Bush's first veto

[Downthestretch55]

I spent some time with my son yesterday. He's a post doctorate geneticist doing research on embryonic stem cells seeking remedies for heart defects.
He doesn't use human stem cells yet, though they would certainly be useful for his investigation, as well as his colleagues. The areas of interest is heart defects and restoration of miocardial tissue subsequent to "heart attacks".
Specific genes include but are not limited to Nkx 2.5, Mef2c, and Hand1.
We talked about the limiting of cell lines and predicted that the following would occur.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8IVAGAGR.html

Seems that the "moral" line (rather put the unused embryos in the dumpster rather than give scientists access) will continue the anti-scientist sentiments.
Can anyone say, "creative intelligence"?

My guess is that the "fundementalist" votes are more important...but in reality, most voters will have forgotten this long before the elections.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

I spent some time with my son yesterday. He's a post doctorate geneticist doing research on embryonic stem cells seeking remedies for heart defects.
He doesn't use human stem cells yet, though they would certainly be useful for his investigation, as well as his colleagues. The areas of interest is heart defects and restoration of miocardial tissue subsequent to "heart attacks".
Specific genes include but are not limited to Nkx 2.5, Mef2c, and Hand1.
We talked about the limiting of cell lines and predicted that the following would occur.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8IVAGAGR.html

Seems that the "moral" line (rather put the unused embryos in the dumpster rather than give scientists access) will continue the anti-scientist sentiments.
Can anyone say, "creative intelligence"?

My guess is that the "fundementalist" votes are more important...but in reality, most voters will have forgotten this long before the elections.

Well, I give Bush credit for standing by his beliefs, I agree that this shouldn't be a huge political issue. As one who is anti-abortion, I share the fears that this would open the door to abuses however I see no reason why that can't be controlled without denying scientists important tools in their fight against human suffering. Sometimes, when issues become so polarizing, neither side can find the door to compromise...and that is always sad. Not saying to compromise one's beliefs, simply to find a way to service the best interests of all humanity.

[dalakhani]

The Christian Right put the W, his daddy and Reagan in office...this was no surprise.

How sad.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Well, I give Bush credit for standing by his beliefs, I agree that this shouldn't be a huge political issue. As one who is anti-abortion, I share the fears that this would open the door to abuses however I see no reason why that can't be controlled without denying scientists important tools in their fight against human suffering. Sometimes, when issues become so polarizing, neither side can find the door to compromise...and that is always sad. Not saying to compromise one's beliefs, simply to find a way to service the best interests of all humanity.

Actually, California is taking the lead in state funding of this form of research and also, private funding is becoming more available.
With NIH budget being reduced (see money going to fund the continuing disaster in Iraq), and recent polls showing 70% in favor of this research, Bush has indeed drawn his "line in the sand".
Senator Harkin said it best today, "He's the president, nobody elected him to be the Pope or Ayotollah".
From my point of view, I certainly don't need him making "moral decisions" on my behalf.
If human life is so precious to him, how come the continuing deaths in many places don't hold equal weight as stage eight mitosis frozen embryos?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Actually, California is taking the lead in state funding of this form of research and also, private funding is becoming more available.
With NIH budget being reduced (see money going to fund the continuing disaster in Iraq), and recent polls showing 70% in favor of this research, Bush has indeed drawn his "line in the sand".
Senator Harkin said it best today, "He's the president, nobody elected him to be the Pope or Ayotollah".
From my point of view, I certainly don't need him making "moral decisions" on my behalf.
If human life is so precious to him, how come the continuing deaths in many places don't hold equal weight as stage eight mitosis frozen embryos?

For that matter, why isn't he campaigning to shut down fertility clinics, since they lead directly to the "death" of thousands of embryos every year? In fact, I believe that's where most of the embryos used in research come from-- people sign over their discarded embryos to research. So he prefers that we permit fertility clinics to continute creating thousands of "lives" that will be "murdered" by disposal, but doesn't favor donating them to research? Seems less like standing up for one's beliefs and more like hypocritical behavior, doesn't it? Oh wait, this IS Bush...

For that matter, why does anyone who thinks life begins at conception think fertility clinics are acceptable? Why aren't they out protesting them and threatening the people who go to them?

[SentToStud]

Struck me as just Bush pandering to the most radical of the right wing.... just hanging on to the last batch of follow the leader disciples remaining true to the end.

"Moral Decision" is just code for "Neo-Conservative Christian Religous Beliefs."

It's so sad what these fear-mongering, bible-thumping, election-stealing, war-losing, CIA agent-outing clowns have done to the Republican Party.

[timmgirvan]

Actually It's the 'take a poll' gutless politicians on both sides of the aisle blowing in the wind of public opinion that stymy any real progress on any topic in the arena today! And a good dose of state secret-stealing, godless unless it serves their purpose,good ole boy,too stupid to run an election right bonehead FLAMERS, leaving the barn door open to military and nuclear secrets that set the Country back 20 years!

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Actually It's the 'take a poll' gutless politicians on both sides of the aisle blowing in the wind of public opinion that stymy any real progress on any topic in the arena today! And a good dose of state secret-stealing, godless unless it serves their purpose,good ole boy,too stupid to run an election right bonehead FLAMERS, leaving the barn door open to military and nuclear secrets that set the Country back 20 years!

Absolutely.

It was no less disappointing watching the Democrats turn themselves into the party of no ideas.

Watching Kerry for three months doing nothing and refusing to "Swing at the pitch" was awful. Playing not to lose instead of playing to win. What the heck was he waiting for?

[timmgirvan]

See,Stud...we do agree about some things! There's HOPE for us all yet.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

See,Stud...we do agree about some things! There's HOPE for us all yet.

lol... as Lewis Black said about his vote in the PResidential race, "WTF was I supposed to do when I had to choose between two bowls of sh.t?!?"

Nancy Reagan changed her tune after what her husband went through. I bet if someone in the Bush family got unfortunate...

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Nancy Reagan changed her tune after what her husband went through. I bet if someone in the Bush family got unfortunate...

Interesting "take" on this issue, Pgardn.
Since the embryos in question are going to be dicarded anyway, seems to me that they could serve a more useful purpose than becoming "medical waste".

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Interesting "take" on this issue, Pgardn.
Since the embryos in question are going to be dicarded anyway, seems to me that they could serve a more useful purpose than becoming "medical waste".

I certainly agree...it's always a matter of who's ox gets gored! Cheney has a g-ay daughter and that alters his view a bit. The danger of course is that they run out of available stem cells and abortion for profit becomes a reality...obviously, I have problems with that as I suspect many do, but I see no reason there can't be safeguards installed from the beginning to prevent that!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I certainly agree...it's always a matter of who's ox gets gored! Cheney has a g-ay daughter and that alters his view a bit. The danger of course is that they run out of available stem cells and abortion for profit becomes a reality...obviously, I have problems with that as I suspect many do, but I see no reason there can't be safeguards installed from the beginning to prevent that!

Somerfrost,
To my knowledge, these embryos don't come into existance through abortion.
They are harvested from the female donor and fertilized invitro.
Those that successfully come to term are the "snowflake" babies that surrounded Bush in his photo op.
However, since there are far more embroyos created than are implanted, the surplus are stored in liquid nitrogen until they are no longer viable.
We can start seperate threads on abortion and g-ay rights. These topics are not germain to the stem cell issue.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
To my knowledge, these embryos don't come into existance through abortion.
They are harvested from the female donor and fertilized invitro.
Those that successfully come to term are the "snowflake" babies that surrounded Bush in his photo op.
However, since there are far more embroyos created than are implanted, the surplus are stored in liquid nitrogen until they are no longer viable.
We can start seperate threads on abortion and g-ay rights. These topics are not germain to the stem cell issue.

I only mentioned g-ay rights in the context that initially arose from Pgardn's post...folks with personal involvements tend to alter their point of view whether it be stem cell, g-ay rights, or the fact that an Arab family is moving in next door! Abortion is germain to this issue as it remains the one significant danger. I support this research and recognize the tremendous benefit that it can produce to millions of people, my only issue is safeguards for the future when hopefully scientists have developed successful treatments for those millions requiring a huge supply of stem cells! I'll repeat myself...there is no reason this can't be done! There is no need to debate the morality of abortion here, that takes my concerns out of context!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I only mentioned g-ay rights in the context that initially arose from Pgardn's post...folks with personal involvements tend to alter their point of view whether it be stem cell, g-ay rights, or the fact that an Arab family is moving in next door! Abortion is germain to this issue as it remains the one significant danger. I support this research and recognize the tremendous benefit that it can produce to millions of people, my only issue is safeguards for the future when hopefully scientists have developed successful treatments for those millions requiring a huge supply of stem cells! I'll repeat myself...there is no reason this can't be done! There is no need to debate the morality of abortion here, that takes my concerns out of context!

Somerfrost,
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with much of your position.
Abortion is not the source of embryonic stem cells.
As far as needing a "huge supply of stem cells", that really isn't the case.
Of the 78 cell lines presently allowed, none of the colonies came from aborted fetuses. The issue is the current limitation of scientific investigation to those existing cell lines. Since stem cells are undifferentiated (therein their value), they can be replicated invitro to supply research. A "huge supply" is not necessary.
I agree that allowing more cell lines to be used for investigation should be done. It must be done.
My point is that discarding embryos is a complete waste, though it does serve a "moral" and political agenda.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with much of your position.
Abortion is not the source of embryonic stem cells.
As far as needing a "huge supply of stem cells", that really isn't the case.
Of the 78 cell lines presently allowed, none of the colonies came from aborted fetuses. The issue is the current limitation of scientific investigation to those existing cell lines. Since stem cells are undifferentiated (therein their value), they can be replicated invitro to supply research. A "huge supply" is not necessary.
I agree that allowing more cell lines to be used for investigation should be done. It must be done.
My point is that discarding embryos is a complete waste, though it does serve a "moral" and political agenda.

Political...yes! Moral...well, I think we agree there! No, my concern doesn't involve the research phase rather, down the road, where will the supply be generated for treatment of hopefully millions of folks who will benefit? Again, address this now and the issue goes away for me...I just don't want to see women getting pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting their baby for stem cells...there has already been a case involving something very similar so it's not science fiction.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Political...yes! Moral...well, I think we agree there! No, my concern doesn't involve the research phase rather, down the road, where will the supply be generated for treatment of hopefully millions of folks who will benefit? Again, address this now and the issue goes away for me...I just don't want to see women getting pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting their baby for stem cells...there has already been a case involving something very similar so it's not science fiction.

Thanks for the question.
Women don't become pregnant and then have their baby aborted to supply stem cells. That would be scientifically impossible. The cells would already have become differentiated long before the time that the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.
The value of stem cells is that they have not become differentiated, that is...
they haven't become nerve, heart, mucscle, etc tissue.
Stem cells (undifferentated cells) come into existance at the early stages of development, stage eight mitosis. This is when the fertilized ovume has divided eight times. At that point, it is a cluster of cells called an embryo.
At the next stage of mitosis (cell division), a tube develops that will later become the heart. Next comes the beginnings of neural tissue.
The stage of development that holds promise is before this occurs.
Embryos are created in a petri dish, outside of the donor female, for implantation. Eggs are harvested and fertilized invitro. The surplus have been stored in liquid nitrogen should the need for reimplantation occur.
Those that aren't needed are stored until they are no longer viable, then discarded.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Thanks for the question.
Women don't become pregnant and then have their baby aborted to supply stem cells. That would be scientifically impossible. The cells would already have become differentiated long before the time that the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.
The value of stem cells is that they have not become differentiated, that is...
they haven't become nerve, heart, mucscle, etc tissue.
Stem cells (undifferentated cells) come into existance at the early stages of development, stage eight mitosis. This is when the fertilized ovume has divided eight times. At that point, it is a cluster of cells called an embryo.
At the next stage of mitosis (cell division), a tube develops that will later become the heart. Next comes the beginnings of neural tissue.
The stage of development that holds promise is before this occurs.
Embryos are created in a petri dish, outside of the donor female, for inplantation. Eggs are harvested and fertilized invitro. The surplus have been stored in liquid nitrogen should the need for reimplantation occur.
Those that aren't needed are stored until they are no longer viable, then discarded.

OK, thanks for that clarification...in that case, I have no objection whatsoever! Do you recall the case I'm referring to? A woman wanted to abort her fetus/child in order to use something (thought it was stem cells) to help her ailing father. He was apparently a well-known scientist, perhaps a Nobel winner? Anyway, her argument centered around the fact that her father's life was more valuable than an unborn...raised the hair on the back of my neck instantly!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

OK, thanks for that clarification...in that case, I have no objection whatsoever! Do you recall the case I'm referring to? A woman wanted to abort her fetus/child in order to use something (thought it was stem cells) to help her ailing father. He was apparently a well-known scientist, perhaps a Nobel winner? Anyway, her argument centered around the fact that her father's life was more valuable than an unborn...raised the hair on the back of my neck instantly!

I'm not familiar with the case.
I personally do not believe that a life should be taken to preserve someone elses. In my opinion, that's just plain wrong.