PDA

View Full Version : Researchers reprogram normal tissue cells into embryonic stem cells



ckb2001
06-06-2007, 04:16 PM
So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them...

http://www.physorg.com/news100354669.html

"Researchers at the Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine at UCLA were able to take normal tissue cells and reprogram them into cells with the same unlimited properties as embryonic stem cells, the cells that are able to give rise to every cell type found in the body."

"he work, done in mouse models, appears in the inaugural June 7, 2007 issue of Cell Stem Cell, published by Cell Press. UCLA researchers, working closely with stem cell scientists at Harvard, took mouse fibroblasts, cells that develop into connective tissue, and added four transcription factors that bind to special sites on the DNA. Using this process, they were able to turn the fibroblasts into pluripotent cells that, in every aspect tested, were identical to embryonic stem cells."

" The implications for disease treatment could be staggering. Reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells could generate a potentially limitless source of immune-compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine. If the work can be replicated in human cells, it may mean that a patient’s skin cells, for example, could be reprogrammed to become embryonic stem cells. Those embryonic stem cells could then be prodded into becoming various cells types – beta islet cells to treat diabetes, hematopoetic cells to create a new blood supply for a leukemia patient, motor neuron cells to treat Parkinson’s disease."
-------------------

Megatron
06-06-2007, 04:37 PM
So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them...

http://www.physorg.com/news100354669.html

"Researchers at the Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine at UCLA were able to take normal tissue cells and reprogram them into cells with the same unlimited properties as embryonic stem cells, the cells that are able to give rise to every cell type found in the body."

"he work, done in mouse models, appears in the inaugural June 7, 2007 issue of Cell Stem Cell, published by Cell Press. UCLA researchers, working closely with stem cell scientists at Harvard, took mouse fibroblasts, cells that develop into connective tissue, and added four transcription factors that bind to special sites on the DNA. Using this process, they were able to turn the fibroblasts into pluripotent cells that, in every aspect tested, were identical to embryonic stem cells."

" The implications for disease treatment could be staggering. Reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells could generate a potentially limitless source of immune-compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine. If the work can be replicated in human cells, it may mean that a patient’s skin cells, for example, could be reprogrammed to become embryonic stem cells. Those embryonic stem cells could then be prodded into becoming various cells types – beta islet cells to treat diabetes, hematopoetic cells to create a new blood supply for a leukemia patient, motor neuron cells to treat Parkinson’s disease."
------------------- WOW!:)

PhinPhan1227
06-06-2007, 05:13 PM
So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them...

http://www.physorg.com/news100354669.html

"Researchers at the Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine at UCLA were able to take normal tissue cells and reprogram them into cells with the same unlimited properties as embryonic stem cells, the cells that are able to give rise to every cell type found in the body."

"he work, done in mouse models, appears in the inaugural June 7, 2007 issue of Cell Stem Cell, published by Cell Press. UCLA researchers, working closely with stem cell scientists at Harvard, took mouse fibroblasts, cells that develop into connective tissue, and added four transcription factors that bind to special sites on the DNA. Using this process, they were able to turn the fibroblasts into pluripotent cells that, in every aspect tested, were identical to embryonic stem cells."

" The implications for disease treatment could be staggering. Reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells could generate a potentially limitless source of immune-compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine. If the work can be replicated in human cells, it may mean that a patient’s skin cells, for example, could be reprogrammed to become embryonic stem cells. Those embryonic stem cells could then be prodded into becoming various cells types – beta islet cells to treat diabetes, hematopoetic cells to create a new blood supply for a leukemia patient, motor neuron cells to treat Parkinson’s disease."
-------------------


That was a drastic misrepresentation CKB and not worthy of you. No Conservatives I know are opposed to stem cell research. None. They are only opposed to embryonic stem cell research. And to THEM, a human embryo IS a human life. I may disagree with them, but I won't call them callous for ignoring the potential benefits to humans because they are trying to protect the lives of those they view as humans. To them, it is no different from suggesting that it would be ok to harvest the organs of a normal child in order to save a senior citizen.

Now that we have the editorial side of your post out of the way, this sounds great. It also, ironically, suits the conservative cause as one more exapmle of how there are viable alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.

ckb2001
06-06-2007, 05:29 PM
That was a drastic misrepresentation CKB and not worthy of you. No Conservatives I know are opposed to stem cell research. None. They are only opposed to embryonic stem cell research. And to THEM, a human embryo IS a human life. I may disagree with them, but I won't call them callous for ignoring the potential benefits to humans because they are trying to protect the lives of those they view as humans. To them, it is no different from suggesting that it would be ok to harvest the organs of a normal child in order to save a senior citizen.

Now that we have the editorial side of your post out of the way, this sounds great. It also, ironically, suits the conservative cause as one more exapmle of how there are viable alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.

Why is that a misrepresentation? This is about embryonic stem cell research! It's just that those were FIRST adult stem cells that were THEN turned into embryonic stem cells (meaning there was no observed distinction between them)!

My comment was right on the money.

Puka-head
06-06-2007, 06:55 PM
I just had to beat CKB w/ this one: :D

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19067616/




NEW YORK - In a leap forward for stem cell research, three independent teams of scientists reported Wednesday that they have produced the equivalent of embryonic stem cells (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19067616/#) in mice using skin cells without the controversial destruction of embryos.
If the same could be done with human skin cells — a big if — the procedure could lead to breakthrough medical treatments (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19067616/#) without the contentious ethical and political debates surrounding the use of embryos.




If they can perfect these techniques it will be HUGE, takes all the emotion out and leaves the Science, like it should be

ckb2001
06-06-2007, 06:57 PM
except I already have that thread up :D

http://www.finheaven.com/boardvb2/showthread.php?t=199220

Puka-head
06-06-2007, 06:59 PM
I type way too F in SLLLOOOWWWWW

Puka-head
06-06-2007, 07:09 PM
:goof:Mods please delete my stupity for me

Puka-head
06-06-2007, 07:14 PM
There should be no more debate about this, if they can turn normal cell back into stem cells, ( is there a big difference between embryonic stem cells and other stem cells CKB, it doesn't appear so but I'm no Sci guy) then we can take away all the emotion ( nobody was killing babies to start with, can we get that out of the way at least) and get down to what science does best, improve the human condition.

ckb2001
06-06-2007, 07:31 PM
There should be no more debate about this, if they can turn normal cell back into stem cells, ( is there a big difference between embryonic stem cells and other stem cells CKB, it doesn't appear so but I'm no Sci guy) then we can take away all the emotion ( nobody was killing babies to start with, can we get that out of the way at least) and get down to what science does best, improve the human condition.

Yeah, there are a lot of differences between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. First of all, embryonic stem cells can become any kind of cell, from skin, heart, muscle, etc.. So, for potential applications like tissue regeneration, they would be ideal.

Adult stem cells have much less plasticity, but are much easier to work with in general. There are already many examples of applications using adult stem cells, but no one has of yet succeeded in using embryonic stem cells for a medical application (as far as I know).

One good thing about adult stem cells is that those cells will likely come from the host, thus removing one potential complication.

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2007, 01:13 PM
Why is that a misrepresentation? This is about embryonic stem cell research! It's just that those were FIRST adult stem cells that were THEN turned into embryonic stem cells (meaning there was no observed distinction between them)!

My comment was right on the money.

The issue HERE is about adult stem cells. They can be reprogrammed into DUPLICATING embryonic stem cells, but they are NOT embryonic stem cells since they never came from an EMBRYO. THAT is the ethical issue. Again, there isn't a Conservative alive who would oppose THIS technology because THIS technology doesn't involve the destruction of a fetus.

Megatron
06-07-2007, 01:22 PM
The issue HERE is about adult stem cells. They can be reprogrammed into DUPLICATING embryonic stem cells, but they are NOT embryonic stem cells since they never came from an EMBRYO. THAT is the ethical issue. Again, there isn't a Conservative alive who would oppose THIS technology because THIS technology doesn't involve the destruction of a fetus. Oh I'm sure we could find a few religious conservatives that would be against this research. Let's start with the Witnesses and move out from there.

ckb2001
06-07-2007, 02:15 PM
The issue HERE is about adult stem cells. They can be reprogrammed into DUPLICATING embryonic stem cells, but they are NOT embryonic stem cells since they never came from an EMBRYO. THAT is the ethical issue. Again, there isn't a Conservative alive who would oppose THIS technology because THIS technology doesn't involve the destruction of a fetus.

That's not true PhinPhan1227. In science, if there is NO observable difference between X and Y, then X and Y are the same.

Initially, no one knew how to create embryonic stem cells from any other kinds of cells, so initial definitions will say "taken from an embryo". But, as science advances, that changes.

The article itself says this:
QUOTE:
"Reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells could generate a potentially limitless source of immune-compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine."

AND

"The reprogrammed cells were not just functionally identical to embryonic stem cells. They also had identical biological structure."
---------------


This IS about reprogramming an adult stem cell INTO an embryonic stem cell, and the reason it IS an embryonic stem cell is because there are no observable differences in properties between this new pluripotent cell and embryonic stem cells. So, yes this is about embryonic stem cell research - remember, religious conservatives don't make up definitions for these things :wink:

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2007, 04:06 PM
That's not true PhinPhan1227. In science, if there is NO observable difference between X and Y, then X and Y are the same.

Initially, no one knew how to create embryonic stem cells from any other kinds of cells, so initial definitions will say "taken from an embryo". But, as science advances, that changes.

The article itself says this:
QUOTE:
"Reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells could generate a potentially limitless source of immune-compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine."

AND

"The reprogrammed cells were not just functionally identical to embryonic stem cells. They also had identical biological structure."
---------------


This IS about reprogramming an adult stem cell INTO an embryonic stem cell, and the reason it IS an embryonic stem cell is because there are no observable differences in properties between this new pluripotent cell and embryonic stem cells. So, yes this is about embryonic stem cell research - remember, religious conservatives don't make up definitions for these things :wink:

Wrong CKB. You forget, the world does not revolve around science 24/7. Definitions change depending on the conversation and CONTEXT. And since you brought up the Conservatives objections, YOU placed the definition in THEIR context. The issue among Conservatives, who YOU brought up, is NOT the nature of the cell itself, but the ORIGIN of that cell. And since those cells NEVER came from an embryo, they are NOT embryonic cells as it pertains to THAT discussion.

Again, YOU brought up the Conservatives objections. By doing so, YOU placed the definition in THIER court. It IS misleading to say that they would object to these cells when by the ORIGINS definition, they are NOT embryonic. Don't blame me or them when it was you who brought them and their views into the discussion.

ckb2001
06-07-2007, 04:11 PM
Wrong CKB. You forget, the world does not revolve around science 24/7. Definitions change depending on the conversation and CONTEXT. And since you brought up the Conservatives objections, YOU placed the definition in THEIR context. The issue among Conservatives, who YOU brought up, is NOT the nature of the cell itself, but the ORIGIN of that cell. And since those cells NEVER came from an embryo, they are NOT embryonic cells as it pertains to THAT discussion.

Again, YOU brought up the Conservatives objections. By doing so, YOU placed the definition in THIER court. It IS misleading to say that they would object to these cells when by the ORIGINS definition, they are NOT embryonic. Don't blame me or them when it was you who brought them and their views into the discussion.

PhinPhan1227, this is science we're talking about. It's a scientific discovery and when THEY say they turned adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells, it's not up to you or anyone else to go around saying "that's not true because the cells didn't come from an embryo".

Sorry, but those ARE embryonic stem cells we're talking about. Just because religious conservatives never imagined technology would get to the point where this could happen doesn't change that. The definition comes from science, not from religion.

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2007, 04:26 PM
PhinPhan1227, this is science we're talking about. It's a scientific discovery and when THEY say they turned adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells, it's not up to you or anyone else to go around saying "that's not true because the cells didn't come from an embryo".

Sorry, but those ARE embryonic stem cells we're talking about. Just because religious conservatives never imagined technology would get to the point where this could happen doesn't change that. The definition comes from science, not from religion.

YOU took it out of the scientific discussion when YOU brought up Conservatives objections. Had you NOT done so, than you would be correct, but once you did, than the science went out the window. Because the Conservative view which YOU brought up isn't about science, and it isn't about the nature of the cell itself, it is ONLY about the origin of the cell.

Don't be obtuse CKB. You know, or should know, that it isn't about the science for those people. They don't care that it is an enbryonic stem cell, only that it comes from an embryo which must be destroyed to be harvested. You MUST know this, so your comment WAS misleading.

Come on CKB, we joke around about you being too "robotic", but you have to know that definitions DO change with context. To a scientist, a cell is defined by it's nature. But to people who are concerned with the origin of a cell, that cell is defined by it's origin. That's a VERY simple concept CKB. So when you rail on Conservatives for their views, you have to use their definitions. Otherwise you are misrepresenting them. Again, VERY simple. Especially when they have so CLEARLY outlined that view and that definition over and over.

Megatron
06-07-2007, 04:35 PM
The main group that is against embryonic stem cell research or gene research ARE religious conservatives. I don't think CKB's editorial comment is that far off base. The good part about this is that the not so extreme ones can maybe see this new research as a compromise. That's the heartening aspect.

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2007, 04:51 PM
The main group that is against embryonic stem cell research or gene research ARE religious conservatives. I don't think CKB's editorial comment is that far off base. The good part about this is that the not so extreme ones can maybe see this new research as a compromise. That's the heartening aspect.

Jesus, how do you see religiously conservative people objecting at ALL to this? They don't CARE that it is CALLED an ebryonic cell. They don't CARE that it is identical to an embryonic cell. they only CARE whether a fetus is being destroyed to create it or not. It's not a compromise to them, it's a fraking VICTORY!

Seriously, do you and CKB so DRASTICALLY misunderstand their viewpoint that you think that they object to this because it is called an embryonic cell? I thought they made themselves screamingly clear, but maybe the fact that people keep portraying them as being against ALL stem cell research has confused you. I guess it's true, if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.

Let me lay it out for you, and for CKB, VERY clearly.

Religious Conservatives view a fetus as a young human being, not a mass of tissue(I hold the later view point, but in this case I am presenting THEIR point of view).

Since they view a fetus as a young human being, the DESTRUCTION of a fetus is an immoral act in their eyes.

ANYTHING that results in the destruction of a fetus to them is immoral.

They SUPPORT stem cell research, just not stem cells which are harvested by the destruction of a fetus.

Since THIS research takes ADULT stem cells, and makes them identical to embryonic stem cells, they will have ZERO problem with it. In fact, I would expect to hear COnservative pundits USE this research as yet another point for why the harvesting of stem cells from embryo's is no longer needed.

So, despite what CKB said, they will NOT oppose this research, they will in fact be it's strongest SUPPORTERS.

It stuns me that I actually had to spell all that out.

ckb2001
06-07-2007, 05:08 PM
YOU took it out of the scientific discussion when YOU brought up Conservatives objections. Had you NOT done so, than you would be correct, but once you did, than the science went out the window. Because the Conservative view which YOU brought up isn't about science, and it isn't about the nature of the cell itself, it is ONLY about the origin of the cell.

Don't be obtuse CKB. You know, or should know, that it isn't about the science for those people. They don't care that it is an enbryonic stem cell, only that it comes from an embryo which must be destroyed to be harvested. You MUST know this, so your comment WAS misleading.

Come on CKB, we joke around about you being too "robotic", but you have to know that definitions DO change with context. To a scientist, a cell is defined by it's nature. But to people who are concerned with the origin of a cell, that cell is defined by it's origin. That's a VERY simple concept CKB. So when you rail on Conservatives for their views, you have to use their definitions. Otherwise you are misrepresenting them. Again, VERY simple. Especially when they have so CLEARLY outlined that view and that definition over and over.

OK, first of all, these ARE embryonic stem cells we're talking about, so there's nothing to debate here regarding the definition. If someone doesn't understand the definition, that's their problem, not a problem with the definition.

Anyway, you're right about religious conservatives being primarily opposed to embryonic stem cell research because they have so far been derived from embryos. But, I still think you're wrong when you say my original statement was misrepresentative.

I originally said this:
QUOTE:
"So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them..."
-----------

Look, it's very clear I am ASKING how this new development will be viewed in the first sentence. So, I'm not presupposing religious conservatives are against this newest development. The other sentences do suggest I am against religious conservatives' viewpoints up till now on this issue.

Trying to read it the way you seem to be misreading it (by assuming I am stating religious conservatives are against this newest development) is completely ignoring the question at the beginning.

PhinPhan1227
06-07-2007, 05:41 PM
OK, first of all, these ARE embryonic stem cells we're talking about, so there's nothing to debate here regarding the definition. If someone doesn't understand the definition, that's their problem, not a problem with the definition.

Anyway, you're right about religious conservatives being primarily opposed to embryonic stem cell research because they have so far been derived from embryos. But, I still think you're wrong when you say my original statement was misrepresentative.

I originally said this:
QUOTE:
"So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them..."
-----------

Look, it's very clear I am ASKING how this new development will be viewed in the first sentence. So, I'm not presupposing religious conservatives are against this newest development. The other sentences do suggest I am against religious conservatives' viewpoints up till now on this issue.

Trying to read it the way you seem to be misreading it (by assuming I am stating religious conservatives are against this newest development) is completely ignoring the question at the beginning.

Again, you're ignoring context when representing anothers viewpoint. When discussing Conservative opposition, these are not THE embryonic cells they are concerned with, and therefore, your representation is misleading. Quite simply, you are not allowing for the FACT that you can have more than one definition. And clearly there CAN and IS more than one defintion.

Secondly, when you make this declaration...

"there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives."

...you are certainly at least IMPLYING that Conservatives will be opposed to this new technology. That also ignores the fact that this technology is EXACTLY what conservatives are LOOKING for. Again, you imply opposition when the exact opposite will almost certainly be true.

ckb2001
06-07-2007, 06:03 PM
Again, you're ignoring context when representing anothers viewpoint. When discussing Conservative opposition, these are not THE embryonic cells they are concerned with, and therefore, your representation is misleading. Quite simply, you are not allowing for the FACT that you can have more than one definition. And clearly there CAN and IS more than one defintion.

It doesn't matter if previous to this discovery embryonic stem cell lines required the destruction of a human embryo. Fact is, embryonic stem cells are NOT the same as a human embryo. This discovery turned adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells, showing you don't need the destruction of an embryo to create embryonic stem cell lines.

Your position of having separate definitions will only hold up if from this point on all religious conservatives are incapable of making this distinction and cannot refer to this discovery as having created embryonic stem cells.

I seriously doubt that will be the case. Either way, it's science that makes the definition for this, not religion, and these ARE embryonic stem cells we're talking about.



Secondly, when you make this declaration...

"there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives."

...you are certainly at least IMPLYING that Conservatives will be opposed to this new technology. That also ignores the fact that this technology is EXACTLY what conservatives are LOOKING for. Again, you imply opposition when the exact opposite will almost certainly be true.

Lack of logic there. Stating "a technology" without being specific as to which technology doesn't imply anything of the sort you're suggesting. And the word "are" is present tense, not future tense. That statement refers to embryonic stem cell technology religious conservatives are opposed to right now. This new technology is a new development and we have yet to hear their possible objections to it. That's why I asked the question up front what the ethical issues for them are now - as I said before, that question clearly shows I'm not implying religious conservatives are against this new development. It's ONLY if you choose to ignore that statement that you could even begin to speak of misrepresentation regarding this new development.

Taking the question I stated at the beginning into account, the rest refers to my viewpoints on how religious conservatives have viewed embryonic stem cell technology up till now.

Puka-head
06-07-2007, 06:35 PM
Congress just passed a stem cell funding bill that the President promised to veto right away. Maybe thats why CKB is mentioning the closeminedness of some religious conservatives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19092515/



But the president responded quickly with a written statement that accused majority Democrats of recycling an old measure that he vetoed a year ago. Under the bill, “American taxpayers would for the first time in our history be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Crossing that line would be a grave mistake,” he said in a statement issued in Germany, site of a summit of world leaders.

Here is what I see as the biggest problem, people just don't seem to get this:


The bill would permit funding for research on embryonic stem cells regardless of the date of their creation, as long as they were donated from in-vitro fertilization (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19092515/#) clinics, they would “otherwise be discarded” and donors gave their approval.
“No stem cell would ever be taken from an embryo that was not destined to be destroyed in any event,” said Rep. Mike Castle, a Delaware Republican who has long bucked his party leaders to support the measure.

PhinPhan1227
06-08-2007, 03:59 PM
It doesn't matter if previous to this discovery embryonic stem cell lines required the destruction of a human embryo. Fact is, embryonic stem cells are NOT the same as a human embryo. This discovery turned adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells, showing you don't need the destruction of an embryo to create embryonic stem cell lines.

Your position of having separate definitions will only hold up if from this point on all religious conservatives are incapable of making this distinction and cannot refer to this discovery as having created embryonic stem cells.

I seriously doubt that will be the case. Either way, it's science that makes the definition for this, not religion, and these ARE embryonic stem cells we're talking about.



Lack of logic there. Stating "a technology" without being specific as to which technology doesn't imply anything of the sort you're suggesting. And the word "are" is present tense, not future tense. That statement refers to embryonic stem cell technology religious conservatives are opposed to right now. This new technology is a new development and we have yet to hear their possible objections to it. That's why I asked the question up front what the ethical issues for them are now - as I said before, that question clearly shows I'm not implying religious conservatives are against this new development. It's ONLY if you choose to ignore that statement that you could even begin to speak of misrepresentation regarding this new development.

Taking the question I stated at the beginning into account, the rest refers to my viewpoints on how religious conservatives have viewed embryonic stem cell technology up till now.


Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Because Conservatives AREN"T OBJECTING TO THE TECHNOLOGY. They are objecting to the METHOD OF IT'S BEING OBTAINED. Nobody cares that the embryonic stem cells are embryonic stem cells, they ONLY CARE WHERE THEY CAME FROM. So THEIR definitions, when YOU are bringing up their objections are the only ones that matter.

And the bottom line for THEM, which I can't believe I have to repeat again, and again, and again, is that since these cells DERIVE from adults, they have no more objection to them than they do to ADULT stem cell research. And since these cells derive from adults, it IS adult stem cell research.

Jesus CKB, you're an intelligent person. Far brighter than me in any discussion of science and mathematics. How do you not see that this is a discovery which will be hailed by Conservatives? They will be giddy as kids on Christmas Day. Unless you can find me examples of Conservatives railing against adult stem cell research, than you have NO ARGUMENT. You have merely attempted to portray Conservatives as opposing the technology when in FACT, they did no such thing, only the means of it's being obtained.

What part of this do you fail to understand? Help me out here.

PhinPhan1227
06-08-2007, 04:13 PM
Congress just passed a stem cell funding bill that the President promised to veto right away. Maybe thats why CKB is mentioning the closeminedness of some religious conservatives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19092515/


Here is what I see as the biggest problem, people just don't seem to get this:

I think what most of them fear is, what happens if it's a success? Right now, there's plenty of fetal tissue for research, but what happens if therapies are developed? There's an order of magnitude difference between the amount of tissue needed for research, and the amount needed for commercial production of therapies. They see that outcome resulting in the CREATION of fetus' just for harvesting.

And really, it isn't much of a slippery slope. If a cure for alzheimers were discovered tomorrow, and scientists said they needed to start "farming" embryo's to make enough of the therapy to cure everyone, there would be STRONG support for that. Personally, I'd be rather torn. I am strongly pro-choice, but I don't like the precedent of creating fetus' just for harvesting.

Anyway, that's why there is such strong opposition.

ckb2001
06-08-2007, 04:25 PM
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Because Conservatives AREN"T OBJECTING TO THE TECHNOLOGY. They are objecting to the METHOD OF IT'S BEING OBTAINED. Nobody cares that the embryonic stem cells are embryonic stem cells, they ONLY CARE WHERE THEY CAME FROM. So THEIR definitions, when YOU are bringing up their objections are the only ones that matter.

And the bottom line for THEM, which I can't believe I have to repeat again, and again, and again, is that since these cells DERIVE from adults, they have no more objection to them than they do to ADULT stem cell research. And since these cells derive from adults, it IS adult stem cell research.

Jesus CKB, you're an intelligent person. Far brighter than me in any discussion of science and mathematics. How do you not see that this is a discovery which will be hailed by Conservatives? They will be giddy as kids on Christmas Day. Unless you can find me examples of Conservatives railing against adult stem cell research, than you have NO ARGUMENT. You have merely attempted to portray Conservatives as opposing the technology when in FACT, they did no such thing, only the means of it's being obtained.

What part of this do you fail to understand? Help me out here.

PhinPhan1227, there have been many cases previously where you claim I'm not seeing something and it turns out you weren't seeing something. So, let's wait till this debate is over before you claim it's me that's wrong.

In this case, it IS embryonic stem cell technology that religious conservatives have been opposed to (for now, not including this new development in the debate for obvious reasons). Why is that? Because up until this recent discovery, the current state of embryonic stem cell technology required the destruction of an embryo or used therapeutic cloning.

That's the technology we're talking about here - the actual technology that's been in existence up till now, not something far in the future. And that's what religious conservatives are opposed to.

Furthermore, there is NO evidence you have provided that religious conservatives are using a different definition of embryonic stem cells than scientists do, except for their assumption there is a "soul" in anything a living embryo can develop into.

If you want to assert religious conservatives are using a different definition, then provide evidence that religious conservatives are NOT labeling the embryonic stem cells that were originally adult stem cells (in this new development) as something that are NOT embryonic stem cells.

That's the kind of evidence you need, and the kind you will likely not find. So far, religious conservatives have simply used the definitions science has used.

Finally, there was no need for your second paragraph and much of the third paragraph, since I made no assertion in my first post about how religious conservatives would judge this new technology. I am having to repeat myself in pointing out I asked a question on that.

And the reason I am not simply presupposing that religious conservatives will not have any problem with this new development (and remember you don't speak for them either) is because there are many that have been against things like taking some pluripotent cells from an embryo, yet letting the embryo still develop into a human being.

It's not at all clear exactly what kinds of "faith-based" objections you will hear to this kind of technology, so it's worth asking.

PhinPhan1227
06-08-2007, 04:37 PM
PhinPhan1227, there have been many cases previously where you claim I'm not seeing something and it turns out you weren't seeing something. So, let's wait till this debate is over before you claim it's me that's wrong.

In this case, it IS embryonic stem cell technology that religious conservatives have been opposed to (for now, not including this new development in the debate for obvious reasons). Why is that? Because up until this recent discovery, the current state of embryonic stem cell technology required the destruction of an embryo or used therapeutic cloning.

That's the technology we're talking about here - the actual technology that's been in existence up till now, not something far in the future. And that's what religious conservatives are opposed to.

Furthermore, there is NO evidence you have provided that religious conservatives are using a different definition of embryonic stem cells than scientists do, except for their assumption there is a "soul" in anything a living embryo can develop into.

If you want to assert religious conservatives are using a different definition, then provide evidence that religious conservatives are NOT labeling the embryonic stem cells that were originally adult stem cells as something that are NOT embryonic stem cells.

That's the kind of evidence you need, and the kind you will likely not find. So far, religious conservatives have simply used the definitions science has used.

Finally, there was no need for your second paragraph and much of the third paragraph, since I made no assertion in my first post about how religious conservatives would judge this new technology. I am having to repeat myself in pointing out I asked a question on that.

And the reason I am not simply presupposing that religious conservatives will not have any problem with this new development (and remember you don't speak for them either) is because there are many that have been against things like taking some pluripotent cells from an embryo, yet letting the embryo still develop into a human being.

It's not at all clear exactly what kinds of "faith-based" objections you will hear to this kind of technology, so it's worth asking.


Show me an instance of anything remotely resembling a mainstream conservative objecting to the TECHNOLOGY and not just the fact that such tecjnology requires the destruction of a fetus. You have asked me to prove a negative, I will make the much easier request of asking you to prove a positive.

The ONLY objections I have ever seen or heard have been to the HARVEST of the cells, not the cells themselves. They are TWO DISTINCT ISSUES. CKB. You can't lump them together.

I still don't see why you fail to recognize that the SOURCE of a thing, and the THING ITSELF, can share the same name, but have potentially DIFFERENT definitions.

You view adult stem cells morphed into embryonic stem cells AS embryonic stem cells. Conservatives WON'T. Because you are concerned with the nature of the cell, while they are only concerned with it's ORIGINS. THAT is the issue.

Consider for a moment. A black American might define himself as an "African American", because genetically, he is virtually identical to a black person who is from Africa(for the sake of argument). A person FROM Africa who moves to America could refer to himself as an African American because he is FROM Africa and is now an American. Same definition, but still two very different people in some very important ways. And depending on WHO is doing the defining.

You are trying to keep this purely in the realm of science when science has nothing to do with it to the people you are referencign. To them it is a moral and ethical issue. They don't CARE about the science. They acre about the ethics of destroying a fetus. That's IT.

ckparrothead
06-08-2007, 04:58 PM
I see what CKB is saying. In conservative speak, the scientists are taking adult stem cells, which are cool with conservatives, and turning them into human embryos, which really shouldn't be very cool with the conservatives.

It's kind of like cloning. The scientists are using a process to come up with the same cells that fetuses are made out of. It's basically partial cloning.

ckb2001
06-08-2007, 05:11 PM
Show me an instance of anything remotely resembling a mainstream conservative objecting to the TECHNOLOGY and not just the fact that such tecjnology requires the destruction of a fetus. You have asked me to prove a negative, I will make the much easier request of asking you to prove a positive.

The ONLY objections I have ever seen or heard have been to the HARVEST of the cells, not the cells themselves. They are TWO DISTINCT ISSUES. CKB. You can't lump them together.

I still don't see why you fail to recognize that the SOURCE of a thing, and the THING ITSELF, can share the same name, but have potentially DIFFERENT definitions.

Let me use an analogy. Let's say you find an environmentalist who is against cars because they use fossil fuels and emit harmful substances as a result. In this analogy you are arguing that person isn't against the technology we call a car that uses a combustion engine, no he's only against the burning of fossil fuels (for example).

PhinPhan1227, you can't say that this environmentalist isn't against the technology (car) that requires fossil fuels. He IS against cars AT that state of technology - the state that requires fossil fuels.

Same thing with embryonic stem cell research. First of all, it's not a trivial matter to just extract embryonic stem cells (requires technology), and secondly some of the current embryonic stem cell technology (before this new development) is intricately tied in with the extraction process, just like some of the car is specifically designed to use fossil fuels. For example, the whole process of establishing a cell line is a technology intricately tied in with extracting stem cells from embryos - just like the combustion engine might be tied in with a car that uses fossil fuels.

So, yes religious conservatives have been opposed to embryonic stem cell technology, though one could argue it's not all embryonic stem cell technology they're opposed to.



You view adult stem cells morphed into embryonic stem cells AS embryonic stem cells. Conservatives WON'T. Because you are concerned with the nature of the cell, while they are only concerned with it's ORIGINS. THAT is the issue.

This you need to prove. Prove to me first that they do NOT label the embryonic stem cells derived from reprogrammed adult stem cells (all using scientific terminology, including what we saw written in the article) as embryonic stem cells.

Show me evidence first before continuing with this claim. And the reason I ask for that evidence is not just because you are making the assertion, but because up till now most religious organizations opposed to embryonic stem cell research have used the definitions given by science.

ckb2001
06-08-2007, 05:17 PM
I see what CKB is saying. In conservative speak, the scientists are taking adult stem cells, which are cool with conservatives, and turning them into human embryos, which really shouldn't be very cool with the conservatives.

It's kind of like cloning. The scientists are using a process to come up with the same cells that fetuses are made out of. It's basically partial cloning.

Just a note about the bolded part: embryonic stem cells are NOT embryos - two different things, but related. Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos, at least up till this new development.

Of course, since some religious conservatives have objected to even taking some pluripotent cells from an embryo, yet keeping the embryo functional (it may even develop into a human), there is good reason to ask them whether this new development really is or is not ethically acceptable (in their minds).

PhinPhan1227
06-09-2007, 09:32 AM
Let me use an analogy. Let's say you find an environmentalist who is against cars because they use fossil fuels and emit harmful substances as a result. In this analogy you are arguing that person isn't against the technology we call a car that uses a combustion engine, no he's only against the burning of fossil fuels (for example).

PhinPhan1227, you can't say that this environmentalist isn't against the technology (car) that requires fossil fuels. He IS against cars AT that state of technology - the state that requires fossil fuels.

Same thing with embryonic stem cell research. First of all, it's not a trivial matter to just extract embryonic stem cells (requires technology), and secondly some of the current embryonic stem cell technology (before this new development) is intricately tied in with the extraction process, just like some of the car is specifically designed to use fossil fuels. For example, the whole process of establishing a cell line is a technology intricately tied in with extracting stem cells from embryos - just like the combustion engine might be tied in with a car that uses fossil fuels.

So, yes religious conservatives have been opposed to embryonic stem cell technology, though one could argue it's not all embryonic stem cell technology they're opposed to.



This you need to prove. Prove to me first that they do NOT label the embryonic stem cells derived from reprogrammed adult stem cells (all using scientific terminology, including what we saw written in the article) as embryonic stem cells.

Show me evidence first before continuing with this claim. And the reason I ask for that evidence is not just because you are making the assertion, but because up till now most religious organizations opposed to embryonic stem cell research have used the definitions given by science.

Again, you are asking me to prove a negative. I am making the much simpler request of asking you to prove a positive. Show me a SINGLE instance of a mainstream conservative or group who objects to any stem cell research on any basis OTHER than the destruction of a fetus. Do that and I will concede your point.

But if you can't do it than you must concede mine. Because by your own analogy, if Ford came out with an electric car you would HAVE to assume that your environmentalist would support it becuase it had no internal combustion engine, the thing he ACTUALLY opposed. And the proof for that would be the fact that the environmentalist had strongly supported electric technology previously.

You continue to ignore the basic flaw of your argument. If a group is opposed to something because of it's origins, than of COURSE, if you change that origin to something you know they already support, than you eliminate the opposition to it. You are being hopelessly simplistic in ignoring the ROOT cause of the opposition.

I'm wondering if the reason for your myopia in this matter is because of a disdain for religious conservatives on your part. Perhaps you view them as superstitious people who, once anything has the "embryonic" label on it will react negatively solely because it says "embryo". Do you think them incapable of considering the origin? Does the fact that they have strongly supported all OTHER forms of stem cell research, including cord blood, not enter into your consideration?

I just can't understand how you can ignore the fact that when a person has an objection to a PROCESS, eliminating that process also eliminates the objection.

PhinPhan1227
06-09-2007, 09:40 AM
I see what CKB is saying. In conservative speak, the scientists are taking adult stem cells, which are cool with conservatives, and turning them into human embryos, which really shouldn't be very cool with the conservatives.

It's kind of like cloning. The scientists are using a process to come up with the same cells that fetuses are made out of. It's basically partial cloning.


Incorrect. The scientists aren't turning them into embryos, they are turning them into cells which are identical to embryonic stem cells. They aren't embryos, they can't ever develop into embryos. It's not cloning.

PhinPhan1227
06-09-2007, 09:42 AM
Just a note about the bolded part: embryonic stem cells are NOT embryos - two different things, but related. Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos, at least up till this new development.

Of course, since some religious conservatives have objected to even taking some pluripotent cells from an embryo, yet keeping the embryo functional (it may even develop into a human), there is good reason to ask them whether this new development really is or is not ethically acceptable (in their minds).


It's my understanding that the removal of such cells is still potentially gravely damaging to the embryo. If it isn't, than I would suggest that the same assumption on the part of Conservative groups is the reason for that objection. Either that, or they object to it because they see it as a gateway to other, more destructive processes. Either way, it still does, and has always revolved around the destruction of the embryo, not what is done AFTER the destruction of the embryo.

ckb2001
06-09-2007, 04:22 PM
Again, you are asking me to prove a negative. I am making the much simpler request of asking you to prove a positive. Show me a SINGLE instance of a mainstream conservative or group who objects to any stem cell research on any basis OTHER than the destruction of a fetus. Do that and I will concede your point.

But if you can't do it than you must concede mine. Because by your own analogy, if Ford came out with an electric car you would HAVE to assume that your environmentalist would support it becuase it had no internal combustion engine, the thing he ACTUALLY opposed. And the proof for that would be the fact that the environmentalist had strongly supported electric technology previously.

You may have used a word you don't understand in "fetus" (in the sentence where the word is bolded above).

An embryo is NOT a fetus, and a fetus is only a fetus once it has similar structure to a human, which is about after 2 months gestation. This has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research. So, ALL examples of religious conservatives opposing embryonic stem cell research do NOT involve worries about the destruction of a fetus, at least if you understand what a fetus is.

If you instead meant destruction of an "embryo", well I already gave you an example: scientists have shown that it is possible to isolate cells from a morula (a very early stage of the development of an embryo containing 15-30 cells or so) that turn into embryonic stem cells while the rest of the cells in the morula continue to develop into a full organism. This was shown in mice recently. Now, that doesn't destroy the embryo, yet some religious groups object to it.

Here's another: ANT = altered nuclear transfer. Here, a blastocyst with altered DNA - altered in such a way so that further development in the uterus isn't possible - is used to create an "embryo" that really isn't an embryo because it can't develop into a human, yet is still a source of embryonic stem cells. Well, some religious groups object to that not because it destroys an embryo, but because it involves the creation of an imperfect blastocyst whose only function is to produce embryonic stem cells and will ultimately be destroyed.

But, PhinPhan1227, that's not really the point here when it comes to whether religious groups actually object to embryonic stem cell technology or not.

They DO object to the technology itself because so much of this technology is only useful if you assume you'll get the embryonic stem cells from an embryo. That's no different than the combustion engine (in the analogy) being useless unless you use fossil fuels (forget reality here since it's an analogy - obviously you can power a vehicle with alcohol too, but that doesn't eliminate harmful emissions either).

What are examples of this technology? Well, what about the immense difficulty scientists had in even identifying stem cells? I mean even in the 1960's scientists knew there were cells (say in bone marrow) that gave rise to all blood types. But, it took many decades before the technology for isolating such stem cells into pure populations were developed.

PhinPhan1227, that's possibly a technology unnecessary if we find a way to extend this new discovery to taking ANY cell and turning it into a stem cell. That's a technology essential for stem cell research as we know it today, but possibly not for certain types of stem cell technology in the future. That's why you have to be specific about which technology religious conservatives are opposed to.

Just like not all parts of a car that has a combustion engine may be objectionable to someone against burning fossil fuels, not all embryonic stem cell technology in existence today are objectionable to religious conservatives. However, it IS true that religious conservatives object to some embryonic stem cell technologies. You simply can't separate the "research" from the technology used to do the research.

And your second paragraph above only supports my point. That combustion engine IS technology - technology the environmentalist (or going away from the analogy, the religious conservative) is opposed to.





You continue to ignore the basic flaw of your argument. If a group is opposed to something because of it's origins, than of COURSE, if you change that origin to something you know they already support, than you eliminate the opposition to it. You are being hopelessly simplistic in ignoring the ROOT cause of the opposition.

I'm wondering if the reason for your myopia in this matter is because of a disdain for religious conservatives on your part. Perhaps you view them as superstitious people who, once anything has the "embryonic" label on it will react negatively solely because it says "embryo". Do you think them incapable of considering the origin? Does the fact that they have strongly supported all OTHER forms of stem cell research, including cord blood, not enter into your consideration?

I just can't understand how you can ignore the fact that when a person has an objection to a PROCESS, eliminating that process also eliminates the objection.

I'm responding to this part separately only to emphasize to you there is NOTHING I have written so far that allows you to make this accusation. Show me where it is implied in what I said that elimination of the process someone is opposed to does not eliminate THAT opposition? Nothing I said implies that.

More importantly, you are looking at the kinds of possible opposition way too simplistically. Above I gave you examples where an embryo is not destroyed, yet objections from religious conservatives exist.

You have to understand something about debating PhinPhan1227. Usually, when two sides go after each other, they use what they think are the strongest arguments first. Remember this whole Creationism vs Evolution debate?

Creationists started off the with the position that best represented their "true" position - that God created all life and that the Bible is the literal truth. Well, that didn't work out in the courts. The courts struck down the teaching of Creationism because they said that was just teaching religion.

So, then what happened? The opposition turned to Intelligent Design, which did the most possible to disguise the religious nature of the teaching. No longer were they opposed to evolution because it contradicted the teachings of the Bible (at least "officially"). No, the opposition changed to deceptive statements like "evolution is a theory, not a fact" (works only on people who have nearly no understanding of science), and that there are "alternative scientific theories like ID" (a lie, since ID isn't science).

The opposition ADAPTS. And it almost always does. THIS is what you aren't even considering, and this is why it's important to ASK the question what the ethical issues are, not like you are doing in simply presupposing that taking away the original objection means you take away all objections.



So, let's summarize here.

1) we ARE dealing with embryonic stem cells in this new development and there is no known separate definition by religious conservatives (unless you provide proof otherwise),

2) religious conservatives DO object to embryonic stem cell technology - you CANNOT separate any technology essential for research from the research itself,

3) I did NOT assume to know what the objections to this new development were

4) religious conservatives HAVE objected to embryonic stem cell technologies that do NOT destroy the embryo,

(these 4 points show your objection to my editorial in the first post are baseless)

and

5) YOU shouldn't assume to know how religious conservatives will object to new developments in embryonic stem cell technologies. The problem here lies in what "is" or "is not" considered a human being. And objections by some religious conservatives to even taking some pluripotent cells from an embryo while letting the embryo develop shows you can't just say they think an "embryo" is human life. Nope, they may think some components of an embryo are essential for that embryo to be human life, even though no known evidence removal of some cells at the morula stage alters the further development of the embryo into a (mouse).

ckb2001
06-09-2007, 04:35 PM
It's my understanding that the removal of such cells is still potentially gravely damaging to the embryo. If it isn't, than I would suggest that the same assumption on the part of Conservative groups is the reason for that objection. Either that, or they object to it because they see it as a gateway to other, more destructive processes. Either way, it still does, and has always revolved around the destruction of the embryo, not what is done AFTER the destruction of the embryo.

Assuming you read my post above, this is a great example of a "slippery slope" for changing the type of objection. How exactly would one determine whether removal of say a single cell from a morula is damaging to the developing embryo? Well, one does that through scientific research on these things.

Currently, there's no evidence removal of one such cell in the very early stages impairs development afterwards, at least in mice. But, what could a group opposed to embryonic stem cell research on a broader definition of "human life" than you think they're using say? Well, they could say, "mice embryos don't have souls, but human embryos do!!".

Ooops, then it's possible to now object to using that process on human embryos.

OR, they could continue to say we simply don't know what we don't know! Oh yes, that will allow the door for continued objection to be opened for eternity, unless the technology is actually used first in humans and shown to be harmless. But, it's exactly the prevention of that use that would prevent us from finding out!!

Anyway, the point is religious conservatives are known to not value scientific evidence highly if it contradicts SOME interpretation of their religious doctrine (whichever they hold). So, there's no reason to assume they'll accept scientific evidence from mice that removal of a cell from the morula is not damaging to the development of the embryo afterwards.

And to explain why I'm against the view religious conservatives hold in general, it's because they will choose a faith-based idea over scientific evidence in such cases. And that starts with this absurd claim of an embryo having some unknown and unmeasurable and scientifically unjustified "soul".

Currently, science will only accept mental phenomena existing once enough of the brain develops. If you want to talk about exactly how much brain development is necessary for the mind to develop (important in a debate on abortion), that's one thing (something brain science can't tell you much about), but to say an embryo has that is completely ludicrous, at least based on what science knows so far.

But, religious conservatives don't care about scientific evidence when it so severely contradicts their faith. That's why I dislike their view, not because of what you said in the previous post.

PhinPhan1227
06-09-2007, 07:47 PM
You may have used a word you don't understand in "fetus" (in the sentence where the word is bolded above).

An embryo is NOT a fetus, and a fetus is only a fetus once it has similar structure to a human, which is about after 2 months gestation. This has nothing to do with embryonic stem cell research. So, ALL examples of religious conservatives opposing embryonic stem cell research do NOT involve worries about the destruction of a fetus, at least if you understand what a fetus is.

If you instead meant destruction of an "embryo", well I already gave you an example: scientists have shown that it is possible to isolate cells from a morula (a very early stage of the development of an embryo containing 15-30 cells or so) that turn into embryonic stem cells while the rest of the cells in the morula continue to develop into a full organism. This was shown in mice recently. Now, that doesn't destroy the embryo, yet some religious groups object to it.

Here's another: ANT = altered nuclear transfer. Here, a blastocyst with altered DNA - altered in such a way so that further development in the uterus isn't possible - is used to create an "embryo" that really isn't an embryo because it can't develop into a human, yet is still a source of embryonic stem cells. Well, some religious groups object to that not because it destroys an embryo, but because it involves the creation of an imperfect blastocyst whose only function is to produce embryonic stem cells and will ultimately be destroyed.

But, PhinPhan1227, that's not really the point here when it comes to whether religious groups actually object to embryonic stem cell technology or not.

They DO object to the technology itself because so much of this technology is only useful if you assume you'll get the embryonic stem cells from an embryo. That's no different than the combustion engine (in the analogy) being useless unless you use fossil fuels (forget reality here since it's an analogy - obviously you can power a vehicle with alcohol too, but that doesn't eliminate harmful emissions either).

What are examples of this technology? Well, what about the immense difficulty scientists had in even identifying stem cells? I mean even in the 1960's scientists knew there were cells (say in bone marrow) that gave rise to all blood types. But, it took many decades before the technology for isolating such stem cells into pure populations were developed.

PhinPhan1227, that's possibly a technology unnecessary if we find a way to extend this new discovery to taking ANY cell and turning it into a stem cell. That's a technology essential for stem cell research as we know it today, but possibly not for certain types of stem cell technology in the future. That's why you have to be specific about which technology religious conservatives are opposed to.

Just like not all parts of a car that has a combustion engine may be objectionable to someone against burning fossil fuels, not all embryonic stem cell technology in existence today are objectionable to religious conservatives. However, it IS true that religious conservatives object to some embryonic stem cell technologies. You simply can't separate the "research" from the technology used to do the research.

And your second paragraph above only supports my point. That combustion engine IS technology - technology the environmentalist (or going away from the analogy, the religious conservative) is opposed to.





I'm responding to this part separately only to emphasize to you there is NOTHING I have written so far that allows you to make this accusation. Show me where it is implied in what I said that elimination of the process someone is opposed to does not eliminate THAT opposition? Nothing I said implies that.

More importantly, you are looking at the kinds of possible opposition way too simplistically. Above I gave you examples where an embryo is not destroyed, yet objections from religious conservatives exist.

You have to understand something about debating PhinPhan1227. Usually, when two sides go after each other, they use what they think are the strongest arguments first. Remember this whole Creationism vs Evolution debate?

Creationists started off the with the position that best represented their "true" position - that God created all life and that the Bible is the literal truth. Well, that didn't work out in the courts. The courts struck down the teaching of Creationism because they said that was just teaching religion.

So, then what happened? The opposition turned to Intelligent Design, which did the most possible to disguise the religious nature of the teaching. No longer were they opposed to evolution because it contradicted the teachings of the Bible (at least "officially"). No, the opposition changed to deceptive statements like "evolution is a theory, not a fact" (works only on people who have nearly no understanding of science), and that there are "alternative scientific theories like ID" (a lie, since ID isn't science).

The opposition ADAPTS. And it almost always does. THIS is what you aren't even considering, and this is why it's important to ASK the question what the ethical issues are, not like you are doing in simply presupposing that taking away the original objection means you take away all objections.



So, let's summarize here.

1) we ARE dealing with embryonic stem cells in this new development and there is no known separate definition by religious conservatives (unless you provide proof otherwise),

2) religious conservatives DO object to embryonic stem cell technology - you CANNOT separate any technology essential for research from the research itself,

3) I did NOT assume to know what the objections to this new development were

4) religious conservatives HAVE objected to embryonic stem cell technologies that do NOT destroy the embryo,

(these 4 points show your objection to my editorial in the first post are baseless)

and

5) YOU shouldn't assume to know how religious conservatives will object to new developments in embryonic stem cell technologies. The problem here lies in what "is" or "is not" considered a human being. And objections by some religious conservatives to even taking some pluripotent cells from an embryo while letting the embryo develop shows you can't just say they think an "embryo" is human life. Nope, they may think some components of an embryo are essential for that embryo to be human life, even though no known evidence removal of some cells at the morula stage alters the further development of the embryo into a (mouse).


CKB, it's pointless to debate this further with you. I have asked for a simple positive proof in response to your requested negative proof. And yet you have ignored it repeatedly.

You have also ignored the fact that when you are claiming to know another persons viewpoint, you must use their definition. Because again, unless you can show mainstream conservatives objecting to adult stem cell technology, there is still no basis to think that they would have any objection to stem cells which STARTED out in an adult. If you can't see that than I have no idea what to tell you to make you understand.

PhinPhan1227
06-09-2007, 08:00 PM
And to explain why I'm against the view religious conservatives hold in general, it's because they will choose a faith-based idea over scientific evidence in such cases. And that starts with this absurd claim of an embryo having some unknown and unmeasurable and scientifically unjustified "soul".

Currently, science will only accept mental phenomena existing once enough of the brain develops. If you want to talk about exactly how much brain development is necessary for the mind to develop (important in a debate on abortion), that's one thing (something brain science can't tell you much about), but to say an embryo has that is completely ludicrous, at least based on what science knows so far.

But, religious conservatives don't care about scientific evidence when it so severely contradicts their faith. That's why I dislike their view, not because of what you said in the previous post.

Ok, so since the vast majority of Americans believe in a god, you dislike the views of the vast majority of Americans. That must be very frustrating for you. Most people believe in a soul CKB. What EXACTLY that soul entails, or when it forms, are subjects which have been debated in dozens of different fields of study for centuries if not millenia.

I personally do not share the belief that a soul would reside in a structure consisting of just a few hundred cells. But I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. So whenever possible, I try to err on the side of caution, just in case. I do not however thinkthat people who STRONGLY believe that the soul is intact at conception are superstitious idiots who can't make reasonable conclusions. Some incredibly brilliant people DO believe that the soul is created at conception afterall. People much brighter than you or I for that matter. So while I disagree with them, I don't look down on them.

And thinking that they would be incapable of recognizing the difference between natural ambryonic stem cells, and CREATED embryonic stem cells is doing just that. Because to them, the only thing that has ever mattered is the health of the embryo. If you present them with technology that doesn't even INVOLVE an embryoo, they will have no objection. Quite the contrary, they will welcome and support it.

ckb2001
06-09-2007, 08:07 PM
CKB, it's pointless to debate this further with you. I have asked for a simple positive proof in response to your requested negative proof. And yet you have ignored it repeatedly.

You have also ignored the fact that when you are claiming to know another persons viewpoint, you must use their definition. Because again, unless you can show mainstream conservatives objecting to adult stem cell technology, there is still no basis to think that they would have any objection to stem cells which STARTED out in an adult. If you can't see that than I have no idea what to tell you to make you understand.

??

Don't act like I'm an idiot.

These adult stem cells were turned into embryonic stem cells. I gave you two examples of where religious conservatives were against embryonic stem cell technology where an embryo was not destroyed. Did you even read what I wrote?

That's the proof positive.

ckb2001
06-09-2007, 08:13 PM
Ok, so since the vast majority of Americans believe in a god, you dislike the views of the vast majority of Americans. That must be very frustrating for you. Most people believe in a soul CKB. What EXACTLY that soul entails, or when it forms, are subjects which have been debated in dozens of different fields of study for centuries if not millenia.

I personally do not share the belief that a soul would reside in a structure consisting of just a few hundred cells. But I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. So whenever possible, I try to err on the side of caution, just in case. I do not however thinkthat people who STRONGLY believe that the soul is intact at conception are superstitious idiots who can't make reasonable conclusions. Some incredibly brilliant people DO believe that the soul is created at conception afterall. People much brighter than you or I for that matter. So while I disagree with them, I don't look down on them.

And thinking that they would be incapable of recognizing the difference between natural ambryonic stem cells, and CREATED embryonic stem cells is doing just that. Because to them, the only thing that has ever mattered is the health of the embryo. If you present them with technology that doesn't even INVOLVE an embryoo, they will have no objection. Quite the contrary, they will welcome and support it.


Yes, I dislike the view most people hold that God exists, but that doesn't frustrate me. The world is becoming more scientific, not less, and as long as that trend continues there's no frustration on my part.

And where are you getting all your accusations from? Where did I say or imply someone was a superstitious idiot? You introduced the term, assumed I implied that in some way (in two posts, not just one), and continue with such accusations without evidence.

Further, you imply I think they can't make the distinction between embryonic stem cells that came from an embryo and those that didn't? Again, where did I say or imply that?

Accusation after accusation and no evidence. Either you can't read what I'm writing or you can't understand what I'm writing.

In fact, in this thread, you're the one making claims without evidence, like religious conservatives having their own definition of embryonic stem cells. No evidence, yet you had no problem making that claim.

Finally, you do NOT speak for all religious conservatives. There ARE religious conservatives that have objected to embryonic stem cell research that does NOT involve the destruction of an embryo. Why is that not registering?

PhinPhan1227
06-09-2007, 10:44 PM
??

Don't act like I'm an idiot.

These adult stem cells were turned into embryonic stem cells. I gave you two examples of where religious conservatives were against embryonic stem cell technology where an embryo was not destroyed. Did you even read what I wrote?

That's the proof positive.


They turned into cells which were IDENTICAL to embryonic cells. But their ORIGIN remains disntinctly DIFFERENT. Again, your example involved cells harvested from an embryo. These cells are NOT harvested from an embryo. I asked REPEATEDLY for examples where a Conservative was opposed to stem cell research that DID NOT COME FROM EMBRYO'S, because THAT is the issue. And you have ignored that repeatedly. I never said you are an idiot. Far from it. But I think your prejudices are blinding you.

PhinPhan1227
06-09-2007, 10:51 PM
Yes, I dislike the view most people hold that God exists, but that doesn't frustrate me. The world is becoming more scientific, not less, and as long as that trend continues there's no frustration on my part.

And where are you getting all your accusations from? Where did I say or imply someone was a superstitious idiot? You introduced the term, assumed I implied that in some way (in two posts, not just one), and continue with such accusations without evidence.

Further, you imply I think they can't make the distinction between embryonic stem cells that came from an embryo and those that didn't? Again, where did I say or imply that?

Accusation after accusation and no evidence. Either you can't read what I'm writing or you can't understand what I'm writing.

In fact, in this thread, you're the one making claims without evidence, like religious conservatives having their own definition of embryonic stem cells. No evidence, yet you had no problem making that claim.

Finally, you do NOT speak for all religious conservatives. There ARE religious conservatives that have objected to embryonic stem cell research that does NOT involve the destruction of an embryo. Why is that not registering?


When you act like people can't distinguish between cells removed from an embryo, and cells removed from an adult, the only conclusion I can draw is that you think they are idiots. Because anyone of average intelligence will be able to see that difference. And since the only reason ANY mainstream conservative has given for opposing embryonic stem cell research is the harm perpetrated to the embryo, stem cells harvested from an adultI(as these are) will NOT be objectionable.

How does it continue to fail to register on you that it is the ORIGIN of the stem cells, not their function that these people find objectionable.

Lastly, I have asked you over and over for a simple proof. Not the negative one that you asked for, but a simple positive proof. Find me ONE mainstream example of someone objecting to stem cell research that doesn't involve embryonic tissue. Just one. I haven't asked you to prove a negative as you asked me. I only asked for a single example of someone mainstream objecting to stem cell research which involves adult stem cells, AS THIS RESEARCH DOES.

ckb2001
06-09-2007, 10:52 PM
They turned into cells which were IDENTICAL to embryonic cells. But their ORIGIN remains disntinctly DIFFERENT. Again, your example involved cells harvested from an embryo. These cells are NOT harvested from an embryo. I asked REPEATEDLY for examples where a Conservative was opposed to stem cell research that DID NOT COME FROM EMBRYO'S, because THAT is the issue. And you have ignored that repeatedly. I never said you are an idiot. Far from it. But I think your prejudices are blinding you.

This is what you asked for:

QUOTE:
"Show me a SINGLE instance of a mainstream conservative or group who objects to any stem cell research on any basis OTHER than the destruction of a fetus"
--------------

change the word fetus to embryo and that's what you asked for.

Well, I gave you two examples of embryonic stem cell research where NO embryo was destroyed!! Yet, some religious conservatives don't like it.

In one case, a cell from a morula was taken, and that morula developed into a full-fledged embryo and into a full-fledged mouse. NO embryo was destroyed, yet some religious conservatives object to it.

In the second case I mentioned, altered nuclear transfer, the nucleus is altered BEFORE transfer! That means that from the OUTSET, this quasi-embryo does NOT have the ability to develop into a human. Yet, some religious conservatives are against it.

You asked for a case where religious conservatives objected to research on a basis other than the destruction of an embryo. Well, those are 2 examples where NO embryo was destroyed, so what was their basis for objection? I went into that, explaining that it's a slippery slope of what component of an embryo defines human life, even if no embryo is destroyed. Those are the proof positives you are asking for.

ckb2001
06-09-2007, 11:00 PM
When you act like people can't distinguish between cells removed from an embryo, and cells removed from an adult, the only conclusion I can draw is that you think they are idiots. Because anyone of average intelligence will be able to see that difference. And since the only reason ANY mainstream conservative has given for opposing embryonic stem cell research is the harm perpetrated to the embryo, stem cells harvested from an adultI(as these are) will NOT be objectionable.

I NEVER implied ANYWHEHRE that ANYONE could not distinguish whether cells came from an embryo or not. I'm just telling you that's beside the point when considering what the definition of an embryonic stem cell is. If you look back at the relevant posts, I told you that it's only IF they can't distinguish between this that you would actually have some evidence for the idea of separate definitions.

But NOWHERE does what I wrote imply someone can't make a distinction like that.



How does it continue to fail to register on you that it is the ORIGIN of the stem cells, not their function that these people find objectionable.

Lastly, I have asked you over and over for a simple proof. Not the negative one that you asked for, but a simple positive proof. Find me ONE mainstream example of someone objecting to stem cell research that doesn't involve embryonic tissue. Just one. I haven't asked you to prove a negative as you asked me. I only asked for a single example of someone mainstream objecting to stem cell research which involves adult stem cells, AS THIS RESEARCH DOES.

Look, initially you were talking about the destruction of an embryo, NOT taking one cell from it. OK? If you want to switch the debate to origin ONLY of cells without considering whether the embryo lives or dies, that's a completely different debate. Don't act like you were ONLY talking about origin. You were talking about the embryo also being destroyed in the process.

And for that, I provided the examples asked for.

IF you are only talking about origin, then every cell taken from the body would be objectionable in your mind. That's obviously not a road you want to go down. I mean what is the difference between taking one cell from an embryo or fetus that could be used to create an embryonic stem cell line and one that can't? If you ONLY consider origin, you have to conclude NO cell from the embryo or fetus could be taken without endangering human "life", and that would include all types of stem cells as well as non-stem cells.

So, obviously you are NOT only talking about origin. No, you are talking about doing something to an embryo that makes it non-functional. In fact, that's what religious conservatives have in general been against - that the embryo is "destroyed" or can no longer develop (so you're actually wrong with your recent assertion that it's the origin they find objectionable and not the function - it's actually the lack of function they all agree on is not acceptable, whereas some also object to the origin).

And the reason the examples I gave are good is because you'll find some religious conservatives that are not opposed to those technologies - those that take cells from an embryo but leave the embryo functional - whereas other religious conservatives make an issue about components of the embryo still being essential to "human life" even if the embryo develops into a (mouse) after that.

PhinPhan1227
06-10-2007, 07:40 PM
I NEVER implied ANYWHEHRE that ANYONE could not distinguish whether cells came from an embryo or not. I'm just telling you that's beside the point when considering what the definition of an embryonic stem cell is. If you look back at the relevant posts, I told you that it's only IF they can't distinguish between this that you would actually have some evidence for the idea of separate definitions.

But NOWHERE does what I wrote imply someone can't make a distinction like that.



Look, initially you were talking about the destruction of an embryo, NOT taking one cell from it. OK? If you want to switch the debate to origin ONLY of cells without considering whether the embryo lives or dies, that's a completely different debate. Don't act like you were ONLY talking about origin. You were talking about the embryo also being destroyed in the process.

And for that, I provided the examples asked for.

IF you are only talking about origin, then every cell taken from the body would be objectionable in your mind. That's obviously not a road you want to go down. I mean what is the difference between taking one cell from an embryo or fetus that could be used to create an embryonic stem cell line and one that can't? If you ONLY consider origin, you have to conclude NO cell from the embryo or fetus could be taken without endangering human "life", and that would include all types of stem cells as well as non-stem cells.

So, obviously you are NOT only talking about origin. No, you are talking about doing something to an embryo that makes it non-functional. In fact, that's what religious conservatives have in general been against - that the embryo is "destroyed" or can no longer develop (so you're actually wrong with your recent assertion that it's the origin they find objectionable and not the function - it's actually the lack of function they all agree on is not acceptable, whereas some also object to the origin).

And the reason the examples I gave are good is because you'll find some religious conservatives that are not opposed to those technologies - those that take cells from an embryo but leave the embryo functional - whereas other religious conservatives make an issue about components of the embryo still being essential to "human life" even if the embryo develops into a (mouse) after that.

The reason I adjusted it is because, as I explained earlier, the Conservatives who object to harvesting any cells from embryo's probably don't trust that it doesn't harm the embryo. Further, and more importantly, since this technology doesn't involve embryo's AT ALL, it is a more accurate request for proof. Again, quite simply....

...this technology doesn't involve an embryo AT ALL. Not even a single cell from an embryo. An embryo is not involved in the process AT ANY POINT.

So if you are going to assert that Conservatives MIGHT have a problem with it, than you must present an example of a time when a mainstream conservative has objected to stem cell research which didn't involve an embryo. Unless you can do that than there are only two options...

A)You thou think Conservatives can't distinguish between artificial embryonic stem cells and natural embryonic stem cells(sorry, that would make them idiots, to me at least).

or

B)You think that Conservqatives won't care that these cells are artificial embryonic cells which again, pretty much makes them idiots.

Either way, I don't see how your assertion paints them as anything other than idiots unless you can show me a mainstream Conservative who has some moral objection to adult stem cell research.

ckb2001
06-10-2007, 08:15 PM
The reason I adjusted it is because, as I explained earlier, the Conservatives who object to harvesting any cells from embryo's probably don't trust that it doesn't harm the embryo. Further, and more importantly, since this technology doesn't involve embryo's AT ALL, it is a more accurate request for proof. Again, quite simply....

...this technology doesn't involve an embryo AT ALL. Not even a single cell from an embryo. An embryo is not involved in the process AT ANY POINT.

So if you are going to assert that Conservatives MIGHT have a problem with it, than you must present an example of a time when a mainstream conservative has objected to stem cell research which didn't involve an embryo. Unless you can do that than there are only two options...

A)You thou think Conservatives can't distinguish between artificial embryonic stem cells and natural embryonic stem cells(sorry, that would make them idiots, to me at least).

or

B)You think that Conservqatives won't care that these cells are artificial embryonic cells which again, pretty much makes them idiots.

Either way, I don't see how your assertion paints them as anything other than idiots unless you can show me a mainstream Conservative who has some moral objection to adult stem cell research.

Well, until scientific evidence is provided either of those two methods harms an embryo, those ARE examples of religious conservatives opposing a technology that as far as we know does not harm an embryo.

Now, altered nuclear transfer NEVER even involves a functional embryo! We're not even talking about taking something that could EVER develop into a human! We're talking about something that from the OUTSET cannot develop into a human, and hence can't be considered an embryo in the traditional sense. So, trying to say this is the first discovery that doesn't involve an embryo (as in something that could develop into a human) is wrong. Altered nuclear transfer already is an example of that. Yet, some are against that too (some are not, which is why one must ask what the critique will be instead of presupposing).

And finally, don't try to sneak in this "dual definition" thing again without evidence. These are NOT "artificial" embryonic stem cells (nice try but it's bull). They ARE embryonic stem cells. NO observable distinction means exactly that.

I mean by now there should a response by some religious conservative that claims scientists didn't really create embryonic stem cells with this new technology because that's not what they consider to be embryonic stem cells. Go find that first before trying to sneak in this "dual definition" thing again.

You're wrong about there being two such definitions until you prove otherwise.

PhinPhan1227
06-10-2007, 08:34 PM
Well, until scientific evidence is provided either of those two methods harms an embryo, those ARE examples of religious conservatives opposing a technology that as far as we know does not harm an embryo.

Now, altered nuclear transfer NEVER even involves a functional embryo! We're not even talking about taking something that could EVER develop into a human! We're talking about something that from the OUTSET cannot develop into a human, and hence can't be considered an embryo in the traditional sense. So, trying to say this is the first discovery that doesn't involve an embryo (as in something that could develop into a human) is wrong. Altered nuclear transfer already is an example of that. Yet, some are against that too (some are not, which is why one must ask what the critique will be instead of presupposing).

And finally, don't try to sneak in this "dual definition" thing again without evidence. These are NOT "artificial" embryonic stem cells (nice try but it's bull). They ARE embryonic stem cells. NO observable distinction means exactly that.

I mean by now there should a response by some religious conservative that claims scientists didn't really create embryonic stem cells with this new technology because that's not what they consider to be embryonic stem cells. Go find that first before trying to sneak in this "dual definition" thing again.

You're wrong about there being two such definitions until you prove otherwise.


Jesus CKB, you can't just make stuff up. A natural embryonic stem cell is one which comes from an embryo. These DID NOT. They are therefore different in their origins. You can't ignore that fact. That fact is the CORE of the Conservative objection to this technology. And when we are discussing peoples objections, than yes, their fears enter into the discussion, not just what has or hasn't been proven. If they fear that those proccess which come from an embryo might harm that embryo, that is all that matters, it places it in the same category as any other embryonic cellular extraction which does involve the destruction of the embryo.

As to the rest, I fully admit that you have lost me in the "altered nuclear transfer" discussion. No idea what you're talking about. If you want to expound on it I'd be happy to discuss it though.

Again, CKB, sciences definitions are not EVERYONES definitions. If they were, the world would be a MUCH more orderly place. Instead, you have your definition, which involves the nature of the cell, and Conservatives definition which involves the origin of the cell. They ARE DIFFERENT.

ckb2001
06-10-2007, 08:51 PM
Jesus CKB, you can't just make stuff up. A natural embryonic stem cell is one which comes from an embryo. These DID NOT. They are therefore different in their origins. You can't ignore that fact. That fact is the CORE of the Conservative objection to this technology. And when we are discussing peoples objections, than yes, their fears enter into the discussion, not just what has or hasn't been proven. If they fear that those proccess which come from an embryo might harm that embryo, that is all that matters, it places it in the same category as any other embryonic cellular extraction which does involve the destruction of the embryo.

As to the rest, I fully admit that you have lost me in the "altered nuclear transfer" discussion. No idea what you're talking about. If you want to expound on it I'd be happy to discuss it though.

Again, CKB, sciences definitions are not EVERYONES definitions. If they were, the world would be a MUCH more orderly place. Instead, you have your definition, which involves the nature of the cell, and Conservatives definition which involves the origin of the cell. They ARE DIFFERENT.


OK, first of all, there is NO distinction between "artificial" and "natural" embryonic stem cells with this technology. I'm making that up?? No, you're making that up. Neither scientists nor religious conservatives have labeled these embryonic stem cells "artificial".

There are no known "dual" definitions of embryonic stem cells PhinPhan1227. Again, for the nth time, if you wish to persist with that claim, provide evidence.


OK, let me try to explain altered nuclear transfer better. Actually, let's use some links here (from 2005):
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/2/3/theDebateOnStemCellResearchCanAlteredNuclearTransferFindAMiddleGround

" In hopes of reconciling these two viewpoints, Hurlbut has proposed a technique he calls “altered nuclear transfer,” which he described as “a way to get embryonic stem cells without creating a human organism.”

Instead of putting the full genetic code inside the egg cell, Hurlbut’s technique will delete several genes from the code before implanting it in the egg. The resultant cell will be fully capable of producing the desired stem cells, but will lack the capacity to develop as a human being."
-----------------

So, you have this egg cell (not the full embryo) and you put genetic code that's intentionally incomplete inside the egg. As stated above, that doesn't create an "embryo" in the traditional sense. At NO time could that resultant cell EVER develop into a human (on its own).

Does that help?

By the way, there are prominent members of the Catholic Church that support this technology because they don't think it involves the destruction of human life. Of course, other religious conservatives object to this because it involves the creation of an imperfect blastocyst (one that can't develop into a human) that is designed to be destroyed. Not all religious conservatives share the same "definition" of human life, and that's the real problem here. This is why it's not at all certain how objectionable this new reprogramming technique will be if it gets to the point of allowing federal funding for it. We have to wait and see.

PhinPhan1227
06-10-2007, 11:17 PM
OK, first of all, there is NO distinction between "artificial" and "natural" embryonic stem cells with this technology. I'm making that up?? No, you're making that up. Neither scientists nor religious conservatives have labeled these embryonic stem cells "artificial".

There are no known "dual" definitions of embryonic stem cells PhinPhan1227. Again, for the nth time, if you wish to persist with that claim, provide evidence.


OK, let me try to explain altered nuclear transfer better. Actually, let's use some links here (from 2005):
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/2/3/theDebateOnStemCellResearchCanAlteredNuclearTransferFindAMiddleGround

" In hopes of reconciling these two viewpoints, Hurlbut has proposed a technique he calls “altered nuclear transfer,” which he described as “a way to get embryonic stem cells without creating a human organism.”

Instead of putting the full genetic code inside the egg cell, Hurlbut’s technique will delete several genes from the code before implanting it in the egg. The resultant cell will be fully capable of producing the desired stem cells, but will lack the capacity to develop as a human being."
-----------------

So, you have this egg cell (not the full embryo) and you put genetic code that's intentionally incomplete inside the egg. As stated above, that doesn't create an "embryo" in the traditional sense. At NO time could that resultant cell EVER develop into a human (on its own).

Does that help?

By the way, there are prominent members of the Catholic Church that support this technology because they don't think it involves the destruction of human life. Of course, other religious conservatives object to this because it involves the creation of an imperfect blastocyst (one that can't develop into a human) that is designed to be destroyed. Not all religious conservatives share the same "definition" of human life, and that's the real problem here. This is why it's not at all certain how objectionable this new reprogramming technique will be if it gets to the point of allowing federal funding for it. We have to wait and see.


Of course there is a distinction. One comes from an embryo, the other comes from an adult. That is a HUGE distinction because it is the KEY to the objections from Conservatives. It's like saying there's no distinction between organs harvested from a volunteer donor, and organs harvested from someone against their will. The ORIGIN is what makes them different, and the ORIGIN is what is at issue. Conservative pundits haven't labeled them artificial because they probably don't know about them yet. Christ, Drudge doesn't even have it and I think he provides the talking points for half the Conservative groups in America:wink:. Once they do however, I'd be willing to bet they slap that label on them in order to promote them over "natural" embryonic stem cells. Again, you only view them as an end product. That is your only concern. To Conservatives, the ORIGIN is the only concern.

As to the rest, I would blame the opposition on the same kind of trust issues that arise whenver people have polarized on issues like this. Conservatives probably fear that kind of experimentation as a "gateway" to more advanced genetic experimentation like trying to grow a human body for organs while leaving out any higher brain functions. It's the same reason most far left or right groups have at least a few issues that seem a bit extreme. Like the NRA on armor piercing bullets or NOW on PBA's.

BTW, just noted these quotes. These are from WashingtonPost and FoxNEws. The Bishop says it better than I do.


It “raises no serious moral problem, because it creates embryoniclike stem cells without creating, harming or destroying human lives at any stage,” said Richard Doerflinger, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ spokesman on stem cell issues. In themselves, embryonic stem cells “have no moral status,” and the bishops’ objections to embryonic stem cell research rest solely on the fact that human embryos must be harmed or destroyed to obtain them, Mr. Doerflinger said...."This is what we were looking for people to explore because it may provide all the advantages of embryonic stem cells without the moral problem, so I'm very encouraged."

And here's an ethicist who says pretty much the same thing...

"Ronald Green, an ethicist at Dartmouth College, said it would be “very hard for people to say that what is created here is a nascent form of human life that should be protected.” The new technique, if adaptable to human cells, “will be one way this debate could end,” Mr. Green said."

...and the Federal government apparently will see a difference since they will FUND research on artificial embryonic stem cells...

"The new technique, when adaptable to human cells, should sidestep all these problems. James Battey, vice chairman of the National Institutes of Health stem cell task force, said he saw “no impediment at all” to federal support of researchers using the new technique on human cells."

..and about the 'artificial' versus 'natural' label, Dr Asa seems to see a difference...

""I think it's one of the most exciting things that has come out about embryonic stem cells, period," said researcher Dr. Asa Abeliovich of Columbia University in New York, who didn't participate in the work. "It's very convincing that it's real."

Oh, and Boortz has a link on his site, here is how he headlined it...

"Amazing. Skin cells can be reprogrammed to act like embryonic stem cells. Now they just have to apply it to humans."

ckb2001
06-11-2007, 12:18 AM
Of course there is a distinction. One comes from an embryo, the other comes from an adult. That is a HUGE distinction because it is the KEY to the objections from Conservatives. It's like saying there's no distinction between organs harvested from a volunteer donor, and organs harvested from someone against their will. The ORIGIN is what makes them different, and the ORIGIN is what is at issue.

No, what you were saying at the beginning of this thread is more accurate: the primary reason for the controversy is because embryos were being destroyed. Rarely if ever do see religious conservatives distinguish between embryo destruction and whether cells originated from an embryo.

Just take wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy

"Human embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of biotechnology, most techniques used to create embryonic stem cell lines require the destruction of human embryos and/or therapeutic cloning."

or

"An embryo is actually a human, therefore it should be valued as highly as a human life.

The reasoning can be summed up by the fact that, once an egg is fertilized, unless inhibited, it will develop into a fully-developed adult."
----------------

That right there is the primary reason for objections from religious conservatives. There are many religious conservatives that do NOT object to taking cells from a morula for example as long as the morula can develop into a fully functional embryo and beyond.

So, the emphasis among most religious conservatives is NOT on origin, it IS on destruction of an embryo.


In fact, IF religious conservatives were against embryonic stem cell research because of the origin of the cells, then why are they NOT against taking cells from the fetus in other cases? For example, fetal blood sampling. How many religious conservatives are against fetal blood sampling? Yet, that's something taken from a fetus for the purpose of medical diagnosis.

The fetus has no say in the matter there either. It's up to the parents and doctor. Yet, this is NOT the view some religious conservatives against embryonic stem cell research have towards removing cells from a morula that continues to develop into a fully functional living being.

And to further complicate matters, some religious conservatives support embryonic stem cell research even if you take cells from the embryo as long as the embryo DOES develop. It is NOT about origin for the vast majority of religious conservatives. It IS about functionality of the embryo.



Conservative pundits haven't labeled them artificial because they probably don't know about them yet. Christ, Drudge doesn't even have it and I think he provides the talking points for half the Conservative groups in America:wink:. Once they do however, I'd be willing to bet they slap that label on them in order to promote them over "natural" embryonic stem cells. Again, you only view them as an end product. That is your only concern. To Conservatives, the ORIGIN is the only concern.

As to the rest, I would blame the opposition on the same kind of trust issues that arise whenver people have polarized on issues like this. Conservatives probably fear that kind of experimentation as a "gateway" to more advanced genetic experimentation like trying to grow a human body for organs while leaving out any higher brain functions. It's the same reason most far left or right groups have at least a few issues that seem a bit extreme. Like the NRA on armor piercing bullets or NOW on PBA's.

Well, you've made several bets so far. You've bet that religious conservatives will not accept the label of these embryonic stem cells (using scientific terminology) as embryonic stem cells. We'll wait and see if any make that objection (and if there are any, the question then becomes what percentage, since you were basically saying practically all religious conservatives use such a different definition).

And now you've bet on the "artificial" label. Well, we'll see, but until there actually is proof of separate definitions, you can't accuse anyone (me) of not taking another definition into account.

Your second paragraph I agree with of course. That's what I was partly getting at with the initial resistance being just that, an initial resistance. Some may not object further (the Catholic Church might be one such party), but others may very well show their view of what human life is makes almost any kind of embryonic stem cell research unacceptable, even one that doesn't involve an embryo or embryo destruction or maybe even this new development. Of course, how much they resist will likely best be seen when the future of legislation on this matter is once again at stake.



BTW, just noted these quotes. These are from WashingtonPost and FoxNEws. The Bishop says it better than I do.


It “raises no serious moral problem, because it creates embryoniclike stem cells without creating, harming or destroying human lives at any stage,” said Richard Doerflinger, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ spokesman on stem cell issues. In themselves, embryonic stem cells “have no moral status,” and the bishops’ objections to embryonic stem cell research rest solely on the fact that human embryos must be harmed or destroyed to obtain them, Mr. Doerflinger said...."This is what we were looking for people to explore because it may provide all the advantages of embryonic stem cells without the moral problem, so I'm very encouraged."

And here's an ethicist who says pretty much the same thing...

"Ronald Green, an ethicist at Dartmouth College, said it would be “very hard for people to say that what is created here is a nascent form of human life that should be protected.” The new technique, if adaptable to human cells, “will be one way this debate could end,” Mr. Green said."

...and the Federal government apparently will see a difference since they will FUND research on artificial embryonic stem cells...

"The new technique, when adaptable to human cells, should sidestep all these problems. James Battey, vice chairman of the National Institutes of Health stem cell task force, said he saw “no impediment at all” to federal support of researchers using the new technique on human cells."

..and about the 'artificial' versus 'natural' label, Dr Asa seems to see a difference...

""I think it's one of the most exciting things that has come out about embryonic stem cells, period," said researcher Dr. Asa Abeliovich of Columbia University in New York, who didn't participate in the work. "It's very convincing that it's real."

Oh, and Boortz has a link on his site, here is how he headlined it...

"Amazing. Skin cells can be reprogrammed to act like embryonic stem cells. Now they just have to apply it to humans."

Many prominent members of the Catholic Church have voiced support for both the cells taken from the morula example and ANT, so it's not surprising to see them support this. That's not news. And many of these ethicists cited actually are ethicists that argue on behalf of scientists. What you need to do is find what people who have been against ALL forms of embryonic stem cell technology prior to this think. The quotes above don't show us what that key block of religious conservatives think.

And as far as the quotes on "artificial" vs "natural", note that the government doesn't make that distinction (as far as I know), so you shouldn't say the government is willing to fund "artificial" stem cells (nice way of sneaking that in though).

And the quote by Dr. Asa does nothing to suggest he views these new cells as artificial. In fact, he views them as real.

And someone (Boortz) having a headline that says the cells are like embryonic stem cells doesn't imply those aren't embryonic stem cells. Maybe the person just wanted to allow more leeway for the claim to be accurate IF it is found that there are some differences in the future; remember, they have so far found no differences in function or structure, but they might, so saying "like" would be the proper language if one wanted to cover for things that could occur in the future.

In any case, if you go by headlines, this one says:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070606235430.htm
"Researchers Reprogram Normal Tissue Cells Into Embryonic Stem Cells"
-----------------

And so does this one (parts of the same article basically):
http://www.physorg.com/news100354669.html
"Researchers reprogram normal tissue cells into embryonic stem cells"
-----------------

And this one also does:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=studies-find-new-ways-to&chanId=sa003&modsrc=reuters
"Studies find new ways to make embryonic stem cells"
-----------------

They wouldn't be saying the normal cells were turned into embryonic stem cells unless there was evidence to back that up.

So, your quotes do nothing to change what I've been saying as the accepted perception among scientists. That is, if all observable function and structure of two things are equal, then they ARE equal (in science, and this part of your post does deal with science).


By the way, here's an example of what some scientists have called research into artificial stem cells:
http://www.jhu.edu/~maogroup/projects.htm#project1

It looks like the work has to do with developing an artificial extra-cellular matrix that allows (for example) adult stem cells to proliferate.

PhinPhan1227
06-12-2007, 10:56 PM
So, the emphasis among most religious conservatives is NOT on origin, it IS on destruction of an embryo.

.


I've eliminated everything else CKB because you have FINALLY come around to what I have been trying to say since the beginning. Conservatives are concerned with the destruction of an embryo. THIS technology does NOT involve the destruction of an embryo. You can label it whatever you want, but so long as it doesn't involve THAT step, they won't care.

ckb2001
06-13-2007, 12:34 AM
I've eliminated everything else CKB because you have FINALLY come around to what I have been trying to say since the beginning. Conservatives are concerned with the destruction of an embryo. THIS technology does NOT involve the destruction of an embryo. You can label it whatever you want, but so long as it doesn't involve THAT step, they won't care.

I've already shown you that there are many religious conservatives that drop their resistance to embryonic stem cell research when no embryo is destroyed and I've also shown you there are religious conservatives that continue to oppose embryonic stem cell research even IF it doesn't destroy an embryo (gave two examples of that).

Therefore, it is wise to ask, wait and see how they respond to this development than simply presupposing how they will respond. Not sure what the problem is with that :wink:

Megatron
06-13-2007, 01:49 AM
Ooops, I put the wrong smiley in.:goodpost:

PhinPhan1227
06-15-2007, 10:22 AM
I've already shown you that there are many religious conservatives that drop their resistance to embryonic stem cell research when no embryo is destroyed and I've also shown you there are religious conservatives that continue to oppose embryonic stem cell research even IF it doesn't destroy an embryo (gave two examples of that).

Therefore, it is wise to ask, wait and see how they respond to this development than simply presupposing how they will respond. Not sure what the problem is with that :wink:


But you haven't shown me a SINGLE example of anyone objecting when an embryo wasn't involved AT ALL. Even in your examples, there was still a CHANCE of an embryo either being damaged, or being needed down the road for mass production of therapies(use of damaged embryo's is great for research, but if that research is successful, it opens the door to the destruction of healthy embryo's when mass production is needed for therapies, thus the objection). You haven't produced a SINGLE example that is germaine to THIS discovery, because THIS discovery precludes the POSSIBILITY of an embryo being destroyed. Thus, it precludes the POSSIBILITY of that objection.

ckb2001
06-15-2007, 01:35 PM
But you haven't shown me a SINGLE example of anyone objecting when an embryo wasn't involved AT ALL. Even in your examples, there was still a CHANCE of an embryo either being damaged, or being needed down the road for mass production of therapies(use of damaged embryo's is great for research, but if that research is successful, it opens the door to the destruction of healthy embryo's when mass production is needed for therapies, thus the objection). You haven't produced a SINGLE example that is germaine to THIS discovery, because THIS discovery precludes the POSSIBILITY of an embryo being destroyed. Thus, it precludes the POSSIBILITY of that objection.

For the nth time, I did that. Altered nuclear transfer does NOT create an embryo!! And it does NOT destroy an embryo. However, some religious conservatives still object to that because they don't think it's morally acceptable to create a blastocyst (that isn't even an embryo) just for the purpose of creating embryonic stem cells after which it will be destroyed.

That does NOT involve an embryo! PhinPhan1227, I've shown you the relevant discoveries. You're just not understanding them :tongue:

PhinPhan1227
06-15-2007, 02:18 PM
For the nth time, I did that. Altered nuclear transfer does NOT create an embryo!! And it does NOT destroy an embryo. However, some religious conservatives still object to that because they don't think it's morally acceptable to create a blastocyst (that isn't even an embryo) just for the purpose of creating embryonic stem cells after which it will be destroyed.

That does NOT involve an embryo! PhinPhan1227, I've shown you the relevant discoveries. You're just not understanding them :tongue:

Sorry I didn't touch on this before, but who exactly are "some religious conservatives"? That's a rather vague group. Could refer to the National Congress of Baptist Ministers or the few dozen wacko's who think that God punishes America for people being gay by killing its soldiers. Who objects to THAT science? Are they mainstream?

All that aside, you've still got a process which doesn't involve an ova, or anything which could by any stretch of the imagination be construed as an embryo or even a blastocyst. No ethical issue when none of that is involved.

Either way, you don't have any mainstream Conservative groups who have given any hint they would oppose technology which comes from adult skin cells. None. You are stretching WILDLY, especially when you have already admitted that the CATHOLICS have embraced this technology. The Catholics for goodness sakes. Folks who won't even admit that condoms are a good idea. Give me a break CKB.

ckb2001
06-15-2007, 04:56 PM
Sorry I didn't touch on this before, but who exactly are "some religious conservatives"? That's a rather vague group. Could refer to the National Congress of Baptist Ministers or the few dozen wacko's who think that God punishes America for people being gay by killing its soldiers. Who objects to THAT science? Are they mainstream?

All that aside, you've still got a process which doesn't involve an ova, or anything which could by any stretch of the imagination be construed as an embryo or even a blastocyst. No ethical issue when none of that is involved.

Either way, you don't have any mainstream Conservative groups who have given any hint they would oppose technology which comes from adult skin cells. None. You are stretching WILDLY, especially when you have already admitted that the CATHOLICS have embraced this technology. The Catholics for goodness sakes. Folks who won't even admit that condoms are a good idea. Give me a break CKB.

I don't have a list of all the religious groups opposed to this (never bothered to look that up). But, that there IS opposition is easy to demonstrate. Just look at what The President's Council on Bioethics says:
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/white_paper/text.html

"A. Is It Ethically Sound?

In offering his proposal for ANT, Hurlbut emphasizes that no embryo would ever be created or destroyed; since the genetic alteration is carried out in the somatic cell nucleus before transfer, the biological artifact is “brought into existence with a genetic structure insufficient to generate a human embryo.” Hurlbut compares the product of ANT to certain ovarian teratomas and hydatidiform moles, genetically or epigenetically abnormal natural products of failed fertilization that are not living beings but “chaotic, disorganized, and nonfunctional masses.” If, as Hurlbut suggests, the biological artifact is ethically equivalent to a tissue culture, teratoma, or mole, there would seem to be nothing ethically problematic about harvesting stem cells from it. Nonetheless, a number of ethical questions and concerns have been raised about this proposal.


1. Would not this “artifact” really be a very defective embryo?

..

Yet they worry that this is not the production of a non-human entity but the deliberate creation of a doomed or disabled human embryo, or, in other words, that Hurlbut’s proposal amounts to creating and using “bad or sick embryos,” rather than “non-embryonic entities.”

..

Furthermore, even if the artifact were conclusively shown to lack genes indispensable for becoming an organized, differentiating human embryo, some critics might continue to insist that it was destined to become a defective, severely deformed human embryo, the defect and deformity having been deliberately inflicted on it by the scientist.

..

2. The ethics of egg procurement.

Like ordinary cloning-for-biomedical-research (SCNT), this altered nuclear transfer proposal requires a (probably large) supply of human oocytes, which would have to be donated, purchased, or produced for research purposes. Some will find this troubling, and on multiple grounds.

..

3. Ethical concerns about ANT itself.

To some observers, the procedures involved in ANT are inherently objectionable. Certain commentators, for example, find the very idea of tampering to put something destructive into the human genome, even for a good cause, morally and aesthetically offensive. Some find it aesthetically repulsive and ethically suspect to be creating such either-living-nor-nonliving, near-human artifacts, a practice they regard as ethically no improvement over destroying early embryos.

..

4. Concerns about ANT on “slippery slope” grounds.

Several worries have been expressed not about the proposal itself but about what it might lead to, or about what it might be seen as justifying in the future.
------------------------------------



You see what I'm talking about? Even if it is true that no embryo is created or destroyed, some object by saying we shouldn't be creating things that resemble them!! Some also object by saying while this may not be a true embryo, it is a defective embryo. Yeah, no possibility it could ever turn into human life, but that's irrelevant. Nope, even if it resembles an embryo, that's not acceptable..

And some worry about egg procurement instead of ANT itself. Others talk about a slippery slope. And yet others are against any form of tampering with the genome.

This is what I'm talking about PhinPhan1227. Your assumptions about what needs to be done to remove religious opposition to embryonic stem cell research is based ONLY on the FIRST objection they had. If that first objection doesn't work, then many revert to trying something else. Just like that Creationism/ID example I gave..

And that will only become irrelevant once we have medical technologies based on embryonic stem cell research that can demonstrably save many lives. Then, the hypocrites will find some interpretation of their religion to justify it. You mentioned the Catholic Church. Well, I'm sure you know their history about how they changed their initial oppositions to many new scientific developments, almost acting like whatever they believe now is still as "true" to the Bible as the beliefs they had before but now reject.

So, in summary, don't presuppose to know what objections religious conservatives will have. It's important to ASK. In reality, much of their objections have to do with their subjective definition of "human life" (which can vary from group to group) and what they perceive as "tampering" with God's creations. That allows for so much ambiguity and leeway in making objections that you simply can't take for granted how religious conservatives will react to new technologies in embryonic stem cell research.

PhinPhan1227
06-16-2007, 01:39 AM
I don't have a list of all the religious groups opposed to this (never bothered to look that up). But, that there IS opposition is easy to demonstrate. Just look at what The President's Council on Bioethics says:
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/white_paper/text.html

"A. Is It Ethically Sound?

In offering his proposal for ANT, Hurlbut emphasizes that no embryo would ever be created or destroyed; since the genetic alteration is carried out in the somatic cell nucleus before transfer, the biological artifact is “brought into existence with a genetic structure insufficient to generate a human embryo.” Hurlbut compares the product of ANT to certain ovarian teratomas and hydatidiform moles, genetically or epigenetically abnormal natural products of failed fertilization that are not living beings but “chaotic, disorganized, and nonfunctional masses.” If, as Hurlbut suggests, the biological artifact is ethically equivalent to a tissue culture, teratoma, or mole, there would seem to be nothing ethically problematic about harvesting stem cells from it. Nonetheless, a number of ethical questions and concerns have been raised about this proposal.


1. Would not this “artifact” really be a very defective embryo?

..

Yet they worry that this is not the production of a non-human entity but the deliberate creation of a doomed or disabled human embryo, or, in other words, that Hurlbut’s proposal amounts to creating and using “bad or sick embryos,” rather than “non-embryonic entities.”

..

Furthermore, even if the artifact were conclusively shown to lack genes indispensable for becoming an organized, differentiating human embryo, some critics might continue to insist that it was destined to become a defective, severely deformed human embryo, the defect and deformity having been deliberately inflicted on it by the scientist.

..

2. The ethics of egg procurement.

Like ordinary cloning-for-biomedical-research (SCNT), this altered nuclear transfer proposal requires a (probably large) supply of human oocytes, which would have to be donated, purchased, or produced for research purposes. Some will find this troubling, and on multiple grounds.

..

3. Ethical concerns about ANT itself.

To some observers, the procedures involved in ANT are inherently objectionable. Certain commentators, for example, find the very idea of tampering to put something destructive into the human genome, even for a good cause, morally and aesthetically offensive. Some find it aesthetically repulsive and ethically suspect to be creating such either-living-nor-nonliving, near-human artifacts, a practice they regard as ethically no improvement over destroying early embryos.

..

4. Concerns about ANT on “slippery slope” grounds.

Several worries have been expressed not about the proposal itself but about what it might lead to, or about what it might be seen as justifying in the future.
------------------------------------



You see what I'm talking about? Even if it is true that no embryo is created or destroyed, some object by saying we shouldn't be creating things that resemble them!! Some also object by saying while this may not be a true embryo, it is a defective embryo. Yeah, no possibility it could ever turn into human life, but that's irrelevant. Nope, even if it resembles an embryo, that's not acceptable..

And some worry about egg procurement instead of ANT itself. Others talk about a slippery slope. And yet others are against any form of tampering with the genome.

This is what I'm talking about PhinPhan1227. Your assumptions about what needs to be done to remove religious opposition to embryonic stem cell research is based ONLY on the FIRST objection they had. If that first objection doesn't work, then many revert to trying something else. Just like that Creationism/ID example I gave..

And that will only become irrelevant once we have medical technologies based on embryonic stem cell research that can demonstrably save many lives. Then, the hypocrites will find some interpretation of their religion to justify it. You mentioned the Catholic Church. Well, I'm sure you know their history about how they changed their initial oppositions to many new scientific developments, almost acting like whatever they believe now is still as "true" to the Bible as the beliefs they had before but now reject.

So, in summary, don't presuppose to know what objections religious conservatives will have. It's important to ASK. In reality, much of their objections have to do with their subjective definition of "human life" (which can vary from group to group) and what they perceive as "tampering" with God's creations. That allows for so much ambiguity and leeway in making objections that you simply can't take for granted how religious conservatives will react to new technologies in embryonic stem cell research.


Non Ssequiter. I have explained this already. Any research which requires the use of an embryo, even a damaged one, might as well use a healthy one because once a therapy is derived, healthy embryo's would be needed in order to produce enough stem cells for production. That is the objection to that line of research. Again, it has ZERO bearing on research which is being done on ADULT skin cells.

And the rest, quite honestly is just religious bigotry. Because the Catholic Church has behaved incorrectly at times over it's 1500 year history we should assume they will reverse themselves on this issue despite the fact that they are embracing it specifically BECAUSE it eliminates the destruction of an embryo or even embryonic tissue? I'm sorry CKB, but nothing you have presented disuades me from the opinion that you paint religious conservatives with a broad brush. You consider their beliefs irrational, and you therefore are inclined to believe them capable of irrational behavior in other matters.

Megatron
06-16-2007, 10:25 AM
I think CKB proved that some religious conservatives would act like he proposed. Mind you they are the real true blue nutters with no scientific objectivity in them. I think he made a mistake lumping all religious conservatives under one umbrella and Phinphan1227 showed that. Good work fellas, case dismissed.:D

ckb2001
06-16-2007, 01:34 PM
Non Ssequiter. I have explained this already. Any research which requires the use of an embryo, even a damaged one, might as well use a healthy one because once a therapy is derived, healthy embryo's would be needed in order to produce enough stem cells for production. That is the objection to that line of research. Again, it has ZERO bearing on research which is being done on ADULT skin cells.

Non-sequitur?? You gotta be kidding. Not only did I show you there are religious conservatives that object to embryonic stem cell research that doesn't even involve the creation or destruction of embryos, I showed you some religious conservatives have objections based on "tampering with the genome", which is EXACTLY what you do to reprogram adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells.

And again, that bolded part shows you don't understand altered nuclear transfer NEVER uses an embryo. That bolded part is simply wrong. You do NOT need an embryo to produce embryonic stem cells.

Point is, objections based on destruction of an embryo are only the starting point of objections many religious conservatives have, nothing more. You HAVE to wait and see what their reactions will be, NOT simply presuppose that the initial objections are their final objections like you are doing. I mean be honest here: do you really think you would have foreseen all the kinds of objections various religious conservatives have had towards altered nuclear transfer right when the technology came out? I doubt it. In fact, based on what you've written so far in this thread, I think you would have said altered nuclear transfer should be acceptable to religious conservatives since it NEVER involves an embryo (assuming you understood that). But, you see that would have been a faulty prediction. That's why you have to ASK and wait and see, not presuppose what the objections will be after new developments.



And the rest, quite honestly is just religious bigotry. Because the Catholic Church has behaved incorrectly at times over it's 1500 year history we should assume they will reverse themselves on this issue despite the fact that they are embracing it specifically BECAUSE it eliminates the destruction of an embryo or even embryonic tissue? I'm sorry CKB, but nothing you have presented disuades me from the opinion that you paint religious conservatives with a broad brush. You consider their beliefs irrational, and you therefore are inclined to believe them capable of irrational behavior in other matters.

Here you go with your baseless accusations again. WHERE in this thread is there ANY bigotry on my part? And where did I claim Catholics WILL reverse their position? Do you even read what I write? I stated clearly already that many prominent Catholics do NOT oppose altered nuclear transfer, meaning it's not news to claim many Catholics would not oppose this new technology.

And WHERE did I claim I don't think they can behave rationally? Man, baseless accusation after baseless accusation. I understand you're not winning this debate on the facts but to try to hit back with baseless accusations (this isn't the first time - you've done that multiple times in this thread) isn't worthy of respect.

ckb2001
06-16-2007, 01:37 PM
I think CKB proved that some religious conservatives would act like he proposed. Mind you they are the real true blue nutters with no scientific objectivity in them. I think he made a mistake lumping all religious conservatives under one umbrella and Phinphan1227 showed that. Good work fellas, case dismissed.:D

??

Where did I lump all religious conservatives under one umbrella? Not only have I stated "some" religious conservatives multiple times, my original post did NOT lump all of them into one group.

Here's the quote:

QUOTE:
"So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them..."
---------------------

That is NOT lumping all into one category!!

Megatron
06-16-2007, 01:40 PM
??

Where did I lump all religious conservatives under one umbrella? Not only have I stated "some" religious conservatives multiple times, my original post did NOT lump all of them into one group.

Here's the quote:

QUOTE:
"So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them..."
---------------------

That is NOT lumping all into one category!! Sorry my bad you are right there. Phinphan1227 is totally out to lunch.:wink:

PhinPhan1227
06-17-2007, 02:38 PM
??

Where did I lump all religious conservatives under one umbrella? Not only have I stated "some" religious conservatives multiple times, my original post did NOT lump all of them into one group.

Here's the quote:

QUOTE:
"So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them..."
---------------------

That is NOT lumping all into one category!!


You still haven't shown how MANY Conservatives concievably might be opposed to this sort of thing. And that is actually a key element here. What you fail to realize is that you could substitute "atheist liberals" with "religious conservatives" and STILL have been just as accurate....Because there are liberal groups who oppose animal research of ANY kind, many of whom are atheists.

Now, it doesn't matter apparently that a vanishingly small NUMBER of people actually hold this view. Because it is factually correct, I am fine with making a statement which most people will construe as painting the left with a broad brush. See, it works both ways CKB.

ckb2001
06-17-2007, 03:18 PM
You still haven't shown how MANY Conservatives concievably might be opposed to this sort of thing. And that is actually a key element here. What you fail to realize is that you could substitute "atheist liberals" with "religious conservatives" and STILL have been just as accurate....Because there are liberal groups who oppose animal research of ANY kind, many of whom are atheists.

Now, it doesn't matter apparently that a vanishingly small NUMBER of people actually hold this view. Because it is factually correct, I am fine with making a statement which most people will construe as painting the left with a broad brush. See, it works both ways CKB.

If one just wants a technically accurate sentence, that's true. However, it is religious conservatives that form the main political opposition to embryonic stem cell technologies of the past, not animal rights groups. The President's Council on Bioethics focuses on the kinds of critique religious conservatives (not any other major group) have given to various stem cell technologies. So, singling out that group was appropriate.

Also, before you claim it's a "vanishingly small number" you need evidence for that. I never went into how many or what percentage of religious conservatives oppose which technologies, just that there are many that have opposed various forms of embryonic stem cell research for reasons other destruction of the embryo. However, it IS telling that the President's Council on Bioethics lists all those kinds of objections. It's only circumstantial evidence, yes, but why list that many if it's just a "vanishingly small number" that have such objections?

PhinPhan1227
06-17-2007, 10:29 PM
If one just wants a technically accurate sentence, that's true. However, it is religious conservatives that form the main political opposition to embryonic stem cell technologies of the past, not animal rights groups. The President's Council on Bioethics focuses on the kinds of critique religious conservatives (not any other major group) have given to various stem cell technologies. So, singling out that group was appropriate.

Also, before you claim it's a "vanishingly small number" you need evidence for that. I never went into how many or what percentage of religious conservatives oppose which technologies, just that there are many that have opposed various forms of embryonic stem cell research for reasons other destruction of the embryo. However, it IS telling that the President's Council on Bioethics lists all those kinds of objections. It's only circumstantial evidence, yes, but why list that many if it's just a "vanishingly small number" that have such objections?

SOME religious Conservatives oppose SOME stem cell research. The fact remains that for the overwhelming majority, who object to embryonic stem cell research ONLY, this technology not only wouldn't be objectionable, it would be a BOON, to be used to deflect support FROM embryonic stem cell research that involves the use and/or destruction of an embryo.

The fact remains that the examples you gave for SOME conservatives who oppose other kinds of stem cell research carry no qualification of numbers. "Some Conservatives" covers everything from three people with a web site, to half the state of Texas.

And again, you are defelcting from the issue when you say that Conservatives are the group that has opposed stem cell research, because the OVERWHELMING majority of those conservatives ONLY opposed the destruction of the embryo for such research. That is evidenced by the FACT that those same Conservatives are the ones who voted to provide the funding for all OTHER kinds of stem cell research.

Bottom line, you picked out a VERY small group, who MIGHT be opposed to all kinds of stem cell research, and phrased yourself in such a way as to indirectly implicate the majority of religious conservatives. I offer as proof of that statement the fact that Megatron interpreted it that way as well the first time he read your post. I'd call that a "common man" proof.

As such, my statement would have the same validity as yours, which is patently ridiculous. You can find a group opposed to anything if you try hard enough. Unless they are representative of a larger group that might actually set policy however, why would you bother? Unless you are just trying to slam religious people again.

PhinPhan1227
06-17-2007, 10:59 PM
Here you go with your baseless accusations again. WHERE in this thread is there ANY bigotry on my part? And where did I claim Catholics WILL reverse their position? Do you even read what I write? I stated clearly already that many prominent Catholics do NOT oppose altered nuclear transfer, meaning it's not news to claim many Catholics would not oppose this new technology.

And WHERE did I claim I don't think they can behave rationally? Man, baseless accusation after baseless accusation. I understand you're not winning this debate on the facts but to try to hit back with baseless accusations (this isn't the first time - you've done that multiple times in this thread) isn't worthy of respect.

As I read your posts, a lot of religious bigotry comes through. I'm sure it's not intentional on your part, but bigotry often isn't. In fact, it often isn't even recognized by the individual perpetrating it. You posts come off portraying religious conservatives as irrational. Again, just because they oppose one kind of embryonic research, you make the leap that they would have a probability of opposing research which has nothing to do with their original opposition. To me, that demonstrates a lack of respect for their rationality.

Again, it's probably not intentional. Heck, I'd go so far as to say I'm sure it isn't. But I would also say that if ten religious conservatives read your original post, more than half of them would be offended. And I'm sorry, but bigotry is in the eye of the beholder.

ckb2001
06-17-2007, 11:09 PM
SOME religious Conservatives oppose SOME stem cell research. The fact remains that for the overwhelming majority, who object to embryonic stem cell research ONLY, this technology not only wouldn't be objectionable, it would be a BOON, to be used to deflect support FROM embryonic stem cell research that involves the use and/or destruction of an embryo.

The fact remains that the examples you gave for SOME conservatives who oppose other kinds of stem cell research carry no qualification of numbers. "Some Conservatives" covers everything from three people with a web site, to half the state of Texas.

And again, you are defelcting from the issue when you say that Conservatives are the group that has opposed stem cell research, because the OVERWHELMING majority of those conservatives ONLY opposed the destruction of the embryo for such research. That is evidenced by the FACT that those same Conservatives are the ones who voted to provide the funding for all OTHER kinds of stem cell research.

Bottom line, you picked out a VERY small group, who MIGHT be opposed to all kinds of stem cell research, and phrased yourself in such a way as to indirectly implicate the majority of religious conservatives. I offer as proof of that statement the fact that Megatron interpreted it that way as well the first time he read your post. I'd call that a "common man" proof.

As such, my statement would have the same validity as yours, which is patently ridiculous. You can find a group opposed to anything if you try hard enough. Unless they are representative of a larger group that might actually set policy however, why would you bother? Unless you are just trying to slam religious people again.

Megatron simply didn't read the initial quote. As you saw, when he did, he retracted his claim and saw that I did NOT implicate the majority of religious conservatives. So, neither from the actual meaning of that phrase nor from a "common man" proof did I implicate all religious conservatives. That's just your misreading of it (in fact, this entire debate is a result of that).

Now, it may be correct that we are talking about a relatively small number that would be opposed to this new development, but whatever the actual numbers (and you'll need data before you can show it's "vanishingly small"), their impact is sufficient that the President's Council on Bioethics actually listed many of their objections that do NOT involve destruction of embryos.

That's more important than actual numbers - the impact. So sure, your statement would be technically valid (I even stated as much), but it isn't relevant (the one on animal rights groups, that is). Singling out religious conservatives as the primary opposition, EVEN when no embryo is destroyed, IS appropriate - even the President's Council on Bioethics shows the arguments that remain deal with views derived from religion.

So, again, in summary, while the primary opposition to most embryonic stem cell technologies of the past are slowly being undercut by new developments, we have seen that doesn't eliminate politically important opposition in the past. Thus, it's best to ASK religious conservatives what they think of this new development instead of presupposing. Seriously, PhinPhan1227, what's the problem with that?

ckb2001
06-17-2007, 11:11 PM
As I read your posts, a lot of religious bigotry comes through. I'm sure it's not intentional on your part, but bigotry often isn't. In fact, it often isn't even recognized by the individual perpetrating it. You posts come off portraying religious conservatives as irrational. Again, just because they oppose one kind of embryonic research, you make the leap that they would have a probability of opposing research which has nothing to do with their original opposition. To me, that demonstrates a lack of respect for their rationality.

Again, it's probably not intentional. Heck, I'd go so far as to say I'm sure it isn't. But I would also say that if ten religious conservatives read your original post, more than half of them would be offended. And I'm sorry, but bigotry is in the eye of the beholder.

Show me the exact quotes that you consider a form of religious bigotry in this thread. As far as I know, I made none.

And I showed you there are religious conservatives that oppose previous embryonic stem cell technologies on grounds this new development did NOT nullify. That starts from changing the genome to how eggs are obtained to a slippery slope argument.

PhinPhan1227
06-17-2007, 11:31 PM
Show me the exact quotes that you consider a form of religious bigotry in this thread. As far as I know, I made none.

And I showed you there are religious conservatives that oppose previous embryonic stem cell technologies on grounds this new development did NOT nullify. That starts from changing the genome to how eggs are obtained to a slippery slope argument.

There are generally members of every group that actually DO typify the thoughts of any bigotry. Name me any stereotype and I assure you I can find members within that group that DO fit that stereotype. The problem comes when you expand that stereotype outwards to the larger groups.

And the exact quote is quite simple, it's the first post you made in this thread. I have already told you why I consider it bigoted. I have also told you that I think most religious conservatives, would agree with me. Again, I don't think that you intentionally made a bigoted comment. I do think however, from reading many of your posts, that you view reliogious conservativism as irrational. It is not surprising therefore that you would expand that view from the belief to the person. In fact, it's almost inescapable that you would do so. If I met someone from the Flat Earth Society, I would certainly think that person capable of a wide range of irrational behaviors.

PhinPhan1227
06-17-2007, 11:42 PM
Megatron simply didn't read the initial quote. As you saw, when he did, he retracted his claim and saw that I did NOT implicate the majority of religious conservatives. So, neither from the actual meaning of that phrase nor from a "common man" proof did I implicate all religious conservatives. That's just your misreading of it (in fact, this entire debate is a result of that).

Now, it may be correct that we are talking about a relatively small number that would be opposed to this new development, but whatever the actual numbers (and you'll need data before you can show it's "vanishingly small"), their impact is sufficient that the President's Council on Bioethics actually listed many of their objections that do NOT involve destruction of embryos.

That's more important than actual numbers - the impact. So sure, your statement would be technically valid (I even stated as much), but it isn't relevant (the one on animal rights groups, that is). Singling out religious conservatives as the primary opposition, EVEN when no embryo is destroyed, IS appropriate - even the President's Council on Bioethics shows the arguments that remain deal with views derived from religion.

So, again, in summary, while the primary opposition to most embryonic stem cell technologies of the past are slowly being undercut by new developments, we have seen that doesn't eliminate politically important opposition in the past. Thus, it's best to ASK religious conservatives what they think of this new development instead of presupposing. Seriously, PhinPhan1227, what's the problem with that?

Actually, we'll need a clarification from MEgatron, since he never stated whether he read the thread first or not. Either way, would you care to place a wager on how a religious conservative would read your initial post in most cases?

Now, since I don't have time or the internet speed to wade through 8 million pages of reports from the PCB, kindly elucidate on which issues of policy it outlines that attack stem cell research which does not involve embryo's in any way. If you can show me that adult stem cell research is being restricted, I will concede your point.

Until then, I'll ask YOU to point out where YOU asked religious conservatives what they thought. It seemed to me you were already TELLING them what they thought.

"So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them..."

Or was your "how does the ethical issue look now" meant as a serious request for the insight or the religious right? If so, the sincerity of the question was kind of watered down by the raging sarcasm and scorn of the following two sentences.

ckb2001
06-17-2007, 11:54 PM
There are generally members of every group that actually DO typify the thoughts of any bigotry. Name me any stereotype and I assure you I can find members within that group that DO fit that stereotype. The problem comes when you expand that stereotype outwards to the larger groups.

And the exact quote is quite simple, it's the first post you made in this thread. I have already told you why I consider it bigoted. I have also told you that I think most religious conservatives, would agree with me. Again, I don't think that you intentionally made a bigoted comment. I do think however, from reading many of your posts, that you view reliogious conservativism as irrational. It is not surprising therefore that you would expand that view from the belief to the person. In fact, it's almost inescapable that you would do so. If I met someone from the Flat Earth Society, I would certainly think that person capable of a wide range of irrational behaviors.

Yes, you told me why you consider the first quote to be bigoted. But, unless you've forgotten what I've written in this thread, I've shown you every objection you've had to that quote is a baseless accusation (except anything that's purely subjective). That's why I'm wondering what's left.

To recapitulate, first you thought I was actually assuming to know how religious conservatives would respond to this new technology. Well, obviously I didn't make such assumptions, since I asked that question. Second, you thought I was implicating all or almost all religious conservatives, and neither the actual meaning of those statements nor a "common man" proof shows I did.

Really, all that's left is stating that I dislike the reasons religious conservatives have given in opposing embryonic stem cell research in the past. If you consider the expression of such an opposing view a bigoted statement, well that's your decision (you're right in that what is "bigoted" is subjective), but then almost every statement you make disapproving of the views of any group would have to be considered by you to be "bigoted".

If you're consistent in that, then fine, but I doubt many others reading that first post of mine would consider it bigoted and I also doubt you're consistent in your use of that label if you really want to label what I wrote there as "bigoted".

In any case, you are correct in that there was no intention to make a bigoted statement, but I stand by saying that wasn't bigoted in the first place, just the expression of a disagreement of views I have with a group of religious conservatives.

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 12:16 AM
Actually, we'll need a clarification from MEgatron, since he never stated whether he read the thread first or not. Either way, would you care to place a wager on how a religious conservative would read your initial post in most cases?

Now, since I don't have time or the internet speed to wade through 8 million pages of reports from the PCB, kindly elucidate on which issues of policy it outlines that attack stem cell research which does not involve embryo's in any way. If you can show me that adult stem cell research is being restricted, I will concede your point.

Until then, I'll ask YOU to point out where YOU asked religious conservatives what they thought. It seemed to me you were already TELLING them what they thought.

"So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them..."

Or was your "how does the ethical issue look now" meant as a serious request for the insight or the religious right? If so, the sincerity of the question was kind of watered down by the raging sarcasm and scorn of the following two sentences.

Whether Megatron actually read the first post long time ago is obviously not relevant (he may have forgotten what he read). What's important is that once he was shown the first post specifically to determine whether I was implicating all religious conservatives, he said he was wrong in accusing me of that (and that you were wrong in doing so also by deduction). So, that's the "common man" proof.

And I would like to see how various religious conservatives would read that first post. But, they better be consistent in what label they apply to it. I mean if it's not consistent, then the response is meaningless (might mean there is some agenda in this particular case or there isn't sufficient consideration of the implications of a given label).

And to the final part, I already went over it. From a logical point of view, there is first of all no implication I know how religious conservatives will respond to this discovery, and the question I asked at the beginning was both serious and at the same time carried (in my mind) a message with it that I would disapprove if someone actually STILL objected after this new discovery. Whether that connotation was fully carried through I don't know, but it definitely is a question, precisely because I would never do what you're doing, and that is simply presuppose to know the objections a group of people will have once their initial objections are undercut. Like I said, people often only present the strongest arguments first - you have to ASK to see what remains.


Finally, for the nth time, altered nuclear transfer does NOT involve embryos!!

Here's the entire quote:
QUOTE:
"Under this heading are various proposals to construct a biological artifact, lacking the moral status of a human embryo, from which pluripotent stem cells could then be derived. For example, Council Member William Hurlbut has advocated what he calls “altered nuclear transfer” (ANT), a procedure that, if successful, would offer a way to produce pluripotent stem cells within “a limited cellular system that is biologically and morally akin to a complex tissue culture.”
..

ANT, the modified procedure proposed by Hurlbut, involves altering the somatic cell nucleus before its transfer to the oocyte, and in such a way that the resulting biological entity, while being a source of pluripotent stem cells, would lack the essential attributes and capacities of a human embryo. For example, the altered nucleus might be engineered to lack a gene or genes that are crucial for the cell-to-cell signaling and integrated organization essential for (normal) embryogenesis.21 It would therefore lack organized development from the very earliest stages of cell differentiation. Such an entity would be a “biological artifact,” not an organism. Removal of cells from, or even disaggregation of, this artifact would not be killing or harming, for there is no living being here to be killed or harmed. After extraction from this artifact, the cells could have the missing gene or genes reinserted, with a view to deriving “normal” pluripotent stem cells from them."
----------------------

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 01:40 AM
Whether Megatron actually read the first post long time ago is obviously not relevant (he may have forgotten what he read). What's important is that once he was shown the first post specifically to determine whether I was implicating all religious conservatives, he said he was wrong in accusing me of that (and that you were wrong in doing so also by deduction). So, that's the "common man" proof.

And I would like to see how various religious conservatives would read that first post. But, they better be consistent in what label they apply to it. I mean if it's not consistent, then the response is meaningless (might mean there is some agenda in this particular case or there isn't sufficient consideration of the implications of a given label).

And to the final part, I already went over it. From a logical point of view, there is first of all no implication I know how religious conservatives will respond to this discovery, and the question I asked at the beginning was both serious and at the same time carried (in my mind) a message with it that I would disapprove if someone actually STILL objected after this new discovery. Whether that connotation was fully carried through I don't know, but it definitely is a question, precisely because I would never do what you're doing, and that is simply presuppose to know the objections a group of people will have once their initial objections are undercut. Like I said, people often only present the strongest arguments first - you have to ASK to see what remains.


Finally, for the nth time, altered nuclear transfer does NOT involve embryos!!

Here's the entire quote:
QUOTE:
"Under this heading are various proposals to construct a biological artifact, lacking the moral status of a human embryo, from which pluripotent stem cells could then be derived. For example, Council Member William Hurlbut has advocated what he calls “altered nuclear transfer” (ANT), a procedure that, if successful, would offer a way to produce pluripotent stem cells within “a limited cellular system that is biologically and morally akin to a complex tissue culture.”
..

ANT, the modified procedure proposed by Hurlbut, involves altering the somatic cell nucleus before its transfer to the oocyte, and in such a way that the resulting biological entity, while being a source of pluripotent stem cells, would lack the essential attributes and capacities of a human embryo. For example, the altered nucleus might be engineered to lack a gene or genes that are crucial for the cell-to-cell signaling and integrated organization essential for (normal) embryogenesis.21 It would therefore lack organized development from the very earliest stages of cell differentiation. Such an entity would be a “biological artifact,” not an organism. Removal of cells from, or even disaggregation of, this artifact would not be killing or harming, for there is no living being here to be killed or harmed. After extraction from this artifact, the cells could have the missing gene or genes reinserted, with a view to deriving “normal” pluripotent stem cells from them."
----------------------


So, does that whole rigamarole mean that you won't, or can't produce the relevent portions of the PCB which outline prevention of fudning for research which involves adult stem cell research, versus embryonic stem cell research?

It was a simple question, no?

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 01:54 AM
Yes, you told me why you consider the first quote to be bigoted. But, unless you've forgotten what I've written in this thread, I've shown you every objection you've had to that quote is a baseless accusation (except anything that's purely subjective). That's why I'm wondering what's left.

To recapitulate, first you thought I was actually assuming to know how religious conservatives would respond to this new technology. Well, obviously I didn't make such assumptions, since I asked that question. Second, you thought I was implicating all or almost all religious conservatives, and neither the actual meaning of those statements nor a "common man" proof shows I did.

Really, all that's left is stating that I dislike the reasons religious conservatives have given in opposing embryonic stem cell research in the past. If you consider the expression of such an opposing view a bigoted statement, well that's your decision (you're right in that what is "bigoted" is subjective), but then almost every statement you make disapproving of the views of any group would have to be considered by you to be "bigoted".

If you're consistent in that, then fine, but I doubt many others reading that first post of mine would consider it bigoted and I also doubt you're consistent in your use of that label if you really want to label what I wrote there as "bigoted".

In any case, you are correct in that there was no intention to make a bigoted statement, but I stand by saying that wasn't bigoted in the first place, just the expression of a disagreement of views I have with a group of religious conservatives.

Bigotry is almost always purely subjective. If you consider Italians to be "shifty", is there really an objective way to deny that view? And all your qualifications in following posts notwhistanding(an excuse you have fallen back on in numerous threads), it is the first post which is most revealing because it is that post which was emotive, rather than merely explanatory.

You felt the need to point out the travesty that there are religious conservatives who are opposed to technology which can save lives. You didn't feel the need to point out the travesty that there are non religious liberals who also oppose technology that can save lives. This despite the fact that as far as either of us knows, there are an identical number of such believers on both sides of the issue. That says bigotry to me.

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 02:33 PM
So, does that whole rigamarole mean that you won't, or can't produce the relevent portions of the PCB which outline prevention of fudning for research which involves adult stem cell research, versus embryonic stem cell research?

It was a simple question, no?

Your question was irrelevant as I explained long time ago. This new development IS embryonic stem cell research. It's not the origin of the cells that matter, it's the type of cell created that matters as you can see from the kinds of opposition that still existed after altered nuclear transfer. Altered nuclear transfer NEVER involves an embryo, yet creates something that is still objectionable. So, even if you start from adult stem cells, if you create something similar to what altered nuclear transfer creates, it stands to reason the objections will remain. Of course, what is created in this new development is different from what is created in altered nuclear transfer, but the point is both technologies create a substrate from which one can derive embryonic stem cells that don't involve embryos. That's why one can't presuppose what the objections could still be.

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 02:40 PM
Bigotry is almost always purely subjective. If you consider Italians to be "shifty", is there really an objective way to deny that view? And all your qualifications in following posts notwhistanding(an excuse you have fallen back on in numerous threads), it is the first post which is most revealing because it is that post which was emotive, rather than merely explanatory.

You felt the need to point out the travesty that there are religious conservatives who are opposed to technology which can save lives. You didn't feel the need to point out the travesty that there are non religious liberals who also oppose technology that can save lives. This despite the fact that as far as either of us knows, there are an identical number of such believers on both sides of the issue. That says bigotry to me.

It's not practical to list all possible sources of objections in such a scenario. I merely listed the one that's most relevant (especially from a policy-making point of view): that from religious conservatives. And I don't see anyone else objecting to my first post other than you.

By the way, as far as actual stats on what reasons people have for objecting to embryonic stem cell research, 57% of those opposed do so on religious grounds:
http://www.missouricures.com/documents/Research%20AmericaPressRelease070705.pdf

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 03:14 PM
Your question was irrelevant as I explained long time ago. This new development IS embryonic stem cell research. It's not the origin of the cells that matter, it's the type of cell created that matters as you can see from the kinds of opposition that still existed after altered nuclear transfer. Altered nuclear transfer NEVER involves an embryo, yet creates something that is still objectionable. So, even if you start from adult stem cells, if you create something similar to what altered nuclear transfer creates, it stands to reason the objections will remain. Of course, what is created in this new development is different from what is created in altered nuclear transfer, but the point is both technologies create a substrate from which one can derive embryonic stem cells that don't involve embryos. That's why one can't presuppose what the objections could still be.


Oh sweet Jesus. You site the PCB as an example of a small group of religious conservatives keeping THIS kind of research from being done, and then you can't give the PART of the PCB which is relevent? Put up or shut up CKB. Either it did or it didn't. Because if you are going to say that these people are influencing policy, than SHOW us the policy. Show us the RELEVENT policy.

The fact that YOU think it's embryonic research aside, it is what THEY think it is that matters if you are discussing what THEY object to. Why can't you get that through your head?

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 03:36 PM
Oh sweet Jesus. You site the PCB as an example of a small group of religious conservatives keeping THIS kind of research from being done, and then you can't give the PART of the PCB which is relevent? Put up or shut up CKB. Either it did or it didn't. Because if you are going to say that these people are influencing policy, than SHOW us the policy. Show us the RELEVENT policy.

The fact that YOU think it's embryonic research aside, it is what THEY think it is that matters if you are discussing what THEY object to. Why can't you get that through your head?

Read before you accuse. Look at post #55. I showed you a list of objections to altered nuclear transfer the PCB considered important enough to list, and a good number have nothing to do with destruction of embryos. And THEY list altered nuclear transfer under "embryonic stem cell research". There is no dual definition here.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 03:42 PM
It's not practical to list all possible sources of objections in such a scenario. I merely listed the one that's most relevant (especially from a policy-making point of view): that from religious conservatives. And I don't see anyone else objecting to my first post other than you.

By the way, as far as actual stats on what reasons people have for objecting to embryonic stem cell research, 57% of those opposed do so on religious grounds:
http://www.missouricures.com/documents/Research%20AmericaPressRelease070705.pdf


Interesting. I didn't realize that 43% of people would have secular objections to stem cell research. A much bigger number than I would have anticipated.

Now, what you fail to notice is that you didn't need to point out any objections to this new research at all. In fact, considering that the single biggest source of objections to embryonic stem cell research(Catholic Church) is already behind this development, you COULD have pointed out the positive aspects. You could have pointed out the strong likelihood that religious conservatives will get behind this technology as a way to END the destruction of embryo's. In fact, that seems to be the gist of every article I have read on the subject. They all saw the promise of this research in ENDING the conflict, you saw it as a way it might somehow escalate. That's the bigotry.

As for why nobody else is objecting, it's been my observation that when you and I go round and round, most people just tend to avoid it. :wink: I think they just want it to "go away".

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 03:51 PM
Interesting. I didn't realize that 43% of people would have secular objections to stem cell research. A much bigger number than I would have anticipated.

Now, what you fail to notice is that you didn't need to point out any objections to this new research at all. In fact, considering that the single biggest source of objections to embryonic stem cell research(Catholic Church) is already behind this development, you COULD have pointed out the positive aspects. You could have pointed out the strong likelihood that religious conservatives will get behind this technology as a way to END the destruction of embryo's. In fact, that seems to be the gist of every article I have read on the subject. They all saw the promise of this research in ENDING the conflict, you saw it as a way it might somehow escalate. That's the bigotry.

As for why nobody else is objecting, it's been my observation that when you and I go round and round, most people just tend to avoid it. :wink: I think they just want it to "go away".

:lol: Interesting theory (last part). Well, it's also an interesting discussion so this isn't going away that quickly :)

Anyway, it's true I could have pointed out positive aspects (I did a very tiny bit though regarding Catholics), but I'm not going to write a "comprehensive" editorial, especially when there are too many negative aspects to mention. Let's keep in mind that both the idea of taking cells from a morula and ANT (and even a dead embryo) are still technologies that are new and need to be fully developed. Opposition to using embryos in and of itself is something I'd label a travesty, precisely because of the number of peoples' lives that could be saved as a result of that research (however long it takes, there is a difference in delay).

So, the negative far outweighs the positive here (meaning regarding conservative religious views of embryonic stem cell research in general), at least in my mind.

But, the short answer as to why I didn't go into something I didn't go into is because I'm having to defend myself against many accusations, a good number of which turned out to be baseless.

And as far as opposition to this new development, well as I said before, it's probably a bit early to see exactly what kind of opposition (if any) remains to this new development. When we get close to considering policy issues related to this new discovery (now that it's actually been made and is not hypothetical), we'll see what happens.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 04:02 PM
Read before you accuse. Look at post #55. I showed you a list of objections to altered nuclear transfer the PCB considered important enough to list, and a good number have nothing to do with destruction of embryos. And THEY list altered nuclear transfer under "embryonic stem cell research". There is no dual definition here.

They listed ALL the pro's and cons of all those areas of research in that paper. You also left out this tidbit...

"If the biological artifacts created and destroyed under this proposal were persuasively shown not to be human embryos, the proposal would presumably be deemed consistent with the Dickey Amendment and therefore eligible for federal funding."

So in fact, NO, those objections would NOT set policy, because as you have REPEATEDLY demonstrated, this technology does not in any way, shape, or form involve the creation, destruction, or use of a human embryo. And in point of fact, that paper shows that while there might be objections on any number of grounds, if the researchers were correct, those objections would be overcome.

It's funny that you left that paragraph out CKB.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 04:11 PM
:lol: Interesting theory (last part). Well, it's also an interesting discussion so this isn't going away that quickly :)

Anyway, it's true I could have pointed out positive aspects (I did a very tiny bit though regarding Catholics), but I'm not going to write a "comprehensive" editorial, especially when there are too many negative aspects to mention. Let's keep in mind that both the idea of taking cells from a morula and ANT (and even a dead embryo) are still technologies that are new and need to be fully developed. Opposition to using embryos in and of itself is something I'd label a travesty, precisely because of the number of peoples' lives that could be saved as a result of that research (however long it takes, there is a difference in delay).

So, the negative far outweighs the positive here (meaning regarding conservative religious views of embryonic stem cell research in general), at least in my mind.

But, the short answer as to why I didn't go into something I didn't go into is because I'm having to defend myself against many accusations, a good number of which turned out to be baseless.

And as far as opposition to this new development, well as I said before, it's probably a bit early to see exactly what kind of opposition (if any) remains to this new development. When we get close to considering policy issues related to this new discovery (now that it's actually been made and is not hypothetical), we'll see what happens.

No...no, no, no, no. The issue here is why you went negative in the first place. I'm not concerned with what you thought to include in post #457, I'm concerned with what direction you took in post #1. Because again, that is the "snapshot" post that reveals more than the more carefully thought out follow up posts.

Again, here you have a development which every report I have viewed sees as a bridge to ELIMINATE strife, and you viewed it as the opposite. Even the report you sited, the dryest and most "scientific" of all the reports I could find, had this line...

"The finding also is significant in that this new technique could potentially replace a controversial method used to reprogram cells, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), sometimes referred to “therapeutic cloning.” To date, SCNT has not been done successfully in human cells. "

Note, they didn't mention that it could exacerbate controversy, it could REPLACE the controversial method. Again, why is it that every article on this discovery is greeted with optimism by everyone but you? That is the question that needs to be answered. Why did they all see it as a point of hope, while you saw it as a point of worry?

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 04:17 PM
They listed ALL the pro's and cons of all those areas of research in that paper. You also left out this tidbit...

"If the biological artifacts created and destroyed under this proposal were persuasively shown not to be human embryos, the proposal would presumably be deemed consistent with the Dickey Amendment and therefore eligible for federal funding."

So in fact, NO, those objections would NOT set policy, because as you have REPEATEDLY demonstrated, this technology does not in any way, shape, or form involve the creation, destruction, or use of a human embryo. And in point of fact, that paper shows that while there might be objections on any number of grounds, if the researchers were correct, those objections would be overcome.

It's funny that you left that paragraph out CKB.

Nice.. you yourself left out what came after that:

QUOTE:
"Whether the President’s policy and budget for federal funding of stem cell research would—or should—be expanded to support research on ANT or other biological artifacts (even in animals) is a question whose answer will depend not only on the issue of legal eligibility but also on the assessment of other ethical, scientific, and prudential considerations of the sort we have just discussed."
-------------------

Those "other ethical consideration of the sort just discussed" are EXACTLY what I put in post #55. Post #55 contained the relevant quotes. So, no it's not clear there would be no opposition to altered nuclear transfer UNTIL those other ethical issues are resolved, proving my point.

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 04:20 PM
No...no, no, no, no. The issue here is why you went negative in the first place. I'm not concerned with what you thought to include in post #457, I'm concerned with what direction you took in post #1. Because again, that is the "snapshot" post that reveals more than the more carefully thought out follow up posts.

Again, here you have a development which every report I have viewed sees as a bridge to ELIMINATE strife, and you viewed it as the opposite. Even the report you sited, the dryest and most "scientific" of all the reports I could find, had this line...

"The finding also is significant in that this new technique could potentially replace a controversial method used to reprogram cells, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), sometimes referred to “therapeutic cloning.” To date, SCNT has not been done successfully in human cells. "

Note, they didn't mention that it could exacerbate controversy, it could REPLACE the controversial method. Again, why is it that every article on this discovery is greeted with optimism by everyone but you? That is the question that needs to be answered. Why did they all see it as a point of hope, while you saw it as a point of worry?

Think logically when referring to something that aims to present something that is logically valid. First, it says "replace A controversial method", which you wrongly stated afterwards as "THE controversial method". Second, just because it replaces one controversial method does NOT imply the new method isn't controversial anymore!!

That's obvious. And there is NO question this is a point of hope. Nothing in what I stated suggests otherwise. In fact that first post of mine even suggests we have removed (at least) ONE obstacle. The question is what is left?

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 05:14 PM
Think logically when referring to something that aims to present something that is logically valid. First, it says "replace A controversial method", which you wrongly stated afterwards as "THE controversial method". Second, just because it replaces one controversial method does NOT imply the new method isn't controversial anymore!!

That's obvious. And there is NO question this is a point of hope. Nothing in what I stated suggests otherwise. In fact that first post of mine even suggests we have removed (at least) ONE obstacle. The question is what is left?


Oh come on CKB. Why would you mention replacing a method as controversial if the method you were replacing was equally controversial? That doesn't make any sense!

And I'm sorry, but your initial post did NOT imply hope. It took the time to attack a group of people.

"So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them..."

I'm sorry, but sarcasm and scorn does not bespeak "hope" to me.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 05:17 PM
Nice.. you yourself left out what came after that:

QUOTE:
"Whether the President’s policy and budget for federal funding of stem cell research would—or should—be expanded to support research on ANT or other biological artifacts (even in animals) is a question whose answer will depend not only on the issue of legal eligibility but also on the assessment of other ethical, scientific, and prudential considerations of the sort we have just discussed."
-------------------

Those "other ethical consideration of the sort just discussed" are EXACTLY what I put in post #55. Post #55 contained the relevant quotes. So, no it's not clear there would be no opposition to altered nuclear transfer UNTIL those other ethical issues are resolved, proving my point.


Exactly, they will be considered. And? Where does it say that they are anything more than a single, small element in a much larger puzzle? Where does it say that any funding is being denied because of the views of a very small percentage?

Bottom line, those same religious conservatives ARE funding stem cell research. And since THIS research originates with adult stem cells, the funding is ALREADY there for it.

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 05:36 PM
Oh come on CKB. Why would you mention replacing a method as controversial if the method you were replacing was equally controversial? That doesn't make any sense!

And I'm sorry, but your initial post did NOT imply hope. It took the time to attack a group of people.

"So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them..."

I'm sorry, but sarcasm and scorn does not bespeak "hope" to me.

The first question asking how the ethical issue looks now is only worth asking once a development has occurred that might change things (what you might call "hope"). Of course, the rest has sarcasm and scorn in it, but there's no question this new development might change the kinds of opposition left. The difference between you and me is that I'm willing to ask to see what kind of opposition is left instead of presupposing.

And as for the first paragraph, first of all note I never said "equally controversial" - that's your spin on what I said. I said this:

QUOTE:
"..just because it replaces one controversial method does NOT imply the new method isn't controversial anymore"
------------

All I did was show you that the quote you presented doesn't imply there won't be anymore controversy. So far, you're the only one here assuming to know what the opposition will think. And you'll note that even the quote from the article you provided says: "could potentially replace" in it, which justifies what I said.

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 05:41 PM
Exactly, they will be considered. And? Where does it say that they are anything more than a single, small element in a much larger puzzle? Where does it say that any funding is being denied because of the views of a very small percentage?

Bottom line, those same religious conservatives ARE funding stem cell research. And since THIS research originates with adult stem cells, the funding is ALREADY there for it.

I never talked about what was actually being funded or not. I said "politically important opposition", meaning something that is taken into account in determining whether to fund it or not (I mean the opposition might lose, but that doesn't mean it didn't stall things).

And obviously, when a new discovery emerges, the question of whether to continue funding is the key point. It makes no sense to say there will be no opposition to a new discovery that no one could have fully taken into account just because funding already existed for what produced that discovery.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 11:24 PM
The first question asking how the ethical issue looks now is only worth asking once a development has occurred that might change things (what you might call "hope"). Of course, the rest has sarcasm and scorn in it, but there's no question this new development might change the kinds of opposition left. The difference between you and me is that I'm willing to ask to see what kind of opposition is left instead of presupposing.

And as for the first paragraph, first of all note I never said "equally controversial" - that's your spin on what I said. I said this:

QUOTE:
"..just because it replaces one controversial method does NOT imply the new method isn't controversial anymore"
------------

All I did was show you that the quote you presented doesn't imply there won't be anymore controversy. So far, you're the only one here assuming to know what the opposition will think. And you'll note that even the quote from the article you provided says: "could potentially replace" in it, which justifies what I said.


The difference between you and everyone else who reported on this development is that you were the only one who went negative with it, where everyone else went positive.

And again, WHY would you point out that a controversial method was being replaced unless you are implying that the new method would either be non-controversial, or at least drastically LESS controversial? There's no reason to point it OUT otherwise.

You're reaching here CKB, badly.

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 11:30 PM
The difference between you and everyone else who reported on this development is that you were the only one who went negative with it, where everyone else went positive.

And again, WHY would you point out that a controversial method was being replaced unless you are implying that the new method would either be non-controversial, or at least drastically LESS controversial? There's no reason to point it OUT otherwise.

You're reaching here CKB, badly.

PhinPhan1227, I did NOT go negative on this. There is nothing I've said that suggests I think this was not a positive development. But, I will not do what you do in simply presupposing this new development will end opposition from the religious right.

And I never implied this wasn't LESS controversial. It was your spin on what I said that suggested I implied it wasn't. Of course it's less controversial. But, there's no evidence to suggest your view that ALL opposition from religious conservatives will cease is true.

Please.. try not to win a debate by acting like I said or implied something I didn't.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 11:33 PM
I never talked about what was actually being funded or not. I said "politically important opposition", meaning something that is taken into account in determining whether to fund it or not (I mean the opposition might lose, but that doesn't mean it didn't stall things).

And obviously, when a new discovery emerges, the question of whether to continue funding is the key point. It makes no sense to say there will be no opposition to a new discovery that no one could have fully taken into account just because funding already existed for what produced that discovery.

It's the effect that matters, and the effect is the funding. To date the ONLY stem cell research which hasn't been funded has been that research which requires the destruction of an embryo. To ignore that history, and that stated policy is intellectual dishonesty. It also implies a certain irrationality on the part of the decision makers because you are saying that despite everything that has been done in the past, there is no predictability of their future actions based on their past actions.

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 11:43 PM
It's the effect that matters, and the effect is the funding. To date the ONLY stem cell research which hasn't been funded has been that research which requires the destruction of an embryo. To ignore that history, and that stated policy is intellectual dishonesty. It also implies a certain irrationality on the part of the decision makers because you are saying that despite everything that has been done in the past, there is no predictability of their future actions based on their past actions.

Actually, I don't think there is any federal funding for altered nuclear transfer yet, so that would be an example of embryonic stem cell research that doesn't destroy an embryo that isn't funded by the government (I'm assuming that by "funded" you meant funding from the federal government). And the reason I say that is because no new embryonic stem-cell lines have been approved for federal funding since ANT was proposed.

But, that's really beside the point when looking at new technologies. This isn't about what gets funded. This is about what kinds of opposition are considered important by policy makers. As I just explained, if you only go by what is funded and not by what the important opposition is, then you are only going by who "won out", and that's not the kind of representative data one needs to look at to support or refute the argument I've been making. I'm talking about opposition, not funding.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 11:48 PM
PhinPhan1227, I did NOT go negative on this. There is nothing I've said that suggests I think this was not a positive development. But, I will not do what you do in simply presupposing this new development will end opposition from the religious right.

And I never implied this wasn't LESS controversial. It was your spin on what I said that suggested I implied it wasn't. Of course it's less controversial. But, there's no evidence to suggest your view that ALL opposition from religious conservatives will cease is true.

Please.. try not to win a debate by acting like I said or implied something I didn't.


You didn't go negative on this? Are you kidding? Your original post consisted of three sentences.

So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them...

First sentence is neutral, but could be seen as mildly positive. The next two sentences are scathing and sarcastic in turn. How in the WORLD do you not view that as a negative comment overall?

ckb2001
06-18-2007, 11:50 PM
You didn't go negative on this? Are you kidding? Your original post consisted of three sentences.

So how does the ethical issue look now? Of course, I'm far more interested in the benefits for medicine, and it's a travesty there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives. Of course, it's convenient those lives saved are in the future where we can't see them...

First sentence is neutral, but could be seen as mildly positive. The next two sentences are scathing and sarcastic in turn. How in the WORLD do you not view that as a negative comment overall?

It is a negative comment on the type of opposition many religious conservatives have given, NOT negative on this new development!! There's a difference.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 11:55 PM
Actually, I don't think there is any federal funding for altered nuclear transfer yet, so that would be an example of embryonic stem cell research that doesn't destroy an embryo that isn't funded by the government (I'm assuming that by "funded" you meant funding from the federal government). And the reason I say that is because no new embryonic stem-cell lines have been approved for federal funding since ANT was proposed.

But, that's really beside the point when looking at new technologies. This isn't about what gets funded. This is about what kinds of opposition are considered important by policy makers. As I just explained, if you only go by what is funded and not by what the important opposition is, then you are only going by who "won out", and that's not the kind of representative data one needs to look at to support or refute the argument I've been making. I'm talking about opposition, not funding.

And the only opposition worth talking about is SIGNIFICANT opposition. Because there is opposition to everything. And the only way I can see to measure significant opposition is funding. Either it gets the money or it doesn't. Again, PETA is a big organization, and they HAVE been responsible for slowing the progress of research in the past by opposing the use of animals. But again, you didn't see the need to highlight their role. So, for this discussion, you have to fall back on the funding. And again, since adult stem cell research has received funding, there's simply no rational reason to think that THIS adult stem cell research would not ALSO receive funding.

PhinPhan1227
06-18-2007, 11:58 PM
It is a negative comment on the type of opposition many religious conservatives have given, NOT negative on this new development!! There's a difference.


It's negative about how this new development will be GREETED. And THAT is the issue. Everyone else took the view that it would be viewed positively. YOU took the stance that it had a solid chance to be greeted negatively. That's the difference. Everyone else took into account the reasons for the vast majority of the opposition to current embryonic stem cell research, you chose to ignore them.

ckb2001
06-19-2007, 12:24 AM
And the only opposition worth talking about is SIGNIFICANT opposition. Because there is opposition to everything. And the only way I can see to measure significant opposition is funding. Either it gets the money or it doesn't. Again, PETA is a big organization, and they HAVE been responsible for slowing the progress of research in the past by opposing the use of animals. But again, you didn't see the need to highlight their role. So, for this discussion, you have to fall back on the funding. And again, since adult stem cell research has received funding, there's simply no rational reason to think that THIS adult stem cell research would not ALSO receive funding.

This new development is NOT adult stem cell research. This new development IS embryonic stem cell research, both in the minds of scientists and according to the PCB and to religious conservatives. There is no dual definition, so you can't use funding for adult stem cell research as a counter-example.

And while you're right that funding is the end effect and is ultimately more important than opposition, it is NOT (necessarily) important for justifying the initial argument I gave. I was talking about opposition, not necessarily funding.

As to PETA, show me where they (as an organization) oppose embryonic stem cell research. They support it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals

"PETA's support for embryonic stem cell research primarily because has "the potential to end the vast majority of animal testing" has come under attack as being self-contradictory to its position, that all species are equal, since it puts one animal species (humans) to be "preferentially sacrificed to save another" and that PETA exhalts "animal life in trivial ways, while simultaneously devaluing human life to the point where it’s worthless."
-------------------

Either way, the most relevant opposition groups consist of religious conservatives.

ckb2001
06-19-2007, 12:48 AM
It's negative about how this new development will be GREETED. And THAT is the issue. Everyone else took the view that it would be viewed positively. YOU took the stance that it had a solid chance to be greeted negatively. That's the difference. Everyone else took into account the reasons for the vast majority of the opposition to current embryonic stem cell research, you chose to ignore them.

No, I took a neutral position on this new development, hedging my bets by ASKING how people would perceive it. What I view negatively are responses given in the past.

PhinPhan1227
06-19-2007, 03:21 PM
This new development is NOT adult stem cell research. This new development IS embryonic stem cell research, both in the minds of scientists and according to the PCB and to religious conservatives. There is no dual definition, so you can't use funding for adult stem cell research as a counter-example.

And while you're right that funding is the end effect and is ultimately more important than opposition, it is NOT (necessarily) important for justifying the initial argument I gave. I was talking about opposition, not necessarily funding.

As to PETA, show me where they (as an organization) oppose embryonic stem cell research. They support it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals

"PETA's support for embryonic stem cell research primarily because has "the potential to end the vast majority of animal testing" has come under attack as being self-contradictory to its position, that all species are equal, since it puts one animal species (humans) to be "preferentially sacrificed to save another" and that PETA exhalts "animal life in trivial ways, while simultaneously devaluing human life to the point where it’s worthless."
-------------------

Either way, the most relevant opposition groups consist of religious conservatives.


PETA opposes animal research. THIS research to date is only being conducted on animals. They support stem cell research because they support the technollogy while it involves human embryo's.

And when the technology originates with adult cells, it is adult stem cell research, from an ethical standpoint.

Megatron
06-19-2007, 03:27 PM
Do I get free refills on this popcorn?:jt0323:

PhinPhan1227
06-19-2007, 03:39 PM
No, I took a neutral position on this new development, hedging my bets by ASKING how people would perceive it. What I view negatively are responses given in the past.

As I said, bigotry rarely seems like such to the person perpetrating it.

ckb2001
06-19-2007, 07:10 PM
PETA opposes animal research. THIS research to date is only being conducted on animals. They support stem cell research because they support the technollogy while it involves human embryo's.

And when the technology originates with adult cells, it is adult stem cell research, from an ethical standpoint.

This new development is considered a form of embryonic stem cell research even by those that are debating its ethical issues. From long time ago, the idea of reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells fell under embryonic stem cell research, NOT adult stem cell research.

You don't make the definitions PhinPhan1227, and so far, scientists, the President's Council on Bioethics and religious conservatives all consider the cells created as embryonic stem cells and reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells as a form of embryonic stem cell technology.


And as far as PETA is concerned, since they do support embryonic stem cell technology, it's a moot point to ask me to include them in a few sentences aimed at the most representative group of people opposing embryonic stem cell research: religious conservatives.

ckb2001
06-19-2007, 07:17 PM
As I said, bigotry rarely seems like such to the person perpetrating it.

I didn't see anyone else in this thread consider what I said a form of bigotry. In fact, most that responded agreed with it.

You want to consider it a bigoted statement, fine, but be consistent in that. Next time you voice your displeasure about any group's prior actions, well I'll know to point out to you you're being a bigot then. How many times have you criticized actions of say the Democrats (or even Republicans) in a manner not too dissimilar from what I said? Lots.. That's bigotry? Yeah, right..

No, I think you're just trying to find SOMETHING to critique me on, since all the critiques you've made so far that can be tested for accuracy have been shown not to be based on fact (like the dual definitions thing or the plethora of unsubstantiated accusations, etc..). But, of course I can't test your claim what I said was a "bigoted" statement since that's subjective. By the way, since it IS subjective, that in principle nullifies what you said above, since there is no objective label of "bigotry" you can give to a statement.

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2007, 03:48 PM
I didn't see anyone else in this thread consider what I said a form of bigotry. In fact, most that responded agreed with it.

You want to consider it a bigoted statement, fine, but be consistent in that. Next time you voice your displeasure about any group's prior actions, well I'll know to point out to you you're being a bigot then. How many times have you criticized actions of say the Democrats (or even Republicans) in a manner not too dissimilar from what I said? Lots.. That's bigotry? Yeah, right..

No, I think you're just trying to find SOMETHING to critique me on, since all the critiques you've made so far that can be tested for accuracy have been shown not to be based on fact (like the dual definitions thing or the plethora of unsubstantiated accusations, etc..). But, of course I can't test your claim what I said was a "bigoted" statement since that's subjective. By the way, since it IS subjective, that in principle nullifies what you said above, since there is no objective label of "bigotry" you can give to a statement.

If my views on any issue or group are hopelessly one sided, than I would expect to be called a bigot in that matter. As you have pointed out though, I critique both Republicans and Democrats. I've debated against Christianity as often as I've debated for it(just ask Dolphin7). I have no doubt that there are things which I am bigoted against, and I have no problem with people honestly pointing those things out to me. In fact, in instances where I am unaware of my bigotry, I welcome it. Again, so long as it is honestly presented.

The difference CKB, which I'm not terribly surprised you've failed to notice, is that you don't see both sides of the religious issue. You consider it a bunch of irrational beliefs. And when that feeling translates to the holders of those beliefs, we see the bigotry. Again, it's understandable. If you believe that peopel hold irrational beliefs, how can you not also view them as irrational?

Now, as to who has responded in this thread, I'll have to look back, but I believe that for the most part it has been folks who share your general view of religion, if not exactly to the extent in which you hold your particular beliefs. So it's not very surprising either that they haven't spoken out against you.

Lastly, as for bigotry being subjective, you're correct, there isn't an objective label that can be applied(pretty much the DEFINITION of subjective, isn't it?:lol:). But that doesn't nullify the validity of the a term being bigoted. The "N" word is subjectively bigoted as well. It's not insulting in and of itself to most of the people on the planet. It's only when put in the context of who is saying it to whom that it becomes offensive.

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2007, 03:55 PM
This new development is considered a form of embryonic stem cell research even by those that are debating its ethical issues. From long time ago, the idea of reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells fell under embryonic stem cell research, NOT adult stem cell research.

You don't make the definitions PhinPhan1227, and so far, scientists, the President's Council on Bioethics and religious conservatives all consider the cells created as embryonic stem cells and reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells as a form of embryonic stem cell technology.


And as far as PETA is concerned, since they do support embryonic stem cell technology, it's a moot point to ask me to include them in a few sentences aimed at the most representative group of people opposing embryonic stem cell research: religious conservatives.


Again, for the nth time, for those who oppose embryonic stem cell research because of the ORIGINS of those stem cells, and the method of obtaining them, the ORIGIN of these new stem cells is what matters. And those cells came from an adult. It's incredibly simple.

Oh, and again, PETA endorses CURRENT methods of stem cell research. The current methods involve HUMANS. This method so far involves animals. Thus, they would oppose it according to their charter and past behaviors. And again PETA has been responsible for policy changes in Washington.

ckb2001
06-20-2007, 04:53 PM
Again, for the nth time, for those who oppose embryonic stem cell research because of the ORIGINS of those stem cells, and the method of obtaining them, the ORIGIN of these new stem cells is what matters. And those cells came from an adult. It's incredibly simple.

Yeah, but just because there are some religious conservatives that will be placated because of the origins problem, that still leaves those that have shown opposition to embryonic stem cell research where the origin of the cells is not an embryo and where no embryo was created or destroyed.

That's the essential point that supports what I've been saying, namely that it's better to ask what kind of opposition is left.



Oh, and again, PETA endorses CURRENT methods of stem cell research. The current methods involve HUMANS. This method so far involves animals. Thus, they would oppose it according to their charter and past behaviors. And again PETA has been responsible for policy changes in Washington.

As I understand it, PETA is NOT against embryonic stem cell research or adult stem cell research regardless of whether those cells are taken from humans or not (a lot of stem cell research today involves taking cells from animals, and I've never seen PETA object).

They seem to differentiate between testing on animals (as in organisms usually well past the fetus stage) and on individual cells taken from animals (never seen an objection there, but if you find such objections I'll reconsider).

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2007, 06:52 PM
Yeah, but just because there are some religious conservatives that will be placated because of the origins problem, that still leaves those that have shown opposition to embryonic stem cell research where the origin of the cells is not an embryo and where no embryo was created or destroyed.

That's the essential point that supports what I've been saying, namely that it's better to ask what kind of opposition is left.



As I understand it, PETA is NOT against embryonic stem cell research or adult stem cell research regardless of whether those cells are taken from humans or not (a lot of stem cell research today involves taking cells from animals, and I've never seen PETA object).

They seem to differentiate between testing on animals (as in organisms usually well past the fetus stage) and on individual cells taken from animals (never seen an objection there, but if you find such objections I'll reconsider).

Again, you misrepresent. MOST of the opposition that has been shown has been to research which involves the destruction of an embryo. In fact the VAST majority of the opposition. This is evidenced by the fact that it is the only technology which keeps getting vetoed over and over for Federal Funding. The opposition that is left has so far not been effective in denying funding or pushing legistlation to outlaw, the other kinds of research you are describing. Therefore, their influence is negligible.

Bottom line is that you could have asked the question of what this does to the debate and been fine. It was when you dove in with the negative commentary that you went wrong.


From PETA's website...

"Ethical Concerns
Unfortunately, the majority of stem cell research is done on animals. For example, researchers recently burned holes in the hearts of pigs and then injected stem cells to repair the tissue. Because of experiments like this, many people object to stem cell research and oppose increasing its scope and funding.


Stem cell research is, at its heart, an in vitro technology, and animals are used in stem cell research largely because of archaic regulations and research habits, as well as a historical unavailability of human stem cells. We now have ample sources of human stem cells, as well as many established stem cell lines in vitro."

ckb2001
06-20-2007, 07:34 PM
Again, you misrepresent. MOST of the opposition that has been shown has been to research which involves the destruction of an embryo. In fact the VAST majority of the opposition. This is evidenced by the fact that it is the only technology which keeps getting vetoed over and over for Federal Funding. The opposition that is left has so far not been effective in denying funding or pushing legistlation to outlaw, the other kinds of research you are describing. Therefore, their influence is negligible.

Bottom line is that you could have asked the question of what this does to the debate and been fine. It was when you dove in with the negative commentary that you went wrong.

I didn't misrepresent anything. Most religious conservatives are NOT worried about "origin", as evidenced by them not objecting to taking cells from a morula that develops into a healthy embryo. The primary opposition is destruction of an embryo, NOT origin of the cells.

And I was the one that actually ASKED how religious conservatives would now view this. YOU were the one that did NOT, presupposing to know instead they would not object, despite evidence in the past there was opposition to embryonic stem cell technologies that did not involve embryos in any way.

The negativeness in my initial commentary had only to do with how I view the decisions made by religious conservatives on this issue in the past. But, I, contrary to you, actually DID ask what this new development does to the debate.

So pease, for the nth time, don't misrepresent what I said. Both the claim I misrepresented in my previous post (when I didn't - explained that "origin" thing LONG ago) and that I "could have asked" (first sentence in this thread I did that) are 2 more examples of baseless accusations.




From PETA's website...

"Ethical Concerns
Unfortunately, the majority of stem cell research is done on animals. For example, researchers recently burned holes in the hearts of pigs and then injected stem cells to repair the tissue. Because of experiments like this, many people object to stem cell research and oppose increasing its scope and funding.


Stem cell research is, at its heart, an in vitro technology, and animals are used in stem cell research largely because of archaic regulations and research habits, as well as a historical unavailability of human stem cells. We now have ample sources of human stem cells, as well as many established stem cell lines in vitro."

Talk about bias in quoting. No wonder you didn't link to it. Here's the link:
http://www.peta.org.uk/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=211

"What You Can Do

The current presidential administration has placed strong limitations on the types of stem cell research that can receive federal funding. Oppose these limitations by writing letters to the administration and to your local representatives. In addition, contact the FDA and the National Institutes of Health and voice your support for non-animal testing methods.

Support state measures that endorse and/or fund stem cell research. In late 2004, Californians overwhelmingly voted to raise and spend $3 billion during a 10-year period on unrestricted stem cell research. That amounts to $300 million a year, as compared to the federal government’s $25 million total for 2003.(11) Supporting such ballot measures or state legislative proposals is another important way to encourage stem cell research.

Write letters to the editor and op/ed pieces to newspapers about the stem cell issue. Be sure to highlight the often-overlooked benefits that animals stand to gain from stem cell research. Finally, remember to educate your friends, family, and acquaintances about the promise that stem cell research holds for both humans and animals."
-----------------

Man, PhinPhan1227, it's OBVIOUS from that page PETA supports adult stem cell research AND embryonic stem cell research. Furthermore, I already showed that from wiki.

You don't have a case here for anyone talking about the main opposition to embryonic stem cell research to even mention PETA!!

And look specifically at what they say about animal testing:

QUOTE:
"An End to Animal Testing?

Even though stem cell research currently involves animals, it has the potential to end the vast majority of animal testing. Stem cell cultures can generate a perpetual supply of healthy, normal human cells for disease modeling, drug discovery, and toxicology. These cells can be genetically or pharmacologically manipulated to create ideal controlled-testing environments.

In the field of drug toxicology, mouse stem cell lines have been employed to replace live mice in some tests. For example, mouse embryonic stem cells can be used for embryotoxicology tests, and no animals are killed. This technology has been developed and validated in Europe as a partial replacement for birth defect tests, which kill hundreds of rats and rabbits for each chemical tested.(9,10)


Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires new drugs to undergo short-term toxicity testing on two species, as well as separate testing for long-term toxicology. It is likely that stem cell technologies will be the driving factor in convincing the FDA to accept in vitro preclinical studies as sufficient to approve drugs for human clinical testing. This step alone would save the lives of millions of animals every year."
------------------

Like I said, no basis for suggesting I even mention them in a few sentences on the main opposition to embryonic stem cell research so far.

Really, you're reaching with all this PhinPhan1227.

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2007, 07:54 PM
I didn't misrepresent anything. Most religious conservatives are NOT worried about "origin", as evidenced by them not objecting to taking cells from a morula that develops into a healthy embryo. The primary opposition is destruction of an embryo, NOT origin of the cells.

And I was the one that actually ASKED how religious conservatives would now view this. YOU were the one that did NOT, presupposing to know instead they would not object, despite evidence in the past there was opposition to embryonic stem cell technologies that did not involve embryos in any way.

The negativeness in my initial commentary had only to do with how I view the decisions made by religious conservatives on this issue in the past. But, I, contrary to you, actually DID ask what this new development does to the debate.

So pease, for the nth time, don't misrepresent what I said. Both the claim I misrepresented in my previous post (when I didn't - explained that "origin" thing LONG ago) and that I "could have asked" (first sentence in this thread I did that) are 2 more examples of baseless accusations.


.

Most Conservatives ARE worried about origin because it is that origin which involves the destruction of an embryo. We're dancing around the words here CKB, but you know exactly what I'm talking about. The vast majority of stem cell research which ORIGINATES with an embryo DESTROYS that embryo. That is what the vast majority of Conservatives object to. Please don't make me repeat this again. Oops...too late.

And for clarification, you asked what this would do to the ethical debate, not specifically how Conservatives would view this...quit editing.

And lastly, I said you could have LEFT it at asking, and not thrown in the negatives. I didn't say you didn't ask the question at all. Kindly don't edit MY posts either.

As for PETA, yes as an organization, they support the technology overall. I never said they didn't. But they do object to the animal testing aspect. That is demonstrated by my quote. The only reason they support it however is because they view it as a means to END animal testing overall, which was also part of the quote I provided. Just as in your examples, there are factions WITHIN the animal rights group which oppose stem cell technology because of the use of animals. Just as WITHIN Conservatives there are groups who oppose all research on stem cells. But as with BOTH groups, it is the more moderate voice that has been influencing policy.

But you didn't account for that fact.

ckb2001
06-20-2007, 09:26 PM
Most Conservatives ARE worried about origin because it is that origin which involves the destruction of an embryo. We're dancing around the words here CKB, but you know exactly what I'm talking about. The vast majority of stem cell research which ORIGINATES with an embryo DESTROYS that embryo. That is what the vast majority of Conservatives object to. Please don't make me repeat this again. Oops...too late.

No, you're not making the proper distinction. If religious conservatives objected to the origin of the cells, then why do the majority of them support taking cells from a morula that grows into a healthy embryo? That's just inconsistent with their view.

They object to the destruction of an embryo, NOT necessarily to the origin of the cells! This is where you need to be precise, and when you are, the two types of opposition involve distinct sets of people (which doesn't mean they don't overlap).



And for clarification, you asked what this would do to the ethical debate, not specifically how Conservatives would view this...quit editing.

I didn't edit anything. Asking what this does to the ethical debate includes asking how religious conservatives would view this. Point is, it includes anyone else's opinion. So, here is a case where you again have to try and think logically. By asking what it does to the ethical debate, I am including ALL viewpoints, including those of religious conservatives, so I DID ask how religious conservatives would view this.

No need to edit. The words were well chosen.




And lastly, I said you could have LEFT it at asking, and not thrown in the negatives. I didn't say you didn't ask the question at all. Kindly don't edit MY posts either.

This is what you said:

QUOTE:
"Bottom line is that you could have asked the question of what this does to the debate and been fine."
---------------------------------

If you meant to say I could have left it at asking, then you should have said that. This sentence can actually suggest I didn't ask the question in the first place. And I'm not going to allow some ambiguity to haunt me later, so it's best to force a more precise wording now. See, your second sentence:

QUOTE:
"It was when you dove in with the negative commentary that you went wrong."
-----------------

does NOT imply I asked the question. This second statement makes a separate accusation if you just interpret both sentences based on logic. Thus, my response.

Oh, and as far as the idea of just asking the question, well I still wouldn't. I would still include that commentary because I want to express my views about how religious conservatives have opposed this technology in the past.



As for PETA, yes as an organization, they support the technology overall. I never said they didn't. But they do object to the animal testing aspect. That is demonstrated by my quote. The only reason they support it however is because they view it as a means to END animal testing overall, which was also part of the quote I provided. Just as in your examples, there are factions WITHIN the animal rights group which oppose stem cell technology because of the use of animals. Just as WITHIN Conservatives there are groups who oppose all research on stem cells. But as with BOTH groups, it is the more moderate voice that has been influencing policy.

But you didn't account for that fact.

Even if all that is true, there is NO reason to mention PETA in talking about the major opposition to embryonic stem cell research. That was how you introduced PETA into this equation, and there's simply no basis for your argument I should have mentioned PETA, since they aren't opposed to it (and PETA does refer to the organization).

Note that I said "there are religious conservatives", not "the Catholic Church" or something like that. So, I chose the correct words for not lumping all religious conservatives together. If anyone was lumping them together, it was you with the bets you made about them.

randall550
06-21-2007, 07:57 PM
Yeah, but just because there are some religious conservatives that will be placated because of the origins problem, that still leaves those that have shown opposition to embryonic stem cell research where the origin of the cells is not an embryo and where no embryo was created or destroyed.

That's the essential point that supports what I've been saying, namely that it's better to ask what kind of opposition is left.

First of all regarding people who oppose stem cell research where the origin of the cell is not an embryo, they're kind of like bigfoot. I've heard a lot about them, but I've never actually seen one. I think they are an urban legend. Everybody likes stem cell research if it's kept within an ethical realm.

Secondly, it is impossible to take a stem cell that was extracted from a willing donor and convert it into a stem cell that was derived by destroying an embryo. If you can take an adult stem cell and turn it into one that has all the attributes of an embryonic stem cell, so much the better. Who has a problem with THAT??? So then we don't have to terminate embryos to get what we need (which isn't just against my spiritual beliefs, it is against our SPECIES).
But it's not an "embryonic stem cell", or if it is, then it is misnamed. It is an adult stem cell reprogrammed to have the attributes of an embryonic stem cell . No dead embryo, no desecration of human life. You can call it an embryonic stem cell, you can call it a blob of tissue, you can call it a piece of metal, but in reality, it is what it is, and that is, as far as ANYONE (Christian or anti-Christian) is concerned, based on WHERE IT CAME FROM.

ckb2001
06-21-2007, 08:46 PM
First of all regarding people who oppose stem cell research where the origin of the cell is not an embryo, they're kind of like bigfoot. I've heard a lot about them, but I've never actually seen one. I think they are an urban legend. Everybody likes stem cell research if it's kept within an ethical realm.

I'm not sure how important it is whether you actually meet a person that has a certain viewpoint. The better question is whether there are credible sources that imply there are individuals with that certain viewpoint AND whether that viewpoint is relevant for the decision-making process.

So, again here's what the President's Council on Bioethics lists as far as what they consider to be important opposing views where the origin of the cell is not from an embryo - specifically altered nuclear transfer (technology that existed before this new development):
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/white_paper/text.html

"A. Is It Ethically Sound?

In offering his proposal for ANT, Hurlbut emphasizes that no embryo would ever be created or destroyed; since the genetic alteration is carried out in the somatic cell nucleus before transfer, the biological artifact is “brought into existence with a genetic structure insufficient to generate a human embryo.” Hurlbut compares the product of ANT to certain ovarian teratomas and hydatidiform moles, genetically or epigenetically abnormal natural products of failed fertilization that are not living beings but “chaotic, disorganized, and nonfunctional masses.” If, as Hurlbut suggests, the biological artifact is ethically equivalent to a tissue culture, teratoma, or mole, there would seem to be nothing ethically problematic about harvesting stem cells from it. Nonetheless, a number of ethical questions and concerns have been raised about this proposal.
--------------



So, first of all note "have been raised" implies objections were made by people, and those objections were deemed important enough to consider that the President's Council on Bioethics lists them. What are those objections?

Here's a list (remember ANT doesn't involve creating or destroying embryos):

QUOTE:
"
* Yet they worry that this is not the production of a non-human entity but the deliberate creation of a doomed or disabled human embryo.

* ..altered nuclear transfer proposal requires a (probably large) supply of human oocytes, which would have to be donated, purchased, or produced for research purposes. Some will find this troubling, and on multiple grounds.

* Certain commentators, for example, find the very idea of tampering to put something destructive into the human genome, even for a good cause, morally and aesthetically offensive.

* Several worries have been expressed not about the proposal itself but about what it might lead to, or about what it might be seen as justifying in the future.
-----------------



Except for the first one listed, where the concern does involve whether cells were taken from an embryo, the rest do not. And these were objections actually made and considered important enough for the President to consider.

So, this isn't some "urban legend". No, such opposition actually does exist.





Secondly, it is impossible to take a stem cell that was extracted from a willing donor and convert it into a stem cell that was derived by destroying an embryo. If you can take an adult stem cell and turn it into one that has all the attributes of an embryonic stem cell, so much the better. Who has a problem with THAT??? So then we don't have to terminate embryos to get what we need (which isn't just against my spiritual beliefs, it is against our SPECIES).

Exactly what scientific basis do you have for that first bolded statement? This new discovery seems to be doing exactly what you say isn't possible. Here's the link again:
http://www.physorg.com/news100354669.html

"Researchers reprogram normal tissue cells into embryonic stem cells"

..

"Using this process, they were able to turn the fibroblasts into pluripotent cells that, in every aspect tested, were identical to embryonic stem cells."

..

“Up until now, it’s been unclear whether a cell could be reprogrammed back into an embryonic stem cell state without the use of SCNT, so that makes this a very important finding.”

..

"The reprogrammed cells were not just functionally identical to embryonic stem cells. They also had identical biological structure."
--------------------


Remember, in science, if there is no observative distinction between two cells (in terms of function or structure), then those cells are identical as far as we can tell.

So, yes it seems to be possible to turn adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells.


And as far as who has a problem with this, well it's hard to know beforehand. But, you can't just presuppose there will be no objection given the ones listed above. Some of those objections still apply with this new discovery.

I will say it's good to see you don't seem to have an objection with it.




But it's not an "embryonic stem cell", or if it is, then it is misnamed. It is an adult stem cell reprogrammed to have the attributes of an embryonic stem cell . No dead embryo, no desecration of human life. You can call it an embryonic stem cell, you can call it a blob of tissue, you can call it a piece of metal, but in reality, it is what it is, and that is, as far as ANYONE (Christian or anti-Christian) is concerned, based on WHERE IT CAME FROM.

First of all, scientists call this an embryonic stem cell. Numerous news reports did that too (including the article I quoted) and the reason is because there is no observable functional or structural distinction between the cells that were created and embryonic stem cells.

And well before this discovery, the President's Council on Bioethics speaks of this technology of reprogramming a cell back to an embryonic state. Here's how they describe it (though keep in mind this is 2 years before the discovery):

QUOTE:
"A quite different route to the production of pluripotent stem cells would be to reprogram differentiated somatic cells so as to restore to them the pluripotency typical of embryonic stem cells."
------------------

Thus, until some opposition group whose views are considered relevant by policy-makers claims you can't call a cell that has identical properties with an embryonic stem cell an embryonic stem cell, there is no reason to suppose we need to use any definition other than the one science has been using.

And keep in mind many religious groups have in the past used the same definitions as scientists have when talking about embryonic stem cells.

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2007, 09:46 AM
No, you're not making the proper distinction. If religious conservatives objected to the origin of the cells, then why do the majority of them support taking cells from a morula that grows into a healthy embryo? That's just inconsistent with their view.

They object to the destruction of an embryo, NOT necessarily to the origin of the cells! This is where you need to be precise, and when you are, the two types of opposition involve distinct sets of people (which doesn't mean they don't overlap).



I didn't edit anything. Asking what this does to the ethical debate includes asking how religious conservatives would view this. Point is, it includes anyone else's opinion. So, here is a case where you again have to try and think logically. By asking what it does to the ethical debate, I am including ALL viewpoints, including those of religious conservatives, so I DID ask how religious conservatives would view this.

No need to edit. The words were well chosen.




This is what you said:

QUOTE:
"Bottom line is that you could have asked the question of what this does to the debate and been fine."
---------------------------------

If you meant to say I could have left it at asking, then you should have said that. This sentence can actually suggest I didn't ask the question in the first place. And I'm not going to allow some ambiguity to haunt me later, so it's best to force a more precise wording now. See, your second sentence:

QUOTE:
"It was when you dove in with the negative commentary that you went wrong."
-----------------

does NOT imply I asked the question. This second statement makes a separate accusation if you just interpret both sentences based on logic. Thus, my response.

Oh, and as far as the idea of just asking the question, well I still wouldn't. I would still include that commentary because I want to express my views about how religious conservatives have opposed this technology in the past.



Even if all that is true, there is NO reason to mention PETA in talking about the major opposition to embryonic stem cell research. That was how you introduced PETA into this equation, and there's simply no basis for your argument I should have mentioned PETA, since they aren't opposed to it (and PETA does refer to the organization).

Note that I said "there are religious conservatives", not "the Catholic Church" or something like that. So, I chose the correct words for not lumping all religious conservatives together. If anyone was lumping them together, it was you with the bets you made about them.

That's the point CKB, you didn't limit things to the MAJOR opposition to stem cell research. You lumped ALL of it together. If you had limited it to the major opposition, you wouldn't have been able to bring up all that fringe opposition because the MAJOR oppositon is only opposed to the destruction of embryo's. Again, you CAN'T have it both ways.

Let me try to elucidate something for you again, and I will even use PETA to do so.

PETA as an organization supports stem cell research DESPITE the use of animals because it holds the promise of ENDING animal research through the use of cultured human tissue for use in experimentation. They don't fully ignore their minority members who still object, but they overrule them because of the potential benefits to their agenda.

The vast majority of religious conservatives, certainly the most vocal and influential(funding), object to embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of an embryo. THIS research holds the promise of ENDING the practice of destroying human embryos to harvest stem cells because it's ORIGINS do not include an embryo that can be destroyed, hramed, or altered in any way. They will therefore strongly supprt it, just as PETA does stem cell research, because it will serve their overall goals. They won't fully ignore their members who object to all such research, but will overrule them because of the potential benefits to their agenda, just as PETA does.

Now, do you understand THAT line of reasoning?

As to the rest, as many times as you have used the excuse of "explaining myself in further posts", are you REALLY going to partition my comment into two distinct sentences when they were presented as one thought? Please!!

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2007, 09:55 AM
I'm not sure how important it is whether you actually meet a person that has a certain viewpoint. The better question is whether there are credible sources that imply there are individuals with that certain viewpoint AND whether that viewpoint is relevant for the decision-making process.



Exactly what scientific basis do you have for that first bolded statement? This new discovery seems to be doing exactly what you say isn't possible.

Remember, in science, if there is no observative distinction between two cells (in terms of function or structure), then those cells are identical as far as we can tell.
.

See, therein lies the problem. The average person isn't a scientist. And we aren't talking about scientists objections, we're talking about average people. To this poster, there is a distinct difference because the ORIGIN of the cell involves the destruction of an embryo in one case, and not in the other. If the concern is the destruction of the embryo than there is a HUGE distinction between the two cells for those people. As the man said, you can call it whatever you want, it doesn't change the intrinsic fact of HOW it came to be, and HOW something came to be is part of it's origin, and yes, part of its description. Shakespeare wasn't a scientist, but even he knew that the name you give something isn't as important as int's intrinsic nature. And origin is part of that.

As to the rest of Randall's post, he did a better job of summing up that minor opposition than I did. You might hear about those folks, but they don't hold any influence in the final analysis. Again, if the funding is going through, their influence is negligible.

ckb2001
06-22-2007, 01:52 PM
That's the point CKB, you didn't limit things to the MAJOR opposition to stem cell research. You lumped ALL of it together. If you had limited it to the major opposition, you wouldn't have been able to bring up all that fringe opposition because the MAJOR oppositon is only opposed to the destruction of embryo's. Again, you CAN'T have it both ways.

Another misrepresentation, and one I've already corrected you on.

Here's the quote again:
QUOTE:
"..there are religious conservatives opposed to a technology that can better and save lives."
---------------

That does NOT lump all religious conservatives together. In fact, it doesn't even specifically refer to a majority. PhinPhan1227, I already covered that many times.

The words I used were the proper ones to use to make my claim.



Let me try to elucidate something for you again, and I will even use PETA to do so.

PETA as an organization supports stem cell research DESPITE the use of animals because it holds the promise of ENDING animal research through the use of cultured human tissue for use in experimentation. They don't fully ignore their minority members who still object, but they overrule them because of the potential benefits to their agenda.

The vast majority of religious conservatives, certainly the most vocal and influential(funding), object to embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of an embryo. THIS research holds the promise of ENDING the practice of destroying human embryos to harvest stem cells because it's ORIGINS do not include an embryo that can be destroyed, hramed, or altered in any way. They will therefore strongly supprt it, just as PETA does stem cell research, because it will serve their overall goals. They won't fully ignore their members who object to all such research, but will overrule them because of the potential benefits to their agenda, just as PETA does.

Now, do you understand THAT line of reasoning?

Don't you understand what I've already posted? I showed you multiple times that there are some religious conservatives that continue to oppose embryonic stem cell research even if embryos are not involved.

So, you don't have a basis for making the claims you've made regarding how (all) religious conservatives will support this. YOU are lumping them together despite firm evidence that embryonic stem cell technology in the past that skirted the exact same issues of embryo usage and destruction (even including origin of cells) fell upon opposition from religious conservatives.





As to the rest, as many times as you have used the excuse of "explaining myself in further posts", are you REALLY going to partition my comment into two distinct sentences when they were presented as one thought? Please!!

I didn't start off doing that. But, you have shown in this thread that you misrepresent what I say too many times that it's prudent to cover all bases, meaning all possible interpretations.

Just look at this latest post of yours. Those are all arguments I sufficiently rebutted long time ago, and you're acting like I didn't. Sorry, PhinPhan1227, if you're going to analyze anything I say with a level of scrutiny of the kind you showed (and even then we see the accusations were baseless, except purely subjective ones), then you should be careful in how you word things too.

ckb2001
06-22-2007, 01:56 PM
See, therein lies the problem. The average person isn't a scientist. And we aren't talking about scientists objections, we're talking about average people. To this poster, there is a distinct difference because the ORIGIN of the cell involves the destruction of an embryo in one case, and not in the other. If the concern is the destruction of the embryo than there is a HUGE distinction between the two cells for those people. As the man said, you can call it whatever you want, it doesn't change the intrinsic fact of HOW it came to be, and HOW something came to be is part of it's origin, and yes, part of its description. Shakespeare wasn't a scientist, but even he knew that the name you give something isn't as important as int's intrinsic nature. And origin is part of that.

As to the rest of Randall's post, he did a better job of summing up that minor opposition than I did. You might hear about those folks, but they don't hold any influence in the final analysis. Again, if the funding is going through, their influence is negligible.

Like I said, when either one of you find ONE organization of religious conservatives whose opinion is considered relevant to formulating policy (that is, policy-makers consider their viewpoint in formulation of policy) that claims they have a different definition of what embryonic stem cells are AND therefore this new discovery did NOT turn adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells, well then I'll look at their definition.

You can't go by what individuals think since their thoughts could be the result of ignorance or deliberate bias, etc.. I mean you can find justification for practically every claim if you go by definitions held by at least one individual!! Show me one opposition group's opinion of this considered relevant to policy makers with such a separate definition. Then, I'll look at it, but until then, there are no separate definitions to consider.

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2007, 02:01 PM
So, you don't have a basis for making the claims you've made regarding how (all) religious conservatives will support this. YOU are lumping them together despite firm evidence that embryonic stem cell technology in the past that skirted the exact same issues of embryo usage and destruction (even including origin of cells) fell upon opposition from religious conservatives.

.

Jesus man, what part of "The vast majority of religious conservatives" translates to "all" to you? Christ, the whole paragraph was about the fact that the majority can and has outvoted the minority, in the case of both PETA, and the Conservatives who have voted to fund Stem cell research.

Did you not READ the rest of the paragraph? What is wrong with you?

Again, YES, there is opposition, just as there is opposition to Stem Cell research from PETA members. And NO, it has not had any measurable effect because it has not effected FUNDING. A mention in a government report is WORLDS different from keeping billions of dollars in funding from flowing out.

Seriously CKB, READ the post slowly before popping off.

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2007, 02:05 PM
Like I said, when either one of you find ONE organization of religious conservatives whose opinion is considered relevant to formulating policy (that is, policy-makers consider their viewpoint in formulation of policy) that claims they have a different definition of what embryonic stem cells are AND therefore this new discovery did NOT turn adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells, well then I'll look at their definition.

You can't go by what individuals think since their thoughts could be the result of ignorance or deliberate bias, etc.. I mean you can find justification for practically every claim if you go by definitions held by at least one individual!! Show me one opposition group's opinion of this considered relevant to policy makers with such a separate definition. Then, I'll look at it, but until then, there are no separate definitions to consider.

I've already done that repeatedly, and you chose to discount those qoutes. Despite the fact that they all made a distinction between the cells which originate with an embryo, and those which originate from adult cells. I'm not going to keep jumping through the same hoops to make you happy. If you can't see the plain truth from what I've already presented, there's nothing more I can do on that score.

Bottom line however is that to the common man who objects to the destruction of embryo's in order to harvest cells, this is a different animal all together. Anyone should be able to see that fact.

ckb2001
06-22-2007, 02:13 PM
Jesus man, what part of "The vast majority of religious conservatives" translates to "all" to you? Christ, the whole paragraph was about the fact that the majority can and has outvoted the minority, in the case of both PETA, and the Conservatives who have voted to fund Stem cell research.

Did you not READ the rest of the paragraph? What is wrong with you?

Again, YES, there is opposition, just as there is opposition to Stem Cell research from PETA members. And NO, it has not had any measurable effect because it has not effected FUNDING. A mention in a government report is WORLDS different from keeping billions of dollars in funding from flowing out.

Seriously CKB, READ the post slowly before popping off.

YO! Given all the baseless accusations based on not reading carefully what I wrote in this thread, you need to be real careful with what you say.

Let's look at some quotes of yours:

QUOTE (post #11):
"Again, there isn't a Conservative alive who would oppose THIS technology because THIS technology doesn't involve the destruction of a fetus."
------------

THAT is lumping ALL religious conservatives together, NOT just the majority!!

I could go on, but the point is you have OFTEN lumped ALL religious conservatives together in this thread. I have not. So, please READ your OWN posts before claiming others didn't!!

And whether you were talking about PETA or not, what I bolded made reference to your previous arguments, which you still haven't retracted. Thus, my accusation (which IS based on evidence).

ckb2001
06-22-2007, 02:15 PM
I've already done that repeatedly, and you chose to discount those qoutes. Despite the fact that they all made a distinction between the cells which originate with an embryo, and those which originate from adult cells. I'm not going to keep jumping through the same hoops to make you happy. If you can't see the plain truth from what I've already presented, there's nothing more I can do on that score.

Bottom line however is that to the common man who objects to the destruction of embryo's in order to harvest cells, this is a different animal all together. Anyone should be able to see that fact.

No, you have not done that. You haven't yet shown me a religious organization that considers this new development as NOT creating embryonic stem cells. NEVER did you do that, so don't try to claim you did.

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2007, 02:20 PM
YO! Given all the baseless accusations based on not reading carefully what I wrote in this thread, you need to be real careful with what you say.

Let's look at some quotes of yours:

QUOTE (post #11):
"Again, there isn't a Conservative alive who would oppose THIS technology because THIS technology doesn't involve the destruction of a fetus."
------------

THAT is lumping ALL religious conservatives together, NOT just the majority!!

I could go on, but the point is you have OFTEN lumped ALL religious conservatives together in this thread. I have not. So, please READ your OWN posts before claiming others didn't!!

And whether you were talking about PETA or not, what I bolded made reference to your previous arguments, which you still haven't retracted. Thus, my accusation (which IS based on evidence).

Deal with the follwoing posts CKB...that's what you always ask me to do.

Now, digest this tidbit CKB...how does President Bush sound as a source?

"In rejecting the legislation, Bush cited the success of research using adult stem cells extracted from amniotic fluid and placentas, and advances toward techniques that may one day allow scientists to reprogram adult cells to make them as adaptable as embryonic stem cells. "

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpveto225264808jun22,0,6939922.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines

""If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers -- for the first time in our history -- to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. The president has made it clear to Congress and the American people that he will not allow the nation to cross this moral line," the White House said in a statement highlighting the veto and announcing that Bush signed an executive order boosting funding of research into other types of stem cells. "By expanding support for nondestructive research methods, this executive order will make it more likely that these exciting advances continue to unfold," the White House said. "

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/bush-vetoes-stem-cell-bill/story.aspx?guid=%7B9693F414-0527-4699-B631-CA795D8E597D%7D


I guess Bush doesn't count as a policy maker to you? Or are you actually going to recognize that I said this was EXACTLY what would happen?

ckb2001
06-22-2007, 02:25 PM
Deal with the follwoing posts CKB...that's what you always ask me to do.

Now, digest this tidbit CKB...how does President Bush sound as a source?

"In rejecting the legislation, Bush cited the success of research using adult stem cells extracted from amniotic fluid and placentas, and advances toward techniques that may one day allow scientists to reprogram adult cells to make them as adaptable as embryonic stem cells. "

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpveto225264808jun22,0,6939922.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines

I guess Bush doesn't count as a policy maker to you? Or are you actually going to recognize that I said this was EXACTLY what would happen?

The President's Council on Bioethics listed 4 possible ways through which one might be able to circumvent religious opposition up till that point.

One of them was the idea of reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells, so it's NO surprise the President takes that viewpoint.

Note however that even HE labels them embryonic stem cells.

The point I've been trying to make to you is you simply can't assume opposition will cease because of this new development. You're attacking me for ASKING!!

By the way, it IS a travesty that Bush has taken the position he has. I mean these new technologies are so immature that they can't create many more embryonic stem cell lines in the near future.

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2007, 02:38 PM
The President's Council on Bioethics listed 4 possible ways through which one might be able to circumvent religious opposition up till that point.

One of them was the idea of reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells, so it's NO surprise the President takes that viewpoint.

Note however that even HE labels them embryonic stem cells.

The point I've been trying to make to you is you simply can't assume opposition will cease because of this new development. You're attacking me for ASKING!!

By the way, it IS a travesty that Bush has taken the position he has. I mean these new technologies are so immature that they can't create many more embryonic stem cell lines in the near future.


Nifty, another travesty. Now, the President said...

" reprogram adult cells to make them as adaptable as embryonic stem cells"

...that means making adult cells AS adaptable as embryonic cells. That's not the same thing as calling THEM embryonic cells. If I say that a girl is as limber as a stripper, I'm not calling her an ACTUAL stripper.

Further, the President FURTHER differentiated here...

"By expanding support for nondestructive research methods, this executive order will make it more likely that these exciting advances continue to unfold," the White House said. "

...he is differentiating between destructive and non-destructive methods. THAT is the issue here. THAT is the difference. If you like, we can refer to them in the future as DDESC's versus NDDESC's. Destructively Derived Stem Cells versus Non Destructively Derived Stem Cells.

Does that make things easier for you?

Again, this will be seen as a BOON to the religious conservative cause. As I predicted. If you wanted to go negative, you could have just pointed out that this development would probably be used as another means of attacking traditional embryonic stem cell research. That I would have agreed with.

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2007, 02:44 PM
No, you have not done that. You haven't yet shown me a religious organization that considers this new development as NOT creating embryonic stem cells. NEVER did you do that, so don't try to claim you did.

And maybe you also don't consider the BAptist Church to be a political force in America?

"The bill would liberalize a policy instituted by Bush in 2001 prohibiting federal grants for destructive embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). His rule permits funds for research on embryonic stem cell lines already in existence at the time of the announcement of the policy....

...The president's executive order followed the early June reports of three new studies that showed skin cells can be converted to embryonic-like cells in the laboratory. The research on mice found the skin cells could be formatted to be nearly identical to embryonic cells, which many scientists believe are the most potent and flexible for therapies. Experiments remain to be done on human beings, but the development raised more doubts about contentions by ESCR proponents that the federal government needs to fund the deadly research. Bush said June 20 this research received funding from the federal government"

"Unlike research using embryos, extracting stem cells from non-embryonic sources -– such as umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat and bone marrow -– has nearly universal support. Such research has produced treatments for at least 72 ailments, according to Do No Harm, a coalition promoting ethics in research. These include spinal cord injuries, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis and sickle cell anemia".

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=25937

ckb2001
06-22-2007, 04:08 PM
Nifty, another travesty. Now, the President said...

" reprogram adult cells to make them as adaptable as embryonic stem cells"

...that means making adult cells AS adaptable as embryonic cells. That's not the same thing as calling THEM embryonic cells. If I say that a girl is as limber as a stripper, I'm not calling her an ACTUAL stripper.

Again, you simply forget all the stuff I posted before. I'm not using your reference, I'm using the President's Council on Bioethics.

You have the link. Here's a quote:

QUOTE:
"A quite different route to the production of pluripotent stem cells would be to reprogram differentiated somatic cells so as to restore to them the pluripotency typical of embryonic stem cells."
---------------

OK, now you may not know this, but human embryonic stem cells are also referred to as pluripotent stem cells:

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=14526
"Human embryonic stem cell: Also known as a human pluripotent stem cell, one of the "cells that are self-replicating, are derived from human embryos or human fetal tissue, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers."
------------

So, the President's Council on Bioethics is referring to the reprogramming of adult stem cells to cells that have their pluripotency restored as pluripotent stem cells or embryonic stem cells.

So, yes they President is talking about embryonic stem cells, at least when you read their official descriptions. Like I said, no dual definitions.




Further, the President FURTHER differentiated here...

"By expanding support for nondestructive research methods, this executive order will make it more likely that these exciting advances continue to unfold," the White House said. "

...he is differentiating between destructive and non-destructive methods. THAT is the issue here. THAT is the difference. If you like, we can refer to them in the future as DDESC's versus NDDESC's. Destructively Derived Stem Cells versus Non Destructively Derived Stem Cells.

Does that make things easier for you?

Again, this will be seen as a BOON to the religious conservative cause. As I predicted. If you wanted to go negative, you could have just pointed out that this development would probably be used as another means of attacking traditional embryonic stem cell research. That I would have agreed with.

PhinPhan1227, you were the one that tried to introduce this "origin" stuff when I was telling YOU the primary objection was destruction of embryos.

So don't come at me with this "does that make things easier for you" bull. I never said destruction of embryos wasn't the primary objection. Really, you're losing this debate on all aspects that involve objective facts. Don't tell me I'm not the one understanding something :rolleyes:


And why is this stance of the President still a travesty? Because the President still hasn't approved federal funding for embryonic stem cell lines that do NOT involve destruction of embryos!! I keep telling you about altered nuclear transfer, and you keep forgetting it. The President simply doesn't want embryonic stem cell research using lines of embryonic stem cells that weren't in existence at the time they made the law, even IF it doesn't involve destruction of embryos. His actions bear that out.

ckb2001
06-22-2007, 04:23 PM
And maybe you also don't consider the BAptist Church to be a political force in America?

"The bill would liberalize a policy instituted by Bush in 2001 prohibiting federal grants for destructive embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). His rule permits funds for research on embryonic stem cell lines already in existence at the time of the announcement of the policy....

...The president's executive order followed the early June reports of three new studies that showed skin cells can be converted to embryonic-like cells in the laboratory. The research on mice found the skin cells could be formatted to be nearly identical to embryonic cells, which many scientists believe are the most potent and flexible for therapies. Experiments remain to be done on human beings, but the development raised more doubts about contentions by ESCR proponents that the federal government needs to fund the deadly research. Bush said June 20 this research received funding from the federal government"

"Unlike research using embryos, extracting stem cells from non-embryonic sources -– such as umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat and bone marrow -– has nearly universal support. Such research has produced treatments for at least 72 ailments, according to Do No Harm, a coalition promoting ethics in research. These include spinal cord injuries, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis and sickle cell anemia".

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=25937

Yeah, going in circles again. Some just want to be "safe" in what they say, specifically just in case one day it's shown these new cells aren't embryonic stem cells. That doesn't mean that as far as we know TODAY they aren't embryonic stem cells. Your quote doesn't say they aren't. But, the news reports I've quoted specifically claim they ARE:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070606235430.htm

"Researchers Reprogram Normal Tissue Cells Into Embryonic Stem Cells"

"If the work can be replicated in human cells, it may mean that a patient's skin cells, for example, could be reprogrammed to become embryonic stem cells."

"Using this process, they were able to turn the fibroblasts into pluripotent cells that, in every aspect tested, were identical to embryonic stem cells."
------------------


And as far as the "nearly universal support" comment, I never said that was true or false. The point is, you shouldn't be attacking me for ASKING about it!!!

PhinPhan1227
06-22-2007, 05:40 PM
Yeah, going in circles again. Some just want to be "safe" in what they say, specifically just in case one day it's shown these new cells aren't embryonic stem cells. That doesn't mean that as far as we know TODAY they aren't embryonic stem cells. Your quote doesn't say they aren't. But, the news reports I've quoted specifically claim they ARE:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070606235430.htm

"Researchers Reprogram Normal Tissue Cells Into Embryonic Stem Cells"

"If the work can be replicated in human cells, it may mean that a patient's skin cells, for example, could be reprogrammed to become embryonic stem cells."

"Using this process, they were able to turn the fibroblasts into pluripotent cells that, in every aspect tested, were identical to embryonic stem cells."
------------------


And as far as the "nearly universal support" comment, I never said that was true or false. The point is, you shouldn't be attacking me for ASKING about it!!!


Jesus CKB, what do you want, some pastor to explicitely state "well, we said these are embryonic-like, but we should have stated direcly that they are NOT embryonic!"? It's not going to happen. Declaring something to be "embryonic-like" means they are still different from "embryonic". That's what the phrase MEANS for goodness sakes.

You've got scientists saying they are embryonic...who cares? It's the people who OBJECT that we are talking about, and THEY continue to use those qualifiers DISTINGUISHING the two cells as different.

randall550
06-22-2007, 05:58 PM
Exactly what scientific basis do you have for that first bolded statement? This new discovery seems to be doing exactly what you say isn't possible.

An embryonic stem cell came from an embryo. An adult stem cell came from an adult. It doesn't take a whole lot of science to discern that. If it's an adult stem cell that has been modified to function as an embryonic stem cell, then it needs to be renamed according to its origin. If it's exactly like an embryonic stem cell, then that's wonderful. Why not just call it by a name that differentiates it from something that was obtained through the destruction of an embryo?
I understand that some people don't like the fact that this matters, but it does.

ckb2001
06-22-2007, 07:01 PM
Jesus CKB, what do you want, some pastor to explicitely state "well, we said these are embryonic-like, but we should have stated direcly that they are NOT embryonic!"? It's not going to happen. Declaring something to be "embryonic-like" means they are still different from "embryonic". That's what the phrase MEANS for goodness sakes.

You've got scientists saying they are embryonic...who cares? It's the people who OBJECT that we are talking about, and THEY continue to use those qualifiers DISTINGUISHING the two cells as different.

You're not understanding something. Scientists will also say "embryonic-like" too for exactly the reason I gave multiple times - to cover for the possibility a future observation shows there is some distinction between the cells that were created and embryonic stem cells.

So, using such language is NO indication a separate definition of embryonic stem cells exists among religious conservatives. You said there was a separate definition. Well, politicians and major religious groups have in the past used scientific definitions of what an embryonic stem cell is.

So, YES you need to actually produce a situation where religious conservatives claim this discovery did NOT produce embryonic stem cells as defined by scientists. What you've quoted so far does NOT suggest there are separate definitions, since all that language used is consistent with the definitions scientists have used.

ckb2001
06-22-2007, 07:08 PM
An embryonic stem cell came from an embryo. An adult stem cell came from an adult. It doesn't take a whole lot of science to discern that. If it's an adult stem cell that has been modified to function as an embryonic stem cell, then it needs to be renamed according to its origin. If it's exactly like an embryonic stem cell, then that's wonderful. Why not just call it by a name that differentiates it from something that was obtained through the destruction of an embryo?
I understand that some people don't like the fact that this matters, but it does.

Embryonic stem cells do not HAVE to come from embryos. Whether they do or not depends on the technology available.

And as far as what label is applied to it, here's an analogy that might help understand why function and structure (the information content to generalize it) is sufficient: Water as you probably know is H2O - two hydrogen atoms bonded with an oxygen atom.

Does it matter where the hydrogen or oxygen came from? No. It's still H2O. And the reason is because one cannot look at the final product of H2O and discern where the hydrogen and oxygen came from.

Thus, it comes down to information available. The information on what each hydrogen or oxygen atom in H2O was bonded with before is lost and therefore doesn't matter in distinguishing among molecules.

The same thing is happening here. You can't discern that the cell in question - what is being called an embryonic stem cell - actually came from an adult stem cell just by looking at the cell. IF you could, then yes it would be labeled differently. But because you can't (so far), it IS the same as an embryonic stem cell.

randall550
06-22-2007, 08:19 PM
Embryonic stem cells do not HAVE to come from embryos. Whether they do or not depends on the technology available.

And as far as what label is applied to it, here's an analogy that might help understand why function and structure (the information content to generalize it) is sufficient: Water as you probably know is H2O - two hydrogen atoms bonded with an oxygen atom.

Does it matter where the hydrogen or oxygen came from? No. It's still H2O. And the reason is because one cannot look at the final product of H2O and discern where the hydrogen and oxygen came from.

Thus, it comes down to information available. The information on what each hydrogen or oxygen atom in H2O was bonded with before is lost and therefore doesn't matter in distinguishing among molecules.

The same thing is happening here. You can't discern that the cell in question - what is being called an embryonic stem cell - actually came from an adult stem cell just by looking at the cell.

Actually, nobody here said otherwise. I do understand that one specimen is, in form, the same as the other. Nevertheless, if it didn't come from an embryo, then it should be called by a different name. Most of us (there are negligible exceptions out there on the fringe, I don't know who, but it takes all kinds to make a world) have no problem with stem cells derived ethically and nondestructively. I would love to see that kind of research go forward. Nearly all of us would. But the scientific community will have a conflict on their hands if they insist on referring to modified adult stem cells as embryonic stem cells. Regardless of what they look like, if they didn't come from embryos, they need to be called something other than what stem cells that did come from embryos are called. Because there is a question of ethics involved, a line needs to be drawn, and referring to both specimens by the same name blurs that line.
For that reason, your water analogy is faulty. Nobody cares where the oxygen and hydrogen came from. Where the stem cells came from matters.

ckb2001
06-22-2007, 08:42 PM
Actually, nobody here said otherwise. I do understand that one specimen is, in form, the same as the other. Nevertheless, if it didn't come from an embryo, then it should be called by a different name. Most of us (there are negligible exceptions out there on the fringe, I don't know who, but it takes all kinds to make a world) have no problem with stem cells derived ethically and nondestructively. I would love to see that kind of research go forward. Nearly all of us would. But the scientific community will have a conflict on their hands if they insist on referring to modified adult stem cells as embryonic stem cells. Regardless of what they look like, if they didn't come from embryos, they need to be called something other than what stem cells that did come from embryos are called. Because there is a question of ethics involved, a line needs to be drawn, and referring to both specimens by the same name blurs that line.
For that reason, your water analogy is faulty. Nobody cares where the oxygen and hydrogen came from. Where the stem cells came from matters.

Except that one of the methods I explained before, where cells were taken from a morula that went on to develop into a health embryo and then into a healthy adult (mouse), is also a method many religious conservatives have no objection with, though some do.

See, that's a case where the cells originated from what would become an embryo, but didn't destroy the embryo.

That's a great example that shows it is NOT the origin that matters most, but whether the entity remains functional and develops into a healthy adult.

And as I said in a post long ago, religious conservatives aren't in principle against taking fetal blood samples either. It just suggests even further it's not the origin that plays an important role, but whether the entity is functional or not.


And finally, where is this separate definition to be found among groups of religious conservatives? This new discovery produced cells being labeled by many scientists as embryonic stem cells. Where's the opposition to this labeling among religious organizations?

PhinPhan1227
06-23-2007, 12:38 PM
You're not understanding something. Scientists will also say "embryonic-like" too for exactly the reason I gave multiple times - to cover for the possibility a future observation shows there is some distinction between the cells that were created and embryonic stem cells.

So, using such language is NO indication a separate definition of embryonic stem cells exists among religious conservatives. You said there was a separate definition. Well, politicians and major religious groups have in the past used scientific definitions of what an embryonic stem cell is.

So, YES you need to actually produce a situation where religious conservatives claim this discovery did NOT produce embryonic stem cells as defined by scientists. What you've quoted so far does NOT suggest there are separate definitions, since all that language used is consistent with the definitions scientists have used.


You're asking for scientific specificity from non-scientists. That's not reasonable. And you are applying scientific rationalle(leaving things open for later) to non-scientists as well. Again, not reasonable. These are average people. And to AVERAGE people, saying something is "embryonic-like" means that it ISN'T embryonic, but it's very much LIKE embryonic. Same way that the President said that the cells become AS adaptable as embryonic cells, but didn't CALL them embryonic cells. And for the record, that is what the President said just a day or so ago. Sorry, but that trupms his council. Horses mouth and all that.

PhinPhan1227
06-23-2007, 12:46 PM
Embryonic stem cells do not HAVE to come from embryos. Whether they do or not depends on the technology available.

And as far as what label is applied to it, here's an analogy that might help understand why function and structure (the information content to generalize it) is sufficient: Water as you probably know is H2O - two hydrogen atoms bonded with an oxygen atom.

Does it matter where the hydrogen or oxygen came from? No. It's still H2O. And the reason is because one cannot look at the final product of H2O and discern where the hydrogen and oxygen came from.
Thus, it comes down to information available. The information on what each hydrogen or oxygen atom in H2O was bonded with before is lost and therefore doesn't matter in distinguishing among molecules.

The same thing is happening here. You can't discern that the cell in question - what is being called an embryonic stem cell - actually came from an adult stem cell just by looking at the cell. IF you could, then yes it would be labeled differently. But because you can't (so far), it IS the same as an embryonic stem cell.


Ok, say I put a bottle of water collected from my tap up for sale. How much will it cost? Now, say I put a bottle of water collected from a Mars polar ice cap up for sale, how much will IT cost? Origin matters.

PhinPhan1227
06-23-2007, 12:50 PM
Except that one of the methods I explained before, where cells were taken from a morula that went on to develop into a health embryo and then into a healthy adult (mouse), is also a method many religious conservatives have no objection with, though some do.

See, that's a case where the cells originated from what would become an embryo, but didn't destroy the embryo.

That's a great example that shows it is NOT the origin that matters most, but whether the entity remains functional and develops into a healthy adult.

And as I said in a post long ago, religious conservatives aren't in principle against taking fetal blood samples either. It just suggests even further it's not the origin that plays an important role, but whether the entity is functional or not.


And finally, where is this separate definition to be found among groups of religious conservatives? This new discovery produced cells being labeled by many scientists as embryonic stem cells. Where's the opposition to this labeling among religious organizations?

The President has differentiated between destructively derived cells and non-destructivly derived cells. There's your distinction.

ckb2001
06-23-2007, 02:06 PM
You're asking for scientific specificity from non-scientists. That's not reasonable. And you are applying scientific rationalle(leaving things open for later) to non-scientists as well. Again, not reasonable. These are average people. And to AVERAGE people, saying something is "embryonic-like" means that it ISN'T embryonic, but it's very much LIKE embryonic. Same way that the President said that the cells become AS adaptable as embryonic cells, but didn't CALL them embryonic cells. And for the record, that is what the President said just a day or so ago. Sorry, but that trupms his council. Horses mouth and all that.

..

The President has differentiated between destructively derived cells and non-destructivly derived cells. There's your distinction.


The President used the same language in the press report as in the PCB if you look carefully:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070620-8.html

"The order directs the Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH to ensure that any human pluripotent stem cell lines produced in ways that do not create, destroy, or harm human embryos will be eligible for federal funding."
---------------------

As I showed with a medical dictionary before, embryonic stem cells are also known as pluripotent stem cells. So, it's the SAME usage of terms as the PCB.

And check this out:
QUOTE:
"The order expands the NIH Embryonic Stem Cell registry to include all types of ethically produced human pluripotent stem cells. The order renames the registry -- calls it this, the Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry -- so it reflects what stem cells can do, instead of where they come from."
---------------------

So, the President himself is making sure the scientific definition, which is based on structure and function, is applied, not what you and randall550 are suggesting as that they are based on origin. No, origin does NOT matter, even to the President!!

And your quip about the President distinguishing between destructively derived and non-destructively derived cells doesn't in any way rebut what I said. I never argued embryo destruction wasn't the main problem. YOU argued origin was also, and as you see, it is NOT!

So, both scientists and the government use the same definition!!


And many in the religious community also use the same definitions as scientists. Here's one from the Catholics:
http://cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007/01/stem-cell-basics-part-ii-what-is-stem.html

"So, we'll begin at the beginning. What is a stem cell?

A stem cell, according to the National Institutes of Health, is "a cell that has the ability to divide (self replicate) for indefinite periods - often throughout the life of the organism. Under the right conditions, or given the right signals, stem cells can give rise (differentiate) to the many cell types that make up the organism. That is, stem cells have the potential to develop into mature cells that have the characteristic shapes and specialized functions, such as heart cells, skin cells, and nerve cells."[1]

..

"Embryonic stem cells, which will be the focus of next week's essay, fall into this pluripotent stem cell category."
------------------

So, that level of precision is used by Catholics too (at least based on articles in the Catholic Medical Weekly).


You and randall550 need to actually show there is dispute from religious organizations over the terminology used to describe this new discovery before you have any case.

And since you argued there were separate definitions, you CANNOT use quotes that are CONSISTENT with the definition scientists use as evidence for your claim!! That's just logic.

ckb2001
06-23-2007, 02:26 PM
Ok, say I put a bottle of water collected from my tap up for sale. How much will it cost? Now, say I put a bottle of water collected from a Mars polar ice cap up for sale, how much will IT cost? Origin matters.

If there's no distinction in the waters, it is STILL called water!

So, you can't use an example like that to suggest the DEFINITIONS are going to be different - this is the topic here remember?

As for how important origin is, well the morula example is perfect for showing that most religious conservatives do NOT care about the origin if the embryo remains functional.

And the President even renamed the registry (as shown above) to make the definitions fit with those used in science.

Sorry, you've provided no evidence of separate definitions being used.

PhinPhan1227
07-02-2007, 12:27 PM
The President used the same language in the press report as in the PCB if you look carefully:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070620-8.html

"The order directs the Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH to ensure that any human pluripotent stem cell lines produced in ways that do not create, destroy, or harm human embryos will be eligible for federal funding."
---------------------

As I showed with a medical dictionary before, embryonic stem cells are also known as pluripotent stem cells. So, it's the SAME usage of terms as the PCB.

And check this out:
QUOTE:
"The order expands the NIH Embryonic Stem Cell registry to include all types of ethically produced human pluripotent stem cells. The order renames the registry -- calls it this, the Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry -- so it reflects what stem cells can do, instead of where they come from."
---------------------

So, the President himself is making sure the scientific definition, which is based on structure and function, is applied, not what you and randall550 are suggesting as that they are based on origin. No, origin does NOT matter, even to the President!!

And your quip about the President distinguishing between destructively derived and non-destructively derived cells doesn't in any way rebut what I said. I never argued embryo destruction wasn't the main problem. YOU argued origin was also, and as you see, it is NOT!

So, both scientists and the government use the same definition!!


And many in the religious community also use the same definitions as scientists. Here's one from the Catholics:
http://cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007/01/stem-cell-basics-part-ii-what-is-stem.html

"So, we'll begin at the beginning. What is a stem cell?

A stem cell, according to the National Institutes of Health, is "a cell that has the ability to divide (self replicate) for indefinite periods - often throughout the life of the organism. Under the right conditions, or given the right signals, stem cells can give rise (differentiate) to the many cell types that make up the organism. That is, stem cells have the potential to develop into mature cells that have the characteristic shapes and specialized functions, such as heart cells, skin cells, and nerve cells."[1]

..

"Embryonic stem cells, which will be the focus of next week's essay, fall into this pluripotent stem cell category."
------------------

So, that level of precision is used by Catholics too (at least based on articles in the Catholic Medical Weekly).


You and randall550 need to actually show there is dispute from religious organizations over the terminology used to describe this new discovery before you have any case.

And since you argued there were separate definitions, you CANNOT use quotes that are CONSISTENT with the definition scientists use as evidence for your claim!! That's just logic.

Jesus man it's like you have giant blinders on. "Pluripotent cells" describes ONLY the funcionality of the cell. "Embryonic cells" however encompases both the ORIGINS of the cells, as well as the functionality. The man made a CLEAR distinction by USING the term Pluripotent instead of embryonic.

Are we getting anywhere here? Seriously, is anything short of the head of the Baptist Ministers of America coming out and stating verbatim "we don't see these new cells as embryonic" going to to do it for you?

ckb2001
07-02-2007, 03:53 PM
Jesus man it's like you have giant blinders on. "Pluripotent cells" describes ONLY the funcionality of the cell. "Embryonic cells" however encompases both the ORIGINS of the cells, as well as the functionality. The man made a CLEAR distinction by USING the term Pluripotent instead of embryonic.

Are we getting anywhere here? Seriously, is anything short of the head of the Baptist Ministers of America coming out and stating verbatim "we don't see these new cells as embryonic" going to to do it for you?

How many times do I have to tell you that if the structure and function are the same, the types of cells are the same in a scientist's eyes. Definitions in science are updated, which is why "embryonic" stem cells refers to the structure and function of the cell, NOT the origin, even if prior definitions included their origin. You already saw how many scientists were labeling the cells created here as embryonic stem cells. Some played it safe in case of future discoveries and say they are embryonic-like, while others just look at the evidence gathered so far and say they ARE embryonic stem cells.

You can't look at the origin of a word and deduce its definition, especially in science where things change.

So, that part about "blinders" is you really forgetting what I already explained, not me not thinking through something carefully.

And as far as non-scientists' view of this, you see the President and the PCB are looking at the function and specifically NOT the origin. They even CLEARLY stated that. So, what they value is the function, NOT origin.

And most religious conservatives so far haven't been opposed to taking cells from a morula that turn into embryonic stem cells, so obviously any assertion that most are concerned about the origin is false.

How many times do I have to give the same example?

And yes you'll need to show me religious organizations specifically stating these adult stem cells were turned into cells they are NOT willing to label embryonic to show me evidence supporting your claim there are separate definitions.

So far, you've provided no evidence of separate definitions. And keep in mind that stating something consistent with the scientific definition does NOT serve as evidence for a separate definition.

PhinPhan1227
07-03-2007, 03:22 PM
How many times do I have to tell you that if the structure and function are the same, the types of cells are the same in a scientist's eyes. .

And how many times do I have to tell you that it doesn't MATTER how a scientist defines it? Scientists aren't the issue here and never have been. It's how religious conservatives will define it. And over and over I have given you examples that have made the distinction between cells derived from an embryo versus cells derived from other sources. Again, scientists definitions don't MATTER in this discussion.

ckb2001
07-03-2007, 04:14 PM
And how many times do I have to tell you that it doesn't MATTER how a scientist defines it? Scientists aren't the issue here and never have been. It's how religious conservatives will define it. And over and over I have given you examples that have made the distinction between cells derived from an embryo versus cells derived from other sources. Again, scientists definitions don't MATTER in this discussion.

You didn't read the rest of the post? I covered that.

Point is this. You have provided no evidence of a separate definition. Therefore, you can't assume there is such a separate definition or tell me I shouldn't use the definition scientists use. Until you actually have evidence for a separate definition, "embryonic stem cell", especially after this discovery, refers to a function and structure a cell has, NOT its origin.

And it obviously does matter how scientists define it since that's the definition the government and even major religious groups are using.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 02:51 PM
You didn't read the rest of the post? I covered that.

Point is this. You have provided no evidence of a separate definition. Therefore, you can't assume there is such a separate definition or tell me I shouldn't use the definition scientists use. Until you actually have evidence for a separate definition, "embryonic stem cell", especially after this discovery, refers to a function and structure a cell has, NOT its origin.

And it obviously does matter how scientists define it since that's the definition the government and even major religious groups are using.

I ignored the rest of it because you keep using the same improper basis for asserting that I haven't shown other groups distinguishing between the two. Again, you aren't going to find anyone stating it as clearly as you want. But when NORMAL people use qualifiers such as "embryonic-like", non-destructive", and others, they ARE making a clear distinction. Once you take the scientists definitions out of the equation and get it back to real people, the distinctions are clear.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 04:06 PM
I ignored the rest of it because you keep using the same improper basis for asserting that I haven't shown other groups distinguishing between the two. Again, you aren't going to find anyone stating it as clearly as you want. But when NORMAL people use qualifiers such as "embryonic-like", non-destructive", and others, they ARE making a clear distinction. Once you take the scientists definitions out of the equation and get it back to real people, the distinctions are clear.

What improper basis? It's pure logic that you can't say there exists another definition used by religious groups without either explicitly showing such a definition (for example, an official statement or press release stating the group objects to the cells in question being called embryonic stem cells) or taking quotes from people that are consistent with the scientific definition. You have to show something inconsistent with the scientific definition, obviously! And you haven't done that.

There's nothing improper about that. You simply haven't shown any evidence of a separate definition in use among religious groups. I on the other hand showed that the President and the government were willing to use the scientific definition and that some religious groups (like the Catholics) have in the past used the scientific definition.

Furthermore I repeatedly showed that most religious groups are NOT concerned about origin as much as function through the morula example. So, even common sense would suggest they have no reason to use a separate definition in this case.

And what your man on the street thinks is beside the point. I could ask them what a molecule is and they'd get it wrong (90% statistically). The question is what definitions are used by those groups whose views are considered important in policy making processes. And only the scientific definition is used, at least as far as we know.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 04:19 PM
What improper basis? It's pure logic that you can't say there exists another definition used by religious groups without either explicitly showing such a definition (for example, an official statement or press release stating the group objects to the cells in question being called embryonic stem cells) or taking quotes from people that are consistent with the scientific definition. You have to show something inconsistent with the scientific definition, obviously! And you haven't done that.

There's nothing improper about that. You simply haven't shown any evidence of a separate definition in use among religious groups. I on the other hand showed that the President and the government were willing to use the scientific definition and that some religious groups (like the Catholics) have in the past used the scientific definition.

Furthermore I repeatedly showed that most religious groups are NOT concerned about origin as much as function through the morula example. So, even common sense would suggest they have no reason to use a separate definition in this case.

And what your man on the street thinks is beside the point. I could ask them what a molecule is and they'd get it wrong (90% statistically). The question is what definitions are used by those groups whose views are considered important in policy making processes. And only the scientific definition is used, at least as far as we know.


And I showed you over and over that the FUNDING was going to methods that were NON-destructive. And in so doing, these kinds of methods were specifically mentioned. Thus the distinction.

And again, we aren't talking about the scientists defintion, so you can't START from the scientists definition. We are talking about religious conservatives because YOU singled them out, You have to start with their definition, and you never did that. Further you will neve rHAVE someone come out and give the precise defintion you ask for, it just wouldn't make sens efor them to do so.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 04:30 PM
And I showed you over and over that the FUNDING was going to methods that were NON-destructive. And in so doing, these kinds of methods were specifically mentioned. Thus the distinction.

And again, we aren't talking about the scientists defintion, so you can't START from the scientists definition. We are talking about religious conservatives because YOU singled them out, You have to start with their definition, and you never did that. Further you will neve rHAVE someone come out and give the precise defintion you ask for, it just wouldn't make sens efor them to do so.

Is this your style of debating? Just forget what the person you're debating with says, wait awhile, then rehash it? I told you that there are NO new embryonic stem cell lines funded from altered nuclear transfer or taking cells from a morula!!

Dude, those are non-destructive methods that were NOT funded before!

And finally, the ONLY known definition IS the definition from science. Show there is another and we can speak of that. Until then, there is only the definition from science! Oh, and no one needs to provide a precise definition distinct from the one in science. They need to explicitly refute the one given by science! Show me that, and you have an argument. So far, you have none.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 04:44 PM
Is this your style of debating? Just forget what the person you're debating with says, wait awhile, then rehash it? I told you that there are NO new embryonic stem cell lines funded from altered nuclear transfer or taking cells from a morula!!

Dude, those are non-destructive methods that were NOT funded before!

And finally, the ONLY known definition IS the definition from science. Show there is another and we can speak of that. Until then, there is only the definition from science! Oh, and no one needs to provide a precise definition distinct from the one in science. They need to explicitly refute the one given by science! Show me that, and you have an argument. So far, you have none.

That's all we seem to be doing is going around and around saying the same things. Point is, the people YOU called out aren't the ones who are going to make that clear cut distinction. I don't see why they would. They have instead used a variety of methods of making that distinction clear to most everyone else but you however. When a person says that something is "like" something else, they HAVE made the distinction. You choose repeatedly to ignore that fact.

Bottom line, we aren't getting anywhere. I'm confident that time will continue to prove me right that nothing but support(other than by small fringe groups at worst) for this kind of technology will come from the religious right. I see no reason to continue further.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 04:49 PM
That's all we seem to be doing is going around and around saying the same things. Point is, the people YOU called out aren't the ones who are going to make that clear cut distinction. I don't see why they would. They have instead used a variety of methods of making that distinction clear to most everyone else but you however. When a person says that something is "like" something else, they HAVE made the distinction. You choose repeatedly to ignore that fact.

Bottom line, we aren't getting anywhere. I'm confident that time will continue to prove me right that nothing but support(other than by small fringe groups at worst) for this kind of technology will come from the religious right. I see no reason to continue further.

We keep going round and round because YOU selectively ignore what I stated before!

And as long as you keep asserting something with NO evidence for it, I'll keep calling you out for it. You claim there's a separate definition for embryonic stem cells, but provide NO evidence. Sorry, that's not a useful means of debating. I don't understand how you can even think I'd fall for that.

Provide evidence or stop making the claim.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 04:54 PM
We keep going round and round because YOU selectively ignore what I stated before!

And as long as you keep asserting something with NO evidence for it, I'll keep calling you out for it. You claim there's a separate definition for embryonic stem cells, but provide NO evidence. Sorry, that's not a useful means of debating. I don't understand how you can even think I'd fall for that.

Provide evidence or stop making the claim.

I gave you a whole post of quotes from people who made the distinction. Again, when the average person says that something is "like" something else, they have made a distinction. You keep wanting to hold those people to scientific standards and that just isn't reasonable. So long as you keep to that ridiculous standard, I don't see what else we can accomplish.

Go back and reread the post if you like.

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 05:01 PM
I gave you a whole post of quotes from people who made the distinction. Again, when the average person says that something is "like" something else, they have made a distinction. You keep wanting to hold those people to scientific standards and that just isn't reasonable. So long as you keep to that ridiculous standard, I don't see what else we can accomplish.

Go back and reread the post if you like.

See, selectively ignoring what I stated before.

I showed you that NONE of those quotes are inconsistent with the scientific definition!! Scientists themselves were quoted as saying "embryonic-like" and I explained WHY.

Don't tell me you can't understand the argument I gave. For the nth time, some scientists are willing to state they ARE embryonic stem cells because based on the data at hand, that's what it suggests. Others are going to hedge their bets based on possible future data and say "embryonic-like" because it's possible new experiments show there are differences.

That does NOT dispute at all the definition scientists use. It just shows different levels of care each researcher has in making assertions. I mean some scientists themselves said "embryonic-like". Oh, and in some articles, the same scientist used both terms!

You have to actually find something that is inconsistent with the definition before you have evidence. I told you that before.

PhinPhan1227
07-05-2007, 05:39 PM
See, selectively ignoring what I stated before.

I showed you that NONE of those quotes are inconsistent with the scientific definition!! Scientists themselves were quoted as saying "embryonic-like" and I explained WHY.

Don't tell me you can't understand the argument I gave. For the nth time, some scientists are willing to state they ARE embryonic stem cells because based on the data at hand, that's what it suggests. Others are going to hedge their bets based on possible future data and say "embryonic-like" because it's possible new experiments show there are differences.

That does NOT dispute at all the definition scientists use. It just shows different levels of care each researcher has in making assertions. I mean some scientists themselves said "embryonic-like". Oh, and in some articles, the same scientist used both terms!

You have to actually find something that is inconsistent with the definition before you have evidence. I told you that before.


And there YOU go again applying scientists standards to average people. Average people who say "embryonic-like" mean exactly that, DIFFERNET from an embryo. Are you ever going to recognize that fact?

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 05:52 PM
And there YOU go again applying scientists standards to average people. Average people who say "embryonic-like" mean exactly that, DIFFERNET from an embryo. Are you ever going to recognize that fact?

No, I never made the argument for average people. I wouldn't go that far - obviously, as I said with the "molecule" example, you can get the weirdest answers from average people.

My argument from the outset was that there were no separate definitions you provided evidence for when considering those used by scientists, politicians or religious groups that were considered relevant in making policy.

I stated that several times many posts ago, so this is NOT about average people. With average people, who knows what they think..

But, there is no evidence of separate definitions among those religious groups whose views are considered relevant in making policy.