tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post116192702008460689..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Religious Barriers to Stem Cell ResearchAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1162197228101865832006-10-30T01:33:00.000-07:002006-10-30T01:33:00.000-07:00You are doing all of the assuming which is typical...You are doing all of the assuming which is typical. <BR/>(1) He (MJF) knows how much medication to take and so do his doctors. It's not that big a mystery. <BR/>(2)I never assumed that he (MJF) would 'look normal' even if he'd taken the correct dose of medication. (Once again you made the assumption). I simply stated that over medicating would amplify the symptoms which is a fact and admitted to by MJF prior to the filming of the commercial. Have you seen the commercial? It's pure politics!<BR/>(3)The best and most promising research is connected to adult stem cells. Also, embryonic stem cell (ESCs) may provide cures, however they all would come with a price tag--namely anti-rejection drugs, with all of their side effects.<BR/>(4) To say, "unless the religious right can come up with a substantive moral argument against embyronic stem cell research, they should butt out and let scientists do science" sounds good but a continuation of a 'slippery slope' akin to 'letting scientists determine' things like who should live and/or die based on their assessment of 'quality of life' ala Dr. Kevorkian. Bible believers feel they have a "substantive moral argument against embyronic stem cell research" (your words)since they believe that life begins at conception according to the Bible and already feel that their tax dollars are used to murder the unborn at abortion mills. For God's sake, 45 million unborn children have been aborted in the US since Roe v Wade. That's more than the population of the ten largest cities in America. Who knows if we haven't killed off the scientist who would have perfected these cures among that 45 million. Furthermore you should note that there are scientists and doctors who insist that the most promising research is connected to ASCs, not ESCs. ESC's implanted in tissues, for example tend to form tumors and accumulate mutations commonly observed in human cancers. That hasn't been observed in ASCs. Prior to 2002 some thought that ASC's showed less useful at producing different kinds of cells in the human body than ESC's. In early 2002 a team at the University of Minnesota found stem cells in the bone marrow of adults capable of becoming any of the 220 tissues of the human body. That changed in 2002, when New Scientist revealed that Catherine Verfaillie of the University of Minnesota had discovered "multipotent adult progenitor cells", or MAPCs, apparently capable of giving rise to all tissues in the body, just like embryonic stem cells (26 January 2002, p 4). The work was later published in Nature. So when you point your finger at me and say<BR/>"you're proving your ignorance and have no value on learning the truth" check your self, there are three fingers pointing at you. You should realize that resorting to such ad-hom. attacks reveal what kind of a person you really are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1162044160906472212006-10-28T08:02:00.000-06:002006-10-28T08:02:00.000-06:00AnonymousIt is also the case that something should...<B>Anonymous</B><BR/><BR/>It is also the case that something should be said about your 'overmedicated' comment.<BR/><BR/>You are making all sorts of false assumptions about the nature of Parkinson's disease - assumptions that you may want to be true because it gives you an excuse to view people like Fox and myself with contempt, but which have no connection with reality.<BR/><BR/>(1) You assume that the overmedication is intentional. You assume wrongdoing, and require others to prove their innocence. Parkinson's is a disease where it is impossible to know exactly how much medication to take, because it is impossible to know how bad the disease will be at any given moment.<BR/><BR/>(2) You assume that if he had guessed correctly on the amount of medication to take, he would have looked normal. In fact, his symptoms would have been different (less saying from side to side, more twitching of arms and legs) but not better.<BR/><BR/>(3) You completely ignore the fact that some of us do not need to see Michael J. Fox on a TV screen to know what Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, or airplane accidents or injuries suffered in defense of this country (in which important organs suffered significant damage and, with embryonic stem cells, may be replaced or repaired).<BR/><BR/>You are doing a very good job of not only proving your ignorance, but in proving that you place no value on learning the truth before you speak and write - even though you are expressing opinions on matters that affect hundreds of millions of lives.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1162042199848237732006-10-28T07:29:00.000-06:002006-10-28T07:29:00.000-06:00Alonzo Fyfe said... AnonymousActually, virtually e...Alonzo Fyfe said... <BR/>Anonymous<BR/><BR/>Actually, virtually everything you said in your post is fiction. It is only reasonable to assume that you are in the habit of hearing what you want to hear and taking it as gospel, without making much of an effort to determine if it is true or false.<BR/><BR/>Some of your falsehoods are rather blatant - such as your implication that I failed to distinguish between embryonic and adult stem cell research. A simple reading of the posting will reveal this error.<BR/><BR/>As for adult stem cells being a better source of cures than embryonic stem cell research - an article in Science magazine in July, 2006 addressed that claim while the Senate was discussing legislation. <BR/><BR/>The scientists who wrote the article say that claims such as those you made above "mislead lay people and cruelly deceive patients."<BR/><BR/>See: <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/07/sacred-archway-embryonic-stem-cell.html" REL="nofollow">"The Sacred Archway: Embryonic Stem Cell Research"</A><BR/><BR/>Indeed, your words are intellectually reckless. You show that you are quite comfortable with the thought that your actions may result in the suffering of death of hundreds of millions of people - and even that does not inspire you to do the research to determine if your claims are true.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1162017792244050172006-10-28T00:43:00.000-06:002006-10-28T00:43:00.000-06:00Oops, I meant to say:"Why should law makers tell s...Oops, I meant to say:<BR/><BR/>"Why should law makers tell scientitsts..."<BR/><BR/>not <BR/><BR/>"Why should law makers tell <I>them</I> scientists..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1162017630158106822006-10-28T00:40:00.000-06:002006-10-28T00:40:00.000-06:00Anonymous --Are you suggesting that the religious ...Anonymous --<BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that the religious right is opposed to embryonic stem cell research because it doesn't work well? Really? Is that honest?<BR/><BR/>If scientific integrity is the real concern, then why don't we let scientists decide what to research? Why should law makers tell them scientitsts how to conduct research?<BR/><BR/>Do you know for sure that good results are unattainable from emryonic stem cells; or that it's impossible that they could ever yield better results than adult stem cells? I'm wagering you don't know that. Only research can ever hope to answer those questions.<BR/><BR/>So, unless the religious right can come up with a substantive moral argument against embyronic stem cell research, they should butt out and let scientists do science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1162005834117257682006-10-27T21:23:00.000-06:002006-10-27T21:23:00.000-06:00Well I’ve read your blogs and comments on Rush Lim...Well I’ve read your blogs and comments on Rush Limbaugh’s diatribe about Michael J. Fox. I know it stirred your hearts and misty eyes to see the beloved star shaking and quaking uncontrollably in the misleading ad. Yes, I said misleading. First of all Michael J. Fox stated that he’d overmedicated himself before the commercial was filmed. Either over medication or under medication of the type he’s taking is known to cause/increase tremors. So Rush Limbaugh had it wrong. Rush said he’d not taken his meds.<BR/>The second misnomer that the commercial promotes is that Republicans, especially the “religious right” are against stem cell research. As people who claim to put such a high value on “truth” I have to say there is little of it found in the ranks of so called ‘free thinkers.’ Actually the ‘religious right’ faction of the Republican party is also in favor of stem cell research. What they’re against is embryonic stem cell research. The promising results from stem cells are almost exclusively from adult stem cells which can be gleaned from many sources including, get this—FAT. In fact, embryonic stem cells are less desirable since any cure they may provide comes with the downside of requiring anti-rejection drugs, because the donor and patient are different people. But if, for example Michael J. Fox received a cure developed from his own stem cells then he would not require anti-rejection drugs with all of their dangers and side effects. So next time you post I would certainly hope that you ‘truth seekers’ would do a little more scholarly research. Oh forgive me, if you would have done that you might believe in God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com