supeman was my favorite -

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

RDean notes:

It seems the discussion has gotten away from
the real question: "Should the Fed fund it?" Banning it is not at
current issue, AFAIK.

correct, you are. The crux of the problem is that, unless funded by the Feds,
most of these research projects will languish for want of substantial, and
relatively quick financial reward. Current academic research has been shaped,
in many cases, by the need for private sector funding, leading to the "orphan
disease" issue noted earlier. For us idealistic types who remember the nature
of scientific research before Reagan started the process of cutting back
Federal Funding, it can be sad having to read certain journal articles, and
wondering if the sponsorship colored the science.
Tom

RDean notes:

It seems the discussion has gotten away from
the real question: "Should the Fed fund it?" Banning it is not at
current issue, AFAIK.

correct, you are. The crux of the problem is that, unless funded by the Feds,
most of these research projects will languish for want of substantial, and
relatively quick financial reward. Current academic research has been shaped,
in many cases, by the need for private sector funding, leading to the "orphan
disease" issue noted earlier. For us idealistic types who remember the nature
of scientific research before Reagan started the process of cutting back
Federal Funding, it can be sad having to read certain journal articles, and
wondering if the sponsorship colored the science.
Tom

RDean notes:

It seems the discussion has gotten away from
the real question: "Should the Fed fund it?" Banning it is not at
current issue, AFAIK.

correct, you are. The crux of the problem is that, unless funded by the Feds,
most of these research projects will languish for want of substantial, and
relatively quick financial reward. Current academic research has been shaped,
in many cases, by the need for private sector funding, leading to the "orphan
disease" issue noted earlier. For us idealistic types who remember the nature
of scientific research before Reagan started the process of cutting back
Federal Funding, it can be sad having to read certain journal articles, and
wondering if the sponsorship colored the science.
Tom

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