The Times has an editorial about stem cell research leading with the recent passage in Maryland of funds for stem cell research that Gov. Ehrlich reluctantly signed to the chagrin of his right-wing base. I got my local delegates on the record as supporting the issue via email. One thing I noted about the pro-progress pro-stem cell research states to date: Maryland, California, New Jersey and Connecticut are all solid blue.
On the other hand, South Dakota, solid red, has banned stem cell research.
They choose the dark ages. We choose progress.
Leave it to Times to label Federaalism “absurd.” Shows you where their heart’s at.
And, Oliver, since when is a field of research ideological?
And, Oliver, since when is a field of research ideological?
When the Republicans made it so.
How can Maryland be funding stem cell research?
Because Bush has banned it. It’s important that MD do it, but for us to have a true breakthrough it needs federal funding.
How can Maryland be funding stem cell research? Progressives had already told us that the Bushitler and his jackbooted thugs (Hillary will have jillbooted thugs) had stamped out all stem cell research - as part of that dark curtain of religious intolerance that had fallen over the land.
Sakes alive!!
Dugger, I Guess Erhlich Goes to the Bushgulag Now (on the Halliburton Campus - sole source contract)
What happens to the embryos if the scientists don’t get their evil hands on them?
That is to ask, what happened to them before we began to research stem cells?
Mike, that sounds like a reasonable distinction in language, I for one would be happy to use that terminology if your side agrees to distinguish between pro-abortion (nobody) and pro-choice (everybody).
South Dakota has disallowed EMBRYONIC stem cell research.
The Federal Government does not fund EMBRYONIC stem cell research.
Both of these restrictions are derived from the fact that embryonic stem cells must be harvested from live human embryos, which involves destroying — i.e. killing — them.
Stem cell research involving ADULT or UMBILICAL CORD stem cells is not affected by these limitations because harvesting these kinds of stem cells does not involve killing.
Oliver, if you want to make a statement about this subject, you should at least try to use accurate terminology and learn the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells.
When the Republicans made it so
Why did I even bother to ask.
factcheck: I left my gobbledygook to English dictionary in my other pants. What the heck are you talking about?
Yes, the very same stem cells that are going to be thrown out.
A follow-up if I may, duros.
What is the difference between a 6-month old child and a mass of cells?
Awareness?
Free Will?
You’ll have to try harder.
duros: a serious question: What’s the difference between you and a mass of cells, except quantity?
It’s the slippery slope kids.
I happen to support all forms of stem cell research, but I also think that society needs to get it arms around the ethical issues. Even though I don’t believe that an 8 cell zygote is a human being, there are those who do, and I need to respect that and come to some sort of an understanding about how we handle these issues.
Serious answer; Awareness, Frank. Self-awareness. Free will.
Oliver makes a good point, I mean they are just going to get thrown out after all….
Just like all those young, healthy organs in death penalty cases….well, no sense wasting those either right OW?
Just like all those young, healthy organs in death penalty cases& .well, no sense wasting those either right OW?
You’re right, there Pedro. but don’t the prisoners in those cases have the choice to donate them?
Discrimination against Blastocyst-Americans is racism! Masses of cells have rights too!
(credit to whomever coined the term blastocyst-american, I don’t remember who.)
You are in dangerous territory {scroll down to 1938}, Duros…
I don’t think it matters whether or not they can “become viable”. They will never be viable sitting in a cell culture, so it really doesn’t much matter to me. In my mind, “potential viability” is not the sine qua none of the argument, if it were we could all fall back to the Monty Python argument….”every sperm is priceless….”
Dr. Do you support the alteration of embryonic stem cells so that they could never become viable as has been suggested? How is that different?
He makes a good point though duros. At least from a medical ethics standpoint, you have to be able to make a philosophical argument WHY you can do something like that. We all believe that infanticide is wrong…but why if late term abortion is ok?
Like I said, I fall on the side of stem cell research of all kinds, but the only way to avoid the philosophical “slippery slope” is some sort of a “chock” that prevents the eventual slide.
Are you suggesting that those who support embryonic stem cell reseasrch are comparable to Nazi medical experiments on people? Really, Frank? Dr. Pedro included?
You, sir, are despicable.
I agree with you. But isn’t that what we’re talking about? That every zygote is sacred? You’re right, an embroyo in a culture dish in a freezer doesn’t do anybody any good. I understand the ethical dilemma, but I can’t buy the argument. If you had the choice to wipe out Parkinson’s, Alzheimers and spinal cord injuries vs. protect and storing zygotes in your Kenmore, how could you not go with the former?
A 6-month old is not aware?
And I don’t buy the whole “you just killed Beethoven” bullshit either. One cannot reverse engineer a person’s potetial.
Contrariwise, if, by killing Beethoven, you could wipe cancer from the face of the Earth forever, would you do it?
Oh for God’s sake, Frank, that’s not what I’m saying and you know it. That is repugnant, even for you.
As I’m sure we can all agree, there are thousands of differences between you and I, and something that you picked out of your nose. With advances in cloning not-so-science-fictiony any more, does that give the stuff you picked out of your nose the pontential to become a human being?
John Edwards the psychic? Crossing Over? hardly reputable.
I don’t see a problem with euthenasia or assisted suicide either, if the alternative is pain and suffering.
I am not suggesting that stem cells are the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. There are no guarantees in Life. I am saying the research should go on, should get federal funding, etc. and if some people are squemish about it, sorry you feel that way.
…you (and, of course, want to make use of thrown away human beings for that is what they will become)
But it isn’t the same thing, is it?
But supporters of stem-cell research funding are definitly reverse engineering the research potential. Specifically John Edwards promising that Christopher Reeve will walk again when the science has so far proven no such thing.
If you want opponents to stop hauling out the “you killed Beethoven” line, you should be willing to drop the “you’re against curing Parkinson’s” line.
Let’s try CNN:
And the reeling continues.
From the 2nd Debate:
Not people “like” Reeve. Reeve himself.
And at the time Kerry made this statement, Christopher Reeve was still very much alive.
If you’re parsing that finely, then you should be all over the “Bush Lied” people who are basing their position on the 14 words.
Nobody is accusing you of anything, Duros… I said you (and, of course, want to make use of “thrown away” human beings — for that is what they will become) is actually on a slippery slope. The Netherlands went from abortion on demand to permitting assisted suicide and euthanasia. It’s not impossible.
And I don’t see stem cell research as the way “to wipe out Parkinson s, Alzheimers and spinal cord injuries.” There’s other kinds of stem cell research going besides cast off embryos. There is no guarantee that stem cell research will cure anything, and no guarantee that the other kinds of stem cell researc won’t cure such things.
Finally, if I had to choose between Bethoven and the cure for cancer — even every kind of cancer — I’d still go for Beethoven.
To paraphrase the Furry Freak Brothers: Beethoven will get you through times of cancer, better than no cancer will get you through times of no Beethoven.
people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again
..like…
Are you saying that the potential for spinal cord injuries to be reversed is not true?
Besides, John Edwards is a politician, what the hell does he know? (and that goes for both parties).
Researchers know the potential of the research. It is there. It should be found.
I call bs Ferris, when did John Edwards promise that Christopher Reeve will walk again? I need documentation- preferably not CNSnews or other wingnutty sites.
I’m just going off of the CNN link you gave me, where he never promised that the dead Christopher Reeve would walk.
In your irrelevant debate quote, he wanted Christopher Reeve to walk again. Didn’t you? I don’t see a promise there.
Have the shame to walk away from this thread, please, you’re humiliating yourself (again).
Of course, if there’s money to be made, that will change the tempo a bit, won’t it?
Heard this song before.
Conservatives echoed Drudge’s doctored quotation of Edwards on stem cell research
What is most important is that there are forms of stem cell research besides embryonic research. Those other forms are not inferior to embryonic SCR. Those other forms are just as likely to uncover treatment for the ailments you mentioned.
So the truth, people like Chris Reeve, or Chris Reeve himself, are not going to walk simply if embryonic SCR continues.
No, I did not mean to imply as such that embryonic SCR is the only way to go. However, I don’t think it should be stopped either. the fact is if these fertilized embryos are simply going to be discarded anyway, what is the outrage about? Do fertility clinics just have a big clearance sale at the end of the year? Buy two embyros, get one free? If people are so outraged about using those embryos for research, why aren’t they outraged at what happens to them if they are not used for research?
Specifically John Edwards promising that Christopher Reeve will walk again when the science has so far proven no such thing.
I see your bs and raise.
http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/WhatsNew/March_2006.html#6
The language of the article does indicate that anything has been “proven.” It’s nitpicky, I know, but “proven”is “proven.”
If people are so outraged about using those embryos for research, why aren t they outraged at what happens to them if they are not used for research?
I can’t speak for anybody else, but I’m outraged.
Should be: does not indicate
>>So the truth, people like Chris Reeve, or Chris Reeve himself
Frank, you stupid idiot.
Christopher Reeve is dead.
You are an unthinking, unfeeling, clump of mush.
JK
Gee, JK, I didn’t know Chris Reeve was dead. I thought he went to Australia.
If you had ten times the brains you’re using - half the brain of a normal person — you would have realized that it was simply a clumsily formed sentence. It was an awkward idea to express, whether Chris (when he was alive, clown) was going to get up and walk, or people like Chris Reeve were going to get up and walk, no one is going to guarantee that they can cure paralysis simply by virtue of embryonic SCR.
I think those Mercedes fumes are getting to you, Jackie. Time for an emissions inspection?