But you know.....Stem Cells are unethical

Post Reply New Topic

You really think that a news article is a reliable source of actual scientific information?

You are more hopeless than I had ever imagined. And that's saying something.

Incidentally, how is CBS "pro-abortion?" If anything, that article was cherry-picking quotes to oppose embryonic stem cell research.

I've found that the Fetus Fetishists of the far right are utterly shameless.

Do you expect me to take your word at face value without a viable source, at least I can come up with a source.

Btw, does Rathergate ring any bells? It should.

What the hell does the Killian Documents Controversy have to do with being "Pro-Abortion"?

It looks like you embody the red herring.

I can recommend some textbooks for you if you like, since you do need to have some biology background to be able to make meaningful claims about the subject. You should start off with Campbell/Reece Biology, the standard undergrad bio book. I read the 7th edition about four years ago in high school; I think they're on the 9th by now. You can probably pick up an 8th edition cheap. After that you would want a decent genetics text. I read Genetics, by Benjamin Pierce, but there are plenty of other good books. After that you'll need to study some cellular/molecular biology (I had Molecular Cell Biology by Lodish; wouldn't recommend that one as it's rather dense) and after going through that material you'll be at the point where you can probably go to the published literature in scientific journals and follow what they're saying.

The bulk of my information on stem cells comes from various seminars and other presentations I have attended that were given by active researchers in the field.

@ Orwell

I really don't care what you say a textbook says at this point, find me a reputable journal article from a reputable source. You have yet to contradict what the CBS article said.

@ Master_Pedant

Instead of spouting off about how Rathergate isn't relevant consider this.

Since when would a nonpartisan news source (which CBS is not) pull a stunt like what we saw in Rathergate? I can think of a more recent example too.

@ Orwell

I am well aware that embryonic stem cell research was banned and for good reason. It devalues human life. The fact is that this article from CBS shows that you can do the same things with adult stem cells that they were hoping one could do with embryonic stem cells. I quite frankly couldn't care less that it may be harder to do it, the ethical issue isn't there in adult stem cell research.

As far as you not making false claims, it sure sounded like you made false claims to me. Especially, since I have an unofficial history minor (I would have an official one due to the number of credit hours but the Department I was in does not have a route to get a history minor).

Adult stem cells are already partially differentiated, unlike embryonic stem cells. That's not at all controversial. I don't know of a single researcher who believes adult stem cells are a more promising avenue of research than embryonic stem cells.

There wasn't much substance in that CBS article (typical of scientific journalism). I could criticize them for cherry-picking quotes and presenting the information they gave in a somewhat misleading way, but I'm not interested in sitting and doing an exhaustive critique of some news article that you probably just skimmed.


You have obviously never watched a family member die of Parkinson's. The Luddite agenda that you and others on the extreme Right support is what devalues life. The policies you espouse cost lives.


They were able to treat some injuries with adult stem cells. Neurodegenerative disorders cannot be treated with adult stem cells; and as far as we have advanced thus far ailments such as heart disease and diabetes are also untreatable with adult stem cells, even iPs cells. You really cannot do the same things with adult stem cells because they are not naturally pluripotent the way embryonic stem cells are. You sure as hell can't get totipotent stem cells from an adult.


What false claims do you believe I have made?


I don't follow. What does your educational background have to do with whether or not I was honest about mine?

I actually clicked out of hdere. Then it started to rankle, and I had to come back.

"You have obviously never watched a family member die of Parkinson's. The Luddite agenda that you and others on the extreme Right support is what devalues life. The policies you espouse cost lives"

To begin with I HAVE watched as an uncle - one of the family members I could actually talk to - declined and died this summer out of Parkinson's. If that does not establish my bona fides, we are currently watching helplessly as a good friend slides down the slope clawing at the glassy surface. Refused treatment that sounded promising because forsooth his attacks of paralysis are not regular enough.

We will pass lightly over the fact that the Luddites were objecting to losing their jobs to automation [ain't the extreme right supposed to be pro-business?].

Straight to it. IF I am on the right [which is very dubious - NOT being on the left does not put one on the right] it for sure is NOT "extreme Right". If I am extreme, it is extreme "get out of my space and mind your own bloody business" - which is incompatible with extreme Left AND extreme Right both of which are my way or the highway ideologies.

It is NOT Luddite - even in the extended sense of opposition to scientific progress - to see life where other legislate to redefine humanity. Else were those who hid Jews and others from the Nazis Luddites. It is not Luddite to point to the problematic outcome once we start saying Life A is more valuable than Life B.

I oppose sending out bounty hunters to bag a matching kidney - not volunteered - to put into Mr Obama OR Number 1 Son. I oppose harvesting organs from John Doe who is not going to pull out of his coma and nob ody even knows who he is. AND - NOT a Luddite, nor an extreme rightist - though I do favor rights - I oppose borrowing stem cells from unimplanted individuals who would otherwise be thrown out and go to waste. The fact I do not like how they came into existence is irrelevant.

If we are starving, you are fatally wounded, you tell me "Please, eat my body and save yourself" - will I eat you? Honestly, I don't know [though I am inclined to say no]. But for sure I will not eat you without your informed consent, nor will I finish you off.

And yes, a lot of decisions cost lives. But they do not have to place relative values on those lives.

Phil, my comments were directed at Inuyasha.

"Luddism" has taken on a broader definition since the first factory workers who worried about automation. It refers to people opposed to scientific progress. The right wing in this country has a consistently anti-science agenda.

Your invocation of Godwin is foolish.

Is anyone in favor of that? Enough of your ridiculous straw men.


I'm not sure I followed your meaning. Are you saying you would honestly prefer that the embryos created during IVF simply be thrown in the trash, rather than used to help save lives?

That's disgusting if it is your stance.


I am registered as an organ donor. Once I am no longer using this body, I have no objections to other people benefiting from scrap parts.

"Phil, my comments were directed at Inuyasha."

With whom on this issue I tend to agree.

"Luddism" has taken on a broader definition since the first factory workers who worried about automation. It refers to people opposed to scientific progress. The right wing in this country has a consistently anti-science agenda.

If you look you will see that I am aware of the extension of "Luddite" I have seen no anti-science agenda - maintaining that science is not higher than ethical concerns is pro-science, my friend/

"Your invocation of Godwin is foolish."

Who or what is Godwin, and when did I mention him / her? If you refer to this [thank you, Yahoo] :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Then your use of "invoke" is wrong - you invoked Godwin's so-called law. Which is no more a law than the Poe thing, of course.

But in any case, if my mentioning a parallel involving Hitler bothers you, I don't mind: I will rephrase:

It is NOT Luddite - even in the extended sense of opposition to scientific progress - to see life where other legislate to redefine humanity. Else were those who fought for human rights for the Negro Luddites. It is not Luddite to point to the problematic outcome once we start saying Life A is more valuable than Life B.

Hey - that includes the line that shows I know your extended definition. Great.

Is anyone in favor of that? Enough of your ridiculous straw men.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/nyreg ... rgans.html

Straw man? How far is it from harvesting the less affluent world to waylaying hapless peopkle with the right blood type? Fact of economic life - if it pays, someone will do it. If it is available, someone will buy it.


I'm not sure I followed your meaning. Are you saying you would honestly prefer that the embryos created during IVF simply be thrown in the trash, rather than used to help save lives?

That's disgusting if it is your stance.

Well, thankee kindly. I think it is disgusting when Chinese corpses are dissected and made a travelling exhibition. I think it is disgusting when embryos, children, and adults are thrown into the trash. I will NOT here discuss the pros and cons and ethical considerations of in vitro fertilization and related procedures. I will repeat - I believe - however pigheadedly, and, when I see what people do, however counterintuitively - that human beings are not simply protoplasmic globules.

"I am registered as an organ donor. Once I am no longer using this body, I have no objections to other people benefiting from scrap parts"

Fine. And if that be so, and if the team did not help you out of the body, I have no objections either. If you matched, I would accept your kidney. Though I still would prefer not to eat you.

Go talk Luddism to the animal rights folks. For me, science is great. Commerce is great. The rule of law is great. Democracy is great. Just don't let any of them loose without restraints.

I think your "ethical concerns" are ill-founded. And the right has a history, on other issues, of being anti-science without any ethical grounds whatsoever.


Both of your parallels are stupid. I see no need to address them.


Organ trafficking is a crime. There's a damn good reason for that, too. I don't know a lot of people who want to repeal those laws.

So yes, you are making an absurd straw man.

Incidentally, "waylaying hapless people with the right blood type" would not be nearly as bad as organ trafficking. You can donate blood at no harm to yourself. I do so on a regular basis, and more people should do the same. A shortage of blood donors means completely needless deaths.


I only see an issue if those corpses were obtained through less-than-legitimate means, and no hard evidence beyond whispered rumors from conspiracy nuts ever substantiated such suspicions.


The overwhelming majority (some studies estimate 90+%) of implanted embryos are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body. And what do you think of funerals? I don't see how putting a corpse under a pile of dirt is any better than salvaging parts that will keep someone else from becoming a corpse. The former seems much worse to me.


I'm just going to lay this out here: anyone who opposes stem cell research without also opposing IVF is insane. That is a completely monstrous position to hold. Inuyasha is at least consistent in opposing both. He is wrong in both, but being consistently wrong is better than the psychotic internal contradictions that you see from most pro-lifers.

"I think your "ethical concerns" are ill-founded."

That is your privilege. I think yours ill-founded.

And the right has a history, on other issues, of being anti-science without any ethical grounds whatsoever.

Examples, please? At present I can only guess at what you include in or exclude from the undifferentiated right [which is no more monolithic than "the left"] and have no clear sense of what for you constitutes "anti-science", which could be anything from wanting to ban or rgulate certain types of research [which the left also does] to my brother's sweeping "if you are Christian you are a threat to science [in which case I would have to point out that Christian and rightist, even if we agree on how each is to be defined] are by no means the same thing].

"Both of your parallels are stupid. I see no need to address them."

As a return courtesy I will not analyze certain of your stupidities.

"Organ trafficking is a crime. There's a damn good reason for that, too. I don't know a lot of people who want to repeal those laws.

So yes, you are making an absurd straw man. "

Except for this one. So - you are saying that what is against the law does not happen, and that what is now illegal but convenient for certain interests does not become the law of the land?

You have, perhaps, more faith in government and governors - be they right, left or center - than I have. Perhaps you are sure no government will ever pass an extension of eminent domain that will give the government the right to compel inoculation of children, or school prayer, or sterilization of those clased unfit, or euthanasia in certain specified medical circumstances, or restrictions on family size, or conscript labor, or military service - or registration of harvestable organs. But I am of course being stupid. NO government would ever make you go to war, or forbid you to marry, or restrict the size of youyr family, or take your land to make a highway.

SO stupid and untrusting of me,

"what do you think of funerals? I don't see how putting a corpse under a pile of dirt is any better than salvaging parts that will keep someone else from becoming a corpse. The former seems much worse to me."

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Throughout recognizable human history and prehistory, many people have felt that a dead human should not be disposed of the same way as a pile of potato peelings or a dead rat. Other people have seen no big difference. Fair enough. You are free [if the courts allow it] to harvest spare parts or valuable chemicals or food or fertilizer from your own. Stay clear - even if the courts allow it ] of mine.

"I'm just going to lay this out here: anyone who opposes stem cell research without also opposing IVF is insane."

I do not know if I would say "insane", but then I am not a psychiatric professional and am only authorized to say "wrong".

But I totally agree with you, as I am sure you agree with what I said years ago, in the days when I was a left-leaning atheist, by the way, that anyone who opposes euthanasia or vivisection and does not also oppose abortion is similarly wrong.

EDIT: double post

Last edited by Orwell on 17 Dec 2010, 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Opposition to potentially life-saving stem cell research, which among many conservatives extends to all stem cell research even if it doesn't involve embryonic cell lines.
Promotion of creation myths in opposition to evolutionary biology
Support for fraudulent oil-company-funded science and a concerted campaign of FUD against climate science.
Movements to ban or severely limit genetic engineering, especially in the context of agriculture. (There are a bunch of foolish leftists on this one too)

I have no idea where you're getting these ridiculous notions. Learn to read.


Um... eminent domain laws already exist, as do mandatory inoculations. I was compelled to register for the Selective Service system, so in principle I could be forced to serve in the military at any time. I'm not sure what you're getting at. The power of the government has to be limited and people need to speak out against the abuses that do occur.

I really just think at this point that you are either hallucinating or projecting. You seem to be attributing views to me that I have never expressed. What does the draft have to do with stem cell research? And hasn't it traditionally been the right wing that was more in favor of conscription and the government mandating who can and cannot be married?


Your irrational emotional attachment to a pile of inanimate, decomposing organic matter puzzles me. If we do not put it to use, then the worms will. You may prefer that. I do not.


I don't see how you are drawing that parallel. Vivisection? Explain please.

"Quote:
But I totally agree with you, as I am sure you agree with what I said years ago, in the days when I was a left-leaning atheist, by the way, that anyone who opposes euthanasia or vivisection and does not also oppose abortion is similarly wrong.

I don't see how you are drawing that parallel. Vivisection? Explain please.
_________________

Orwell. Okay. You have clearly a set of attitudes and experiences which differ from mine on important points like human exceptionality and differentiating among protoplasmic. Fine - no point in belaboring it,

From what I have seen of your posts, I believe you are in fact as sincerely puzzled by my inability to see the obvious as my brother [with whom I suspect you have much in common - which in his eyes and yours if the truth were known is a compliment. I could wish I were as sincerely puzzled by your attitude - but I have seen too much.

The point of the parallel? I will gladly expound via pm when I get a chance to write up the Stinking Clammyweed Manifesto.

Meanwhile though - just to stress that where there is a market laws are not impenetrble and maybe I am NOT straw manning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... mafia-boss

Oh, yes, for the record?

I am far from anti-Albanian or even anti-Kosovar - an extremely interesting, fiercely hospitable and valiant people.