Have you seen this yet?

New McCaskill for Missouri TV ad featuring actor Michael J. Fox talking about Claire McCaskill and stem cell research.

How do you feel about it?

it seems tame compared to this

---

i eat paint

I like Michael J. Fox. It's too bad he can't act anymore because of his disease. I don't know what to think of that video. I'm European which means I think Democrats are the only sane people in America. Sorry, I can't help it. :heee:

Anyway, I don't believe an embryo at the stage where stem cells as taken has anything even close to a consciousness. This is a purely philosophical - actually religious - blah and one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of philosophy... or religion. It's obvious that the benefits of stem cell research outnumbers the dubious "concerns". It's not a human being, it's cell salad.

I think people who oppose stem cell research are self-righteous c**tbags who all need to be slapped upside the head with something blunt.

I actually felt really uncomfortable seeing Fox like that, and it pisses me off that someone wants to stop the research.

I'd just like to say that I'm in favor of stem cell research.

Now that being said, I'm a little worried that this ad is a sensationalist ploy to secure election. I sincerely hope that Claire McCaskill is committed to stem cells, and not just playing a political card, or using an emotional viewer response as a strategy for victory.

Either way, it's a shame to see such a beloved figure (Marty McFly!) afflicted.

Well, it's politics :/

It's getting more and more of a marketing war and from what I see on English TV channels the USA are the kings of political "acting". Personally, I find it most offensive when politicians smile for no reason. Like when they answer questions like "What do you think about the charges?" and they answer with that phony smirk like anyone who criticizes them is a naive idiot anyway. This spot transports quite well how I feel about the issue. There are actual people whose lifes could be changed by stem cell research and politicians are holding it back. Because of some strict interpretation of the bible or philosophy books. Any arguments against it are completely artificial.

---

Why snark works.

Although I also was concerned at Fox being used as a political card,
I'm pretty sure he's trying to highlight awareness of degenerative
diseases for his own concerns - the Michael J Fox foundation has raised
a real ton of money.

My real concern comes from people such as Rush Limbaugh slating the ads
and Fox for "acting" or whichever insensitive terms he put it into.

Yeah well Rush Limbaugh's comment backfired anyway. He came across as an insensitive prick.

There are actual people whose lifes could be changed by stem cell research and politicians are holding it back. Because of some strict interpretation of the bible or philosophy books. Any arguments against it are completely artificial.

Enter religion; hindering human progress since whenever they think the world began.

Fun trivia, I went to the same highschool as he did. Although he was there in the older building back in the day.

I'm in the same highschool that Hayden Christiensen (Anakin Skywalker Ep. II and III) was in. I've met some of the guys who initiated him too :smile:

Yeah, I'm in a drama school and there are a couple moderately recognized people to come out of there.

Actors who went to my non-drama highschool:

Glenn Close, Jamie Lee Curtis, Paul Giamatti, Lauren Ambrose (Can't Hardly Wait and 6 Feet Under) and Michael Douglas.

I guess other alumni of note include JFK and his older brother, Edward Albee, Adlai Stevenson, and me of course! :biggrin:

I am opposed to stem cell reasearch with regards to the current method of harvesting such cells. If something has a heartbeat and different DNA from the mother organism it's another animal. However, if in this country it is legal to get an abortion, it should also be legal to use whatever cells you can get from the dead kid. It's such a waste of dead baby. We could be using these cells to help prolong the life of people who are going to die anyway in an already-overpopulated world.

But seriously, if we're going to abort, then why the heck not use the cells from this same, and similar processes? That's like saying you're allowed to slaughter and butcher deer to thin out the population, but you are not allowed to eat the meat you get. -- stupid, I say.

BTW, I've met Claire McCaskill in person. She's a goofball.

PS. How does religion hinder progress? I'd like to see where you think we'd be now in the field of architecture if it weren't for the building of temples? Temples (religious buildings) were the first permanent structures built by man.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Hayden Christensen went to acting school? I guess I couldn't tell.

I hate seeing Fox like this. Not only because he's a really nice guy (I've heard) but he's a very good comedic actor and actor in general.

Also, if I'm not mistaken (which I may be) removing some embryotic stem cells doesn't necessarily kill the foetus (even though it might not even be that far along)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Crono said:
Also, if I'm not mistaken (which I may be) removing some embryotic stem cells doesn't necessarily kill the foetus (even though it might not even be that far along)

Are there ANY effects on the baby? If not, I don't see why it should be outlawed. As long as nobody else gets hurt in the name of scientific progress (Dr. Josef Mengele's words: "Scientific Progress" and "They were only Gypsies")

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Well, it can kill the FOETUS.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

stops banging his head on his desk long enough to reply
Feel free to read this sentence as many times as you like, here, I'll even underline if for you:
Stem cell research is not illegal in the US.

Government funding of it, on the other hand, is, that's the limit on what the US government has done to hinder it. Private funding of it is perfectly legal.

Here's my arguement against stem cell research:
If it's such a miraculous treatment, why aren't private investors lining up outside of labs to invest in it?

Also, Catholicism built western civilization...so you owe it.

Now on to the funny quotes!

It's such a waste of dead baby.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry

Hayden Christensen went to acting school? I guess I couldn't tell.

There are a lot of good quotes lately. Sarcasm, ftw!

---

Also change the texture of the dock. Docks are rarely tile. -Facepunch
As I Lay Dying

sensationalist

Really? I hadn't noticed.

---

o

Stadric said:
stops banging his head on his desk long enough to reply
Feel free to read this sentence as many times as you like, here, I'll even underline if for you:
Stem cell research is not illegal in the US.

Government funding of it, on the other hand, is, that's the limit on what the US government has done to hinder it. Private funding of it is perfectly legal.

Here's my arguement against stem cell research:
If it's such a miraculous treatment, why aren't private investors lining up outside of labs to invest in it?

That's actually a good point. I was under the impression that it was not legal to do MOST types of stem-cell research in the US. All types are allowed?

I, too, wonder why there are not so many private funders and charities and such. The Micheal J Fox is the only thing besides the Christopher Reeve thing that I have heard of to be raisnig money for it.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

PS. How does religion hinder progress? I'd like to see where you think we'd be now in the field of architecture if it weren't for the building of temples? Temples (religious buildings) were the first permanent structures built by man.

Architecture is the only field religion has any contact with, too.

I meant more in terms of science and sociology. The church endlessly persecuted anyone who tried to advance science and disagreed with what they held as truth. Don't believe me? Look it up. But this is for another thread.

Although I also was concerned at Fox being used as a political card,
I'm pretty sure he's trying to highlight awareness of degenerative
diseases for his own concerns - the Michael J Fox foundation has raised
a real ton of money.
My real concern comes from people such as Rush Limbaugh slating the ads
and Fox for "acting" or whichever insensitive terms he put it into.

In all honesty, I felt it was acting. Saying that Bush/Steele (or whoever was mentioned in the comercial) are against Stem Cell Research, when other Democratic commercials have even claimed that they (Bush/Steele) approve of Stem Cell Research, and other sources claim the same thing, makes the whole thing come off to me as a bunch of "acting". Also, didn't Michael J. Fox go off his medication before he did that commercial? I think Rush Limbaugh said that he had.

Also, I don't think trying to "raise awareness" for diseases via lying in a political commercial is such a genius idea :/

Yeah well Rush Limbaugh's comment backfired anyway. He came across as an insensitive prick.

Really? I don't think I caught too many of his comments on the matter, but I felt/always will that he's quite insightful.

it's true Frenchy that the Catholic Church did hinder science severely in the past, the church was also very involved in politics and it's administration was corrupt, however, the church no longer has as strong of influence on scientific advancement so you've got the wrong "guy"
a lot of people against much of today scientific methods are the ones that don't tend to look very far into anything they hear
for example: stem cell research, when it first came into existence it harmed fetus for sure, now it's changed to be less harmful and these people are still against it because they haven't educated themselves in that fact they're still using the same arguments against an outdated practice, most people who object stem cell are Christians because Christians have slightly different believes as to whats life and if you're killing it or not, which is why no non-Christians object

@ Frenchy
Two words: cesarean section

---

Also change the texture of the dock. Docks are rarely tile. -Facepunch
As I Lay Dying

G.Ballblue said:
Also, didn't Michael J. Fox go off his medication before he did that commercial? I think Rush Limbaugh said that he had.

He neither was off his medication or acting:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Couric-Michael-J-Fox.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

G.Ballblue said:

Addicted to Morphine said:
Yeah well Rush Limbaugh's comment backfired anyway. He came across as an insensitive prick.

Really? I don't think I caught too many of his comments on the matter, but I felt/always will that he's quite insightful.

Basically calling out Michael J. Fox as acting when in reality he's just afflicted with an uncurable disease is pretty insensitive.

He neither was off his medication or acting:

Or, at least what that news paper claims (thanks for linking me to a page that loads once, so I can't re-read it)

I need to re-phrase the word acting:

Lying. Go re-read my initial post.

And then the bit about Fox taking too much medication comes into play. Off his medication? Well, it appears he wasn't. Was it possible that he intentionally took too much (based on what Rush claims) to achieve the "point" of that ad? Yup.

Basically calling out Michael J. Fox as acting when in reality he's just afflicted with an uncurable disease is pretty insensitive.

From what I've read, he never actually said that. Technically -- and for the honesty of this post, I'm only using a single source that I feel is fairly informative -- Rush said;

Rush Limbaugh said:
Never once did I use the word "fake!" It's very simple what I said, and the context is, I am stunned. I have never seen Michael J. Fox this way,...

...The point is, he did something differently to appear in this ad...

Yet he was able to hide his disease for several years while continuing his acting career.

One thing you can almost always count on: Rush Limbaugh is full of s**t.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I'd like to see where you think we'd be now in the field of architecture if it weren't for the building of temples? Temples (religious buildings) were the first permanent structures built by man.

Religion is tied so strongly to history that you can't possibly tell. I do believe that religion is the result of human intelligence reaching a certain level. Yet I do not think religion is responsible for it.

The Micheal J Fox is the only thing besides the Christopher Reeve thing that I have heard of to be raisnig money for it.

Probably because they're (well, reeves was) the only real famous people suffering from this disease and actually fighting against it on an organized level with their money and fame. That's pretty sad, actually.

---

Why snark works.

I will read this in depth soonish. It was my understanding that a satisfactory type of stem cells can be obtained from the amniotic leftovers of birth??? That no future,viable child had to be expendable to get these cells?

If so, there is a veritable plethora of waste matter going into the trash bins. Last time I checked, no one wants to take pounds of glop home with their newborn.

As to the plight of Mr. Fox... All I can say is, there are a s**tload of poor folks who could benefit from such research... Since the poor folk seriously outnumber the rich ones, their plight seems a bit higher up on the priority charts. (I bear in mind the recent lowering of generic drugs by wal-mart.. A very nice move on their part to force the monopolies to be broken)

I am pro on this ONLY IF no children are killed.. At ANY level of their birthing cycle!!!

[Edit] After reading through this entire thread, I disagree with no ones reply.. Excepting those who still want to squeeze religious connotations at every turn. It is entirely possible to come to a fruitful ending without the religious back flailing. :rolleyes:

Religion has retarded as much progress as it has promoted. At least in my view. So, its not as beneficial as many other good forward thinking ideals. I think that religion can be left out of the discussion and still come to a mature ending.

/2 cents

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I do think religion has a lot to do with this discussion. It's not that I like to see yet another snarkpit discussion pushing the limits of neutral discussion (down the abyss). But this is all about "ethics" (greek for "convention" by the way). And nowhere else I see religion claiming so much to have an influence in politics.

Excuse me if my proximity to catholicism and dogmas probably isn't very representative for the (protestant) situation in the USA, but whenever I see a discussion about stem cell research I see some bishop or priest lurking from a corner and suddenly claiming that this is part of his responsibility. More specific: I saw it yesterday. In a respectable TV debate. Who was invited? Politicians, Doctors, some Ethics professor and A bishop. A bishop. All he had to say is that the pope (who is the infallible messenger of god) thinks that an egg cell becomes a person when it's hit by a sperm. Noone would think of inviting a bishop to a debate about, say, public smoking. Or the treatment of terminally ill children. Or killing people because it's 99% sure that they commited a major crime (the pope allows the death penalty).

But when it's about stemm cell research, priests and bishops and what-not show up everywhere. Because they're afraid of god. Suddenly the segregation of church and state means nothing and this is a political decision.

The problem I have with that is simple: There is no arguing. If you devote your life to god you can't "question" him (or what you believe he told people he stands for). YOu can't really, openly listen to arguments. God is always in the back. If I discuss this on a neutral level all I have to find out is whether a 4 day old, 100-cell, Blastocyst (yes, I had to look up the spelling and exact word) has a consciousness. That can be answered with no quite easily. Why do all the conservative and christian (in Europe all the parties with a "C" in the name) have concerns while the left ones don't? Are they really concerned about the well-being of a hundered cells or do they fear the wrath of god? I honestly believe that the latter is more important for a majority. Not unless they can give me a real argument.

Medicine isn't pretty. It's about holding your hand in a pile of guts to implant a pig's heart. But it can save lifes. And all that stands in the way is an ethics discussion. Who can say that a 4-day old cell construct is a human being? We're not talking about sucking unknowing mothers their unborn child out of the uterus. This is about very specific cases. Cases in which there is no real mother, no woman who wants, does or can have a baby.

I invite anyone to show me where exactly this Blastocyst would have become a person if there was no stemm cell research. Really, I'd be interested in any further argument but everything I heared about this much-discussed topic so far brought me to the conclusion that it's just philosophical blah.

---

Why snark works.

reaper47 said:
Really, I'd be interested in any further argument but everything I heared about this much-discussed topic so far brought me to the conclusion that it's just philosophical blah.

Carrying that thought to its next logical step, then that truly thought provoking reply you just made can also be consigned to the scrap heap as well. Truly, its not a religious thing, although I admit that they are sticking their collective noses rather deeply into other peoples business again.

The topic is, or should be a personal decision as to where exactly you draw your own personal line of "Do Not Cross"

Seriously... To hear the religious folk, you'd be hard pressed to be anything at all resembling "Informed" without a certain amount of religious background. :rolleyes:

I admit that I share a lot of beliefs, where right and wrong are concerned with religious people, but I hardly dare think that I came to this conclusion because of some higher being mentality.

Its simply coincidence that I know the difference between right and wrong and some of them happen to coincide with the bible/whatnot.

I am nearly positive that someplace in the world are scientific types, who do not believe in God and still feel opposed to stem cell research.. Whatever their reasons, it won't be religiously based.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

We both know this is about statistics and majorities. We're both lucky enough to live in a democracy and dealing with statistics is a big part of it.

You could change my opinion any time. I'd enjoy to see it changing or at least shaking (I'm young enough, I think) but I'd need an argument for why it's so bad to destroy an early embriotic cell for medical treatments. My do-not-cross line consists of basic human rights and I do not see them being violated as nothing I could call a human being was harmed. Please tell me. I'm open, honestly.

It is my opinion that the idea of an independent decision being an ideal rather than something to be ashamed of is an invention of science and philosophy rather than religion. It's a contradiction. Religion is full of dogmas.

What I see here is a moment where you have to deal with a new situation and a very special case is created for which there was no real rule before because it wasn't necessary. And that always scares religious communities. They try to keep change as low as possible and play safe here. If you still say this has nothing to do with religion then you are, I'm sorry, I don't say that lightly, wrong. I mean who was that guy with a purple cap?

I agree that it shouldn't have anything to do with religion but it does. It's influenced by it. You may have formed your opinion based on other influences but again, this is about majorities. "Moral values" has become nothing but an euphanism for religious faith in many politician's mouthes.

10 years ago I though that religion has become something private. That things have changed since past centuries. But in reality it's gotten worse. Noone speaks about it in public but holy books have more influence on things like stem cell research than scientists or philosophers. I strongly believe that. It's too big of an issue to bring one or two overarching arguments, but taking a look around is more than enough to see it. It's a taboo, but religion is there and everywhere.

---

Why snark works.

I need to study this more before I can begin to form a coherent argument Reaper. Truth be told, I am not even interested in altering your viewpoint. I only commented on the fact that given your example, your opinion can or could be consigned to the scrap pile just as easily as anyones. I disagree with that but I was just advancing your idea, to include yourself among the scrapped.

Still, your line is hardly a unique one. Many believe that a cell cluster is hardly human. I however believe differently. However, my argument isn't to decide if a cell cluster could, or can be considered human...My argument, were I to chose to have one would be, isn't the source from the afterbirth not enough?

I heard that the umbilical cord contained everything essential to gaining the needed materials for this research.

If I err, then I will rethink myself then.

The point is, if there is an alternative that is NOT being exploited in favor of killing a cell cluster, then thats criminal and should be punishable in some fashion. Preferably by removing the offenders ability to create any clusters of their own. Removal of the ability to procreate/copulate may re-prioritize these researchers a bit. :eek:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting reaper47</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>but I'd need an argument for why it's so bad to destroy an early embriotic cell for medical treatments. </DIV></DIV>

were you ever one of those embrionic cells?

---

i eat paint

reaper47 said:
I invite anyone to show me where exactly this Blastocyst would have become a person if there was no stemm cell research. Really, I'd be interested in any further argument but everything I heared about this much-discussed topic so far brought me to the conclusion that it's just philosophical blah.

Actually I think that Blastocysts were turning into babies long before stem cell research...

Truly, even a 1-cell embryo, has different DNA than any other creature on the planet.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Perhaps:

Stem Cells: When the end just doesn't justify the means.

1:(3*10⁹)⁴

Those are the odds that two people who aren't identical twins will have identical DNA, give or take a few million because of the genes that give us human qualities.
That's eighty one undecillion, or 81,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
(Yes, I like writing out large numbers)
Makes you seem a bit insignificant, doesn't it.

Now tell me that one in (3*10⁹)⁴ isn't special enough to deserve life.

---

Also change the texture of the dock. Docks are rarely tile. -Facepunch
As I Lay Dying

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Stadric</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>1:(3*10<SUP>9</SUP>)<SUP>4</SUP>

Those are the odds that two people who aren't identical twins will have identical DNA, give or take a few million because of the genes that give us human qualities.
That's eighty one undecillion, or 81,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
(Yes, I like writing out large numbers)
Makes you seem a bit insignificant, doesn't it.

Now tell me that one in (3*10<SUP>9</SUP>)<SUP>4</SUP> isn't special enough to deserve life.</DIV></DIV>

Did you know that those odds are more in your favor than the 1 in 10<SUP>8318</SUP> odds of life being spontaneously created by lightning in a pool of sludge?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

? quote:were you ever one of those embrionic cells?

Yea, but my mother wanted me and I was born. All this cells are "potential" babies, but ulimately every egg cell is. Every sperm is. But that doesn't make it a baby. There's not more life in the embryo at this point than in any other cell.

Also the alternative to an embryo being used for stem cell research is not a healthy baby. It's either no baby at all or abortion. That would be my ultimate main-argument anyway.

My argument, were I to chose to have one would be, isn't the source from the afterbirth not enough?

This is true, for most uses it's possible. But getting this kind of stem cells is far less controversial, so I think this whole discussion about the other kind of stem cells. I don't know in what ratio, but you need both kinds of stem cells for research.

---

Why snark works.

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but isn't/aren't the material/cells for this
kind of research taken from the umbilical cord of born, healthy babies?

Not this kind.

---

Why snark works.

Gwil said:
Forgive me if i'm wrong, but isn't/aren't the material/cells for this kind of research taken from the umbilical cord of born, healthy babies?

See.. This is the exact same thing I posted. I assume that I am not alone in my thinking... Or my lack of understanding this situation.

I also had heard that this was the best/safest way of obtaining stem cells.

I had not heard that there were multiple kinds that were unavailable from the umbilical cord... Especially considering that all the genetic materials flowed in or about that location.

Does anyone have a layman's definition or an article that we can read?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

How about this?

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

My tired eyes must have missed it. Where does it say that umbilical sources are inadequate?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

reaper47 said:
? quote:were you ever one of those embrionic cells?

Yea, but my mother wanted me and I was born. All this cells are "potential" babies, but ulimately every egg cell is. Every sperm is. But that doesn't make it a baby. There's not more life in the embryo at this point than in any other cell.

The sperm and the egg seperately are not a new organism. They are gametes. The thing that is another organism is the combination of both.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

My tired eyes must have missed it. Where does it say that umbilical sources are inadequate?

Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst, which is an early stage embryo - approximately 4 to 5 days old in humans - consisting of 50-150 cells.

Perhaps?
However:

On August 23, 2006, the online edition of Nature scientific journal published a letter by Dr Robert Lanza (medical director of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, MA) stating that his team had found a way to extract embryonic stem cells without destroying the actual embryo. This technical achievement would potentially enable scientists to work with new lines of embryonic stem cells derived using public funding. There are currently significant restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research that limit publicly-funded research to embryonic stem cell lines derived prior to August 2001.

I don't know if they can be taken from an ambilical cord ... everything I've seen implies, that to get embryonic stem cells, you will generally, destroy the embryo. However, an embryo is hardly a baby. If it were a baby, the cells would have already formed or begun forming, so ... you can't manipulate them in the same manner.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

You can get stem cells from an umbilical cord, however, they aren't relevant to a lot of the "counter disease" research being done.

:razz:

I thought you guys were saying that you can get embryonic stem cells from an umbilical cord. (That's what orph was saying, in any case). As far as I can tell, you can only get those from ... embryos. Stem cells from other places (which growth has already happened) would be adult stem cells, which can replicate and all that jazz, but aren't as "limitless" as their counter-part.

And, in that case, I don't know if it's relevant to the discussion, completely. Since, everyone is up in arms over embryonic stem cell research. The other one doesn't harm anything.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Hmm, well er. Sorry, I missed the focus of your question. If we're
talking about the issue of embryonic stem cells (ie killing babies,
onoes! to mess with genetics, rather than just messing with genetics)
I'm not sure where I stand.

It's a case by case basis but if we can seek to eradicate certain
diseases (eg Downs Syndrome or Muscular Distrophy) I encourage research
and advancement under certain circumstances.

I'm not sure where I stand either, but to a degree, I don't think it even matters - other countries without any qualms are going to pursue this, and I don't think any modernized country can afford to give up such a market. In other words, economic and scientific competitiveness/superiority is at stake, and I think that will eventually overrule any moral objections. Money talks.

I think the basic defining moment of a side is where you personally ascertain "Alive"

I am against any method that jeopardizes a future person. I however am realistic enough to agree with CJ, with respect that some countries have no compulsions against the wanton slaughter of innocents.

This research will proceed. In the end, if anything positive results the rest of the world will accept.

The old axiom remains.. "If enough people do something wrong, it becomes less wrong" :rolleyes:

BTW, thats my new word of choice.. Axiom. That philisophical truth should annoy the s**t out of Master Crono

---

The best things in life, aren't things.