I trust that all of our local representatives realise that if they fail to vote against this act, which would have our state join the baby-killing CA liberal fringe, it will be the end of their political careers.

Thanks B.

I'm throwing my support to this bill and sending emails right now. In my opinion, this is extremely important legislation that needs to be passed.

No offense, honestly... and I'm not trying to start a flame war here. It's just, in my opinion, this is an important piece of legislation that needs to be passed.

Quote taken from the unbiased Maryland General Assembly web page:



I just want to state that I would fully support any representative who supports this bill. Not all stem cell research would be the result of abortions.

Quote from Religious Tolerance.org

I don't care where they come from, I oppose murdering babies for research, period!

What we need is a clear, national ban on all government funding of human cloning and emryonic stem cell research. If you want to do it, pay for it our of your own pocket, not mine!

I can still remember the days when the liberals were saying they just wanted the freedom to choose to do immoral things like abortion. Taxpayer funding of abortion, fetal tissue research, and now embryonic stem cell research removes the right of those of us who find such things to be morally repugnant to choose NOT to support them.

The liberals have taken the quantum leap from asking for the right to choose to do whatever they want, to actively FORCING those of us who disagree with them to help pay for their favorite immoral activity.

The old "pro-choice" crowd is being shown for the hypocrites that they truly are! They don't want choice, they want to force their immorality on us all!

I do too! In fact, I oppose murdering any living being, whether it is human or animal, for research purposes. However, here is where the definition of living and non-living is unclear. In my opinion, an embryo in a test tube in no way constitutes a living being.

Correct me if Im wrong but cant you also get stem cells from live newborns umbilical cords?Does this bill also support that kind of reasearch.? Is it a known fact that they will be using harvested eggs for this reasearch?I believe they can get all the stem cells they need from the umbilical cords.I would need to know more about the bill before I would say whether I support or oppose this bill.I believe that stem cell reasearch is very important but dont agree with them harvesting eggs for that purpose when there are other ways to collect stem cells.

[quote]believe that stem cell reasearch is very important but dont agree with them harvesting eggs for that purpose when there are other ways to collect stem cells.[/quote][/quote]


You are right Jenn.... there are other ways that scientists are working on.... here is an article in the HM today!

I believe research is so important, but I can not agree with using human life. I know people all disagree on when life begins, but what if that really is a human life?? If given the right environment, nine months from now, you could have a brand new baby. I believe it is more ethical to find other means to help rejuvenate nerve cells. I think, when we take it into our own hands to destroy embroys, we not only destroy the potential human being, but all the generations that could have come from that one person. It's like we are also changing history.

The news below is exciting to read. So many possibilities. I am not paralyzed, but my disability will benefit from this research also.

Mar 28, 5:12 PM EST

Transplanted Mice Cells Ease Rat Paralysis

By MALCOLM RITTER
AP Science Writer

Other News Video









NEW YORK (AP) -- Scientists eased the paralysis of rats with spinal cord injury by transplanting cells taken from the brains of adult mice, an encouraging sign for developing a human treatment, researchers reported.

Someday, such cells might be taken from the brains of patients with spinal cord injuries for their own treatment, said researcher Dr. Michael Fehlings.

In addition, similar cells are found in the spinal cord, so perhaps researchers may find a way to activate them to improve a person's mobility, he said.

Fehlings, of the University of Toronto and the Toronto Western Research Institute in Canada, and colleagues report the rodent experiment in Wednesday's issue of the Journal of Neuroscience.




The work used 97 rats. Spinal injuries were created in the lab, and the mouse brain cells were implanted two weeks or eight weeks later. While the animals didn't start walking normally, those treated at the two-week mark did gain in coordination and ability to bear weight on their hind limbs.

Those treated eight weeks after the injury weren't helped, which Fehlings and other experts said illustrated a hurdle in treating spinal cord patients long after their injury.

Previous studies also have reported improvement in paralyzed lab animals with transplanted cells. But experts said the new work was notable because the cells were taken from adult animals rather than fetuses or embryos, and they produced an effect even when implanted two weeks after the injury.

"It's an important step forward," said Dr. John McDonald, director of the International Center for Spinal Cord Injury at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore.

Buy AP Photo Reprints






The transplanted cells, called neural precursor cells, are not as versatile as embryonic stem cells because they can give rise only to cells of the nervous system, Fehlings said.

Once implanted, they formed cells that can create a sheath around nerve fibers that resembles insulation around wires. Such sheaths are disrupted in spinal cord injury and restoring them produced the therapeutic effect in the rats, he said.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

There are indeed other sources for stem cells, and in fact, those other sources are the only ones that have had any real success. Rather than get you all lost in the science, let's just say that there are good reasons why EMBRYONIC stem cells (harvested from LIVING, VIABLE embryos) may never become a viable treatment for anything. But various types of adult stem cells, available from various sources, have led to the only apparently safe and successful treatments involving stem cells.

Since it's only EMBRYONIC stem cells that are controversial, and only NON-embryonic stem cells that have shown any true promise, government funding should be limited to other types of stem cell research, thereby avoiding forcing so many of us to violate our religious beliefs and consciences every time we pay our taxes, while making the best use of taxpayer funds by using them only for the most promising research.

The ONLY reason we have these bills that specifically promise funding for EMBRYONIC - the most unethical - or regardless of your position you have to admit, the most CONTROVERSIAL - kind of stem cell research, is because liberals in the scientific establishment want to SHOVE thier beliefs down EVERYONE'S throats. They've already got the freedom to do this kind of research with the support of those who don't object to it. NOW they want to FORCE all of us to participate every time we pay our taxes.

P.S. PHISH - In my opinion, medical science has taught us that such embryos are in fact alive... the only reason one would deliberately choose to ignore that fact is because it gives you the option of murdering your offspring without feeling guilty. Even the pro-choicers with any kind of scientific experience agree that embryos are living offspring. They just hapen to think it's okay for the mother to kill her baby by means of their twisted ethic.

I don't have a problem with any form of stem-cell research but I don't think that our tax money should be spent on it. Before you give me a long list of other things our taxes are spent on, don't bother, I probably don't agree with them either. And you can also spare me the righteous indignation about murdering babies.

I did a small report on stem cell research for a class in college last year. One thing I found interesting is that the majority of medical text books declare that life begins at conception and that researchers make every attempt to forget that and try to cloud the issue with their form of science (call it protecting their job). I have a hard time picking a side. If the embryos from IV are going to be destroyed why not use them for research? I am against creating embryos for research use.

Also, adult stem cells can be obtained from amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, brain tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, as well as skin, hair follicles, tendons, and heart muscles.
It is also important to know that adult stem cells are currently being used clinically and that the clinical use of embryonic stem cells is years away. Currently some 56 diseases are being treated using adult stem cells.

Based on this information I see no use for embyonic Stem cell research.

Let the debate roll on.....

I've always been skeptical of the stated potential benefits of stem cell research but I would still more than likely contribute to private efforts to pursue it. I've given to the American Cancer Society for 30 years and haven't seen any major break throughs in curing cancer.

City Park Dad--absolutely correct. The basis behind the established "life begins at conception" (which is even stated in all research) is that they(scientists) have never been able to 'create' life. and that as soon as the egg is fertilized, it is alive. and of that there is no dispute.
So, all research in this area should be privately financed. What the heck is the government involving themselves in this for????

Heck, the legislators do such a good job on everything they touch we don't have enough vaccines for the flu each year..

tax payers have been paying to kill children for a long time now, they just give it defferant names to make it seem ok.

tagout--amen.

I shall not go there. My arguments against taxpayers paying for any of this are moral ones. I do not believe man should play --d.

"We're going to sign it," Ehrlich said of the bill that passed the House 90 to 48 and had already won approval in the Senate. "It furthers our reputation nationally and internationally. . . . It helps us retain our best and brightest here."

In a way you are correct, one-term governor Ehrlich: it further DEGRADES our state's reputation nationally and internationally. Ours is known to be one of the most liberal in the nation, desperately lacking in morals. By signing this radical bill, you are simply showing that even when we elect so-called Republicans, we get the same kind of cr@p. I've got bad news for you, bud: I and other like-minded Marylanders will not forget this, and we will NOT be silent!

I appreciate all of the people who posted, recognizing that my opposition to THIS bill was more a matter of basic fairness. In fact, in this case, what we have is those who see nothing wrong with creating and killing human embryos intentionally imposing their morality on the entire taxpaying populace of the State of Maryland.

I have no problem with government by the people and for the people and majority rules.

As long as things go in your favor?

Sorry, but I have zero respect for that opinion, because I know darned well that if you weren't in the majority you would doubtless disagree. But I don't think you can even rightly say you're in the majority on this one yet. This hasn't been put to a popular vote so neither of us can say for sure who is truly in the majority.

I can't help but ask: do you support or oppose the efforts in this state to put gay marriage to a vote? Were it put to a vote, as in every other state where it has been voted on, gay marriage would be banned. Which is why those who oppose it have denied Marylanders the right to vote on it. I wonder how you feel about that?

Maybe the first step, since you say you support government by the people and majority rule, should be to put it on the ballot and let the people decide. Until that happens, I don't really think you can't rightly say the majority has ruled.

------

Once we establish for sure who is truly in the majority, then we can get into the question of whether it's right for the majority to force the minority to take part in an activity that deeply offends their religious beliefs. While I won't deny you that in many matters a simple majority opinion should set policy and rules, I think that when it comes to highly controversial issues the majority still needs to be sensitive to the religious beliefs and moral objections of the minority, especially when the minority is not such a small percentage of the populace as to be truly negligible.

There are all kinds of minority special interest groups who demand we cater to them when setting public policy, and we often do so in order to keep the peace and in the interest of fairness.

For example, while I steadfastly resist special rights for homosexuals, I agree with those who say we should not prosecute people for sodomy. While I may not want to be forced to grant them special rights and status, I don't agree with old laws that would have us treat them as criminals.

B's on one of his soapboxes again - he's so predicable....

B, no matter how hard anybody tries, they're not going to have their way in everything that happens in this world. Keep trying, and be happy with what you are successful in achieving. For that which you are not successful in, well, you'll just have to get happy in the same pants you got mad in.

Whether you believe it or not, the majority usually does have their say. One sortof recent example of the majority winning (and it not being the best choice) - The Shrub!

Where do they have that?

Sounds like some communist idea to me.

I posted about a newsworthy current issue in Maryland politics in the appropriate forum for it. I even dared to actually post on something that I personally care about. So freakin' excuse me for behaving logically, and contributing to this forum!

How about instead of attacking me personally for daring to post about something that I actually have an interest in, why don't YOU make a real contribution to these boards by posting about something that YOU care about? This place has become a ghost town lately, with nobody posting hardly anything worth reading, much less discussing. Excuse me for making a positive contribution!

How many new threads have YOU started? How about if you tried? Unlike you, I promise I won't ridicule you for daring to post about something that interests you.

Cheese-Louise! I thought we were actually having a decent, peaceable discussion, until Yoss decided to just be a total a$$. Great Moderators they have here...

I understand that it interests you - you make your living in a similar field (research), and I did not attack you personally - you interpreted it that way.

I, like others, just have a different opinion than yours. From what I've seen of "the discussion" thus far, you have belittled other folks' opinions because they don't agree with yours, but not considered their opinons. That's not a "discussion" IMO, and probably has a lot to do with why fewer and fewer people expend the energy to "discuss" things with you.

Allegiance to one's faith is a purely personal thing, and it's very difficult to "discuss" a topic when the person you are "discussing" with has formed their opinions exclusively on that basis. I don't happen to believe the world is quite as black or white as others do.

As far as me starting threads about things I care about, it's not necessary. I have similar interests to the rest of you, and have contributed my opinions to threads in the past. Right now, my main interests are surviving the M-F grind, and spring coming so that I can go outside and dig in the dirt, and there are already topics on the board about that - why start another?

Thank you for at least being civil.

I'm lobbying for truth in labeling on any medicine developed from stem cells extracted from human embryos.

Anyone opposed to such research will not have to benefit from it or have their loved ones' health improved or life saved by such medicine.

Millenium,

I have a question for you and anyone else who would like to chime in. Yoss, if you feel this is too off topic, pls go ahead and move it or close it. I can start another thread. But, I really just want to understand your reasoning.

Let's put morality aside. A woman has the right to choose whatever she wants to do with her body and that of her offspring. Although I don't agree with that, it is a fact at this time in history. I do not believe my opinion can be changed, but I do want to understand yours. I know this is a very emotional topic for many. I am not trying to stir up any anger. This topic makes me very sad, not angry.

Anyway, what do you all actually believe the embryo is exactly?? If it is not alive, then what is it? I just do not understand what the popular view is. Thank you.

And, if there are others ways to research this issue, why do you feel we should go ahead and use embryo?
I will listen carefully as I really do want to see from your eyes.

I have considered and flatly rejected the opposing view. I have presented my own opposing opinions. Sorry, but once again you confuse my own dedication to my own views as belittling of yours. I don't have to accept your opinions nor admit they have any merit whatsoever, because in my opinion they do not. Your expectations of me are totally unreasonable, and your condemnation of my deidication to my own opinions is despicable. Your inferiority complex is annoying as heck!

I recognise your right to present your views and I will not give up my own to refute and reject them completely. My dedication to my own views is strong. You're obviously more comfortable with namby-pamby wishy-washy types who think that morality is realtive to every situation. I and millions of other voting citizens believe differently and you'll never change that.

I also don't appreciate you denigrating my opinons just because they are based on my religious beliefs. People's opinions are always based on their world view. Their world view is determined by their religious beliefs, whatever they may be. Just because your beliefs may be based on Humanism or Naturism rather than biblical Christianity, that doesn't make them any less religious than mine. Unless your condemnation of religion is really just condemnation of Christian religion, or perhaps more broadly, Judeo-Christian religion. In any event my opions are always going to be mased on my morality, as yours will be based on your own. There's nothing wrong with that and I will not apoliogize for it.


I too. Also for similar labelling of vaccines produced using cells derived from aborted babies. For example, did you know that the current chickenpox and rubella vaccines are made in cells orginally derived from abortions? How many young couples would still accept it if they were told this first? How many would at least lobby for the development of morally-acceptable alternatives if they knew? But the big vaccine manufacturers are hiding their dirty deeds done in conjunction with the abortion industry.


It might be interesting to see what some folks have to say in response, but it hardly matters. What matter is what embryos really ARE. The truth is not what people wish it to be nor delude themselves into thinking it is. Embryos are living human beings who would go on and grow and develop just like every other person and become productive taxpaying citizens if given the opportunity and support needed to live that long.

[quote name='BMIC' date='Apr 1 2006, 10:42 AM' post='52270']
[quote name='sheash' post='52258' date='Mar 31 2006, 09:24 PM']
Your inferiority complex is annoying as heck!

You're obviously more comfortable with namby-pamby wishy-washy types who think that morality is realtive to every situation. quote ]/



BMIC,

I think the above name calling tactics is what Sheash is referring to; not the actual difference in opinion. (Sheash, pls correct me if I am wrong). We all need to remember that each person has their own opinion for whatever reason, and it IS valid, whether it goes against our morality or not. Everyone on this board knows how strongly you believe, B. And, I, for one, am grateful for your lobbying efforts. However, people lose respect when you name call and put down their ideas and opinions. Gosh, if you can not see that, I would gladly like to help you out here. I could go back and copy and paste all the name calling you have used. You get so angry when someone calls you a name....ie Heather calling you a troll. Man, you would have thought she threatened your life. So, you hopefully we can all work towards REAL TRUE respect both ways! Thanks.

The only people I am calling names in the above are some unnamed moral relativists. Unless you count yourself one of them you have no right to take offense. And "namby-pamby" and "wishy-washy" are both terms aptly used to describe people whose opinions change based on circumstances, i.e., moral relativists. I used the right term to describe the right kind of person. I do not amre them, or I would call them "open-minded". But what many call open-mindedness is often more truly wishy-washy namby-pambyism. That's my opinion, that's not name-calling.

A**hole, or d*ckhead, or d*mbas* or some such would be name-calling.

Forgive the repetition but I've said all I needed to say.

Good idea. I'll sign your petition, I'm all for truth and openness. But it will never happen.

I was once one of over a million signers of a petition to force abortion clinics to disclose publicly all the names of people who have had abortions. One of the most vocal groups to oppose the idea was The National Right To Life Committee.

[quote name='Checkingin' post='52273' date='Apr 1 2006, 03:54 PM'][quote name='BMIC' post='52270' date='Apr 1 2006, 10:42 AM']
[quote name='sheash' post='52258' date='Mar 31 2006, 09:24 PM']
Your inferiority complex is annoying as heck!

You're obviously more comfortable with namby-pamby wishy-washy types who think that morality is realtive to every situation. quote ]/



BMIC,

I think the above name calling tactics is what Sheash is referring to; not the actual difference in opinion. (Sheash, pls correct me if I am wrong). We all need to remember that each person has their own opinion for whatever reason, and it IS valid, whether it goes against our morality or not. Everyone on this board knows how strongly you believe, B. And, I, for one, am grateful for your lobbying efforts. However, people lose respect when you name call and put down their ideas and opinions. Gosh, if you can not see that, I would gladly like to help you out here. I could go back and copy and paste all the name calling you have used. You get so angry when someone calls you a name....ie Heather calling you a troll. Man, you would have thought she threatened your life. So, you hopefully we can all work towards REAL TRUE respect both ways! Thanks.[/quote]


Yes, that's a good start on what I was referring to; along with the assumption that the morality of anybody who does not agree with his opinion is based on a relative situation, and the insinuation that they therefore must not be aware of "biblical Christianity".

I know better than to ask him to accept my view of the issue, but I do expect him to at least listen and not belittle it. It's common courtesy if nothing else.

I will have to research his claim about the chickenpox vaccine; I've never heard such a thing. But even if what he has told us is true, I don't think I have a problem with it. Those babies were not aborted for the sole purpose of making a vaccine; why not at least derive some positive thing from it? Sort of like being an organ donor.

BTW, I fully support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion during the first trimester. I don't think the federal government should have to pay for them with our tax money, but I'm guessing that most abortions aren't funded with federal money, anyhow.

This is all hypothetical, of course.

Going out today and buy a pair of rose colored glasses........ so I can see the same things some people in here see....

question for you Idiot>> what exactly would you do with this information? Is there some hit squad that would go out and execute the names on this list? I just don't understand what possible reason someone would want these names published. Is it to shame or humiliate them? and if thats the case why stop there?

Can you post a source? I've only found that the flu vaccine is made in chicken eggs (as it always has been).

Measles/Mumps/Rubella on the other hand, is made from human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue). Other vaccines using human diploid cells include: Hepatitis A, Rabies, and Varicella.
As Sheash mentioned, these abortions are taking place for the sole purpose of making vaccines.

Good questions. The group's real purpose, though it was never stated, was to expose the number of pro-life types who had had abortions, or had assisted a family member or friend in having one. They believed the percentage to be 30-40% of the total. They came to that conclusion by filming patients coming and going from 12 clinics around the country along with also filming protests at those same clinics or local pro-life marches. They even started pro-choice marches or events just to get the pro-lifers to turn out so that they could get them on film. In several cases people were protesting abortion just days after having had one. They also relied on locals who supported their cause to identify people as pro-life though not by name. That number accounted for about 10% of the total, which I disregarded. So I would say the percentage is closer to 25-35%. This was not against the law because no audio was recorded, however some of those regions have changed the law since then. They knew it would never pass, nor did they really want it to, but they still somewhat accomplished one of their goals, which was to let people know that not only pro-choice people have abortions.

Over 85% of the signers were pro-life types, that's over 850,000 people. They didn't all buy into the reasoning the national leaders gave for opposing the idea. I was one of the last signers, they were making a big push to get to the 1 million mark before they held a media event on the steps of the Capitol building.

You know, I have a problem with that whole concept. I seriously doubt that those pro-life people were being two-faced, I would like to think instead, that they were in a situation where having an abortion was their last resort. You might teach a dog not to poop on the rug by rubbing his nose in it, but these are human beings, and they deserve respect and privacy. Yes, I know the Constitution doesn't grant us a right to privacy, but IMO, respect does.

The world would be a much better place if people minded their own business and stopped trying to run their neighbors' lives!

Isn't that the whole point though? Don't most pro-life people state that there are no situations where abortion would be acceptable in their eyes? Besides, if it were a life or death situation, where having an abortion would save the life of the mother, wouldn't it most likely be done in a hospital instead of a clinic?

Im not totally against abortion.I believe if the mothers life is in danger a abortion should be the mothers choice.I dont agree with women who use abortion as a form of birth control(some women have several abortions)but its not illegal & I accept that I personally dont agree with it but thats life.I still think that there are other options instead of developing fetuses for that purpose.If women are going to have abortions anyway then I dont see using aborted fetuses for stem cell research wrong.The researchers are not the ones who had the abortions performed.Stem cell Research has so many potential benefits like helping the paralyzed ,and helping people with neurological disorders.I do believe that they should do more research on other options & use them first.(like stem cells from cord blood)Stem Cell Research is very important & I feel that they should continue Reasearch I just dont agree 100% with their current medthods.

Many women who've been through abortion and discovered that it was NOT the minor little inconvenience that the abortion industry pretends it to be, have learned from their experience and now oppose it vehemently. Post-abortion syndrome can be severe, and the liberals don't even want anybody to know about it.

By the way, abortions to save the life of the mother are extremely rare. They're just a smokescreen liberals use to cloud the issue.

P.S. EMBRYONIC stem cell research has helped nobody. ADULT stem cell research is the only one that is ethical and it has indeed helped some people. It is where the SMART money is going, while txpayers are being asked to waste their money on embrynic stem cells, which most likely will never do anything but cause tumors.

Yes, B, I agree.
I talked to my doctor from Johns Hopkins awhile ago and asked about this very thing. He told me that the embryonic research has shown that it does help rejuvenate nerve cells but they do not have a way to stop the growth. So, you end up with something like a cancer.

I am not sure if all my details above are completely accurate to what he said....just going by my memory and (like Rowdy) it ain't all that great these days! But, I do remember he said that the cells keep growing and growing and won't stop. Yikes.

It offends me that people want to pin statements such as the one above on "liberals", as if they are terrible folks who want to send the world to hell. "Conservatives'" insist that women who have abortions are "walking wounded", which IMO, is a bunch of crap. Sorry, but if you play, you pay. And if you choose to have an abortion because you played, then don't expect me to buy that statement. As B has so often said, there are alternatives to abortions, and if you are so mentally fragile that you would fit into that category, you're stupid to have that abortion anyhow. People need to grow up and take responsibility for their mistakes, not blame them on others.

And there is no such thing as an "abortion industry" - they are medical professionals who provide a service to women who desire it. You make it sound as if they snatch pregnant women off the street and perform abortions on them so that they can use the aborted fetus for research, developing vaccines, whatever.

As I've said many times before, both liberals and conservatives have some part of their platform that every person is not comfortable with. It is not reasonable to expect that somebody can be exclusively a liberal or exclusively a conservative, unless they are also an idiot (sorry, id). For example, B swears he is a conservative, but even he has said that the current (conservative) president is an a$$. And the folks who want to label people as one or the other are fools to try and do so.

Any volunteers??


Testicles reportedly used to make stem cells
U.S. company claims research produced new nerve, heart and bone cells


Related Stories • Mouse testes may hold stem cells' promise

Updated: 5:53 p.m. ET April 3, 2006

U.S. researchers said Saturday they had transformed immature cells from men’s testicles into powerful stem cells, which they then coaxed into becoming nerve, heart and bone cells.

Their work has not been assessed by standard peer-review processes, but was presented at a meeting of stem cell researchers in Valencia, Spain. If other researchers can duplicate their efforts, the study offers a possible new source of valuable stem cells.

The researchers, at Irvine, Calif.-based PrimeGen Biotech LLC, worked with immature cells found in testes and ovaries known as germ cells. Scientists have hoped to use germ cells as a source of tissues for transplant and other medical uses.

The findings are certain to be scrutinized before they are accepted. Earlier this year, South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-Suk was disgraced for having faked two studies in which he claimed to have cloned human volunteers and used the resulting embryos as a source of embryonic stem cells.

Last week, Gerd Hasenfuss of Georg-August-University in Goettingen, Germany and colleagues reported in the journal Nature that they had transformed mouse germ cells into stem cells.

Francisco Silva and colleagues said they had accomplished the same thing, and taken it several steps further by doing the same thing with human germ cells.

“Germ cells isolated from adult human testis can be therapeutically reprogrammed to have the ability to differentiate into cells that can be used therapeutically for cell-based regenerative medicine,” they wrote for a presentation at the meeting in Spain.

“We’ve already been able to reproducibly differentiate heart, brain, bone and cartilage cells, and we are excited to begin testing how these cells incorporate into tissues,” Silva said in a statement.

Different sources of stem cells
Stem cells are the body’s master cells, and scientists are working to learn how to find and use them to replace tissue, to grow new organs, and to study diseases.

There are many different sources. So-called adult stem cells are found throughout the body, although they are difficult to identify. Bone marrow stem cells are routinely used in transplants to treat cancer and other diseases. But they are already partly programmed and can only serve as a source of a limited range of related cells.

Stem cells taken from fetuses are somewhat more flexible. The most immature cells are taken from very early fetuses called blastocysts. These embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can serve as a source of any kind of other cells or tissue in the body at all.

Embryonic stem cells are controversial because some people believe that using them is tantamount to destroying a human life, and U.S. federal law strictly limits the use of taxpayer funds for working with them.

So researchers are seeking other sources of stem cells, both for this reason, and in the interest of finding the best possible sources for them.

Silva’s team took cells from the testes of men aged 26 to 50 years old. They grew them in various formulas of cell culture, first to re-program to act as malleable stem cells, and then to use them to grow various cell types.

“Our goal is to create the most potent cell lines to enable the most effective treatments and therapies for as many diseases as possible,” said Silva.

Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

Sheash:





Don't take it personally, Sheash. B seems to see the world in black and white......liberals vs. conservatives. Nothing personal.

Sheash is the one who sees everything in black and white. Whenever she goes off and posts like she did above, all I can really say is WRONG...WRONG...WRONG. She believes the sky is polka-dotted and water flows uphill. Sorry you can't make it so by spouting a pack of stinking lies.

The abortion industry is HUGE in this nation. It's well-organized and extremely politically powerful. Because of people like sheash, the blood of millions of innocent babes is on all of our heads. Keep spouting your lies and propaganda: Nobody's buying it.

Sorry to be so rude - just replying in kind.

Looks like Ehrlich will sign the bill into law.

The unfortunate thing is that no matter who is elected governor, the question is not if he or she will spend our money on stem cell research, but how much of it they will spend. There's got to be a better candidate than the clowns who are running.

B, after all this time, it's obvious that you just don't get (understand) me - you've got a mental block in the brain that tells you that whatever I say, it's incorrect. I feel sorry for you, but next time you go off and accuse me of not discussing things I feel strongly about, try to remember this thread. I'm not spouting any lies, I'm sharing my opinions and my view on the issue.

And yes, you ARE rude. I was not rude to you; I have tried to discuss the situation without pointing any fingers, but as I said several posts ago, you tend to interpret everything I say as a personal attack on you. All I can figure is that you feel threatened by what I believe - too bad because that isn't my goal.

I agree. There are no valid choices this time around. Ehrlich is sure to lose, because I'll stay home before I'll cast my vote for a RINO, and there are plenty of others who feel the same way. We came out in huge numbers to put the man in office just because he was a Republican. This time around, we know better. If they're all gonna vote the same on all of the important moral issues, I may just vote Democrat if one of them has a better approach to dealing with the social issues.

I will back the bill. If it would mean that it could wipe out childhood diabetes and the kids would not have to suffer this dreadful disease for their entire life...then yes, it is very much worth using. They are not baby killers...get real!

"I may just vote Democrat if one of them has a better approach to dealing with the social issues"

B> has someone kidnapped you and are forcing you to say these things against your will? heather doesn't have you locked up in her basement does she?

I agree Ehrlich has been a major disappointment. I really had high hopes for him but it just isn't working out
like I expected. he's kind of like ex-mayor Trump. Miller and the rest of the dems are doing everything they can to sabotage his term.