Obama overturns moronic Bush policy on stem cells

paul87920 wrote:

Conservatives have had multiple chances to overturn Roe V. Wade since the 1970's. Though they have expressed their desire to overturn the decision, for almost 40 years they have lied to their constituents and failed to deliver. Republicans lied, and let their social conservative constituents down. I have my own views on abortion which are probably more appropriate for another thread, but I personally see no problem with embryonic stem cell research. I don't think it will encourage a woman to have an abortion, and I believe that if something good can come out of a horrific situation then I should be thankful for that.

Wow - I didn't even consider the fact that some people might think that the embyos used for stem cell research might come from an abortion.

That's not where stem cells come from...

http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-embryonic.html#two

Quote :

2. What is the source of embryonic stem cells?

Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in a dish in an in vitro fertilization clinic — and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.

The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four to five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. Each blastocyst consists of 50 to 150 cells and includes three structures: an outer layer of cells that form the placenta, a fluid-filled cavity, and a group of about 30 pluripotent cells at one end of the cavity. This latter group of cells, called the inner cell mass, forms all the cells of the body [Source: National Institutes of Health].

Scorpion wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

I'm still trying to understand why with the advances (the recent news of reprogramming these cells), why adult stem cell use isn't being pushed instead of embryonic?

why the need to kill babies if we can just use adult SC's...Oh wait- I get it - it'll affect the pro-abortion movement...

What a load of crap. You act as if the science of adult stem cells has advanced to the point where they are now interchangeable with embryonic stems cells. That's just not the case.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

It has absolutely nothing to do with what you call the "pro-abortion" movement. Do you honestly think that people like Nancy Reagan and Orrin Hatch are "pro-abortion?" Get real!

And what part of only using embryos that would otherwise be discarded don't you understand? Are you saying that throwing embryos into the trash is somehow OK, but the use of discarded embryos for scientific advancement to save lives is "killing babies?"

If so, how in the hell can you justify such a position?

Where "the hell" have I ever said that using embryos for advancement was OK?? I haven't, so don't twist my words. I'm saying that if science is showing that there is a chance to reprogram adult stem cells instead of using embryonic, then I believe they should do so. I don't see a potential human life as a blob just to get rid of or manipulate as I see fit- regardless if the "blob" comes from an abortion or petri dish.

Ohhmama wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

I'm still trying to understand why with the advances (the recent news of reprogramming these cells), why adult stem cell use isn't being pushed instead of embryonic?

why the need to kill babies if we can just use adult SC's...Oh wait- I get it - it'll affect the pro-abortion movement...

What a load of crap. You act as if the science of adult stem cells has advanced to the point where they are now interchangeable with embryonic stems cells. That's just not the case.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

It has absolutely nothing to do with what you call the "pro-abortion" movement. Do you honestly think that people like Nancy Reagan and Orrin Hatch are "pro-abortion?" Get real!

And what part of only using embryos that would otherwise be discarded don't you understand? Are you saying that throwing embryos into the trash is somehow OK, but the use of discarded embryos for scientific advancement to save lives is "killing babies?"

If so, how in the hell can you justify such a position?

Where "the hell" have I ever said that using embryos for advancement was OK?? I haven't, so don't twist my words. I'm saying that if science is showing that there is a chance to reprogram adult stem cells instead of using embryonic, then I believe they should do so. I don't see a potential human life as a blob just to get rid of or manipulate as I see fit- regardless if the "blob" comes from an abortion or petri dish.

So you do see an embryo as a potential human life. I don't want to "twist your words." I just want to make sure that's what you meant. I also think that an embryo is a potential human life. But that's not the same as a "baby," is it?

Scorpion wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

Conservatives have had multiple chances to overturn Roe V. Wade since the 1970's. Though they have expressed their desire to overturn the decision, for almost 40 years they have lied to their constituents and failed to deliver. Republicans lied, and let their social conservative constituents down. I have my own views on abortion which are probably more appropriate for another thread, but I personally see no problem with embryonic stem cell research. I don't think it will encourage a woman to have an abortion, and I believe that if something good can come out of a horrific situation then I should be thankful for that.

Wow - I didn't even consider the fact that some people might think that the embyos used for stem cell research might come from an abortion.

That's not where stem cells come from...

http://www.stemcellresearchformichigan.com/faq-embryonic.html#two

Quote :

2. What is the source of embryonic stem cells?

Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in a dish in an in vitro fertilization clinic — and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.

The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four to five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. Each blastocyst consists of 50 to 150 cells and includes three structures: an outer layer of cells that form the placenta, a fluid-filled cavity, and a group of about 30 pluripotent cells at one end of the cavity. This latter group of cells, called the inner cell mass, forms all the cells of the body [Source: National Institutes of Health].

That's neat. Ya learn something new everyday.

Scorpion wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

I'm still trying to understand why with the advances (the recent news of reprogramming these cells), why adult stem cell use isn't being pushed instead of embryonic?

why the need to kill babies if we can just use adult SC's...Oh wait- I get it - it'll affect the pro-abortion movement...

What a load of crap. You act as if the science of adult stem cells has advanced to the point where they are now interchangeable with embryonic stems cells. That's just not the case.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

It has absolutely nothing to do with what you call the "pro-abortion" movement. Do you honestly think that people like Nancy Reagan and Orrin Hatch are "pro-abortion?" Get real!

And what part of only using embryos that would otherwise be discarded don't you understand? Are you saying that throwing embryos into the trash is somehow OK, but the use of discarded embryos for scientific advancement to save lives is "killing babies?"

If so, how in the hell can you justify such a position?

Where "the hell" have I ever said that using embryos for advancement was OK?? I haven't, so don't twist my words. I'm saying that if science is showing that there is a chance to reprogram adult stem cells instead of using embryonic, then I believe they should do so. I don't see a potential human life as a blob just to get rid of or manipulate as I see fit- regardless if the "blob" comes from an abortion or petri dish.

So you do see an embryo as a potential human life. I don't want to "twist your words." I just want to make sure that's what you meant. I also think that an embryo is a potential human life. But that's not the same as a "baby," is it?

Yes I do see an embryo as a potential HUMAN life. Up until 8 weeks it is an embryo, afterwards a fetus - :an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind ; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

As far as a "baby" yes I do believe it is a baby- (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck-
then it's not a turkey)

Ohhmama wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

I'm still trying to understand why with the advances (the recent news of reprogramming these cells), why adult stem cell use isn't being pushed instead of embryonic?

why the need to kill babies if we can just use adult SC's...Oh wait- I get it - it'll affect the pro-abortion movement...

What a load of crap. You act as if the science of adult stem cells has advanced to the point where they are now interchangeable with embryonic stems cells. That's just not the case.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

It has absolutely nothing to do with what you call the "pro-abortion" movement. Do you honestly think that people like Nancy Reagan and Orrin Hatch are "pro-abortion?" Get real!

And what part of only using embryos that would otherwise be discarded don't you understand? Are you saying that throwing embryos into the trash is somehow OK, but the use of discarded embryos for scientific advancement to save lives is "killing babies?"

If so, how in the hell can you justify such a position?

Where "the hell" have I ever said that using embryos for advancement was OK?? I haven't, so don't twist my words. I'm saying that if science is showing that there is a chance to reprogram adult stem cells instead of using embryonic, then I believe they should do so. I don't see a potential human life as a blob just to get rid of or manipulate as I see fit- regardless if the "blob" comes from an abortion or petri dish.

So you do see an embryo as a potential human life. I don't want to "twist your words." I just want to make sure that's what you meant. I also think that an embryo is a potential human life. But that's not the same as a "baby," is it?

Yes I do see an embryo as a potential HUMAN life. Up until 8 weeks it is an embryo, afterwards a fetus - :an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind ; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.

Yeah. Well the key is that it's a potential human life. Embryonic stem cells used for research are from blastocysts that have been developing in a dish for only a few days, and are created in what is an essentially artificial process in a laboratory. Without further intervention, none of these blastocysts is going to end up being a living human being.

The other info in your post may be relevant to a discussion about abortion, but not to a discussion of embryonic stem cells.

If you have religious objections to stem cell research, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind. But if you simply see it as a part of a larger debate that is somehow related to abortion, then I respectfully disagree. IMHO, it is frankly immoral to not pursue every possible avenue to help people who have horrible diseases or injuries.

I'm just curious about something. Are you for or against in vitro fertilization?

I do see your point about the two seperate issues, but I guess we're going to have to just disagree... I understand that it's only cells at the very earliest stages, that no pain receptors are available, but I think it teeters on very scary frankensteinish medicine- Just my opinion. (kinda how now medicine wants to offer designer babies- yes totally different topic, but my example).

I don't have a problem with in vitro. I realize the embryo is created similiarily, but the issue I have is it isn't being destroyed for the use to extract certain materials, it's done to make a new life.

Ohhmama wrote:

(kinda how now medicine wants to offer designer babies- yes totally different topic, but my example).

Not "medicine"; a single corporation (or maybe a handful). I think it's unfair to equate the two.

Ohhmama wrote:

I realize the embryo is created similiarily, but the issue I have is it isn't being destroyed for the use to extract certain materials, it's done to make a new life.

So killing babies is acceptable only if it's done to make new babies, but not to save currently existing ones (with fully formed pain receptors)?

Jason Rosenhouse wrote:

The embryo has no thoughts, no capacity for suffering, no consciousness. It has none of the attributes that distinguishes a human being from other sorts of life. Medical research on animals, which certainly have the capacity to suffer and arguably, at least in mammals, have limited consciousness, is far more morally problematic. Yet even here most people, myself included, are willing to swallow hard and tolerate it for the undeniable good such research does.

It is monstrous to elevate the early embryo to such a status that you are willing to ignore the real suffering of people afflicted with dread diseases. You can spare me the nonsense about adult stem cells, or how you are not ignoring suffering you are just maintaining high moral standards. Baloney. You are rejecting the most promising line of research anyone has come up with to date because you have preposterously convinced yourself that an embryo, once formed, must never be destroyed. You are personally telling sick people that it is better that they suffer, deteriorate and die than that an undifferentiated group of cells be prevented from reaching its full potential. SOURCE

Mind you, that's "an undifferentiated group of cells" that's just going to be destroyed anyway. Extracting certain materials from them isn't preventing anything. In vitro is the villain here, not the research.

Ohhmama wrote:

I don't have a problem with in vitro. I realize the embryo is created similiarily, but the issue I have is it isn't being destroyed for the use to extract certain materials, it's done to make a new life.

Just to clarify, the process is not just "similar," it is the exact process that is used for in vitro fertilization, and the excess embryos that are created for the purpose of "creating a new life," are the embryos that are used for stem cell research. We're not talking about creating embryos for experimentation... that's not what stem cell research is about. We're talking about doing research using only the embryos that otherwise would have been discarded by fertility clinics.

Heretic wrote:

In vitro is the villain here, not the research.

Exactly. That's the reason that I asked the question.

How is in vitro the villian?

Ohhmama wrote:

How is in vitro the villian?

Again, because that's where the embryos used for stem cell research come from... they are the direct result of in vitro fertilization at fertility clinics.

If you go back to Senator Hatch's statement from his website...

Quote :

Hatch is an original sponsor of the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act of 2009, which would allow federal dollars to be used to perform embryonic stem cell research with frozen embryos if those embryos are the product of in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be destroyed, and are voluntarily donated without compensation given to the donors.

And I'll say it again, because you still don't seem to get it. Embryos are not created in order to do research. They are the products of the in vitro fertilization procedure. When a woman uses a fertility clinic to "create a new life," often dozens of embryos are created in order to increase the chances of having a successful pregnancy. The unused embryos are ultimately destroyed.

Does that make it a little clearer?

gosh golly no.... :headbang:

Yeah, well your question made it look as if you didn't get it.

So, if you think that in vitro fertilization is OK, then how many destroyed embryos are you willing to "sacrifice" just so a woman can have one baby?

12? 20? 30?

How can you support it? According to your previous statements, these embryos are somehow "sacred."

Specifically, you said that...

Ohhmama wrote:

I don't see a potential human life as a blob just to get rid of or manipulate as I see fit

Yet you say you have no problem with in vitro fertilization, even though the process results in the destruction of countless embryos. Sounds a hell of a lot like "getting rid of" potential human life to me.

So again, how can you, in good conscience, not have a problem with in vitro fertilization?