sgtdmski

Well, it would seem that the need to further the debate on further embryonic stem cell research is over.

It would seem that scientist have been able to create stem cells from skin cells. All this talk about how it was necessary to utilize embryonic stem cells, and so many people ignoring the work that was being done with stem cells from other than embryos (cells in which cures have been discovered and even beginning to be studied) and all we heard about was how the President was failing all those sick people.

Well, looks like he was right. Science can coexist while at the same time fostering the sanctity of human life. Furthermore, the technique to create this new stem cells is so easy that thousands of labs in this country can begin making them tomorrow if they wanted.

Gone is the slippery slope of the ethical dilemna in deciding whether it is alright to create life only to destroy it. Imagine that, science found a way.

Article

dmk

__________________
Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles
-Russell Kirk-

knot_e_lady

Considering the whole point of stem cell research was to cure human disease, the above statement is ridiculous.

bfrazz1

Embryonic stem cells are of better quality than those harvested from other tissue resources. It is ludicrous to kill off unused and undesired embryos that consist of a few cells when stem cells can be harvested to cure diseases in miraculous ways. I find it ironic that sick American children go to China for stem cell therapies. We laud oursleves when children form third world countries are treated for diseases and conditions here in the US, but we allow religious dogma from helping our own here at home.

fxashun

And it can be argued that maybe some diseases weren't necessarily meant to be cured. Especially if embryos, which have no business being manipulated, are being used to do so.
Disease and illness are a form of population control. If we keep everyone alive, sooner or later we run out of resources. Then even more people will die. More than likely more of the same poor people who can't afford medical care in the first place.

__________________

Grace

I totaly agree. There are to many folks here as it is.

bfrazz1

So which members of your circle of family and friends do you suggest knocking off first? All in the name of population control, of course.

bfrazz1

I somehow suspect that were you to be unexpectedly diagnosed with a potentially crippling or terminal disease, your tune (and tone) would suddenly change.

What diseases do you propose we not treat? Or is it not the disease but the socioeconomic status of the diseased that you use to determine the answer?

Your ethical foundation is showing it's cracks. If you are truly so concerned about the decline in resources then why don't you stop driving, live without electricity (and your computer) and sustain yourself off the land?

fxashun

My ethical foundation is sound. I do have a disease. I have been on dialysis for 18 years. And even though there is medical technology in the works that might provide me with an unlimited number of kidneys that match me, I don't think we should be manipulating the genetic structure of animals like that. Especially by mixing human genetic material.

Maybe you ought to get to know who you are debating before you stick you foot in you mouth. I won't stop driving or using a computer because they are available. It would be stupid of me not to take advantage of what is available. But that doesn't mean that I can't recognize that all is not well about these now necessary gadgets. Dialysis it a huge user of resources. Power, water, medical waste. But again, what kind of statement will one man make by refusing to take advantage of it?

__________________

bfrazz1

And when that medical technology is perfected, will you take advantage of it? Or will you continue living with the pain and sorted side effects of dialysis? Are you out protesting the mixing of these genetic materials that may if fact help you one day? I don't ask you this in the realm of challenging you, I simply wonder where you stand on the issue.

fxashun

Actually the only bad thing about dialysis to me is the lack of freedom. I have suffered very few actual side effect of my illness. I run religiously every treatment, for the whole treatment. Never missed one in 18 years. And I generally take care of myself. There are rules to follow for living with the illness, and I abide by them.

I don't protest anything. I just have opinions. For example, I think the planet would do better without humans on it at all, but I'm not trying to go out and kill everybody like some James Bond character.

Depending on the treatment, I might give it a try. But the older I get, the more leery I get of the technology that is being invented. Growing human kidneys in pigs at one time sounded like a great idea. But now that I understand the science behind it, that's just creepy.

__________________