Stem Cells and Ethics

you do realize that this is a news article and thus does not qualify as scientific literature, right?

A fetus has a fully operational neurological system at 12 weeks, (not that there is a need for such extraneous information because it doesn't detract from what you initially said). You are attempting to dehumanize the fetus to give it the appearance of unimportance. But if you can frivolously note that a fetus is merely a clump of cells, then so are you by the same reasoning.

quote:

---

One [man-made abortions] is intentional and the other [spontaneous abortions] is an accident. That's like me asking God what He would do in relation to a man that slips and falls and compare it to a man who was bludgeoned to death. The stark difference is transparent.

---

It is in God's hands. The very ability you possess to choose a poor decision or a good decision is only by His permissive will-- lest you be an automaton.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

I don't see either of your links -- neither of which is a journal study -- saying what you claimed. To repeat, you claimed Nothing on either link mentioned metastasizing.Note that one of the biggest problems with current stem cell research is that the number of lineages\sources is severely limited, and a number of those were abnormal to begin with. This is a result of our president playing god on deciding what can be done in scientific research based on his religious feeling and absolutely NO scientific standard (believe me he has none -- he's too busy playing god).What we don't know is how much stem cell research has suffered during the last 6 years of this narrow-minded bigoted elitist anti-science backward policy, what we DO know is that stem cells DO work. I've just had a stem cell transplant because it is a relatively successful procedure, unfortunately the choices were more limited than necessary -- because of people trying to play (pretend they are) god.Now see if you can dig up that specific reference for what you claimed.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

RAZD, there are upwards of 100 nations dissecting human remains right now all over the world trying to perfect their craft. Nobody has a problem with stem cell research. We have a problem with Embryonic Stem Cell research, which has produced nil.

quote:

---

"Because of their plasticity and potentially unlimited capacity for self-renewal, ES cell therapies have been proposed for regenerative medicine and tissue replacement after injury or disease. To date, no approved medical treatments have been derived from embryonic stem cell research."

---

-WikiPerhaps you're too busy on a philosophical crusade to stop and look at the actual evidence, or in the case of embryonic stem cells, the sheer lack of it. What is your beef with adult
stem cells if they already have an established record of success?Or at the very least, lets use those fetal stem cell lines[/url] already available in laboratories without needlessly destroying more. Or is that even the? Shouldn't we see some measure of promise beyond total speculation before we jump headlong into this, when there are so many ethical concerns as is?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

So far you have not shown that embryonic stem cells involve destroying anybody or anything. What's your problem?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

When they come from your own body - nothing. BUT that is not always possible.When they come from another body then you need to take immuno-supressant drugs the rest of your life or you will get host-donor or graft-host disease:

quote:

---

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a common side effect of an allogeneic bone marrow or cord blood transplant (also called a BMT). An allogeneic transplant uses blood-forming cells donated by a family member, unrelated donor or cord blood unit. In GVHD, the immune cells from the donated marrow or cord blood (the graft) attack the body of the transplant patient (the host). GVHD can affect many different parts of the body. The skin, eyes, stomach and intestines are affected most often. GVHD can range from mild to life-threatening.

---

Fetal stem cells on the other hand do not have this problem and would be recognized as your own (or would recognize you as their own).That means you would have another option to live.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Nobody knows how to define a person. But, I don't think you should choose a particular stance just because it is easy to define, but rather you should choose one that matches the feelings of morality that you have, and leads to the most acceptable conclusions.

---

Those "feelings of morality" are pressed on the individual who has been given the right to choose what those "feelings" should be. In other words, no one has the right to determine for me or you. It is the consequences for going against the mandates set forth for a believer that sway the selfsame. And not just in the quoted organization. Too many forget the gift, which sets the standard for the relationships we have regardless, of self-determination regardless. The fear created sets in motion an unwillingness to go with what is right and reasonable and logical in the mind.

quote:

---

You shall not kill.54

​

You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55

​

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
Read more in the link.

---

The decree:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66======Any idea what the above is saying? In the moment when self-defense is necessary, a man stops to think how much force is necessary to stay alive?======The contradiction:
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.It is not ok to kill, it is ok to kill. Mostly, it is forbidden to think for oneself, the decision as to what is what is determined for the not-thinker. Sheep are dumb. Either something belongs to me, or it doesn't. If it does, I decide how it should be used.

It destroys an embryo. What's your problem?

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

The problem from a medicinal standpoint, as I understand it, is that embryonic stem cells are generally undifferentiated. So its hypothesized that you can differentiate them to become whatever cell line you wish. But the rapidity of its growth remains unchecked and often without any way of regulating the growth of the cell(s). And what is a rogue cell line that grows rapidly beyond control? That's cancer. Aside from the tumor formations, there are unstable gene expressions, and an inability to stimulate the cells to form the desired type of tissue."The latest pre-embryo substitute on the block is "pluripotent" vs. "totipotent". That is, the cells (or blastomeres) of the early developing human embryo are "pluripotent" rather than "totipotent" - the point of the Framers being that these "pluripotent" cells could never ever naturally revert to new human organisms - human beings. Why? Because these human embryonic cells are too "differentiated" now - they can only give way to more cells, tissues and organs - never revert to new human embryos. They are simply needed for basic research and "stem cell therapies". Not to worry.

​

But the "pluripotent" claim is not true, and is refuted by the accurate objective scientific facts. Most of the cells of the early developing human embryo - both in vivo and in vitro, whether derived from sexual or asexual reproduction - are totipotent, not pluripotent. And that means that they can not only produce all of the cells, tissues and organs of the adult human being, but also that IF IF IF separated from the whole human embryo they have the natural capacity to be regulated and reverted back to new human embryos - for use in whatever project happens to be around at the time. Again, the proof is right before our collective eyes - in the empirical fact of "twinning". If twins are formed - and they are - that could only happen if at least some of the cells of the early human embryo were totipotent. "Twinning = totipotent".

​

This magnifies the ethical objection of killing already living "surplus" IVF-produced human embryos considerably -- to one of purposefully producing vats-full of living human embryos by "twinning" and other cloning techniques for research and for reproductive purposes. The Framers just call them "immortal human embryonic stem cell lines" instead.

​

And so the term "pluripotent" is now featured as the very major premise in statements about "alternative methods", "regenerative medicine" and even research studies and bioethics "courses" across the fields, on both sides of the aisles - well on its way to being immortalized and institutionalized by the Framers. And it is working too, resulting in the desired confusion, contradictions and adherents as needed.

​

For example, all four of the current proposals for "alternative sources of human embryonic stem cells" (among other concerns) assume as their major premise that these stem cells are pluripotent, rather than totipotent. No questions asked. Thus whatever is being claimed for these "pluripotent" stem cells is actually true for totipotent stem cells instead!"

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Actually, it looks more like it puts an embryo that would have been simply flushed down a toilet or tossed in the garbage to good use.I still do not see what your problem is?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

it looks more like it puts an embryo that would have been simply flushed down a toilet or tossed in the garbage.

---

That's the problem.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

It's morally wrong to take advantage of something that's going to be destroyed anyway?I don't get it. When we ask you "what's the problem", it's because we don't understand why what you call a "problem" is a problem.These embryos are slated for destruction anyway. If you have a problem with that then your beef is with the fertility industry - as well as with the natural process of female menstruation, which destroys far more embryos yearly than stem cell research and fertility treatments, combined.

In Message 40 I said: and you reply:

quote:

---

That's the problem.

---

So you think it is better to simply flush an embryo down a toilet or toss it into the garbage.Got it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

NJ it looks like your keyboard malfunctioned as for some reason you didn't include the full quote... As an aside there is no support for the position of the sanctity of an embryo in the Bible. Heck in the Bible God himself commanded the wholesale destruction of embryos on a number of occasions.

Its morally wrong to have ever arrived there to begin with. So what? Given that every child that passes through a birth canal is connected to an umbilical cord means that you could extract all of the stem cells you could have ever hoped for without needlessly killing one, single thing.

---

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton