Stem Cell Research [Archive]

tiptap

10-22-2006, 08:53 AM

In relation to the vote on Admendment 2, here is a article indicating the value of stem cell research. Unless you believe it is magic, there should be discoverable ways to move undifferentiated stem cells toward active and biologically valued differentiated tissue.

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00022CF4-3F8B-1539-BF8B83414B7F0000

October 20, 2006

Retracing Stem Cell Development Leads to Insulin-Producing Cells

Mimicking the series of steps by which an embryo develops has led to a significantly more efficient way of creating insulin-secreting cells. A team of researchers reports that by applying a sequence of chemicals to human embryonic stem cells in a culture dish, it has grown layers of cells similar to pancreatic tissue in a young embryo. Such cells may eventually be suitable for treating diabetes.

Embryonic stem cells are a gold mine for medical research because they could potentially replace nearly any type of failed or damaged tissue. In a prime example, research groups have shown that embryonic stem cells can morph into the pancreatic cells that produce insulin, called beta cells. In people with diabetes these cells have stopped working properly. Prior instances of the transformation were sporadic and inefficient, though, appearing in cells transplanted into animals or in embryolike jumbles of cells, says Emmanuel Baetge, chief scientific officer at Novocell, a San Diego biotech company. The key to making pancreatic cells at will, Baetge says, is going to the source--so-called definitive endoderm, the layer of embryonic tissue that gives rise to all the organs of the gut, including the pancreas. "You cannot make pancreatic cells without it," he says.

Novocell researchers had already published a method for growing endoderm from cultured embryonic stem cells by applying a chemical that is known to stimulate endodermal development in growing embryos. In a paper published online October 19 in Nature Biotechnology, the group describes taking the next steps: They added four more sets of growth factors to the endoderm they had created, still following the pathway deciphered in growing embryos. An average of 7 percent of the resulting cells produced all five pancreatic hormones, including insulin, and contained nearly as much insulin as adult beta cells, the researchers report. "What we've really done is taken developmental biology and applied it to stem cell biology," says Baetge. "These cells really can do it; you just have to have to understand how to work with them."

The cells are still immature, however. So unlike adult cells, they do not make insulin in response to glucose, and they would need further prodding to reach the mature state. Nevertheless, "a lot of people are excited about this paper," says beta cell biologist Ole Madsen of the Hagedorn Research Institute in Gentofte, Denmark. "The big novelty is that everything is controlled. It's sort of a defined procedure." Novocell's method for making endoderm has been reproduced in other labs, Madsen notes. Assuming the same holds for the new work, he says, "it has given people hope for much quicker progress than was anticipated."

CHIEF4EVER

10-22-2006, 09:09 AM

banyon

10-22-2006, 09:38 AM

StcChief

10-22-2006, 01:56 PM

Vote NO. Stay with Adult stem cell research.

Laz

10-22-2006, 03:59 PM

Vote YES ... 2 cells does not equal a baby.

banyon

10-22-2006, 04:11 PM

Vote NO. Stay with Adult stem cell research.

Any reason in particular, or just because you said so?

tiptap

10-22-2006, 04:49 PM

Take note all of you who say private enterpise isn't interested in stem cells that Novocell Inc. is located in San Diego. Would be nice to have something along the same line in St. Louis.

redbrian

10-22-2006, 05:16 PM

Thus far, embryonic stem cell research has accomplished NOTHING. Adult stem cell research has paid dividends and resulted in the loss of NO life (of the donors). Embryonic stem cell research is nothing more than the murder of unborn babies. Unnecessary and unacceptable.

An embryo is nothing more than divided cells, you must go past the 8 week mark before you have a fetus, now at that point you can start arguing about the distruction of human life but not before.

CHIEF4EVER

10-22-2006, 05:23 PM

An embryo is nothing more than divided cells, you must go past the 8 week mark before you have a fetus, now at that point you can start arguing about the distruction of human life but not before.

I suppose it depends upon what you believe. I believe human life begins at conception. I place great value on all human life which includes embryos (babies).

redbrian

10-22-2006, 05:30 PM

I suppose it depends upon what you believe. I believe human life begins at conception. I place great value on all human life which includes embryos (babies).

Why not go a step farther, every egg and sperm is sacred, every time you wack off your killing babies, totally absurd reasoning.

As I said once you hit the 8 week period you can start making a case for babies (fetus's), but sorry a few divided cell's (embryo's) do not a baby make.

It has nothing to do w/belief's I'm following science on this one.

Pitt Gorilla

10-22-2006, 08:27 PM

I suppose it depends upon what you believe. I believe human life begins at conception. I place great value on all human life which includes embryos (babies).Are you cool with freezing human life?

Ultra Peanut

10-22-2006, 08:51 PM

WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE THINGS THAT COULD MAYBE POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN CHILDREN BUT WEREN'T VIABLE AND WERE ALREADY DISCARDED IN THE FIRST PLACE

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-23-2006, 07:15 AM

Thank you, Peanut. None of these "Embryos" are going to be used for IVF anytime soon. Hell most RRWNJ's were probably against IVF when that technology first became viable because it wasn't natural and "according to God's plan".

Dr. Van Halen

10-23-2006, 08:26 AM

I suppose it depends upon what you believe. I believe human life begins at conception. I place great value on all human life which includes embryos (babies).

Really? So I assume that once this vote is over that you are going to lead an initiative to end the death penalty and raise taxes to end poverty and hunger. You must also be against all wars, I suppose. Well, good for you.

patteeu

10-23-2006, 10:26 AM

I'm having trouble deciding on Amendment 2 in Missouri. On the one hand, I'm personally OK with ESCR and I'd even be OK with full blown cloning or therapeutic cloning if I thought the science was safe, but on the other hand the amendment and the YES campaign seem deceitful and I'm always slow to vote for a constitutional amendment anyway.

I think it would be great if Missouri became a bioscience center for economic reasons, but if I vote YES, I want to be sure about what I'm really voting for and so far I'm not very comfortable with Amendment 2. My wife is lobbying me to vote NO.

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-23-2006, 11:58 AM

patteeu

10-23-2006, 01:28 PM

What does your position as resident partisan hack and BushCo apologist tell you to do? ;)

Use my head instead of my emotions. Check the fine print on any big government proposal. Be skeptical of complex amendment proposals, pushed by liberals who have already demonstrated a willingness to mislead. But despite this, I'm still trying to find a reason to vote YES.

tiptap

10-23-2006, 01:51 PM

So you have read the admendment. Most of those opposed to this see red flags where the admendment mentions blastula. This is a no starter for those whose religious thought insist a unique humans life begins at conception. But it is this early stage that the highly differentiated egg and sperm gamete forms the highly plastic (as in undifferentiated) stem cells. For the same reason the religious motivated objection to infertility work that produce a surplus of blastulas for insertion. If you think that this is wrong religiously I understand but do not agree.

It is against this practice that the legislature has sought to ban such work. The admendment calls upon a more vigorous process to remove such statements from the Constitution.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

You are not suppose to create such cells simply for research. Instead it is hoped that the surplus produced for infertility would be made available for work.

The decision lies with the donor.

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-23-2006, 02:59 PM

Use my head instead of my emotions. Check the fine print on any big government proposal. Be skeptical of complex amendment proposals, pushed by liberals who have already demonstrated a willingness to mislead. But despite this, I'm still trying to find a reason to vote YES.

Nancy Reagan would :shrug:

Adept Havelock

10-23-2006, 04:36 PM

I'll be voting yes even with my reservations about the fact this is a constituitonal amendment. If it passes it's a great bulwark against those who would render all this research illegal, which IMO is the ultimate goal of the opposition.

CRONUS

10-23-2006, 05:12 PM

Laz

10-23-2006, 05:15 PM

by liberals who have already demonstrated a willingness to mislead

opposed to the conservatives who just lie straight out.

banyon

10-23-2006, 07:58 PM

Ultra Peanut

10-23-2006, 08:53 PM

opposed to the conservatives who just lie straight out.North, south, east, and west of Baghdad.

Ralphy Boy

10-23-2006, 09:20 PM

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/Rush-limbaugh_-1.jpg

Rush Limbaugh attacks Michael J. Fox: ” …he was either off the medication or he was acting. He is an actor, after all.”
By: John Amato on Monday, October 23rd, 2006 at 12:33 PM - PDT
Rush Limbaugh will say anything to attack anyone who challenges George Bush and his policies. This time, his target is Michael J. Fox. Meds are something Rush does have a little experience with.

Emailer Doug: Rush Limbaugh today accused Michael J. Fox, actor and Parkinson's Disease victim, of deliberately going off of his meds to appear on camera with exaggerated symptoms of his disease for dramatic effect. Fox appeared in a recent Clair McHaskill (D-MO) Senate campaign ad, touting the need for stem cell research. Limbaugh even goes so far as to accuse Fox of faking his symptoms all together.

Stupid thing to say, of course he was off his meds, but to say he was acting was ridiculous. He takes medication to control the type of movement you saw in the ad, so that he can live something closer to a normal life.
And so what if he was acting, the point is he was saying "Hey look at me, I have Parkinsons and Jim Talent hates me for it. Vote for Claire McCaskill." She'll get a huge bump for it and everyone on the fence about her but leaning toward the Stem Cell subject will now slide into her corner as she garnered votes for both herself and Amendment 2. Very good move on her part even if she is a slimey bitch for doing it.

banyon

10-23-2006, 09:36 PM

Stupid thing to say, of course he was off his meds, but to say he was acting was ridiculous. He takes medication to control the type of movement you saw in the ad, so that he can live something closer to a normal life.
And so what if he was acting, the point is he was saying "Hey look at me, I have Parkinsons and Jim Talent hates me for it. Vote for Claire McCaskill." She'll get a huge bump for it and everyone on the fence about her but leaning toward the Stem Cell subject will now slide into her corner as she garnered votes for both herself and Amendment 2. Very good move on her part even if she is a slimey bitch for doing it.

How do you know that? It's a progressively debilitating neurological disorder. This gets worse and worse, which is why he's had to quit doing most TV and film.

Ralphy Boy

10-23-2006, 10:02 PM

Here's how I see the Stem Cell subject.
It only prohibits cloning in the form of inserting a cloned cell into a uterus (aka Human Cloning), the actual cloning of the cells themselves is fully allowed because they say the cell itself isn't human. I actually agree with that. If no woman is carrying a cell in her uterus then there is no pregnancy and therefore the right to life issue is settled in my mind.

The amendment though is junk because it essentially contradicts itself, it says:
"(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research. "
Solely
So does that mean they can produce it if the woman might want to either (a) have kids or (b) sell her cells?
Oh wait, we're calling it "donate" except she gets paid for them, even though right here it says
"(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures."
Makes you think you can't pay for them but here they clarify:

"17) “Valuable consideration” means financial gain or advantage, but does not include reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor. Valuable consideration also does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law."

Oh, the hospital can pay the clinic and the clinic can pay the donor. Good thing there's no funny business going on there.

I personally don't have an issue with the idea that it isn't a life until it's in a uterus. Seems perfectly logical that until its in there, the bun isn't in the oven so to speak.
If you believe that then ask yourself if you care that women will do this for money because they will and that is a big part of the issue. I personally don't care if they do sell the stuff for money, it's like us selling sperm or blood or plasma. It happens and every bit of it is life in some form or another sold to medically benefit others.

My issue is that the amendment is as I said before junk because they are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
You can't pay a lot for the eggs, but you can pay for them, you just can't have the researcher paying directly to the donor. They need a middle man to make it legit? Right, well maybe someday Progressive Insurance will come along and eliminate the middle man.

Dear Senators and Congressmen,
Please send my tax dollars to pay for the medical attention these courageous women made on behalf of science...and to pay for the raising of their children from 4 different daddies. I know you warned them of the serious medical risks before you paid them for their eggs and before you gave them SSI for the kiddies. I know we paid the mom and kids way through school but I don't mind. While your at it, just take my paycheck. I don't need it, I'm a white male and I've got it easy.

Ralphy Boy

10-23-2006, 10:09 PM

How do you know that? It's a progressively debilitating neurological disorder. This gets worse and worse, which is why he's had to quit doing most TV and film.

I thought I already answered that when I said "he takes meds to control it". Granted it was an assumption based on having seen him before and maybe his condition has taken a drastic turn for the worse in the last 12 months, but a year ago on Inside the Actors Studio he did really well. He did have to stop during the interview and go take 5 minutes to take some meds, but when he came back he was pretty normal. Maybe its gotten to the point in the last year where they no longer work, but he has a serious illness and if he didn't take his meds to simply illustrate what he looks like without them, then I have no problem with that.

Rausch

10-24-2006, 12:57 AM

Cells are cells, people are people.

How ****ing complex is this? Why?

Ultra Peanut

10-24-2006, 02:00 AM

Parkinson's medication actually causes dyskinesias, and the other side effects can be awful.

http://www.uchospitals.edu/pdf/uch_001491.pdf

One of the major medical advances of the last century was
the demonstration of the loss of dopamine-producing cells
in Parkinson’s disease and the success of levodopa (L-dopa)
to replace the missing neurotransmitter. These Nobel Prize
winning observations are the cornerstone of current
treatment. In most patients, neurotransmitter replacement
by L-dopa, which is converted into dopamine, or by
dopamine agonists, provides good symptomatic relief for
many years. However, as the disease progresses, the
benefits are lost. The same dose of medication that initially
was effective loses its potency and does not last as long.
Also, involuntary movements (dyskinesias) appear, as seen
vividly on television in Michael J. Fox. Furthermore, re-
placement therapy does not stop the progression of the
disease, and some neurologists argue that
actually causes disease progression.

Rausch

10-24-2006, 02:40 AM

I also vommit watching Michael J. Fox in anything other than Back To The Future (1 to 1,284.)

oldandslow

10-24-2006, 08:00 AM

Cells are cells, people are people.

How ****ing complex is this? Why?

That is the best post on this thread. I have no idea why some have such a difficult time understanding this.

stevieray

10-24-2006, 08:22 AM

That is the best post on this thread. I have no idea why some have such a difficult time understanding this.

cells aren't alive?

banyon

10-24-2006, 08:58 AM

I thought I already answered that when I said "he takes meds to control it". Granted it was an assumption based on having seen him before and maybe his condition has taken a drastic turn for the worse in the last 12 months, but a year ago on Inside the Actors Studio he did really well. He did have to stop during the interview and go take 5 minutes to take some meds, but when he came back he was pretty normal. Maybe its gotten to the point in the last year where they no longer work, but he has a serious illness and if he didn't take his meds to simply illustrate what he looks like without them, then I have no problem with that.

Fair enough.

cdcox

10-24-2006, 09:01 AM

Take note all of you who say private enterpise isn't interested in stem cells that Novocell Inc. is located in San Diego. Would be nice to have something along the same line in St. Louis.

It is very doubtful that this ammendment by itself will result in any singnficant increase in biotech investment in Missouri. The ammendment does not make available any public funds for investment in this type of research. Biotech research is very heavily localized in the North East and on the West Coast. All of the leading schools are located those two areas. Flyover country is not a competitive living environment for attracting top minds.

This is very different from the situation in California where the state government actually funded stem cell reserach. The MO ammendment makes no state dollars available to fund research. Huge difference. Also UCSD, UCSB, Berkley, Stanford and several other univerisities are already leaders in the biotech field. Many biotech companies are already there. There is a huge infrastructure for biotech research already in place. This ammendment addresses none of that at all.

My quick read indicates this ammendment would prevent the state and smaller local governments from restricting stem cell research and treatments beyond what the Federal government does in the future. I don't think its passage would create any new rights that don't already exist by default (what is not prohibited is allowed), unless there are currently some state or local restrictions that I am not aware of.

patteeu

10-24-2006, 09:26 AM

opposed to the conservatives who just lie straight out.

Have they lied about this amendment?

banyon

10-24-2006, 09:34 AM

Have they lied about this amendment?

Were their lips moving?

oldandslow

10-24-2006, 09:34 AM

cells aren't alive?

Certainly they are. But to argue that a few non sentient cells are equivalent to a fully developed human being is, imo, ridiculous.

stevieray

10-24-2006, 09:43 AM

Certainly they are. But to argue that a few non sentient cells are equivalent to a fully developed human being is, imo, ridiculous.

is a toddler a fully developed human being? a teenager? are you? is your body still changing?

jspchief

10-24-2006, 09:48 AM

I hope that stem cell research isn't stifled further. To think that potentially valuable research is being hindered pisses me off.

We're looking at steps towards curing diabetes, and people want to ignore that to argue that a cell is a life. Sad.

stevieray

10-24-2006, 09:54 AM

jspchief

10-24-2006, 09:59 AM

The stem cell issue will work itself out...if a cell is alive, then how can it not be a life?Yea, I should have been more clear and said "human life" rather than just "life".

I mean, a plant is a life, and I still eat lettuce. A cow is a life and I still wear leather.

A cell is a cell, not a human. It may be living, but it's not a person. IMO.

jspchief

10-24-2006, 10:02 AM

Also, it has been my understanding that they want to use cells that are otherwise being discarded.
So it's not like they are taking cells that were destined to become people. They are taking cells that are destined for the hazmat dumpster.

Anyone more informed on the issue care to comment?

Bowser

10-24-2006, 10:16 AM

I don't understand why people would not want to pursue this opportunity to the fullest. From what I've seen on here, the big holdup is stem cell research = abortion, which is incredibly shortsighted imo. In another thread, there were those who made an argument against based on how much money would be dumped into the research without anything to show for it for X number of years, or something along those lines. All I got from that was that people are very impatient, and don't actually want to go through the process to reap the potentially incredible benefits. A lottery mentality of wanting it all now, not later.

The potential benefits of what this can bring are overwhelming. Cures for sicknesses that we thought were not cureable ten years ago. What's the hard decision?

oldandslow

10-24-2006, 11:19 AM

is a toddler a fully developed human being? a teenager? are you? is your body still changing?

Good grief, stevieray. The key term is sentient. The skin cells on your arm are alive - should they not be used?

Sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Do we count those as human beings as well?

stevieray

10-24-2006, 11:21 AM

Good grief, stevieray. The key term is sentient. The skin cells on your arm are alive - should they not be used?

Sperm is alive. The egg is alive. Do we count those as human beings as well?

are you going to answer the questions?

Laz

10-24-2006, 11:25 AM

The stem cell issue will work itself out...if a cell is alive, then how can it not be a life?
so then every guy that masturbates is a mass murderer.

how many trillions of "people" have you killed in your life?

stevieray

10-24-2006, 11:31 AM

so then every guy that masturbates is a mass murderer.

how many trillions of "people" have you killed in your life?

playing both sides of the fence again, jlaz?

oldandslow

10-24-2006, 11:35 AM

are you going to answer the questions?

What question - that cells are alive?

Of course they are - I answered that. They are not, however, sentient. They are not aware.

Again, your hair and nails are alive. They even grow after you die. That doesn't mean that they should be treated as if they were sentient.

Laz

10-24-2006, 11:39 AM

playing both sides of the fence again, jlaz?
i happen to think that jAZ is a pretty intelligent guy, so thanks for the compliment.

both sides of the fence??? you latest post makes less sense than they usually do.

you're trying to worm,wiggle and otherwise BS your way into implying that 2 cells = abortion. But since even you knows that's absurd, you're just nagging away to try and irritate people away from he subject.

you debate politics the same way you debate football ..... all blow, no go.

Brock

10-24-2006, 11:40 AM

stevieray

10-24-2006, 11:44 AM

What question - that cells are alive?

Of course they are - I answered that. They are not, however, sentient. They are not aware.

Again, your hair and nails are alive. They even grow after you die. That doesn't mean that they should be treated as if they were sentient.

is a toddler a fully developed human being?

Bowser

10-24-2006, 11:49 AM

An embryo is a potential fetus which is a potential human being. If you can't see the ethical dilemma involved in the issue, you aren't looking. I don't care one way or the other on stem cells, but to claim that there aren't ethical questions about it is just plain dumb.

Well, I must be heartless because I really couldn't care less about the "potential" life being "destroyed". Is it more dumb to claim this is an ethical dillema, or to bring ethics into it at all?

Honestly, Brock - would you rather not pursue the possible breakthroughs in this field just to satisfy the moral conundrum of having two embryos never form into a "potential fetus"?

stevieray

10-24-2006, 11:49 AM

i happen to think that jAZ is a pretty intelligent guy, so thanks for the compliment.

both sides of the fence??? you latest post makes less sense than they usually do.

you're trying to worm,wiggle and otherwise BS your way into implying that 2 cells = abortion. But since even you knows that's absurd, you're just nagging away to try and irritate people away from he subject.

you debate politics the same way you debate football ..... all blow, no go.

I never brought up abortion, you did.

I'm trying to keep the subject as simple as possible.

and you debate politics the same way you debate football... a guy so angry on the inside, he has to find something to bitch about on a daily basis, projecting his own inadequacies on coaches, players and politicians.

stevieray

10-24-2006, 11:53 AM

Well, I must be heartless because I really couldn't care less about the "potential" life being "destroyed". Is it more dumb to claim this is an ethical dillema, or to bring ethics into it at all?

Honestly, Brock - would you rather not pursue the possible breakthroughs in this field just to satisfy the moral conundrum of having two embryos never form into a "potential fetus"?

how is it that that potential of life is less important than the potential for cures?

Brock

10-24-2006, 11:54 AM

Honestly, Brock - would you rather not pursue the possible breakthroughs in this field just to satisfy the moral conundrum of having two embryos never form into a "potential fetus"?

I hate to repeat myself, but I don't care one way or the other. It IS an ethical question, that's why there IS an argument.

Potential breakthroughs vs. potential living human beings.

Bowser

10-24-2006, 11:54 AM

how is it that that potential of life is less important than the potential for cures?

If it cures diabetes or cancer, does it become important then?

Bowser

10-24-2006, 11:55 AM

I hate to repeat myself, but I don't care one way or the other. It IS an ethical question, that's why there IS an argument.

Potential breakthroughs vs. potential living human beings.

True. The key word being "potential".

Baby Lee

10-24-2006, 12:18 PM

True. The key word being "potential".
There are two variables here, potential taking of a life, and potential breakthrough, so the 4 possibilities for metaphysical truth are;
no life taken, no breakthrough
no life taken, breakthrough
life taken, no breakthrough
life taken, breakthrough.

If one operates on the presumption that taking life AND spending on no breakthrough are both bad outcomes, there is 1 scenario where good comes, and 3 scenarios where bad comes.

Another way to look at it is to replace potentials with certainties.

If we are certain that a life is taken, and certain that a breakthrough occurs, where to we stand? In other words, if we were 100% sure we could cure a myriad of diseases by destroying fully formed and naturally born infants, what would we do with that knowledge?

Likewise, if we are certain that life is not taken, and equally certain that no breakthrough would occur, what would we do with THAT knowledge?

Pitt Gorilla

10-24-2006, 12:18 PM

how is it that that potential of life is less important than the potential for cures?How far does "potential of life" reach? Are you in favor of protecting sperm?

Brock

10-24-2006, 12:34 PM

How far does "potential of life" reach? Are you in favor of protecting sperm?

Are you in favor of dissecting babies?

ck_IN

10-24-2006, 12:39 PM

I'm not going to wade through 4 pages of replies so if this is a repost please ignore.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-10-23T215819Z_01_TON379089_RTRUKOC_0_US-STEM-CELLS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-C2-NextArticle-1

<b>Stem cells might cause brain tumors, study finds</b>

<i>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients may cause tumors to form, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.

Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors.

Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers said the transplants clearly helped the rats, but some of the cells started growing in a way that could eventually lead to a tumor.

Various types of cell transplants are being tried to treat Parkinson's disease, caused when dopamine-releasing cells die in the brain.

This key neurotransmitter, or message-carrying chemical, is involved in movement and Parkinson's patients suffer muscle dysfunction that can often lead to paralysis. Drugs can slow the process for a while but there is no cure.

The idea behind brain cell transplants is to replace the dead cells. Stem cells are considered particularly promising as they can be directed to form the precise desired tissue and do not trigger an immune response.

Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells. Taken from days-old embryos, these cells can form any kind of cell in the body. This batch had been cultured in substances aimed at making them become brain cells.

Previous groups have tried to coax stem cells into becoming dopamine-releasing cells. But the grafted cells started to show areas that no longer consisted of dopamine-releasing neurons, but of dividing cells that had the potential to give rise to tumors.

The researchers killed the animals before they could know for sure, and said any experiments in humans would have to be done very cautiously.

Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research cite such threats. Many opponents, including President George W. Bush and some members of Congress, believe it is immoral to destroy human embryos to obtain their stem cells. </i>

In short the science isn't down pat yet so the miracle rhetoric is just that.

Dr. Van Halen

10-24-2006, 01:07 PM

There are two variables here, potential taking of a life, and potential breakthrough, so the 4 possibilities for metaphysical truth are;
no life taken, no breakthrough
no life taken, breakthrough
life taken, no breakthrough
life taken, breakthrough.

If one operates on the presumption that taking life AND spending on no breakthrough are both bad outcomes, there is 1 scenario where good comes, and 3 scenarios where bad comes.

Yes, but "breakthrough" = lives saved and "life" = intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos. So, it's:
no intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos destroyed, no lives saved
no intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos destroyed, lives saved
intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos destroyed, no lives saved
intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos destroyed, lives saved

The Greater Good here clearly rests with using intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos to have the chance to save the lives of millions.

oldandslow

10-24-2006, 01:19 PM

is a toddler a fully developed human being?

No, but a toddler is sentient.

Are sperm cells sentient?

Baby Lee

10-24-2006, 01:50 PM

Yes, but "breakthrough" = lives saved and "life" = intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos. So, it's:
no intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos destroyed, no lives saved
no intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos destroyed, lives saved
intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos destroyed, no lives saved
intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos destroyed, lives saved

The Greater Good here clearly rests with using intentionally-discarded pre-fetus embryos to have the chance to save the lives of millions.
Please don't 'spin' the analytical framework.
Next thing you know, the other side is charting out;

destroy a newly created soul -vs- alleviate the discomfort of some old fugger.

:p

stevieray

10-24-2006, 01:56 PM

No, but a toddler is sentient.

Are sperm cells sentient?

what's that saying about everything after the word but? ;)

are you sentient when you are sleeping?... what about people in comas?

Trent Green when he was unconcious on the field? He can't remember the play, does that mean it didn't happen?

Dave Lane

10-24-2006, 01:58 PM

Dave Lane

10-24-2006, 01:59 PM

No, but a toddler is sentient.

Are sperm cells sentient?

Is a new fertilized egg sentient?

Dave

oldandslow

10-24-2006, 02:54 PM

what's that saying about everything after the word but? ;)

are you sentient when you are sleeping?... what about people in comas?

Trent Green when he was unconcious on the field? He can't remember the play, does that mean it didn't happen?

When there is no brave wave activity, the chemical materials that are left are merely that.

Trent had activity, so do I when I am sleeping, and people in coma's who lose brave wave activity are usually allowed to die.

A few cells right after fertilization are no more sentient than sperm or an egg.

oldandslow

10-24-2006, 02:54 PM

Is a new fertilized egg sentient?

Dave

No, therefore I have no problem with stem cell research.

stevieray

10-24-2006, 03:08 PM

When there is no brave wave activity, the chemical materials that are left are merely that.

Trent had activity, so do I when I am sleeping, and people in coma's who lose brave wave activity are usually allowed to die.

A few cells right after fertilization are no more sentient than sperm or an egg.

keep moving the goal post.

we aren't talking about brain activity. You claimed something has to feel or have all their senses, obviously something we don't have when we are sleeping.

stevieray

10-24-2006, 03:10 PM

No, therefore I have no problem with stem cell research.

of course you don't, considering that you claim that you have to be sentient to be what oldandslow? worthy? have value?

Baby Lee

10-24-2006, 03:17 PM

So, under this Constitutional Amendment;

"No cloning" means no implanting in the uterus anything other than an human egg fertilized by human sperm for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in a fetus or eventual human,

But it doesn't have a problem with Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, so long as the result is not implanted in a uterus?

CRONUS

10-24-2006, 03:27 PM

keep moving the goal post.

we aren't talking about brain activity. You claimed something has to feel or have all their senses, obviously something we don't have when we are sleeping.Not true, we do have all our senses and we do feel while sleeping. This is factually incorrect Stevie.

CRONUS

10-24-2006, 03:29 PM

Is a new fertilized egg sentient?

DaveDepends on your definition of new, at about 8 weeks some brain wave activity can be present, prior to that no.

Baby Lee

10-24-2006, 03:29 PM

Wow, just wow. Maybe I don't read enough per curiam opinion statements in the paper to get a good feel on this. But that article has the stink of 'bought and paid for by Stowers' all over it.

Exciting times, and a wonderful foundation right here in town to help us [make themselves billions] in the effort, . . . and they were nice enough to fund this Consitutional Amendment drive for us. . . but there are dark narrow-minded, distorting forces opposing our glorious benef. . . err, first rate facility.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/15818018.htm

Laz

10-24-2006, 03:30 PM

prior to that no.
doesn't that pretty much answer the question then?

stevieray

10-24-2006, 03:31 PM

Not true, we do have all our senses and we do feel while sleeping. This is factually incorrect Stevie.

You see when you are sleeping Jim? Can you hear and remember what is on TV after you fall asleep in front of it?

Radar Chief

10-24-2006, 03:31 PM

CRONUS

10-24-2006, 03:31 PM

Are you in favor of dissecting babies?I think disecting dead babies has medical value, so yes I am in favor of it.

CRONUS

10-24-2006, 03:32 PM

You see when you are sleeping Jim? Can you hear and remember what is on TV after you fall asleep in front of it?

Yes sometimes

stevieray

10-24-2006, 03:34 PM

Yes sometimes

Sorry Jim, I highly doubt it.

Brock

10-24-2006, 03:34 PM

I think disecting dead babies has medical value, so yes I am in favor of it.

I didn't say dead.

CRONUS

10-24-2006, 03:51 PM

Sorry Jim, I highly doubt it.Medical fact Stevie

CRONUS

10-24-2006, 03:52 PM

I didn't say dead.OK then you also forgot the modifier about born.

Brock

10-24-2006, 03:54 PM

OK then you also forgot the modifier about born.

No, actually, I didn't.

You're basically like the kid who wandered into the movie when it's halfway over, so I'll just leave it there.

Laz

10-24-2006, 03:57 PM

Sorry Jim, I highly doubt it.

A. Sensual "input" while sleeping is incorporated into dreams. Most
notably, while sleeping, you hear as well as while waking - the ears
are never turned off. This leads to the consequence that what you hear
while sleeping, you'll hear in your dreams. The sound is always coming
from "somewhere". Common experiences of this kind are a telephone
ringing or music from the radio. The same holds for the other senses.
Note that it is not important how loud some noise is to get noticed
while sleeping - even an otherwise unnoticed sound, like a mouse
running over your floor, can wake you up if it is uncommon or
otherwise alarming to you - on the other hand, you can get accustomed
to high levels of noise, like construction work nearby.

stevieray

10-24-2006, 04:17 PM

A. Sensual "input" while sleeping is incorporated into dreams. Most
notably, while sleeping, you hear as well as while waking - the ears
are never turned off. This leads to the consequence that what you hear
while sleeping, you'll hear in your dreams. The sound is always coming
from "somewhere". Common experiences of this kind are a telephone
ringing or music from the radio. The same holds for the other senses.
Note that it is not important how loud some noise is to get noticed
while sleeping - even an otherwise unnoticed sound, like a mouse
running over your floor, can wake you up if it is uncommon or
otherwise alarming to you - on the other hand, you can get accustomed
to high levels of noise, like construction work nearby.

I still contend that Jim doesn't see when he is sleeping every night.

And someone can put shaving cream on your face and make you rub it all over without waking. Same as someone nudging you or having to call your name repeatedly before you wake up. People sleeping have died in fires. besides, sentient deals on the conscious level, not subconcious.

the debate is over whether you need to feel to be considered viable.

CRONUS

10-24-2006, 04:28 PM

I still contend that Jim doesn't see when he is sleeping every night.

And someone can put shaving cream on your face and make you rub it all over without waking. Same as someone nudging you or having to call your name repeatedly before you wake up. People sleeping have died in fires. besides, sentient deals on the conscious level, not subconcious.

the debate is over whether you need to feel to be considered viable.

The third definition of sentient is:

3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

This has nothing to do with concious or subconcious, if you ever remember anything that happened when you slept or were in a coma that qualifies.

Adept Havelock

10-24-2006, 04:56 PM

cells aren't alive?

Sure they are. Is that life "sacred"? To me, the answer is no. IMO the "sacredness" of life is nothing more than a myth invented out of self-interest.

Is a fertilized hen's egg a chicken?

redbrian

10-24-2006, 05:09 PM

There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

redbrian

10-24-2006, 05:11 PM

(alright everbody sing along!!!!!!)

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood!

Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine! And mine! And mine!

Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

redbrian

10-24-2006, 05:11 PM

(big finish now)

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaate!

Adept Havelock

10-24-2006, 05:14 PM

:clap:

MUM: Now, whose teatime is it?

CHILDREN: Mine!

MUM: Come on, now. Out you go. Now, uh, Vincent, Tessa, Valerie, Janine, Martha, Andrew, Thomas, Walter, Pat, Linda, Michael, Evadne, Alice, Dominique, and Sasha, it's your bedtime.

CHILDREN: Aww, Mum!

MUM: Now, don't argue! Laura, Alfred, Nigel, Annie, Simon, Amanda,--

DAD: Wait! I've got something to tell the whole family.

MUM: Oh, quick. Go and get the others in, Gordon.

CHILDREN: What could it be? Shhh...

DAD: The mill's closed! There's no more work. We're destitute.

CHILDREN: [talking]

DAD: Come in, my little loves. I've got no option but to sell you all for scientific experiments.

CHILDREN: [whining]

DAD: No, no. That's the way it is, my loves. Blame the Catholic church for not letting me wear one of those little rubber things. Oh, they've done some wonderful things in their time. They preserved the might and majesty, the mystery of the Church of Rome, and the sanctity of the sacraments, the indivisible oneness of the Trinity, but if they'd let me wear one of those little rubber things on the end of my cock, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

BOY: Couldn't Mummy have worn some sort of pessary?

DAD: Not if we're going to remain members of the fastest growing religion in the world, my boy.

MUM: Ehhh, he's right.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Bowser

10-25-2006, 12:25 AM

Good lawd! LMAO LMAO LMAO

Bowser

10-25-2006, 12:50 AM

DanT

10-25-2006, 04:37 AM

Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning:
Questions and Answers (from the United States Conference of Catolic Bishops) (http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/stemcell/answers08052004.htm)

DanT

10-25-2006, 04:53 AM

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/stemcell/stemcath.htm

Catholic Support for Ethically Acceptable
Stem Cell Research

Sometimes it is wrongly said that the Catholic Church opposes stem cell research. In fact, the Church supports ethically responsible stem cell research, while opposing any research that exploits or destroys human embryos.

Because the Church opposes deliberately destroying innocent human life at any stage, for research or any other purpose, it opposes embryonic stem cell research as currently conducted. However, when scientists proposed avenues for possibly obtaining embryonic stem cells or their pluripotent equivalent without creating or harming embryos, Catholic leaders were among the first to welcome this idea: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435477/posts.

The Catholic Church has long supported research using stem cells from adult tissue and umbilical cord blood, which poses no moral problem. Catholic institutions at times have taken the lead in promoting such constructive research, which is already providing cures and treatments for suffering patients:

* In October 2005, the Catholic bishops of South Korea said they will raise and donate about $10 million to advancing adult stem cell research: www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/10/06/2003274635

* South Korea's Catholic Medical Centre announced in June 2005 that it had successfully treated stroke and vascular disease in 64 patients using adult stem cells: www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=3491

* A March 2005 breakthrough demonstrating the capabilities of adult stem cells in Australia was made possible by a grant of $50,000 (Australian dollars) from the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/21/australia.stemcell/

* In February 2005 a major Catholic teaching hospital in Boston, Caritas St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, announced that it had “identified adult stem cells that may have the capacity to repair and regenerate all tissue types in the body”: www.caritas-semc.org/home/site_content_list_detail.asp?s=2328&ss=324

* Throughout 2005 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has worked to pass federal legislation creating a nationwide public bank for umbilical cord blood stem cells, for research and the treatment of a wide variety of diseases: www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2005/05-159.shtml

* In 2004 Monsignor Thomas Hartman, director of radio and television for the Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, founded The Thomas Hartman Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. The foundation has raised millions of dollars for adult stem cell research and other avenues for curing Parkinson’s disease: www.hartmanfoundation.org

Clearly, the Church favors ethically acceptable stem cell research. It opposes destroying some human lives now, on the pretext that this may possibly help other lives in the future. We must respect life at all times, especially when our goal is to save lives.

patteeu

10-25-2006, 07:34 AM

Back to the issue, Monty Python notwithstanding......

The problem for me with an issue like this is that I'm not researched enough about it. I lead with my heart and not my head due mainly to losing my dad some years back to cancer. Most of us know someone close to us who has been affected by cancer in one way or another. Nasty disease. Would not wish it on anybody.

Now, here is perhaps a doorway we as a people can go through and discover new ways to treat and/or prevent this disease from ravaging others, but we're not entrely sure where or when life starts, so we shouldn't pursue what could possibly end up being THE most important discovery of our lifetimes. It baffles me. I see no hard decision here. Does this make me a morally bankrupt person?

On the flip side of this, stem cell research could possibly be of no use to us. If we would go through the time and money and come to the conclusion that it is an absolute dead end, I would be fine with it BECAUSE WE WOULD KNOW FOR SURE.

And, there are those who would say that "liberals" would play on my sympathies just to get funding for this so they could do, well, anything they wanted to, I guess. If that is the bottom line, all I can say is that I'm a real big believer in what comes around, goes around, and those people will eventually get theirs.

I guess I just wanted to put a different perspective out there as to why I support it, other than the whole burned out con vs. lib crapfest. I'm now done rambling.

I'm in favor of private ESCR, but to play devil's advocate here, we KNOW that farming organs from death row inmates could save lives of people who need organ transplants, but we don't do that. If we found that brain tissue from newborns could cure a bunch of really bad diseases, should we allow women to have babies for the sole purpose of using their parts to save others? It's easy to say let's go for it here when your own personal view is that we aren't sure when life begins, but there are a whole lot of people out there who ARE sure that life begins at conception regardless of whether implantion occurs. It's hard for me to blame them for rejecting ESCR.

jspchief

10-25-2006, 09:43 AM

patteeu

10-25-2006, 09:57 AM

No one answered my earlier question...

Isn't it true that they only work with cells that would otherwise be discarded?

If the options are using it to help others, or throwing it in the trash can, the choice seems obvious to me.

I think that's true right now, but I'm not sure you can count on it being the case going forward. I have more reading to do on this very long amendment so I could be wrong, but it looks to me like, in Missouri at least, researchers will be able to pay for these "discarded" eggs/embryos and as soon as they are paying for them, the supplier will start supplying more, one way or another. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

jspchief

10-25-2006, 10:02 AM

tiptap

10-25-2006, 12:35 PM

I think that's true right now, but I'm not sure you can count on it being the case going forward. I have more reading to do on this very long amendment so I could be wrong, but it looks to me like, in Missouri at least, researchers will be able to pay for these "discarded" eggs/embryos and as soon as they are paying for them, the supplier will start supplying more, one way or another. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Here is the pertinent part of the admendment.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.

(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(5) Human blastocysts and eggs obtained for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures must have been donated with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing.

cdcox

10-25-2006, 12:40 PM

patteeu

10-25-2006, 01:13 PM

Here is the pertinent part of the admendment.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.

(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(5) Human blastocysts and eggs obtained for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures must have been donated with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said "the amendment and the YES campaign seem deceitful." The parts of the amendment that you posted sound like they reasonably address a couple of concerns that have been expressed. But looking further down the amendment some of the other sections cast doubt on those "answers" and, IMO, they turn a couple of them on their heads.

6. As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

...

(11) “Solely for the purpose of stem cell research” means producing human blastocysts using in vitro fertilization exclusively for stem cell research, but does not include producing any number of human blastocysts for the purpose of treating human infertility.

...

(17) “Valuable consideration” means financial gain or advantage, but does not include reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor. Valuable consideration also does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law.

...

7. The provisions of this section and of all state and local laws, regulations, rules, charters, ordinances, and other governmental actions shall be construed in favor of the conduct of stem cell research and the provision of stem cell therapies and cures. No state or local law, regulation, rule, charter, ordinance, or other governmental action shall (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by this section to be conducted or provided, or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures.

After reading that, I'm left believing that there are a couple of giant loopholes in the prohibitions on paying for blastocysts and on producing them for the purpose of stem cell research.

patteeu

10-25-2006, 01:21 PM

You can do research in Missouri using stem cells from discarded embryos today. You just can't use federal research funds to pay for that research. Ammendment 2 would not change either of these statements.

The only reason I can think of for passing an amendment like this would be if there were a reasonable danger of a judge ruling that research is unconstitutional. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to me to let the state legislature reflect the people's will on decisions about allowing it and about funding it.

If research is already legal then I don't see why we need an amendment. Especially one as "complicated" as this one.

I'm leaning toward voting NO. I don't know if that's what you would advocate or not, but your posts (along with tip tap's link to the actual amendment) were influential in my decision. Thanks to both of you.

tiptap

10-25-2006, 01:45 PM

It is the wish of the private enterprise to pursue such research expecially in St. Louis area. That area has strong biological research. But the Jefferson City Republican legislature, along with the Governor, have been seeking ways to squelch any such research beyond the the lines set up by President Bush. In an atmosphere in which such research could be halted at the whim of the government, the climate for investment is lacking. You spend your money elsewhere where such research is assured a climate of possibility and return on investment. You make it an admendment to make the reversal a difficult one.

Yes it is a shame that the legislative climate is so at odds with those wanting to invest in this field in Missouri that such an extreme solution is sought.

patteeu

10-25-2006, 01:58 PM

tiptap

10-25-2006, 02:24 PM

We are talking about a representative government. It could be stated that such a government is not democratic in its representation against such research. Certainly a state wide vote on such an admendment is a democratic take of the support or rejection. The buisiness community will recieve exactly that indication.

So the straw notion that this is somehow minimizing the 'sacredness' of the constitution that should only deal with processes is the same reasoning that you would have been against the Bill of Rights.

As a Libertarian here is a state wide contract of assuring a climate of that will not impede the investigation in this area. Democratically it is a contract that I would have thought would be to your thinking.

Baby Lee

10-25-2006, 02:50 PM

tiptap

10-25-2006, 04:15 PM

I don't remember arguing that marriage couldn't be defined by a constitutional admendment. I simply argue in favor of civil unions for consenting adults. And if we want to polygamy or anything else. However we should keep that argument for the thread you started about the New Jersey decision and let this thread continue on the merits of the Admendment 2 ballot question.

Pitt Gorilla

10-25-2006, 04:29 PM

Sorry, I missed this post when we were discussing the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.Are we now required to post in particular threads?!?

Baby Lee

10-25-2006, 04:36 PM

Are we now required to post in particular threads?!?
Apparently, jAZ passed a resolution where, if you omit to call Barnie 'the buggering Republican dogcatcher' a schmuck, you forfeit forever the liberty to call Will Jefferson 'the Democrat leader of the free world' a schmuck.
Sorry, for my dereliction of emoticon designation in the prior post. Let me make up for it.

:p :p :p :drool: :hmmm: :harumph: :) :) :deevee:

patteeu

10-25-2006, 05:30 PM

CHIEF4EVER

10-25-2006, 08:10 PM

Ultra Peanut

10-25-2006, 09:59 PM

I hope you mass-murdering ****wads are flagellated for scratching your noses.

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-25-2006, 10:33 PM

Sorry, I missed this post when we were discussing the Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.

And you accuse me of being dismissive and overbearing :rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-25-2006, 10:36 PM

An embryo is a potential fetus which is a potential human being. If you can't see the ethical dilemma involved in the issue, you aren't looking. I don't care one way or the other on stem cells, but to claim that there aren't ethical questions about it is just plain dumb.

What do you think sperm is? It's half a potential zygote which is half a potential human being. I doubt you damn yourself to hell every time you spill your seed despite the express consent of your creator who tells you not to do so.

In the words of Colonel Jessup, "This is ridiculous."

tiptap

10-25-2006, 10:41 PM

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said "the amendment and the YES campaign seem deceitful." The parts of the amendment that you posted sound like they reasonably address a couple of concerns that have been expressed. But looking further down the amendment some of the other sections cast doubt on those "answers" and, IMO, they turn a couple of them on their heads.

After reading that, I'm left believing that there are a couple of giant loopholes in the prohibitions on paying for blastocysts and on producing them for the purpose of stem cell research.

Ok, the definition of "solely for the purpose of stem cell research" is defined as "exclusively for stem cell research" and does not consider already produced excess infetility blastulas as such. It tries to isolate the possible pool of blatulas to the already normal number of blastulas produced related to infertility clinical efforts. There is no additional production. People aren't going to PAY thousands of dollars in infertility fees and go through the medical risks simply to donate the blastula to science. Please.

As far as the Valuable consideration definition there is attempt by the party that ACCEPTS the DONATION of biological asset to pay at that time for "costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, . . ." I doubt that any of these considerations will be equal to the costs of the original infertility work ups.

I believe it is you that is taking the definition given at the end and not reasserting that into the admendment for proper reading.

KCWolfman

10-25-2006, 11:04 PM

What do you think sperm is? It's half a potential zygote which is half a potential human being. I doubt you damn yourself to hell every time you spill your seed despite the express consent of your creator who tells you not to do so.

In the words of Colonel Jessup, "This is ridiculous."
Obviously, you have astounded the world and decided when a viable human life has actually begun. Please inform us all when that exact moment occurs and how you arrived at that conclusion.

Sperm contains one person's unique DNA sequence. It will not reproduce on its own. A fertilized egg contains DNA related to, but not in direct sequence with the ova or the sperm. A fertilized egg can reproduce mutiple cells on its own.

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-25-2006, 11:06 PM

Obviously, you have astounded the world and decided when a viable human life has actually begun. Please inform us all when that exact moment occurs and how you arrived at that conclusion.

Sperm contains one person's unique DNA sequence. It will not reproduce on its own. A fertilized egg contains DNA related to, but not in direct sequence with the ova or the sperm. A fertilized egg can reproduce mutiple cells on its own.

Yes, but only under specific circumstances. This is my exact point that I have made earlier in this thread. Why aren't the RRWNJs bombing IVF clinics since they clearly play God and distort the almighty creator's "powers"

The myopia of much of the right in this instance is just staggering. They act as though this research would require fetuses to be cut from mother's wombs with bayonents and blended into a "stem cell puree".

KCWolfman

10-25-2006, 11:12 PM

Yes, but only under specific circumstances. This is my exact point that I have made earlier in this thread. Why aren't the RRWNJs bombing IVF clinics since they clearly play God and distort the almighty creator's "powers"

The myopia of much of the right in this instance is just staggering. They act as though this research would require fetuses to be cut from mother's wombs with bayonents and blended into a "stem cell puree".
Again, I find it ironic that anyone who disagrees with the concept of government sponsored and funded stem cell research is automatically prejudicially classified as a moron.

You don't see your own myopia regarding the topic? "Hey guys, I found these cool little buggers that multiply like crazy. While I haven't been able to find anything useful for them for about 40 years, we still should ask the government to spend billions in research and funding. Let's just tell people it has the POTENTIAL to cure the dying and permanently lame."

You see RWNJ scramming around God Almight asking him why, I see wacked out extremist liberals lying to the paralyzed in a sickening attempt to garner funds.

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-26-2006, 12:31 AM

Again, I find it ironic that anyone who disagrees with the concept of government sponsored and funded stem cell research is automatically prejudicially classified as a moron.

You don't see your own myopia regarding the topic? "Hey guys, I found these cool little buggers that multiply like crazy. While I haven't been able to find anything useful for them for about 40 years, we still should ask the government to spend billions in research and funding. Let's just tell people it has the POTENTIAL to cure the dying and permanently lame."

You see RWNJ scramming around God Almight asking him why, I see wacked out extremist liberals lying to the paralyzed in a sickening attempt to garner funds.

You act as though the scientists in question are staggering backward through a dark cave blindfolded, hoping to solve a Rubix cube while jumping rope.

You also fail to see the scientific progression that what limited research in this field has already done:

For example,

Key events in stem cell research
1960s - Joseph Altman and Gopal Das present evidence of adult neurogenesis, ongoing stem cell activity in the brain; their reports contradict Cajal's "no new neurons" dogma are largely ignored
1963 - McCulloch and Till illustrate the presence of self-renewing stem cells in mouse bone marrow
1968 - bone marrow transplant between two siblings successfully treats SCID

Think of the puzzling nature of the genome before we began mapping it...now think about all the things we have learned from it. You can study cellular biology through this research, rejection-immune transplantation, etc. The amount of scientific knowledge that could be gained through this research is important, and IMO, necessary.

patteeu

10-26-2006, 01:14 AM

Ok, the definition of "solely for the purpose of stem cell research" is defined as "exclusively for stem cell research" and does not consider already produced excess infetility blastulas as such. It tries to isolate the possible pool of blatulas to the already normal number of blastulas produced related to infertility clinical efforts. There is no additional production. People aren't going to PAY thousands of dollars in infertility fees and go through the medical risks simply to donate the blastula to science. Please.

As far as the Valuable consideration definition there is attempt by the party that ACCEPTS the DONATION of biological asset to pay at that time for "costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, . . ." I doubt that any of these considerations will be equal to the costs of the original infertility work ups.

I believe it is you that is taking the definition given at the end and not reasserting that into the admendment for proper reading.

There is nothing in that language that limits the number of blastulas or the amount researchers can pay for them in the way that you seem to imagine.

As long as the blastula donor can make some claim about pursuing fertility treatment (it's not even clear to me that they have to actually pursue such treatment), they can produce as many excess blastuli(?) as their body allows. And there is nothing that limits the amount the researcher can pay as long as it is characterized as being an incidental cost. For goodness sake, the amendment even contemplates allowing researchers to pay for lost wages by the donor. Shouldn't the donor be donating those blastula on their own dime for fertility reasons? Face it, tip tap, this is a deceptive amendment crafted to sound like it will prevent women from becoming blastula factories, but that's exactly what it clears the path for.

I'm bothered by the deception more than the actual result. I'm not necessarily against allowing researchers to pay compensation to donors. I'm intrigued by the idea of allowing people to sell their organs although I've never given it enough thought to have a firm position.

KCWolfman

10-26-2006, 03:02 AM

You act as though the scientists in question are staggering backward through a dark cave blindfolded, hoping to solve a Rubix cube while jumping rope.

You also fail to see the scientific progression that what limited research in this field has already done:

For example,

Key events in stem cell research
1960s - Joseph Altman and Gopal Das present evidence of adult neurogenesis, ongoing stem cell activity in the brain; their reports contradict Cajal's "no new neurons" dogma are largely ignored
1963 - McCulloch and Till illustrate the presence of self-renewing stem cells in mouse bone marrow
1968 - bone marrow transplant between two siblings successfully treats SCID

Think of the puzzling nature of the genome before we began mapping it...now think about all the things we have learned from it. You can study cellular biology through this research, rejection-immune transplantation, etc. The amount of scientific knowledge that could be gained through this research is important, and IMO, necessary.
Think of the advances made in car safety and increased aerodynamics since the 60s, think of the advances made in lighter and lighter construction materials since the 70s, think of the advances made in computer processing of automobiles in the 80s and 90s - yet still no flying cars that Popular Mechanics has promised me for decades.

Every science has positive results in one category or another. Leeches and maggots are a great minor treatment for direct source deep infection of limbs. That doesn't mean that leeches and maggots are a cure all for cancer.

Dr. Suk has proven without a doubt that there is theft and deliberate mismanagement in the field of stem cells on a multimillion dollar level.

Again, if the research is so fantastic and so near breakthrough, why aren't individual corps doing something about it on their own? Hell, If I had the background, the corporation, and the materials, AND I believed that some sort of positive result were around the corner, I would buy an island outside the three mile limit of the US and I would develop my processes there to make trillions on my billions investment.

No one has shown me anything to make me believe that Michael Fox is going to stop shaking or that Christopher Reeves would have ever walked again.

TenLap

10-26-2006, 03:16 AM

I will vote yes for the following reasons:

1. The ammendment ensures "that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures." If a cure for Type I Diabetes involves injecting or implanting stem cells, your child is not guaranteed access to the cure in Missouri. It's amazing how many people skip right past the lines about access.

2. Drugs are not cures. Drugs are treatments that mask symptoms of disease. Cures are biological. Biology, by definition, deals with living things. So what if Michael J. Fox went off his meds to make a point? The fact remains that he still has a disease which will most likely kill him. How dare he shove it in our faces like that!

3. The ammendment covers both kinds of stem cell research: (13) “Stem cell” means a cell that can divide multiple times and give rise to specialized cells in the body, and includes but is not limited to the stem cells generally referred to as (i) adult stem cells that are found in some body tissues (including but not limited to adult stem cells derived from adult body tissues and from discarded umbilical cords and placentas), and (ii) embryonic stem cells (including but not limited to stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts and from cell reprogramming techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer).

tiptap

10-26-2006, 06:47 AM

Obviously, you have astounded the world and decided when a viable human life has actually begun. Please inform us all when that exact moment occurs and how you arrived at that conclusion.

Sperm contains one person's unique DNA sequence. It will not reproduce on its own. A fertilized egg contains DNA related to, but not in direct sequence with the ova or the sperm. A fertilized egg can reproduce mutiple cells on its own.

But the fertilized egg, the zygote, will not reproduce an organized collection of multiple cells that even comes close to being a fetus ON ITS OWN. It takes being associated with a uterus that bathes the cells in orienting flow of material that helps direct organization. Without this external input the zygote fails to proceed in the direction of being a human.

It is the excess production that is sought in doing stem cell research.

For every zygote that does make it to being a human there are 3 to 4 zygotes that fail to organize correctly and are spontaneously aborted naturally. It is already part of the excess production that is necessary for life to succeed.

Laz

10-26-2006, 01:01 PM

So what if Michael J. Fox went off his meds to make a point?
btw ... that jittering shows when taking his medicine.

Not taking his medicine would cause body to tighten up.

tiptap

10-27-2006, 11:11 AM

There is nothing in that language that limits the number of blastulas or the amount researchers can pay for them in the way that you seem to imagine.

As long as the blastula donor can make some claim about pursuing fertility treatment (it's not even clear to me that they have to actually pursue such treatment), they can produce as many excess blastuli(?) as their body allows. And there is nothing that limits the amount the researcher can pay as long as it is characterized as being an incidental cost. For goodness sake, the amendment even contemplates allowing researchers to pay for lost wages by the donor. Shouldn't the donor be donating those blastula on their own dime for fertility reasons? Face it, tip tap, this is a deceptive amendment crafted to sound like it will prevent women from becoming blastula factories, but that's exactly what it clears the path for.

I'm bothered by the deception more than the actual result. I'm not necessarily against allowing researchers to pay compensation to donors. I'm intrigued by the idea of allowing people to sell their organs although I've never given it enough thought to have a firm position.

The question is to whom the money referred to as compensation can go to. The actual upkeep of the blastula is by a company, not the donor. The transfer is to a company again not the donor. And excepting for the lost time at their job in donating the blastula the donors recieve no payment directly to them. Instead they have an initial investment of 30,000 dollars to get children and nothing paid to them. They are relieved of the the custodial payments they make to maintain the blastula or to dispose of the blastula.

Again the admendment explicitly states that one can't produce blastulas for research, period. The compensation definition is explicitly set out within the confines of accepting the blastula for research. Then the expenses associated with accepting custody of the blastula are explicitly allowed under the admendment.

patteeu

10-27-2006, 11:36 AM

The question is to whom the money referred to as compensation can go to. The actual upkeep of the blastula is by a company, not the donor. The transfer is to a company again not the donor. And excepting for the lost time at their job in donating the blastula the donors recieve no payment directly to them. Instead they have an initial investment of 30,000 dollars to get children and nothing paid to them. They are relieved of the the custodial payments they make to maintain the blastula or to dispose of the blastula.

I didn't see anything in the amendment that requires the donor to pay $30,000 at any point in the process. There is no reason why the company can't reduce that price or even pay people to initiate the fertility process.

Again the admendment explicitly states that one can't produce blastulas for research, period. The compensation definition is explicitly set out within the confines of accepting the blastula for research. Then the expenses associated with accepting custody of the blastula are explicitly allowed under the admendment.

:BS: The amendment says that one can't produce blastulas EXCLUSIVELY for research, which means that as long as you make a passing reference to infertility during the process, you're golden.

The language of this amendment would, in the final analysis, be up to the courts to interpret, but we should take special notice of section 7 where the authors attempt to insure a favorable interpretation which would maximize the impact of the loopholes I've pointed out:

The provisions of this section and of all state and local laws, regulations, rules, charters, ordinances, and other governmental actions shall be construed in favor of the conduct of stem cell research and the provision of stem cell therapies and cures.

You are doing just the opposite when you interpret the amendment. You are assuming away the loopholes because they seem to conflict with the parts of the amendment that you originally posted. The amendment in total, especially in light of the interpretation instruction to view it in a light most favorable to stem cell research, makes it clear to me that limits you see are really mirages.

I know you are a smart guy so I'm wondering if you are really duped by the confusing language of this amendment or if you are trying to do the duping.

Radar Chief

10-27-2006, 11:45 AM

btw ... that jittering shows when taking his medicine.

Not taking his medicine would cause body to tighten up.

Reposted, just cause I keep see’n this repeated as if it were gospel.

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing, Washington, D.C.óSeptember 28, 1999

*snip*

Snippets of my testimony were featured on several of the nightly news broadcasts. One line in particular from my prepared statement got a lot of play: "In my forties, I can expect challenges most people wouldn't face until their seventies and eighties, if ever. But with your help, if we all do everything we can to eradicate this disease, when I'm in my fifties I'll be dancing at my children's weddings." I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling.

http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/article.php?id=5

Laz

10-27-2006, 01:14 PM

Reposted, just cause I keep see’n this repeated as if it were gospel.

http://www.michaeljfox.org/news/article.php?id=5
your point?

he said he didn't take his medicine to show the subcommittee what it's like. He didn't say anything about "the jittering" being what he was showing them.

from what i've read, and not from micheal j fox, that when they don't take their medicine their muscles get very tight and spastic.

when the they take their medicine it loosens up their muscles .... then the spasticity make their body "bounce" like that.

tiptap

10-27-2006, 01:17 PM

I didn't see anything in the amendment that requires the donor to pay $30,000 at any point in the process. There is no reason why the company can't reduce that price or even pay people to initiate the fertility process.

:BS: The amendment says that one can't produce blastulas EXCLUSIVELY for research, which means that as long as you make a passing reference to infertility during the process, you're golden.

The language of this amendment would, in the final analysis, be up to the courts to interpret, but we should take special notice of section 7 where the authors attempt to insure a favorable interpretation which would maximize the impact of the loopholes I've pointed out:

You are doing just the opposite when you interpret the amendment. You are assuming away the loopholes because they seem to conflict with the parts of the amendment that you originally posted. The amendment in total, especially in light of the interpretation instruction to view it in a light most favorable to stem cell research, makes it clear to me that limits you see are really mirages.

I know you are a smart guy so I'm wondering if you are really duped by the confusing language of this amendment or if you are trying to do the duping.

No, Patteau. I am not confused. Part of all contracts is the timing of the enactment of the parties. Otherwise you could post date anything and everything. And that is what you are insisting is protected. That there exists a loophole to back date the contract so that the money can flow to the donor. The reading of the admendment, the contract, is pretty clear. The definitions are merely added to allow for money to be spent upon the change of ownership of the blastula so as to not forstall the donation based upon the change of responsibility. (And let me say again, I clearly understand that blastula is a non starter for those who have a religious conviction of the unique and absolute status of conception though it isn't biblical.)

So why isn't there a booming blastula selling market already in the US. It doesn't exist because the production of blastulas, is an expense not a revenue source, for those seeking infertility treatment. There is no buying market for blastulas that could compensate at the level that infertility clinics now receive for their service.

But you're right if the admendment had included the amount needed to begin infetility proceedures this admendment would be as much about regulating Infertility Services as the structure of how blastulas might be donated for research. Instead it resticts itself to how to formulate a method, that is protected and is not a continued financial burden upon the donor, to allow for the moral decision of the donor to offer the blastula for medical research.

patteeu

10-27-2006, 01:36 PM

No, Patteau. I am not confused. Part of all contracts is the timing of the enactment of the parties. Otherwise you could post date anything and everything. And that is what you are insisting is protected. That there exists a loophole to back date the contract so that the money can flow to the donor. The reading of the admendment, the contract, is pretty clear. The definitions are merely added to allow for money to be spent upon the change of ownership of the blastula so as to not forstall the donation based upon the change of responsibility. (And let me say again, I clearly understand that blastula is a non starter for those who have a religious conviction of the unique and absolute status of conception though it isn't biblical.)

I'm not "insisting" on anything at all like that. What I'm insisting is that the middle man (e.g. fertility clinic) can pay donors to enter their program and then turn around and charge ANY price that the market will bear to the researchers who buy their "excess" blastula. They will also be able to extract as many excess blastula from the donor as biology permits. The only impact the so-called limitations on these exchanges will have is to require certain things to be said on the paperwork (e.g. "I'm donating these eggs for the purpose of future fertility treatments and I consent to allow the excess to be used for ESCR" or "Invoice for removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation expenses."). Roughly speaking, that's it.

So why isn't there a booming blastula selling market already in the US. It doesn't exist because the production of blastulas, is an expense not a revenue source, for those seeking infertility treatment. There is no buying market for blastulas that could compensate at the level that infertility clinics now receive for their service.

Because, at this point, there isn't enough funding for ESCR yet to support the demand. There isn't much private investment because the profit potential is so speculative and there isn't much public money available because of the controversial nature of the research. If the level of investment changes, the dynamics of the market for blastulas will change.

For those who oppose this research on moral grounds but can justify it by telling themselves that EVERY blastula used would have otherwise been discarded and destroyed, this amendment, when read correctly, eliminates that possible rationalization.

But you're right if the admendment had included the amount needed to begin infetility proceedures this admendment would be as much about regulating Infertility Services as the structure of how blastulas might be donated for research. Instead it resticts itself to how to formulate a method, that is protected and is not a continued financial burden upon the donor, to allow for the moral decision of the donor to offer the blastula for medical research.

In so doing, they are making it impossible for legislators to prevent a blastula market from forming.

tiptap

10-27-2006, 02:26 PM

Well I originally started this thread with an article with an alternative to using blastulas from fertility clinics. One would take an unfertilized egg and remove the 23 chromosomes and replace with someones 46 chromosomes and initiate the process that would lead to a blastula. However this blastula would be like your twin sibling. The genetic material would be essentially yours and there would never have been a newly initiated, unique collection of DNA. This has the additional advantage of predictably having a good tissue match with the individual donating the genetic material.

I hadn't really wanted to make the discussion that of Admendment 2. I don't think the admendment will make a lot of difference in whether the research gets done. It simply allowed the research to be done in Missouri and the industry to have a firm standing to do so in Missouri.

I think your misgivings are unfounded considering the nature of the industry now or ever. But the technical discussion of nearly an endless possible supply of blastulas (it only takes a egg and sperm) makes the worth of any blastula quite small compared to the expense of the process which goes to the Fertility Clinic for that process. Not for the production of blastulas but for the production of a child. All the techniques are funded by the wish of the unique want for one own child. That is what makes the price high for the expertise to overcome infertility. You can't get that price if any Jane Doe can furnish the material.

Radar Chief

10-27-2006, 02:54 PM

your point?

he said he didn't take his medicine to show the subcommittee what it's like. He didn't say anything about "the jittering" being what he was showing them.

from what i've read, and not from micheal j fox, that when they don't take their medicine their muscles get very tight and spastic.

when the they take their medicine it loosens up their muscles .... then the spasticity make their body "bounce" like that.

Ok, maybe I should’ve included the paragraph immediately follow’n the snippet I quoted. Here.

Later that day, when I finally got a chance to see the hearing broadcast in its entirety on C-SPAN, I was struck too, but by a transformation of a completely different kind. Sure, the symptoms were severeóI looked as though an invisible bully were harassing me while I read my statement. My head jerked, skewing my reading glasses as if the back of my skull were being slapped. I was fighting to control the pages of my speech, my arms bouncing as if someone were trying to knock the paper out of my hands. But through it all, I never wavered. I saw in my eyes an even, controlled sense of purpose I had never seen in myself before. There was, ironically enough, a steadiness in me, even as I was shaking like a leaf. I couldn't be this still until I could no longer keep still. The bully attacked from every angle, even from within my own body, but I wasn't about to give in, or be distracted from what I had come there to do.

The “jittering” and jerking is apparently exactly what he was try’n to show’em. Not try’n to claim that what you’ve read is wrong, since I’ve now read probably the same articles. Though, I’d think that the effects of the disease and purposely refusing medication is a little more subjective and a little less absolute than what we acknowledge we’ve both read would lead us to believe.
It may even have more to do with just how advanced the disease for each victim. :shrug:

go bowe

10-27-2006, 03:59 PM

Ok, maybe I should’ve included the paragraph immediately follow’n the snippet I quoted. Here.

The “jittering” and jerking is apparently exactly what he was try’n to show’em. Not try’n to claim that what you’ve read is wrong, since I’ve now read probably the same articles. Though, I’d think that the effects of the disease and purposely refusing medication is a little more subjective and a little less absolute than what we acknowledge we’ve both read would lead us to believe.
It may even have more to do with just how advanced the disease for each victim. :shrug:the shaking and tremors are caused by the use of certain parkinsons medications over a period of time...

and the effects are cumulative and less likely to be infuenced by skipping the meds for a day or so...

however, the main problem for mr. fox is the severity of his disease...

he's had it now for a number of years and it is very advanced case...

between the severity of his case and his long use of anti-parkinson meds, he should be looking about the same as he was in that commercial...

wrt the quote from fox, given the advanced parkinsons and the dyskenesia produced by the anti-parkinsons drugs, he's probably taking anti-tremor meds to reduce the severity of the dyskinesia...

the anti tremor drugs are relativity fast acting and their effectiveness doesn't last a long time, while the effects of anti-parkinsons meds are cumulative and skipping a dose or two generally wouldn't be as noticeable in terms of changing his severoty of his dyskinesia...

that's my best guess of the situation when he testified, where the dyskinesia was more pronounced than usual...

of course, i could be wrong about all this...

i did stay at a holiday inn express last night though...

Radar Chief

10-27-2006, 04:21 PM

the shaking and tremors are caused by the use of certain parkinsons medications over a period of time...

and the effects are cumulative and less likely to be infuenced by skipping the meds for a day or so...

however, the main problem for mr. fox is the severity of his disease...

he's had it now for a number of years and it is very advanced case...

between the severity of his case and his long use of anti-parkinson meds, he should be looking about the same as he was in that commercial...

wrt the quote from fox, given the advanced parkinsons and the dyskenesia produced by the anti-parkinsons drugs, he's probably taking anti-tremor meds to reduce the severity of the dyskinesia...

the anti tremor drugs are relativity fast acting and their effectiveness doesn't last a long time, while the effects of anti-parkinsons meds are cumulative and skipping a dose or two generally wouldn't be as noticeable in terms of changing his severoty of his dyskinesia...

that's my best guess of the situation when he testified, where the dyskinesia was more pronounced than usual...

of course, i could be wrong about all this...

i did stay at a holiday inn express last night though...

I’m sure his condition has progressed since he spoke before the Senate in ’99.

Though, the reason I’ve posted that quote and link is because of the inferred assertion that it’s ridiculous for MJF to have refused meds ‘cause it wouldn’t cause the desired effect, when by MJF’s own words he did in fact refuse meds to cause exactly that “desired effect”.
I make no moral judgments on his actions, but if you’re ask’n my opinion I have no problems with what MJF did. I’d further think it was necessary for the uneducated on the subject, me included, to gain a better understanding of what the disease causes. I also feel that this is information shouldn’t be excluded from discussion. It should be noted and opinions weighted with that knowledge.

go bowe

10-27-2006, 05:03 PM

I’m sure his condition has progressed since he spoke before the Senate in ’99.

Though, the reason I’ve posted that quote and link is because of the inferred assertion that it’s ridiculous for MJF to have refused meds ‘cause it wouldn’t cause the desired effect, when by MJF’s own words he did in fact refuse meds to cause exactly that “desired effect”.
I make no moral judgments on his actions, but if you’re ask’n my opinion I have no problems with what MJF did. I’d further think it was necessary for the uneducated on the subject, me included, to gain a better understanding of what the disease causes. I also feel that this is information shouldn’t be excluded from discussion. It should be noted and opinions weighted with that knowledge.obviously he did say words that can fairly be construed that way...

as you have noted, his condition since 99 has worsened...

and he clearly stated that in 99 when he testified he did stop taking his meds...

i am just suggesting that it's possible to reconcile his words with the course of the disease and the known side effects of the drugs