Results 141 to 148 of 148
-
November 11th, 2009, 08:29 PM #141Grand Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
-
X <-- You are here
- Posts
- 1,640
- Rep Power
- 58781
Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound
So were all of us. The question is "is there a difference between an 8 cell lump in a petri dish and an 8 cell lump in a uterus?"
Why aren't IVF clinics, that destroy more embryo's than any abortion clinic, on the target list of pro-lifers? Looks like hypocrisy to me ... but that's probably just me.
JanSo long and thanks for all the fish.
-
November 11th, 2009, 10:32 PM #142Grand Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
-
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia County) - Posts
- 3,001
- Rep Power
- 1828819
Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound
The government is within its rights to not fund research. But when it does so for ethical reasons, it and its supporters should be frank about that fact. An ethical decision stands on its own merits if it is based upon sound principles. There is no need to prop it up with the circular argument that embryonic stem cells are useless because we don't know how to use them therapeutically therefore we won't fund research on how to use them therapeutically.
-
November 12th, 2009, 10:01 AM #143
Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound
Well, I think the premise is more "Science has tried the embryonic route in the past, and up to now the investment hasn't been worth it."
There's plenty of embryonic stem cell research going on around the globe, and up to now none of it has been an unqualified success. Some of it has been downright fraudulent (as in the South Korean case and Chinese efforts). Compare / contrast against cord blood & adult stem cell research, which has been grinding out the cures on a regular basis.
So from that premise the government could use the success / failure rate argument.These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for. LMAO
-
November 12th, 2009, 10:11 AM #144
Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound
Hardly any new technology is a success in the beginning, especially when it comes to complex biological and biochemical mechanisms that we are only beginning to understand.
However, life is governed by the same laws of physics that govern everything else. So, just like computers and other technology, it will be only a matter of time before we understand how stem cells work and how they will be used for real human benefit. It's just a more difficult than average problem to solve.
-
November 12th, 2009, 10:35 AM #145
Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound
By eight cell lump are you talking about an embryo or tissue extracted from another live source?
Why aren't IVF clinics, that destroy more embryo's than any abortion clinic, on the target list of pro-lifers? Looks like hypocrisy to me ... but that's probably just me.
Jan
LifeSite News report
Minnesota pro-life group advocating the adoption of IVF embryos
RC Church ruling on the issue of IVF
Jill Stanek's archives on IVF
Stanek's op-ed on the issue - USAToday
SBC position - "Vast human tragedy"These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for. LMAO
-
November 13th, 2009, 11:45 AM #146Grand Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
-
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia County) - Posts
- 3,001
- Rep Power
- 1828819
Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound
No, it's not. If it were, then the research would be getting rejected by NIH and not by politicians. NIH rejects a large majority of research applications based on their scientific merits. They do this without help from the president. The only time you need politicians to intervene is to make sure that things don't get funded even if they are scientifically sound.
If it was just about the science there would have been no blanket ban on funding new ESC research.
There's plenty of embryonic stem cell research going on around the globe, and up to now none of it has been an unqualified success. Some of it has been downright fraudulent (as in the South Korean case and Chinese efforts). Compare / contrast against cord blood & adult stem cell research, which has been grinding out the cures on a regular basis.
So from that premise the government could use the success / failure rate argument.
But religion and trying to make the hardline "life begins at conception" case is much less convincing than science, so here you are attempting to pretend there is a scientific reason to ditch ESC research for good. Just like PETA claim that they can "prove" animal research doesn't work, and oh by coincidence that position just happens to serve their ideological agenda, well isn't that a surprise.
-
November 13th, 2009, 12:08 PM #147
Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound
You're assuming that no politicking ever occurs at NIH. It's a government agency, so anything goes.
NIH rejects a large majority of research applications based on their scientific merits. They do this without help from the president. The only time you need politicians to intervene is to make sure that things don't get funded even if they are scientifically sound.
Politicians (those in name as well as bureaucrats at NIH and other scientific organizations) insist that we fund research into anthropogenic global warming despite evidence of outright fraud at NASA-GISS and the IPCC. There is a definite conflict of interest there, because those same government agencies stand to benefit from increased funding, and government itself stands to become more powerful as a result of the fraud.
As Rahm Emmanuel is of wont to say - no point in wasting a good crisis. Especially if it's one you concocted out of the ether.
If it was just about the science there would have been no blanket ban on funding new ESC research.
Obviously if you de-fund on religious basis alone you're going to take some flack for it. That's not a bad thing. However, IMO you're better off arguing the ethical, individual liberty and scientific points - which are inescapable.
Bush banned funding of any research not using the cells that predated his 2001 order. He could have let NIH do its job and evaluate embryonic vs adult stem cell research on the merits of the individual study. But instead he issued an outright ban.Bush's own statements admitted the scientific potential of ESC.
But religion and trying to make the hardline "life begins at conception" case is much less convincing than science, so here you are attempting to pretend there is a scientific reason to ditch ESC research for good.
As I said, don't just take my word for it. Check out the support links.These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for. LMAO
-
November 13th, 2009, 12:16 PM #148Grand Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
-
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia County) - Posts
- 3,001
- Rep Power
- 1828819
Re: Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound
It is, and it is more difficult when there is political interference. The scientific agencies of the US are world leaders in research sponsorship. For the past eight years, their hands have been tied with respect to funding embryonic research. It is ridiculous to attempt to declare conclusions about the potential of adult vs embryonic cells at this early stage, and that folly is compounded when the research into embryonic cells has been deliberately curtailed. Note that nobody is trying to deny the usefulness of adult stem cells. But it is too early to declare that they are the best option for all applications.
As the National Academies of Science has put it:
Both adult and embryonic stem cells can contribute to the development of regenerative medicine. Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) have the advantage of multipotency and have shown themselves to be readily culturable in the laboratory. Although the degree of plasticity of adult stem cells is still unknown and there are difficulties in purifying and culturing them, the only proven stem cell-based medical therapies that are currently available rely on adult-derived stem cells from bone marrow and skin, and adult stem cells from other tissues might someday provide therapies that stimulate the body’s own regenerative potential. Because of a misunderstanding of the state of knowledge, there may be an unwarranted impression that widespread clinical application of new therapies is certain and imminent. In fact, stem cell research is in its infancy, and there are substantial gaps in knowledge that pose obstacles to the realization of new therapies from either adult or embryoderived stem cells.
This was written in 2002, a year after ESC research funding was cut by Bush. Since then there has been some progress, though to my knowledge there is still no FDA-approved treatment using stem cells (there have been several trials using both adult and embryonic cells).
Similar Threads
-
FBI Director Mueller: A Mumbai-style attack can happen in the U.S.
By DaveM55 in forum GeneralReplies: 41Last Post: March 12th, 2009, 04:03 PM -
Weathermen planned planned death camps to exterminate 25,000,000 Americans
By 5711-Marine in forum GeneralReplies: 2Last Post: October 24th, 2008, 11:53 AM -
contraception is now classified as abortion by US government?
By dc dalton in forum GeneralReplies: 16Last Post: August 11th, 2008, 03:05 PM -
FBI Director Critizices Supreme Court on 2nd Amendment Ruling
By joe15003 in forum GeneralReplies: 48Last Post: July 8th, 2008, 08:19 AM -
CIA Director on camera lying about the 4th amendment!
By jkroner659 in forum GeneralReplies: 8Last Post: August 8th, 2007, 10:46 PM
Bookmarks