Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 419
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Which opinion, Ron's? Or Mike's? or Nancy? or Patty? Last I could tell they were not all in agreement.
    Nancy's views have always been quite clear:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3700015.stm


    Nancy Reagan plea on stem cells

    Ronald Reagan is suffering the advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease

    Former US First Lady Nancy Reagan has urged the Bush administration to support embryonic stem cell research.

    Mrs Reagan said too much time had been wasted already discussing the issue.

    She is said to believe the research could lead to a cure for Alzheimer's disease, which has afflicted her husband, Ronald Reagan.

    The Bush administration has blocked public funding of this type of research because of his party's ethical reservations about embryo research.

    At a fundraising dinner for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation in Hollywood, Mrs Reagan said her husband was now in "a distant place where I can no longer reach him".

    "I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this... We have lost so much time already. I just really can't bear to lose any more."

    She said she believed stem cell research "may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp".

    It is thought to be the first time that Mrs Reagan has made a public speech on the issue, although her views have long been known.

    Political debate

    Mrs Reagan is the latest high-profile figure to criticise the Bush administration for its decision to limit funding for stem cell research.


    Actor Michael J. Fox praised Mrs Reagan for "taking the issue out of politics".
    Former Superman actor Christopher Reeve, left severely disabled following a riding accident, and actor Michael J. Fox, who is suffering from Parkinson's disease, have both criticised the Bush administration for blocking research which they believe could improve their conditions.

    Currently federal funds are not available for this type of work.

    Mr Bush has told scientists he will not release US taxpayers' money for the production or investigation of new lines because it involves the destruction of human embryos.

    Correspondents say that with the Bush administration and anti-abortion groups strongly opposed to stem cell research, Mrs Reagan's comments add a powerful conservative Republican voice to the debate.

  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    ever heard of abortion?
    If you read any of the scientific articles on this subject, you'll learn that adult stem cells are considered the most viable for research.

    http://biotech.about.com/gi/dynamic/.../rb071101.html

    Are Stem Cells Babies?
    Only if every other human cell is, too.

    By Ronald Bailey, Reason Science Correspondent

    As all the world knows, President Bush is wrestling with the decision of whether or not the federal government should fund research on human embryonic stem cells. He reportedly met privately with a group of unidentified bioethicists Tuesday night to discuss the issue. In addition, Congress is considering legislation that would criminalize stem cell research, punishing researchers with 10 year jail terms and $1 million fines. The health of millions is in the balance.

    Proponents of the research, including 80 Nobel Laureates, argue that stem cells derived from human embryos could possibly cure a host of degenerative illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease, arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, and cirrhosis of the liver. “It is not unrealistic to say that [stem cell research] has the potential to revolutionize medicine,” says former National Institute of Health Director Harold Varmus in Newsweek.

    Opponents, while acknowledging the cures, respond that using stem cells is immoral because, in their view, the cells can only be derived by killing the tiniest and most helpless of human beings. As Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, has said, "We believe very strongly that people should not be discriminated against based on age or location in the petri dish."

    Currently, human embryonic stem cells are derived from donated frozen embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. That may be changing, and sooner than we think. Just this week, a study published in Fertility and Sterility revealed that a fertility clinic in Norfolk, Virginia, has created embryos using donor eggs and sperm specifically for the purpose of deriving stem cells. The researchers argue that specifically creating embryos to derive stem cells is, in their view, less ethically problematic because such embryos are never intended to be implanted in a woman’s womb and so were never intended to become babies.

    Embryos, whether donated or specifically created, are grown in petri dishes for about a week, at which point they have divided into a microscopic, hollow ball of about 100 cells. Researchers then remove the inner cell mass, the cells of which can differentiate into all the kinds of tissues in a human body.

    Stem cells can be transformed into any kind of tissue and used to repair organs damaged by strokes, trauma, and degenerative diseases. Researchers at Geron Corporation claim to have learned how to turn human embryonic stem cells into 110 different kinds of cells, including heart muscle, neurons, and immune system cells.

    So what about the claims that incipient therapies based on human embryonic stem cell research are immoral? That brings us to the question of whether the embryos from which stem cells are derived are persons. The answer: Only if every cell in your body is also a person.

    Why? Because scientific ingenuity now makes it logically (if not quite logistically) possible for each of your body’s cells to become your twin. (See "Petri Dish Politics.")

    Each skin cell, each neuron, each liver cell is potentially a person. All that’s lacking is the will and the application of the appropriate technology. Cloning technology like that which famously produced the Scottish sheep Dolly in 1997 could be applied to each of your cells to potentially produce babies (a mammary cell was used to create Dolly).

    Cloning technology at this point in time is clunky. In the future, though, researchers will likely be able to skip cloning, and simply flip few genetic switches to regress any of your cells to earlier stages of development, claims Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health. After all, each of your cells contains the complete genetic code which produces you. Ultimately, researchers could take your cells all the way back to the embryonic stage, at which point they could be implanted into a womb, where they could eventually develop into complete human beings.

    Why go on about the fate of your skin and liver cells that are destined to be sloughed off during your next shower or die of alcohol poisoning at your next cocktail party? Clearly, they are not going to become your twins. Ah, but they could, if only you would let them.

    “What happens when a skin cell turns into a totipotent stem cell [a cell capable of developing into a complete organism] is that a few of its genetic switches are turned on and others turned off," writes University of Melbourne bioethicist Julian Savulescu in the April 1999 issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. "To say it doesn't have the potential to be a human being until its nucleus is placed in the egg cytoplasm [i.e., cloning] is like saying my car does not have the potential to get me from Melbourne to Sydney unless the key is turned in the ignition."

    Like turning the key in the ignition to begin a journey, simply starting a human egg on a particular path, either through fertilization or cloning, is a necessary condition for developing a human being, but it isn't sufficient. A range of other conditions must also be present. Those conditions include the availability of a suitable environment such as a woman's womb. (Some 40 percent of embryos produced naturally do not implant and so never develop into babies.)

    Two well known pro-life politicians understand that “certain conditions” make a difference. According to Newsweek, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) argues that “a frozen embryo stored in a refrigerator in a clinic” isn’t the same as “a fetus developing in a mother’s womb.” Connie Mack, former Republican senator from Florida, declares, “For me, as long as that fertilized egg is not destined to be placed in a uterus, it cannot become life.” In other words, for Hatch and Mack, location in a petri dish makes a lot of difference.

    "I cannot see any intrinsic morally significant difference between a mature skin cell, the totipotent stem cell derived from it, and a fertilised egg," writes Savulescu. "They are all cells which could give rise to a person if certain conditions obtained."

    "If all our cells could be persons, then we cannot appeal to the fact that an embryo could be a person to justify the special treatment we give it," concludes Savulescu.

    The DNA content of a skin cell, a stem cell, and a fertilized egg are exactly the same. The difference between what they are and what they could become is the environment in which their DNA is found. Thus, the mere existence of human DNA in a cell cannot be the source of a relevant moral difference. The differences among these cells are a result of how the genes in each are expressed, and that expression depends largely on which proteins suppress or promote which genes.

    So people who oppose stem cell research must logically be committed to the notion that the only difference between your skin cell and your twin are the proteins that decorate their DNA strands. But can moral relevance really be reduced to the presence or absence of certain proteins in a cell?
  3. #83  
    why not explore research other than with embryos? Has that been proven to be any better than the other methods?

    Would you give up your unborn child to save your parent if it was proven that embryonic stems cells could cure alzheimers?
    There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
    Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    why not explore research other than with embryos? Has that been proven to be any better than the other methods?

    Would you give up your unborn child to save your parent if it was proven that embryonic stems cells could cure alzheimers?
    If I had an embryo in storage that was slated to be destroyed, I absolutely would donate it.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    If I had an embryo in storage that was slated to be destroyed, I absolutely would donate it.
    Sorry sweetie that wasnt the question. Please try again. Unless of course by storage, you mean your womb. But I think that is not what you are saying.
    There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
    Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Sorry sweetie that wasnt the question. Please try again. Unless of course by storage, you mean your womb. But I think that is not what you are saying.
    I don't believe deliberate pregnancies/abortions for the purpose of providing stem cell material would be legal OR ethical. The question and the inappropriate endearment are frankly silly, insulting and somewhat patronizing.
  7. #87  
    Another update on the swift boat situation:

    http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=6035562

    Navy Commander, Journalist, Backs Kerry on Vietnam
    Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:33 PM ET
    By Carol Giacomo

    PITTSBURGH (Reuters) - An American journalist who commanded a boat alongside John Kerry in Vietnam broke a 35-year silence on Saturday and defended the Democratic presidential candidate against Republican critics of his military service.

    Weighing in on what has become the most bitterly divisive issue of the 2004 campaign for the White House, William Rood of the Chicago Tribune said the tales told by Kerry's detractors are untrue.

    "There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago -- three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969," he wrote in a story that appeared on the newspaper's Web site on Saturday.

    "One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other."

    Before now, wanting to put memories of war and killing behind him, Rood had refused all requests for interviews on the subject, including from his own newspaper. "But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown." he wrote.

    "The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us.

    "It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there," he added.

    Kerry, a former Navy lieutenant, is a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, and his war service is essential to his ability to challenge President Bush on issues of national security and leadership in the face of the Iraq war and terrorism threats.

    Increasingly, veterans opposed to Kerry and allied with Bush -- led by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- have tried to undermine Kerry's service record and credibility and the justification for his medals.

    In the face of a new CBS poll showing Kerry's support among veterans has slipped since the Democratic convention, the Massachusetts senator has launched an aggressive counterattack.

    On Friday, Kerry accused the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth of collaborating with the Bush campaign and asked the Federal Election Commission to force the group to withdraw ads challenging his Vietnam service.

    Bush spent the war in the United States serving in the Texas Air National Guard. Some Democrats have accused Bush of going absent without leave from the guard, citing gaps in his attendance record.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    I don't believe deliberate pregnancies/abortions for the purpose of providing stem cell material would be legal OR ethical. The question and the inappropriate endearment are frankly silly, insulting and somewhat patronizing.
    My my are we sensitive or what.

    So that would be a no.
    There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
    Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    My my are we sensitive or what.

    So that would be a no.
    I think you've misinterpreted- this thread and your posts have been highly entertaining.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Another update on the swift boat situation:

    http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=6035562
    Reuters is definitly bias free. The jkerry camp has said there were four boats that day not three.
    There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
    Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    The jkerry camp has said there were four boats that day not three.
    Link?
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Reuters is definitly bias free.
    Please post a list of news sources that you consider bias free.

    Thanks.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Please post a list of news sources that you consider bias free.

    Thanks.
    I dont believe there are any.
    There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
    Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Link?
    My mistake, actually it was five.

    Copied from johnkerry.com

    "In fact, the Washington Post (8/19/04) reports that Thurlow’s own Bronze star certificate confirms “all units” of the five boat flotilla were under "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire.”"
    There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
    Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  15.    #95  
    I agree with Eurokitty. If Nancy Reagan can understand the medical potential of stem cell research, everyone should. It is extremely short sighted to stop federal funding for stem cell research. It will just mean that America will lose its technological edge to Japan and european countries like "gasp" France.˙So in essence, that is what Bush is pushing us towards, losing our biomedical leadership in the world. Thanks GWB!
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    My mistake, actually it was five.

    Copied from johnkerry.com

    "In fact, the Washington Post (8/19/04) reports that Thurlow’s own Bronze star certificate confirms “all units” of the five boat flotilla were under "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire.”"
    Thanks! I knew you could find it.

    Good job!
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I agree with Eurokitty. If Nancy Reagan can understand the medical potential of stem cell research, everyone should. It is extremely short sighted to stop federal funding for stem cell research. It will just mean that America will lose its technological edge to Japan and european countries like "gasp" France.˙So in essence, that is what Bush is pushing us towards, losing our biomedical leadership in the world. Thanks GWB!

    Yep with every issue there is the Bush element trying to through the US back into the dark ages. Cmon cell, do you really think that is the Bush plan? You act like the President has unltimate control over every aspect of our lives. That is just ridiculous.
    There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
    Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    One point: The issue of stem cell isn't a left/right matter. There are plenty of liberals who disagree and plenty of conservative that agree on it. No status quo per-say here. Personally, it is an important issue, you betcha!

    I agree Chick. And I also agree with being sensible and cautious, an not running willy nilly into all sorts of possible ethical mud, just because someone died. Everyone dies and lots of people do it every day.
    There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
    Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  19.    #99  
    No Woof, seriously, I know this subject very well. This was Bush's decision on stem cell research, his bill authorized only a small group of stem cell lines to be used until further notice. That was several years ago now, and even at the time many of these stem cell lines were not freely available but in the hands of biotech groups who still won't give them out.

    Many new lines have been developed which have greater potential. That is the way science is, it is a rapidly progressing field. It is extremely limiting for medical researchers not to be able to work with cells other than these few lines without risking losing federal funding. In the meanwhile, Europe and Japan are using the newer lines and making key discoveries that we cannot.

    Let me give you an analogy: it is like we are in a car race, all of us racing to find a cure for diabetes or cancer. The european drivers can use the latest 2004 porches and ferraris, while the american crivers have to choose from a small group of 2001 cars.
  20. #100  
    not a great analogy but I get ur point.

    Although regardless of where a medical technology is developed we ususally have access to it very quickly, unless of course the FDA needs to approve it first. And ultimately it is about finding a cure not bragging rights. Or is it?
    If a bona fide cure for cancer or diabetes is found elsewhere in the world do you really think we wont have access to it?
    There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
    Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions