So if we freeze a person, and then kill him, he didn’t really die? So the Marching Band Killer in KITH didn’t really commit a crime?

Again, living doesn’t happen in a freezer. You’re making my point. And that guy? You killed him when you froze him. If you want to kill him again, well, good luck with that.

Every oak tree used to be an acorn. Every acorn is not an oak tree.

Pablo on September 29, 2008 at 6:52 PM

I disagree. Every adult oak tree grows from an acorn, but the acorn is a form of oak tree. An immature form, but a form, nonetheless.

unclesmrgol on September 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Your position allows for the cadavers to be created in the first place. The gold in the teeth is of little consequence compared to the creation of the cadaver.

dedalus on September 29, 2008 at 1:02 PM

Which cadavers? Please explain more fully. Are you talking about mommy? She’s still alive, and she’d still be alive even in the absence of an abortion. It’s the kid who isn’t in the presence of an abortion.

And living doesn’t happen in subzero storage.

Pablo on September 29, 2008 at 6:53 PM

So if we freeze a person, and then kill him, he didn’t really die? So the Marching Band Killer in KITH didn’t really commit a crime?

[I assume you are talking about cryogenic storage, which generally happens far far far below freezing -- in fact, as close to "absolute zero" as they can get it to go economically.]

We ALL used to be one celled animals. EVERYTHING that you are now was contained in that miraculous being.

How was life in cryostasis? And do you send Christmas cards to the doctor that created you? Do your mourn the deaths of your 5 or so fellow embryos that were implanted but didn’t take?

Every oak tree used to be an acorn. Every acorn is not an oak tree.

McCain radio ad: “Stem Cell Response”
The McCain campaign launches a new radio ad today, “Stem Cell
Response”, after Barack Obama and his campaign repeatedly
mischaracterized John McCain’s record on the issue in ads……

unclesmrgol on September 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Your position allows for the cadavers to be created in the first place. The gold in the teeth is of little consequence compared to the creation of the cadaver.

It seems odd to argue over the small percentage of embryos used for stem cell research when there are hundreds of thousands of excess embryos created during fertility treatments, many of which are destroyed with no purpose.

dedalus on September 29, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Again,

“Well, the Jews were gassed anyway, so the gold in the teeth of their cadavers is fair game”.

That’s what your argument boils down to. I’m arguing that even one “cadaver” harvested is one too many.

I was a researcher at the University of Michigan for six years in one of the top stem cell biology labs in the world before I came to teach and do research at Grand Valley State University. So whenever there is a discovery, such as researchers finding that skin cells can be reprogrammed to behave like stem cells, my family asks me whether embryonic stem cell research is still necessary.

The answer is yes. Each therapeutic approach – whether using embryonic, adult or other types of stem cells – poses significant challenges to researchers before they can be safely used in people. Each disease offers different challenges that may be overcome using one type of stem cell therapy, but not another. We simply don’t know which therapeutic approach will work for different diseases.

Pablo, your guy says “we simply don’t know”, yet he acknowledges that there are already “a handful” of adult stemcell therapies with FDA Approval, and, interestingly, can’t claim in his article a single embryonic stem cell therapy:

Opponents of the proposal claim adult stem cells are already being used to treat 73 diseases, but in fact 40 years of adult stem cell research have resulted in only a handful of treatments winning federal approval.

Of course, experimental therapies don’t have “federal approval”, so we don’t know how many other adult stemcell therapies are in the pipeline. What we do know is that there are — zero, zip, nada — embryonic therapies being touted in anything other than animal trials — and left unsaid is how much of an anti-rejection therapy is needed in conjunction with their use. Science has already proven to us how sensitive the human immune system is, and any person who gets a transplant (or their caregiver) understands how ill the anti-rejection drugs make them. Since any tissues developed using embryonic stem cells belong to another individual, embryonic stem cells bring those same issues to the fore.

In this fight, I’d stick with the science that has won a few, not the science that has yet to win anything.

alwyr to unclesmrgol: WTF?? Funny, I had thought class warfare was initiated by W. Jefferson C., and had been the MAINSTAY of the liberal agenda ever since.

alwyr on September 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM

I guess I should have been less sarcastic. One of Barack Obama’s attack ads counts how many times McCain says “middle class” as opposed to Obama’s used of the word. Of course, setting the middle class against the other classes is a kind of class warfare, which the Democrats are apparently advocating, based on Obama’s ad. I note that McCain used “Main Street” vs. “Wall Street” instead, which has no classist connotation other than saying that the players on Wall Street have different goals than all the other city and town dwellers.

Pablo, California’s voters allocated $6B for embryonic stem cell research in 2004. Name one interesting research finding that has resulted which would lead to any improvement in the human condition.”>Pablo, California’s voters allocated $6B for embryonic stem cell research in 2004. Name one interesting research finding that has resulted which would lead to any improvement in the human condition.

Again, it’s a young field and extensive research must be done before you’ll see anything happening in humans. Both patient protections and the realities of biopmedical research demand that. But to answer your question, some very, very good things are being done in the proving ground, animals. See here. (PDF)

The point is that if you can get all the good results from using a patient’s own stem cells, then why go anywhere near the ethical, moral, and ultimately scientific morass (as you attempt to deal with tissue rejection issues) into which you plunge should you use embryonic stem cells?

If it were that simple, scientists would bother with the headaches. But it isn’t as this ASC researcher notes.

Pablo, California’s voters allocated $6B for embryonic stem cell research in 2004. Name one interesting research finding that has resulted which would lead to any improvement in the human condition. One.

Now, go here and read a bit. Not a bit has changed from when I wrote the earliest stuff in 2004, nor in 2006. Read my 2008 posting which references a Daily Telegraph (UK) article about a successful use of autologous stem cells, contrasted with the “potential” for embryonic stem cells.

The point is that if you can get all the good results from using a patient’s own stem cells, then why go anywhere near the ethical, moral, and ultimately scientific morass (as you attempt to deal with tissue rejection issues) into which you plunge should you use embryonic stem cells? As you consider your answer, consider my post of 16 December 2006 wherein the BBC documents the use of healthy newborn babies in the Ukraine as a source of stem cells for the “trade” (after all, you can get a lot more stem cells out of a full term baby than you can from a smaller “ball of cells”).

Ah, that’s the rub. Is it OK?
unclesmrgol on September 29, 2008 at 11:37 AM

It seems odd to argue over the small percentage of embryos used for stem cell research when there are hundreds of thousands of excess embryos created during fertility treatments, many of which are destroyed with no purpose.

If it is OK for couples to create and destroy embryos as part of fertility treatments, then it would seem that destroying the embryos without using the stem cells for research is wasteful.

Right. I have yet to hear an argument that explains how simply destroying excess IVF embryos, or leaving them in cryostasis indefinitely is more ethical than using them for research purposes.

No, increasing the number of times McCain replaces the term “Main Street” with “middle class” in order to initiate class warfare IS.
unclesmrgol

__________________________

alwyr to unclesmrgol: WTF?? Funny, I had thought class warfare was initiated by W. Jefferson C., and had been the MAINSTAY of the liberal agenda ever since.

CC

If it is OK for couples to create and destroy embryos as part of fertility treatments, then it would seem that destroying the embryos without using the stem cells for research is wasteful.

dedalus on September 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Ah, that’s the rub. Is it OK? Both situations involve scientific experiments on another human being [in this matter, we Lifers have science on our side, while the Choicers only have established law]. So the question comes down to — how much experimentation of a form not designed to improve the quality of an individual person’s life do we allow to be performed upon that person, particularly if that person is incapable of giving assent?

All of this debate stems from ignorance of key facets of the Hippocratic Oath (which many medical schools have abandoned for obvious reasons): do not give abortions; do no harm.

When I watched those two doctors in that anti-McCain ad talking about his cancer, these same thoughts ran through my mind. Were they using their medical skills to help a person or to harm one?

And, in fact, hEsc has turned out to be a useless dead end.

No, it hasn’t at all.

Researchers have discovered ways to turn adult stem cells into plenipotential stem cells, making the destruction of embryos unnecessary.

They’ve made big strides in this area, but they have not yet created truly pluripotent cells.

Even before that, no treatments were developed from hEsc because of their unstable properties, while adult stem cell research has created many new treatments.

ASC research has a 35 year head start on ESC research, so decrying the fact that there are currently no approved ESC treatments renders them useless is a bit like calling your toddler useless because he can’t drive or hold a job. And if “unstable properties” were a bar to usefulness, then why would we be happy about cord blood cells, or coaxing ASC’s into a similar primitive state?

How so? If Johnny and Barry are at the town hall meeting and the question is ‘What is the difference between you on the economy rescue plan?’ there are going to be a lot of uhs and ummms from both candidates. McCain can’t win by being part of a team here.

I’m still on the train but starting to wonder where the hell the conductor went.

Limerick on September 29, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Why don’t we wait until the deal is done and see where McCain is?

CC

The only way McCain can win this is to line up Obama’s weaknesses and begin hammering them home. Clearly, most people see McCain as a much better CIC for foreign relations–but they don’t care anymore. This finally mess is largely the result of Democratic extortion over a long period. I don’t know why McCain hasn’t begun to harp on this. His message of cleaning up the system should be his positive. Who cares if alienates those who received subprime loans; they’re not voting for him anyway. Obama and his liberal friends have crippled us, and now they want to blame it on Republicans.

This is like watching one fighter fight another with his hands tied behind his back. Earth to McCain. Are you listening?