Human embryonic stem cell study gets green light

cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/23/stem.cell/index.html

Looks like obama’s agenda concerning human life has already begun
:frowning:

I’m sad. God have mercy. Please defend the lives You create. Please give us means and courage to defend them

From the article:

. The Food and Drug Administration has approved the trials, which will use human stem cells authorized for research by then-President George W. Bush in 2001.

Oh look, this isn’t related to something Obama did…but who cares about reading the article when we can blatantly bash Obama on these forums?

Ouch, busted.

Lol it is interesting, the man has been in office about 2 days & already complaints emerging. Well it’s good that people care about politics.

Which just negates the common myth–held by everyone on the Left and by the incrementalist compromisers on the Right–that Bush “banned” embryonic stem cell research.
No, “pro-life” Bush funded embryonic stem cell research, when he ought to have said, “As a conservative, I don’t believe in government funding of medical research, period.”

Let’s pray it fails and those who fund it pull their resources from it’s efforts…especially any tax dollars.

It will fail. There is very little scientific merit in ESCR. Embryonic stem cells are supposedly valued for their “pluripotency,” but in all the tests that have been done, and all the experimental treatments that have been given to human subjects, the pluripotency actually causes horriblle side-effects, including cancer.

The reason they want all this money is so they can research how to make the embryonic stem cells non cancerous while still retaining the “advantagse” of pluripotency.

It will take at least 20 or 30 years before any practical applications to ESCR can be developed.

But the FDA is based entirely upon money interests. American researchers want grant money to live off of. American pharmaceutical coompanies want treatments they can patent and charge huge amounts of money for.

In other countries that have no FDA equivalents, researchers are making huge strides with adult stem cell research. Some doctors are even just getting stem cells from pepole’s saliva and treating diseases with them. In some cases, it’s bone marrow, but there are several ways to get stem cells from a living patient.

Every month or two there’s a new story out about someone having a broken bone healed or a paraplegic walking or other such things from ASCR. But it wlil never be permitted in the US because it is so simple. It won’t allow researchers to live off grant money for deacdes. It won’t give pharmaceutical companies something they can charge thousands of dollars for. So the FDA will never approve it, just like the FDA refuses to approve ethical vaccines from other countries, and just like the FDA refuses to approve macihnes developed in other countries that help women monitor their fertiltiy.

Bush banned **federal funding **of Embryonic Stem cell research. That is a far cry from “funding” ESCR.
nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21stem.html

Intersting how the Obama defenders’ crying foul quickly turned this into another bush bashing thread. Get a new line of argument please.

Here is something related:
“Obama Lifts Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding”

foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/23/obama-lift-ban-overseas-abortion-funding/

Would you still care to defend this man’s politics?

Remember, Christ promised us that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. We are in for some dark and scary times, and it will probably get a lot worse before it gets better.

Embryonic stem cell research has absolutely ZERO success rate, and I’m pretty sure that will not change.

People laugh when I say it, but Obama’s charismatic personality drew people to him - even “Catholic” people. This is a trait of the anti-Christ.

"Bush banned federal funding of Embryonic Stem cell research. That is a far cry from “funding” ESCR. "

???
Bush did not ban federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He funded embryonic stem cell research “so long as it’s existing cell lines.”

Incrementalists called it a "compromise."
I watched the broadcast back in 2002. It was highly disappointing.

This study in question is based upon Bush’s cannibalistic, ends-justify-the-means policy: “well, if they’ve already been murdered, no use letting the corpses go to waste!”

"Intersting how the Obama defenders’ crying foul quickly turned this into another bush bashing thread. Get a new line of argument please."
I’m hardly an Obama defender. I oppose any politician who favors legalized abortion. George W. Bush campaigned on being “pro-life” and then, after being elected, kept insisting he had no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade. His devotees plugged their ears and said, “La lalalala I can’t hear you! You’re really the wonderful Evangelical president we elected you to be!”

nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21stem.html
Bush Vetoes Measure on Stem Cell Research
Published: June 21, 2007

“In August 2001, Mr. Bush announced the current rules: tax dollars could be used to study colonies, called lines, of embryonic stem cells, if the embryos themselves had already been destroyed. The bill he vetoed Wednesday would have allowed research on fresh lines drawn from surplus embryos destined to be destroyed by fertility clinics.”

While still wrong, you cannot say Bush funded the killing of Embryos.

And, if you look, I never said he funded the killing of embryos.
I said he funded embryonic stem cell research. There was no federal funding of ESCR prior to Bush. Bush did it.

There is no moral difference between “old cell lines” and “new cell lines,” insofar as ESCR itself is concerned. The practice is itself unethical.

That answer seems a little disingenuous since ESCR is usually synonymous with killing embryos.

Pax,
People misread that statement by Christ way too often. It doesn’t mean we will be defended against hell, it means we as Christians should be hammering down the gates of Hell (which will not prevail) a stealing souls from Satan.

All who are against Christ are anti-Christ…I doubt Obama is THE Anti-Christ…though anything is possible.

I’m sorry if I sound “disingenuous” for uusing the correct term.

ESCR is unethical for several reasons, the worst of which is taht it involves killing embryos.

It also is dependent upon IVF, which is intrinsically evil.

In either case, the ends to not justify the means. To say that it’s OK to use the embryos because the IVF is already done, or to say that it’s OK to use them because they’re already dead does not change the intrinsic evil of the fact.

Bush said “No new cell lines.” Were he truly pro-life, he would have said, “Destroy the cell lines in existence and honor the dignity of the victims.”

Bush has been the most prolife President in the past few decades. He has done more for unborn babies than I have been able to. Far be it from me to attack him for this in the context of everything else, God will be his judge.

And the news media is already running articles about spinal cord injuries and the wonders of embryonic cell use.

They should be running stories on the wonders of adult stem cells, which have actually helped people with spinal cord injuries to walk, where there has been no progress with ESCR at all

That’s not saying much. At least Reagan tried to appoint Bork, if pro-contraception “Catholics” in Congress hadn’t put a stop to him.

He has done more for unborn babies than I have been able to.

Really?
Is this just a statement of humility on your part?

Bush’s only “achievements” have been
a) re-instating the Mexico City policy, while not reinstating Reagan’s executive orders that banned US military funding of abortions. (And in conjuction with Bush’s war, thousands of women in the military have had abortions, as reported by my relatives in the military).

b) allowing funding for ESCR if the embryos were already dead, when he should have banned the procedure altogether.

c) passing the so-called “partial birth abortion” ban, which only banned one specific form of late-term abortion, and there are many forms of late-term abortion that are not illegal according to this law.

d) Appointing 2 Supreme Court justices who said they have no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade and, in their first decision relating to abortion, “upheld” the aforementioned act by saying that a) abortion is a fundamental right, b) partial birth abortion is only wrong because it is particularly “gruesome” and c) the law can be upheld because there are "less gruesome’ ways to practice late-term abortion.

No law which violates Natural Law is ever valid.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.