View Full Version : Frist Breaks Ranks
ICantSpellDawg
07-30-2005, 08:26
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4727869.stm
a bit saddening
i see his point, but i'd like futher explanation as to the reasons for his flip if anyone knows them
What do you all think?
Red Harvest
07-30-2005, 08:34
The stem cell research restrictions have never made much sense to me. Frist has been far more pragmatic on various medical issues than the typical GOP senator. I give him full credit for that.
i see his point, but i'd like futher explanation as to the reasons for his flip if anyone knows them
What do you all think?
He's running for president- simple as that. Time to abandon a few extreme views. Appeal to the center ect.....
He is 100% correct. If an embryo will be discarded anyway, I don't see why not to use it for research.
Samurai Waki
07-30-2005, 10:36
Finally a Conservative that has come to his senses. I don't think embryonic stem-cells really push the line between ethics and morality, its just using common sense, especially if they were to be discarded in the first place. This is just one step towards curing a few genetic diseases.
Azi Tohak
07-30-2005, 18:28
I know. But then...to get the stem cells, don't you need to have an abortion? I wonder which is the bigger worry for the far-right on this issue, either the use of a fetus, or the 'procurement' or 'obtaining' of a fetus (that just sounds bad but I can't think of another way to phrase it right now).
(I refer to 'them', not 'we' because I do not agree with most Republicans on abortion.)
I think stem-cell research is a great idea myself.
Azi
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-30-2005, 19:01
There are more types of stem cells than just Embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells come from fetuses and there is no proof that they can be used for anything - only the presuposition that they can. To my knowledge, anyway.
Adult stem cells - come from adults, I think specifically fat cells.
Other kinds include those from umbilical cords.
Doctors have already used non-embryonic stem cells to treat people. But they don't get press time at all, presumably because they aren't controversial.
Marcellus
07-31-2005, 00:07
This Frist person made a sensible decision, IMO. Good for him.
There are more types of stem cells than just Embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells come from fetuses and there is no proof that they can be used for anything - only the presuposition that they can. To my knowledge, anyway.
Adult stem cells - come from adults, I think specifically fat cells.
Other kinds include those from umbilical cords.
Doctors have already used non-embryonic stem cells to treat people. But they don't get press time at all, presumably because they aren't controversial.
Although Embryonic stem cells have not actually been used to treat people yet, to the extent of my limited knowledge (the techniques surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells are still very much in the development phase, I believe), they have a greater potential than adult stem cells, because they are pluripotent - able to grow into any type of body cell (of which there are around 200). This makes them more useful.
Adult stem cells are far less general. Many think that an adult stem cell (which BTW can be found in virtually any organ of the body, not just fat cells) can only grow into one type of cell. There is some evidence that certain types of adult stem cells can grow into several different cell types (e.g. bone marrow adult stem cells producing liver, nerve, muscle, hair follicle and kidney cells), but they are still not thought to be as pluripotent or useful as embryonic stem cells.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-31-2005, 00:13
This isnt about stem cell research but whether the federal government(we) should pay for it.
Azi Tohak
07-31-2005, 00:29
Oh. Well, thanks for the info on the subject at hand. We pay for all sorts of other research don't we? Why not this? What is the difference between stem cell research and disease research?
Azi
Gawain of Orkeny
07-31-2005, 00:38
What is the difference between stem cell research and disease research?
How about you dont have to destroy human embryos for the others. Hey I bet if we killed and disected people with uncurable diseases we may discover a cure. Who thinks this is a good idea?
Marcellus
07-31-2005, 00:58
How about you dont have to destroy human embryos for the others. Hey I bet if we killed and disected people with uncurable diseases we may discover a cure. Who thinks this is a good idea?
The thing is, the embryoes used will never live - they are blobs of cells in storage that will never grow into a sentient being, leftovers of IVF.
A person with an incurable disease is an independent, living person, however.
This isnt about stem cell research but whether the federal government(we) should pay for it.
Indeed, from some media outlets, you'd get that idea that its akin to an outright ban- where they burn violators at the stake....
No one is stopping them from researching stem cells- the federal gov just isnt paying for it.
KafirChobee
07-31-2005, 01:59
How about you dont have to destroy human embryos for the others. Hey I bet if we killed and disected people with uncurable diseases we may discover a cure. Who thinks this is a good idea?
Whoa! That's a bit of a stretch to counter using embryo's that are going to be discarded anyway to disecting the terminally ill (presumably while they are still breathing on their own). Hmmmm, doubt even us liberal-progressives would go along with that. A bit to Mengella (sp) Anyway, the right (and BushII) now believe life begins in the unfertilized egg. If it were the sperm, millions of men would be guity of genocide ... from masterbation. ~D
Truth is, it doesn't matter what we do. Hold back our own scientific and medical community - the rest of the world will be eternally greatful. South korea seems to be making history, we can just follow in their footsteps - and the Brits, Danes, French, etc. After all, no need for us to lead in everything. Oh, that's right .... we are falling behind in just about everything .... 'cept military hardware.
~D
Papewaio
07-31-2005, 02:34
Actually we already do the equivalent of experimenting on the terminal ill with drug trials which in turn yield millions of dollars for private enterprise.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-31-2005, 02:39
Whoa! That's a bit of a stretch to counter using embryo's that are going to be discarded anyway to disecting the terminally ill (presumably while they are still breathing on their own)
That wasnt the question that was posed..
This was
What is the difference between stem cell research and disease research?
Nothing about only embryo's that are going to be discarded anyway . That maybe what the Frist is speaking of but not thats not what was asked. I have nothing against this by the way. But again thats not the question either. As I pointed out its a matter as to whether the Federal government should pay for it. As a Libertarian and a constitutionalist I dont like the government getting larger nor do I see any basis in the constitution authorizng congress to spend money on such research. Dont try to make me out to be an idiot. I can handle that myself. ~;) Nice try though. ~D
Gawain of Orkeny
07-31-2005, 06:26
. Let's pretend for a moment that we are actually taking little itty bitty brand new fetuses for this, instead of using ones that would be discarded. That fetus' "life" is expendable if it can cure someone with, say, Parkinsons. Or Cancer.
How casually you state its "life is expendable. That was once you. It will never be duplicated again. Like I said why not kill off the old and the weak if it will cure the young. Plus there wont be so many to feed and house. Reminds me of Logans Run.
This is the ultimate case of Religion contradicting Common-Sense
What the hell does religion have to do with this.?
Azi Tohak
07-31-2005, 07:03
Indeed, from some media outlets, you'd get that idea that its akin to an outright ban- where they burn violators at the stake....
No one is stopping them from researching stem cells- the federal gov just isnt paying for it.
Ah ha! I know the government has more money than anyone else (well...maybe Gates and whoever came up with that Ikea ..stuff.. [insert another word with S in there]), but that makes more sense. Now I understand how some companies in California are doing it.
Ah well. If the government supports it fine. Otherwise, don't keep people from doing it with someone else's money.
Azi
KafirChobee
07-31-2005, 07:14
First off, not all (what is by the way?) stem cell research is sponsored by or supported by the government. There are a multitude of independent research facilities studying the use of and for this. Many are sponsored by suckers like me that contribute to various charities that promote their own research. There are alzheimers, spinal paralysis, cancer, LouGherig's disease, etc. They may receive some funds (our taxes), but the bulk is from individual and corporate contributions (corporate, because imagine the money to be made if a parapelegic could recover the ability to walk, a stroke victim the ability to speak, etc.).
If, your only problem is with the government using out taxes to further the betterment of mankind; versus building weapons of mass destruction, then exactly what is your point? That it isn't in the constitution for our government contribute to science? Unless, of course, it is for warfare or to improve methods of interrorgation (sp intent.)?
Personally, I didn't think Frist had it in him. Good for him. Proves there are still Republicans that can think beyond the present mantra. ~D
BTW, Gawain, I in no way intended to slander you. I may have misinterpreted your meaning .... alot of that going around these days. Sorry, mate.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-31-2005, 16:44
It's expendable as a matter of common-sense. It won't feel any pain, it won't even have the capacity to think about it. You can pull the moral guilt trip all you like, but that's not going to cure any diseases, now is it?
Oh so not feeling any pain or not thinking about it makes it ok? How about I give you a big shot of morphine and then while your passed out I disect you. It has nothing to do with a guilt trip but the FACT that this is a human life. Something that escapes many of you. The FACT that its not fully developed here is irellevant. It takes 20 or more years for a human to be fully developed if not more so up until then we can murder them?
And religion has everything to do with this. Why do you think Bush is so against abortion, and stem cell research? The man is deeply religious.
Well Im not yet I agree with him. How do you explain that. Besides Bush cant hold this up by himself. Again religion has nothing to do with the federal government funding this. Neither Bush nor the government have put any restrictions on stem cell research. Theres a thing called the sanctity of life. It sounds religous but its not. Its called respect for your fellow humanbeings no matter what state they are in. Again I have no problem with using an embryo that would be disgarded anyway but I do have one with creating them solely for this purpose.
Honestly, is guilt tripping the only argument your side of this fence has? Is it so hard to understand that it might be a good thing to sacrifice a tiny little cell or three to cure hundreds (thousands? millions?) of people from currently uncurable diseases?
Hmm, I guess its the only argument in the same way exaggeration is for your side. :shrug:
I thought it was obvious. A cell or two to cure millions of people? That's clearly false and a gross oversimplification.
Hardly. It's innefficient to assume that it will always require as many cells as it theoretically does today. In the long history of science, one of the main steps is eventually synthesizing the cure. Who knows? Maybe in ten, twenty years they'll be able to create synthetic stem cells from scratch, or at least clone thousands of stem cells from just one.
They can't be produced from thin air. Even cloning involves the creation and then destruction of embryos. And it's not 2 or 3 cells- its hundreds. And every person treated by them would need more harvested.
On another level, you could argue embryonic stem cells would be a waste of federal funding. Has anything productive yet come from them? Many treatments have been developed from adult stem cells and there has yet to be anything shown that can be produced from embryonic stem cells- especially considering developments in olfactory steam cells and those harvested from fat tissue, which have been found capable of growing into many different types of cells- just like embryonic ones.
Personally, Id much rather see more effort put into these areas that have a proven track record, a more promising future and far less controversy.
I must confess that I see no problem with stem cell research. However, I suspect that many of Bush's supporters do and that is more to the point here.
America didn't get the world's best military with that mentality. It's not just a matter of curing diseases, it's a matter of national pride, IMO.
What mentality? Uses resources where they'll do the most good instead of throwing them down a blackhole? What does it have to do with national pride? Embryonic stem cells have helped no one- unless you count researchers paychecks... There is no evidence to suggest that there is anything they can do that adult lines can't accomplish as easily or easier and cheaper. And, they're far far less controversial. You're argument sounds like its getting pretty weak when the only reason you can come up with is nation pride.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.