supeman was my favorite -

"riverman" wrote in
:

They let others do research, and the public
benefits from the research. I can support someone who does not go into
stem cell research because they feel its religiously immoral, but not
people who block the benefits of others doing that research.


The government doesn't block anyone from doing research on or developing
any stem cell line they want-- they just won't pay for it. Any researcher,
even those who get NIH money, can do this, so long as they can demonstrate
entirely different funding lines for the research.

Again, I think that the current policy is not as consistent as refusing to
pay for line development, but allowing researchers to use all lines
developed through other means. My own values are that I believe the
government should end these restrictions, but I understand why some people
would not want government money going in to this research. I also feel the
current policy is the height of wishy-washyness, and should satisfy noone

Scott

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:09:30 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote:

We currently use cadaver tissue in medical research and have done so
for a long time. It is ethically, morally, and for many religions,
spiritually, plus legally permissable. Aborted fetus tissue is also
cadaver tissue -- why isn't it acceptable?

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

I'm on the fence in some ways mainly because I do not know as much as
I should or could about the issue(s).. I have this sinking feeling
that many are being led to believe that this line of reseach, good or
bad, is leading to rapid profound cures that are just within our grasp
if only we had more money
From all that I have read I just don't think that this is the case and
there seems to be a bit of dishonsesty involved.

bones wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:09:30 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote:


We currently use cadaver tissue in medical research and have done so
for a long time. It is ethically, morally, and for many religions,
spiritually, plus legally permissable. Aborted fetus tissue is also
cadaver tissue -- why isn't it acceptable?


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

I'm on the fence in some ways mainly because I do not know as much as
I should or could about the issue(s).. I have this sinking feeling
that many are being led to believe that this line of reseach, good or
bad, is leading to rapid profound cures that are just within our grasp
if only we had more money
From all that I have read I just don't think that this is the case and
there seems to be a bit of dishonsesty involved.

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.

BTW, stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. The least promising
ones (for research) come from adults, somewhat more promising ones come
from umbilical cords, and the most promising ones (and the ones that are
causing the controversy) come from excess blastocysts which are produced
in fertility treatments, and that would be otherwise discarded.

In fact, if you actually LISTEN to the responsible and knowledgeable
people who call for more stem cell research, they state up front that
treatments are years away. You recently had successful treatment for
cancer, which was wonderful. You looked GREAT at the Western Clave,
Harry. What if, say 30 years ago, we decided not to spend money for
cancer research because treatments were many years away?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

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.

The least promising
ones (for research) come from adults, somewhat more promising ones come
from umbilical cords, and the most promising ones (and the ones that are
causing the controversy) come from excess blastocysts which are produced
in fertility treatments, and that would be otherwise discarded.

I admit to not being up to speed and this thread has presented at
least three explanations of the cell's themselves. I read that a
blastocyst is a fertilized ovum ....so it becomes an issue ones
definitions and here I do not have a clear view.

In fact, if you actually LISTEN to the responsible and knowledgeable
people who call for more stem cell research, they state up front that
treatments are years away. You recently had successful treatment for
cancer, which was wonderful. You looked GREAT at the Western Clave,
Harry. What if, say 30 years ago, we decided not to spend money for
cancer research because treatments were many years away?

speaking as one who has been up close and personal to the terror of
these maladies I am for just about any type of research and stem cell
is included.
I just have some issues about the source and how they are gotten.
This is not to say I'm against it, I just think we should be careful.
But , I'm learning more and more and unlike some here I'm at least
willing it change.


-

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

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.

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.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

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

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

On 12 Oct 2004 18:27:35 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

"riverman" wrote in
:

They let others do research, and the public
benefits from the research. I can support someone who does not go into
stem cell research because they feel its religiously immoral, but not
people who block the benefits of others doing that research.


The government doesn't block anyone from doing research on or developing
any stem cell line they want-- they just won't pay for it. Any researcher,
even those who get NIH money, can do this, so long as they can demonstrate
entirely different funding lines for the research.

And stem-cell research is only one of the things the Fed, States, etc.,
refuse to pay for, regardless of who is President. Even, for example,
travel. Ever seen travel expense guidelines? And IMO, this is like
voluntary abortion (I choose to differentiate between "voluntary" and
"medically-necessary"): until it can be shown that "life" begins at
conception, it isn't a legal issue in the purview of the Fed, and it
ought to stay out of such areas - COMPLETELY out of them - no banning,
no funding, no pro or con opinionating, etc. And the argument that it
REALLY important or _might_ lead to a/the miracle cure for whatever is
not material as someone would say the same about _any_ research in which
they might have a vested interest.

TC,
R

From: Peter Charles

First off, I'm following media reports on stem cell research that
suggests, directly or implied, that opposition to stem cell research
is rooted in the anti-abortion crusade of the religious right.

I
realize there are other sects and religions opposed to abortion but
the political power rests with evangelic wing of the Republican Party
and that is who I am addressing. If I have that wrong, please correct
me.

I don't believe you're wrong.

That said, since the administration refuses to fund new lines of stem cells,
(they do fund research on 70+ existing lines), why don't the major drug
companies like Phizer, etc, step up to the plate and put the r&d money they get
from the inflated prices they charge for drugs, and provide the funding for new
lines and further research?

Also, stem cells are likely not the holy grail of medicine that many people
seem to think they are. For instance, consider Ronald Reagan. After his death,
there was a great hue and cry regarding how stem cell research would lead to a
cure for Alzhiemer's Disease. However, according to the top Alzhiemer doctors,
the nature of the disease makes it a poor candidate for a stem cell cure, and
this was widely broadcast on the major U.S. networks, hardly bastions of the
religious right.


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