BREAKTHROUGH: First HIV-Positive Man Cured

[RetiredGySgt]

Are we talking adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells?

The only stem cells banned were embryonic so you guess at the answer. As for which supposedly cured him it might be in the article.

 

[Si modo]

It is a wonderful development, rdean. I would really love to see AIDS cured and fully eradicated before I die.

Now I need a wingnut to explain to me again why stem cell research is a bad thing, LOL.

Oh? Did this transplantation involve embryonic stem cells?




Don't bother answering, because I doubt you even know what I'm talking about.


It didn't involve embryonic stem cells, the ones that were restricted and, because of breakthroughs in other areas, aren't needed all that much at this point. Imagine that.

 

[Si modo]

Are we talking adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells?

Thank you.

It involved adult stem cells.

 

[California Girl]

It is a wonderful development, rdean. I would really love to see AIDS cured and fully eradicated before I die.

Now I need a wingnut to explain to me again why stem cell research is a bad thing, LOL.

Oh? Did this transplantation involve embryonic stem cells?

Don't bother answering, because I doubt you even know what I'm talking about.

It didn't involve embryonic stem cells, the ones that were restricted and, because of breakthroughs in other areas, aren't needed all that much at this point. Imagine that.

Idiots don't understand the difference.

 

[Si modo]

It is a wonderful development, rdean. I would really love to see AIDS cured and fully eradicated before I die.

Now I need a wingnut to explain to me again why stem cell research is a bad thing, LOL.

Oh? Did this transplantation involve embryonic stem cells?

Don't bother answering, because I doubt you even know what I'm talking about.

It didn't involve embryonic stem cells, the ones that were restricted and, because of breakthroughs in other areas, aren't needed all that much at this point. Imagine that.

Idiots don't understand the difference.

Yup.

 

[Si modo]

Are we talking adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells?

The only stem cells banned were embryonic so you guess at the answer. As for which supposedly cured him it might be in the article.

Embryonic stem cells were not banned. Ever. New lines were not allowed to be created (cloned) or harvested and be federally funded at the same time. Government funded research on existing lines continued. If research was funded by other organizations, there was never any prohibition on what cells could be used.

 

[California Girl]

Are we talking adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells?

The only stem cells banned were embryonic so you guess at the answer. As for which supposedly cured him it might be in the article.

Embryonic stem cells were not banned. Ever. New lines were not allowed to be created (cloned) or harvested. Research on existing lines continued.

Exactly.

 

[Si modo]

The only stem cells banned were embryonic so you guess at the answer. As for which supposedly cured him it might be in the article.

Embryonic stem cells were not banned. Ever. New lines were not allowed to be created (cloned) or harvested. Research on existing lines continued.

Exactly.

And, as I added: if one wanted to do research on embryonic stem cells created or harvested after 8/1/2001, they absolutely could do that. They just were not eligible for federal government funding.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It is a wonderful development, rdean. I would really love to see AIDS cured and fully eradicated before I die.

Now I need a wingnut to explain to me again why stem cell research is a bad thing, LOL.

Embryonic stem cell research/cure means that the life saved was done so at the cost of another's life.

Seems the matter is somewhat more complex, Zoom-boing.

FAQs [Stem Cell Information]

But assuming that all stem cells are harvested from the medical waste product of an abortion, why oppose the research that may save lives based on them? No one is having abortions just to produce this product, or is that the concern?

Does the aborted have a choice in their death? Do they have a choice in what becomes of them after their death?

Yes, I have a problem with a dead human used for some purpose without their consent. Kinda hard to get that, isn't it? You may just see them as 'blobs' or 'clumps of cells' and in my opinion, you'd be wrong on that. They are human beings in the very earliest stages of life.

(Yes, I read the rest of this thread an am aware that embryonic stem cells were not used in this instance. Just expressing my p.o.v.)

 

[Sallow]

Good news.

 

[Madeline]

Embryonic stem cell research/cure means that the life saved was done so at the cost of another's life.

Seems the matter is somewhat more complex, Zoom-boing.

FAQs [Stem Cell Information]

But assuming that all stem cells are harvested from the medical waste product of an abortion, why oppose the research that may save lives based on them? No one is having abortions just to produce this product, or is that the concern?

Does the aborted have a choice in their death? Do they have a choice in what becomes of them after their death?

Yes, I have a problem with a dead human used for some purpose without their consent. Kinda hard to get that, isn't it? You may just see them as 'blobs' or 'clumps of cells' and in my opinion, you'd be wrong on that. They are human beings in the very earliest stages of life.

(Yes, I read the rest of this thread an am aware that embryonic stem cells were not used in this instance. Just expressing my p.o.v.)

O c'mon, Zoom-boing. We transplant the organs of the dead; it isn't the "formerly human" character of stem cells that upsets you.

I asked a reasonable question which no one has answered as yet: is there some thought that women are getting abortions just to supply this material?

If not, I fail to see why preventing science from saving lives is the higher moral attitude to be taking. How is more "respectful" to throw away potentially life-saving matter?

 

[Si modo]

Seems the matter is somewhat more complex, Zoom-boing.

FAQs [Stem Cell Information]

But assuming that all stem cells are harvested from the medical waste product of an abortion, why oppose the research that may save lives based on them? No one is having abortions just to produce this product, or is that the concern?

Does the aborted have a choice in their death? Do they have a choice in what becomes of them after their death?

Yes, I have a problem with a dead human used for some purpose without their consent. Kinda hard to get that, isn't it? You may just see them as 'blobs' or 'clumps of cells' and in my opinion, you'd be wrong on that. They are human beings in the very earliest stages of life.

(Yes, I read the rest of this thread an am aware that embryonic stem cells were not used in this instance. Just expressing my p.o.v.)

O c'mon, Zoom-boing. We transplant the organs of the dead; it isn't the "formerly human" character of stem cells that upsets you.

I asked a reasonable question which no one has answered as yet: is there some thought that women are getting abortions just to supply this material?

If not, I fail to see why preventing science from saving lives is the higher moral attitude to be taking. How is more "respectful" to throw away potentially life-saving matter?

Keep your ignorance going, Madeline. No science was prevented. Ever.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Seems the matter is somewhat more complex, Zoom-boing.

FAQs [Stem Cell Information]

But assuming that all stem cells are harvested from the medical waste product of an abortion, why oppose the research that may save lives based on them? No one is having abortions just to produce this product, or is that the concern?

Does the aborted have a choice in their death? Do they have a choice in what becomes of them after their death?

Yes, I have a problem with a dead human used for some purpose without their consent. Kinda hard to get that, isn't it? You may just see them as 'blobs' or 'clumps of cells' and in my opinion, you'd be wrong on that. They are human beings in the very earliest stages of life.

(Yes, I read the rest of this thread an am aware that embryonic stem cells were not used in this instance. Just expressing my p.o.v.)

O c'mon, Zoom-boing. We transplant the organs of the dead; it isn't the "formerly human" character of stem cells that upsets you.

And the donors sign a card saying 'yes, use my organs for the living'. An aborted human never gets asked if they want to die to do this. 'Formerly human'?? From the moment of conception, what is growing inside a woman's uterus is human life. Zygote to 100 years old born. . . . all stages of human life, one no more or less 'human' than another.

I asked a reasonable question which no one has answered as yet: is there some thought that women are getting abortions just to supply this material?

I have no idea, do you?

If not, I fail to see why preventing science from saving lives is the higher moral attitude to be taking. How is more "respectful" to throw away potentially life-saving matter?

Sad that that's how you see a human being that has be ripped from the womb.

 

[Truthmatters]

this country is so fucked up you people are actually agruing about people being cured of a horrible disease.

Divide and conquer.

The monied interests own your asses

 

[Si modo]

Does the aborted have a choice in their death? Do they have a choice in what becomes of them after their death?

Yes, I have a problem with a dead human used for some purpose without their consent. Kinda hard to get that, isn't it? You may just see them as 'blobs' or 'clumps of cells' and in my opinion, you'd be wrong on that. They are human beings in the very earliest stages of life.

(Yes, I read the rest of this thread an am aware that embryonic stem cells were not used in this instance. Just expressing my p.o.v.)

O c'mon, Zoom-boing. We transplant the organs of the dead; it isn't the "formerly human" character of stem cells that upsets you.

And the donors sign a card saying 'yes, use my organs for the living'. An aborted human never gets asked if they want to die to do this. 'Formerly human'?? From the moment of conception, what is growing inside a woman's uterus is human life. Zygote to 100 years old born. . . . all stages of human life, one no more or less 'human' than another.

I asked a reasonable question which no one has answered as yet: is there some thought that women are getting abortions just to supply this material?

I have no idea, do you?

If not, I fail to see why preventing science from saving lives is the higher moral attitude to be taking. How is more "respectful" to throw away potentially life-saving matter?

Sad that that's how you see a human being that has be ripped from the womb.

Zoom, the ES cell lines approved for research during the funding ban were from excess embryos from in vitro fertilization. As long as the parents/'owners' of those embryos approved of their disposal and/or use in research along with comprehensive consent, they became part of the approved line.

I think you and the blue whackjob are talking about fetal stem cells, which are not the same thing as ES cells. They are far more differentiated.

 

[Si modo]

this country is so fucked up you people are actually agruing about people being cured of a horrible disease.

Divide and conquer.

The monied interests own your asses

 

[Madeline]

Does the aborted have a choice in their death? Do they have a choice in what becomes of them after their death?

Yes, I have a problem with a dead human used for some purpose without their consent. Kinda hard to get that, isn't it? You may just see them as 'blobs' or 'clumps of cells' and in my opinion, you'd be wrong on that. They are human beings in the very earliest stages of life.

(Yes, I read the rest of this thread an am aware that embryonic stem cells were not used in this instance. Just expressing my p.o.v.)

O c'mon, Zoom-boing. We transplant the organs of the dead; it isn't the "formerly human" character of stem cells that upsets you.

And the donors sign a card saying 'yes, use my organs for the living'. An aborted human never gets asked if they want to die to do this. 'Formerly human'?? From the moment of conception, what is growing inside a woman's uterus is human life. Zygote to 100 years old born. . . . all stages of human life, one no more or less 'human' than another.

I asked a reasonable question which no one has answered as yet: is there some thought that women are getting abortions just to supply this material?

I have no idea, do you?

If not, I fail to see why preventing science from saving lives is the higher moral attitude to be taking. How is more "respectful" to throw away potentially life-saving matter?

Sad that that's how you see a human being that has be ripped from the womb.

Are we gonna debate abortion rights again? I'm game, but to what end? Ever known anyone to alter their POV?

Back it up. Tissue removed from a human organism is not itself human. A corpse is not human. The product of an abortion is not human. These are remains, waste products or whatnot. If consent is the big deal, then why not oppose the transplanting of organs harvested from deceased children? How is the consent of their parents any different from the consent of the woman who has had an abortion?

Pardon me, Zoom-boing, but unless women are paid to abort, etc., so as to produce these stem cells -- which I think we can agree is unlikely -- the argument seems to me to be life saving science versus misplaced sentimentality. The abortion happened without regard to the stem cells, so why is discarding them the higher moral act?

 

[Madeline]

this country is so fucked up you people are actually agruing about people being cured of a horrible disease.

Divide and conquer.

The monied interests own your asses

I don't imagine Zoom-boing is unhappy that a cure for AIDS may have been found, TM. And I very much doubt there are people of any income level with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or other diseases afflicted their beloveds who do not support this research.

Money seems to me to have nothing to do with anything in this convo.

 

[Si modo]

O c'mon, Zoom-boing. We transplant the organs of the dead; it isn't the "formerly human" character of stem cells that upsets you.

And the donors sign a card saying 'yes, use my organs for the living'. An aborted human never gets asked if they want to die to do this. 'Formerly human'?? From the moment of conception, what is growing inside a woman's uterus is human life. Zygote to 100 years old born. . . . all stages of human life, one no more or less 'human' than another.



I have no idea, do you?

If not, I fail to see why preventing science from saving lives is the higher moral attitude to be taking. How is more "respectful" to throw away potentially life-saving matter?

Sad that that's how you see a human being that has be ripped from the womb.

Are we gonna debate abortion rights again? I'm game, but to what end? Ever known anyone to alter their POV?

Back it up. Tissue removed from a human organism is not itself human. A corpse is not human. The product of an abortion is not human. These are remains, waste products or whatnot. If consent is the big deal, then why not oppose the transplanting of organs harvested from deceased children? How is the consent of their parents any different from the consent of the woman who has had an abortion?

Pardon me, Zoom-boing, but unless women are paid to abort, etc., so as to produce these stem cells -- which I think we can agree is unlikely -- the argument seems to me to be life saving science versus misplaced sentimentality. The abortion happened without regard to the stem cells, so why is discarding them the higher moral act?

Damn, your stupidity knows no bounds.

 

[High_Gravity]

Didn't Iran say they found a cure to AIDS a few years ago?