3 replies to this topic

[z2z007]

http://www.nytimes.c...lth/17stem.html

It would be interesting to ponder about the possibilities of this breakthrough. Quite possibly, the Bush administration might actually support stem cell research. However, the debate may shift its focus to how ethical is in vitro fertilization.

[Sing Sing]

z2z007, on Oct 16 2005, 11:30 PM, said:

http://www.nytimes.c...lth/17stem.html

It would be interesting to ponder about the possibilities of this breakthrough. Quite possibly, the Bush administration might actually support stem cell research. However, the debate may shift its focus to how ethical is in vitro fertilization.

Well, I thought this was pretty much common knowledge too. Then I read about Bush vetoing stem cell research funding AGAIN. Wouldn't his advisors know about this breakthrough? Would Bush and his people just ignore the information? I can't log onto the NYTimes site above but, if I remember correctly, scientists presented their work at the 2006 American Heart Association meeting. They had made a working human heart valve from stem cells taken from a routine sampling of amniotic fluid, meaning that no embryo is harmed and there are no longer any moral issues. The scientists (I think they were Dutch or Swiss) explained that these cells had not yet differentiated, and could be cultured into any kind of cell in the human body. They were talking about possibilities of replacing cells in Parkinson's, Alzheimers and stroke victims and even growing replacement organs of all kinds that would not be rejected bythe person receiving the transplant. If it were a baby with a heart condition, the organ would even grow with the baby because it was made up of the baby's own living cells. So, what's their problem. Why are they still holding up research when the moral issues have been resolved?

[min]

Sing Sing, on Jun 25 2007, 02:08 PM, said:

Well, I thought this was pretty much common knowledge too. Then I read about Bush vetoing stem cell research funding AGAIN. Wouldn't his advisors know about this breakthrough? Would Bush and his people just ignore the information? I can't log onto the NYTimes site above but, if I remember correctly, scientists presented their work at the 2006 American Heart Association meeting. They had made a working human heart valve from stem cells taken from a routine sampling of amniotic fluid, meaning that no embryo is harmed and there are no longer any moral issues. The scientists (I think they were Dutch or Swiss) explained that these cells had not yet differentiated, and could be cultured into any kind of cell in the human body. They were talking about possibilities of replacing cells in Parkinson's, Alzheimers and stroke victims and even growing replacement organs of all kinds that would not be rejected bythe person receiving the transplant. If it were a baby with a heart condition, the organ would even grow with the baby because it was made up of the baby's own living cells. So, what's their problem. Why are they still holding up research when the moral issues have been resolved?

The church are still claiming the embryo is still life and its immoral to play around with it like that. Some argument like that.

[Neo]

Sing Sing, on Jun 25 2007, 02:08 PM, said:

Why are they still holding up research when the moral issues have been resolved?

The moral issues have not been resolved. Research "deathism."