View Full Version : Stem Cell research...
Annie
10-30-2006, 08:27 PM
Are you for it, are you against it? Will this issue make a difference in how you might vote?
spare_change
10-30-2006, 08:42 PM
Are you for it, are you against it? Will this issue make a difference in how you might vote?
Wow! Great question!
I am for it, and against it --- and it will make a difference on how I will vote.
I believe that stem cell research has significant potential. So, I am for it. I have seen, first hand, the impacts of motor neuron disease, and it isn't a pretty sight. We need to do whatever we can to try to find a cure, or at least, find mitigators.
I am, however, opposed to embryonic stem cell research because of its supply generation method (the in-vitro fertilization of eggs for the sole purpose of destroying them in order to harvest the stem cells). If a candidate is in favor of embyonic stem cell research, he will NOT get my vote.
Itshardon-theroad
10-30-2006, 09:39 PM
Are you for it, are you against it? Will this issue make a difference in how you might vote?
Clarify what you mean by stem cell research. The way this whole issue has been portrayed is that one side believes "stem cell research" as a field is evil and that no research should be done at all using them. The other side is portrayed as baby killers who want to intentionally farm fetuses to do research that has so far shown zero results. Each have a basis in fact, but the portrayals of each side by the other are mostly untrue. First off, there are different kinds of stem cell research. The most controversial is embryonic stem cell research which thus far has not produced nearly the results as adult stem cell reseach. There are a limited number of stem cell lines available for this kind of research. This is the other place one side is misportraying. The issue on the table is not whether to make embryonic stem cell research illegal, it is whether or not the US Government should provide tax payer funding for this kind of research. There is absolutely no prohibition on private companies or research institutions from performing research using embryonic stem cells.
On the other side, the embryonic stem cells are not, as I understand it, being farmed from the aborted fetuses of 14 year old girls who the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said did not need permission from their parents to get (and may very well have performed the abortion themselves).
This is a non-issue issue, being portrayed to be much greater than it is. Is the research important? Hugely. Is there a possibility that some day embryonic stem cell research may have as much promise as that shown other types of stem cells? Yes. However, the US Government's funding or not of research in this particular field is simply a political hot potato intended to bring people over from the middle to one side or another by parading out quivering faces like Michael J. Fox or showing pictures of abortion clinics and Josef Mengela. Billions upon billions of dollars are spent privately for this kind of research every year and they do it more efficiently and effectively than the government.
For myself, this will not decide who I vote for. Real issues? There are 1.4 million abortions performed in this country every year. Why? Breakdown of the family? Children learning about sex from television? How about the war in Iraq, and how does it and the US Government's presence in other countries increase or decrease global security? How do we support an aging population with a still broken social security system? How do we stop the flood of illegal immigrants while still allowing in those who are willing and capable of filling vital jobs in our economy? Those are real issues for me and will impact my voting.
I can never support the position of having thousands of people suffer because some people are opposed to researching fertilised ova.
Some of the same people do support abortion to protect the life of the mother...I support fertilized ova research to protect people from cruel suffering.To me a live adult human has more rights than a developing one....just as in the case of the aborted fetus to save a mother.I am aware also that the decisions are difficult and fraught with moral and religious issues.
Annie
10-31-2006, 11:31 AM
I was watching Michael J. Fox on tv the other day. He said something that really made me think. He said that (and I am paraphrasing) “if you are against embryonic stem cell research because of the destruction of embryos, then you have to be against in vitro fertilization“.
During the in vitro fertilization procedure they create more embryos than will be needed, only to discard the excess embryos. Where should the line be drawn?
I was watching Michael J. Fox on tv the other day. He said something that really made me think. He said that (and I am paraphrasing) “if you are against embryonic stem cell research because of the destruction of embryos, then you have to be against in vitro fertilization“.
During the in vitro fertilization procedure they create more embryos than will be needed, only to discard the excess embryos. Where should the line be drawn?
I watched him too Annie....I am for using the stem cells from cord blood but not for the intentional fertilization of eggs just to destroy them.
Sunfiresix
10-31-2006, 06:55 PM
I have to agree too--Cures need to be sought but at what cost.
Annie
10-31-2006, 07:18 PM
I watched him too Annie....I am for using the stem cells from cord blood but not for the intentional fertilization of eggs just to destroy them.
Why can't they use the embryos that are now being destroyed after an i-v fertilization? I would never want them to be intentionally created for destruction, but I am a huge fan of re-cycling.
Why can't they use the embryos that are now being destroyed after an i-v fertilization? I would never want them to be intentionally created for destruction, but I am a huge fan of re-cycling.
Ya know....I don't know. I don't even know if those embryos are classified as living. I need to read more...its such a touchy subject. It's a shame to waste them when it could help someone. :sc
Annie
10-31-2006, 07:28 PM
Ya know....I don't know. I don't even know if those embryos are classified as living. I need to read more...its such a touchy subject. It's a shame to waste them when it could help someone. :sc
I want to read more about it too. One way or another, it's going to impact millions of lives.
Penny
10-31-2006, 07:47 PM
So you would just as soon see them thrown away by the thousands like they are now. No one is in favor of creating them for research, Just useing the ones that are going to the trash anyway
Wow! Great question!
I am for it, and against it --- and it will make a difference on how I will vote.
I believe that stem cell research has significant potential. So, I am for it. I have seen, first hand, the impacts of motor neuron disease, and it isn't a pretty sight. We need to do whatever we can to try to find a cure, or at least, find mitigators.
I am, however, opposed to embryonic stem cell research because of its supply generation method (the in-vitro fertilization of eggs for the sole purpose of destroying them in order to harvest the stem cells). If a candidate is in favor of embyonic stem cell research, he will NOT get my vote.
Cotties
10-31-2006, 09:09 PM
I more or less agree with this....
religious issues...make me disappointed
I can never support the position of having thousands of people suffer because some people are opposed to researching fertilised ova.
Some of the same people do support abortion to protect the life of the mother...I support fertilized ova research to protect people from cruel suffering.To me a live adult human has more rights than a developing one....just as in the case of the aborted fetus to save a mother.I am aware also that the decisions are difficult and fraught with moral and religious issues.
surfnchat
11-04-2006, 11:45 AM
If you ever had to watch a small child slowly die from a neurological disease which one day could be cured or prevented by stem cell research, I bet many people would change their mind on the issue. Witnessing that first hand has impacted how I think about it. When it's just theory, people are against it. When the hope for a cure touches you, you are for it. Just ask Micheal J. Fox.
spare_change
11-05-2006, 12:40 AM
So you would just as soon see them thrown away by the thousands like they are now. No one is in favor of creating them for research, Just useing the ones that are going to the trash anyway
Actually, that's not true -- Missouri, for example, has a constitutional amendment on the ballot to legalize cloning of embryos -- there are several in vitro companies that are creating embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting the stem cells.
Just think of them as human tomatoes.
spare_change
11-05-2006, 12:41 AM
Why can't they use the embryos that are now being destroyed after an i-v fertilization? I would never want them to be intentionally created for destruction, but I am a huge fan of re-cycling.
Pretty fine line to walk, but I understand your intent.
Some people for religious reasons want to protect fertilized ova rather than use the excess to alleviate human suffering.
It is interesting that many of the same people can write off the death and maiming of innocent people in war as collateral damage.
Seeing paralyzed accident victims, altzheimers sufferers, Parkinson's sufferers,
versus the rights of a microscopic fertilised ova is a no brainer for me.
Even sperm have a life of their own...should men stop discarding them too?
Cotties
11-06-2006, 02:29 AM
now you're losing me:sc Some people for religious reasons want to protect fertilized ova rather than use the excess to alleviate human suffering.
It is interesting that many of the same people can write off the death and maiming of innocent people in war as collateral damage.
Seeing paralyzed accident victims, altzheimers sufferers, Parkinson's sufferers,
versus the rights of a microscopic fertilised ova is a no brainer for me.
Even sperm have a life of their own...should men stop discarding them too?
Cotties
11-06-2006, 02:40 AM
I read this today..
It came from an anti bush / anti religious writer.
A case in point: embryonic-stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every human ailment (for the simple reason that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body), including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, severe burns, etc. In July, President George W. Bush used his first veto to deny federal funding to this research. He did this on the basis of his religious faith. Like millions of other Americans, President Bush believes that "human life starts at the moment of conception." Specifically, he believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Here, as ever, religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion.
.................................................. .................................................. .....
The writer has turned it into a sad little tale about a young female burn victim but the story does make sense to me..
spare_change
11-06-2006, 03:35 AM
It depends on what you believe. If you believe that the embryo has a soul, it is no more or no less valuable than the little girl. To intentionally kill either would be equally wrong. For those who believe that the embryo has a soul, that makes perfect sense. For those who believe that the embryo is just a mass of cells, then that makes no damn sense whatsoever. It isn't a case of degree -- it's a pretty black and white issue. Either it's a baby or it isn't. Not a lot of room for moral equivocation there.
However, it is interesting to note that three companies have already applied for a permit in Missouri to be allowed to pay women to get pregnant, so that they can harvest the embryo up to the third month of pregnancy. There is concern that this use of women as baby factories would have a significant effect on the poor.
In addition, it must be noted that the issue isn't embyonic stem cell research. First, that goes on today using discarded embryos and cells harvested from the afterbirth. Rather, the real issue is this concept of developing embryos (which may or may not be living beings) for the sole purpose of killing them for "body parts". The government position today is that they will not fund embryonic stem cell research because of 1) the potential for abuse, 2) the lack of adequate controls, and 3) the potential for abuse of the poor.
I read this today..
It came from an anti bush / anti religious writer.
A case in point: embryonic-stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every human ailment (for the simple reason that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body), including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, severe burns, etc. In July, President George W. Bush used his first veto to deny federal funding to this research. He did this on the basis of his religious faith. Like millions of other Americans, President Bush believes that "human life starts at the moment of conception." Specifically, he believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Here, as ever, religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion.
.................................................. .................................................. .....
The writer has turned it into a sad little tale about a young female burn victim but the story does make sense to me..
Yes it is truly a shame that one man can veto the will of the elected representatives of the American people.
spare_change
11-06-2006, 12:58 PM
Yes it is truly a shame that one man can veto the will of the elected representatives of the American people.
Actually, it's not a shame at all -- it's how the system works, and has worked for 230 years.
The American people are split on the issue. Approximately 58% are in favor of it - hardly a ringing endorsement.
Source:
http://www.jyi.org/articleimages/645/originals/img2.jpg
True the 2005 number is not a ringing endorsement....heck it is only 8 points higher than G Dubbya's re-election number....But hey 50.75% is good enough for his only veto....all perfectly legal.:)...wonder if he will ever exercise veto number 2?... Or even get chance to exercise one?... Hope not :)
:)
It depends on what you believe. If you believe that the embryo has a soul, it is no more or no less valuable than the little girl. To intentionally kill either would be equally wrong. For those who believe that the embryo has a soul, that makes perfect sense. For those who believe that the embryo is just a mass of cells, then that makes no damn sense whatsoever. It isn't a case of degree -- it's a pretty black and white issue. Either it's a baby or it isn't. Not a lot of room for moral equivocation there.
However, it is interesting to note that three companies have already applied for a permit in Missouri to be allowed to pay women to get pregnant, so that they can harvest the embryo up to the third month of pregnancy. There is concern that this use of women as baby factories would have a significant effect on the poor.
In addition, it must be noted that the issue isn't embyonic stem cell research. First, that goes on today using discarded embryos and cells harvested from the afterbirth. Rather, the real issue is this concept of developing embryos (which may or may not be living beings) for the sole purpose of killing them for "body parts". The government position today is that they will not fund embryonic stem cell research because of 1) the potential for abuse, 2) the lack of adequate controls, and 3) the potential for abuse of the poor.
Good point Spare...! :55
Penny
11-06-2006, 03:18 PM
I am not for making new cells but why cant we use the ones that are already made and being discarded
SirFox
11-06-2006, 03:48 PM
I have no opinion on this subject as I know nothing about it. I am waiting to hear the arguments about this stem cell research.
Wow. Very good question, Annie. What a can of worms this topic has opened.
I have seen too many friends and family suffer the effects of motor neuron disease to not support stem cell research, but I also firmly believe that life begins at conception.
The idea of farming fetuses for research is barbaric and could only lead to more fantastic abuse of human life.
The idea of using stem cells from cord blood seems far more humane.
Yes, this subject would definitely determine my vote.
dartgirl
11-06-2006, 04:16 PM
It seems like alot of the contraversy comes back to religion. I personally do not feel that a embryo is a living thing until it's heart starts beating, but I also do not feel that you should get pregnant just to farm cells. There has to be a middle ground. With all of the eggs left over from IVF and all the fetuses that are aborted they should be able to use those to do what they need to do.
Penny
11-06-2006, 04:31 PM
Exactly, Whatever happened to seperation of church and state.
It seems like alot of the contraversy comes back to religion.
Sandy
11-06-2006, 04:48 PM
i'm for it and against it also, i also agree with penny and annie, why can't they use the cells they already have ? why destroy them
spare_change
11-06-2006, 04:51 PM
Exactly, Whatever happened to seperation of church and state.
Separation of church and state is a political concept advanced by the secular liberal movement over the past 45 years in an attempt to decrease the influence of religion on government matters. Why? Because secular liberal positions are consistently at odds with those who use religion in their decision making process.
"The separation of church and state is a political doctrine which states that the institutions of the state or national government should be kept separate from those of religious institutions.
In the United States, separation of church and state is sometimes believed to be in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents interpreting that clause, some being extremely controversial. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well, although it is arguable that this restriction on state and local government existed in Article VI of the unamended Constitution and that the Fourteenth Amendment was a clarification on the limitation of government power. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions.
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."" (Wikipedia)
Note, if you will, his phrase "...legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". None of this says anything about not using religion as a basis for governmental decisions.
Whether or not people like to admit it, our country, our laws, and our constitution were modeled on Christian principles, and probably will continue to be.
Penny
11-06-2006, 04:54 PM
I remember learning in school the Pilgrams came here because they didnt want someone elses religous beliefs shoved down their throats
spare_change
11-06-2006, 04:58 PM
i'm for it and against it also, i also agree with penny and annie, why can't they use the cells they already have ? why destroy them
In fact, they DO use them now. One of the problems becomes the practice of cloning additional embryos from the discarded ones -- because, they are "already dead".
If we agree that creating embryo farms in the wombs of the poor isn't appropriate, how about the creation of life (thru cloning these embryos) for the sole purpose of destroying them for medical testing? If they are cloned from a "discarded" embryo that is still living, should the clones be afforded the same protection? Is an embryo that is "discarded" (means not used, doesn't mean it has been terminated) is considered "dead", does that also apply to all the embryos that are cloned from it are considered to be "dead", as well?
It makes my head hurt to even think about the variations.
Sandy
11-06-2006, 04:59 PM
but if they don't use embroys, what could they use ? and as far as i'm concerned cloned is alive, buti don't know how else they can get what they need either.
spare_change
11-06-2006, 05:03 PM
but if they don't use embroys, what could they use ? and as far as i'm concerned cloned is alive, buti don't know how else they can get what they need either.
They also use adult stem cell research, harvested from bodies after death. They have had great success with this. There are some scientists who maintain that the same gains can be made using adult stem cells as using embryo stem cells. Other scientists, however, believe that the purity of the embryo stem cell creates a much more advantageous opportunity.
You state that as far as you are concerned, cloned is alive -- so, I assume that you believe the "alive" embryos also deserve the same protection, even if they were discarded (not used) during an in vitro fertilization?
See how easy it is? Sure is a convoluted issue. LOL
Embryonic stem cells are in fact derived from blasto cysts...embryos that are about a week old... and not from "womb farming" a religious not scientific term.
At this stage the blasto cyst has approximately 100 cells.
Human blasto cysts used in research so far have been donated by IN VITRO fertilization donors.
At the 100 cell stage the embryonic stem cells are referred to as "unspecialised" ..meaning that they have not yet differentiated into specific body or organ functions. On the other hand adult stem cells have in fact differentiated into specific functions. This means they are much less amenable to scientific research, except within their specialised functions.
This is why research people prefer to use the undifferentiated blasto cysts.
I hope this helps clear some of the misunderstandings on this topic.
spare_change
11-06-2006, 06:25 PM
So, the question becomes:
Since the cysto-blast, from which the stem cells are harvested, is created as a result of conception - whether that be naturally (in utero) or artifically (in vitro)- do we accord it living being status, and protect it accordingly?
Or - do we claim the cysto-blast is pre-life, and consider it to be like any other body material?
To clarify a previous comment - the state of Missouri has on its ballot tomorrow a proposed state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to allow cloning of an embryo, up to three months after conception, for purposes of medical exploration (codewords for killing it and extracting stem cells). In addition, three companies have applied for permits in Missouri to legalize the use of in utero embryos, up to three months after conception, for medical purposes. (I'll leave that one for you to figure out how that will work out).
So, the question becomes:
Since the cysto-blast, from which the stem cells are harvested, is created as a result of conception - whether that be naturally (in utero) or artifically (in vitro)- do we accord it living being status, and protect it accordingly?
Or - do we claim the cysto-blast is pre-life, and consider it to be like any other body material?
To clarify a previous comment - the state of Missouri has on its ballot tomorrow a proposed state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to allow cloning of an embryo, up to three months after conception, for purposes of medical exploration (codewords for killing it and extracting stem cells). In addition, three companies have applied for permits in Missouri to legalize the use of in utero embryos, up to three months after conception, for medical purposes. (I'll leave that one for you to figure out how that will work out).
Spare my friend...It is an individual decision in my opinion...too many moral, scientific and religious issues here I am afraid.
Personally I do not agree with the cloning thing period.
hotstuff
11-06-2006, 08:18 PM
I am if favor of stem cell research. It's a no brainer, provided that it is used correctly.
spare_change
11-06-2006, 09:18 PM
Spare my friend...It is an individual decision in my opinion...too many moral, scientific and religious issues here I am afraid.
Personally I do not agree with the cloning thing period.
I agree.
The problem, however, is that the research isn't a personal issue - it is a social issue. That, unfortunately, makes it a legal issue.
If you don't believe in it, does that mean you should refuse the benefits of it? If you don't believe in it, do you deny the results to your dying parent? Once the genie is out of the bottle ...... Moral dilemmas abound.
No one has a problem with the adult stem cell research, which, to date, has been significantly more productive than embryonic stem cell research. Given that, I worry that the ultimate purpose behind the ESC movement is to minimize production issues (since it doesn't require the specialization that using adult ES would).
This is an important issue but it seems amazing to me how it has taken become a lead issue in the election.
So, if these embryos are discarded because they are considered "dead" wouldn't that mean they were alive at some point?
This gets back to the argument about when life is created, which scientifically speaking, begins at the moment of conception.
In fact, they DO use them now. One of the problems becomes the practice of cloning additional embryos from the discarded ones -- because, they are "already dead".
If we agree that creating embryo farms in the wombs of the poor isn't appropriate, how about the creation of life (thru cloning these embryos) for the sole purpose of destroying them for medical testing? If they are cloned from a "discarded" embryo that is still living, should the clones be afforded the same protection? Is an embryo that is "discarded" (means not used, doesn't mean it has been terminated) is considered "dead", does that also apply to all the embryos that are cloned from it are considered to be "dead", as well?
It makes my head hurt to even think about the variations.
So, let's rationalize using human embryos by referring to them as "unspecialized" rather than calling them what they really are, which is living beings, albeit not fully developed.
Thanks for clearing that up, Rhumba. It makes justifying murder so much easier once you gloss it over with scientific terminology.
Embryonic stem cells are in fact derived from blasto cysts...embryos that are about a week old... and not from "womb farming" a religious not scientific term.
At this stage the blasto cyst has approximately 100 cells.
Human blasto cysts used in research so far have been donated by IN VITRO fertilization donors.
At the 100 cell stage the embryonic stem cells are referred to as "unspecialised" ..meaning that they have not yet differentiated into specific body or organ functions. On the other hand adult stem cells have in fact differentiated into specific functions. This means they are much less amenable to scientific research, except within their specialised functions.
This is why research people prefer to use the undifferentiated blasto cysts.
I hope this helps clear some of the misunderstandings on this topic.
Cotties
11-07-2006, 12:57 AM
thats a very good point. Its a damn important and complicated issue that the common working man / women shouldn't be deciding its fate. Its far from a black and white issue...This is an important issue but it seems amazing to me how it has taken become a lead issue in the election.
Cotties
11-07-2006, 01:10 AM
wow Jazzy...the term murder.....thats a big call...if rhumba found some scientific term that is used...how bout a thank you instead of murderer...
any idea of how many kids die a year because our governments have a monopoly on drug companies. A blob in a jar has no rights if it was up to me. I wouldn't even give a baby any rights until its out of its host.
and everyone is correct..I ain't no expert, I respect life but am fully aware how much of it is thrown away around the world because its easy to close our eyes and accept life isn't fair. Some souls live and some die. Its a never ending cycle.
Why can westerners accept that every soul is precious except the ones that get blown up in Cambodia from left over land mines...
using nasty terms is easy...sorry if I have pushed you
So, let's rationalize using human embryos by referring to them as "unspecialized" rather than calling them what they really are, which is living beings, albeit not fully developed.
Thanks for clearing that up, Rhumba. It makes justifying murder so much easier once you gloss it over with scientific terminology.
I think every life is precious, Cotties, including embryos, children with MS and innocent Cambodians who step on leftover landmines.
Perhaps you'd think differently if you saw an ultrasound of your unborn child inutero. I think you'd believe it has every right to live, but I could be wrong.
We can sugar-coat this by using terms such as "unspecified", "terminated" as such, but that wouldn't change the truth, which is that we're talking about murder.
And before you assume anything else about me, no, I'm not one of those fundamentalists who stand on street corners waving horrific pictures of aborted fetuses at passing motorists. I'm a mom, who's seen her unborn child die before she had a chance to take a single breath. Don't tell me she wasn't a person.
Yes, people die. So do fetuses, innocent victims and terminally ill. That's the hard truth. I don't believe any of us are qualified to play God though and determine who dies and who has earned the right to live.
wow Jazzy...the term murder.....thats a big call...if rhumba found some scientific term that is used...how bout a thank you instead of murderer...
any idea of how many kids die a year because our governments have a monopoly on drug companies. A blob in a jar has no rights if it was up to me. I wouldn't even give a baby any rights until its out of its host.
and everyone is correct..I ain't no expert, I respect life but am fully aware how much of it is thrown away around the world because its easy to close our eyes and accept life isn't fair. Some souls live and some die. Its a never ending cycle.
Why can westerners accept that every soul is precious except the ones that get blown up in Cambodia from left over land mines...
using nasty terms is easy...sorry if I have pushed you
Cotties
11-07-2006, 01:35 AM
damn I like you Jazzy.....well saidI think every life is precious, Cotties, including embryos, children with MS and innocent Cambodians who step on leftover landmines.
Perhaps you'd think differently if you saw an ultrasound of your unborn child inutero. I think you'd believe it has every right to live, but I could be wrong.
We can sugar-coat this by using terms such as "unspecified", "terminated" as such, but that wouldn't change the truth, which is that we're talking about murder.
And before you assume anything else about me, no, I'm not one of those fundamentalists who stand on street corners waving horrific pictures of aborted fetuses at passing motorists. I'm a mom, who's seen her unborn child die before she had a chance to take a single breath. Don't tell me she wasn't a person.
Yes, people die. So do fetuses, innocent victims and terminally ill. That's the hard truth. I don't believe any of us are qualified to play God though and determine who dies and who has earned the right to live.
I like you too, honey. Thanks. damn I like you Jazzy.....well said
Annie
11-07-2006, 02:46 AM
What bothers me is that we can turn our backs every time someone disposes of unwanted embryos that were created because a couple wants to have a baby! We have how many unwanted children waiting for a loving home, but becuase so many people want "their own" these orphaned children sit.
We can justify "murder" for those that wnat their "own kid", but not for Christopher Reeve and not for Michael J Fox. They don't want more children... thay just want to be whole again... well except for Christopher.
spare_change
11-07-2006, 03:25 AM
thats a very good point. Its a damn important and complicated issue that the common working man / women shouldn't be deciding its fate. Its far from a black and white issue...
Interesting --do I understand you to say that this is too important, too complicated for the common man to understand, and we should leave it to some "elite" class to decide??
Pretty much runs counter to anything my country stands for, and yours, as well. I'm curious how you justify that, and just whom you had in mind to make these decisions for me?
Cotties
11-07-2006, 03:39 AM
medical and scientific experts.
Men that have dedicated themselves to bettering human kind. I think leaders should listen to experts on the subject.
Yes I know they need to have better laws written up and it should be done quick. But to hear this is a leading point for choosing a politian leads me to think that the entire subject might be high jacked and people may miss the point. No ones trying to kill anyone. But they have found an amazing god given way to help humanity.
I remember how much money was put into this reseach only to have it halted. Can't we go back to dolly the sheep and focus our negative energy on that instead. Interesting --do I understand you to say that this is too important, too complicated for the common man to understand, and we should leave it to some "elite" class to decide??
Pretty much runs counter to anything my country stands for, and yours, as well. I'm curious how you justify that, and just whom you had in mind to make these decisions for me?
Someone needs to regulate how many embryos can be fertilized and frozen. This day and age no one in their right mind is going to have more than 3 or 4 kids. Why fertilize more than 5 or 6 eggs to start with?
Annie
11-07-2006, 06:33 AM
Someone needs to regulate how many embryos can be fertilized and frozen. This day and age no one in their right mind is going to have more than 3 or 4 kids. Why fertilize more than 5 or 6 eggs to start with?
Because that what medical and scientific experts say they need for the procedure.
Murder of embryos...wow! That is a stretch!!
If we look for compassion here....and I certainly do, despite what a minority may think about me... lets look at this.
How about a little boy with a broken back... and a decision had to be made on trying to cure him, or to protect unspecified cells in a test tube? Cells that are surplus and will be left to perish in a lab in a test tube? If he was your son would you smile at him as he suffered and say "Darling you will get a nice wheelchair...but we have to save these fertilized eggs in case someone wants them before they perish."?
I don't think so!!
I did not attempt to cover murder with scientific terms...sorry. I was trying to be helpful in explaining a scientific matter..my mistake.
I was explaining the terms used in the fertilization process, terms that are used whether the eggs are implanted in a womb or not.
Unspecified means also...no brain cells have been produced either.
Despite my attemps to clarify the terms I see that some still confuse cloning with stem cell research.
I am backing out of this now... I do not care to be insulted for trying to be helpful.
Someone needs to regulate how many embryos can be fertilized and frozen. This day and age no one in their right mind is going to have more than 3 or 4 kids. Why fertilize more than 5 or 6 eggs to start with?
Unfortunately hon they fertilize more than they need because some of the implants do not "take" and are shed from the womb.
As someone who underwent years of fertility treatment, I wanted to offer my feelings about this procedure.
We always wanted at least three or four children, and had problems concieving after my son was born. I underwent several rounds of IVF before we decided to stop and let nature take its course. We were both haunted by the truth of the procedure and couldn't bear the responsibility of possibly destroying several fertilized eggs.
After going through the agony and rollercoaster rise of attempting to adopt, I can see why couples opt for fertility treatments. Although both are extremely agonizing, we found applying for adoption much more trying.
You are right, Annie. Disposing of unwanted embryos is murder. Some of us don't want to look at it as such, but it's the truth.
As I said, I'm all for stem cell research, but not on human embryos.
I'm still undecided about your suggestion of using unwanted embryos from fertilization treatments, but I can see your point. I just worry about what it would lead to next. Humans weren't meant to be used as guinea pigs, and I feat that's where we'd be heading.
What bothers me is that we can turn our backs every time someone disposes of unwanted embryos that were created because a couple wants to have a baby! We have how many unwanted children waiting for a loving home, but becuase so many people want "their own" these orphaned children sit.
We can justify "murder" for those that wnat their "own kid", but not for Christopher Reeve and not for Michael J Fox. They don't want more children... thay just want to be whole again... well except for Christopher.
I think what Cotties meant is that if any of us are to take a stand on this, we need to research it thoroughly so we can make an informed decision. It's a controversial topic that brings out strong emotional reactions from people. In order to remain objective, we need to get as much information as possible on the topic, on what stand each candidate is taking, and vote accordingly. Interesting --do I understand you to say that this is too important, too complicated for the common man to understand, and we should leave it to some "elite" class to decide??
Pretty much runs counter to anything my country stands for, and yours, as well. I'm curious how you justify that, and just whom you had in mind to make these decisions for me?
And why is that a stretch, Rhumba? Isn't that what we're talking about here? Or do embryos not qualify as a form of life in your books?
As I said before ALL human life is precious and deserves a chance to not only live but to thrive. Does it really boil down to choosing between a little boy with a broken back and a test tube of "unspecified" cells? Are there no other alternatives? Several people have mentioned stem cells from cord blood, adult stem cells, etc. These are viable alternatives that apparently have been successful.
You seem to have taken offense because I called you on your use of the term "unspecified". I thought we were having a discussion; an exchange of ideas, opinions, findings and so on. I thought we were all adults here who could debate these controversial topics without storming off in a pout because someone called you on something you said.
Feel free to engage in the conversation, but if you do, you have to be prepared to take some flack.
Murder of embryos...wow! That is a stretch!!
If we look for compassion here....and I certainly do, despite what a minority may think about me... lets look at this.
How about a little boy with a broken back... and a decision had to be made on trying to cure him, or to protect unspecified cells in a test tube? Cells that are surplus and will be left to perish in a lab in a test tube? If he was your son would you smile at him as he suffered and say "Darling you will get a nice wheelchair...but we have to save these fertilized eggs in case someone wants them before they perish."?
I don't think so!!
I did not attempt to cover murder with scientific terms...sorry. I was trying to be helpful in explaining a scientific matter..my mistake.
I was explaining the terms used in the fertilization process, terms that are used whether the eggs are implanted in a womb or not.
Unspecified means also...no brain cells have been produced either.
Despite my attemps to clarify the terms I see that some still confuse cloning with stem cell research.
I am backing out of this now... I do not care to be insulted for trying to be helpful.
Interesting --do I understand you to say that this is too important, too complicated for the common man to understand, and we should leave it to some "elite" class to decide??
Pretty much runs counter to anything my country stands for, and yours, as well. I'm curious how you justify that, and just whom you had in mind to make these decisions for me?
Whatever the "elite class" is, let's hope it isn't the "religious right"...which takes us back to the healthy concept of making sure that separation of church and state is preserved. Whenever religious views are IMPOSED on others, democracy is weakened.
Despite various views on the origins of this topic, and various interpretations, it is a highly complicated issue, and challenges to the concept require Supreme Court decisions.
And why is that a stretch, Rhumba? Isn't that what we're talking about here? Or do embryos not qualify as a form of life in your books?
As I said before ALL human life is precious and deserves a chance to not only live but to thrive. Does it really boil down to choosing between a little boy with a broken back and a test tube of "unspecified" cells? Are there no other alternatives? Several people have mentioned stem cells from cord blood, adult stem cells, etc. These are viable alternatives that apparently have been successful.
You seem to have taken offense because I called you on your use of the term "unspecified". I thought we were having a discussion; an exchange of ideas, opinions, findings and so on. I thought we were all adults here who could debate these controversial topics without storming off in a pout because someone called you on something you said.
Feel free to engage in the conversation, but if you do, you have to be prepared to take some flack.
I have nothing further to say on the matter. I leave it for others to debate.
Am I to understand that you're backing out of the discussion because you've said all you need to say? Or that you don't want to hear anyone else's perspective? Or are you just upset that someone challenged your opinion?
That's what we do, Rhumba. We discuss, we debate, we listen to others, and we challenge each other's convictions.
I have nothing further to say on the matter. I leave it for others to debate.
spare_change
11-07-2006, 02:53 PM
Whatever the "elite class" is, let's hope it isn't the "religious right"...which takes us back to the healthy concept of making sure that separation of church and state is preserved. Whenever religious views are IMPOSED on others, democracy is weakened.
Despite various views on the origins of this topic, and various interpretations, it is a highly complicated issue, and challenges to the concept require Supreme Court decisions.
Understood. But, in fact, isn't the "loony left" also a religious position? To call their opinion that life does not begin until birth a scientific decision, while calling the opposing side position of life begins at conception a religious decision doesn't seem to be appropriate.
So, really, the question is: lacking definitive scientific proof, aren't both sides espousing a religious position? Since we do not have a definitive scientific proof, on which do we want to err??
SirFox
11-07-2006, 03:08 PM
Deleted.
Understood. But, in fact, isn't the "loony left" also a religious position? To call their opinion that life does not begin until birth a scientific decision, while calling the opposing side position of life begins at conception a religious decision doesn't seem to be appropriate.
So, really, the question is: lacking definitive scientific proof, aren't both sides espousing a religious position? Since we do not have a definitive scientific proof, on which do we want to err??
Yeah that's why I said it requires the Supreme Court to sort out the wackos...and yes I agree... no matter whether they are from the left or right... on separation of church and state.
Regarding the concept of when life begins I do not pretend to have the answer...but then I don't believe others do either...it is debateable.
Am I to understand that you're backing out of the discussion because you've said all you need to say? Or that you don't want to hear anyone else's perspective? Or are you just upset that someone challenged your opinion?
That's what we do, Rhumba. We discuss, we debate, we listen to others, and we challenge each other's convictions.
Jazzy...I love other peoples opinions...especially yours....and respect them...but on this subject...I have given my views and have nothing more to add really. I know others may disagree with me... and that is great by me. I have no axe to grind by pursuing it.
I will read all the views, but it seems to me that the subject is boiling down to personal religious and moral viewpoints. I respect that but feel that nothing will be resolved.
I am not pouting Jazzy believe me, and I understand where you and others are coming from in this discussion. I don't even pretend to have the answer, nor do I think anyone else does.
I think from what you have read of mine previously on site, that you have enough respect for me to know that I make a serious attempt to never deliberately insult others ... as I know you do.
Also I have been criticised for my disagreements with someone on site by those in charge...so now I make a concious effort to restrict my comments on all topics.
So I hope you still like me hon....er well a tad :)
Annie
11-07-2006, 03:48 PM
As someone who underwent years of fertility treatment, I wanted to offer my feelings about this procedure.
We always wanted at least three or four children, and had problems concieving after my son was born. I underwent several rounds of IVF before we decided to stop and let nature take its course. We were both haunted by the truth of the procedure and couldn't bear the responsibility of possibly destroying several fertilized eggs.
After going through the agony and rollercoaster rise of attempting to adopt, I can see why couples opt for fertility treatments. Although both are extremely agonizing, we found applying for adoption much more trying.
You are right, Annie. Disposing of unwanted embryos is murder. Some of us don't want to look at it as such, but it's the truth.
As I said, I'm all for stem cell research, but not on human embryos.
I'm still undecided about your suggestion of using unwanted embryos from fertilization treatments, but I can see your point. I just worry about what it would lead to next. Humans weren't meant to be used as guinea pigs, and I feat that's where we'd be heading.
Jazzy, you don't have to justify anything you've done and I understand, really I do! As someone else who had her own share of fertility problems I really do feel compassion for those who have not had an easy time having getting and then staying pregnant!
I just feel that somewhere along the line there is a double standard about the treatment of embryos. All life is precious, there's no disagreement with that. However when I used the word "murder" I was quoting someone else who used that term. I really am not sure if it is or not. I'm just not sure... is eating an egg for breakfast is killing a chicken?
Penny
11-07-2006, 06:04 PM
\You cant see one cell on an ultrasound.
Sandy
11-07-2006, 07:02 PM
mark and i talked about this, this morning, i'm really torn, because on one hand it can really help, but on the other it bothers me that they want to do away with them also, it just doesn't sound right, but i guess we'll find out soon enough won't we
Okay, I'm glad you clarified that. Rhumba. I didn't know why you had declined to comment any further, and I agree that most of us have stated our case and any further discussion would be redundant, at least for those of us who have participated.
Thanks for clearing that up, hun.
Jazzy...I love other peoples opinions...especially yours....and respect them...but on this subject...I have given my views and have nothing more to add really. I know others may disagree with me... and that is great by me. I have no axe to grind by pursuing it.
I will read all the views, but it seems to me that the subject is boiling down to personal religious and moral viewpoints. I respect that but feel that nothing will be resolved.
I am not pouting Jazzy believe me, and I understand where you and others are coming from in this discussion. I don't even pretend to have the answer, nor do I think anyone else does.
I think from what you have read of mine previously on site, that you have enough respect for me to know that I make a serious attempt to never deliberately insult others ... as I know you do.
Also I have been criticised for my disagreements with someone on site by those in charge...so now I make a concious effort to restrict my comments on all topics.
So I hope you still like me hon....er well a tad :)
I knew you'd understand, sister. I didn't mean to single out your post, but you had touched on something that I wanted to elaborate on, so that's why I quoted you.
Yes, there is a double standard about the treatment of embryos, and I guess I was thinking out loud when I was talking about what to do with them after IVF procedures. I'm still not sure where I stand on that; I just know my own personal comfort level when it comes to my own body. I don't have an answer either.
Is eating an egg killing a chicken? Another good question! I would have to say yes. The question then is, is eating eggs morally correct? Should animals be given the same rights as humans? Or were they put on this earth to serve our purposes by carrying us, working for us, entertaining us and feeding us?
Vegans would feel quite different about this topic than the carnivores. I'm curious to see how this can of worms unfolds!
Jazzy, you don't have to justify anything you've done and I understand, really I do! As someone else who had her own share of fertility problems I really do feel compassion for those who have not had an easy time having getting and then staying pregnant!
I just feel that somewhere along the line there is a double standard about the treatment of embryos. All life is precious, there's no disagreement with that. However when I used the word "murder" I was quoting someone else who used that term. I really am not sure if it is or not. I'm just not sure... is eating an egg for breakfast is killing a chicken?
Annie
11-07-2006, 09:08 PM
As someone who has had several miscarriages, I have consoled myself with the thought that not all life formed is meant for living. A chicken can lay far more eggs than ever come to fruition, and in the wild it is expected that not all that are born will make it to adulthood. My pregnancy's ending is not at all uncommon. I didn't lose children or babies... I lost a possibility for each one. I lost an embryo (several, actually). For me it just seems easier to think in those terms. Maybe I'm kidding myself or in denial? Who's to say...
I knew you'd understand, sister. I didn't mean to single out your post, but you had touched on something that I wanted to elaborate on, so that's why I quoted you.
Yes, there is a double standard about the treatment of embryos, and I guess I was thinking out loud when I was talking about what to do with them after IVF procedures. I'm still not sure where I stand on that; I just know my own personal comfort level when it comes to my own body. I don't have an answer either.
Is eating an egg killing a chicken? Another good question! I would have to say yes. The question then is, is eating eggs morally correct? Should animals be given the same rights as humans? Or were they put on this earth to serve our purposes by carrying us, working for us, entertaining us and feeding us?
Vegans would feel quite different about this topic than the carnivores. I'm curious to see how this can of worms unfolds!
I am, as some of you may know, a vegetarian, and have been for 30 plus years. Mainly because I don't believe in killing to satisfy my own need for food. I have never imposed these views on anyone including my own family.
I do eat milk products and eggs because I need them for my particular dietary requirements. I also wear leather. I find that most things in life are a compromise...these exceptions to my personal beliefs are mine.
:)
I wish we could all just discuss this kind of stuff without getting on each others nerves. Its hard for me to read or listen to things I don't agree with...but hell...who says my thoughts on the subject are the right ones....none of us will ever know if we are right or wrong...we just have to go with our own individual consciences.
After 3 years of trying to get pregnant we were told we would never have children...my female parts weren't in the right position for conception and delivery.
Adoption was too expensive and my husband did after all have 2 children from his first marriage. I told myself I would be happy, I would concentrate on my marriage, my step children and my work. Yeahhhhh, we could travel, afford nice cars and not have to buy a big house. It was all good.
Then.....1 year later along comes our precious baby girl. I remember waking up one morning and thinking Oh My God....I think I'm pregnant. I was just 6 weeks along when I found out....from that first morning my baby was a living and breathing thing to me. She totallly took over my thoughts and my body. It was glorious....
I personally can't stand the thought of tossing those cells down the drain, I wish they would only fertilize what they will use....that's not how it happens. I do look at cells in a dish differently than I do a baby growing inside its mother. I would have no problem using the cells in the dish for medical research or harvesting stem cells...I can't stand the thoughts of abortion during any part of the 9 months...in cases of incest or rape I could however with no problem,give my daughter or myself the morning after pill and make it all go away.
Everyone take a step back and breath......:knuddel:
XMONKEYLOVINSX
11-08-2006, 07:04 AM
Wow! Great question!
I am for it, and against it --- and it will make a difference on how I will vote.
I believe that stem cell research has significant potential. So, I am for it. I have seen, first hand, the impacts of motor neuron disease, and it isn't a pretty sight. We need to do whatever we can to try to find a cure, or at least, find mitigators.
I am, however, opposed to embryonic stem cell research because of its supply generation method (the in-vitro fertilization of eggs for the sole purpose of destroying them in order to harvest the stem cells). If a candidate is in favor of embyonic stem cell research, he will NOT get my vote.
i totally agree with spare on this one i think there is still alot to learn and alot can be accomplished with the research but i do not feel like he said that embryonic stem cell research is right i think that is morally wrong your are creating life to kill it at least that is what i see
SirFox
11-08-2006, 07:31 AM
I think we have to be very careful with this subject here...
It is like anything that is modifiable using our tissues.
Norfolkdave
11-08-2006, 08:23 AM
I wont go into detail, but Im against it.
dartgirl
11-09-2006, 04:36 PM
As someone who has had several miscarriages, I have consoled myself with the thought that not all life formed is meant for living. A chicken can lay far more eggs than ever come to fruition, and in the wild it is expected that not all that are born will make it to adulthood. My pregnancy's ending is not at all uncommon. I didn't lose children or babies... I lost a possibility for each one. I lost an embryo (several, actually). For me it just seems easier to think in those terms. Maybe I'm kidding myself or in denial? Who's to say...
Having children for some people is so hard and others it is so easy. Our experiences effect how we look at life. I had 1 miscarriage, carried one child to term who died a week later, then I had one still birth at 7 1/2 months. When I was carrying my oldest son I did not really think of him in terms as a viable child until he was born, I heard him cry and I knew he was OK. The same with my 2nd son. I too find it incredibly hard to think of a fetus as a living human being until it is born, it is really just a possibility.
Yes, we all compartmentalize our experiences in whatever way will help us survive such unfathomable grief. Every person's loss is unique, but painful nonetheless. We do what we need to do so that we can still get up and face each day. I don't judge anyone for how they cope with the loss of a child. You do what you have to do to bear it.
flamengo130
11-09-2006, 09:50 PM
Point is that it can/will benefit us in the long run. I see massive dollar signs in this, and whether or not we as American's agree or disagree, it will be profitable for somebody..somewhere. Guess I'm not taking any sides, just pointing out that if there is a buck to be made (foreign or domestic) it will happen
It is genetic engineering, and I am so against any form of human intervention in the DNA structure. There are no humans responsible enough, IMHO, to safeguard this process, all they want are stronger running backs, taller basketball players, and tougher soldiers. This started with Stalin, continued through the Nazi regime, and is being perfected under the guise of Big Pharmeceuticals, when does it stop? Go through a drive-through and order a plump, blue-eyed, blonde haired little boy, come back in 9 months and pick him up, along with an order of chili-fries.
OICurready4me
12-12-2006, 07:13 PM
This issue is currently and will always be a hot one. Since we are all human beings that make decisions every day that impact not only your future but the future of your family, friends, co-workers, etc. no one answer is right, IMHO. People that are very fertile and have kids will have worthwhile arguments for or against the use of stem cells. Those that can't conceive, like myself and my wife, have our views also. Who is correct? Who really knows. I have read most of the posts here and there are so many good arguments, for, against, in the middle, that it really is a difficult issue to take sides on. Every time I think I am for a particular side, I hear an argument that may contradict my own but has incredible merit. I just hope that the compromises that need to be made to allow for this research to take place will happen. Too many health issues can be solved through this research.
I can agree with all that you say, except for curing health problems, that will cut into their profit , and they dont want that. Nature will take care of itself, genetic engineered crops have to be modified every year to take care of a problem they did not foresee. What if we are populated with genetic engineered humans. Will they in turn cause mother nature to modify her viruses in response, making a super strain they are immune to. but wipes out the rest?
SirFox
12-13-2006, 11:07 AM
I can agree with all that you say, except for curing health problems, that will cut into their profit , and they dont want that. Nature will take care of itself, genetic engineered crops have to be modified every year to take care of a problem they did not foresee. What if we are populated with genetic engineered humans. Will they in turn cause mother nature to modify her viruses in response, making a super strain they are immune to. but wipes out the rest?
I can just imagine stopping at the local McDrive for a MacBaby.
Sir..will that be consumed on the premises or will that be a take out?
This issue is currently and will always be a hot one. Since we are all human beings that make decisions every day that impact not only your future but the future of your family, friends, co-workers, etc. no one answer is right, IMHO. People that are very fertile and have kids will have worthwhile arguments for or against the use of stem cells. Those that can't conceive, like myself and my wife, have our views also. Who is correct? Who really knows. I have read most of the posts here and there are so many good arguments, for, against, in the middle, that it really is a difficult issue to take sides on. Every time I think I am for a particular side, I hear an argument that may contradict my own but has incredible merit. I just hope that the compromises that need to be made to allow for this research to take place will happen. Too many health issues can be solved through this research.
As a high risk Labor & Delivery nurse....I couldn't agree more.....I bring life into the world on a daily basis.....we as medical professionals struggle hard to keep any baby over 20wks alive....but yet we also terminate pregnancies for the health of mom and baby. For me...I couldn't do what I do if I didn't see the entire picture.....and not judge the people needing the help. If it were me or a loved one....I would want to do anything to save him or her. If it were my child that was sick, and stem cells of another child would help........you better believe I would do anything I could to help make her well...including having another child to save my one. I see women coming in having their 6th kid.. worried more about their fake nails and cell phone than another mouth to feed....I see women coming in delivering dead infants or infants that they know only have minutes or hours to live...women who have been doing fertility for 10 yrs and they know they just lost their last chance......it doesn't get any easier seeing either one. There will never be one right side....
Barkiss
12-13-2006, 05:45 PM
As a high risk Labor & Delivery nurse....I couldn't agree more.....I bring life into the world on a daily basis.....we as medical professionals struggle hard to keep any baby over 20wks alive....but yet we also terminate pregnancies for the health of mom and baby. For me...I couldn't do what I do if I didn't see the entire picture.....and not judge the people needing the help. If it were me or a loved one....I would want to do anything to save him or her. If it were my child that was sick, and stem cells of another child would help........you better believe I would do anything I could to help make her well...including having another child to save my one. I see women coming in having their 6th kid.. worried more about their fake nails and cell phone than another mouth to feed....I see women coming in delivering dead infants or infants that they know only have minutes or hours to live...women who have been doing fertility for 10 yrs and they know they just lost their last chance......it doesn't get any easier seeing either one. There will never be one right side....
Off the subject...but my hat is off to you and people like you that work in such an emotionally draining job. Whenever I think about how stressful my work is, I will try and stop and think what you must go through on a daily basis....Kudos!
spare_change
12-13-2006, 06:30 PM
This issue is currently and will always be a hot one. Since we are all human beings that make decisions every day that impact not only your future but the future of your family, friends, co-workers, etc. no one answer is right, IMHO. People that are very fertile and have kids will have worthwhile arguments for or against the use of stem cells. Those that can't conceive, like myself and my wife, have our views also. Who is correct? Who really knows. I have read most of the posts here and there are so many good arguments, for, against, in the middle, that it really is a difficult issue to take sides on. Every time I think I am for a particular side, I hear an argument that may contradict my own but has incredible merit. I just hope that the compromises that need to be made to allow for this research to take place will happen. Too many health issues can be solved through this research.
I don't think many disagree with the value and efficacy of stem cell research. The problem is when we discuss the method of producing the stem cells. Adult stem cell research is universally accepted, and has shown great value.Embryonic stem cell research, on the other hand, has met with much opposition, and has been questionable in value (though, to be fair, there are indications it could be extremely valuable). The specter of baby farms should (and does) raise great concern.
Off the subject...but my hat is off to you and people like you that work in such an emotionally draining job. Whenever I think about how stressful my work is, I will try and stop and think what you must go through on a daily basis....Kudos!
Thank you....especially during the times when you are with the family choosing to abort under these circumstances, I feel it is a priveledge to be their nurse and help them through that unimaginable time. To hold an infant as it dies....so that it doesn't have to die alone....I feel blessed that fate chose me to be the one whose arms he/she dies in....for me...work doesn't get more rewarding than that.....it's nice to be appreciated.
spare_change
01-03-2007, 01:03 PM
Scientists for the first time have turned ordinary skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells -- without having to use human eggs or make new human embryos in the process, as has always been required in the past, a Harvard research team announced yesterday.
OICurready4me
01-03-2007, 08:00 PM
Scientists for the first time have turned ordinary skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells -- without having to use human eggs or make new human embryos in the process, as has always been required in the past, a Harvard research team announced yesterday.
That would be fantastic! Once again, we have the technology, if used properly we can conquer all.
OICurready4me
01-03-2007, 08:11 PM
As a high risk Labor & Delivery nurse....I couldn't agree more.....I bring life into the world on a daily basis.....we as medical professionals struggle hard to keep any baby over 20wks alive....but yet we also terminate pregnancies for the health of mom and baby. For me...I couldn't do what I do if I didn't see the entire picture.....and not judge the people needing the help. If it were me or a loved one....I would want to do anything to save him or her. If it were my child that was sick, and stem cells of another child would help........you better believe I would do anything I could to help make her well...including having another child to save my one. I see women coming in having their 6th kid.. worried more about their fake nails and cell phone than another mouth to feed....I see women coming in delivering dead infants or infants that they know only have minutes or hours to live...women who have been doing fertility for 10 yrs and they know they just lost their last chance......it doesn't get any easier seeing either one. There will never be one right side....
I applaud people like you who do that for a living. It takes a special person to do what you do. I know I could never do it. To deal with those types of issues must be so difficult emotionally that there has to be days that you probably go home and cry. I don't imagine all days are like that otherwise I think the job would beat you up so bad you would be a mess. Seeing what you see does give you such a different perspective on an issue like this than most of us have that it is interesting and sad to see how people look at children they are about to have. I am thankful for what you do.
Shiane
01-05-2007, 11:19 AM
This debate will go on for eons. I am for stem cell research....... to an extent because there are so many people in need of this treatment. The whole embryo farming idea is just beyond me, I just can't imagine anyone thinking this is right.
I was reading some medical journal about actually successfully growing body parts using a tissue sample. I was like omg they are going to grow new penises, but they are! And, since the donor donates their own tissue, there is no rejection. I thought wow this will be so great! Supposedly by 2010 we will be able to grow spare body parts. Can you imagine the possibilities in the years to come? A new liver, a new pancreas, a new lung, a new leg, omg the possibilities just send me into a state of AWE!
I just think there are other options out there for obtaining stem cells, although some may not yet be realized.
So I wonder do we really need to create new life in order to harvest stem cells, isn't there a possibility that we can grow stem cells specifically without involving a new embryo for each harvest? Well I don't think this has been mastered yet, but if we can grow body parts, why can't we grow cells, after all thats all a body part is.... a whole bunch of cells... tissue cells, muscle cells, epithelial cells and so on. I'm sure it's more difficult than this but there has to be an alternative.
I know there are countless abortions in this world, and while this will always be a controversial issue. I'm not saying it's right, but why not use the stem cells from donated aborted fetuses instead of creating new embryos. My opinion of abortion doesn't matter in this issue because it is already legal. There are so many that I just can't help but think that they have access to plenty of stem cells.
Spare mentioned using cadaver stem cells. I can see where the problem lies with this one. The problem is that actually very few people donate organs or tissue. So many times family members will not allow organ donation, and even if you have checked the yes box on your drivers license, your family can say no and frequently do. When someone dies at my hospital (any hospital in fact), I (or someone) have to call the Organ Donation Foundation and give them oooooooooodles of information about the deceased to see whether they would possibly be a candidate. If they are then it is yet another aspect of my job to approach the family about organ donation. (LOL and you guys just think I wear high heels and screw all the doctors) Out of 11 years I had one family that immediately said yes, sad huh.
We get all upset about whether the glob in the petri dish is a life. Well there is no mistake that when someone dies, they were alive. So why not donate?
Yes, I am an organ donor and I have told my family that these are my wishes. I urge you to do the same.
Shiane
01-05-2007, 11:22 AM
Scientists for the first time have turned ordinary skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells -- without having to use human eggs or make new human embryos in the process, as has always been required in the past, a Harvard research team announced yesterday.
Well it's about damn time, after reading the article about growing body parts i knew there had to be an alternative! Thanks for the update hun! :kk
Unfortunately cadavre cells are differentiated and only fulfill limited research needs...that is why the research specifies the need for undifferentiated cells that have not divided into assigned functions because they are only days old.
The Democrats will fund more research programs in stem cell research apparently.
Shiane
01-05-2007, 11:37 AM
Unfortunately cadavre cells are differentiated and only fulfill limited research needs...that is why the research specifies the need for undifferentiated cells that have not divided into assigned functions because they are only days old.
The Democrats will fund more research programs in stem cell research apparently.
I understand that completely, but I think we need to explore alternatives. There are too many dibilitating diseases out there that need this treatment.
Annie
01-05-2007, 12:52 PM
I know there are countless abortions in this world, and while this will always be a controversial issue. I'm not saying it's right, but why not use the stem cells from donated aborted fetuses instead of creating new embryos. My opinion of abortion doesn't matter in this issue because it is already legal. There are so many that I just can't help but think that they have access to plenty of stem cells.
Spare mentioned using cadaver stem cells. I can see where the problem lies with this one. The problem is that actually very few people donate organs or tissue. So many times family members will not allow organ donation, and even if you have checked the yes box on your drivers license, your family can say no and frequently do. When someone dies at my hospital (any hospital in fact), I (or someone) have to call the Organ Donation Foundation and give them oooooooooodles of information about the deceased to see whether they would possibly be a candidate. If they are then it is yet another aspect of my job to approach the family about organ donation. (LOL and you guys just think I wear high heels and screw all the doctors) Out of 11 years I had one family that immediately said yes, sad huh.
We get all upset about whether the glob in the petri dish is a life. Well there is no mistake that when someone dies, they were alive. So why not donate?
Yes, I am an organ donor and I have told my family that these are my wishes. I urge you to do the same.
I wish they would use those donated stem cells from aborted fetuses as well. To me it's something useful from a tragedy... just my opinion.
We have a fairly new law in Illinois that says next of kin no longer has a say in whether or not organs are donated. If you sign up with the Secretary of States office and sign the back of your driver licence that's all that's needed. The hospital, by law doesn't even have to ask them. (Thank you Jesse White)
christinalee
01-09-2007, 05:00 PM
See heres the problem... we shouldn't even have to debate about aborted fetuses. The same quality stem sells can be found in embicial (sp?) cord blood!!! I don't know where all of you stand but I've had 4 kids and I would have donated all the cords if I knew it would lead to a cure for something. I think the bigger problem is the people who would use the stem sells for an unethical use.
spare_change
01-09-2007, 05:13 PM
Perhaps as a direct result of the Bush administration's refusal to allow government funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research, scientists pushed on and announced this past week that they have now figured out how to harvest embryonic stem cells from the amniotic fluid, without impacting either the mother or the fetus. These cells, identical to the stem cells harvested from fetuses hold great promise. If successful, this approach will eliminate the need for harvesting stem cells from fetuses, since extraction of amniotic fluid is a relatively simple medical procedure being done today.
------------------------------------------------
it won't be long that everyt ime a pregnant woman goes in for a checkup, they'll drain a quart!!
christinalee
01-09-2007, 06:52 PM
Perhaps as a direct result of the Bush administration's refusal to allow government funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research, scientists pushed on and announced this past week that they have now figured out how to harvest embryonic stem cells from the amniotic fluid, without impacting either the mother or the fetus. These cells, identical to the stem cells harvested from fetuses hold great promise. If successful, this approach will eliminate the need for harvesting stem cells from fetuses, since extraction of amniotic fluid is a relatively simple medical procedure being done today.
------------------------------------------------
it won't be long that everyt ime a pregnant woman goes in for a checkup, they'll drain a quart!!
I don't know about "relatively simple medical procedure" easy to do yes, but always with the risk of loseing the baby... even a small chance that might happen is to much of a chance for me!!!
Cotties
06-23-2007, 11:50 AM
Americans support stem cell research by a 56-32 percent margin. Remember when Presidents used to govern by poll numbers? Ah... those were the days...
head line copied by me
http://news.yahoo.com/i/2837;_ylt=Ag112jiMx6RdnSVuqEJmA8n1_sEF
56% - Support Stem Cell Research
Fri Jun 22, 1:00 AM ET
By a 56%-32% margin, the American public believes that it is more important to conduct stem cell research that may result in new medical cures than to avoid destroying the potential life of embryos involved in such research; in the past five years, the proportion favoring stem cell research has increased 13 percentage points. A July 2006 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press also found that people who have heard more about the issue are more supportive, with nearly seven-in-ten respondents who say they are paying "a lot" of attention to the issue favoring continuing research. However, a majority (54%) of those who are paying just a little attention to the controversy also wants stem cell research to continue. The majority flips among those who say they have heard nothing: Among these, 56% say it is more important not to destroy embryos. Support for continuing stem cell research is highest among mainline Protestants and secular individuals. Among both groups, about seven-in-ten favor continuing stem cell research. Fewer than half of all white evangelicals (44%) express support, but this represents a 12-point increase over the preceding year. More education also correlates with increased support for stem cell research, and every age group except the very oldest expressed majority support.
spare_change
12-10-2007, 01:03 AM
American and Japanese scientists, in two separate peer-reviewed studies, created human embryonic stem cells by returning mature human cells to a primordial, embryonic like state. Heart, nerve or other transplant tissue developed from these embryonic cells should not be rejected by the cell donor’s immune system, meaning one gets the stability of adult stem cells with the flexibility of embryonic ones. Problems still exist, however. Viruses are used as the mechanism to transport genes into the cell. Unwanted side effects can result if the viruses’ DNA becomes incorporated into the cell’s genetic structure. Researchers are now working to find benign viruses that will not trigger those problems.
In 2001, President Bush limited federal funding for human embryonic research to some 60 stem-cell lines existing at that time. The Leftmedia and the scientific establishment saw this as a smoke screen to cover his fundamentalist, anti-scientific tracks, but this ethical line in the sand provided the incentive scientists needed to develop innovative and morally acceptable research methods. In the last six years, adult-stem-cell research has produced cures and treatments for more than 80 diseases and ailments.
Facing enormous popular and scientific opposition, President Bush insisted on requiring that moral consideration balance scientific imperative. Six years later, the President, so vilified for this stance, has been thoroughly vindicated.
cherokeered
12-10-2007, 05:40 AM
American and Japanese scientists, in two separate peer-reviewed studies, created human embryonic stem cells by returning mature human cells to a primordial, embryonic like state. Heart, nerve or other transplant tissue developed from these embryonic cells should not be rejected by the cell donor’s immune system, meaning one gets the stability of adult stem cells with the flexibility of embryonic ones. Problems still exist, however. Viruses are used as the mechanism to transport genes into the cell. Unwanted side effects can result if the viruses’ DNA becomes incorporated into the cell’s genetic structure. Researchers are now working to find benign viruses that will not trigger those problems.
In 2001, President Bush limited federal funding for human embryonic research to some 60 stem-cell lines existing at that time. The Leftmedia and the scientific establishment saw this as a smoke screen to cover his fundamentalist, anti-scientific tracks, but this ethical line in the sand provided the incentive scientists needed to develop innovative and morally acceptable research methods. In the last six years, adult-stem-cell research has produced cures and treatments for more than 80 diseases and ailments.
Facing enormous popular and scientific opposition, President Bush insisted on requiring that moral consideration balance scientific imperative. Six years later, the President, so vilified for this stance, has been thoroughly vindicated.
If you think so...must be so huh???.....this just led them down another way, still with problems....who says which is best or easier, only time will tell anyway.....if it had gone the other way, doubt we would have heard a peep....would we???
mrdiscreet
12-10-2007, 08:19 AM
If you think so...must be so huh???.....this just led them down another way, still with problems....who says which is best or easier, only time will tell anyway.....if it had gone the other way, doubt we would have heard a peep....would we???
Agree.
What a sop to the religious right that whole debacle is. If it ws truly a moral issue, it would have been made illegal. The only thing that was stopped was federal funding, a nice meaningless political red meat give which did, by the way, allow other countries to catch the US as leaders in the field.
Leftmedia? That's funny. :D
I watched him too Annie....I am for using the stem cells from cord blood but not for the intentional fertilization of eggs just to destroy them.
Good for you!
There are amazing things being doen with cord blood stem cells and it is amazing that the media chooses not to mention any of them.
For example, while 70% of bone marrow transplants (which are extremely painful for both the recipient and the donor) between people who are genetically related (cousin, sibling, etc.), 70% of cord blood cell transplants (which can address the same issues that bone marrow transplants can) are successful even when the donor and recipient are a different race, blood type, etc.
My wife worked in the maternity ward (she is now in cardiac intensive care) and she said that the majority of umbilical cords and the stem cells therein are destroyed, which is alarming given how many lives they could save and how non-controversial it should be to use them.
SirFox
01-18-2008, 01:10 PM
Good for you!
...it is amazing that the media chooses not to mention any of them....non-controversial it should be to use them.
Just a bynote here: the media no longer does any of the work they should be doing ..:(
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.