Stem Cells Help Paralyzed Woman to Walk After 19 Years

[palusami]

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20041127-121143-6745r

http://smh.com.au/news/World/Stem-cells-help-paralysed-woman-walk/2004/11/28/1101577355824.html?oneclick=true

"Seoul: A South Korean woman paralysed for 20 years is walking again after scientists say they repaired her damaged spine using stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood.

Hwang Mi-soon, 37, had been bedridden since damaging her back in an accident. Last week she walked again with the help of a walking frame at a press conference where South Korea researchers announced the results of their stem cell therapy."

Came across this on slashdot this AM. If I were bedridden and my only chance at walking again was through stem cell therapy, I'd most likely hop on a plane to South Korea as soon as possible. I realize the moral/religious implications of stem cell research/therapy, but the benefits are amazing.

[apple2991]

How can anyone be opposed to something that can so drastically improve people's lives? Georgie-boy?

And if America doesn't act soon, we are going to soon be behind in medical research, just like we are in engineers.

[x86isslow]

yes, but at least now America will be ahead in 'morality' :rolleyes:

its too bad that Mr. Reeves was not able to witness this in his lifetime.

[emw]

This is quite promising - my wife and I donated the umbilical cord blood from both of our children when they were born. It's good to see some progress from the research.

[kylos]

apple2991 and x86isslow, you'll notice that this was done with umbilical blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Bush only eliminated funding for research into embryonic stem cell lines not already being studied. Stem cells are promising and those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are usually very explicit that they do not have a problem with the other forms of stem cell research, which has just been shown to be very promising.

[Counterfit]

apple2991 and x86isslow, you'll notice that this was done with umbilical blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Bush only eliminated funding for research into embryonic stem cell lines not already being studied. Stem cells are promising and those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are usually very explicit that they do not have a problem with the other forms of stem cell research, which has just been shown to be very promising. Exactly! Oh crap, have to put something in here so it's not spam...

:eek:

uh....


mmm, ramen. ;)

[wdlove]

I'm very happy for this paralyzed South Korean women. This is a great breakthrough in medical science. Stem cell research has been demonstrated to be very productive in research. There is no ethical problem with using cord blood. Using this process doesn't involve the creation of life and then killing that life for research. I hope that more parents will donate the umbilical cord.

[Aeolius]

I hope that more parents will donate the umbilical cord.

When my third child was born, my wife and I had the cord blood sent to a storage facility. My oldest child has cerebral palsy. It is my hope that stem cell research will some day lead to the means to repair his brain injury.

[fuzzynavo]

i don't know too much regarding the production and maintenance of stem cells, but from what i've heard, embryonic stem cells are hugely more successful in terms of being grown in an undifferentiated state and researchers have had much more success in controlling their fates versus stem cells harvested from an adult. now im not saying we shouldnt research possible new methods that would allow similar success in adult stem cells...but consider in vitro fertilization in the u.s.:

i'm unsure of the statistics, but i would assume tens of thousands of ivf births occur annually in the u.s. and resultingly so, for every couple choosing ivf, around 10 embryos are taken from the mother, and the best is chosen. among the rest, if the couple chooses not to freeze them, they are thrown quite literally into the dumpster. now again, im not expert but from what ive heard, this could be a great source of embryonic stem cells that is overlooked. there doesnt seem to be much public outcry over the "death" of so many blastocysts in the states due to ivf versus the possiblity of using these embryos for the sake of good science. it seems to me a public knee jerk reaction that any technique labeled with the word "cloning" must be morally unsound.

this case with the korean woman, and the previous research that cured a lab rat of huntington's disease via injection of embryonic stem cells just serve to show the huge benefit this has on people and that fact that we may not researching along these lines to our full potential is unfortunate. :(

someone please correct me if my info is wrong at all.

/rant

[Les Kern]

apple2991 and x86isslow, you'll notice that this was done with umbilical blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Bush only eliminated funding for research into embryonic stem cell lines not already being studied. Stem cells are promising and those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are usually very explicit that they do not have a problem with the other forms of stem cell research, which has just been shown to be very promising.

On a related note, where exactly did the hard-right moral police get the idea that any stem cell research is immoral? I can't find it in the bible. Must be in the missing manual. You know, the manual the new governor of Alabama read when he said that all abortion doctors should be killed If I were in charge I'd send a thousand scientists to the labs where all the eggs are stored that will be tossed out in the near future, give them a few space heaters and $100,000 a year each and say "Ten years. CURE it."

[Lyle]

... You know, the manual the new governor of Alabama read when he said that all abortion doctors should be killed...I don't doubt your word, but it's news to me that Bob Riley (the Governor of Alabama) said that "all abortion doctors should be killed". I just googled for it and was unsuccessful finding such a quote either. Could you tell me where you heard or read this?

[hansen]

yes, but at least now America will be ahead in 'morality' :rolleyes:

its too bad that Mr. Reeves was not able to witness this in his lifetime.

Also America has Ben Hinn. I saw him on tv curing a 5 year old from no less than 23 life threatening diseases just by putting his hand on the kids forehead, when I was visiting the states. So no need for stem cell research.

[wdlove]

On a related note, where exactly did the hard-right moral police get the idea that any stem cell research is immoral? I can't find it in the bible. Must be in the missing manual. You know, the manual the new governor of Alabama read when he said that all abortion doctors should be killed If I were in charge I'd send a thousand scientists to the labs where all the eggs are stored that will be tossed out in the near future, give them a few space heaters and $100,000 a year each and say "Ten years. CURE it."

The problem that Christians have with stem cell research is the way its done. They create life in a dish, which could produce a human. Then in order to do the research they kill that life, it's essentially murder. So far stem cell research hasn't been all that sucessful.

Adult stem cells and umblical cord blood have been much more successful. They have implanted cells in the brain of a Parkinsons patient, sucessfully relieving them of their tremors. It allows them a normal life. They are also doing research to make new organs such as ears, skin, and bones.

[kylos]

On a related note, where exactly did the hard-right moral police get the idea that any stem cell research is immoral? I can't find it in the bible. Must be in the missing manual. You know, the manual the new governor of Alabama read when he said that all abortion doctors should be killed If I were in charge I'd send a thousand scientists to the labs where all the eggs are stored that will be tossed out in the near future, give them a few space heaters and $100,000 a year each and say "Ten years. CURE it."

I'm not aware of any "hard-right moral police" opposing any type of stem cell research, only embryonic stem cell research. Wdlove has explained quite well why this is. Abortion of an already begun life is required for such research. That's why such things as umbilical blood stem cells are extremely popular with those wacko "hard-righties." As this story shows, despite the "advantages" of embryonic stem cells, it is the umbilical blood stem cells which have been used to help a woman walk. Science can make significant advances with non-embryonic stem cells and avoid all ethical issues important to a large number of people. This is a major plus.

[apple2991]

Adult stem cells and umblical cord blood have been much more successful. They have implanted cells in the brain of a Parkinsons patient, sucessfully relieving them of their tremors. It allows them a normal life. They are also doing research to make new organs such as ears, skin, and bones.

And why do you think they have been much more successful with blood stem cells than embryonic research? It couldn't possibly be partly attributed to the extreme underfunding and Presidential opposition to embryonic stem cells? It isn't that people have discovered that embryonic stem cells aren't valuable--there just aren't enough trials and lab testings to advance at the rate of blood or "Adult" stem cells.

P.S. Info (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/23/MNGCQ9EUL31.DTL&type=health) More Info (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16744)

[virividox]

great news

[kylos]

And why do you think they have been much more successful with blood stem cells than embryonic research? It couldn't possibly be partly attributed to the extreme underfunding and Presidential opposition to embryonic stem cells? It isn't that people have discovered that embryonic stem cells aren't valuable--there just aren't enough trials and lab testings to advance at the rate of blood or "Adult" stem cells.


And you know what? Blood stem cells are proving their worth. So embryonic stem cells are showing to be unnecessary. I'd say that's a good thing.

[pajja]

The problem that Christians have with stem cell research is the way its done.


Just one clarification. Not all Christians oppose abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

[apple2991]

And you know what? Blood stem cells are proving their worth. So embryonic stem cells are showing to be unnecessary. I'd say that's a good thing.

It's a great thing that blood/adult stem cells are being used for so much. The more human lives (real, "I have arms and legs" human lives) that can be helped, that's wonderful. Blood stem-cells may (as already suggested in limited trials) have limitations, however, particularly in relation to certain diseases (often brain disease). Adult stem cells are finally of practical use? Great, but it's because we've been studying them for over 20 years. We at least know that embryonic can be used for a wider variety of problems on demand, if not much, much more.

Please, please, RTFA. (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press/2003/July/030713.htm)

[wdlove]

Just one clarification. Not all Christians oppose abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

IMHO a true Christian would oppose abortion or embryonic stem cell research that takes a human life. It is a very basic teaching, from the 10 commandments and Jesus. There can be disagreements on certain policies. Taking of a human life isn't something that I would want on my conscious. Although negative words against another human can also carry a price. Abortion happens to be a tough subject. The views are deeply held on either side.

[gwuMACaddict]

i'd like to say that i agree with wdlove so far. which leaves me little else to say... except that this is a very unproven science, and i would prefer to see scientists work with the ebryonic stem cell lines they have first. and if something comes of them and they can prove progress, then maybe make more available. maybe. but i want to see some proof first.

[wdlove]

Thank you gwuMACaddict. ;)

Currently research is being done in all areas. It's jsut that so far the research into adult stem cells and umbilical cells has proven to be most effective.

[PlaceofDis]

Thank you gwuMACaddict. ;)

Currently research is being done in all areas. It's jsut that so far the research into adult stem cells and umbilical cells has proven to be most effective.

well, i think this is great new, i will profess that i dont know much about stem-cell research but i know about the controversy and all that

i am glad that research is being done for all types of stem cells because we might find a cure somewhere in there, if embryonic stem cells dont work, or make no progress then by all means it should be abandoned, but i would hate to see it ditched totally without knowing

[D*I*S_Frontman]

For everyone here who considers President Bush an enemy of embrionic stem cell research, keep in mind two things:

1) The Bush compromise on this issue permits usage of embrionic stem cells for research using extant lines. It only prohibits new lines from being formed.

2) Bush is the first president to FEDERALLY FUND such research. He CHAMPIONS embrionic stem cell research in that sense--he just doesn't want taxpayer money (from millions of people who oppose abortion) to go towards research that requires the destruction of a fertilized egg.


I'm sure that some of the Nazi doctors could have shaved decades of research off of certain medical practices and treatments by using real people in experimental procedures, but most of us would agree that the non-voluntary endangerment/destruction of innocent human life for the sake of medical research is not something we are willing to morally justify.

Also, cord blood stem cell and adult stem cell research is far better in the long run, for once you've developed the cures you're looking for, there are no moral implications to harvesting the cells needed to implement the treatments.

The US is divided over this issue. I think Bush's compromise is an ingenius one that satisfies both parties (albeit with some grumbling). No new eggs die, and yet research continues with the blessing of federal funds.

My wife just had our second daughter. If she were to have a terminal disease that would require treatment that would necessitiate other human life dying to facilitate the process, I could not in good conscience allow her to receive it. It is appalling to think that such an offer would ever be extended to me.

[dsharits]

Also America has Ben Hinn. I saw him on tv curing a 5 year old from no less than 23 life threatening diseases just by putting his hand on the kids forehead, when I was visiting the states. So no need for stem cell research.

Benny Hinn is an absolute fraud. I am a Christian, and I can tell you that nothing that he does is in line with the Bible's teaching. Hinn uses the hype of the extreme charismatic movement to generate publicity and popularity for himself. He is not a Christian, and he should never be used as an example of Christianity.

Daniel

[mactastic]

Funny that he feels so strongly about not letting taxpayer money go to an objectionable cause when he agrees with the objection, yet he's more than happy to spend my tax dollars on abstinence-only education that I find objectionable... Not to mention the loads of my tax dollars that are going to a war I find objectionable. :rolleyes:

[apple2991]

Funny that he feels so strongly about not letting taxpayer money go to an objectionable cause when he agrees with the objection, yet he's more than happy to spend my tax dollars on abstinence-only education that I find objectionable... Not to mention the loads of my tax dollars that are going to a war I find objectionable. :rolleyes:

Ohh! Burn. :D

[Dave00]

All arguments about stem cell research aside, take the article with a huge grain of salt. As someone who has taken care of a fair number of people with paralysis, there are several things about this story that make it very suspect. The most glaring is the claim that the woman went from paralyzed to standing after 19 years of paralysis. People who have had prolonged paralysis develop contractures and muscle atrophy. You can't even stretch their legs manually. The concept of going from such a state to actually walking in 3 weeks is, well, far-fetched. Even in people I've taken care of who've been in the icu for a few weeks (no paralysis, just limited mobility due to illness) have a long course before they are able to walk again. My gut feeling as a physician is that the story is either a fake or a gross exaggeration.

--D

[aplasticspork]

All arguments about stem cell research aside, take the article with a huge grain of salt. As someone who has taken care of a fair number of people with paralysis, there are several things about this story that make it very suspect. The most glaring is the claim that the woman went from paralyzed to standing after 19 years of paralysis. People who have had prolonged paralysis develop contractures and muscle atrophy. You can't even stretch their legs manually. The concept of going from such a state to actually walking in 3 weeks is, well, far-fetched. Even in people I've taken care of who've been in the icu for a few weeks (no paralysis, just limited mobility due to illness) have a long course before they are able to walk again. My gut feeling as a physician is that the story is either a fake or a gross exaggeration.

--D
i second that, a lot. i've been following the thread and was going to post something to that effect but you beat me to it.
*shakes fist* :p
--andrzej

[igucl]

So, I can post in a rather controversial "Current Events" thread, but not in "Community Discussion." I suppose I have been banned for defending an unpopular worldview. Could I please take this opportunity to ask my fellow MacRumors members where it was that I broke any rules of the forums? Review my posts, if you like. When have I not sincerely engaged in free discussion, with consideration of opposing views? Yes, I have often disagreed, but I never thought that I was being overly aggressive or unreasonable. I ask you, MacRumors people, do you never want to hear an opposing view on religious beliefs? Isn't that what the "Community Discussion" forum is partly for? If not, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

[blackfox]

So, I can post in a rather controversial "Current Events" thread, but not in "Community Discussion." I suppose I have been banned for defending an unpopular worldview. Could I please take this opportunity to ask my fellow MacRumors members where it was that I broke any rules of the forums? Review my posts, if you like. When have I not sincerely engaged in free discussion, with consideration of opposing views? Yes, I have often disagreed, but I never thought that I was being overly aggressive or unreasonable. I ask you, MacRumors people, do you never want to hear an opposing view on religious beliefs? Isn't that what the "Community Discussion" forum is partly for? If not, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
Iguci, this thread has been moved to the Political Forum, in which you must have at least 100 posts to contribute to (new rule since it's closure in the wake of the Election). Please see the sticky to that effect.

Sorry. It is nothing personal to you, rules are rules.

[Xtremehkr]

So because the article didn't explain in excruciating detail how she got to the point of standing, there is this much doubt cast. I would have figured she worked her way up to standing, but it wasn't a story until she stood.

Great story, can't believe people will let politics stand in the way of being to help so many people out.

[atszyman]

The problem that Christians have with stem cell research is the way its done. They create life in a dish, which could produce a human. Then in order to do the research they kill that life, it's essentially murder. So far stem cell research hasn't been all that sucessful.

IMHO a true Christian would oppose abortion or embryonic stem cell research that takes a human life. It is a very basic teaching, from the 10 commandments and Jesus. There can be disagreements on certain policies. Taking of a human life isn't something that I would want on my conscious. Although negative words against another human can also carry a price. Abortion happens to be a tough subject. The views are deeply held on either side.

i'm unsure of the statistics, but i would assume tens of thousands of ivf births occur annually in the u.s. and resultingly so, for every couple choosing ivf, around 10 embryos are taken from the mother, and the best is chosen. among the rest, if the couple chooses not to freeze them, they are thrown quite literally into the dumpster.

Why is it that there is so much outrage over the use of embryonic stem cells but no one is publicly calling for shutting down all of the IVF clinics? If the destruction of embryos for fertility treatments is OK why could we not use the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed with no benefit to anyone for research that has potential to help many?

I can understand outrage at creating embryos just for the sake of destroying them for the research but why can't researchers use the embryos that would be destroyed by fertility clinics?

[pseudobrit]

this is a very unproven science

All theories and technologies were unproven at one point in time. And many are still disputed.

If you oppose stem cell research, you MUST oppose in vitro fertilisation. Further, if you'd ban fertility treatments, you'd not have to fight stem cell research.

Now push for that legislation that tells desperate couples they can't have kids and see how far it goes.

[mactastic]

Linkin' log (http://www.news-leader.com/today/1202-Studycasts-240124.html)

Researchers reported Wednesday that bone marrow stem cells were unable to regenerate damaged heart tissue in laboratory animals, suggesting that a proposed revolutionary therapy for the 1.1 million Americans who suffer heart attacks each year may be destined to fail.
The study is the latest to cast doubts on the scientific dream that a patient's own mature stem cells — instead of stem cells from embryos — could someday be used to replace cells damaged or missing because of genetic diseases, tissue injuries or degenerative illnesses.

Earlier studies had been very optimistic about the capability of bone marrow stem cells to be coaxed into growing new heart cells so that a weakened heart can regain its pumping power.

"This was a complete surprise and a considerable disappointment," said University of Chicago researcher and cardiologist Dr. Elizabeth McNally, who directed the study with colleagues from the University of Chicago and the University of California, San Francisco.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Scientists previously had demonstrated that these cells, which normally make blood, could home in on areas of damaged muscle and suggested they matured into working cells.

Animal experiments were so encouraging that human clinical trials are under way with heart attack and congestive heart failure victims.

Working with mice, the McNally team found that the bone marrow stem cells did manage to find their way to areas of damaged heart muscle, infiltrate into these regions and proliferate. But they failed to take the crucial final steps essential for normal heart and skeletal muscle function.

Another blow to those who argue that we don't need to study embryonic stem cells to pursue therapy.

[Dave00]

So because the article didn't explain in excruciating detail how she got to the point of standing, there is this much doubt cast.
No, not because the article didn't explain how she got to standing - again, from taking care of people with this sort of thing, I know how rehab goes - start with passive stretching, move to active motion, then resisted, then weight supporting, then coordination. This takes a LONG TIME, even in people who were not paralyzed. For a paralyzed person, who undoubtedly had contractures if she were truly paralyzed for 19 years, even with the complete re-establishment of neurological control - one would have to wait for the muscles to stretch and strengthen. This would take an enormous amount of time, regardless of the condition of the spinal nerves - the only thing the stem cell transplant was addressing. Thus, the story seems either erroneous or a gross exaggeration.

[stubeeef]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&e=1&u=/ap/20041204/ap_on_sc/reversing_paralysis)

dogs injected with a cousin of Antifreeze reverse paralysis!

[stubeeef]

the link about anti freeze cousin is NOT a joke. Did anyone read this?!

[Xtremehkr]

No, not because the article didn't explain how she got to standing - again, from taking care of people with this sort of thing, I know how rehab goes - start with passive stretching, move to active motion, then resisted, then weight supporting, then coordination. This takes a LONG TIME, even in people who were not paralyzed. For a paralyzed person, who undoubtedly had contractures if she were truly paralyzed for 19 years, even with the complete re-establishment of neurological control - one would have to wait for the muscles to stretch and strengthen. This would take an enormous amount of time, regardless of the condition of the spinal nerves - the only thing the stem cell transplant was addressing. Thus, the story seems either erroneous or a gross exaggeration.

And you know that didn't happen?

[pdham]

And you know that didn't happen?


From the article:
"The stem cell transplantation was performed on Oct. 12 this year and in just three weeks she started to walk with the help of a walker," Song told reporters at a news conference in Seoul. "

[Xtremehkr]

One link doesn't work and the other requires registration, I'm too lazy today.

[pdham]

Here is a press release by Scripps Research Institute about taking mature cells and causing them to evolve backword to their own precursor cell (a stem-cell) . It is a very interesting read and offers another positive alternative to embryonic research

Press Release (http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/122203.html)

[Xtremehkr]

Here is a press release by Scripps Research Institute about taking mature cells and causing them to evolve backword to their own precursor cell (a stem-cell) . It is a very interesting read and offers another positive alternative to embryonic research

Press Release (http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/122203.html)

Until everything is know about what can and can't be done with stem cells from different sources, we won't know if there are alternatives to embryonic stem cells because not everything is known yet.

This is a (fairly) new line of study in science and so everything should be explored before an alternative can be claimed.

[stubeeef]

for now everything is being explored, isn't it?

[Xtremehkr]

for now everything is being explored, isn't it?

Depends on where you are, there have been some restrictions imposed. But California decided to go against those.

[themadchemist]

For everyone here who considers President Bush an enemy of embrionic stem cell research, keep in mind two things:

1) The Bush compromise on this issue permits usage of embrionic stem cells for research using extant lines. It only prohibits new lines from being formed.


These lines degrade after a certain amount of proliferation. These lines have a limited life and when that life is done--well, the research is done.


2) Bush is the first president to FEDERALLY FUND such research. He CHAMPIONS embrionic stem cell research in that sense--he just doesn't want taxpayer money (from millions of people who oppose abortion) to go towards research that requires the destruction of a fertilized egg.


Uhh...No. The NIH funded embryonic stem cell research before the President stuck his hands in and interfered. As far as I know, scientists don't usually send their grant proposals directly to the President for funding...

And before you tell me that private-funding is not available, let me tell you something. It's not available to any significant extent. Labs live and die on federal funding. Very, very few labs get the lion's share of their funding from private firms.


Also, cord blood stem cell and adult stem cell research is far better in the long run, for once you've developed the cures you're looking for, there are no moral implications to harvesting the cells needed to implement the treatments.


The problem is that you might not be able to get all of the cures for which you're looking from these cells. These cells have already divided a couple of times and they are set into a limited range of possibilities. Blood stem cells, for example, may proliferate into various types of cells needed for the circulatory system, but a blood stem cell won't become a neuron.

To wdlove and all those who think that blood stem cells are somehow "better:" I'm sorry to inform you that basic science tells us that embryonic stem cells will of course be more powerful than other sorts. This is just simple cell biology common sense.

Justify this based on your morality. Don't pretend to justify it based on science.


The US is divided over this issue. I think Bush's compromise is an ingenius one that satisfies both parties (albeit with some grumbling). No new eggs die, and yet research continues with the blessing of federal funds.


But the research doesn't continue.


My wife just had our second daughter. If she were to have a terminal disease that would require treatment that would necessitiate other human life dying to facilitate the process, I could not in good conscience allow her to receive it. It is appalling to think that such an offer would ever be extended to me.

You know, I really dislike it when people put themselves in extremely tough situations hypothetically to demonstrate their moral fortitude. You simply cannot claim that this decision would be so easy for you if your daughter had a terminal illness because you have no idea how such a situation feels.

This brings me to a larger problem that I have with people forcing me to become defensive about my morality when I advocate for stem cell research. Millions of people die from cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, and other diseases every year. Here, we have a potential approach to treating these problems better than we could have ever imagined. Now, we won't have a cure today or tomorrow or next year. It will take time. But it also took time for Salk to create the polio vaccine. It took time to develop AZT. It took time to develop penicillin. Time and, of course, money.

But when we do have a cure, we can help to save the lives of millions of people. What so-called moralists say is not that human life is precious, but that unborn humans are inherently more valuable than those who have already been born. Somehow, Mattie Stepanek or Ronald Reagan or Christopher Reeve or millions of others just aren't worth as much as an embryo. This isn't about protecting life--it's about making a value judgment.

It is indicative, actually, of a larger trend in conservative politics. Your life is valuable until exactly the point you're born and then the qualifications begin. After you're born, are you privileged, are you white, are you Christian, all of these questions are asked? The same people who would defend the unborn child do not defend the same once he/she is born, do they? Everything is done to pull the kid right out of the womb, but then conservatives don't care about improving education, helping people with social programs, correcting the glaring socioeconomic stratification, protecting minorities (racial, ethnic, sexual, etc.) from a sometimes vicious majority, providing health care, keeping our (largely poor) men and women safe at home instead of fighting an ideological war with their lives, etc., etc., etc.

You're only important to a Republican until you're born, it seems.

If you tell me this embryonic stem cell debate represents a hard decision, I respect that. But if you tell me it is an easy decision because you are some great champion of life, then you are either ignorant of your own moral dilemma or are a hypocrite in the worst sense.

[stubeeef]

You're only important to a Republican until you're born, it seems.


is the inverse true, you're only important to a democrat if you can make it to being born? That way they can find a way to tax you since they weren't able to get your cells?

[pseudobrit]

But when we do have a cure, we can help to save the lives of millions of people. What so-called moralists say is not that human life is precious, but that unborn humans are inherently more valuable than those who have already been born. Somehow, Mattie Stepanek or Ronald Reagan or Christopher Reeve or millions of others just aren't worth as much as an embryo. This isn't about protecting life--it's about making a value judgment.

And the judgement is that an embryo that will NEVER become a human being is worth more than the lives and health of millions of living, breathing -- and dying -- human beings.

[pseudobrit]

Something really pisses me off about this whole deal, and I think it's the hypocrisy.

I've yet to see anyone come forward and volunteer to be implanted with these embryos to "save their lives."

[skunk]

Since 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage anyway, it seems like even God's respect for the sanctity of human life is a little patchy.

[Xtremehkr]

is the inverse true, you're only important to a democrat if you can make it to being born? That way they can find a way to tax you since they weren't able to get your cells?

Speaking of taxes, I hope you don't live in a Blue State.

[zimv20]

is the inverse true, you're only important to a democrat if you can make it to being born? That way they can find a way to tax you since they weren't able to get your cells?
since the Dems are the party that typically want to increase funding and access to social programs that help the disadvantaged, won't you agree that your assertion is a little unfair?

[themadchemist]

is the inverse true, you're only important to a democrat if you can make it to being born? That way they can find a way to tax you since they weren't able to get your cells?

I think you're missing the subtle irony here...Those who support stem cell research haven't bought into the idea that the embryo is human life...However, those who try to embarrass liberals with remonstrances to ethics and bombastic statements of the sanctity of life seem less interested in that sanctity once the person is born.

And as far as being taxed...I suppose that you'd rather have lower taxes and a worthless currency than slightly higher taxes for the wealthy and a healthy economy? Ah, intellectual reductivism is always entertaining.

[stubeeef]

I think you're missing the subtle irony here...Those who support stem cell research haven't bought into the idea that the embryo is human life...However, those who try to embarrass liberals with remonstrances to ethics and bombastic statements of the sanctity of life seem less interested in that sanctity once the person is born.

And as far as being taxed...I suppose that you'd rather have lower taxes and a worthless currency than slightly higher taxes for the wealthy and a healthy economy? Ah, intellectual reductivism is always entertaining.

Your argument has many holes! First how is that liberals are those for and conservatives against embryonic stem cell research. I know 2 liberals that are "pro-life" and anti-embryonic scr. I consider myself mostly conservative and am very concerned with people after they are born, because I don't have them living in my house, does that make me a hypocritical neocon?

I think that ivf clinics are reducing the number of eggs they fertilize and implant. I know that unfertilized and fertilized eggs can be donated to women who want them. I am at a loss for what to do with frozen embryos, but I know I don't want them destroyed or harvasted for research.

As far as taxes, don't be one of those who try to embarrass conservatives with remonstrances to society and bombastic statements of the sanctity of the dollars value. Would you be dumb enough to pay $1 million for a small house to shelter a family of 5? Why should I be have to subsidize the wasteful abuses of a bureaucracy of mindless civil servants? I don't mind paying taxes if it wasn't for $600 hammers! Are you working, supporting yourself so others don't have to, are you paying propery taxes? then sales tax on the car, a license fee, and then a property tax on the car? It is out of hand! You may not fully realize these costs as a college student, I worked my way through as dishwasher on occassion, had some Veterans benefits from my dad who died when I was young. Things change big time when you see 40% of your pay going to social security, medicare/medicade, federal and state income taxes, and health insurance.

I am ready for a "Boston" style tea party! :(

[mactastic]

I am at a loss for what to do with frozen embryos, but I know I don't want them destroyed or harvasted for research.

Your ethics should dictate that you work to close ivf clinics. Unless you want to see storehouses where we keep all these potential humans until we have found suitable hosts for them.

BTW, is it life in general that is sacred, or just human life?

[stubeeef]

Your ethics should dictate that you work to close ivf clinics. Unless you want to see storehouses where we keep all these potential humans until we have found suitable hosts for them.

BTW, is it life in general that is sacred, or just human life?

actually that is where my thoughts lead me. there are millions of children needing adoption.

as far as life being sacred, I honor all life, I step on bugs though, steer around deer, eat cow, pig, chicken, fish. I believe in the sacredness of Gods Creation, I am not pro death penalty if that is what you are driving at.

[mactastic]

Actually I'm thinking more of medical research on animals that are created soley for the purpose of destroying them.

[stubeeef]

Interestingly, did anyone read the link I posted to the antifreeze cousin injected in dogs shortly after being paralyzed?

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&e=1&u=/ap/20041204/ap_on_sc/reversing_paralysis)

[zimv20]

Actually I'm thinking more of medical research on animals that are created soley for the purpose of destroying them.
and what of animals created solely for the purpose of being eaten? and it's not always for human consumption, either.

[stubeeef]

And what about animals that eat people?

What about those evil and bad bacteria, they harm us! Now I am all for the good, conservative bacteria, just not the evil liberal bacteria that cause things like diarrhea!

(that was fun)

[themadchemist]

Your argument has many holes! First how is that liberals are those for and conservatives against embryonic stem cell research. I know 2 liberals that are "pro-life" and anti-embryonic scr. I consider myself mostly conservative and am very concerned with people after they are born, because I don't have them living in my house, does that make me a hypocritical neocon?


I was observing a trend amongst conservatives. I think it's fair to say that the proportion of conservatives against stem cell research is much higher than that of liberals.

By the way, caring about people means more than saying you do, doesn't it? It makes you hypocritical if you "care" about people but aren't willing to help them out by footing the bill.

[qoute=stubeeef]
I think that ivf clinics are reducing the number of eggs they fertilize and implant. I know that unfertilized and fertilized eggs can be donated to women who want them. I am at a loss for what to do with frozen embryos, but I know I don't want them destroyed or harvasted for research.
[/quote]

But here's the inconsistency! If it's perfectly legal to destroy human embryos through fertility clinics, what is the legal foundation to limit federal funding of stem cell research?


As far as taxes, don't be one of those who try to embarrass conservatives with remonstrances to society and bombastic statements of the sanctity of the dollars value. Would you be dumb enough to pay $1 million for a small house to shelter a family of 5? Why should I be have to subsidize the wasteful abuses of a bureaucracy of mindless civil servants? I don't mind paying taxes if it wasn't for $600 hammers!


There is a difference between supporting social programs but wanting them streamlined and not supporting them at all, on principle. Where do you stand?


Are you working, supporting yourself so others don't have to, are you paying propery taxes? then sales tax on the car, a license fee, and then a property tax on the car? It is out of hand! You may not fully realize these costs as a college student, I worked my way through as dishwasher on occassion, had some Veterans benefits from my dad who died when I was young. Things change big time when you see 40% of your pay going to social security, medicare/medicade, federal and state income taxes, and health insurance.


I will pay all of these things, when the time comes. And, if I'm worth my salt, I will continue to hold the position that as a person living in comfort, I have a responsibility to my country and my fellow citizens. If I have a BMW and another person's family doesn't even have health insurance, then I think that I can sacrifice the new plasma TV to help them go to the doctor.

Capitalism must be tempered with empathy--Or are we such individualists in this country that we are happy to cast each other aside to hoard our wealth and luxury?

God, I hope not.

[stubeeef]

I was observing a trend amongst conservatives. I think it's fair to say that the proportion of conservatives against stem cell research is much higher than that of liberals.

I agree with that.
By the way, caring about people means more than saying you do, doesn't it? It makes you hypocritical if you "care" about people but aren't willing to help them out by footing the bill.

Why is it I have to pay for someone else to show I care? Can't I care by doing as well? When actually doing the work, cleaning the dishes at the shelter, building the habitat house, Isn't that worth more than simply writing a check? And by the way-check out the bottom two links of my signature!
But here's the inconsistency! If it's perfectly legal to destroy human embryos through fertility clinics, what is the legal foundation to limit federal funding of stem cell research?

This is a problem! The destruction is very much like an abortion to me. Abortion is legal, but since Hitler, I am not aware of state sponsored experiments on humans. Yes humans.
There is a difference between supporting social programs but wanting them streamlined and not supporting them at all, on principle. Where do you stand?

Limiting social programs, enforcing fraud with teeth. I have mentioned Social Security reform here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=99361&page=1) as well as some other ideas such as flat taxes.
I will pay all of these things, when the time comes. And, if I'm worth my salt, I will continue to hold the position that as a person living in comfort, I have a responsibility to my country and my fellow citizens. If I have a BMW and another person's family doesn't even have health insurance, then I think that I can sacrifice the new plasma TV to help them go to the doctor.

I hope so! Then you can be a valuable assest to society! but are you willing to pay $200 for the $50 Dr visit, cause you must pay the beast to administer the system. Or would you rather give to a local charity that does it effiecently and you can help 4 people instead of 1? I can afford a BMW, but I have an '89 Honda CRX HF. Why? Cause I give thousands a year to my church, I help support a missionary, and give to 2 relief missions in town. Be careful who you make assumptions about. But I also keep and save money for my 3 daughters so they will be ok if some college kid takes me out at an intersection, or I eat another dozen Krispy Kreme's and seize up at the wheel. My wife drives a 93 mini van that just went over 190,000 miles. So don't be so sanctimonious.
Capitalism must be tempered with empathy--Or are we such individualists in this country that we are happy to cast each other aside to hoard our wealth and luxury?

I like the intent of this statement. and I empathize for those that can't speak for themselves, the unborn.

[mactastic]

And what about animals that eat people?

What about those evil and bad bacteria, they harm us! Now I am all for the good, conservative bacteria, just not the evil liberal bacteria that cause things like diarrhea!

(that was fun)

I've got no problem with animals being killed (humanely, not for fun, etc), maneaters or no. I'm just wondering if you believe life itself is sacred, or if only human life is sacred.

But if you just want to spit out semi-insulting 'jokes' rather than discuss, don't let me get in your way.

[themadchemist]

Why is it I have to pay for someone else to show I care? Can't I care by doing as well? When actually doing the work, cleaning the dishes at the shelter, building the habitat house, Isn't that worth more than simply writing a check? And by the way-check out the bottom two links of my signature!


Fair enough. I applaud your contribution to society.


This is a problem! The destruction is very much like an abortion to me. Abortion is legal, but since Hitler, I am not aware of state sponsored experiments on humans. Yes humans.


I don't necessarily appreciate the tenor of this comment.


Limiting social programs, enforcing fraud with teeth. I have mentioned Social Security reform here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=99361&page=1) as well as some other ideas such as flat taxes.


I agree with the point on fraud...I wonder if you notice that fraud isn't limited to social programs, nor is the bulk of government fraud found in those programs. There is inefficiency, like there is to every mechanism, but doesn't government have a responsibility to protect its citizens?


I hope so! Then you can be a valuable assest to society! but are you willing to pay $200 for the $50 Dr visit, cause you must pay the beast to administer the system. Or would you rather give to a local charity that does it effiecently and you can help 4 people instead of 1? I can afford a BMW, but I have an '89 Honda CRX HF. Why? Cause I give thousands a year to my church, I help support a missionary, and give to 2 relief missions in town. Be careful who you make assumptions about. But I also keep and save money for my 3 daughters so they will be ok if some college kid takes me out at an intersection, or I eat another dozen Krispy Kreme's and seize up at the wheel. My wife drives a 93 mini van that just went over 190,000 miles. So don't be so sanctimonious.


I retract some of the tone of my post, but not its substance. First of all, not everyone will be so generous as you. If ensuring that people are taken care of is a must, then the government must take the responsibility to see it through. We can't depend on people's fickle dabbling in charity (this doesn't mean you--you are clearly consistent and dedicated) to guarantee the welfare of the less fortunate.

As far as giving to churches or other religious institutions: I am wary of holding people at cross-point to help them. I've seen too much proselytizing and I'd rather my money go to a government program without the inefficiencies of trying to save people (like myself) from the gaping jaws of the devil because of their vile religious beliefs.


I like the intent of this statement. and I empathize for those that can't speak for themselves, the unborn.

And what of those who speak and are not heard?

[stubeeef]

And what of those who speak and are not heard?
I guess they have you.
There is inefficiency, like there is to every mechanism, but doesn't government have a responsibility to protect its citizens?
Yes they are called police, fire, and military personnel.

[stubeeef]

Has anyone read the link about the animals that were help by the antifreeze cousin yet?

If so what did ya think?

[themadchemist]

I guess they have you.


But don't they deserve us all?


Yes they are called police, fire, and military personnel.

That's it? If you're not being robbed, burned, or blown up by a ballistic missile, the government has no other responsibility to you? If you are starving or lack health care or are homeless, the government should do nothing to aid you?

It seems like we're expecting that success will trickle down in commerce or charity to the needy...But isn't that taking too much of a risk? Isn't the welfare of our citizenry too important to leave to chance or possibility? Shouldn't charity and basic rights trickle up from government, not down from financial success?

[Xtremehkr]

If charity was is successful, why do governments keep getting formed in order to help society maintain function?

What do Chruchs do with most of the money they collect?

[themadchemist]

If charity was is successful, why do governments keep getting formed in order to help society maintain function?

What do Chruchs do with most of the money they collect?

Kudos. I like the way you framed the question!

[stubeeef]

But don't they deserve us all?

I know how you feel, I feel the same way with the unborn.
That's it? If you're not being robbed, burned, or blown up by a ballistic missile, the government has no other responsibility to you? If you are starving or lack health care or homeless, the government should do nothing to aid you?

It seems like we're expecting that success will trickle down in commerce or charity to the needy...But isn't that taking too much of a risk? Isn't the welfare of our citizenry too important to leave to chance or possibility? Shouldn't charity and basic rights trickle up from government, not down from financial success?

Are you advocating a big brother, you don't know what is best for you, style government? Mostly I need protection from bad people and natural disasters, not from choices in my day to day life. Government is in it enough already. If certain charities were given a tax credit status vs a deduction, it would not be a trickle, more like a flood. Please let me know how the welfare of our citizenry is so awful. Are their people that need help? Absolutely! Do we need another government agency to correct it? NOT! I just don't see your point, other than a socialistic society.

If charity was is successful, why do governments keep getting formed in order to help society maintain function?

What do Chruchs do with most of the money they collect?

POWER! It is the nector of the masses. Faith based charity is not the only answer, just a large piece in a small puzzle.
If Governments are so successful, why do churches continually form in order to help society maintain itself? What do governments do with most of the money they collect?
I know alot of churches that appear to be momuments to themselves, no doubt. I have a few friends who are very vocal on this. I did not join one local church when we moved here, because the 2nd sentence out of the greeters mouth was, "did you here about our building fund?"
I get frustrated with the methodist church, because I have little control over where my funds are distributed, kind of the same frustration with the gov.
Some churches are very good at GIVING their funds to getting the message of Christ to those who need it, feed the soul, then the stomach. Some are best at making themselves opulent.
But most people care about their citizenry, and are weary of government, so am I!

[stubeeef]

Back on subject, how do you feel about the lottery, and/or it's management, its use vs how it is/was supposed to be used.

[blackfox]

If charity was is successful, why do governments keep getting formed in order to help society maintain function?

What do Churchs do with most of the money they collect?






__________________



I know how you feel, I feel the same way with the unborn.


Are you advocating a big brother, you don't know what is best for you, style government? Mostly I need protection from bad people and natural disasters, not from choices in my day to day life. Government is in it enough already. If certain charities were given a tax credit status vs a deduction, it would not be a trickle, more like a flood. Please let me know how the welfare of our citizenry is so awful. Are their people that need help? Absolutely! Do we need another government agency to correct it? NOT! I just don't see your point, other than a socialistic society.



POWER! It is the nector of the masses. Faith based charity is not the only answer, just a large piece in a small puzzle.
If Governments are so successful, why do churches continually form in order to help society maintain itself? What do governments do with most of the money they collect?
I know alot of churches that appear to be momuments to themselves, no doubt. I have a few friends who are very vocal on this. I did not join one local church when we moved here, because the 2nd sentence out of the greeters mouth was, "did you here about our building fund?"
I get frustrated with the methodist church, because I have little control over where my funds are distributed, kind of the same frustration with the gov.
Some churches are very good at GIVING their funds to getting the message of Christ to those who need it, feed the soul, then the stomach. Some are best at making themselves opulent.
But most people care about their citizenry, and are weary of government, so am I!

Although this is getting away from the original issue, I thought this deserves mentioning.

You must be careful, when addressing who it is who is assisting the poor and needy, as it can be an issue of Power.

The strength of many Islamic Fundamentalist Organizations in the ME, is derived from their ability to aid the poor and uneducated, where a weak Government fails.

Many of the footsoldiers in the vague army we are "fighting" with regards to Terrorism are direct products of this process. Poor, angry, uneducated young men, who have no opportunity and feel abandoned by their government, if indeed they are even aware of it.

Many of these Organizations are much more efficient than a Government, granted, but there is a price. With aid, comes indoctrination, as those desperate for basic needs; food, money, housing, dignity, purpose, are very pliable to the message of those willing to give it.

Weakening the government's ability to aid the weakest in our society, endangers it's legitimacy to them and opens up the possibility of something more perverse filling the vaccuum. This, at best, fragments a Society, which makes it difficult to maintain social cohesion, or even a sense of shared Nationhood. At worst, this can be profoundly unstabilizing to a Country and produce a significant segment of society who do not need, nor recognize, National Government, and operate on their own agenda, often counter to the interests of those who do. This may even involve the take-up of arms against said government, or the victimization of those who are seen as "others" and can be blamed through ideology, as the source of their problems.

It is early, so I hope what I have said makes a little sense. Poverty and Ignorance will always be a part of our existence, it is best to address them in such a way that aids the strength of the systems we most cherish, such as Democratic governance.

meh.

[pseudobrit]

That's it? If you're not being robbed, burned, or blown up by a ballistic missile, the government has no other responsibility to you? If you are starving or lack health care or homeless, the government should do nothing to aid you?

It's funny how conservatives can be remorseless Darwinists when it comes to their fellow human beings.

[stubeeef]

mac,sorry for the sarcasm, it is just a little to deep, I have never really thought about where the line is, if there is one. While I can see some hypocracy in eatting sacred life, It is nulled out by day to day life.

[stubeeef]

It's funny how conservatives can be remorseless Darwinists when it comes to their fellow human beings.

That's it? If you're not being robbed, burned, or blown up by a ballistic missile, the government has no other responsibility to you? If you are starving or lack health care or homeless, the government should do nothing to aid you?

WE are the government, the government is not an enitity that exists like a benevolent parent. It is us, we are it. Look to your family, look to your friends, but first look to yourself. Yes I want to take care of the indigent, it is our responsibility. I just don't want to take care of the those that fake it because they are lazy. I don't want to spend enough to care for a thousand to care for a hundred. If that makes me a heal, so be it.

[mactastic]

Fair enough. I just wonder about Christians claims that life is sacred when they are meat eaters, war-makers, or pro-death-penalty.

[themadchemist]

I know how you feel, I feel the same way with the unborn.


Are you advocating a big brother, you don't know what is best for you, style government? Mostly I need protection from bad people and natural disasters, not from choices in my day to day life. Government is in it enough already. If certain charities were given a tax credit status vs a deduction, it would not be a trickle, more like a flood. Please let me know how the welfare of our citizenry is so awful. Are their people that need help? Absolutely! Do we need another government agency to correct it? NOT! I just don't see your point, other than a socialistic society.


You pretend that all these charities are somehow wonderfully efficient and ethical organizations. The Salvation Army, the very symbol of the word charity, has had its controversy.

Even the good ones have the problem of specificity. The government is the only body equally interested (ideally) in the welfare of all citizens. The other groups don't even pretend.

So if you're not Christian (or not pliant to Christianity), the Church will turn away. If you're not Muslim (or not pliant to Islam), the mosque will turn away. If you're not Jewish, the synagogue will turn away. I hate to say it, but if you're not Hindu, the temple will probably turn away, as well. By putting people in a position in which they have to depend on religious institutions, you are coercing them to comply with the teachings of those religions...It undermines religious freedom for the poor.

If you don't have cancer, then you're out of luck with the cancer societies. If you've got Alzheimer's, then those societies might help, but there are hundreds of other diseases for which appealing to charities might not get you as much face time.

In addition to topical specificity, there's the matter of geographical specificity. If you leave out in the middle of nowhere, then you will be less likely to get help (so unequal access to charities is a problem).

Plus, it's unlikely that you can get comprehensive help with everything that you need and deserve (I'm not talking a Porsche, but I am talking food+clothing+transportation to go to a job).

And you know, social programs don't just mean feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. That's important, but it is short term. Where the government can really shine (and must, because no one else can do it) is to help alleviate the socoeconomic stratification that plagues our society.

Only something as powerful and omnipresent as the government, with legal authority and enforcement ability, can help to remedy the hundreds of years of discrimination against women and minorities that have been perpetrated, first by the privileged, and now by the system controlled by the privilege. While outright racism is fading rapidly, social structures, built in the context of a racist and sexist history, continue to exude racism and sexism. These nitty gritty problems--how to make public schools more fair so that poor kids don't have to go to bad schools, how to offer employment and educational opportunities to the underprivileged, how to make sure employers don't discriminate--these all are facets of grand "socialist" programs, as you would call them.

It's ironic that YOU would contend that I'm asking for a Big Brother...You are perfectly willing to tell homosexuals that they don't know what's best for them and women that they also don't know what's best for them.

I, on the other hand, am saying that the government should intervene when society is being oppressive. That is, telling people when they aren't best for OTHERS. That's what society is for.

A bit of historical evidence on farming off the responsibility of the government to religious charities...James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, vetoed a bill as President that would have provided federal funding for a Church so that it could feed the poor. Why? It would set a bad precedent, he said, and would open the door to future support of religious activities by the government. It violated the first amendment, in his opinion, and who would know better?


POWER! It is the nector of the masses. Faith based charity is not the only answer, just a large piece in a small puzzle.


I don't really understand. If you think that helping the needy is necessary for society's progression, then I can't comprehend why you wouldn't support mandatory contributions to securing the future of all Americans. I also don't see why you prefer less-complete and only somewhat less bureaurcratic charities over a much more complete, much more accountable if somewhat more bureaucratic government. The trade off is plain to see.


If Governments are so successful, why do churches continually form in order to help society maintain itself? What do governments do with most of the money they collect?


Apparently, they fight wars with it...Hmmm...


Some churches are very good at GIVING their funds to getting the message of Christ to those who need it, feed the soul, then the stomach.


The message of Christ at the end of a loaf of bread can be almost as devastating as that at the end of a sword. Charities that I want to support just feed the stomach. This presumption that by spreading your take on religion, you're feeding someone's "soul" is absolutely arrogant. It has been the root of so much depravation in the world over and over again, and even when good comes of it, it is tainted by the filth of proselytization.

This is why our government shouldn't be funding religious charities and this is why religious charities MUST NOT comprise a large piece of the social support puzzle in a nation of the freedom of religion.


But most people care about their citizenry

That's questionable.