Let's talk about some politics

[Aargh]

I lost a saliva gland to cancer. No biggie - we all have six saliva glands.

I lost 4 saliva glands to radiation. That's a problem. I can't eat out. I can't eat in public. I have an extremely limited diet and my wife is totally bored by the food I am able to eat.

Feature your life with no social events that involve food. You may not realize it, but the inability to eat in social settings pretty much removes most aspects of a social life.

Stem cells have been proven to regenerate saliva glands in animal studies. I would be delighted to volunteer as the "guinea pig" for human studies. I doubt that anything worse than what I've already got would happen.

The Republican party stance against stem cell research is probably the most flawed political stance solidly supported by either party.

The research and development to alleviate my quality of life issues can be done with things that are routinely discarded. The fact that those tissues are involved with the creation of life has led the Republican party to deny any study of what can be done with discarded material that might improve the lives of those suffering from a variety of ailments.

[BenWSU]

The first stem cell research in patients started 2 weeks ago in CA. Certain number were given stem cells for spinal cord injuries.

Republicans are against it because the govt would be funding most of the research & it's likened to playing God.

[wufan]

Aargh, I can empathise with you. My Grandfather had the same thing. He was diabetic to boot, so the limited diet was extreme.

Unlike the liberal take on Global Warming (bad policy backed by bad science), the anti-stem cell brigade is good ethical dogma (it's bad to kill babies/fetuses) branched out well beyond it's appropritae reach.

Stem cells are available for use, and even if the research isn't government funded, it should absolutely be allowed. It's bizarre. Abortion = bad. Abortion is legal and happens = stem cells. Stem cells = help for the alive and sick. Stem cells = abortion. This is not a logical and rational train of thought.

If abortion were illegal...well okay. No stem cells = no stem cell research. As the law is currently, the government is being harmful to its citizens.

Anyway, as a conservative or maybe liberterian, I couldn't agree with you more!

It's sad that the Liberals aren't pushing this more. I could agree with them for once.

[SB Shock]

I believe there is a misrepresentation of "conservative against stem cell research". they are not against all stem cell research, but the move into embryonic stem cell research where u have to kill something living for your research.

[wufan]

Agreed, however, they are already dead, like it or not. You aren't killing something for research, you are using what has already been killed.

[SB Shock]

Agreed, however, they are already dead, like it or not. You aren't killing something for research, you are using what has already been killed.

Because the next progression is embryonic farms in the name of research.

[wufan]

See above for illogic argument...Next progression is a bad thing. We are talking about already dead beings saving life, not creating life to destroy it. Again, the agenda here is to make abortion illegal. I don't have a problem with that. If abortion was illeagal, I would say no to Stem-cell research.

Right now, abortion is within the law (probably a bad thing) but stem cells are GOOD. Since fetuses are legally available, all you are doing is taking a bad situation and making it worse by refusing the good that can come from it.

I think most that are for stem cell research are against fetus farms. That doesn't mean that we can't recycle the unfortunates for the good of all.

This is a common problem that conservatives have in their arguments. The same problem exists for the Gay marriage debate...if male-male is okay, they what about male-animal (that is one I have heard). These two things do not equate. Example three...legalize marijuana and then you have to legalize crack.

Agreed that there are some slippery slopes, but each case can and should be evaluated individually.

To conclude on topic, a single strand of stem cells can be used over and over again without ever producing a viable life form. A teratoma is a type of benign tumor formed from stem-cells that develop skin, hair, and teeth. These will sometimes form in people and they have things that look similar to a fetus or being, but they aren't, they are just skin and teeth with a blood source. stem-cells can act in the same way. You could take a single endocrine stem cell and produce adrenal glands, pancreus, and SALIVATORY glands again and again...from one source...one time from "discarded legal biologic waste" and save millions of people that are equally innocent.

From the possability above, you believe that mankind is evil enough to start growing people and kill them and harvest their organs? Maybe one day abortion will be criminal, and at that time there will be no stem cells to harvest. At that time it will be too late to save lives. Is it worth while to waste that opportunity now?

[ABC]

It isn't about abortion - it is about human life in general.

We have legal stem cell research and use. Just not embryonic stem cell research.

And I do not believe there has been any success with embryonic stell cell use, but someone may know more.

[Maggie]

I don’t have a dog in this fight but I will say this: Advancing science does not justify the destruction of human life.

Query: Can we simply draw a bright line separating immoral or illegal acts from the research that subsequently builds on them?

Many people who oppose the any ban on stem cell research advance arguments that imply that we can make such a determination. They cite past medical research that exploited Jews, blacks, children, etc. and essentially ask should we declare that research tainted retroactively? To see the hole in this reasoning here, imagine that the morally illicit acts didn’t take place years ago but happened just yesterday. Would we then pretend that that act, is morally distinct from the medical research that exploits it? If we embrace that research and support it with taxpayer dollars, aren’t we tacitly endorsing yesterday’s morally illicit acts, and even incentivizing people to undertake them?

This is in fact what embryonic-stem-cell funding policy does: it incentivizes the destruction of human embryos. It is true that the passage of time changes the moral calculus, but any analysis should not ignore the fact that the stem-cell debate is not just about past acts but also future acts.

[SubGod22]

Any time you hear of advances in stem cell research it is NOT embyonic but that's what many liberals are pushing for.

[ShoxFan963]

Any time you hear of advances in stem cell research it is NOT embyonic but that's what many liberals are pushing for.

Exactly, I have heard from a reputable person, scientists are close to figuring out how to store your umbilical blood from birth (loaded with stem cells) and growing it into kidney or some other organs that you may need 30-40 years later.

[DUShock]

Please pass the popcorn...

[RoyalShock]

Maggie nailed it. Money almost always corrupts "science" and social services.

- Global warming.
- Planned Parenthood.
- Social (family/children) services.

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research love to marginalize those who voice a fear of what could result, attacking any expressed opinion of what might happen, from a moral and ethical point-of-view. But based on human history, I will side with those who object on moral/ethical grounds almost every time.

[RampageWSU]

I don't have a lot to add, other than please remember that Growth Hormone was once harvested from the pituitary glands of corpses. At the time it caused a stir, but nothing like the magnitude of this.

I have confidence that synthetic stem cells will be developed eventually.