Thread: Sarah Palin's Answers: Very Troubling By Chuck Baldwin

Originally Posted by gofer

It's federal funding for embryonic stem cells that is being opposed. The research is still going on in a lot of places.

I have heard of any upset conservatives over a way around it. THey were discussing in on a recent talk show and people were happy the issue may no longer be an issue.

That's because they had to go a different route after discovering the umbelical cord cells.
One argument is gone, so take another stance.
I'd rather pay for embryonic stem cells than I would illegals!!
I'm an Independent, that's why I take different sides on issues.

"gofer" I haven't heard of any upset conservatives over a way around it. THey were discussing in on a recent talk show and people were happy the issue may no longer be an issue.[/quote]

Pros & Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

PRESIDENTIAL VETOES IN 2006 & 2007
In 2005, H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, was passed by the Republican-led House in May 2005 by a vote of 238 to 194.

And on July 18, 2006, the Senate resoundingly passed the Stem Cell Enhancement Act of 2005 by a bipartisan vote of 63 to 37.

President Bush has long opposed embryonic stem cell research on ideological grounds. True to his word, George Bush exercised his first presidential veto on July 19, 2006 when he refused to allow H.R. 810 to become US law. As Congress was unable to muster enough votes to override Bush's veto, the bill was dead.

Again in 2007, the Democratic-led Senate of the new, 110th Congress passed bill S.5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, to provide federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, this time on April 11, 2007 by a vote of 63 to 34.

And on June 7, 2007, the House passed this legislation by a vote of 247 to 176.

Speaker Pelosi commented when the House passed S.5, "Science is a gift of God to all of us, and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure... And that is embryonic stem cell research."

President George W. Bush vetoed the bill on June 20, 2007.

US PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

All polls report that the American public overwhelmingly supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Despite public perceptions, embryonic stem cell research is legal in the US. In 2001, the President banned the use of federal funds for research. He did not ban private and state research funding. In fact, large US pharmaceutical corporations are now conducting such research. (These industries are heavy Republican Party donors.)

In Fall 2004 , California voters approved a $3 billion bond to fund embryonic stem cell research. New Jersey, Wisconsin and Massachusetts legislators are considering similar measures.

In contrast, embryonic stem cell research is prohibited in Arkansas, Iowa, North and South Dakota and Michigan.


Latest News
In August 2005, Harvard University scientists announced a break-through discovery that fuses "blank" embryonic stem cells with adult skin cells, rather than with fertilized embryos, to create all-purpose stem cells viable to treat diseases and disabilities.
This discovery doesn't result in the death of fertilized human embryos, and thus would effectively respond to pro-life objections to embryonic stem cell research and therapy.

Harvard researchers warned that it could take up to ten years to perfect this highly promising process.

As South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, India and other countries rapidly pioneer this new technological frontier, the US is being left farther and farther behind in medical technology. The US is also losing out on billions in new economic opportunities at a time when our country sorely needs new sources of revenues.


Background
Therapeutic cloning is a method to produce stem cell lines that were genetic matches for adults and children.
Steps in therapeutic cloning are:
1. An egg is obtained from a human donor.
2. The nucleus (DNA) is removed from the egg.
3. Skin cells are taken from the patient.
4. The nucleus (DNA) is removed from a skin cell.
5. A skin cell nucleus is implanted in the egg.
6. The reconstructed egg, called a blastocyst, is stimulated with chemicals or electric current.
7. In 3 to 5 days, the embryonic stem cells are removed.
8. The blastocyst is destroyed.
9. Stem cells can be used to generate an organ or tissue that is a genetic match to the skin cell donor.

The first 6 steps are same for reproductive cloning. However, instead of removing stem cells, the blastocyst is implanted in a woman and allowed to gestate to birth. Reproductive cloning is outlawed in most countries.

Before Bush stopped federal research in 2001, a minor amount of embryonic stem cell research was performed by US scientists using embryos created at fertility clinics and donated by couples who no longer needed them. The pending bipartisan Congressional bills all propose using excess fertility clinic embryos.

Stem cells are found in limited quantities in every human body, and can be extracted from adult tissue with great effort but without harm. Consensus among researchers has been that adult stem cells are limited in usefulness because they can be used to produce only a few of the 220 types of cells found in the human body. However, evidence has recently emerged that adult cells may be more flexible than previously believed.

Embryonic stem cells are blank cells that have not yet been categorized or programmed by the body, and can be prompted to generate any of the 220 human cell types. Embryonic stem cells are extremely flexible.


Arguments For
Embryonic stem cells are thought by most scientists and researchers to hold potential cures for spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders and much more.
Scientists see almost infinite value in the use of embryonic stem cell research to understand human development and the growth and treatment of dieases.

Actual cures are many years away, though, since research has not progressed to the point where even one cure has yet been generated by embryonic stem cell research.

Over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases that eventually may be treated more effectively or even cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Some researchers regard this as the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the advent of antibiotics.

Many pro-lifers believe that the proper moral and religious course of action is to save existing life through embryonic stem cell therapy.

Arguments Against
Some staunch pro-lifers and most pro-life organizations regard the destruction of the blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg, to be the murder of human life. They believe that life begins at conception, and that destruction of this pre-born life is morally unacceptable.
They believe that it is immoral to destroy a few-days-old human embryo, even to save or reduce suffering in existing human life.

Many also believe that insufficient attention been given to explore the potential of adult stem cells, which have already been used to successfully cure many diseases. They also argue that too little attention has been paid to the potential of umbilical cord blood for stem cell research. They also point out that no cures have yet been produced by embryonic stem cell therapy.

At every step of the embryonic stem cell therapy process, decisions are made by scientists, researchers, medical professionals and women who donate eggs...decisions that are fraught with serious ethical and moral implications. Those against embryonic stem cell research argue that funding should be used to greatly expand adult stem research, to circumvent the many moral issues involving the use of human embryos.

Where it Stands
President Bush said in mid-May 2005, "I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but I've made it very clear to Congress that the use of federal taxpayer money to promote science that destroys life in order to save life, I am against this."
Bush never says that he is against embryonic stem cell research, only against the use of federal funds to fund such research.

As a result, a handful of states, most notably California, are rushing ahead to fill the void by funding embryonic stem cell research through major universities.

All polls show that a large majority of Americans favor using their federal tax funds to support expansion of embryonic stem cell research.

The US has appropriated more $400 billion to date on the disastrous War in Iraq debacle. If just 1% of that amount was set aside for US embryonic stem cell research, most scientists and medical researachers believe that many millions of lives can be restored and saved.

And that these precious solutions would then not be controlled by greedy pharmaceutical and biomedical corporations.

Dr. James Dobson sums up the view of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research by declaring "The embryo is embryonic human life and we would not favor anything that kills human life."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid summed up supporting views when he stated, "Embryonic stem cell research provides us the hope of new cures and therapies, and we should embrace this research opportunity and not allow radical ideology to stand in the way. President Bush has made the wrong choice, putting politics ahead of of safe, responsible science."

Originally Posted by MW

I was hoping Chuck Baldwin would rise above the gutter fighting.

Chuck is extremely critical/outspoken of the Bush way of doing things.

Why it's no longer an issue..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 172631.htm

Human Skin Cells Reprogrammed Into Embryonic Stem Cells

ScienceDaily (Feb. 12, 200 — UCLA stem cell scientists have reprogrammed human skin cells into cells with the same unlimited properties as embryonic stem cells without using embryos or eggs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Led by scientists Kathrin Plath and William Lowry, UCLA researchers used genetic alteration to turn back the clock on human skin cells and create cells that are nearly identical to human embryonic stem cells, which have the ability to become every cell type found in the human body. Four regulator genes were used to create the cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells.

The implications for disease treatment could be significant. Reprogramming adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells could generate a potentially limitless source of immune-compatible cells for tissue engineering and transplantation medicine. A patient's skin cells, for example, could be reprogrammed into embryonic stem cells. Those embryonic stem cells could then be prodded into becoming various cells types -- beta islet cells to treat diabetes, hematopoetic cells to create a new blood supply for a leukemia patient, motor neuron cells to treat Parkinson's disease.

"Our reprogrammed human skin cells were virtually indistinguishable from human embryonic stem cells," said Plath, an assistant professor of biological chemistry, a researcher with the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research and lead author of the study. "Our findings are an important step towards manipulating differentiated human cells to generate an unlimited supply of patient specific pluripotent stem cells. We are very excited about the potential implications.".....

Interesting background information:

The history of stem cell research had a benign, embryonic beginning in the mid 1800's with the discovery that some cells could generate other cells. Now stem cell research is embroiled in a controversy over the use of human embryonic stem cells for research. In the early 1900's the first real stem cells were discovered when it was found that some cells generate blood cells.

In the early 1900’s European researchers realised that the various type of blood cells e.g white blood cells, red blood cells and platelets all came from a particular ‘stem cell’. However, it was not until 1963 that the first quantitative descriptions of the self-renewing activities of transplanted mouse bone marrow cells were documented by Canadian researchers Ernest A McCulloch and James E Till.

Research into adult stem cells in animals and in humans has been ongoing since this time, and bone marrow transplants – actually a transplant of adult stem cells – have in fact been used in patients receiving radiation and chemotherapy since the 1950’s.

Developments in biotechnology in the 1980s and 1990s saw the introduction of techniques for targeting and altering genetic material and methods for growing human cells in the laboratory. These advances really opened the doors for human stem cell research.

Then in 1998 James Thomson, a scientist at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, successfully removed cells from spare embryos at fertility clinics and grew them in the laboratory. He launched stem cell research into the limelight, establishing the world’s first human embryonic stem cell line which still exists today.

Since this discovery, a plethora of evidence has emerged to suggest that these embryonic stem cells are capable of becoming almost any of the specialised cells in the body and therefore have the potential to generate replacement cells for a broad array of tissues and organs such as the heart, liver, pancreas and nervous system.

Progress in stem cell research is now astounding, with over 2,000 research papers on embryonic and adult stem cells being published in reputable scientific journals every year. Embryonic stem cell research has yet to yield any clinical trials however; adult stem cells are already being used in treatments for over one hundred conditions including leukaemia, Hunter’s syndrome and heart disease.

Source(s):
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/his...
http://www.ukscf.org/research/history.ht...

Also see the following for a timeline for key stem cell research events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

Progress in stem cell research is now astounding, with over 2,000 research papers on embryonic and adult stem cells being published in reputable scientific journals every year. Embryonic stem cell research has yet to yield any clinical trials however; adult stem cells are already being used in treatments for over one hundred conditions including leukaemia, Hunter’s syndrome and heart disease.

These stem cells are vital to curing so many common diseases if the research could be done without uproar and denial of funding.
And as always, there are other motives for the quashing of live-saving processes. While I can think of many, many, I will not elaborate, just will say take your pick.

On foreign policy, especially, Palin reveals
herself to be just another neocon; one who would enthusiastically promote
Bush's preemptive war doctrine.

Baldwin lost me right there. That is not what she said. She said, that all things should be left on the table if negotiations do not work. Don't give "enthusiastically promote" that is a distortion and a political cheap shot. Not different than the Democrats.

If he isn't straight in the first paragraph I don't trust anything else he has to say.

I was hoping Chuck Baldwin would rise above the gutter fighting.

For some reason, reading this makes me wonder about Chuck Baldwin. I can't put my finger on it, but I feel almost like he's the mainstream media or something.

I guess he thinks it won't be so terribly bad for us to have Obama as president, because he has to know that he will not win, (it's simply the truth) but that he is going to assist in helping to give us a President Obama.

(I'm not trying to offend Chuck Baldwin supporters, I'm just trying to be honest about my thoughts and uncertainty regarding this).

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

I was hoping Chuck Baldwin would rise above the gutter fighting.

For some reason, reading this makes me wonder about Chuck Baldwin. I can't put my finger on it, but I feel almost like he's the mainstream media or something.

I guess he thinks it won't be so terribly bad for us to have Obama as president, because he has to know that he will not win, (it's simply the truth) but that he is going to assist in helping to give us a President Obama.

(I'm not trying to offend Chuck Baldwin supporters, I'm just trying to be honest about my thoughts and uncertainty regarding this).

I totally agree Legal!

I would have to see the entire interview, but if she was adressing Georgia and "everything must be left on the table," that includes war with Russia. Politicians talk like this all of the time. A war with a nuclear power over a nation that used to be part of the Soviet Union, and was the birthplace of Stalin. IMO Georgia is not worth one single American life.

On the immigration front, I tend to agree with Chuck. It is extremely unlikely that Palin is for sealing our borders and applying attrition through enforcement. That would assume that McCain either hasn't vetted her on perhaps the fundamental issue of our time, or that the globalists that control McCain are OK with someone within a heartbeat of the presidency completely ruining their plans.

About having questions about Chucks motives.....This certainly does not surprise me. If people think that voting third party is futile and only helps the Dems, then by extension they believe that all attempts at leading a movement against both globalist parties are part of the problem and should be opposed. This leaves us with depending on a party that is saturated with globalists and globalist money to lead us to victory. A party that has gravely disappointed us at the executive level time after time.........after time. That somehow this party is going to turn its back on the Chamber of Commerce and numerous wealthy interest groups that have controlled Washington and the party elite for
generations. We shouldn't demand a presidential candidate that embodies our core values, we should just play along with the game, and hope that it works against history as well as its own interests.

Good luck with that.