• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. court rules against Obama's stem cell policy

Leftovers from fertility clinics with the biological parents approval would be Ok since they'll be destroyed anyway.

Hey, that's pretty reasonable of you! I'm glad to hear it :D So you must oppose the federal ban then, because the leftovers from the fertility clinics with the biological parents' approval are the ones being banned.
 
Is the human embryo more valuable than the human fetus? It's legal to suck the life out of a pre-born child yet illegal to harvest an embryo to save a babies life.

Wow, is this country ever screwed up....

Yes. Seriously. The law should be changed to stop the murder of babies.
 
Even if it is true that adult stem cells produce "greater strides," there are nevertheless qualities of embryonic stems cells that adult stem cells do not have. Adult and embryonic stem cells are different, so different research can be achieved with both. Why foreclose any avenue of research?

Because we shouldn't get in the habit of murdering babies to cure their elders?

Because medicine once had somethin called ethics, and those are going away to chase the dollar?

We simply don't have enough embryonic stem cell lines under the ban to do meaningful research on them, so who knows what is waiting around the corner.

Actually, Europe doesn't have these bans. Nor does Canada or Japan nor Autralia. For some reason those countries are suddenly so backwards technologically that their efforts to produce anything useful from dead babies have all failed? Only with dollars stolen from Americans morally opposed to using dead babies to advance the bank accounts of medicine will the Magic Key be unlocked?

Hmmm? Researchers around the world are withering on the vine because little old US of A has a law preventing the slaughter of babies for medical research?

That make a lot of sense to you?

Really?
 
We absolutely need to fund stem cell research some more, this stuff is fascinating and could really pave the way for future health care.

If it has market potential then let private investors put up their own money for the job.

Just like the Mafia does.
 
Where are people getting the idea that "life is created just to be destroyed?"
Many of the embryos come from fertility clinics, where life is being created... to create life. That process leaves leftover embryos, if you'll forgive the term, because the success rate is so low they have to attempt multiple embryos at a time. These embryos can either go in a burner or into a lab where they might help save lives. Unless you oppose IVF, in which case your opposition to use of these embryos almost makes sense.

Yes.

In vitro fertilization is flawed technology and should be removed from the market until such time it is no longer producing more people than incubators exist to grow.

That what you wanted to hear? That some of us aren't bothered that some physically defective people won't be able to pass their genes on to the future? Well, that's how it works in nature, and four billion years of evolution can't be all wrong. Let the scientists perfect their technique with dogs and chimps before unacceptably creating too many people in their petry dishes.

That plain enough?

No?

Then let's just say that someone's non-existent right to make copies of their DNA does not extend to a right to intentionally create more people than can be grown into adults.
 
I hate these debates. Precious regard for human life? Most of the people talking about all this regard for human life are the same people that would say "damn right we bombed Hiroshima!" In other words, we can kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in other countries, but within America it's wrong to use discarded embryos to further scientific research that could pave the way for cures to cancer, parkinson's and alzheimers. I know, it sounds sooo awful.

On the other hand, some people who disagree with me are actually consistent in their viewpoints, and I appreciate that. And also on the other hand, this is about money. Awwell. You win some, you lose most.
 
I hate these debates. Precious regard for human life? Most of the people talking about all this regard for human life are the same people that would say "damn right we bombed Hiroshima!"
Apples and Oranges buddy. WWII is not the same as this, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed TO SAVE LIVES, or did you miss that part?


In other words, we can kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in other countries, but within America it's wrong to use discarded embryos to further scientific research that could pave the way for cures to cancer, parkinson's and alzheimers. I know, it sounds sooo awful.
The problem, and why you hate these debates it would seem, is that you lack perspective, historical understanding or even common sense it would appear.

On the other hand, some people who disagree with me are actually consistent in their viewpoints, and I appreciate that. And also on the other hand, this is about money. Awwell. You win some, you lose most.

Your comments are NOT Consistent. So you're COOL with killing embroy's, but ending WWII in a manner that saved millions was evil. You have no moral compass sir.
 
Don't really want to debate this with you because I'm no expert. I've just heard things that say the opposite. That great strides are being made with adult, and embryonic has been quite a disapointment.
Either way I'm still against creating life to destroy it with tax payer money. Leftovers from fertility clinics with the biological parents approval would be Ok since they'll be destroyed anyway.

You are correct in that adult stem cell research has been very promising, but embryonic has not been a disappointment. Given the hoopla around all of it, it hasn't seen the funding that it needs up until recently. I'm certainly not qualified to compare the two, but I can talk all day about embryonic stem cell research and how fast things are moving along. Unfortunately, it looks as if it's now going to again suffer with funding issues. And just to set things straight, all embryonic stem cell research is done on 'leftovers' which are approaching nonviability - no one yanks an embryo from the mother and denies her a fetus in the name of research. I can tell you that everything that we got was a step away from the biohazard trash bin. Not sure if that changes your opinion any, but there it is.
 
For me the biggest tragedy of this whole legal challenge is that it was brought by other scientists who did not do so out of moral concerns, but out of concerns of funding for their own adult stem-cell research. What has become of science?!
 
Actually, adult stem cells are not any more promising than embryonic research. While I have not worked with somatic lines, I can tell you from firsthand experience that embryonic research is very exciting stuff.
But it isn't more promising. I've also looked into the research, and we have having more advances in living adult stem cells and de-differentiating current cells. Again, it's not illegal for the private sector to find the research, they just don't because embryonic stem cell research is not as promising as other things. We can now de-differentiate a skin cell down to a partially differentiated stem cell. Not only is using current cells humane, but there is also no worry for the body rejecting any organs and other tissues that would be grown from them.
We absolutely need to fund stem cell research some more, this stuff is fascinating and could really pave the way for future health care.
No we don't, what is paving the way for future therapies is genetic therapies and making advances using the stem cells of the patient.
 
But it isn't more promising. I've also looked into the research, and we have having more advances in living adult stem cells and de-differentiating current cells. Again, it's not illegal for the private sector to find the research, they just don't because embryonic stem cell research is not as promising as other things. We can now de-differentiate a skin cell down to a partially differentiated stem cell. Not only is using current cells humane, but there is also no worry for the body rejecting any organs and other tissues that would be grown from them.

I worked many years in adult stem-cell research and can tell you that it matters not whether a stem-cell comes from and embryo or an adult, they serve the same function. Once the stem-cell is programmed with the DNA in question or grafted into the host area, it functions much the same. So to say that one is more promising than the other is not accurate. A stem-cell is a stem-cell. Now, whether or not there is the same promise in the future after newer discoveries are made is hard to say because embryonic stem-cells have been held back due to social issues thus have much more ground to make-up in order to have the same usage levels as adult stem-cells.
 
I worked many years in adult stem-cell research and can tell you that it matters not whether a stem-cell comes from and embryo or an adult, they serve the same function. Once the stem-cell is programmed with the DNA in question or grafted into the host area, it functions much the same. So to say that one is more promising than the other is not accurate. A stem-cell is a stem-cell. Now, whether or not there is the same promise in the future after newer discoveries are made is hard to say because embryonic stem-cells have been held back due to social issues thus have much more ground to make-up in order to have the same usage levels as adult stem-cells.

Embryonic stem cells are less promising because they are harder to harvest. Plus it's unethical. There would be no rejection of organs and other things grown from an adult's stem cells. They wouldn't function the same, in that the cells from the adult would have the same DNA, and thus no rejection. Something grown from embryonic cells would have different DNA, and will be rejected to some degree by the body. We cans kip immune-suppressors and won't have to worry about rejection. Not only this, but de-differentiating adult cells is more efficient in that they are always available. We would only need to de-differentiate it to the level required for medical workers to signal the cell to grow into a desired tissue. Again, private companies can invest in embryonic stem cell research, they merely don't because it's less promising and more advances have been made in using adult stem cells and studying methods of cellular de-differentiation. My grandfather was saved by stem cell therapies, and they used his own stem cells in order to save his live through the treatment.
 
Apples and Oranges buddy. WWII is not the same as this, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed TO SAVE LIVES, or did you miss that part?

right, 'cause cancer never kills anyone :roll: the moral reasoning is exactly the same, sacrifice innocents for the greater good.
 
Embryonic stem cells are less promising because they are harder to harvest. Plus it's unethical. There would be no rejection of organs and other things grown from an adult's stem cells. They wouldn't function the same, in that the cells from the adult would have the same DNA, and thus no rejection. Something grown from embryonic cells would have different DNA, and will be rejected to some degree by the body. We cans kip immune-suppressors and won't have to worry about rejection. Not only this, but de-differentiating adult cells is more efficient in that they are always available. We would only need to de-differentiate it to the level required for medical workers to signal the cell to grow into a desired tissue. Again, private companies can invest in embryonic stem cell research, they merely don't because it's less promising and more advances have been made in using adult stem cells and studying methods of cellular de-differentiation. My grandfather was saved by stem cell therapies, and they used his own stem cells in order to save his live through the treatment.

I am well aware of the uses of stem-cell research and worked in FDA clinical trials to put stem-cells from the bone marrow of kidney and other donors into that of the recipients in order that the recipients bone marrow would begin to produce the same WBCs of the donor so that the immune system of the recipient would recognize the organ from the donor. The fault I find in your position is that the body would not recognize the embryonic stem-cells. Embryonic stem cells are wiped clean of their DNA and a new DNA is introduced through vectors which allows them to be grafted into any patient. The main reason private industry has stayed away from embryonic stem-cells, and you can ask anyone working in the biotech industry of which I work, is because companies want to avoid any bad publicity such research may bring due to social issues over the matter.
 

We don't want any activist judges. None at all....... Wait, we can make an exception here, and wherever else we think we need them. But otherwise, no activist judges. :mrgreen:

Seriously, though, I think this was a wise decision, since Federal funds are involved. Just had to get in my dig for the day, though. LOL.
 
Last edited:
We don't want any activist judges. None at all....... Wait, we can make an exception here, and wherever else we think we need them. But otherwise, no activist judges. :mrgreen:

Umm:

Judge Royce Lamberth granted the injunction after finding the lawsuit would likely succeed because the guidelines violated law banning the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos.

"(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," Lamberth wrote in a 15-page ruling.

He followed the law. How does that make him "activist"?

Agree with it or not, "activist" it wasn't.
 
I am well aware of the uses of stem-cell research and worked in FDA clinical trials to put stem-cells from the bone marrow of kidney and other donors into that of the recipients in order that the recipients bone marrow would begin to produce the same WBCs of the donor so that the immune system of the recipient would recognize the organ from the donor. The fault I find in your position is that the body would not recognize the embryonic stem-cells. Embryonic stem cells are wiped clean of their DNA and a new DNA is introduced through vectors which allows them to be grafted into any patient. The main reason private industry has stayed away from embryonic stem-cells, and you can ask anyone working in the biotech industry of which I work, is because companies want to avoid any bad publicity such research may bring due to social issues over the matter.

Hmm sounds like possibly I could benefit in the future from embryonic stem cell research considering I will be needing a heart transplant.
 
But it isn't more promising. I've also looked into the research, and we have having more advances in living adult stem cells and de-differentiating current cells. Again, it's not illegal for the private sector to find the research, they just don't because embryonic stem cell research is not as promising as other things. We can now de-differentiate a skin cell down to a partially differentiated stem cell. Not only is using current cells humane, but there is also no worry for the body rejecting any organs and other tissues that would be grown from them.

No we don't, what is paving the way for future therapies is genetic therapies and making advances using the stem cells of the patient.

Let me preface by saying it's nice to see folks so interested in this field of research, as it's very promising and will certainly lead to many beneficial therapies. However, I think getting an accurate picture of what's taking place will help all of us going forward. First and foremost, we should discard the belief that embryonic stem cell research is not 'promising', when in fact, the opposite is true. Consider a few of the advancements in the last two years based on embryonic stem cell research alone. In one project, pancreatic endoderm derived from human embryonic stem cells began generating insulin-producing cells, which could one day lead to a cure for diabetes. In another, researchers in the Netherlands using embryonic stem cells generated bone tissue, which could lead to new therapies for folks who have bone disorders. And it doesn't stop at these - neurodegenerative diseases, visual disorders, and even spinal repair have made incredible advances with the use of embryonic stem cell research. All of these can be gleaned via a simple internet search of scientific papers, and these are just the ones I found on the first two pages while googling.

Somatic (adult) stem cell research is equally as promising, but it is incorrect to say that somatic is more promising, or to be fair, even less promising. The truth is we can learn plenty from each. Both are in the bleeding edge of the research arena, and to the layman, it seems like the main difference between the two is all the controversy. Putting that aside, here are some of the advantages/disadvantages between the two.

Advantages of embryonic stem cells:

1. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, and can thus differentiate into anything given the proper stimulation. Somatic stem cells are limited to their particular tissue of origin. There are studies being done to genetically alter somatic stem cells to mimic this pluripotency, but how much success those studies have met with is unknown to me, as I haven't followed up on any of them in a few years.

2. Embryonic stem cells are much more easy to isolate, culture, and grow. This is a bonus for a laboratory like ours. The protocol for somatic stem cell capture alone is 12 pages, and I have no idea how many hours that translates into because we don't do them. They are also incredibly difficult to grow from what the protocol says, and with culture failure a constant problem, you'd better have deeper pockets because you are gonna need replacement cells shipped. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, can be isolated and cultured much faster, and the procedure is not that difficult. In addition, culturing embryonic stem cells is quite easy. Feed 'em, watch the temp and pH, keep them free from contaminates, and you've got nice happy cells for the long haul. In contrast, working with somatic cell lines would entail me hiring another tech or two, and purchasing expensive laboratory equipment with no guarantee that any of the cell lines would reproduce.

Since somatic stem cells are so difficult to reproduce and are rather lethargic at doing so, their use for therapy at present is limited due to stem cell replacement therapies requiring large numbers of cells for the process.

3. Embryonic cells are less likely to have deletions, mutations, or translocations in their DNA. As in any cell, damage to the DNA structure can occur over the lifetime of the organism. Stem cells are no exception. For research purposes, you'd want the DNA to be reflective of the germline, and when it comes to embryonic stem cells, youth is king. Regeneration is faster, and they are much less likely to have suffered mutations or undesirable changes to their DNA.

Advantages of somatic stem cells

1. Somatic stem cells are not rejected in therapy because they are compatible with the body they are extracted from; in contrast, embryonic cells are not taken from the host, so the possibility of rejection exists. This is self-explanatory, obviously. Somatic stem cells are identified and isolated from the person's body, and if culture and growth can take place, they can be reintroduced with no rejection. This is why many laboratories prefer use of these stem cells in regenerative therapies.

2. Somatic stem cells have a lot of potential. With all the talk of how exciting embryonic stem cell research is, the potential of somatic stem cells gets brought up almost as an aside. How many times have we heard folks say, "They aren't as controversial, plus they have a lot of research potential". The field of somatic stem cell research is just as exciting as it's embryonic counterpart, and both certainly will lead to great developments. Even in this thread, potentiality takes a back seat, and it seems the ethics is first and foremost the topic when discussing stem cell research...which leads me to the final advantage.

3. There is little, if any, ethical dilemmas in using somatic stem cell therapies. Many folks who view the destruction of an embryo as morally wrong have a strong objection to using embryonic stem cells regardless of how compelling the research or potential to cure disease. Use of somatic stem cells represents a much more comfortable moral position to people who wish to avoid seeing an embryo used in such a way.

Hope this helped clear up any confusion. I tried to be as objective as possible, so hopefully this comes across as neutral to both sides.
 
The judge upheld a pro-choice law. If you disagree with it then you're anti-choice.
 
Hey, that's pretty reasonable of you! I'm glad to hear it :D So you must oppose the federal ban then, because the leftovers from the fertility clinics with the biological parents' approval are the ones being banned.
Yes I do oppose the ban if it's leftover embryos from fertility clinics. Did I miss something? Even Bush allowed that.
I only oppose creating them for research.
 

This is being appealed, and the government has an excellent case where it comes to settled law around the issue of "administrative deference".

Read the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision, and you will see why this court order will be quickly overturned, and upheld by SCOTUS, if it should even get that far.

As the judge who issued this order is ignoring judicial precedent of the administration of statute of the last 3 presidents, this does make him an activist judge, not because I argue it is so, but because of the facts in the case, the precedent of previous Supreme Court decisions on the issue of administrative deference, and his ignoring them.
 
Last edited:
This is being appealed, and the government has an excellent case where it comes to settled law around the issue of "administrative deference".

Read the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision, and you will see why this court order will be quickly overturned, and upheld by SCOTUS, if it should even get that far.

As the judge who issued this order is ignoring judicial precedent of the administration of statute of the last 3 presidents, this does make him an activist judge, not because I argue it is so, but because of the facts in the case, the precedent of previous Supreme Court decisions on the issue of administrative deference, and his ignoring them.

There's no ambiguity in the statute --

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for--

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code).

(b) For purposes of this section, the term "human embryo or embryos" includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells)

Obama's executive order says, in effect, "no, this is OK because federal funding didn't create those embryos being destroyed." That exception is not in the statute.

Now, if you want to argue that there IS ambiguity, that's what the courts are for, but what you propose is by no means a slam dunk.
 
Wow, the adminstration is suing everything these days.
 
Back
Top Bottom