Human embryonic stem cell research

With Michael J Fox's commercial during the World Series the other night (for our non-American orgahs, he endorsed a pro-stem cell research candidate in a race for governor), I wanted to start a dialogue about human embryonic stem cell research. I'll be the first to admit that I'm lacking pertinent information for having a reasonably informed opinion. So, I'd like to peaceably (well, as peaceably as Orgahs can) discuss some of the issues here. To get the ball rolling, I'd like to pose a few pointed questions and get some reactions on them:

-The general driving force in all of this is the supposed medical benefits for certain diseases (diabetes, parkinson's etc) from researching stem cells. But, we've been researching stem cells for close to twenty years now, and thus far, not a single cure. How much longer are we going to pursue this technology with no payoffs?

-What is so special about the embryonic stem cells? Why can't we employ methods for gathering stem cells that do not require the destruction of an embryo or a fetus?

-Is the primary objection to this technology the required destruction of an embryo? Provided that the harvesting takes place at an already scheduled elective abortion, does this make any difference? If the celluar mass is sent to a lab or to a medical waste facility, the abortion has already been performed, right?

-How do you all feel about Michael J. Fox's decision to stop taking his tremor medication to air the ad? Was it deceptive or informative? Deceptive, in that he doesn't really function at that level most days, but informative in that it was the way his body would react, left to it's own devices...

Anyways, like I said, let's talk, rationally, like we all know we can. Let's save the invectives and the name calling and the sarcasm until later. If the best you can come up with is "babykiller" or "religious nut", maybe this isn't the best thread for you to post in. Thanks.

More money for more tumors, hooray!!!

I just don't understand why all this money is wasted when adult stem cells have actually produced results while embryonic has produced nothing but a bunch of promises from rabid abortionists that seem to cream their bell bottoms when they get a chance to chop up a fetus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

More money for more tumors, hooray!!!

I just don't understand why all this money is wasted when adult stem cells have actually produced results while embryonic has produced nothing but a bunch of promises from rabid abortionists that seem to cream their bell bottoms when they get a chance to chop up a fetus.

---

Talk about walking the fine line... but if I strain really hard and put on my Mr. Magoo glasses... :fishbowl: ... Yep, I can see some contribution in that post....

So, adult stem cell research has actually produced some results? Really, could you point to them? As for embryonic not producing any results, is this a question of 'you're not aware of any results' or you know because you've seen posted reports that they've never produced any results?

They say it'll take a generation or two before we can reap the benefits:

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?article...AE83414B7F0000



Oh, and adult (somatic) stem cells are used in bone marrow transplants.

No advancements? I thought that they'd managed to create several different cell types - for example liver cells. This could mean that dialysis of blood for liver failure could be performed. Chondrocytes have been created, hopefully allowing the creating of biological extremities such as ears and noses.

I do wonder if the lack of tangible products has as much to do with hostility as with the technology. Who wants to be the company that sinks due to a mass boycott?

Or as an individual, have one with the risk that some... person will decide that they need to die as a non viable foetus "died"

Oh concerning abortions, some think that America's decrease in levels of crime is partly due to abortions removing the unwanted, unloved children before the problem starts.

And on wastes of Money... NASA. We can look at the surface of moons of saturn!!! Woohoo! Big who cares? There are so many areas of the earth that can have tangible benefits NOW without wasting masses of money mapping some rock in case in 200 years time we want to stick a flag somewhere new.

~:smoking:

As I understand it, neither adult nor embryonic stem cell research is illegal in the US. Federal funds are only availible for certain already established embryonic stem cell lines, though.

I recall that adult stem cells have been actually used for real cures, and show great promise, while embryonic stem cells have cured nothing. However, the way the democrats talk you'd think Bush banned embryonic research that was going to save millions of people and let the paralyzed walk.

They seem determined to ignore the lack of results from embryonic experimentation and the real results from adult stem cell research. An example of this is here. It seems they can't exxagerate enough how great embryonic stem cell research is, and how much 'promise' it shows.

Crazed Rabbit

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to stem cells, but it was my understanding that stem cells are pretty rare in adult bodies.

About embryonic stem cells, why not? It's not as if we're going to grow fetuses in jars to harvest their cells. Why can't we use stem cells from aborted fetuses that were going to be aborted anyway?

Easy there, Tiger. We're trying to have a calm discussion here. Thank you for the information on the generation of liver cells and chrondocytes. Do you have any links to a medical journal where these results were published?

-I'm not going to touch the abortion is good for getting rid of the wrong kinds of people other than to briefly say that I'm surprised to hear you making a eugenics argument.

As for producing a marketable product causing boycotts, you're kidding, right? The Southern Baptist convention's boycott on Disney actually had the reverse intended affect. Their own members didn't abide it, and many people that tended to write off Disney as Pollyanna decided to vote their support with their dollars.

As for NASA, well, two wrongs don't make a right. I think I understand your point, that frequently we know that scientific research will yield important results, even if we don't necessarily know how or when. That's a fair point, but wouldn't that put stem cell research more in line with venture capital then government funding (which is the only thing right now that's being debated, you can create and destroy a billion embryos in the lab tomorrow night, you just can't get the government to pick up the check for it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So, adult stem cell research has actually produced some results? Really, could you point to them?

---

Here ya go...
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/stemcells/sctoday/
http://brownback.senate.gov/OriginalDocs/cultureoflife/stemcellresearch/Adult%20Stem%20Cell%20Update%2006-06.pdf#search='adult%20stem%20cell%20results'
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05052503.html

From all that I've read about embryonic, there haven't produced anything but tumors and promises, but if like Mr Magoo, please feel free to teach me.:coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to stem cells, but it was my understanding that stem cells are pretty rare in adult bodies.

About embryonic stem cells, why not? It's not as if we're going to grow fetuses in jars to harvest their cells. Why can't we use stem cells from aborted fetuses that were going to be aborted anyway?

---

This is a key point, Kralizec. If your premise is correct, then so is your conclusion. If we're talking about fetuses that would be aborted anyway (garbage can or lab type scenario) then I think objecting to the research is foolish. But here in the US at least, I think they're talking about cloning and specifically creating fetuses under certain conditions, to make certain that specific genes are expressed. In this scenario, the research lab has to take on a 'fetus factory' role, and that sort of opposition I can understand.

All the "terminology" in this thread is a bunch of vile filth masquerading as legitimate words, just as is done with the word "abortion" to "justify" that type of murder.

This is not about "human embryos and fetuses", it's about murdering babies on the whims of desperate evil men with lots of money who are mentally debauched enough to think that a chance at prolonging their insignicant existances is worth murdering babies over.

Michael J. Fox should be deeply ashamed of himself for advocating the murder of babies. Any baby's life is worth more than his or anyone else who thinks murdering babies is okay.

Not much time to comment today, I might fill in more when I got time to make some research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

-What is so special about the embryonic stem cells? Why can't we employ methods for gathering stem cells that do not require the destruction of an embryo or a fetus?

---

The main difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells is that the adult ones isn't as adative as the embryonic ones. The embryonic ones can be everything, while the adult ones only can become some speciffic types (there's multiple types of adult stem cells though, that all become different types).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

-Is the primary objection to this technology the required destruction of an embryo? Provided that the harvesting takes place at an already scheduled elective abortion, does this make any difference? If the celluar mass is sent to a lab or to a medical waste facility, the abortion has already been performed, right?

---

Normal abortion got nothing to do with embryonic research BTW, as the embryo needs to be so small (read young) that most people wouldn't even know they're pregnant.
It's usually from in vitro fertilisation, were several fertilised eggs are made and only a few is used. The rest becomes spares, or is deemed as unlikely to become a festus anyway.

Edit:
Navaros, would you please state your oppinion on in vitro fertilation? As you'll produce more fertilised eggs than you'll need, you'll have to be a childmurderer (to use your language) for the procedure. But it will on the other hand create life, that would not have existed without in vitro fertilisation.

There are quite a number of benefits that can be achieved. The difference in Adult and embryonic is that the embryonic can be adapted to be any cell. Stem cell research will eventually be able to create organs and maybe even extremite's.

Embryo's are destroyed yes, but usually from people who have already cast them out as waste, through invetro or abortion. Fetuses on the other hand arent generally used as there are less stem cells in them. What is so wrong with doing research on waste that could save the lives of millions?

Navaros stop trying to silence the debate by screaming "babykiller". The embryo's used are so young not even the pope calls them baby's. If that pisses you off then I'm guessing any women who's had her period must piss you off also, they've wasted millions of embyro's.

M. J. Fox was definately acting up something he shouldnt have. He didn't need to stop the medication to show how badly his body has degraded. Stoping the medication wasnt needed it was purely a political ploy.
____________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

Quote:

---

BigTex

---

Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

Concerning mentioning abortions and crime, I was mentioning an interesting factor. It is not the same as saying that all poor people should be culled. Sort of the difference between knowing how to build an Atom bomb, and using one. Personally I think that it is serendipitous that a woman's choice also benefits society.

Comparing Disney and having a nose that grew from a baby is not in the same league. Navros showed the sane, balanced minds that many might be wary of, even if they themselves are not bothered.

I'd not have government money in Stem Cell research. I'd plump for marine / rainforest discovery.

Adult stem cells have been used to create liver cells.

And my alma mater has done cartilage. Here

I think that saving the lives of millions is not on the cards any time soon. I'd go for making lives better - new joints, new ears / noses / skin, new simple internal organs / external organ analogies.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

All the "terminology" in this thread is a bunch of vile filth masquerading as legitimate words, just as is done with the word "abortion" to "justify" that type of murder.

This is not about "human embryos and fetuses", it's about murdering babies on the whims of desperate evil men with lots of money who are mentally debauched enough to think that a chance at prolonging their insignicant existances is worth murdering babies over.

Michael J. Fox should be deeply ashamed of himself for advocating the murder of babies. Any baby's life is worth more than his or anyone else who thinks murdering babies is okay.

---

:stop:

This is a discussion about the actual science involved in human embryonic stem cell research. As I kindly asked when opening the thread, please refrain from making blanket attacks against all who hold an opinion different than your own. It does absolutely nothing to further the discussion.

Honestly Navaros, if ending abortion is really your goal, and not just titilating yourself as being so self-righteous, as I suspect, you should stop and think about what strategies would work for ending abortion. Going around insulting people just makes them ignore you. Employing some people skills would serve your professed goal much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

M. J. Fox was definately acting up something he shouldnt have. He didn't need to stop the medication to show how badly his body has degraded. Stoping the medication wasnt needed it was purely a political ploy.

---

Actually Fox did take his meds, that's why he is like that.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...0&postcount=19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

This is a discussion about the actual science involved in human embryonic stem cell research.

---

If you want a discussion you need to be ready to listen to people who disagree with you. You also shouldn't re-define the discussion if you don't like the responses. Haven't you asked for a moral discussion when you said: "-Is the primary objection to this technology the required destruction of an embryo? Provided that the harvesting takes place at an already scheduled elective abortion, does this make any difference? If the celluar mass is sent to a lab or to a medical waste facility, the abortion has already been performed, right?" If you just want people to correct your ignorance by telling you, as Ironside did, that embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos, not foetuses, then re-frame your original questions.

Quote:

---

As I kindly asked when opening the thread, please refrain from making blanket attacks against all who hold an opinion different than your own.

---

I read an attack on terminology and an attack on Michael J Fox. What are these blanket attacks?

When I have your permission, I will tell you that I consider embyros to be individual human beings and that as a consequence creating them to harvest stem cells and then disposing of them is completely unacceptable to me.

Hmmm, Duke, what do you call this:

Quote:

---

All the "terminology" in this thread is a bunch of vile filth masquerading as legitimate words, just as is done with the word "abortion" to "justify" that type of murder.

---

.
To dismiss everyone else's opinions as "vile filth" is a blanket attack in my book.

Navaros can have an opinion that disagrees with me (in fact, I'd be nervous if he didn't). But I don't want another mudslinging contest over abortion. We've had plenty of those and if we want, can start more. I'm trying to keep the focus specifically on stem cell research. Abortion is a tangential issue, but lobbing a bomb into the room like the one I quoted above isn't going to make anyone want to open up and contribute.

That all being said, perhaps I was too harsh in my response. Navaros, if I offended you in my rebuttal, I apologize. I didn't intend to offend you, merely keep things on track (and possibly offer you some advice).

Exactly what I said, an attack on terminology. It is the terminology that is described as vile filth - nothing else. Neither the people themselves nor their opinions have been attacked. For someone like me who basically agrees with Navros (although I would have expressed it differently) your response was more intimidating than Navs post.

Don't qoute me on this, but to my knowledge, embryonic stem cell research hasn't been funded very well in the past, so it's not exactly reasonable to say that it's a worthless field of research, based solely off of the lack of past results.

Yes Mongoose. To my Knowledge, Funding in the US is there, But very Limited. So No Known Cures Don? Well, if Bush would let up his "Vaules" with the other half of this Country-Going-To-Hell, then mabye we could find something...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

Yes Mongoose. To my Knowledge, Funding in the US is there, But very Limited. So No Known Cures Don? Well, if Bush would let up his "Vaules" with the other half of this Country-Going-To-Hell, then mabye we could find something...

---

There's no need for such blanket generalizations, though. The Don seems to be seeking facts and detailed opinions more than political views. I myself am interested in what the people here could present. If there is indeed a realistic possibility of creating truly effective organs "out-of-the-blue" in my lifetime, or perhaps help support a more effective, comprehensive cure for cancer (don't people usually lose some of their organs if the cancers are really, really bad?) then hell yeah I'm going to support it. There's one life for me to live as far as I'm concerned -- one ought to last as long as possible.

However, since I'm ignorant on this general topic, I'll be an observer only. I couldn't care less about political views on this thing, either.

People treated with embryonic stem cell treatment exihbit abnormal behavior, not usually, but always! Behaviour like twitching, or even losing control of a limb. The same treatments can be done with stem cells grown from fat tissue. When this is done there is no abnormal behaviour! Millions of pounds of fat is being thrown away every year (liposucsion). You don't even have to kill a BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HURRAY!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

People treated with embryonic stem cell treatment exihbit abnormal behavior, not usually, but always! Behaviour like twitching, or even losing control of a limb. The same treatments can be done with stem cells grown from fat tissue. When this is done there is no abnormal behaviour! Millions of pounds of fat is being thrown away every year (liposucsion). You don't even have to kill a BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HURRAY!!!

---

Oi! Support your claim, please!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Oi! Support your claim, please!

---

It's true. They also become gay and go around raping women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's true. They also become gay and go around raping women.

---

...only if the women are lightly dressed.:laugh4: :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

:stop:

This is a discussion about the actual science involved in human embryonic stem cell research. As I kindly asked when opening the thread, please refrain from making blanket attacks against all who hold an opinion different than your own. It does absolutely nothing to further the discussion.

Honestly Navaros, if ending abortion is really your goal, and not just titilating yourself as being so self-righteous, as I suspect, you should stop and think about what strategies would work for ending abortion. Going around insulting people just makes them ignore you. Employing some people skills would serve your professed goal much better.

---

A thread was made about murdering babies and then a "disclaimer" put into the original post that basically amounts to: "Although this thread is about murdering babies, please do not mention about the murdering of babies in this thread." That disclaimer is not the least bit reasonable.

My posts in this thread were not insulting, rather they are merely calling a spade a spade or more specifically, a murder of a baby a murder of a baby.

OK, Biology 101: a zygote is NOT a baby. You'll notice the difference in names for starters. This should be a clue.

Next you'll be getting your knickers in a twist at the large number of spontaneous miscarriages where the "babies" fail to successfully implant and are aborted

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

A thread was made about murdering babies and then a "disclaimer" put into the original post that basically amounts to: "Although this thread is about murdering babies, please do not mention about the murdering of babies in this thread." That disclaimer is not the least bit reasonable.

My posts in this thread were not insulting, rather they are merely calling a spade a spade or more specifically, a murder of a baby a murder of a baby.

---

Since when did a bunch of cells get assigned the name "baby"? The young cells that are being used have already been thrown out, why is it so wrong to use them? Is it not in your opinion better that the dieing cells be used for something that could be constructive and help prolong and assist others?

As Rory said, if you consider a zygot a baby then most of the women you know are "babykillers". Guessing with your line of reasoning we need to just lock all women up, their all evil vile baby murdering scum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

Actually Fox did take his meds, that's why he is like that.

---

Ahh didn't know one of the side effects of drugs for treating parkinsons was shaking, ironic. I retract my previous statement, but still it is a pure political ploy to use M. J. Fox to attack your opponent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mongoose

Don't qoute me on this, but to my knowledge, embryonic stem cell research hasn't been funded very well in the past, so it's not exactly reasonable to say that it's a worthless field of research, based solely off of the lack of past results.

---

Funding is very limited in the USA. Thats one of the main reasons why the results are slow. But also why most major developments have happened overseas, quite sad.
_____________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

Quote:

---

BigTex

---

Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Navaros, would you please state your oppinion on in vitro fertilation? As you'll produce more fertilised eggs than you'll need, you'll have to be a childmurderer (to use your language) for the procedure. But it will on the other hand create life, that would not have existed without in vitro fertilisation.

---

Im not Navaros, but I'd have to be against invitro fertilization for the same reason I'm opposed to abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

I'm guessing any women who's had her period must piss you off also, they've wasted millions of embyro's.

---

Might wanna re-check the definition of "embryo".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

OK, Biology 101: a zygote is NOT a baby. You'll notice the difference in names for starters. This should be a clue.

---

What if we come up with a different term for you? Your statement is a self-referencing argument that amounts to "A zygote is not a baby.", "Why?", "Because it's a zygote.":dizzy2:

Next you'll be getting your knickers in a twist at the large number of spontaneous miscarriages where the "babies" fail to successfully implant and are aborted[/QUOTE]Thousands of people die of various causes beyond our control throughout the world every day. You help those that you can.

*Don't mind me, just felt the need to pop in and attempt to slap down some of the red-herring arguments that were popping up.

---------------------------------
Anyhow, more on topic- I have to wonder why it's the government's responsibility to fund adult or embryonic stem cells(or other similar fields). Why shouldn't this be handled by the private sector?

Gee thanks for you input. Red herrings or science? Hmm....

A baby is a specific developmental stage. It is able to independently live. A zygote can't. Very important difference.

Perhaps when you've got over being all smug at sorting out the thread, you'll realise this rather simple fact.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Gee thanks for you input. Red herrings or science? Hmm....

A baby is a specific developmental stage. It is able to independently live. A zygote can't. Very important difference.

Perhaps when you've got over being all smug at sorting out the thread, you'll realise this rather simple fact.

~:smoking:

---

Shhhhh don't let cerlone hear you. You must either agree that all cells even bacteria are sacred and accept that if you are pro stem cell research you are indeed a babykiller, regardless of any benefits or definitions of human's. Those who dissent will be smitten!
___________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.

Quote:

---

BigTex

---

Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb

Some definitions of terms might be helpful:

Zygote: Fertilised cell

Embryo: Once the fertilised cell divides it becomes an embryo. With further cell division the embryo becomes more complex as cells start to special and form different tissues.

Foetus: Once the major organs have formed, the individual is termed a foetus (or if you want to be American, Fetus). This will be at 8 weeks for human beings.

Baby: Despite what doctor Rory is telling us, this is not a scientific term, so does not have a well defined meaning. Thus if Navros wants to call a zygote a baby, he can and if Rory does not want to call a zygote a baby, he does not have to. The scientific term is neonate, which is a "baby" between birth and 1 month old. Older babies and neonates are termed infants.

Stem cells: Cells are of a specific type making up tissue, e.g. skin cells, brain cells, nerve cells, muscle cells etc. (There are over 200 types of cells in the human body) Stem cells are basic, undifferentiated cells that can become other types of cells. It may be possible to use stem cells to repair tissue (such as brain cells) to cure disease (such as Parkinson's disease). Embryonic stem cells come from early embryos (4 to 5 days old). Adult stem cells come from older individuals (but not necessarily adults). It is believed that embryonic stem cells can produce differentiated cells more easily and quicker.

The moral issue here is what rights you assign to each stage of human development. If you accord full human rights to all stages (as I do) then creating individuals, harvesting their cells and then disposing of them is morally repugnant. If you accord lesser rights to earlier stages then you will be more comfortable with this idea. In deciding where you begin to assign full human rights, you need reasons, so if you think experimentation on embryos is OK, you need to be able to say why this is ok, but treating adults the same way is not.

Quote:

---

A baby is a specific developmental stage. It is able to independently live. A zygote can't. Very important difference.

---

@Rory
Did you study medical ethics as part of your training because this seems sloppy thinking to me? Neonates and infants can't survive independently either, so are we free to create them, experiment on them and dispose of them? If not, why not?

Quote:

---

As Rory said, if you consider a zygote a baby then most of the women you know are "babykillers". Guessing with your line of reasoning we need to just lock all women up, their all evil vile baby murdering scum.

---

@DC I hope this is going to get exactly the same response that Navros got, or, if you are really going to be fair, a stronger one, since Nav only attacked terminology and MJF, rather than a contributor to the thread.

with the exception of this post im not going to touch this thread with a 80ft barge pole - these threads always implode at some point...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Im not Navaros, but I'd have to be against invitro fertilization for the same reason I'm opposed to abortion.

---

May I suggest correcting people that calls themself pro-lifers and having the same opinion? As they don't choose life in every situation (and therefore aren't pro-life).

Anti-death might work if they do support abortion in some cases were the mother's life is in danger.

Hmm, seems that I'm derailing a bit on the path Don Carleone didn't want the thread to go.

But to summarize how the situation seems to be today, embryonic stem cells seems to have more potential, but adult ones are much easier to work with.

And that the stemcell research has been suffering from the "gold rush" phenomena, with the consequences that comes with it. I
can understand that Michael J Foxis interested in it though as Parkinson disease seems to have some promising stem-cell research. And that the current most promising treatment of Parkinson is to transplant dopamine producing cells from aborted foetuses, that is a more problematic treatment as the cells are rare and subject to more ethical debates then embryonic stem cells.
A bit like insulin before the breakthrough with genetically engineered bacteria.

I'm afraid, Duke, that what I'm discovering is that it is impossible to have this discussion without watching it shift into an abortion debate. It would appear the two are too closely linked to separate them.

I did however get a couple of key nuggets of information I was looking for along the way. Specifically, one of the big arguments against stem-cell research is that it creates a demand for embryos and their subsequent destruction above and beyond the normal abortion demand.

I am still trying to sort through all the links to see what results embryonic stem cell research has yielded versus adult stem cell research. However, it would appear that most of the more ambitious claims, at this time, remain hopes, not accomplishments (even minor ones).

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As Rory said, if you consider a zygote a baby then most of the women you know are "babykillers". Guessing with your line of reasoning we need to just lock all women up, their all evil vile baby murdering scum.

---

@DC I hope this is going to get exactly the same response that Navros got, or, if you are really going to be fair, a stronger one, since Nav only attacked terminology and MJF, rather than a contributor to the thread.

---

Actually, this falls more under the heading of 'straw man argument' then 'personal attack', in that whomever said it (I can't find the original) is exaggerating Navaros' argument in an effort to attribute to him an indefensible postion. But you're right, attacking Navaros' view contributes less than nothing to the conversation and I wish folks could focus more on the questions at hand and not the arguments they perceive in the opposition.

Thank you for your very helpful, thoughtful definitions by the way. One I didn't see in your glossary...where would a blastula fall in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Shhhhh don't let cerlone hear you. You must either agree that all cells even bacteria are sacred and accept that if you are pro stem cell research you are indeed a babykiller, regardless of any benefits or definitions of human's. Those who dissent will be smitten!

---

Just curious, when did I say anything even remotely like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I did however get a couple of key nuggets of information I was looking for along the way. Specifically, one of the big arguments against stem-cell research is that it creates a demand for embryos and their subsequent destruction above and beyond the normal abortion demand.

---

This is not quite correct. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from 4 to 5 day old fertilised eggs and this has to be performed in vitrio. Using tissue from aborted feotuses is a separate issue.

Quote:

---

Thank you for your very helpful, thoughtful definitions by the way. One I didn't see in your glossary...where would a blastula fall in?

---

No problem. I hope they are helpful, but biology is not my area of expertise. I am not sure that my distinction between adult and embrionic stem cells emphasise that embryonic stem cells can divide quicker and produce a wider range of differentiated cells.

A blastula is an early embryo. It consists of hollow sphere of cells. A blastocyst is the next stage where cells develop inside the sphere and these are the source of ebrionic stem cells, as these inner cells go on to develop in to the foetus. The outer cells develop into the placenta. It actually occurs to me that, since this happens in all mammals, research in, say rats would be morally acceptable and likely to generate the same knowledge. Of course, once the knowledge was gained there would be issues about how that knowledge was used, but the knowledge itself would be morally neutral. I don't understand the insistence on using human embryos for research, although once thereputic techniques are developed, human embryos would be required. As I have said before, I find using human embryos unacceptable.

Infants can survive by themselves, and neonates can to an extent - although with far worse long term damage than if they are supported. Unless the cut off is when adulthood is reached. I was going for support that is vastly above and beyond what is required for an average healthy baby.

Experiment on them? What experiments exactly? There are none that I can think of that would be of benefit, as they would normally be in utero.

And I'm guilty of sloppy thinking...

Ethics is not a major part of the course, as things alter so quickly it would be a waste of time. And anything that has any aspect that is ethically charged is either a Consultant or senior Reg decision.

~:smoking:

Edit: Meh, I see Duke of Gloucester has done a better job making the point that I was going to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rory_20_uk

Infants can survive by themselves, and neonates can to an extent - although with far worse long term damage than if they are supported. Unless the cut off is when adulthood is reached. I was going for support that is vastly above and beyond what is required for an average healthy baby.

---

Why go for that cut off point though? Why not adulthood or the support required for a perfectly normal foetus? Interestingly Zygotes and early embryos don't need much support to survive either (although they will need support later when they get larger).

Quote:

---

Experiment on them? What experiments exactly? There are none that I can think of that would be of benefit, as they would normally be in utero.

---

The question is not whether the experiments would be of benefit. The question is whether such experiments would be morally acceptable.

Quote:

---

And I'm guilty of sloppy thinking...

---

I think so, yes. Your main criterion for deciding whether an entity is fully human or not, able to survive without support, seems imprecise to me and you don't seem to be distinguishing between what is useful and what is morally acceptable although the latter could be to do with how I framed the question.

Quote:

---

Ethics is not a major part of the course, as things alter so quickly it would be a waste of time. And anything that has any aspect that is ethically charged is either a Consultant or senior Reg decision.

---

Interesting. Do consultants and Senior Registrars get ethical training then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Infants can survive by themselves, and neonates can to an extent - although with far worse long term damage than if they are supported. Unless the cut off is when adulthood is reached.

---

Neither an infant or a neonate can survive by itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I was going for support that is vastly above and beyond what is required for an average healthy baby.

---

What's the difference?

All I know is that Micheal J Fox seems really shaken up on the issue. Hopefully he doesn't flip flop or try to wiggle out of what he said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

All I know is that Micheal J Fox seems really shaken up on the issue. Hopefully he doesn't flip flop or try to wiggle out of what he said

---

edited

Let's not make jokes about diseases. It's poor taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

Let's not make jokes about diseases. It's poor taste.

---

the hen pecks the cock till it crows (guess which movie and you win a tumor from an embryonic stem cell "cure")

I’d drink an embryonic stem cell Milkshake if it meant I would be cured of ___insert life threatening illness here___ .

DevDave, show some compassion because its bloody unlikely I will.

Mith used the light touch and gave you a hint to behave. Instead you decided to continue making fun of someone who has a disease that definitly diminishes not only the quality of ones life but also the quantity of that. Making fun of dying people is a very very cheap shot. Is this how we shall measure the groups you belong to?

As an adult you should understand that choices have consequences and as a parent you should be leading by example. How would you feel if your children publically or even privately heaped scorn on a cripple by following the pattern you have set, how would your parents or fellow congregration feel about you for doing so?

You now have a very public 24 hours to cleanup both of your posts or face 2 point warnings for the each of them. Too bad if you do or don't login in that period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

DevDave, show some compassion because its bloody unlikely I will.

Mith used the light touch and gave you a hint to behave. Instead you decided to continue making fun of someone who has a disease that definitly diminishes not only the quality of ones life but also the quantity of that. Making fun of dying people is a very very cheap shot. Is this how we shall measure the groups you belong to?

As an adult you should understand that choices have consequences and as a parent you should be leading by example. How would you feel if your children publically or even privately heaped scorn on a cripple by following the pattern you have set, how would your parents or fellow congregration feel about you for doing so?

You now have a very public 24 hours to cleanup both of your posts or face 2 point warnings for the each of them. Too bad if you do or don't login in that period.

---

Jumping into politics and not even reading what you're doing a comercial for has far more reaching effects than some guy making dumb jokes on a gaming forum. Taking things so seriously could cause you a stroke...relax...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FAQ

Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.

---

Your choice, your consequences.

Thankyou for editing your posts. I can now close this thread.