Stem Cells and Ethics

this possibility is only needed because people like you don't even understand how they get stem cells, or where the cells are coming from.
why would they need to do what you are suggesting if the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway? you have no logical reason to disallow it its not new life its a combination of two genetic parts, and as someone said, the sperm and egg are alive.the fact is you are trying argue something you really have no clue about

If you don't know what words mean you really shouldn't be using them.It is nonsensical to talk about totipotent specified cells, or even totipotent cells at the time of birth and certainly to talk of cells 'totipotent to the formation/maintenance of bones'.Totipotent has a very specific meaning which makes these phrases nonsense at best.TTFN,WK

No one is an abortion proponent you nitwit.Your use of conservative Republican buzz terms is evidence of your inability to think for yourself. Not being able to tell the difference between a clump of cells and a human being is the result.

with links updated in the OP (including link to the actual Science report on the survey).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

Can stem cells from the placenta or umbilical cord be used instead of stem cells from actual embryos? I have heard this claimed by those who oppose embryonic stem cell research.If it's true, why would this be less attractive to scientists? It seems like this would have ended the debate over embryonic stem cell research in this country, but it hasn't. I'm trying to understand why.Are those sources less useful, or harder to obtain? I refuse to accept the explanation that it's a plot by the abortion industry,as I'm not into conspiracy theories, but it's hard for someone with no science background to weed through what is valid argument and what is nonsense.Thanks in advance to any who reply.

welcome to the fray, helenavm.Please note the two different reply formats, the general reply that you used and the message reply that creates a link to the message referenced (as this one is to your message). For details on this and other tips see posting tips. There are several sources of precursor cells, cells that are not fully differentiated, but they generally do not have the versatility of actual embryonic stem cells (EMCs) and need to be "jiggled" into thinking they are EMCs. There was a recent article about skin cells being jiggled to do this, which would open up true cloning (unlike what has been done so far).However, the issue of this thread is concerned with the question of using embryonic cells that will not become people, and the choice is whether to use them in research or discard them.To me there is no question but that the donors of the cell material should be able to decide this question, and that this is ethically in keeping with the choice that family members make for donations of organs.Enjoy.

---

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.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •