{"id":4310,"date":"2010-08-26T21:26:47","date_gmt":"2010-08-27T01:26:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=4310"},"modified":"2010-08-26T21:26:47","modified_gmt":"2010-08-27T01:26:47","slug":"seems-only-political","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2010\/08\/26\/seems-only-political\/","title":{"rendered":"seems only political…"},"content":{"rendered":"
I’m in the second week of a wandering vacation in New York State sort of on sabbatical from blogging, but some stories just stand out and grab one’s attention. It started with defining an early embryo as a person in the antiabortion  wars. While I don’t personally buy it, I can at least follow the logic. But this<\/a>:<\/div>\n
\n
Embryonic stem cell lines<\/strong> are cultures of cells derived from the epiblast tissue of the inner cell mass  of a blastocyst or earlier morula stage embryos. A blastocyst is an early stage embryo—approximately four to five days old in humans and consisting of 50–150 cells. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent and give rise during development to all derivatives of the three primary germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm. In other words, they can develop into each of the more than 200 cell types of the adult body when given sufficient and necessary stimulation for a specific cell type. They do not contribute to the extra-embryonic membranes or the placenta.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The whole point of a "stem cell" is that it hasn’t yet differentiated into anything. It’s not<\/u> something yet. How can that be "a person"? The logic escapes me. The medical possibilities, however, are very exciting. Now we have this ruling saying, "it involves the destruction of human embryos": <\/div>\n
\n
Court Halts Federal Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\n
Talking Points Memo<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n
by Christina Bellatoni <\/div>\n
August 23, 2010 <\/div>\n

A U.S. district court today halted the federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research<\/a>, <\/strong>saying it involves the destruction of human embryos, potentially re-igniting a longtime cultural hot button issue just in time for the fall elections. The Washington-based court was ruling in favor of a June lawsuit filed by a researcher objecting to President Obama’s policy allowing federal funding. Obama overturned former President George W. Bush’s policy by implementing new National Institutes of Health guidelines shortly after taking office. Obama’s March 2009 decision reversed Bush’s August 2001 actions. Congress twice tried to circumvent Bush, passing a bill allowing for federal funding, but Bush vetoed the measure each time.<\/p>\n

When signing the executive order, Obama talked about<\/a><\/strong> the "difficult and delicate balance" of such research, which could lead to "medical miracles" but also upsets many people who believe the process ends a life. The president said that research has great potential and "with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided."<\/p>\n

Obama said: <\/div>\n
\n