Obama did something useful

Brad

New member
It's not always about cast off embryos...

It is about Cell Research.. No Progress < I think I read above. Have a look at this.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU</a>
 

Brad

New member
It's not always about cast off embryos...

It is about Cell Research.. No Progress < I think I read above. Have a look at this.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU</a>
 

Brad

New member
It's not always about cast off embryos...

It is about Cell Research.. No Progress < I think I read above. Have a look at this.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU</a>
 

Brad

New member
It's not always about cast off embryos...

It is about Cell Research.. No Progress < I think I read above. Have a look at this.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU</a>
 

Brad

New member
<br /> It's not always about cast off embryos...
<br />
<br /> It is about Cell Research.. No Progress < I think I read above. Have a look at this.
<br />
<br /> <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
Lie: Obama's executive order removes funding restrictions put in place by President George W. Bush

Truth: President Bush did not place limits on funding for embryonic stem cell research. resident Bush was the first president to authorize federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells. That point bears repeating because it is the most commonly held and erroneous belief in the entire stem cell debate. Put another way: Before President Bush's August 2001 decision to authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, there was no authorization for such funding.

That he did not go as far as proponents of the research would have liked is not nearly the same thing as placing a restriction on the research. If that were the case, then it could be argued that President Obama restricted federal funds available for economic stimulus programs because he only authorized $787 billion when some Democrats wanted nearly double that figure.

Lie: President Bush made his decision on stem cells out of some uninformed and misguided personal conviction

Truth: President Bush had scientific and ethical advisers too, just like President Obama. And not all of them were even ordained ministers! Yes, President Bush was pro-life and so predisposed to making the decision he did. But, Bush's decision was an informed one based on scientific, ethical, and moral advice informed by his personal convictions. President Obama's decision is likely based on his personal convictions in favor of abortion.

The hottest area of stem cell research involves reprogramming adult cells so they behave almost exactly like embryonic stem cells. But there are still many technical issues to resolve before these cells would be safe to use in patients.

Scientists have actually been able to program adult cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. There are technical issues to be resolved with the procedure, but that is also the case and more with embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cell treatments are working in humans right now, whereas embryonic stem cells have thus far shown nothing practical for their so-called vast potential. President Obama's decision, however, will drain research dollars from adult stem cells as federal money will be directed toward the favored embryonic stem cell lines. This will have the unfortunate effect of delaying, not hastening, cures.

Worse, however, when he rescinded Bush's stem cells decision, Obama also rescinded a less publicized Executive Order put in place by President Bush. Executive Order 13435 directed the federal government to find and fund research into ehthical alternatives to embryonic stem cells. Research into treatments based on them will still continue, especially since they have shown actual promise toward developing into cures. But it will be a whole lot more difficult to secure those funds. Under the same reasoning applied to President Bush's decision, Obama's action on this order is a restriction placed on adult stem cell research. And it is every bit as based on ideology, Obama's pro-abortion ideology, as was Bush's.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.redstate.com/mark_i/2009/03/11/the-la-times-answers-stem-cells-faqs-with-frequently-stated-misconceptions/
">http://www.redstate.com/mark_i...tated-misconceptions/
</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
Lie: Obama's executive order removes funding restrictions put in place by President George W. Bush

Truth: President Bush did not place limits on funding for embryonic stem cell research. resident Bush was the first president to authorize federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells. That point bears repeating because it is the most commonly held and erroneous belief in the entire stem cell debate. Put another way: Before President Bush's August 2001 decision to authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, there was no authorization for such funding.

That he did not go as far as proponents of the research would have liked is not nearly the same thing as placing a restriction on the research. If that were the case, then it could be argued that President Obama restricted federal funds available for economic stimulus programs because he only authorized $787 billion when some Democrats wanted nearly double that figure.

Lie: President Bush made his decision on stem cells out of some uninformed and misguided personal conviction

Truth: President Bush had scientific and ethical advisers too, just like President Obama. And not all of them were even ordained ministers! Yes, President Bush was pro-life and so predisposed to making the decision he did. But, Bush's decision was an informed one based on scientific, ethical, and moral advice informed by his personal convictions. President Obama's decision is likely based on his personal convictions in favor of abortion.

The hottest area of stem cell research involves reprogramming adult cells so they behave almost exactly like embryonic stem cells. But there are still many technical issues to resolve before these cells would be safe to use in patients.

Scientists have actually been able to program adult cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. There are technical issues to be resolved with the procedure, but that is also the case and more with embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cell treatments are working in humans right now, whereas embryonic stem cells have thus far shown nothing practical for their so-called vast potential. President Obama's decision, however, will drain research dollars from adult stem cells as federal money will be directed toward the favored embryonic stem cell lines. This will have the unfortunate effect of delaying, not hastening, cures.

Worse, however, when he rescinded Bush's stem cells decision, Obama also rescinded a less publicized Executive Order put in place by President Bush. Executive Order 13435 directed the federal government to find and fund research into ehthical alternatives to embryonic stem cells. Research into treatments based on them will still continue, especially since they have shown actual promise toward developing into cures. But it will be a whole lot more difficult to secure those funds. Under the same reasoning applied to President Bush's decision, Obama's action on this order is a restriction placed on adult stem cell research. And it is every bit as based on ideology, Obama's pro-abortion ideology, as was Bush's.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.redstate.com/mark_i/2009/03/11/the-la-times-answers-stem-cells-faqs-with-frequently-stated-misconceptions/
">http://www.redstate.com/mark_i...tated-misconceptions/
</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
Lie: Obama's executive order removes funding restrictions put in place by President George W. Bush

Truth: President Bush did not place limits on funding for embryonic stem cell research. resident Bush was the first president to authorize federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells. That point bears repeating because it is the most commonly held and erroneous belief in the entire stem cell debate. Put another way: Before President Bush's August 2001 decision to authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, there was no authorization for such funding.

That he did not go as far as proponents of the research would have liked is not nearly the same thing as placing a restriction on the research. If that were the case, then it could be argued that President Obama restricted federal funds available for economic stimulus programs because he only authorized $787 billion when some Democrats wanted nearly double that figure.

Lie: President Bush made his decision on stem cells out of some uninformed and misguided personal conviction

Truth: President Bush had scientific and ethical advisers too, just like President Obama. And not all of them were even ordained ministers! Yes, President Bush was pro-life and so predisposed to making the decision he did. But, Bush's decision was an informed one based on scientific, ethical, and moral advice informed by his personal convictions. President Obama's decision is likely based on his personal convictions in favor of abortion.

The hottest area of stem cell research involves reprogramming adult cells so they behave almost exactly like embryonic stem cells. But there are still many technical issues to resolve before these cells would be safe to use in patients.

Scientists have actually been able to program adult cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. There are technical issues to be resolved with the procedure, but that is also the case and more with embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cell treatments are working in humans right now, whereas embryonic stem cells have thus far shown nothing practical for their so-called vast potential. President Obama's decision, however, will drain research dollars from adult stem cells as federal money will be directed toward the favored embryonic stem cell lines. This will have the unfortunate effect of delaying, not hastening, cures.

Worse, however, when he rescinded Bush's stem cells decision, Obama also rescinded a less publicized Executive Order put in place by President Bush. Executive Order 13435 directed the federal government to find and fund research into ehthical alternatives to embryonic stem cells. Research into treatments based on them will still continue, especially since they have shown actual promise toward developing into cures. But it will be a whole lot more difficult to secure those funds. Under the same reasoning applied to President Bush's decision, Obama's action on this order is a restriction placed on adult stem cell research. And it is every bit as based on ideology, Obama's pro-abortion ideology, as was Bush's.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.redstate.com/mark_i/2009/03/11/the-la-times-answers-stem-cells-faqs-with-frequently-stated-misconceptions/
">http://www.redstate.com/mark_i...tated-misconceptions/
</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
Lie: Obama's executive order removes funding restrictions put in place by President George W. Bush

Truth: President Bush did not place limits on funding for embryonic stem cell research. resident Bush was the first president to authorize federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells. That point bears repeating because it is the most commonly held and erroneous belief in the entire stem cell debate. Put another way: Before President Bush's August 2001 decision to authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, there was no authorization for such funding.

That he did not go as far as proponents of the research would have liked is not nearly the same thing as placing a restriction on the research. If that were the case, then it could be argued that President Obama restricted federal funds available for economic stimulus programs because he only authorized $787 billion when some Democrats wanted nearly double that figure.

Lie: President Bush made his decision on stem cells out of some uninformed and misguided personal conviction

Truth: President Bush had scientific and ethical advisers too, just like President Obama. And not all of them were even ordained ministers! Yes, President Bush was pro-life and so predisposed to making the decision he did. But, Bush's decision was an informed one based on scientific, ethical, and moral advice informed by his personal convictions. President Obama's decision is likely based on his personal convictions in favor of abortion.

The hottest area of stem cell research involves reprogramming adult cells so they behave almost exactly like embryonic stem cells. But there are still many technical issues to resolve before these cells would be safe to use in patients.

Scientists have actually been able to program adult cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. There are technical issues to be resolved with the procedure, but that is also the case and more with embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cell treatments are working in humans right now, whereas embryonic stem cells have thus far shown nothing practical for their so-called vast potential. President Obama's decision, however, will drain research dollars from adult stem cells as federal money will be directed toward the favored embryonic stem cell lines. This will have the unfortunate effect of delaying, not hastening, cures.

Worse, however, when he rescinded Bush's stem cells decision, Obama also rescinded a less publicized Executive Order put in place by President Bush. Executive Order 13435 directed the federal government to find and fund research into ehthical alternatives to embryonic stem cells. Research into treatments based on them will still continue, especially since they have shown actual promise toward developing into cures. But it will be a whole lot more difficult to secure those funds. Under the same reasoning applied to President Bush's decision, Obama's action on this order is a restriction placed on adult stem cell research. And it is every bit as based on ideology, Obama's pro-abortion ideology, as was Bush's.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.redstate.com/mark_i/2009/03/11/the-la-times-answers-stem-cells-faqs-with-frequently-stated-misconceptions/
">http://www.redstate.com/mark_i...tated-misconceptions/
</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
Lie: Obama's executive order removes funding restrictions put in place by President George W. Bush
<br />
<br />Truth: President Bush did not place limits on funding for embryonic stem cell research. resident Bush was the first president to authorize federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells. That point bears repeating because it is the most commonly held and erroneous belief in the entire stem cell debate. Put another way: Before President Bush's August 2001 decision to authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, there was no authorization for such funding.
<br />
<br />That he did not go as far as proponents of the research would have liked is not nearly the same thing as placing a restriction on the research. If that were the case, then it could be argued that President Obama restricted federal funds available for economic stimulus programs because he only authorized $787 billion when some Democrats wanted nearly double that figure.
<br />
<br />Lie: President Bush made his decision on stem cells out of some uninformed and misguided personal conviction
<br />
<br />Truth: President Bush had scientific and ethical advisers too, just like President Obama. And not all of them were even ordained ministers! Yes, President Bush was pro-life and so predisposed to making the decision he did. But, Bush's decision was an informed one based on scientific, ethical, and moral advice informed by his personal convictions. President Obama's decision is likely based on his personal convictions in favor of abortion.
<br />
<br />The hottest area of stem cell research involves reprogramming adult cells so they behave almost exactly like embryonic stem cells. But there are still many technical issues to resolve before these cells would be safe to use in patients.
<br />
<br />Scientists have actually been able to program adult cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. There are technical issues to be resolved with the procedure, but that is also the case and more with embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cell treatments are working in humans right now, whereas embryonic stem cells have thus far shown nothing practical for their so-called vast potential. President Obama's decision, however, will drain research dollars from adult stem cells as federal money will be directed toward the favored embryonic stem cell lines. This will have the unfortunate effect of delaying, not hastening, cures.
<br />
<br />Worse, however, when he rescinded Bush's stem cells decision, Obama also rescinded a less publicized Executive Order put in place by President Bush. Executive Order 13435 directed the federal government to find and fund research into ehthical alternatives to embryonic stem cells. Research into treatments based on them will still continue, especially since they have shown actual promise toward developing into cures. But it will be a whole lot more difficult to secure those funds. Under the same reasoning applied to President Bush's decision, Obama's action on this order is a restriction placed on adult stem cell research. And it is every bit as based on ideology, Obama's pro-abortion ideology, as was Bush's.
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.redstate.com/mark_i/2009/03/11/the-la-times-answers-stem-cells-faqs-with-frequently-stated-misconceptions/
">http://www.redstate.com/mark_i...tated-misconceptions/
</a><br />
<br />
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
What President Obama did when he reversed President Bush's executive order banning embryonic stem cell research was based not on solid science, but his desire to cater to the anti-life, pro-abortion forces and their media allies who helped elect him.

In doing this, he created the potential for an outbreak of potentially fatal cancerous tumors caused by the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells.

<b>Moreover, he killed another Bush presidential order that funded some of the most promising research on the creation of embryonic-like stem cells from harmless but potent adult stem cells.</b>

What President Obama did when he rescinded President Bush's federal ban on certain lines of embryonic stem cell research ultimately could cost American lives.

Obama and his subservient mainstream media allies ignored science in favor of politics, and the results will prove to be disastrous.

What most people are unaware of is that there are three types of stem cell research: there is embryonic stem cell research (ESC), there is induced pluripotent (IPSC) research, and adult stem cell research (ASC).

When Barack Obama rescinded George Bush's ban on federal funding on certain types of embryonic stem cell research he also rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13435 which had provided federal funding for induced pluripotent stem cell research using harmless adult stem cells manipulated into mimicking embryonic stem cells without the risk ESC cells entail.

This is where <b>72</b> different diseases are now being remedied or cured.

There are no embryonic stem cells being used anywhere in the world on humans, with one tragic exception. A boy treated with embryonic stem cells for a rare genetic disease developed benign tumors, casting doubt on claims of the therapy's safety and effectiveness.

According to media reports, the boy, now 17, received the ESC stem cells in 2001 at a Moscow hospital and four years later scans showed brain and spinal tumors. Israeli doctors removed the abnormal growth from his spine and their tests show it most probably was caused by the stem cells.

The Moscow doctors should have known better. <b>It is well known that lab animals given embryonic stem cells routinely develop tumors and other malignant growths that eventually kill them. There is a 100 percent mortality rate among lab animals that develop these tumors.</b>

That's why George Bush banned this lethal form of research that Barack Obama, who should have known better, has now legitimized by overturning this life-saving ban.

The reason that major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer are not funding ESC research is because they have seen the research and it scared the daylights out of them. They realized that if they injected ESC cells into human beings and like lab animals, they show signs of cancers or lesions or tumors there will be huge class action suits, because they would have ignored all of the available data in research that shows that that's exactly what will happen.

The fact of the matter is embryonic stem cells kill. The research shows conclusively that they help rats and mice die and an Israeli boy grow tumors.

Barack Obama rescinded Bush's executive order banning this dangerous research, which has failed everywhere it has been tried, and then went on to eliminate funding for some of the most promising research on the use of pluripotent adult stem cells.

Unfortunately, those opposed to these actions have made the mistake of concentrating on the pro-life aspects of this controversy, while ignoring the scientific aspects, which prove our case conclusively.

Anyone who is willing to inject embryonic stem cell into their bodies needs to understand that -- like the Israeli boy and the lab animals-- they will grow tumors and lesions.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2009/03/11/obamas_embryonic_stem_cell_ok_can_kill?page=full&comments=true">http://townhall.com/columnists...age=full&comments=true</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
What President Obama did when he reversed President Bush's executive order banning embryonic stem cell research was based not on solid science, but his desire to cater to the anti-life, pro-abortion forces and their media allies who helped elect him.

In doing this, he created the potential for an outbreak of potentially fatal cancerous tumors caused by the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells.

<b>Moreover, he killed another Bush presidential order that funded some of the most promising research on the creation of embryonic-like stem cells from harmless but potent adult stem cells.</b>

What President Obama did when he rescinded President Bush's federal ban on certain lines of embryonic stem cell research ultimately could cost American lives.

Obama and his subservient mainstream media allies ignored science in favor of politics, and the results will prove to be disastrous.

What most people are unaware of is that there are three types of stem cell research: there is embryonic stem cell research (ESC), there is induced pluripotent (IPSC) research, and adult stem cell research (ASC).

When Barack Obama rescinded George Bush's ban on federal funding on certain types of embryonic stem cell research he also rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13435 which had provided federal funding for induced pluripotent stem cell research using harmless adult stem cells manipulated into mimicking embryonic stem cells without the risk ESC cells entail.

This is where <b>72</b> different diseases are now being remedied or cured.

There are no embryonic stem cells being used anywhere in the world on humans, with one tragic exception. A boy treated with embryonic stem cells for a rare genetic disease developed benign tumors, casting doubt on claims of the therapy's safety and effectiveness.

According to media reports, the boy, now 17, received the ESC stem cells in 2001 at a Moscow hospital and four years later scans showed brain and spinal tumors. Israeli doctors removed the abnormal growth from his spine and their tests show it most probably was caused by the stem cells.

The Moscow doctors should have known better. <b>It is well known that lab animals given embryonic stem cells routinely develop tumors and other malignant growths that eventually kill them. There is a 100 percent mortality rate among lab animals that develop these tumors.</b>

That's why George Bush banned this lethal form of research that Barack Obama, who should have known better, has now legitimized by overturning this life-saving ban.

The reason that major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer are not funding ESC research is because they have seen the research and it scared the daylights out of them. They realized that if they injected ESC cells into human beings and like lab animals, they show signs of cancers or lesions or tumors there will be huge class action suits, because they would have ignored all of the available data in research that shows that that's exactly what will happen.

The fact of the matter is embryonic stem cells kill. The research shows conclusively that they help rats and mice die and an Israeli boy grow tumors.

Barack Obama rescinded Bush's executive order banning this dangerous research, which has failed everywhere it has been tried, and then went on to eliminate funding for some of the most promising research on the use of pluripotent adult stem cells.

Unfortunately, those opposed to these actions have made the mistake of concentrating on the pro-life aspects of this controversy, while ignoring the scientific aspects, which prove our case conclusively.

Anyone who is willing to inject embryonic stem cell into their bodies needs to understand that -- like the Israeli boy and the lab animals-- they will grow tumors and lesions.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2009/03/11/obamas_embryonic_stem_cell_ok_can_kill?page=full&comments=true">http://townhall.com/columnists...age=full&comments=true</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
What President Obama did when he reversed President Bush's executive order banning embryonic stem cell research was based not on solid science, but his desire to cater to the anti-life, pro-abortion forces and their media allies who helped elect him.

In doing this, he created the potential for an outbreak of potentially fatal cancerous tumors caused by the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells.

<b>Moreover, he killed another Bush presidential order that funded some of the most promising research on the creation of embryonic-like stem cells from harmless but potent adult stem cells.</b>

What President Obama did when he rescinded President Bush's federal ban on certain lines of embryonic stem cell research ultimately could cost American lives.

Obama and his subservient mainstream media allies ignored science in favor of politics, and the results will prove to be disastrous.

What most people are unaware of is that there are three types of stem cell research: there is embryonic stem cell research (ESC), there is induced pluripotent (IPSC) research, and adult stem cell research (ASC).

When Barack Obama rescinded George Bush's ban on federal funding on certain types of embryonic stem cell research he also rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13435 which had provided federal funding for induced pluripotent stem cell research using harmless adult stem cells manipulated into mimicking embryonic stem cells without the risk ESC cells entail.

This is where <b>72</b> different diseases are now being remedied or cured.

There are no embryonic stem cells being used anywhere in the world on humans, with one tragic exception. A boy treated with embryonic stem cells for a rare genetic disease developed benign tumors, casting doubt on claims of the therapy's safety and effectiveness.

According to media reports, the boy, now 17, received the ESC stem cells in 2001 at a Moscow hospital and four years later scans showed brain and spinal tumors. Israeli doctors removed the abnormal growth from his spine and their tests show it most probably was caused by the stem cells.

The Moscow doctors should have known better. <b>It is well known that lab animals given embryonic stem cells routinely develop tumors and other malignant growths that eventually kill them. There is a 100 percent mortality rate among lab animals that develop these tumors.</b>

That's why George Bush banned this lethal form of research that Barack Obama, who should have known better, has now legitimized by overturning this life-saving ban.

The reason that major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer are not funding ESC research is because they have seen the research and it scared the daylights out of them. They realized that if they injected ESC cells into human beings and like lab animals, they show signs of cancers or lesions or tumors there will be huge class action suits, because they would have ignored all of the available data in research that shows that that's exactly what will happen.

The fact of the matter is embryonic stem cells kill. The research shows conclusively that they help rats and mice die and an Israeli boy grow tumors.

Barack Obama rescinded Bush's executive order banning this dangerous research, which has failed everywhere it has been tried, and then went on to eliminate funding for some of the most promising research on the use of pluripotent adult stem cells.

Unfortunately, those opposed to these actions have made the mistake of concentrating on the pro-life aspects of this controversy, while ignoring the scientific aspects, which prove our case conclusively.

Anyone who is willing to inject embryonic stem cell into their bodies needs to understand that -- like the Israeli boy and the lab animals-- they will grow tumors and lesions.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2009/03/11/obamas_embryonic_stem_cell_ok_can_kill?page=full&comments=true">http://townhall.com/columnists...age=full&comments=true</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
What President Obama did when he reversed President Bush's executive order banning embryonic stem cell research was based not on solid science, but his desire to cater to the anti-life, pro-abortion forces and their media allies who helped elect him.

In doing this, he created the potential for an outbreak of potentially fatal cancerous tumors caused by the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells.

<b>Moreover, he killed another Bush presidential order that funded some of the most promising research on the creation of embryonic-like stem cells from harmless but potent adult stem cells.</b>

What President Obama did when he rescinded President Bush's federal ban on certain lines of embryonic stem cell research ultimately could cost American lives.

Obama and his subservient mainstream media allies ignored science in favor of politics, and the results will prove to be disastrous.

What most people are unaware of is that there are three types of stem cell research: there is embryonic stem cell research (ESC), there is induced pluripotent (IPSC) research, and adult stem cell research (ASC).

When Barack Obama rescinded George Bush's ban on federal funding on certain types of embryonic stem cell research he also rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13435 which had provided federal funding for induced pluripotent stem cell research using harmless adult stem cells manipulated into mimicking embryonic stem cells without the risk ESC cells entail.

This is where <b>72</b> different diseases are now being remedied or cured.

There are no embryonic stem cells being used anywhere in the world on humans, with one tragic exception. A boy treated with embryonic stem cells for a rare genetic disease developed benign tumors, casting doubt on claims of the therapy's safety and effectiveness.

According to media reports, the boy, now 17, received the ESC stem cells in 2001 at a Moscow hospital and four years later scans showed brain and spinal tumors. Israeli doctors removed the abnormal growth from his spine and their tests show it most probably was caused by the stem cells.

The Moscow doctors should have known better. <b>It is well known that lab animals given embryonic stem cells routinely develop tumors and other malignant growths that eventually kill them. There is a 100 percent mortality rate among lab animals that develop these tumors.</b>

That's why George Bush banned this lethal form of research that Barack Obama, who should have known better, has now legitimized by overturning this life-saving ban.

The reason that major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer are not funding ESC research is because they have seen the research and it scared the daylights out of them. They realized that if they injected ESC cells into human beings and like lab animals, they show signs of cancers or lesions or tumors there will be huge class action suits, because they would have ignored all of the available data in research that shows that that's exactly what will happen.

The fact of the matter is embryonic stem cells kill. The research shows conclusively that they help rats and mice die and an Israeli boy grow tumors.

Barack Obama rescinded Bush's executive order banning this dangerous research, which has failed everywhere it has been tried, and then went on to eliminate funding for some of the most promising research on the use of pluripotent adult stem cells.

Unfortunately, those opposed to these actions have made the mistake of concentrating on the pro-life aspects of this controversy, while ignoring the scientific aspects, which prove our case conclusively.

Anyone who is willing to inject embryonic stem cell into their bodies needs to understand that -- like the Israeli boy and the lab animals-- they will grow tumors and lesions.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2009/03/11/obamas_embryonic_stem_cell_ok_can_kill?page=full&comments=true">http://townhall.com/columnists...age=full&comments=true</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
What President Obama did when he reversed President Bush's executive order banning embryonic stem cell research was based not on solid science, but his desire to cater to the anti-life, pro-abortion forces and their media allies who helped elect him.
<br />
<br />In doing this, he created the potential for an outbreak of potentially fatal cancerous tumors caused by the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells.
<br />
<br /><b>Moreover, he killed another Bush presidential order that funded some of the most promising research on the creation of embryonic-like stem cells from harmless but potent adult stem cells.</b>
<br />
<br />What President Obama did when he rescinded President Bush's federal ban on certain lines of embryonic stem cell research ultimately could cost American lives.
<br />
<br />Obama and his subservient mainstream media allies ignored science in favor of politics, and the results will prove to be disastrous.
<br />
<br />What most people are unaware of is that there are three types of stem cell research: there is embryonic stem cell research (ESC), there is induced pluripotent (IPSC) research, and adult stem cell research (ASC).
<br />
<br />When Barack Obama rescinded George Bush's ban on federal funding on certain types of embryonic stem cell research he also rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13435 which had provided federal funding for induced pluripotent stem cell research using harmless adult stem cells manipulated into mimicking embryonic stem cells without the risk ESC cells entail.
<br />
<br />This is where <b>72</b> different diseases are now being remedied or cured.
<br />
<br />There are no embryonic stem cells being used anywhere in the world on humans, with one tragic exception. A boy treated with embryonic stem cells for a rare genetic disease developed benign tumors, casting doubt on claims of the therapy's safety and effectiveness.
<br />
<br />According to media reports, the boy, now 17, received the ESC stem cells in 2001 at a Moscow hospital and four years later scans showed brain and spinal tumors. Israeli doctors removed the abnormal growth from his spine and their tests show it most probably was caused by the stem cells.
<br />
<br />The Moscow doctors should have known better. <b>It is well known that lab animals given embryonic stem cells routinely develop tumors and other malignant growths that eventually kill them. There is a 100 percent mortality rate among lab animals that develop these tumors.</b>
<br />
<br />That's why George Bush banned this lethal form of research that Barack Obama, who should have known better, has now legitimized by overturning this life-saving ban.
<br />
<br />The reason that major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer are not funding ESC research is because they have seen the research and it scared the daylights out of them. They realized that if they injected ESC cells into human beings and like lab animals, they show signs of cancers or lesions or tumors there will be huge class action suits, because they would have ignored all of the available data in research that shows that that's exactly what will happen.
<br />
<br />The fact of the matter is embryonic stem cells kill. The research shows conclusively that they help rats and mice die and an Israeli boy grow tumors.
<br />
<br />Barack Obama rescinded Bush's executive order banning this dangerous research, which has failed everywhere it has been tried, and then went on to eliminate funding for some of the most promising research on the use of pluripotent adult stem cells.
<br />
<br />Unfortunately, those opposed to these actions have made the mistake of concentrating on the pro-life aspects of this controversy, while ignoring the scientific aspects, which prove our case conclusively.
<br />
<br />Anyone who is willing to inject embryonic stem cell into their bodies needs to understand that -- like the Israeli boy and the lab animals-- they will grow tumors and lesions.
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2009/03/11/obamas_embryonic_stem_cell_ok_can_kill?page=full&comments=true">http://townhall.com/columnists...age=full&comments=true</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
Currently, the only way to do embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning is to destroy living human embryos. The debate is becoming increasingly emotional and highly charged, as scientists interested in the research continue to diminish the moral concerns associated with embryo destruction and hype the potential benefits of such research.

Obtaining embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a living human embryo. It is done by taking a days-old embryo that has grown to the several hundred-cell stage, breaking it apart, and taking the cells from the embryo's inner mass.[3] These unspecialized cells are then taken, grown, and used for research.

One of the inherent problems in using embryonic stem cells in therapies is the problem of transplantation. If a transplanted cell's DNA is even minorly different from the person's being treated, the body usually sees those cells as an invader and kills them off - much like what happens when whole-organ transplants are rejected due to an immune system response. Without the use of drugs to depress the patient's immune system, transplanted tissue generally doesn't survive but a few hours or days.

To overcome this inherent problem, scientists began pursuing human cloning as a method for obtaining genetically-compatible cells for transplantation. Cloning-for-biomedical-research, also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and therapeutic cloning,[4] is a process through which a human egg is taken from a woman, the nucleus removed, and replaced with a nucleus from a patient's body cell. Using electrical shock or chemical bath, the egg is tricked into believing it has been fertilized, and it begins to divide, becoming a human embryo.

With only the proper nutrition and environment, an embryo will develop into you or me. Researchers looking for embryonic stem cells interrupt the developmental process after several days to destroy the embryo and obtain its stem cells. When using cloned embryos, those cells are genetically identical to someone else. Some scientists claim that they are trying to produce cloned children by creating cloned embryos and then transferring the embryo into a woman's uterus - a process often referred to as reproductive cloning.[5] In addition to horrible genetic problems that currently plague animal clones, there are a whole host of ethical reasons that reproductive cloning should never be allowed.

Ten years after the first isolation of embryonic stem cells, there is not a single disease that these cells can cure, regardless of whether the cells obtained from embryos are created through sperm or egg or through cloning. Scientists have been conducting research on mouse embryonic stem cells for over 25 years and are yet unable to cure mice.[6] Research on humans that necessitates destroying human embryos would be repugnant even if it led to cures. However, such research on humans is even more unseemly given the fact that this research has rarely (and never consistently) worked in animals.

In addition to the fact that it is necessary to destroy nascent human life to obtain embryonic stem cells for research, such research is also immoral because the only way to obtain the human eggs necessary to create embryos is to exploit women. A woman normally only ovulates one or two eggs per reproductive cycle. To obtain enough eggs for research, a woman must take drugs that will cause her to superovulate, releasing 10-15 eggs at a time, and undergo an invasive surgical procedure in order to obtain them.[7] It is simply not possibleto obtain enough eggs from willing women to adequately pursue this research or treat possible diseases that may come from any breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells.[8] Some scientists have discussed trying to use eggs from aborted fetuses or to create eggs from stem cells to alleviate this problem.[9]

The primary alternative to embryonic stem cells is using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have helped patients with over 70 different diseases, with more being continually added.[10] The future of human cures is not in destroying some humans to treat others. It is in ethical treatments that respect all human life with dignity and respect.

There are efforts to find ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying nascent human life.[11] Since 2007, researchers have seen significant breakthroughs enabling scientists to reprogram adult stem cells back into their embryonic stem cell state - without destroying any embryos.[12]

For legislators and policy makers, it is vitally important that proposed bans on destructive embryo research and cloning do not block important ethical avenues for researchers to pursue. In addition, careful measures should be taken to avoid bans on some types of research, especially in the area of cloning, that are essentially toothless or create incentives for researchers to destroy nascent human life. Simply, careful wording of legislative measures and statutes is very important.

Facts & Myths

Myth: Embryonic stem-cell researchers are close to finding cures for a host of terrible diseases, like cancer, diabetes, and neurological disorders such as Parkinson's.

Fact: Embryonic stem cells are unable to cure anyone of anything. Instead, use of the cells in humans does little good and can do great harm. Adult stem-cell research is helping cure more than 73 diseases, with more work being prepared for or currently in clinical trials.

Myth: Embryonic stem-cell research, including the destruction of embryos for their parts, is morally and ethically acceptable.

Fact: Even if breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells do occur, it is still unethical to destroy human embryos for their parts. Regardless of the perceived or real benefit of destroying human embryos, there is no ethical justification for destroying nascent human life regardless of its origins. It is never right to intentionally kill innocent human life to save another's life, especially in such a systematic manner.

Myth: Cloned human embryos are not really human.

Fact: This would mean that Dolly, the first mammal clone ever, was not a sheep, despite the fact it was created using a sheep egg and sheep DNA and after birth looked and acted like a sheep. If cloned human embryos are not human, then what are they? The only logical answer is that a cloned human embryo with a full compliment of human DNA is fully human.

Myth: We do not owe a right to life to cloned embryos. They are an unnatural aberration.

Fact: Regardless of the ethical issues surrounding the creation of human clones or why a clone was created, if created it should not be forbidden to live. We do not require the destruction of human life when created through other unethical means (e.g., rape). Laws against creating cloned embryos should not require the clone's destruction.

Myth: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is not cloning.

Fact: SCNT is currently the only way to do a cloning procedure. While other methods may develop, SCNT will always be a form of cloning.

Myth: A ban on destructive human embryo research or human cloning will stifle scientific research or economic development in my state.

Fact: Few companies even do this research, in part because there are no foreseeable cures that will recoup the dollars needed for investment. And, if embryonic stem-cell research ends up not producing cures, companies may not survive in the state long enough to produce any benefit.

Myth: Embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures are just going to die anyway. We should get some benefit from them.

Fact: It is not necessarily the case that embryos left over from IVF procedures will be destroyed. Some parents change their mind and decide to implant the embryos to give them a chance at survival. Increasingly, infertile couples are adopting embryos that would otherwise be destroyed or languish in cryopreservation. Even if these embryos would be destroyed, it does not give us the right to use them for research material.

Myth: You cannot compare a clump of cells smaller than the tip of pencil to an existing human being who is suffering and may die without this research.

Fact: It is not your size or location that gives you value and dignity, it is your status as a member of the human race. Every human being, whether as small as the tip of a pencil or as large as a sumo wrestler, deserves the protections accorded to all other human beings. If we decide that some members of the human race should not receive those protections, then we are all at risk if the rich, powerful, or simple majority decides some of us are no longer worthy of life.

Myth: Adult stem cells are not as capable as embryonic stem cells.

Fact: While it is generally agreed that embryonic stem cells are more flexible in becoming different tissue types than adult stem cells, the idea that adult cells are not as capable as embryonic cells for use in treatments is pure speculation. Currently, adult cells are much more capable of treating human beings than embryonic cells, which have yet to cure a single disease.

Myth: All stem cell research is unethical.

Fact: Only stem cell research that destroys human life or puts people unnecessarily in harm's way when doing experimental research is unethical. The vast majority of scientific research being done on stem cells is perfectly legitimate.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://dl.aul.org/bioethics/working-for-cures-not-clones-an-overview-of-human-cloning-and-stem-cell-research
">http://dl.aul.org/bioethics/wo...nd-stem-cell-research
</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
Currently, the only way to do embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning is to destroy living human embryos. The debate is becoming increasingly emotional and highly charged, as scientists interested in the research continue to diminish the moral concerns associated with embryo destruction and hype the potential benefits of such research.

Obtaining embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a living human embryo. It is done by taking a days-old embryo that has grown to the several hundred-cell stage, breaking it apart, and taking the cells from the embryo's inner mass.[3] These unspecialized cells are then taken, grown, and used for research.

One of the inherent problems in using embryonic stem cells in therapies is the problem of transplantation. If a transplanted cell's DNA is even minorly different from the person's being treated, the body usually sees those cells as an invader and kills them off - much like what happens when whole-organ transplants are rejected due to an immune system response. Without the use of drugs to depress the patient's immune system, transplanted tissue generally doesn't survive but a few hours or days.

To overcome this inherent problem, scientists began pursuing human cloning as a method for obtaining genetically-compatible cells for transplantation. Cloning-for-biomedical-research, also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and therapeutic cloning,[4] is a process through which a human egg is taken from a woman, the nucleus removed, and replaced with a nucleus from a patient's body cell. Using electrical shock or chemical bath, the egg is tricked into believing it has been fertilized, and it begins to divide, becoming a human embryo.

With only the proper nutrition and environment, an embryo will develop into you or me. Researchers looking for embryonic stem cells interrupt the developmental process after several days to destroy the embryo and obtain its stem cells. When using cloned embryos, those cells are genetically identical to someone else. Some scientists claim that they are trying to produce cloned children by creating cloned embryos and then transferring the embryo into a woman's uterus - a process often referred to as reproductive cloning.[5] In addition to horrible genetic problems that currently plague animal clones, there are a whole host of ethical reasons that reproductive cloning should never be allowed.

Ten years after the first isolation of embryonic stem cells, there is not a single disease that these cells can cure, regardless of whether the cells obtained from embryos are created through sperm or egg or through cloning. Scientists have been conducting research on mouse embryonic stem cells for over 25 years and are yet unable to cure mice.[6] Research on humans that necessitates destroying human embryos would be repugnant even if it led to cures. However, such research on humans is even more unseemly given the fact that this research has rarely (and never consistently) worked in animals.

In addition to the fact that it is necessary to destroy nascent human life to obtain embryonic stem cells for research, such research is also immoral because the only way to obtain the human eggs necessary to create embryos is to exploit women. A woman normally only ovulates one or two eggs per reproductive cycle. To obtain enough eggs for research, a woman must take drugs that will cause her to superovulate, releasing 10-15 eggs at a time, and undergo an invasive surgical procedure in order to obtain them.[7] It is simply not possibleto obtain enough eggs from willing women to adequately pursue this research or treat possible diseases that may come from any breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells.[8] Some scientists have discussed trying to use eggs from aborted fetuses or to create eggs from stem cells to alleviate this problem.[9]

The primary alternative to embryonic stem cells is using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have helped patients with over 70 different diseases, with more being continually added.[10] The future of human cures is not in destroying some humans to treat others. It is in ethical treatments that respect all human life with dignity and respect.

There are efforts to find ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying nascent human life.[11] Since 2007, researchers have seen significant breakthroughs enabling scientists to reprogram adult stem cells back into their embryonic stem cell state - without destroying any embryos.[12]

For legislators and policy makers, it is vitally important that proposed bans on destructive embryo research and cloning do not block important ethical avenues for researchers to pursue. In addition, careful measures should be taken to avoid bans on some types of research, especially in the area of cloning, that are essentially toothless or create incentives for researchers to destroy nascent human life. Simply, careful wording of legislative measures and statutes is very important.

Facts & Myths

Myth: Embryonic stem-cell researchers are close to finding cures for a host of terrible diseases, like cancer, diabetes, and neurological disorders such as Parkinson's.

Fact: Embryonic stem cells are unable to cure anyone of anything. Instead, use of the cells in humans does little good and can do great harm. Adult stem-cell research is helping cure more than 73 diseases, with more work being prepared for or currently in clinical trials.

Myth: Embryonic stem-cell research, including the destruction of embryos for their parts, is morally and ethically acceptable.

Fact: Even if breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells do occur, it is still unethical to destroy human embryos for their parts. Regardless of the perceived or real benefit of destroying human embryos, there is no ethical justification for destroying nascent human life regardless of its origins. It is never right to intentionally kill innocent human life to save another's life, especially in such a systematic manner.

Myth: Cloned human embryos are not really human.

Fact: This would mean that Dolly, the first mammal clone ever, was not a sheep, despite the fact it was created using a sheep egg and sheep DNA and after birth looked and acted like a sheep. If cloned human embryos are not human, then what are they? The only logical answer is that a cloned human embryo with a full compliment of human DNA is fully human.

Myth: We do not owe a right to life to cloned embryos. They are an unnatural aberration.

Fact: Regardless of the ethical issues surrounding the creation of human clones or why a clone was created, if created it should not be forbidden to live. We do not require the destruction of human life when created through other unethical means (e.g., rape). Laws against creating cloned embryos should not require the clone's destruction.

Myth: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is not cloning.

Fact: SCNT is currently the only way to do a cloning procedure. While other methods may develop, SCNT will always be a form of cloning.

Myth: A ban on destructive human embryo research or human cloning will stifle scientific research or economic development in my state.

Fact: Few companies even do this research, in part because there are no foreseeable cures that will recoup the dollars needed for investment. And, if embryonic stem-cell research ends up not producing cures, companies may not survive in the state long enough to produce any benefit.

Myth: Embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures are just going to die anyway. We should get some benefit from them.

Fact: It is not necessarily the case that embryos left over from IVF procedures will be destroyed. Some parents change their mind and decide to implant the embryos to give them a chance at survival. Increasingly, infertile couples are adopting embryos that would otherwise be destroyed or languish in cryopreservation. Even if these embryos would be destroyed, it does not give us the right to use them for research material.

Myth: You cannot compare a clump of cells smaller than the tip of pencil to an existing human being who is suffering and may die without this research.

Fact: It is not your size or location that gives you value and dignity, it is your status as a member of the human race. Every human being, whether as small as the tip of a pencil or as large as a sumo wrestler, deserves the protections accorded to all other human beings. If we decide that some members of the human race should not receive those protections, then we are all at risk if the rich, powerful, or simple majority decides some of us are no longer worthy of life.

Myth: Adult stem cells are not as capable as embryonic stem cells.

Fact: While it is generally agreed that embryonic stem cells are more flexible in becoming different tissue types than adult stem cells, the idea that adult cells are not as capable as embryonic cells for use in treatments is pure speculation. Currently, adult cells are much more capable of treating human beings than embryonic cells, which have yet to cure a single disease.

Myth: All stem cell research is unethical.

Fact: Only stem cell research that destroys human life or puts people unnecessarily in harm's way when doing experimental research is unethical. The vast majority of scientific research being done on stem cells is perfectly legitimate.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://dl.aul.org/bioethics/working-for-cures-not-clones-an-overview-of-human-cloning-and-stem-cell-research
">http://dl.aul.org/bioethics/wo...nd-stem-cell-research
</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
Currently, the only way to do embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning is to destroy living human embryos. The debate is becoming increasingly emotional and highly charged, as scientists interested in the research continue to diminish the moral concerns associated with embryo destruction and hype the potential benefits of such research.

Obtaining embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a living human embryo. It is done by taking a days-old embryo that has grown to the several hundred-cell stage, breaking it apart, and taking the cells from the embryo's inner mass.[3] These unspecialized cells are then taken, grown, and used for research.

One of the inherent problems in using embryonic stem cells in therapies is the problem of transplantation. If a transplanted cell's DNA is even minorly different from the person's being treated, the body usually sees those cells as an invader and kills them off - much like what happens when whole-organ transplants are rejected due to an immune system response. Without the use of drugs to depress the patient's immune system, transplanted tissue generally doesn't survive but a few hours or days.

To overcome this inherent problem, scientists began pursuing human cloning as a method for obtaining genetically-compatible cells for transplantation. Cloning-for-biomedical-research, also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and therapeutic cloning,[4] is a process through which a human egg is taken from a woman, the nucleus removed, and replaced with a nucleus from a patient's body cell. Using electrical shock or chemical bath, the egg is tricked into believing it has been fertilized, and it begins to divide, becoming a human embryo.

With only the proper nutrition and environment, an embryo will develop into you or me. Researchers looking for embryonic stem cells interrupt the developmental process after several days to destroy the embryo and obtain its stem cells. When using cloned embryos, those cells are genetically identical to someone else. Some scientists claim that they are trying to produce cloned children by creating cloned embryos and then transferring the embryo into a woman's uterus - a process often referred to as reproductive cloning.[5] In addition to horrible genetic problems that currently plague animal clones, there are a whole host of ethical reasons that reproductive cloning should never be allowed.

Ten years after the first isolation of embryonic stem cells, there is not a single disease that these cells can cure, regardless of whether the cells obtained from embryos are created through sperm or egg or through cloning. Scientists have been conducting research on mouse embryonic stem cells for over 25 years and are yet unable to cure mice.[6] Research on humans that necessitates destroying human embryos would be repugnant even if it led to cures. However, such research on humans is even more unseemly given the fact that this research has rarely (and never consistently) worked in animals.

In addition to the fact that it is necessary to destroy nascent human life to obtain embryonic stem cells for research, such research is also immoral because the only way to obtain the human eggs necessary to create embryos is to exploit women. A woman normally only ovulates one or two eggs per reproductive cycle. To obtain enough eggs for research, a woman must take drugs that will cause her to superovulate, releasing 10-15 eggs at a time, and undergo an invasive surgical procedure in order to obtain them.[7] It is simply not possibleto obtain enough eggs from willing women to adequately pursue this research or treat possible diseases that may come from any breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells.[8] Some scientists have discussed trying to use eggs from aborted fetuses or to create eggs from stem cells to alleviate this problem.[9]

The primary alternative to embryonic stem cells is using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have helped patients with over 70 different diseases, with more being continually added.[10] The future of human cures is not in destroying some humans to treat others. It is in ethical treatments that respect all human life with dignity and respect.

There are efforts to find ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying nascent human life.[11] Since 2007, researchers have seen significant breakthroughs enabling scientists to reprogram adult stem cells back into their embryonic stem cell state - without destroying any embryos.[12]

For legislators and policy makers, it is vitally important that proposed bans on destructive embryo research and cloning do not block important ethical avenues for researchers to pursue. In addition, careful measures should be taken to avoid bans on some types of research, especially in the area of cloning, that are essentially toothless or create incentives for researchers to destroy nascent human life. Simply, careful wording of legislative measures and statutes is very important.

Facts & Myths

Myth: Embryonic stem-cell researchers are close to finding cures for a host of terrible diseases, like cancer, diabetes, and neurological disorders such as Parkinson's.

Fact: Embryonic stem cells are unable to cure anyone of anything. Instead, use of the cells in humans does little good and can do great harm. Adult stem-cell research is helping cure more than 73 diseases, with more work being prepared for or currently in clinical trials.

Myth: Embryonic stem-cell research, including the destruction of embryos for their parts, is morally and ethically acceptable.

Fact: Even if breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells do occur, it is still unethical to destroy human embryos for their parts. Regardless of the perceived or real benefit of destroying human embryos, there is no ethical justification for destroying nascent human life regardless of its origins. It is never right to intentionally kill innocent human life to save another's life, especially in such a systematic manner.

Myth: Cloned human embryos are not really human.

Fact: This would mean that Dolly, the first mammal clone ever, was not a sheep, despite the fact it was created using a sheep egg and sheep DNA and after birth looked and acted like a sheep. If cloned human embryos are not human, then what are they? The only logical answer is that a cloned human embryo with a full compliment of human DNA is fully human.

Myth: We do not owe a right to life to cloned embryos. They are an unnatural aberration.

Fact: Regardless of the ethical issues surrounding the creation of human clones or why a clone was created, if created it should not be forbidden to live. We do not require the destruction of human life when created through other unethical means (e.g., rape). Laws against creating cloned embryos should not require the clone's destruction.

Myth: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is not cloning.

Fact: SCNT is currently the only way to do a cloning procedure. While other methods may develop, SCNT will always be a form of cloning.

Myth: A ban on destructive human embryo research or human cloning will stifle scientific research or economic development in my state.

Fact: Few companies even do this research, in part because there are no foreseeable cures that will recoup the dollars needed for investment. And, if embryonic stem-cell research ends up not producing cures, companies may not survive in the state long enough to produce any benefit.

Myth: Embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures are just going to die anyway. We should get some benefit from them.

Fact: It is not necessarily the case that embryos left over from IVF procedures will be destroyed. Some parents change their mind and decide to implant the embryos to give them a chance at survival. Increasingly, infertile couples are adopting embryos that would otherwise be destroyed or languish in cryopreservation. Even if these embryos would be destroyed, it does not give us the right to use them for research material.

Myth: You cannot compare a clump of cells smaller than the tip of pencil to an existing human being who is suffering and may die without this research.

Fact: It is not your size or location that gives you value and dignity, it is your status as a member of the human race. Every human being, whether as small as the tip of a pencil or as large as a sumo wrestler, deserves the protections accorded to all other human beings. If we decide that some members of the human race should not receive those protections, then we are all at risk if the rich, powerful, or simple majority decides some of us are no longer worthy of life.

Myth: Adult stem cells are not as capable as embryonic stem cells.

Fact: While it is generally agreed that embryonic stem cells are more flexible in becoming different tissue types than adult stem cells, the idea that adult cells are not as capable as embryonic cells for use in treatments is pure speculation. Currently, adult cells are much more capable of treating human beings than embryonic cells, which have yet to cure a single disease.

Myth: All stem cell research is unethical.

Fact: Only stem cell research that destroys human life or puts people unnecessarily in harm's way when doing experimental research is unethical. The vast majority of scientific research being done on stem cells is perfectly legitimate.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://dl.aul.org/bioethics/working-for-cures-not-clones-an-overview-of-human-cloning-and-stem-cell-research
">http://dl.aul.org/bioethics/wo...nd-stem-cell-research
</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
Currently, the only way to do embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning is to destroy living human embryos. The debate is becoming increasingly emotional and highly charged, as scientists interested in the research continue to diminish the moral concerns associated with embryo destruction and hype the potential benefits of such research.

Obtaining embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a living human embryo. It is done by taking a days-old embryo that has grown to the several hundred-cell stage, breaking it apart, and taking the cells from the embryo's inner mass.[3] These unspecialized cells are then taken, grown, and used for research.

One of the inherent problems in using embryonic stem cells in therapies is the problem of transplantation. If a transplanted cell's DNA is even minorly different from the person's being treated, the body usually sees those cells as an invader and kills them off - much like what happens when whole-organ transplants are rejected due to an immune system response. Without the use of drugs to depress the patient's immune system, transplanted tissue generally doesn't survive but a few hours or days.

To overcome this inherent problem, scientists began pursuing human cloning as a method for obtaining genetically-compatible cells for transplantation. Cloning-for-biomedical-research, also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and therapeutic cloning,[4] is a process through which a human egg is taken from a woman, the nucleus removed, and replaced with a nucleus from a patient's body cell. Using electrical shock or chemical bath, the egg is tricked into believing it has been fertilized, and it begins to divide, becoming a human embryo.

With only the proper nutrition and environment, an embryo will develop into you or me. Researchers looking for embryonic stem cells interrupt the developmental process after several days to destroy the embryo and obtain its stem cells. When using cloned embryos, those cells are genetically identical to someone else. Some scientists claim that they are trying to produce cloned children by creating cloned embryos and then transferring the embryo into a woman's uterus - a process often referred to as reproductive cloning.[5] In addition to horrible genetic problems that currently plague animal clones, there are a whole host of ethical reasons that reproductive cloning should never be allowed.

Ten years after the first isolation of embryonic stem cells, there is not a single disease that these cells can cure, regardless of whether the cells obtained from embryos are created through sperm or egg or through cloning. Scientists have been conducting research on mouse embryonic stem cells for over 25 years and are yet unable to cure mice.[6] Research on humans that necessitates destroying human embryos would be repugnant even if it led to cures. However, such research on humans is even more unseemly given the fact that this research has rarely (and never consistently) worked in animals.

In addition to the fact that it is necessary to destroy nascent human life to obtain embryonic stem cells for research, such research is also immoral because the only way to obtain the human eggs necessary to create embryos is to exploit women. A woman normally only ovulates one or two eggs per reproductive cycle. To obtain enough eggs for research, a woman must take drugs that will cause her to superovulate, releasing 10-15 eggs at a time, and undergo an invasive surgical procedure in order to obtain them.[7] It is simply not possibleto obtain enough eggs from willing women to adequately pursue this research or treat possible diseases that may come from any breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells.[8] Some scientists have discussed trying to use eggs from aborted fetuses or to create eggs from stem cells to alleviate this problem.[9]

The primary alternative to embryonic stem cells is using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have helped patients with over 70 different diseases, with more being continually added.[10] The future of human cures is not in destroying some humans to treat others. It is in ethical treatments that respect all human life with dignity and respect.

There are efforts to find ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying nascent human life.[11] Since 2007, researchers have seen significant breakthroughs enabling scientists to reprogram adult stem cells back into their embryonic stem cell state - without destroying any embryos.[12]

For legislators and policy makers, it is vitally important that proposed bans on destructive embryo research and cloning do not block important ethical avenues for researchers to pursue. In addition, careful measures should be taken to avoid bans on some types of research, especially in the area of cloning, that are essentially toothless or create incentives for researchers to destroy nascent human life. Simply, careful wording of legislative measures and statutes is very important.

Facts & Myths

Myth: Embryonic stem-cell researchers are close to finding cures for a host of terrible diseases, like cancer, diabetes, and neurological disorders such as Parkinson's.

Fact: Embryonic stem cells are unable to cure anyone of anything. Instead, use of the cells in humans does little good and can do great harm. Adult stem-cell research is helping cure more than 73 diseases, with more work being prepared for or currently in clinical trials.

Myth: Embryonic stem-cell research, including the destruction of embryos for their parts, is morally and ethically acceptable.

Fact: Even if breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells do occur, it is still unethical to destroy human embryos for their parts. Regardless of the perceived or real benefit of destroying human embryos, there is no ethical justification for destroying nascent human life regardless of its origins. It is never right to intentionally kill innocent human life to save another's life, especially in such a systematic manner.

Myth: Cloned human embryos are not really human.

Fact: This would mean that Dolly, the first mammal clone ever, was not a sheep, despite the fact it was created using a sheep egg and sheep DNA and after birth looked and acted like a sheep. If cloned human embryos are not human, then what are they? The only logical answer is that a cloned human embryo with a full compliment of human DNA is fully human.

Myth: We do not owe a right to life to cloned embryos. They are an unnatural aberration.

Fact: Regardless of the ethical issues surrounding the creation of human clones or why a clone was created, if created it should not be forbidden to live. We do not require the destruction of human life when created through other unethical means (e.g., rape). Laws against creating cloned embryos should not require the clone's destruction.

Myth: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is not cloning.

Fact: SCNT is currently the only way to do a cloning procedure. While other methods may develop, SCNT will always be a form of cloning.

Myth: A ban on destructive human embryo research or human cloning will stifle scientific research or economic development in my state.

Fact: Few companies even do this research, in part because there are no foreseeable cures that will recoup the dollars needed for investment. And, if embryonic stem-cell research ends up not producing cures, companies may not survive in the state long enough to produce any benefit.

Myth: Embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures are just going to die anyway. We should get some benefit from them.

Fact: It is not necessarily the case that embryos left over from IVF procedures will be destroyed. Some parents change their mind and decide to implant the embryos to give them a chance at survival. Increasingly, infertile couples are adopting embryos that would otherwise be destroyed or languish in cryopreservation. Even if these embryos would be destroyed, it does not give us the right to use them for research material.

Myth: You cannot compare a clump of cells smaller than the tip of pencil to an existing human being who is suffering and may die without this research.

Fact: It is not your size or location that gives you value and dignity, it is your status as a member of the human race. Every human being, whether as small as the tip of a pencil or as large as a sumo wrestler, deserves the protections accorded to all other human beings. If we decide that some members of the human race should not receive those protections, then we are all at risk if the rich, powerful, or simple majority decides some of us are no longer worthy of life.

Myth: Adult stem cells are not as capable as embryonic stem cells.

Fact: While it is generally agreed that embryonic stem cells are more flexible in becoming different tissue types than adult stem cells, the idea that adult cells are not as capable as embryonic cells for use in treatments is pure speculation. Currently, adult cells are much more capable of treating human beings than embryonic cells, which have yet to cure a single disease.

Myth: All stem cell research is unethical.

Fact: Only stem cell research that destroys human life or puts people unnecessarily in harm's way when doing experimental research is unethical. The vast majority of scientific research being done on stem cells is perfectly legitimate.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://dl.aul.org/bioethics/working-for-cures-not-clones-an-overview-of-human-cloning-and-stem-cell-research
">http://dl.aul.org/bioethics/wo...nd-stem-cell-research
</a>
 

kayleesgrandma

New member
Currently, the only way to do embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning is to destroy living human embryos. The debate is becoming increasingly emotional and highly charged, as scientists interested in the research continue to diminish the moral concerns associated with embryo destruction and hype the potential benefits of such research.
<br />
<br />Obtaining embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a living human embryo. It is done by taking a days-old embryo that has grown to the several hundred-cell stage, breaking it apart, and taking the cells from the embryo's inner mass.[3] These unspecialized cells are then taken, grown, and used for research.
<br />
<br />One of the inherent problems in using embryonic stem cells in therapies is the problem of transplantation. If a transplanted cell's DNA is even minorly different from the person's being treated, the body usually sees those cells as an invader and kills them off - much like what happens when whole-organ transplants are rejected due to an immune system response. Without the use of drugs to depress the patient's immune system, transplanted tissue generally doesn't survive but a few hours or days.
<br />
<br />To overcome this inherent problem, scientists began pursuing human cloning as a method for obtaining genetically-compatible cells for transplantation. Cloning-for-biomedical-research, also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and therapeutic cloning,[4] is a process through which a human egg is taken from a woman, the nucleus removed, and replaced with a nucleus from a patient's body cell. Using electrical shock or chemical bath, the egg is tricked into believing it has been fertilized, and it begins to divide, becoming a human embryo.
<br />
<br />With only the proper nutrition and environment, an embryo will develop into you or me. Researchers looking for embryonic stem cells interrupt the developmental process after several days to destroy the embryo and obtain its stem cells. When using cloned embryos, those cells are genetically identical to someone else. Some scientists claim that they are trying to produce cloned children by creating cloned embryos and then transferring the embryo into a woman's uterus - a process often referred to as reproductive cloning.[5] In addition to horrible genetic problems that currently plague animal clones, there are a whole host of ethical reasons that reproductive cloning should never be allowed.
<br />
<br />Ten years after the first isolation of embryonic stem cells, there is not a single disease that these cells can cure, regardless of whether the cells obtained from embryos are created through sperm or egg or through cloning. Scientists have been conducting research on mouse embryonic stem cells for over 25 years and are yet unable to cure mice.[6] Research on humans that necessitates destroying human embryos would be repugnant even if it led to cures. However, such research on humans is even more unseemly given the fact that this research has rarely (and never consistently) worked in animals.
<br />
<br />In addition to the fact that it is necessary to destroy nascent human life to obtain embryonic stem cells for research, such research is also immoral because the only way to obtain the human eggs necessary to create embryos is to exploit women. A woman normally only ovulates one or two eggs per reproductive cycle. To obtain enough eggs for research, a woman must take drugs that will cause her to superovulate, releasing 10-15 eggs at a time, and undergo an invasive surgical procedure in order to obtain them.[7] It is simply not possibleto obtain enough eggs from willing women to adequately pursue this research or treat possible diseases that may come from any breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells.[8] Some scientists have discussed trying to use eggs from aborted fetuses or to create eggs from stem cells to alleviate this problem.[9]
<br />
<br />The primary alternative to embryonic stem cells is using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have helped patients with over 70 different diseases, with more being continually added.[10] The future of human cures is not in destroying some humans to treat others. It is in ethical treatments that respect all human life with dignity and respect.
<br />
<br />There are efforts to find ways to obtain embryonic stem cells without destroying nascent human life.[11] Since 2007, researchers have seen significant breakthroughs enabling scientists to reprogram adult stem cells back into their embryonic stem cell state - without destroying any embryos.[12]
<br />
<br />For legislators and policy makers, it is vitally important that proposed bans on destructive embryo research and cloning do not block important ethical avenues for researchers to pursue. In addition, careful measures should be taken to avoid bans on some types of research, especially in the area of cloning, that are essentially toothless or create incentives for researchers to destroy nascent human life. Simply, careful wording of legislative measures and statutes is very important.
<br />
<br />Facts & Myths
<br />
<br />Myth: Embryonic stem-cell researchers are close to finding cures for a host of terrible diseases, like cancer, diabetes, and neurological disorders such as Parkinson's.
<br />
<br />Fact: Embryonic stem cells are unable to cure anyone of anything. Instead, use of the cells in humans does little good and can do great harm. Adult stem-cell research is helping cure more than 73 diseases, with more work being prepared for or currently in clinical trials.
<br />
<br />Myth: Embryonic stem-cell research, including the destruction of embryos for their parts, is morally and ethically acceptable.
<br />
<br />Fact: Even if breakthroughs using embryonic stem cells do occur, it is still unethical to destroy human embryos for their parts. Regardless of the perceived or real benefit of destroying human embryos, there is no ethical justification for destroying nascent human life regardless of its origins. It is never right to intentionally kill innocent human life to save another's life, especially in such a systematic manner.
<br />
<br />Myth: Cloned human embryos are not really human.
<br />
<br />Fact: This would mean that Dolly, the first mammal clone ever, was not a sheep, despite the fact it was created using a sheep egg and sheep DNA and after birth looked and acted like a sheep. If cloned human embryos are not human, then what are they? The only logical answer is that a cloned human embryo with a full compliment of human DNA is fully human.
<br />
<br />Myth: We do not owe a right to life to cloned embryos. They are an unnatural aberration.
<br />
<br />Fact: Regardless of the ethical issues surrounding the creation of human clones or why a clone was created, if created it should not be forbidden to live. We do not require the destruction of human life when created through other unethical means (e.g., rape). Laws against creating cloned embryos should not require the clone's destruction.
<br />
<br />Myth: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is not cloning.
<br />
<br />Fact: SCNT is currently the only way to do a cloning procedure. While other methods may develop, SCNT will always be a form of cloning.
<br />
<br />Myth: A ban on destructive human embryo research or human cloning will stifle scientific research or economic development in my state.
<br />
<br />Fact: Few companies even do this research, in part because there are no foreseeable cures that will recoup the dollars needed for investment. And, if embryonic stem-cell research ends up not producing cures, companies may not survive in the state long enough to produce any benefit.
<br />
<br />Myth: Embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures are just going to die anyway. We should get some benefit from them.
<br />
<br />Fact: It is not necessarily the case that embryos left over from IVF procedures will be destroyed. Some parents change their mind and decide to implant the embryos to give them a chance at survival. Increasingly, infertile couples are adopting embryos that would otherwise be destroyed or languish in cryopreservation. Even if these embryos would be destroyed, it does not give us the right to use them for research material.
<br />
<br />Myth: You cannot compare a clump of cells smaller than the tip of pencil to an existing human being who is suffering and may die without this research.
<br />
<br />Fact: It is not your size or location that gives you value and dignity, it is your status as a member of the human race. Every human being, whether as small as the tip of a pencil or as large as a sumo wrestler, deserves the protections accorded to all other human beings. If we decide that some members of the human race should not receive those protections, then we are all at risk if the rich, powerful, or simple majority decides some of us are no longer worthy of life.
<br />
<br />Myth: Adult stem cells are not as capable as embryonic stem cells.
<br />
<br />Fact: While it is generally agreed that embryonic stem cells are more flexible in becoming different tissue types than adult stem cells, the idea that adult cells are not as capable as embryonic cells for use in treatments is pure speculation. Currently, adult cells are much more capable of treating human beings than embryonic cells, which have yet to cure a single disease.
<br />
<br />Myth: All stem cell research is unethical.
<br />
<br />Fact: Only stem cell research that destroys human life or puts people unnecessarily in harm's way when doing experimental research is unethical. The vast majority of scientific research being done on stem cells is perfectly legitimate.
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://dl.aul.org/bioethics/working-for-cures-not-clones-an-overview-of-human-cloning-and-stem-cell-research
">http://dl.aul.org/bioethics/wo...nd-stem-cell-research
</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
 
Top