you cant has funds for stemcell research. funding, not yours

[Zigma]

Bush is an evangelist lol.

[MF Perm]

People do realize that the choice being made still results in the embryos being discarded and destroyed right?

Where are your ethics for the alternative? O LORD NO WE CAN'T EXPERIMENT ON UNUSED EMBRYOS, THAT WOULD BE CRUEL, DUMP THEM DOWN THE DRAIN FAST. And I'll always love when something not even resembling life gets more thought than those already living, dying from diseases everyday. I'd rather heal the sick than worry about timmy the embryo whos existance will end in the garbage anyway.

Thank you Xavier, couldn't have said it better myself. I apologize for earlier saying they would go bad, I meant to say they will just be destroyed anyways.

I think everyone understands the ethics involved in this, but the bottom line in this particular situation is that this is necessary research that can help save people with all types of afflictions, and if we can't get the funding this fetus line will be destroyed anyways. There is no ethical question involved here in this bill.

And for the war thing, where someone said: Oh ok you can just not fight. Ok, you tell that to our boys in Iraq that want to come home. They decide not to fight they rot in jail. It's a lot more complex than that so don't just play it off like it's a simple black and white issue.

The matter at hand is that there are people who are sick and suffering every day and we have the ability to try and help them. If the science regarding mouse stem cells and adult stem cells was exact, this issue wouldn't be pushed nor would matter, but it is not.

The difference between adult and embryonic is this: adult are made to repair, which can help greatly, but embryonic can mutate and replace destroyed cells. That sure goes one step further.


And as far as the destroying a life to save a life let's just put it like this; a non-sentient organism's value traded for a sentient organisms value is a no-brainer. I don't hear anyone complaining about killing the flu virus because it harms people, it's a living thing too. We all understand sacrifice and necessary evil, and an embryo that has no other purpose but to wait in limbo to be destroyed should be used for research without question. If we can fund oil companies and private weapons research, we can sure as fuck fund sparing people of misery and death.

[Ivve]

Well.. I think their argument is more like the 'don't check the organ donation box cause the doctors may be more interested in letter you die than saving you' fallacy etc..

I'm not an expert in how this all works so I for the most part stay out of this debate, though an advertisement on TV that went along the lines of "Unwanted pregnancy? Donate your fetus for cash now!" is troubling, though highly unrealistic

I think Devek is on the right way of thinking.

It's not the embyros that would get "garbaged anyways" that worries me.

It's the possibilities of leading to farming embyros, and chicks getting prego left and right and just donating their embyro later on (which could spread lots of diseases because of it.

Plus the idea of cloning scares me. I've probably read too many sci-fi books for it, but it just feels like too many things could go wrong with it way in the future.

I don't think women would strive to get pregnant and then abort if they simply weren't compensated for donating the product of the abortion. Keep everything exactly how it is, but give them the option to donate if they wish. A little like organ donation, I suppose.

Outside of that, I don't really know anything about how all of it functions, so I can't comment on the whole cloning aspect.

[Xavier]

Well.. I think their argument is more like the 'don't check the organ donation box cause the doctors may be more interested in letter you die than saving you' fallacy etc..

I'm not an expert in how this all works so I for the most part stay out of this debate, though an advertisement on TV that went along the lines of "Unwanted pregnancy? Donate your fetus for cash now!" is troubling, though highly unrealistic

I think Devek is on the right way of thinking.

It's not the embyros that would get "garbaged anyways" that worries me.

It's the possibilities of leading to farming embyros, and chicks getting prego left and right and just donating their embyro later on (which could spread lots of diseases because of it.

Plus the idea of cloning scares me. I've probably read too many sci-fi books for it, but it just feels like too many things could go wrong with it way in the future.

You realize the embryos they want to use come from pre-existing lines, all of which are going to be discarded if not used right? Its a choice between research and the trash can, and I'll never understand how the trash can is the more ethical choice, when it condemns not only the embryo, but everyone who could potentially be saved from the research too.

[Ksandra]

Well.. I think their argument is more like the 'don't check the organ donation box cause the doctors may be more interested in letter you die than saving you' fallacy etc..

I'm not an expert in how this all works so I for the most part stay out of this debate, though an advertisement on TV that went along the lines of "Unwanted pregnancy? Donate your fetus for cash now!" is troubling, though highly unrealistic

I think Devek is on the right way of thinking.

It's not the embyros that would get "garbaged anyways" that worries me.

It's the possibilities of leading to farming embyros, and chicks getting prego left and right and just donating their embyro later on (which could spread lots of diseases because of it.

Plus the idea of cloning scares me. I've probably read too many sci-fi books for it, but it just feels like too many things could go wrong with it way in the future.

You realize the embryos they want to use come from pre-existing lines, all of which are going to be discarded if not used right? Its a choice between research and the trash can, and I'll never understand how the trash can is the more ethical choice, when it condemns not only the embryo, but everyone who could potentially be saved from the research too.

Read bolded part

I'm worried about the research that can lead to cloning, and possibilities of Embyro farming, which can happen. WIth embyros that didn't necessarily "need to be trashed. Embyros that could have formed lives but were sold to research for money. Kinda like the Organ farming in China.

[Xavier]

As soon as you start banning the step before the step before the step where things actually get unethical, you've decided progress isn't worthwhile.

[Senoska]

I'm no scientist but I do think the human embryo "destroyed" in embryonic stem cell research has about 110 cells, in comparison a FLY's brain has about 10,000 cells. The embryos destroyed have no feeling as they have no nerve endings devolved yet. This is not a fight about morals, this is a fight about religious beliefs controlling our country. The only defense that people have against stem cell research is "It has a soul" no, fucker, it doesn't. Same with cloning. Religion as a whole is holding us back, what the hell!?

The government is controlling our STUDIES and development as a race as a whole, on a religious belief. My grandmother is currently in the last stages of life, she has a very bad case of alzheimer's. Unfourntaly she will die from this, in fact, I don't think she will make it to next year. How ever, if this bill passed (Rather, the original bill) she would have been early enough to cure with the help of stem cells.

If you are opposed to the killing of these embryonic stem cells, you are also against the "Murder" of flys, not to mention you condone the suffering and death of thousands of millions of people. You are truly a horrible person.

[Ksandra]

As soon as you start banning the step before the step before the step where things actually get unethical, you've decided progress isn't worthwhile.

Problem is everyone has a different "line" of when something becomes unethical. I'm sure that there are many who think cloning is a good idea, but that doesn't mean I should have to support it. Equally, it doesn't mean someone should have to be against it because I am.

When it comes to law though, especially if we strive to remain a democratic nation, they have to find the best line they can and try not to cross it. But considering the line is so extremely varied, it becomes a very toughy issue to decide upon.

[Ivve]

As soon as you start banning the step before the step before the step where things actually get unethical, you've decided progress isn't worthwhile.

Problem is everyone has a different "line" of when something becomes unethical. I'm sure that there are many who think cloning is a good idea, but that doesn't mean I should have to support it. Equally, it doesn't mean someone should have to be against it because I am.

When it comes to law though, especially if we strive to remain a democratic nation, they have to find the best line they can and try not to cross it. But considering the line is so extremely varied, it becomes a very toughy issue to decide upon.

I agree with you that you don't have to support or believe something just because other people support or believe it. At the same time, you have to realize that the ethical argument against the research taking place now is basically, "we should not do it because God doesn't like it." No matter how you cut it, that is religion stepping into a government role and dictating the next move. In a nation that is supposed to have a clear separation of the church and the government, that's not acceptable.

[MF Perm]

As soon as you start banning the step before the step before the step where things actually get unethical, you've decided progress isn't worthwhile.

Problem is everyone has a different "line" of when something becomes unethical. I'm sure that there are many who think cloning is a good idea, but that doesn't mean I should have to support it. Equally, it doesn't mean someone should have to be against it because I am.

When it comes to law though, especially if we strive to remain a democratic nation, they have to find the best line they can and try not to cross it. But considering the line is so extremely varied, it becomes a very toughy issue to decide upon.

It's all through the looking glass. Either you're for people suffering because you're afraid to go to hell, or you're for the progress of science to help humanity. Obviously that's a stark contrast and not every single persons view but that is the majority of the case in a nutshell.

This particular situation the ethics against each other are science versus religion, and science is proven while religion is nothing more than theory and storytelling. Believing that someone should suffer because fear of a fairy tale is beyond unethical. If you can give a reasonable and logical standpoint on why cell cloning and stem cell research is unethical I would love to hear it.

Protip: Logic and reason automatically rule out religious conviction.

[Senoska]

As soon as you start banning the step before the step before the step where things actually get unethical, you've decided progress isn't worthwhile.

Problem is everyone has a different "line" of when something becomes unethical. I'm sure that there are many who think cloning is a good idea, but that doesn't mean I should have to support it. Equally, it doesn't mean someone should have to be against it because I am.

When it comes to law though, especially if we strive to remain a democratic nation, they have to find the best line they can and try not to cross it. But considering the line is so extremely varied, it becomes a very toughy issue to decide upon.

It's all through the looking glass. Either you're for people suffering because you're afraid to go to hell, or you're for the progress of science to help humanity. Obviously that's a stark contrast and not every single persons view but that is the majority of the case in a nutshell.

This particular situation the ethics against each other are science versus religion, and science is proven while religion is nothing more than theory and storytelling. Believing that someone should suffer because fear of a fairy tale is beyond unethical. If you can give a reasonable and logical standpoint on why cell cloning and stem cell research is unethical I would love to hear it.

Protip: Logic and reason automatically rule out religious conviction.

Well put.

Off topic:
Edit: religion is not a Theory, the scientific definition of Theory is a collection of facts based off reason.

Or better put:

A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis.

IE: Gravity is a Theory, but we know every time we drop a ball here on earth it is going to drop to the ground
IE: Evolution. It is not a hypothesis it is a Theory, or a collection of facts.

Sorry, don't mean to drag evolution vs religious crap into this thread im just pointing this out.

[Ksandra]

I like how people keep suggesting I'm against it over religious purposes when I never once mentioned religion.

All I said basically was I didn't like the idea because I don't like the idea of cloning/farming, and defended myself when someone mistook it for ethical purposes on the "trashed embyros".

If you wanted to know my standpoint it's rather silly I'm sure hence why I didn't bother mentioning. The idea of having rows of humans in a lab somewhere for pieces just frankly creeps me out. Call it religious, call it too much Ray Bradbury, call it what you will, but I do think psycologically it wouldn't be good as a race to have that other self for parts. I have no scientific/psychology bacground to base my opinion on it, nor never claimed to, it's just my gut feeling on it hence why I din't fell I needed to mention it.

I am well aware that gut feelings don't make laws nor did I say they should. However, I care more about this country striving to be democratic than strive to keep church and state seperate. Call me crazy but I care about democracy more than that. To each their own on what they feel is important.

[Devek]

Which is why..

..this is one situation where more information should be put forward.

When we get to the point where diseases can be cured.. where are these cells going to come from and what will supply and demand look like? It is possible they could take one group of cells and cure everyone with just that batch? Hell maybe through the research they will learn that none of it is necessary at all and using mechanisms learned from research people can grow any of the cells they need already for just about anything.

Thats how I would go about it if I was in the pro stemcell crowd.. but like I said earlier, I'm on the fence until I become more informed

[MF Perm]

Educate yourselves:

http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/page.php?id=163

There will be no human cloning - called reproductive cloning - ever in this process. They are able to clone down to the cell. Imagine scientific perfection of 1 embryo being able to save 10,000 lives due to the cloning a single cell. That is a huge difference and shows zero ethical dilemma.



What is somatic cell nuclear transfer?

A research process called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), sometimes referred to as “nuclear transfer” or "therapeutic cloning", allows scientists to copy cells so that their genetic material, or DNA, matches exactly. Scientists remove the nucleus (containing the DNA) from an unfertilized egg and replace it with the nucleus (containing the DNA) from the cell of a patient who has a disease. The egg, with the new genetic material, is stimulated to convert to a blastocyst which contains stem cells that match the patient and has their disease. In this process, there is no sperm, no implantation in a uterus and no pregnancy.

SCNT offers scientists a unique way to learn about diseases and test new therapies on human cells. By testing therapies on human cells before testing them on living people, scientists can make therapies more safe and effective. This could also reduce the risk of clinical trials and the time it takes to get therapies to patients.


Why is embryonic stem cell research confused with human (or reproductive) cloning?

Cloning is when cells are copied so that their genetic material, or DNA, matches exactly.

Embryonic stem cell research utilizes a process called therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), to copy cells with the goal of making stem cells to better treat and cure people with serious diseases and injuries. Using SCNT, scientists can produce embryonic stem cells without using sperm to fertilize an egg. In this process, there is no implantation in a uterus and therefore no pregnancy.

Reproductive cloning copies cells with the goal of making a cloned living being (i.e. human, animal). This type of cloning uses an egg which is stimulated to convert to a blastocyst and then implanted in a uterus. Nearly all scientists and physicians agree that human reproductive cloning is unethical and should not be done. In California and many other states, it is illegal to clone a human being.


Does the Alliance for Stem Cell Research (AFSCR) support cloning?

The AFSCR is against human reproductive cloning and believes that there should be a complete ban on it.

AFSCR believes that scientists must, however, be allowed to use SCNT. This is perhaps the best hope for finding treatments and cures for people with a wide range of serious diseases and injuries.



And also a bit about where the embryos come from:

Most embryonic stem cells currently used for research come from fertility clinics. Infertile couples seeking to have a child through in vitro fertilization often have multiple embryos frozen and stored at fertility clinics. When the extra embryos are no longer needed, they are usually thrown away. As an alternative to having them discarded, couples can donate them for research.

In 2003, it was reported that U.S. fertility clinics were storing about 400,000 frozen embryos. Yet in 2001, President Bush restricted federal money to embryonic stem cell lines that already existed. Estimated to be about 78 at that time, the number of viable stem cell lines available is now thought to be only 22.


I see no ethical issues here.

[finale23]

i used to be an embryonic stem cell, and i am getting kicks out of these replies

[Devek]

So basically they are taking an unfertilized egg that would end up on a tampax tampon and being thrown in the trash and taking out all the genetic material and replacing it with the dna of a grown adult in order to grow cells for that adult?

Maybe scientist should come up with some new terms, cause I think a lot of people think they are trying to operate on what is basically an aborted fetus.

[Ksandra]

Which is why..

..this is one situation where more information should be put forward.

When we get to the point where diseases can be cured.. where are these cells going to come from and what will supply and demand look like? It is possible they could take one group of cells and cure everyone with just that batch? Hell maybe through the research they will learn that none of it is necessary at all and using mechanisms learned from research people can grow any of the cells they need already for just about anything.

Thats how I would go about it if I was in the pro stemcell crowd.. but like I said earlier, I'm on the fence until I become more informed

I like your way of thinking too And I think this is what the government is thinking as well.

You know it kind of reminds me of Jurassic Park a little. If people don't know what surrounds that book being made let me explain. We DO have mosquitos with dinosaur DNA; that is not science fiction. And before the book was written there was a following of scientists actually trying to find ways of creating technology to fix the broken DNA with amphibious DNA in hopes of actually cloning dinosaurs.

Now for those who don't know much about Micheal Crichton, he doesn't consider himself to be a scifi writer. Everything he writes tends to be close to modern day but with technology that's (possibly) only a few years ahead. When he had found out about what scientists were doing, he decided to write Jurassic Park as sort of a "look at what you could be creating." And yes, the book brought enough attention that the scientists ended up loosing a lot of their funding for the project, along with the obvious lack of computer technology to continue it anyways.

I do feel sometimes scientists get so excited of getting to study things that they don't always look at the greater picture. As crazy as it sounds thinking of it, I could imagine how much trouble we could have been in, if for somehow one of those idiots had created a T-Rex. And considering we have cloned sheep and still infact have dinosaur DNA, it makes me kinda laugh thinking that yes godzilla could exist someday. Sounds so stupid but it could happen.

Granted I don't in any way imagine they're going to be taking the human embyros and trying to make dinosaurs out of them. But from what it seems like it would bring us a lot closer to cloning. Rows of humans for pieces just sitting there being fed through a tube.

Like Devek said I wish they could give out more info on what they know, it feels like they're jumping into this way too fast. I am not a fan of jumping into things without thinking far into the future of what this could mean both good and bad into a society.

It is better to get enough info on why they "need" the embyros before automatically assuming this is the answer and only answer.

@ MF who posted while I was typing XD Just because they say they won't use it for cloning doesn't mean it won't lead to it. They may find it to their benefit in the future, or another company may also start stem cell research for clone purposes.

I just really really feel this could lead to bad things. I am not in the voting process so I don't feel bad about not spending days on days researching everything myself. So I may be less educated than those that are voting but considering there is so much controvery over it, there are some that may be more educated that knows something we all don't.


Anyways done ranting time for bed. XD

[Devek]

Well.. the worst possible outcomes you shouldn't feel to bad about because they are inevitable anyway :D

If the US doesn't do it.. lol, there is a whole world out there and there are countries that will.

[Maguspk]

So basically they are taking an unfertilized egg that would end up on a tampax tampon and being thrown in the trash and taking out all the genetic material and replacing it with the dna of a grown adult in order to grow cells for that adult?

Maybe scientist should come up with some new terms, cause I think a lot of people think they are trying to operate on what is basically an aborted fetus.

When put that way, it does seen to be wrong, but according to the information MfPerm posted, whether it be true or not, then I don't particularly agree with the decision.

However, the OG post was quite a different topic. Their reasons for not going with it were well founded imo and I can see where Ksandra is coming from. (See my first post)

[archibaldcrane]

How did a thread titled:

"you cant has funds for stemcell research. funding, not yours"

get this many replies already?

Serious thread should have serious title, not the ranting of a caveman with an above-average vocabulary.