BS: Stem cell policy to change

Subject: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 11:07 AM

Well it's about time. Welcome to the 21st Century folks. This was long overdue.

Story here

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is ending former President George W. Bush's limits on using federal dollars for embryonic stem cell research, with advisers calling the move a clear signal that science — not political ideology — will guide the administration.

Obama was to sign an executive order on stem cells and memo on science Monday in an East Room ceremony, a long-promised move that would fulfill a campaign promise. Advisers said it was part of a broader declaration on science that would guide the administration's policies on matters ranging from renewable energy to climate change.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 11:18 AM

YES! YES! YES!!!

Obama's Presidency will be known as the Age of Re-Enlightenment!

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 12:19 PM

An age when science governs science and medical policy, not religion. What a concept!

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 01:16 PM

Of course, the opposition is already condemning this

leader of the Pro-Life group in the House


The moralists will-not-get-it that when people differ on such issues, the decision must be left to each individual 'donor'.
If you don't want YOUR stem cells used, say so...leave everyone else's alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 02:27 PM

If anything, I can better grasp the feelings of someone opposed to invitro fertilization in the first place, as compared to someone who
insists that the only acceptable thing to do with existing embryos is put them in the trash. So far I haven't heard of anyone volunteering to perform a funeral and burial for each embryo.

Give thanks: we may see a lot of needless suffering relieved within a few years.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 02:38 PM

Bill D., in the second paragraph he says provide an avenue of recourse for health care providers who have been discriminated against because they support the culture of life. Like this issue is really about them, and not about science over myth, or about stem cell research, and by extension, the right to privacy, to abortion, in short, to choose without someone else second-guessing your informed decision.

It makes one's head spin to see how facile these folks are with the actual facts of what is going on.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 03:34 PM

Too late to save my older daughter's life, but maybe in time to improve my younger daughter's prospects for healthy long life.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Barry Finn
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 04:29 PM

This kind of research could've helped Reagan,,,,,,,,before he took office

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 05:06 PM

This kind of research could've helped Reagan,,,,,,,,before he took office

And THERE's a stop on the slippery slope-- a scary one to someone who-- like me-- has held, in her arms, people weeping over their mother's failed attempt to abort them.

People, think.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 05:37 PM

We are thinking. That's our choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 05:58 PM

Hmmm.. Susan, I have thought...a LOT... in 50 years of considering both ethical/moral questions and the logic of what if. Am I glad my mother didn't abort ME? Of course... but if she had, my opinion would be irrelevant.
This Rep. Chris Smith, in a TV interview today, talks about the "millions & millions" of 'lives' which were thrown away by the practice of discarding unused embryos, and he treats each embryonic stem cell as if it were a 'life'...instead of a potential life. Is there a difference? It just simply depends on personal definitions of 'life'.
   At about 5 months development, an 'embryo' has become something that 'could' survive outside the mother, and thus the question gets really awkward about whose 'rights' are relevant.
Yes, some folks 'feel' that life begins at the very moment of conception...3-4 cells are 'life' for them...Why? What is the metaphysical status of an embryo at that stage?
People simply differ about it...and at rock-bottom, most of those who believe it is 'life' have a religious basis for their answer....they believe something like 'the soul enters the embryo at that point'. Of course, this means they also already believe that there are 'souls'.....
   *shrug"...the operative word above is 'believe'. And thus, as I said before, I think such situations are best left to those directly involved. It is sad that there has to be a difference of opinion about such emotional issues, but what really rational choice is there except to allow EACH person/couple to make their own decision, rather than have it be a matter of being able to muster enough votes in some political arena to deny control to others?

(I barely scratched the surface of those 50 years of 'thinking' about these issues here....)

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 06:31 PM

The choice is now up to the parents to have their extra frozen zygotes ( 8 to 16 cell blobs) poured down the drain, donated to ethical research or give them to an organization that will assume the cost for the cryogenic machines to reserve them for adoption.

I think this choice is open to satisfy all except those who feel entitled to tell everyone else to do it their way.

Four hundred "snowflake babies have been emplanted for adoption.
400,000 have been washed down the drain. {maybe a creature movie idea lurks here}

Our son's embryonic stem cells were both stolen by Holy Cross Hospital's doctor and the second time by a Catholic administrator.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 09:24 PM

Give it a rest, Susan. For peoples' sake, if not god's.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 09:47 PM

God does not enter into my post, and I resent the hell out of people assuming I am one-dimensional just so they can continue an anti-religion rant I probably can do better than THEY can.

I did not say I was against stem cell research, either, or anything else definitive about ANY position.

I DID point out that there is a lot of fast thinking done that, IMO, needs to be slowed down.

I believe Obama knows that already, but around here some of us are not quite as wise. You'll see. There will be all kinds of ethical considerations no one thought about, that will have to be addressed ex post facto.


I bet a lot of you think you know my position on abortion, too. You don't. You'd be quite surprised. But this is not an abortion thread, no matter how many think it's time to renew THAT old shit in addition to the Irish Troubles shit, Racism shit, and fear-of-yellow-people shit being renewed these days at Mudcat.

BLUNTPEAK ON-- stop here if squeamish--

I am as concerned about how family of hanged suicides (or lynched people) feel at Halloween when they see dummies festooning trees and porches, as I am when I hear casual references to abortion. People are watching who have survived that. People right here at Mudcat. People who sit next to you at a song circle. People who have served you a meal. Get it?!?!?


The reaction to my post, based on the assumption that I was preaching against abortion, is exactly the kind of knee-jerk, reactive emoting passing for thinking, that I am referring to and that I find so disturbing. Taking a swing at me just proves my point.

So thanks,

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 09 - 10:16 PM

well, Susan... *I* tried to not overread what you said and to not accuse you of any specific stand. Your post was pretty short...terse, even... and could easily be read a couple of ways.

What you said was : "think", and it was in this thread with this topic...and I had been "thinking", so I replied. I hope you know ...sort of... how my mind works.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 09:44 AM

You're welcome, Susan.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 10:00 AM

(hi Bill)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 12:53 PM

"And THERE's a stop on the slippery slope-- a scary one to someone who-- like me-- has held, in her arms, people weeping over their mother's failed attempt to abort them." Susan

"But this is not an abortion thread, no matter how many think it's time to renew THAT old shit in addition to the Irish Troubles shit, Racism shit, and fear-of-yellow-people shit being renewed these days at Mudcat." Susan

Susan, ya cain't have it both ways.

Not you, Susan, but I suspect that the main reason that there is such widespread opposition to stem cell research with its 'destruction of human life' is that they picture tiny babies in the blobs.

I should think that said blob being human is not as valid an idea as having a stack of quilt squares being called a quilt.

Subject: Abrazos: Stem cell policy to change
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 01:10 PM

I'm not going to debate that, Eb, but if we were sitting around a campfire I'd stay up late to mull it with you.

And please know that I CAN have it both ways (and so can anyone else). I have it that way, every day, and usually in more than 2 "opposites" at a time.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 01:44 PM

binary oppositions are generally artificial. Best to view the continuum on a sliding scale, at best.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Mar 09 - 07:44 PM

SRS-- best post at Mudcat in..... ages.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 12:44 AM

"And please know that I CAN have it both ways (and so can anyone else). I have it that way, every day, and usually in more than 2 "opposites" at a time." Susan

Interesting thought- the kind of thing I like to ponder!

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 01:58 AM

Years ago people thought that the attempt to perform transplants was unethical. Even as late as 1992 there was still opposition to artifical heart transplants claining it to be "evil". Today you'd hardly find anyone out side of a imbecile opposed to transplants. Well some folks are still coming out of the caves. As for going down slippery slopes, I'd say it more like the opposition to better medical advances is preventing the world to climb out of the places where those slippery slopes would have us staying. Old ways, tabboos, die hard.

As I said;
"This kind of research could've helped Reagan,,,,,,,,before he took office"

Thanks, from someone who only a short time ago would have been long in the grave if it weren't for the recent advances in the medical world.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 02:11 AM

Susan, if you think my thoughts on this was a matter of fast thinking please think twice on that comment & know that I live this every day & am quite thankful for the family whose personal loss & their deciding that their personal loss & their decision to give the remains of their lost loved one is & was someone else's survival. They lost & gave far more than "just an embyro".

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 02:18 AM

Yes Susan, you could have it both ways the same as those who see this research as giving hope to the untold masses that reside in wheelchairs & hospital beds many as close to the living dead as one could be ,,,,,or they could just "let be"ing. Just as I could've had it both ways. One alive & the other dead, I'm sure glad you weren't the one to make the call.
Not talking about pro life here,,,,,,,,,or are we?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 09:40 AM

I have it [both ways] every day, and usually in more than 2 "opposites" at a time

Susan as the White Queen. Old Dodgson would be proud.

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 09:56 AM

IMHO, having it both (or even many) ways is perfectly reasonable. Few (and please note that I didn't say no) issues have only one possible answer. Even once you select your own personal choice, that only represents the best match to the criteria you see as most important, and probably don't have much to to with those of the next guy. The universe comes in many colors, not in black and white.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 10:06 AM

e.g., them who are still worshipping the "magic of The Market", citing government as the enemy, and promoting tax cuts as the way to nirvanah, even tho all proven to be counterproductive hoaxes, I suppose.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 03:00 PM

One thing I always find interesting about Mudcat, sociologically, is how easy it is to see which folks actually have READ THE POSTS and which ones just fire at will when they spot a red flag. And that, I guess, is where bull shite comes from-- firing at will, at red flags, from the end where the brain does not reside-- and often, projectile pooping at that.

The reasons can be political or personal, but the result is much the same. It's too bad-- good friends can be lost that way.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 03:09 PM

I for one Susan am opposed to any changes in cell phone policy. They're just too darned expensive in the first place and to expect us little people to absord any more costs on our cell phones....

What? Stem cell policy? Not cell phone policy?

Nevermind.....

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 03:22 PM

...firing at will, at red flags, from the end where the brain does not reside-- and often, projectile pooping at that.

Well, Susan, from your regular practising of each and all of the above, and more, for many years, you must be something of an expert on the subject.

Reading the posts is only the beginning- one also needs to understand them and how they relate to each other; unfortunately, this seems to be beyond your capabilities most of the time.

Pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 04:02 PM

And the ad hominem attacks also are very interesting to me. They seem to relate well to IQ.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 04:09 PM

(do hominem and homily perchance have the same root?)

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 04:22 PM

(I dunno)

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 04:37 PM

Sorry. I was going to add something that I thought was of a thoughtful nature to this thread, but there's hardly any point. It stated as a serious discussion and quickly degenerated into a pissing contest.

Shame!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: John P
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 05:33 PM

Susan, your posts sound as if you are opposed to stem cell research. What about the creation of stem cells in the first place? This seems to be a normal part of reproductive health care these days, and I haven't heard the anti-abortion folks clamoring about it. Yet they are apparently very upset about using the left over cells for research. Sorry to use the term anti-abortion, but they seem to be the same people as the ones bemoaning the use of stem cells.

What makes anyone think they have the right to tell me what morality is? I am one of the most ethical people I know, and a big part of my ethics is not imposing my beliefs on anyone else. This makes me very leery of folks who are imposing their beliefs on me.

Whether or not an embryo is a human life is, obviously, a matter for which there is no consensus. As a person who always comes down on the side of more freedom rather than less, it seems to me that where there is no consensus there should also be no forcing anyone to adhere to one policy or another.

Also, just about every person I have ever heard disagreeing with the use of stem cells for research has said that their opposition exists because of their religious beliefs. I am flabbergasted that anyone would use that as a basis for lawmaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 05:49 PM

Let me say this from the start. I think abortion is wrong. I'm a Catholic, but I have my own reasons for thinking abortion is wrong, not simply because I've been told to think that way. On the other hand, I believe that there are times when abortion is the only reasonable alternative available to a woman. In those situations, the woman's culpability is lessened or completely absent. I think St. Thomas Aquinas would agree with me.

I have seen no evidence that anyone has performed an abortion for the purpose of obtaining stem cells. I would be appalled if such a thing would happen. But if the abortion is performed for other reasons, I would see good in making use of the stem cells for medical research. Still, if there are workable alternatives like using stem cells from umbilical cords, I'd prefer to see that. I suppose some bishops and a huge number of Catholic anti-abortion zealots would like to excommunicate me from the Catholic Church for saying this, but such is life. St. Thomas Aquinas will back me up.

In this polarized world of ours, the standard operating policy is to jump into a hole on one side of the fence or another, and to not dare to look for common ground.

That's too bad, isn't it?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: John P
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 07:47 PM

Hi Joe,
I know several women who have said that they would never have an abortion because they think it is wrong, but who are appalled that anyone would presume to make that decision for anyone else. Sort of "anti-abortion but pro-choice". I get the feeling that no one really thinks abortion is a good thing, but many of us think that forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want to have is even worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 08:40 PM

And the ad hominem attacks also are very interesting to me. They seem to relate well to IQ. [emphasis mine]


Fascinating.... Susan is complaining about the type of statement made by..... Herself??

NB for ~S~ : If you don't make preposterous statements, people can't call you on 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 08:50 PM

Joe O, as I understand it, stem cells currently are derived from embryos left over from in vitro impregnation efforts, not aborted fetuses.

If they were from abortions it would paint a different picture, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 08:53 PM

Again, I did not state a position. I suggested a slower thinking process. Because this inevitably descends to hot-button reactivity. Threads like this always do-- whether I post in them or not. In this Mudcat mirrors society's willingness to polarize before even smelling each other's scents.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Beer
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 09:56 PM

I really don't have much to say on this. I guess because if I lean this way or that way I would be torn apart by folks who know a whole lot more on this issue than I do. I listened to what Obama had to say, and if this is what was to take place I'm in agreement with him. my concern is, that Obama will not always be President and time does change many things (Some folks would argue this point). However in this case it will make change,and pray God for the better. And may it never be abused. There has been a lot of direct attacks on Susan, some of which may be warranted but if I may, let me take you to the top of the thread where her opening comment was the following. "Well it's about time. Welcome to the 21st Century folks. This was long overdue".
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 10:41 PM

As Ebbie pointed out, "stem cells currently are derived from embryos left over from in vitro impregnation efforts, not aborted fetuses." What is in the Petri dish is a zygote or an embryo, not a fetus. Nor, save in the most extraordinary circumstances, will it ever become a human life.

Be it noted that ova often become fertilized and the woman never knows it because the zygote fails to implant itself and vanishes with her next period. This happens frequently; medically it is not considered an "spontaneous abortion," it's just the way things happen. Some zygotes implant, many do not. To all intents and purposes, the leftover zygotes from in vitro fertilization efforts are no different from the zygotes that didn't implant.

Let's face it. The leftover zygotes or embryos are usually simply discarded as "medical waste."

Wouldn't it be better if this—potential life, as some folks insist on characterizing it—were to go on to do some good rather than merely be discarded? Who knows how many different debilitating or life-limiting medical conditions the results of stem cell research may be able to alleviate? I have known a couple of people with Parkinson's Disease, for example, for which stem cell research holds out great hope. And there are many, many other such conditions that could possibly be alleviated, or cured entirely.

These "potential human beings," will never actually fulfill that potential. So isn't it better that they fulfill something in this life than nothing at all?

That way, that "potential life" will have some meaning after all.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Mar 09 - 11:13 PM

Glen Beck is a Rush wannabe and now has a show on Fox in which he touts an outrageous polemic about stem cells, baby harvesting and Nazis while the camera enlarges his face until only a portion of his eyes can be seen.

Reminds of fearless leader in the movie V

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: bald headed step child
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 01:31 AM

I had Glen Beck kind of forced on me today,(eating in the truckstop and it was on the television). He was complaining that his diet wasn't working as he hadn't lost any weight yet. I couldn't help but think an enema would do the trick, hell, he'd probably disappear completely.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 09:21 AM

...smelling each other's scents.

Kinda like dogs do upon meeting each other? and how would you characterise your scent?

(or do I really want to know.........)

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: John P
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 05:33 PM

OK, everyone seems to be afraid of touching off a firestorm by discussing this topic. How about if we just don't get pissy (Greg and Susan, this means you), and just talk about it instead?

What about the whole concept of forbidding the use of leftover embryos that are currently being discarded? What about the morality of making them in the first place, if it is immoral to then use them?

What about the point that's been made a couple of times now about not making laws where there is no societal consensus on a moral issue? What about the making of laws based on religious beliefs?

These are all topics that could be discussed like adults and without the flinging of insults. C'mon, let's try.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:29 PM

Going along with the concept, John P, let's go on to the question of disposal of the petri dish contents. If they are human, shouldn't there be a religious ceremony to dispose of the embyros that are not needed, will not be utilized? Funerals would be good. How about memorial services? Memorial services would be even better.

And then interment - but since ground space is getting rare, how about encasing them in mausoleums? I can just imagine row upon row of teeny, tiny compartments on a mausoleum wall, each appropriately marked: Anderson Zygote #28.

Is that pissy? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:36 PM

Well, pissy is as pissy does, I suppose. However, I personally would favor discussion over bombast.

Subject: RE: BS: Stem cell policy to change
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:51 PM

*sigh*...so much of this controversy is bound up in language and the way we 'load' some of our words.

The minute we (or someone we trust, like a pastor) connect the contents of a Petri dish with the concept 'potential life', the debate is colored by that linguistic linking.
   It takes real effort to ask ourselves exactly what we are referring to and what assumptions we are making by using the words that way.

As has been stated in several ways by several people, there is a very large difference between a fertilized ova in the womb and a few cells combined to form a zygote which will NOT be implanted in a womb. To view both situations with images of 'innocent lives'...i.e., babies, is to overlay biology with an arbitrary, and often personal, interpretation of the situation.
It is in some ways understandable, but perhaps not accurate.

In any case, IF we cannot agree, I say again, we need to leave the decision to those directly concerned.