Talk politics.

I've had ex-girlfriends that wanted breast enlargements despite that I prefer more normal sized breasts myself. :P

Um, maybe because they were planning on trading up? :)

(deleted comment)

From:

I own a sleek convertible because I love well-engineered cars. I feel great driving around in it, working under the hood, or giving it a good wash. In other words, I got it for myself. That doesn't mean that I'm not both consciously and subconsciously aware of the fact that it attracts women. The same applies to when I buy a nice jacket or a new pair of shoes and women compliment me on it. I purchased them for myself, but the boost I get from them is largely external.

Women who seek breast enlargement for themselves may be doing just that, that's how we tend to justify most purchases we make, but that doesn't mean that they aren't keenly aware of the effect it has on how others perceive them. It also doesn't mean that their increased attractiveness to the opposite sex doesn't play into their decision.

From:

The cells will be isolated from a woman’s spare fat, once it has been extracted from her thighs or stomach, using equipment owned by GE Healthcare, a technology company. The concentrated stem cells will then be mixed with another batch of fat before being injected into the breast. It takes several months for the breast to achieve the desired size and shape.

I think what they're saying is these are adult stem cells, not embryonic ones, which makes a lot of sense because adult stem cells throughout the years have been proven to be a lot more useful, in comparison to their possible detrimental effects, than stem cells from human embryos.

From:

What do you base your argument that adult stem cells have proven more useful than embryonic stem cells on? That doesn't seem to be the consensus in the scientific community.

From:

I don't think you're looking at the right scientific community. Look beyond just those who want to use embryonic stem cells.

From:

To which alternate scientific communities are you referring?

From:

Biologists.

From:

Awesome. I'd love to read more about it. Care to provide some evidence?

From:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080201224807/http://www.spinneypress.com.au/178_book_desc.html
http://health.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=adult+human+stem+cell+research

From:

The first link is cute (I'm assuming you got it from me and it isn't just a happy coincidence). And the second, though insightful, doesn't actually make a case to back up its inflammatory title "Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete". It just points out that advances have been made with other types of stem cells (which I never disputed) and that there have been complications involved in some procedures with embryonic stem cells. You know what that means? More research is required. If the scientific community comes to a consensus that embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary I'll be the first to hop on board.

I have yet to see anything from either you or Pantsu that makes a case for abandoning embryonic stem cell research, though, just a lot of positive press for adult stem cells (which is wonderful) and a few weak statements against the embryonic type that don't come close to making the case for abandoning embryonic stem cell research.

From:

Okay dude, seriously. Let's say a certain food tasted really good and was easy to grow but that food is poisonous. Are you going to want to eat it anyway? I guessing not. If embryonic stem cells result in cancer, why continue to advocate its use? Sure, they look good, but if they are causing more health problems than they are solving then I find that perfect reason to opt for adult stem cells, which are already working and do not result in bullshit health problems.

Edit: grammar fail.

Edited Date: 30/3/09 17:07 (UTC)

From:

This hyperbolic and hypothetical point you're trying to make has little, if any, basis in fact.

Honestly, even if I were to humor your argument, ask yourself: how many life-saving medicines have resulted from research in substances that had the potential to kill or injure? Radiation therapy, vaccines, pain killers, and quite a few forms of medication, just to name a few. Hell, go back to the earliest days of medicine when amputation and leeches were used to save people's lives. All of it "poisonous food".

From:

Nonsense. No intelligent scientist would dare think for himself.

From:

I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone else.
Adult stem cells are not always as adaptable as embryonic stem cells, but that doesn't mean they are not subject to well-adjustment or usefulness. Stem cells are still stem cells and even if we sacrifice the "best" kind on the basis of moral restrictions, we still have several very good kinds left that, if utilised properly, could wield identical - or even better - results.

Furthermore, embryonic stem cells are subject to a lot of problems. There was recently a boy who received some kind of embryonic stem cell injection in his brain and now he has tumours. Granted, they are benign, but who's to say that next time they won't be malignant? In fact, there have been numerous reports of embryonic stem cell injections resulting in cancer in the patient. Adult stem cells have yet to show they do this same thing.

I found an interesting article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29453915/) awhile ago that you might be interested in.

This article is older (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27083449/) and likely of less interest but it does show that certain stem cells are just as flexible as embryonic stem cells - albeit in this case, us ladies lack any benefit.

Things like this just require more research. Luckily, there are scientists out there who are looking for better alternatives, as opposed to clinging to something that seems to work in and of itself, though obviously not all that well if they end up causing things like cancer later on in the patient's life. I think the key to issues like this - and any political issue, really - is the ability to understand where the other side is coming from.

Also, as you can tell by the article you posted, adult stem cells do a lot of beneficial things without the risks that embryonic stem cells cause. I'm guessing that cancerous tumours are common in embryonic stem cell injections because they are just that - embryonic. Their intention is to grow at a more rapid pace than adult stem cells. To me, it just makes a lot more sense to take stem cells from adults.

My understanding of the scientific community's approach on stem cells is that adult stem cells are much preferred amongst those who understand that it's more logical to use adult stem cells on born people. Those who prefer embryonic stem cells are likely ones who haven't been able to see the pattern of detrimental effects that embryonic stem cells have produced, while adult stem cells haven't. They are the ones who don't wish to easily avoid a moral conflict at the cost of a little extra effort. Embryonic stem cells are sometimes preferred because they are 1) slightly more easy to harvest and 2) more plentiful in a single harvest, but when things like cancer and moral boundaries are crossed in the process, one would think an alternative would be sought. Luckily, it often is.
Both my mother and father are in the medical profession, my father being a neurosurgeon, and neither of them would recommend embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells for scientific reasons. On top of that my father won't participate in embryonic stem cell injections, or the dealing thereof, at all. Not that it has anything to do with the discussion...
Just thought I would point it out.

From:

I'm sorry, but none of this constitutes a legitimate argument against the use of embryonic stem cells. The keyword here is "research". Scientists are still researching the effects of stem cell treatment as well as the options for harvesting them. They are still researching the benefits and risks involved in all types of stem cells, be they adult or embryonic. As it is still being researched there is no concrete evidence to suggest favoring one type of stem cell over another. For this reason it is important that we don't limit research to any one type, which is all the pro-embryonic stem cell research movement is saying. It's false to say that because one boy developed tumors after treatment that embryonic stem cells pose a greater risk to patients than adult ones. In the process of researching these cells and their associated treatments there will be ups and downs with both types and no one case will be an indicator of the success or failure of that type of stem cell as a method of treatment.

I understand that you are against the use of embryonic stem cells for moral reasons, but I'm looking for scientific explanations as to why adult stem cells are more effective than embryonic ones. And something tells me that your father's opposition to injecting embryonic cells has as something to do with a moral directive that you two share and has little to do with personal research. I, for one, hope that I am never a patient of his or of any other doctor that puts ideology above the well-being of their patients.

From:

Cancer as a side effect isn't legit?
How about this for legitimacy? So far, there have been - as far as I know - no documented cases of success with the use of embryonic stem cells, whereas adult stem cells have had plenty of success stories and continue to gain more. Even if the potential for embryonic stem cells is there, look again at the potential side effects compared to adult stem cells. Furthermore, look at the fact that adult stem cells are already working.
See, embryonic stem cells are often rejected by a patient's body, much like an organ transplant would. But with adult stem cells there is no risk of rejection because they come from the patient's body... assuming the adult stem cells in question actually did. Obviously you cannot harvest embryonic stem cells from an adult unless perhaps it is a pregnant woman but again embryonic stem cells have no success rate and plenty of failures against them. As I said, adult stem cells are the more logical choice of the two - not just to me, but to a huge part of the medical community which you seem to not realise exists.
As for that "one boy," I already said there were several more cases of this and even told you why I believed that, something that can easily be checked by somebody who professionally knows a lot about the issue. For instance, my father or his colleagues, etc.
But now it's your turn. You say all stem cells have the potential to have downsides, which is true. But do you care to look for a story of adult stem cells going wrong, or a case of embryonic stem cells doing what they were intended? Once again, even if embryonic stem cells could provide relief in the future, adult stem cells are already there, have no current detrimental side effects, and avoid the moral line that embryonic stem cell research crosses. Hell, just over a month ago UCLA reported that they successfully performed a neural stem cell transplant into a patient with Parkinson's. That patient has since acquired motor skills that are 80 better than what (s)he had before the transplant. Even if embryonic stem cells could eventually do this, what's the point? We already have amazing results. This is as logical as it gets.

I for one am against embryonic stem cell research for both ethical and scientific reasons. But I feel like I must have angered you because there is no other reason for you to attack my father's stellar practice as a surgeon. My father is actually pro-choice, if that's what you were getting at, and as a doctor he would never place his morals above his duty. As I said, he is scientifically against stem cells and I've already stated several reasons why anybody should second-guess their use.

From:

Why don't you just provide sources so I can see where you're coming from.

As for your argument that embryonic stem cells sometimes don't "take", you're right and you're wrong. While it's true that they can be rejected, they're far more plentiful than adult stem cells and can be faster and cheaper to reproduce. It's also true that there are methods being developed to fix this (see HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transfer) for example). This is why we need to be researching them, rather than coddling to a minority whose objections aren't based in science, but their personal moral interpretations. If the science says that embryonic stem cells are unnecessary, then we should follow the science, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Here is a quick run-down of some of the reasons that I have been able to find why embryonic stem cells are preferable in some cases to adult stem cells:

...are easier to identify and isolate (adult stem cells from adults have not been isolated for all tissues of the body).
...can be grown indefinitely in the lab, and can turn into most of the tissue types in the body, with the potential to cure many diseases.
...are more common, whereas adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities (roughly 1 in 1,000 cells in bone marrow).
...grow quicker and easier in the lab than adult cells, which are difficult to isolate and purify, and their numbers may decrease with age.
...can be more easily manipulated (they are more plastic).
...have worked with animals, e.g. they have been successful in repairing heart damage in mice. (i.e. "a case of them doing what they were intended to do")
Any attempt to use adult stem cells from a patient's own body for treatment would require that stem cells would first have to be isolated from the patient and then grown in culture in sufficient numbers to obtain adequate quantities for treatment. For some acute disorders, there may not be enough time to grow enough cells to use for treatment. In other disorders, caused by a genetic defect, the genetic error would likely be present in the patient's stem cells. Cells from such a patient may not be appropriate for transplantation.
Adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities, caused by exposure to daily living, including sunlight, toxins, and by expected errors made in DNA replication during the course of a lifetime. These potential weaknesses could limit the usefulness of adult stem cells.

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20080201224807/http://www.spinneypress.com.au/178_book_desc.html

Now, whatever you think of the results of embryonic stem cell research, you must acknowledge that it is more than enough evidence to justify the research. The fact that adult stem cells have been used in therapies is terrific and research on adult stem cells should continue, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be researching both.

From:

I did provide sources. I gave you two links to articles that explained that adult stem cells are doing what they are intended, which is far more than embryonic stem cells can say.

I am not wrong because I mentioned they are easy to harvest and plentiful. However, this, to me, does not outweigh the negative aspects of using embryonic stem cells.
I am not understanding this "embryonic stem cells are necessary" bit. So far, that does not seem to be the case. There are quite a few tissues that adult stem cells research has not covered yet, but it would make more sense to me to invest more time in researching these than researching the whole of embryonic stem cells. For the 23094824902th time, they have yet to work while adult stem cells have. It's wiser to spend time researching the one that works, especially if it avoids a moral boundary. I understand you are not against this kind of research but try to put yourself in the shoes of those who are. If those who are against it consider it murder or otherwise unethical then you can imagine the kind of stress it will put these people through, which can be avoided completely with adult stem cells. I've noticed a terrible habit of people not caring about the other side's feelings; as long as it suits the individual, then it is okay. That's really not a great way to look at things.

Adult stem cells can also be grown in labs. They may not grow as quickly, but this is beneficial. The rapid growth of embryonic stem cells is what likely leads to tumours. As for the mice, it's already been shown that it's an isolated success that won't occur in human beings, so that "success" doesn't count, considering I'm talking about human growth.
Adult stem cells don't have to just be from the patient that is being treated, though foreign stem cells have the potential to be rejected by said patient.

I'm pretty sure I already covered the fact that embryonic stem cells are easier to work with/harvest in my first reply, but I also explained why that doesn't really matter in the long run. I feel like you're being unreceptive to what I am trying to say, otherwise you likely would not have repeated what I have been saying.

I still don't think any of those things justify the research more than the detrimental effects detract from it. I'm weighing the pros and the cons and I still reach the same conclusion, both scientifically and ethically. Now, if embryonic stem cells weren't shown to fail on almost every count - and then some - then I could look past the ethical attribute to it and agree that it is wise to research both adult and embryonic stem cells. But that isn't the case, so I don't support it.

Edit: I just checked your source and noticed that it also provides plenty of arguments against embryonic stem cells as well, so we're just back to square one.

Edited Date: 30/3/09 05:08 (UTC)

From:

It's a simple request. Provide sources for your claims. Those two links covered only a tiny fraction of the points you've been making and don't address the particularly controversial ones. Pleas for me to sympathize with your feelings are pointless, as this is not a discussion about the morality of embryonic stem cells but the science. Show me the science that supports your claims, that's all I'm asking and I've been very patient with you so far. If you can't do even that much then don't expect more of a response than this.

From:

Okay.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080201224807/http://www.spinneypress.com.au/178_book_desc.html

Honestly, the bottom half of your own article makes note of almost everything I explained to you. Tada!

Sympathise with my feelings? You are mistaken. I do not think of it as murder and I am not asking you to spare my feelings. I am merely asking you to be more open-minded and place yourself in the shoes of those who feel differently than you do. That is not an extraordinary request; the basis of political understanding in and of itself is acknowledgment that 1) another side to the issue exists, and 2) placing yourself in their position to better understand where they are coming from is beneficial to both parties of the discussion.

So what more science do you want from me?
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000007086.cfm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/95177.php
http://www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/adultstemsuccess.htm (a clearly pro-life website but its list is well-referenced to neutral parties so I consider it legit)
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_stem_cell

I could go on about how researchers are finding ways to make adult stem cells just as flexible as embryonic stem cells and how embryonic stem cells are relatively less controllable than adult stem cells, but I'm hoping by now you've understood these things. Anything else, or are you just copping out because you're unwilling to listen to anything except for what you want to hear? To be frank, that's what it seems like.

From:

Honestly, the bottom half of your own article makes note of almost everything I explained to you. Tada!

I'm sorry, but the bottom half of the article does not contradict the top half, it merely lists some of the arguments against embryonic stem cell research. They are, with the exception of two, ethical objections. The other two? They acknowledge the time and labor that will be involved. You don't actually consider that a reason to not do the research, do you?

And your "sources" are suspect. You realize that posting a link to a website that discusses the issue is not the same as providing a source, right? A hyperlink is not necessarily a source. Citizenlink.org is a Focus On the Family affiliate and its "source", Wesley J. Smith, is from the Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute). It provides no link to the quote in question and you're kidding if you expect me to take their word at face value. I have a difficult enough time doing that when it's coming from a source I trust.

There's nothing wrong with medicalnewstoday.com, but I don't know why you're offering it as a "source" for any of your disputed claims. I don't deny the advances made in adult stem cell research.

And the Wiki article. Um. Thanks, but I already know what adult stem cells are. You've got to provide something to back up these claims. Copy-pasting random links that relate to the topic in general is not the same as actually providing sources for your specific claims.

Claims like: "I could go on about how researchers are finding ways to make adult stem cells just as flexible as embryonic stem cells and how embryonic stem cells are relatively less controllable than adult stem cells"

Please do "go on" and bring some sources to back it up while you're at it.

And here you are arguing that I'm unwilling to listen. Quite the opposite, I'm asking you to provide sources regarding specific claims that you've made and you're providing bupkis. I am trying very hard to "acknowledge the other side", but you've got to bring something to the table other than anecdotes and sourceless links to Right-Wing websites. I'm trying to understand, my ears are wide open, so why aren't you fulfilling your end of the bargain and backing up your argument with some compelling evidence?

But let's make this as simple as possible. Forget all of the issues I've raised so far, just provide some evidence to support the assertion that adult stem cells can do everything that embryonic stem cells can do, and more, without any of the problems I mentioned. Please address the specific benefits that I listed (like damage to the genes, plasticity, and ease of production) and please have your link be from a trustworthy source (i.e. professionals with expertise in the area of stem cell research, not Focus on the Family).

From:

I understand. You merely wanted sources for my claims and you seem to have found one by yourself, which was my point.

If you want to be picky with sources maybe you should try looking some up because being vague with me isn't going to get us anywhere. Actually, nothing is getting us anywhere because you refuse to believe that hey, maybe embryonic stem cells aren't as useful as your side of science is trying to claim.
And you've posted one source that you admit merely weights the pros and cons of each, so you have no place to get huffy because you don't believe me. Tell me how that even begins to be more legit than anything I've posted.

But let's get some things straight before I grace you with more of what you want which will inevitably be rendered "unreliable" to you because that's what you seem to be fixated on doing.
I never claimed that adult stem cells are just as flexible as embryonic ones. They are not; it's one of few cons against adult stem cells. They are very flexible, especially stem cells derived from the umbilical cord/placenta (which are just as flexible as embryonic stem cells), but embryonic stem cells are more flexible because they can become any cell. However, their plasticity and rapid growth, something looked upon as both pros, are the very thing that leads to cancer in the patient receiving the treatment. So to say "well hey embryonic stem cells are more flexible" is certainly true and perhaps a benefit in the meantime, but honestly, I'd say their extreme plasticity is a con rather than a pro.
As for damage to the genes, I did already address this issue. I mentioned that adult stem cells can be taken from one individual and then given to another individual which would avoid any genetic issues the latter individual may have due to an illness or the like. You do the same thing you would with an organ transplant. As I said, there is the potential for rejection but that is also there with embryonic stem cells.
I also already covered ease of production in probably every single one of my replies. You really need to touch up on your reading comprehension if you seriously think I haven't already addressed this. I noted several times that embryonic stem cells are harvested in greater numbers than adult stem cells. ...So? Why is this significant? It's easier for me to collect a bunch of Fs in school than a bunch of As but does that mean I should opt for the easiest route? It's about the quality, not the quantity, and so far embryonic stem cells have proven to not help/add more problems.

From:

maybe embryonic stem cells aren't as useful as your side of science is trying to claim.

Even if all they had the potential to do is treat a type of toothache that ASCs cannot, that is enough to justify ESCR.

you've posted one source that you admit merely weights the pros and cons of each

Scientific confirmation > morally questionable and highly subjective objection.

their plasticity and rapid growth, something looked upon as both pros, are the very thing that leads to cancer in the patient receiving the treatment. So to say "well hey embryonic stem cells are more flexible" is certainly true and perhaps a benefit in the meantime, but honestly, I'd say their extreme plasticity is a con rather than a pro.

Which is why methods need to be researched to stem this growth. Once again: more research is called for.

I noted several times that embryonic stem cells are harvested in greater numbers than adult stem cells. ...So? Why is this significant? It's easier for me to collect a bunch of Fs in school than a bunch of As but does that mean I should opt for the easiest route?

This comment right here sums up the entire thread, I think. I think we're done here.

From:

Scientific confirmation of what? The fact that embryonic stem cells have yet to do any good at all? Seriously, what are you even getting at now?

I think we're done here as well, but not on the same basis as you. You have nothing to even contribute to this conversation except the same bullshit that you have yet to even source yourself.

From:

I'm not sure what you're getting at since I've provided sources for my claims that ESCR is necessary and you haven't (maybe you think that because you copy-pasted more hyperlinks?), but then again I'm not the one making claims that fly in the face of the consensus of the experts in the field. If you do that, in any field, expect that your opinion will come under a greater level of scrutiny.

From:

So anyway, on to my ~*~sources~*~. Do you go for documented proof in the form of general news or is that suddenly misconstrued or false information too?
Once again, proof that certain adult stem cells are just as flexible as embryonic stem cells. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27083449/) As I've said, adult stem cells are not as flexible as embryonic stem cells because they cannot (yet) be manipulated to turn into ANY cell, but specific cell groups have already made use of adult stem cells with just as much plasticity as their embryonic counterparts. However, there is proof that scientists are getting increasingly closer to being able to manipulate these cells. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29453915/) As you might have noticed by the purple, these are links I've already provided. I'm providing them again because it's clear you did not read them well enough.
But you wanted ~real~ sources! Then I'll deliver. (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp) Here is further evidence that my claims hold truth.
"Certain kinds of adult stem cells seem to have the ability to differentiate into a number of different cell types, given the right conditions." Again showing that adult stem cells can often be very flexible.
"Scientists in many laboratories are trying to find ways to grow adult stem cells in cell culture and manipulate them to generate specific cell types so they can be used to treat injury or disease. Some examples of potential treatments include replacing the dopamine-producing cells in the brains of Parkinson's patients, developing insulin-producing cells for type I diabetes and repairing damaged heart muscle following a heart attack with cardiac muscle cells." This article was last updated over a year ago, so I will remind you that scientists since then have found promising treatments for Parkinson's (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/110254.php), diabetes (http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/factsheet-04-03-02.htm) and heart recovery (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/95177.php).
"Also, a single adult stem cell should be able to generate a line of genetically identical cells—known as a clone—which then gives rise to all the appropriate differentiated cell types of the tissue." This evidences that adult stem cells are on their way to being as plentiful as their lesser opponents.
"A number of experiments have suggested that certain adult stem cell types are pluripotent. This ability to differentiate into multiple cell types is called plasticity or transdifferentiation." I suggest you read that entire section, if anything.

You wanna take a wild guess at who adds to the confirmation of some of the info used on this (government) website? My dad's office. GTFO.
I mean, this entry isn't even about embryonic stem cells. It was about adult stem cells. You being unreceptive to any of what I've said says to me that you don't really care about trying to understand the other side and while you claim to be "trying," I'll admit that I'm "trying" to continue to find reason to carry on with this asinine discussion.

Edited Date: 30/3/09 15:56 (UTC)

From:

What you don't seem to get is that none of this is evidence that we should abandon ESCR. None of it. On the other hand, I don't deny any of the information provided by the sources you've shared in this comment. Not a one. But you need to provide evidence that ESCR is unnecessary.

Yes, you have shown that there is a lot of potential to bridge the gap between the benefits of ASCR and ESCR. Yes, you've shown evidence that ASCR may someday make ESCR unnecessary. But that's a big maybe. In the meantime, ESCs can still do some things that ASCs cannot and the potential of ESCs is still not fully tapped. You haven't shown me any evidence that says this isn't true. That, to me, is reason enough to continue ESCR.

You keep claiming that I don't want to understand. I just want evidence. Not evidence of something we already agree upon (that ASCR is great), but of something we don't (that ESCR isn't necessary). Can you do that or are you just going to keep providing me with links to Right-wing websites and sources that state facts that I've never disputed?

The only person who isn't listening or who doesn't acknowledge the points being made by the other party is you. You keep making the baseless argument that ESCR has been "finalized", but when I ask you for proof, you want to talk about how great ASCR is or you insult my intelligence by suggesting that I should take what you say for granted.

How's this for understanding: I get why all of this seems sufficient enough evidence to you. It's simply a case of confirmation bias. Because of your moral objection to ESCR you feel that the successes of ASCR is enough to abandon what you feel is an unethical practice.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice and take a step out of your own shoes--something I realize is probably impossible for you to do or else you wouldn't be demanding that I do it while your ass remains firmly planted over on your side. But anyway, imagine that you did not see the use of embryos in research as a moral or ethical problem. Imagine then that you've got two potentially life-saving treatments being researched, and someone is suggesting that you stop one because of their moral objections. My moral code says that it is wrong to let sick people suffer or die when there is the potential to cure them. And I do not see a blastocyst as being a life any more than I see ASCs from bone marrow to be a life. The immoral thing, in my view, is to limit the research because a few people have moral objections to what some women want to do with their own embryos. In other words, you're asking me to abandon my morals, without proof or scientific consensus, in order to accommodate yours when it isn't your embryos that are being used.

So perhaps you should "try" harder, or just quit the thread, because you're just doing donuts at this point.

From:

Everything I've brought to the table justifies the discontinuation of embryonic stem cell usage. They are unnecessary because there is an alternative that is already working. What is the point in overstepping a moral boundary when science so far suggests that they won't more useful than they are detrimental?

What can embryonic stem cells do that adult stem cells can't besides be harvested in greater numbers and turn into any cell of the body? Furthermore, what good is that if it results in tumours because of the rapid growth? Jus'sayin.

You keep mentioning right-wing sites as if I've provided any except that one obviously pro-life website that referenced neutral information. You can either admit my latest are legit sources or you can stfu and move on.

You know, there's a lot of talk about my "moral objection" to embryonic stem cells. Yes, I'm pro-life as far as pro-life agendas go. But that really doesn't affect my logical grasp of the situation. As I've said, if I knew that embryonic stem cells could save millions of lives without the risks it currently has, my view would be different, albeit with certain restrictions. I only have a problem with this research when the embryos are grown merely to be destroyed, which is the case in almost every research situation. But because this kind of research has proven to cause problems rather than solve them, I object under strict scientific grounds.

This is where you're extra-wrong, as if that was even possible. I am not born with opinions. I develop them over time, as does everybody. But I don't allow myself to be spoon-fed ideas that would just bait me into believing what the lobby is spewing. I think long and hard about all my opinions. In fact, just today I watched a fucking crazy movie about abortion and realised I don't even know what the hell I think anymore. I second guess myself frequently and my mind often changes. So I've been in your shoes in regards to this situation. They don't fit well, and if you can't accept that, then... well actually, I don't care.
As for the rest of that paragraph, I think I just covered it. The last part I do want to make note of, however. My current opinion, as clearly as I see it, is that an embryo is not property in that you can do whatever you please with it. But seeing as how this isn't an abortion debate, I don't want to open that can of worms any further.

In fact, I will ~*~*~quit~*~*~ the thread. I'm baffled, to say the least, that you still aren't satisfied with what I've given to you. However, that isn't something I can remedy. Your ignorance and your stubbornness is on you, and I hope you have fun dealing with that. I also hope you enjoy getting the last word, though admittedly it will rest on deaf ears, because when I say I'm ~quitting the thread~ I mean I'm done reading your rubbish completely.

From:

Link: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/10/stem_cell_scientists_hail_new_era/?page=1

Obama's speech and actions were heartening to many in the scientific community, who believed that under President Bush, science was often ignored or politicized, in everything from climate change research to stem cells.

"It was incredibly moving and very exciting, and I think it's going to energize the scientific community," said Dr. George Q. Daley, a stem cell biologist at Children's Hospital in Boston who attended the signing. "To have the president stand up and assert that science should be free of ideology and politics . . . how can you not applaud that?"

I'm going to stick with the scientific consensus on this one, as any rational person should do. Your claims, which contradict the opinions of the experts in the field, required strong evidence, which you could not provide. Neither you or I are experts, so it's to them that we must differ, not your anecdotes and analogies.

I was not bull-headed, I was critical, but eager to learn. You just couldn't live up to your own hype.

From:

verytwistedmind.livejournal.com

"involves extracting stem cells from spare fat on the stomach or thighs and growing them in a woman’s breasts"

From: