Texas maggot judge overturned for now.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The very reason embryonic cells are far more risky is because they are
>pluripotent!

Well, the reason stem cell treatment works AT ALL is that the cells are pluripotent; they can become neurons, or skin cells, or Islets of Langerhans.

There are two ways to get these pluripotent cells:

1) Use embryonic cells; they are pluripotent by nature.

2) Use adult cells and turn them into induced pluripotent stem cells. This requires genetically modifying them with chemicals to restore their pluripotency. The genetic modification often results in cancerous cell formation.

For purposes where you need pluripotent cells, embryonic cells are a lot less susceptible to forming tumors. There are other benefits to both, of course; autologous grafts with IPS cells are far less likely to be rejected, for example.

>And yes, there are some things that adult cells will not be able to do but, as
>of yet there have not been any effective treatments from embryonic cells
>(that I have heard of)

There is currently a trial going on for spinal cord injury repair with embryonic stem cells. Whether or not it is effective will remain to be seen. But I go agree that a lot more work needs to be done.

Yes
More work will be done but

One has shown great promise
The other not so much

One has greater moral implicatiions than the other
Hense the debate

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

One has shown great promise
The other not so much

That's in part because of the artificial damper that was placed on embryonic stem cell research. One could counter that the damper caused more research to happen into adult stem cells, and that's a good thing.

Quote

One has greater moral implicatiions than the other
Hense the debate

Why? Is it the possible future of fertilized eggs being produced for the purpose that's in question? Because I believe currently there's plenty available from eggs that are destroyed in IVF labs across the country. If they're being destroyed anyway, why is it better simply to destroy than to use for possible betterment?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

One has shown great promise
The other not so much

That's in part because of the artificial damper that was placed on embryonic stem cell research. One could counter that the damper caused more research to happen into adult stem cells, and that's a good thing.

Quote

One has greater moral implicatiions than the other
Hense the debate

Why? Is it the possible future of fertilized eggs being produced for the purpose that's in question? Because I believe currently there's plenty available from eggs that are destroyed in IVF labs across the country. If they're being destroyed anyway, why is it better simply to destroy than to use for possible betterment?

Wendy P.

Produced for the purpose?
That is a problem for me personally

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>One has shown great promise
>The other not so much

Both have shown a lot of promise. One (adult stem cells) has been developed a lot more than embryonic stem cells because funding for embryonic stem cell research has often been denied.

>Produced for the purpose?
>That is a problem for me personally

Agreed. But that's not what's happening. These are embryos that would have been destroyed anyway. Given a choice between destroying them in a furnace and using them to help a kid walk again, I'm going to go with helping the kid walk.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>One has shown great promise
>The other not so much

Both have shown a lot of promise. One (adult stem cells) has been developed a lot more than embryonic stem cells because funding for embryonic stem cell research has often been denied.

>Produced for the purpose?
>That is a problem for me personally

Agreed. But that's not what's happening. These are embryos that would have been destroyed anyway. Given a choice between destroying them in a furnace and using them to help a kid walk again, I'm going to go with helping the kid walk.

I understand the point
It is just a tough one for me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

One has shown great promise
The other not so much

That's in part because of the artificial damper that was placed on embryonic stem cell research. One could counter that the damper caused more research to happen into adult stem cells, and that's a good thing.

What 'artificial damper' is that, pray tell? None of these laws affect private funding of stem cell research.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>adult stem cells have provded treatments in 11 medical conditions ,
>embryonic have only shown promise and potential .

Right. That's why the issue is over RESEARCH not USE.

>the reason libs love pushing the embryonic agenda is the cover to give
>abortion legitimacy !

The reason I think it's important is that it may someday cure things like spinal cord injury and Alzheimer's. I think that's a better use of a discarded human embryo than burning it.

But if you'd rather burn human embryos than help paraplegics walk again to support a political position, well, sorry - your politics just aren't that important. (And fortunately most other people, including this judge, agree.)

It's actually more of a "Quit Murdering" kind of philosophy.
Murdering embyos is wrong, so taking what is left after you do it is wrong.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,111]

>It's actually more of a "Quit Murdering" kind of philosophy.

OK. So what are you doing to stop the "murder" of discarded embryos?

>Murdering embyos is wrong, so taking what is left after you do it is wrong.

Burning embryos and using them for research appear equivalent morally; both destroy the embryo and neither are crimes.

Given that, I'd rather have those embryos used to help some kid walk again. That seems a better place for them than an incinerator. But that's just me.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>It's actually more of a "Quit Murdering" kind of philosophy.

OK. So what are you doing to stop the "murder" of discarded embryos?

I protest and write letters and march against planned parenthood and organizations like it. I vote for like minded people that take a stand.

>Murdering embyos is wrong, so taking what is left after you do it is wrong.

Burning embryos and using them for research appear equivalent morally; both destroy the embryo and neither are crimes.

Given that, I'd rather have those embryos used to help some kid walk again. That seems a better place for them than an incinerator. But that's just me.

So why don't you empregnate a bunch of women and then have them abort for science?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,111]

>So why don't you empregnate a bunch of women and then have them abort
>for science?

?? Started the weekend off early? Have a good rest of your night!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Burning embryos and using them for research appear equivalent morally; both destroy the embryo and neither are crimes.

Incorrect.

Public Law 104-99, Section 128 (1996):

"SEC. 128. None of the funds made available by Public Law
104–91 may be used for—
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research
purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are
destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury
or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses
in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 289g(b)."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,111]

>Incorrect. Public Law . . .

Correct, actually. Neither are crimes. Both destroy the embryo.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Incorrect. Public Law . . .

Correct, actually. Neither are crimes. Both destroy the embryo.

Actually, there's more to that public law -

"For purposes of this section, the phrase ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’
shall include any organism, not protected as a human subject under
45 CFR 46 as of the date of enactment of this Act, that is derived
by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from
one or more human gametes."

But hey, no problem - guess we can do experiments on children and prisoners, too. If you're going to break one category of protection, why not all of them?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,111]

>Actually, there's more to that public law

You have listed reasons to deny funding. You haven't listed any crimes.

>But hey, no problem - guess we can do experiments on children and
>prisoners, too.

Yep. And little babies! And kittens! And cute puppies! And don't forget baby seals.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
So why don't you empregnate a bunch of women and then have them abort for science?

Woah. Tough stuff. Sounds unschooled.

BTW: It's written *impregnate* ...

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Wings-n-Things 0]

YAWN... nap time!

Card carrying member of the
Nanny State Liberation Front

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

....
So why don't you empregnate a bunch of women and then have them abort for science?

Woah. Tough stuff. Sounds unschooled.

BTW: It's written *impregnate* ...

I had a spelling error.

You have three incomplete sentences.

The use of asteriks is incorrect as well.

Did you have a point?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

....
So why don't you empregnate a bunch of women and then have them abort for science?

Woah. Tough stuff. Sounds unschooled.

BTW: It's written *impregnate* ...

I had a spelling error.

You have three incomplete sentences.

The use of asteriks is incorrect as well.

Did you have a point?

Why should I waste my time to explain to you?
Or, f.e., to tell you it's *asterisk* ??

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

....
So why don't you empregnate a bunch of women and then have them abort for science?

Woah. Tough stuff. Sounds unschooled.

BTW: It's written *impregnate* ...

I had a spelling error.

You have three incomplete sentences.

The use of asteriks is incorrect as well.

Did you have a point?

Why should I waste my time to explain to you?
Or, f.e., to tell you it's *asterisk* ??

You use them incorrectly, still.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skipbelt 0]

billvon , i see an opportunity for agreement , i admire your passion for treatments to these afflictions you list , my point is it's abundantly more likely adult stem cell treatments will address these afflictions , obviating the need for embryotics given their respective track records , hence killing 2 birds with 1 stone !