A Sea Of Red

Stem cell breakthrough defuses debate

By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer
Tue Nov 20, 6:44 PM ET

NEW YORK - Scientists have created the equivalent of embryonic stem cells from ordinary skin cells, a breakthrough that could someday produce new treatments for disease without the explosive moral questions of embyro cloning.

Research teams in the United States and Japan showed that a simple lab technique can rival the complex and highly controversial idea of extracting stem cells from cloned embryos.

It was a landmark achievement on all fronts, defusing one of the most divisive debates in modern medicine and religion. It was lauded by scientists, ethicists and religious groups.

Source and Full Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_ ... 3kQCQPLBIF

good news in my opinion...i knew if scientist tried hard enough they could find new ways to have the stem cells they need, it was just a matter of being motivated to do so......

i wonder what Micheal J. Fox will say now.....

For a lot, not all. For a lot of the "advocates" involved in the embronic Stem cell debate, it has been for nothing more than a front for legalized abortion. They have known in theory for a while now that somehting like this was possible and within reach if they just tried. I had to right a paper in it in my Political Economics class for Dr. O'Reilly back in my Jr year at LU. I was reading about scientist on the edge of this then and that was almost 4 years ago. This is great news for the stem cell world and bad news for the abortion advocates.

vastrightwinger wrote:For a lot, not all. For a lot of the "advocates" involved in the embronic Stem cell debate, it has been for nothing more than a front for legalized abortion.

Please explain.

El Scorcho wrote:

vastrightwinger wrote:For a lot, not all. For a lot of the "advocates" involved in the embronic Stem cell debate, it has been for nothing more than a front for legalized abortion.

Please explain.

It has to do with the devaluing of human life. It's an embryo, not a person, they say. Once it becomes socially accepted for those embryos to be nothing more than non-viable tissue mass, you are essentially saying that "life" can't begin at conception -- and that women should have the right to terminate the non-viable tissue masses that reside in their body.

thepostman wrote:good news in my opinion...i knew if scientist tried hard enough they could find new ways to have the stem cells they need, it was just a matter of being motivated to do so......

i wonder what Micheal J. Fox will say now.....

MJF is still on his "we don't fund research, we fund results" complaint -- even though he's still saying that embryonic stem cells are the gold standard of all research -- even though they don't get results.

There are a lot of people who view embryonic stem cell research not for the potential that it holds scientifically but rather as a way to appeal to people as a backdoor method of keeping abortion legal. I am not talking about scientists or people who suffered from certain ailments that could be aided by stem cells but about politicians and other layman who have no vested interest in the matter. There have been a lot of good legitimate scientific advancement come out of stem cells. What bothers me are the people that tell me, when there is evidence to the contrary, that they can only use embryonic stem cells. They have been taking the stem cells from the umbylical cord for a while now with the same results as embryonic. All I am saying is the stem cell debate became a political issue that for many (on both sides of the aisle) was not fueled by what was potentially at stake but rather was hijacked by other motives.

Ed Dantes wrote:

El Scorcho wrote:

vastrightwinger wrote:For a lot, not all. For a lot of the "advocates" involved in the embronic Stem cell debate, it has been for nothing more than a front for legalized abortion.

Please explain.

It has to do with the devaluing of human life. It's an embryo, not a person, they say. Once it becomes socially accepted for those embryos to be nothing more than non-viable tissue mass, you are essentially saying that "life" can't begin at conception -- and that women should have the right to terminate the non-viable tissue masses that reside in their body.

Got it. I assumed this was what was meant, but wanted to clarify.

El Scorcho wrote:

Ed Dantes wrote:

El Scorcho wrote: Please explain.

It has to do with the devaluing of human life. It's an embryo, not a person, they say. Once it becomes socially accepted for those embryos to be nothing more than non-viable tissue mass, you are essentially saying that "life" can't begin at conception -- and that women should have the right to terminate the non-viable tissue masses that reside in their body.

Got it. I assumed this was what was meant, but wanted to clarify.

I understand. Just as an example, take it for what it's worth, but this is basically what Mitt Romney cites as his conversion to the pro-life side. He was meeting with some Harvard scientist who was talking about cloning -- and the scientist basically said that there is no ethical problem because they destroy the embryos after a few weeks. At that point, Romney realized that we really shouldn't trivialize "life" to that extent.

I don't want to hijack the thread or start a candidate 2008 debate -- just citing that as an example.

I was overjoyed to learn that my school (Wisconsin) was one of the parties to this advance. Even in the state there has been much controversy over using the embryonic methods so this gives a new direction in which the state will be willing to participate ($$$$).


http://www.news.wisc.edu/14474