Page 1 of 1

Stem-cells

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 13:28
by Drunken Idaho
Well, like the forward-thinking liberal he is, President Obama has reversed Bush's ban on embryonic stem-cell research. The controversy of the issue lies in the fact that stem-cells are often taken from human fetuses. I say, considering the fact that these embryos are mindless organic matter, that the potential benefits far outweigh the cost of supposed human life. Bush's ban came right in time for the human genome being fully mapped, which is unfortunate because by now, so much progress could have been made. I'm just thankful that intellectualism has returned to the White House, instead of paranoid religious dogma. Let's hope this continues.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20090308%2fstemcells_policy_090309

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 13:48
by A Thing of Eternity
Baraka Bryan wrote:While I think stem-cell research is something that needs to be vigourously pursued, I am against embryonic SCR when great alternatives are available.

Here is an example of a recent Canadian breakthrough in the creation of stem cells using basic human skin cells without the viruses that previously caused issues in the target patients.This breakthrough will accellerate stem cell research, and is a less controversial and safe alternative to using embryos.

Why use something controversial when you have an alternative that is just as strong and completely free of controversy slowing it down?


Is it just as easy though? I'd heard that this was a major pain in the ass to do, and it would still save a lot of time and money to use embryonic stem cells instead. I could be mistaken though.

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 14:07
by SwordMaster
I support all forms of scientific research in relation to stem cells, and anything else the far right has difficulty with, including a woman's right to choose.

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 14:36
by Ampoliros
I'd suggest a totalitarian requirement that your general religious affiliation be annotated on your ID and medical records, so that people who oppose or are insulted by particular medical and scientific breakthroughs cannot receive those procedures.

That way their conscience is clean that no 'dead babies' helped heal their terminal condition.

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 14:41
by GamePlayer
I feel the love :)
I'm all for stem cell research. Banning it was BS, IMO.

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 14:43
by Schu
Ampoliros wrote:I'd suggest a totalitarian requirement that your general religious affiliation be annotated on your ID and medical records, so that people who oppose or are insulted by particular medical and scientific breakthroughs cannot receive those procedures.

That way their conscience is clean that no 'dead babies' helped heal their terminal condition.


Actually, having read that, I'm all for forcing these people to receive treatment and then whispering in their ear "you were saved by dead babies!" over and over.

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 14:50
by A Thing of Eternity
GamePlayer wrote:I feel the love :)
I'm all for stem cell research. Banning it was BS, IMO.


Word.

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 15:17
by Tleszer
Schu wrote:
Ampoliros wrote:I'd suggest a totalitarian requirement that your general religious affiliation be annotated on your ID and medical records, so that people who oppose or are insulted by particular medical and scientific breakthroughs cannot receive those procedures.

That way their conscience is clean that no 'dead babies' helped heal their terminal condition.


Actually, having read that, I'm all for forcing these people to receive treatment and then whispering in their ear "you were saved by dead babies!" over and over.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

And also, stem cells make the best soup.

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 15:22
by Drunken Idaho
Leave it to the conservatives to ban things like scientific research and same-sex marriage.

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 15:58
by Dune Nerd
Schu wrote:
Ampoliros wrote:I'd suggest a totalitarian requirement that your general religious affiliation be annotated on your ID and medical records, so that people who oppose or are insulted by particular medical and scientific breakthroughs cannot receive those procedures.

That way their conscience is clean that no 'dead babies' helped heal their terminal condition.


Actually, having read that, I'm all for forcing these people to receive treatment and then whispering in their ear "you were saved by dead babies!" over and over.


I like Schu's idea better, then it really hits home. I would hope the assholes would go and kill themselves afterward.

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 18:18
by SandChigger
No, suicide's a sin. (A mortal one? AH HA HA HA HA HA!)

Tleszer wrote:And also, stem cells make the best soup.

Dude! Especially with deep-fried midget sticks!

Oh. My. Gawd. To die for! :D

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 18:51
by Tleszer
SandChigger wrote:
Tleszer wrote:And also, stem cells make the best soup.

Dude! Especially with deep-fried midget sticks!

Oh. My. Gawd. To die for! :D


Yum yum!

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 19:09
by SwordMaster
A Thing of Eternity wrote:
GamePlayer wrote:I feel the love :)
I'm all for stem cell research. Banning it was BS, IMO.


Word.


word is bon jovi

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 19:09
by SandChigger
:D

Let's trade recipes! 8)

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 20:04
by Dune Nerd
SandChigger wrote:No, suicide's a sin. (A mortal one? AH HA HA HA HA HA!)

Tleszer wrote:And also, stem cells make the best soup.

Dude! Especially with deep-fried midget sticks!

Oh. My. Gawd. To die for! :D


Are you really going to introduce an argument with some logic to it with these wackos?

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 20:23
by Ampoliros
you guys are goin to hell

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 20:29
by SandChigger
:shock:

Hey, Sir Tleszer! He called us "wackos"!

:?

SCORE!!! :lol:


Come on, I got up this morning and on CNNj the 'heads were anal-yzing Obama's speech on The Situation Room. I knew before I logged in that there would be someone talking about it here. I'm just surprised Freak hasn't shown up yet calling it a bad thing just because Obama did it. (And conjuring images of Nazi Muslim abortion squads ripping the fetuses from the bellies of pregnant women? :lol: )

Bush's research ban was one of his more stupid achievements. Since I doubt he has any sort of grasp of the science involved, it had to be a purely political decision, to pacify his idiotic conservative supporters. Obama has now reversed that stupidity.

If there's a better source of stem cells than embryos, fine, use it instead and shut up the whiners. But there's nothing sacred in my opinion about a dab of cells that might have developed into a person given the right environment and conditions.

Now what was there to argue about again? ;)

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 21:35
by Tleszer
SandChigger wrote::shock:

Hey, Sir Tleszer! He called us "wackos"!

:?

SCORE!!! :lol:


I'm honoured, SirChigger. :lol:

Besides, its not like we're killing babies to use their innards or anything. As with anything "new" there are always ethical dilemmas, but in this case if the cells don't have that "human-shape" yet I don't see what the problem. If the cells don't have that shape what is the difference in experimenting with human cells vs cow cells besides the fact that cow cells are tasty with ketchup or even barbecue sauce and cannibalism is frowned upon? :wink:

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 23:43
by Drunken Idaho
SandChigger wrote:Come on, I got up this morning and on CNNj the 'heads were anal-yzing Obama's speech on The Situation Room. I knew before I logged in that there would be someone talking about it here. I'm just surprised Freak hasn't shown up yet calling it a bad thing just because Obama did it. (And conjuring images of Nazi Muslim abortion squads ripping the fetuses from the bellies of pregnant women? :lol: )


Haha, yeah I was wondering that myself. He'd probably gripe about what an unnecessary earmark this spending on such research is. Obama made a really good point about a week ago (though I'm sure conservatives would laugh it up) in which he acknowledged the criticisms of so-called unnecessary spending in the bill. Specifically, he was talking about things like stem-cell research, electric cars, clean energy, climate change R&D, etc (all of which the conservatives label as "liberal pet projects" pffft :roll: I consider them projects of morality, but that's besides the point)... Anyway, Obama went on to say that when they had the money, they didn't act on these things. In peace-time they didn't act on these things. In war-time they didn't act on these things. Basically, there was always a reason not to act. Obama recognizes that while the recession must be dealt with, other crisises must not be forgotten. He then went on to say that in previous economic slumps and even in the great depression, dramatic actions were taken to make American industry more lucrative. You could nail two birds with one stone simply by making massive industries out of the once-oppressed innovations such as the electric car, or wind-power, thus taking the first tiny steps toward a smart way of living, which is clearly the challenge of our time.

Of course, the question from the right would be "But Drunken Idaho, what about the kiddies who will have to pay off that immense debt for the rest of their lives?" Well I say, the immense debt was there already. In case you have forgotten, people have been talking about this recession for a couple years now. Everyone knew it was coming, and perhaps it was the lenders padding themselves up before the final blow that truly did it in, but the point is the debt has simply increased a bit thanks to the stimulus bill. So my answer is, if future generations are going to be stuck with this debt with or without this stimulus bill, then the least we can do is begin to take care of all those other problems concerning future generations.

SandChigger wrote:Bush's research ban was one of his more stupid achievements. Since I doubt he has any sort of grasp of the science involved, it had to be a purely political decision, to pacify his idiotic conservative supporters. Obama has now reversed that stupidity.


Right on the money, Chig.

Posted: 09 Mar 2009 23:47
by SandChigger
Goode Sir Tleszer wrote:I'm honoured, SirChigger.

Besides, its not like we're killing babies to use their innards or anything. As with anything "new" there are always ethical dilemmas, but in this case if the cells don't have that "human-shape" yet I don't see what the problem. If the cells don't have that shape what is the difference in experimenting with human cells vs cow cells besides the fact that cow cells are tasty with ketchup or even barbecue sauce and cannibalism is frowned upon?

Exactly!

________________
Ceci n'est ni cigare ni mamelon. C'est Ed Gein! :shock:

Image

Posted: 10 Mar 2009 09:10
by loremaster
First, a little recap. of stem cells for those who dont know:

A stem cell is an undifferentiated cell. (or partially differentiated). A "differentiated" cell has chosen to specialise in one job, e.g. as a white blood cell. A stem cell is one which hasnt yet chosen a job, and could, with treatment, be persuaded to become one of any number of cell types (nerve cell, etc)

Now the reason Embryonic stem cells are so powerful (they really really are) is because a cell from an embryo has (by definition) the potential to become any cell in the human body. Such cells are called "Totipotent". As we develop, adult stem cells lose this ability, and the number of cells they can become grows fewer and fewer. The loss of this ability can never, realistically, be truly reversed. The changes which take place are too complicated to truly undo, not for every circumstance, but for most.

And now to throw a little controversy into the mix...

Cost efficiency.
It now costs upwards of 20k per year to treat someone with a single breast cancer drug.
The good which can be done this money in other areas far outweighs the probable extended life span of any one patient.
The same with research. As our power to heal with specialist technologies increases, the cost required to develope these technologies increase dramatically while at the same time the number of potential patients is decreased.
Although many usher this in era of personalised medicine, it does mean astronomically high costs per user.


Note: This is more so relevant in the uk under our NHS scheme, those with your private healthcare policies..... you get what you pay for!

Posted: 10 Mar 2009 09:39
by Dune Nerd
Dune Nerd wrote:
SandChigger wrote:No, suicide's a sin. (A mortal one? AH HA HA HA HA HA!)

Tleszer wrote:And also, stem cells make the best soup.

Dude! Especially with deep-fried midget sticks!

Oh. My. Gawd. To die for! :D


Are you really going to introduce an argument with some logic to it with these wackos?


I was calling the fundamentalists wackos not you chig, that is too easy

Posted: 10 Mar 2009 11:45
by SandChigger
:P

NOW I'm TOO EASY!

SCORE!!! :laughing:


(Some days, if you're breathing, everything's a score! :lol: )

Posted: 10 Mar 2009 20:22
by Dune Nerd
SandChigger wrote::P

NOW I'm TOO EASY!

SCORE!!! :laughing:


(Some days, if you're breathing, everything's a score! :lol: )


How could you not be easy, I would assume you take it where you can.....

Posted: 10 Mar 2009 21:08
by SandChigger
Ooh...

BUG SWAT!!!

Crash and burn.... :(