Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Al:

I’d suggest that you do a bit of research into adult stem cell research, which is a method of finding cures without destroying a life. There is much research that indicates that adult stem cell research has the same kind of “miracle” abilities that embryonic stem cell research has.

This area has not been fully explored, but is currently being funded. Both adult and embryonic stell cells are currently only THOUGHT to be able to cure diseases. Its all theory so far.

The question I ask is why not focus on what EVERYone can agree on, rather than fighting for something that only some agree on.

There will be those who follow with shrill rhetoric about how adult stem cells do not work, yet I would challenge them to do the appropriate research by simply googling. This way, they will understand the debate more clearly and recognize that there are alternatatives other than destroying life to save life.

Nice use of sarcasm, Al. Good post.

I can’t believe Bush is still insisting there are 70 lines available. Everyone knows there are only 11.

Also, given the argument Bush uses, it’s hard to understand why he’s against Kerry’s idea to use the “100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren’t taken from abortion or something like that. They’re from a fertility clinic. And they’re either going to be destroyed or left frozen.”

Really, Bush’s reluctance to help sick people lends more creedence to this blogger’s suggested Kerry campaign theme, “George Bush Wants To Kill You.”

Joe, my main point was to try and create a moral comparison between Bush’s decision to attack Iraq in order to save lives and the decision not to use embryonnic stem cells to save lives (and there is a direct comparison in that it is an unkown in both situations if lives will actually be saved). However, I did a quick google and found the following from the Stem Cell Research Foundation

For many years, scientists have conducted studies to determine whether the stem cells in adult tissue have the same developmental capability as embryonic stem cells. The general consensus is that adult stem cells seem to be less versatile. Scientists think that embryonic stem cells have a much greater utility and potential than the adult stem cells, because embryonic stem cells may develop into virtually every type of cell in the human body. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, may only be able to develop into a limited number of cell types. Embryonic stem cells also continue to divide indefinitely when placed in culture, while this may not be the case for adult stem cells and this would reduce their capacity to form new cell types. Both adult and embryonic stem cell research should continue simultaneously as they are both critical to our understanding of the etiology, progression and treatment of disease.

Al,
You bring up a very good point on the argument of destoring life to save life. The problem I have with people who hold Bush’s view on life is that do not realize that in their goal to save lifes they end up destoring many more. This flaw in their logic allows them to be able to debate the term life. And even if they take the religous high road, the bible itselve points out that God believes that their is no greater good than the given of one life to saves others. Therefore, I can only conclude that they need to work on carrying their logic out to the “Big Picture” before they pass judgement on life and exactly who’s life our we debating over.

Al:

I noticed that in your posting, the science community used a lot of hedge words….might, maybe, may only be able, etc. This bolsters my point that in both cases, stem cell use is still theoretical, rather than scientifically proven.

It is my contention that life is precious, yet we should not destroy one innocent life in order to save another. Think if a family were to have a baby just to harvest its organs for a sick child….that would be heinous, and is certainly beyond what stem cell research does. Yet its in the same ballpark.

Al, again, I would submit that adult stem cell research be fully funded, and if proven not viable, then another look be given to alternative methods. At this point, most people are not even aware of this line of study.

There is much research that indicates that adult stem cell research has the same kind of “miracle” abilities that embryonic stem cell research has.

Wanna back that up?

Al:

I went to the site where you found your information (Stem Cell Research Foundation) and I found the following excerpts, all of which show the viability of adult stem cells. Again, the research is still in the theoretical stages for both adult and embryonic stem cells.

But if you go to the site and look in a more detailed fashion, you will see just how many opportunities there are for using adult stem cells. This is ignored by the media and by those in favor of simply using embryonic stem cells. As scientists, they should follow their own calling and use facts, not desires, to guide their actions.

“With the results of this study, the adult versus fetal stem cell debate is no longer a black or white issue,” said Bianchi. “Our finding of fetal stem cells in adult women who have been pregnant could advance stem cell research by providing a means of accessing fetal cells with stem-cell like qualities by drawing blood from a woman.”

Stem cells taken from umbilical cord blood, then given intravenously along with a drug known to temporarily breach the brain’s protective barrier, can dramatically reduce stroke size and damage, Medical College of Georgia and University of South Florida researchers say.

People have been intensely searching for pancreatic stem cells for a while now, and so our discovery of precursor cells within the adult pancreas that are capable of making new pancreatic cells is very exciting,” says Simon Smukler, a PhD candidate…

Newborn babies with brain damage could be treated by stem cell therapy using (foetal) cells taken from their bone marrow. Foetal stem cells are the equivalent of adult stem cells except that they are taken from the newborn.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Stem cells taken from bone marrow can grow new blood vessels in the eyes of mice, which raises the possibility of treating some diseases that often lead to blindness in humans, development researchers say.

Henry:

I’m not a Bible scholar, but I’m also not familiar with the Bible verse in which God says there is “no greater good than the given of one life to saves others.” Perhaps you can give me the verse…..thanks.

Greg:

Read the above post for the examples you want. Also, simply google “adult stem cell research” and you’ll find plenty of information, if you have the interest in reading through the scientific jargon.

Joe-
There’s nothing theoretical about what stem cells do. You exist. The theoretical question is whether these stem cells can be coaxed into becoming the kind of tissues they need to be.

Now, Bush says life is life. What if that life is destroyed anyways? Would it not be better for life to continue in the form of stem cells than all the potential of life to come to nothing? I would rather something come of that potential life than nothing.

Stem cells can be harvested from other sources, but there are always questions of how versatile those cells can be. The virtue of embryonic stem cells is that they have not been subjected to the horomonal and chemical environment that a fully developed human body subjects them to.

Bush simply tries to say he is for embryonic stem cell research, when he really is against it.

Joe, you keep arguing like I am against adult stem cell research. I’m not, but just because adult stem cells may lead to cures for some conditions does not have any logical connection to restricting research on embryonic stem cells since that restriction just slows down research and reduces our ability to learn which cells can lead to treatments.

That being said, does anyone want to comment on the morality of killing Iraqies for a possibly dubious claim that it will increase our security? I do love how these threads never seem to go the direction I intend.

Al,
Sure, I’d like to comment. Why kill Iraqis just for the security of Americans? Why not kill them for the sake of Americans’ health instead? Let’s take Iraqi organs and cells and experiment on them. Fighting ALS, finding a cure, winning that battle: that would satisfy me. As for the scientific possibilities, or rather, probabilities? Our president has already informed us that the war against terrorism cannot be won. Why not put those wasted lives to a different, more feasible purpose?

Thank you, Al, for bringing up this interesting comparison.

I just had a thought- how is embryonic stem cell research done on those embryos that are likely to be destroyed as part of a fertility treatment any different than a dying individual donating their organs? If death is going to come to these embryos, is it not a bad thing that their life continue on in others?

Stephen:

Please name one cure that embryonic stem cells has provided. You cannnot, because the potential for cures is still theoretical. That’s my point, in case you were not able to understand it previously.

Al:

im NOT arguing against ADULT stem cell research, only EMBRYONIC stem cell research. In the adult stem cell research, no innocent life is lost.

Good piece.

Bush has taken an absolutist moral stance here - stem cells are wrong and so there’s nothing else to say about their possible benefits - but has taken a very different position on Iraq, and even more clearly on the whole torture/Geneva convention/aggressive interrogation issue, where his decision-making is clearly driven by expedience, not any absolute notions of morality.

Joe:

I think you’re missing something in your arguments. These embryos are going to die anyway. They are going to simply be destroyed, as a waste product of fertility clinics. They are not going to gestate, they are not going to grow up and become a child. Ever. That’s a fact.

Now, given that fact, how does using their stem cells to research medical cures destroy an innocent life, as you claim it does? To my way of thinking, it would at least give these deaths meaning, rather than treating them simply as trash to be disposed of.

I’m not a Bible scholar, but I’m also not familiar with the Bible verse in which God says there is “no greater good than the given of one life to saves others.” Perhaps you can give me the verse…..thanks.

He may be thinking of the passage where Jesus was speaking to his disciples in John 15:13 (NIV): Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

In that sentence Jesus was referring specifically to himself, but it was one small part of a much longer conversation that took place just prior to his arrest and crucifixion. Anyone interested should read at least chapters 13 through 17 for context.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Joe-
The potential for cures is not theoretical. The same way an adult stem cell cures a disease, by taking the chemical signals of surrounding cells to become another kind of cell, is the way embryonic stem cells will work. If you knew the way stem cells really worked, you’d know that there is no difference in that respect.

Let me ask you a question: when does a fertility treatment’s destruction of embryos become troublesome to you- before or after they are used for stem cell research? In all fairness, such destruction, made necessary for some people to create life, has drawn no fire from conservatives.

It’s only when somebody proposes the ethical compromise of taking stem cells from embryos destined for destruction, that you guys speak up. To me that is an inconsistent way of approaching stem cell research. Destruction is destruction. condemn one, and you must condemn the other. At least with our approach, the destruction of the embryos will not be a waste of life, but a way of furthering it.

Why don’t I hear anything about umbilical cord stem cell research? When my daughter was pregnant she received information in the mail from Cord Blood Registry, offering to freeze her baby’s cord for future use of it’s stem cells in case her child needed them for a cure for an unforseen disease. That info. made me question why don’t they just use those stem cells for research instead of the embroyonice stem cells?

Carrie-
First, most adults and children alive right now did not have their cord blood saved. Second, those stem cells may have immunological issues. I think the big issue about embryonic stem cell lines is their neutrality towards their destination.

Whenever somebody gets a heart or other organ transplant, they have to go on a permanent regime of immune-supressing drugs The reason for this is that despite the tissue matching typically done, the organs have markers on their cells that would invite the patients own immune system to destroy that organ, rejecting it. The advantage of tissue taken from embryos is that no such markers have been developed. An organ or nerve connection grown from such stem cells would take on the character of the patient’s own tissue.

If I’m not mistaken, adult stem cells or those from cord blood do not have that capability, that cross-transplantable quality, among different, unrelated individuals.

Looks like Bush just killed Christopher Reeve,

I had to make the decision to destroy more life, so we continue to destroy life — I made the decision to balance science and ethics. - GW Bush

Chris Reeve is a friend of mine. Chris Reeve exercises every single day to keep those muscles alive for the day when he believes he can walk again, and I want him to walk again.

I think we can save lives.

I think we can do ethically guided embryonic stem-cell research. - JFK

> I’m not a Bible scholar, but I’m also not
> familiar with the Bible verse in which God
> says there is “no greater good than the
> given of one life to saves others.”

Isn’t that the general gist of the whole New Testament?

-Cf

> They are not going to gestate, they are not
> going to grow up and become a child. Ever.
> That’s a fact.
>
> Now, given that fact, how does using their
> stem cells to research medical cures destroy
> an innocent life, as you claim it does?

I have very real moral concerns for a future where genetic engineering, cloning, cybernetics, and artificial intelligence will likely blur many of the lines between real life and non-life. We could be seeing a resurgence of backdoor eugenics. We could see a day (I predict within 100 years) when the children of the rich will have lifespans two to three times that of the poor, they will be far stronger, healthier, and vastly more intelligent due exclusively to genetic engineering. We could see organ harvesting from third-world cloning clinics. Science fiction is becoming reality, and we must be morally prepared.

I agree with many liberals and conservatives who say that we should be thinking about this stuff deeply, and not brushing it aside as “well we’re going to destroy them anyway”, but also not arbitrarily denying all investigation into embryonic stem cells because of what many take to be a religious beleif that embryos are humans with rights.

Liberals must recognize that knowing an aborted or donated embryo is going to be destroyed IS different than knowing an aborted or donated embryo could be useful, and that such knowledge could factor into a woman or couple’s decision to get pregnant or to donate. If there’s a market, embryos could become commodities. As Joe points out, it’s not hard to imagine people creating embryos expressly for this purpose. It IS functionally somewhat similar to cloning for organ harvesting.

But it’s not the same thing. As Joe points out, it’s a matter of degree. If you think that abortion is ever morally acceptable, then there must be a middle ground for embryonic stem cell research.

We can legislate people who become pregnant for the sole purpose of selling embryonic stem cells. We can legislate clinics who try to reap profit from donated or aborted embryos. This can be controlled through regulations and legislation, while still allowing American scientists, the best in the world, to have access to the massive potential of the aborted and donated embryos that so many say “will be destroyed anyway”.

I guess the point of this post is to say that even though I am deeply pro-choice, I still think that both sides have legitimate arguments. The conservative argument should not be dismissed out of hand as religious craziness. We are indeed entering a “Brave New World” era where every scientific step having to do with the nature of human life should be taken with great caution and moral care.

In the case of embryonic stem cell research, however, I feel that such moral care is being taken, and that we do have the means to manage the process without risking losing our humanity in the process. I think that President Bush’s policy crosses the line from prudent moral carefulness to plain old pandering to the religious right.

-Cf

CF:

The flaw in this argument is that new stem-cell lines can be created from fetal stem-cells, which means that after a very short while the market for new ones would diminish greatly, probably before the supply of surplus is even scratched significantly, so no artificial market of embryos created expressly for that purpose is really likely to flourish.

As I understand it, this basically means that the stem cells from one embryo that is going to be discarded anyway would be cultured and used to create hundreds (thousands?) of organs and other tissues, rather than needing one embryo per organ. The market demand for new stem cell lines would probably never be high enough to make getting pregnant and carrying a child even for a trimester or two profitable.

I don’t know enough about stem cell research to comment specifically, but the views in this post remind me of an interesting division between the parties. Both talk about the sanctity of life, but the left talks about it when referring to criminals setenced to die, while the right tals about it when referring to fetuses. Why is it that both parties think killing is okay under certain circumstances, yet use the “sanctity of life” argument to bolster their cases?

> the left talks about it when referring
> to criminals setenced to die

For what it’s worth, I don’t abhor the death penalty because of the “sanctity of life”. I abhor it because (a) it flat out does not work, (b) it is applied disgustingly unfairly to racial minorities, and (c) it opens up the possibility for the state, acting on behalf of corrupt powers, to take the lives of innocent people for political ends. I simply don’t see a need to give the state the power to kill so freely.

I also don’t oppose the death penalty in all instances: terrorists, mass murderers, and war criminals should be held accountable in this way. I just don’t think it makes sense, however, for most other crimes. There is no moral dimension to this for me - it’s purely practical.

-Cf

So you guys are going to let me get away with saying Bush killed Christopher Reeve? Fair enough.

So you guys are going to let me get away with saying Bush killed Christopher Reeve? Fair enough. Posted by American Pundit at October 12, 2004 03:12 AM

Like many grenades that get tossed around these columns, this one didn’t deserve a response. It still doesn’t.

Haha! That’s fair enough, too. :)

AP, turns out you were right!

Of course I am. :)

Even on a serious level, you have to wonder how things might have been different if, four years ago, Bush had enthusiastically embraced research that could lead to a cure.

Joe,

Earlier this was your statement:
“Stephen:
Please name one cure that embryonic stem cells has provided. You cannnot, because the potential for cures is still theoretical. That’s my point, in case you were not able to understand it previously.

Al:
im NOT arguing against ADULT stem cell research, only EMBRYONIC stem cell research. In the adult stem cell research, no innocent life is lost.”

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 10, 2004 01:02 PM

Well JOE,

1) embryonic cells haven’t been identified to cure anything YET. Why is that, Joe? Could it be because the program is under funded?

2) Get over the “its all theoretical” crap - back when Chris Columbus decided to sail, people thought he was crazy because no one believed in his “theory” but if he hadn’t tested out his “theory” you wouldn’t be in the U.S. today. Theory is good it brings people new ideas, new hope.

3)The embryos will never become a human, they are going to be disposed of regardless therefore, no one is taking a life to save a life. They’re just trying to save lives. If you have an issue with why the cells are in this situation to begin with, maybe you should advocate against abortion and fertility clinics instead.