A Veto on Science

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.

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.

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_cell_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_cell_research

I fully support, 100% adult stem cell research.

Originally posted by autumn dreams
I fully support, 100% 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?

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?

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.