One of the more idiotic stances this White House has taken is shutting down funding for research into embryonic stem cell lines. Let’s explain something:
Most stem cell researchers use embryos that were created but not used in in vitro fertility treatments to derive new stem cell lines. M
ost of these embryos are slated to be destroyed, or stored indefinitely, long past their viable storage life . In the United States alone, there have been estimates of at least 400,000 such embryos.[2] This has led some opponents of abortion, such as Senator Orrin Hatch, to support human embryonic stem cell research.[3] [Wikipedia]
Get it? Embryonic stem cells come from embryos that will be destroyed no matter what!!! This has nothing to do with pro-life vs. pro-choice because no life is being saved or destroyed (and this is without even mentioning the fact that embryos are not equivalent to babies). I hate to be so crude, but if you’re against embryonic stem cell research you must also be against in vitro fertilization and masturbation.
Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s talk about moving forward. Luckily,
The Coleman-Isakson bill would fund, among other things, research on stem cells from embryos that have died naturally in the course of attempts to use them in fertility treatments, and altered nuclear transfer, which involves reprogramming an egg to produce cells which cannot become a human organism. [AP]
I hope everyone read the above Wikipedia excerpt, because if you did
Fortunately we have some Senators who not only have a brain, but know how to use it.
The latter bill would reverse President Bush’s directive limiting federal funding to those cell lines available before Aug. 9, 2001, and faces a White House veto. [AP]
Loading ...
Excellent point Matt!
And just think…this logic has many other valuable contributions to make to the public health discourse.
For instance, we could easily use the same argument as an excuse to forceably hoik valuable organs from death row inmates and give them (or sell them..think of the government programs that could be funded!) to people waiting for transplants.
Nice and fresh as it were.
“Sorry pal, but we’ve come for your corneas..you won’t need those eyeballs where your going anyway.
How exactly is forcibly taking organs from living people the same as voluntarily obtaining embryos that would have been destroyed anyway?
Dan, it’s best not to delve into Swiftee’s logic. It’s like a black-hole of doom: it doesn’t follow the normal rules of physics and if you get too close you’ll get sucked in and lose your grip on reality.
Tom Harkin & the Brownback guy were both on CSPAN today.
Harkin said it well, supported his position quite well with facts.
Brownback just mumbled the same old unreasoned emotional appeal & talked about adoption of the 400,000 100 cell embryos.
Same old story - I don’t see anyone knocking down the doors to adopt those. Al Franken had a great line about Snowflake babies, askig why the Bush daughters weren’t bringing some of those to term.
Which underscores the ridiculousness of this whole thing.
How many so-called “Snowflakes” have been adopted? Have any?
Brownback claimed there were - since he must know, give me a number.
By the way, Al’s on Larry King tonight.
According to C-SPAN, Normy has his name on a bill that opposes s,5.
As a co-sponsor.
Does anyone think Normy would do the right thing when he can get his name on a bill? Fat chance.
Its the same old right wing talking points - irrespective of the facts on stem cells. Recall the treatment Dana Reeve got by this administration, after Chris Reeve died.
I recall something else about Christopher Reeve. I recall a Vice Presidential candidate named John Edwards saying that if it wasn’t for the Bush Administration, Christopher Reeve would be out of his wheelchair and walking.
Furthermore, there is a difference between embryonic and adult stem cell research. While embryonic stem cell research has not led to any medical therapies or cures, adult stem cell research has. Here is a link to an recent article about how adult stem cell implantation has cured Type-1 diabetes. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1637528.ece
Your comments have nothing to do with medical research and everything to do with the politics of abortion. You said you hated to be crude, but if one is opposed to embryonic stem cell research, one has to be opposed to masturbation. Well that’s exactly what your post is: mental masturbation.
To further illustrate how your post is nothing but mental masturbation, to use your words, here is an article by paralyzed syndicated columnist and medical doctor, Charles Krauthammer, on the John Edwards/Christopher Reeve scandal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34167-2004Oct14.html
I see nothing immoral or unethical to using Embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway for research to save others. Michael J. Fox, Elizabeth Edwards, and others will continue to battle diseases that could be won with this valuable research. To be able to regenerate and repair the Spinal Cord would be a breakthrough of monumental porportions.
To not try for medical breakthroughs for Cancers and other debilitating diseases, is to defeat away any hope of easing unecessary suffering and death.
kathy,
You’re assuming that the embryonic stem cells are going to lead to cures. This was the same promise made to people like Charles Krauthammer, read his column I linked to, when they said fetal tissue research would cure spinal cord injuries. It didn’t.
Adult stem cells are currently being used for theraputic treatments. In fact, they have been used to cure diabetes. See the other article I linked to.
Why blur the line of medical ethics when there is no guarantee the research will lead to anything. We can get embryonic stem cells from other sources, like umbilical cord blood, and nonviable embryos. We don’t need to destroy embryos to conduct research.
Did you read where I said COULD lead to Medical Breakthroughs, Chris? By saying COULD, I made no assumptions that Embryonic stem cells were the answer.
I read not too long ago in a Mayo Clinic newsletter that the use of Embryonic stem cells had aided paralized mice to be able to use their hind legs. I call that promising should it be applied to a human being suffering from Paralysis willing to take the gamble to find out. There’s always a 50-50 chance such research would not work. But to not try with stemcells that have not been precoded for Disease, it is a glimmer of hope. I never stated that Embryonic Stem Cells was the only answer.
Blurring the line of medical ethics - by discarding blastocysts, a collection of maybe 100 or so cells & pretending they became viable human beings?
That’s a stretch.
Accusing people & denying research because it hasn’t to this day panned out sufficiently is silly.
A weird punishing attitude of “What have you done for me lately?,” it seems to me.
If your kid doesn’t get the answers in his/her math homework the first time through - do you blame MATH for not panning out?
The same can be said about adult stem cells.
This argument by the right is fabrication & wishful thinking & all the rationalizations are written backwards - to support the preconceived opinion.
The ROI time line for private companies may be much shorter than the one which government-sponsored research might be. This failure to support stem cell research has yielded something of a brain drain. In California, there has been a movement to prevent stem cell research at the state level & seeks to intrudes into the private sector as well.
Some evangelical kids make public chastity pledges.
Anyone here that has a problem with embryonic stem cell research & people like Norm Coleman should then take an ABSTINENCE PLEDGE:
A PLEDGE they will never personally benefit from companies who do stem cell research, a PLEDGE they will forego any future cures derived from embryonic stem cell research!!!
If Coleman thinks that embryonic stem cell research (using live cells) should be banned, he should also call for a ban on in vitro fertilization which produces the excess embryos which do get destroyed.
Eva,
The excess embryos do get destroyed. But they shouldn’t get harvested for medical experimentation.
Mockingbird,
Nobody is making embryonic stem cell research illegal. The question is who should pay for it and how should it be conducted. Why should we be in the business of destroying embryos when we can get all of the embryonic stem cells we need from the blood contained in discarded umbilical cords?
As for the rest of your argument, I think it’s speculative at best that we can turn embryonic stem cells into a viable body part and use that part for medical cures. It just hasn’t happened and scientists say it could take decades, if ever. However, we’re using the adult stem cells to cure all kinds of things. Diabetes has been cured by implanting adult stem cells.
I think the question is why should the government fund research which is speculative at best and ethically questionable at worst (ie. embryonic stem cell research) when we could be funding medical research that is leading to cures today (ie. adult stem cell research).
Chris,
The stem cells in cord blood are not the same as those taken from embryos. So you are wrong and we can’t get what we need just from cord blood. We’ll just write that one off to the fact that you get your information from Fox News.
Why are we in the business of destroying embryos? That’s a question that needed to be asked about 20 or 30 years ago, because using embryos for stem cell research results in the same number of embryos being destroyed - its all performed on embryos that would have been destroyed anyway.
You may think its speculative at best as to whether embryonic stems cells will lead anywhere, but the people who actually do that kind of research (again, not Fox News pundits, but real scientists) think that is the most promising area of research. It may take decades - which is even more reason to move this forward right away.
And as someone with relatives and good friends with diabetes, I think its fantastic that there was a breakthrough using adult stem cells (I think its a little early to call it a cure). Its not a contest between types of stem cells, though. Adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells, and even cells found in cord blood, all have different properties, and all should be used for research.
Chris, from his opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell Research, has a MORAL problem with using Human Embryos. Because to him, they are potential human beings, therefore it amounts to murder.
Perhaps what needs to be done is seeking permission from couples whose eggs and sperm were responsible for fertilizing the embryos in the first place, if they be used to develope possible Medical Breakthroughs. I reckon the positive responses would be great. If others can benifit from such research, such as young Children who are battling various types of cancers, what can be wrong with that?
Norm Coleman is positioning himself to be re-elected so that he appeals to the Conservative Religious base of voters. With the flip-flopping Coleman has been doing of late, I don’t think he really knows what or who he is for.
Chris,
I have to say your response feels like a “Psychic Cleo” moment.
Whether I will run into traffic on a drive home is likewise “speculative.”
Its a darn silly argument you are presenting.
Further, these CELLS ARE GETTING DESTROYED IRRESPECTIVE OF RESEARCH. So they are being totally wasted!
Dan already covered some of this…
If adult stem cells are a candidate, surely these embryonic cells - should be AT LEAST as viable & probably more so.
Again, the experts need to be consulted, not the Fox-perts.
If any of this pans out - in this climate, would those private companies tell us for certain that it came from embryonic stem cells?
Again, the timeline of the research tends to be different in private vs publicly funded research.
Look at the human genome project - the front 50% was done by our tax dollars. It would have been longer coming if that front end work hadn’t been done when it was.
*******
I didn’t see where you are swearing off any medical advances to come from stem cell research, in order to be consistent in your moral position.
We can have all meds labeled - as
ALL NATURAL
NO STEM CELLS HARMED IN THE MAKING OF THIS MED.
Mockingbird and Kathy,
You both could not be further from the truth. First, I do not believe that killing embryos is tantamount to murder. That doesn’t mean there aren’t lines of medical ethics we shouldn’t cross. I have to say that it’s pretty funny that the left doesn’t mind experimentation using human embryos but you all go bananas when a cosmetic company tests its shampoo formula on lab rats. Creating embryos for the purpose of medical experimentation devalues human life. Killing embryos for medical experimentation, while not murder, also is ethically troubling. Neither of you have answered my question, which is why do we need to be in the business on experimenting with human embryos when we can obtail all of the embryonic stem cells we want from umbilical cord blood and unviable embryos. Also, not one embryonic stem cell line has led to a cure. Furthermore, lab animals treated with embryonic stem cells have developed cancers. That’s not to say a cure won’t come down the road. What it does say is that today, the research is unsuccessful,
Second, not all stem cells are created equally. Adult stem cells, which have led to cures do not destroy potential life. There are no troubling ethical questions with using adult stem cells. Furthermore, the research is a huge success with type-1 diabetes having been cured by adult stem cells. Other diseases have been cured or treated with adult stem cell implantation. Nobody can say the same about embryonic stem cell research. Why should we put all our eggs (no pun intended) in a basket which just offers “hope” at this point, when we could put more money into research which offers cures.
Third, nobody is saying that embryonic stem cell research should be made illegal. The question to me is (1) how should the research be carried out and (2) who should pay for it. I would like to note that President Bush is the first President to fund embryonic stem cell research. I believe, as many others do, that embryonic stem cell research should be funded by the government only if the research is conducted ethically. To me, that means the research should use embryonic stem cells obtained from umbilical cord blood or from other means that don’t destroy embryos. Otherwise, the research should be paid for privately.
“Creating embryos for the purpose of medical experimentation devalues human life.”
No it doesn’t.
“Killing embryos for medical experimentation, while not murder, also is ethically troubling”
No it isn’t.
” we can obtail all of the embryonic stem cells we want from umbilical cord blood and unviable embryos.”
No you can’t.
“I would like to note that President Bush is the first President to fund embryonic stem cell research. ”
That is NOT true. Clinton authorized funding which Bush canceled when he came into office.
“Otherwise, the research should be paid for privately.”
What you fail to mention is that the way Bush’s rules work makes it impossible for a lab that receives federal funding for ANYTHING to do ESC research.
“Embryonic Stem cells come from one source and one source only…FERTILIZED EMBRYOS!”
I just got off the phone with a friend of mine and she works in the Bio Sciences Lab at the Mayo Clinic, were she is a PhD in Bio Sciences, does research work with Stem Cells. That was her response to the question of ESC coming from embylical cord blood. Sorry Chris.
“First, I do not believe that killing embryos is tantamount to murder. That doesn’t mean there aren’t lines of medical ethics we shouldn’t cross.”
How do you determine that bound - and for what reason?
“I have to say that it’s pretty funny that the left doesn’t mind experimentation using human embryos but you all go bananas when a cosmetic company tests its shampoo formula on lab rats.”
Sort of a blanket generalization there. How do you KNOW I object?
Working with RW stereotypes again.
Let’s try another tack: Not an equal representation of pain either. 100 cells - how do you KNOW 100 cells experience pain? Its the same as you claiming that embryonic stem cells yield no value - but have no evidence.
None of this even matters - because for the umpteenth time:
THEY WILL IN ALL LIKELIHOOD BE DISCARDED.
“Creating embryos for the purpose of medical experimentation devalues human life.”
SO, are you against in vitrio fertilization? THOSE embryos are being discussed, not CREATING embryos which do not already exist.
“Also, not one embryonic stem cell line has led to a cure.”
I try very hard not to say something disparagingabout your cognition here. See other posts. Repeat twice for every time you come up with the same nonsequitor conclusion. You haven’t made your point.
You provide rationalizations for your viewpoint. But they are derived from a conclusion that was fabricated first, because you are ignoring other potentials.
You are quite simply wrong in some of your facts, or mistaken in some of your explanations. Several have already been addressed.