Bush holds veto pen over stem cell bill

[sugarmama]

What if stem cell research leads to immortality?

Where did this come from? I don't see HOW it could/would do that, and what does this have to do with anything?

 

[Larry Gude]

How can you...

Where did this come from? I don't see HOW it could/would do that, and what does this have to do with anything?

...not?

What's the whole point of stem cell research? To fix things. On humans.

 

[sugarmama]

Once you say it's okay to use embryos that "would have been destroyed anyway" it's not that far a stretch to actually grow human embryos specifically for the purpose of experimentation and research.

And what's the difference between a week old fetus and a 2 month old fetus? Then a 6 month old fetus? How about a full gestation pre-born infant?

That's how the case was made for partial-birth abortion.

I am fully AGAINST partial-birth abortion. I even have a little bit of a problem with early abortion. BUT, it's legal, and if it's going to be done, then why not use those cells for something GOOD?
I disagree with growing human embryos specifically for the purpose of experimentation and research. There'd have to be some sort of LAW outlawing this. Like everything else out there, there'd need to be boundaries.

 

[citysherry]

Where did this come from? I don't see HOW it could/would do that, and what does this have to do with anything?

Because embryo stem cells are not "hard wired" yet and the thought is that they could be cultivated to grow human organs....if your heart is starting to fail, have a lab grow you another one. This is only speculative.

 

[sugarmama]

...not?

What's the whole point of stem cell research? To fix things. On humans.

To fix things (diseases) that would kill them prematurely (for lack of a better word). That same person who is cured of whatever disease they had would still (hopefully) die from old age.

 

[vraiblonde]

So, you'd rather your child die from a disease that he/she could be cured of if they simply received stem cell therapy?

Straw dog. Nobody has been cured of anything because of stem cell therapy. It's not like this isn't already being researched - all we're talking about now is whether our tax dollars shoudl pay for it. I say 'no'.

So what you're asking is, would I let doctors turn my sick child into a guinea pig for doctors to experiment on. The answer again is 'no'.

 

[sugarmama]

Because embryo stem cells are not "hard wired" yet and the thought is that they could be cultivated to grow human organs....if your heart is starting to fail, have a lab grow you another one. This is only speculative.

I get that, but I'm pretty sure no (or at least, not many) 90 or 100-year-old man is going to want to have a new heart grown for him so he can live longer, even though he can probably barely walk.

 

[Kerad]

Damn...I thought I was done with topic.

I also do not think that some federal funding would instantly cause a huge demand for these blastocysts beyond what is already available. Just because there is additional cash...you still have only a certain amount of scientists who can only do so much research at any given time. I don't have any specific data to back this up (yet)...but it's my understanding that there's more than enoguh material already available thru the existing means.

It's easy to look at the worse case scenario of any thing. Organ donation, for instance. Is everyone freaked out and worried that if someone has a heart on thier driver's liscense (identifying them as an organ donor)...this means that a doctor will let them die on the operating table in order to get their "in demand" organs? Maybe a few people worry about that, but it doesn't seem to be causing widespread panic. The demand for organs is huge....but people aren't killing off neighbors...ripping out the livers, and rushing off to the nearest hospital with a bloody Igloo asking to get paid. At least not on a regular basis.

Many seem to be concerned of the possibilty that people may actually volunteer the ingredients (swimmers & eggs) specifically to use as stemcell research donors. I personally don't see the why this would be a bad thing. I equate it to blood/plasma donation.

Let me throw this out there...just for fun:
I don't ever plan to have kids. What if I, along with a like-minded female friend (who also does not want kids) decide that we would like to donate a bit of our "material" in order to help with stem cell research? It's not as if these cells are being prevented from becoming a human being. It's not as if we can't "get more where that came from" if our minds about having kids ever change. Why would this be such a horrible thing? :shrug:

It really doesn't matter...as there's plenty of cells currently available. Just saying....what if.

 

[Larry Gude]

Slavery was...

I am fully AGAINST partial-birth abortion. I even have a little bit of a problem with early abortion. BUT, it's legal, and if it's going to be done, then why not use those cells for something GOOD?
I disagree with growing human embryos specifically for the purpose of experimentation and research. There'd have to be some sort of LAW outlawing this. Like everything else out there, there'd need to be boundaries.

...legal.

And how is anyone going to figure out what they can do with stem cells if they don't, specifically, do experiments and research?

 

[vraiblonde]

I get that, but I'm pretty sure no (or at least, not many) 90 or 100-year-old man is going to want to have a new heart grown for him so he can live longer, even though he can probably barely walk.

Are you serious?

 

[sugarmama]

Straw dog. Nobody has been cured of anything because of stem cell therapy.

Not true.

It's not like this isn't already being researched - all we're talking about now is whether our tax dollars shoudl pay for it. I say 'no'.

So what you're asking is, would I let doctors turn my sick child into a guinea pig for doctors to experiment on. The answer again is 'no'.

Gotcha.

 

[vraiblonde]

Like everything else out there, there'd need to be boundaries.

And just like everything else that was supposed to have "boundaries", those boundaries get pushed until they become non-existent. Happens all the time.

 

[Larry Gude]

Does it seem logical to you...

To fix things (diseases) that would kill them prematurely (for lack of a better word). That same person who is cured of whatever disease they had would still (hopefully) die from old age.

...to have the ability to replace a bad pancreas and NOT do it when you're already in favor of fixing diebetes?

 

[vraiblonde]

Not true.

Name one.

 

[sugarmama]

Are you serious?

If he has a failing heart from old age, then there'd have to be some sort of "cap" on who-gets-what.
I get that people might go crazy and want all new organs, faces, arms, legs, etc etc etc (slight exaggeration maybe), but that's why, like everything else, there must be laws to say what can be and can't be done. There must be LIMITS.

 

[sugarmama]

Name one.

I personally know of a guy who received "stem cell therapy" and it sent his cancer into remission (OK, I know this isn't a cure, but it's better than what his alternative was........).

 

[Larry Gude]

You'd be wrong...

I get that, but I'm pretty sure no (or at least, not many) 90 or 100-year-old man is going to want to have a new heart grown for him so he can live longer, even though he can probably barely walk.

...a business associates 90 year father in law just had a pacemaker put in because they told him it would give him 5 more years. He was dead in 60 days. The operation pretty much did him in and they told him that was a distinct possibility. The son, also a doc, is furious with the docs who, as he sees it, talked his dad into a bad idea.

 

[sugarmama]

...a business associates 90 year father in law just had a pacemaker put in because they told him it would give him 5 more years. He was dead in 60 days. The operation pretty much did him in and they told him that was a distinct possibility. The son, also a doc, is furious with the docs who, as he sees it, talked his dad into a bad idea.

As with ANY situation, there will always be those people who take everything to the extreme.

 

[vraiblonde]

I also do not think that some federal funding would instantly cause a huge demand for these blastocysts beyond what is already available. Just because there is additional cash...

How do you think researchers make their money? They get grants either from private parties or from the government. If there's more money for research, more scientists will jump on the bandwagon. That's what they do for a living.

 

[Toxick]

As I said in a previous post, I don't agree with "growing oblivious non-volunteers to harvest their parts."

It appeared that you were preparing to compare organ donation with stem-cell harvesting - and you were comparing this to someone who sees a human being in these embryos.

I was simply pointing out that the flaw of that comparison is huge.

I agree with using what we have (as in, already aborted fetuses, unused cells in petri dishes, etc.).

Me, I have no problem with harvesting embyonic stem cells - I don't see them as human beings. However, I can certainly see why someone who does, would have an incredible distaste for using them in such a manner. Even aborted fetuses and unused embryos.


If I believed that these embryos were human beings, then even if the cells were going to be wasted, I would be against using them.

Why?

Because a human being is entitled to a certain modicum of dignity even if that person only appears to be microscopic stain.

Being turned into liverwurst during an abortion, or simply being tossed out in the biological waste bin is not the most dignified way to go out, but it's sure as hell more dignified than being torn to shreds and warped into something it wasn't supposed to be.