Sinergy
Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie
I simply do not know if it is a better option. I was bringing it up for discussion, as no one seemed to want to talk about it as an option, or even a future option.
You in turn provided a 9 year old study that is likely outdated by now.
I only wanted to bring the option up for discussion. I do not have a means to answer your question of proving it is better.
I provided a study from a site you recommended as being able to answer the question I was asking. Then you proceeded to try to denigrate it by saying it was 9 years old. So I asked you for something more recent, and you state that you have no means of providing the information I asked you for.
Umm, ok.
In my experience, which may have nothing to do with you, many in the ranks of those opposed to abortion tend to bring up things like "umbilical cord stem cells" as a panacea which could be used instead of fetal stem cells. It has not been empirically proven to be so. It is a method of getting stem cells that have some uses. I am sorry you took my response as hostility. I asked you for some empirical evidence to suggest that umbilical stem cells were as effective as fetal stem cells, and you provided a long list of sites promoting umbilical stem cells.
As I pointed out, this did not answer my question. When pressed, you admitted being unable to provide me with the information I asked you for. So I will ask you again, what do you base your conclusion that umbilical stem cells are as effective as fetal stem cells? From what you have stated, it cannot be from a scientific perspective proven by experimentation.
There is a book called "Pure Drivel" written by Steve Martin. In one of the chapters, he is talking about the bird bath in his back yard, which he knows was carved by Raphael. He does not know this because of studies. He does not know this because of any research he has done. He knows this because he has a deep certainty which transcends empirical investigation.
While I understand you have no means of stating that umbilical cells are better, what I find in discussions with people who oppose the use of fetal stem cells is a lack of a scientific basis to substantiate their claims. When pressed, what generally happens is they resort to waving whatever their belief systems and ethical biases are as a means of avoiding the question. Again, this may not include you. On the other hand, the more you write about it, it is difficult for me to not class you with the other uneducated anti stem cell research zealots.
This also raises another important question. Since Monkeyboy et al have cut most funding and propose amendments to the constitution to prevent the use of fetal stem cells, the scientific community has been at a standstill in their research into them. You state that the study was 9 years old. That is true, there has been almost no stem cell research in the United States for 6 of those years because of the guy Dumbfuckistan put into office. Since we have such a limit to the availability of fetal stem cells, and a lack of funding, it is not even possible to do the research to determine if umbilical stem cells are better or worse than fetal stem cells.
Thank the religious right's stranglehold on education and research in the United States for this one.
Sinergy
_____________________________
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"
"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle
|
RE: Rush, Fox, and Olberman - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread