Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

After five years the President has yet to veto a bill, not because of some magical harmony between the Legislative and the Executive, but because on most of the legislation he signs, there is an addendum signing statement in which he nullifies legislative effect on the Administration, and executive branch agencies.

He uses his first veto on a bipartisan bill aimed at furthering research into debilitating diseases that affect millions.

"science is what again?? something I dont understand and must therefore be bad"............... thats the thinking of GW Bush.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
He uses his first veto on a bipartisan bill aimed at furthering research into debilitating diseases that affect millions.

You have oversimplified the issue. There is ethical concern over embryonic stem cell research. There is valid support for both sides, and it is reasonable to have a stance against the area of embryonic stem cell research. Further research needs to be made into adult stem cell research prior to the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research being pushed. Adult stem cells are an option that has not been researched fully, and may provide just as much benefit as embryonic stem cell use. Embryonic stem cells are merely a universal where adult stem cells would be locally constrained.

I would refer you to the article On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research: An Appeal for Legally and Ethically Responsible Science and Public Policy by the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. This article was a portion of a text used in an Ethics in Biotechnology course I took. For reference the text is: Ethical Issues in Biotechnology, Edited by Richard Sherlock and John D. Morrey.

Bush is an idiot...

Originally posted by Flamboyant4Life
Bush is an idiot...

Yes, but that doesn't mean that his decisions are always improper, only that they are made due to idiotic and wrong reasoning

Contrary to what most people beleive, little to no progress has been made in the scientific arena of Stem cell research other than the very low effective percentage of usable embyros from fetal subjects. Stem cell research, while having the potential to possibly save lives, requires the harvesting of the cells from infants that are basically required to be aborted -killed, and then extracting the cells. So far, not only are such underdeveloped cells unstable and very difficult to use, they have proved ineffective in the scientific program so far, and a possible continuation could lead to hundreds, if not thousands more abortions on the part of scientific research that is not yet proven to even work, all for the sake of what? The lives of rich, old movie stars? The program and benefits of stem cell research no doubt are incredibly costly and only the rich would end up with the option of using it anyways in the near future.

Despite it all though, ANY sane, normal, caring person who gives a **** about other people's lives, even unborn ones, should know that scientific progress should not be built on the bodies of other humans...even Bush knows that. And dont give me any more crap about how they arent alive yet -thats BS.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
...even Bush knows that. And dont give me any more crap about how they arent alive yet -thats BS.

No one has ever said that a growing baby isn't alive. A viable human being, now that's another thing.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No one has ever said that a growing baby isn't alive. A viable human being, now that's another thing.

So it's an alive, growing baby..... but still okay to kill.


Riiiiight......Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Contrary to what most people beleive, little to no progress has been made in the scientific arena of Stem cell research other than the very low effective percentage of usable embyros from fetal subjects. Stem cell research, while having the potential to possibly save lives, requires the harvesting of the cells from infants that are basically required to be aborted -killed, and then extracting the cells. So far, not only are such underdeveloped cells unstable and very difficult to use, they have proved ineffective in the scientific program so far, and a possible continuation could lead to hundreds, if not thousands more abortions on the part of scientific research that is not yet proven to even work, all for the sake of what? The lives of rich, old movie stars? The program and benefits of stem cell research no doubt are incredibly costly and only the rich would end up with the option of using it anyways in the near future.

Despite it all though, ANY sane, normal, caring person who gives a **** about other people's lives, even unborn ones, should know that scientific progress should not be built on the bodies of other humans...even Bush knows that. And dont give me any more crap about how they arent alive yet -thats BS.




Glad to see that my President is doing what I elected him to do.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So it's an alive, growing baby..... but still okay to kill.


Riiiiight......

Yup.

Dude, that's f*cking sad.

How can you actually justify such a logic?

Especially when there are plenty of adult cem stells to study?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Dude, that's f*cking sad.

How can you actually justify such a logic?

Especially when there are plenty of adult cem stells to study?

It's sad that you make a difference between the two. Babys first, humanity second?

They're the same thing, seeing as all humanity was once a baby, and humanity wouldn't continue without new generations of babies to grown into adults, who .....etc...


Dude, if you honestly put the needs of human societies medical advances, over the lives of babies then you are a poor member of the human species.

Well if they kill a thousand fetus's and the end result is saving hundreds of thousands of people, it can then be justified.

And how can you make the judgement that fetus's has developed a soul?

And how can you think it is wrong to test on fetus's when you mention nothing wrong with humans doing medical tests on animals?

Humans are killing animals by the thousands every day, but you think that it is unfair to test on a fetus.

If you say that a fetus has a soul, that i am justified to say that a animal has a soul.

Originally posted by The thinker
Well if they kill a thousand fetus's and the end result is saving hundreds of thousands of people, it can then be justified.

And how can you make the judgement that fetus's has developed a soul?

And how can you think it is wrong to test on fetus's when you mention nothing wrong with humans doing medical tests on animals?

Humans are killing animals by the thousands every day, but you think that it is unfair to test on a fetus.

If you say that a fetus has a soul, that i am justified to say that a animal has a soul.

Where did I say anything about testing animals?

Either way, you can't compare animals to humans.

Yes, humans have souls.

I have one, cap has one, so do you.

Or if you aren't spiritual, a person has thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, etc....

animals do not.

We are given dominion over the earth, through reasoning and emotional relationships with others we prove that our life is far more valuable than that of a creature who lives by instincts.

Trying to compare a fetus, a human life form that will be a person like you or I, to a beast is absurd.

ESCs are harvested from blastocyst stage embryos.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
ESCs are harvested from blastocyst stage embryos.

But is it necessary to use these? Why not adult stem cells?

Originally posted by Regret
You have oversimplified the issue. There is ethical concern over embryonic stem cell research. There is valid support for both sides, and it is reasonable to have a stance against the area of embryonic stem cell research. Further research needs to be made into adult stem cell research prior to the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research being pushed. Adult stem cells are an option that has not been researched fully, and may provide just as much benefit as embryonic stem cell use. Embryonic stem cells are merely a universal where adult stem cells would be locally constrained.

I would refer you to the article On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research: An Appeal for Legally and Ethically Responsible Science and Public Policy by the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. This article was a portion of a text used in an Ethics in Biotechnology course I took. For reference the text is: Ethical Issues in Biotechnology, Edited by Richard Sherlock and John D. Morrey. Pluripotency vs multipotency. I see no ethical dilemma in using cells derived from embryos in cold storage and scheduled for destruction regardless.

yes, but how can you justify when something has got a soul, can you say that when a man has sex, he is evil because he is killing millions of sperms, because i can say that sperms have souls.

Neither of us are in a postition to juistify when something has a soul.

And if you think you can, then you are totaly ignorant.

And let me not get into a debate about animals having souls, there are many documented cases that indicate that primates are self concious---- but lets leave that debate for another time

Originally posted by sithsaber408
They're the same thing, seeing as all humanity was once a baby, and humanity wouldn't continue without new generations of babies to grown into adults, who .....etc...


Dude, if you honestly put the needs of human societies medical advances, over the lives of babies then you are a poor member of the human species.

You wound me to the core. Surely you didn't think I was unaware that you thought I was a poor representative of the human species. You don't give me enough credit.

Originally posted by Regret
Further research needs to be made into adult stem cell research prior to the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research being pushed. Adult stem cells are an option that has not been researched fully, and may provide just as much benefit as embryonic stem cell use. Embryonic stem cells are merely a universal where adult stem cells would be locally constrained.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Contrary to what most people beleive, little to no progress has been made in the scientific arena of Stem cell research other than the very low effective percentage of usable embyros from fetal subjects. Stem cell research, while having the potential to possibly save lives, requires the harvesting of the cells from infants that are basically required to be aborted -killed, and then extracting the cells. So far, not only are such underdeveloped cells unstable and very difficult to use, they have proved ineffective in the scientific program so far, and a possible continuation could lead to hundreds, if not thousands more abortions on the part of scientific research that is not yet proven to even work, all for the sake of what? The lives of rich, old movie stars? The program and benefits of stem cell research no doubt are incredibly costly and only the rich would end up with the option of using it anyways in the near future.

Despite it all though, ANY sane, normal, caring person who gives a **** about other people's lives, even unborn ones, should know that scientific progress should not be built on the bodies of other humans...even Bush knows that. And dont give me any more crap about how they arent alive yet -thats BS.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Dude, that's f*cking sad.

How can you actually justify such a logic?

Especially when there are plenty of adult cem stells to study?


Originally posted by Regret
But is it necessary to use these? Why not adult stem cells?

Embryonic Stem Cells Repair Paralysis in Rats

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, but that doesn't mean that his decisions are always improper, only that they are made due to idiotic and wrong reasoning

This one was clearly wrong. Honestly...Did you read the bill???...it was about as ethical as it comes. I dont see how research on ebryos that are just flushed down the toilet is any worse than just flushing them down the toilet.

Hopefully it turns out to be a disaster for the GOP.

Originally posted by Alliance
This one was clearly wrong. Honestly...Did you read the bill???...it was about as ethical as it comes. I dont see how research on ebryos that are just flushed down the toilet is any worse than just flushing them down the toilet.

Hopefully it turns out to be a disaster for the GOP.

And if the research works out well, will there be another larger debate about the use of valid embryos? I think the issue is still the same as if they were valid.

Originally posted by Regret
And if the research works out well, will there be another larger debate about the use of valid embryos? I think the issue is still the same as if they were valid. Define "valid embryo".

No its not. There wer at least six very rational regulations on what type of embryos could be used. Onyl embryoes that are going to be destroyed anyway (past optimal time for implantation), no use of embryoes where any finnancial gain was given to the donator...very logical stuff. I think you misunderstand what scientists want. No sane scientist want to chop up every embryo they see. We want a enough access (access would have been great under the current bill), but not unlimited. We dont need it.

Originally posted by Alliance
No its not. There wer at least six very rational regulations on what type of embryos could be used. Onyl embryoes that are going to be destroyed anyway (past optimal time for implantation), no use of embryoes where any finnancial gain was given to the donator...very logical stuff. I think you misunderstand what scientists want. No sane scientist want to chop up every embryo they see. We want a enough access (access would have been great under the current bill), but not unlimited. We dont need it.

I don't misunderstand what scientists want. I view with high skepticism society at large's ability to control itself once the scientists are finished with their research.

If the research proves to be beneficial there will be a larger debate as to which embryos should and should not be used when a person's life is on the line.

Due to this, I think that more research should be done with the adult stem cells before we should allow more research into embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cell research is still a wide area research could proceed and verify some possibilities prior to researching through the embryonic stem cell. I view embryonic stem cell research as unnecessary until adult stem cell research is further developed.

Originally posted by Regret
I don't misunderstand what scientists want. I view with high skepticism society at large's ability to control itself once the scientists are finished with their research.

If the research proves to be beneficial there will be a larger debate as to which embryos should and should not be used when a person's life is on the line.
That may be true, however, I dont think society will go around killing people for embryos..or mass harvesting them.


Originally posted by Regret Due to this, I think that more research should be done with the adult stem cells before we should allow more research into embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cell research is still a wide area research could proceed and verify some possibilities prior to researching through the embryonic stem cell. I view embryonic stem cell research as unnecessary until adult stem cell research is further developed.
Research develops where you put the money. Fetal stem cells are better than adult stem cells. End of story. Many possiblities have already been identified. People just don't get the cells and fool around, there are clear hypothesis developed already. I don't think you have a valid point, but adult stem cell research shoudl clearly continue.

Harvard Stem Cell Institute
http://stemcell.harvard.edu/index.jsp

Originally posted by Alliance
That may be true, however, I dont think society will go around killing people for embryos..or mass harvesting them.

I agree, but it is a possibility that I would consider before doing such.

Originally posted by Alliance
Research develops where you put the money. Fetal stem cells are better than adult stem cells. End of story. Many possiblities have already been identified. People just don't get the cells and fool around, there are clear hypothesis developed already. I don't think you have a valid point, but adult stem cell research shoudl clearly continue.

I agree that the fetal/embryonic stem cells are better. They can become anything, where the adult ones are limited.

I understand the process of getting grant approval and the difficulty in doing anything considered remotely close to being unethical. And so research done is typically very well controlled.

I am not aware of research that could be conducted on an embryonic stem cell that could not be first researched using the adult stem cells of the target area. This is a weakness in my stance, and I do admit that, but I feel that this needs to be addressed to alter my view. My opinion is based on the knowledge I have presently, and unless I am required to make a decision based on the subject I will probably not study it out unless it effects my work in some way.

i wonder if any of you loud mouth morality force-feeders would keep tooting your horns if you were paralized.

(here comes the meaningless statements of what they would do if they were paralized, since they know what its like and what they would do....)

the only reason why is because some religious people thinkn embryos are living matter so you shouldnt kill it

I actually see embryonic stem cell research much in the same light as organ donation. If someone is going to die anyways, someone might as well make use of their heart/pancreas/lung/whatever. When someone dies and still has the ability to save a life its worth doing. The stem cells in question are a lot like that hypothetical organ donor. The would die without any further use. If scientists can make something good come out of that waste, I say go for it.

That being said, I also think there should be more research with adult stem cells. Since they have the same genetic codes, a person could be treated with whatever came of them (assuming they are from the same person) with no risk of immunorejection. The only other way to get such a guarantee would be by using cloning tech to make the embryonic stem cells (I'm not completely against such research, but admit that there are ethical concerns)

I see no reason to limt the scope of research. Both embryonic and adult stem cells should be studied. Like anything animal research should come first, but after that, adequate access should be granted to further medicine.

I attended a lecture once where the subject was a guy who's research was in pushing already differentiated cells back to an undifferentiated state. He said that their lab had made muscle cells out of nerve cells. Now if they can get it to go the other way...
That's the real holy grail of this research, then we wouldn't have to worry about embryonic ethics, or immunosuppression treatments.

Originally posted by PVS
i wonder if any of you loud mouth morality force-feeders would keep tooting your horns if you were paralized.

(here comes the meaningless statements of what they would do if they were paralized, since they know what its like and what they would do....)

I have a harsh view on life. I come from a large family, 10 kids. People have often mentioned the zero population theory. My personal view is that if people died when nature would take them, without the intervention of the medical field keeping them alive, I would not have had to hear this from self righteous indignant pricks that want to say that somehow life sucks somewhere and if it sucked for me I'd be different. I have lived in poverty, when I was a kid at one point my parents did not have jobs, and we at one point lived in a Chevy Suburban, so don't go off talking about how life could be. Life sucks, that is how it is. I live well now, and I'm happy with it. I have empathy, but I also have other views that need to be considered along with my empathy. Get off your high horse.

And, yes, I know some people would have been happy to have that Suburban, so don't bother going there.

Originally posted by Regret
I have a harsh view on life. I come from a large family, 10 kids. People have often mentioned the zero population theory. My personal view is that if people died when nature would take them, without the intervention of the medical field keeping them alive, I would not have had to hear this from self righteous indignant pricks that want to say that somehow life sucks somewhere and if it sucked for me I'd be different. I have lived in poverty, when I was a kid at one point my parents did not have jobs, and we at one point lived in a Chevy Suburban, so don't go off talking about how life could be. Life sucks, that is how it is. I live well now, and I'm happy with it. I have empathy, but I also have other views that need to be considered along with my empathy. Get off your high horse.

And, yes, I know some people would have been happy to have that Suburban, so don't bother going there.

temporarily living is a truck during tough financial times is equal to never being paralized for life? you can have empathy? are you frikin joking?

1- boo frikin who nopity
2- high horse indeed

oh, i soooo anxiously await your next rant. dont disappoint me, please

Originally posted by PVS
temporarily living is a truck during tough financial times is equal to never being paralyzed for life? you can have empathy? are you frikin joking?

I wasn't saying it was equal. What I was saying is that it is their lot in life. What I was saying is that the "oooh, if you were..." argument is stupid. I'm not paralyzed, and with luck I will not be. The point is, if I were, I would hope that I wouldn't be self-centered enough to alter my opinion based on my personal situation.

Originally posted by Regret
I wasn't saying it was equal. What I was saying is that it is their lot in life. What I was saying is that the "oooh, if you were..." argument is stupid. I'm not paralyzed, and with luck I will not be. The point is, if I were, I would hope that I wouldn't be self-centered enough to alter my opinion based on my personal situation.


see? straight and non-pompous answer. congrats and thank you.

however you have not proven the question to be stupid...but thats ok...

Originally posted by PVS
i wonder if any of you loud mouth morality force-feeders would keep tooting your horns if you were paralized.

(here comes the meaningless statements of what they would do if they were paralized, since they know what its like and what they would do....)

Here's what I wouldn't do: live off a science that was created from the intended deaths of others. I still would not support this, no one else would either.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Here's what I wouldn't do: live off a science that was created from the intended deaths of others. I still would not support this, no one else would either.

dont you mean the death of a bundle of cells? its not even a fetus when they extract cells

people seem to want to paint a picture of absolute horror. a little baby being
brutally murdered so that the sick and unholy may feast on their blood for
nourishment.

Originally posted by PVS
dont you mean the death of a bundle of cells? its not even a fetus when they extract cells

people seem to want to paint a picture of absolute horror. a little baby being
brutally murdered so that the sick and unholy may feast on their blood for
nourishment.

I wonder, do you know the process of abortions...they aint the prettiest sight.

And it doesnt even matter what they are when it happens. Human life is not meant to be created for the simple reason of having parts of them harvested -no matter who it saves.

It can be related to the breeding of animals for the simple purpose of being slaughtered for their meat.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
I wonder, do you know the process of abortions...they aint the prettiest sight.

you didnt read my post, so i will state again:

the stem cells are take from a zygote (ball of cells which eventually become a fetus) try again


and yes, abortions are horrid...as well as open heart surgery. now THATS gruesome! they saw your damn chest plate open. you know that? but should we outlaw that too, because its gruesome? or perhaps the appearence and ethics of a procedure have nothing to do with eachother. case and point: if an abortion took a few minutes, was bloodless, and was about the equivalent of swallowing a pill, should it be allowed? of coarse not, because such a pill exists and its outlawed.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Here's what I wouldn't do: live off a science that was created from the intended deaths of others. I still would not support this, no one else would either.

So would you reject a heart or liver transplant in the event that you needed one to live? Someone would have to die in order for there to be an organ to transplant after all.

not a good point. in a transplant the person donating has to be dead when they take it out...so the law states....but i refuse to be a donor. why? what if i go to the hospital for an ingrown toenail and just happen to die of complications while somewhere dick cheney awaits his new heart?

Originally posted by PVS
not a good point. in a transplant the person donating has to be dead when they take it out.

Depends on what you mean by dead. Yes they have to be "brain dead", but the organ has to be extracted before the body actually shuts down. In other words, a heart can still be beating, Biochemical process still going, etc.

In the case of the zygote/embryo/whatever you want to call it. No brain, so no brain functions. Like the organ donor, death for certain fetuses... feti... whatever the plural is - is inevitable. An example would be these leftovers from fertility treatments that people are talking about. I suppose to be ethical about it, you should still get next of kins permission, but it is similar in quite a few ways. I'm not saying its not dissimilar in a few too, but the parallels are there.

Originally posted by docb77
Depends on what you mean by dead. Yes they have to be "brain dead", but the organ has to be extracted before the body actually shuts down. In other words, a heart can still be beating, Biochemical process still going, etc.


nice rebound indeed, the same logic of a pro-lifer would dictate that a beating heart makes a braindead person....not dead.

Originally posted by PVS
nice rebound indeed, the same logic of a pro-lifer would dictate that a beating heart makes a braindead person....not dead.

Actually, I am a pro-lifer. Just not an extremist.

I was considering this, and it occurred to me, is it possible to harvest eggs from a donor at the time of death?

If this is possible then I would probably be more prone to accepting the idea, because it would totally negate the need and or possibility of women selling embryos as each woman has an enormous number of eggs. Thus these eggs would be capable of continuing the supply of stem cells, if fertilized. Sperm being reproduced continually whereas eggs are not.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
He uses his first veto on a bipartisan bill aimed at furthering research into debilitating diseases that affect millions.

Research that destroys potential human life, yes, we know. There are there other options, look at them first.

Tell me, has anyone actually been cured of a disease by this wonderful stem cell reseach? No? Didn't think so, and even when human trials begin, I wouldn't be surprised if it backfires.

Autumn, you have no idea how the system works do you?

By the time you get to human trials you're pretty sure how a treatment is going to work. There may be a few side-effects, which is why they do human trials instead of just releasing it after animal testing, but the general mechanism is known by then. No, by that time the only backfire would be ethical questions.

Originally posted by autumn dreams
Research that destroys potential human life, yes, we know. There are there other options, look at them first.

Tell me, has anyone actually been cured of a disease by this wonderful stem cell reseach? No? Didn't think so, and even when human trials begin, I wouldn't be surprised if it backfires. Blastocysts scheduled for destruction.

You don't want research to be performed on animals, you don't want research to be performed on cell lines, and your other options consist solely of performing research directly on actual people.

Seriously.. are you actually legally retarded? Because that would clarify a lot of things.

Originally posted by autumn dreams
Research that destroys potential human life, yes, we know. There are there other options, look at them first.

Tell me, has anyone actually been cured of a disease by this wonderful stem cell reseach? No? Didn't think so, and even when human trials begin, I wouldn't be surprised if it backfires. "# 1997 - leukemia is shown to originate from a haematopoietic stem cell, the first direct evidence for cancer stem cells"

Benefit right there of the research. Cure? Nah, but still a benefit.

"# 1968 - bone marrow transplant between two siblings successfully treats SCID"

Seems like a benefit to me. Wait, wait, it was a cure!

For over 30 years, bone marrow (adult) stem cells have been used to treat cancer patients with conditions such as leukemia and lymphoma. During chemotherapy, most growing cells are killed by the cytotoxic agents. These agents not only kill the leukemia or neoplastic cells, but also those which release the stem cells from the bone marrow. These are therefore removed before chemotherapy, and are re-injected afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Stem_Cell_Research#Controversy_surrounding_stem_ce
ll_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments#Missing_teeth

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Blastocysts scheduled for destruction.


Scheduled? What a nice word.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Seriously.. are you legally retarded?

You think I am retarded just because I am against this research?

Originally posted by $noopbert
"# 1997 - leukemia is shown to originate from a haematopoietic stem cell, the first direct evidence for cancer stem cells"

Benefit right there of the research. Cure? Nah, but still a benefit.

"# 1968 - bone marrow transplant between two siblings successfully treats SCID"

Seems like a benefit to me. Wait, wait, it was a cure!

For over 30 years, bone marrow (adult) stem cells have been used to treat cancer patients with conditions such as leukemia and lymphoma. During chemotherapy, most growing cells are killed by the cytotoxic agents. These agents not only kill the leukemia or neoplastic cells, but also those which release the stem cells from the bone marrow. These are therefore removed before chemotherapy, and are re-injected afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Stem_Cell_Research#Controversy_surrounding_stem_ce
ll_research

I fully support, 100% adult stem cell research.

Originally posted by autumn dreams
I fully support, 100% adult stem cell research. Not all came from adult stem cell research.

Originally posted by docb77
Autumn, you have no idea how the system works do you?

By the time you get to human trials you're pretty sure how a treatment is going to work. There may be a few side-effects, which is why they do human trials instead of just releasing it after animal testing, but the general mechanism is known by then. No, by that time the only backfire would be ethical questions.

But what about what happened to those poor people in England, or wherever it was? It was thought that the drugs they were given were, safe, but those people nearly died. How can you say that those drugs would have been okay to test on humans when they had such a severe reaction? Maybe the animals didn't react, but humans and animals react differently to all sorts of things, so how on earth can a drug tested on a animal work on a human if both have different reactions?

Originally posted by autumn dreams
Scheduled? What a nice word.

You think I am retarded just because I am against this research? That's what they are. Fertility clinic blastocyst stage embryos that are scheduled for termination.

No. Because you seem to oppose all models of research. Animal research. ESC research. You want research to be performed on humans rather than animals. In short you're a Luddite.

Originally posted by $noopbert
Not all came from adult stem cell research.

Bone marrow transplants come from adults, that's fine. Cord bloos is also fine. I support any research with stem cells, as long as those cells do not derive from a human embryo.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's what they are. Fertility clinic blastocyst stage embryos that are scheduled for termination.

No. Because you seem to oppose all models of research. Animal research. ESC research. You want research to be performed on humans rather than animals. In short you're a Luddite.

I am not that cruel/ As I said in an above post, why test drugs on animals that are meant for humans? What would happen if you gave a dog an aspirin? The dog might die, but it was okay to test aspirin on dogs before it was tested on humans? Why do packets of medication have writing on the back saying not to give it to an animal? Why do drugs meant for animals warn you not to give the drug to a human? It must be there for a reason, so if animals are not meant to have human drugs, why test the drugs on them in the first place?

Originally posted by autumn dreams
I am not that cruel/ As I said in an above post, why test drugs on animals that are meant for humans? What would happen if you gave a dog an aspirin? The dog might die, but it was okay to test aspirin on dogs before it was tested on humans? Why do packets of medication have writing on the back saying not to give it to an animal? Why do drugs meant for animals warn you not to give the drug to a human? It must be there for a reason, so if animals are not meant to have human drugs, why test the drugs on them in the first place? Yes, the basis of all research in the history of mankind is the pursuit of aspirin.

Originally posted by Regret
I was considering this, and it occurred to me, is it possible to harvest eggs from a donor at the time of death?

If this is possible then I would probably be more prone to accepting the idea, because it would totally negate the need and or possibility of women selling embryos as each woman has an enormous number of eggs. Thus these eggs would be capable of continuing the supply of stem cells, if fertilized. Sperm being reproduced continually whereas eggs are not.
The single egg cells alone are not enough to withdraw stem cells, or else the problem would not exist. If you are suggesting taking unused egg cells from dead/ dying donors and artificially fertilizing them for the sake of the stem cells, then that is no better than what is already being suggested; a farm of growing people for the sole purpose of being used for science.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's what they are. Fertility clinic blastocyst stage embryos that are scheduled for termination.

No. Because you seem to oppose all models of research. Animal research. ESC research. You want research to be performed on humans rather than animals. In short you're a Luddite.

The point is, the person has a choice, none of the others do. Killing a little bundle of cells as it has been put, may be small for now, but what will it be next, cloning people for organ donors?


----Something messed up with the post....

A blastocyst is not a person.

The slippery slope fallacy. How does one eventuate the other?

A blastocyst is more like a football (soccerball) than anything else.

Do people that get abortions have to pay for head stones?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Do people that get abortions have to pay for head stones?

Thats f*cking sick.Originally posted by Adam_PoE
F*CKIN' A....

you called that one right.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Do people that get abortions have to pay for head stones?
Nope.

They have to pay for womb stones.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Thats f*cking sick.

No, pointing out that they suck the baby out with a wet/dry vac into a baby blender and then pour it into a garbage bag and toss it out. Good thing you dodged that bulet.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Nope.

They have to pay for womb stones.

That actually takes me to a really interesting idea. When we build that wall on the border of Mexico, we can build it out of polished marble and put the names of all the aborted babies on it. Kinda like the Vietnam wall.