Mike Ferugson Opposes Stem Cell Research

[kideathangel]

useless



[oran6es]

Looks like Mike was right. Instead of taxes funding a cost-prohibitive form of cannibalism, Mike's methods would have resulted in those embryos being living laughing 3 year olds by now.

[nathanrudy]

Ummm, no. Those embryos have either been destroyed at fertility clinics or are still frozen and will be destroyed.

[oran6es]

So you guarantee a cure before any evidence suggests its potential success?

Maybe he opposes government sponsored cost prohibitive cannibalism of our youngest.

Maybe he opposes it because it takes dollars away from real potentially successful research using adult stem cells or utilizing realistic cures.

Maybe he's got a lot more sense than you.

Maybe suggesting you're for cures and he's not is the most vicious form of pompousness.

Commercial 2006, It's almost 2010. Where are those cures?

[nathanrudy]

Maybe the reason why those cures aren't available yet is because federal funding was denied? Maybe because any research lab that accepted federal funds had to completely isolate any use of embryonic stem cells from all other work that received any federal funding? Maybe because most of the lines that were approved were hopelessly corrupted and couldn't be used?

[TolsmaLMC]

Although I support finding cures for people who need them, I don't think we need to use embryos to do it. I support adult stem-cell research. They say that adult stem-cells actually work better than embryonic stem cells too, and no life gets destroyed or exploited.

[nathanrudy]

It's not an either or argument. I also support adult stem-cell research, and believe it has promises also. But to decide that embryonic stem cells that are going to be destroyed anyway should not be used to find other cures is simply irrational. The stem cells will not become human beings regardless of whether they are used to save lives or not.

[iamminjikim]

how is anyone going understand your view if you're going to sound so aggressive?

[nathanrudy]

Thanks for the advice. No one who has ever sounded aggressive ever won an argument or succeeded in politics.

[GraceofGod758]

Why should ANYONE "know the joys" of cures by the life-blood of those who NEVER KNEW THE LIGHT OF DAY? THAT'S WHY, YOU MORAL DEFECTIVE. Because ABORTION is WRONG. THEREFORE anything you do with the dead little baby's body is WRONG. CAN WE TEAR UP YOUR MOMMY'S BODY AFTER SHE'S GONE AGAINST YOUR WISHES TO GET HER ORGANS AND SAVE A LIFE? By the same token, we should be able to force it on you. Why should we respect HER life, but not the taken-lives of the MOST DEFENSELESS?

[whenof]

Chill out. If you can't get your heart around this, that's fine. It's your right to believe what you want to believe, but let's have an intelligent conversation and see where it goes, instead of name calling.

[GraceofGod758]

Okay, so I allowed myself to use a "name", which is not the norm for me, but I'm human and do feel strongly about some things. So that was all you heard, name calling? I guess this issue is for the "intelligent" like you because NO, I can't get my "heart" around something that feeds on the wasted bodies of the most vulnerable.

[nathanrudy]

My mother was an organ donor, and so am I. I hope that my body will be torn up after I die and used to save other people's lives.

On the other hand, I do not believe that a blastosphere or an embryonic gaggle of cells that has not implanted in a uterus is a human being. So your screaming arguments have no affect on me.

[oran6es]

Whether spare or not, the embryos are identical, and just as human. Destroying them is one thing, but unnaturally forcing them to live and develop is another. By pulling them apart, culturing and coaxing their maturation well into maturity, you've developed living infant parts in multiple dishes.

That's not ethical in my book.

[nathanrudy]

That's an excellent take on it, and I respect that explanation of your position. I disagree, but it is well thought out.

This is not meant to be rude or argumentative, so please take it in the spirit of discussion intended. If an embryo is a full human being (you didn't say it way, but I am assuming you do), then what is the difference between destroying them and destroying a 6 month old?

[oran6es]

Thanks for understanding. The 6 month old is a living potential adult. The embryo is a living potential 6 month old. They're all different phases of one individual's existence. Given that implanted embryonic stem cells cause tumors called teratomas(google pictures of teratomas), most research currently performed is on cells DERIVED from embryonic cells.

When forced to develop, they're no longer a few stem cells, they become heart, pancreas, nerve, etc. They're the equivalent of infant cells @ 9m