CNN.com President Bush issues the first veto of his presidency

[Emilie]

:D :(

Senate approves embryo stem cell bill (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060718/ap_on_go_co/stem_cells_33)

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday after two days of emotional debate to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, sending the measure to President Bush for a promised veto that would be the first of his presidency.

The bill passed 63-37, four votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Bush's veto. The president left little doubt he would reject the bill despite late appeals on its behalf from fellow Republicans Nancy Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

It makes me so happy that this passed and at the same time, so disgusted that Bush would use his first veto after 6 years to basically tell people who would so greatly benefit from this research that they are less important than embryos that would be used in the research. To me, that isn't a culture of life.

Discuss.

[ejs]

I'm disgusted that Bush is going to veto this. I will never understand how anyone can be against the research use of embryos that will otherwise be destroyed.

[TazLuv]

I'm disgusted that Bush is going to veto this. I will never understand how anyone can be against the research use of embryos that will otherwise be destroyed.

TOTALLY AGREE!:mad:

[t3h_wookiee]

I agree also. :(

[IrisHope]

President Bush issues the first veto of his presidency, rejecting a bill to expand federal research on stem cells obtained from embryos.

[MLA]

Am I allowed to say dickwad on here? He's a dickwad.

:mad:

[ejs]

Does anyone know, off the top of your head, who the possible swing votes could be on overturning this veto? I'll do some research into it now. I know it's not my representatives, but I'm ready to make some calls and voice my opinion.

[allyray231]

You want kills me about all of this. The embryos are going the be destroyed ANYWAY!!! I mean give me a freakin break.

There is going to be a time in this country where we do have more stem cell research and we DO find cures and we look back and just shake our heads.

[artist]

Can I say dumbass in this thread?

[MLA]

Can I say dumbass in this thread?
If I can say dickwad, you can say dumbass.

The embryos are going the be destroyed ANYWAY!!! I mean give me a freakin break.

Yeah, but did you read about who he had with him when vetoing the bill? He had families with children who'd once been abandoned embryos. The children were adopted by families. Such a transparant political ploy.

[Jazz]

I'm so disappointed. I was really hoping it was an empty threat.

We need to be leaders in stem cell technology, not followers.

Here are links to the senate votes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00206) and the house votes (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll204.xml).

[ejs]

I'm so thankful that CA is allowing stem cell research. Having federal funding would help so much, but at least some research is going on.

[kedzieb]

I'm not sure if some of you have senators/reps who could be swing votes, but in NY both senators already voted yea. In fact the only Democrat or Independant senator who voted Nay was Nelson from Nebraska.

I can't tell you how angry this makes me. To think that stem cells that could help people figure out how to cure diseases or stop debilitating illnesses will instead just be discarded disgusts me. Who's pro-life now, Bush?

I don't see anyone coming out against in vitro - where a lot of these embryos are leftover - since it will turn off their middle-class supporters. And yet if you consider an embryo life, should you be railing against the wastefulness of that practice? And yeah, adoption isn't going to happen for every embryo.

[MLA]

One of my senators voted for the legislation and one (Dole) against. My representative voted for it (David Price), but he always votes the way I'd want him to vote.

I'm going to write to Dole, but I doubt she's going to change her position.

[Delta]

I disagree with the use of embryonic stem cells for research, period. I don't know how much this veto will actually stop the research though, because it is still going on via private funding.

That said, I think that the argument the administration used for their veto - that they don't want federal dollars spent on it - is a slippery slope. Lots of people don't want federal dollars spent on lots of different things.

[MLA]

I disagree with the use of embryonic stem cells for research, period.

Why? Is it a pro-life thing for you? If so, do you oppose IVF? If not, why is that different?

[wendalah]

This is an issue that I have not clearly defined a position on. I find it to be one of the more (personally) confusing ones. Just saying...not ready to call dickwad yet.

[artist]

I disagree with the use of embryonic stem cells for research, period. I don't know how much this veto will actually stop the research though, because it is still going on via private funding.

That said, I think that the argument the administration used for their veto - that they don't want federal dollars spent on it - is a slippery slope. Lots of people don't want federal dollars spent on lots of different things.

Interesting! Thank you for sharing that!

[ejs]

I disagree with the use of embryonic stem cells for research, period. I don't know how much this veto will actually stop the research though, because it is still going on via private funding.

So you prefer that the extra embryos are destroyed instead of possibly helping people?

[HeatherFL]

I am not debating, just giving my opinion.

I am not a proponent of this. I am a three time cancer survivor and I do not believe in embryonic stem cell research even if it could save my life in the future were I to relapse. I believe life starts at conception (and no, I am not religious in fact I am an Atheist) and that if it didn't none of us would be here. I don't believe in taking life in order to save a life. Again, not debating. Just my *opinion*. Believe me, I've heard all the other arguments.

Umbilical cord stem cells have been proven superior in studies. It harms no one to have these collected at birth and they are disposed of anyway if the parents don't make a request to save it. I believe the concentration on studies and tests should be on this much more than embryos. I have met a lot of people saved by umbilical cord stem cell transplants. I just don't think it's as "sexy" for the media so it's not reported on as much.

~H.

ETA TazLuv because you don't know when it stops. What happens when women start aborting their babies/fetuses/insert term you wish because research clinics are financially incentivizing women who will donate embryos? What happens when the couple who is trying and trying to have a baby in the back of their heads say, "Hey if it doesn't work it's okay, it'll go to research." Even if it's not what they would have thought to do in the first place. It's not all black and white and I get that. These things seem impossible and they're not. Anyway, you just wrote you don't understand how anyone could not support the research. And these are just a few of my many, many reasons.

[ThreeYell]

The Catholic church opposes IVF because of the possiblilty of creating embryos that won't have the chance to become a baby (at least that's what I was taught many moons ago in Catholic school). If you oppose IVF for that reason and have a similarly consistent life ethic then I respect your opposition to stem cell research. I disagree wholeheartedly but I respect it.

Bush cannot claim anything close to a consistent pro-life ethic so, yeah, total dumbass.

[ejs]

I am not debating, just giving my opinion.

I am not a proponent of this. I am a three time cancer survivor and I do not believe in embryonic stem cell research even if it could save my life in the future were I to relapse. I believe life starts at conception (and no, I am not religious in fact I am an Atheist) and that if it didn't none of us would be here. I don't believe in taking life in order to save a life. Again, not debating. Just my *opinion*. Believe me, I've heard all the other arguments.

Umbilical cord stem cells have been proven superior in studies. It harms no one to have these collected at birth and they are disposed of anyway if the parents don't make a request to save it. I believe the concentration on studies and tests should be on this much more than embryos. I have met a lot of people saved my umbilical cord stem cell transplants. I just don't think it's as "sexy" for the media so it's not reported on as much.

~H.

ETA TazLuv because you don't know when it stops. What happens when people start aborting their babies/fetuses/insert term you wish because research clinics are financially incentivizing women who will donate embryos? What happens when the couple who is trying and trying to have a baby in the back of their heads say, "Hey if it doesn't work it's okay, it'll go to research." Even if it's not what they would have thought to do in the first place. It's not all black and white and I get that. And again, I'm not at all trying to debate. You just wrote you don't understand how anyone could not support the research. And these are just a few of my many, many reasons.

So you're fine with the unused embryos being destroyed?

[IrisHope]

The Catholic church opposes IVF because of the possiblilty of creating embryos that won't have the chance to become a baby (at least that's what I was taught many moons ago in Catholic school). If you oppose IVF for that reason and have a similarly consistent life ethic then I respect your opposition to stem cell research. I disagree wholeheartedly but I respect it.

Bush cannot claim anything close to a consistent pro-life ethic so, yeah, total dumbass.

Totally agree!

[lawyerlee]

It makes absolutely no sense to me to say that you believe life begins at conception, but then allow existing embryos to be destroyed rather than used for what many believe to be a useful purpose. If they are going to be destroyed anyway, it is better that they be used for something potentially good rather than nothing. I don't happen to believe the whole "life begins at conception" thing personally, but if one does, I think the only intellectually rational view is to either promote a ban on the creation of these embryos in the first place or allow them to be used for research.

[kedzieb]

The Catholic church opposes IVF because of the possiblilty of creating embryos that won't have the chance to become a baby (at least that's what I was taught many moons ago in Catholic school). If you oppose IVF for that reason and have a similarly consistent life ethic then I respect your opposition to stem cell research. I disagree wholeheartedly but I respect it.

Bush cannot claim anything close to a consistent pro-life ethic so, yeah, total dumbass.

Exactly. It makes it seem like a cheap political stunt.

[wendalah]

Well, he did speak to the Pope about it earlier when educating himself on the issue, didn't he?

[ThreeYell]

Well, he did speak to the Pope about it earlier when educating himself on the issue, didn't he?

Did he? I didn't know that. IIRC, JPII had a few things to say about Iraq. Too bad Bush didn't listen to him.

[wendalah]

IIRC, JPII had a few things to say about Iraq. Too bad Bush didn't listen to him.


(Shrug) Agreed, but he's not a Catholic, so I wouldn't expect him to take Papal advice on everything.

[PinkMartini]

I believe life starts at conception and that if it didn't none of us would be here. I don't believe in taking life in order to save a life. Again, not debating. Just my *opinion*. Believe me, I've heard all the other arguments.

ITA!

[PG-rated]

It makes absolutely no sense to me to say that you believe life begins at conception, but then allow existing embryos to be destroyed rather than used for what many believe to be a useful purpose. If they are going to be destroyed anyway, it is better that they be used for something potentially good rather than nothing. I don't happen to believe the whole "life begins at conception" thing personally, but if one does, I think the only intellectually rational view is to either promote a ban on the creation of these embryos in the first place or allow them to be used for research.
ITA. I have a hard time getting behind the Vatican on this, but I do have a lot of respect for the consistency of their stance on this subject.

[TazLuv]

I too beleive life begins at conception. This bill specifically is stated to use embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. I don't think people should get pregnant just to use that embryo for scientific purposes. I don't think everyone that has extra embryos from IVF should have to give them to science but I do beleive they should have that choice. I think the inroads we could make with stem cells are huge and the research needs to be continued, with limits.

Someone mentioned cord stem cells, if they are viable (sorry I'm not versed on those) I wish people would make that better known as an alternative.

[katmg]

Someone mentioned cord stem cells, if they are viable (sorry I'm not versed on those) I wish people would make that better known as an alternative.

Yes, and as someone who has asked about donating cord stem cells - I wish there were more programs in place to do so. My hospital has discontinued their program and I couldn't find anyone who would come and collect/pick them up. :(

[Jazz]

What happens when women start aborting their babies/fetuses/insert term you wish because research clinics are financially incentivizing women who will donate embryos?

Heather, I know you said you didn't want to debate, but I just wanted to let you know that a separate bill was passed this week that forbids creating a fetus for the purpose of destroying it for research. A third bill was passed that encourages finding methods of stem cell research that do not involve embryos.

----

Speaking generally now, the thing that frustrates me most is that there seems to be an expectation that if we (the US) ban stem cell research, it's never going to happen. Perhaps I should say: my perception is that politicians who are against this bill want to project the image that they are trying to stop this research from occuring. But it is going to happen (arguably at a slower rate) -- the research is already happening.

If the treatments are successful, are those going to banned here too? Will we have to travel to Europe, Japan, etc. if we or a loved one needs treatment (thus making it a treatment available only to upper classes)? If you (general you) don't want treatment that's derived from stem cells, you can always turn it down. Why must other people be deprived who are okay with it be deprived? (And, I wonder how much people against this treatment know about the various neuro-degenerative disease that are expected to benefit from stem cell research? And whether they are protesting IVF clinics?)

If NIH if funding stem cell research, then "we" (via NIH) have a say in steering the research, and thinking about the very very important ethical questions. Though some states are leading the way -- go CA (and MA, I think) -- without NIH/gov't funding, the other major source of funding is industry. I am certainly not an "industry is evil" person, but the bottom line of a company is very different then the mission of NIH. (And don't even get me started on how important it is to our overall economy to be funding scientific research.)

Edited to fix clumsy wording!

[December27JJB]

How sad (but not surprising) he vetoed that bill.

[jenahdawn]

Both of our senators and my rep voted yea, which doesn't suprise me since my city is the location of one of the leading stem cell research centers.

I've always said that I can only make a choice for me and have no right to force others to believe what I think. I think others should be able to choose what they do with their embryos/cord blood, etc.

I also am firm that I think Congress needs to stay the hell out of my uterus.

[HeatherFL]

Heather, I know you said you didn't want to debate, but I just wanted to let you know that a separate bill was passed this week that forbids creating a fetus for the purpose of destroying it for research. A third bill was passed that encourages finding methods of stem cell research that do not involve embryos.


Thank you for the FYI! I was not aware of this.

So you're fine with the unused embryos being destroyed?


No. I'm not fine with any embryos being used/destroyed.

I do understand where people are coming from. It's not the easiest topic for me to reconcile head/heart considering my health history. However, at the end of the day I am opposed to destroying what I believe is the beginning of a life. Embryology wouldn't be a science if it weren't the study of life development. I don't want people to think I don't get it. I know both sides and I know the possible benefits. (My background is in Physics/Biology and Cancer Biology for which I studied cellular make-up, etc. extensively.) My conscience dictates that embryos are created to give life, not to be destroyed in order save others. I want to thank everyone for not turning this into an ugly thread. I really, really respect that.

For those interested, here are a few sites regarding Cord Blood Storage:

http://www.cryo-cell.com

http://www.parentsguidecordblood.com

http://www.familycordbloodservices.com

http://www.marrow.org/HELP/donate_cord_blood.html

~H.

[ejs]

No. I'm not fine with any embryos being used/destroyed.
So what do you think should be done with all of these leftover embryos? We should just store them forever?

[GeekGirl]

Umbilical cord stem cells have been proven superior in studies. It harms no one to have these collected at birth and they are disposed of anyway if the parents don't make a request to save it. I believe the concentration on studies and tests should be on this much more than embryos. I have met a lot of people saved by umbilical cord stem cell transplants. I just don't think it's as "sexy" for the media so it's not reported on as much.


In what studies have umbilical cord stem cells been proven superior? Because according to one of the top stem cell researches in the country, there is no evidence to support this:

Dr. Sean Morrison, the director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Stem Cell Biology and one of the top stem cell researchers in the country, wrote recently in the Detroit Free Press about another alternative to embryonic stem cells being touted – adult stem cells from umbilical cords. Dr. Morrison wrote: “Umbilical cord cells are used clinically only to replace blood-forming cells. There is no compelling evidence that these cells could ever be used to replace cells in other tissues. These cells are not an alternative to embryonic stem cells, which can replace any cell type in the body….That is why there is near universal agreement among respected scientists and patient advocacy groups that current restrictions [against embryonic stem cell research] should be relaxed.”

and

No credible clinical trial has ever treated Parkinson's disease with umbilical cord blood. The "adult stem cells" that have been used to treat some Parkinson's patients were from the brains of aborted human fetuses. Scientists would prefer not to use aborted human fetal tissue. That is one of the motivations behind attempts to develop alternative therapies using embryonic stem cells. The misguided idea that umbilical cord blood can replace embryonic stem cells makes it more difficult for Michigan scientists to pursue these alternatives.

From here (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=258723) and here (http://www.lifesciences.umich.edu/institute/stemcellpolicy.html), bolding mine.

[dionysia]

It can be argued that clinics already financial incentivize (sp?) women to donate eggs, so how is this different?

Di

[mili04]

Even though I knew it was going to happen, I am so disappointed with his veto.

[batgirl]

Umbilical cord stem cells have been proven superior in studies.
I was just coming on to say that this is not true. But I see that Geekgirl has already beat me to it.

Umbilical cord stem cells are very much inferior to embryonic stem cells since they can not differentiate into the numerous types of tissues that embryonic stems cells can.

I love how so many people believe life begins at conception... We actually have a stem cell line here in my lab... know where we keep it? At -150degrees C. Can you live at -150 degrees C? I sure can't (it burns the living crap out of your skin if you come into contact with it). Can the fetus that I'm currently carrying in my uterus (gestational age 7mos) survive at -150degrees C. Hell no. Can anything? Not really (at least without some help, i.e. bacteria)

And its so amusing to me that people think allowing stem cell research (federally funded) will cause woman to line up and try to sell their embryos :D
Frist (and santorum) just announced the "Fetal Farming" bill about this (it sounds like it passed? :rolleyes: ) Anyway, the closest they could find in scientific research supporting their claim was a british paper using a fetal cow! (gestational age 4mos). Fetal farming does not and will never exist (universities have very strict ethics boards that would NEVER allow this). This stupid legislation had one goal, to allow Frist to vote yes on embryonic stem cell research (I'm really pleased he did this, btw), but not tick off his fundie base for when he runs for president.

I am really upset that W is trying to keep us in the dark ages. Having a president that cares so much for potential life, but doesn't give a rat's behind once the person is actually here. Makes me sick... but what do you expect from a... what did we decide? Dickwad or Dumbass? Both apply :)

[allyray231]

I understand the issue BUT these embroys would otherwise be destroyed. Isn't it the right of the couple who has these embroys to do what they wish with them??

[TazLuv]

I understand the issue BUT these embroys would otherwise be destroyed. Isn't it the right of the couple who has these embroys to do what they wish with them??

This is my point - thanks for saying it clearly. Every time Bush has a press conference related to this issue he is surrounded by children that were born from adopted embryos. If people want to put their embryos up for adoption that is their choice, just like it is my choice to donate it to science and save people like my grandfather and my husband's grandmother that are both struggling with Alzheimers.

[allyray231]

This is my point - thanks for saying it clearly. Every time Bush has a press conference related to this issue he is surrounded by children that were born from adopted embryos. If people want to put their embryos up for adoption that is their choice, just like it is my choice to donate it to science and save people like my grandfather and my husband's grandmother that are both struggling with Alzheimers.


ITA!

[msnicolea]

People are just LYING about the science. I am so sick of the "embryonic stem cells aren't proven effective: argument. 1) It's not true and 2) Science is supposed to be EXPLORATORY! How can we find out the potential of something to heal if we aren't allowed to do the research?

The embryos being used for research will be and are being destroyed anyway. They are not "potential" life forms--they are fodder for the trash can.

[LyLMyssChaos]

batgirl~
This is a topic that I would expect that you know something about, so could you answer a question that I have about it? What do you know about the viability of using stem cells harvested from adults? I know that it obviously is more invasive and probably more costly, but how does the research on those types of cells stack up to the research on embryonic stem cells?

[MLA]

batgirl~
This is a topic that I would expect that you know something about, so could you answer a question that I have about it? What do you know about the viability of using stem cells harvested from adults? I know that it obviously is more invasive and probably more costly, but how does the research on those types of cells stack up to the research on embryonic stem cells?


Not batgirl, but here's what I've learned about this. Batgirl can chime in with more details, I'm sure. According to the NIH and other sources, adult stem cells cannot be harvested in great enough numbers to be very useful. The general consensus seems to be that they're not as versatile as embryonic stem cells, though there's some evidence indicating they may be a bit more versatile than at first thought. Here's some info from the NIH website:

Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. However, some evidence suggests that adult stem cell plasticity may exist, increasing the number of cell types a given adult stem cell can become.

Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.

A potential advantage of using stem cells from an adult is that the patient's own cells could be expanded in culture and then reintroduced into the patient. The use of the patient's own adult stem cells would mean that the cells would not be rejected by the immune system. This represents a significant advantage as immune rejection is a difficult problem that can only be circumvented with immunosuppressive drugs.

Embryonic stem cells from a donor introduced into a patient could cause transplant rejection. However, whether the recipient would reject donor embryonic stem cells has not been determined in human experiments.

[Jazz]

LMC -- the short answer is the reason that embryonic stem cells have so much research possibility is because they are "pluripotent," which means that it is not yet determined what type of cell they will develop into (becoming a type of cell is called "differentiating"). So, in theory, you could take an embryo, and make all the stem cells become liver cells, or cardiac tissue, etc.

Generally, adult stem cells are already organ specific. So, you might have a bone marrow stem cell that you could extract and use to make bone marrow, but you couldn't use it to make a liver. One big potential benefit of adult stem cell research is that you could potentially use your own adult stem cells (say you had Hep C, and your liver is failing) to regenerate a liver for yourself, and (most likely) wouldn't be at risk for rejecting that liver (of course, this wouldn't work for genetic diseases).

[HeatherFL]

So what do you think should be done with all of these leftover embryos? We should just store them forever?


There are programs (http://www.embryodonation.org/) in place where couples (who are comfortable with the decision to do so) can donate their unused embryos to others wishing to conceive. I find this a better alternative considering the point of creating the embryos was to produce a child in the first place.

Idealistic? Far-fetched? Sure. But it's happening. Look, I do understand the idea that it's the couples' embryo. They get to decide. It doesn't mean I have to agree with the decision.

I am so sick of the "embryonic stem cells aren't proven effective: argument.

I am not sure who was saying that in this thread or if you were referring to the public opposition, because I wasn't. I am not saying they aren't possibly effective. However, the science does argue the effectiveness of embryonic stem cells. Science is going to argue both ways. Some of you working in labs may of heard of Michael Shelanski. He's one of the directors at the Taub Institute (Columbia Univ Medical Center.) They research on Alzheimer's and the aging of the brain. He acknowledges the chance of doing repairs to Alzheimer's brains by putting in stem cells is small. I will see if I can find the article, but it's been put out there by many scientists and physicans. Science says two different things all of the time. It just depends on the scientist's particular biases.

And yes, there was recently a paper published (I *Believe* out of Michigan) stating that umbilical cord cells were found superior to embryonic in part due to the fact they were easier to control in various studies. They also don't trigger the same immune responses in the studies-less chance of tumor development. Researchers out of University of Sheffield (UK) concur with these ideas.

Many of us have been on message boards a long, long time...We know this thread can become 100 pages of articles, science, arguments, etc.. I know I'm not changing anybody's mind. And on this particular topic, mine probably isn't going to change either. Everyone is going to grasp onto the science that supports their ethical/moral/political beliefs and prejudices. "That's not true..." Well this article says it is. Well this says it's not. We just don't know. I don't see any proven treatments or cures from ESRC. I have seen it myself from adult stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell procedures. Potential doesn't equate to results. And they're just not there (eta: and because I am can be somewhat open-minded I am adding the word : YET.)

~H.

[batgirl]

I don't really have anything else to add, since Jazz and MLA explained it very well.

I did come across this article from the DailyKos yesturday (I know I know, its a "liberal" website, but it does explain stem cells and their promise very well with minimal snarkiness).

Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 06:02:57 AM PDT
With stem cells once again in the news and White House spokesman Tony Snow saying Bush's veto will be "pretty swift," it might be useful to talk about the science and promise of stem cell research, so that we can understand just what might be at stake.

Anytime you are injured, Adult Stem Cells (ASCs) create new tissue, as best they can, as part of the healing process. You have ACSs in your bone marrow, in your skin, in your liver, and so on. Each of those specialized ASCs can become new tissue, but only within the confines of the tissue they exist within. Liver Stem Cells can become new liver tissues, skin stem cells can become skin, etc. ASCs have limited plasticity.

Embryonic Stem Cells (ECS) can and do become any tissue. That's how you were crafted at the cellular level in your mothers womb, piece by microscopic piece, and throughout your childhood. Embryonic Stem Cells created your heart, your eyes, your brain, and everything else. Because ESCs can become any tissue, we would say they have much greater plasticity than ASCs.

Case in point: Spinal cord injury. It is estimated that a quarter of a million Americans suffer from some degree of spinal cord injury with close to 10,000 new SCIs reported each year. The estimated total lifetime medical expenses incurred for these individuals routinely tops one-million dollars. When the nerve tissue that makes up the spinal cord is damaged, there is very little, if any, regeneration. Neurotopia has more and with pretty pictures:

---------------
Stem cells represent a viable treatment option following spinal cord injury. Undifferentiated stem cells excrete a variety of neurotrophic factors that encourage axon growth, promote the replacement of damaged non-neural structures such as blood vessels, promote the breakdown of the glial scar, and temper inflammatory responses. Embryonic stem cells in particular have a penchant for adopting the glial phenotype, that is they will readily transform into the support cells required by neurons (e.g. astrocytes, oligodendrocytes) once they are transfused into the site of injury.
-----------------

Stem Cell research offers the promise of regrowing damaged spinal cords and for that matter, almost any other diseased tissue. Maybe even entire organs, specifically tailored for the patient, could be produced with applications that flow from stem cell research. The long term possibilities are dazzling; new limbs for amputees; new hearts or livers to replace those destroyed by disease; new retinas or even whole new eyes for the blind; brand new skin, scar-free, for burn victims. The potential breakthroughs dwarf any advance in medicine since the development of general surgery or antibiotics.

We do not know if these dream treatments will become a reality. What's critical to understand is that to develop any of them, we need government funded research into both ASC and ESC. Scientific discovery and innovation is serendipitous. We need to learn how to develop and program stem cells and to do that, a whole array of physiological questions must be answered about how to turn them on and off to become specific tissues and avoid rejection. ASC and ESC research provides that insight, the two work hand in hand. And the end product in many cases will almost certainly rely on research done on both types.

ESC lines come from material stored at fertility clinics which is already slated for destruction. Preventing these blastocysts from being used for research won't 'save' them. It simply means they'll be disposed of in a medical waste facility instead of being used to find cures for disease. The only reason to restrict federal approval of new lines is to appeal to a minority of extremist social conservatives and it comes at the cost of possibly delaying or denying treatment--and in some cases life itself--to millions of people.

http://www.olduvaigeorge.com/ds/250px-Blastocyst.jpg

http://www.olduvaigeorge.com/ds/260px-Baby.jpg

One more time for those in the back row: On the top is a blastocyst from which embryonic stem cell lines are made. It's ten times smaller than the dot at the end of this sentence and contains roughly 100 cells. On the bottom is a human baby, one of many who's life might someday be saved or greatly enhanced by treatments developed from ESC research. Any questions?

Our present federally approved embryonic stem cell lines are aging and contaminated. They're rapidly losing what little scientific value they had in the first place. Much research has been slowed to a crawl or stopped completely because of the peculiar ideological beliefs of a single man: George Bush. This despite the fact that the new, bipartisan legislation proposed in the House and Senate is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans from both parties.

Here is the link to neurotopia that was mentioned in the article. Its basically a neuroscience blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2006/07/stem_cells_for_spinal_cord_inj.php#more

Oh, and I had to edit the post just a bit 'cause I couldn't orient the pictures like they have them in the actual article, which is here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/19/9257/41450

[coquelicot]

I think the only intellectually rational view is to either promote a ban on the creation of these embryos in the first place or allow them to be used for research.
This is pretty much where I'm sitting on this issue. If people have a problem with a bunch of leftover embryos that will just be tossed, then they need to be against creating extras that the parents don't want while doing IVF. If they're going to be discarded anyway, why not let them be used for something more useful?

[Jazz]

There are programs (http://www.embryodonation.org/) in place where couples (who are comfortable with the decision to do so) can donate their unused embryos to others' wishing to conceive. I find this a better alternative considering the point of creating the embryos was to produce a child in the first place.
I'd like to think that, in the case I underwent IVF, I'd personally be able to make the decision donate leftover eggs to another couple. Honestly? I'm not sure I could. However, I am as certain as I can be without actually being in that position that I would donate them for scientific research.

Science says two different things all of the time. It just depends on the scientist's particular biases.
Biases is an awfully loaded word. I think "field of expertise" is generally more appropriate. While there are certainly scientists who bring their own actual biases into their research, I would argue that the vast majority have opinions that are based mainly on their experience and expertise.

Our federal funding system (for the most part) works really really well. Artificial restrictions do not benefit our society as a whole. If cord blood and adult stem cell are truly better than embryonic stem cells, they will rise to the top in the literature, in funding, in therapies.

Again, I know I mentioned this already, but just because we do not do the research in the U.S. does not mean it is not going to happen.

[msnicolea]

Our federal funding system (for the most part) works really really well. Artificial restrictions do not benefit our society as a whole. If cord blood and adult stem cell are truly better than embryonic stem cells, they will rise to the top in the literature, in funding, in therapies.

Again, I know I mentioned this already, but just because we do not do the research in the U.S. does not mean it is not going to happen.

Jazz, that is exactly what my DH and I were talking about last night. This research WILL continue and other nations' scientists will lead the charge. Looking back, this will be an embarassing time for this nation--a complete disrespect for science.

[batgirl]

I cross posted with HeatherFl and wanted to make a couple of comments about her post regarding umbilical stem cells...

No one is saying that umbilical cord cells don't have scientific promise. They most certainly do. But you are taking something very specific and applying it very broadly. Umbilical cord cells have been used successfully in several types of diseases, such as cancer, but since they can not differentiate into all types of tissues (as embryonic stem cells can) so are limited in their use.

Say a kid is diagnosed with leukemia, are umbilical cord cells going to be "superior" to ESCs? Maybe.

Say that kid's father has a shoddy liver and needs a new one, are umbilical cord cells going to be superior? Probably not...

Same with adult stem cells. Research needs to be done on ALL of these. So given the choice between my IVF blastocysts (if I had any) going to research or to the autoclave (since I personally would not offer them up for adoption), I would choice research. Absolutely.

[msnicolea]

Off topic: batgirl, I just "got" your avatar and now I'm giggling every time I look at it :-)

[Jazz]

Msnicolea, I like how you put it: "a complete disrespect for science".

Obviously I feel very strongly about this, it is just so frustrating. I mean, I can understand that some sizeable percentage of people in this country find stem cell research unacceptable. But, people also find animal testing unacceptable (and I don't mean to equate the two). In the case of animal testing, we let the scientific process work. We don't allow bad studies. Like batgirl said, no university would ever allow embryo farming (and the NIH would never fund it). Though, if it makes people feel better, I don't mind specifically outlawing it (same thing with cloning humans).

Slightly off-topic, but I just worry about where our economy is going to be in 10, 20, 50 years if we don't invest in the fundamental research now (there was a really good Newsweek on this topic a few weeks ago).

[MLA]

Off topic: batgirl, I just "got" your avatar and now I'm giggling every time I look at it :-)


Oh no. I just got it, too, thanks to your post. :D:eek::D

[msnicolea]

It's kinda naughty :cool:

I work in social science research and the hoops I have to go through to ensure particpant safety and ethical "soundness" are significant. More traditional, scientific research is held to even higher standards by Insitutional Review Boards, univerisities, and the federal governemnt. No studies that promoted or benefitted from "embryonic farming" would ever be allowed or funded. It's just another cop-out excuse.

[PG-rated]

There are programs (http://www.embryodonation.org/) in place where couples (who are comfortable with the decision to do so) can donate their unused embryos to others wishing to conceive. I find this a better alternative considering the point of creating the embryos was to produce a child in the first place.
But if people choose not to do that, you're OK with embryos being discarded? Because that's what's happening now, every day. I think that if you're going to support political action to keep people from donating unused embryos for research, then you should be supporting laws to keep embryos from being discarded. That's the only consistent stance I can see.

[ejs]

Along with parents being given the choice of what will be done with their extra embryos, the rest of us should be given a choice about what will be done with the research.

For those of you who are so against this, put a sticker on your drivers' license that says you don't ever want to reap the benefits of research done on embryonic stem cells. If you ever need an organ transplant or disease treatment that was developed from research on ESC, too bad, you were against it, remember?

Let the rest of us encourage, support, and benefit from this research.

How dare my President stand up there and tell me that his veto was the correct moral choice? Because I'm for this research, am I immoral? Is it fair for me to say that I think people who are against this are immoral?

It's wrong to tell a couple that they must place their extra embryos up for adoption. It's unrealistic to think that every extra IFV embryo is going to be adopted. So, my question again to all of you who are against this research, what should we do with the extras?

As someone pointed out, we could all come here and post scientific articles. I'm sure we can all give personal stories of illness and how we, or loved ones, could benefit from this research.

If you're against this, fine. But how dare you prevent it from happening? How dare you prevent other people from getting help?

[LyLMyssChaos]

If you're against this, fine. But how dare you prevent it from happening? How dare you prevent other people from getting help?

I think the important thing to remember is that this veto is not preventing the research from being done, it is just preventing using government money to do so. Despite this veto, the research will continue (albeit at a slower pace) I think that those of you that DO support it could look into ways to donate/raise funds to help support it.

[HeatherFL]

But if people choose not to do that, you're OK with embryos being discarded? Because that's what's happening now, every day. I think that if you're going to support political action to keep people from donating unused embryos for research, then you should be supporting laws to keep embryos from being discarded. That's the only consistent stance I can see.

No, I'm not okay with them just being discarded. Either way it's a no win to me. Discarded because the couple no longer needs them or destroyed in the name of science? I'm not claiming to have all the answers. How do I say, "Sure go ahead! Throw them away!" and think that's okay? I don't. But how do I say, "Go ahead, destroy something that I believe to be a life because you think it *might* save someone in the future." I understand how you reconcile which politics I should be supporting because of my beliefs, but it's just not that cut and dry as I am sure it's not that way for those supporting ESCR.

It's wrong to tell a couple that they must place their extra embryos up for adoption. It's unrealistic to think that every extra IFV embryo is going to be adopted.
I agree. It is wrong to tell a couple what to do. I wasn't implying that they should be forced into doing that. I also agree that it's unrealistic to expect every extra embryo will be donated/adopted. I'm just saying that I would rather this happened than the alternative. I'm not saying it will happen. I acknowledge this is idealistic. It doesn't mean I can't think it's a better option.

If you're against this, fine. But how dare you prevent it from happening? How dare you prevent other people from getting help?

Because to me it is the destruction of a life. How dare you tell me not to defend what I BELIEVE to be life? Because it's not in the correct stage of existence for your definition of life? Because, MAYBE destroying these embryos can help save lives in the future? So what you're saying is destroy what I believe to be the beginning of a life to save another. Maybe you can't grasp why I feel this way, but I do. I don't find it acceptable to end that existence to POSSIBLY save another.

For those of you who are so against this, put a sticker on your drivers' license that says you don't ever want to reap the benefits of research done on embryonic stem cells. If you ever need an organ transplant or disease treatment that was developed from research on ESC, too bad, you were against it, remember?
Yes. You are right. And I wouldn't. And you are also right, I can give a personal story and I have. I've had three different forms of cancer. And this embryonic stem cell research can *possibly* save my life in the future if I relapse. But at the cost of my ethics and morals? At the cost of (again, what I believe to be) other lives? I wouldn't accept it. If someone murdered my brother to give me a kidney because I'm in kidney failure, I wouldn't take it either.

I'm a broken record here and I realize I'm getting nowhere. It's a life to me. I don't have all the answers, I'm not pretending to. I don't think anyone is wrong for wanting hope. I believe there are better alternatives to be explored and that the science is not and has not lived up to the hype. Again, promising does not equate to PROOF.

~H.

[ejs]

I think the important thing to remember is that this veto is not preventing the research from being done, it is just preventing using government money to do so. Despite this veto, the research will continue (albeit at a slower pace) I think that those of you that DO support it could look into ways to donate/raise funds to help support it.
I know the research is still being done. I said in an earlier post that I'm grateful I live in a state that is doing it. But let's be serious, we all know that federal funding would help immensely.

[Delta]

As far as I know, this veto is not preventing anyone from donating their embryos to any party they so choose to be used in any way they want. It's just not going to be federally funded.

I understand completely the practical reasoning - if they are going to be discarded anyway why not use them for research? I'm not dense and it does make sense. But on principle I can't just be 'OK' with it.

And from what I understand, based on what people I know who've undergone IVF have said, most reputable places don't just trash unused embryos anyway. They are either donated to other couples or frozen indefinitely. Any that are discarded are not suitable for implantation or research.

If you ever need an organ transplant or disease treatment that was developed from research on ESC, too bad, you were against it, remember?I would think that those of us who are against it have certainly thought about these implications, come to terms with it, and are certainly OK with it. This point is not novel.

But as I stated in my first post, this veto makes me uncomfortable - especially knowing that it was the only veto he's ever used. The bill was passed - a compromise on the issue was reached. I can respect that. (I know this sounds so squishy of me. This is when my faith and principles start battling it out with my political pragmatism in my brain.) Someone else earlier here mentioned that there are many people who are against animal testing (I am somewhat, and am getting more so) but I'd feel uncomfortable with a president outright vetoing a compromise bill that dealt with that issue in order to placate a portion of his base (PETA, etc.)

[Jazz]

I believe there are better alternatives to be explored and that the science is not and has not lived up to the hype. Again, promising does not equate to PROOF.

The science hasn't been allowed to happen, so it's incorrect to say it hasn't lived up to the hype. It simply hasn't had the opportunity; this is research that will take many years.


I think the important thing to remember is that this veto is not preventing the research from being done, it is just preventing using government money to do so.
and
As far as I know, this veto is not preventing anyone from donating their embryos to any party they so choose to be used in any way they want. It's just not going to be federally funded.

Unless there have been recent changes, part of the earlier restrictions state that no facilities / equipment / etc. can be used for stem cell research and also obtain federal funding for other research.

In other words, say Prof. X has a successful lab which researches cord blood stem cells. She has encountered an issue that can't be solved with cord blood cells, but the literature indicates embryonic stem cells would be successful. She would like to apply to the Michael J. Fox Foundation (independent of gov't money) for exploratory funding to evaluate her idea. Unfortunately, she cannot use her lab facilities, or she will be unable to obtain federal funding in the future (and may have to repay some of her earlier grants). MJFF can't afford to give her a grant that will allow her to build an entire separate building so she can carry out the research elsewhere. Thus, she cannot do the exploratory research.

The academic research system depends on being able to use past resources (equipment, methods, knowledge gained, etc.) for new research. While methods and knowledge can't be (entirely) regulated, equipment is very expensive (not to mention new space), and so there are consequences beyond the simple absence of federal funding. Not to mention the huge waste of $ involved in building new buildings / separate labs for the few who are getting private donations.

[batgirl]

Jazz well said! You are exactly right.

I wish it was as easy as "just go get some private funds", but it really isn't feasible. If someone in academia has an established lab and decides to begin research using ESCs, they are not allowed to use ANY of the items in his lab for this research that were purchased thru startup funds (funds given by the university to help start up a new hires lab) or NSF and NIH funds. He/She would have to buy new freezers (new -80degree freezers are a minimum of $6000 a piece), incubators (cheaper ones are about $3,000), tissue culture hood ($5-10,000), water baths, centrifuges, computers, and supplies (glassware, pipets, pippetors). The costs are enormous...

I don't mean to repeat what Jazz has already mentioned. I just want people to understand that banning federally funded research is almost insurmountable.

I know that this is a sensitive subject, and HeatherFL tried her best to explain how she feels. It is hard to define the beginning of life (especially if you believe in souls and such), but the majority of people in the US (like 72%) support stem cell research. It is going to happen (hopefully as soon as we get this dumbass out of office).

I just wish George Bush cared as much about the US soldiers, the Iraqi citizens, the poor and elderly in this country that are established living breathing human beings as he does about blastocysts...

[msnicolea]

Amen, ejs!

[ginadc]

I think the important thing to remember is that this veto is not preventing the research from being done, it is just preventing using government money to do so. Despite this veto, the research will continue (albeit at a slower pace) I think that those of you that DO support it could look into ways to donate/raise funds to help support it.

Research will continue, just at a slower pace. Well, gosh, that's just so reassuring to people who are watching their limbs atrophy now, who are progressively losing control of their muscles now, who are dying now. My mother has an unknown neurological disease, my father had polio and can barely walk anymore, and I know that there's probably no way any research involving stem cells could move along quickly enough to help them at this point. But if scientists hadn't been hamstrung by these ridiculous research restrictions--who knows? And ten, 20, 30 years from now, I don't want to be saying the same thing about someone else's parents--or myself, or my child.

Batgirl and Jazz have already explained how the ban on federally funded research ends up doing far more than just denying X amount of dollars to this science. One of the original stem cell scientists, Dr. Thomson, once explained it to me as like having to keep a kind of "scientific kosher"--you have to keep totally separate labs and nothing from the stem cell lab can cross over into the funded lab. Not to mention which, federally-funded research--such as that from the NIH--in total dollars absolutely dwarfs the money given by private funders, even huge foundations. The available money just isn't in the same league. I do donate to the Christopher Reeve Foundation, but if you think that individual donations, and even big foundations, are going to make up for the loss of many millions of dollars in available federal funding, you don't really know very much about how medical research happens in this country.

And I am just wildly amused at the irony of saying that stem cell research "hasn't lived up to its promise"--when Bush has basically put a ball and chain and shackles around it. This just makes me livid.

[LyLMyssChaos]

I didn't realize that they would also be prohibited from using any equipment that they already had to further their research. I don't know that I agree with that so much. I just can't bring myself to agree with the testing of embryonic stem cells because I do believe that it is destroying life. It is an issue that took me a long time to come to terms with because I know that both my father and myself could benefit greatly from advances in that area, but I wouldn't feel right accepting that benefit.

[LIZNKEITH]

I really haven’t made up my mind on this subject so it’s interesting reading both sides of the argument.

We can argue about whether abortion is right or wrong until we are blue in the face. It’s not going to change the fact that it is currently legal. As long as it is legal, I see no reason why these embryos can’t be used for research. Should it be Federally funded? I dunno. It doesn’t seem right to me for the government to fund something that so many people are against. After all, it’s not the government that is footing the bill, it’s the American Taxpayer.

I know one poster mentioned she wanted to donate umbilical cord blood, but her hospital wasn’t a participant in the program. They don’t have to be, as mine wasn’t either. I used Cryobanks International ( http://www.cryobanksinternational.com/) who sent a courier to pick it up. I just had to clear it with my OB in advance who was more than enthusiastic to collect it.

[MLA]

It doesn’t seem right to me for the government to fund something that so many people are against. After all, it’s not the government that is footing the bill, it’s the American Taxpayer.

That's a misconception, though. The polls show that something like 72% of the American public wants this research to happen. I think it's not right for the government NOT to fund research that so many taxpayers want.

[katmg]

I know one poster mentioned she wanted to donate umbilical cord blood, but her hospital wasn’t a participant in the program. They don’t have to be, as mine wasn’t either. I used Cryobanks International ( http://www.cryobanksinternational.com/) who sent a courier to pick it up. I just had to clear it with my OB in advance who was more than enthusiastic to collect it.

Thanks Liz! I will definitely look into that! :D

[PG-rated]

I just wish George Bush cared as much about the US soldiers, the Iraqi citizens, the poor and elderly in this country that are established living breathing human beings as he does about blastocysts...
Anyone see The Daily Show last night? They had a nice black-comedy bit about this, juxtaposing Bush's extreme concern for embryos with his offhand comment that "about 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, more or less." Jon Stewart's conclusion was that the stem-cell proponents should repackage this research as "The War on TERRORble Diseases," and should define the "enemies" as "Osama bin Parkinson's" and "Mamoud Al-Zheimer's" and they'd immediately get billions of dollars of federal funding. ;)

[LIZNKEITH]

That's a misconception, though. The polls show that something like 72% of the American public wants this research to happen. I think it's not right for the government NOT to fund research that so many taxpayers want.

If that's the case, let's put it to a vote. I’m in. As long as I don’t see women offered incentives to abort their unborn children and soft-lit ad campaigns encouraging women to do so. I still *hate* abortion. The very thought sickens me. But as long as it’s being done and something good could come out of it…why not?

You're welcome, katmg! :) They'll send you a collection kit you just bring to the hospital. You call them when you are on your way so they can prepare a courier. Then, you call within and hour or two of delivering so they can pick it up.

[MLA]

If that's the case, let's put it to a vote. I’m in. As long as I don’t see women offered incentives to abort their unborn children and soft-lit ad campaigns encouraging women to do so. I still *hate* abortion. The very thought sickens me. But as long as it’s being done and something good could come out of it…why not?

We did put it to a vote -- in the House and the Senate. That's how we vote. And in that vote, it passed.

And as far as incentivising goes, I just don't see that happening. There are SO many embryos that are by-products of IVF that go unused, I just don't see any sort of demand for women to abort their fetuses.

Oh, and I've had an abortion. Sorry to sicken you. But the point is that aborted fetuses aren't what would be being used. It would be IVF embryos that are left over being used.

[allyray231]

I just can't bring myself to agree with the testing of embryonic stem cells because I do believe that it is destroying life. .

So it is ok for these people to just throw out the embryo's they don't need? that isn't the same thing to you??

[chefker]

Because it's not in the correct stage of existence for your definition of life? Because, MAYBE destroying these embryos can help save lives in the future? So what you're saying is destroy what I believe to be the beginning of a life to save another. Maybe you can't grasp why I feel this way, but I do. I don't find it acceptable to end that existence to POSSIBLY save another.




I respect that everyone's going to have an individual opinion on this, but I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around this. It sounds like there is more value placed on an embryo than on an existing human being. And, just because an embryo has the potential to develop into a human being, does NOT mean that it WILL.

My father has just had testing done, as the doctors suspect possible Alzheimer's. Initial tests have not been favorable, so we are seeking a second opinion, but it's hard to be hopeful. Obviously I'm looking at this from a very emotional point of view, but I almost feel like the Bush administration is thumbing its nose at our elderly (my dad is 62...technically not even a 'senior citizen' yet!) Stem cell testing *could* help people like my dad. But since he is old and 'past his prime' perhaps he is not a priority anymore.

I realize that it's probably NOT that simple, but it really feels like the elderly are 'disposable' in our country, while hypothetical potential humans, in the form of frozen embryos, have more rights and protections afforded to them. Actually, the plight of the elderly is a WHOLE 'nother issue....but it is very much connected to the issue of stem cell research.

[MLA]

Chefker -- I just wanted to say that I'm really sorry to hear about your dad. My thoughts will be with you.

And you make a good point about the value of a potential life versus an elderly life. It's just not right, in my eyes.

[ejs]

Why is abortion being brought up in this discussion? To me, that's a completely different issue.

[dionysia]

Call me immoral, but I will choose trying to save Chefker's dad over a potential life/embryo any day.

Di

[allyray231]

Chefker (((HUGS))) I am so sorry about your dad.

[ejs]

I think that I'm a fairly reasonable and rational person. I also think that I'm good at seeing the other side of issues. For example, while I will never agree with pro-choice opponents, I think I can see where they're coming from.

For this issue, though, I have not been able to even remotely understand the other side. I truly cannot comprehend how someone can be against this. If it was a fact that all unused embryos would be adopted, then I might be able to understand it. But many are being destroyed. I don't understand how anyone can be against using them for research instead of being destroyed.

DH and I discussed this issue for a few hours last night. We tried to come up with the arguments for the opponents. But none of them make any logical sense to me.

[msnicolea]

I am so sorry to hear of your father's potential diagnosis, chefker. We can only help that research in this country will be allowed to flourish and that people like your dad will reap the rewards of science and discovery very soon.

[Jazz]

ITTTTTA, ejs. I was just thinking along those lines this afternoon.

And, forget the inconsistency of being against ESCR but not against IVF, what about the various birth control methods that work by not allowing an embryo to implant? I would expect that death by drowning down the toilet would be a worse crime than contributing to scientific knowledge ...

[HeatherFL]

It sounds like there is more value placed on an embryo than on an existing human being. And, just because an embryo has the potential to develop into a human being, does NOT mean that it WILL.

NO, I am not saying one is more important than the other. I am saying they are equal. And therefore, one should not be destroyed to save the other. In several studies to include diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer many reputable scientists/researchers do not believe embryonic stem cells will help. Many do. I understand all of this. However, there has been not one remission/cure published, animal or human, from ESCR. Umbilical cord stem cells, Adult stem cells (which have helped in 72 different diseases so far), yes. So I feel since we already have results the money should be concentrated on what has worked time and again. Umbilical Cord Stem Cell Research is also novel. It's not something that has been around forever. Yet we want to spend our money on what many scientists on both sides of this issue do agree upon--something (embryonic stem cells) harder to control that has caused tumors in many of the studies. Just because an embryo has the potential to cure someone does not mean that it will either. I understand people want the chance to find out. I sound like a broken record here...but at the cost of what you don't believe to be a human being because it's not in the "right" stage of life doesn't make it any less of a human being TO ME.

Chefker, I am not insensitive to what your father is going through. And I am so sorry to read of his diagnosis. And maybe that seems hollow to you because of where I stand on this issue. My father is 60 years old and I can't imagine what it would be like. I consider that young. Bush is 60 years old. Believe me, I am not defending Bush (I am a registered independent for the record), but being that he is in that age range I don't quite agree with the argument that he is overlooking people past their primes.

There are SO many embryos that are by-products of IVF that go unused, I just don't see any sort of demand for women to abort their fetuses.

I believe the paper I read referred to diabetes alone, but the estimate was that every single couple in the U.S. would have to donate an embryo just to complete the research needed to find treatments/cures. I'll see if I can pull it. I know I should write this stuff down. I just tend to keep it in my head.

Call me immoral, but I will choose trying to save Chefker's dad over a potential life/embryo any day.

The point is, to those of us opposing ESCR it is already a life. I GET that others don't think that. I don't think a human being's life outside of the womb is more important than a human being in the developing stages of life.

~H.

[MLA]

HeatherFL -- I appreciate that you've obviously spent some time thinking about this subject and forming your stance. I appreciate that you've explained your views so thoroughly and well. If you've already answered this question, I'm sorry to ask it again, but I don't remember reading a response from you.

Do you think that IVF should not be allowed since many embryos are discarded in the process? If you believe that IVF is acceptable, how do you reconcile that with your views on ESCR?

And another question (brought up by Jazz) -- how do you feel about birth control methods that inhibit the implantation of an embryo? Do you believe in using only barrier methods? Again, if not, how do you reconcile that with your views on ESCR?

[jnettie]

Couple things here:

Yet we want to spend our money on what many scientists on both sides of this issue do agree upon--something (embryonic stem cells) harder to control that has caused tumors in many of the studies.
The nature of science is that scientists don't always agree. That's why they're all out there testing different things, compairing and reviewing each other's work, and looking into new and different ways to come to various conclusions. In fact, I'd be really suspect of a room full of scientist that agreed on everything.


On aborted fetuses...um, I can't imaging any reputable researcher or doctor providing insentives to a woman to abort her fetus *just* for scientific research. As someone who is pro-choice, I find the idea this sort of practice completely horrific! Now, that's not to say that aborted fetuses haven't been used for research in the past (don't know if this is currently in practice), but simply as a side effect, so to speak, and always at the woman's discretion.

Fertilized embryos for stem cell research would be coming from IVF clinics...a place that exists to help couples who have trouble concieving children do so. They are not in the abortion business. At all.

the estimate was that every single couple in the U.S. would have to donate an embryo just to complete the research needed to find treatments/cures. I'll see if I can pull it. I know I should write this stuff down. I just tend to keep it in my head.
Well, I don't have numbers, only hearsay from DH, but usually there are 5-6 additional fertilized eggs left over from any given IVF treatment. There are usually so many, that in DH's clinic they had to have a time limit they'd keep embryos frozen before they'd be either use for research or destroyed because there just wasn't room.

Personally, as for this particular bill, I think that the President would need to also push for a ban on IVF given his reasons. And adoption of embryos is such a sticky, legal mess. Hardly any couples who go through IVF are willing to do this.

[ginadc]

Heather, you should check your list of "72 proven cures." That comes from a list put out by a guy named David Prentice, who admitted to the Chicago Tribune that there were errors in it and "some things just got stuck in" after he was called on the inaccuracy of the list by three leading stem cells scientists writing in Science last week, who noted that most of the treatments on the list "remain unproven." (Prentice, BTW, used to be a professor of life sciences at Indiana U, but is now a fellow at the extremely conservative Family Research Council--not exactly a pure science, agenda-free organization.)

The Trib notes that Prentice is one of the only published scientists arguing that adult stem cells are better, and even interviews adult stem-cell proponents who say that this point is just wrong and misleading. For example:

Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the stem cell center at the Oregon Health and Science University, is a Catholic who objects to research involving the destruction of embryos and is seeking alternative ways of making stem cells. But Grompe said there is "no factual basis to compare the promise" of adult stem cells and cells taken from embryos.

To explain why adult stem cells and umbilical cord cells, while extremely useful, do not have the same potential as embryonic stem cells, I'll defer to the father of a friend of mine. He also happens to be the outgoing president of Caltech and one of the youngest-ever Nobel laureates, David Baltimore. In an article in Science, he and a colleague put it this way:

Broadly, stem cells are rare cells that renew themselves and, in addition, give rise to differentiated cells. Some, from adult tissues, have multiple but usually restricted developmental potency: Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), for example, normally make only blood cells; multipotent brain stem cells make only brain cells. ESCs, in contrast, are derived from cells isolated from the inner cavity of the blastocyst: an early embryo that cannot develop further unless it successfully implants in the uterus. These cells are pluripotent: Given an encouraging environment, they can develop into any cell type; although so far in culture they have been unable to form whole organs, much less bodies.

It would be convenient if pluripotent cells persisted into adulthood. Unfortunately, most (but not all) published accounts suggesting adult stem cell pluripotency have not successfully established that one type can produce a cell of another tissue type. Indeed, although HSCs capable of regenerating the blood can be isolated from adults or fetuses, so far brain stem cells capable of robust growth and transplantability have come only from fetal or ESC sources. This is likely to be true for a number of tissues; fetal stem cells are much more active than postneonatal cells. A moratorium on research and/or transplantation of fetal stem cells could thus be devastating. As for the search for pluripotent adult stem cells, it is always possible, perhaps even likely, that further research might reveal a source. But that is simply a hope, and it would be foolish to abandon the surer path for the unproven one.

Dr. Baltimore is also one of 80 Nobel laureates who have, along with the presidents of most major research universities in this country, written to Bush to explain why adult stem cells have markedly different potential than embryonic stem cells.

If you have a moral problem with the use of embryonic stem cells, fine, say so. But don't distort the science in order to bolster your position. If you really feel so strongly that a pinpoint-dot-sized frozen embryo sitting in a fertility clinic's freezer has all the same rights and moral claims as chefker's dad, or my dad, or a teenager with a spinal cord injury, or a woman with Parkinson's, then you should be able to proudly say "I don't care that embryonic stem cells have enormous potential for treatment, I still oppose it because I think it's wrong." Not--"Oh well, there are other options that work better so we don't need them." Because--there aren't, and we do.

[ejs]

In CA, Schwarzenegger did a good thing.

SACRAMENTO
Governor OKs stem cell research funds
Schwarzenegger authorizes loans for $150 million
Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

Friday, July 21, 2006
(07-21) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger authorized $150 million in loans to the state's stem cell agency one day after President Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

The governor's action Thursday quadruples the amount of money available in the state to begin research on stem cells, which scientists believe hold extraordinary promise to cure diseases. It also carries political benefits for Schwarzenegger, who has distanced himself from the deeply unpopular Republican president.

"The governor is a longtime supporter of stem cell research," said Adam Mendelsohn, Schwarzenegger's communications director, who said there were no politics at work in the Republican governor's decision. "The governor felt that there was a risk that the industry and movement would be set back by the veto, and he wants California to be a leader in industry."

Proposition 71, passed by state voters in 2004, authorized up to $3 billion over 10 years for stem cell research, but opponents have sued to block the measure.

A lower-court ruling earlier this year upheld the constitutionality of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, but that decision is being appealed, and bonds cannot be sold to the general public while the litigation is pending.

In the meantime, the agency's bond-financing board approved $200 million to be sold privately. Private foundations are expected to buy $50 million, and the state now will step in to buy the other $150 million.

"We can no longer wait to fund this important research," Schwarzenegger said in a letter authorizing the general fund expenditure. "California is poised to lead not only this country, but all countries, on stem cell research."

Bush's veto means that no federal money can be used to create new stem cell lines, which are formed from human embryos. The state money would be used to finance labs that could work on embryonic stem cells.

Dr. Zach Hall, president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, said the move will allow California to be at the forefront of the worldwide research on stem cells.

"With one stroke, the governor has energized stem cell research in California," Hall said. "This is the new frontier in biomedical research, and the United States needs to be working in it. California will become a surrogate for the nation's efforts."

Schwarzenegger, who is running for re-election in November, has been vocal in his disagreement with Bush on this issue. The governor sent the president a letter urging him not to veto the bill, and while he was speaking Wednesday in San Francisco, the governor noted that his father-in-law suffers from Alzheimer's disease, one of the maladies scientists hope can someday be cured through research from embryonic stem cells.

More than 70 percent of Americans surveyed in public opinion polls support research into embryonic stem cells.

[HeatherFL]

ginadc
Heather, you should check your list of "72 proven cures." That comes from a list put out by a guy named David Prentice..."
I wanted to address this first, because you are exactly right. I am very aware of David Prentice and the group Do Not Harm, he belongs to. In fact I believe several scientists also criticized him recently in The Washington Post. This was a very bad typo on my part (believe it or not) as I meant to type 7+ NOT 72. 7+ diseases and I do apologize for that error.
If you really feel so strongly that a pinpoint-dot-sized frozen embryo sitting in a fertility clinic's freezer has all the same rights and moral claims as chefker's dad, or my dad, or a teenager with a spinal cord injury, or a woman with Parkinson's, then you should be able to proudly say "I don't care that embryonic stem cells have enormous potential for treatment, I still oppose it because I think it's wrong." Not--"Oh well, there are other options that work better so we don't need them." Because--there aren't, and we do.

I do feel this strongly and it's not a matter of pride. It's a matter of being able to take a stance that doesn't compromise my morals and values. You're making an assumption that these other stem cell treatments aren't better. ESCR studies haven't proven anything either way. Other treatments have produced results. ESCR hasn't thus far.

Go tell my friend who just lost her pregnancy it doesn't matter because it was just a bunch of cells anyway. Tell the women who have had involuntary miscarriages they were just pin-point sized embryos. Oh well, they don't mean as much.

The nature of science is that scientists don't always agree. That's why they're all out there testing different things, compairing and reviewing each other's work, and looking into new and different ways to come to various conclusions. In fact, I'd be really suspect of a room full of scientist that agreed on everything.

I wasn't implying that ALL scientists agree on this. I'm just saying it's been put out there by researchers on both sides of the coin with no religious or political agendas.

MLA
Do you think that IVF should not be allowed since many embryos are discarded in the process? If you believe that IVF is acceptable, how do you reconcile that with your views on ESCR?

I'm giving these replies from MY point of view as someone who believes life starts at conception. I'm not saying that others believe this way. I personally do not believe in IVF (not only because of pro-choice/pro-life factors, but those factors aren't relevant to list here.) At the same time I realize that the option is out there and that it's a couples' decision to pursue this if they haven't been able to conceive. I am no expert on IVF. I know it is regulated somewhat differently in the UK and there are limits on the number of embryos which can be replaced. I would like to see this taking place in the U.S.. According to what jnettie's DH says there are many left over embryos which are either discarded or used for research. I don't know that it's necessary so many are being created for implantation at the same time. HOWEVER, I understand that only a certain percentage of eggs are fertilized, etc.. I just think it's possible measures can be taken to minimize the number of leftover embryos.

The only thing I can think to compare this to is voluntary abortion. I do not believe in voluntary abortion. I do think it is ending a life. However, I do not want it to be illegal despite my moral/ethical issues with it. At the same time, I think it could be better regulated in this country as far as some doctors' clinics/sanitation/etc.. That is how I reconcile this even if it seems weak. It is legal, it is an option and I'd rather it be practiced under the best possible conditions from counseling to sanitary clinics.

how do you feel about birth control methods that inhibit the implantation of an embryo? Do you believe in using only barrier methods? Again, if not, how do you reconcile that with your views on ESCR?
I'm assuming you're talking about BCPs. Again, it's an option now and it's legal. (Obviously) It is used for other medical reasons in addition to preventing pregnancy. The intent is to prevent ovulation in the first place. This I am okay with. When a woman does become pregnant the percentage of miscarriage is similar to women not taking the pill. I understand that it can stop an embryo from being implanted and I am not lessening the loss here. It's not something that can be 101% reconciled without any type of hypocrisy and/or concession.

Embryos used for ESCR are intentionally created in test tubes/pitri dishes. If they are leftover because they're no longer wanted we just go ahead and destroy them in the name of science.

So maybe I answered your question and maybe I didn't. If Bush hadn't vetoed the vote and everything had passed I'd have to probably do the same-make concessions even though it contradicts my beliefs.

Again, maybe it makes sense. Maybe not. I know I'm not changing minds here and I'm not trying to.

I am going out of town for a week and won't be keeping up with the thread until after I get back, so if people do address me with questions and I don't answer right away this is why.

Take care,

~H.

edited to fix quote boxes

[ejs]

Go tell my friend who just lost her pregnancy it doesn't matter because it was just a bunch of cells anyway. Tell the women who have had involuntary miscarriages they were just pin-point sized embryos. Oh well, they don't mean as much.

Go tell my mom that her life isn't important enough for research to be done on embryos that would be discarded. Oh you can't; she's dead. Go tell Chefker's dad that curing his Alzheimer's isn't worth doing research on embryos that would otherwise be destroyed.
That road goes both ways.

You keep saying that embryonic stem cell research hasn't proven to do anything. Could that be because enough research hasn't been done?

[HeatherFL]

That road goes both ways.
That was the point.
Could that be because enough research hasn't been done?

I get the point. I've been writing that over and over. *I* am just giving one viewpoint and think it's better to use the dollars on things that are working instead of research that has been shown to do nothing but provide potential thus far.

I GET IT. I DO! You want the chance to see if it can be something more than promising by using these embryos. I still get it. I got it the day this thread started, I'll get it tomorrow and next month. I will still respect that you have an opinion on this. I just won't agree with it.

We can all keep beating our dead horses here. I'm not sure what the point of it will be, but I'm not trying to negate anyones' feelings. Just trying to explain those aren't the only feelings that are legitimate. I may not be majority but I'm entitled to feel how I feel.

~H.

[ginadc]

I may not be majority but I'm entitled to feel how I feel.


Sure you are. But you're not entitled to keep potential treatments and cures from other people because of how you feel.

I think this thing is going to backfire on the Republicans in a huge way. Bush doesn't care, he doesn't have to run again. But this is going to be huge in the '06 Congressional elections. I know my dad is livid; he has always voted Republican, and despite disagreeing with Bush on a number of things, has continued to support him. But this one might just finally cause his break with the Republican party.

[LyLMyssChaos]

To address the questions that have been posed to me, no, I don't agree with IVF, nor do I believe in using IUD's or hormonal BC. I hate the idea of multiple eggs being fertilized (thereby creating life) and having a doctor examine them, choosing "the best ones" and then discarding the others. I understand that there are some people who due to things out of their control find this to be the only way to get pregnant, but I myself could never do it. I don't like the idea of the unused eggs being thrown away, and I really would rather that if doctors know they are going to implant X number of eggs, that they only harvest X number of eggs in the first place, or only fertilize X number of eggs and implant that many.

[HeatherFL]

Sure you are. But you're not entitled to keep potential treatments and cures from other people because of how you feel.

(eta: I bolded the word potential.)

If I believe lives are being taken in the name of science I'm entitled to do something about it. I get that you don't see it that way. In reality I'm stopping nothing from happening. But yeah, I am entitled to say something about it if I feel it's wrong. I'm sorry people don't understand that.

See you all later.

~H.

[wendalah]

But you're not entitled to keep potential treatments and cures from other people because of how you feel.


Hell yes, she is. Are we not a democracy? Is this not federal funds we are talking about? Last time I checked, that means we all pay toward these things. By your own logic--YOU aren't entitled to work against things that I believe should be funded federally, then, either.

[wendalah]

This thread is really making me ill. Aside from the point at hand, which I am not unsympathetic to on either side: Who do you all think you are? By your own words, HOW DARE YOU tell another taxpaying AMERICAN CITIZEN that she is not entitled to believe something or work towards/against something?

[prudies]

HOW DARE YOU tell another taxpaying AMERICAN CITIZEN that she is not entitled to believe something or work towards/against something?

I agree.

Maybe what you meant, ginadc, is that the majority of Americans has, in a sense, spoken on this (via our elected representatives). And that a small minority shouldn't be able to restrain science for the rest of us. Of course, that's the system we live in! It's not as simple as majority rules.

Fwiw, I'm in favor of stem cell research.

[wendalah]

I absolutely agree that a minority should not rule. What I find offensive here is the suggestion that someone who disagrees is not "entitled" to or is doing something particularly "daring" by attempting to halt federal funding to something they don't believe in.

[ejs]

I absolutely agree that a minority should not rule. What I find offensive here is the suggestion that someone who disagrees is not "entitled" to or is doing something particularly "daring" by attempting to halt federal funding to something they don't believe in.
Wendalah, this is obviously a passionate issue. I'm the one who said "how dare you." I think you might be taking my words to be a bit stronger than they were intended. I am not saying that everyone must be for stem cell research. But I'll say that it does bother me that people are against advancements in science that can cure some horrible diseases.

You must realize, however, that those who are against this research are basically saying how dare the rest of us allow research on embryos.

I do agree with you on one thing, though. This thread is making me ill, too.

[wendalah]

I don't see anyone in this thread who opposes this type of research saying anything close to "how dare you." I found Heather's argument to be quite respectful and objective. It was only after she'd had personal stories flung at her and her opinion completely belittled ("if you REALLY think a pinpoint-sized cell has the same rights as a person," or whatever the exact phrasing was) that she brought in a few subjective counterpoints of her own.

[December27JJB]

I just found out today that my sister may have 'something' perhaps cancer. It is too early to tell but they are running some tests. I've always supported stem cell research and it's hit close home especially right after Bush vetoed the bill. My sister is only 23. I know you dont support the research HeatherFL and I respect your choice. You are a wonderful person and I've had the joy of meeting you in person number of times and you've told me about your battles with cancer. Thats fine if you never would use that treatment even if it could help you 100% but thats your choice, no one is going to force you. But please don't prevent other people like my 23 year old sister from getting treated if something indeed is wrong with her because you wouldn't do it yourself. She is my only sister and Parker's only aunt. She's young still exploring the world. I am still numb about this whole thing, but hopeful.

[msnicolea]

How nice for you, LMC, not to have to make a choice about IVF because you didn't face the possibility of infertility. I wonder if your tune would change if you hadn't been able to conceive naturally.

This rings as hollow to me as men who are anti-choice--if you never have to face the decision, then it must be really easy to cast the stones.

And while I vehemently disagree with Heather's position on stem cell research, I do think she presented her side in a respectful, intelligent manner, and that she has obviously given the issue a great deal of thought--more thought, I suspect, than our dear President.

[ginadc]

Maybe what you meant, ginadc, is that the majority of Americans has, in a sense, spoken on this (via our elected representatives). And that a small minority shouldn't be able to restrain science for the rest of us.

Yes, that is what I meant, and I'm fairly certain that wendalah understood that perfectly well.

By your own words, HOW DARE YOU tell another taxpaying AMERICAN CITIZEN that she is not entitled to believe something or work towards/against something?

I quite specifically said that Heather--or anyone else who opposes stem cell research--was entitled to how she feels. And anyone's entitled to work against anything they want. But I find it absolutely appalling that when there is an enormous consensus on this issue--a consensus that spans party lines, religion, and positions on abortion, among other polarizing things--that a minority viewpoint is able to keep funding from research that holds such great promise. The American public has made its desire that ES research go forward known, time and time again, through our elected representatives and through a clear tide of public opinion; it is hardly democratic that we TAXPAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS get shot down by that minority viewpoint.

Heather, let me ask you an honest question. Why in the world would thousands of reputable scientists--dozens of Nobel Prize winners, the presidents of most major research universities, and pretty much the vast majority of published scientists with any knowledge in the field--be so passionately in favor of embryonic stem cell research if there really weren't that much to it? It would be stupid, both in terms of their reputations and in terms of wasted time and resources that could be invested elsewhere.

You keep saying, "Oh, it's just potential." Well, yeah. That's what research is about--potential. 15 years ago (give or take), when Dennis Slamon at UCLA discovered the her2 protein and its link to breast cancer and kept pushing it as a drug target, many people thought it was foolish and unlikely to succeed. Today, there's Herceptin, and it's one of the most amazing cancer drugs ever created. But 15 years ago it was just potential, and if Slamon had listened to those who told him that it wouldn't go anywhere, we wouldn't have that drug today, and a lot of women would likely be dead. (And I wouldn't have additional protection against my breast cancer coming back.) And Slamon was/is just one man. There are a lot more people, literally some of the finest minds of our generation, who think that stem cell research could transform medicine.

On another note, December, I am so sorry to hear about your sister. I'll be sending all good wishes that the 'something' turns out to be nothing, or at least not cancer. But if it is, please know that even though we may not be where we would like to be, or where we should be, with treatment research, amazing advances in treatments are being made constantly. There are treatments available for breast cancer now, for example--extraordinary ones--that weren't options when I was diagnosed just two years ago. I'll keep your sister in my thoughts.

[December27JJB]

And while I vehemently disagree with Heather's position on stem cell research, I do think she presented her side in a respectful, intelligent manner, and that she has obviously given the issue a great deal of thought--more thought, I suspect, than our dear President.

I agree with you msnicolea Heather obviously had a lot of knowledge of this issue and presented her side in a respectful manner.

Ginadc Thank you. I agree, we are finding new treatments. I am a bit hopeful about my sister because of that and because if it is cancer, there is a good chance they caught it early. I'd go to the extremes even if it means losing a limb or giving her an embryo of my own to save my sister's life. I love her to death.

[jnettie]

I wasn't implying that ALL scientists agree on this. I'm just saying it's been put out there by researchers on both sides of the coin with no religious or political agendas.
I guess I don't get what you mean, then. You seemed to imply that research should only go forward if all scientists agree on something. I was just saying that particular situation will never happen in the science world.

According to what jnettie's DH says there are many left over embryos which are either discarded or used for research. I don't know that it's necessary so many are being created for implantation at the same time. HOWEVER, I understand that only a certain percentage of eggs are fertilized, etc.. I just think it's possible measures can be taken to minimize the number of leftover embryos.
Well, it varries from lab to lab, but they work very hard to minimize # of embryos created while at the same time minimize # of procedures that the woman has to go through. It also depends greatly on many many factors including the age of the woman and the quality of her eggs. It's very hard to pinpoint an exact number that may be stored. The idea behind storing embryos is to save them for another procedure later should the first treatment not take. You need to create more for an older woman because she is more likly to have unviable eggs than for a younger woman.

Basicly, it all depends on the health of the woman, the man, and the decision they make with their doctor. Some couples only need a few. Some, who may have a harder time getting pregnant for a variety of reasons, have as many as possible made. There's no one answer.

[wendalah]

The American public has made its desire that ES research go forward known, time and time again, through our elected representatives and through a clear tide of public opinion; it is hardly democratic that we TAXPAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS get shot down by that minority viewpoint.


A majority of TAXPAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS voted Bush into office. Yes, I understood all points clearly, thank you, and you still were dismissive of Heather's opinion and questioned her right to challenge the issue.

[ginadc]

Not the first time, they didn't--if you'll recall, Al Gore won the popular vote. And people may have voted Bush into office, but it doesn't mean they agree with him on this issue, as countless polls have made exceedingly clear. The weight of public opinion is enormously behind stem cell research. Hell, my father, who disagrees with Bush on many social issues but has remained a staunch supporter as a lifelong Republican, has broken with him on this issue--as have many prominent Republicans.

Maybe I was dismissive with my one-liner. I'm usually much more patient with people with whom I disagree, but it's usually arguments on issues like gay marriage or sex education--things that I think are very important, but where the stakes aren't as life-or-death as they are with stem cell research. I watch my father and mother continue to fail, and I know stem cell research can't help them anymore, it's too late--but I don't want it to still be too late for me in 30 years, or my daughter in 60 or 70 years. Every month, every year matters.

And I also think I was impatient because I'm tired of arguing for science in a country where science is being systematically attacked, cheapened, and dismantled. I'm tired of the voices of thousands of brilliant scientists being ignored or denigrated in favor of the one or two who happen to agree with the administration and its party line--on everything from stem cell research to women's health to sex education to global warming to evolution. I'm tired of hearing the same old canards put together by the administration and groups like the Family Research Council, and the Discovery Institute, and believed by far too many people--"There are more than 60 embryonic cell lines available for research" (No, there aren't. There are maybe 5 to at most 20 usable cell lines available at this point); "Adult stem cell research is better than ES research" (No, it's not--see the information posted earlier from Science magazine); "Evolution is just a theory" (A scientific theory is not "just a guess").

I know only one of these issues is being discussed in this thread, but it all is part and parcel of the same thing: science is losing in this administration, over and over again, and we're going to pay for it in countless ways. And it frustrates me and angers me and worries me. And after about the hundredth time saying "No, embryonic stem cell research cannot be made up for by adult stem cell research, and here's why," or "A scientific theory like evolution is different from the theory that monkeys might fly out of my butt," I guess I reached the point of being dismissive. That's probably because I'm sick and tired of seeing the hard work and brilliant intellect of the nation's best scientists dismissed by people simply because they don't like their conclusions.

But what I did not do, wendalah, is question Heather's right to challenge the issue. I said that she (and what I really meant there was the general group of people who oppose stem cell research) do not have the right to keep its possible treatments and cures from those of us who support it. I probably should have said they "shouldn't have that right"--because in a democracy, they shouldn't. In a democracy, 29% of the people shouldn't be able to keep potential cures and treatments for Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, and countless other conditions from the 71% of the people who support it and want it and, in many cases, are quite literally dying for it. People who oppose ES research should be able to advocate against it, of course--and they certainly do. But if their advocacy cannot persuade their fellow citizens to change their minds--and it definitely hasn't on this issue--then why should this minority have the right to hold back science and keep treatments from the rest of us? In a democracy, good science supported by the overwhelming weight of public opinion should win out over bad science and the disagreement of a minority. But in George Bush's "democracy," it doesn't.

[LyLMyssChaos]

How nice for you, LMC, not to have to make a choice about IVF because you didn't face the possibility of infertility. I wonder if your tune would change if you hadn't been able to conceive naturally.

This rings as hollow to me as men who are anti-choice--if you never have to face the decision, then it must be really easy to cast the stones.


Who said I was casting stones? I was asked how I felt about it, so I answered. I know that I am incredibly blessed to have been able to naturally conceive 4 children. I was told about 8 years ago that I would not be able to have any children because of a "defect" in my uterine lining. Well, apparently those doctors were wrong and I thank the Lord above every day for giving me my children. I love them with all my heart and I know how empty my life would feel without children in it. If someone else wants to take advantage of what science has created so that they may feel the joy that I have in becoming a parent, then great for them, I just never could/would do it. I don't believe that just because science has developed the ability to do something means that we should do it. I have a huge moral dilemma personally with the entire process, so there is no way with good conscience that I could go through with something like that. I would adopt or have to accept that I could not have children. I only wish that with the advances that science has made that there would be some way to determine a more successful harvest and fertilization process so that lives wouldn't be created to only be destroyed when they weren't "optimal."

[chefker]

Of course everyone has a right to their own opinion on this issue. That doesn't mean I have to like it. Conversely, people whose opinion differs from my own, don't have to like my opinion either.

Thing is, with stem cell research, I feel that potential cure, vague though it may sound, is a promise of hope. If there is a sliver of hope that we can find a cure for cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's via ESCR, should we just abandon all that saying "Well, it's potential, and there's no guarantee...so why bother." I for one do not think so.

Do research scientists not have an obligation as to find means to save lives, or improve the quality of life for those with debilitating diseases? I believe they do. And if the means to do this is stem cell research, then I support that. I recognize that others don't support this, and that is fine.

However, if government dollars are used to fund research, then that's where things get sticky, in my mind. Religious doctrine should not be applied to medicine, for one thing, and it appears that is what is happening. The current administration is the closest we've come to a theocracy in this country, and I don't believe that should hinder medical research. Obviously, some folks believe otherwise.

I still don't 'get' why people would be opposed to research conducted on surplus frozen embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway, but I'm not going to bang my head against the wall trying to understand. I believe what I believe, and that is that.

December, I'm sorry to hear about your sister. Hoping that further tests show nothing seriously wrong.

Originally Posted by HeatherFL
Go tell my friend who just lost her pregnancy it doesn't matter because it was just a bunch of cells anyway. Tell the women who have had involuntary miscarriages they were just pin-point sized embryos. Oh well, they don't mean as much.


I don't feel this way. I'm a mom, I DO get both sides of this. I guess my point is, if folks undergoing IVF have excess embryos they wish to donate to science, I would support that, rather than see these embryos destroyed as if they were trash.

I'd liken it to having a child who's brain dead and on life support (not EXACTLY the same, but definitely similar). If it were my child, I would donate all their usable organs so that they could help to save the lives of others. I would rather do that than have viable organs buried along with my child.

[greenbunny]

I don't get it either, chefker. And frankly (and I said the same thing in the WC thread on this topic) I've always found it hard to believe that people who are against this research could look a suffering loved one in the eye and say, "Sorry, but I don't believe in the research that could stop your 24-hour pain. You'll just have to wait for death."

Ideals are great, but when you're watching a loved one's bones fuse together, see her unable to walk or grasp simple objects, see her lose half her body weight and cry at the pain of a sneeze, see her no longer able to sit down because her pelvic bones are crushing her muscles--no, I just don't buy it. I really, really don't believe that most people against this research could hold out.

The person who made me so passionate about this research is dead now. She suffered and suffered and suffered--two decades of pain and humiliation. I find it cold and inhuman that people would prefer to toss unwanted embryos in the garbage rather than give people like her a chance at reprieve. Whether you think that embryo is life or not, it isn't in horrible, debilitating pain--and these people are.

[wendalah]

But what I did not do, wendalah, is question Heather's right to challenge the issue. I said that she (and what I really meant there was the general group of people who oppose stem cell research) do not have the right to keep its possible treatments and cures from those of us who support it.

RE: Bush as a majority vote--you pulled out the majority card, not me. I resorted to a very blunt one in response to show that "majority rules" is not always black and white.

As for you not questioning Heather's right, your use of the word "entitlement" suggested otherwise. I found that particular word in your phrasing rather compelling and, I deduced, not accidental.

There are many issues out there; if you are like most of us, there are a few that majority rules on but you disagree strongly with. If you are like most of us, too, if someone said to you that you weren't "entitled" to stand in the way of something you don't agree with, and therefore "keep it from" the majority...I'd guess your natural inclination (like most of us) would be to say, hell yes I am entitled.

And:

That's probably because I'm sick and tired of seeing the hard work and brilliant intellect of the nation's best scientists dismissed by people simply because they don't like their conclusions.


This is another example of dismissal of the opposing opinion. I don't think people dismiss these things simply because they don't like the conclusions. You mentioned earlier you "felt certain" I understood your point. I'll extend the same courtesy: I feel certain you don't really believe it's that simple. If you are willing to boil down what I can attest to is complex and often confusing debate with oneself to come to a position on this issue (and others)--why not just boil it down to the root. I'm right! You're wrong. Nah nah nah nah.

I absolutely know this is an emotional issue and I'll repeat that I'm sympathetic to both sides. I apologize if I've been a little testy myself.

[ginadc]

I used the word entitled simply as a parallel construction; Heather had said she was "entitled" to her opinion. The word was not accidental, because it was in the post I was responding to.

I'd guess your natural inclination (like most of us) would be to say, hell yes I am entitled

I'm entitled to fight for what I believe in, and I do. But with the exception of rights that are enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority"), I don't believe that I, or any other holder of a particularly minority viewpoint, is "entitled" to have my viewpoint supersede the will of the people. If I feel strongly about an issue in which I'm in the minority, it's my job to try and persuade others (honestly, with accurate information) of my POV. If I can't do that, it's wrong to run roughshod over the strongly held beliefs of the rest of the