Stem Cell Research - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Yakk · 10-23-2006, 07:18 AM

I ran into this Micheal J Fox political ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo&eurl=

Mr Fox was a well known actor. He has Parkinsons at an unusually young age. You can see what it does to his nervous system in the above ad.

On the issue of "Stem Cell Research", McCaskill is in favour, while Talent puts forward anti-stem cell/cloning arguments like "I don't want to be walking down the street and run into myself".

I suspect opposing "Stem Cell Research" was a short-term gain, and a medium and long-term mistake on the part of the Republicans in congress. People sick with fatal deseases can quite blatantly say "slowing stem cell research will kill me, and kill others like me". It is a pretty damn powerful message.

The short term gain the Republicans cashed in on was the support of Zealot Christian groups, who view any kind of scientific advancement (especially in the Biological sciences) with extreme fear and prejudice.

Finally, I salute Mike. Standing up in front of a State or a Nation and saying "I'm crippled, look at me" is not the easiest thing in the world.

Edit: moved
"Gah -- this was supposed to be in Politics, not Philosphy. It could be a decent Philosophical debate, but I was focused on the Politics of the issue...

Could a moderator move this to Politics please?"
from the start of the post. Moderator moved the post. Thanks!

filtherton · 10-23-2006, 07:26 AM

Yeah, i'm always amazed at how much "respect for life" the social conservatives have concerning anything reproductive compared to their almost complete disregard for life when it comes to many things political and economic.

If only there was some way that we could blame fetuses (feti?) for their predicament... Then this whole issue wouldn't exist. We could do to the fetuses what we do to all "parasitic classes" and let them twist in the wind, maybe grudgingly throw them a bone now and then.

Infinite_Loser · 10-23-2006, 09:38 AM

Embryonic stem cell research should be ditched and the focus turned solely to adult stem cell research, as the latter has produced more results (Someone correct me if I'm wrong). If that were to happen, most-- If not all-- Of the opposition to stem cell research would dissipate, as the moral obligation to the fetus would be gone (No fetus = No moral obligation).

NCB · 10-23-2006, 12:11 PM

The American people are ignorant about the facts of embryonic stem cell research. There are people in this country (and on this very board) that think research on ESC is banned and that is not the case at all. They dont even understand the issue is. The most successful stem cell research being done now is on adult stems cells and stem cells umbilical cord blood. I wonder if Michael Fox knows that, and if he does, has no problem pimping out his illness for a political candidate?

Willravel · 10-23-2006, 12:17 PM

I'm against abortion but pro stem cell research. Isn't that wierd?!

NCB · 10-23-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm against abortion but pro stem cell research. Isn't that wierd?!

Not really. I think most people, including myself, are on the same boat

Willravel · 10-23-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Not really. I think most people, including myself, are on the same boat

Yes, but you are a social conservative and I am a social liberal. I'm also anti-death penalty, and anti-war.

NCB · 10-23-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Yes, but you are a social conservative and I am a social liberal. I'm also anti-death penalty, and anti-war.

Well, regardless of labels, the fact remains that most people agree with the position on abortion and SC research

Ustwo · 10-23-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

I suspect opposing "Stem Cell Research" was a short-term gain, and a medium and long-term mistake on the part of the Republicans in congress. People sick with fatal deseases can quite blatantly say "slowing stem cell research will kill me, and kill others like me". It is a pretty damn powerful message.

And those people are wrong too. Maybe the cure can be found in those stem cells from dead babies, maybe not, but thats an invalid stance to take. Stem cell research is going on in other parts of the globe, guess what, those guys are still crippled. Now mind you the capitalistic medicine system in the US does make our research better than most socialist systems you see in the western world, but there is still nothing to say stemcell research will cure ANY disease. If my kid had a digenerative disease I'd be first in line pushing for stem cell research, but thats just pure selfish motivation. I'd beat you to death with your own arms if it meant saving my child, so we need to step back from the emotionalism.

My personal stance is that if people are flushing their babies we might as well use them as they have already been killed, and even if I were a fundamentalist Christian I would have that stance. Much like using the Nazi hypothermia research, it would be research gained from an evil source but the evil was already done, and I'm all for some good comming out of evil. Its even easier since I don't view the act as evil but simply a new form of genetic selection.

Paq · 10-23-2006, 03:58 PM

stranger things have happened, but not in a while..but

i agree wtih ustwo..again

I just don't see how using the remains for research could be negative. it's a tragedy that they occur, but something good could come from it. What is the problem with that?

btw, i did not know Michael J Fox's condition had deteriorated so much. Gotta agree with Yakk..the repubs screwed up royally for a short term gain. wasn't reagan's son at the DNC in 2004?

connyosis · 10-23-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

...
btw, i did not know Michael J Fox's condition had deteriorated so much...

Well see, according to Rush Limbaugh it hasn't. Fox was simply off his meds to make his appearance more dramatic, the liberal bastard.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/1...tor-after-all/

Honestly, Limbaugh has to be the scum of the earth...

Ustwo · 10-23-2006, 05:01 PM

Rush speaks on this.

Quote:

Democrats Exploit Michael J. Fox's Illness
October 23, 2006

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Now, people are telling me that they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. All right, then I stand corrected. I've seen him on Boston Legal. I've seen him on a number of stand-up appearances. I know he's got it; it's pitiable that he has the disease. It is a debilitating disease, and I understand that fully. Just stick with me on this.

All I'm saying is I've never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Let me just say this about it. The reason I went and grabbed the audio from John Edwards, where he said in 2004 on the campaign trail, "If we can do the work that we can do in this country, the work we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." That was about stem cells, and that was a misleading statement, and it didn't work for the Breck Girl, implying that if it weren't for George W. Bush and his stubbornness on stem cells that we've got a cure for spinal deterioration and injury, and we don't. We do not have anywhere near a cure. We can't we regenerate nerves yet, folks, and that's what has to happen to cure paralysis in the spine. Stem cells do not promise any such thing, nor do they for Parkinson's disease. So the reason that I went and got the Breck Girl to compare it to Michael J. Fox is because I think the intent here is the thing. I think, if I may be blatantly honest, brazenly so, I think this is much more offensive than Hillary's Senate opponent implying that she's ugly.

Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democrat politician. In the process of doing that, creating an impression like John Edwards tried to do that is not reality. Michael J. Fox is using his illness as a way to mislead voters into thinking that their vote for a single United States Senator has a direct impact on stem cell research in Missouri. It doesn't, and it won't. So Mr. Fox is using his illness as another tactic to try to secure the election of a Democrat senator by implying that with her election, that we'll be on the road to stem cell research her opponent opposes and people who suffer from Parkinson's disease as he does will have a cure. It's a negative ad, and negative ads work, and people criticize them all the time as I am doing to this one, but when you see it, there's something wrong about it in the get-go. It's the exploitation of someone's illness. I wonder if this would become a trend and all kinds of illness were being exploited how people would end up reacting to it and feeling about it. So if this was not an act, then I apologize. I've not seen this type of appearance by Michael J. Fox before and that's why it struck me the way it did. But despite all that, I mean it's pitiable and it's very sad anybody has this disease, because it is debilitating in ways that people that don't have it don't even understand. But to exploit it like this in misrepresenting the political agenda of a particular candidate, there's nothing admirable about that.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
I must share this. I have gotten a plethora of e-mails from people saying Michael J. Fox has admitted in interviews that he goes off his medication for Parkinson's disease when he appears before Congress or other groups as a means of illustrating the ravages of the disease. So lest there be any misunderstanding, we talked about a half hour ago of the commercial that's running for Claire McCaskill featuring Michael J. Fox on what appears to be when he's off his meds. I have never seen him this way and I stated when I was commenting to you about it that he was either off his medication or acting. He is an actor after all, and started hearing from people, "Oh, no, I've seen him on TV this way, this is how the disease has affected him when he's not on his medications." Then the e-mails started coming in saying he's admitted not to taking them in certain circumstances so as to illustrate how the disease affects people. All of which I understand, and I'm not even critical of that. Parkinson's disease is hideous.

Let me just stress once again in what I said in closing this out, that I think this is exploitative in a way that's unbecoming either Claire McCaskill or Michael J. Fox, because in this commercial for Claire McCaskill he's using his illness in a way to mislead voters that there's a cure for Parkinson's disease if only Claire McCaskill gets elected, if only Jim Talent is defeated. And of course it's all about stem cell research, which is a huge ballot initiative in Missouri anyway. I'm sorry, Missoura. He pronounced it Missoura. There are two ways to pronounce my home state, Missouri and Missoura. And Missoura, in certain sectors is the preferred pronunciation. It is a way to relate to certain Missourans. We never say Missourans, we say Missourians. But it's a way to reach out, "I understand you, I know your state" and so forth. There's a lot of politics in the commercial. But Mr. Fox was allowing his illness to be used as a tactic to trying to secure the election of a Democrat senator who is going to somehow, her election is going to lead to the cure for Parkinson disease via stem cell research because her opponent, Jim Talent, opposes it, which is not true. He may oppose embryonic stem cell research, does not oppose adult stem cell research or even cord blood, I don't believe, research, umbilical cord research.

The comparison is obvious, and that is to the Breck Girl, John Edwards, who did the same thing by saying Christopher Reeve will walk again if only John Kerry is elected because we will do the work that needs to be done. And that kind of thing, when you start making false promises to people who suffer from diseases like this that are horrible and debilitating, when you start telling them that there's a cure right around the corner if only somebody gets elected, you are misleading them, you are creating a creating a false-hope scenario, and that is cruel, if you ask me, that is cruel and it is mean to lead people to believe that we are much further along in research than we are. There's nobody involved in the research who is saying we're anywhere near any kind of a cure for spinal disease, paralysis, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's. In fact, the closest we are to Alzheimer's is nicotine. I mean supposedly nicotine will limit or lessen the impact of Alzheimer's down the road. And now they're also saying it about pot, the evil weed.

So let there be no misunderstanding about this. I stand corrected, did not know and had never seen Michael J. Fox in the way I saw him in this commercial for Claire McCaskill. But people have and have seen him say in interviews that he doesn't take his medications when he wants to make an impression to show people just how horrible the disease is. And it's true of all Parkinson's patients. At some point the medication will not work, and the condition will become permanent, and there's nothing pleasant about it. It's one of the most frustrating diseases one can have. Pope had it. It's not pleasant in any way, shape, manner, or form, nor did I mean to implicate that one could easily act it out for the purposes of a commercial.

Paq · 10-23-2006, 05:26 PM

i think rush needs more vicodin

Infinite_Loser · 10-23-2006, 05:32 PM

As I stated earlier, just do away with embryonic stem cell research and only focus on adult stem cell research, as not only is it more productive but the moral implications which are involved in embryonic stem cell research don't exist with adult stem cell research (As you're mainly using skin and spinal cord cells).

jorgelito · 10-23-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

As I stated earlier, just do away with embryonic stem cell research and only focus on adult stem cell research, as not only is it more productive but the moral implications which are involved in embryonic stem cell research don't exist with adult stem cell research (As you're mainly using skin and spinal cord cells).

I don't know very much on this topic, but this sounds reasonable to me.

dc_dux · 10-23-2006, 05:40 PM

We wont know the value of embryonic stem cell research until more research is conducted on embryonic stem cells to determine for a fact that adult stem cells are equally productive. There is no conclusive evidence that I have seen to support this conclusion.

And I have a hard time seeing the moral implications. It is not like embryos are being created for the purpose of stem cell research, which should never be allowed. The idea is to utlize the thousands of existing embryos created "in vitro" and that will otherwise be disposed. The potential life saving possibilities, as slim as they may be until we know more, is a reasonable alternative to disposal.

Just as an aside, would we even have millions of couples that have benefited from in vitro fertilization if we had been prevented from exploring the boundaries of medical science as a result of the moral concerns expressed by a less than majority segment of society?

jorgelito · 10-23-2006, 07:03 PM

DC, you make some interesting points but I would like to know more. How do you know it is less than a majority of the population that has a moral concern with this issue? Also, even if it is less than a majority, would that matter? After all, there have been case in the past where the majority was not in the right.

It's a complex issue butI think there can be a compromise there. More discussion and civil debate is definitely a good thing.

hiredgun · 10-23-2006, 08:00 PM

I genuinely, honestly don't understand what the problem is with stem cell research. Being that it is a science with great potential like any other, I am for supporting it fully and wholeheartedly; to the extent that scientists are willing and able to pursue this research, I can think of no reason to limit them and plenty of reasons to positively support them, without reservation.

So can someone who thinks otherwise (whether you're against it, or simply have reservations or qualifications) please explain their position to me?

This isn't meant as a rhetorical challenge; I'm actually curious and just would like to hear frank responses. I'm not asking you to prove anything to me.

dc_dux · 10-23-2006, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

DC, you make some interesting points but I would like to know more. How do you know it is less than a majority of the population that has a moral concern with this issue? Also, even if it is less than a majority, would that matter? After all, there have been case in the past where the majority was not in the right.

It's a complex issue butI think there can be a compromise there. More discussion and civil debate is definitely a good thing.

I was looking at the variety of polls on stem cell research. Most show a majority supporting embryonic stem cell research.

http://pollingreport.com/science.htm#Stem

I believe that if it was explained that it doesnt mean creating new embryos for the research but using existing embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, the numbers would be even higher...but that is conjecture.

Cutting edge science always has to deal with the moral implications regardless of the level of public support. But in this case, there are potential medical benefits that cant be fully determined without research and public support.

Ustwo · 10-23-2006, 08:27 PM

Actually I did think of a problem with stem cell research that I had forgotten about.

I will NEVER EVER support discarded human fetuses as a commodity. If anyone is making money off them, I do view that as wrong, and I can just imagine if it became a market where breeder women sell the right to their abortion.

That is one horror I would not abide by.

dc_dux · 10-23-2006, 08:37 PM

The bill that Bush vetoed with the statement "these boys and girls are not spare parts" restricts the research:

Quote:

This legislation does NOT allow funding for the creation or destruction of embryos. This is already outlawed in the annual Dickey-Wicker Amendment that is attached as a rider to the Labor HHS Education Appropriations Bill. Rather it allows federally funded research on stem cell lines derived ethically according to the following principles:

* The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

* The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

As you can see this legislation for the first time aims to end the "Wild West" of stem cell research by establishing an ethical construct. It also does not expand funding for embryonic stem cell research. I think the most critical aspect of this policy is that the embryos we are discussing are blastocysts, created for the purposes of in vitro fertilization, developed into a few hundred cells, no bigger than the tip of a pencil, and which are spare or in excess of clinical need and in every single case are slated for medical waste. In keeping with your principles, the "life and death" decision has been made - the donors have decided to discard these embryos and they will be discarded. Why not use the stem cells we can derive from these embryos, which will never become life, to help the millions of people suffering across the United States?

http://www.house.gov/castle/pr_06_SC...entletter.html

So I am not accused of taking the Bush statement out of context:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet we must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed themselves. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life, with inherent dignity and matchless value. We see that value in the children who are with us today. Each of these children began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization, but remained unused after fertility treatments were complete. Each of these children was adopted while still an embryo, and has been blessed with the chance to grow up in a loving family. These boys and girls are not spare parts.

According to the background from the Castle bill, only 10 percent of the "in vitro" embryos not used by the primary parents are "adopted" and the rest destroyed.

jorgelito · 10-23-2006, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

I genuinely, honestly don't understand what the problem is with stem cell research. Being that it is a science with great potential like any other, I am for supporting it fully and wholeheartedly; to the extent that scientists are willing and able to pursue this research, I can think of no reason to limit them and plenty of reasons to positively support them, without reservation.

So can someone who thinks otherwise (whether you're against it, or simply have reservations or qualifications) please explain their position to me?

This isn't meant as a rhetorical challenge; I'm actually curious and just would like to hear frank responses. I'm not asking you to prove anything to me.

Well I suppose I am against it by default. But I am not blindly opposed to it. It's just that I am unsure because I simply do not understand it. I get so many different takes on the issue.

My starting point would be abortion. I am against abortion through and through. No compromise there. My reason is that for me, I need science or a consensus by clergy determine when life actually began (i.e. - at conception or at birth or somewhere in between). But until then, I believe life to begin at conception. SO abortion to me would be murder plain and simple.

Stem cell research as I understand it thus far, requires the stem cells from an embryo or fetus. That's where things get murky for me. I hesitate because while I understand that those embryos or fetuses are to be discarded regardless, I share the same concern as UsTwo with the potential for trade or commerce in fetuses and embryos. This I cannot abide. Especially if there were to be a trade in aborted fetuses etc....

Now this new info you guys are talking about, the adult stem cell research stuff, is definitely intriguing to me. I don't know anything about it really but I am open-minded enough to listen.

That's it for now, I need to take a break, but I hope that helps you understand one opposing opinion, HiredGun.

FoolThemAll · 10-24-2006, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

I genuinely, honestly don't understand what the problem is with stem cell research.

To put it simply: Embryos are human life and scientific research requiring the destruction of human life is wrong.

I agree with Ustwo's point, too, but that isn't the main thing for me.

And yes, I also have a problem with in vitro fertilization.

edit: seems that jorgelito put together a much more thorough explanation, feel free to address his post instead... I'll only add that I don't see any good reason for opposing adult stem cell research and don't personally know anyone who opposes it. It's the embryonic stuff that gets a minority of religious folk and secular oddities like me upset.

Yakk · 10-24-2006, 10:56 AM

There is a ban against using federal funds to do embriotic stem cell research.

Now, on the face of this, it doesn't seem to be that huge of a ban.

But you have to remember something. Not one penny.

Not one penny of federal funds, from the past or the present, could have been used in any equipment, buildings, administration, or salaries. If the building was made 20 years ago, paid for from a fund that got 1% of it's input from Federal funding -- you can't do any stem cell research in that building.

Even if it is just one penny of Federal funding that went into the building, using it for stem cell research is illegal.

So, either you have to do a huge accounting backtracking check to find and guarantee a research building is federal-funding free, from now and back to the beginning of time, and then sequester it off from the main revenue of the research institution (to prevent it from being contaminated with Federal funds), or you have to build a completely seperate and sequestered research institution and avoid contaminating it with Federal funds.

Don't get me wrong -- this is being done. There are US universities that refuse Federal funding, and I believe there has been some attempts in California to build stem cell research buildings.

But the Federal ban on stem cell research isn't just "the Fed's won't earmark any funds for Stem Cell research" -- it means that anyone who ever accepted Federal money is retroactively constrained (to a greater or lesser extent) in what they can do.

...

I was actually under the impression, after doing some research, that M.J.F.'s rocking behaviour during that add was a side effect of a drug that helps him speak more clearly. (the claim is that without his meds, at the current time, MJF cannot effectively speak)

The drug kills the small-scale tremours, and allows speech -- but it causes a significant low-frequency rocking motion.

Ustwo · 10-24-2006, 11:42 AM

Quote:

But the Federal ban on stem cell research isn't just "the Fed's won't earmark any funds for Stem Cell research" -- it means that anyone who ever accepted Federal money is retroactively constrained (to a greater or lesser extent) in what they can do.

So you need a new building and some research eq? Few million, its covered, paying the lab people would be more in the long run of course. Having worked in such labs there is not much too them really.

Perhaps rather than spending ones effort to elect people to publicly fund, the best course of action would be to privately fund it, if there is such a public desire to see it happen.

Maybe a stem-cell telethon

magictoy · 10-24-2006, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by connyosis

Well see, according to Rush Limbaugh it hasn't. Fox was simply off his meds to make his appearance more dramatic, the liberal bastard.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/1...tor-after-all/

Honestly, Limbaugh has to be the scum of the earth...

A quote from your link:

Quote:

These emails claim Fox has admitted in interviews that he goes off his medication." A tireless search of the Internet produces no such record of any interview, or any statement in which Fox has ever admitted or even suggested that he ever goes off his Parkinson's treatment at all, let alone for the purposes of shaking it up for the television audience.

But FROM HIS OWN WEBSITE:

http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/arti...p?id=153&sec=2

Quote:

When he testified before Congress back in 1998 seeking more funds for the disease, he made a point of not taking any Parkinson's drugs so his tremors and other symptoms would be in full bloom. "I needed to show there was an urgency to this," Mr. Fox says, noting that at the time he was still a regular -- and healthy-appearing -- presence on television. With his story and condition now better known, he no longer needs to forgo his medicines to make a dramatic point.

I'm not against stem cell research, and I don't mind that he went off his meds. Once again, though, Rush is called "the scum of the earth" for thinking that Michael might have done something he admitted to in the past.

They're not "tireless," but it seems obvious who the "crooks and liars" are, and the lies they're willing to tell to influence the next election.

Willravel · 10-24-2006, 08:23 PM

How dare people try to cure Parkinson's! Damn crooks.

How about what we do is give Limbaugh Parkinson's, then we can let him see what it's like when you are dying slowly from a crippling disease. He'd be rallying for stem cell research in a split second, and then O'Reilly would be all over his ass. Then we give O'Reilly Parkinson's, and someone else is on his ass. The whole thing is dispicable. How about instead of shooting down a possible cure, these idiot pundits get off their fat asses and try to fucking help?

Ustwo · 10-24-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

How dare people try to cure Parkinson's! Damn crooks.

How about what we do is give Limbaugh Parkinson's, then we can let him see what it's like when you are dying slowly from a crippling disease. He'd be rallying for stem cell research in a split second, and then O'Reilly would be all over his ass. Then we give O'Reilly Parkinson's, and someone else is on his ass. The whole thing is dispicable. How about instead of shooting down a possible cure, these idiot pundits get off their fat asses and try to fucking help?

Using a disease for your political purposes while dangling the possibility of a cure that no one is even sure will come of the research at all isn't exactly nobel. Its exploitative. Vote for me and you will walk again! No not really but thanks for the vote.

This might be hard for you to gasp but SOME people view abortion as murder, I'm not going to fault them for this, I'm not so sure myself. I'm just evil and think that if people want to murder their children more power too them as those people won't be teaching their children their own fucked up values in the next generation.

Seaver · 10-25-2006, 05:41 AM

Sorry, but look up the bill that he is trying to get passed.

It's not to legalize stem-cell research, that research is legal and Talent has stated he has NO plan to criminalize it.

It's a constitutional bill which is labeled the Stem-Cell Research and Protection (or something similar), look it up and you'll realize that this mis-label is actually to constitutionally protect cloning.

Michael J. Fox thinks he is helping stem-cell research when in reality he's helping cloning research. While I support stem-cell, I am completely against cloning.

dc_dux · 10-25-2006, 05:58 AM

Perhaps you can explain how the bill that both the House and Senate passed and Bush vetoed contitutionally protects cloning.

Quote:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

Part H of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 498C the following:

`SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.

`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).

`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:

`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.

`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

`(c) Guidelines- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.

`(d) Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.'.

hiredgun · 10-25-2006, 06:04 AM

Thanks to those who clarified their stance for me.

Seaver, do you have a link on that info?

UsTwo: Of course a cure isn't a sure thing, but no research ever is. The point is that there's a possibility, and that possibility is too valuable not to be pursued. If the lives of our adult, fully human soldiers are worth the possibility of whatever we think we're achieving in Iraq, is the use of a few dead fetuses not an acceptable price for the possibility to preserve life by fighting disease?

FoolThemAll · 10-25-2006, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

If the lives of our adult, fully human soldiers are worth the possibility of whatever we think we're achieving in Iraq, is the use of a few dead fetuses not an acceptable price for the possibility to preserve life by fighting disease?

I'd say that there's one big difference between those two situations: consent.

The people in the armed forces - as it's currently all-volunteer - all consented to be enforcers of United States foreign policy. You could say that they didn't consent to this particular war - and perhaps there's a good argument there - but there is basic, general consent. An embryo cannot consent. I don't see the donor's consent as being sufficient for life-discarding medical research, just as I wouldn't consider consent from the parent of an infant sufficient (which is not to say that there aren't differences between the two situations, just not any relevant differences in my view).

dc_dux · 10-25-2006, 06:24 AM

We're not talking about "dead fetuses".....the issue is embryos from in vitro that would otherwise be discarded.

FoolThemAll · 10-25-2006, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

We're not talking about "dead fetuses".....the issue is embryos from in vitro that would otherwise be discarded.

Which is why I also have a problem with in vitro fertilization in its current form (and possibly all other feasible forms).

I'd agree that use for research is better than destruction for extra space or destruction according to the donor's wishes, but I don't believe that any of these should be legally permitted. Let alone taxpayer-funded.

Willravel · 10-25-2006, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Using a disease for your political purposes while dangling the possibility of a cure that no one is even sure will come of the research at all isn't exactly nobel. Its exploitative. Vote for me and you will walk again! No not really but thanks for the vote.

Stem cell research looks, to experts, like the most promising route to go for a cure to Parkinson's. Experts. Not politicans or actors or pundits or even message board posters. While the rest may bicker, the opinion that matters belongs to the experts, scientists that understand Parkinson's and stem cells better than you or I or Rush. When I say that stem cells can cure something, it's meaningless. When Rush states that Michael J. Fox is this and that, it's meaninless and cruel. At the end of the day, people should learn to listen to doctors and scientists, not assholes on the radio, or people on a forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This might be hard for you to gasp but SOME people view abortion as murder, I'm not going to fault them for this, I'm not so sure myself. I'm just evil and think that if people want to murder their children more power too them as those people won't be teaching their children their own fucked up values in the next generation.

Actually it's not hard for me to grasp at all. From the fifth post in this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel, the brave

I'm against abortion but pro stem cell research. Isn't that wierd?!

I'm against abortion except in the cases of incest, there being no chance that the baby will be born alive, or maybe, MAYBE rape - but the victim better have taken that morning after pill, and if a hospital refused to give her the pill, that hospital should be promptly closed. I belive in sexual accountability, even though most other liberals disagree with me on this issue. There are other sources of stem cells, too. Did you know that the umbilical cord blood is a great source of stem cells? We've know about this for years. And babies are born almost every minute of every day. If we were able to immediatally collect all the umbilical cords (after the infant is done with it), I doubt we'd need another source for stem cells. I even just came up with a motto: Save a life, donate an umbilical cord. Or maybe: Save an embryo, donate an umbilical cord. Whatever. The point is: stem cells isn't really a devisive topic, or at least it shouldn't be. The only reason it's a deviceive issue, of course, is to distract people. It's like gay marriage or "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays". It's stupid, and I don't know why people walk right into the trap. It's another device to spread the partisan epidemic, and the longer this kinda stuff is allowed to fly, the longer it will take under democrat leadership to get back to normal.

hiredgun · 10-25-2006, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

I'd say that there's one big difference between those two situations: consent.

The people in the armed forces - as it's currently all-volunteer - all consented to be enforcers of United States foreign policy. You could say that they didn't consent to this particular war - and perhaps there's a good argument there - but there is basic, general consent. An embryo cannot consent. I don't see the donor's consent as being sufficient for life-discarding medical research, just as I wouldn't consider consent from the parent of an infant sufficient (which is not to say that there aren't differences between the two situations, just not any relevant differences in my view).

Fine. What about the lives of Iraqis?

Ustwo · 10-25-2006, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Perhaps you can explain how the bill that both the House and Senate passed and Bush vetoed contitutionally protects cloning.

(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.

These stem cells are pretty much worthless for any disease research, its basically nothing beyond an egg. They are totally non-differentiated, and there isn't much we can do with them except let them differentiate, aka develop. This is very useful for the study of cloning (an identical twin is a natural clone) but won't make M.J. Fox stop shaking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

UsTwo: Of course a cure isn't a sure thing, but no research ever is. The point is that there's a possibility, and that possibility is too valuable not to be pursued. If the lives of our adult, fully human soldiers are worth the possibility of whatever we think we're achieving in Iraq, is the use of a few dead fetuses not an acceptable price for the possibility to preserve life by fighting disease?

That comparison is a weee bit of a stretch. The obvious counter argument is that the fetuses didn't volunteer to be killed.

The_Jazz · 10-25-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Experts. Not politicans or actors or pundits or even message board posters.

...

Did you know that the umbilical cord blood is a great source of stem cells? We've know about this for years. And babies are born almost every minute of every day. If we were able to immediatally collect all the umbilical cords (after the infant is done with it), I doubt we'd need another source for stem cells. I even just came up with a motto: Save a life, donate an umbilical cord. Or maybe: Save an embryo, donate an umbilical cord. Whatever.

Don't you think that this has occurred to the experts as well? My understanding is that these stem cells aren't suitable for the needs of the scientists. Granted, I'm just a message board poster too, but if you came up with this idea, don't you think that the people paid to think about this topic all day every day have already come up with it?

/threadjack and rational thought

hiredgun · 10-25-2006, 07:59 AM

Ustwo: I refer you to the post right above yours. If we're willing to sacrifice the lives of Iraqis, I don't understand the unwillingness to use these embryos.

The comparison is a huge stretch, imo; on the one hand you have discarded embryos that have never been born or lived, and on the other you have adult humans who have lives, memories, and families.

Willravel · 10-25-2006, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Don't you think that this has occurred to the experts as well? My understanding is that these stem cells aren't suitable for the needs of the scientists. Granted, I'm just a message board poster too, but if you came up with this idea, don't you think that the people paid to think about this topic all day every day have already come up with it?

/threadjack and rational thought

Well here's a bit more rational thought for you: who funds most scientists? Is it more scientists?

10-23-2006, 07:18 AM	#1 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Stem Cell Research I ran into this Micheal J Fox political ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo&eurl= Mr Fox was a well known actor. He has Parkinsons at an unusually young age. You can see what it does to his nervous system in the above ad. On the issue of "Stem Cell Research", McCaskill is in favour, while Talent puts forward anti-stem cell/cloning arguments like "I don't want to be walking down the street and run into myself". I suspect opposing "Stem Cell Research" was a short-term gain, and a medium and long-term mistake on the part of the Republicans in congress. People sick with fatal deseases can quite blatantly say "slowing stem cell research will kill me, and kill others like me". It is a pretty damn powerful message. The short term gain the Republicans cashed in on was the support of Zealot Christian groups, who view any kind of scientific advancement (especially in the Biological sciences) with extreme fear and prejudice. Finally, I salute Mike. Standing up in front of a State or a Nation and saying "I'm crippled, look at me" is not the easiest thing in the world. Edit: moved "Gah -- this was supposed to be in Politics, not Philosphy. It could be a decent Philosophical debate, but I was focused on the Politics of the issue... Could a moderator move this to Politics please?" from the start of the post. Moderator moved the post. Thanks! __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest. Last edited by Yakk; 10-24-2006 at 10:42 AM..

10-23-2006, 09:38 AM	#3 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	Embryonic stem cell research should be ditched and the focus turned solely to adult stem cell research, as the latter has produced more results (Someone correct me if I'm wrong). If that were to happen, most-- If not all-- Of the opposition to stem cell research would dissipate, as the moral obligation to the fetus would be gone (No fetus = No moral obligation). __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

10-23-2006, 03:58 PM	#10 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	stranger things have happened, but not in a while..but i agree wtih ustwo..again I just don't see how using the remains for research could be negative. it's a tragedy that they occur, but something good could come from it. What is the problem with that? btw, i did not know Michael J Fox's condition had deteriorated so much. Gotta agree with Yakk..the repubs screwed up royally for a short term gain. wasn't reagan's son at the DNC in 2004? __________________ Live. Chris

10-23-2006, 05:26 PM	#13 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i think rush needs more vicodin __________________ Live. Chris

10-23-2006, 05:32 PM	#14 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	As I stated earlier, just do away with embryonic stem cell research and only focus on adult stem cell research, as not only is it more productive but the moral implications which are involved in embryonic stem cell research don't exist with adult stem cell research (As you're mainly using skin and spinal cord cells). __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

10-23-2006, 07:26 AM	#2 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Yeah, i'm always amazed at how much "respect for life" the social conservatives have concerning anything reproductive compared to their almost complete disregard for life when it comes to many things political and economic. If only there was some way that we could blame fetuses (feti?) for their predicament... Then this whole issue wouldn't exist. We could do to the fetuses what we do to all "parasitic classes" and let them twist in the wind, maybe grudgingly throw them a bone now and then.

10-23-2006, 12:17 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm against abortion but pro stem cell research. Isn't that wierd?!

10-23-2006, 05:40 PM	#16 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	We wont know the value of embryonic stem cell research until more research is conducted on embryonic stem cells to determine for a fact that adult stem cells are equally productive. There is no conclusive evidence that I have seen to support this conclusion. And I have a hard time seeing the moral implications. It is not like embryos are being created for the purpose of stem cell research, which should never be allowed. The idea is to utlize the thousands of existing embryos created "in vitro" and that will otherwise be disposed. The potential life saving possibilities, as slim as they may be until we know more, is a reasonable alternative to disposal. Just as an aside, would we even have millions of couples that have benefited from in vitro fertilization if we had been prevented from exploring the boundaries of medical science as a result of the moral concerns expressed by a less than majority segment of society? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-23-2006 at 06:06 PM..

10-23-2006, 07:03 PM	#17 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	DC, you make some interesting points but I would like to know more. How do you know it is less than a majority of the population that has a moral concern with this issue? Also, even if it is less than a majority, would that matter? After all, there have been case in the past where the majority was not in the right. It's a complex issue butI think there can be a compromise there. More discussion and civil debate is definitely a good thing.

10-23-2006, 08:00 PM	#18 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	I genuinely, honestly don't understand what the problem is with stem cell research. Being that it is a science with great potential like any other, I am for supporting it fully and wholeheartedly; to the extent that scientists are willing and able to pursue this research, I can think of no reason to limit them and plenty of reasons to positively support them, without reservation. So can someone who thinks otherwise (whether you're against it, or simply have reservations or qualifications) please explain their position to me? This isn't meant as a rhetorical challenge; I'm actually curious and just would like to hear frank responses. I'm not asking you to prove anything to me.

10-23-2006, 08:27 PM	#20 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Actually I did think of a problem with stem cell research that I had forgotten about. I will NEVER EVER support discarded human fetuses as a commodity. If anyone is making money off them, I do view that as wrong, and I can just imagine if it became a market where breeder women sell the right to their abortion. That is one horror I would not abide by. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-24-2006, 10:56 AM	#24 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	There is a ban against using federal funds to do embriotic stem cell research. Now, on the face of this, it doesn't seem to be that huge of a ban. But you have to remember something. Not one penny. Not one penny of federal funds, from the past or the present, could have been used in any equipment, buildings, administration, or salaries. If the building was made 20 years ago, paid for from a fund that got 1% of it's input from Federal funding -- you can't do any stem cell research in that building. Even if it is just one penny of Federal funding that went into the building, using it for stem cell research is illegal. So, either you have to do a huge accounting backtracking check to find and guarantee a research building is federal-funding free, from now and back to the beginning of time, and then sequester it off from the main revenue of the research institution (to prevent it from being contaminated with Federal funds), or you have to build a completely seperate and sequestered research institution and avoid contaminating it with Federal funds. Don't get me wrong -- this is being done. There are US universities that refuse Federal funding, and I believe there has been some attempts in California to build stem cell research buildings. But the Federal ban on stem cell research isn't just "the Fed's won't earmark any funds for Stem Cell research" -- it means that anyone who ever accepted Federal money is retroactively constrained (to a greater or lesser extent) in what they can do. ... I was actually under the impression, after doing some research, that M.J.F.'s rocking behaviour during that add was a side effect of a drug that helps him speak more clearly. (the claim is that without his meds, at the current time, MJF cannot effectively speak) The drug kills the small-scale tremours, and allows speech -- but it causes a significant low-frequency rocking motion. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

10-24-2006, 08:23 PM	#27 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	How dare people try to cure Parkinson's! Damn crooks. How about what we do is give Limbaugh Parkinson's, then we can let him see what it's like when you are dying slowly from a crippling disease. He'd be rallying for stem cell research in a split second, and then O'Reilly would be all over his ass. Then we give O'Reilly Parkinson's, and someone else is on his ass. The whole thing is dispicable. How about instead of shooting down a possible cure, these idiot pundits get off their fat asses and try to fucking help?

10-25-2006, 05:41 AM	#29 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Sorry, but look up the bill that he is trying to get passed. It's not to legalize stem-cell research, that research is legal and Talent has stated he has NO plan to criminalize it. It's a constitutional bill which is labeled the Stem-Cell Research and Protection (or something similar), look it up and you'll realize that this mis-label is actually to constitutionally protect cloning. Michael J. Fox thinks he is helping stem-cell research when in reality he's helping cloning research. While I support stem-cell, I am completely against cloning. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

10-25-2006, 06:04 AM	#31 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Thanks to those who clarified their stance for me. Seaver, do you have a link on that info? UsTwo: Of course a cure isn't a sure thing, but no research ever is. The point is that there's a possibility, and that possibility is too valuable not to be pursued. If the lives of our adult, fully human soldiers are worth the possibility of whatever we think we're achieving in Iraq, is the use of a few dead fetuses not an acceptable price for the possibility to preserve life by fighting disease?

10-25-2006, 06:24 AM	#33 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	We're not talking about "dead fetuses".....the issue is embryos from in vitro that would otherwise be discarded. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-25-2006, 07:59 AM	#39 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Ustwo: I refer you to the post right above yours. If we're willing to sacrifice the lives of Iraqis, I don't understand the unwillingness to use these embryos. The comparison is a huge stretch, imo; on the one hand you have discarded embryos that have never been born or lived, and on the other you have adult humans who have lives, memories, and families. Last edited by hiredgun; 10-25-2006 at 08:01 AM..