Paralyzed woman walks again

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041128/1/3ovex.html

Who knows if this is true, but it wouldn't makes sense. It wasn't using embrionic stem stells. /sarcasm off

I hope it's true for her and everyone elses sake who could benefit from such a scientific breakthrough. I guess it's wait and see time to see if this hits a reputable news source.

[Xanastik Fox]

I hope it's true for her and everyone elses sake who could benefit from such a scientific breakthrough.

Too bad stem cell research is incredibly held down in the US. It's almost as if our country is shooting itself in the foot.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I hope it's true for her and everyone elses sake who could benefit from such a scientific breakthrough.

Too bad stem cell research is incredibly held down in the US. It's almost as if our country is shooting itself in the foot.

The problem with the media is, it doesn't inform the people of the truth. The only thing "held down" was government funding for embrionic stem cell research.

[Lohrno]

Which slows research down, and possibly prevents some other lines of exploration. Sounds like holding it down to me. I don't see how the media is involved in this discussion.

-=Lohrno

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I don't see how the media is involved in this discussion.

-=Lohrno

Which is a big part of the problem when trying to have a conversation with you and others like you.

[Lohrno]

Which is a big part of the problem when trying to have a conversation with you and others like you.

Please elaborate? Surely you're not calling all of the US media complete lies and propoganda?

-=Lohrno

[Fash]

What part of "there is no stem cell research ban" do you not understand?

Why does the government have to fund it? Tell me that.

What part of "GWB is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research" do you not understand?

Show me some solid progress in stem cell research before you complain about it not being funded or complain about embyonic stem cells.

[Lohrno]

There is a federal funding ban. In essence, that is one step short of an outright ban as much scientific research is in fact federally funded. Many scientists are bitching about this. I don't see how that's a great endorsement.

Why do we have to fund this? Why do we fund science at all then? Let's get rid of NASA, and all federal funding for science, so we can have a tax break and then fall behind most of the world technologically. Sound good?

-=Lohrno

[Animale]

Research at the university level in this country is nearly entirely funded by federal grants. Limiting the scope of federal grantees in a specific area of research (embryonic stem cells) basically shuts down the ability of university researchers to examine this area. Since stem cell research is still at a "need to understand it" rather than a "possible cure" level, companies are somewhat averse to using research capital for uncertain returns.

Thus, the federal limitations placed upon stem cell research basically shuts down domestic research on the topic. University professors (who do the lions share of "need to understand" basic research in this country) need federal grants to run their research programs. For them, the risk of losing grants by straying into the forbidden waters overshadows the limited rewards of the existing stem cell monies/programs.

That's just the way it is in the world of university research. Put limits and holds on money, and researchers at the top institutions won't touch it. Instead the programs are left for lower level institutions who have trouble getting other monies, and do we really want only lower institutions (who do great work, but they just don't have the resources in both students and facilities as top tier institutions) examining such an important breakthrough as this?

Animale Vicioso

[Seebs]

I masturbate to the MIchael J Fox Shake fest. its sexah.

[Lynks]

Why won't you just go away?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

There is a federal funding ban. In essence, that is one step short of an outright ban as much scientific research is in fact federally funded. Many scientists are bitching about this. I don't see how that's a great endorsement.

Why do we have to fund this? Why do we fund science at all then? Let's get rid of NASA, and all federal funding for science, so we can have a tax break and then fall behind most of the world technologically. Sound good?

-=Lohrno

Why is it so hard for you to realize the government doesn't want any part of funding such an ethically questionable thing like that? The have only banned government funding of stem cells derived from an embryo. That's all. Stem cell research is still going on today in the US, just not with embryos funded by the government.

[Tenuvil]

There is a federal funding ban. In essence, that is one step short of an outright ban as much scientific research is in fact federally funded. Many scientists are bitching about this. I don't see how that's a great endorsement.

Why do we have to fund this? Why do we fund science at all then? Let's get rid of NASA, and all federal funding for science, so we can have a tax break and then fall behind most of the world technologically. Sound good?

-=Lohrno

Why is it so hard for you to realize the government doesn't want any part of funding such an ethically question thing like that? The have only banned government funding of stem cells derived from an embryo. That's all. Stem cell research is still going on today in the US, just not with embryos funded by the government.

The cell lines that are "approved" are very low quality. Of the 14 approved lines only 11 are still viable for research. Those that are still usable are generally not worth the time or money as the results from using those are almost always negative. The cells differentiate poorly or not at all, and are contaminated with transfected DNA and other lab artifacts.

Opening up new more robust cell lines for research purposes would certainly provide researchers more viable options and possibly some breakthroughs such as this one in Singapore (which IMO I won't believe till it's published in a reputable journal).

[Lohrno]

Why is it so hard for you to realize the government doesn't want any part of funding such an ethically question thing like that? The have only banned government funding of stem cells derived from an embryo. That's all. Stem cell research is still going on today in the US, just not with embryos funded by the government.

Electricty, and all modern inventions are ethically questionable. Don't believe me? Go to rural Pennsylvania and ask some Amish folk. So if you're going to bring the 'Ethically Questionable' card, you'd better be prepared to argue for the banning of all modern scientific research.

Or are you going to try to tell me that your values are more important than theirs?

-=Lohrno

[Winnow]

Bill Gates should fund stem cell research! He'd be a hero!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Why is it so hard for you to realize the government doesn't want any part of funding such an ethically question thing like that? The have only banned government funding of stem cells derived from an embryo. That's all. Stem cell research is still going on today in the US, just not with embryos funded by the government.

Electricty, and all modern inventions are ethically questionable. Don't believe me? Go to rural Pennsylvania and ask some Amish folk. So if you're going to bring the 'Ethically Questionable' card, you'd better be prepared to argue for the banning of all modern scientific research.

-=Lohrno

Typical shit I always complain about. You pull some fucked example that applies to .000005% of the population as opposed the the question at hand of using stem cells from embryos is a problem that goes hand in hand with the abortion issue which we all know is a 50%/50% issue. Stop detracting.

[Seebs]

Why don't I go away? Bacause this is the only forum where I actually interact with people like yourself. It makes me a better person Lynks.

Thank you for being you.

[Lohrno]

Typical shit I always complain about. You pull some fucked example that applies to .000005% of the population as opposed the the question at hand of using stem cells from embryos is a problem that goes hand in hand with the abortion issue which we all know is a 50%/50% issue. Stop detracting.

Population dictates values? I thought we lived in a country that was supposed to be neutral to race, religion, sexuality, handicap, etc. So it's okay to discriminate against people as long as those people being discriminated against are in the minority right?

-=Lohrno

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Typical shit I always complain about. You pull some fucked example that applies to .000005% of the population as opposed the the question at hand of using stem cells from embryos is a problem that goes hand in hand with the abortion issue which we all know is a 50%/50% issue. Stop detracting.

Population dictates values? I thought we lived in a country that was supposed to be neutral to race, religion, sexuality, handicap, etc. So it's okay to discriminate against people as long as those people being discriminated against are in the minority right?

-=Lohrno

and the off the wall distractions continue.....(so sad)

[Lohrno]

and the off the wall distractions continue.....(so sad)

Actually you are the one detracting as I am trying to make a case:

You claim that embryonic stem cell research is ethically questionable.

I claim that all scientific research is ethically questionable as some group has some problem with it. Therefore it should all be allowed.

You claim I am detracting as the groups that have some problem are in the minority.

So I am asking: Are the values of the majority more important than those of the minority? I claim that the US was founded on principles of equality (not communism though equality of opportunity/opinion, not finanical) for all. Are you claiming this is not the case, and in fact the majority dictates the governing values for the minority?

-=Lohrno

[Fash]

You claim that embryonic stem cell research is ethically questionable.

I claim that all scientific research is ethically questionable as some group has some problem with it. Therefore it should all be allowed.

You claim I am detracting as the groups that have some problem are in the minority.

So I am asking: Are the values of the majority more important than those of the minority? I claim that the US was founded on principles of equality (not communism though equality of opportunity/opinion, not finanical) for all. Are you claiming this is not the case, and in fact the majority dictates the governing values for the minority?

On the face of things, the values of the majority are not more important. However, if the people in power make decisions letting their personal values influence their decision over perhaps some constitutional standard, then the voice of those values has been heard, over the rest.

In this case, embryonic stem cell research is 'ethically questionable' to conservative christians. It just so happens they hold a lot of clout in the government.

What is available now, and was never available before GWB, is funding for 21 lines of stem cell research.

What is not available is federal funding on an even smaller portion of stem cell research dealing only with stem cells recovered from embryos. A lack of funding for a NEW, UNPROVEN area of science.

I fully support ALL stem cell research, and I expect that when actual progress and successes are made with the available stem cell lines, embryonic funding will emerge.

[Lohrno]

lohrno = sparty?

the retard meter says 'could be'

And you are basing this on...?

I'd also like to note that people who resort to impotent flames for lack of a better argument are actually the losers of said debate.

-=Lohrno

[Lohrno]

On the face of things, the values of the majority are not more important. However, if the people in power make decisions letting their personal values influence their decision over perhaps some constitutional standard, then the voice of those values has been heard, over the rest.

In this case, embryonic stem cell research is 'ethically questionable' to conservative christians. It just so happens they hold a lot of clout in the government.

Right, and that's not what the founding fathers had in mind. Those who run this country should make decisions for the betterment of ALL Americans. I don't have a problem if you're going to make an economic argument for not funding this, (well I do as I think all science should be funded more, but I will leave it alone for the sake of this debate.) but I do have a problem with those in power not funding something that could result in the betterment of many people just because those in power have some kind of ethical reservation. I think it's less ethical not to fund it as it could save many lives of full grown adults who's lives have been deeply affected by some trauma.

I fully support ALL stem cell research, and I expect that when actual progress and successes are made with the available stem cell lines, embryonic funding will emerge.

Excellent. Then you have no problems with embryonic stem cell research, and as this is definitely a notable step forward you should be clamoring for embryonic funding as well!

-=Lohrno

[Fash]

I'm more likely to clamor for the removal of all religiously affiliated people from politics.

I've said it before, I'd like to see some actual successes with the available federally funded stem cell lines before the government launches funding for embryonic stem cells.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

and the off the wall distractions continue.....(so sad)

Actually you are the one detracting as I am trying to make a case:

You claim that embryonic stem cell research is ethically questionable.

I claim that all scientific research is ethically questionable as some group has some problem with it. Therefore it should all be allowed.

You claim I am detracting as the groups that have some problem are in the minority.

So I am asking: Are the values of the majority more important than those of the minority? I claim that the US was founded on principles of equality (not communism though equality of opportunity/opinion, not finanical) for all. Are you claiming this is not the case, and in fact the majority dictates the governing values for the minority?

-=Lohrno

Dude. You make no sense. Values and ethics will always be part of any government. Without values and ethics you have complete and total mayhem. You will lose all structure. If you want a complete and total free for all then you are out of luck. You won't find such a thing anywhere. Man where the hell did you come from?

[Lohrno]

I'm more likely to clamor for the removal of all religiously affiliated people from politics.

I've said it before, I'd like to see some actual successes with the available federally funded stem cell lines before the government launches funding for embryonic stem cells.

A fundamental rule of just about anything is that you have to put something in before you can get something out. The South Koreans have made a breakthrough, and we can too if we keep funding this. If the money is not being used for research then some oversight needs to be put in place, as goes with anything that is funded. The South Koreans have made a breakthrough, so there is definitely some hope for us here. The more funding you give the quicker we will see progress. It might be a logarithmic function after some point, but that would need more study and is a matter for people more in tune with scientific funding to progress ratios than I.

-=Lohrno

[Lynks]

The reality is, the US will need to wait for a President / government do say that its O.K. to use embryos for stem cell research. The only way for that to happen is a) educate the population, b) have it accepted by the population. B is obviously harder because religious people are against abortions and anything that would go along with it.

However, saying the media has anything to do with it is not entirely correct. Their are plenty of specials / documentaries on stations such as the Discovery Channel. I would personally say that the reason this isn't going foward is due to stubborness of some of the American people.



But why not just use embryos though, they're just going to waist aren't they?

[Lohrno]

Dude. You make no sense. Values and ethics will always be part of any government. Without values and ethics you have complete and total mayhem. You will lose all structure. If you want a complete and total free for all then you are out of luck. You won't find such a thing anywhere. Man where the hell did you come from?

There are different kinds of values and ethics. The ones put in government should be of the universally accepted kind: IE those that benefit society as a whole and not just some people. You set up basic rules, and let people decide personally what's better for them if it does not affect society as a whole.

Some Examples of basic Ethics:

Don't kill people.
Don't steal from people.
Don't cause other people harm.

These are rules you'll find in ANY government.

The other values are minor values that only hold true for some set of people, and can be discarded as they are only of a personal nature. Unless you want the majority dictating values for others who don't necessarily subscribe to those values.

-=Lohrno

[archeiron]

Dude. You make no sense. Values and ethics will always be part of any government. Without values and ethics you have complete and total mayhem. You will lose all structure. If you want a complete and total free for all then you are out of luck. You won't find such a thing anywhere. Man where the hell did you come from?

It does not appear to be clear to you that he is questioning the idea that a majority of the American people think stem cell research is "wrong". If that is the case, then we have a ban on something because of a vocal minority. This would be logically (heh!) consistent with banning funding for electricity because of a vocal minority (in this case, Amish). This is a loose form of the reducto ad absurdum counter proof. Basically, he is using the logic that puts the ban in place to prove something nonsensical; it is left unstated that this is a "proof" that the original logic is faulty.

It seems that you are missing the point that a majority of the research done in America is done through public universities (or university affiliated groups). There is a considerable amount of money coming to these universities from federal government sources. When the books are done to show how it was spent, it cannot include stem cell research. This is an effective means of setting a policy ban without imposing legislation; it is common in modern government and much faster/easier to put in place than a new law.

[Seebs]

Somehow Stem Cell research got lumped in with Cloning ... at least that is the way it gets played out with the media. I can see how it can get confusing.

I see the merits of Stem cell research and hope it proceeds post haste. Abortion is legal, I have no issue with 'recycling' that DNA if necessary .. however, I prsonally am firmly against fertilizing eggs solely to harvest the stem cells.

I think that makes me moderate on this issue ... The potential is amazing.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Some Examples of basic Ethics:

Don't kill people.


-=Lohrno

Uh-huh. And when is a baby a person? Big question isn't it?

Again, you fail to look long term. Which seems to be a major problem with overreactionaries such as yourself. If embryonic stem cell research was given the full go ahead are abortion rates enough to satisfy he needs for stem cells? Will it continue to? Where will they go for these stem cells if abortion is pronounced illegal again? Where do they then get the stem cells they need?

[Lohrno]

Uh-huh. And when is a baby a person? Big question isn't it?

You know what I mean by people. The whole abortion issue is a debatable ethic. Killing babies out of the womb/children/teenagers/adults is not, it is a universal ethic. 99% of people agree with the former, and far less hold the value of the latter. Being able to kill people already out of the womb is a definite negative for society. Killing fetuses is debatable since it is arguable whether or not they are people.

Again, you fail to look long term. Which seems to be a major problem with overreactionaries such as yourself. If embryonic stem cell research was given the full go ahead are abortion rates enough to satisfy he needs for stem cells? Will it continue to?

The banning of funding for embryonic stem cell funding will does not help satisfy the need for stem cells.

Where will they go for these stem cells if abortion is pronounced illegal again? Where do they then get the stem cells they need?

Not getting into the whole abortion/pro choice argument, this would result in the offshoring of science to other countries. In case you don't know, that is a bad thing.

-=Lohrno

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Uh-huh. And when is a baby a person? Big question isn't it?

You know what I mean by people. The whole abortion issue is a debatable ethic. Killing babies out of the womb/children/teenagers/adults is not, it is a universal ethic. 99% of people agree with the former, and far less hold the value of the latter. Being able to kill people already out of the womb is a definite negative for society. Killing fetuses is debatable since it is arguable whether or not they are people.

Again, you fail to look long term. Which seems to be a major problem with overreactionaries such as yourself. If embryonic stem cell research was given the full go ahead are abortion rates enough to satisfy he needs for stem cells? Will it continue to?

The banning of funding for embryonic stem cell funding will does not help satisfy the need for stem cells.

Where will they go for these stem cells if abortion is pronounced illegal again? Where do they then get the stem cells they need?

Not getting into the whole abortion/pro choice argument, this would result in the offshoring of science to other countries. In case you don't know, that is a bad thing.

-=Lohrno

You answered none of my questions. See, the whole abortion debate, is the very crux of this problem. /wink

[archeiron]

Where will they go for these stem cells if abortion is pronounced illegal again? Where do they then get the stem cells they need?

What will all the African Americans do if slavery is pronounced legal again? What will women do if we take away their right to vote and hold jobs?

[Lohrno]

See, the whole abortion debate, is the very crux of this problem. /wink

My point is that abortion since it is even debatable at all is not considered a basic ethic. Any criminalization of said Abortion would again be some group dictating values for another group. There are basic ethics and there are debatable ethics. Abortion is a debatable ethic. This makes your questions irrelevant. So we come back to the question you haven't answered. Is it okay for one group to legislate moral values for the rest?

-=Lohrno

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Where will they go for these stem cells if abortion is pronounced illegal again? Where do they then get the stem cells they need?

What will all the African Americans do if slavery is pronounced legal again? What will women do if we take away their right to vote and hold jobs?

Arch, please don't. Neither of those two will happen. However, if Bush gets to appoint 2-4 new Supreme Court Justices, Roe v. Wade, could be overturned.

Try a little logic. It not only tastes good, but it's good for ya!

[Aaeamdar]

Where will they go for these stem cells if abortion is pronounced illegal again? Where do they then get the stem cells they need?

The same place they are looking for stem cells now - from the IVF centers that are flushing unused embryos. Abortion has nothing to do with this.

Though, as long as you brought it up, I am really really looking forward to Bush getting to appoint enough justices to overturn Roe. It will really suck for a large number of poor women for several years, but that's a price worth paying (easy for me to say, I guess, since I won't be paying it)to stop the religious right movement in its tracks.

[Lohrno]

Arch, please don't. Neither of those two will happen. However, if Bush gets to appoint 2-4 new Supreme Court Justices, Roe v. Wade, could be overturned.

Try a little logic. It not only tastes good, but it's good for ya!

He those 3 questions as the same. (What will people do if they take away our rights?) Seems logical enough to me. GIGO and all.

-=Lohrno

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Where will they go for these stem cells if abortion is pronounced illegal again? Where do they then get the stem cells they need?

The same place they are looking for stem cells now - from the IVF centers that are flushing unused embryos. Abortion has nothing to do with this.

BULLSHIT! I saw the South Park where Christopher Reeve sucks the juices out of the Fetus' to get the Stem Cells. I know what I am talking about.

[archeiron]

Where will they go for these stem cells if abortion is pronounced illegal again? Where do they then get the stem cells they need?

What will all the African Americans do if slavery is pronounced legal again? What will women do if we take away their right to vote and hold jobs?

Arch, please don't. Neither of those two will happen. However, if Bush gets to appoint 2-4 new Supreme Court Justices, Roe v. Wade, could be overturned.

Try a little logic. It not only tastes good, but it's good for ya!

I don't think that you would like to take a poll of who everyone believes to be more logical between you and I. My logic and reasoning skills are more than up to par, thank you, sir.

As an aside, the crux of the Roe Vs. Wade is that citizens are entitled to rights because they are born in America. In Roe Vs. Wade, the argument was used that because the fetus is not yet born, it has no existing rights under the law, but the mother does under the 14th ammendment of the Constituion. An interesting question would arise if a mother wanted an abortion in the US but conceived in a country where abortion was illegal (and fetuses had rights) and someone contested on those grounds.

[Lynks]

Where will they go for these stem cells if abortion is pronounced illegal again? Where do they then get the stem cells they need?

They will look elsewhere, simple as that. Hopefully though, they might find other ways (other sources, maybe better ones) to continue their research.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Where will they go for these stem cells if abortion is pronounced illegal again? Where do they then get the stem cells they need?

They will look elsewhere, simple as that. Hopefully though, they might find other ways (other sources, maybe better ones) to continue their research.

And it's these "elesewheres" that need to be looked into.

We are at the beginning of this. Yet everyone is blowing it out of the water like it's a 40 year old problem. Relax. The issue will be looked into and the best solution will be implemented in the end.

[Xanastik Fox]

Argue whatever you like, but the fact is that stem cell research is the only way (imo) that cures for diseases such as AIDS will ever be found.

I read something about a young black boy being cured of Sickle Cell Anemia with Stem Cells from umbilical cord blood. SCA is a genetic disorder. The cure also changed the boys blood type.

edit: i found the article about the cure.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9812/14/cord. ... ckle.cell/

[Aaeamdar]

As an aside, the crux of the Roe Vs. Wade is that citizens are entitled to rights because they are born in America. In Roe Vs. Wade, the argument was used that because the fetus is not yet born, it has no existing rights under the law, but the mother does under the 14th ammendment of the Constituion.

Umm, no. Not sure where you got that idea from, but it is not related to Roe at all. Maybe you are confusing the lack of standing (mootness) arguement when you refer to the fetus being not yet born, but even that is a stretch. Here is the decision.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=113

The "crux" of Roe is:

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring).

Or, in lay terms, a woman has a fundental right, secured in notions of liberty and privacy, to terminate her own pregancy. This would a prescription against the States to make laws so prohibiting and would not be related to the citizenship or birthplace of the mother, nor the country of conception of the fetus.

[Aaeamdar]

And it's these "elesewheres" that need to be looked into.

You mean, for example, the elsewhere I already indicated was the primary desired source - IVF clinics tossing out unused embryos?

[Hesten]

Which is a big part of the problem when trying to have a conversation with you and others like you.

Please elaborate? Surely you're not calling all of the US media complete lies and propoganda?

-=Lohrno

Doubt that. Im sure Midnyte believe everything Fox News say.

[Voronwë]

i think it goes without saying, "Fucking Liberals!"

[Hesten]

Where will they go for these stem cells if abortion is pronounced illegal again? Where do they then get the stem cells they need?

They will look elsewhere, simple as that. Hopefully though, they might find other ways (other sources, maybe better ones) to continue their research.

And it's these "elesewheres" that need to be looked into.

And when some of those elsewheres happen to be countries that allow abortion, how long will it take before you guys decide that it will be "morally wrong" to allow the country to continue to allow abortion and invade it to "liberate" the unborn babies?

[Aaeamdar]

Just because the Pope thinks something is true, does not mean it is. Many stem cells available from aborted fetuses are already too diferentiated to be useful. They are akin to umbilical cord stem cells. Embryonic stem cells refers to completely undifferntiated tissue (similar to cancers) that are found only in very early stage embryos and zygots. IVF embryos are so pleantiful and 100% of them are completely undiferentiated tissue such that not a single cell line needs to ever come from aborted fetuses. No matter what the bible thumpers will continue to say, this issue has nothing to do with abortion.

[Lynks]

And it's these "elesewheres" that need to be looked into.

We are at the beginning of this. Yet everyone is blowing it out of the water like it's a 40 year old problem. Relax. The issue will be looked into and the best solution will be implemented in the end.

So why not use what we have now instead of letting it go to waste?