stem cells

[felicote]

Stem Cells Reverse Parkinson's in Monkeys

article

[mrbiggs]

To me, stem cells are easy. (As opposed to abortion, which is difficult.) Stem cells are simply that, cells. They were not created in order to become a human being, and they would never have any chance of becoming one.

[lochinvar]

Begging the question, mrbiggs.

No one is opposed to stem cells because they might become a human being. Stem cell research is opposed because the source of the cells is aborted human fetuses.

If there existed a way to extract stem cells from the already-born without causing any harm to the donor, there wouldn't be any controversy about using them.

[JEC]

Lonchivar,
That is not precise. Stem cells are still present in all of us, and there are ways to harvest them from adults. However, they are by far, much more easily harvested from fetal tissue. As you point out, the most often used source is what makes them controversial. Politically, it would be ideal if they could be harvested succesfully from young adults, so that it becomes a non-issue. The truth is that we do not know whether stem cells would lead to a major breakthrough in science or medicine or not. Only time will tell what were the consequences of the current federal policies on stem cell research.

[cowpaste]

Controversy? Hm...let's see...either we use it to get stem cells, OR WE JUST PLAIN DESTROY IT. Seems pretty clear to me.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

No one is opposed to stem cells because they might become a human being. Stem cell research is opposed because the source of the cells is aborted human fetuses.

Oh. I was arguing the point because I people have used it against me. I guess that's perhaps a more radical argument, though.

Wait....if they're aborted, why does it matter? They're going to die anyway, might as well make them useful, so they can....heal someone, or something.

[Gav]

You forget the people againts the harvesting of stem cells from aborted foetuses are also against abortion.

[scrapinpeg]

Well, it's not as if fetal stem cell research is banned. It's just not federally funded. Big difference.

And as pointed out, there are new methods of getting stem cells from sources other than fetus...es (plural form?). There is no restriction on research using those stem cells.

So I'm not sure what the big deal is.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by JEC

The truth is that we do not know whether stem cells would lead to a major breakthrough in science or medicine or not. Only time will tell what were the consequences of the current federal policies on stem cell research.

I would like to point out that several countries (all where abortion is much less a political issue than in USA, AFAIK) have much more science-friendly standards on stem cell research than USA. Science is being done in these countries too, so the US. legal position may become quite moot.

GW Bush has endorsed science on special stem cell lines, lines harvested from fetuses aborted before a special date. This policy created precious few lines available to US scientists. Since a surprisingly high proportion of those lines originated over here, it made the papers. The difference in moral value between stem cells harvested before and after that date is another thing, and not well explained in the articles.



Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Gav

You forget the people againts the harvesting of stem cells from aborted foetuses are also against abortion.

Here's the kicker. Abortion, is currently still legal!
Therefore not allowing the stem cells from legally conducted abortion is in effect wasting the valuable learning and research that could be done!!

[Maeve_Mari]

A thread-jack, but still something that causes me great liberal pain, is the ban on smoking in public places. Smoking and the possession of cigarettes, lit and otherwise, is still legal. They are not banned substances, and in fact, the government (both the federal and state) collects taxes on the sale and distribution of cigarettes. So how come we allow overreaching legislation that prevents us from doing legal things with legal substances?

I know there's the medical issues, and the second hand smoke issues, but if these factors are significantly hazardous to the health of the nation, then smoking and the possession of cigarettes themselves should be banned and prohibited.

FYI: I don't smoke, never really did (unless you consider early teenager puffing to count,) and I am not all that fond of being in the same room, car or area as a smoker. So my concern isn't personal. It's not because I am a smoker who has been sent outside to the netherlands of office parking lots to enjoy my vice.

My issue is that if we ban the activities that are associated with legal products and services, doesn't it prove us contradictory and unpropitious??

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

(snip) My issue is that if we ban the activities that are associated with legal products and services, doesn't it prove us contradictory and unpropitious??

Not to mention...hypocritical?

Contradictory? Certainly. The fact that something is currently still legal doesn't mean it's currently "in vogue". Since the opponents of smoking--and abortion, though they are not necessarily congruant populations--can't overturn the legality of it directly, they seek out ways to attack it indirectly until such time as they feel they will be able to attack it directly.

The fact that abortion is still legal is the major thorn and spur to the pro-life faithful, and is precisely the reason they oppose fetal stem cell research. They fear that if beneficial uses can be found for fetal tissue from abortions it complicates the moral issue, i.e., banning a great evil now also means forever abandoning a great good. This is a stumbling block on the path to the eventual outlawing of the practice, which is their ultimate aim.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

{snip}
My issue is that if we ban the activities that are associated with legal products and services, doesn't it prove us contradictory and unpropitious??

Not necessarily.

Lots of legal things are illegal to do in certain places. Drinking alcohol is generally illegal in a vehicle--even if it is the passenger. Building a fire in your background is legal in many places--but may be illegal on public property.

Banning smoking in public places is ostensibly an occupational health issue--protecting employees at those places.

--Philistine

[lochinvar]

For the record, I am a smoker...and I have no problem with banning smoking in buildings and/or public areas. When/if they ban it altogether, however, I'm going to have to take issue.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Gav

You forget the people againts the harvesting of stem cells from aborted foetuses are also against abortion.

I know, but once it's ALREADY been aborted, why can't we use it to heal people? It's like the way the leather industry is, largely, based on the meat industry. Very few animals are killed for leather alone. That's why I don't mind owning leather things.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

For the record, I am a smoker...and I have no problem with banning smoking in buildings and/or public areas. When/if they ban it altogether, however, I'm going to have to take issue.

Well, that's where it's going.
Restaurants, bars, offices, rental cars, hotel rooms, what's next? Apartment buildings, condos, your back porch?

[cowpaste]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I know, but once it's ALREADY been aborted, why can't we use it to heal people? It's like the way the leather industry is, largely, based on the meat industry. Very few animals are killed for leather alone. That's why I don't mind owning leather things.

You forget that logic is pointless in arguments such as these, especially when religion is involved.

[gojujay]

I have no problem with fetal stem cell research. I also have no problem using the data the Nazis gathered in WWII using Jewish victims. Allow something positive to come out of these acts.

One thing with which I do have a problem, is BOTH sides of the issue distorting or omitting facts and/or problems that come up in researching (as they always do) in order to present a more palatable picture to the media and the general public. There are plenty of problems with fetal stem cells, runaway tumor growth immediately comes to mind, but that doesn't mean we should stop researching their potential benefits. Likewise, the few stem cell therapies that have shown the most promise come from adult stem cells.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I know, but once it's ALREADY been aborted, why can't we use it to heal people? It's like the way the leather industry is, largely, based on the meat industry. Very few animals are killed for leather alone. That's why I don't mind owning leather things.

The claim is that once we find a beneficial use for aborted fetuses, we won't want to stop aborting them. The "slippery slope", and all that...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Smoking and the possession of cigarettes, lit and otherwise, is still legal. They are not banned substances, and in fact, the government (both the federal and state) collects taxes on the sale and distribution of cigarettes. So how come we allow overreaching legislation that prevents us from doing legal things with legal substances?

Indeed. And the same may be said of a great many things. Alcohol, as Philistine noted, is also thus limited: open container laws and the like. The same logic can even be applied to firearms: legal items legally possessed, sales taxed by the state, yet increasingly the places where they may be carried, let alone used, are being diminished by legislative or bureaucratic fiat...