Latest in the sequences of miracles from adult stem cell research is an experiment in which stem cell therapy cured type 1 diabetes. Note, of course, that the research involved adult stem cells and not embryonic stem cells which are "harvested" from unborn babies have have yielded zero medical breakthroughs.
Diabetics using stem-cell therapy have been able to stop taking insulin injections for the first time, after their bodies started to produce the hormone naturally again.In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood.
Unfortunately the article goes on to unjustifiably praise embryonic stem cell research with false claims and condemn President Bush for opposing it.
But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush.
The claim in the first phrase above is false: embryonic stem cells are no more "versatile" than stem cells taken from, e.g., amniotic fluid. Furthermore, embryonic stem cells tend to turn cancerous and cause brain tumors.
Why are so many people so eager to slaughter babies and harvest their stem cells despite the fact that embryonic stem cells can't cure anything? I can think of only two explanations. First, scientists who have invested their careers in this direction want to keep the grant money flowing. Second, pro-abortionists recognize their need to increase acceptance of abortion among an increasingly pro-life population.
Update:
Ironically the Senate was debating embryonic stem cell research today and claiming that only embryonic stem cells could help cure diabetes. Their conviction is strange, considering that embryonic stem cell therapy hasn't led to a single treatment for any disease or condition.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who introduced the act with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), drew particular attention to a 12-year-old diabetic girl he recently met, who he said must inject herself with insulin 120 times a month. “If adult stem cells could provide a cure for juvenile diabetes, she'd gladly take it,†Harkin said, suggesting that only embryonic stem cells have the capacity to cure diabetes. In research to be published in today's Journal of the American Medical Association, scientists from Brazil and the United States showed that adult stem cells may indeed help cure diabetes.
There is nothing wrong with using stem cells from embryos that were already destroyed or were going to be destroyed anyway.
Mark: Sure there is, because:
(a) that use creates a market for dead babies, which increases incentives to kill them
(b) that use increases the acceptability of killing babies for their parts
(c) we don't harvest organs or anything else from any other dead people without their consent
MW:
(a) There isn't already such a market?
(b) Not necessarily
(c) That would depend on the determination that an embryo is a person from which we must acquire consent. You do not get to make that determination for anyone besides yourself, just as I don't get to make that determination for anyone besides myself.
"(a)There isn't already such a market?" - Is that the best you can come up with? Pathetic.
"(b) Not necessarily" - This one's even sillier...with contradiction. You agree in answer(a) that such a market exists, yet you cast doubt that another interest could excite this market. You didn't even think more than 2 seconds on this one, did you? :-)
"(c)..." (to much to re-type) - More drivel and no thought. I can't believe you spent a paragraph essentially defending the misguided fact that a dead person is more of a person than an unborn baby.
Why don't you take a moment and decide what you really think, then post an intelligent answer to Michael's points.
Or don't...I get a big kick out of reading your posts in here.
(a) Response (a) from MW suggests that such a market doesn't exist or that expanding embryonic stem cell research will be what breaks the log jam. The fact that there already is such a market makes it unlikely that using already-destroyed embryos is going to influence much of anything.
(b) Response (b) from MW is basically a "slippery slope" argument. Most rational people understand that most of these "slippery slopes" are actually more like stairs. Moving a step in either direction doesn't necessitate further movement.
(c) Response (c) from MW does indeed hinge upon one's determination of when life begins. MW (and you, apparently, wag_the_dog) undoubtedly believes that life begins at conception. Others (not an insignificant number, either) disagree. The question of whether there's anything wrong with using stem cells from embryos that are already dead or would've been destroyed anyway depends on one's determination of when life begins first and then, after that, on one's determination of whether or not the potential gain is worth the sacrifice.
I also disagree with MW on another point: America is becoming more pro-life. Generally speaking, that is not true. There are very vocal and vehement people on both sides of the issue, but either absolute-pro-life or absolute-pro-choice side is smaller than the larger middle group: those who want to find middle ground; those who support certain restrictions on abortion but do not believe it should be made illegal outright.
Public opinion also generally supports using embryonic stem cells in medical research. You've often expressed a desire, MW, to see our elected leaders follow the will of the people. In this and other cases, public opinion is not on your side. Be careful what you wish for..
I support using embryonic stem cells for medical research, but I don't support using more federal money for it. If the private sector wants to contribute to expanded use of embryonic stem cells that's perfectly fine, but I don't think the government should fund any more than it does. If/when a cure or treatment for a disease is found, I *might* support more government funding of the research, but only in the absence of private sector contribution. I highly doubt the private sector wouldn't contribute, though.
More lies! The article states:
"But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush."
The President opposes Federal Spending on such research. The research goes on with private and state funding NOW.
Mark:
(a) Yes, there already is a market, driven by the abortion industry which rakes in more than $5 billion per year slaughtering babies. Lots of this money is then turned over to the Democrats, who fight tooth and nail to make sure the flows of corpses and dollars don't stop. I suppose I could have been more accurate, and rather than saying "creates" said "creates an additional".
(b) This isn't a slippery slope argument. Slippery slope says "X may be ok, but if we do X then we'll slip into doing Y, which isn't ok".
(c) If everyone gets to make their own determination as to when life begins, then so do the unborn babies. Why should you or I get to decide on their behalf?
MW:
(a) I doubt it would even create anything "additional", because we're talking about utilizing what's already being destroyed/disposed of. The matter of adding *additional* embryos to the process is a separate question that must be addressed.
(b) Yes, it is a slippery slope argument you were trying to make. You're saying that using embryos that are already destroyed or already going to be destroyed will lead to greater acceptance of using embryos ("babies" in your pro-life parlance) for this and other harvesting purposes. That's a slippery slope argument.
(c) Everyone does get to make their own determination as to when life begins, but the disconnect is where you say that "unborn babies" must as well, which suggests that you think embryos are "unborn babies", that we're talking about using "babies" past the embryo stage of development, and that life begins at conception. Your entire argument stems from your belief that life begins at conception. Others disagree.
Just out of curiosity, when did YOUR life begin, Mark?
I'm not sure, TSU.
In many ways, my life began when I was 11 years old because of a major change in my family that resulted in an fast-forwarded childhood and a somewhat absent "teenage rebellious" stage.
Mark: (a) You know not whereof you speak.
(b) I don't think that's a slippery slope argument, I think it's a simple cause-and-effect argument. If you reward people for doing something, they'll do it more.
(c) Yes, the crux of the issue is axiomatic disagreement over when life begins, which is what I was trying to make you see.
MW:
(a) That's over there.. not over here. We cannot control what people in other countries do. We can only control what we do in this country. The fact that others in other countries do something doesn't mean we will do the same.
(b) There's little difference between cause-and-effect arguments and slippery slope arguments. They are both variations of each other and, in this case, almost synonymous.
(c) You're trying to make me see something I already saw, which is, for you, a pointless endeavor.