E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Supreme Court refused to step into the emotionally charged debate over embryonic stem cell research Monday, declining to hear a case that sought to stop government funding on ethical grounds.
The decision leaves in place President Obama's 2009 executive order expanding research on stem cells taken from human embryos, which many scientists say has the potential to produce breakthroughs in treatment of numerous conditions, particularly spinal cord injuries, diabetes and Parkinson's disease.
Obama reasoned that research on stem cell lines from embryos created through in vitro fertilization was not ethically problematic. Congress banned the creation or destruction of embryos for research purposes in 1996.
A federal court in Washington, D.C., issued an injunction temporarily blocking the order in August 2010 after two scientists opposed to all embryonic stem cell research, James Sherley of the Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, sued on behalf of "plaintiff embryos," contending that Congress had forbidden any research whatsoever on embryonic stem cells.
Since then, federal courts have rejected their contention that the failure of the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services to respond to their arguments rendered Obama's policy illegal.
Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com
The Supreme Court made no comment Monday in its one-sentence order rejecting the scientists' appeal.
Embryonic stem cells have been the focus of fierce debate since the mid-1990s. Many scientists see them as a watershed in the treatment of serious ailments because they have the potential to grow into any of the body's cell types, promising the eventual generation of replacement nerve lines and vital organs, including the brain and the heart.
But anti-abortion activists vigorously oppose the research because the cells come from human embryos and days-old human fetuses, which they contend are fully human. Many of them, including Sherley, want to limit research to stem cells derived from adult tissue, which most researchers contend have less potential to transform into other types of cells.
Steven Aden, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal center that helped litigate the case, criticized the decision Monday, saying the 1996 law "is clear, and we had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold its clear intent."
"Americans should not be forced to pay for experiments that destroy human life, have produced no real-world treatments and violate federal law — especially in burdened fiscal times like these," he said.
The Department of Health and Human Services, whose secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, was the named defendant, had no immediate reaction.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Rewards planned in possibly linked killings of elderly Calif. women
- Some wounded vets shine on 'Alive Day,' others wear black
- California man says he can drive in carpool lane with corporation papers
- Police: 4 dead, including gunman, in Aurora, Colo., hostage situation
- Tattoo photos lead to woman's arrest in global child porn investigation
- What Supreme Court? Gay marriage battles rage in the states
- Video: Warehouses full of criminal evidence lost to Sandy
Leave a Comment:
Haha, embryo-sympathizers lose!!
the most important question regarding an unborn child is when love begins, not when life begins.
Can we please move far past the days when science is impeded in the name of religion?
Doug- can you be anymore childish? Now let's have a round of "nanny, nanny, boo, boo.............
Pigorty - you cannot possibly believe what you just wrote? have you no regard for human life? is that not precious?, so that which we do not love we can destroy with no conscious
Doug-950479 ...(#1).."Haha, embryo-sympathizers lose!!"
___________________________________
Pretty crass, doing a victory dance over those that truly believe that every embryo is a unique human being. After all, if left to develop to term in the womb, it would be a human being unlike any that came before it or after it. You began life's journey as an embryo and if you were harvested out, you wouldn't be here to type what you just did. And those that have been plucked out and sliced and diced for research will never have that opportunity.
Current generations feeding off future generations, first through debt, now this. A sad commentary of the parasitic nature of man.
Or it could DIE in there and the anti-choice folks would still insist the mother, possibly of actual living children, should carry it to "term" even it it gives her blood poisoning and is killing her.
This may be one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen on life. So what happens using this logic if someone is never loved? Does that mean that their life never began?
I'm sure God has a purpose for my childishness.. that's why He keeps making me do it!
ScubaGolfJim...(#1.17)...." the anti-choice folks would still insist"
Source please...or did you just make that up ???
6.5 Billion people alive today....Some 107 Billion or so have come and gone.....Each one different from every other....
How far do your drives carry underwater ???
Mike, I seem to remember a certain case in Ireland recently...
As much as I am all for the advancement of stem cell research, I continue to take issue with standing Presidents who think they can cherry-pick which federal laws they will ignore through their own administration's policies and mandates.
If congress writes a law saying that stem cell research is banned, or that every non-citizen needs to carry a visa on them at all times, then a President's responsibility is to make sure their initiatives fall in line with the laws on the books! If they do not agree with said law, then their focus should be on getting it amended, not simply ignoring it!
Otherwise what is the purpose of legislation??? None!
You know what they call countries where a single person decides what the laws should be and how they are followed? A dictatorship! And that is what we are asking for every time we dismiss this type of behavior as commonplace by saying "well, that's what all the other Presidents have done..." The buck has to stop some where.
I am one of those people that believes life begins at conception. However, after a lot of academic research this last semester, I have changed my mind about the use of embryos left over from in vitro. Do you know what they do with these embryos? They throw them in the trash! Don't you think it would be more humane to use them to try to find a cure for one of the many diseases that stem cell research offers hope for? There is research that uses skin cells to replicate stem cells but it is still in development & without the use of embryonic cells it would never have been possible. Someday they will be able to use ordinary skin cells to recreate any cell in the body but we have to get there & these discarded embryonic cells are helping us move forward.
I agree with Pigotry, the Pro-fetus movement seems consumed with protecting the unborn, but what happens when those children are born into poverty, abuse and neglect. The Conservative, small government movement, is to abandon them without the support of social programs, education or expanded foster care.
Instead they end up beaten, raped, starved or in overcrowded foster care where good christian foster parents only see them as a check from the state. I've worked as a social worker and the way our system is, especially in Oklahoma where thousands are rejected as foster parents b/c they're single, gay, or not christian, it begs to ask, is it better to have more unwanted children?
As a not to the Conservatives defending the 1996 law, the only stems cells affected by the EO are those create in vitro, not in eutero. Meaning they are the ones created in fertility clinics for later implantation. The process involves creating as many as 24 blastocysts for implantation, but they will only implant 8. This leaves 16 blastocysts on "ice" with a shelf life of about 18 months. So in the research process, 16 blastocysts get used which would other wise be incinerated. Would you rather them be used for medical research or go up in smoke? Would you rather they be used to save and/or improve lives or become high temperature pollutants?
Seems to me the ethical choice is to improve lives not waste the line. So let me quote the founding fathers you guys always like to trot out. "Waste not Want not" Ben Franklin
Damn! Do you really not recall? Here... let me hold your pathetic little hand: inquiry-sought-in-death-in-ireland-after-abortion-was-denied
Also, I tend to dive underwater, not drive. I do not own a Lotus. Really, Delray is missing you I fear.
Well, chalk up another victory for the not stupid.
Moving on, now.
I do not see the need to create an embryo for research purposes. Why not use the stem cells from the umbilical cord of a child that was just delivered? How many mothers out there would have an issue with the harvesting of the umbilical cells?
ScubaGolfJim..(#1.15)....Hold my pathetic little hand ????....A little condescending, don't ya think ???
Severed Head in a Jar ...(#1.11)..."Mike, I seem to remember a certain case in Ireland recently..."
1 (One) ???......and if you read past the headlines that all the media picked up on, you just might find out what some of the facts actually were in the case....
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/20/irish-mothers-death-tragic-and-exploiting-it-to-promote-abortion/
Most on here won't bother to read it, they have already made up their minds.....Sensationalism wins the day.
Im not against stem cell research, However after all the billions put into embryo stem cell research Not 1 cure or the potential for a cure for any disease has come forth from it. In contrast the use of adult stem cells and DNA has come up with treatment and other break throughs in fighting the same diseases.
So why give money to these scientists who knoww that they are wasting tax payer money and continue to ignore the break throughs and positive results of adult stem cells and DNA by other companies and scientists
Imagine, your standing in a building and it's on fire. there is a five year old child on one side of you and a big metal canister with a thousand stem cells on the other side of you. you only have time to save one. which is it. the kid or the cells? If you answer "the cells", you might be a republican. I would save the child. So I guess that makes me a democrat or a liberal, or both.
Really- people collapsed my comment for questioning the idea that you are only alive when you are loved?
The liberal censors have no limits to their hatred of free speech
If you were a democrat you'd have aborted the kid and would still run off and leave the cells to die, assuming someone else would take care of it, like they do with your daily bread.
If you don't like the research, then don't utilize it if it's ever an option. Don't impede the rest of us.
Leftist................I wonder how billions could have been spent on stem cell research when it's been outlawed for so many years. How much exactly has been spent? Ah. You really don't know, do you. But billions sounded good, huh?
Not one cure has come yet? But maybe it will. Maybe it will. But it needs a chance. Do you have a child with diabetes? A mother with Parkinson's? A brother with MS? The people who do want a chance. So Leftist......F YOU.
Larry" "This may be one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen on life."
I think that may have had more to do with the collapse, although I don't agree with censorship even in cases of childishness.
nonsense George- conservatives would also choose the child in your "Sophie's Choice"
mike in delray, did you even read the editorial that you cited as evidence? i did and it was useless, bias drivel. not that i expected much more when i saw that your source was the "lifenews". i find it sick that the editorial states that doctors agree that an abortion may have also killed the 31 y/o woman but yet there is no name of any doctor attributed to that statement! way to pick your sources, mike in delray. you instantly killed your own credibility by choosing an improper source...an unsubstantiated and clearly bias editorial. pat yourself on the back!
Larry, it wasn't liberals who collapsed your post. shhh don't tell anyone.
Jock- I'm sorry but to make such a statement like Pigotry made, leaves the conclusion that only those who have been loved have ever lived. It's an absurd claim.
And certainly I've seen people call me and other conservatives foul names I would never use and they aren't collapsed for it.
Yep. Some people aren't capable of seeking the truth from independent sources. So I offered to hold your hand to guide you to the truth.
One, because it was in the news in November. Children have been denied abortions that were said to be as a result of incest also. LOOK IT UP YOURSELF MIKE. I'm tired of holding your pathetic little hand.
Actually Mike, the TRUTH won the day. You point to a story on an Anti-Choice website as the "truth?" Like they don't have an agenda? The "agenda" of the NYT is the news. Yes, the news. Not the propaganda of anti-choice zealots.
I see they're still looking for you Mike.
Hopefully, the millions suffering with disease or because of injury, will realize a cure or an improvement in the quality of their lives, as a result of this ruling.
Larry
well if you would pick the child, then why so much going on about cells? they have no brain, no soul, no free will etc. this is just another wedge issue created to keep america divided. so just say NO
george pauljohn...(#1.20)....OK, I'll play your hypothetical game....
Imagine you're in your home and it's on fire....Your wife is at one end of the house and your child is at the other end of the house....you only have time to save one....which do YOU choose....Your Wife..." we can always have another baby" or Your Child..." I can always find another wife".....
Gee, aren't these " What If" games fun.... And please tell us what your answer makes you .....
My son does have diabetes and I'm not only thrilled by this news but optimistic of what opportunities the research might bring!
@rightwingscrewball
And so you prove to me that your named is well deserved. have you ever made a post that didn't insult somebody? me thinks not.
a cell is a cell is a cell by any other name is a cell. it's not a person. look up the word "hypothetical". you may not make such rude statements after that. but then again......................
Josef P Melech your logic is foolish. We can "what if" all day. What if the child is born and becomes a murderer? What if the child grows up poor? What if the child grows up with no mother? What if the child grows up and finds the cure for cancer? What if, what if, what if? Your logic of "what if the child the child grows up in_____" is absurd. What gives anyone the right to to end a life based on a "what if" scenario. What if someone killed you because you might sexually abuse a child? Your logic is the same as Hitler's. He was killing Jews, Christians etc because he thought they were inferior and brought Germany down. Your logic is the same; the children might be a burden on society. Children are sacrificed to the god of ease daily...just admit it. Americans murder children to make their lives easier. And I highly doubt the 4000 children aborted everyday would all be abused, homeless etc...
i would save my kid.
so if your wife and your mistress where drowning, which would you save?
the wife, cause the mistress would understand. lol
Mike in Delray
Here's another case for you that clearly shows the intent of the antiabortionists.
http://sluggerotoole.com/2012/11/16/the-case-of-the-bishop-an-abortion-and-an-excommunicated-nun/
Try to save the life of a mother using the medical proceedure called abortion - excommunicated. Stuff your compassion.
in Ireland, a woman died not long ago, because they refused to give her a "partial birth abortion". Now that's real moral values. /facepalm.
The way some people act you would think the scientist were snatching up live babies and drinking their brains! Its embryonic research, most of the stem cells come from left over placenta and such, where is the ethical implications in that ????
To which insult to you refer?
left
Perhaps you should read more and watch less fox news.
Embryonic Stem cells differ from other variances of stem cells due to their capability to replicate themselves in a laboratory indefinitely. More importantly however, they can generate into any type of cell within the human body. Other types of stem cells, such as Adult stem cells, are limited to what type of cells they can form and this has resulted in their use being very limited.
http://guardianlv.com/2012/09/embryonic-stem-cells-can-neural-stem-cells-cure-diabetes-mellitus-type-1/
let nasa start a new program
When will religion stay of of science and medical technology advancement?
Science and technology leave religion alone, too bad the religious don't do the same.
What's honestly more important? A zygote or a living, breathing human who has a terrible debilitation or condition that COULD one day be fixed by growing new cells? It's interenting to note that even the most devout change their tune when someone in their family has such a disability...
It's a real story, and she had no money to travel. google it. it's real. leave medicine to the doctors, and leave punishment of sins to god. stay out of both sides of the equation and we can all move on.
So are you saying that a child created by incest has no soul? or one of rape? the whole thing makes no sense.
The thing that gets me the most is that 99% of the stem cells used in this research do not come from abortions, they come from normal miscarriages. These cells are then used to grow new cells. Then we have all of these religious nuts and pro-lifers getting in the way and because they have impeded all this research, they have caused hundreds of people (maybe even thousands) to die from illnesses that could have been helped with this research. They are the uneducated primitives in this country. If some fact doesn't follow their religion, they make something up and attempt to push it as reality on the rest of us. Evolution is another topic that follows this, they've written hundreds of pseudo-science books on that subject to support their claims. It doesn't matter to them that DNA supports evolution.
Jesus F***ING Christ, you Republicans are stupid. I mean really, really f***ing stupid.
There are NOT embryos that would grow up to be a child, they are embryos REJECTED by the mother in invitro. Do you know what that means? When they are rejected that is basically your god performing an abortion.
These embryos will NOT turn into a kid... they will go in the trash. So they either go in the trash, or they are used for science. Which one do you want?
You know all your Republican friends who wanted a child so bad that they went through invitro? Did you know that there are many, many embryos used in that process, and that they "hope" for only one to take? What do you think happens to the rest of the embryos that did not take? What do you think happens to all those "precious lives"? If your little Republican friend did not go through invitro, they would not have "killed" all those supposed "lives" in the process.
But, of course, that NEVER bothers a Republican. Nooooooo... they don't care about all the embryos thrown in the trash during invitro, because eventually one will take. So instead of studying those trash embryos, Republicans would rather they rot away at the bottom of a hefty bag.
That is your choice, folks. Study them for science, or let them rot in the bottom of a trash bag. Those are your only two options... unless you are willing to stop ALL invitro procedures.
george
When is a soul placed in a body? At conception?
So what happens when that cell splits, in the process that creates twins? Do they each get half a soul? Or does one get the soul, and the other gets nothing? Maybe that is where the "evil" twin comes from.
When the split occurs, does your god put another soul in the second cell? What happens in the situations where the cells merge back into one again? Is one soul "killed off"? Or does this person now have 2 souls? Maybe that is what causes split personalities.
I look forward to your educated answer on soul placement, and what happens to that soul in these situations.
ScubaGolfJim...(#1.30)..."The "agenda" of the NYT is the news."
That's the funniest thing I read all day....The Agenda of the NY Times is whatever the ObamaRegime says it is, They are stenographers......
Tell me, why do those in the pro-abortion camp always revert to personal attacks and insulting inuendo's ???
"let me hold your pathetic little hand"
"Really, Delray is missing you I fear."
"I see they're still looking for you Mike."
Well said Celtic.
Ireland - that's a mostly Catholic country and the Pope believes it is a sin for people to use contraceptives, even married couples, to prevent pregnancy, not to mention prevention of STD's. Religion - leading the path towards ignorance! When are the flat globes of the Earth going to come back out?
@Arsenic - Excommunication, if I remember correctly, that means that that nun can never go to Heaven, so that Bishop pretty much condemned her to eternity in Hell for saving a woman's life!
I wonder if Dr. Sherley is responsible for the loss of funding that has resulted in the announced closing of Boston Biomedical Research Institute (http://www.boston.com/news/science/blogs/science-in-mind/2012/11/16/update-boston-biomedical-research-institute-dissolve/knq2WghnwGzvBjXaASCf8O/blog.html)? Why is his name attributed to an organization that is defunct? Another attempt to lend legitimacy to a defunct idea?
On the other hand, Dr. Deisher is employeed by a group whose underlying purpose appears to be grounded in some basis of what they believe God intends for us to do with the our acquired knowledge.
Next time you find it necessary to refer to these two MSNBC, please refer to them as James Sherley of the, now defunct, Boston Biomedical Research Institute, and Theresa Deisher of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute a radical anti-abortion group whose only apparent purpose appears to be against the use of fetal stem cells.
george pauljohn ...(#1.38)..."i would save my kid." ---Me too, and probably die trying to save my wife, knowing I have family that would care for our child ----
"so if your wife and your mistress where drowning, which would you save?
the wife, cause the mistress would understand. lol"
That's not a scenario I ever would have thought of.....Quite the dilemma...
If you're saving the wife over the mistress, you must have boatloads of money !!!!!..lol....new ArmCandy is easy for you rich guys !!!!....Just stop swimming with both of them at the same time....
See ya...
What is next? Will these uneducated wackos move on to transplants, like heart, kidney and such, because in the Bible it states (in many more words than this) that a whole body is necessary to rise again on Judgement Day. What kind of a God demands death when a people can be saved by a dying person's no longer needed parts or rejected cells in a miscarriage?
I honestly do not care if you are religious person, but if you are going to have an opinion or theory on where life begins from a logical AND ethical standpoint then that theory needs to be applied throughout the ENTIRE LIFE CYCLE or else it is simply not based in reality.
And then all you are left with is a spiritual rationale for saying life begins at conception. If the congress were to acknowledge the existence of a soul through legislation then that would be writing a law establishing a national religion, which the first amendment strictly forbids!
So unless you have something tangible or visible that can be used to set a precedent for legally establishing person-hood or life then you have to admit this is a religiously motivated issue. And, again, by law congress cannot favor any religious organization.
The only logical way to establish where life begins is to use that same standard as as when life legally ends. And that is the absence of a heartbeat.
No Doctor is determining whether or not you are dead by checking to see if you have fully formed organs or if your cells are still dividing. When your heart stops beating, you are legally no longer a "person". So why aren't we applying that same logic to person-hood at the beginning of life too? That standard doesn't allude to any religious belief and it has never been disputed by scientists or doctors.
Yes how long can we allow the destruction of the lives of living, breathing, thinking human-beings by NOT doing this research.
So, if love doesn't begin until age 5, it's ok to kill the child at age 4?
I'm pro-abortion, but I think it's important to realize the anti-abortion crowd is against it because they care - not because they want to control women or some other political talking point from "the other side".
Good news on this decision!! Hopefully this puts the issue to rest and investors will feel safe committing more money to stem cell research in humans (I've heard of great advances in animal care already).
This from the individual who links to "Lifenews" for the "truth" about a case where the refusal of an abortion caused a living mother her life. Riiiiiiggght. What's next? WorldNutDaily or the National Enquirer? Or, dare I say it? ...Faux Nuts!!
Still looking.
Do I save my wife or my mistress? should you not have the simple question ,should I try to save my wife if at all possible,as I am a Liberal and am sensible enough not to get involve with another woman as I am married. You are not emotionally involved when you first meet another woman. A person decides to get involved with someone even though they are married. That is an unwise and immoral decision. to make.
TO: Lolly1192 who wrote:
If you had "stopped the buck" when George "Curveball" Bush was dictator, we wouldn't have to waste so much time backtracking.
Good job Supreme Court. My father died due to Parkinson's Disease. This is always good news for research of a cause/cure.
Perhaps you missed the part(of course because that article conveniently excluded it) where her water broke, thus no amniotic fluid. No fluid @ 17 weeks = dead fetus. NO EXCEPTIONS! Want to know what happens when there is no fluid? Every minute it's left in the woman's body increases the risk of infection(sepsis). So care to tell me what she died of and how it was unrelated to her partial miscarriage?
The mistress, cause if I had one, obviously I don't love my wife.
I assume the wife is more capable of saving herself, so the child. What if it was a fetus instead of a child? The wife, because a child is not a fetus. A fetus has the potential of becoming a child, but it is not yet a child, it has no upper brain functions.
"chose brain dead child or disabled elderly person"
Disabled elderly person, because the at least the disabled elderly person is still a person(not brain dead). It's called applying logic to the situation.
It's high time. This has dragged on too long.
For pity's sake, Israel has been doing this research for years. What Republican doesn't trumpet loud support for Israel? Just as the pro-liar movement really does not really want Roe v. Wade overturned (it would be a PR nightmare for them, plus plenty of those activists get abortions, because it's different when it's their body), the fundy funded snowflake lobby knows that they can always go somewhere else - Israel, Singapore, France, Canada, Thailand, and the UK - to get treatment when it's their illness.
@Lolly
What exactly is the logic used that says that we should, must, or would even want to use the same standard for life vs death? If you rigorously apply that the standard for death was a lack of a heartbeat, why would we need defibrillators? I liked what Katherine Hepburn had to say on the topic "In my day, we called it a child when it was born alive." The current standard for death in the US isn't a lack of heartbeat. I think the standard for life should be viability outside the womb. Now that would be "logical."
Apparently, there are no southern baptists in Israel.
First, these embryos aren't created for research purposes - they are embryos that are were made for the purpose of in vitro fertilization, and then, for one reason or another, were not used. The biological parents of these embryos have a few options - they can save the embryos in hopes of using them at a future date, they can adopt them out to other people seeking to use them for in vitro fertilization that cannot generate their own embryos, or they can donate them to science. It's really up to the biological parents of the embryos.
Second, there is a difference between the embryonic stem cell and the stem cells found in umbilical cord. The terminology can be confusing when they are referred to as embryonic or adult stem cells because these don't refer to the age of the person. For example, a neonate has adult stem cells, not newborn stem cells or embryonic stem cells. Instead, a better way to refer to these stem cells in regard to what they can develop into. An embryonic stem cell is a stem cell that is totipotent or pluripotent. A totipotent stem cell can become anything in the organism, including extraembryonic tissue - this would be the cells that will form the embryo (and eventually fetus) AND the cells that form the placenta and yolk sac (which is used until the placenta develops and implants in the uterus). Pluripotent stem cells are the cells that can become any cell in the organism EXCEPT extraembryonic tissue. The stem cells in umbilical cord blood are multipotent - they can become any type of cell that is normally found in cord blood (so they are more of early hemopoeitic cells), and nothing else. Adult stem cells can be multipotent, oligopotent or unipotent. So, technically, using the terms embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood stem cells are adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
This is not an entirely true statement. Currently there are ongoing human trials using embryonic stem cells for treatment in spinal cord injuries - and so far, they've had good results.
Furthermore, we need to look at this from a historical point of view. Adult stem cells were first hypothesized to exist in the late 1940's. They were not shown to exist until 1963. Bone marrow transplants began in the 1950s - however, the scientists did not understand that it was the stem cells found in bone marrow that allowed the bone marrow transplant to actually work. Adult stem cell research experienced NO financial hinderance and was allowed to progress uninterruputed. Biotechnology advancements in the early 1980s allowed for an explosion of adult stem cell research - resulting in the vast majority of treatments using adult stems cells becoming available. In all, there has been approximately 63 years of uninterrupted researtch into adult stem cells.
Now, let's compare this to embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells were thought to exist in the late 1980s. They were no proven to exist until late in 1998. In August 2001, George W Bush limited embryonic stem cell research to the 13 lines that existed at that time - and did not allow federal funding to be used for the research. These restrictions were not lifted until 2009. This means that embryonic stem cell research has had approximately 8 years of research not hindered by finances.
It's really no surprise that there are far less treatments available using embryonic stem cells at this point - when you compare approximately 8 years of research to approximately 63 years of research.
Let's examine the logic... It is 'wrong' to use the embryos because that violates their 'rights', but it is ok to keep them frozen and incarcerated without trial? Do you know how to spell hypocricy?
Are you volunteering your wives and daughters to implant and grow these 'pre-children'? If not - this is all noise. You can't have it both ways. Either you support torturing these embryos by keeping them frozen and incarcerated, or you don't have an ethical leg to stand on.
Would you expect a different decision for a government and most of the country that has become so ungodly?
Prayers for our Nation and its people.
As a fiscal conservative who does believe in a god and I support the courts decision. Not all republicans are associated with the religious right wing taliban.
I also support legalizing pot and gay marriage. I might not like gay people in whole but I dislike a government who thinks they can tell people they can't do something that hurts no one.
An Embryo is nothing but the condensed nucleus of a vehicle which consists of an immature conglomerate of matter. The evidence of life is the point in which a soul enters, energizes the system, pushes the buttons and pulls the levers. The evidence that life is present is when the first controlled movement occurs.
One must remain mindful there is a great difference between life and alive, life is symbolic of being, whereas alive is a state of temporary existence......Bodies die, souls, the energy of life, are eternal, just like thy Creator.
Why do these sort of issues even wind up in any debate? What business is it of the Supreme Court? Why do religious issues continue to fight science?
If your God did not want these things to happen, they wouldn't. Get it?
Mike, I have to admit that that one went right over my head because of my too quick perusal of your comment. My reply factored in the possibility of a typo with the 'd' and 'r' being hit simultaneously, hence my reference to the James Bond underwater Lotus.
But hey, not too darn far. Maybe I should separate the two hobbies? Although I used to have an avatar with a facemask, snorkle, fins, and a golf bag next to me.
Nutjobs on the left want to ban guns; nutjobs on the right want to ban medicine. A person with a brain doesn't seem to have a chane here in the USA.
Did not see an answer from you, Mike in Delray, care to comment?
Why should the Supreme Court get involved in the first place??/ Right wing nuts even have a Moderate republican group dropping their name of republican and calling themselves Moderate and Centrist Democrats! I love how the Party of No doesn't even see it destroying itself!
Everyone else in the world has been using stem cells. Only in the nutjob USA do we think a single cell is the same as a human being. Once again, the USA falls behind because of religion.
...
Maybe stem cell research can produce a cure for stupid.
But if we did that, most government workers would be jobless .....
Does anybody else see the plot of a cheap horror movie coming out of this? lol, just kidding before the haters attack.
TO: johnny_concerned who wrote:
Yes, what was that old black-and-white movie "The Island of Dr. Mareau [or some other name]" where he created all kinds of living but deformed species and one got out and scared the crap out of everyone. There was one species that was running around with a human ear growing out of its back, and yuck, all kinds of other creatures.
What we need to do is set up a better system for umbilical cord blood donation. They can already do quite a bit with stem cells and blood from the cord and placenta, and there is research going on into more uses. Most of the time, these are just tossed into the medical waste trash, unless you pay for it to be preserved for your own family. A better set up, with more hospitals equipped to save donations, would be much less controversial, and there would be a huge amount available for disease treatment and research.
(I asked about donating mine, but my hospital wasn't able to facilitate that)
This is only a controversy in the minds of people who think that this is what their God wants. Well, your God certainly is not my God and I could care less what your God decrees. We non believers will get the treatment and the benefits of the research and you probably will not. Either way, I am glad this country is for the separation of church and state and this is an excelent reason why we need it.
Did I mention God, religion, etc.? Or even say that embryonic stem cell research should be stopped? I was simply explaining that there is another source of stem cells that is very under-utilized, and would have little to no controversy (aka legal arguments for or against, etc.).
And if I met you on the street and kept asking you why you were against it, over and over, we would eventually get to the truth of your stance. Religion. You folks just try to come up with some other reason to start with. When it's questioned again and again, it Always comes back to religion or "god."
Maybe inmissouri's comment has nothing to do with religious belief and everything to do with personal belief? Can athiests not believe in and respect human life? Life is life. Some have a greater chance of thriving then others. Should we go destory third world countries since they have a shorter life expectancy than that of the people of 1st world countries? Of course not. You can respect life and VALUE life with or without religion behind you. Try to overcome your personal bias and quit assuming everyone not on your side is a religious nut case.
Scuba- who said I was against it? While I probably wouldn't be a big fan of creating embryos just to take them apart, I don't really see a problem with using 'leftover' embryos that would otherwise just be thrown away.
While they're doing some great work with embryonic stem cells, there's also a lot that can be done with cord blood too. There are about 10k babies born each day. If each mother donated the cord blood, there would be 10k chances each day for a kid with leukemia to find a donor (among other things).
Guys - go easy on inmissouri. He/she was simply stating a fact. There are plenty of uses for the cord blood and placenta that we aren't realizing and depending on how you look at it we are throwing away gold. That "trash" needs and should be getting used. It is true, no or little controversy there and heck if the stem cell field took off like we know it could, perhaps away to help pay for some of the birth costs. Which would bring me to my next topic.
I support stem cell research (doesn't explain my full view on abortion but that is for another place), it has the ability to save thousands if not millions and end or ease suffering and some horrible diseases/medical conditions. However, there is an ethical side to this and we certainly have to be careful how far we go and know when to stop. Anything done would need to have strong laws and rules attached so you don't get the aforementioned people selling stem cells or taking advantage of others to get cash if sale of the cells was allowed.
CSR has the potential to be very promising but like I said also will mean we need to have limits in place and know those limits to keep this from going into a dark side that it could easily do. Biggest issue would be the profit motive behind it and controlling that (something that in away relates to the moral questions of a for-profit health care system) and understanding that nature has diseases for a reason, population control. All give and take and balance here. We can make the needed policies and can do so and should, without the input of religion behind it, just as the Constitution was written (doesn't mean I don't have my own beliefs or respect for religion, just have equal respect for our constitution and how we abide by it, and for good reason when it come to religion).
It is time
inmissouri, I believe the embryos in question are only embryos that have been created and not used for invitro.
People shouldn't jump on people that suggest an alternate form of research. There are numerous paths to explore to find cures out there...hopefully we will benefit from this soon.
"because god says so" is the worst possible excuse for anything. It's saying that you refuse to broaden your mind, and learn anything new. It's saying that you don't care about what anyone else thinks, because you cannot be wrong. It is saying you give up, because the beauty and complexity of reality and truth is too much for you to deal with. It's the height of selfishness and egotism. In short: it's the exact opposite lesson taught in the new testament (and many other religious text found all over the world, and dating from many time periods and cultures).
If god does exist, he/she probably disaproves of that way of looking at his/her creation: the Universe, and everything in it.
Well, considering that I'm seeing mommy blogs about doctors "stealing" the umbilical cord and mommies "reclaiming" it, and even making it into a meal (I am not kidding - that SNL sketch about "placenta helper" was not far off after all), I think you have your work cut out for you.
At your own risk:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-02/national/35453595_1_placenta-mothers-postpartum
This is just another reason why Americans are so far behind other countries in our biotech and related industries. We will never return to our former scientific glory until we cease to allow the Bible to intersect with our science books
Great post Ryan. you said what to many people are afraid to say openly.
Really? like who? the USA ranks first in number of Bio tech firms, first in Patents and Biomedical treatments- this according to a report of the OECD in 2010. Japan was second
Religion impedes on science and education especially in this country. Thats why the only countries that come close to our religiosity and stupidity are all located in the Middle East.
This is the reason we should have separation of church and state. Not only to protect the church from the state, but to protect the state from the church.
Let the battle rage on.
Science should prevail when it comes to this sort of thing, but the fact is as long it goes against the faithful few, we who put are faith in science will never get the leg up.
Science scars the religious, even when the science has removed the boogie man from the picture, the religious will try and find a way to put him back in the room.
If religions are so willing to play politics, then perhaps they should be allowed to pay more in taxes like the rest of us.
"This is just another reason why Americans are so far behind other countries in our biotech and related industries..."
Ryan,
You are a shining testament to all the so-called liberals on this board--making up lies and facts to suit your agenda.
According to Scientific American (a reputable source if there ever was one.) The United States is far and ahead #1 in the world for biotech research.
http://www.saworldview.com/article/a-global-biotechnology-survey-worldview-scorecard
Diogenes22 try again please!!
@queenie...
What part of FACTS don't you like (or are you proving my point about so-called liberals?)
I'm not debating the merits of stem-cell research, just Ryan's patently false assertion that the U.S. somehow trails the rest of the world in R & D.
(...and, if we were falling behind, I would blame it on the lagging test scores of our children caused by over-bloated Teacher's Unions that refuse to be accountable for anything...but that's a different discussion, altogether.)
The lagging test scores of our school children is because our schools are forced to follow the ridiculous no child left behind doctrine imposed on them by the G.Bush insistence to our education system,not because of our teachers. who are forced to do what the school boards compel them ,whether those boards agree with that doctrine or not . We need to refute that system not most of the teachers ,who would love to try to advance our children's education.Instead of educating to the lowest common denominator we should be testing for the I.Q. of all children,as most other advanced countries do and educating them to their mental capabilities. Many of our population are only capable of a rudimentary educational level,therefore should be trained to their job levels. The others should be given the opportunity to advance to their levels to compete with the rest of the worlds future Technical leaders.
science before religion, is the key to the future,not the other way around.
Science instead of religion.
What an ironic title for a group who is trying to limit some scientists' freedom to research what they choose.
I wonder what other freedoms the "Alliance Defending Freedom" are trying to squash.
To them "freedom" means the freedom for them to decide what everyone else should be allowed or forbidden to do.
the Taliban is alive and well in the heart land. lol Why do people think they have a right to control others, weather it is sin or not. If i commit a sin, only god has the right to punish me or judge me, or both. not you lily livered, bible thumping, meanies. Science and God are not in conflict. red necks and bible thumpers are in conflict with progress. They just hate America for it's freedom.
so when we conservative Christians also stand against the sins of child molestation, rape, murder, adultery, are we in conflict with progress? Are we in conflict with freedom?
Larry,
Everything you mention are all common laws that normal people arrive at the same moral crossroads, with or without religion of any kind. The sex is a sin so pay for your sin with a unwanted, yes, unloved pregnancy, the mother should die to protect the unborn, that flyspecs of tissue are the same as 2-year olds - that's all Christian.
I noticed you left out slavery in your list. Bible's big on slavery, as are all the Abrahamic religions. Slavery is abhorrant - an abomination in all of the free world - no book needed to tell humans that. What the hell is wrong with you conservative Christians? Backwards on slavery, backwards on life itself.
And don't forget, killing a disrespectful child is another biblical value. So it's not Ok to have an abortion, but you can off them as soon as they talk back to you?
Interesting concept.
There might be some hope Larry, Maybe stem cell research can produce a cure for stupid.
Good thing no Christian has ever been guilty of any of those 'sins' ...
Upstate - No wonder religious folks oppose it. They revel in their own ignorance.
I didn't think an embryo becomes a fetus until all the organs have developed and only growth is needed. If true, then the term "days-old fetus" is a calculated misnomer to stir an emotional response. At "days-old", when stem cells are harvested, an embryo is still undifferentiated cells, indistinguishable from any other species at the same stage of development.
I'm surprised that the parents who had these embryos created in case they needed them aren't being charged with child abuse, for keeping them in such a cold environment.
I too was struck by the oxymoron "days-old fetus". An embryo becomes a fetus in the 2nd trimester, if I remember correctly. At "days-old", it's still an embryo.
In many jurisdictions they're allowed to have them disposed of as medical waste, but not allowed to donate them for research.
It looks like another win for the President. Everyone knows the President did the right thing here. Truth is if the President had said no to this research, the Right wingnuts would have given him hell for that. Do these people even know or care how stupid they look. I mean Mitch McConnell offered a law and when the President said that was a good law, Mitch voted against his law. How stupid is that. It is simple, If the President says white the Rep's say black, President says day, wingnuts say night. These White people like David Koch that think they ranee Supreme over anyone but more over a half black man, Just can't stand to see a Black family living in there white house. Koch's old man must be rolling over in his grave. We Elected President Obama twice now. I am white and I think President just wants to do the right thing. That is why I voted for him. The color of his skin didn't matter to me one bit. Its the way he thinks, the way he handles things, He takes advice of others and makes the best decisions, from the best information he can get. That is what a smart man does. He is smart, thoughtful, and a caring man. He is the peoples President, Like Bill Clinton was. He is more concerned about the people then the Company's. That's not to say he is not pro business, because he is. He just don't put profits over people. That's my kind of man, and my kind of President.
@Chuck-2111043: "How stupid is that[?]"
Be careful, Chuck. Some of these people will take your words as a challenge.
I wish I could have written the one-sentence denial for the USSC: "Christ on a cracker, would you people PLEASE piss off?
Well said. He's my President too.
Fred - I wish I could have written the one-sentence denial for the USSC: "Christ on a cracker, would you people PLEASE piss off?
That was a spit-take moment for me. Freaking hilarious....and so true!!
Anyone who calls this challenge any thing other religious isn't being honest. This was not an ethical challenge.
Good for the SCOTUS.
My understanding is the embryos used would never, ever be implanted in a womb. They would be discarded. Opposition to the research makes no sense, since it is saying "we'd rather you throw them out then use them for research."
It is not opposition to the research for many. It is the fact that many believe their federal tax dollars are being used to experiement on what they believe is human life. Personally, I do not see any issues with the research but I could understand how many would want to ensure that their tax money is not spent in this way, just as many do not want their tax money going to pay for others to have abortions.
Well, Mike -I don't like my tax dollars being used for:
1.) The death penalty (spare us your embryo whining and changing the subject the way you people notoriously do);
2.) The so-called "war on drugs";
3.) Most of the armed-conflict wars, especially the latest one in Iraq;
4.) Corporate welfare for the alleged "job creators" and "capitalist profit makers";
5.) Tax breaks for religious institutions that still get the benefit of the infrastructure and protections paid for with my tax money;
...just to name a few.
So piss off.
I am happy with my tax money being spent on scientific research to save lives.
I'm with you, Fred, on this one. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
some would rather see them thrown away
thats the sad part of this. these are not ever going to be used and to just throw them away when there could be miracle cures created from them is just silly.
I am one of those people that believes life begins at conception. However, after a lot of academic research this last semester, I have changed my mind about the use of embryos left over from in vitro. Do you know what they do with these embryos? They throw them in the trash! Don't you think it would be more humane to use them to try to find a cure for one of the many diseases that stem cell research offers hope for? There is research that uses skin cells to replicate stem cells but it is still in development & without the use of embryonic cells it would never have been possible. Someday they will be able to use ordinary skin cells to recreate any cell in the body but we have to get there & these discarded embryonic cells are helping us move forward.
There is no reason to discard embryos except to make a point. "Either science or the trash." When offered, these embryos can be "adopted" and placed in the womb for further growth. It has happened in the past when made available for something other than research.
Credible outcomes in the field of embryonic stem cell research? As a matter of fact, these cells have been known to do more damage than good including the development of tumors. This is enough to avoid using tax money in this field. Put it into adult stem cells where the research continues to be very productive... or Obama's deficit.
How many are you volunteering to take?
Fred - I totally agree. The religious right is rabidly pro life when it comes to abortion, contraceptives and stem-cell research but not so much when it comes to the death penalty or innocent soldiers and citizens killed in senseless wars. The hypocrisy is mind numbing.
Heeeey Kooolaid !!
Technically LIFE begins waaaaay before conception.
I think the real argument is when personhood begins.
When you from a corporation
The fact that there are people who refuse to see the difference between the termination of a minute mass of cells and the axe-murder of a baby in its crib just because the former contains human DNA is bewildering. They have to operate entirely on an emotional level, because there is absolutely no rational process engaged in their position.
The SCOTUS passed on this issue? Good!!!!!
I remember getting into deep debates about this a while back. My recollection is a little shady but from what I seem to recall is that allowing such studies to conclude would be a major leap forward, not backwards.
Seems that this is a win win no?
If the right loves life so much, this should be a win-win.
Think of all the lives which could be improved with embryos that would have been discarded!
Please stop!
These are embryonic stem cells NOT embryos.
Where do you think they come from, tin cans ??
I think Delray is searching for you Mike.
Hey Mike, there are multiple sources of stem cells.
Read something...
Please! They don't want peoples lives to be improved. If someone is paralyzed in an accident, or developes MS, that's because God intended for that to happen.
After all, "Man was born to suffer as the sparks fly upward."
Chip Girouard-6021679 ...(#16.4)..."Hey Mike, there are multiple sources of stem cells.
Read something..."
Please, do tell what all the sources for Embryonic Stem Cells ( the subject of this article) are, besides embryos ???
ScubaGolfJim...(#16.3)....Have you been assigned to stalk me today ???
Nope. Just enjoying shooting down bs.
The fact still remains. I have yet to meet, speak to, or converse in any way anyone who is diametrically apposed to abortion and/or stem cell research in any circumstance that does not do so out of a religious stance, intent, or belief.
Keep your religious beliefs to yourselves.
Your Freedom OF Religion is ALSO My Freedom FROM Your Religion.
Severed Head - Please! Do you recall the following?
Please don't tell me that you agree with this statement as your comment above would suggest!!!
Something useful preserved rather than discarded and it should never have been challenged. The parents made a decision, while making an effort to produce life, and that decision may benefit all of mankind. What narrow thinking is harbored by those who would interfere with such a decision.
"Americans should not be forced to pay for experiments that destroy human life, have produced no real-world treatments and violate federal law"
The only part I care about in this statement is the part that says "have produced no real-world treatments". If this science is valid I think it should be continued. If it's not, then why are we wasting money on it?
The fact that a lot of researchers say it has potential is not enough. I would say that too if I wanted the government to continue to hand me money. Has this produced any real treatments or breakthroughs? If so, continue.
Interested... You pursue things that have "potential" and it takes time and money to develop these things. And tyhere have been successes...
You don't pursue things that don't have potential.
Meaningful results don't usually happen overnight, or on the first try. What if DeBakey had given up after the first failed heart transplant?
So when would you have had Edison stop at finding a commercial lightbulb filament?
The SJC made the correct decision.
Radicals/Zealots are dangerous people whether they live on the left or the right.
thank goodness science wins out here. the opposition makes no sense, because stem cells can help PRESERVE life.
Hey just let 'em grow to living kids then shoot 'em. The prolife side has no problems with that.
Of course Right to lifers love embryos and fetuses. But once a baby is born it's 100% on its own,especially if the parents are poor and destitute.
he tonylovestolie- We don't believe the baby is on it's own- that's typical leftist BS. But it is NOT the responsibility of Federal Taxpayers under our Constitution. that is for family, community, non profit organizations, and State and local govts to determine how to assist.
Larry- If the taxpayers are going to insist that a child be born when its parents want to practice birth control instead, then the taxpayers should be responsible for it.
So Larry, in other words, after it's born it's somebody elses problem, not yours.
I never said anything about birth control George. All adults who wish to engage in sex need to be responsible for their decisions.
well severed- the distinction is NOT about who's problem it is. That remains with the parents. The distinction is about who assists irresponsible parents when they make poor decisions about having children without the financial means.
I simply said that assistance should come from family, community, non profit organizations, and local and state governments. That's hardly a sign of not caring. It means that we follow the law of the land which designates where the appropriate levels of authority and responsibility reside.
Our ministry helps tens of thousands of poor families every year. All without government dollars.
That's where you are wrong Larry.
Churches and religious entities benefit dramatically from tax exempt status. Their land isn't taxed, their donations are not taxed, and they don't have to follow living wage payments for the people working under them.
That is ALL government dollars given to your ministry. It is revenue WE THE PEOPLE should be getting.
So the murder of a baby (abortion) should be encouraged for the advancement of science? Where do we draw the line?
AnotherMiddleClass...
Who on earth said that?
Where to draw the line is indeed an important question. A zygote is not a baby, but a newborn is. Somewhere between is where we draw the line.
Actually the Supreme Court drew the line and said that a fetus is a "person" when it is viable outside the womb, 26 weeks if I recall correctly. That's when killing a fetus becomes "murder." So, there's your line.
I'm completely for embryonic stem cell research. If someone should choose to have an abortion, then let that aborted fetus (embryo) potentially save someone's life. Until the main stream right wing argument is outlaw abortion, embryonic stem cell research, death penalty and guns... I think we can all completely ignore the right wing's opinions on these matters.
Further, to think that allowing federal tax dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research would somehow encourage (let alone correlate) to an increase in abortions is idiotic. Who in their right mind would say: "Well, federal tax dollars can be spent on embryonic stem cell research, let me go get pregnant and get an abortion to help with that." That's insane.
There was never going to be a child born in these cases. The fertilized egg was going to be washed down the drain.
If that fact bothers you, you should reflect upon the fact that the reason that the egg was going to be thrown away is that the private company administering the process was fertilizing more eggs than were likely to be used, in order to increase their profits.
OMG...Zygote! That was the word for "a cluster of reproductive cells" in the crossword puzzle today. I couldn't figure it out. Thanks!
Actually it's to increase the chances of a successful pregnancy, but the principle remains.
Using Right to life logic,a pregnant woman who drank and smoked during pregnancy,which could have caused her fetus to miscarriage would be a murderer.
wrong again, under law it's called criminal negligence not murder if your actions have a secondary effect of affecting someone else's life.
Nothing like using less than 0.01% of cases as an example
There you go projecting again. Wrong Again back at you. It's not "someone else's life" until it can live outside the womb. Or haven't you heard of "the law?"
Tell you what... as soon as all of you well-to-doers adopt every last child in the United States that is available for adoption, and keep doing so for the next ten years as soon as those new ones are born, I'll begin to consider your arguments. Until then, keep your religious beliefs where they belong, to yourself and your ilk.
Don't want gay marriage? Then don't have a ceremony in your church. But why stop anyone from exercising that right outside of your beliefs? Don't like abortions? Don't have one. But when a loved one shows up pregnant after a rape, let her decide!
I am very glad to see so many people in favor of stem cell research. I'm also glad to see several suggestions on how to obtain stem cells from other sources. All good. Perhaps if the researchers are able to work for a year or so without being hounded by the religious right they can come up with some miracles.
In all the additional controversy about rights of the unborn in these comments, however (and I admit I didn't read them all) everything seems to be about the embryo/fetus. I haven't seen anything about the rights of a woman to make decisions that involve her body. Women are not just walking wombs! I am a retired RN who worked Labor and Delivery for 15 years. I have counselled more women than I can remember about making good choices. Women have to bear the heaviest responsibility in this decision making process... to have a child or not. This is a choice that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Whatever they decide there's no free lunch with this one. I believe strongly that birth control should be available over the counter to start with because prevention is the way to go, but using birth control (other than complete abstinence) can have health consequences for a woman. Giving birth and adopting out or keeping the baby has tremendous emotional consequences and potential health consequences for a woman (not to mention a 20 year commitment). In spite of modern medicine, childbirth is not without risk to the mother. Having an abortion has tremendous emotional consequences and also involves risk to the woman. I get real tired of hearing anyone refer to any of these choices as "easy". Today we have simple pregnancy tests that tell a women almost within a day that she has conceived. As far as I'm concerned it's still her body and her choice at that point. I think a woman should be able to make a decision one way or the other within a few weeks but not after that. I'm completely against so called partial birth abortions unless the woman's life is threatened. Until she decides I believe she should be held responsible for making good health choices for the embryo with regard to smoking, drinking etc. If she decides to commit to the pregnancy she most definitely is responsible for good health choices. The only religion that matters is that of the woman making the choice. It's no one else's business and is between her and her doctor. Obviously no victim or rape or incest should be forced to continue a pregnancy.
It has always amazed me that so many of the religious right are horrified at the prospect that tax dollars should be used for reproductive choices for poor women and yet the same people are the ones who bitch and sneer about all those welfare babies they have to support. Sorry this is so long.