Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on October 11, 2004, 05:34:55 PM
-
Should be ON Topic during a discussion of the life and death of Chris Reeve. It was his cause and his life's work over the last 9 years.
-
Government support for adult stem cell research continues as does that on fetus stem cell research on those fetuses already procured. Private research is in no way obstructed. There are many Americans that pay taxes and are opposed to abortion as birth control and liken the research performed on these aborted fetuses as that done by the Nazis. Have these tax paying citizens no say in how their tax dollars are spent?
-
Stem cell are not foetus ... yet.
-
...and liken the research performed on these aborted fetuses as that done by the Nazis.
Sensaltionalistic nonsense. On par and teeing up for the 18th as usual.
Geneticists = teh Nazis!
-
First, MT, show me how or where stem cell research has been blocked, stifled or outlawed. After you (can't) do that, we will discuss how best to approach the problem in the future.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Sensaltionalistic nonsense. On par and teeing up for the 18th as usual.
Geneticists = teh Nazis!
I couldn't think of anyone else more like the Nazis that kill the innocent in the name of scientific research. Of course since you know that fetuses aren't human it isn't murder, right? Hmmmm, I think the Nazis looked at the jews in much the same manner.
-
Would have been nice for that to happen, but it got ugly MT. I imagine this will too. See if you can moderate it to where it doesn't.
-
Ahhh I had a feeling that this is what all those "off Topic" posts were.
Stem Cll research is allowed in the US. They just will not be funded by the government.
I am for the reasearch.
But I can respect Bush's decision on it and his "Ethical" reasonings behind it.
Tho I do dissagree on the embryo point on those embryos that will be destroyed anyway.
But otherwise
I can see how this research can be misused.
To me it seems he made the most fair decision his concience Would allow.
Neither side was happy with it which tells me its probably pretty close to being the right one.
-
You heard it here first... proponents of stem cell research are paid up members of the Nazi party.
You just love your staw man arguments, AKIron. You're lazy, with a perchant for self-righteous indignation and chest-thumping rhetoric.
The systematic extermination of the Jews is in no way comparable to the use of stem cells taken from day old embryos (not foetuses - not sure what type of biology they taught you, if any, but perhaps you could look up the birth cycle).
While there is undoubtedly a moral angle to this, your hysterical analogies certainly don't further any debate.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Stem cell are not foetus ... yet.
Some stem cells are harvested from embryos, thus killing the embryo. Bush has put restrictions on this.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Stem cell are not foetus ... yet.
Incorrect.
Stem cells can be taken from A Fetus Just as they can an adult
But the subject at hand is Embronic stem cells which is what I think you ment.
Embryos are not Fetuses.
And that is a subject for yet another debate.
-
No, Ra, he has not. What he has done is limit Federal spending to a certain amount of stem cell cultures that already exist. No Federal money can be spent to develop new lines. Anyone else is free to do so.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Would have been nice for that to happen, but it got ugly MT. I imagine this will too. See if you can moderate it to where it doesn't.
A good first step would be for people to stop using the N word.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You heard it here first... proponents of stem cell research are paid up members of the Nazi party.
You just love your staw man arguments, AKIron. You're lazy, with a perchant for self-righteous indignation and chest-thumping rhetoric.
The systematic extermination of the Jews is in no way comparable to the use of stem cells taken from day old embryos (not foetuses - not sure what type of biology they taught you, if any, but perhaps you could look up the birth cycle).
While there is undoubtedly a moral angle to this, your hysterical analogies certainly don't further any debate.
You seem to be the one doing all the chest-thumping and full of self-righteous indignation here. Yes, there is a refusal by Bush to allow US tax dollars to support embryonic stem cell research. So I misstated the issue at hand. It is the same principle, experimentation at the expense of human life.
-
Not all research in spinal cord injury involves stem cells. Other strategies include treatment to blunt the damage during the acute phase, improve conduction at the injury site, encourage regeneration after the initial injury, and rehabilitation to help compensate for incomplete recovery.
For example, methylprednisolone has been shown to slightly improve outcome when administered within the first 8 hours of injury and is routinely used. 4-Aminopyridine was shown to improve conduction in a small clinical study and is being evaluated in a larger study. An implantable device that uses low-level electrical stimulation has been shown in animal clinical studies to improve regeneration of axons and is currently being tested in human patients. Neural growth factors, neural “glues”, and various types of transplants are also at various stages.
Currently, NIH funding for spinal cord injury is running about $93 million a year. This compares to an estimated $14 billion per year total direct costs in the US. When you add in lost income (these are typically young adults) the cost of spinal cord injury is over $20 billion each year.
Christopher Reeves worked hard to increase funding for all types of research in spinal cord injury, and he was very successful in this. It would be a pity if we went backwards after his death because of politics.
-
What concern is it of yours how I spend my tax dollars Dowding? While I may have to haggle with others I disagree with on this, you aren't one of them.
-
Not only that, Dowding, but please post how your country is financing SCR, please.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There are many Americans that pay taxes and are opposed to abortion as birth control and liken the research performed on these aborted fetuses as that done by the Nazis. Have these tax paying citizens no say in how their tax dollars are spent?
There are also many tax paying americans that are opposed to the invasion and "continued occupation" [their words, not mine] of Iraq. Have these tax paying citizens no say in how their tax dollars are spent?
Shouldn't government policy be established based on the mainstream of public sentiment and best interests of the people rather than on morality arguments from a vocal minority (be they right or left)?
-
Well, samiam, the way it works in the US is that there is a vote, see, and everyone gets to vote, and then what all those voters decide is counted up and the nation is led by the people whom were voted for.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
There are also many tax paying americans that are opposed to the invasion and "continued occupation" [their words, not mine] of Iraq. Have these tax paying citizens no say in how their tax dollars are spent?
Shouldn't government policy be established based on the mainstream of public sentiment and best interests of the people rather than on morality arguments from a vocal minority (be they right or left)?
Sure they do. They can vote John Kerry, he'll pull out and do nothing, much like Clinton did for 8 years.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Should be ON Topic during a discussion of the life and death of Chris Reeve. It was his cause and his life's work over the last 9 years.
Is this thread about stem cell research?
-
what is the difference between embryonic stem cells and those found in umbilical cord blood ?
the latter is usually disposed of as medical waste
too bad skerry already politicized Reeves passing by bringing this subject up today .. came as no surprise though...
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Well, samiam, the way it works in the US is that there is a vote, see, and everyone gets to vote, and then what all those voters decide is counted up and the nation is led by the people whom were voted for.
No need for a civics lesson, Lizking. (The people vote for whoever they believe is the best overall candidate, sometimes in spite of the fact that there may be one or two issues where they don't agree with the candidate).
I was just pointing out that the argument against govt. funding stem cell research being that "some taxpayers are opposed to it" doesn't hold water.
-
At this point, it is not "some" it is "most", and it IS being funded, for the first time, ever, by the Federal Government". Quit drinking the coolaid, and get some facts.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
what is the difference between embryonic stem cells and those found in umbilical cord blood ?
Umbilical cord stem cells are primarily blood stem cells. Although they have the potential to turn into many types of cells, it’s “easiest” for them to turn into blood cells. That’s why they are commonly used to replace the blood cells after chemotherapy that destroys the bone marrow.
Embryonic stem cells are in general more versatile because their natural fate is to form all of the types of cells.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Sure they do. They can vote John Kerry, he'll pull out and do nothing, much like Clinton did for 8 years.
He didnt pull out. He tucked tail and Ran
-
The NIH funds the NCI (National Cancer Institute) to the tune of 1.7 billion dollars/year. http://plan.cancer.gov/budget.html
Stem cell research is new technology, so saying this is the first President to fund it at all is like FDR taking credit for Television.
Opposition to the research is based on religion. What about the millions of frozen embryos in suspended animation today? They will either be destroyed or they could be used for research. I sure don't see a hue and cry by the right to outlaw the destruction of these embryos. Kinda hypocritical... no?
-
They can be used for research tomorrow, but not with Federal funds.
edit- and by the way, SCR has been going on for at least 100 years, arguably 200 years, with minor success since the 1950's, so don't give me that crap. Clinton could have funded it, and should have, at the very least.
-
And federal funds are needed to make something happen.
-
That is where we disagree, Mt. If the smell of a therapy was in the research, private companies would pour billions into it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And federal funds are needed to make something happen.
Why?
dont get me wrong Im all for the reasearch.
but why are federal funds needed?
If enough funds can be raised to build the WWII memorial
why cant the funds be raised for the reasearch?
I wouldnt mind if federal funds were used. but I dont see it as "Necessary"
Bruce Springstein, and Barbara Striesand can spend oodles of money to raise oodles more to get a politition elected
why cant they throw some concerts to fund Stem cell research?
-
Opposition to the research is based on religion.
Not all pro-lifers are religious. The idea is that using humans for spare parts without their consent is a bad thing.
-
Government support for adult stem cell research continues as does that on fetus stem cell research on those fetuses already procured. Private research is in no way obstructed.
Yet.
The US government is pushing hard in the UN for a worldwide ban on cloning stem cells. They were 1 vote short last year, and might well succeed this year.
-
The US government is pushing hard in the UN for a worldwide ban on cloning stem cells.
You mean a ban on cloning embryos in order to mine their stem cells?
-
Yes.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Yes.
and that ban would not be a good thing?
you shouldn't farm human beings...
except maybe libs as they are 90% vegetable anyways :)
-
and that ban would not be a good thing?
Only if you believe in stopping stem cell research.
you shouldn't farm human beings...
Who's talking about human beings?
The ban seeks to prevent cloning of embryos at very early stages. In Britain, the limit is 14 days.
Many thosands of embryos at that stage are disposed of every year as a consequence of in vitrio fertilisation.
If you can flush it down the sink with no paperwork needed, why not clone it for some good?
However, what the US is seeking to ban is even further from being a human.
Cloning stem cells involves taking an ovum (an unfertilized egg) and replacing it's DNA with other DNA. That "embryo", which is the product of only 1 set of DNA, is then cloned.
So you have an egg, you remove it's DNA, and replace it with someone else's DNA, and allow it to grow for 2 weeks. How is that a human life?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
That is where we disagree, Mt. If the smell of a therapy was in the research, private companies would pour billions into it.
Ding! DING! DING!
We have a WINNAAAH!
There it is.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
. They were 1 vote short last year, and might well succeed this year.
Is this a "simple majority" vote or what?
In any event, it sounds like it isn't ONLY the US that doesn't agree.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
That is where we disagree, Mt. If the smell of a therapy was in the research, private companies would pour billions into it.
Right... The reason why that isn't happening?
The very real spectre that after private companies have poured billions into the research, Bush wakes up on a Tuesday morning after a particularly hellish dream in which he was getting chased by gigantic embryos, and says "Stop."
A clear policy has to drive this thing, or nobody is going to touch it. That, it turns out, is what's happening now.
-
Nashwan, pull yer head out of yer Ass! There is no Ban. The ban is on Federal Money only! How many times does it have to be said before you understand!
-
Originally posted by Nash
A clear policy has to drive this thing, or nobody is going to touch it. That, it turns out, is what's happening now.
Stem cell research is going on in many places, the US included.
The Brits are setting up a stem cell bank of ALL lines that researchers FROM ANY COUNTRY can apply to access.
I haven't checked but I'd bet that US medical companies with foreign subsidiaries could do all the stem cell research they care to do without and US government problems.
The bottom line is still the bottom line. Bush funded some stem cell research. There are some people who thought he should fund ALL stem cell research.
If the corporate medical moguls could see money in it using their particular time line, they'd be in it up to their necks. However, I suspect the profit isn't visible in the near term so they want old Uncle Sam to carry the load until the pot of gold starts glimmering on the horizon.
-
If the interest were to get into space, private companies would pour billions into it.
That only took 46 years.
-SW
-
Not only that SW, but it still isn't time for private space travel (though I am all for it, just like SCR). SCR has been going for 200 years and it STILL isn't worth more than basic research dollars.
-
Well, if we could lable embryos as colateral damage, there might be a shot. Seems the only time goverments approve taking lives in the name of science, is during war (and please tell me weapons aren't experimented with during war). Spin it as a war on disease, and who knows, embryos might be seen as colateral damage- sorta like the children in war zones
-
Is it true you can grow Pizza shops with Stem Cells?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Government support for adult stem cell research continues as does that on fetus stem cell research on those fetuses already procured. Private research is in no way obstructed. There are many Americans that pay taxes and are opposed to abortion as birth control and liken the research performed on these aborted fetuses as that done by the Nazis. Have these tax paying citizens no say in how their tax dollars are spent?
Not if its a religious/faith based conviction.................
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ahhh I had a feeling that this is what all those "off Topic" posts were.
Stem Cll research is allowed in the US. They just will not be funded by the government.
I am for the reasearch.
But I can respect Bush's decision on it and his "Ethical" reasonings behind it.
Tho I do dissagree on the embryo point on those embryos that will be destroyed anyway.
But otherwise
I can see how this research can be misused.
To me it seems he made the most fair decision his concience Would allow.
Neither side was happy with it which tells me its probably pretty close to being the right one.
His concience doesnt count. The law and what is best for ALL of us that arent in the womb does..
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Incorrect.
Stem cells can be taken from A Fetus Just as they can an adult
But the subject at hand is Embronic stem cells which is what I think you ment.
Embryos are not Fetuses.
And that is a subject for yet another debate.
I know I've still some remain of my embryologie studies and I keep following what happen in histologie.
It's just that it's far more easy to get stem cell from an embryon than a adult :)
Originally posted by Eagler
what is the difference between embryonic stem cells and those found in umbilical cord blood ?
We used to call that "Cell polution". It's hard to work with.
This cells are often less totipotent.
Originally posted by ra
Some stem cells are harvested from embryos, thus killing the embryo. Bush has put restrictions on this.
Right , but an Embryon is not a foetus (technicaly speaking)
I was just pointed the misuse of a word than the impact.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Is it true you can grow Pizza shops with Stem Cells?
Not quite right, but perhaps you will be able to grow the Pizza shop owner :)
-
I have zero problems with embryonic stem cell research, and zero problems with govt. funding of it.
Tronsky
-
AKIron - I'm not the one comparing embrionic stem cell research to the extermination of the Jews. If that is your opinion, then your opinion of abortionists must be even more extreme. Maybe even extends to tacet approval of the murder of abortionist doctors.
As for what the UK government is doing in view of stem cell research? A hell of alot more than yours is.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The Brits are setting up a stem cell bank of ALL lines that researchers FROM ANY COUNTRY can apply to access.
Here’s the problem. Grants provide money for equipment and people. Laboratories will typically have several projects going on, each utilizing equipment and people funded from several grants. For example, one grant might provide 25% of a researcher’s salary, another grant 50%. An expensive piece of equipment paid for by one grant is typically used for later projects as well.
But according to the current rules, if you use embryos created after Aug 2001, you can’t get federal money. So a researcher using these embryos from the UK would risk losing a federal grant for a non-embryo project done in the same lab with the same equipment and same people.
-
Nashwan, pull yer head out of yer Ass! There is no Ban.
No, there is no ban yet.
However, the US is pushing hard for a ban in the UN. The vote was lpostponed last year, and is probably due for another vote this month.
The ban is on Federal Money only! How many times does it have to be said before you understand!
I understand perfectly.
Perhaps the following stories will help you understand that whilst there is no ban at the moment, the US government is trying to get a ban:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3609992.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994359
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994471
Of course, once it's banned in the UN the US will need to bring in a ban in the US, but it seems odd to try to get a UN vote for a ban if you have no intention of then enforcing it in the US.
This isn't to try to get a ban on government funding, it's to try to criminalise cloning embryos. From the draft Costa Rican resolution:
Article 2
Scope of application (definition of the crime)
1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that
person intentionally engages in an action, such as somatic cell nuclear transfer or embryo-splitting, resulting in the creation of a living organism, at any stage of physical development, that is genetically virtually identical to an existing or previously existing human organism.
Article 3
Obligation to criminalize
Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary:
(a) To establish as criminal offences under its domestic law the offences set
forth in article 2;
(b) To make those offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take
into account the grave nature of the offences.
Is this a "simple majority" vote or what?
I think so. I'm fairly sure it's not absolutely binding, thankfully.
In any event, it sounds like it isn't ONLY the US that doesn't agree.
No, it certainly isn't. The motion is being put forward by Costa Rica, and backed by the US.
The list of countries that backed a resolution last year to force a cloning ban this year (ie they tabled a resolution last year to reconvene this year to force a ban):
Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Spain, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Zambia.
-
the US backing a UN resolution ?
I thought the UN was "irrelevant" ?
-
there is no ban nor is there any shortage of cells to do research on and... the U.S. leads the world in the research.
MT is stuck on thinking only the government can invent things.. If there were any chance it would work the private companies would be pouring billions into it but.... if you don't get a tax break for research (tax break for the rich) then you probly won't do as much,
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
MT is stuck on thinking only the government can invent things.. If there were any chance it would work the private companies would be pouring billions into it but.... if you don't get a tax break for research (tax break for the rich) then you probly won't do as much,
lazs
So how inclined would you be to invest in something that your government and a large section of your population would like to see banned?
-
what would be an example? what research is banned other than human cloning?
lazs
-
I'm not sure about all this stem cell's research, the risk and so on,
just read Australia is fast becoming an international leader in the field
of stem cell research. While legislators in Europe and the US continue
to restrict embryonic stem cell research, Australia is seen as
comparatively liberal in its approach.
Germany is blocking alot, a study also warned that Germany would lose
at least half of its stem cell scientists to other countries in the next 5
years because of “restrictive research conditions.” :/
say bye bye knowledge...
R
Gh0stFT
-
heres my deal with this issue , I have a son that has a kidney condition , a few years ago my wife and I lost a child (miscarriage) but the way the system is now here in the USA we didn't have a choice about what happened with the miscarried fetus , which was my sons brother, if we had could those stems cells helped cure my son or will we continue dealing with this?? Bottom line we have to deal with it no matter how much it cost , why , I love my son is why period, and anything that can help him I will do, yall seem to make light of to many things in this forum without having a GD clue about who or whom it effects, when one of yours is on the line maybe you'll think about it till then , shuttup
-
This is on topic. You think they'd wait until the poor ba$tard is buried before they start whoring his name. Quote 'WHEN KERRY IS PRESIDENT, PEOPLE LIKE CHRISTOPHER REEVE ARE GOING TO WALK' -Sen. John Edwards
-
Ripsnort, I'd like to say how surprised I am at your stupidity... but I can't. Are you really saying that that was said after Reeve's death, as implied by your 'You think they'd wait until the poor ba$tard is buried before they start whoring his name...' statement?
New depths of Rip'n'bore reached if true!
-
Yea something is very wrong when abortion is so commonly used as retroactive birth control, and the promise of curing diseases is hindered by restrictions on embyotic stem cell research. It just makes absolutely no sense to me.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Ripsnort, I'd like to say how surprised I am at your stupidity... but I can't. Are you really saying that that was said after Reeve's death, as implied by your 'You think they'd wait until the poor ba$tard is buried before they start whoring his name...' statement?
New depths of Rip'n'bore reached if true!
You don't keep up with current events (http://www.illinoisleader.com/letters/lettersview.asp?c=20197), do you? Too many computer games?
-
Oh and Ripsnort..
>>You think they'd wait until the poor ba$tard is buried before they start whoring his name. <<
Christopher Reeves was a staunch liberal, and in fact was part of a freedom of speech group (People for the American Way or something like that). He also called Kerry Saturday and thanked him. I agree though, discussing his political ideology or using his death as politcal rhetoric seems to be in poor taste. But it is quite possible he ASKED them to push forward in his name - he was an tremendous lobbyist for stem cell research. I dunno, but its quite possible the Kerry campaign is working within the wishes of his family.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I dunno, but its quite possible the Kerry campaign is working within the wishes of his family.
Could be, but knowing the Dems, they'd use their dead mothers' votes to get in office.
-
I think Stem Cell research should be allowed. why? Because it will do more good than harm. So someone at some point in time may decide to mess with cloning of humans. How terrible is that really. We already have people born as twins. Whats the potential harm. Its unethical to make a clone. How ethical is it to succumb to a disease. Can we have less gov and more science.
-
You dont have to not know how or about something to disallow it in law or society. You can research it for medical use and and ban cloning at the same time.
-
Good thinking 212, I tip my hat off to you.
-
With science anything is possible!
:rolleyes:
-
Too many computer games? Hardly. Too busy working/studying. I sadly don't have a job which allows me to surf the internet all day. Not a very cost effective way to run a company, you see.