UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

It perfectly demonstrates how ludicrous the argument against it is.

Link: Every Sperm is Sacred

(no message)

Maybe you just want me to spread the humor around. I'll stick to mocking my people, thank you.

What's with this "my people" stuff?

C'mon Kill....you know Christians have always fought with each other, its what we do best. Scores of tortured and murdered people will attest to that. I'm a more superior catholic than you and ten times the christian than anyone I know. Why? Cuz I said so.

Science is making great strides in using adult stem cells for healing patients. Below I'll quote and link several articles about this. There's a few basics I want to pass on first.
1) Using adult stem cells means doctors can use the patients own cells, thus removing the risk of rejection.
2) Any kind of cells from any part of the body can be created using adult stem cells, just like embryonic stem cells are supposed to do.
3) While they are having such success with adult stem cells, there is nothing coming forwards from embryonic stem cells. Zip. Nada. Despite ample private funding.
4) There is a big push on for Embryonic research, and almost all of it leads to emotional reactions and low-road fighting. In the midst of this, the facts are being suppressed. Some believe that there is a bigger reason that the adult stem cell successes are being overlooked by the embryonic research people. The suspicion is that, while adult stem cells used from the patient themselves will work fine for healing injuries, it doesn't allow for stem cells from foreign sources to be used in research, nor the possibilities of harvesting. Why is that important? Because there are researches into cloning and human-animal hybrids that will almost certainly require lots of stem cells. I don't know about this, but it does raise an alarm.

Using what they say is a relatively simple method, scientists at Georgetown University Medical Center have extracted stem/progenitor cells from adult testes and have converted them back into pluripotent embryonic-like stem cells. Researchers say that the naïve cells are now potentially capable of morphing into any cell type that a body needs, from brain neurons to pancreatic tissue.

And because they produced these stem cells without the use of additional genes, the technology should be safe for human use, the researchers say in a paper published online in the journal Stem Cells and Development.
link

The question of stem cells is currently the dominant subject in the debate over biotechnology and human genetics: Should we use embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells for future medical therapies? Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue).
.....

It is remarkable that in the debate–often carried on with little competence–the potential of embryonic stem cells is exaggerated in a one-sided way, while important moral questions and issues of research strategy are passed over in silence. Generally, advocates of research with embryonic stem cells use as their main argument that such research will enable us to cure all of the diseases that are incurable today–cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, and so forth. Faced with such a prospect, it is supposed to be "acceptable" to "overlook" a few moral problems.

On closer inspection, however, the much extolled vision of the future turns out to be a case of completely empty promises: Given the elementary state of research today, it is by no means yet foreseeable, whether even one of the hoped-for treatments can be realized. Basically, such promised cures are a deliberate deception, for behind the mirage of a coming medical wonderland, promoted by interested parties, completely other research objectives will be pursued that are to be kept out of public discussion as much as possible.

Perfect candor should rule in stem cell research. This requires that the scientist himself clearly establish the moral limits of his activity and declare what the consequences of research with embryonic stem cells really are. In the process, no one can escape the fact that, should one wish to use embryonic stem cells for "therapeutic purposes," the very techniques will be developed that will also be used for the cloning of human beings, the making of human-animal hybrids, the manipulation of germ lines, and the like–thus for everything other than therapeutic purposes. Any coverup or hypocrisy in this matter will very quickly reflect upon the research as a whole.
link

Using a potion of growth factors and other nutrients, scientists at Jefferson Medical College have shown in the laboratory they are able to convert adult human bone marrow stem cells into adult brain cells.
link

Researchers at Jefferson Medical College have found a new way to coax bone marrow stem cells into becoming dopamine-producing neurons. If the method proves reliable, the work may ultimately lead to new therapies for neurological diseases such as Parkinson's disease, which is marked by a loss of dopamine-making cells in the brain.
link

I can supply loads more if you need.

(no message)

Link: Close, but not there yet.

The real lesson of the stem-cell debate was not on display in the president's decision. That lesson, made evident through new alternative stem-cell techniques, is that precisely because science is flexible, ethics must be clear and firm. Given proper direction from the larger society, our scientists are up to the task of finding ways to advance research without crossing crucial moral boundaries. To avoid the choice between science and ethics, we should insist on ethical science, and see the task of self-government in an age of biotechnology, in Bush's words, "as a challenge to advance medicine while meeting our solemn obligation to defend human life."

That twofold challenge will weigh heavily on the politics of the coming decades, and it will not be easy to meet. But "could it really work?" Yes, with the right policies, and the right scientific techniques, it could.

Sounds like he's saying that adult stem cells can work.

(no message)

Why wouldn't scientists use adult stem cells if they worked better? Do you think they really just hate fertilized embryos?

If adult stem cells work better, then great. But I will trust the scientists over the religious zealots every time.

Those links are scientific studies. They are documented, fact.

So I'm a religious zealot for looking for and seeing the facts? What are you for ignoring them?

Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies. If you can get enough adult cells they tend to work better, but that is the rub. Both fields need research and develoment.

You conservatives see everything in black and white, either/or. Start looking for shades of grey.

In a significant advance for regenerative medicine, researchers at Rice University have discovered a new way to culture adult stem cells from bone marrow such that the cells themselves produce a growth matrix that is rich in important biochemical growth factors.
...
"These results are important, not just because they hold great promise for regenerating healthy bone but also because they may be applicable to other tissues," said researcher Antonios Mikos, the John W. Cox Professor of Bioengineering and Director of Rice's Center for Excellence in Tissue Engineering.


Link: link

(no message)

It is what it is.

(no message)

Here's hoping He doesn't tickle my ass with a feather.

are a bitch!

(no message)

It goes something like this:

Yeah, we know that the discarded embryos exist anyway, but they shouldn't be used to save lives because we don't like where they came from.

Not to mention that the process that creates the discarded embryos creates life, but that's neither here nor there. The church's position is to continue wasting the embryos. Yeah, that's group I'll follow blindly.

...what higher purpose is there for an embryo than life?...

When they could be used to potentially save lives.

...how is a child a waste of life?...especially with so many adoptive parents waiting?...

Yeah, that sounds reasonable and not fraught with awful outcomes.

As tough a message as it is for childless couples to hear, IVF cannot be condoned, as long as it relies on the creation of many to produce a few. This denial of the humanity of each created embryo is no different or less reprehensible than the denial of humanity that permits some to rationalize abortion, euthanasia or capital punishment. All life and all lives are sacred--not just the ones that convenience dictates we recognize.

Any argument that would allow that scientific and medical advances derived from embryonic stem cell research are a good thing and that such good is preferable to the destruction of the embryos is a false argument. The practice of creating lives to be sacrificed in the pursuit of advances for select others is dehumanizing. The comparisons to Nazi medical "researchers" is not a stretch.

It makes NO sense whatsoever to oppose IVF - unless one is so monomaniacally opposed to abortion that all else is blurred.

IVF HELPS life. Get it, McLovin?

I get your point, but disagree. And for me, the issue is not just an end-around to get to the abortion debate. For me, it is about consistency. And the Church offers the only consistent policy in these areas. All human life is sacred.

This does not translate well into a political forum because it doesn't respect party lines or platforms. So, please understand that I hold these beliefs but do not have an exaggerated perception of their ability to sway political debate. The bottom line for me is: life begins at conception. Any attempt to willfully interrupt that life is unacceptable. And I'll say it--evil. I am not the type to call people out and demonize them for decisions they make. Each person's life is his or hers to live and make decisions--good or bad. But I do believe that the ends sought by those who pursue IVF, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, embryonic stem cell research do not justify the means. And the mere existence of information cannot and should not be divorced from the means that were used to generate that information.

Regarding the debate over life and abortion, I am always taken back to C. Everett Koop's thoughts. If you haven't read his autobiography, it's worthwhile, especially if your a physician. But Koop caught hell as Surgeon General for not taking a public/official stand against abortion. He explained it this way: " he conceived of abortion as a moral issue that could only be resolved through moral inquiry and reform, not as a public health issue that was amenable to medical or scientific solutions." And so I pray about it more than I rail about it.


This whole debate, and others like it, reminds me of discussions I have with a buddy of mine who is also Catholic. I ride him because he is a "cafeteria Catholic", choosing Church teachings he will believe and follow while vehemently challenging others. He's a bright guy and his arguments, like many that appear here, are persuasive. But they miss the main point--our Church is not a democracy. It is not open in every aspect to rigorous debate and mutation of its policies. It is a living body guided by the Holy Spirit, who guides the Pope. So debate about established policies is actually potentially destructive when Catholics take active (and, but not only, public) stances against Church positions. If you want to hear a take on this, I refer you to Google--search St. Mary's Catholic Church Greenville South Carolina. There you will find a website for one of the local parishes here. And if you go to the website, follow the link to Discipleship, then Audio Homilies. From there pull up the one from Jan 18, 2009. It discusses the dimensions and implications of Christian Unity for individual Catholics and the Church in general (this was the week set aside by the Church for prayer for Christian unity). He makes the point that if we take positions directly at odds with Church teaching, we are not in Communion with the Church, whether we take these publicly or privately. It's a tough standard, but I believe a valid one.

(If you take the link, you might recognize the pastor's name. He made national headlines when his homily regarding Catholics in favor of abortion not receiving communion.)

The Church can't truly ask its parishoners to accept everything it says (no matter how ridiculous some of those things may be - condoms in Africa) without question or argument. If they do, they will be left with a really ill-informed and, frankly, stupid church.

(no message)

(no message)

Galileo stated as fact something which the technology of his time could not prove...He was disagreeing with Aristotle and couldn't prove what he was saying...when it was provable, it was accepted...got any proof an embryo is not "life" created by God?...

The Church tried, convicted, and punished him for heresy. His fellow scientists were "harsher" than that?

... Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter of 1615, said if the "orbiting of the Earth around the sun were ever to be demonstrated to be certain, then theologians…would have to review biblical passages apparently opposed to the Copernican theories so as to avoid asserting the error of opinions proven to be true." The difficulty in 1616 – and 1633 – was that "Galileo had not succeeded in proving irrefutably the double motion of the Earth…. More than 150 years still had to pass before" such proofs were scientifically established.

Galileo, in his house arrest, was given every opportunity to prove his theory..as scientists, many of whom were Protestant, pushed that he should be put to death for his heresy.

This is an old cudgel that is dragged out every time somebody wants say The Catholic Church is anti-science...it is preposterously simple minded...Copernicus was a Catholic priest...Galileo, by his own daughter's account (she was a nun), loved the Church until the end...

So you're saying the Catholic Church didn't agree with Galileo because science had yet to back his assertion that the universe was heliocentric (sun-centered) as opposed to the traditional Bibical geocentric (earth-centered) tradition, and that this science was still 150 years from being confirmed. The assumption being that the Church came around to Copernicus' and Galileo's way of thinking in the 1780s.

Any reason the Vatican didn't get around to saying "Galileo was right and we were wrong" until 1991? If there was something over ther span of those 210 years acknowledging they were merely being careful as opposed to just acting like archaic tards--a letter, a memo, an interview--maybe I'd buy into your revisionist history.

Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views as fact...and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them...the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved...

This issue involved the Protestants as well...and they were less tolerant than Mother Church...The reformation caused a lotta shit to hit the fan...and Galileo's unproven "facts" added fuel to that fire in the context of individual scriptural interpretation...

Should there have been a trial?...Aw, hell no...that's just Urban and Galileo BOTH being assholes...,
If either had reined in their considerable ego it would never have happened...to ignore that is folly..

1) Who? Which scientists tried to have Galileo executed?

2) Is trash talk from fellow scientists harsher than being tried, convicted, and incarcerated for heresy? I'd say "no." My fellow professionals can talk all the crap they want about me. I'll take that over the cops hauling me away anyday.

Common Knowledge:

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprisonment. Galileo was, in fact, treated well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "[i]n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof."

If you want names of those who sought to have Galileo put to death, you have to talk to Whitehead...

Cops?...who said anything about the cops?...

Galileo's own daughter and his friend Nicolini felt The Church made an honest effort to protect the guy...

Who said Galileo was "tortured?" I certainly didn't. I said he was tried and convicted of heresy, and he was imprisoned. In "good conditions?" Okay. Fine. I wouldn't respond well to being put on house arrest for my beliefs, even if my home provided "good conditions."

Who said anything about cops? I did. I was making a modern day comparison. Putting it in relevent contemporary terms. Cops = authority / Church = authority. Tried, convicted, imprisoned.

So, can we get back to the question? You claim that people within the scientific community called for Galileo's death. If you can document that, great, I'll accept it. I'm always willing to be educated. But you responded with gobbledygook.

Common knowledge. Ask Whitehead. In other words, you have no actual support for your claim.

...In your earlier post, you said Galileo was convicted of "heresy"...that is patently untrue...any number of sources will refute that assertion...pick any one you like.

...You said he was "hauled off and "imprisoned"...he was taken to a guarded luxury residence, and given a servant...his own close friend spoke of his good care...

Consider these other facts:

1. Neither Galileo, nor any other scientist, was put to death by the medieval Church for there scientific views.

2. The Catholic authorities of Galileo’s day had little trouble with heliocentrism per se. Many of the leading Catholic scientists were actually Copernicans. Copernicus’s treatise on heliocentrism had been in print for seventy years prior to Galileo’s conflict with the Church.

3. Galileo remained a devout and loyal Catholic until the end of his life.

4. Most important, the conflict between Galileo and the Church took place in the context of the Protestant Reformation, a context that is almost always omitted from popular accounts of Galileo’s trial. The key issue in this conflict was not heliocentrism per se, but the authority of the individual believer to interpret Scripture anyway they liked. Galileo’s argument that scientists should interpret the Bible to conform to their scientific views was close to Luther’s view that the believer should be his own interpreter of Scripture. It was Lutheranism, not heliocentrism, that alarmed the Church leaders.

Galileo was caught up in a larger, theological and ecclesiastical controversy. He was not simply a truth-seeking scientists going up against a bigoted Establishment.

And let's not forget Galileo taught AS FACT that the Sun WAS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE...that's still bullshit as far as I know...

...I will grant you that I cannot currently produce the name of Protestants on record as wanting Galileo executed...However, it is widely known that Luther, Calvin, and Wittenberg U thought Copernicus was full of shit and refused to teach heliocentrism...got plenty of references there if you need them...and given the
Protestant proclivity for burning "witches" at the stake for a variety of reasons, it is more of a stretch to suggest nobody wanted Galileo fried as well?...But give yerself a "GOTCHA" if you like...just don't ignore you own misstatement, particularly on the heresy conviction...and don't ignore the bigger picture...

It's a complicated history with a lot of moving parts...Urban and Galileo both had asshole traits...
I'm all for de-mythologizing BOTH sides...Cheers!

Pick a source? Okay. I pick the one I linked below. Google "Galileo" and "heresy." You'll get a ton just like it.

Go back and read my original post. I stated that Galileo was tried, convicted, and punished for heresy. All true. You seem to be trying to dispute this on the basis of his confinement being "comfortable." It's still confinement and punishment. People get sentenced to home confinement all the time in modern America. Locked up in your own home. Electronic monitoring.

What's your point supposed to be?

You keep straying from the issue. You said the scientific community treated Galileo more harshly than the Church did. I pointed out that the Church tried, convicted, and punished Galileo for heresy. These are facts you have not refuted. You did respond, however, with the statement that Galileo's scientific contemporaries tried to have him executed. I am unaware of any historical record of any such thing, and you are apparently unable to provide any documentation.

I will give myself a GOTCHA, because clearly I did get you.


Link: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-4-14/27755.html

...which you have yet to disprove...

...he was not formally convicted of "heresy"...that is myth...see top of page...

You specifically made the following statement: scientists, many of whom were Protestant, pushed that he should be put to death for his heresy. I called you on that statement, and you've offered nothing to support it.

And see what at the top of the page? I've linked to material documenting that Galileo was convicted of heresy. Show me something to the contrary.

I just read something I didn't know before. Four years after Galileo was sentenced to indefinite incarceration, he lost his eye sight. Due to general poor health and the blindness development, he petitioned the Church to be released from his sentence. They declined his request. He spent the rest of his life confined to his residence.

Galileo, in failing health for several years, loses his eyesight. He petitions the Inquisition to be freed for medical reasons. His request is denied but in March the Inquisition gives Galileo permission to attend religious services on holidays.


Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/galileo/life.html

...that he was not properly cared for?...Then why would his friend and daughter say he was?...

You continue to play hide the ball. The only reason I added the addendum was because I found it interesting that he not only spent the remainder of his life in confinement, but that the Church wouldn't release him from his sentence. I think it was a shitty deal. I certainly wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life confined to my home for my beliefs. Maybe you would. Who knows?

None of this, however, addresses the misrepresentations you made. Still waiting to learn which scientists tried to have Galileo killed. And I'm wondering how you justify the statement that Galileo was not convicted by the Church.

..perhaps a technical distinction, but nonetheless A FACT...you won't find it in the official pronouncement...

...You've oversold the idea of his physical persecution...

...I have already retracted my statement regarding protestant scientists pushing for Galileo's
demise...because I can't currently prove it...nor can you currently DISPROVE it...like Galileo, I beleive some things are obvious...it does nothing to discredit my assertion that his harshest critics
were his colleagues...did they provide him with a luxury apartment and continued resources to prove his theory?...You are entitled to your opinion...we disagree on the facts...no sense beating it to death...

I have a dinner with friends...Cheers!

He was tried for heresy. He was convicted for espousing beliefs contrary to the Church and sentenced to life in custody. Play whatever stupid games you want, but that is being convicted for heresy.

I've "oversold" his physical persecution? What the fuck does that mean? All I've done is point out the fact that he was confined to his home until his death because of his beliefs -- which sucks for him. I never said he was tortured. So please tell me how I oversold his physical persecution.

You are being ridiculous with this. I challenged your assertion that the scientific community was "harsher" on him than the Church in light of the fact that the Church tried, convicted, and punished him. I have a hard time seeing how his contemporaries were harder on him than that. You've provided nothing to support your notion other than the naked assertion that they lobbied for his death. If that were true, don't you think you could document it? Seriously.

The funniest part, though: You say I can't disprove the notion that Galileo's contemporaries pushed for his death. LOL. How could I possibly disprove that? It'd be like me saying garden gnomes stole President Lincoln's underwear. I can't document that it happened, but I'd like to see you link to a source saying it didn't.

...if my general assertion about his contemporaries patently is false, then it should be extremely easy for you to find a definitive source which disproves it...can you?...

...never said anything about Abe...he was not a Catholic, and dat's a fact, Jack...

I can't show proof that people didn't try to do something hundreds of years ago. The absence of documentation that they did try to do it is the proof.

500 years ago the Roman Catholic Church sent an armed force into Ireland to kill every man named Seamus. Now you document that that didn't happen.

I've lost objectivity? You've had no objectivity from the start.

...I agree with you...bastard Papists killed my peeps...

(no message)

...heresy trials just for fun, huh?...

with Barry Manilow music blaring.

Until then it's a waste not to use what will otherwise be discarded.

(no message)

(no message)

...then having an abortion is simply an "alternative"...either way human life is served...the more aborted fetuses the better...think of all those poor sick people who would benefit from the Scientology of it all...the ends justify the means?...

In vitro fertilization is not the only way to obtain stem cells. They can be extracted from an umbilical cord after a child is born. The Catholic Church has no objection to research using stem cells in those ways.