E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe federal government may continue to pay for controversial human embryonic stem cell research, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The three-judge panel says the government has correctly interpreted a law that bans the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos for research. The ruling is unlikely to put the issue to rest and one of the judges pleaded for Congress to make clear what the government should and should not be able to do.
The hard-to-understand case pits science against mostly religious arguments against using embryos in medical research. It's even more confusing because there are so many differenlt types of cells called stem cells.
Dr. James Sherley of Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of AVM Biotechnology in Seattle, who both do research using adult stem cells and oppose the use of human embryonic stem cells, sued in 2009. They said federal guidelines violate the law and would harm their work by increasing competition for limited federal funding.
It’s been back and forth in the federal courts since then, and Sherley has vowed to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
The embryonic stem cells at issue are the body’s master cells. Found in days-old embryos, they are the source of all the cells and tissues in the body – blood, brain, bone and muscle. Researchers are studying them to investigate how disease develops and are using some as transplants to treat diseases from Parkinson’s to cancer. They are being tested in people to repair spinal cord injuries and as a possible cure for some forms of blindness.
Opponents of the research say it’s unacceptable to destroy a human embryo to get the cells. The 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment, added by Congress to budget language every year, forbids the use of federal funds in research that destroys embryos.
When he was president, George W. Bush decided that the ban extended to human embryonic stem-cell research and greatly limited the federal program.
As one of his first acts after he entered office, President Barack Obama issued an executive order reversing this and encouraging the National Institutes of Health to pay for embryonic stem-cell research, so long as federal money wasn’t used to directly make the stem cells. To get the cells, someone in a private lab using private money has to take apart the embryos – usually left over from fertility clinics and destined for the trash can. Federal funds may be used to work with the cells that private labs make available.
On Friday, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, Judge David Bryan Sentelle, and Karen LeCraft Henderson of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington upheld an earlier court ruling throwing out the case. The law, they said “permits federal funding of research projects that utilize already-derived embryonic stem cells—which are not themselves embryos—because no ‘human embryo or embryos are destroyed’ in such projects.”
“As we have held before, the NIH interpretation of the statute’s actual language is reasonable,’ they added.
"NIH will continue to move forward, conducting and funding research in this very promising area of science. The ruling affirms our commitment to the patients afflicted by diseases that may one day be treatable using the results of this research," NIH director Dr. Francis Collins said in a statement.
But Judge Brown wasn’t entirely happy and asked Congress to please clear up the unclear wording of the Dickey-Wicker amendment and saying “there are aspects of this case that … should trouble the heart.”
“Given the weighty interests at stake in this encounter between science and ethics, relying on an increasingly Delphic, decade-old single paragraph rider on an appropriations bill hardly seems adequate,” she wrote in Friday’s opinion.
Supporters of the research said they were thrilled. “This ensures that America’s best scientists can continue to move this work forward despite ideologically driven attempts to derail it,” said Amy Rick, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research.
There are other types of stem cells, including so-called adult stem cells, found in everyone's bodies. But scientists say they don't have the same powerful properties as embryonic stem cells. Labs are also working to re-program ordinary cells to behave like embryonic cells. A deeply divided Congress has decided not to weigh in on the issue until elections give one party or the other more power.
Leave a Comment:
whoopee....finally some common sense from the courts...guess the bible thumpers will have a field day with this ruling..
They tend to become more in favor of stem cell research and biomedical research in general as they get older.
Agreed 100%.
We must take all steps necessary to prevent the rising oligarchic theocracy in America.
This is one in the right direction.
Someday there will be a valuable breakthrough in this area of research...diabetes perhaps which would improve the quality of life and reduce morbidity and mortality for millions of people. For those who oppose using stem cells or embryonic cells in research, just remember to tell a 7 year old kid with leukemia who just had his marrow irradiated that stem cell research is immoral. Better yet, tell your own kid that...
If the fetus is just going to be thrown away what difference does it make? Plus, they are finding out even adult stem cells are beneficial just not quite as good as embryonic ones. I had a friend who was in a horrific accident that left her paralyzed. She was a young mother with a small child. After 6 months, they brought in a specialist, who decided to try an experimental procedure on her. They inserted embryonic stem cells from a baby who had just died in the same hospital, into her spine (with the parents permission of course) and she was able to walk again!! Now, 16 yrs. later, she is walking so good, you would never know she had been paralyzed!
Sharon, no one is using or considering using a "fetus" for embryonic stem cell research, it's called an "embyro", using the word "fetus" to describe a lump of dividing cells just gives the scientifically challenged wingnuts fuel for their fire.
Calling all conservatives, there is a liberal conspiracy to destroy the diet soft drink industry. Coke and Pepsi are good conservative compnaies that believe in the American way of capitalism. To save these companies from the liberal menace we (conservatives) must consume mass quantities of diet soda containing aspertame (nutrasweet). Just as we did with Chick-fil-a, we must line up to buy the retailers out of our favorite diet soda to save these brands from this insidious liberal conspiracy to destroy capitalism. If we (conservatives) each drink a 12 pack a day for the next year or two that should be enough to save these companies.
> AreYouBuyingThis? guess the bible thumpers will have a field day with this ruling..
Not everyone opposed to Federal funding of Embryonic Stem Cell research is always a 'bible thumper'. There are many people opposed to abortion (and all uses of aborted babies) that are not 'bible thumpers' or 'Christo-Nazis' or even religious at all. I know it's simpler to just label the opposing side in an debate as being 'crazy', than actually debating them reasonably.
As well, after President Bush implemented the ban on Federal funding or Embryonic Stem Cell research, there were actually many breakthroughs in Adult Stem Cell research after that. While they have been exciting discoveries, they so far generally haven't been as remarkable as Embryonic Stem Cells, but those breakthroughs wouldn't likely have happened except for the incentive to do the Adult research. Scientifically, there is no reason to think that longer term, with enough research, there will be found a way to re-program Adult Stem Cells to do 100% of the things that Embryonic Stem Cells can do.
That all being said - I'm not necessarily pro-Bush or anti-Obama - I think they are both about equally capable at being incompetent. :) I'm just saying that not everyone opposed to abortion or Embryonic Stem Cell Research can be label (and therefore ignored) as a 'Christian Bible-Thumper'.
There is tons of existing research being done with existing embryonic stem cells already with little headway after many years. If this helps, great, but this constant left lunatic hate about every issue that might have some religious significance is beyond ridiculous. There is no upside to hating others.
The only issue here is can tax dollars be used. I don't much care myself, and the God I believe in likely has bigger issues than what to do with cells that are headed for the garbage can.
As it is, we will likely be spending less and less on research as we are spending more and more in debt interest, bullets, bombs and foodstamps.
Don't start the cheering yet...........what one court decides another will reverse etc. etc. etc............It's called the lawyer and judge tactical employment procedure (LJTP) in legal terms
NC62553... I'm with you on this. With person-hood as a central plank of the Republican Party platform, a GOP/TP sweep could define an embryonic stem cell or the embryo it was derived from as a human being thus opening the researchers to all sorts of charges including murder. They have been marching in this parade for a long time and they see this election as their big chance.
wje. Well personhood after all is a human being the minute the sperm says "howdy" to the egg. Won't the funereal market have a money making idea there. Little tiny caskets or urns to forever keep that "person".
Do people not realize that the female is born with one hundred thousand eggs and sperm is never ending.
The hypocrisy in this, however, is that if there was a single live cell found on another planet, the scientists would claim to have found "life"
True, Dan, but they wouldn't call it a person.
You guys really need to invest in a dictionary and learn the meaning of terms.
A living cell is a life, but not a person. It can even be human without being a person. It can even be a human life that can live on its own without being a person (white blood cells, for example).
I'd bet any people that are considered terminally ill that are against stem cell research, but find their lives might be saved by using them will recant their objection.
It's a no brainer.
There seem to be conflicts of information in this article, which may just be typographical. Still....
Bottom line, presumably the embryos used in the experiment are a) living, not dead; b) human; c) otherwise normal and able to complete their life expectancy; d) after all present research upon them they are no longer alive nor enabled to complete their growth.
If I misunderstood those facts, and having nothing to do with religion, conscious killing of an innocent human being is murder. In fact, first degree murder.
Further, the "science" is experimental; there is no assurance the death of the embryo will assure another's life.
Human selfishness is becoming cosmic. That alone will no doubt kill us all off in our journey through evolution since the Me First attitude simply is not a Survival Skill. But then, what do we care about the future. Who cares if our children are doomed to life at the expense of another innocent human who is never given even a chance.
And how interesting is the fact of natural selection being aborted by all the oooo sooo brilliant scientists as they keep us flawed adults alive (while killing human embryos, and btw... do not confuse the word "embryo" with "zygotes" even though even zygotes, as the article mentions, carry the Master cells).
The new previously unknown diseases which are developing... like AIDS (which are not relegated just to gays) introduce others diseases needing to be cured as listed here:
Clostridium difficile, which affects folks from a bacterium that can cause symptoms ranging from diarrhea to life-threatening inflammation of the colon. Illness from C. difficile most commonly affects older adults in hospitals or in long term care facilities and typically occurs after use of antibiotic medications.
Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a group of diseases that affect the bone marrow and blood. Some types of MDS are mild and easily managed, while other types are severe and life-threatening. Mild MDS can grow more severe over time. It can also develop into a fast-growing, severe leukemia called acute myelogenous leukemia.
These are only a very few in today's world. It seems when we are able to find cures for TB, another, heretofore unknown, is discovered.
On the other hand, I wonder how our population increased over time. And how much is due to saving lives with scientific experiments? Or perhaps for other reasons, perhaps like the best of democracy? The end of slavery? The idealism, at least, for all races, creeds, colors, national origin...? How can we contravene that!
And what can we prognosticate for the future, for us, and for our children, and for their children.
Should we continue just having much fewer children (especially in countries where large families are encouraged); shall we try to preserve the lives of those who otherwise have lived a normal life length; will we find ourselves engaging in wars that are primitive in their original context?
The effect, however, of medical extension of life is interesting:
And, of course, the most dramatic element of this care is medical science research.
This is a philosophical question, not a religious one. Is our survival so compelling for those of us who have lived normally into old age before developing heretofore unknown ailments? Do we have so much to offer the human race that we must be kept alive at all costs?
The United States census information for today is over 900,000,000 global human population compared with 9,000,000 estimated world wide in 1800 (as known then) human estimated population. It is also expected to into go well into the trillions within 20 years.
Too many factors affect this besides health, but perpetrating life by 7-1/2 years on average each census might be worth thinking more substantively for the future of our world and those who come after us.
Obama not blamed yet.... We're could they all be?
Bad Animal,
I think they are all still on the NYC shooting blog decrying any kind of gun control. Give them time, I'm sure they will get to this blog soon enough.
I don't hear Obama advancing gun control laws. Can it be your imagination?
If Barry could figure out a way to use these stem cells at his urban slaughter houses / Planned Parenthood offices we would have something to talk about.
Unfortunately there are currently ZERO real world applications being used anywhere in the global marketplace using embryonic stem cells so we will have to wait on that!
It took a little while, but one showed up. Panther is the first of the nutjobs to show up.
He is full up on crazy.
Wrong there. Americans are spending thousands of dollars to go to foreign countries for embryonic stem cell treatment. Where are the job creators in America?
Panther Hunter...
Sorry bub...we all live in the 21st century...you should try it sometime.
"Wrong there. Americans are spending thousands of dollars to go to foreign countries for embryonic stem cell treatment."
LIAR ... there is not one single application that has proven to be successful in a laboratory setting let alone in the marketplace.
Post a link evidencing what you suggest to be true and also make sure that there have been POSITIVE RESULTS.
"American Traitor"
What does the fact that there are no successful embryonic stem cell applications currently in use anywhere in the entirety of the global marketplace have to do with what century it is hayseed?
Panther, Are you suggesting that the cart come before the horse? How would we have the marketplace without doing the research? You might be suggesting that no federal funding be provided for this research? Or are you just saying that we need not worry about the ethical nature of this since there isn't any fruit from the tree yet? Oh, that's a lot of questions.
We should have a law that those nutjobs that are against science should not get to benefit from science. No vaccines, no surgery, no medicine, no computers, no automobiles, no antibiotics, no refrigeration, no frozen food, no electricity.
If they want to live in the dark ages - we should let them suffer the miserable life that existed then. They should not get the benefits of science and then condemn science. If their god is real - then they won't get sick.
They say life expectancy in the middle ages was about 40. Of course over 50% died before age 5 which actually skews the numbers to about 30.
Point is most of these Religious folks would be dead and not in Congress. The song imagine comes to mind.
Edward Jenner and his crazy ideas, imagine injecting yourself with a deadly to protect yourself from that disease. Whats he call it, vaccination. Blasphemy! (1796)
life begins at conception and ends at birth
"life begins at conception and ends at birth"
Well I guess that just about sums up the conservative agenda. Sad that you care nothing for children after they are born.
Search "stem cells application" on the NCBI PubMed search and sift away. There are close to 40,000 articles, all free.
This guy Sherley is just using all this religious argument in order to limit his competition for stem-cell research.
If he were on the other side of the fence he would be crying just as loud the other way.
.
from interested observer
Ramen. The thing about those religious nutjobs is that despite their insistence on their beliefs, even they don't really believe that crap.
If they really thought science was so "bad", why did all the churches put lightning rods on their steeples? If they really thought their 'god' guides them and predetermines their fates, why do they look before crossing the street?
Panther -- Do names like Peyton Manning and Kobe Bryant ring a bell? Probably not ... but if you care to read you might find that they had stem cell treatment in europe that has extended their professional careers.
i wonder if panther avoids vaccines- some contain fetal tissue, some were developed by nazi using human experimentation (as were other medical treatments) does he avoid all medicine that came from an "immoral" past. if he doesn't hes a hypocrite
that includes
hep a+b
mmr
dtap
chicken pox
rubella
shingles
rabies (hope you dont get bit by a bat or your options are die or use aborted fetuses to save your life)
heres a site your likely to believe panther
http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/vaccine-components/human-fetal-links-some-vaccines
Panther Hunter, you are so wrong! If I could, I would post a video (from the real news, not Fox) that I saw just a couple of months ago, here in the US. This man had a bad heart valve, and they stuck stem cells directly into his bad valve and it repaired itself! They were his own stem cells, by the way!
You are so full of it, your eyes should be brown! Obama 2012
John Travolta is a scientologist and they do not believe in artificial medicine. His son was epileptic and because he did not believe in artificial medicine, his son had seizure after seizure and died. I lost some respect for John after I read this!
Beliefs like this are probably what made Katie Holmes run for the hills from Tom Cruise and his scientology beliefs! Could also be why Nicole Kidman left.
I personally don't believe that God would hold it against us for advancements in medicine that will improve our lives as long as a life wasn't purposely sacrificed to do it. Even tho I am against abortions with the exception of rape, incest, life of the mother or deformed fetus that would have been born dead anyways, I also believe until the baby has a beating heart, it is just a bunch of cells. According to what I just read from Mayo Clinic, the heart is not pumping till the fetus is around 6 wks along. So, in my opinion, if the baby is aborted naturally or surgically before that point, it is not actually a human being, after that, it is murder. I even have reservations about rape and incest if the fetus is past 6 wks. as it is a tiny human being BUT it would be cruel to make a person carry the baby to full term under the circumstances. However, the baby could be given up for adoption in those cases.
If the fetus is naturally or surgically aborted or dies in birth, what is the harm of using the stem cells if they could help another human being? The baby is already dead and it's little heart isn't beating anymore!
@Panther is decidedly full of crap. ALL BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTS ARE ACTUALLY STEM CELL TRANSPLANTS. "For over 30 years, bone marrow, and more recently, umbilical cord blood stem cells, have been used to treat cancer patients with conditions such as leukaemia and lymphoma. During chemotherapy, most growing cells are killed by the cytotoxic agents. These agents, however, cannot discriminate between the leukaemia or neoplastic cells, and the hematopoietic stem cells within the bone marrow. It is this side effect of conventional chemotherapy strategies that the stem cell transplant attempts to reverse; a donor's healthy bone marrow reintroduces functional stem cells to replace the cells lost in the host's body during treatment."
@Panther needs to have the job of explaining to kids with leukemia why they need to die.
The religious nuts have problems with embryonic stem cell research because they are so poorly educated and so poorly informed and so incapable of critical thinking that they simply cannot get their brains around "science" as a whole.
Embryonic stem cell research has a primary goal of furthering the understanding of the body's own healing processes. The idea is not to "kill babies" but to save lives. And the idea is not to even use embryonic stem cells as some sort of cure-all. The understanding of disease and healing processes actually eventually would decrease the need for embryonic stem cell research because it would lead to the development of better drugs (with fewer side effects), would lessen the need for really primitive and dangerous chemotherapy, and would eventually allow adult stem cells to be more easily "re-programmed" to mimic the actions of embryonic stem cells for specific functions.
Embryonic stem cells are simply too expensive and in too short supply to offer any sort of treatments or cures except for the ultra rich. But embryonic stem cells contain the whole blueprint to body processes. Adult stem cells only contain small portions of the blueprint. The end goal is to be able to re-program one's own stem cells to repair damage or fight disease processes or to develop drugs that can duplicate certain functions. While the religious nuts think that scientists want to conduct ritual killings of babies, in fact, scientists realize that embryonic stem cells are, to a major extent, an expensive dead end. But along the way to that dead end is a lot to be learned that can save lives and improve quality of life for millions of people.
Why do the religious nuts always like to "bend" their perceptions to a point that they are bizarrely convoluted and inane. It is simple stupidity to me that the same mind can condone dropping bombs on thousands and thousands of innocent people, but rail at the thought of using an unrecognizable bit of human tissue, already destined for the trashcan, to save human lives.
And as an aside, I would point out that the "personhood amendment" that is espoused by Romney and co-sponsored in the House by Ryan would instantly not only halt all embryonic stem cell research, but would require that all fetal material be given "proper burials" according to state laws. In most states this would require embalming and double-interment.
Panther, don't get all moist between the legs because you have a couple of checkmarks, at least one was an accident, my touch pad is overly sensitive.
Chris-749391 ALL BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTS ARE ACTUALLY STEM CELL TRANSPLANTS.
Yes, but those are Adult Stem Cells, not Embryonic Stem Cells. I don't think that people opposed to abortion or opposed to Embryonic Stem Cell research, are also necessarily opposed to bone marrow transplants or other Adult Stem Cell uses.
I'm not sticking up for Panther's beliefs - I'm just saying that if Panther is stating that there are no real-world Embryonic Stems treatments going on, and if your rebuttal that Bone Marrow transplants are actually Stem Cells - then that's apples and oranges.
Thanks Todd, it seems the leftie "enlightened" don't have their facts straight, again, but instead choose to hate and demean rather than understand the topic. Sheer stupidity.
I fail to understand why these religious questions should even enter into the equation. It just panders to our own Christian equivalent of the taliban - who would like to return to a mythological past where the USA lives in pristine isolation and evolution, climate change, or abortion for any reason doesn't, and never has, existed. The fact that the most recent big research results with stem cells came from Hong Kong, and that even Spain has built a big research facility hoping to capitalize on our silliness and generate new biomedical business in their injured economy should give us pause when we see those "Are we going in the right direction?" commercials.
I thought the religious zealots wanted to SAVE lives? Don't they want cures for the children that are known in the womb to have a defect, the ability to have a normal life. Or, is that all just a smoke screen?
No, they want to save souls and apparently you don't have one until you're born. Therefore, they must maximize the number of babies born who then can fend for themselves. Then, if the babies die from starvation or disease or abuse or whatever, they go to Heaven and their soul goes back into the pot.
Actually okie your post makes no sense at all. It's precisely because babies do have a soul even before they are born that religious authorities judge their commercial use in any fashion as immoral. You have the right to disagree with that of course.
The question is how many cells does it take until the egg gets a soul. Taoist believe you are the sum of everything that has happen to you so it doesn't apply here; but what happens if there is a chimera or split (twins)? Does the Christian god issue souls up till only a certain point and then optionally takes one back or leaves a twin soul-less?
In neither case has any cells died.
How can you tell if your baby is soul-less? Along that note, could Sarah Palin's bastard grandchild burn in hell if it doesn't have a soul -I mean we know that it will burn in hell because it was born a bastard sinner; but will it if it's missing a soul?
What does a frozen sperms 1/2 a soul look like? I'm not sure how the conservatives can hit a road block when it comes to using these left over stem cells but are ok with the fertilitiy clinics having them in the first place. I'm pretty liberal on the issue but I don't really see a need for fertility clinics for homo sapiens in the first place. Really, 7 billion people and we have fertility clinics. That's just absurd!
Never underestimate the power of the human ego and it's abject fear of death.
Wait, I thought you got a soul upon fertilization?
Steveorevo: Along that note, could Sarah Palin's bastard grandchild burn in hell if it doesn't have a soul -I mean we know that it will burn in hell because it was born a bastard sinner; but will it if it's missing a soul?
I see.
Actually the Jews believe life begins just after you become a doctor or a lawyer.
The Republican Party has become the Bible party.
(so much for the separation of church and state)
Amen
Hey "Duggy", please post the excerpt from the Constitution where the "Separation of Church and State" clause is...
Sadly, I have to agree with Panther here....there is not Constitutional "Separation of Church and State." What it actually says is that the government will have no state sponsored religion (paraphrased).
Which is the same in substance (Bill of rights, 1st amendment. No need for an excerpt, it's just one sentence). That doesn't mean that religions and philosophies have no role to play in the public debate about what the law should be. Otherwise that makes for an anti-religious government, not a secular one.
When the Constitution was written, they had no idea there would come a time when a segment of America would be so damned stupid as to not grasp the importance of the separation of church and state.
Let’s talk about language in the Constitution.
The second amendment refers to the “right to bear arms”, but it never LITERALLY says that we can “own guns” or “purchase ammunition” or “manufacture weapons”. But nobody would seriously suggest that we cannot “own guns” simply because that phrase doesn’t appear LITERALLY and VERBATIM in the Bill of Rights. And we know damn well what the second amendment means because the founders explained it in their writings.
The same thing applies to the first amendment. It doesn’t have to LITERALLY contain the VERBATIM phrase “separation of church and state” or even “freedom of religion” (that’s not there either). The founders wrote plenty about this amendment, especially the religion part. Here are some samples:
“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.” (James Madison)
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.” (James Madison). [Notice that Madison wants religion to stay out of government, NOT the other way around.]
“Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” (Thomas Jefferson)
“All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.” (Thomas Jefferson). [Notice Jefferson’s semicolon. Everything BEFORE the semicolon is freedom OF religion, and everything AFTER the semicolon is freedom FROM religion.]
According to the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the “Father of the Constitution” who also wrote the first amendment, Separation of Church and State is DEFINITELY in the Constitution.
That’s good enough for me. As long as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson say ‘Separation of Church and State” is IN THE CONSTITUTION, it’s in there.
Jim-3113262, I totally agree with you! I believe we have the right to bear arms but with limitations. Maybe they could throw in an amendment that says for protecting yourself and your property or for hunting food and that you are allowed one gun per household. Which would exclude assault weapons or stockpiling weapons! I have reservations because most criminal's guns are stolen from people who legitametly purchased and registered one. If there were fewer of them it would make it harder for the criminal element to get them also. There are to many nutjobs running around with weapons these days. I also think they should put stricter rules into place in order to be able to purchase a weapon, like picture ID with current address, background check and proof of citizenship. Also a longer waiting period so the seller can have sufficient time to check the buyer out. You have to go thru most of the above requirements just to purchase a fishing license or drivers license and it should be the same for guns!
And I totally agree in seperation of chuch and state! It should make no difference was relgion you are or if you are even agnostic! It has no bearing on how you will perform in a political office! Therefore, candidates should not involve themselves in religious issues. Those should be left up to the individual voters unless, of course, they are against the law!
The GOP needs to head this since they expouse to be all for the constitution! Sen. Akin should be banned from office for his insane comments!
Here ya go @Panther: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Requiring, by law, that one minority group's religious views be forced on everyone is an obvious breach of the Constitution. And don't do to that saw about it is religious freedom to impose your religious views on others. There is no such freedom. That would be like saying that Hitler's right to free speech included killing all Jews in Europe. Stupid thinking at best and criminally wrong at worst.
Don't read much, do you fella? You might want to start with the Constitution.
@Jim,
I would also add that the Second Amendment issues were discussed at length in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. "for self-defense" was actually in an early draft of the Second Amendment, but was removed. It is obvious from that that the Founders did not intend this to be an issue. The entire discussion centered around the ability of the states to maintain their own standing armies to offset a federal standing army. Not having previously had any federal government except that of Britain, they were concerned that a standing federal army might essentially dissolve the states into a single homogeneous country.
The current GOP cherry picks the Constitution like they cherry pick the Bible. They find the parts that correspond with what they believe, and ignore the parts that don't.
MOST EXCELLENT POST Jim-3113262!
For the record, I'm opposed to abortion, because I simply believe it is the killing of babies. For me, that has nothing to do with Christianity or Religion by any means. It's simply that humans shouldn't be killing other humans, unless it's self-defense. The debate on Abortion or Embryonic Stem Cell research or Cloning or any other reproductive issue can and should be made on scientific fact, and not based on religions myths.
So, even though I probably don't agree with Jim on the overall abortion/embryo issue, Jim's post on the US Constitution and the 1st Amendment is most excellently well written, very clearly explained, and very definitively correct . :) The US Constitution does prohibit the Government from making laws either picking a 'correct' religion, or making laws limiting citizens from observing their chosen religion.
Todd: so it was 'self defense' that caused us to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan?
What a load of caca.
Severed head - and the left chooses to simply ignore any law they don't like, and rule from on high rewriting laws they disagree with.
Oh, and also, they condemn Bush when he chose to use drones to assassinate, but when Obama has now assassinated 500% more people that we know of in less than half the time Bush was in office, we hear absolutely nothing from these same lefties. Seems its ok to murder and maim, as long as a leftie is doing it.
I am so sick and tired of these people who are perfectly ok with liars, thieves and con-men as long as the right letter is at the end of their name. R, C or I - the federal government is rife with CROOKS, CRIMINALS and CON-MEN.
Herb - I'm not sure I understand what you are meaning? No, I don't think it would be ''self defense'' that caused the USA to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think that was my assertion... I don't think anything in there had anything to do with War.
What I was saying was that Jim's post on the Constitution and the 1st Amendment ''separation of Church & State" was very well written and very well explained. I also wanted to point out that I'm anti-abortion, but not based on any religious grounds. However, regardless of if Jim and I agree on Abortion or Embryonic Stem Cell use, Jim's explanation of the 1st Amendment was most excellent and right on the money.
Holy cats, a step in the right direction. I guess I have another pro in the pro's/con's of my wife's soon to have abortion.
You must be really proud of yourself ... I'm sure your son or daughter will look so cute after the doctor grinds it up into little bitty pieces and sucks it out into that plastic bag with a vacuum hose.
Is that what you think is going on here Panther? That folks are running out to have babies, so they can get abortions, so they can use the aborted fetuses for stem cell research?
Because that is not the case. Most of these stem cells are harvested from the "leftovers" at fertility clinics. They were headed for the trash bin. They had a 0% chance of reaching adulthood. Why shouldn't we put them to good use?
Hey Panther, did you force your cousin to have your baby full term? You do realize that the result is swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool. You should have had the doc cut it up and suck it out.
Science wins out! thank "god"?
You mean science has won out even though there are exactly zero real embryonic stem cell therapy applications currently being used successfully anywhere in the global marketplace ... how does that make a win?
Panther, should we stop researching small molecule therapies just because antibiotics have been shown to treat most bacterial infections?
Funding and research in embryonic stem cells was set back nearly a decade due to funding constraints. To compare it to adult stem cells is disingenuous, as they are not fungible.
"Esq"...
I always like to use what works ... Adult Stem Cells Therapy has well over 100 applications currently in use around the globe, Embryonic sits comfortably at ZERO ... once again, thanks for playing.
Panther Hunter please remember SEPERATION of CHURCH and STATE. Whatever you want in your church is fine. We humans want to save lives. You only want to save embryo's to be born with deformities.
What does the none existent "Separation of Church & State" have to do with anything and how did you arrive at the notion that I go to church?
Also, I have absolutely no idea what you even tried to say in your last unintelligible sentence ...
Panther Hunter, I just wrote about 2 "applications", as you put it, above! My paralyzed friend was able to walk again after stem cell implanted in her damaged spine and the guy with the damaged heart valve got his repaired and is heart is working like normal again!!! Do you ever research things before you comment? You are ignorant!
This is just so typical of the religious fanatics who would block embryonic stem cell research when the alternative is throwing this stuff in the garbage. No one is going to use these embryos. They are not going to be implanted in anyone, which should prove that they aren't babies, but don't let a little thing like reality confuse the American Taliban. Far better to let people die of cancer and spend their lives in wheel chairs with spinal cord injuries, and go blind, etc. etc. Sacrifice the lives of the living for the sake of a few celled non-being. Makes perfect sense.
Who with cancer has been saved by embryonic stem cells?
Panther - Give it 5 years of unobstructed research, and then we'll have this conversation. Maybe no one, or maybe hundreds of thousands. We don't know yet.
"Laughing"
There has been at least 400% more time than what you suggested dedicated to it in various laboratories around the globe ... unobstructed.
Thats the thing with the christian taliban, they are so ignorant they would waste valuable stuff that can in the future with enough research, save lifes, and cure cancer, potentially
Underemployed, I agree with you! According to what I just read from Mayo Clinic, a fetus is not really human, i.e. has a beating heart and soul, till it is 6 wks along. Before that, it would just be a bunch of cells. Unless abortion is totally banned, people will abort fetuses, some for very good reasons, some not. If the do, and, as you said, the fetus would just be thrown away anyways, I see no wrong with using the embryonic stem cells to help other human beings! And they are being used to repair all sorts of human ails in the US as we speak, Panther Hunter! You probably would sing a whole different song if your own mortality was in jeopardy!!!
Religion can go to hell. Thank GOD we have the Constitution and our justices ruled by it the way our forefathers intended.
What does religion have to do with research that has produced exactly zero real world applications currently in the marketplace?
Religion is the EXACT REASON zero applications have been found. No funding retarded development by nearly a decade.
Zero real world applications? I guess no experiment EVER ended up having real world applications, huh? You wouldn't be able to read, write, drive a car, use a computer, cook, live in a house, etc, if it wasn't for someone tinkering with and idea, and finding a way to make it work.
Why isn't Panther in church praying for a pox on the court? Then we could experiment and find out if stem cells would cure the pox. Sounds like a real world application.
EngEsq
Religion is the EXACT REASON zero applications have been found. No funding retarded development by nearly a decade.
You sir, are a liar ... the United States is NOT the rest of the world dummy. Man, I feel very sorry for your poor clients ... jeez.
StephAce
Zero real world applications? I guess no experiment EVER ended up having real world applications, huh? You wouldn't be able to read, write, drive a car, use a computer, cook, live in a house, etc, if it wasn't for someone tinkering with and idea, and finding a way to make it work.
You're an idiot ... also retard, Adult Stem Cells and other stem cell derivatives have proven to be infinitely more effective than embryonic stem cells, why not throw the money where the results have actually yielded viable applications genius?
wecoyote
Why isn't Panther in church praying for a pox on the court? Then we could experiment and find out if stem cells would cure the pox. Sounds like a real world application.
Why would you assume I would attempt to pray pox on anyone and where did you arrive at the notion I am a Christian?
Why on earth are you using market viability as a measure? Many marvelous scientific discoveries have zero market applications. How's the market on the Higgs Boson doing?
Holy crap, you are an idiot. The US is the largest market, and the largest source of research in the world. Not many other nations, and virtually zero private companies, engaged in embryonic stem cell research because of the very real risk that therapies resulting couldn't even be employed within the US market even if developed.
I realize you have a VERY limited understanding of how businesses and global finance works, but most countries outside the US do not allow patents for stem cell therapies. The ONLY major profitable market is the US for these therapies as a result. Without assurance that these therapies would be supported long term the research was stunted on a global scale.
Here's the deal: stick by your idiotic beliefs. And when a therapy is derived that you need, please pass. That way you can stick to your (erroneous) convictions, and the world will be better off.
Snap!
PantherHunter - please see: for an article about successful treatments in Great Britain. The article is an abstract from The Lancet a peer-reviewed medical journal. The cases outlined in this article utilized hESC (human embryonic stem cells).
Bottom line, the treatment improved the patients' vision and there were no untoward side-effects noted.
By the way, the first sentence in the quote means that they don't yet know what the maximum improvement in vision is possible.
Of course it's religious questions.... what else does the GOP bandwagon have to talk about other than Tax Cuts, Abortion and Guns?.... and of course bombing in the Middle East for Israel....
don't forget "legitimate rape".
Especially this November.
What makes you think there aren't Christian Democrats? Kennedy was a Catholic Democrat, I grew up an entirely Christian Democratic neighborhood. It's not even possible that the fanatical liberal Democrat subset of Democrats are non-Christrian. It's asinine to equate religion to only Republicans or to imply that only Republicans are against abortion, or only Republicans are racist, or only Republicans support bombing the Middle East or support Israel. Those assertions, no matter how clever you think your being, are stupid because they are patently wrong. I'm sure you're one of those people who would ridicule somebody for making a comment about blacks or hispanics or gays or whatever if they based their comment on a stereotype, but you don't seem to have a problem with stereotyping the entire population of the country based on political party affiliation. There can be ethical questions outside of religion, at least there should be if you're a functional member of society. Would it be ethical to remove a critical organ from one person to transplant into another person? What if the person receiving the transplant was on the verge of discovery that could save hundreds, maybe thousands maybe millions. Is it ethical to deny a terminally ill person, the right to determine when and how they die? Would it be ethical for a woman to become pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion in order to sell the embryo to researchers? Although people may use their religious beliefs to determine the answers, these aren't religious issues, they are human issues.
Ethics, at least as applied to science, does not require an appeal to "magical" thinking, which is what religious thinking amounts to. The Golden Rule for instance does not require the permission or support of a deity yet it finds universal ethical appeal for all cultures. The sort of ethics one might apply to science, which itself is an inter-cultural discipline, just as mathematics is, should never be encumbered by magical thinking.
If a religious person, i.e., one who is in the "habit" of using their personal brand of magical thinking to evaluate their personal and social environments, there is not much of a problem - but there can easily be a problem if that same magical thinking is used to determine an ethical framework either on topics that require no such appeal or topics in which such appeals are in collision with the very principles by which a topic is universally defined...such as math or science.
That is not to say that ethics as a whole cannot be used to steer scientific research is away from directions which are demonstrably and universally understood to be perilous to the well being of humans and their environment.
But to derive ethical considerations from an overlay of ideas of regarding the sanctity of life on research involving the mechanisms of life not only makes little sense and has historically been shown over time to act as a huge impediment to human progress.
In my opinion, religious sentiments are valueless in forming an ethical framework through which science can be monitored unless those sentiments are in a one to one correspondence with proven scientific fact.
Ethical ideas from Creationists for instance should never be allowed to impede any research or education regarding evolution theory. But that is exactly what the infamous Scopes "Monkey Trial" was all about; religious thought being used to impede science and education of it.
We have the same situation regarding scientific research on embryonic stem cells and those who wish to impose their magical thinking about the sanctity of life and when "personhood" occurs. While religious adherents have every right to discuss among themselves their religious theories or beliefs about such things, they have zero credential in determining the ethics surrounding embryonic stem cell research and what ethical considerations they might want to introduce to the subject are fundamentally destructive.
So far 10-0 on the board, but trust me, the Crazies are coming, and when they do, they will have a paragraphs of remarks!
Embryonic Stem Cells = ZERO effective applications currently in the marketplace helping exactly NO ONE.
Adult Stem Cells = Hundreds of applications currently in the global marketplace helping countless thousands.
By all means, keep wasting time and money on this failed research, maybe we can get the man made global warming charlatans involved somehow ... jeez.
On January 23, 2009, Phase I clinical trials for transplantation of oligodendrocytes (a cell type of the brain and spinal cord) derived from human ES cells into spinal cord-injured individuals received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), marking it the world's first human ES cell human trial. The study leading to this scientific advancement was conducted by Hans Keirstead and colleagues at the University of California, Irvine and supported by Geron Corporation of Menlo Park, CA. A previous experiment had shown an improvement in locomotor recovery in spinal cord-injured rats after a 7-day delayed transplantation of human ES cells that had been pushed into an oligodendrocytic lineage. In the proposed phase I clinical study, about eight to ten paraplegics who have had their injuries no longer than two weeks before the trial begins, will be selected, since the cells must be injected before scar tissue is able to form. However, the researchers are emphasizing that the injections are not expected to fully cure the patients and restore all mobility. Based on the results of the rodent trials, researchers say restoration of myelin sheathes, and an increase in mobility is probable. This first trial is mainly testing the safety of these procedures and if everything goes well, it could lead to future studies that involve people with more severe disabilities.
"Embryonic Stem Cells" per wikileaks
"Floretta"
Embryonic Stem Cells = ZERO effective applications currently in the marketplace helping exactly NO ONE.
Adult Stem Cells = Hundreds of applications currently in the global marketplace helping countless thousands.
Well, thanks to this court we will have ESM therapies in the next 5 years too.
Because no research was being done ...now that research will proceed and applications will be found.
Does that upset you?
Panther is just acting like a "conservative".
It's hilarious that you ignorant know-nothing leftist half-wits think that since American scientists weren't permitted to explore embryonic stem cell research that the rest of the scientists around the world simply stopped their research to wait on us to get back in the game ... it's sad how dumb you mindless lemmings are ... some of you are actually so overwhelmed with ignorance and misinformation that you are truly a threat to the national security of the United States ... seriously.
Panther is a broken record.....don't feed the troll.
'Nuff said.
I don't know why the URL didn't post, but if you do a Google search with "what advances have come from embryonic stem cell research," click the first link and it goes to stemcellaction.org. NOW, 'nuff said.
Keastral,
Here you go: http://stemcellaction.org/content/recent-advances-human-embryonic-stem-cell-research
So a phase I trial does not mean that the ESC therapy being investigated is actually effective or that it will ever be used to treat a disease or deformity. It is the beginning of exploratory experimentation in humans to first see if the therapy does not harm humans. There has always been the concern with ESC therapies that they could be rejected by the immune systems of healthy patients, rendering them not only useless long term but potentially dangerous. I have not kept up enough to know if the research involved here has found a way around this, but a phase I trial is not sufficient justification of the promise of ESC therapies. It may end up being a useful therapy, but it could also end up being a big flop.
Jon,
What you say is true, but discovering those things you mention is what the research is for. To simply prevent the research at all based on religious considerations would be as stupid and pointless as preventing research on various psychotropic drugs (LSD, MDMA, etc) in a blanket manner because there has been recreational use of the drugs which led to harm of some individuals using them. It is a form of hysteria.
Since all research of any type begins with a Phase One study, you're effectively saying that there should be no research of anything.
If they knew what the final results would show, there would be no reason for researching it, would there?
And there would have been no vaccines, organ transplants, Viagra...
First of all what kind of a name is "Severed Head in a Jar"? Second, you need to read the comments from the original post to get the context. If you did, I think you would find your post is distorting my comments. I am not against the phase 1 trial. I merely want the people who posted previously about the merits of ESC research to understand that a phase 1 does not equal a proven therapy.
Set your watch. A true Catholic or Christian or true Muslim will blame soon to be hurricane Isaac on Yahweh's or Allah's wrath for this courts ruling. Freedom to believe is protected not necessarily freedom to practice every delusional faith position.
LOL - too true. Latest headlines: Isaac trends west; Tampa breathing easier? New Orleans in play? See, now, the hand of [fill in the deity] at work, sparing the Republican convention. But yikes, poor New Orleans! Haven't they had enough?
Another fine decision by President Obama, now backed up by the courts, that reverses the regressive ideas of the Republican right. The GOP, as it now stand, fails to learn from history, and are attempting to take us back to the beginning oif the 20th century, when Railroad Barons ran the country and poor young women died in back-alleys. The Railroad Barons could do as they pleased and had their own doctors to protect their "little women".
It is our job to stop them from.
"Mark - mental lapse now full time IDIOT"...
Panther, just how many cents per idiotic post do you receive? I'd surely like to find out just how they track this stuff for your payments, lol. Or have you written a program that does it for you automatically, ha, ha.
He is called a "troll". If you don't feed the trolls, they eventually die of starvation.
Well, Thank GOD an American court issued a GOOD decision on something that has saved countless lives and will save countless more as we learn more about human cell regeneration. I know if they could grow cartilage from stem-cells and spread them around inside my knee, I wouldn't need the goddamn knee replaced by metal and plastic. AND the surgery could be done arthroscopically on an outpatient basis.
Religious fanatics have put so many stumbling blocks in front of medical science, you'd think they want to go back to the says where you'd go to the barbershop for a good blood-letting. Freaking dinosaurs....
Embyonic stem cells have not saved a single life. In fact, the use of embryonic stem cells causes cancer in some cases. Adult stem cells have been used to cure diseases for years.
But only if the embryo is from a "legitimate" rape.
Warren S. Levine
Their time is almost over...more and more people are leaving religion all the time and becoming knowledge inspired instead or superstitiously awed.
Remember Panther, no matter how wrong you are NOW, if you just keep cutting and pasting the same ignorant drivel over and over eventually you'll be right!
Karl Rove is sooo proud of you right now.
What was cut & pasted here hayseed?
Also, the only thing I have stated here is 100% fact that cannot be refuted, intelligently or otherwise ... sorry dummy.
Your own repetitive statement: "Embryonic Stem Cells = ZERO effective applications currently in the marketplace helping exactly NO ONE."
"Culheath"...
Touche' ... I forgot about that one.
Days old? They are right. That's not an embryo. That's a blastocyst. A clump of cells. No heart. Not even a heart pole. No brain. I want my laws based on science, not religious dogma.
Controversial for who? Life doesn't begin until the baby can live outside of the womb. If it was earlier than that, the mythological God deity would have made them capable of doing so.
An embryo meets the 4 scientific qualifications for life.
1. Reproduction
2. Response/reaction to environment
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
So does anthrax. And it's a hell of a lot hardier.
Nobody's arguing that an embryo (or zygote) isn't life, they're arguing that it isn't human yet. You seem to be taking the position that it becomes human at the instant of fertilization. Do you hold a funeral for every fertilized ova that never implants?
If not, then why not?
But Science is the tool of Devil used to deceive the true believer! that whole electricity thing is just a way to bring you over to the dark side!
What timing, as if this election does not have enough drama. Arm yourselves and button down the hatches, the American Taliban is going to be on the war path tonight.
Thank God. Lets use technology to save adults. They are people too!
"pits science against mostly religous arguments"
It pits science against ethics, not religion. There are serious non-religious ethical arguments against using fertilized embryos for research.
Leftist baby killers are not concerned with that reality, it does not fit in with their specific brand of dogma.
Such as?
I don't see any, I just see discarded bits of tissue about to be picked up for disposal by Mitt Romney's Stericycle Company.
The ethics of the people who are against this are questionable at best
It's a good thing that folks like Carl Gauss, Alexander Fleming, Jonas Salk, Edward Teller & Robert Oppenheimer, Claude Levi Strauss, Karl Landsteiner, Lynn Margulis, Richard Feynman, John von Neumann, Marcello Malpighi, William Harvey, Arthur Edington, Enrico Fermi, Max Born, Max Planck, Andreas Versalius, Frank Boas, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Linus Pauling, Galileo Galilei, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Albert Einstein aren't around to force their non-scientific, backwards thinking on everyone. :-) ... The fact of the matter is that if it weren't for these famous scientists (all religious - Jewish, Christian or believer in a "higher being"), you stone age animals that call yourself progressive (how deliciously ironic AND hilarious) would still think the Earth was flat, would be sick all the time, and would have no concept of quantum physics or mathematics and / or countless advances you take advantage of everyday. The ONLY person on the planet that needs ANYTHING from a liberal is another liberal ... just to have another idiot to agree with your ignorant ideologies and to support your revisionist history dogma. Sorry LOSERS!!!!!!!!
Very few, if any, of those scientists were religious or believed in a "higher being" in the sense that you are inferring they did.
Not true at all...
CULHEATH: -- I agree with what you thought you said -- however, I think that Panther was "implying"... leaving it up to us to "infer"...
That having been said -- what's the use of continuing to reply to his one-legged argument?... His mind is sealed shut
Argh. Panther, you just about made a good point with the list of religious scientists. You are correct - there is no mutually exclusive on/off switch that divides religion with thinking. Many (probably even most) of the top scientists and philosophers and explorers and musicians and artists in history were religious.
However, you loose me when you continue 'ranting' about "liberals" and calling them "idiots", with "ignorant ideologies" and "LOSERS". If conservative or religious people can still be smart scientists (which they clearly can) then liberal or non-religious people can still be smart and have valid ideas too.
Liberals are not all ''idiots'' any more than Conservatives are all "Christo-Nazis", and you do your point a disservice by lowering yourself to name calling.
Embyonic stem cells have not saved a single life. In fact, the use of embryonic stem cells causes cancer in some cases. Adult stem cells have been used to cure diseases for years.
Human embryos meet the 4 scientific qualifications for life.
1. Reproduction
2. Response/reaction to environment
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
Someguy, do you have anything else to add?
So do cancer cells. What's your point? Are you saying that cancers should be allowed to grow unchecked since they meet those qualifications of life?
someguy3456-#25- I'm going to put my two cents in here then go take a shower and go to bed.
These zygotes have no rights whatsoever if not implanted in a viable environment i.e. womb.
Frozen "embryos" are PROPERTY! They can be bought/sold/traded in a true CAPITALISTIC fashion.
They may or may not be "viable" at the time of use. Buyer beware!
Now go pass some "right to life amendment" and then figure out the moral, ethical, legal and economic garbage I see many viners arguing about!
Good night!