do you think Karl Rove can get his balls to slap Dunya's ass if he hits it hard enuff?i was also wondering if neil bush and dubya used to have jerk circles when they were kids?

private research remains ok but hopefully any patents would be owned by an academic institution which would license.

under this scenario, dicarded embyros from fertility clinics would become marketable.

too much potential so that private R&D will become engaged regardless of offshore activity.

I don't get it. Why the frak do they have to put in crap about immigration reform. It has NOTHING TO DO with embryonic stem-cell research.
Unless of course Congress plans on taking embryos from Illegals for said research...
This is really starting to piss me off!

Matt,

Here’s the problem. There are many on the right who seem to believe in the ultimate sanctity of human life when it comes to using embryonic stem cells to potentially help hundreds of thousands, if not millions with some of the most debilitating illnesses and conditions. But they don’t seem to have any problems with killing tens or hundreds of thousands in the name of GWOT. This doesn’t make any sense to me. Let’s say researchers used up a few thousand left over eggs, many of which would be disposed of anyway. What then if this led to cures for things like spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer’s and so on. Is the price too high? It appears that for many, the answer is yes. I ask you though, please show me a person that has a family member with one of these diseases/conditions that holds this view? These folks aren’t so easy to find.

My daughter developed type 1 diabetes when she was six. She draws blood ~10 times per day. She is attached to an insulin pump 24 hrs a day. Her life will be significantly shorter than normal and likely suffer a number of very bad complications as a result including renal failure, amputation, blindness and so on. Stem cells have the potential to grow new islet cells for implantation. Instant cure! So when you ask me if it’s ok to play with some excess embryos for researching a cure, my answer is not only yes, but where do I send the check. Yes, it may be possible to achieve this without the embryonic cells but it also may not, or take much longer. How long do you have if you’ve got Alzheimer’s?

I’m afraid that the “moral” crowd finds it easy to make decisions that don’t effect themselves or their families. It’s quite the same with abortion. The most vocal opponents by and large are men.

Well said 3more(long)years.

My father had diabetes and I watched in vain as he lost his eyesight, had a leg amputated and was developing kidney problems when he passed away. To think what could now be done with the aid of stem cells, well it makes me sick to think some of the morality police will try to block this research.

I know it must be difficult to deal with your daughters condition, but you can take some solace in the fact that treatment has come a long way since my dad's time. There were no insulin pumps and he had to give himself shots 2-3 times a day. Drawing blood was more primitive than it is now, but......

Just imagine the day an implant will solve all of this! Good luck with your daughter. I pray for her and all the others with the same condition.

Ash

George Bush is NOT BANNING stem cell research, just simply the federal funding of it.

The liBS and the media love to state downright lies!!!!

Show me, where, in the Constitution that it allows the federal funding of ANY type of research.

Remember - PRIVATE stem cell research is alive and strong.

Just more desperate acts by the left.

3more, help me out here, what does, "But they don’t seem to have any problems with killing tens or hundreds of thousands in the name of GWOT", mean? What is GWOT? I am not getting the acronym this morning. Please excuse my lack of understanding.

Global War on Terror
God's War on Terror
Glorious War on Terror
George's War on Terra

Take your pick.

Actual therapies from embryonic stem cells are unproven hopes that unfortunately have been politicized. Yet there are real results NOW from adult stem cells and cord blood, etc. that get no publicity. If we pull funding away from those approaches, already working, we really deny people with illnesses their help while giving pie in the sky promises regarding the possibilities of embryonic stem cells. I am a molecular biologist. I also don't have strong objection to some money for embryonic research. But the way this has been overblown is cruel to those whose suffering is used for policical purposes.

Actual therapies from embryonic stem cells are unproven hopes that unfortunately have been politicized. Yet there are real results NOW from adult stem cells and cord blood, etc. that get no publicity. If we pull funding away from those approaches, already working, we really deny people with illnesses their help while giving pie in the sky promises regarding the possibilities of embryonic stem cells. I am a molecular biologist. I also don't have strong objection to some money for embryonic research. But the way this has been overblown is cruel to those whose suffering is used for policical purposes.

3moreyears, I am really sympathetic to your daughter's medical predicament. I think most of us have a loved one with one of the diseases on the list of those which embryonic stem cell research will miraculously "cure." But the fact that it hits close to home doesn't obviate the inherent moral dilemma. In fact, I would hate to see the inexorable progress made on these diseases over the past several decades sidetracked over pursuit of an ethically dubious path. Best of luck to your family, and may the hand of God guide the doctors and researchers toward a cure for your daughter.

Darby,

Who is your loved one and what do they have? And, no offense, but don't give me that hand of God crap. If there was a hand of God involved, she wouldn't have gotten sick to begin with. I really have pity for people that believe in this interactive, personal God. I mean really, does "He" have a white robe?

Stem cell research reminds me of those old B movies where a mad scientist sucks the life out of others so he and his cohorts can live.

Harvesting stem cells from human beings and killing them so that the rest of us can live longer is truely barbaric and evil.

As a diabetic, I have to now check to make sure that medicines and treatments developed for me do not come from the slaughter of humans in the name of advancing science. It would cause me great pain to know I was living based upon the deaths of the innocent.

Art,

out of curiosity, do you check to make sure that the clothes and shoes you wear haven't come from the degradation of humanity through slave-wage laborers?

Do you refuse to use petroleum-based products beacuse of the death and destruction caused because of it?

Your moral outrage regarding therapies and medicines based off the harvesting of cells from embryos, is pretty select, what about the subjugation of people all over the globe to produce products we use everyday, do they get the same outrage from you...jus' wonderin'

do you check to make sure that the clothes and shoes you wear haven't come from the degradation of humanity through slave-wage laborers?

Hey, we can't be the world's police--that's what you Dems always say.

Do you refuse to use petroleum-based products beacuse of the death and destruction caused because of it?

I have to put gas in my Hummer; what else could I use?

Hey, do you refuse to eat lettuce because it may have been picked by an illegal alien who is paid "slave wages?"

Art,

Do you also check to make sure your medicines aren't developed using cruel and unusual treatment and slaughter of animals? They are "god's" creatures as well.

TEO: This is precisely what I'm talking about.

Unortunately Florence is at least partly correct:
The issue has been politicized. President Bush is going to use his veto to placate his far right hand of godders.

It would be hilarious if Bush vetoed the bill and the congress then proceeded to override that veto. I have heard that that might actually happen.

Bush's political alchemy is almost complete. From strong leader to lame duck, that's my Bushie.

It would be hilarious if Bush vetoed the bill and the congress then proceeded to override that veto. I have heard that that might actually happen.

Bush's political alchemy is almost complete. From strong leader to lame duck, that's my Bushie.

Keefer,

I don't eat, I get all my nutrients from the air.

--problem solved. LOL

This is one issue I disagree with Bush on. I want to see stem cell research continued in both the adult and embryonic form. While private funding is good, there is not enough of it to go around. Of course, I have a vested interest. I am a diabetic, as is one of my aunts. Another aunt has Parkinsons, and a cousin with Lupus. Let alone other problems that might be helped. As anyone with cancer can tell you, government funding makes a difference in finding treatments and cures.

kjstrouble:

You are lucky to be living when you do as things have certainly improved since I saw my father slowly die from diabetes. But even better news is that we may well be on the cusp of a cure for diabetes in our lifetime.

Let us hope we can put politics aside long enough to improve or save the lives of millions of people. I have heard there is promising research to cure or lessen the effects of alzheimer's and of course spinal injuries.

Good luck kjstrouble

I don't think anyone in her right mind would want to be cured by killing other people. But microscopic undifferentiated cells are not people and the faith-based delusion that they are denies me of any hope that my Parkinson's disease will be cured in my lifetime. It is very difficult to live without hope. And, no, I have no interest in an afterlife. We need to work to give everyone a decent shot at this one.

I am a diabetic; I test my blood numerous times daily and inject insulin at regular intervals. When it comes to animal research I couldn’t care less how many adorable puppies and kitties have their adorable little fur-bearing bodies sacrificed for science, Fluffy’s toast if it extends a human life. I want to be around when my daughter marries, and I want to see my grand-children grow.

Islet transplants require a mechanism that precludes ingestion; this hasn’t been resolved. Embryonic stem cells hold no hope for this research; islet growth and transplantation will never be possible from stem cell research. Adult stem cells and cord blood have shown far more promise fro this, spinal cord injuries and a host of other maladies, and there is no ethical dilemma. R&D should be placed where the greatest benefits can be realized; not where it’s politically motivated.

There is no prohibition on embryonic stem cell research, it is not illegal, unlawful or prohibited by any governmental agency, code or law.

That should read, "islet growth and transplantation will never be possible from embryonic stem cell research."

My impression is that liberals are dead set on embryonic stem cell reserch and that's where the controversy comes from. I understand that stem cells can be taken from a number of other sources that do not have any moral questions attached to it. Why can't we utilize the non-controversial means?

3moreyears said:
Who is your loved one and what do they have? And, no offense, but don't give me that hand of God crap. If there was a hand of God involved, she wouldn't have gotten sick to begin with. I really have pity for people that believe in this interactive, personal God. I mean really, does "He" have a white robe?

I don't really want to get into a pissing contest with you over whose relative is sorer afflicted. It's not germane to the issue; either it is ethical to harvest human life to save other life, or it isn't. Whether I'm personally affected or not is irrelevant.

I also don't think it's fair to attack my religion over your daughter's misfortune. Think about it, for someone who doesn't believe in my God, you sound awfully angry at him.

Anyway, it's nothing personal, it's a core value for me. And I'll say a prayer for your daughter, even though you don't think it will do any good.

The thing that bothers me about the fetal stem cell debate is that it is so incredibly arbitrary. I mean for goodness sake, there is a huge (about half a million) and growing number of blastocysts, or early stage fetuses, sitting in freezers in this country with little hope for the future beyond freezer burn. Those blastocysts (the very things from which fetal stem cells are extracted) are the inevitable consequence of invitro fertilization procedures.

Considering the amount of moral outrage directed at the fetal stem cell debate, not to mention abortion, one wonders why invitro fertilization seems to attract no flak at all. I don't get it. The argument against harvesting fetal stem cells centers around the concept that it is morally unacceptable to destroy life in order to save life. Under that concept, doesn't it follow that invitro fertilization falls squarely in that category? It seems to me that in order accept one and not the other requires a brand of moral relativism that stretches the bounds of logic.

It's a paradox is what it is. And it is a paradox that turns the whole controversy on its head. In other words, if you are opposed to fetal stem cell research, and even if you suddenly become seized with a consistent form of moral clarity that makes you newly opposed to invitro fertilization as well, the fact remains that there are hundreds of thousands of human blastocysts sitting in freezers waiting to succumb to freezer burn. What do you do about them? They aren't going to go away just because you wish they would. So in that sense their fates are already largely sealed. In light of that, are you also willing to confer upon them the status of collateral damage (a concept which opens up another whole can of worms which I won't go into here), or are you willing to confer upon them the possibility that (with stringent restrictions, of course) they may contribute to a more noble purpose?

In short, my impression is that the moral dilemma surrounding fetal stem cell research is more apparent than actual. And further, it is not very well considered by most people. Because of present policies there exists in the "here and now" a large moral gray area that many on both sides can embrace regardless of their more absolute stand on the fundamental issues involved. In other words, no matter how morally repugnant you consider the idea of "taking life in order to save life", one has to acknowledge that the situation at hand has gone beyond those simple imperatives. The real question is, how best to restore the moral balance? Morally and ethically speaking, is it more correct to make the best of a bad situation (vernacularly speaking, making lemonade out of lemons), or is it more correct to simply call it a bad situation and reject any benefit from it (vernacularly speaking, throwing the baby out with the bathwater)? It seems to me that that is the real question confronting us all.

I agree with you, Florence Schmieg, that human fetal stem cells is an unproven resource. As such it is in a sense intellectually dishonest to assume that research will (in most cases) result in usable therapies in anywhere close to the immediate future. In that respect the hopes of many have been overblown for the sake of political gain. Nonetheless, it is also clear that the structure of the policies that exist now are also structured to maximize political gain. It's time we made some sense of the whole thing -- in ethical, moral, and intellectual realms.

There can be no doubt that Infrahuman fetal stem cell research has reaped some surprising and promising results. For example, a few months ago I was at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience and saw a series of presentations relating to the use of fetal stem cell therapy to enhance both central(!) and peripheral neural regeneration in mice and rats. Some people might think: mice and rats... big deal. Well it is a big deal -- a huge deal. And this is something I have more than a passing familiarty with. People have been trying to regenerate nerves in mammals for a very long time, and up until recently the prognosis has been pretty freakin' hopeless. There are so many variables involved (especially in the central nervous system). But all of a sudden it doesn't look so hopeless anymore. They have a long way to go, but I have to say their results were nothing short of incredible. I was truly astounded.

Without overstepping my knowledge I think it's fair to say the following: Fetal stem cell therapy is not a panacea, and it would be a mistake to think it is. Then again, it would be equally erroneous to claim it has no potential at all. Likewise, fetal stem cell therapy unlikely to end up being the therapy of choice for at least some of the illnesses it has been touted as being the most promising remedy. Then again, it IS likely to be the case that fetal stem cell therapy will turn out to be more helpful in certain situations that no one knows about at present. In short, fetal stem cells is "another arrow in the quiver", so to speak. It should be considered as such -- perhaps no more, but certainly no less. And to call it "side-tracking" is disingenuous in the extreme.

By the way, Bane, "embryonic stem cells" are harvested from the placenta. They are not the same as "fetal stem cells". I don't know if you realized that, neither do I know how it impacts the prognosis or your thinking. I just thought I'd make that point. However, it is also true that there is some evidence to suggest that embryonic stem cells can be coaxed to mimic fetal stem cells -- at least in certain respects. But the question of stem cell specificity through the spectrum of fetal to adult stem cells is a completely different topic.

3moreyears, my deepest sympathies to your daughter. I will pray for her.

Rico,
Thanks for the lesson, I am confused, according to the White House press release, it is "embryonic" stem cell research that has caused the ethical dilemma, according to their definition, “Embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells, which come from the inner cell mass of a human embryo, have the potential to develop into all or nearly all of the tissues in the body. The scientific term for this characteristic is ‘pluripotentiality.’”
It is, in my opinion this type of research which has not shown the potentiality as adult stem cell research. I have been following closely the research done in Canada on islet transplantation into the liver. Still I've read nothing about the distinction between “fetal” and “embryonic”. Sometimes it’s a bitch to be a layman in a technical world. More input, please.

It is my understanding that embryonic stem cells are pluripotent stem cells and are more versatile than adult stem cells (multipotent) which has a more limited ability to reproduce.

I am no scientist, so I defer to the experts in the field that say overwhelmingly that they want to work with embryonic stem cells.

In the articles I have read rico, I have yet to see the term fetal stem cell. Is is merely a hot button term that is used to stir up the masses? A different name for embryonic, one that carries a lot of baggage. If not, it seems to be a mute issue since scientists noted a preference for working with embryonic stem cells.

I'll be darned bane, I think we are close to agreeing on something.........

This site doesn't use the term "fetal" but refers only to "embryonic.

Ash, it's "moot" not "mute" (Just so we don't run the risk of agreeing on anything.)

Has this post gone to cyber-hell?

This site doesn't use the term "fetal" but refers only to "embryonic.

Ash, it's "moot" not "mute" (Just so we don't run the risk of agreeing on anything.)

"Ash, it's "moot" not "mute" (Just so we don't run the risk of agreeing on anything.)"

How silly of me to a) think we could agree on anything b) think a point could either talk or remain moot, I mean mute.

That was the same site I went to to learn more about the issue. Is it not your understanding that it is not illegal to do embryonic research, that the issue is federal funding?

That was my understanding, does this mean you are going to vote for Bill Frist now?

"Now, to date, adult stem cell research is the only type of stem cell research that has resulted in proven treatments for human patients. For example, the multi-organ and multi-tissue transplant center that I founded and directed at Vanderbilt University Medical Center performed scores of life-saving bone marrow transplants every year to treat fatal cancers with adult stem cells.

And stem cells taken from cord blood have shown great promise in treating leukemia, myeloproliferative disorders and congenital immune system disorders. Recently, cord blood cells have shown some ability to become neural cells, which could lead to treatments for Parkinson’s disease and heart disease.

Thus, we should also strongly support increased funding for adult stem cell research. I’m a cosponsor of a bill that will make it much easier for patients to receive cord blood cell treatments" Bill Frist

Bill Frist, um, NO.

Bill Frist, um, NO.

I,m all for research and all for letting the specialists decide how to proceed. I doubt Frist, although a M.D., is in a position to decide how they should study. I want diabetes cured in my lifetime. I'm okay for now, but adult onset is always a possibility and my sons run a highe risk. And even you ole bane, I'd like to see an easier way for you to deal with it. (Maybe consistent blood sugar levels could make you a democrat!)

Although Frist must be pretty good. Didn't he diagnose Terri Schaivo via television?

Ash,
I don’t recall that “diagnosis via TV” thing, but I know I can peg your illness just by reading your posts.

Ash said: "It is my understanding that embryonic stem cells are pluripotent stem cells and are more versatile than adult stem cells (multipotent) which has a more limited ability to reproduce."

First of all, if there is any point in this discussion where you want to jump in, Florence, I think we'd all appreciate it. I am not a molecular biologist, either by trade or training. But I do try to keep up. And I am willing to learn. I am always willing to learn.

With that caveat in mind, I will first answer Ash: the distinction between "pluripotent" and "multipotent" is not absolute. The distinction is based on the assumption that "fetal" stem cells (I'll get back to that in a moment, Bane) are the progenitors of any organ system of any specificity within any organism. That itself is questionable. The fact that "stem cells" can be differentiated within a 32-64 cell blastula immediately calls that concept into question. And that in itself begs the question of what, exactly, confers more or less specificity on any given cell at any given stage of development. Those sorts of questions are incompletely understood to a very large degree. But I think it is safe to say that at any given stage of development there are geometric gradients in the developing blastula, which in turn establish chemical gradients, which in turn affect further development of the fetus, and by extension (at least in theory) the pluripotentiality of a given stem cell extracted from a given fetus. So, in theory, the transition between "pluripotent" on the one hand, and "multipotent" on the other, is not likely to be an all-or-none transition, but a gradual one. In that respect there is every reason to believe that "pluripotent" on the one hand, and "multipotent" on the other loses a certain amount of meaning. In other words, it is not one or the other. At least there is no particularly compelling reason to think so at this point.

Let me step back for a moment to say that I find it hard to imagine that anyone who has spent any time studying ontogeny (that is the development of an individual organism) has not been awestruck at the beauty and majesty of the whole process. It is indeed hard not to be. Whether those same individuals are mystified is another question entirely. But it is freakin' awesome. That is hard to deny. I mean think about it, every single cell in your body has exactly the same genetic constitution (at least to a very close approximation). Given that, the fact that each one of us is composed of a dizzying array of organs (kidneys, livers, stomachs, brains, skin, muscles, etc., etc.,) is nothing short of awesome. It also implies that there is A LOT MORE involved in development than just genes.

Again, Florence, I beseech you to jump in at any point here. Personally, I don't mind playing the fool -- especially if it means that I gain a better understanding of the truth. In fact, you (or anyone else) can call me the worst asshole in the world if you want. As long as you are willing to back up any charge with facts and reason, have at me. Because, in the end, it's not about me. It's about the truth. And to that end I willingly sacrifice myself.

So anyway Bane, my understanding is that among those that study such things, a distinction is made between what is considered "embryonic stem cells" and what is considered "fetal stem cells". I have been told that the former category includes both placental and fetal varieties. In that respect I misspoke myself. But the fact remains that cell differentiation is a gradual one. And while it appears to be more gradual in some cells in the overall matrix that develops into a functional human being, along with that being's support system (e.g., the placenta, etc.), the factors underlying the differentiation (or lack thereof) is poorly understood. And to the extent that they remain understood our understanding of the overall process is hampered. Further, given the lack of a cohesive and understandable imperative that is both morally and pragmatically understandable, I wonder what we're doing as a nation. Until we come up with a cohesive strategy, it stinks of politics to me. Moreover, that fact is not lost on the rest of the world. So there you go.

I hope the president does if fact veto stem-cell research!

For one, to fund stem cell research, would also assist in the funding of the horrible practice of abortion as well! and unborn human life is way too sacred to tamper with!!

So the theory would apply to me that communist democrats want only to use stem cell research, as a means in which, to continue the destruction of innocent, precious, unborn children!! Furthermore, if there is any way possible to stop the abhorrent practice of abortion, we need to disdain BOTH!! and by all means PUT AN END to it!!

Liberals only want one thing, and that is, to DESTROY!! and they are unprecedented in it!! in other words that is all they have ever been out to do!!

Jeremiah

A little mistake where I said
un-precede instead I meant that has been there PRECEDENT!!

oops,embarrassed, turning red!!

Jeremiah

Now bane, I thought I was being nice to you. And you turn on me that way? So I take my kind words back and wish you an amputation at an early age.

And even you ole bane, I'd like to see an easier way for you to deal with it. (Maybe consistent blood sugar levels could make you a democrat!)

Perhaps you did not get my intended humor.

Thanks for the info rico. So in the final analysis aare you agin' any research? Or are you just against embryonic research?

I'm sure there is a lot of politics going on. Who wouldn't want to be forever remembered as the scientist who discovered the cure for cancer. Or diabetes. Or alzheimers. And I am sure politicians want to please their base.

But isn't it like throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you oppose research funding because there are petty politics involved? Maybe we should set up a Los Alamos project and give all qualified researchers free reign. Just come out with a cure for diabetes.

What do you think?

What I find astounding is how the right always abhors "liberal" causes like gun control and stem cell research, or gay rights until something happens to them that makes personal, and no longer ideological.
Well-known examples of this phenomena include former Reagan staffer Jim Brady's family lobbying for the Brady Bill after he was shot with a handgun, Nancy Reagan lobbying in Washington for stem cell research after her husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, and Dick Cheney supporting his gay daughter-even giving her an important role in his re-election.

When tragedy strikes home do these causes somehow make more sense than right-wing ideology-or are right and wrong relative terms? Something's only wrong when the opposition is advocating it!

Darby is right. If we accept federal funding for stem cell research, we might as well give the liberals the unlimited right to partial birth abortion. As sorry as I am for those who have medical problems, fetal stem cells on demand is not the solution. It is the problem.

There's nothing that fetal stem cells can do that adult stem cells cannot do. This is simply a trick to expand experimentation on unborn children.

If I were in charge, both publicly funded and privately funded fetal stem cell research would not be in the equation.

This type of sick "research" will only bring about a fetal holocaust beyond anything we can imagine. There is no proof that it will accomplish anything other than snuffing out innocent unborn life.

Ash,

My own fundamental stand on the issue is unimportant and I am actually glad you found it ambiguous.

To me, the bottom line is this: there exists now a gigantic reservoir of blastulae which, even if their numbers didn't continue to grow (which they are), and even if stringent restrictions were imposed on their use, could provide researchers with an essentially limitless supply of new stem cell lines for years to come. As unpleasant a fact as that might be for some people, it is nonetheless a fact. And no amount of wishing is going to make it go away.

A couple of years ago Bush made an appearance with a few "snowflake babies" -- kids that were born of a frozen embryo that was adopted by a second set of parents after the original set of parents came to the conclusion that they would never use the embryo. That's certainly a great thing, but it happens very, very infrequently. It is simply not a viable solution to the problem. And I want to stress again that it is a problem that already exists and no amount of wishing is going to make it go away. In the vast number of cases the only real options are these: (1) to allow each existing blastula to eventually succomb to freezer burn, or (2) to allow it to participate in what could easily be construed as a nobler fate (or at least it would be no more ignominious than freezer burn). Given the circumstances, if you had a frozen embryo sitting in a fertility clinic somewhere that neither you, or anyone else wanted, what would you do?

At the risk of compromising my argument by exposing my own personal opinion, I first have to say that there is no way I'd ever put myself in the position in the first place. I am not in favor of invitro fertilization. But, having said that, if for some weird reason I became sole guardian of one or more frozen embryos, I would try to put them up for adoption. Failing that, however, if my choices came down to letting them succomb to freezer burn or giving them up for research. I'd give them up for research. Considering the options at hand, and however distasteful, it seems to me to be the noble thing to do.

Theoretically, a given stem cell can divide indefinitely. In actuality, though, there is a risk of inaccurate DNA replication with each division. For that reason, the existing stem cell lines will continue to become less viable as time goes on. Most of them have reached that point already. Also, while fetal stem cells are arguably the most pluripotent of the stem cell breed, they are not omnipotent. For both of those reasons the existing cell lines are inadequate and getting more so.

It should be noted that Bush's decision back in 2001 did not ban fetal stem cell research. What he did was limit federal funding to reasearch on the, what, 27 or so stem cell lines that existed at the time. Some people like to say that Bush is the first president to specifically allocate federal funds for human fetal stem cell research. Technically that is true. But the fact is that human fetal stem cells were first successfully extracted in 1999 or 2000. In other words, he's the first president that could have anyway.

It should also be noted that Bush in no way curtailed funding at the private or state level. And while that may sound benificent, in practice it pretty much put the kibosh on any lab that was contemplating getting into the field. Since then a couple of states have stepped into the breech and have passed ballot initiatives to fund human fetal stem cell research. California did, as did Wisconsin. I think Massachusettes might have as well, or was considering it. Anyone know how that worked out?

Bob Arctor said: "If I were in charge, both publicly funded and privately funded fetal stem cell research would not be in the equation."

Fair enough. So let's get beyond the talking points Bob. How do you feel about invitro fertilization? Independent of that answer, if you were in charge, what would you recommend doing with the 500,000 or so human blastulae that are already in the deep freeze?

Thanks for taking the time to respond Rico. Being a dastardly liberal, I would like to see the research continue full steam ahead. The mind of man being what it is, presented with the challenge and possibility of stem cell use, I can only conclude it will continue anyway. So why not expedite it with federal funding and save/improve the lives of the diseased as early as possible?

My elementary understanding of the process says that the embryonic stem cells are harvested from the umbilical cord or placenta. This tissue is destroyed anyway, so to use your freezer burn analogy, I favor harvesting the cells and using their potential to save lives.

Only my 2bits worth.

Rico,
From your postulate scenario I have this personal experience; I did for some reason became the sole guardian of an embryonic fetal stem cell that had matured. Although this particular matured embryonic fetal stem cell had reached the age of 6, I nonetheless decided that adoption was not viable as the kid was damn ugly and not particularly smart. I gave him up for research; I hope they use him to find a cure for ugly once and for all ...

Seriously, as preposterous as that last paragraph is, this is how many feel about the frozen embryos you referenced. The line has already been crossed, as near as I can tell, and provided, as Bill Frist speculated, we do not “create” embryos for the purpose of research the existing lines should be used. But, and here’s where I take exception with your contention, federal funds should be placed where the greatest promise lies, and that to date is in adult stem cells.

The posts I’ve read above continue to cross between stem cell, embryonic or fetal (if you’ll allow me) stem cells and adult stem cells as though there is no difference. Darby, Jeremiah and “Bob” want a total prohibition on stem cell research, which I believe they mean to preclude fetal (embryonic) stem cells research. (And, the new distinction between embryonic and fetal only confuses the issue further, although I get your point; both require a fetus which adds the ethical dilemma.) Ash and others want all avenues of research federally funded, and I and others don’t want to waste time (our perspective) on something that doesn’t show the more immediate promise of tangible results; Adult stem cells have yielded results, pound federal assistance into this line, Ash’s Manhattan Project.

Ash,
Jeeze, you’re one vicious dude! Okay, I withdraw my earlier diagnosis; you’re not narcissistic (although if you read the description you might come to the same conclusion I did earlier.) I now believe that your illness is a little more self-evident. I pray you don’t succumb to diabetes, and your sons live long and healthy lives. I pray that your father, may God rest his soul, is the last diabetic in the Ash family line.

They've been experimenting with this stem cell stuff for a while now, behind closed doors. They've examined many different facets of the issue, and have came to the conclusion that it's doing no harm to anything. I feel they are DEATHLY wrong.

From what I've gathered from one of my biology teachers in school, they take cells that don't stand a chance of living and will be flushed out of the woman's system, only to die later. If you stop the arguement there, it seems all well and good, and myself I was almost convinced that it was a good thing at that point.

Here is where the problem lies though, they start getting into areas of making these "new children" from these frozen cells, like people have already stated. Once they do this, they harvest parts from the fetus and inevitably leave it for dead, just so they can "save" another life.

They haven't gotten as far as saving another life, and even if they do they're still killing life. This is wrong, totally and completely wrong. This is incomparable to anything else in this world. It's wrong to kill. You can't justify taking ones life just for the purpose of trying lengthen anothers life. This is worse than abortion, it's essentially a planned killing.

When you condone something like this, you're sending a message that it is perfectly ok to kill, so long as you have a motivational force behind it. People could go around harvesting body parts from healthy people, and get off scott-free all because they were "Trying to better the life of a loved one or friend".

I hope that someone might see the sense in what I'm trying to get across, this stem cell research is wrong, and I truly hope that President Bush will take a firm stand in this issue. And to be honest, I am confident he will. We just need to pray vigilantly, and if it comes before our Congress members, we need to write them non-stop expressing our views. For us, as conservatives, to express our indignation in this matter is justifiable by all means! It will be a dark day in America if this ever passes.

Lucas.

To Bane:

You hit the nail right on the head in your very first paragraph of your last post! I couldn't agree more with you how you stated it. :-)

Lucas.

Lucas,
I fully understand and respect your position. The only condition I would ask is that you specify your objection as embryonic or fetal stem cells; many types of cells contain the essential elements which scientists believe can be coached into duplicating the elements of a damaged cell or group of cells. These other types of cells don’t require creating and destroying life in order to increase the quality of life of another.

Look at it this way, would you, if your brother asked you, would you give him one of your kidneys? That, I believe is an ethical request; you could both survive with one kidney each. Conversely, your brother would never ask to kill you to save his life; that would be unethical. There are stem cells that can be harvested without taking life, at any stage.

The “slippery-slope” argument that once the scientific community discovers the most optimal embryonic stem cells, they will begin manufacturing and harvesting these. Could we guarantee that no researcher will ever do this? I don’t know, but the government shouldn’t be party to this action, in my opinion. For whatever that’s worth.

Bane,

Thank you for reading my post and replying. After having read your post, here are my thoughts.

As far as if my brother had two bad kidneys, I would give one to him in a heart beat. No question about it, I'd never let him die due to kidney problems when I have one to give. But, this more like being an organ donor, isn't it? In this case, a person has free will. If some stranger has died in a car accident or something of that nature, and they had good kidneys, it would be perfectly ok for someone to get their kidneys, so long as that person has made the choice that they want to be an organ donor.

Now, let us get back to the issue of stem cells. I read some primitive information about the two types of stem cell research, embryonic and adult. In my honest opinion, the only one that would be ethical is adult stem cell research. In this instance, the person involved has a choice and can make a decision whether to give or not to give. In embryonic research, they basically harvest what they need. They see the stem cell line as having no potential other than just being grown into whatever they want.

That is where the problem is, you have potential life being manipulated in ways that suits the person doing it, and they are disregarding the potential there ... I guess that is what it all boils down to, you have potential involved in these cells. Their is life there, no matter what anyone may think. And when you destroy life like this, you are doing something just as bad as abortion, in my honest opinion.

I'm not sure if I have differentiated correctly in the different types, but I've tried the best I can. :-) I look forward to hearing from you.

Lucas.

your postulate scenario

What kind of pompous ass writes like that? Sure enough I Googled pompous ass and guess what? Number one hit was bane of liberals existence. Who woulda thunk?

Felicitous salutations, Ash,
From the demeanor of your latest dispatch, I conclude you and all the assorted Ash’s are in satisfactory vim and appropriate verve. First-rate!
Do extend my heartfelt salutary emotions for their continued providence, will you not?
Until then, preemulatitory consignitoratious. Eh what?

BOLE

Sorry, let me translate this into Ash;
Hay butmunch! Howzit hanging’? kids, reel good? Supe-er!

Ness time ya’ slap th’ crap outta th’ li’l bastards, tell ‘em they ok in ma’ book, kay?
Gotta run, ol’ jurk-wad! Keep ‘em swingin’ an’ don’ letchur meat-loaf!

Who woulda thunk?

I googled that phrase and in the 190,000 results, not a single one turned up "Ash."

Check and mate!