Forums | MacLife

I did think.
The problem is that those in favor of the research (and government funding of it) often don't, insisting that those of us with moral objection to it are essentially evil because it can be used for all kinds of groovy cures - including Alzheimer's disease - trying to play at emotion themselves rather than logic, wanting government funds to cross a moral line that a significant portion of our population do not think should be crossed, especially when there IS viable research that IS producing results that have nothing to do with harvesting embryonic stem cells.

Last edited by resedit (2008-01-13 4:01 pm)

Why can't they use that technology that makes your own cells revert to stem cells?

I should point out that due to the restriction of embryonic stem cell research due to 'moral' reasons, other directions of research must be used, including cloning, which, IMO, is much more ethically problematic than using embryos which are going to be thrown out anyhow.

Last edited by Chickenhawk (2008-01-13 4:04 pm)

Ribtorus wrote:

I think his point is a fair one; claims that stem cell research is critical to devising new teatments for neuological disorders like Alzheimers may be overstated. 

But it's not fair to say all stem cell research advocates take the position that stem cell research is the only route to new treatments. Resedit raises a good point but does it in a particularly provocative way.

The science here is pretty complex, and there are always unpredictable consequences to really crude agents that perturb the immune response like enteracept does.

FutureDreamz wrote:

Why can't they use that technology that makes your own cells revert to stem cells?

That's just it - plenty of research can be done (and is done) without my tax dollars going to pay for harvesting them from frozen embryos.

But some researchers wanted grant money, marketed embryonic stem cells as the magic pill that would cure everything, and y'all bought it.

NAG wrote:

So this is just about your moral lines then?

This is minithink.
It's the appropriate forum for that, no?

resedit wrote:

NAG wrote:

So this is just about your moral lines then?

This is minithink.
It's the appropriate forum for that, no?

I wasn't aware that I locked this thread. Are you implying that I think this is somehow wrong? Again, I want to learn more about your position.

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

I should point out that due to the restriction of embryonic stem cell research due to 'moral' reasons, other directions of research must be used, including cloning, which, IMO, is much more ethically problematic than using embryos which are going to be thrown out anyhow.

Throwing them away isn't the only option.
There are children here today because they were not thrown away when they could have been.

I bet you that a majority of couples using invitro fertilization would rather see their unused embryos used for research rather than be raised by strangers.

Taking it the complete other direction and saying they are not needed or useful in scientific research is just as dubious.

It is still interesting. Don't mind talking about the science behind this.

soulcrusher wrote:

resedit wrote:

That's just it - plenty of research can be done (and is done) without my tax dollars going to pay for harvesting them from frozen embryos.

Hello!?, many more of your tax dollars go into killing actual people.

I don't hear you complaining about that.

If you are referring to Iraq - the constitution makes it clear that the military is the responsibility of the government. The constitution says nothing about funding scientific research being the responsibility of the government.

I don't have a problem with the government funding science when appropriate. When a large portion of the population objects on moral grounds, however, then I do have a problem.

I do not have a problem with tax dollars going to military expense, even for military operations I have a problem with - I don't like it, but the constitution makes it clear military is a function of the federal government and therefore it should be funded by the federal budget.

resedit wrote:

soulcrusher wrote:

resedit wrote:

That's just it - plenty of research can be done (and is done) without my tax dollars going to pay for harvesting them from frozen embryos.

Hello!?, many more of your tax dollars go into killing actual people.

I don't hear you complaining about that.

If you are referring to Iraq - the constitution makes it clear that the military is the responsibility of the government. The constitution says nothing about funding scientific research being the responsibility of the government.

It falls under "promote the general welfare."  If you can't see how curing disease promotes the general welfare of the nation, there's really nothing any of us can say that will satisfy you.

Gatchaman wrote:

It falls under "promote the general welfare."  If you can't see how curing disease promotes the general welfare of the nation, there's really nothing any of us can say that will satisfy you.

I can see you've read the Constitution....