supeman was my favorite -
 

Frank Reid wrote:
Your daughter has EDS? I once had a student in a summer program who
had type
4...I was the resident medic. snipped

I've always wondered what happened to her....knowing her and working
with her really enlightened my life. I don't think she is still with
us, which is sad.

Yes, type 4, the same as my daughter.

Wow, Frank. The things you learn on Usenet.

Watching a situation such as this as the "protector parent" is the
worst. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. I hope a
cure is in her future.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

supeman was my favorite -
 

Your daughter has EDS? I once had a student in a summer program who
had type
4...I was the resident medic. snipped

I've always wondered what happened to her....knowing her and working
with her really enlightened my life. I don't think she is still with
us, which is sad.

Yes, type 4, the same as my daughter.


Wow, Frank. The things you learn on Usenet.

Watching a situation such as this as the "protector parent" is the
worst. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. I hope a
cure is in her future.

Anyone wishing to know more, please go to http://www.ehlers-danlos.org/
They're trying to find a cure.

--
Frank Reid
Reverse Email to reply

supeman was my favorite -
 

would you have an issue if this read:

If the fetus tissue is cadvar tissue, then the cloned fetus, by
defintion, is an cloned human being.



On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:24:19 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote:


If the fetus tissue is cadvar tissue, then the aborted fetus, by
defintion, is an aborted human being.

I don't have a problem with that definition.

supeman was my favorite -
 

Anyone wishing to know more, please go to http://www.ehlers-danlos.org/
They're trying to find a cure.

Also, http://www.ednf.org/ Dr. Byers (in the grants section), the one
at UW, diagnosed my daughter over 20 years ago. At the time, he was the
only person in the world doing research on EDS. At the time, there were
less than 50 recognized cases in the US.

--
Frank Reid
Reverse Email to reply

supeman was my favorite -
 

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:46:32 GMT, bones wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:17:46 -0600, rw
wrote:

So just what do you think is the motivation behind the people who are
misleading the public? Is it a plot to cause more abortions? Sheesh.

Ask Senator Edwards....

BTW, stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses.
Well there seems to be a difference of opinon here, Peter says this is
a source.

I thought that the source didn't matter, as long the stem cells were
"harvested" quickly after the embryo formation - a few days? If that is
the case, it would seem that "normal" abortions wouldn't be a very good
source. But, I guess, it _could_ encourage "embryo factory" abortions,
but that doesn't seem to be a big potential problem, IMO.

That aside, I thought the main objection to embryonic stem cells was not
related to abortions, but the fact that it HAD to be a planned thing -
create the embryo knowing you're going to destroy it - that destroyed
the embryo, and in doing so, a (potential) life. Hence, at least for
me, there is no hypocrisy in allowing research on current stocks of
already-not-viable embryos. And if anyone cares about Bush's address on
it back in 2001, here is the text:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010809-2.html

TC,
R

supeman was my favorite -
 

supeman was my favorite -
 

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:14:11 -0600, rw
wrote:

wrote:

That aside, I thought the main objection to embryonic stem cells was not
related to abortions, but the fact that it HAD to be a planned thing -
create the embryo knowing you're going to destroy it - that destroyed
the embryo, and in doing so, a (potential) life.

The "planning" is done by couples being treated for infertility. Women
are treated with hormones to induce the production of eggs, which are
then fertilized in vitro and grown into blastocysts, some of which are
implanted in either the "mother's" uterus or the uterus of a surrogate.
The excess blastocysts are, as of now, discarded or kept frozen
indefinitely.

So it would seem that even allowing that these would be the only ones
used, the fact remains that these were created for the sole purpose of a
couple having a baby, and therefore, a (potential) life, and if they are
still viable, but unwanted by the couple, they are, at the end of the
debate, still viable. It would seem to me that using these are even
more arguable as they were created for the sole purpose of becoming a
baby/life/human/whatever one chooses to term it.

While I understand (and for speaking only for me, generally agree with)
the argument allowing for the use of the excess, I also can see the
argument_S_ against. While I respect the subjective
"religious/moral/ethics" argument against it, I think the argument
against based on it being a slippery slope is not only rational and
objective, but more importantly, a real danger. In the end, knowing
what is known today, I think it is an area with no clear answers, and as
such, there is no "right" or "wrong," only positions and to belittle
another's honest position is foolish.

Hence, at least for
me, there is no hypocrisy in allowing research on current stocks of
already-not-viable embryos.

The currently available cell lines are corrupted with mouse cells, among
other things.

I thought that was only the ones that the Fed is currently providing
funds for research in/on. It seems the discussion has gotten away from
the real question: "Should the Fed fund it?" Banning it is not at
current issue, AFAIK.

TC,
R

supeman was my favorite -
 

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:14:11 -0600, rw
wrote:

wrote:

That aside, I thought the main objection to embryonic stem cells was not
related to abortions, but the fact that it HAD to be a planned thing -
create the embryo knowing you're going to destroy it - that destroyed
the embryo, and in doing so, a (potential) life.

The "planning" is done by couples being treated for infertility. Women
are treated with hormones to induce the production of eggs, which are
then fertilized in vitro and grown into blastocysts, some of which are
implanted in either the "mother's" uterus or the uterus of a surrogate.
The excess blastocysts are, as of now, discarded or kept frozen
indefinitely.

So it would seem that even allowing that these would be the only ones
used, the fact remains that these were created for the sole purpose of a
couple having a baby, and therefore, a (potential) life, and if they are
still viable, but unwanted by the couple, they are, at the end of the
debate, still viable. It would seem to me that using these are even
more arguable as they were created for the sole purpose of becoming a
baby/life/human/whatever one chooses to term it.

While I understand (and for speaking only for me, generally agree with)
the argument allowing for the use of the excess, I also can see the
argument_S_ against. While I respect the subjective
"religious/moral/ethics" argument against it, I think the argument
against based on it being a slippery slope is not only rational and
objective, but more importantly, a real danger. In the end, knowing
what is known today, I think it is an area with no clear answers, and as
such, there is no "right" or "wrong," only positions and to belittle
another's honest position is foolish.

Hence, at least for
me, there is no hypocrisy in allowing research on current stocks of
already-not-viable embryos.

The currently available cell lines are corrupted with mouse cells, among
other things.

I thought that was only the ones that the Fed is currently providing
funds for research in/on. It seems the discussion has gotten away from
the real question: "Should the Fed fund it?" Banning it is not at
current issue, AFAIK.

TC,
R

supeman was my favorite -
 

From: Scott Seidman

Alzheimers might not be the best target, but it is a reasonable target.

Apparently you know more than the doctors. According to the one I saw
interviewed by Tom Brokaw on NBC, Alzhiemers would not benefit in any way from
stem cell therapy. The other conditions you mention, afaik, are viable
candidates for stem cell therapy.

FWIW, the whole stem cell issue is one of the areas where I disagree with Bush.
In the absence of federal funding, however, I still don't see why the drug
companies won't kick in some of their "r&d" money to fund the program.

There is a misconception that the current administration has banned stem cell
research. This is not true...they have simply refused to fund new research.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

supeman was my favorite -
 

From: Scott Seidman

Alzheimers might not be the best target, but it is a reasonable target.

Apparently you know more than the doctors. According to the one I saw
interviewed by Tom Brokaw on NBC, Alzhiemers would not benefit in any way from
stem cell therapy. The other conditions you mention, afaik, are viable
candidates for stem cell therapy.

FWIW, the whole stem cell issue is one of the areas where I disagree with Bush.
In the absence of federal funding, however, I still don't see why the drug
companies won't kick in some of their "r&d" money to fund the program.

There is a misconception that the current administration has banned stem cell
research. This is not true...they have simply refused to fund new research.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller