MR

Full article: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20 ... hrough.htm

Just before Thanksgiving, researchers in Wisconsin and Japan announced a breakthrough in stem-cell research. This time, it was good news for those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life.
Enlarge this Image


The researchers announced that they had “successfully reprogrammed human skin cells into cells indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.”

The announcement at the University of Wisconsin was accompanied by the usual hype: The research “has tremendous implications” for medicine, drugs, and “transplantation therapies.”

The unusual part was that the leader of the research team, James Thomson, told reporters that these cells would, over time, replace embryonic stem cells in research—and he is glad of it, because he had moral qualms.

There will always be a great debate on stem cell research. Big mouthed televangelists, who dont know what they are talking about for lack of education will always put the 2 cents in and their flocks listen. These researchers are moving ahead to eradicate diseases that have plagued humans since the beginning of time. The knowledge is there.


As far as Bush saying he didnt't have a choice at vetoing the stem bill because it was a moral issue, he would change his mind quickly if he knew something was out there to save his wife or daughters.

I had a friend that went to Canada 5 yrs ago to have a stem cell proceedure that they would not do here. She is alive and well and living a wonderful life.

Perrydise wrote:There will always be a great debate on stem cell research. Big mouthed televangelists, who dont know what they are talking about for lack of education will always put the 2 cents in and their flocks listen. These researchers are moving ahead to eradicate diseases that have plagued humans since the beginning of time. The knowledge is there.


As far as Bush saying he didnt't have a choice at vetoing the stem bill because it was a moral issue, he would change his mind quickly if he knew something was out there to save his wife or daughters.

I had a friend that went to Canada 5 yrs ago to have a stem cell proceedure that they would not do here. She is alive and well and living a wonderful life.

Again, I don't understand all these presumptions you and others on this board seem to hold. Just because someone applies a religious viewpoint doesn't make one uneducated. Conversation PC posted an article about stem cell research that holds great possibilities for someone like your friend, but doesn't destroy someone else in the process. Let me ask you this, how would you feel if you were the one being made the guinea pig? Let's harvest you and your stem cells and your organs and let's see how well you like it. Oh, but wait, you can talk so you're a person right?

"Big mouthed televangelists, who dont know what they are talking about for lack of education will always put the 2 cents in and their flocks listen"

Yet again, you sell people short. I for one don't hold a view point just because someone else does. I do the research and come up with my own POV. If that matches the original supposition, great. But not usually. I love to argue.

conversationpc wrote:Full article: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20 ... hrough.htm

Just before Thanksgiving, researchers in Wisconsin and Japan announced a breakthrough in stem-cell research. This time, it was good news for those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life.
Enlarge this Image


The researchers announced that they had “successfully reprogrammed human skin cells into cells indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells.”

The announcement at the University of Wisconsin was accompanied by the usual hype: The research “has tremendous implications” for medicine, drugs, and “transplantation therapies.”

The unusual part was that the leader of the research team, James Thomson, told reporters that these cells would, over time, replace embryonic stem cells in research—and he is glad of it, because he had moral qualms.

OT- Man, I'm glad you're here. Board wouldn't be the same without you.

scarygirl wrote:Conversation PC posted an article about stem cell research...

FYI, my screen name stands for "conversation piece" not "conversation P.C.". Comes from a song of the same name by Savatage.

conversationpc wrote:

scarygirl wrote:Conversation PC posted an article about stem cell research...

FYI, my screen name stands for "conversation piece" not "conversation P.C.". Comes from a song of the same name by Savatage.

Oh, sorry.

conversationpc wrote:

scarygirl wrote:Conversation PC posted an article about stem cell research...

FYI, my screen name stands for "conversation piece" not "conversation P.C.". Comes from a song of the same name by Savatage.

Ahhh! I thought it came from having conversations on the PC all day long. Just kidding, bro! I really didn't know what it meant.

conversationpc wrote:

scarygirl wrote:Conversation PC posted an article about stem cell research...

FYI, my screen name stands for "conversation piece" not "conversation P.C.". Comes from a song of the same name by Savatage.

Well heck Dave, change your screen name to Conversation Piece then dude! Or Conversation Peace, since you're a peace maker. Or are you?

Perrydise wrote:I had a friend that went to Canada 5 yrs ago to have a stem cell proceedure that they would not do here.
She is alive and well and living a wonderful life.

Any time I see my Country slide helping health wise in someones life makes
me even prouder to be a Canuck.
Thanks for that tibit of info Perrydise.

Is a Grey area, where science meets religious ethos.On one hand I can see the reasoning behind the Christian viewpoint of pro-life regarding stem cell research etc and the use of embryonic cells, but then I can also see the value of stem cell research because it is for the good of those who without it would be denied a quality of life and even life itself.

Everyone, except two cousins, and 2 uncles& My gran have died of cancer in my family, I have a very large family. I know that if there was a chance to save a member of my family to this terrible disease ( I was tested for it a while ago) I would be grateful for the process, in fact more than grateful, words could not describe how I would feel if i thought it could save some one from that.
But that is just my opinion, personally for me those cells would be a gift of life, and in that way the embryo would live on in that person, and not become something of the past that once existed .

However, if they could find a way of simulating those cells without the use of embryos then that would also be welcome.

Perrydise wrote:There will always be a great debate on stem cell research. Big mouthed televangelists, who dont know what they are talking about for lack of education will always put the 2 cents in and their flocks listen.

Yeah, better to flush them away or throw them in a landfill than use them to save another life.

ohsherrie wrote:

Perrydise wrote:There will always be a great debate on stem cell research. Big mouthed televangelists, who dont know what they are talking about for lack of education will always put the 2 cents in and their flocks listen.

Yeah, better to flush them away or throw them in a landfill than use them to save another life.

What happens when it become standard to develop fetuses just for the purpose of saving other people? Where do we draw the line? Is humanity really so low that we're going to develop a subclass? That is what we're talking about. What about your stem cells? Care to share? What if we have to hack you up to do it. Now are you so willing?With this new research we won't even have to go there, and that's not a bad thing.

But I don't know anything I guess. I'm just stupid.

The story in the link below will help eliminate the moral issues.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=688591

Here's a thought, too... CORD BLOOD. Save it.

Rick wrote:The story in the link below will help eliminate the moral issues.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=688591

I understand that, but people on this thread have totally ignored that and have instead reverted to questioning people's intelligence and making generalizations. What you posted was what the OP posted, but because it came from a religious publication it was completely ignored.

Rhiannon wrote:Here's a thought, too... CORD BLOOD. Save it.

I have no problem with Cord blood. I have no problem with science or the use of stem cells so long as it done in a way that preserves the physical integrity of the person it's coming from. What the OP posted has shown promise of doing exactly that. Everybody wins.

scarygirl wrote:

Rick wrote:The story in the link below will help eliminate the moral issues.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=688591

I understand that, but people on this thread have totally ignored that and have instead reverted to questioning people's intelligence and making generalizations. What you posted was what the OP posted, but because it came from a religious publication it was completely ignored.

I guess I should have read the original post.

scarygirl wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

Perrydise wrote:There will always be a great debate on stem cell research. Big mouthed televangelists, who dont know what they are talking about for lack of education will always put the 2 cents in and their flocks listen.

Yeah, better to flush them away or throw them in a landfill than use them to save another life.

What happens when it become standard to develop fetuses just for the purpose of saving other people? Where do we draw the line? Is humanity really so low that we're going to develop a subclass? That is what we're talking about. What about your stem cells? Care to share? What if we have to hack you up to do it. Now are you so willing?With this new research we won't even have to go there, and that's not a bad thing.

But I don't know anything I guess. I'm just stupid.

Who said anything about shit that extreme except those big mouthed evangelists?

Rick wrote:

scarygirl wrote:

Rick wrote:The story in the link below will help eliminate the moral issues.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=688591

I understand that, but people on this thread have totally ignored that and have instead reverted to questioning people's intelligence and making generalizations. What you posted was what the OP posted, but because it came from a religious publication it was completely ignored.

I guess I should have read the original post.

Rick I'm not mad at you. I do get upset however by the broad brush strokes people use.

scarygirl wrote:

Rhiannon wrote:Here's a thought, too... CORD BLOOD. Save it.

I have no problem with Cord blood. I have no problem with science or the use of stem cells so long as it done in a way that preserves the physical integrity of the person it's coming from. What the OP posted has shown promise of doing exactly that. Everybody wins.

Agreed 100%.

scarygirl wrote:

Rick wrote:

scarygirl wrote:

Rick wrote:The story in the link below will help eliminate the moral issues.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=688591

I understand that, but people on this thread have totally ignored that and have instead reverted to questioning people's intelligence and making generalizations. What you posted was what the OP posted, but because it came from a religious publication it was completely ignored.

I guess I should have read the original post.

Rick I'm not mad at you. I do get upset however by the broad brush strokes people use.

I knew you weren't, and I understand your frustration.

scarygirl wrote: I do get upset however by the broad brush strokes people use.

Probably no more upset than some people with the opposing point of view get at inflamatory hyperbole like this:

scarygirl wrote:What happens when it become standard to develop fetuses just for the purpose of saving other people? Where do we draw the line? Is humanity really so low that we're going to develop a subclass? That is what we're talking about.

ohsherrie wrote:

scarygirl wrote: I do get upset however by the broad brush strokes people use.

Probably no more upset than some people with the opposing point of view get at inflamatory hyperbole like this:

scarygirl wrote:What happens when it become standard to develop fetuses just for the purpose of saving other people? Where do we draw the line? Is humanity really so low that we're going to develop a subclass? That is what we're talking about.

That's not inflammatory and that's not hyberpole, that is, imo, where we're headed. Truthfully, where do we draw the line?

ohsherrie wrote:

scarygirl wrote: I do get upset however by the broad brush strokes people use.

Probably no more upset than some people with the opposing point of view get at inflamatory hyperbole like this:

scarygirl wrote:What happens when it become standard to develop fetuses just for the purpose of saving other people? Where do we draw the line? Is humanity really so low that we're going to develop a subclass? That is what we're talking about.

There's nothing inflammatory about that last question. It's an entirely legitimate question to discuss.

ohsherrie wrote:

scarygirl wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

Perrydise wrote:There will always be a great debate on stem cell research. Big mouthed televangelists, who dont know what they are talking about for lack of education will always put the 2 cents in and their flocks listen.

Yeah, better to flush them away or throw them in a landfill than use them to save another life.

What happens when it become standard to develop fetuses just for the purpose of saving other people? Where do we draw the line? Is humanity really so low that we're going to develop a subclass? That is what we're talking about. What about your stem cells? Care to share? What if we have to hack you up to do it. Now are you so willing?With this new research we won't even have to go there, and that's not a bad thing.

But I don't know anything I guess. I'm just stupid.

Who said anything about shit that extreme except those big mouthed evangelists?

No, I say that. That's MY OPINION.

conversationpiece wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

scarygirl wrote: I do get upset however by the broad brush strokes people use.

Probably no more upset than some people with the opposing point of view get at inflamatory hyperbole like this:

scarygirl wrote:What happens when it become standard to develop fetuses just for the purpose of saving other people? Where do we draw the line? Is humanity really so low that we're going to develop a subclass? That is what we're talking about.

There's nothing inflammatory about that last question. It's an entirely legitimate question to discuss.

If it hadn't been preceeded by this comment:

scarygirl wrote:Let's harvest you and your stem cells and your organs and let's see how well you like it. Oh, but wait, you can talk so you're a person right?

and an overall confrontational tone to her previous posts and had been presented in the form of a question for discussion rather than a challenge I probably would have taken it as one.

ohsherrie wrote:

conversationpiece wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

scarygirl wrote: I do get upset however by the broad brush strokes people use.

Probably no more upset than some people with the opposing point of view get at inflamatory hyperbole like this:

scarygirl wrote:What happens when it become standard to develop fetuses just for the purpose of saving other people? Where do we draw the line? Is humanity really so low that we're going to develop a subclass? That is what we're talking about.

There's nothing inflammatory about that last question. It's an entirely legitimate question to discuss.

If it hadn't been preceeded by this comment:

scarygirl wrote:Let's harvest you and your stem cells and your organs and let's see how well you like it. Oh, but wait, you can talk so you're a person right?

and an overall confrontational tone to her previous posts and had been presented in the form of a question for discussion rather than a challenge I probably would have taken it as one.

That question was to someone else. Somewhat strong, but no more confrontational than words like "big mouth televangelist who lead their flock" and "uneducated." It is a valid question. How would one feel if someone wanted their cells, their organs etc?

When the original article was placed, instead of commenting on the discovery, one felt like they had to insult the intelligence of religion and thus all people who share that particlular viewpoint.

scarygirl wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

scarygirl wrote: I do get upset however by the broad brush strokes people use.

Probably no more upset than some people with the opposing point of view get at inflamatory hyperbole like this:

scarygirl wrote:What happens when it become standard to develop fetuses just for the purpose of saving other people? Where do we draw the line? Is humanity really so low that we're going to develop a subclass? That is what we're talking about.

That's not inflammatory and that's not hyberpole, that is, imo, where we're headed. Truthfully, where do we draw the line?

Well, IMO, you draw it at artificially creating fetuses just for that purpose.

Parents have for quite some time now been having second children to provide donors for terminal older siblings, so if parents decide to have another child to provide stem cells that's their choice. Even though I would hope they would carry the child to term, raise it and love it, I don't think that's a govermental issue.

ohsherrie wrote:

scarygirl wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:

scarygirl wrote: I do get upset however by the broad brush strokes people use.

Probably no more upset than some people with the opposing point of view get at inflamatory hyperbole like this:

scarygirl wrote:What happens when it become standard to develop fetuses just for the purpose of saving other people? Where do we draw the line? Is humanity really so low that we're going to develop a subclass? That is what we're talking about.

That's not inflammatory and that's not hyberpole, that is, imo, where we're headed. Truthfully, where do we draw the line?

Well, IMO, you draw it at artificially creating fetuses just for that purpose.

Parents have for quite some time now been having second children to provide donors for terminal older siblings, so if parents decide to have another child to provide stem cells that's their choice. Even though I would hope they would carry the child to term, raise it and love it, I don't think that's a govermental issue.

So, that's my opinion. I feel we are headed that way. We need protections from creating guinea pigs. Back in the 30's and 40's Hitler and his ilk performed experiments on people that he felt inferior, i.e. the disabled, the infirm, the elderly, etc. I also believe in the 60's that mentally and phsically disabled people were sterilized against their will. We now have laws protecting against that. We have laws to protect our present children from neglect and abuse. As to these second children, they also need protection. What if these second children don't want to give someone one their stem cells? Or their organs. Or their bone marrow.

Those types of treatments are no walk in the park. And I am sorry, but children are supposed to be created out of love, not what they can give or do for you.

scarygirl wrote:
That question was to someone else. Somewhat strong, but no more confrontational than words like "big mouth televangelist who lead their flock" and "uneducated." It is a valid question. How would one feel if someone wanted their cells, their organs etc.

I agree that the "big mouthed" and "uneducated" were unnecessary and I really should have left them out of my quote from that post, but I agree completely with the overall meaning of the post. Religion has no place in the laws of this country and the influence that evangelicals have had on republican leaders is a very sore point with me.

My favorite line from any TV show that I've watched in my life is from the West Wing when Jed Bartlett told three of them (one of which was obviously representing Falwell) to "get their fat asses out of his White House."