Well, parts of Europe (namely Germany, Austria, Ireland, France) are even more opposed to ESR than we are. They have not allowed the production of ESC lines at all, government funding or not. We have always allowed the production of new ESC lines, we have just prohibited government funding of it.
Decades? Human stem cells weren't able to be cultured until 1998. That's only 14 yrs ago. Adult stem cell therapy has resulted in people up and walking (with braces/walkers) from wheelchairs. http://www.cogforlife.org/adultStemCellSuccess.htm
Seriously? Siamese? I think your the last guy in the country to use that callous word for conjoined twin. So, for the sake of this argument I will assume you mean any type. By the strict biological sense to which I meant a fetus becomes a baby once its viable on its own. A parisite in biological terms just means you depend on another organism to survive. A fetus gets all of its nutrition and blood from mom who is negatively affected in the strictly biological (sometimes physically) sense that she looses those calories or fluid. So, if a conjoined twin is totally dependant on the other, then yes.
I dont agree with this. Dependence on others should not deprive you of personhood, as long as you have a mind.
Its easy to understand Patrick. Adult stem cell research has been massively funded while ESCR has not.
They were discovered 50 years ago Nobody has regained any function from treatment with adult stem cells, that is a fabrication. However many have had their wallets lightened from attempting the quack "cures" which you and others seem to think work. [/QUOTE]
Wrong, if adequate funding was given to this the benefits would be enormous Well your (taxpayers) money is on adult stem cells, unfortunately the provision of funding for adult stem cell research is driven almost entirely by religious idealogy. Adult stem cells are not pluripotent which is the key. If only people would educate themselves more about this subject we would already be seeing effective cures for things like spinal cord injury which ASC have not potential to cure.
Yikes I didn't even think about it, I guess I hadn't read anything about it since I was a kid. I definitely don't have anything against Siam...
[/QUOTE] Human stem cells were not able to be cultured (which is necessary for use in any kind of treatment) until 1998. IMHO, from what I've read, ESCs won't produce any good cures. Primarily due to rejection issues. Adult stem cells have been used in successful treatments since before embryonic stem cells could be cultured. The University of Miami is starting treatment (experimentally) of paralysis patients using adult stem cells. http://www.miamiproject.miami.edu/page.aspx?pid=979
A more important problem is rejection of tissues. Embryonic stem cell therapy will have rejection issues. Adult stem cell therapy (usually done with a person's own stem cells) don't have that problem.
Because denying a person the basic right to life at any point in their existence is always based on a purely arbitrary sliding scale which can be moved at whim by anybody for any reason. I don't know why this doesn't sink in with you guys. To say that a 5 day old child in the womb does not deserve rights is no different than trying to say that a 50 year old adult does not deserve rights. It just depends on what excuse you're pulling out of your ass to justify one while condeming the other.
Well based on what I've read and heard, to you ultra republican types, women, black people, gays and non-ultra right wing types do not deserve any rights, so you're sorta being a pot calling the kettle black, donchathunk?
I'm always shocked by the callous dehumanizing attitude pro-lifers hold concerning helpless haploid human babies. I can trace my development back to an unfertilized egg. That egg absolutely developed into me. Unfertilized eggs develop into people, and anyone who denies that is denying reality. Pro-lifers use a purely arbitrary sliding scale as an excuse to exclude those unfertilized eggs, thus dehumanizing the wee helpless haploid humans. It's a scary eugenics philosophy, those pro-life beliefs. All hail the proper DNA combination, the source of human rights! One shudders to think of how, given the power, they'd treat other people who they judge as having insufficiently correct DNA. Being we're not eugenics-driven, you don't see pro-choicers proclaiming that a proper DNA combination is the source of human rights.
Yet you would say that a human being who has committed a crime deserves no rights, so isn't this just another example of picking and choosing which life is more valuable?
I'd say the more extreme rightists don't view time as being important; I know that's vague, but I'll simply, for now, say that one manifestation of that is that they have such beef with a potential thinking, feeling entity (rather than an actual thinking, feeling entity) being terminated.
