Posted on 08/10/2004 2:07:42 PM PDT by xzins
There is no ban on ESCR....they just want to use your tax money to do it with.
Have them introduce a bill in congress and see if it gets through. If it does, then it's passed the hurdle for forcing upon people things that they morally reject.
If it doesn't, then that's the way decisions are made on controversial items in our Constitutional democratic republic.
ping
Adult stem cell research is already supported. It has a lot more promise than embryonic stem cell research at the moment, but since we have stem cell families derived from long gone embryos, the funding level is currently sufficient. If private researchers want to do more, they can find private funding. Private funding could double federal funding by just asking a few hollywood stars to toss a little bit of money into a research fund.
But as is typical of liberals - they'd rather spend tax payer money for a specific research project that most Americans would oppose if they understood the differences between adult stem cell harvesting and embryonic stem cell harvesting.
Christian Medical Association
Yeah right - Anybody can use any word they want in their name now without ever being challenged by anyone.
How many "conservative ..." or "...for conservative..." or any other "conservative" sounding names are actually fronts for communist organizations?
Who knows for sure, because the media whores will never ask them who they are, nor report it if they do know.
Look them up on the internet and see if they have a website. Then tell us your opinion.
ping
So I've never been able to find and explanation (layman terms please) of why embryonic stem cells would be preferrable to adult ones..
Anyone?
Bump for a later read.
Aside from the well-documented finding that adult stem cells are yielding better results than embryonic stem cells, the short answer to your question is this: Embryonic stem cell research promotes abortion and abortion rights is an all-important issue for the left.
Almost all adult stem cells are already of a particular type of cell (fat, bone marrow, etc.). It takes quite a bit of biochemical manipulation to turn them into other types of cells (heart or brain cells) that do not have stem cells, but it can be done. Once turned, they tend to stay that way during cell division.
Embryonic stem cells should be far more flexible and more easily turned into any sort of cell you want, after all as they divide in the developing embryo they do eventually and naturally produce every type of cell. A major technical problem here is that embryonic stem cells are all too flexible and once they start living and dividing in the target organ they could easily produce anything else (hair, bone, skin) unless extremely carefully controlled.
Of course, the embryonic stem cell control problem is separate from the moral problem of harvesting developing humans
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
I'm no biologist, but I believe the embryonic stem cells have a greater potential to be "anything" in terms of cells.
Dobson reported that the anything they become is far too frequently tumorous.
I'm afraid that you don't understand the definition of "embryonic stem cells." These are the cells that are harvested from embryos that are approximately 5 days old, before the differentiation that makes them "fetal" or, subsequently, "adult" stem cells.
There are no embryonic stem cells in cord blood.
If there were, then the thousands of patients who have received cord blood transplants would be growing embryos or tumors in their bodies.
Thank you for the ping on this important subject. I hope that everyone who cares about human rights will call their family doctor and their Legislators to let them know that it is not acceptable to harvest human embryos for their parts.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Pro-Life BUMP
I wish the republican talk show hosts would go to a Mike Reagan seminar and learn about this issue. They screw it up all the time. Something I have noticed. Between embryonic and adult stem cells.
By the 1950s doctors had turned this horror into hope, transfusing marrow stem cells into humans to treat various blood diseases. By the 1980s stem-cell transplants with marrow and umbilical cord blood were routinely curing leukemias. ASCs now treat about 80 different diseases.
And ESCs? "An inescapable truth is that the adult versions are the only human stem cells so far employed for therapy in humans," writes Parson. She also admits it appears the only advantage of ESCs is potential; that it's widely believed they can differentiate into any type cell while differentiation of ASCs (at least 14 types have been discovered) is more limited. Yet she also concedes this belief may not be true; that one laboratory seemingly showed an ASC to be as pliable as an ESC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.