Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Bush to veto bill for the first time in his presidency...

Unfortunately, it's a bill in favour of research into what could easily be the most revolutionary scientific medical breakthrough of our generation, stem cell research. To Bush, people with Alzheimer's, people who are paralyzed, people who suffer and desperately need this research, are second banana to a microscopic mass of cells.

Why is something this sick and insane allowed to happen without more outrage?

12 Comments:

At 7/18/2006 11:32 PM, Blogger knb said...

Because in 'Bushworld', morality has a different meaning...and that is tragic.

 
At 7/19/2006 12:50 AM, Anonymous Adam said...

Quick question for you:

Would you die so that another person could be cured of their Alzheimer's?

 
At 7/19/2006 1:01 AM, Blogger Clear Grit said...

Actually I wouldn't Adam. Why would you ask such an asinine question?

Forget it, I already know the answer. You're one of those delusional nutcases who believes that a microscopic clump of cells is equivalent to a living, breathing human being.

 
At 7/19/2006 2:27 AM, Blogger Red Tory said...

Got any other false dichotomies you'd like to share, Adam?

What an ass.

 
At 7/19/2006 10:03 AM, Anonymous Adam said...

How is this a false dichotomy? At one point we were all just a "microscopic clump of cells" so it is concievable that you or I, if we were born at a date where stem cell research is allowed, could have been "sacrificed" so that another could live without Alzheimer's, grow hair (as stem cells have been touted as a cure for baldness), produce sperm etc.

In my experiences (lectures, independent research) embryonic stem cell research isn't as necessary as one may think. There are many other sources of stem cells in the body (multipotential, not totipotential) such that these diseases could be tackled from a different approach. For example, I attended a lecture which claimed that stem cells from the skin of an individual could be used to improve functioning after a spinal cord injury. Just a thought, in case you wanted something more substantial than name calling in your comments section. I suspect that you don't. Good to see that the "progressives" are still as tolerant as ever :)

 
At 7/19/2006 2:33 PM, Blogger Clear Grit said...

At one point we were all just a "microscopic clump of cells" so it is concievable that you or I, if we were born at a date where stem cell research is allowed, could have been "sacrificed"

No, it is not. A microscopic mass of cells does not have a concept of "I" any more than an amoeba or a group of blood cells do.

 
At 7/19/2006 4:26 PM, Blogger Red Tory said...

Adam –- As you must know from all your investigations into this subject, the alternative sources of stem cells are more problematic than and not as effective as embryonic cells. I suggest you attend different lectures because you seem to be receiving a lot of dubious information.

 
At 7/20/2006 1:06 AM, Anonymous Adam said...

"A microscopic mass of cells does not have a concept of "I" any more than an amoeba or a group of blood cells do."

OK, but take that microscopic mass of cells and x (~20) weeks later you have a being that does have a concept of I. Weird how that happens hey? Seems to me that there may be more than just a "microscopic mass of cells... an amoeba... or a group of blood cells" there, no?


RT: I was referring to one lecture in particular, it was a guest lecture that was recommended we attend (i.e. "you better be there" kind of thing). The speaker's name was Freda Miller.

"Freda Miller, a cell and molecular neurobiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute and a professor at the University of Toronto... Miller has authored more than 85 scientific papers, reviews and book chapters, and has 13 patents. She is best known for her lab's discovery that human and mammal skin contains a stem cell that can be isolated. A stem
cell is a master cell that can turn into different types of brain and nerve cells. Scientists hope they might someday be able to use this knowledge to grow cells to replace diseased cells."

I remember that my prof made such a big deal that she was coming to give a lecture. Obviously she carries a great deal of clout in her field. I believe that she knows what she is talking about and I am sure that she would be highly offended if you referred to her life's work as "dubious." Anyways, just trying to prove that this isn't as unrealistic that you might think and that it doesn't necessarily have to kill off embryos to cure disease.

BTW, thanks to both of you for being a tad bit more civil this last time around.

 
At 7/20/2006 3:15 PM, Blogger Clear Grit said...

And how far are you willing to extend that? Given the proper conditions, a zygote can become a human being. given the proper conditions, a sperm cell can become a human being. I suppose you'd argue we ought to outlaw condoms and masturbation for this reason?

 
At 7/21/2006 4:37 PM, Blogger HisHighness said...

You're wasting your time arguing with Adam, he's been brainwashed far too much to be swayed by little things like reason.

I just hope he and Bush and all the other far righters get a disorder that could have been cured by stem cell research. That'd be justice.

 
At 7/21/2006 6:53 PM, Blogger Leadership Lawking said...

Embryonic stem cell research has been deemed to be more neccessary as it yields pluripotent stem cells(cells which may grow and mutate into any other cell) where as other forms, such as the skin cells that you mentioned Adam are multipotent, meaning they can grow into many different cell types but not all.

This is why the case for embryonic stem cell research is so strong, because it has the potential to be used to combat any number of diseases and disorders, where as stem cells collected by other means do not have that ability.

Listening to lectures is all fine and dandy, but it would be better to ask a few questions to, to find out the limitations of the alternatives.

 
At 7/22/2006 1:08 PM, Anonymous Adam said...

I believe that life begins at conception. From that you can figure out whether or not I believe that condoms and masturbation should be outlawed. For me, it's simple: a sperm and egg, when separate, need something to occur to become a human life. Once they meet, however, it takes something to stop it from becoming a human. That "stopping," be it an abortion, or removal of the cells for stem cell research, is wrong in my mind.


HisHighness said...

"You're wasting your time arguing with Adam, he's been brainwashed far too much to be swayed by little things like reason."

What about my position is devoid of reason?

"I just hope he and Bush and all the other far righters get a disorder that could have been cured by stem cell research. That'd be justice."

How very compassionate of you.


Leadership Lawking, I am aware of the limitations of using adult source stem cells, but to me the alternative(using embryonic stem cells) is unacceptable. Keep in mind that the skin cells that I mentioned are only one of a plathora of choices of adult stem cells available. The limitations aren't so much limitations, as they are challenges. It is easier to use embryonic stem cells rather than sort through the different adult stem cells.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home