Stem Cell Research Is Important for People with Arthritis

Creaky Board

Feature Feedback

profile | register | faq

Author	Topic: Stem Cell Research Is Important for People with Arthritis
Sara	posted 07-11-2001 21:33 ET (US) CJ, Stem Cell research does have serious implications for people with arthritis. However the news media finds that highlighting the life threatning illnesses makes a better story. While we've come to accept "artificial joints" for replacements, stem cell research may offer a way to develop joint tissues that could replace our damaged ones. Just think an arthritic joint could be replaced with "normal" human tissue and without the limitations of artificial joints and surgery. It might also have implications for effecting or replacing cells in the immune system.
emmie	posted 08-08-2001 17:44 ET (US) I think growing stem cells is just plain WRONG in laborties. Who gave them permission to make life then kill it for reserch! You are killing another life just to make you life easier?. I'm sorry but that just dosen't make sense!. I have JRA and I would not want someone to kill what could have been a life , just for me. I'd rather suffer!.God is the one who gives life and takes it away. Not US.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tori	posted 08-09-2001 10:35 ET (US) sorry, but an embryo is not a life. it is a nothing cell from which life CAN be created. the stem-cell research that we are talking about is on embryos and cells that would have been thrown out anyway. don't let religious dogma dictate the future of science. i have osteo arthritis and i damn well support stem cell research, because i want there to be a cure. go back to school and learn what a stem cell is. what an embryo is. what a sperm is. those are not life. if a sperm were considered to be a living "person", the boy i used to sit next to in english class would be brought up on 20,000,000,000 counts of manslaughter. there is no stopping science. think of all of the advances we have made already. i sure as heck support the stem cell research, as i would hope everyone with arthritis (or any disease) would. and if the government doesn't sponsor stem-cell research, private corporations will. and when they make a discovery they will PATENT their work, and charge billions of dollars for their findings to ever come remotely close to helping you or me. i'm new here but i'm glad i came across this post.
emmie	posted 08-09-2001 21:05 ET (US) sorry, but an embro is a life waiting to take it's place in the world. They should NOT be thrown away, or KILLED for somebody elses benifit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Who gave them the right to make life then destroy it. An embro is LIFE. And no life should be killed so someone else can have an easier life!. I would rather die from my JRA then have someone else destroy a life to make mine easier. That's GREEDY and down right WRONG. so don't tell me to go back to school, you are the one with your facts wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!
courts	posted 08-09-2001 22:47 ET (US) i have no opinion to offer, but being a premed student one week from the mcats, i have to add a little fact here... make my worth seem somewhat worthwhile. EMBRYOS ARE LIVING. they respirate, they metabolize, they are capable of replication, they have a diploid number of chromosones, and they are the smallest living unit of human life. they are one of the greatest miracles of human life and 'nothing cells' does not seem to encompass that quality. (sperm, just to clarify, have a haploid number of chromosones and are living cells but not capable of becoming human unless they fertilize an egg. similarly, eggs have a haploid number of chromosones and can not become human life unless fertilized by sperm.) an embryo is first called a fetus at 8 weeks, but there is a human form and some facial features before this point. for example, the spinal cord begins to form within days of fertilization. furthermore, the sex of the baby is already determined in the first trimester. reproduction is quite an interesting little miracle. additionally, i have to add that most of the drugs that we are on have come from tests on lab animals, who were also grown and killed for the sake of helping you feel better. granted, there is a difference between humans and animals (or is there? who am i to say? it's a philosophical thing, really), but believing that medical science is just beginning to take control over when life begins and ends is slightly misguided. imagine life without any medications before you try to discount the methods of research. or talk to the students who are responsible for killing lab animals when researchers are 'done' with them... an eye-opener. i'm curious about something that tori mentioned because my father mentioned the same thing. apparently, the stem cells that are intended for medical use are cells that have been kept by wealthy couples who put their own gametes (sex cells) aside so that they could have children at a later date... often, the couples don't use all of these and, instead of being thrown out, the cells would be used to advance medical science. so, in that case, the lives are not being created for the sake of medical science, but are being used for some purpose instead of being created and destroyed without any purpose at all. of course, the risk is that the intentions will change and the situation will become less innocent as people become used to stem cell research. hope i didn't bore you too much! courts
grannyjan	posted 08-10-2001 03:01 ET (US) I am not as medically informed as some of you, but are there not ways of collecting stem cells from adults? I also vaguely remember my daughter being asked if the umbilical cord could be used for stem cell collection when she had a baby. This research is important - as is human life, and if the cells can be collected without loss of life, why not? I also feel that the use of embryos that are not going to be implanted does give a validity to the research. I would not stop people having fertility treatment - and not all of them are rich- but have had ethical worries about what happens to the unused embryos.
emmie	posted 08-13-2001 12:05 ET (US) Finally someone who Knows what shes talking about. You go courts
avamar	posted 11-27-2001 15:33 ET (US) I'm a ** year old high schooler that is decently smart but even i can see that an embreyo will someday be my age a teenager/child who will want to control his own life while making INTELLIGENT decisions. an embroyo therefore is not property so it should be assigned a guardian to take care of it till it can make it's own decision on what should happen to it An we have no choice but to let it live, they all ready made it, besides abortion is MURDER!!!!!!!!!! (sorry about spelling or run ons:)
avamar	posted 11-27-2001 15:34 ET (US) Go Courts, good job!!!
grannyjan	posted 11-27-2001 15:42 ET (US) After hearing that scientists had managed to clone 'a pre embryo' and give it life, I thought this....- We can take some things fom people, and grow them bigger - skin for burns, and cartilage for knee injuries come to mind. Would it not be more ethical to find ways of growing other tissues, rather than dreating life, and not letting it come to fruition?
Alejack	posted 11-29-2001 11:18 ET (US) Did anyone see 60 minutes II last night? It was about a young man who had Sickle Cell and was having a horrible time. He received Chemotherapy to kill his cells and received a transfusion from Umbilical Cord Blood over time. His blood type changed from O to B...that is great amazing and simply promising! He is fully recovering for Sickle Cell and has a promising life ahead of him. I wonder what can be done about RA with this blood cord! I know when my husband and I have children we are going to donate that cord blood to a blood bank where they can use it for some good rather than just throwing it away. On the topic of Stem Cells....just let me say this. The topic is not so black and white. There is tons of gray area here. But, I will say this...if I ever suffer a miscarriage I will donate the fetus to science with the hope that they can use the stem cells. I see it as no different from donating organs, which I hope each and every one of you do (make sure you tell your family of your wishes). Personally, I am Pro-Child, Pro-Family and Pro-Choice. I would never have an abortion unless my life was in danger or I was pregnant with like seven kids or something...I don't think it should ever be used for birth control. But, unfortunately not everyone believes this and abortions do happen...so my belief is why not donate this fetuses to science and make some good out of this. On the thought of embryos being grown, I am for it for the sole purpose of using them for science. For curing diseases and saving peoples lives. Now, I know my opinion differs from others on this board. And I ask that you do not attack me for this. Instead, celebrate the fact that we live in a country where our opinions can differ....God bless!
courts	posted 11-29-2001 22:51 ET (US) in regards to donating organs, check with your doctors. i know that my organs and blood are not wanted. the boy on campus working for the blood drive today didn't seem to believe me when i said 'no thanks.. no one wants my blood' but sometimes it's true! courts
Lazer	posted 12-01-2001 13:18 ET (US) ::sigh:: the ol' abortion debate. My view (don't hurt me): I am pro-choice. Abortion is not used for birth control. The pill, condoms, etc. can all fail at one time or another. No one goes out and says "let's have sex. Don't worry, I can abort if I need to." What if the mother would have health problems if she carried to term? What if she would die? IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion:) ) abortion should most definitely be legal, though certainly having constraints. Abortions after the first trimester should be very limited and controlled for one thing. I think Senator Lieberman made the best pro-choice argument when he said, "I don't agree with abortions. But it's not my place to say no one else can have one either" (or something like that). - Stephen
courts	posted 12-02-2001 16:42 ET (US) the very sad truth of the matter is that 1. there are people who DO go out thinking "let's have sex. Don't worry, I can abort if I need to." 2. there are people who simply don't think anything before they go out and get themselves pregnant 3. success rate of birth control is 99.8% and that of condoms, i believe is somewhere in the 70 or 80%age area. that leaves a .005% chance of conception. in other words, statistically, someone would have to have sex 20,000 times in order to conceive in such a manner. you're incredibly optimistic about the behavior of other people in the world. i wish we all could be. but people don't always live up to our high expectations. i'm not saying anything about pro-choice or pro-life stances, mind you. i'm simply saying that you should educate yourself and know the facts before you figure out what you are. courts
JulieR	posted 12-04-2001 12:05 ET (US) Whooaaaa!! How did we get from stem cells to abortion? Courts, correct me if I'm wrong but stem cells can also be obtained from bone marrow and umbilical cords. Stem cells don't create life but the're sorta the jack of all trades of cells. As for my opinion, stem cell research is a good thing and has the potential to go a long way to helping a lot of people. Transplants (ie. how 'bout growing an organ instead of waiting for someone to die.), replacing joints or even helping to unlock the key to the cause of arthritis and maybe even a cure.... I dare to hope. Of course, I do believe it should be well controlled. Some scientists probably would go overboard. But I know for a fact that some like the intellectual challenge but that they want to help people. (My friend is doing his doctorat in Biochemistry and he does want to help people.) Something like the ethical and legal controls involved in the use of animals in research. I'm not talking about testing cosmetics, but as a necessary step of testing medical advances, animal research is important. I'm also told that by the time animal is 'put down' it is more humaine to do so. And some of the approaches do seem barbaric - my friend explained that he killed his rats by injecting a needle directly in the heart - sounds horrible, but is apparently the shortest and least painfull death. So, concluding - i'm babbling, I know - I think stem cells does NOT equal embryo and even if embryos are used, the benefits far outweigh the costs. And that this type of research, as well as others, need to have strict controls that reflect various moral and ethical standards. As for the whole abortion debate....For me personally, I wouldn't have one unless my life was threateed or maybe if I was raped. BUT, just because it wouldn't be right for me doesn't mean that it wouldn't be right for someone else (what about a kid who has been abused??) I agree with Lazer, I don't see that I have any right to impose my beliefs on anyone else. Ever think that someone's religious beliefs might condone abortion, not that i know of any religion that does, wouldn't that contradict one of the USA's fundamental beliefs - Freedom of religion? Should we impose are morality on athiest's and agnostic's? And how can we assume we're right just 'cause we're Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Catholic etc.? That's it. I've definitely rambled enough??
courts	posted 12-04-2001 12:43 ET (US) i think the topic jumped because both issues deal with trying to decipher what is or is not human life so that we can better understand how to treat that form of life. additionally, stem cells are being retrieved from embryos... so the issues are pretty closely related. anyway, stem cells do come from other places in the body. i think the issue is something like 'how many people in this world are freely donating bone marrow to complete strangers?' and also issues of compatibility of cells. but i haven't really studied stem cells much, so i'll defer to someone better informed than i am. as far as animal research, some animals are bred specifically for the purpose of experimentation and are killed when the experiment is completed. they may not necessarily be better off dead. there may be other labs that support animals past experimentation so they can enjoy long lives, but that cost would weigh heavily on the labs and i don't believe that it is the normal practice. i'm interested in your comment on the possibility of a religion condoning abortion. perhaps that would complicate the issue of freedom to religion, but i can't help wondering 1. there might be quite a worthwhile reason that you (and i) don't know of any religions that do so 2. what if the religion of the baby that was going to be born would have said that abortion was wrong... who is to protect the right of that baby to hold that belief? or do we assume that someone who is too young to hold such beliefs does not hold equal rights with other americans? should infants be abused because they are incapable of stating otherwise? not an argument... just a ponderance lastly, there are many non-religious people who have their own views about life. pro-life people or anti-abortion people, or whatever such an individual would like to be called, does not have to be associated with any particular religion. plenty of agnostics and atheists have similar beliefs... should we assume that a lack of belief in god makes an individual pro-abortion? respect for life is a belief that comes more from human compassion than any religious dictation. i'm really not trying to argue with anyone, but i have heard many assumptions made by my peers and am therefore quite attuned to such assumptions on this particular topic. if there's one thing that every last biology professor will remind you of, NOTHING in life is black and white. never say always and never say never... life isn't so constant. all you can do is learn more and educate yourself... and, of course, hope to educate others in the process. courts
JulieR	posted 12-04-2001 10:40 ET (US) Very good courts.....sounds like you would have been good on a debate team. Definitely, the abortion and stem cell debates are closely related. All I was getting at is, who are we to impose our beliefs on others.... Anyhow, everybody is entitled to their beliefs on these two topics....And I think the debate will never be resolved..... J.
courts	posted 12-04-2001 11:44 ET (US) i'm so glad you were able to understand my words as a friendly debate and didn't get upset. =) and you're right... we're not about to resolve this one any time in the near future, but discussing it is healthy for our minds and our hearts. we're blessed to live in a nation where we have the freedom to discuss our views and figure out where we stand on an issue. in some societies, disagreeing with the law of the land is reason enough for punishment. courts
dgbaker1	posted 12-11-2001 05:43 ET (US) Interesting to say the least. I will start out by saying that I am pro choice and pro stem cell research. I am even pro cloning of human beings. I see some knee jerk reactions here to both, namely it's "murder". I simply ask why is it murder. Prove it. Because a foetus is alive let alone an embryo? Well mosquitos are alive as are spiders and ants, in fact they are a far more advanced form of life than any foetus{again let alone an embryo}, human or otherwise. Remember that the next time you blast that RAID or OFF. Or for that matter when you clean the tub with bleach and kill that bacteria, after all that is where we all originated. But I doubt there is not one here whom has stepped on or swatted at an insect without a second thought. An embryo becomes a foetus at week 14{3 1/2 months} not 8{2 months} btw. Further all drugs are tested on humans at one time or another, that is the reason for clinical trial. Now I also hear the knee jerk reaction of the religious right {the same religious right that blamed the events of 9.11. on homosexuals and womens rights/ERA advocates} of whom will protect the unborn. Well here's a new twist what about the born? Those that are born with severe disability? Did they not have the right not to be born? In fact they do. In France they now have the right to sue those that delivered them, and /or provided poor advice {namely right to lifers} to the parents of said disabled persons. From: http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1207/p1s3-woeu.html France debates right not to be born. A Paris court ruled last week that disabled children can sue doctors over not having aborted them. By Nanette van der Laan \| Special to the Christian Science Monitor PARIS - The first thing doctors asked Willemijn Forest, after she gave birth last year to a baby boy diagnosed with Down syndrome, was whether she wanted to keep her child. Nannette van der Laan gives you the story behind the story. "After the delivery, they took him away immediately, assuming I did not want to see him anymore," says the Dutch woman who lives in Marseilles, the country's second-largest city. "I said of course I want to keep him. I was so appalled by their attitude." These days, Forest, like many other parents here who have children diagnosed with mental disabilities, is no longer shocked. Last week France's highest appeals court ruled that children with Down syndrome have a legal right never to have been born and could sue doctors that attended the pregnancy. For parents like Forest, the ruling demonstrates a view, which she says is widespread in French society, that a disabled life is not worth living. The judgment, which confirmed a previous ruling in a similar case, has caused a furor in France, sparking a national debate on a whole host of ethical issues. In their Nov. 28 ruling, three judges said that a doctor had negligently failed to warn an expectant mother that pre-natal scans showed that her baby had the symptoms of Down syndrome. The baby, who was only identified as Lionel, was born in 1995. His mother argued that she would have aborted if she had been given a correct pre-natal diagnosis. Although most in France agree that the parents should receive financial aid for Lionel's specialized care, many are offended by the nature of the mother's grievance: that her son had been allowed to be born. The judges in Lionel's case decided that the doctor was "100 percent" liable for the cost of the care needed for the child, since the diagnostic error meant that the mother was not given the chance to abort. The court had already awarded damages of around $100,000, five years earlier. Last week's ruling ordered the sum to be substantially increased. The exact amount is to be announced at the end of January. Parents of mentally disabled children who gathered outside the courthouse to hear the verdict, said they were outraged by the ruling. "Certain judges still believe that it is better to be dead than to be handicapped," says Xavier Mirabel, spokesman for the Collective Against Handiphobia, a group that fights for rights for the disabled. Mr. Mirabel says the most worrying aspect is that the ruling confirmed a similar decision by the same court last year. In November 2000, the court ruled that Nicolas Perruche - born severely disabled - should receive damages from his mother's doctor, who had failed to warn her of the dangers of rubella (also known as German measles) during pregnancy. That case immediately caused widespread consternation, but many thought the ruling was an exception. Mirabel's Collective Against Handiphobia has since brought its own case, charging that the Perruche case amounted to a dysfunction of the justice system. Though 54 percent of the French consider themselves Catholic, a nationwide poll last year by SOFRES, a leading independent polling agency, showed most respondents viewing abortion as justifiable. Legal abortion was introduced in 1975, with termination now allowed up to 12 weeks of pregnancy - and later, if there is a grave risk to the mother's health or if the fetus is diagnosed as suffering from a condition such as Down syndrome. Roger Bessis, president of the French College of Echography (ultrasound scanning), says that new national statistics, due out shortly, will show that France carries out fewer abortions when genetic abnormalities are detected - because in France, unlike in other countries, there is no strict time limit for abortions. "Doctors are not under pressure to terminate pregnancies when there is only slight doubt," he says. "We don't need to rush, so we can do more tests, and therefore have one of the most accurate rates of detection in the world." Dr. Bessis says that, in Paris last year, 90 percent of prenatal genetic abnormalities were detected. In those cases, 8 percent of the mothers decided against abortion. The Handiphobia Collective's Mirabel says he is concerned that the attention to the recent court cases has eclipsed other, more pressing issues. He says that, in northern France, 85 percent of parents with mentally handicapped children are sending them to specialized schools in Belgium, because the French system cannot accommodate them. The cases have also alarmed doctors, who fear a growing number of lawsuits. Bessis says many specialists have already stopped carrying out prenatal scans and some are calling for a nationwide strike beginning Jan. 1. "All of a sudden, the courts are deciding what is law. How can we accept this in a democracy?" he says. "The courts said the doctor was 100 percent liable, but everyone knows that medicine can never be 100 percent accurate. We do the best we can." The French Roman Catholic church has called the rulings an insult to all families with disabled children. The bishop of Tours, Andr� Vingt-Trois, president of the church's family committee said: "I think with great sadness of all families who have welcomed Down syndrome children, who have showered them with love and received great love in return. This ruling amounts to a declaration that such love was worthless." The French government, which has kept mainly on the sidelines to date, is due to hold a parliamentary debate next week on the ethical and moral issues involved. Some politicians say the court hearings raised the question of eugenics (controlled breeding), while others maintain that the court awards had been made in recognition of a right to dignity. On Wednesday, Bernard Kouchner, the health minister, said the case had left him "perplexed" and "ill at ease." Stressing the "value of every life," he said that a "handicapped life is not a pitiful one." But he added: "Nobody should question a doctor's medical responsibilities towards a mother, any harm done to her as a result of medical negligence, or challenge her right to have an abortion." The minister for families, S�gol�ne Royal, sees the ruling as acknowledging the right to justice for people with disabilities. But she says she fears it could be seized on by pressure groups opposed to abortion.
courts	posted 12-11-2001 16:41 ET (US) i am devoting MY life to improving the lives of children with mental disabilities. it isn't easy and it isn't painless, but i've never been one to take the fastest, easiest, least painless route to solving a problem. abortion issue aside completely, i will defend the rights and the lives of people with mental retardation with every last ounce of energy in my body... when i'm too tired to feed myself or bathe myself, i still have the energy to volunteer and study for the sake of those who weren't given the gift of healthy minds... and if i had to lay my life on the line for the advancement of the quality of life for people with mental retardation and psychiatric disorders, i would. but that's just me. and i hope that the professionals and volunteers in this world who are devoted to patients with arthritis are equally as committed. i sure hope that i wouldn't be aborted b/c people with arthritis aren't worth the time and compassion that society has to offer. and can i say once more with even more conviction, we're blessed to live in this country. you couldn't pay me all the money in the world to tolerate a government that treats downs syndrome patients in such a manner. courts sidenote: we evolved from bacteria over the course of about 2000 million years and from an embryo to a person in nine months. my background isn't terribly extensive, but i'm thinking that the human adult is closer to an embryo than to a bacteria. "Fetus, term applied to an animal embryo after a definite period has elapsed following conception. In human reproduction, for example, the period is eight weeks;" ("Fetus." Microsoft� Encarta� Encyclopedia 2001. � 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.) "At first, the developing embryo is situated under the lining of the uterus on one side of the uterine cavity, but by 12 weeks, the fetus--the term used after 8 weeks of pregnancy--has grown so much that the lining on both sides of the uterus meets, because the fetus fills the entire uterus." (Copyright � 1995-2001 Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. All rights reserved.) http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual_home/sec22/243.htm
dgbaker1	posted 12-12-2001 12:01 ET (US) First you actually have the gaul to use Encarta for research? I thought you said you were about to take mcats, if this is so you should know better. Second embryologists count from conception, as I do, while your references obviously count from that womens last fertile estrus cycle. The Merck manual is not any better, it is a quick reference guide, not a comprehensive manual or text. And you have to come to the understanding that certain numbers are politically shortened when it comes to this subject to appease pro lifers and the powerful religious right moral majority. The NIH foetus disposal guidlines refer to a foetus "of twelve days gestation" thus there are numerous different guidelines, I simply choose to use the embryologists numbers not an online encyclopaedia, numbers that are not corrupted by politics. I suppose you will learn this if you ever succeed at becoming a doctor All I hear from you is more ignorance and intolerance, what about those that do not want to exist as a disabled person, or any person for that matter. Do they too have rights? They certainly should, and in France they do, many other countries also support the decision of a patient to choose when and how they die. Unfortunately the US is not one of them. You claim that you defend peoples rights, this is not true, or you would be an advocate of the right to choose. As for baceria, you seemed to have missed the point completely, so I will reiterate, you see we all originated from bacteria, the "primordial soup" in fact that is our most distant ancestor, without said bacteria we would not exist. Yet we do not even think twice about killing bacteria, in fact we think of it as "gross". Our origins are "gross" funny that, we have absolutely no regard for our origins. Further ants, insects are far more advanced lifeforms than any foetus, again we kill them indisriminately. You seem to defend and justify your reasoning by the statement, "the human adult is closer to an embryo than to a bacteria", so you appear to catagorise life, some being more important than others. But as it has been already said, ants are a much higher life form than a foetus or embryo, you defend the embryo but not the higher lifeform. You defend peoples wish to live but condemn their right to die and those that would be their advocates. You are simply a hyopocrite. But you will argue that an infant has a right to life because it is potentially a rational animal, thus shouldn't an embryo or a foetus have such a right too? Just as there are no rights of collections of individuals, so there are no rights of parts of individuals no rights of arms or of tumors or of any piece of tissue growing within a woman, even if it has the capacity to become in time a human being. A potentiality is not an actuality, and a fertilized ovum, an embryo, or a foetus is not a human being. A foetus is not an actual living entity; it is only a part of a woman, its vital functions remain an aspect of her body. Rights belong only to man and men are entities, organisms that are biologically formed and physically separate from one another. That which lives within the body of another can claim no prerogatives against its host. Anti-abortionists exhibit foetal remains such as little fingers and toes to the effect that every abortion is equivalent to leaving a newborn in a dumpster. Failing, so far, to recriminalize abortion, they sanction the harassment, intimidation, and even murder of its practitioners. They attempt to blank out the metaphysical difference between a part and an entity and to blur the distinction between morality and rights. Even according to Exodus 21:22-23 (in the King James version): Which lays out laws concerning the penalties for killing, the "fruit" of a woman, the rights are not rights of an unborn child but of a husband deprived of the value of his offspring. The man is to be compensated, not the woman or foetus, thus even in biblical times of the Exodus it was known that a foetus was not a human being and thus had no rights as such. For that matter neither did the woman. In the new revised standard edition that Americans prefer it is also made clear that the miscarriage does not constitute murder--the penalty is a fine paid to the woman's husband. "If any harm follow'--any injury or death to the woman--then the penalty is "life for life." The only penalty encurred is if and only if the woman dies not the foetus. Again, even in the Bible{s} the rights are not rights of an unborn child but of a husband deprived of the value of his offspring. So that shoots down the biblical bible thumping right to lifers only argument.
courts	posted 12-12-2001 02:07 ET (US) i do not claim to be a philosopher. i do not claim to be religious. i do not claim to be pro-life. i do in fact defend the right of a person to choose death in many cases, but find that a fetus is generally not asked for an opinion before abortions. i have already taken the mcats, thank you very much, and the AAMC declares that an embryo becomes a fetus at 8 weeks. because i am not about to photocopy my textbooks and post them, i settle for the internet. if you don't like it, spend some of your free time calling and harassing AAMC so that they can change their MCAT test preparation and, of course, the test itself. i'm sure they will be thrilled to hear from you and i know you have plenty of extra time. my years of studies, my SAT scores, my good grades, my four honor societies, my work in hospitals, my mcat score... THESE are not 'knee-jerk' reactions. i have never once used the word 'murder'. (and i most certainly have not condoned the killing of those who practice abortion.) i stick to biological fact and challenge the comments of those who speak quickly. i do not have the 'gaul,' as a scientific/medical individual to defend myself with the words of the bible and i certainly will not stoop to the level of bible bashing. i have never defined any single life form as being 'better' than another (though we do all have our opinions about your particular life form). rather, i used mathematical relations to comment... admitting that i may be wrong. it is a true gift, may i remind you, to admit that you MAY be wrong. without such a thing, you can never possibly learn or advance. you can call me ignorant until your face turns blue... it doesn't particularly bother me. without modesty (look it up in the dictionary), one can sit and stew over the same wrong ideas for an eternity. enjoy! i'm sorry that you have nothing better to do with your life than to come back and haunt a pleasant community of individuals who were pleased to be rid of you for so very many months. i have heard enough out of you in the past that i do not see the point in holding any sort of intellecutal discussion with you. say what you want on this board about me... i will not give you the satisfaction of a response.
dgbaker1	posted 12-12-2001 18:18 ET (US) And what would be the answer of that foetus, pray tell? As I have already proven, biblical law{ie God} does not give any rights to a foetus, are you above God's law? Simply hilarious. Not a philosopher, not a doctor, not religious, not very much yet are you. Glad you took the mcats, again the American medical association is a political orginisation. The macts themselves are proof enough of that, they are prejudiced against certain members of society as is any such test. If and when you are a doctor, as I now finally am, then I will accept your comments on par with mine, until then I take them as they are, the words of a child and a student that knows very little and has everything to learn. Your last comment speaks volumes, you decry those that would use a foetus or embryo to help humanity, it is obvious from your posts as to your stance on the subject, yet you refuse or rather cannot defend your opinion. My dear if you ever wish to get those initials of MD after your name you had better learn to do so. A person whom makes such bold statements yet is utterly incapable of defending them will never be anything, let alone a doctor.
th_antisocial_1	posted 12-12-2001 20:43 ET (US) DG- some of us don't believe in god and yes I consider myself above a book whether it is the bible or farenheit451. I do not pretend to be speaking as anything but a human being so please do not yell at me for responding to this. Also I don't believe this board is a good place to personally attack courts especially on her becoming a doctor. If a professional cannot accept debate and other opinions to listen to - if not learn from - I don't see how he or she could be great within his or her profession. The statement you made about �Not a philosopher, not a doctor, not religious, not very much yet are you.� Shows you were giving us a very personal opinion and not a third party one that would give information to those who were not aware and not �this is right/this is wrong�. Using this space to educate on the debate would be a far better purpose than fighting on it. As for stem cell research it is important that the cells come from umbilical cords, embryos and fetuses for reasons of purity (at least according to the biology I have taken). And as for the history of humans it goes with the history of the biological world which is being replaced bit by bit and new thoughts of where humans came from are forming. These both are not particularly for academic debate as it is personal whether or not one supports them. Everyone has different beliefs on this I think and debating them or any other controversial issues on this board is probably not the best idea. Can stem cell research help arthritis? Probably. But at what cost? That is left up to you and you alone to decide. The same with abortion. Is it socially useful? Possibly. Is it right? That entirely depends on your opinion. ~lauri a.k.a. Child
Lazer	posted 12-14-2001 14:57 ET (US) ::sigh:: dgbaker, I deal with trolls on a daily basis. On my newsgroup, we get goddamned Nazis and Holocaust deniers (I'm not joking here. At all). We are busy net.copping one of the worst offenders while the others have luckily been gone for quite a while. Meanwhile, another jerk on my primary newsgroup is currently sporgering it with thousands upon thousands of nonsense posts a day. Thank god my school filters all that crap out; otherwise my group might be unreadable. These people, though, at least bother an open, high-traffic newsgroup where their idiotic drooling rants reach a sizable number of people. A lot of posters; a huge number of lurkers. You, my possibly inebriated fiend, are trolling and flaming on a message board that gets low traffic. I check my newsgroup a dozen times a day, and it often gets more messages in one hour than this entire message board gets in a few days, if not more. Do you even have arthritis? What kind? Now, I can't net.cop you, because nothing you have done yet is horribly off-topic. I know that. Don't think, though, that anything you say is meaningful. I've been warned to expect a harsh blow from you in reply. You might as well not try; i've been dealing with, as I said, net.nazis who on Nizkor.com not only are mentioned, but have whole _chapters_ devoted to their evil rants. As well as other trolls, kooks, and a few relatively harmless and amusing people. I'm just writing this to let you know that, as the obvious troll you are, you fail miserably. You are trolling on a weak group that doesn't give a shit what you have to say, because none of it gets _outside_ the group (as opposed to high-traffic USENET newsgroups). You're trolling against people who have trouble getting out of _bed_ in the morning. You're possibly the lamest troll I have ever encountered, and trust me, I've encountered more than a few. This group deals with arthritis, it is not meant to let you start flamewars. You obviously know that already, but maybe if it's stated long enough you'll understand. As possibly the most classic rant against one net.nazi ended, even as you sit there you are breathing decent people's oxygen. - Stephen "WTF is a troll doing on an arthritis group?" Lazer
grannyjan	posted 12-15-2001 07:08 ET (US) Please could we all get back to the point, which is whether stem cell research will help people with arthritis? I realise that there are people who wish to make their points aggressively, and others who wish to aggravate the whole world. Just don't do it here, please.
emmie	posted 12-15-2001 12:45 ET (US) I have had jra for 11 years now and I would rather be in a flare up the rest of my life than have some stem cell from another human. I would not want some unwanted baby to be killed for me. Thats selfish. God gave me this stupid disease and God also gave me the gift of life which is something no one should be able to take away no matter what from any born or unborn human.
Lazer	posted 12-15-2001 21:58 ET (US) Sorry, Grannyjan, I've been getting rather frustrated by trolls on other groups. Yeah, I overreacted. To clarify: everyone is entitled to their opinions (and I don't mean that in the standard, condescending way. I mean that with all respect). Emmie, I happen to be a supporter of stem cell research. Do you know that all stem cells come from fetuses that were going to be aborted anyone? No one says "gee, I have an unborn child, I'm going to abort it though so it can promote stem cell research." Stem cells come from fetuses that were already going to be aborted. - Lazer
Lazer	posted 12-15-2001 21:58 ET (US) Sorry, Grannyjan, I've been getting rather frustrated by trolls on other groups. Yeah, I overreacted. To clarify: everyone is entitled to their opinions (and I don't mean that in the standard, condescending way. I mean that with all respect). Emmie, I happen to be a supporter of stem cell research. Do you know that all stem cells come from fetuses that were going to be aborted anyone? No one says "gee, I have an unborn child, I'm going to abort it though so it can promote stem cell research." Stem cells come from fetuses that were already going to be aborted. - Lazer
grannyjan	posted 12-17-2001 03:15 ET (US) Lazer, thanks for the apology, although my comment was not directed solely at you.
Lazer	posted 12-17-2001 13:20 ET (US) ::Sigh:: Well, anyway, my orgo chem final is finished (I don't think I did too well) but now I am done with my first semester at college, and stress levels are dropping quickly. I'm heading home tomorrow morning! Stephen "I'll mention stem cells here to make this message on-topic" Lazer
Alejack	posted 12-17-2001 14:53 ET (US) Statement of fact: I am pro-family, pro-child, pro-choice. I don't plan to have an abortion in my lifetime. But, sometimes in life things come up. For example, if my birth control failed and my husband and I became pregnant with the meds he is on it would cause horrible and tragic birth defects. What would I do in that situation? Have an abortion or not...I don't know..hopefully I will never be in that situation. But, what if something horrible happened and I had a miscarriage? Who are you to tell me what becomes of the fetus? I would not hesitate to donate the fetus for stem cells. I look at just like organ donation...if you could wouldn't you donate your organs. My husband can't because of his RA but I would. When I worked in the ER a girl that worked there was killed in a car wreck and they were able to help 26 people! If the donation of the fetus would help my husband live a life without pain or prevent my children from having RA I would do it in a heartbeat. For those of you on this board who are black and white with your answers remember there is always a shade of gray! ~Amanda
emmie	posted 12-17-2001 21:09 ET (US) whatever I still think it's wrong
CheeseAndOnionCrisps	posted 12-19-2001 23:06 ET (US) emmie, You are entirely allowed to have your opinion. I happen to be pro stem cell research as well as pro choice, and i'm glad that the unborn don't 'lose their chance at life' (can't think of a better way to put this without confusing myself and you) in vain. Perhaps with stem cell research arthritis will be greatly helped, by the basic ideas of the research it probably will be. I don't want to bother you or anything but we do a lot of things that were once thought to be "god's will" or something to that effect. At one point monarchy was considered god's will, at another contraception was considered (and still somewhat is) against god's will. In effect who are we to say what is or isn't the will of an ultimate being? Is it our place to decide what they want more than try to help ourselves with what our human limits are at this point? Isn't it said somewhere god helps those who help themselves? Aislinn P.S.- This was meant to possibly invoke some philosophy in someone's day to day, please don't take me as the devil (although that has been said before). I still respect your decision, just maybe giving you a better understanding of mine. As an agnostic/aethist i am not fully understanding of your pov either but i would be interested in the basic theory behind it.
wscott	posted 08-02-2001 19:41 ET (US) I feel that stem cell research should not be interfered with by politicians who pander to the simple-minded. [America is bad for this I am sorry to say.] Our approach should be similiar to that of the U.K. Full speed ahead. That's all for now.
frizz	posted 10-07-2001 13:43 ET (US) Which is more important helping your parents or any other part of your family from thier sufferin or some fertilized eggs that are not even born. The people don't only get the totipotent stem cells from embryos the also get them from aborted fetuses so they arn't "killing" as you human activists say they are so why don't you all tree huggers step back and give people that are suffering a second chance!!!
marcela	posted 10-08-2001 16:17 ET (US) Frizz, "tree-huggers" have nothing to do with human rights activists. true most of the time they patice both but they are not one and the same. Anyway , my opinion on this topic of stem cells is that if the fetus is dead already(been aborted or miscarried), great! We might as well use the cells to try to cure diseases and create organs and everything. At least then we'll know that the fetus died, it's death could be used to help others that are suffering. I'm not saying that people should go out, get pregant and abort the baby to give science some stem cells to experiment with, I doubt anybody here is saying that. Personally I dont agree with abortion, but the choice has to be out there because my opinion isn't necessarily the opinion of all the people in the world. All i know is that JRA is taking a big chunk out of my life, and if there's a chance out there that we can find a cure or at least a preventative, we need to grab at it with both hands! -marcela 14 P.S.~before anyone starts saying that I don't know what i'm talking about because I'm only fourteen. Weren't you just arguing that an embryo is able to decide whether it wants to be live or not, so I think that at 14 I'm also able to make my own decisions and opinions..
sola	posted 08-11-2001 23:43 ET (US) What i do not get is why we are arrguing about stem cells and not thinking about where they come from. in Australia the rule is that there is no tests done unless 1 they stem cells are left over from test tube reproduction. (this meens they would be throne out any way 2 that is has been consented by the doner 3 no payment for donation this meens that the people that do not mind can give the left over stem cells to reserch and if they do not agree they do not have to. but just think. the stem cells would go to wast if they are just throne away i am not saying i am pro or con, i have mixt feelings.

Hop to:

Contact Us | CreakyJoints Homepage

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000d
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation www.infopop.com 1998 - 2000.