U.S. Senate to vote on stem cell research bill today

[sinewave]

We don't know enough yet to know what we know?

yeah, this is all sophmorish foot-dragging by the pro-life/anti-cure crowd. they're running out of excuses.

 

[lazur]

by that same logic, why hinder our research by not looking into the possibilities that embryonic stem-cells provide us?

Because it seems to me like the most logical course of action is to take the least controversial route. Once that has been exhausted, THEN you look at taking the more controversial route.

But even now, there is NO evidence whatsoever of ANY KIND that shows that embryonic stem cells are any more valuable than any other kind of stem cell. And, other than to gain political points, I just don't get why this is such a hot button issue if the value of embryonic stem cells over other stem cells can't even be proven.

 

[Armand Z Trip]

To this day, NO cures or treatments of any kind have been derived through the use of embryonic stem cells. Yet more than 70 treatments and cures have been derived from adult stem cells. (Source: http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=258180)

“I welcome this debate on bioethics and stem cells and I look forward to making the case for successful, ethical, and non-controversial adult stem cell research,” said Brownback. “Today we have derived over 70 peer-reviewed and published medical treatments from adult stem cell research, while the outlook of embryonic stem cell research is speculative. The federal government should not commit taxpayer dollars to morally wrong embryonic stem cell research when ethical adult stem cell research is delivering real medical treatments. Some of the very treatments promised by proponents of stem cell research are actually being delivered by adult stem cells.”

Lazur, didn't you write - Why are you so selective about what you choose to believe from the lips of politicians. Oh, I know, it fits right into your own personal political beliefs, so therefore it MUST be true.
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236153

 

[jaguarr]

by that same logic, why hinder our research by not looking into the possibilities that embryonic stem-cells provide us?

Exactly. We would be remiss to knowingly neglect an area of research just because we're doing similar research on a different type of cell. That's a self-imposed limitation to potential progress and new discoveries. Especially when the data from the research from other types of current stem cell research can be correlated with that of research on embryonic stem cells and vice-versa to provide even more knowledge and insight. There's no reason for the limitation except for people's squeamishness over some people's beliefs that embryos constitute human life. So, that raises the question of, if those embryos that are supposedly human lives (which I don't believe they do, personally) aren't used for research but are simply destroyed and discarded instead, how is that any more ethical than using them for research that could benefit millions? It's not, and in fact is even more reprehensible in my mind because of the lost potential and the huge amount of waste for no reason at all.

jag

 

[sinewave]

Because it seems to me like the most logical course of action is to take the least controversial route. Once that has been exhausted, THEN you look at taking the more controversial route.

But even now, there is NO evidence whatsoever of ANY KIND that shows that embryonic stem cells are any more valuable than any other kind of stem cell. Why is that so hard to understand?

you're looking at it from your side and your side only, though. you claim there's been more breakthrough's from adult stem-cells than from embryonic ones, but you don't account for the fact that that's due to the adult cells being more readily available. the scientific community has a better handle on all this stuff than you, i or the president and they feel that embryonic stem-cells have HUGE potential, possibly more than adult cells. most likely due to the cell type. i've tried reading up on it on wikipedia and most of it flew over my head, but i got the gist that the types of cells in a blastocyst (4-5 day-old embryo) are more useful due to the fact that they are able to grow into each of the more than 200 different cell types in the human body, unlike adult stem-cells.

 

[lazur]

Lazur, didn't you write - Why are you so selective about what you choose to believe from the lips of politicians. Oh, I know, it fits right into your own personal political beliefs, so therefore it MUST be true.
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236153

Completely different discussion. There's a difference between a senator giving an OPINION about the insurgency in Iraq and a recognized scientist giving a FACT on what he's learned through research in the lab. If you're unsure who I'm talking about, Google Davis Prentice.

But nice attempt at trolling the thread .

 

[sinewave]

Exactly. We would be remiss to knowingly neglect an area of research just because we're doing similar research on a different type of cell. That's a self-imposed limitation to potential progress and new discoveries. Especially when the data from the research from other types of current stem cell research can be correlated with that of research on embryonic stem cells and vice-versa to provide even more knowledge and insight. There's no reason for the limitation except for people's squeamishness over some people's beliefs that embryos constitute human life. So, that raises the question of, if those embryos that are supposedly human lives (which I don't believe they do, personally) aren't used for research but are simply destroyed and discarded instead, how is that any more ethical than using them for research that could benefit millions? It's not, and in fact is even more reprehensible in my mind because of the lost potential and the huge amount of waste for no reason at all.

jag

exactly.

 

[sinewave]

Completely different discussion. There's a difference between a senator giving an OPINION about the insurgency in Iraq and a recognized scientist giving a FACT on what he's learned through research in the lab. If you're unsure who I'm talking about, Google Davis Prentice.

But nice attempt at trolling the thread .

if the politician is biased on the topic then there really is no difference. nice try, though.

 

[Darthphere]

jag

Sarcasm dude.

 

[lazur]

you're looking at it from your side and your side only, though. you claim there's been more breakthrough's from adult stem-cells than from embryonic ones, but you don't account for the fact that that's due to the adult cells being more readily available. the scientific community has a better handle on all this stuff than you, i or the president and they feel that embryonic stem-cells have HUGE potential, possibly more than adult cells. most likely due to the cell type. i've tried reading up on it on wikipedia and most of it flew over my head, but i got the gist that the types of cells in a blastocyst (4-5 day-old embryo) are more useful due to the fact that they are able to grow into each of the more than 200 different cell types in the human body, unlike adult stem-cells.

It's not just *my* side. There a huge, gaping question about ethics and morality here. I know that's something you and many other hard leaning leftists like to completely trash - (morality? oh, the bible again ) - but not all beliefs which don't allign with your own should be trampled on.

Personally, I'm not saying we SHOULD NOT conduct research on embryonic stem cells. I am saying, however, that just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

We don't know enough about what we HAVE (adult, umbilical cord, baby teeth and amniotic fluid stem cells) to make any sort of an educated guess on what's what and what works best. It's like having five different flavors of candy bar in front of you, all yours for the taking, none of them having ever been tasted before, but all of them looking delicious, and having a sixth being held by the person next to you. And instead of opting for the five you HAVE, you decide you want to steal the sixth you don't have, just so you can taste all six.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't conduct the research. I'm saying let's figure out what we HAVE and then, if it's found that what we have isn't what we need, we go to the embryonic stage. If for no other reason than to TRY and not STOMP all over the moral conflicts other people (a LOT of people) have with this.

 

[lazur]

if the politician is biased on the topic then there really is no difference. nice try, though.

What you just said is completely mindless, no offense intended. "Any politician with a view is biased toward that view."

Well duh.

 

[sinewave]

It's not just *my* side. There a huge, gaping question about ethics and morality here. I know that's something you and many other hard leaning leftists like to completely trash - (morality? oh, the bible again ) - but not all beliefs which don't allign with your own should be trampled on.

Personally, I'm not saying we SHOULD NOT conduct research on embryonic stem cells. I am saying, however, that just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

We don't know enough about what we HAVE (adult, umbilical cord, baby teeth and amniotic fluid stem cells) to make any sort of an educated guess on what's what and what works best. It's like having five different flavors of candy bar in front of you, all yours for the taking, none of them having ever been tasted before, but all of them looking delicious, and having a sixth being held by the person next to you. And instead of opting for the five you HAVE, you decide you want to steal the sixth you don't have, just so you can taste all six.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't conduct the research. I'm saying let's figure out what we HAVE and then, if it's found that what we have isn't what we need, we go to the embryonic stage. If for no other reason than to TRY and not STOMP all over the moral conflicts other people (a LOT of people) have with this.

take the blinders off and go read my posts again. you're not getting that whole "hinderance" argument, or you're choosing to ignore it.

 

[sinewave]

What you just said is completely mindless, no offense intended. "Any politician with a view is biased toward that view."

Well duh.

playing semantics again?

 

[jaguarr]

It's not just *my* side. There a huge, gaping question about ethics and morality here. I know that's something you and many other hard leaning leftists like to completely trash - (morality? oh, the bible again ) - but not all beliefs which don't allign with your own should be trampled on.

Personally, I'm not saying we SHOULD NOT conduct research on embryonic stem cells. I am saying, however, that just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

We don't know enough about what we HAVE (adult, umbilical cord, baby teeth and amniotic fluid stem cells) to make any sort of an educated guess on what's what and what works best. It's like having five different flavors of candy bar in front of you, all yours for the taking, none of them having ever been tasted before, but all of them looking delicious, and having a sixth being held by the person next to you. And instead of opting for the five you HAVE, you decide you want to steal the sixth you don't have, just so you can taste all six.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't conduct the research. I'm saying let's figure out what we HAVE and then, if it's found that what we have isn't what we need, we go to the embryonic stage. If for no other reason than to TRY and not STOMP all over the moral conflicts other people (a LOT of people) have with this.

I get what you're saying, lazur. I do. I don't think limiting ourselves in research is in any way advantageous, though. And as far as morals and beliefs go, why is it that people who have ultra-conservative beliefs never seem to respect the morals and beliefs of people who have ones that are different from their own? I respect the right of someone to believe what they want to believe, and when the majority rules then I have to accept that even if it doesn't fit with my own belief system. And, here we have a similar situation except this time it's the fundamentalist Christians and ultra-right wingers that are protesting as a minority and yet they still manage to have their way despite what the majority is asking for. That hardly seems fair and quite frankly, I resent the fact that they're holding everyone back by not respecting the beliefs and wishes of the majority.

jag

 

[sinewave]

I get what you're saying, lazur. I do. I don't think limiting ourselves in research is in any way advantageous, though. And as far as morals and beliefs go, why is it that people who have ultra-conservative beliefs never seem to respect the morals and beliefs of people who have ones that are different from their own? I respect the right of someone to believe what they want to believe, and when the majority rules then I have to accept that even if it doesn't fit with my own belief system. And, here we have a similar situation except this time it's the fundamentalist Christians and ultra-right wingers that are protesting as a minority and yet they still manage to have their way despite what the majority is asking for. That hardly seems fair and quite frankly, I resent the fact that they're holding everyone back by not respecting the beliefs and wishes of the majority.

jag

stop raping my mind and duplicating my thoughts in a more eloquent form!!!

 

[jaguarr]

stop raping my mind and duplicating my thoughts in a more eloquent form!!!

Your mind likes it and asked me to be even rougher.

jag

 

[sinewave]

Your mind likes it and asked me to be even rougher.

jag

that's my mind for you. ever the kinky ****e.

 

[jaguarr]

that's my mind for you. ever the kinky ****e.

It said you would say that.

jag

 

[sinewave]

it's like it's reading my.... oh... nevermind.

 

[lazur]

I get what you're saying, lazur. I do. I don't think limiting ourselves in research is in any way advantageous, though. And as far as morals and beliefs go, why is it that people who have ultra-conservative beliefs never seem to respect the morals and beliefs of people who have ones that are different from their own? I respect the right of someone to believe what they want to believe, and when the majority rules then I have to accept that even if it doesn't fit with my own belief system. And, here we have a similar situation except this time it's the fundamentalist Christians and ultra-right wingers that are protesting as a minority and yet they still manage to have their way despite what the majority is asking for. That hardly seems fair and quite frankly, I resent the fact that they're holding everyone back by not respecting the beliefs and wishes of the majority.

jag

Okay, if I look at this logically, leaving out the question of morality from the person assessing the situation, here's what I come up with:

1) There are five different types of stem cells on which to conduct research.

2) One of those types, adult stem cells, has yielded significant results in terms of cures for disease. The other four, including embryonic, haven't yielded much, despite there being ample supplies of all.

3) Despite our research, we don't even know if adult and embryonic stem cells can both be called pluripotent, but we suspect they are both the same, especially given the positive results from adult. In fact, if anything, the adult stem cells have properties more favorable to curing disease than the embryonic stem cells.

4) The only way to get embryonic stem cells is by 'destroying life', which becomes a morale quandary for probably half the population of the world (a conservative figure given how many people are religious).

So the question is:

Should we continue on with the very positive research we've done so far on adult stem cells or should we put all of our focus instead on the embryonic stem cells that, so far, haven't yielded any results?

People in this thread are talking about how there's a shortage of embryonic stem cells and that's why proper research can't be done. But where are your sources for that? Bush didn't completely ban federal funding on embryonic stem cells. He banned funding on NEW embryonic stem cells. Are you saying that the stem cells we have in supply aren't ample enough for adequate research? Where is your proof of that?

Whatever the case, I've given my opinion on this mess. Take it for what you will.

 

[Cho Chang]

My girlfriend and I had three really adorable abortions. We could have saved tons of people.

 

[sinewave]

Okay, if I look at this logically, leaving out the question of morality from the person assessing the situation, here's what I come up with:

1) There are five different types of stem cells on which to conduct research.

2) One of those types, adult stem cells, has yielded significant results in terms of cures for disease. The other four, including embryonic, haven't yielded much, despite there being ample supplies of all.

3) Despite our research, we don't even know if adult and embryonic stem cells can both be called pluripotent, but we suspect they are both the same, especially given the positive results from adult. In fact, if anything, the adult stem cells have properties more favorable to curing disease than the embryonic stem cells.

4) The only way to get embryonic stem cells is by 'destroying life', which becomes a morale quandary for probably half the population of the world (a conservative figure given how many people are religious).

So the question is:

Should we continue on with the very positive research we've done so far on adult stem cells or should we put all of our focus instead on the embryonic stem cells that, so far, haven't yielded any results?

People in this thread are talking about how there's a shortage of embryonic stem cells and that's why proper research can't be done. But where are your sources for that? Bush didn't completely ban federal funding on embryonic stem cells. He banned funding on NEW embryonic stem cells. Are you saying that the stem cells we have in supply aren't ample enough for adequate research? Where is your proof of that?

Whatever the case, I've given my opinion on this mess. Take it for what you will.

i don't think it's an "either/or" situation in regards to performing research on adult and emryonic stem-cells. there's no reason why they couldn't continue to research the adult cells while also researching the embryonic ones. if that's what you're stating.

 

[Mister Sinister]

Bush said that he would never condone murder of innocents for a just cause...but wasn't that what the Iraq war was about?

 

[sinewave]

My girlfriend and I had three really adorable abortions. We could have saved tons of people.

and made tons of money on the black market.

 

[sinewave]

Bush said that he would never condone murder of innocents for a just cause...but wasn't that what the Iraq war was about?

don't bother trying to decipher his logic. even he can't do that.