Looking for one reason not to use already frozen embryos for stem cell research

[XMan]

I'm confused about this whole issue.

Stem cell research is not illegal. There is simply no government funding for it.

If it is such a potential salvation, then why don't companies either a) pony up the money themselves to do the research and have a corner on any developments, or b) why don't big money guys like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, give donations to companies doing the research?

Michael J. Fox's foundation has given several million to a researcher who has had promising results with gene therapy - if this is such a big deal, then why doesn't he solicit some of his rich Hollywood friends to support it?

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: XMan
I'm confused about this whole issue.

Stem cell research is not illegal. There is simply no government funding for it.

If it is such a potential salvation, then why don't companies either a) pony up the money themselves to do the research and have a corner on any developments, or b) why don't big money guys like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, give donations to companies doing the research?

Michael J. Fox's foundation has given several million to a researcher who has had promising results with gene therapy - if this is such a big deal, then why doesn't he solicit some of his rich Hollywood friends to support it?

Because embryonic stem cell research is more hype than reality. It's the libs need to extinguish any pre-birth human life. While adult stem cell research is proven already and cordal blood can provide non-differentiated cells, so libs ignore the facts and let MJF flail around on tv to get emotional support.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: XMan
I'm confused about this whole issue.

Stem cell research is not illegal. There is simply no government funding for it.

If it is such a potential salvation, then why don't companies either a) pony up the money themselves to do the research and have a corner on any developments, or b) why don't big money guys like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, give donations to companies doing the research?

Michael J. Fox's foundation has given several million to a researcher who has had promising results with gene therapy - if this is such a big deal, then why doesn't he solicit some of his rich Hollywood friends to support it?

Because embryonic stem cell research is more hype than reality. It's the libs need to extinguish any pre-birth human life. While adult stem cell research is proven already and cordal blood can provide non-differentiated cells, so libs ignore the facts and let MJF flail around on tv to get emotional support.

Yeah, because we all want the species to end. What would you say if using embryonic stem cells in research provided a cure to Parkinsons, Alzheimers, or some forms of Cancer?? Wouldn't the lives saved from that be a benefit whereas the unused in-vitro embyros will be destroyed anyway?? Are you against IVF, or just a hypocrite?

You get a

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: XMan
I'm confused about this whole issue.

Stem cell research is not illegal. There is simply no government funding for it.

If it is such a potential salvation, then why don't companies either a) pony up the money themselves to do the research and have a corner on any developments, or b) why don't big money guys like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, give donations to companies doing the research?

Michael J. Fox's foundation has given several million to a researcher who has had promising results with gene therapy - if this is such a big deal, then why doesn't he solicit some of his rich Hollywood friends to support it?

<- Dullard does research on federally supported National Health Institute grants for a living. Dullard's brother is doing his PhD research which includes some stem cell research.

Private companies do things which are likely to return a large profit. The federal governement does things that private companies can't afford or which they can't profit from (military protection for example).

There is no profit in a disease cure. There is substantial profit in disease treatments. Few private companies research cures for diseases with money from their own pocket (once you cure someone, you can't sell them your item ever again). That is why the federal government MUST financially support research for cures (assuming we want cures).

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: XMan
I'm confused about this whole issue.

Stem cell research is not illegal. There is simply no government funding for it.

If it is such a potential salvation, then why don't companies either a) pony up the money themselves to do the research and have a corner on any developments, or b) why don't big money guys like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, give donations to companies doing the research?

Michael J. Fox's foundation has given several million to a researcher who has had promising results with gene therapy - if this is such a big deal, then why doesn't he solicit some of his rich Hollywood friends to support it?

<- Dullard does research on federally supported National Health Institute grants for a living. Dullard's brother is doing his PhD research which includes some stem cell research.

Private companies do things which are likely to return a large profit. The federal governement does things that private companies can't afford or which they can't profit from (military protection for example).

There is no profit in a disease cure. There is substantial profit in disease treatments. Few private companies research cures for diseases with money from their own pocket (once you cure someone, you can't sell them your item ever again). That is why the federal government MUST financially support research for cures (assuming we want cures).

Good post. :thumbsup:

 

[ProfJohn]

1. embryonic stem cell research has not produced one cure, and so far there is no sign that will change.

2. The fear is not in using the existing embryos, but that they will start creating more embryos just for research, which to many is morally wrong. It's a Pandora?s box type argument.

BTW: Aren't the researching using frozen embryos now?

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. embryonic stem cell research has not produced one cure, and so far there is no sign that will change.

2. The fear is not in using the existing embryos, but that they will start creating more embryos just for research, which to many is morally wrong. It's a Pandora?s box type argument.

BTW: Aren't the researching using frozen embryos now?

I would think 500,000 would be enough for research far into the future negating the need to create them. Besides as long as IVF is legal there will be an available supply.

 

[Pens1566]

Using your point 2., wouldn't using existing embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway be OK???

As for the research with frozen embyos being used now, those lines have been used up, and are contaminated according to most of the researchers involved. Not sure if contaminated is the correct word, but the point is the existing lines can't be used anymore at this point.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Using your point 2., wouldn't using existing embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway be OK???

As for the research with frozen embyos being used now, those lines have been used up, and are contaminated according to most of the researchers involved. Not sure if contaminated is the correct word, but the point is the existing lines can't be used anymore at this point.

I think you missed my point.

You catch your 13 year old with a beer he just opened. Do you let him drink it because it is already open? Or do you take it away because it is wrong for him to drink?
If you do let him drink it, what do you do when he drinks more because you said it was ok for him to finish that one beer?

It's the whole slippery slope argument.

I am not certain on which way to go personally. That is why we have a representative government, to allow people who are more informed on the issues to vote on stuff like this. (I don?t have time to study every issue, and this one is not very important to me)

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: XMan
I'm confused about this whole issue.

Stem cell research is not illegal. There is simply no government funding for it.

If it is such a potential salvation, then why don't companies either a) pony up the money themselves to do the research and have a corner on any developments, or b) why don't big money guys like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, give donations to companies doing the research?

Michael J. Fox's foundation has given several million to a researcher who has had promising results with gene therapy - if this is such a big deal, then why doesn't he solicit some of his rich Hollywood friends to support it?

<- Dullard does research on federally supported National Health Institute grants for a living. Dullard's brother is doing his PhD research which includes some stem cell research.

Private companies do things which are likely to return a large profit. The federal governement does things that private companies can't afford or which they can't profit from (military protection for example).

There is no profit in a disease cure. There is substantial profit in disease treatments. Few private companies research cures for diseases with money from their own pocket (once you cure someone, you can't sell them your item ever again). That is why the federal government MUST financially support research for cures (assuming we want cures).

I understand the profit issue, but that doesn't change the fact that you don't hear much about philanthropic assistance to the research. There are private grants out there. George Soros could probably spare a few million . . .

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Using your point 2., wouldn't using existing embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway be OK???

As for the research with frozen embyos being used now, those lines have been used up, and are contaminated according to most of the researchers involved. Not sure if contaminated is the correct word, but the point is the existing lines can't be used anymore at this point.

I think you missed my point.

You catch your 13 year old with a beer he just opened. Do you let him drink it because it is already open? Or do you take it away because it is wrong for him to drink?
If you do let him drink it, what do you do when he drinks more because you said it was ok for him to finish that one beer?

It's the whole slippery slope argument.

I am not certain on which way to go personally. That is why we have a representative government, to allow people who are more informed on the issues to vote on stuff like this. (I don?t have time to study every issue, and this one is not very important to me)

There is no "slippery slope" as long as IVF is legal as well. Those embryos are created for that purpose and then discarded when not needed. Instead of discarding them, they should be put to some good. Or are you against IVF as well???

 

[Moonbeam]

Human beings are deeply traumatized, terrified of their inner psyches and deeply sick. They do well if unthreatened but when fear comes they run amok and want everybody who scares them dead. That is why it is vital that we hold to absolutes like the sanctity of human life, so that we don't kill everybody we are afraid of. Our sickness is our fear not the other. You are a dangerous psychotic and you should see yourself as such and eschew any notion that human life can be taken for your good cause. An exception creates a slippery slope.

The problem with this, however, is that all absolutes lead to logical binds from which there is no escape. You can't abort or use stem cells even though this is perfectly rational. If humans were the slightest conscious of how they operate we wouldn't have this desperate clinging to absolutes that in the long run may be all that can save us from our psychotic neighbors.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
There is no "slippery slope" as long as IVF is legal as well. Those embryos are created for that purpose and then discarded when not needed. Instead of discarding them, they should be put to some good. Or are you against IVF as well???

Not all IVF uses this shotgun method of fertilizing many eggs and discarding the "unneeded" embryos. Couples just need to be educated when pursuing IVF, so they are aware of the IVF methods which they may unknowingly disapprove.

There should be strict laws on assisted fertilization, so that no embryo goes discarded.. no doubt the libs would be against this as well.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Pens1566
There is no "slippery slope" as long as IVF is legal as well. Those embryos are created for that purpose and then discarded when not needed. Instead of discarding them, they should be put to some good. Or are you against IVF as well???

Not all IVF uses this shotgun method of fertilizing many eggs and discarding the "unneeded" embryos. Couples just need to be educated when pursuing IVF, so they are aware of the IVF methods which they may unknowingly disapprove.

There should be strict laws on assisted fertilization, so that no embryo goes discarded.. no doubt the libs would be against this as well.

Exactly what kind of pleasure do you get from making assumptions and generalizations about a diverse group of people?

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Human beings are deeply traumatized, terrified of their inner psyches and deeply sick. They do well if unthreatened but when fear comes they run amok and want everybody who scares them dead. That is why it is vital that we hold to absolutes like the sanctity of human life, so that we don't kill everybody we are afraid of. Our sickness is our fear not the other. You are a dangerous psychotic and you should see yourself as such and eschew any notion that human life can be taken for your good cause. An exception creates a slippery slope.

The problem with this, however, is that all absolutes lead to logical binds from which there is no escape. You can't abort or use stem cells even though this is perfectly rational. If humans were the slightest conscious of how they operate we wouldn't have this desperate clinging to absolutes that in the long run may be all that can save us from our psychotic neighbors.

Understood but your premise assumes these frozen embryos are human life and not a growing clump of cells that is not human life yet. Right now it is only opinion.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You catch your 13 year old with a beer he just opened. Do you let him drink it because it is already open? Or do you take it away because it is wrong for him to drink?
If you do let him drink it, what do you do when he drinks more because you said it was ok for him to finish that one beer?

No. It is more like you catch your 13 year old with a beer he just opened. Do you let him drink it because it is already open? Or do you drink the rest in front of him while telling him its bad?

I don't see how flushing the leftover embryos is any better than using them for research.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

You catch your 13 year old with a beer he just opened. Do you let him drink it because it is already open? Or do you take it away because it is wrong for him to drink?
If you do let him drink it, what do you do when he drinks more because you said it was ok for him to finish that one beer?

I do appreciate analogies, but comparing this issue to drinking beer is just silly. This issue is much more complex.

If we are going to use the beer example, however, a better question to ask would be, "do you throw away the beer and waste it, or do you finish it up yourself?"

Of course, like I said, neither is appropriate and does not reflect adequately the question at hand, IMO.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think this is a question about ethics, at least to the right.

If you think it is wrong to use embryos for research, then the fact that we have a bunch laying around doesn't mean we should use those. If it is ethically wrong to use them, then using them for any reason is wrong.

BTW: I think a lot of you mistake my stance on this. I am not a member of the religious right, I am first and foremost a fiscal conservative (small government and all that) my stance on moral issues is more towards the middle.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: XMan
I understand the profit issue, but that doesn't change the fact that you don't hear much about philanthropic assistance to the research. There are private grants out there. George Soros could probably spare a few million . . .

You mentioned 3 people. The foundation set up by the Gates and partially funded by Buffet for the most part is very focussed. As it related to health, they are looking at funding things like nuturican, malaria, diahhrea, etc. These health issues are not going to be cured by stem cell research. Thus Gates and Buffet are out.

I can't speak of Soros because I know nothing of what he funds.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think this is a question about ethics, at least to the right.

If you think it is wrong to use embryos for research, then the fact that we have a bunch laying around doesn't mean we should use those. If it is ethically wrong to use them, then using them for any reason is wrong.

BTW: I think a lot of you mistake my stance on this. I am not a member of the religious right, I am first and foremost a fiscal conservative (small government and all that) my stance on moral issues is more towards the middle.

I don't understand, why is using already existing frozen embryos any worse then throwing them away in the trash?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Hellokeith is from Texas... gotcha.

Uh, are you going to stalk me or something? :shocked:

It helps to understand the other person.. for example, I have never met a person that believes as people such as you, pabster, and profjon.

Knowing that you are from Texas helps a bit... him from Iowa helps a TON... etc.

How many people live in your town? 1000? 100?

I see, if live in a small town you can't possibly be intelligent, have any education nor any opinion of import :disgust:

Fern

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think this is a question about ethics, at least to the right.

If you think it is wrong to use embryos for research, then the fact that we have a bunch laying around doesn't mean we should use those. If it is ethically wrong to use them, then using them for any reason is wrong.

BTW: I think a lot of you mistake my stance on this. I am not a member of the religious right, I am first and foremost a fiscal conservative (small government and all that) my stance on moral issues is more towards the middle.

I'm confused. Actually, I think you're confused.

 

[piasabird]

Well you could be killing something that is already alive, and the embryos may belong to someone. I have seen some court cases in the past on who exactly owns the embryos.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Well you could be killing something that is already alive, and the embryos may belong to someone. I have seen some court cases in the past on who exactly owns the embryos.

When people go to IVF clinics, in the end, they are given a choice. The embryos can either be frozen for later use, donated for adoption or donated to scientific research. I believe the latter two each have around 10,000 donations.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: XMan
I understand the profit issue, but that doesn't change the fact that you don't hear much about philanthropic assistance to the research. There are private grants out there. George Soros could probably spare a few million . . .

You mentioned 3 people. The foundation set up by the Gates and partially funded by Buffet for the most part is very focussed. As it related to health, they are looking at funding things like nuturican, malaria, diahhrea, etc. These health issues are not going to be cured by stem cell research. Thus Gates and Buffet are out.

I can't speak of Soros because I know nothing of what he funds.

I bring those people up just as generalities; they are who I think of when I think of philanthropists.

The example of Fox giving several million of his own money to fund the research is what I look to.

I guess my whole problem with the whole thing is that you have one group of people who want to do the research, and they want the government to fund it.

Generally speaking I lthink that innovation comes from individuals and businesses rather than government. Just a philosophical difference on my part, but come on . . . this same government is the organization which features NASA, the IRS, and the BMV, none of which are shining examples of efficiency and innovation. Technological developments have come from NASA, but you could hardly say they've come about cheaply or efficiently.