Stem Cell Research, Genetic Engineering (2 Viewers)

[sam04u]

I think it's already explained that using embryonic stem cells, is not needed. But, it will inevitably happen, and is already happening (KGB, CIA?).

It would be more beneficial to us to be able to recreate these pluripotonic cells, with the right 'coding' for the individual (Based on DNA), which would in turn be actually beneficial and not be rejected shortly after by the host. (As, you most likely know about autoimmunal diseases). Therefore, 'harvesting' embryos for the extraction of 'pluripotonic' cells is not needed, and can actually effect the person more. (because of the development of AI Diseases, and also the effect of NK Lympho's on the 'effected' areas. ) which could theoretically... make somebody 'more diabled?'

Pluripotonic Cell Synthesiser for the future. (Im'a pwn when I get scientific education lawl...)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think it's already explained that using embryonic stem cells, is not needed

Why do you think these scientists want to use them then?

 

[sam04u]

Because, it's like the latest console/game/movie. Even if others say It's crap you still want to see for yourself. It also has some potential, but that's for scientists with short term goals, with minor implications. It's also the perfect 'test subject', and has alot of 'genetic information' etc, etc.

 

[bshoc]

lol.

Ever heard of a Liger?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ever heard of a Liger?

What, exactly, is your point?

 

[bshoc]

What, exactly, is your point?

Playing around with genetics may not be a good thing

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'm not supportive of reproductive cloning or creating half-human hybrids... I don't see the relevance.

 

[sam04u]

Lol, I'm more supportive of human hybrids in the extremely distant future. Then I am for embryonic stem cell 'research'.

But, even still, that's not needed. (Would be beneficial for things like space travel though, gotta admit... ) Even though it goes against my religious and ethical beliefs.

 

[Generator]

Researcher challenges Abbott on human cloning

 

[Generator]

Stem cell find may shift debate

 

[ur_inner_child]

Stem cell find may shift debate

A BREAKTHROUGH in stem cell research in the US, which allows a single stem cell to be removed from embryos without destroying them, may dramatically shift the ethical debate in Australia.

Well if its all confirmed, this ends the discussion doesn't it lol

 

[Generator]

MPs 'don't understand stem cell science'

 

[katie_tully]

It's like when the conservatives all jumped up and down about organ donations. Now I wonder how many of them have used life saving services such as organ transplants or bypass surgery?

Abbott is a twit and a hypocrit (I think we all remember the love child saga). Also a twit is Cardinal Pell who writes regular rants on the topic...

 

[littlewing69]

Love child who ended up not being his remember.

The fact that he wasn't sure speaks volumes about his own willingness to impose sexual morality on others which he himself does not follow.

 

[littlewing69]

I hope you yourself will maintained a detailed journal of all your sexual encounters then, just to ensure that you are aware of the possibility of your love children. Either that, or hop off the fucking moral high horse.

You misread me. I don't give a good Goddamn who people fuck, just as long as they're not telling me what to do in my bedroom.

 

[katie_tully]

Which is why I called him a hypocrit, Exphate. We're talking about a man who preaches abstinence and such to stop unwanted pregnancies, yet at the same time he engaged in little dalliances of his own.
No the kid didnt turn out to be his, but it uncovered what a hypocritical tool he is.

 

[littlewing69]

Which is why I called him a hypocrit, Exphate. We're talking about a man who preaches abstinence and such to stop unwanted pregnancies, yet at the same time he engaged in little dalliances of his own.
No the kid didnt turn out to be his, but it uncovered what a hypocritical tool he is.

Bingo.

 

[katie_tully]

I'd prefer it if he didn't hold the Health portfolio

 

[ur_inner_child]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/stemcell-bill-passes-parliament/2006/12/06/1165081010657.html

Stem-cell bill passes parliament
December 6, 2006 - 7:50PM

Parliament has voted to overturn a ban on therapeutic cloning.

The majority of MPs in the House of Representatives supported Liberal senator Kay Patterson's private member's bill to overturn the ban in a conscience vote.

In the second reading, members voted 82-62 to pass the bill.

And in the third and final reading, it was passed by voice vote with no formal recording of the division.

The Senate had passed the same bill by only two votes.

Australian scientists will now be able to create cloned human embryos, thus giving hope to thousands of Australians living with debilitating diseases.

The bill succeeded despite Prime Minister John Howard and new Labor leader Kevin Rudd speaking against it at the 11th hour.

The House of Representatives also voted down an amendment that had threatened to scuttle the legislation.

The change would have prevented stem cells being extracted from the eggs of aborted late term female foetuses, but this procedure will remain acceptable under the bill.

Liberal MP Michael Ferguson's amendment would have sent the bill back to the Senate, where it passed by only two votes last month.

Many MPs expressed fears it would not have survived a second review.

Speaking after the vote, Senator Patterson, a former health minister, thanked Mr Howard for giving MPs a free vote and congratulated the members on the debate.

Earlier, during a passionate debate in parliament ahead of the conscience vote, Mr Howard said he would not support the bill.

Labor leader Kevin Rudd also said he would vote against the bill.

"I find it very difficult to support a legal regime that supports the creation of a human life for the single and explicit purpose of experimentation on that human life,'' he said.

Treasurer Peter Costello and Nationals leader Mark Vaile had already indicated they would vote no.

Mr Howard said as a mainstream protestant Christian he recognised Christian people of good conscience could reach different conclusions on the legislation.

"It has been a difficult issue, I've indicated publicly in the past I was unresolved in my own mind how to vote," Mr Howard said.

"I don't think the science has shifted enough to warrant the parliament changing its view (since the 2002 vote to ban therapeutic cloning)."

Mr Rudd also expressed concerns about parliament crossing a moral boundary.

He described himself as one of the most reluctant supporters of the 2002 bill that allowed research on embryonic stem cells extracted from spare IVF embryos.

His mother, a Catholic and Parkinson's disease sufferer, told him during the last debate she could accept experimentation on the surplus embryos.

"Mum died two years ago, so she's not here to ask for this one,'' he said.
Mr Rudd said he had spent a long time wrestling with the bill.

"This is a debate where no side should be arguing any absolute moral position as if they have a monopoly on moral conscience,'' he said.

He said his principles were based on the equal worth of all humanity, the protection of the weak from the strong and the minimisation of suffering.

The bill would allow scientists to create embryos through therapeutic cloning and extract their stem cells for use in medical research.

 

[lengy]

Winnar! Science prevails!