|
Post by cdngurl on Jan 17, 2008 14:16:46 GMT -5
What about the idea then - of animal based embryonic stem cell research, which in turn would move to human based study once positive results are found - but using only donated human cells (non aborted)? Would you be opposed to that from an ethical standpoint?
What is the current status of research in the United States? Is it animal based only and severely under-funded? Are some presidential candidates looking to further restrict?
|
|
|
Post by blazinheart on Jan 17, 2008 14:31:06 GMT -5
What about the idea then - of animal based embryonic stem cell research, which in turn would move to human based study once positive results are found - but using only donated human cells (non aborted)? Would you be opposed to that from an ethical standpoint? Human embryonic stem cell treatment is proven. I have seen the results with my own 2 eyes. The issue here is not whether or not I believe embryonic stem cell treatment works, it's that I don't agree with it morally. Adult Stem cell treatment, specifically bone marrow treatment has proven effective as well. Although most of the cases are very recent and we've still yet to see the long term effects. As far as animal embryonic stem cell treatment, I dont' know. I don't like the idea of aborting any fetus for any reason, human or animal. But an animal doesn't have a soul and a human does, so that's makes all the difference to me.
|
|
|
Post by cdngurl on Jan 17, 2008 14:40:02 GMT -5
But an animal doesn't have a soul and a human does, so that's makes all the difference to me. But most certainly cord blood doesn't have a soul (some may argue that animals do have souls) - and the human life is still intact in that case... I would even say this is less invasive than adult stem cell usage.
|
|
|
Post by blazinheart on Jan 17, 2008 14:43:00 GMT -5
But an animal doesn't have a soul and a human does, so that's makes all the difference to me. But most certainly cord blood doesn't have a soul (some may argue that animals do have souls) - and the human life is still intact in that case... I would even say this is less invasive than adult stem cell usage. Like I said, it's only human embryonic stem cell treatment that I have an issue with. As long as a human life is not involuntarily taken in order to treat someone, I don't have a problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by cdngurl on Jan 17, 2008 14:49:44 GMT -5
Like I said, it's only human embryonic stem cell treatment that I have an issue with. As long as a human life is not involuntarily taken in order to treat someone, I don't have a problem with it. Got it. Question - does anyone know if the cells in cord blood are the same as those in embryos or fetuses? (I really hope I'm not coming off like a complete idiot here... )
|
|
|
Post by cdngurl on Jan 17, 2008 14:54:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jan 18, 2008 12:22:35 GMT -5
Actually, the cord blood stem cells are adult stem cells, not embryonic, so it IS different. The question I have beyond that about embryonic cells, is what about those babies that "naturally abort" - since you believe that life is precious (and trust me, so does all of my friends who have miscarried!) wouldn't it be nice if their loss could be someone else's gain? Like organ donation, the life lost gives hope to another family (or several families) which makes their death not in vain. It would be such a comfort to a grieving mother.
Shey
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jan 18, 2008 12:34:09 GMT -5
I have not seen/heard where Embryonic stem cells are better than Adult. I have read where there has been successes with Adult. Why not focus on the Adult cells. And to answer your question Shey, I think using Embryonic, whether from a spontaneous abortion or medically induced, is a slippery slope. A slope that will lead to a "cheapening" of human life.
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jan 18, 2008 13:17:50 GMT -5
that same argument was used (and is still used in some places today) about organ donation. There were fears about people being murdered in dark alleys for their organs. I think it cheapens human life to not allow an unpreventable death to save others. That noble idea is why people donate organs, donate cadavers to medical schools, etc. The loss of a life is hard enough, why not at least feel that your loss has saved others, or at least saved their pain? I think it cheapens life that we let even ONE child die of a disease that might have been cured because we refused to allow a grieving mother the chance to donate her lost baby. But thats just me! ;D
Shey
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jan 18, 2008 13:23:34 GMT -5
I completely understand that Shey and I think organ donation is a noble thing.... I guess it's just something I have to reconcile in my own head.
|
|
|
Post by freckles on Jan 18, 2008 14:23:25 GMT -5
I wonder if we can *Cut and Paste * Genes Big Booberd Genes injected in No Boobered Lady = Giant Boobered Lady But what if when She sneezes on People Then That Gene is like a Cold Then all the Women catch it and they all have BIG Boobs
|
|
|
Post by cdngurl on Jan 18, 2008 14:56:52 GMT -5
I wonder if we can *Cut and Paste * Genes Big Booberd Genes injected in No Boobered Lady = Giant Boobered Lady But what if when She sneezes on People Then That Gene is like a Cold Then all the Women catch it and they all have BIG Boobs oh freckles... ;D You make me smile. Well - if they can't do this with stem cells - lets hope they can at least cure breast cancer one day right?
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Feb 8, 2008 14:40:52 GMT -5
Saw this episode of South Park last night and thought of this thread. It's pretty sad that all I know about stem cells comes from a cartoon. This scene is classic, though... www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTC_wdNHzmg
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Feb 11, 2008 11:43:55 GMT -5
Bring on the Stem Cell!!!!!!!!!
|
|