Right Wing ad Compares Stem Cell Research to Tuskegee Study

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Right Wing ad Compares Stem Cell Research to Tuskegee Study

I was originally going to post this in News & Activism, but I feel it was so idiotic as to belong in Irrational Precepts. For those who don't know, the Tuskegee Study was from the late 1930s to early 1970s in Alabama, and left several African American men with untreated Syphillis - which was treatable by then - easily treatable by the late 1940s. They did it in order to observe the effects.

STORY

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to go with you on

I'm going to go with you on this one, matt.  It is completely fucking irrational.  Can't say I'm surprised by the party that's already raised race-baiting to new lows.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Oh give me a break

Oh give me a break already. This whole us vs them mentality is doing nobody any favors.

The basic fact is that stem cell research does not need to about some Frankenstein's lab type of horror. However, as long as the basic idea remains in the forefront of the national consciousness, less work is being done in some very promising areas of research than could be usefully done.

Get this, it is quite important:

You simply do not need to “take apart aborted babies” (whatever that even means) to get stem cells. Many promising therapies could be had from the fact that there are completely uncontroversial sources for stem cells. We all have them spread all over our bodies all the time and nobody would likely raise a huge fuss over that line of research.

In fact, there was an item in the news several days ago about a man who apparently may have been successfully cured of the AIDS virus because of a bone marrow transplant that gave him stem cells that produce HIV immune white blood cells. It is only one case right now and lots of work has to be done to see if the idea is viable but if it plays out, the treatment can only happen from adult stem cells.

In the mean time, the anti crowd is screaming about abortion and getting the government to restrict funding for the research. Basically, the anti crowd want the whole thing shut down.

The pro crowd is screaming about needing to do research that can only come from the products of abortions in the first couple of weeks. Basically, they want to do what they want to do (give me my toys!).

Both sides need to shut the hell up. Let's actually do the research on adult cells and see what we can do with them. If we ever get past the whole abortion thing (and I am skeptical of that happening any time soon) the techniques that are developed for adult stem cell work will most likely apply to embryonic stem cell work as well. If we never get past the abortion deal, we will at least have the therapies that can come from the adult stem cell research.

Something else occurs that is rather relevant here:

Something like 80% of all fertilized eggs do not live to reach implantation due to being genetically inviable in the first place. Of those that do manage to implant, another 80% do not make it to the first month of gestation, again because they are not genetically viable.

If you should at some point in the future need a treatment developed from stem cells, would you rather have it come from the adult cell lines that are proven to be fully genetically viable just because they come from somebody who clearly lived? Or would you want a therapy developed from embryonic cells that have FSM only knows what kind of wonky genetic abnormalities going on?

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Oh give me a break already. This whole us vs them mentality is doing nobody any favors.

The basic fact is that stem cell research does not need to about some Frankenstein's lab type of horror. However, as long as the basic idea remains in the forefront of the national consciousness, less work is being done in some very promising areas of research than could be usefully done.

Get this, it is quite important:

You simply do not need to “take apart aborted babies” (whatever that even means) to get stem cells. Many promising therapies could be had from the fact that there are completely uncontroversial sources for stem cells. We all have them spread all over our bodies all the time and nobody would likely raise a huge fuss over that line of research.

In fact, there was an item in the news several days ago about a man who apparently may have been successfully cured of the AIDS virus because of a bone marrow transplant that gave him stem cells that produce HIV immune white blood cells. It is only one case right now and lots of work has to be done to see if the idea is viable but if it plays out, the treatment can only happen from adult stem cells.

In the mean time, the anti crowd is screaming about abortion and getting the government to restrict funding for the research. Basically, the anti crowd want the whole thing shut down.

The pro crowd is screaming about needing to do research that can only come from the products of abortions in the first couple of weeks. Basically, they want to do what they want to do (give me my toys!).

Both sides need to shut the hell up. Let's actually do the research on adult cells and see what we can do with them. If we ever get past the whole abortion thing (and I am skeptical of that happening any time soon) the techniques that are developed for adult stem cell work will most likely apply to embryonic stem cell work as well. If we never get past the abortion deal, we will at least have the therapies that can come from the adult stem cell research.

Something else occurs that is rather relevant here:

Something like 80% of all fertilized eggs do not live to reach implantation due to being genetically inviable in the first place. Of those that do manage to implant, another 80% do not make it to the first month of gestation, again because they are not genetically viable.

If you should at some point in the future need a treatment developed from stem cells, would you rather have it come from the adult cell lines that are proven to be fully genetically viable just because they come from somebody who clearly lived? Or would you want a therapy developed from embryonic cells that have FSM only knows what kind of wonky genetic abnormalities going on?

 

Who needs to do stem cell research from abortions? Fertility clinics have a nearly constant supply of embryos that they end up having to destry because the donors don't want them and the dogmatic anti- research crowd won't let science progress. 

Also, haven't we nearly exhausted the usefulness of existing adult and embryonic stem cell lines? I read somthing about it back in the day but I don't remember anything for certain.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The embryonic cells are much

The embryonic cells are much more useful. The fact is, the right has this completely insane idea that an embryo is an actual person and has rights. I can't think of 1 issue I agree with conservatives on, and quite a few I'm far to the left of most liberals on (especially the economy and abortion. )

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:
Who needs to do stem cell research from abortions? Fertility clinics have a nearly constant supply of embryos that they end up having to destry because the donors don't want them and the dogmatic anti- research crowd won't let science progress.

 

I hear what you are saying and I tend to agree. Egg harvesting does require abdominal surgery for the woman and that is certainly not a risk free proposition. So when it is done, standard procedure is to harvest as many viable eggs as possible. That way, they only have to do it once. So if all goes as planned, they will have a dozen or more fertilized eggs to work with.

 

However, remember that the anti crowd has intentionally blinded themselves over all of the details. To them, every blastocyst that is destroyed is one less human being on this planet (I could have sworn that there were already too damned many humans on the planet for our own good but that is just me).

 

Heck, lots of these jokers don't want to see birth control used even within a marriage. To their mind, apparently, something special happens related to human life every time a guy jizzes and even a condom might prevent that from happening.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
Also, haven't we nearly exhausted the usefulness of existing adult and embryonic stem cell lines? I read somthing about it back in the day but I don't remember anything for certain.

 

OK, it would be best not to confuse the issue of embryonic stem cells with adult stem cells. They are somewhat different. Let the theists conflate unrelated matters to come up with wrong answers. After all, they have had plenty of experience with that, so they are quite good at it.

 

The issue of the existing embryonic cell lines pretty much has it's roots in the early days of the Bush 43 presidency. I assume that you are aware that he is not one of the great thinkers of the planet. Yet he took on the matter and tried to placate both sides of the issue. In so doing, he pretty much managed to piss off both sides by not giving them what they were calling for.

 

As far as the existing lines of embryonic stem cells go, yah, there is an expectation that that research can only go so far before the source material gets played out. I am not sure quite how far along that path they are but even if they are not there yet, they will be one day (if new lines are not added to replace the old ones).

 

Regarding the adult stem cell lines, we are in no danger of running out of those, if for no better reason than the fact that we are in no real danger of running out of adults.

 

MattShizzle wrote:
The embryonic cells are much more useful. The fact is, the right has this completely insane idea that an embryo is an actual person and has rights. I can't think of 1 issue I agree with conservatives on, and quite a few I'm far to the left of most liberals on (especially the economy and abortion. )

 

Well sure, the embryonic cell lines have the potential to turn into any other form of tissue. However, one of the problems is that they do turn into other tissues, often inappropriately. When that happens, the result is called a teratoma (a form of tumor). In animal research, it is not unusual to find teeth growing in a test animal's heart, eyeballs in the liver or hair in the brain.

 

On the other hand, there is really almost no danger of a teratoma forming from an adult cell line. In addition, if researchers can figure out how to locate the right stem cells inside a living person, treatments derived from your own stem cells should not provoke an immune response and the resulting organ rejection (potentially ending the specter of dieing while waiting on line for the right donor for whatever it is that you need).

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Heck, lots of these jokers don't want to see birth control used even within a marriage. To their mind, apparently, something special happens related to human life every time a guy jizzes and even a condom might prevent that from happening.

IMO this just all stems from control - control of the bible authors over the general populace, control of the patriarchy over women, control of adults over children (separate from instruction and certain levels of obedience needed to survive) .  If women aren't constantly breeding than they have time to think and the freedom to act on decisions that benefit themselves.  You can't have out of control women afterall.  Who knows what they will do if you let them loose! 

To use the religious person's logic, if god created that blastocyst, is it not possible he created it to be used for stem cell research?  That would seem to be more beneficial to humanity than another child raised to consume.

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.