PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Health Debates
     stem cell research.
       im completely for it, it could saves millions of lives

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
jenns

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"....The bill would expand US government funding to include embryos which did not exist prior to August 2001, when Mr Bush announced a moratorium. Scientists working in the field say newer stem cell lines are essential to realise the promise of a cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and some cancers.

But the president is using his first veto

The Senate passed the bill yesterday by 63 votes to 37 after two days of frequently emotional debate, during which Republicans and Democrats alike related personal stories of family illness that might have been avoided had stem cell research been sufficiently advanced.

Bill Frist, the majority leader, backs the bill and Arlen Specter, another senior Republican, said history would liken Mr Bush to those who imprisoned Galileo and scoffed at the idea of electricity, and who look "absolutely ridiculous" today.

"A century from now, people will look back in wonderment at how there could be any doubt about using stem cells to save lives and save human suffering," Mr Specter said. He warned that Mr Bush might also get a call from Nancy Reagan, a campaigner for the legislation before and after her husband's death in 2004 from Alzheimer's-related complications.

The leading Senate opponent of the bill, Sam Brownback, said it would "allow the stronger to take advantage of the weaker". It was "immoral to destroy the youngest of human lives for research purposes," he said, pointing out that Americans can be sentenced to two years in prison for destroying certain rare bird eggs, whereas "taxpayer dollars are used to destroy a human at the same phase of life".

A White House statement argued that the bill "would compel all American taxpayers to pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells".

The bill's enemies must contend with the fact that the 400,000 embryos in question - tiny clumps of cells, invisible to the naked eye - already exist, frozen in fertility clinics across the country, and are likely to be destroyed.

Some Christian groups have been instrumental in setting up schemes in which adoptive mothers carry embryos unused by fertility clinics to full term, and Mr Brownback brought three such children - so-called snowflake babies - to Capitol Hill to support his argument. One had made a drawing of an embryo asking: "Are you going to kill me?"

Supporters of stem-cell research had been encouraged by hints that Mr Bush might be swayed by science and by polls showing that 75% of Americans support their position. But Sean Tipton, president of the Washington-based Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, said it was now clear that Mr Bush's 2001 moratorium had not been a compromise, but "a gift to the right-to-life community".

The pre-2001 cell lines are considered to have too many contaminations and abnormalities to be ideal for exploiting the potential of stem cells, which are capable of growing into any type of human tissue.

Two other bills were expected to pass easily: one encouraging research on stem-cells obtained from other sources; and one making "embryo farming" illegal. "Then the president can say 'I'm for stem-cell research, just not that kind," Mr Tipton said. A two-thirds majority is needed in both the House and Senate in order to override the veto. The Senate vote missed that mark by four votes, and the House of Representatives, due to vote on the policy soon, was expected to miss it too."

[random] [random] [random] [random] [random] stem cell research [b][/b]


-------
theres no fun in fundamentalism
 


Posts: 64 | Posted: 09:43 AM on November 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's ignore for a moment that no cures have been realized from embryonic stem cell research (which still goes on, it is simply not paid for by the US government) and that almost all attempts at cures with embryonic stem cells have resulted in tumors.  Adult stem cell research (which has never been banned) however has had many promising cures.  Just think if we'd spent all the money that has gone to "legalizing" embryonic stem cell research into the far more promising adult stem cell research...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:54 AM on November 7, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's ignore for a moment that no cures have been realized from embryonic stem cell research (which still goes on, it is simply not paid for by the US government) and that almost all attempts at cures with embryonic stem cells have resulted in tumors.  Adult stem cell research (which has never been banned) however has had many promising cures.  Just think if we'd spent all the money that has gone to "legalizing" embryonic stem cell research into the far more promising adult stem cell research...


First of all, harvesting adult stemcells is significantly more expensive than creating embryonic stemcell lines from the discarded zygotes of in-vitro procedures.

Furthermore, none of the discarded zygotes from in-vitro procedures has a chance of becoming a human in a petri- dish without a uterous or a placenta.  

Thirdly, from a moral standpoint, how is using a zygote for medical research less acceptable, than killing it or freezing it forever?  What if we limit the research being done to only discarded zygotes that were originally created as part of the medical procedure used to bring the joy of parenthood to otherwise infertile couples?

As a final point, I will point out that adult stem cells and embryonic stemcell are very different. Adult stem cells are multi-potent (can diffentiate into organs of the same type of tissue) while embryonic stem cells are either pluripotent (can differentiate into different organs of different tissue types) or toti-potent (can develop into any type of cell or into an organism itself).  Because of these significant differences a lot of the research being done with embryonic cells is quite a bit different than  the research being done with adult cells.  Thus the argument that adult stem cell research compensates for embryonic stem cell research that you are trying to forward is fallacious.

Your point that "almost all attempts at cures with embryonic stem cells have resulted in tumors." is not supported by the facts.  Please provide a source for this as I don't believe it to be true.  I personally have read articles about some promising research being done using embryonic stemcells to combat glioblastoma which is an agessive form of brain-cancer.  

I gotta ask you Ed, are you against invitro-fertilization?  Do you favor banning a procedure that has given thousands of infertile couples the gift of parenthood?  If not, what do you propose to do with all the unused zygotes that result from this and other similar procedures?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:53 AM on November 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Funny how we have orphanages running over at the brim but some couple who really can't "lower" themselves to help a child who is already here and needs them.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:43 PM on November 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please provide a source for this as I don't believe it to be true.

From the National Review...

Once again the media are trumpeting the call among many in Congress, pushed by millions in Big Biotech lobbying money, for President Bush to reverse his decision to limit federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR) to those lines already in existence on August 9, 2001. Fronted this time by the grief-stricken Nancy Reagan, and boosted by Hollywood celebrities such as Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, and Mary Tyler Moore, we are warned darkly, as a recent New York Times editorial put it, that the existing federal-funding restrictions "are so potentially damaging to medicine" that the administration is encountering opposition to its policy even among its "own conservative supporters."
   
We have heard this mantra many times before but repetition does not make it true. A great deal has been learned about the potential of regenerative medicine since President Bush reached his "compromise" decision ending the stem-cell debate of 2001. And indeed, perhaps the time has come for us to revisit this issue, albeit from a different angle than suggested by ESCR boosters. Perhaps the problem with the Bush plan isn't that it provides too little federal money for ESCR, but too much — at least if our national goal is to find cures to diseases such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, and Parkinson's in the shortest period of time.

The media is so excited about the supposed potential of embryonic stem cells that it gives far too little attention to the many and serious problems associated with this potential source of regenerative medicine. Listening to the hype, one might think that ESCR is on the verge of tremendous success. But the hard truth is that it does not appear likely that embryonic stem cells will soon become the panacea that fervid supporters of the research often claim. For example:

In animal studies, embryonic-stem-cell treatments have been found to cause tumors. In one mouse study involving an attempt to treat Parkinson's-type symptoms, more than 20 percent of the mice died from brain tumors — this despite researchers reducing the number of cells administered from the usual 100,000 to 1,000.

Tissue rejection is another major hurdle to the use of embryonic stem cells in medical treatments. This is why ESCR is known as the gateway to human cloning, since one proposed way out of this potential dilemma is to create cloned embryos of patients being treated as a source of stem cells, a process known as "therapeutic cloning." Not coincidentally, many of the same proponents who are now urging increased funding for ESCR also advocate that we legalize and publicly fund therapeutic-cloning research, which many find immoral because it creates cloned human life for the sole purpose of experimentation and destruction.

Besides being immoral, therapeutic cloning also looks to be wildly impractical. For example, a recent report published by the National Academy of Sciences warned that it could cost in the neighborhood of $200,000 just to pay for the human eggs to derive one cloned human embryonic-stem-cell line.

The hope that embryonic-stem-cell lines are immortal, thereby allowing them to supply unlimited cells for use in regenerative medical treatments, appears to be fading fast. Several studies, including one published in the March 25, 2004, New England Journal of Medicine, have now shown that over time embryonic-stem-cell lines develop severe chromosomal anomalies, including a form of cell change found in some types of cancer.

These and other significant scientific obstacles facing embryonic-stem-cell researchers mean that treatments from this source of stem cells are unlikely to become a part of medicine's armamentarium at the clinical level for more than a decade — if ever. Indeed, as reported in Washington Fax in 2002, the noted stem-cell-research pioneer John Gearhart has suggested that embryonic stem cells, in the end, will probably not be "used in therapies." Rather, he said, "patients' own cells," e.g. adult stem cells, are "where I see the future now." (Gearhart does support ESCR, believing that it will provide useful information permitting patient's own cells to be used in regenerative medicine.)

Fortunately, embryonic stem cells are not the only potential source for regenerative medical treatments. There are also adult stem cells, umbilical-cord-blood stem cells, and other cellular-based treatments that do not use embryos at all. Here we see a completely different picture emerging. Under-reported by the ESCR-besotted mainstream media, many of the diseases that embryonic cells are supposed to treat may be ameliorated with adult-stem-cell and related therapies far more quickly. These include:

Heart Disease: The FDA has allowed a human trial to proceed that will use bone-marrow stem cells to treat severe heart disease. The experiment will be conducted at Texas Heart Institute in Houston. This approach has already safely improved heart function in 14 patients in Brazil, as reported in the medical journal Circulation. Indeed, the researchers found "significant improvements in exercise capacity," improving oxygen capacity "from 17 percent to 24 percent in treated patients." A similar result has already been reported in the U.S. using a patient's own blood stem cells, as have other human experiments in France and Hong Kong. (On a sour note, while not disproving the benefit of adult cells in treating heart disease, researchers in two mouse experiments failed to replicate earlier studies that seemed to show adult stem cells could be transformed directly into new heart muscle. Meanwhile, further studies still need to determine whether the treatment could cause dangerous arrhythmias.)

Diabetes: As reported in the November 14, 2003, issue of the distinguished journal Science, Type 1 (juvenile-onset) diabetes has been cured in mice using human spleen cells. The cells migrated to the mice pancreases, "prompting the damaged organs to regenerate into healthy, insulin-making organs" and thus curing their diabetes. The authors noted that "because the cell donors and hosts are adults, this system would preclude ethical issues associated with the use of embryonic stem cells, as well as concerns that [cell] transdifferentiation of embryonic stem cells may be incomplete."

Neurological Conditions: HealthDay recently reported that "Cells found in a patient's own bone marrow might someday be a safe, ethical source for replacing brain cells lost to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other neurological conditions." German researchers cultured human bone-marrow stem cells and were able, within a few weeks, to morph them into mature neural or glial cells. We learned just this month that cells derived from dental pulp can be transformed into neural cells and may someday be a readily available source of treatment for conditions such as Parkinson's.

Along these lines, human patients have already benefited substantially from the alleviating of symptoms of Parkinson's with adult stem cells and related therapies. For example, Dennis Turner of southern California was the first human patient known to have been treated by his own brain stem cells for Parkinson's. It is now a few years post treatment and his Parkinson's — which by now was expected to have substantially disabled him — has instead gone into substantial remission. Turner has been able to reduce his medications and rarely experiences significant symptoms of his disease. Meanwhile, the May 2003 edition of Nature Medicine reported that five Parkinson's disease patients, who received injections of a natural body chemical known as glial-cell-line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), experienced significant improvement in their conditions. Three of the patients even regained their sense of taste and smell.

I could write pages about such successes. Adult-stem-cell and related therapeutic approaches are in current clinical trials or use for the treatment of cancers, autoimmune diseases, anemias, bone and cartilage deformities, corneal scarring, stroke, and skin grafts. Researchers have successfully restored some eye functions by extracting stem cells from human eyes, growing them in culture, and transplanting them into mice. Human trials are showing similar successes. Optimistic researchers hope that the technique could provide a cure for blindness within five years. Cells from human fat have proven to be true adult stem cells that look to be useful in regenerative medicine. Indeed, it appears that 62 percent of human fat cells "could be reprogrammed into turning into at least two other different cell types," according to Duke University researchers.

The thrust of the research now seems indisputable: While certainly not yet a sure thing, and noting that much work remains to be done in animal and controlled human studies, barring unforeseen problems adult-stem-cell and related therapies may be potent sources of new and efficacious medical treatments in the years to come. Just as significantly, these therapies are likely to be available far sooner than embryonic-stem-cell treatments, since adult and related therapies do not appear to cause tumors, would not be rejected, and do not have to be maintained indefinitely in vitro, because they would come from patients' own bodies.

As Colorado stem-cell activist Jim Kelly — a paraplegic who believes his best hope of walking again after an auto accident lies in adult-stem-cell treatments — told me, "We have to use our limited resources efficiently. Money spent on embryonic-stem-cell research and human cloning is money that cannot be spent on [investigating] adult stem cells." If Kelly is right, increasing funding for embryonic-stem-cell research, especially if it comes at the expense of adult experiments, could actually delay the cures that so many suffering patients hope desperately to receive from developing cellular therapies.




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:56 PM on November 7, 2006 | IP
jenns

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The National Review?

Isn't that a conservative publication?

Can you find an unbias link please.

'Embryonic stem cells can make any type of cell in the body and can develop into any of the body's organs. The accepted wisdom is that it is very difficult to control what type of specialised cells develop and, if you generate one cell, often it is part of a messy jumble containing unwanted cells. "Putting in undifferentiated stem cells carries a serious risk of tumours and cancer," said Simon Best, of the UK Biotechnology Association. "This kind of work needs proper oversight because people's lives are at stake."Researchers in Britain say stem cell therapies are a decade away. They add that in the west and advanced economies of Asia there are legal constraints that keep scientists from rushing ahead with treatments before they have been "thoroughly tested for safety and effectiveness"'.

Source: The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,,1645470,00.html

Of course it is something that cannot be taken lightly, and will need strict testing before anything can be carried out on humans, embryonic stem cell research is not simple, we all know that.

I'm sure the first heart transplant wasn't a wal in the park either, but look at it now.

The point is, frozen cells that would otherwise be of no use could save the lives of millions. Surely it is madness to not let this go ahead??

As the initial article I posted states, '"history would liken Mr Bush to those who imprisoned Galileo and scoffed at the idea of electricity, and who look "absolutely ridiculous" today. "A century from now, people will look back in wonderment at how there could be any doubt about using stem cells to save lives and save human suffering,"'

While we're on the subject, what do we think of the following? I think it is a very stark advertisement by Michael J Fox into why we need to do everything in our power to find cures for these horrific diseases.

"Swaying, shaking and rocking, Michael J Fox offered a stark image for American voters. Filmed for the Democratic election campaign and speaking to camera without any attempt to disguise the onset of Parkinson's disease, the actor has created one of the most talked-about political advertisements for years.
One man who has been talking louder than most is cigar-chomping shock-jock Rush Limbaugh, who twitches uncontrollably at the mere suggestion of a Democrat receiving sympathy. "He was either off his medication or acting," he declared. "He is an actor, after all."


America's leading rightwing radio show host was incensed that Fox should dare urge voters to back four Democratic congressional candidates who would support, rather than outlaw, stem-cell research. Unfortunately, Limbaugh (who once called himself "a harmless, lovable little fuzzball") chose a target considerably more popular in America than, say, peace activists kidnapped in Iraq ("I'm telling you, folks, there's a part of me that likes this ... I like any time a bunch of leftist, feelgood hand-wringers are shown reality"), tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib ("I'm talking about people [abusive US soldiers] having a good time. You ever heard of emotional release? You heard of the need to blow some steam off?") or feminists ("Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society").
While there is no cure for foot-in-mouth disease, Fox hopes that embryonic stem cell science could hold the key to tackling Parkinson's. Since revealing his condition in 1998, the much loved star of the Back to the Future films and Spin City, who was forced to retire from acting in 2000, has raised millions of dollars for research into the disease.

Apologies-of-sorts trip off Limbaugh's tongue almost as readily as bile, and he later said sorry for accusing Fox of exaggerating his symptoms. He still insisted, however, that Fox was allowing his illness to be "exploited" by the Democrats.

Fox retaliated at a Democrat rally on Tuesday, remarking: "My pills are working really well right now."

For all Limbaugh's bluster, it seems the images of Fox will leave the lasting impression: as well as paid broadcasts, the video has received 1m views on YouTube"

source: http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1931644,00.html


-------
theres no fun in fundamentalism
 


Posts: 64 | Posted: 2:47 PM on November 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The same Michael J Fox who admitted later that he hadn't actually read any of the laws that the people he was standing behind were pushing?  That's an unbiased review for you.  I suppose the only "unbiased" reviews that you will accept are the ones that supposedly prove YOUR point.  You can complain that review is biased if you like, but I don't see you refuting any of the facts.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:15 PM on November 7, 2006 | IP
jenns

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So the UK Biotechnology Association is a bias source the same as a conservative newspaper?

And I do not refute it because I do not take anything as "fact" from a biased source as they are highly likely to leave out information. Therefore there is nothing to refute. Were you not aware of this?

Can you give me an unbiased link to Michael J Fox admitting this as well please? I can't seem to find anything about it.


-------
theres no fun in fundamentalism
 


Posts: 64 | Posted: 3:40 PM on November 7, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Funny how we have orphanages running over at the brim but some couple who really can't "lower" themselves to help a child who is already here and needs them.


Orphanges filled to the brim...In the US?

In-vitro procedures run around $12,000  and are covered at least partially by many health insurance policies.

A typical adoption costs a couple about $15-$20 thousand after all is said and done.

So I take it you are against in-vitro?




 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 6:26 PM on November 7, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ed you are starting to sound like a politician

Here is what you originally posted:

...almost all attempts at cures with embryonic stem cells have resulted in tumors.

Heres is what your source in the National Review article wrote:

In animal studies, embryonic-stem-cell treatments have been found to cause tumors. In one mouse study involving an attempt to treat Parkinson's-type symptoms, more than 20 percent of the mice died from brain tumors — this despite researchers reducing the number of cells administered from the usual 100,000 to 1,000.

How do you get almost all from one  study Ed ?

The rest of the article reads like a marketing slick trying to sell readers on the wonders of adult stem-cell therapy; which whether true or not is irrelevant  since adult stem cells, as I explained earlier, are vastly different from embryonic stem cells.  

One mouse study?!!!










 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 6:58 PM on November 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Someone asked for proof so I gave them a study.  Did you really expect me to post every single embryonic stem cell research that has ever been done on this webiste?  Seriously?  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:33 PM on November 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can't seem to find anything about it

A quick google brought up many sites that talked about his interview, but here's the gist of it...

Actor Michael J. Fox says he's against human cloning, against human egg farming and hasn't read a Missouri constitutional amendment measure he has championed in television ads that critics contend would promote both.
On ABC's "This Week" with host George Stephanopoulos, formerly of the Clinton administration, Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, said today he got involved in the Missouri campaign because he supports Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, a proponent of Amendment 2.
While the bill purports to oppose human cloning, critics say experimentation on human embryos necessitates the procedure. Therefore, they call the measure deliberately deceptive, designed to get voters to support with the idea of opposing human cloning – even though they are, in fact, supporting it.
"I agree that we should have no human cloning," said Fox. "We're against that."
He also said he opposes the farming of human eggs to create the embryos.
"We're against egg farming, that notion," he said. "We agree on all of that."
Which leaves the question: How do you get human embryos to experiment with if you don't farm the eggs or clone human tissue? Fox did not provide an answer – nor was the question asked by Stephanopoulos. But Fox did explain he was not an expert on the subject nor had he read Amendment 2 for himself.
"You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill," he explained. "And so I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know, I – in full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly."
Fox performed in a television ad for McCaskill, who is seeking to replace Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo. But the focus of the ad was her support for Amendment 2.
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research say it is unproven in treatment of diseases, while adult stem cell research is more promising.
Asked about the claim opponents of Amendment 2 make that despite rhetorically opposing human cloning it will in fact enshrine it into the state's constitution, Fox said: "Well, I don't think that's true."



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:49 PM on November 7, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Someone asked for proof so I gave them a study.  Did you really expect me to post every single embryonic stem cell research that has ever been done on this webiste?  Seriously?


You claimed that almost all attempts at cures with embryonic stemcells resulted in tumors.  I believed your claim to be erroneous and requested a source.  Your source refered to "one mouse study" which is different than "almost all".  I don't think that I am being nit-picky. It is important that we get our facts straight isn't it?

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:13 PM on November 7, 2006 | IP
jenns

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I really really do not trust your sources, as fredguff as clearly proved that they are not accurate.

Please give links to your sources as well please, as I could not find a link that wasn't from a conservative source that discribed anything about the Michael J Fox thing.

And for arguments sake lets say it IS true what you are saying, that is not the debate here, the debate is he provided a very good case for research using embryonic cells.


-------
theres no fun in fundamentalism
 


Posts: 64 | Posted: 06:11 AM on November 8, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You really think that liberal sources would mention it?  They'd look like a bunch of buffoons and they know it.  It was aired on national television.  There is no debate that these were his words.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:31 PM on November 8, 2006 | IP
jenns

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well when you say "national television" you surely know that I cannot have seen it because I do not live in your nation and therefore have no evidence.

All I'm asking for is a link?? I'm not tying to prove you wrong, I just want to see for myself.

And the fact that you assume when I say that I could only find conservative sources that I was actually looking for a liberal source to "prove myself right" or whatever (when in fact I was simply looking for some any kind of unbiased factual evidence) says quite a lot about your sources.

And again, IF he said that, so what? The issue here, as I have already stated, is that he made a very stark and very public claim as to why we need to use embryonic cells for research into diseases such as his.




-------
theres no fun in fundamentalism
 


Posts: 64 | Posted: 07:36 AM on November 9, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So expalin to me why, when I cite a source you can discount what is said because you have determined that you don't consider the source reliable, but when I show someone to be unreliable you argue that it doesn't change the truth of what was said.  You can't have it your way all the time.  It's a two way street.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:43 PM on November 9, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

P.S.  Here's the link to abc news that specifically cites his discussion about not knowing the details of the bill he was backing, but I"m sure it's a conservative shill too... :P

ABC News - This Week - page 2 of Michael J Fox interview.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:50 PM on November 9, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mr Myers hows it going? I was listining to G.Gordon Liddy to day and he read an article on this subject. It stated all of what you have mentioned as true. One thing that bothers me about liberals is that when they can't counter facts with facts of their own the attack the source as either not trust worthy or trying to tie them to conservative's or calling a conservative source as bias. What I have found with liberal sources is they are usual quite light on facts, documentation and usualy trying to get a desired out come. One thing this artical stated is that since the 50's science has been working with stem cells both adult and embrionic. The adult stem cells have, either cures or relief from some  80 deasies from one type of diabetes, and liver deases. also mentioned were 3 cases of spinal cord injuries one was a woman that had been paralised for 19 years (using cord stem cells injected in to the site of the injury now allows this woman to walk with the aid of a walker. The other two one a quad the other a parapoligic the quad regained her upper body and both can now walk with braces. all 3 cases are out of the US. Another adult stemcell is used to grow new skin for burn victums. There has been no positive progress with ebryonic stem cells they are either rejected or cause tumors.


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 10:06 PM on November 9, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Trigger my man,

Favoring Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research does not by itself make one a liberal.   Unless of course you consider Orin Hatch, Tent Lott and the late Strom Thurman to all be liberals.

Since adult stemcells are NOT embryonic stemcells and as such do not possess the same qualities and capabilities,  the studies you mentioned regarding the success of Adult stem cell treatments is irrelevant to the debate over whether embryonic stem cells should recieve federal funding for research.  To simplify it for you one more time...Adult and embryonic stem cells are NOT the same.

Just so you are really straight, one could use your flawed logic to argue that NASA should not send space probes to Mars or Jupiter or Saturn since NASA has already had many successful missions to the moon.  Capiche?

One final question Trigger...Are you "for" or "against" using to in-vitro to help couples have babies?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 5:02 PM on November 10, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Has anyone bothered to notice that embryonic stem cell research is NOT against the law?  It simply isn't paid for by the United States government.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:07 PM on November 10, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fredguff at 5:02 PM on November 10, 2006 :
Trigger my man,

Since adult stemcells are NOT embryonic stemcells and as such do not possess the same qualities and capabilities,  the studies you mentioned regarding the success of Adult stem cell treatments is irrelevant to the debate over whether embryonic stem cells should recieve federal funding for research.  To simplify it for you one more time...Adult and embryonic stem cells are NOT the same.


Yes they aren't the same. Also 50 years of research on both ,amasing results with adult, Disipointment with embyonic. Nuf said... one more time one promising results,,,, the other zip... Why fund somthing that shows no promise... 50 years of dissipointment... Nuf said...  

Just so you are really straight, one could use your flawed logic to argue that NASA should not send space probes to Mars or Jupiter or Saturn since NASA has already had many successful missions to the moon.  Capiche?


Not a good analogy. You have somthing that works and another that dosn't. You want to throw money at what dosn't work. Again 50 years of it don't work.... Capiche???

One final question Trigger...Are you "for" or "against" using to in-vitro to help couples have babies?


My son was born from invitro any more stupid questions...





-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 8:09 PM on November 10, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes they aren't the same. Also 50 years of research on both ,amasing results with adult, Disipointment with embyonic. Nuf said...


Where are you getting your facts Tigger? Ernest Armstrong McCulloch and James Till didn't even publish their paper on the existence of stem cells until 1963.  Further more there have been quite a few promising results from research done using embryonic stem cells. It sounds to me like you are just regurgitating uniformed propoganda from your favorite talk radio hack.  Here is a link to site that lists some of the promising research being done using embryonic stem cells.

http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/WhatsNew/November_2006.html#1


one more time one promising results,,,, the other zip...


Sorry this point is simply not true.  Tigger, you are either uninformed or a liar...nuff said.


Why fund somthing that shows no promise... 50 years of dissipointment... Nuf said...
Embryonic stem cell research does show promise in a lot of different areas and your incorrect assertion to the contrary will not change this fact no matter how many times you repeat it.  Again I will point out that with regards to the current state of affairs in the area of embryonic stem cell research, you are either ignorant or a liar.


Not a good analogy. You have somthing that works and another that dosn't. You want to throw money at what dosn't work. Again 50 years of it don't work.... Capiche???


Huh? Mmmkay...Let me try again.  Just because trains worked, doesn't mean the Wright Brothers should have quit trying to create airplanes...Verstehen?

My son was born from invitro any more stupid questions...

Lots of embryos and zygotes and even fetuses were created and destroyed during the years of research leading up to the birth of the first successful test-tube baby.  You essentially are saying that it is ok to destroy zygotes and embryos to facillitate you and your spouse's pregancy but it is not ok to destroy zygotes and embryos for cancer research. I think by any reasonable standards, you qualify as a hypocrite on this issue.



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 1:30 PM on November 11, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm confused.  I was reading the articles on stemcellresearchfoundation and am having a hard time understanding something.  There is an article in there stating that "Unfortunately, "all human cloning" includes therapeutic cloning, which is one and the same with stem cell research.
" and then goes on to say "In fact, the egg cells used in therapeutic cloning have no chance of being fertilized or transplanted into a woman's womb." but when I got to the site's stem cell facts and look up where stem cells come from it states "(ESCs) are derived from 4- to 5- day old embryos".  How do you get an embryo without fertilizing the egg?  And if you can't, how can stem cell research = therapeutic cloning = no use of embryos?  And it can't be argued that she meant adult stem cells because a) adult stem cell research is not against the law and b) she specifically said egg cells or is the site's "fact sheet" incorrect and you can get stem cells from just an unfertilized egg?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:20 PM on November 11, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Basically toti-potent embryonic stemcells used for research are derived from two types of blastocysts (pre-ebryonic cell masses); those that develop from an egg cell that has been fertilized in vitro by a sperm cell and those that have developed when the genetic material of an egg cell has been replaced by the genetic material of an adult cell (therapeutic cloning).  In both instances, the zygotes have no chance of developing into a human without a uterous or placenta.  

In the US, I believe it is illegal to implant human zygotes developed by therapeutic cloning into the wombs of a female humans.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 1:03 PM on November 12, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But, are they fertilized or not?  That's what I'm not following (at least the way they word it).


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:26 PM on November 12, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The eggs by themselves only have one set of chromosomes which either combine with a set of  chromosomes from the sperm (fertilization)  to form a dual set or the single set of chromosomes is replaced entirely with a dual set of chromosomes from a donor adult cell (therapeutic cloning).  Of course, the genetic material from the adult cell used for the cloning is derived from a cell line that can trace its existance to  a "fertilization event".

There is some research being done on Parthenogenesis which is the process where females give birth to genetically diverse offspring without any input from any males (fertilization).  However,  this is not cloning and does not, to my knowlege, ever occur naturally in humans.  I pasted a Wikipedia link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 7:15 PM on November 12, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The current tally is, zero for fetal stem cells, 72 for adult stem cells. Also why should the government fund the research? I don't want my money wasted on something like that.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:03 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.