As you all know, stem celll research is a very big deal right now. Presently it is banned.

As a person with a spinal disability(spina bifida), stem cell research could very likely cure my, as well as many other, diseases.

The arguement is, of course, that the research kills preborn babies.
However, you can get cells from other sources, like the blood from the embroynic sac when the baby is born.

Furthermore, abortion in this country is legal. Why dont we take these unborn babies that we are killing anyway, and have some good come from abortion?

Anyway...debate away.

As you all know, stem celll research is a very big deal right now. Presently it is banned.

As a person with a spinal disability(spina bifida), stem cell research could very likely cure my, as well as many other, diseases.

The arguement is, of course, that the research kills preborn babies.
However, you can get cells from other sources, like the blood from the embroynic sac when the baby is born.

Furthermore, abortion in this country is legal. Why dont we take these unborn babies that we are killing anyway, and have some good come from abortion?

Anyway...debate away.

First of all stem cell research is not banned in the US. Procedures to use the research are not in place yet by the FDA and medical boards around the country, thus the procedures to use the research are banned, but not the research in and of itself.

Secondly, liberals always seem to conveniently "forget" to tell you that adult stem cells are just as, if not more, viable than embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can be harvested from a living, breathing person and implanted anywhere else in that person's body. It has been proven to regrow spinal cord cells and eliminate Parkinson's symptoms; but yet nobody wants to talk about that aspect. As far as I am aware, nobody has been helped by an embryonic stem cell implantation yet.

I watched a senate oversight committee hearing on stem cell research on C-SPAN about 6 months ago, and they parapalegics on there testifying about how doctors told them they would never walk again, but are now able to after the stem cell transplant. Another guy had his own stem cells implanted into one side of his brain and it had removed all Parkinson's Syndrome symptoms on the right side of his body. These people all had to go outside the country in order to have the procedure done, but it seems as though the procedures were very successful.

Embryonic stem cell research is a waste of human life, and we should not be creating human life to destroy it. This gets into the entire debate of abortion, and I don't think I want to go there with this post, but just because abortion is legal doesn't make it right.

I agree with mbmanus

why not take the unborn babies that are being killed anyways and put that to scientific use? it's not cruel or anything if they are already dead... I know it is a horrible subject but there are thousands of people that have diseases that could be cured if this research were to take place. So why not ? People donate their bodies to science when they die... why not donate the stem cells from an aborted fetus ?

As you all know, stem celll research is a very big deal right now. Presently it is banned.
No, it's not, as ToB correctly stated. In fact, the Bush Presidency is the first to actually give government funds to said research. You can't give government funds to something that's banned (or at least you shouldn't).

As a person with a spinal disability(spina bifida), stem cell research could very likely cure my, as well as many other, diseases.
I didn't know you had spina bifida. By the way, stem cell research is a long way from curing some of the more serious diseases, like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. However, I don't think that's a reason to discourage. Rather it's a reason to encourage it. We need these cures.

The arguement is, of course, that the research kills preborn babies.
However, you can get cells from other sources, like the blood from the embroynic sac when the baby is born.
Right. Stem cells are available in several forms. They are present in umbilical cord blood, amniotic sac, and even living, breathing adult humans. If we can obtain stem cells without destroying innocent human (or potentially human) life, we have an obligation to do so. Embryonic stem cell research would probably be morally acceptable from a cost-benefit standpoint if it were the only option, but it's not. There are better ways, and we should seek those ways.

Furthermore, abortion in this country is legal. Why dont we take these unborn babies that we are killing anyway, and have some good come from abortion?
Slavery used to be legal, too. But that didn't make it right. Anyway, the reason that embroynic stem cells are so wonderful is that they are totally undifferentiated (i.e., they haven't decided what kind of cells to become). From what I understand, by the time the woman figures out she's pregnant, it's usually already too late. The development has simply gone too far along, although we could theoretically use the cord blood and amniotic sac to harvest stem cells.

I just don't see the need to create life and then destroy it, especially when we have alternatives. I wholeheartedly approve of stem cell research, but embryonic stem cell research is morally shady at best.

<3 Mary

I agree with mbmanus

why not take the unborn babies that are being killed anyways and put that to scientific use? it's not cruel or anything if they are already dead... I know it is a horrible subject but there are thousands of people that have diseases that could be cured if this research were to take place. So why not ? People donate their bodies to science when they die... why not donate the stem cells from an aborted fetus ?

Good Lord, did you even READ my post?!

Good Lord, did you even READ my post?!
Of course not. Why would we do that?

ToB is right, but I would like to clear up one thing that bothered me.

I do not believe in abortion, I think it is wrong and should be illegal. However, while it is legal, why not have some good come out of this?

Also, yes you can get stem cells from adults, however the ones from babies are not developed and can be manipulated for the need.

For instance, if you take a stem cell from an adult, that comes from a kidney, it can only be used for kidneys.

But if you use stem cells from embryos they havent had their genetic code implemented in them yet, and can be adapted for their need.

Let me reiterate that I do not believe that we should grow babies to kill them.I just believe that while abortion is legal, there could be some good that comes out of this evil practice.

Futhermore, as stated before you can get this embroynic cells from the umbilical cord and such without having to kill anything. So why not legalize those procedures?

ToB is right, but I would like to clear up one thing that bothered me.

I do not believe in abortion, I think it is wrong and should be illegal. However, while it is legal, why not have some good come out of this?

Also, yes you can get stem cells from adults, however the ones from babies are not developed and can be manipulated for the need.

For instance, if you take a stem cell from an adult, that comes from a kidney, it can only be used for kidneys.

But if you use stem cells from embryos they havent had their genetic code implemented in them yet, and can be adapted for their need.

Let me reiterate that I do not believe that we should grow babies to kill them.I just believe that while abortion is legal, there could be some good that comes out of this evil practice.

Futhermore, as stated before you can get this embroynic cells from the umbilical cord and such without having to kill anything. So why not legalize those procedures?

The ethical problem is that once you start a precedent where you allow the use of aborted embryos for scientific purposes, it is much harder to make that process (abortion) illegal.

The following excerpt from a webmd article emphasizes that olfactory mucosa transplantation can be a viable alternative to embryonic stem cells.

The surgery, called olfactory mucosa transplantation, involves removing cells from the nerve that transmits the sense of smell to the brain. These brain cells -- located near the roof of the nasal cavity -- regenerate efficiently and are then transplanted into the injured area of the spinal cord. These transplanted cells seem to be able to transform into nerve cells that help repair the spinal cord injury. These cells serve as alternatives to using embryonic stem cells for the same purpose

You can view the full article here: http://my.webmd.com/content/article/89/100250.htm

I didn't know you could get stem cells from adults. There you go - you live and you learn... Are these cells only effective in the body from which they were harvested? Because if so, that might make any kind of research extremely difficult. If not, why aren't they being harvested like blood or plasma? Anyways.

Personally, however, if stem cells are the Wonder Stuff that people think they are and hold the key to regeneration, I don't care where we get them from. Grown ups, Foetal Pre-Human material™, growing on trees or scraped out from under your toenails... just get on with the research.

Futhermore, as stated before you can get this embroynic cells from the umbilical cord and such without having to kill anything. So why not legalize those procedures?
Those procedures are not illegal. Anyway, technically these cells are not even embryonic. They're just stem cells, like adult stem cells. I favor funding for research in this area.

And as I said, women who have abortions do not usually have them early enough to reap the benefit of stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are taken from embryos in the earliest stages, before their tissues have begun to develop and differentiate. By eight weeks, the fetus has a heartbeat, so that's a sign of differentiation. Most women do not have abortions before eight weeks. When performing an abortion at such an early stage, the embryo will probably not even be visible. Women who have abortions don't do so until after they know they're pregnant, and they often wait longer than that. At that point, it's simply too late for the cells to be of any more use than adult stem cells. The best way to harvest embryonic stem cells is to grow them in a tube.

Also, yes you can get stem cells from adults, however the ones from babies are not developed and can be manipulated for the need.
Adult stem cells have shown promise. Scientists have, for instance, caused cerebellar neogenesis with bone marrow cells in mice. That is, they have caused bone marrow cells in mice to become mice brain cells. They have also coaxed adult stem cells into other types of cells - including spinal neurons, kidney cells, and liver cells. I don't know why people want to propagate the myth that adult stem cells aren't as helpful as embryonic stem cells. But it's patently false. If you want research citations, I can give them to you.

I didn't know you could get stem cells from adults. There you go - you live and you learn... Are these cells only effective in the body from which they were harvested? Because if so, that might make any kind of research extremely difficult. If not, why aren't they being harvested like blood or plasma? Anyways.
No, adult stem cells are not any more particular than embryonic stem cells about who they can be implanted in. There is a risk of rejection in any kind of implantation, though, so your own cells would be best. Which is fine. You have lots and lots of bone marrow. The main progress being made is with bone marrow stem cells.

As for those cells being harvested like blood or plasma, harvesting stem cells from your bone marrow is a little more intrusive than drawing blood. It requires surgery. And nobody really wants to have surgery unless it's beneficial to their health. Doing it without need violates the "do no harm" principle. However, people are saving the cord blood from their babies, having it cryogenically frozen in case there's a future need. I really think this is the future direction of stem-cell research.

As of 10/6/04, adult stem cells (not necessarily human) have been used to treat the following conditions:
Brain Cancer
Retinoblastoma
Ovarian Cancer
Merkel Cell Cancer
Testicular Cancer
Lymphoma
Acute Lymphobolastic Leukemia
Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy with Dysproteinemia
Multiple Myeloma
Myelodysplasia
Breast Cancer
Neuroblastoma
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Renal Cell Carcinoma
Various Solid Tumors
Soft Tissue Sarcoma
Scleromyxedema
Multiple Sclerosis
Crohn's Disease
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Juvenile Arthritis
Systemic Lupus
Polychondritis
Systemic Vasculitis
Sjogren's Syndrome
Behcet's Disease
Myasthenia
Red Cell Aplasia
Autoimmune Cytopenia
X-Linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
X-Linked Hyperimmunoglobuline-M Syndrome
Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome-X1
Sickle Cell Anemia
Sideroblastic Anemia
Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia
Aplastic Anemia
Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection
Fanconi's Anemia
Diamond Blackfan Anemia
Thalassemia
Stroke
Osteogenesis Imperfecta
Sandhoff Disease
Corneal Regeneration
Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis
Primary Amyloidosis
Limb Gangrene
Surface Wound Healing
Heart Damage
Parkinson's Disease
Spinal Cord Injury

<3 Mary

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm dont the majority of stem cells come from extra embryos in fertilization clinics????? They are not going to be used once they get a woman pregnant so why not use them for science? Silly religious people....

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm dont the majority of stem cells come from extra embryos in fertilization clinics????? They are not going to be used once they get a woman pregnant so why not use them for science? Silly religious people....

Create life to destroy life?

Silly dumbass idiotic retards.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm dont the majority of stem cells come from extra embryos in fertilization clinics????? They are not going to be used once they get a woman pregnant so why not use them for science? Silly religious people....
Actually, no. The majority of stem cells used in research come from adults. But thank you for playing.

While I am unsure of the source of embryonic stem cells, I oppose with all my heart the practices of some fertility clinics. They fertilize too many embryos, and then discard the leftovers. They are creating LIFE and then destroying it to save themselves a little money? My suggestion: remove eggs and sperm from male and female. Then attempt to fertilize one or two eggs at a time. When one or two of them "take", implant it or them into the mother. That way there's no wasted life. This is in stark contast to the current practice of fertilizing like ten eggs and freaking out when six or seven of them take. Occasionally you have a situation like the McCaugheys where the mother insists on all of them being implanted, but most of the time the "waste" embryos are destroyed. (Actually I think in their case it might have been an overdose of fertility drugs that caused this, but the idea is the same). So we've destroyed five or six people just to get one baby. It doesn't make sense. (I know this is a total aside, and I'm sorry) [/tangent]

As we've noted previously in this thread, adult stem cells show just as much promise as embryonic stem cells, so why destroy life if you don't have to?

<3 Mary

I totally agree with Tob and SangReal, there hasn't been any real progress in Embryonic Stem Cells to go along with it when there has been a lot of progress with Adult Stem Cells.
As Sang Real said I'm also curious as to how the embryonic cells are "harvested" since a woman doesn't know until its too late. Do they just take the sperm and egg and create them in a lab, or is it something else?

In response to ToB:

I don't see how an embryo can be regarded as a person because, when it divides, the two cells can be separated, resulting in two viable embryos. This is exactly what happens with identical twins.

So if an embryo contains a soul, what happens to the soul if the cell divides and separates, resulting in identical twins? Does each twin only have half a soul?

I'm responding this way because I presume when ToB said "destroy life" he meant "destroy a person's life".

In response to ToB:

I don't see how an embryo can be regarded as a person because, when it divides, the two cells can be separated, resulting in two viable embryos. This is exactly what happens with identical twins.

So if an embryo contains a soul, what happens to the soul if the cell divides and separates, resulting in identical twins? Does each twin only have half a soul?

I'm responding this way because I presume when ToB said "destroy life" he meant "destroy a person's life".

and that right there is the main issue, I personally believe that embroyos shouldnt be destroyed because they are the beginnings of a human being, while those who disagree with me say that they are not living yet.

Thats why this debate probably wont be won, because neither side can conclusively prove their point, as it is all open to interpretation.

and that right there is the main issue, I personally believe that embroyos shouldnt be destroyed because they are the beginnings of a human being, while those who disagree with me say that they are not living yet.

Thats why this debate probably wont be won, because neither side can conclusively prove their point, as it is all open to interpretation.

I thought I proved my point. Do identical twins have only half a soul each or don't they?

I thought I proved my point. Do identical twins have only half a soul each or don't they?


You proved nothing. You only asked a question.

It's a moot point in this debate anyway because it can never be proven. "When exactly does a person get a soul, or when is a fertilized egg a life? are questions that can never be truely proven either, so most of this debate becomes one of personal beliefs; just like the abortion debate, if not more so. In that case mbmanus is right, it will never be won and will probably go on and on and on for hundreds of agonizing pages until it is put to rest by one of the mods or dies on its own only to be ressurected when the question pops up in the news or someone's biology class some time. (breathes- think of Goodwill Hunting)

The only part of this debate that may be argued scientifically would be the efficacy of embryonic stem cell research vs. adult stem cell research. There have been, thus far, many examples of the efficacy of adult stem cell research, but very few supporting embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because embryonic stem cell research is bogged down in the quagmire of pro-life debate which slows any research and prevents the scientific community from presenting any evidence in support of such research.

As was said before, this debate will never be won, not only because the ideological arguments can't be proven, but because those arguments can, and will, always be used to prevent or hinder the development of a strong scientific argument in support of this research.

In response to ToB:

I don't see how an embryo can be regarded as a person because, when it divides, the two cells can be separated, resulting in two viable embryos. This is exactly what happens with identical twins.

So if an embryo contains a soul, what happens to the soul if the cell divides and separates, resulting in identical twins? Does each twin only have half a soul?

I'm responding this way because I presume when ToB said "destroy life" he meant "destroy a person's life".

Like anus said, it is not only destroying life that is at issue here, it is also destroying the possibility of life.

I waste the possibility of life everytime I masturbate, should that be banned?

I waste the possibility of life everytime I masturbate, should that be banned?
If you hold that life begins at conception, then no. Embryos are the product of conception, and thusly, life.

If you hold that life begins at conception, then no. Embryos are the product of conception, and thusly, life.

My point was that there still exists the potential for my sperm to create life (whether you define that life starting as a zygote or embryo or whatever) and yet I casually waste it in masturbation, like millions of other people. Isn't that just as much of a waste of potential life as stem cell research (which generally I do not have a problem with)?

My point was that there still exists the potential for my sperm to create life (whether you define that life starting as a zygote or embryo or whatever) and yet I casually waste it in masturbation, like millions of other people. Isn't that just as much of a waste of potential life as stem cell research (which generally I do not have a problem with)?
I see your point, but it's not wasting the potential because it was never used in the proper sense where it could have possibly created life. If it were implanted into an egg, then yes it has the possibility for life. If it lands on the floor, or in a towel, then no; it doesn't. Similarily, you can't start a fire without fuel. You can strike the match, but with no fuel, you don't have a fire.

The debate here is whether or not we should proceed with research on a morally entangled field of research when there is a perfectly viable alternative with no moral and ethical entanglement.

Some background research for you all:
"The general consensus is that adult stem cells seem to be less versatile. Scientists think that embryonic stem cells have a much greater utility and potential than the adult stem cells, because embryonic stem cells may develop into virtually every type of cell in the human body. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, may only be able to develop into a limited number of cell types."
http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm#4 (http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm#4)

"Q: Where do stem cells come from, and why are they so important?
A: They are retrieved from the core of five-day-old human embryos, typically left over from invitro fertilization processes used by couples trying to have a baby. Stem cells can morph into virtually every kind of tissue, providing a potentially bottomless source of replacement parts."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A59526-2001Aug10&notFound=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A59526-2001Aug10&notFound=true)

"Research using embryo stem cells had been authorized in Britain, but was initially halted in the U.S. by President George W. Bush. He decided on 2001-AUG-9 to allow research to resume in government labs, but restricted researchers to use only 72 existing lines of stem cells. By 2003-MAY, most of these lines had become useless; some of the lines are genetically identical to others; only 11 remain available for research."
"http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm)"

You know that you can save your umbilical cord blood (which contains oodles of embryo stem cells) when you are born for later problems? Its use negates the need to worry about rejection and removes the problem of foreign genetic material (I.E.: mouse DNA) causing unknown problems further down the road.

That sort of bypasses the whole 'when does an embryo become a human?' stumbling block pro-lifers use as well. Or how about theraputic cloning? Is a blastocyst a human? I don't think it is.

I think basically the rejection of embryonic stem cell research is really about the abortion issue. Religious conservatives would love to roll back Roe vs. Wade and take control of women's bodies again.

I say when you are born they should clone an exact replica of you. Then if you get sick or have a failing body part, roll out your duplicate entity and harvest what you need to survive, whether that be a heart, bone marrow or lungs.

If its identical to you and you came first, wouldn't you have the 'soul' and 'it' would just be meat?

&D

That sort of bypasses the whole 'when does an embryo become a human?' stumbling block pro-lifers use as well. Or how about theraputic cloning? Is a blastocyst a human? I don't think it is.

I think basically the rejection of embryonic stem cell research is really about the abortion issue. Religious conservatives would love to roll back Roe vs. Wade and take control of women's bodies again.


I have absolutely NO problem with a person using stem cells from the blood in the umbilical cord. It was a part of you, and is no longer living when it becomes detatched.

And you are absolutely correct. It is all about abortion. The biggest reason that liberals are pursuing embryonic stem cell research is because it makes abortion "okay" and helps to ease their conscience and help them to sleep at night. They might say all this extra crap to make you think that's not the case, but it is certainly at the center of the liberal agenda. Conservatives are against it because it DESTROYS LIFE. The moment an egg is fertilized, life begins. Cells start to divide, things start to happen. You can give credence to the idea that an amoeba is a living organism, but not an embryo? How is that logical at all?

EDIT: To liken a growing baby as part of a woman's body, and thusly she has "control" over it, is akin to arguing that slaves belonged to slaveowners and thusly they could do whatever they wanted to them. It just doesn't wash.

I don't know, I can't argue, because I don't know enough about Stem Cells to begin with, but I do not think that life is considered life until it is past the embryo stage and considered a fetus.

I have absolutely NO problem with a person using stem cells from the blood in the umbilical cord. It was a part of you, and is no longer living when it becomes detatched.

And you are absolutely correct. It is all about abortion. The biggest reason that liberals are pursuing embryonic stem cell research is because it makes abortion "okay" and helps to ease their conscience and help them to sleep at night. They might say all this extra crap to make you think that's not the case, but it is certainly at the center of the liberal agenda. Conservatives are against it because it DESTROYS LIFE. The moment an egg is fertilized, life begins. Cells start to divide, things start to happen. You can give credence to the idea that an amoeba is a living organism, but not an embryo? How is that logical at all?
I would have to disagree with your point about the real reason liberals want embryonic SCR. I think the reason to go further with it is for the obvious benefits found without the shackles of religious reasons constraining the scientific research. Pro-choice folks do not need to salve their conciences if they believe that abortion helps more people than it harms, which I do. If the young were properly educated from an early age in birth control and reproductive science, the need for abortion would be more than halved.

Isn't it the religious right the ones who ban the distribution of condoms and sex education in schools because they think it encourages sex rather than protect kids from STDs and unwanted pregnancy? Aren't their heads buried in the sand if they think kids are not having sex, whether we want them to or not?

I would have to disagree with your point about the real reason liberals want embryonic SCR. I think the reason to go further with it is for the obvious benefits found without the shackles of religious reasons constraining the scientific research. Pro-choice folks do not need to salve their conciences if they believe that abortion helps more people than it harms, which I do. If the young were properly educated from an early age in birth control and reproductive science, the need for abortion would be more than halved.

Isn't it the religious right the ones who ban the distribution of condoms and sex education in schools because they think it encourages sex rather than protect kids from STDs and unwanted pregnancy? Aren't their heads buried in the sand if they think kids are not having sex, whether we want them to or not?

It's not a religious constraint that is forcing us to abandon embryonic stem cell research; it is a logical, moral, and ethical responsibility. If life begins at conception, which is only logical, then how is it ethically responsible to destroy it to help another? It is an agenda issue, meaning that if embryonic stem-cell research becomes a mainstream activity, then it is only logical that we can destroy life along with it. There is no direct link from embryonic stem cell research to abortion besides the moral principle; thusly the two discussions are not mutually exclusive, bringing us to reason that if stem cell research is legal, then so is abortion.

Sex education should be happening at home, not at school. A responsible parent will educate their child about sex. This problem goes deeper than just handing out condoms at school. It goes to the very fabric of our society. What is socially acceptable today is certainly at a much lower level than it was 50 years ago. Our society is decaying, and without some reversal, we will be seeing far worse in our country. One of the things that children have stopped learning about are CONSEQUENCES. We teach them that it's ok to have sex; it's even socially acceptable. When a kid gets pregnant, we tell them, "It's ok honey...You can have an abortion." And magically all of her problems disappear and she goes back to what she was doing.

Abortion is just a way for people to escape responsibility. It has more to do with taking responsibility for your own irresponsible actions than it does with "choice". It's a societal crutch, and it is being abused. People are destroying innocent life for their convenience. That makes me sick.

My point was that there still exists the potential for my sperm to create life (whether you define that life starting as a zygote or embryo or whatever) and yet I casually waste it in masturbation, like millions of other people. Isn't that just as much of a waste of potential life as stem cell research (which generally I do not have a problem with)?
To further articulate (or screw up) what ToB was trying to say here...

Something that has the potential to become life is not the same as something that already is life. For instance, even amino acids have the potential to become life, if they are transcribed by enzymes in a certain way into proteins, which are formed into tissues, which form organs and organ systems, and eventually organisms. However, the key here is that something else besides just amino acids must be involved: enzymes. Amino acids are not going to spontaneously become life if they are not enzymatically linked to form proteins. In the same way, eggs and sperm are not going to spontaneously become life unless they are joined together in the process of fertilization.

And anyway, if sperm were considered life, every man who ever donated sperm could be sued for neglect and abandonment. Sperm are not human life. They carry only half of the genetic code to create human life. By themselves, they are not capable of becoming human life without the other half.

That and...I really wish people would stop buying into the hype that only embryonic stem cells are flexible. The scientific community is discovering (see my long post of disorders treated) that this is totally and utterly wrong. Stem cells obtained from cord blood and adult sources are equally adaptive, as the research is beginning to reveal (http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/prentice.htm) :
Bone marrow-derived cells in general have shown ability to form many tissues in the body. For example, bone marrow-derived stem cells in vivo appear able to form neuronal tissues,18,37 and a single adult bone marrow stem cell can contribute to tissues as diverse as marrow, liver, skin, and digestive tract.16 One group has now developed a method for large-scale generation of neuronal precursors from whole adult rat bone marrow.38 In this procedure, treatment of unfractionated bone marrow in culture with epidermal growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor gave rise to neurospheres with cells expressing neuronal markers.
It's time for them to stop lying to us...or better yet, try to explain why they're lying to us. I just don't know why "do no harm" has flown out the window here.
I would have to disagree with your point about the real reason liberals want embryonic SCR. I think the reason to go further with it is for the obvious benefits found without the shackles of religious reasons constraining the scientific research. Pro-choice folks do not need to salve their conciences if they believe that abortion helps more people than it harms, which I do. If the young were properly educated from an early age in birth control and reproductive science, the need for abortion would be more than halved.
Wait. What "obvious benefits" are we talking about? You yourself have advocated the saving of cord blood...so why wouldn't harvesting umbilical cord cells be preferable to creating and then destroying life?

Oh, and "Life begins at conception" ~ Sen. John Forbes Kerry

Isn't it the religious right the ones who ban the distribution of condoms and sex education in schools because they think it encourages sex rather than protect kids from STDs and unwanted pregnancy? Aren't their heads buried in the sand if they think kids are not having sex, whether we want them to or not?
Studies have shown that handing out condoms increases the rate of sexual activity in adolescents (esp. young adolescents). There is nothing wrong with sexual education itself, except that it often lies to our children. It tells them that condoms are effective as a contraceptive (conveniently leaving out that they have a 13% contraceptive failure rate over a year's time) and in the prevention of STDs (though they obviously also have a failure rate there too). Abstinence is the ONLY way our kids can really make sure that they're not going to wind up pregnant or with AIDS, and any sex ed program that says otherwise is malignant and irresponsible. Yes, teach our kids about condoms and birth control, but emphasize that these methods are not 100% effective. Tell the truth to our kids, that's all.

Will some of our kids choose to have sex? Yes (about 50% by age 18), but not all of them. As parents (which I'm not yet), we have aan obligation to be responsible and truthful with our kidsand to denounce any kind of education that is not responsible and truthful. In my experience with sex ed, it is not responsible or truthful. It needs reform, though, not elimination.

Oh, and none of this has a thing to do with SCR.

<3 Mary

I would have to disagree with your point about the real reason liberals want embryonic SCR. I think the reason to go further with it is for the obvious benefits found without the shackles of religious reasons constraining the scientific research. Pro-choice folks do not need to salve their conciences if they believe that abortion helps more people than it harms, which I do. If the young were properly educated from an early age in birth control and reproductive science, the need for abortion would be more than halved.
Wait. What "obvious benefits" are we talking about? You yourself have advocated the saving of cord blood...so why wouldn't harvesting umbilical cord cells be preferable to creating and then destroying life?

Oh, and "Life begins at conception" ~ Sen. John Forbes Kerry

Isn't it the religious right the ones who ban the distribution of condoms and sex education in schools because they think it encourages sex rather than protect kids from STDs and unwanted pregnancy? Aren't their heads buried in the sand if they think kids are not having sex, whether we want them to or not?
Studies have shown that handing out condoms increases the rate of sexual activity in adolescents (esp. young adolescents). There is nothing wrong with sexual education itself, except that it often lies to our children. It tells them that condoms are effective as a contraceptive (conveniently leaving out that they have a 13% contraceptive failure rate over a year's time) and in the prevention of STDs (though they obviously also have a failure rate there too). Abstinence is the ONLY way our kids can really make sure that they're not going to wind up pregnant or with AIDS, and any sex ed program that says otherwise is malignant and irresponsible. Yes, teach our kids about condoms and birth control, but emphasize that these methods are not 100% effective. Tell the truth to our kids, that's all.

Will some of our kids choose to have sex? Yes (about 50% by age 18), but not all of them. As parents (which I'm not yet), we have aan obligation to be responsible and truthful with our kidsand to denounce any kind of education that is not responsible and truthful. In my experience with sex ed, it is not responsible or truthful. It needs reform, though, not elimination.

Oh, and none of this has a thing to do with SCR.

<3 Mary

[color=deepskyblue]
Studies have shown that handing out condoms increases the rate of sexual activity in adolescents (esp. young adolescents). There is nothing wrong with sexual education itself, except that it often lies to our children. It tells them that condoms are effective as a contraceptive (conveniently leaving out that they have a 13% contraceptive failure rate over a year's time) and in the prevention of STDs (though they obviously also have a failure rate there too). Abstinence is the ONLY way our kids can really make sure that they're not going to wind up pregnant or with AIDS, and any sex ed program that says otherwise is malignant and irresponsible. Yes, teach our kids about condoms and birth control, but emphasize that these methods are not 100% effective. Tell the truth to our kids, that's all.

Will some of our kids choose to have sex? Yes (about 50% by age 18), but not all of them. As parents (which I'm not yet), we have aan obligation to be responsible and truthful with our kidsand to denounce any kind of education that is not responsible and truthful. In my experience with sex ed, it is not responsible or truthful. It needs reform, though, not elimination.

Oh, and none of this has a thing to do with SCR.

<3 Mary


I suppose I have a different experience with sex ed than you do. Never in my life did any teacher or parent tell me that condoms or even the pill would be 100% effective; I was never lied to by anybody.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but out of 53 studies UNAIDS conducted only 3 showed that sexual education actually increased sexual activity among young adults. A study by the NYC Department of Health yielded that there was NO increase in sexual activity when condoms were distributed to teenagers (http://www.taconic.net/re-search/condomavavilabiltyprogram.htm) . A similar study in Massachusetts yielded the same (http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/513347.html). So I am just curious as to where you are finding this information.

Studies have also shown that programs advocating only abstinence do nothing at all to curb sexual activity in teenagers (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0856/is_2_27/ai_57155217).

I was only told absintence was the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, but that condoms were options if we should decide to make that choice. I guess I just had a better sex ed program than most.

I agree with the cord blood stem cell research. Why would people try for embryonic research, when cord stem cells are apparently as versatile and not contraversial?

And I have to agree that clinics create too many embryos, and shouldn't make so many "just in case." If they implant all they fertilize, we wouldn't have these problems.

I think stem cell reserch (embyonic) should be illegal, because I believe it is wrong.

I am against abortion...I think that it is murder, and if that isn't bad enough, these poor babies are murdered, and then they are mutilated! They have needles stuck in them, and cells sucked out! I believe this to be barbaric...I wonder how we would feel if we were killed, and our bodies mutilated...

When humans die, we have a choice as to what happens to our bodies. We can choose to be buried or cremated, etc. Or we choose to donate our bodies to science, so that they may do reserch on us, to try to find out more about the human body. This is our own concious decision, we make that decision because it is our wishes.
With the unborn, however, not only do they have a say in whether they live or die, the mother has complete control over the child, even if she spread her legs and didn't think about what she was doing before she did it, as a lot of women unfortunatley do, she can give the aborted child to those bastard scientists so they can rip cells out of it's poor little body! That innocent human being didn't have a choice, it was controlled by it's mother, completely powerless.

I just believe it is wrong to destroy a life, then mutilate it.

Shit happens, okay? If you have parkinsons, or alzeimers, it's sad, but you have to learn to live with it. If you are paralysed, you must learn to adapt to your new lifestyle. It is not the end of the world, we don't need to kill and mutilate innocent human beings just because some people can't deal with the life they have been given.

I agree with the cord blood stem cell research. Why would people try for embryonic research, when cord stem cells are apparently as versatile and not contraversial?

And I have to agree that clinics create too many embryos, and shouldn't make so many "just in case." If they implant all they fertilize, we wouldn't have these problems.

The problem, Marika, is that it is not a scientific issue. It's a political issue. Legalizing embryonic stem cell research is saying that it's ok to kill embryos for scientific use, thereby making abortion a legality as well. It's the left's way of rationalizing the mass genocide that is going on in our country today.

I am against abortion...I think that it is murder, and if that isn't bad enough, these poor babies are murdered, and then they are mutilated! They have needles stuck in them, and cells sucked out! I believe this to be barbaric...I wonder how we would feel if we were killed, and our bodies mutilated...
I am not against abortion, but I am against creating life just to abort it for stem cell research. However...

With the unborn, however, not only do they have a say in whether they live or die, the mother has complete control over the child, even if she spread her legs and didn't think about what she was doing before she did it, as a lot of women unfortunatley do, she can give the aborted child to those bastard scientists so they can rip cells out of it's poor little body! That innocent human being didn't have a choice, it was controlled by it's mother, completely powerless.

I just believe it is wrong to destroy a life, then mutilate it.
Or, for example, the woman may have been forced to have sex, which unfortunately happens a lot (I know, as you said below - shit happens), and if she chooses to have an abortion, would you rather the unborn "baby" (which, personally, I wouldn't even call that) go to waste, or be used for something good - like research that can one day save other people's lives?

Shit happens, okay? If you have parkinsons, or alzeimers, it's sad, but you have to learn to live with it. If you are paralysed, you must learn to adapt to your new lifestyle. It is not the end of the world, we don't need to kill and mutilate innocent human beings just because some people can't deal with the life they have been given.
And other diseases like diabetes, Huntington's and cancer. If you have someone in your family that has such a disease, and there can be research that can one day cure it (whether or not it's in our lifetime), you'd turn the idea down because one of the methods used to collect stem cells is from aborted fetuses that will be aborted whether or not stem cell research is used (which is, by the way, still legal)?

And who says people with these diseases can't deal with it? From that statement you obviously do not have anyone close to you that has any of these diseases...not that that should matter.

I am not against abortion, but I am against creating life just to abort it for stem cell research. However...


Or, for example, the woman may have been forced to have sex, which unfortunately happens a lot (I know, as you said below - shit happens), and if she chooses to have an abortion, would you rather the unborn "baby" (which, personally, I wouldn't even call that) go to waste, or be used for something good - like research that can one day save other people's lives?


And other diseases like diabetes, Huntington's and cancer. If you have someone in your family that has such a disease, and there can be research that can one day cure it (whether or not it's in our lifetime), you'd turn the idea down because one of the methods used to collect stem cells is from aborted fetuses that will be aborted whether or not stem cell research is used (which is, by the way, still legal)?

And who says people with these diseases can't deal with it? From that statement you obviously do not have anyone close to you that has any of these diseases...not that that should matter.


I don't have any family members with a disease like those, no, you are right in guessing that I don't. But even I did, I would still not support stem cell research. There are ways of adapting to your lifestyle. People have no arms or legs, and they don't have artifical limbs or anything, yet they lead normal lives because they adapt, and there are people out there in wheelchairs, who have use of their arms, and can do many things that we able bodied humans can do, yet they complain and want stem cell research to get them out our the chair. There are always people worse off then you, they should think about that.
If that sounded a little harsh, sorry, but it is just the way I feel.

And if a woman is raped, she should be allowed an abortion if she so woshes, but I don't think that baby needs to be stuck with needles and have cells sucked out of it. It just isn't fair to treat an innocent like that.

And that is just what I believe.

The problem, Marika, is that it is not a scientific issue. It's a political issue. Legalizing embryonic stem cell research is saying that it's ok to kill embryos for scientific use, thereby making abortion a legality as well. It's the left's way of rationalizing the mass genocide that is going on in our country today.

And that's why I don't understand. I tend to be fairly rational, and the mixing of science and politics is entirely beyond me. Grrr. I'm in one of those moods where everything that is wrong and unjust in our world will never change, and it sucks entirely.

It should just be science, and if the best research can be done without any controversy, why? I hate politicians. (sorry)

I don't have any family members with a disease like those, no, you are right in guessing that I don't. But even I did, I would still not support stem cell research. There are ways of adapting to your lifestyle. People have no arms or legs, and they don't have artifical limbs or anything, yet they lead normal lives because they adapt, and there are people out there in wheelchairs, who have use of their arms, and can do many things that we able bodied humans can do, yet they complain and want stem cell research to get them out our the chair. There are always people worse off then you, they should think about that.
If that sounded a little harsh, sorry, but it is just the way I feel.

And if a woman is raped, she should be allowed an abortion if she so wishes, but I don't think that baby needs to be stuck with needles and have cells sucked out of it. It just isn't fair to treat an innocent like that.

And that is just what I believe.
So would you rather adapt to something bad, or have the bad thing never happen at all? Yes, there's always someone worse off than yourself, but don't make that a reason to stop trying to make things better. If we constantly think about who's worse than us, then society would basically de-evolve. There's ALWAYS something worse. In that point of view, we're always better than the rest. And therefore, there's NEVER any reason to move forward.

You're basically saying that it's OK for people to suffer from various diseases, but not for an embryo (which I very much doubt will feel anything) to be used for research? If it's going to be aborted anyways, why not use it to try to make the world a better place for all? BTW I'm pro-choice, if you haven't figured that out from what I just said.

BTW, you are seriously trying to appeal to our pity on the subject. And not to say I'm a cold-hearted bastard, but I'm way more sympathetic towards people who suffer from horrible diseases. Many of which can be cured if scienctific research weren't so restricted by politics and morality etc. Yes, science must have its limits, but the good of all must be considered before the good of a few people.

And that's why I don't understand. I tend to be fairly rational, and the mixing of science and politics is entirely beyond me. Grrr. I'm in one of those moods where everything that is wrong and unjust in our world will never change, and it sucks entirely.

It should just be science, and if the best research can be done without any controversy, why? I hate politicians. (sorry)
I understand what you're saying - what is immoral should be immoral no matter how you look at it, from a science or a political point of view. But, everyone's definition of moral (or what is right or wrong) is different, hence the debates in the first place. The different points of views support or can be manipulated to support our own beliefs of morality, but they aren't the basis of what makes us have different views on this subject.

Ex. From a purely scientific point of view, cloning is completely OK, as it is an advance in science. But from a political point of view, well I dun think I need to say more. However, it's the people that choose the point of view they wish to take, and then manipulate it to support their own ideas. And not that politics and science each come with a predetermined view on a subject. So mixing of science and politics is inevitable, as there are an infinite number of feelings towards any given subject.

Oh gawd I suck at explaining. Hope you get the gist of what I'm saying. :p



BTW, I completely agree with what Shivercide said, that life shouldn't be created purely for stem cell research. But if you have embryos that have been aborted, why not?

Some of these stem cell researchers want to use the cells from a partial birth abortion. Thats wrong on so many levels. They are basically trading one life for another. To me thats murder. To others, well I guess they would just see it as a mildly selfish act. I know how important this research is, and we all could prosper from it. But I dont want to be forced to pay for something that I find morally wrong.
John Stossel did a good piece on stem cell research on 20/20

Some of these stem cell researchers want to use the cells from a partial birth abortion. Thats wrong on so many levels. They are basically trading one life for another. To me thats murder. To others, well I guess they would just see it as a mildly selfish act. I know how important this research is, and we all could prosper from it. But I dont want to be forced to pay for something that I find morally wrong.
John Stossel did a goog piece on stem cell research on 20/20
Okay, this'll prolly sound real stupid, but what does it mean to use cells from a partial birth abortion? How can a baby be partially aborted? :confused:

Well, basically the baby is fully grown. They give the mother drugs to force the birth. Pull the body out except for the head. Then they put insert a tube into the baby's skull and use a vaccum to pull out the brains. You can see a visual here. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html Sound heartless?

Okay, this'll prolly sound real stupid, but what does it mean to use cells from a partial birth abortion? How can a baby be partially aborted? :confused:

You stab it in the head or some other similarly gruesome action right before it would have been born and suck it out with a vacuum cleaner. (A time when it is very easily capable of surviving outside of the womb if necessary.) Well, that's the basic gist of it anyway. The partial is in reference to birth, not abortion.

You stab it in the head or some other similarly gruesome action right before it would have been born and suck it out with a vacuum cleaner. (A time when it is very easily capable of surviving outside of the womb if necessary.) Well, that's the basic gist of it anyway. The partial is in reference to birth, not abortion.
Holy crap, and that's legal? :eek:

Holy crap, and that's legal? :eek:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

One of the reasons I didn't cast my vote for John Kerry is that he didn't vote to ban this procedure that I feel strongly about.

That is the sickest thing I have heard. I knew they stabbed the baby in the head, but not like that diagram shows. How cruel! These babies can survive outside the womb, so why isn't what they are doing murder?

That is the sickest thing I have heard. I knew they stabbed the baby in the head, but not like that diagram shows. How cruel! These babies can survive outside the womb, so why isn't what they are doing murder?
I think what they're doing is murder. But I also think that all abortion is murder, so maybe you shouldn't be asking me. The reason they have to perform the partial-birth procedure this way is that the baby is considered a fetus until its head is delivered. Therefore, if they kill it before its head is outside the mother, it's not murder. I say this is semantics.

But, for the record, I think Congress banned this procedure, although it is under legal challenge. There is significant evidence that those babies subjected to the procedure experience a significant amount of pain.

<3 Mary

Abortions are illegal to get after the sixth month of pregnancy. So does a partial birth abortion mean getting an abortion between the third and sixth month of pregnancy?

Abortions are illegal to get after the sixth month of pregnancy. So does a partial birth abortion mean getting an abortion between the third and sixth month of pregnancy?
Actually, abortions are legal up until birth in the United States. While several states have passed laws attempting to ban abortion at various stages of development, these laws are under constant constitutional challenge in the courts. However, partial birth abortion, procedure described here (http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit), is a very specific and brutal procedure that is performed any time after three months of pregnancy.

I think what they're doing is murder. But I also think that all abortion is murder, so maybe you shouldn't be asking me. The reason they have to perform the partial-birth procedure this way is that the baby is considered a fetus until its head is delivered. Therefore, if they kill it before its head is outside the mother, it's not murder. I say this is semantics.

But, for the record, I think Congress banned this procedure, although it is under legal challenge. There is significant evidence that those babies subjected to the procedure experience a significant amount of pain.

<3 Mary


I am against abortion as well, I was actually thinking about why they stab the kid in the head, yeah, because it's not a proper birth...if the kid was born, then it was killed, that would be murder, but this way they avoid that.
That is just sickening, it's more than that, words I just cannot describe...how can any woman allow anyone to do that to her flesh and blood?

I am against abortion as well, I was actually thinking about why they stab the kid in the head, yeah, because it's not a proper birth...if the kid was born, then it was killed, that would be murder, but this way they avoid that.
That is just sickening, it's more than that, words I just cannot describe...how can any woman allow anyone to do that to her flesh and blood?
I don't know, but this is not supposed to be a debate about abortion. It's supposed to be about stem cell research. Redirect, anyone?

I am against stem cell research. I know it could help cure cancer and diseases and everything, but there has to be a better way to help than to mutilate little babies, especially after they have already been killed.
I can't believe scientist create an embyro, let it live for four days, and pull it apart.
That baby, to me, is a human life. From the moment of conception it is a human, and I don't think anyone has the right to stick pins in it and rip out a few cells.

There has to be other ways of finding a cure, look for something else to use, just leave these poor innocent children out of it.

There has to be other ways of finding a cure, look for something else to use, just leave these poor innocent children out of it.
So I suppose you're against organ donation, as well?

I don't know, but this is not supposed to be a debate about abortion. It's supposed to be about stem cell research. Redirect, anyone?


Granted it is not a thread about abortion, but it is so closely tied into it that it has to be about it. Basically you are trading one life for another. Aborted babies are after all the place stem cells come from. Thats why it is so debated, because abortion is tied into it. Hundreds of other research projects go on, but we dont debated them because they dont have a core issue......like abortion.

Aborted babies are after all the place stem cells come from. Thats why it is so debated, because abortion is tied into it. Hundreds of other research projects go on, but we dont debated them because they dont have a core issue......like abortion. Did you not know that there are other ways to acquire stem cells?

So I suppose you're against organ donation, as well?
Organ donation is voluntary. Apples and oranges.



Did you not know that there are other ways to acquire stem cells?
The focus of this debate has been on embryonic stem cells for quite a while now.

Organ donation is voluntary. Apples and oranges.
So when a child dies and their organs save someone else's (or a few people's) life, that is voluntary?

The focus of this debate has been on embryonic stem cells for quite a while now.
Only because people keep focusing on that, when there is much more to stem cell research, which is the title of this topic - not abortion for stem cell research. I understand that many people don't agree with that part of it, but I don't understand why everything else about it is ignored.

And besides, my last post was in response of this:

Aborted babies are after all the place stem cells come from.
The last I checked, aborted babies are not the place that stem cells come from.

Abortion is the reason why it is so controversial. Why would we be debating this topic if it wasnt centered around abortion? Of course there are other ways of getting stem cells, but the one place that the majority of the left want gain them is from fetuses. I dont think anyone here is really arguing the idea that stem cell research apart from the means to gain them is wrong. I think we can all agree that it is benefical. "I understand that many people don't agree with that part of it, but I don't understand why everything else about it is ignored." Its a large part of it. I just dont see your point. I know its good its just "does the means justify the end" is what its about.

Abortion is the reason why it is so controversial. Why would we be debating this topic if it wasnt centered around abortion?
Embryonic stem cells are not from aborted fetuses. They are from fertilization clinic embryos that have already been fertilized but not implanted into a womb. A fetus is already way too developed to get "embryonic" stem cells from.

So when a child dies and their organs save someone else's (or a few people's) life, that is voluntary?
No if you want to go for that angle, no it's not voluntary, it's also not a life. Unless you want to start a topic about harvesting of transplantable orgrans from a brain dead minor on life support.

Only because people keep focusing on that, when there is much more to stem cell research, which is the title of this topic - not abortion for stem cell research. I understand that many people don't agree with that part of it, but I don't understand why everything else about it is ignored.
Because regardless of what the title of the thread the controversial part is embryonic stem cells. The fact that there are other types of stems cells has come up and no one has argued about the use of non-embryonic stem cells.

Abortion is the reason why it is so controversial. Why would we be debating this topic if it wasnt centered around abortion? Of course there are other ways of getting stem cells, but the one place that the majority of the left want gain them is from fetuses. I dont think anyone here is really arguing the idea that stem cell research apart from the means to gain them is wrong. I think we can all agree that it is benefical. "I understand that many people don't agree with that part of it, but I don't understand why everything else about it is ignored." Its a large part of it. I just dont see your point. I know its good its just "does the means justify the end" is what its about.
Yes, well, I just didn't see anyone that is focusing only the controversial part of it say anything to state that they agree with other ways of gaining stem cells - only that they disagree with stem cell research because of the controversial part.

That is, until someone just clarified - you.

Because regardless of what the title of the thread the controversial part is embryonic stem cells. The fact that there are other types of stems cells has come up and no one has argued about the use of non-embryonic stem cells.
Oh, I got a little confused. It seems that nearly everyone is referring to the controversial part as aborted babies.

Oh, I got a little confused. It seems that nearly everyone is referring to the controversial part as aborted babies.

Yeah people have been getting their "talking points" confused between partial birth abortion and stem cell research. ;) Yet another reason to look into things yourself before taking a stance on them.

Where do embryonic stem cells come from?
Human embryonic stem cells are derived from fertilized embryos less than a week old. Using 14 blastocysts obtained from donated, surplus embryos produced by in vitro fertilization, a group of UW-Madison developmental biologists led by James Thomson established five independent stem cell lines in November 1998. This was the first time human embryonic stem cells had been successfully isolated and cultured.

The cell lines were capable of prolonged, undifferentiated proliferation in culture and yet maintained the ability to develop into a variety of specific cell types, including neural, gut, muscle, bone and cartilage cells.

The embryos used in the work at UW-Madison were originally produced to treat infertility and were donated specially for this project with the informed consent of donor couples who no longer wanted the embryos for implantation.

In virtually every in vitro fertilization clinic in the world, surplus embryos are discarded if they are not donated to help other infertile couples or for research. The research protocols were reviewed and approved by a UW-Madison Institutional Review Board, a panel of scientists and medical ethicists who oversee such work.

I guess my point is that there shouldn't be "surplus embryos." Doctors create life irresponsibly, not knowing whether they are going to implant it or not. Instead, each embryo that is fertilized should be individually fertilized and implanted. Once egg and sperm join, there is life. And life should be held sacred, not as a disposable commodity or something kept around "just in case." That's what I find barbaric.

So I suppose you're against organ donation, as well?


Actually, no. I believe that organ doation should be compulsary. I have been on the donor list since I was 11. I decided then that I would donate my organs, because it will help save lives.
Stem cell research is different. Embyo's are created for the sole purpose of destroying them. I just think they way they go about this stem cell research is wrong...an embryo to me is a human being, which deserves to live, not to be gutted with a mighty big needle.

Why not use adult stem cells? Or get stem cells from somewhere else. Scientists are pretty smart, (except they like to mess with nature) so I am sure they could come up with a better idea to get these stem cells, an idea on which everyone agrees on.

mbmanus" I completely agree

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200411/kt2004112617575710440.htm

This was achieved through stem cell therapy with umbilical cord blood stem cells. Unfortunately, most people I know who are against stem cell research think that this is exactly the same as embryonic stem cell use and want to see it banned :rolleyes:

^^^I know that it isn't. I would donate my baby's cord blood...it doesn't have little embryos in it, does it? It can help, too.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200411/kt2004112617575710440.htm

This was achieved through stem cell therapy with umbilical cord blood stem cells. Unfortunately, most people I know who are against stem cell research think that this is exactly the same as embryonic stem cell use and want to see it banned :rolleyes:

Livo, I (and many others like me) am against embryonic stem cell research, not "adult" (including cord cells) stem cell research. A lot of people in the world don't even know that you can harvest stem cells from umbilical cords and from living humans. I think this is due to a lack of education by the press on both sides of the issue; they never mention the fact that you can harvest stem cells from living humans, just embryos.

If you can achieve similar results by preserving life rather than destroying it, wouldn't you choose the former?

To underscore what ToB is trying to say about political motivation and people not wanting us to know the truth about embryonic stem cell research, check out this article (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/02/busdriver.stemcell.ap/index.html):

Bus driver fired for stem cell remark
Driver: 'Free speech is definitely not free'

GRAND ISLAND, New York (AP) -- An elementary school bus driver was fired after sharing a statistic she had read about embryonic stem cell research with students, then encouraging them to tell their parents about it.

Julianne Thompson, 42, told students in November that actor Mel Gibson had said in an article that embryonic stem cell research had not produced a single human cure in 23 years.

Some parents complained and school officials in the Buffalo suburb fired the driver.

Superintendent Thomas Ramming said employees are generally told that political and religious discussions should be confined to a classroom setting where different viewpoints can be presented.

But Thompson said there is nothing in her contract that prohibits her from expressing facts or opinions. She is considering legal action, saying officials have yet to explain why her comments were inappropriate.

"I learned that free speech is definitely not free," Thompson said.

I won't argue that the driver has a right to free speech in a situation involving children, but I will propose that her remark was neither untrue nor damaging to the children, so she shouldn't have gotten fired for it.

<3 Mary

To underscore what ToB is trying to say about political motivation and people not wanting us to know the truth about embryonic stem cell research, check out this article (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/02/busdriver.stemcell.ap/index.html):



I won't argue that the driver has a right to free speech in a situation involving children, but I will propose that her remark was neither untrue nor damaging to the children, so she shouldn't have gotten fired for it.

<3 Mary



Policitical correctness gone awry...again.

I guess my point is that there shouldn't be "surplus embryos." Doctors create life irresponsibly, not knowing whether they are going to implant it or not. Instead, each embryo that is fertilized should be individually fertilized and implanted. Once egg and sperm join, there is life. And life should be held sacred, not as a disposable commodity or something kept around "just in case." That's what I find barbaric.
Well the nature of fertility treatment requires "surplus embryos". (Trust me I've been there). The odds of so slim of fertilization that for each cycle it necessary to get as many eggs and sperm together as you can to increase the odds. Even with IVF odds are pretty good that they'll spontaneously abort. That's why there are so many multiples from fertility treatments - when it works it works - but it's pretty rare statistically.

Having said that, this process is exactly why I'm against embryonic stem cell harvesting. If it becomes successful, where do you think all the stem cells for these new treatments will come from? The demand will pretty quickly outstrip the supply of "surplus embryos" and two things will happen. 1. fertility clinics will become more agressive about fertility treatments becauses there's money in the "extras". 2. Clinics will pop up who's sole purpose is to put donor eggs with donor sperm to create stem cells for the open market. Either one of those two options is a frightening prospect for me.

Given that all therapies utilized currently involve adult stem cells, adult stem cells have some serious limitations...mostly in their numbers and in the fact that they are already differentiated. (though scientist think they can still mutate them into different cells). I dont understand the big deal, we are weighing the lives of actual human beings with a bundle of cells. Cells, or fully formed humans, it should be obvious who should benefit.

Given that all therapies utilized currently involve adult stem cells, adult stem cells have some serious limitations...mostly in their numbers and in the fact that they are already differentiated. (though scientist think they can still mutate them into different cells). I dont understand the big deal, we are weighing the lives of actual human beings with a bundle of cells. Cells, or fully formed humans, it should be obvious who should benefit.
Unless, like me, you believe that these "cells" are human beings. Maybe not fully formed, but...do we eat newborns if we're hungry? Fully formed or not, newborn babies are still human beings. And, to me, so are fertilized eggs, blastocysts, etc. We are preying on the defenseless when we don't have to. And that's wrong.

<3 Mary

Unless, like me, you believe that these "cells" are human beings. Maybe not fully formed, but...do we eat newborns if we're hungry? Fully formed or not, newborn babies are still human beings. And, to me, so are fertilized eggs, blastocysts, etc. We are preying on the defenseless when we don't have to. And that's wrong.

<3 Mary


While I disagree that a bunch of cells is a person, I do agree that embryotic stem cell research is wrong, especially since it is not necceesary. I support using adult stem cells for research.

While I disagree that a bunch of cells is a person, I do agree that embryotic stem cell research is wrong, especially since it is not necceesary. I support using adult stem cells for research.

Well those bunch of cells created you, are you not a person. Thats what the scientists and supporters of abortion and stem cell research do, its all about desensatize America to these horrors. They call a human baby in the womb a fetus, making it sound less human so it is subject to death at the satisfaction for scientific gain. For one thing I dont believe we should have vats of frozen babies (what the scientists call embryos) waiting to be experimented on. Referring to a post made at the beginning, about why dont we use the stem cells of babies that are going to be aborted, so that some good will come from abortion. How sick of a statment is this. Using a dead baby just so that you can feel better. That is selfish and the grossest statement I have ever heard in my life. I wonder how many children there could be if they werent murdered before they had a chance. The media and the public abhors when a child is abducted and killed. Another example is the Laci Peterson murder, we condemn Scott Peterson for killing his wife and unborn child, but abortion clinics do it every day and they arent prosecuted. The old are supposed to die and the young survive, not the opposite.

Heres some facts:

Week 2 Conception is the moment at which the sperm penetrates the ovum. Once fertilized it is called a zygote, until it reaches the uterus 3-4 days later.
Week 4 The embryo may float freely in the uterus for about 48 hours before implanting. Upon implantation, complex connections between the mother and embryo develop to form the placenta.
Week 6 The embryo is about 1/5 of an inch in length. A primitive heart is beating. Head, mouth, liver, and intestines begin to take shape.
Week 10 The embryo is now about 1 inch in length. Facial features, limbs, hands feet fingers and toes become apparent. The nervous system is responsive and many of the internal organs begin to function.
Week 14 The fetus is now 3 inches long and weighs almost an ounce. The muscles begin to develop and sex organs form. Eyelids, fingernails, and toenails also form. The child's spontaneous movements can be observed.
Week 18 The fetus is now about 5 inches long. The child blinks, grasps, and moves her mouth. Hair grows on the head and body.
Week 22 The fetus now weighs approximately 1/2 a pound and spans about 10 inches from head to toe. Sweat glands develop, and the external skin has turned from transparent to opaque.
Week 26 The fetus can now inhale, exhale and even cry. Eyes have completely formed, and the tongue has developed taste buds. Under intensive medical care the fetus has a over a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb.
Week 30 The fetus is usually capable of living outside the womb and would be considered premature at birth.
Week 40 This marks the end of the normal gestational period. The child is now ready to live in outside of his mother's womb.

by this logic all women who do not use all the eggs in their ovaries are murders and all men who masterbate are killers. Don't forget about all those homocidal maniacs who have sex for pleasure.

by this logic all women who do not use all the eggs in their ovaries are murders and all men who masterbate are killers. Don't forget about all those homocidal maniacs who have sex for pleasure.

It seems fairly clear to me that they were talking about diploid cells/zygotes/embryos and not simple haploid sex cells. It is indeed very different from what you describe.

Well those bunch of cells created you, are you not a person. Thats what the scientists and supporters of abortion and stem cell research do, its all about desensatize America to these horrors. They call a human baby in the womb a fetus, making it sound less human so it is subject to death at the satisfaction for scientific gain. For one thing I dont believe we should have vats of frozen babies (what the scientists call embryos) waiting to be experimented on. Referring to a post made at the beginning, about why dont we use the stem cells of babies that are going to be aborted, so that some good will come from abortion. How sick of a statment is this. Using a dead baby just so that you can feel better. That is selfish and the grossest statement I have ever heard in my life. I wonder how many children there could be if they werent murdered before they had a chance. The media and the public abhors when a child is abducted and killed. Another example is the Laci Peterson murder, we condemn Scott Peterson for killing his wife and unborn child, but abortion clinics do it every day and they arent prosecuted. The old are supposed to die and the young survive, not the opposite.

Heres some facts:

Week 2 Conception is the moment at which the sperm penetrates the ovum. Once fertilized it is called a zygote, until it reaches the uterus 3-4 days later.
Week 4 The embryo may float freely in the uterus for about 48 hours before implanting. Upon implantation, complex connections between the mother and embryo develop to form the placenta.
Week 6 The embryo is about 1/5 of an inch in length. A primitive heart is beating. Head, mouth, liver, and intestines begin to take shape.
Week 10 The embryo is now about 1 inch in length. Facial features, limbs, hands feet fingers and toes become apparent. The nervous system is responsive and many of the internal organs begin to function.
Week 14 The fetus is now 3 inches long and weighs almost an ounce. The muscles begin to develop and sex organs form. Eyelids, fingernails, and toenails also form. The child's spontaneous movements can be observed.
Week 18 The fetus is now about 5 inches long. The child blinks, grasps, and moves her mouth. Hair grows on the head and body.
Week 22 The fetus now weighs approximately 1/2 a pound and spans about 10 inches from head to toe. Sweat glands develop, and the external skin has turned from transparent to opaque.
Week 26 The fetus can now inhale, exhale and even cry. Eyes have completely formed, and the tongue has developed taste buds. Under intensive medical care the fetus has a over a 50% chance of surviving outside the womb.
Week 30 The fetus is usually capable of living outside the womb and would be considered premature at birth.
Week 40 This marks the end of the normal gestational period. The child is now ready to live in outside of his mother's womb.


I meant to say that I don't think that a bag of cells is a person, yet, but has the ability to become one. That is why I disagree with embryotic stem cell research.

Oh, well I still disagree but Im glad you dont support stem cell research.

It seems fairly clear to me that they were talking about diploid cells/zygotes/embryos and not simple haploid sex cells. It is indeed very different from what you describe.

It doesn't matter, by their logic i am correct. Sperm makes a human, therefore ejaculation for any other reason other than procreation is murder. We are not talking about a developed thing like a fetus, we are talking about a simple cluster of cells, no organs, nor thoughts, no heart beats, nothing NOTHING. Where are all you people from, Texas?

It doesn't matter, by their logic i am correct. Sperm makes a human, therefore ejaculation for any other reason other than procreation is murder. We are not talking about a developed thing like a fetus, we are talking about a simple cluster of cells, no organs, nor thoughts, no heart beats, nothing NOTHING. Where are all you people from, Texas?
It takes an egg PLUS sperm to make a human.

And i just want even touch the part about "ejaculating being murder"

No spare time eh ;)

ejaculation for any other reason other than procreation is murder.

Are you fucking serious? So every young male going through puberty and having 'wet dreams' should be put in jail eh?

It doesn't matter, by their logic i am correct. Sperm makes a human, therefore ejaculation for any other reason other than procreation is murder. We are not talking about a developed thing like a fetus, we are talking about a simple cluster of cells, no organs, nor thoughts, no heart beats, nothing NOTHING. Where are all you people from, Texas?

Look. Humans are made of dust, and they'll go back to dust after they die. Does that mean we should hold all dust particles as sacred?

Life is only possible when an egg is fertilized by a sperm, otherwise, by your logic, every time a woman has her period, she is committing murder; and that's just plain retarded. What, exactly, was your point to begin with anyway?

Where are you from, some insane asylum?

Oh, well I still disagree but Im glad you dont support stem cell research.

I support adult stem cell research, because when you use adult stem cells, the person is giving their constent to let you use them. It's using embryos for stem cell research that I don't support.

ok this will be my last post becuase you are all actually stupid. I was being extreme to point out the flaws in their logic that embryos make a human therefore using them is murder. if you read the prior post or even that post you should have been able to figure it out. buh bye.

(and if you think its ok to J.O. and not ok to use these cell clusters to benefit humanity as a whole then I think you need to reevaluate your stance becuase there are just way too many holes. I, I, personally don't see a problem with either [just to clear it up for you])

ok this will be my last post becuase you are all actually stupid. I was being extreme to point out the flaws in their logic that embryos make a human therefore using them is murder. if you read the prior post or even that post you should have been able to figure it out. buh bye.

(and if you think its ok to J.O. and not ok to use these cell clusters to benefit humanity as a whole then I think you need to reevaluate your stance becuase there are just way too many holes. I, I, personally don't see a problem with either [just to clear it up for you])
____________

It doesn't matter, by their logic i am correct. Sperm makes a human, therefore ejaculation for any other reason other than procreation is murder. We are not talking about a developed thing like a fetus, we are talking about a simple cluster of cells, no organs, nor thoughts, no heart beats, nothing NOTHING. Where are all you people from, Texas?


23 CHROMOSOMES DOES NOT MAKE A HUMAN. DISPOSAL OF HAPLOID CELLS IS NOT MURDER. Take your *coughStupidcough* name calling and *Texascough* stereotyping somewhere else for a little break.

ok this will be my last post becuase you are all actually stupid. I was being extreme to point out the flaws in their logic that embryos make a human therefore using them is murder. if you read the prior post or even that post you should have been able to figure it out. buh bye.

(and if you think its ok to J.O. and not ok to use these cell clusters to benefit humanity as a whole then I think you need to reevaluate your stance becuase there are just way too many holes. I, I, personally don't see a problem with either [just to clear it up for you])
I know you're banned cause you're a total jerk-off (pun intended)...But...

Many people here believe that life begins at conception. That, for your tiny little brain, is when a sperm goes into an egg. Does masturbation cause fertilization of an egg? No. Embryonic stem cells can only be harvested from living embryos.

Get it? Got it? Good. Now, enjoy your permanent vacation in BanLand.

Sperm makes a human, therefore ejaculation for any other reason other than procreation is murder.

What a sin for a potential serial killer like the GilMod! :D

*I was missing the VitaPoop comments, damnit.*

Geez, it's getting hot in this debate room! Thought I'd offer a physician's perspective. We also debated this very issue in our hospital's Ethics Committee last year because we had to create a policy on what to do with unused embryos in our in vitro fertilization program.

Most of the stem cell experts say that embryonic stem cells offer the most convenient method of obtaining cells and that those cells have the best potential to differentiate into tissues that can repair damaged organs. Adult, umbilical cord blood and placental stem cells are still pleuirpotent but are more difficult to obtain and may not differentiate into every tissue desired, rendering them less convenient. Thus, scientists favor embryonic stem cells, but that doesn't mean that NON-embryonic stem cells couldn't achieve the same therapeutic ends. I see people suffering from Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease (my Dad is one), cancer, heart attacks, etc. every day and I would be very happy to have another tool like stems cells to help alleviate that suffering.

The ethical debate - religious beliefs aside, since different religions believe that the soul enters the baby at different times after conception - has to do with the respect for human life and its potential. If we simply use embryos for convencience's sake, we diminish that respect, especially since there is a great likelihood that we could achieve the same ends through different means. Our world needs to keep searching for ways to INCREASE its respect for people. History is full of examples of what happens when it doesn't.

I'm personally against embryonic stem cell research for both personal religious beliefs and for the ethical dilemmas it brings. I'm happy to say my hospital's Ethics Committee voted to disallow transferring unused embryos to research centers. Now if we could only get those couples undergoing IVF to adopt instead!

It doesn't matter, by their logic i am correct. Sperm makes a human, therefore ejaculation for any other reason other than procreation is murder.


Moron, are you gonna tell me that you've never wanked before????

Wake up to yourself you nutter.

I can tell you one thing-the people in Texas would be a damn sight more intelligent than you, my friend.

Hey, there may be an ALTERNATIVE... I'm happy to report. :)

Click here (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041217/ap_on_he_me/skull_stem_cells)

In case it gets bleeped:

Live stem cells from fat can be used to repair a person's skull. Embryonic Stem cells were not necessary for this achievement.


Stem Cells From Fat Used to Repair Skull

Fri Dec 17, 3:38 PM ET

By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer

Surgeons in Germany say they used stem cells from a 7-year-old girl's fat to help repair severe damage to her skull. It's apparently the first time that researchers have generated bone in a person by using the fat-derived cells.

One expert called the work a landmark and said he considered it the first indication that any kind of stem cell had been harnessed to regenerate bone in a human.

He and others cautioned, however, that the report falls short of proving that the stem cells produced the new bone.

The new work is an example of using so-called "adult" stem cells, as opposed to the more controversial "embryonic" stem cells that are recovered from early embryos. Adult stem cells are found in bone marrow and elsewhere in the body, and scientists hope to use their transforming ability to create replacement tissues for treating disease.

Some scientists say stem cells from fat might be particularly useful because they are abundant and readily accessible.

The girl in the new report had been injured in a fall two years before the surgery. She was missing several areas of skull totaling nearly 19 square inches, the German researchers reported.

Other surgeons had failed to correct the defects, and the girl wore a protective helmet. Her brain could sometimes be seen pulsating through the missing areas of her skull.

But several weeks after the stem-cell surgery, she was able to leave her helmet behind, the researchers report in the December issue of the Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. The skull is now smooth to the touch, the missing parts replaced by thin but solid bone, said Dr. Hans-Peter Howaldt of the Justus-Liebig-University Medical School in Giessen, Germany. The child was not identified.

Howaldt, who performed the surgery last year, said the damage was too extensive to be repaired with bone grafts from her body. He said the hope was that if bits of the child's bone were mixed with stem cells, the cells would turn into bone-building cells that would create additional bone.

That appears to have happened, Howaldt said in a telephone interview Thursday.

"I cannot prove that our success comes from the stem cells alone," he said, "but the combination of the two things simply worked."

In August, other German doctors reported growing a jaw bone in a man's back muscle and transplanting it to his mouth to replace the bone lost to cancer surgery. The researchers used bone marrow to help grow the bone. But it's not clear whether stem cells in the marrow were responsible for the bone growth.

So Roy C. Ogle of the University of Virginia, an expert in skull reconstructive surgery who has been studying bone regeneration from fat-derived cells, said he considers the new report to be the first he knows of that indicates any kind of stem cell had been used to grow bone in a human.

"It is a very big deal," said Ogle, who called the study a landmark.

He agreed that the study didn't prove that stem cells provided the new bone. But it also indicates that the implanted cells did no harm, which has been a concern with using stem cells in people, he said.

Ogle said many surgeons would have augmented the child's bone with a mineral paste or collagen instead of stem cells. Howaldt said he believes it's better to use the body's own tissue.

Howaldt and his colleagues treated the skull in the same operation that recovered bone from the girl's pelvis and about 1.5 ounces of fat tissue from her buttocks. The bone was milled into chips about one-tenth of an inch long and placed in the missing areas of the skull. Then surgeons added the stem cells to the bone chips. The cells had been extracted from the girl's fat in a laboratory while surgeons prepared the girl's skull.

Howaldt said the bone chips appeared to instruct the stem cells to make more bone. While the new bone should grow as the child grows, she's old enough that her skull won't grow much more anyway, he said.

<crosses fingers>

Lets hope this turns out to be effective...