• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Good news.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
BuckeyeSoldier

BuckeyeSoldier

2 time Reigning BuckeyePlanet Poker Champion
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (Reuters) - Former First Lady Nancy Reagan made an impassioned call for taking controversial stem cell research out of the political arena, saying it could help cure illnesses like Alzheimer's which so sorely afflicts her husband.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="1%" align=left border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width="99%"><CENTER><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=150 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD><CENTER>
Reuters Photo </CENTER>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER></TD><TD width=5> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

With the Bush administration and anti-abortion groups strongly opposing stem cell research, Mrs. Reagan at a celebrity-packed dinner in Beverly on Saturday night lent a powerful conservative Republican voice to the debate.



Speaking to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Mrs. Reagan noted that Alzheimer's had taken her husband Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) "to a distant place where I can no longer reach him and share our 52 years."



She added after accepting the group's "Care Giver's Award," "Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this.



"We have lost so much time already. I just really can't bear to lose any more."



Letters from former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (news - web sites) supporting Mrs. Reagan's efforts on embryonic stem cell research were read to the dinner by actors Harrison Ford and Calista Flockhart. Absent was any comment from the Bush administration which has placed severe restrictions on stem cell research because it can involve using cells from human embryos.



Organizers of the event, which also raised money for stem cell research, said it was the first time that Mrs. Reagan had made a public speech on the issue although her views have long been known.



Actor Michael J. Fox, a supporter of stem cell research because it could help lead to a cure for Parkinson's disease (news - web sites) from which he suffers, told reporters that Mrs. Reagan was taking the issue out of politics.



"For someone like Mrs. Reagan to step outside of political or ideological groupings and just speak to what she believes ... can help people is tremendously valuable," he said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20040509/pl_nm/people_reagan_dc







 
Anti-abortionists are anti-stem cell research because aborted fetuses are used to harvest the stem cells. According to South Park's team of scientists, one breaks open the fetus and sucks out the juice, thereby becoming superhumanly strong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
KillerNut said:
I don't truly understand it. However, if it has to do with abortion then I can tell you I am against it.
Click to expand...

Even if it might represent a quantum leap forward towards addressing needlessly debilitating diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, strokes and spinal cord injuries?

No one is suggesting that we conceive and chop up babies just for this purpose. In fact, there are areas of stem cell research that don't touch on embryonic stem cells at all, but rather adult stem cells harvested from marrow and brain tissue. But abortion is often thrown into this conversation for the sake of provoking outrage and debate. It's true that embryonic stem cells can be extracted from aborted fetuses, but it's not the only option. I can understand why anti-abortion parties take issue with that concept, but one wonders how harvesting from legal abortions being done anyway is a problem if reason and not emotion is applied. That aside though, we can also obtain embryonic stem cells from cloning, fertility clinic embryos left unwanted and unneeded from in-vitro fertilization processes, and even lab-based test tube 'manufactured' embryos.

Opponents would argue that since we can get adult stem cells, we shouldn't bother with embryonic. But on the science side, that doesn't just hold a ton of water. The adult cells show some of the same potential, and deserve their own research, but it's significantly harder (perhaps impossible) to produce large quantities of them, and their efficacy and durability have series doubts attached to them -- particularly in terms of disease research.

We have an insane number of embryos sitting in clinics with no home. Some of these could certainly be 'adopted', and that happens sometimes, but not enough that it reduces the ever increasing number. Should they just be destroyed or discarded? Or could they be used to save lives? That's an area worth of debate. Already aborted fetuses, I mean sure, it's a controversial area, but I'm not sure I completely understand what the down side to extracting stem cells from those is. They've already been aborted, they are simply destroyed or discarded, those stem cells could certainly be used instead of just lost. Anti-abortion people would point to the fact that abortion should be illegal, therefore making any use of byproducts of abortion is immoral and should be illegal, but I've always had a hard time seeing the logic in that. Cloning and custom-made embryos, lol, I think that area is just about fear. Just the word cloning scares people. More than the reality that 1000s of people a year wouldn't have to die waiting for organ transplants, fewer would die after transplants because of systemic rejection of the new organs, we could extract 'clean' embryonic stem cells from those areas as well, etc.

The main problem with all of this usually comes back to religion. Which is sort of a problem for me. I think it's great that people in this country can have different beliefs. I also think it's great that they can celebrate those, speak freely about them, and debate amongst themselves the differences in their belief structures. What's unfortunate is when one or more groups makes it a point to shove their belief sets down other people's throats. It's not enough that they're of a certain faith, but they intend for you to adhere to their beliefs as well. If the religious aspect of anti-abortion, anti-cloning and anti-stem cell research was stripped away, then you'd still have compelling arguments on both sides of the fence for each argument.

That aside, the zealots on both sides have the loudest voices, and the folks in the middle are often left dazed and confused with a quagmire of rhetoric and propaganda. I would challenge anyone anti-embryonic stem cell research to investigate and form a defensible position *against* adult stem cell research, or embryonic stem cell research with harvesting from in-vitro waste that is going to just be destroyed anyway. Better to destroy than make use of to save lives and advance science? Really, I'd love to hear that argument. I'm not touching cloning or harvesting from already aborted fetuses just because they're such hotly debated topics, many folks left the real issues behind years ago, and now just violently debate the issue for the sake of debating it. There's not enough time or space to really touch those.

It's an interesting subject. While I don't mean to rag on you KillerNut, at all, your comment represents one of the biggest problems in the debate. (Paraphrasing) "I don't know much about it, but if abortion is involved, I'm against it." I think that may be the most common perspective, and it's an unfortunate one because it doesn't give the issue the proper attention. But that is certainly the perspective that the more zealous religion-based anti-research groups want to promote. What they should be doing is cutting down to the real meat of the debate, and addressing the issues. One of those would be my challenge above. I have yet to hear a rational argument opposing the in-vitro overflow.
 
Upvote 0
Great post Clarity! This line in your post

But that is certainly the perspective that the more zealous religion-based anti-research groups want to promote.
Click to expand...
seems to be so true. In fact, it seems that in the last 25 years, the zealous religion-based groups have done a number on many things in our country. :shake: Including the closing of America's mind, where the type of discussion that you ask for is missing in many areas, not just this one.
 
Upvote 0
buckiprof said:
Great post Clarity! This line in your post


seems to be so true. In fact, it seems that in the last 25 years, the zealous religion-based groups have done a number on many things in our country. :shake: Including the closing of America's mind, where the type of discussion that you ask for is missing in many areas, not just this one.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to be honest. Our society is responsible for how frigid and uptight it is, we do it to ourselves. Showing a pair of boobs on ER is okay, but Janet flashing one at the Superbowl is a hanging offense. That type of constipation of the mind may be something that zealots celebrate, but we're doing it to ourselves, it's not being done to us.
 
Upvote 0
Woohoo!

45 million deaths later, we may have a rationale - other than convenience - to abort fetuses.

With all due respect to the former first lady, she's stepping outside of of "ideological boundaries" because she's seen first-hand what Alzheimer's can do to a once-strong, vibrant and intelligent man.

Get rid of so-called "partial birth abortion" - which is exactly what the name implies - and I'll think about it. We went from bad to worse when that hideous practice was added to the "choices" available to liberated American women.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyehead said:
Woohoo!

45 million deaths later, we may have a rationale - other than convenience - to abort fetuses.
Click to expand...

How is it a rationale? If abortion was illegal, then there would only be 3 ways to get embryonic stem cells. That they're available because abortions are being performed doesn't justify abortions, it's a matter of what happens to the remains. Are they destroyed, or put to use to try and save lives? I just don't think the abortion issue really pertains here. Frankly, I won't speak up one way or another on the abortion issue for two reasons. (1) I have a dick, and it's not my body that's being legislated. (2) Because there is no reason or thought applied to the debate anymore, with extremists on both sides of the fence fighting the fight just for the sake of the fight. "Pro Life" fanatics are willing to kill to stop abortions, or blow up the places that perform them. Stem cells being turned into a pro or anti abortion issue is just a way for the crazies to expand their reach.

On the flip side;

Buckeyehead said:
Get rid of so-called "partial birth abortion" - which is exactly what the name implies - and I'll think about it. We went from bad to worse when that hideous practice was added to the "choices" available to liberated American women.
Click to expand...

Sounds like reason. Whether or not I agree that partial birth abortions should be eradicated, drawing more reasonable lines in the sand and not talking in absolutes is what too many people aren't doing in these arguments.

Just out of curiosity, will anyone step up and challenge using embryonic stem cells extracted from in-vitro stocks that would otherwise just be destroyed?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top