Parkinsons research (stem-cell research)

Refii

Please read the entire post before you respond
I ask that this not turn into a religious, political nor flame-debate. If it turns into something dismal like that the moderators will be forced to close it. Please act maturely and responsibly, I would actually like to hear your opinions. Also please respect each others views, I would prefer we share, not judge. Recently Michael J. Fox has been supporting pro stem-cell research candidates throughout the United States, in response various candidates have recruited pro-life believing famous people to make ads of their own. The results are below.

Some more:

My grandfather had parkinsons disease, my mother has mild parkinsons, it is possible that one of my sisters or I may have it someday. I am pro stem-cell research.

What do you think about this?

Taleran

well 1st of all 28 is kinda a minor risk
second of all paying to get something changed = something fishy 80% of the time
third off I'm in favor for stem cell research
and lastly

those idiots don't realize that a cure in 15 years is still a cure…....geez

kaemmerite

I don't particularly support embryonic stem cell research (at least not fully), but I am a very big fan of adult stem cell research (which has cured many diseases, including blindness! Look it up! :D).

Off topic, I heard there was actually a bit of a controversy about Michael J. Fox, something about him exaggerating his symptoms or something? I dunno. What I do know is that Jon Stewart clip is absolutely hilarious.

Carly

Let's get it straight, it's MJ's medication that makes him move all over the place like that. So, no, he wasn't off his meds to emphasize the effects; he's badly at that point as is.

And second, who is Rush Limbaugh to criticize anyone for going off their medication ?

bevin

And second, who is Rush Limbaugh to criticize anyone for going off their medication ? I thought the same thing when I first read that article today. XD

CosmicDebris

Hehe…the John Stewart clip is funny.
I couldn't finish watching the MJF clip, too painful.

I think you guys are missing what the issue is here. It's not whether or not stem-cell reasearch should be done. it IS being done.
The amendment in question is about whether all people, whether they agree with the research or not, should be forced to pay for it through taxes. Does they government have the right to force people to finance research that they may or may not agree with? Does the constitution really support it?
some feel otherwise.

AWB

Paying taxes for stem-cell research has been an odd subject for me. It's against the constitution, it might be murder, and some don't believe in it. Then again, it will benefit mankind, which is what the world constantly tries to accomplish. But still, it's against the constitutuion. Then again, sometimes rules are broken and then changed in hopes to better the situation, but God knows if that's the case here. There are just too many things that contradict the other; I've never been able to form a final opinion. So I remain neuteral on the subject.

The John Stewart clip was funny.

--MRED--

Depends, really
For all we know we might NEVER find a cure for Cancer, Aids and other such things

not saying thats a bad thing, Trying is trying

And its really odd, a friend and i were discussing about it
Personally, The Adult stem cell research i can't really argue about

But Destroying the Embryo to create a Stem line?

Doesn't sound to right

Neutral here

but i don't think it should be funded Via-Taxes…
Hefty donations might just get the job done

Carly

Rootbeer – the Constitution amendment against government-funded research bans it on a non-objective bias. We're talking about extracting cells from embryos that haven't even gone through mitosis five times. Embryos that are only made up of eight cells. There's nothing there to constitute intelligent life of any kind, just potential. It isn't possible to ambiguously murder O_o;

CosmicDebris

Like I said, this isn't a matter of whether stem cell research is right or not, but whether it's right to make people who disagree with it pay for it's funding.
I don't think it is right to say "screw you people who disagree, we're taking money from you to pay for it anyway". Keep in mind that success of the research is not guarranteed and that it will likely begin a deman for egg donors, which is a process that comes with risks itself.

Taleran

@Carly:

Rootbeer – the Constitution amendment against government-funded research bans it on a non-objective bias. We're talking about extracting cells from embryos that haven't even gone through mitosis five times. Embryos that are only made up of eight cells. There's nothing there to constitute intelligent life of any kind, just potential. It isn't possible to ambiguously murder O_o;

bingo but people won't seem to understand that

COWMAKAZE

@Carly:

Rootbeer – the Constitution amendment against government-funded research bans it on a non-objective bias. We're talking about extracting cells from embryos that haven't even gone through mitosis five times. Embryos that are only made up of eight cells. There's nothing there to constitute intelligent life of any kind, just potential. It isn't possible to ambiguously murder O_o;

Completely agreed. To say that "potential murder" like this should be punished is like saying a murderer of 1 person should be tried for millions of murders. Why? Because they killed any and all chance of that one person having kids, and their kids having kids, and their kids having kids, and so on.

I'm not going to pretend stem cell research isn't a tough argument - it's one of the toughest we're faced with today, there's no sugar-coating that. However, I am for it. If we can figure out how it works and save actual lives in the future, I think that's worth some potential lives today.

Angryitalian

@CosmicDebris:

Like I said, this isn't a matter of whether stem cell research is right or not, but whether it's right to make people who disagree with it pay for it's funding.
I don't think it is right to say "screw you people who disagree, we're taking money from you to pay for it anyway". Keep in mind that success of the research is not guarranteed and that it will likely begin a deman for egg donors, which is a process that comes with risks itself.

however, if cures are found with this research, how many of these people are gonna refuse them based on principle, especially if they're afflicted with terminal conditions

Taleran

ZERO

seriously I doubt anyone would turn down a cure for a termail disease

CosmicDebris

@Angryitalian:

however, if cures are found with this research, how many of these people are gonna refuse them based on principle, especially if they're afflicted with terminal conditions

Yeah, that's an "if" though, for a possibly very long time. Stem Cell research is going to continue regardless of whether this is passed or not. Forcing money from people's pockets isn't the only answer.

Taleran

I really can't stand it when celebrities tell people how to think, its slighty more annoying with pop music artists but this is still pretty bad

and frankly I find this debate almost as idiotic as the animal testing one, almost.

AWB

@Carly:

Rootbeer – the Constitution amendment against government-funded research bans it on a non-objective bias. We're talking about extracting cells from embryos that haven't even gone through mitosis five times. Embryos that are only made up of eight cells. There's nothing there to constitute intelligent life of any kind, just potential. It isn't possible to ambiguously murder O_o;

Regardless, it's going to continue happening.

I don't know whether I should pay for it or not. The whole thing does disgust me, but should I let my personal feelings get in the way of bettering mankind, even if it is only potential? I can't decide.

--MRED--

@COWMAKAZE:

Completely agreed. To say that "potential murder" like this should be punished is like saying a murderer of 1 person should be tried for millions of murders. Why? Because they killed any and all chance of that one person having kids, and their kids having kids, and their kids having kids, and so on.

Reproduction is an already Complicated process, it is and excuse the cliche or ignorance of the statement,a "POTENTIAL LIFE", And halting the process, to save someone who, (And this might sound kinda dick-ish) Has already Lived a life (lets assume a reasonable age such as 40-70, i am not going to touch any younger folk with a 10 foot pole, because i can't really say anything about that) its kinda like crushing a bud before it grows into a tree, so it can give more room for another plant to grow

im not saying "OH SO LET THE OTHER PEOPLE SUFFER" no not at all, Stem cells can be recieved in other ways, "Umbilical cords" from newborns is one of the ways

Even if it might be seen has morally wrong to some, And not to others

Moral isn't the only reason people look down upon this type of Stem cell research

Taleran

actually yes yes it is

--MRED--

@Taleran:

actually yes yes it is

no..
I've met quite a few people who are for abortion, but are against this type of stem cell research..Vice Versa

I don't know how moral issues conflicted there

And regardless, how is morality a bad thing? (You did not say this i am aware but just thought to get this out in the open)

Morality is what keeping some people from Taking bats to each other's cars
but that doesn't stop some people..

There are more ways then one to aquire stem cells

But moving on

You were talking about the moral issue right?
Lack of quote might of just set me into the wrong direction

Taleran

those people could be hypocrites….

neway Morallity is subjective and not always logical which is what I try to be most of the time

--MRED--

@Taleran:

those people could be hypocrites….

neway Morallity is subjective and not always logical which is what I try to be most of the time

Relying on Logic could have negative effects
same goes for relying on Morality to much

and isn't The term "Hypocrite" a Moral view?

sorry bout that last part just messin with ya But isn't Logic Subjective aswell?

Carly

Whaa – how can someone be for abortion, yet against stem-cell research ? Does not compute. @_@

Tax money already goes to support horrible shit. Corn subsidies, for one; we pay for that and drive ourselves into a nasty hole there (why do you think everything has high fructose corn syrup in it ?). If you don't agree with the Iraq war, well sorry, your tax money already went to it. Money goes to Social Security, it's going to be bankrupt before our age group sees it... bleh. Money goes where we don't want it all the time, you know ?

igalsfy

they say it's better to have parkinson than alzeimer:

it's better to spill some beer than forgetting to drink it.

Refii

Oh ok, well they say it's better to die in your sleep than to
die conciously, why don't you go take a nap while I hold this syringe with poison here?

Honestly, that response was disqusting. If you had ever met someone with parkinsons you would not utter those words. I've known both family members with parkinsons, and I've had a first uncle with alzeimers (also my brother in laws father), people with alzeimers can continue having productive lives with the support of their family, people with severe cases of parkinsons could not were it not for the medication.

changsho

Well, I'm in Missouri now, and ad campaigns are everywhere. I saw that MJ Fox ad before it got on youtube… sigh So sad. I remembered him as Marty from the Back to the Future movies.

Thing is, if amendment 2 (i think) didn't go through, it can mean the banning of other stem cell researches in the future, completely nullifying medical advancement in that area. Which sucks. Hell, even the school is urging the voting students to vote yes.

igalsfy

@Refii:

Oh ok, well they say it's better to die in your sleep than to
die conciously, why don't you go take a nap while I hold this syringe with poison here?

Honestly, that response was disqusting. If you had ever met someone with parkinsons you would not utter those words. I've known both family members with parkinsons, and I've had a first uncle with alzeimers (also my brother in laws father), people with alzeimers can continue having productive lives with the support of their family, people with severe cases of parkinsons could not were it not for the medication.

man, this a JOKE. i have both a grandfather which had alzeimer and an uncle who had parkinson and they're both dead now so don't tell me what to think, OK?!

man, i'm sick of people who can't take any joke just because they think they're more concerned by the subject than others.

Malintex_Terek

I really have a problem with people so bigoted and petty they're willing to let people die rather than shift a pretty minor or banal political viewpoint. Although among philosophers I'm a huge fan of Hobbes and Marx, I never really believe what they said since I'm an optomist; listening once to The Rush Limbaugh show illustrated to me that I was wrong.

Previously, I thought people were fundamentally good and wanted the best for society. Now I know a huge number of people front that persona in public, but in secret (and Anonymously on the air), they're

1. Racist.
2. Supremist.
3. Homophobic.
4. Elitist.
5. Violent.
6. Selfish.
7. Greedy.
8. Pansies.

Man, my blood is boiling. -.-

…

Anyway, I support SCR. 'nuff said.

CosmicDebris

So should I infer that you believe that people who don't agree with you fall into that list?

hyakamaru

I dont think anyone has brought this up, but I am curious. In the "Response Ad to Michael J. Fox", someone brought up that 25 women have died and 6000 women have complained of complications from donor egg extractions… is that true?

This issue is too complicated to completely put your foot down on one topic.

Taleran

no its not, thats just stuff they are saying to convince people the other way

25 is an incredibly minor risk

CosmicDebris

@Taleran:

no its not, thats just stuff they are saying to convince people the other way

25 is an incredibly minor risk

Um, excuse me sir, but for one thing, you haven't proved it's not true, but whether or not it is true, saying "25 people dying is an incredibly minor risk" is an incredibly calloused and cruel response. Are we talking about human beings here with families or are we talking about lab rats? Just that thought process disgusts me.

Taleran

wether its wrong or not doesn't change the numbers, its still a minor risk even though yes its sad, but it was also the people's choice to undergo the procedure.

and the 1st part of my response was to this

This issue is too complicated to completely put your foot down on one topic.

Refii

@Taleran:

wether its wrong or not doesn't change the numbers, its still a minor risk even though yes its sad, but it was also the people's choice to undergo the procedure.

and the 1st part of my response was to this

Sorry, I can't agree with you there, I wouldn't be in support of SCR if it caused deaths amongst the women who donated.. that said I have never heard of such a report before, so I can't comment unless someone finds the article online. But, I don't see how you can die from donating stem cells.. considering millions of women have used the same method to get pregnant through non intercourse means when they and their partner cannot get pregnant through natural means.

Update:
It has been difficult to find ANY information on the 25 women have died quote, but what I did find was the following:

"RUSH: That's what he was saying in Aramaic: "You know now. Don't do it. Vote 'no' on two." Now, these references here to Mike Sweeney of the Royals, 25 women have died and 6,000 have complained of complications. There's a drug that is injected into women to enable their eggs to be harvested. There have been 25 deaths reported and 6,000 complaints of a various nature because of complications because of this drug. It's just not a simple procedure to go harvest the eggs."

However after looking online some more, I couldn't find ANY information on the process the donors go through, nor anything about the deaths. In fact someone posted on their blog that there is absolutely no referance to this statistic ANYWHERE. So other than Rush and Mike Sweeney saying that this statistic exists (without sourcing any kind of report or article) I don't know what to make of it.

I also find it absurd that a drug that is being used in fertility clinics for couples that are trying to find alternative methods to get pregnant would be so deadly.. but w/e like I said there isn't enough information.

Here's something else to consider: Source Goreporter.com
[hide]
What does the Ballot actually say?

From the Missouri Secretary of State site:

Missouri November 7, 2006 Ballot Measures

The following ballot measures have been certified for the November 7, 2006 general election.
Official Ballot Title Constitutional Amendment 2
(Proposed by Initiative Petition)
Plain Language Explanation:
This amendment will allow Missouri patients and researchers access to any method of stem cell research, therapies and cures permitted under federal law. It also will set limits on any stem cell research, therapies and cures, including banning human cloning or attempted cloning. Violators will be subject to criminal and civil penalties.
**********Official Ballot Title:**********Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will:

ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law;
ban human cloning or attempted cloning;
require expert medical and public oversight and annual reports on the nature and purpose of stem cell research;
impose criminal and civil penalties for any violations; and
prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures?

The proposed constitutional amendment would have an estimated annual fiscal impact on state and local governments of $0-$68,916.
Fair Ballot Language excerpt: A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will:

ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law;
ban human cloning or attempted cloning;
require expert medical and public oversight and annual reports on the nature and purpose of any stem cell research;
impose criminal and civil penalties for any violations; and
prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures.

A “no” vote would not ensure that stem cell research permitted under federal law is allowed to be conducted in Missouri and that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law.
This measure will have no impact on taxes.
[/hide]

Malintex_Terek

@CosmicDebris:

So should I infer that you believe that people who don't agree with you fall into that list?

How did you come to that conclusion?

CosmicDebris

@Malintex_Terek:

How did you come to that conclusion?

Because you said:

Previously, I thought people were fundamentally good and wanted the best for society. Now I know a huge number of people front that persona in public, but in secret (and Anonymously on the air), they're (cut list)

Man, my blood is boiling. -.-

…

Anyway, I support SCR. 'nuff said.

The deduction is that you feel SCR is something you believe is fundamentally good and the best for society, and therefore those that don't agree with are people on the list. If you didn't mean that, you need to be more aware of how your posts can be read.

Le Lawliet

Actually, Cosmic, I think he was listing general archetypes of types of people he hates in public, as I don't see how a racist would automatically hate Stem Cell Research.

Malintex_Terek

@CosmicDebris:

The deduction is that you feel SCR is something you believe is fundamentally good and the best for society, and therefore those that don't agree with are people on the list. If you didn't mean that, you need to be more aware of how your posts can be read.

That's just a list of people traits I don't like; I generally don't hear/see of those types of attitudes unless on radio or on the internet, which puts a greater emphasis on anonymity and therefore permits people to act more akin to how they really feel. It's a disgusting throught for me to imagine someone who acts ethnically tolerant in public but is actually a racist in private, since I know my family is politically transparent.

Why I support SCR and global warming prevention is totally unrelated to my hatred of those people; I think there's a great amount of potential in more research and a ton of lives can be saved in the future.

For clarification, examples:

Example #1: Terek hates a person who opposes SCR because he believes that "inferior races" who contract diseases need to be weeded out of society.

Example #2: Terek doesn't hate a person who opposes SCR because it's expensive or because they believe it is the murder of an unborn child.

Example #3: Terek is annoyed by people who oppose SCR from already aborted fetuses that would otherwise by thrown away in a garbage can.

Hobo-Ou

people with alzeimers can continue having productive lives with the support of their family

Maybe if they're in the beginning stages, but those in advanced stages can't even dress themselves let alone function in society.

And I support stem cell research.

Refii

@Hobo-Ou:

Maybe if they're in the beginning stages, but those in advanced stages can't even dress themselves let alone function in society.

And I support stem cell research.

My uncle has had alzeimers for the past 5 years, and he started and runs a business with the help of one other partner. He is the majority holder, and decision maker. Why? Because the medication is just that damn good these days. No such medication exists for Parkinsons, you will still shake, even a little when you are medicated, and eventually your body will grow a resistance.

Le Lawliet

That actually depends. My last-year's health teacher's grandmother has alzeimers. And it's come to the point where she makes up stories about herself believing them to be true.

Refii

I don't disagree, they'll never be 100%, but it's one thing to live with delusions (you can have that without alzeimers :/) and another to know something is wrong with you and not be able to do anything about it.

While we're on the subject, my aunt divorced him, because he would have bouts of anger out of nowhere, so it isn't a perfect situation, but my point is you can continue living, even if it isn't the same life as before. I dunno, maybe the drugs are just better in Europe.

changsho

Missouri's Amendment 2, Stem Cell Research Initiative passed. Missouri patients now have access to therapies and cures.

See more: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006ballot/

Whee

OP Man

Yeah, I'm happy the measure passed too. The bill was losing most of the night, just like McCaskill and then it made an incredible comeback. Now if only we can get it nationally funded.

Hobo-Ou

I dunno, maybe the drugs are just better in Europe.

The drugs have also improved over the years. There have been enough advancements in the past 6 or years to assist those in the beginning or even mid stages of alzheimers, but there really wasn't anything available to those who were diagnosed, say in the early 1990s. Because of the progression and stage of the disease of those who were diagnosed in the early 90s, there's nothing you can really do help except make them as comfortable as possible.

Zephos

@--MRED--:

no..
I've met quite a few people who are for abortion, but are against this type of stem cell research..Vice Versa

I don't know how moral issues conflicted there

And regardless, how is morality a bad thing? (You did not say this i am aware but just thought to get this out in the open)

Morality is what keeping some people from Taking bats to each other's cars
but that doesn't stop some people..

There are more ways then one to aquire stem cells

But moving on

You were talking about the moral issue right?
Lack of quote might of just set me into the wrong direction

I really don't see the issue when theres roughly hundreds of thousands of human stem cells being destroyed anyway with In Vitro Ferilization..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization

Why not use those suckers to better human life? Or is it morally superior to put them in furnaces?:wassat:

Masta D.

@changsho:

Missouri's Amendment 2, Stem Cell Research Initiative passed. Missouri patients now have access to therapies and cures.

See more: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006ballot/

Whee

Well, I'm just glad people realize these kinds of things are reserved powers (as mentioned by Cosmic earlier).

Bush discredits/ignores the constitution too often. It's not a holy scripture that everyone abides by–but it needs to be referenced more often.

Where do I stand...? Well, I personally believe, as far as animal testing is concerned, we have every right to use animals (to an extent) if it will benefit mankind. At the same time, I believe it is wrong to (intentionally) kill someone of your own species. So basically, I believe stem-cell research is wrong because it deprives those potential humans of their right to live. Sounds familiar, doesn't it…? No one should be deprived of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

Zephos

@Masta:

Well, I'm just glad people realize these kinds of things are reserved powers (as mentioned by Cosmic earlier).

Bush discredits/ignores the constitution too often. It's not a holy scripture that everyone abides by–but it needs to be referenced more often.

Where do I stand...? Well, I personally believe, as far as animal testing is concerned, we have every right to use animals (to an extent) if it will benefit mankind. At the same time, I believe it is wrong to (intentionally) kill someone of your own species. So basically, I believe stem-cell research is wrong because it deprives those potential humans of their right to live. Sounds familiar, doesn't it…? No one should be deprived of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

cough

In Vitro Fertilization.

Not to mention, stem cells are harvested from the Blastocyst stage….which, if Iv'e heard right would be killing the same level of cell complexity as when you chafe your skin.

Masta D.

I don't really understand what your saying, Zephos.

Are you saying that we should treat embryos the way we treat finger-nails…?

Refii

You can get stem cells from non embryo sources, such as the remains of a newborn that are left inside of a mother, those left-over cells have the same stem cell possibilities as embryos. In fact there is alternative biological research that wishes to take those cells and create.. head-less clones of people in order for people to have perfect match replacement organs for the rest of their lives..