Industry is better at applied research. This is not only basic research, it's very slow, capital intensive basic research.
And you're very wrong if you think that embryonic stem cells aren't the most promising avenue of medical research. Believe me, I should know. I wish that adult stem cells were as promising: I might well stand to make a lot of money. We libs can be almost as avaricious as cons when the scent of real money is in the air.
Adult stem cells are currently being used in a number of therapeutic applications, it's true. Leukemia and various other cancers, sicle cell anemia, and neurological damage, among others. It's really not much more than shaking rattles and waving feathers at this point: it's all empirical trial and error. We don't have the theoretical foundation on which to build real predictions. When things work, we don't really understand why. Worse than that, when they don't work, we don't understand why not. We need to do a lot of basic research to find out why and why not. And only government is going to foot that bill.
Sad, perhaps, but true.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
You are taking one (1) tentative study and projecting far too much from it. We may be able to produce embryonic stem cells -- or stem cells that have some of the properties of embryonic stem cells -- from adult skin cells or adult bone marrow. The key word there is "may." We - just - don't - know.
To reiterate my original point, there is still a strong possibility that embryonic stem cells may prove irreplaceable in some therapies. If -- and I do say "if" though I also think it highly likely -- I think you'll find that the moral consensus will swing against the sanctity of cell blobs. And, where morality is concerned, consensus is all there is.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
BTW -- and just for the record -- I do have some moral qualms about cloning human embryoes for therapeutic purposes. Qualms, however, do not make for outright condemnation. My long considered judgment is that it is moral, so long as the cells are harvested very early in the development of the embryo. You and I, Damo, could probably argue for days about that. In fact, I'm certain we could since I've argued with myself on the point for days on end.
I know you need to believe that bush can't be hurt anymore than he's already been hurt. But you're wrong.
Perhaps Bush's approval ratings can't go any lower...though I believe that things can always get worse. But let's say that he's reached his bottom and he personally cannot be hurt if he vetoes this bill. So what?
This is about Presidential politics Damo, and it's about the Republican party. Your party. And, the Republican party has already been slowly becoming known and thought of as a regional party of extremists by that most important of all voters, the independent. The borderline dem. The moderate. The guy who can go both ways, depending on the year and on the candidate.
And this bill will force out every single Repubican Presidential hopeful. Every single Republican Senator who is NOT from a backwards Southern state. The "maverick" McCain who as we have seen, is just like every other Republican in that he will drop to his knees and kiss the flabby pale asses of the religious right. He has to in order to get through the primaries. Or, he thinks that he does.
And as they all drop to their knees, so will the independent, the moderate, watch. And so will the Republican party be doomed further and further as the party of Southern extremism.
If you don't think that the dems are salivating at the idea of Bush vetoing stem cell research, and if you really believe that he has done as much damage to his party as he can do, you're in for a surprise.
I find it immoral to let people die needlessly for the sake of not offending some super sensative people!