Loving stem-cell research

[ChenShuiBian]

I really support stem-cell research. With the research tremendously and progressively going on, we might find a way to revert human aging. And I don't know why are people against embryonic stem-cell research? That's the only way we can find a youth fountain. By the way, who have been closely contacting stem-cell researching facility? Did you apply to the usage of the nutrition of stem-cell?

I heard Russia people are crazily fond of stem-cell cure, right?

[learnin to learn]

I really support stem-cell research. With the research tremendously and progressively going on, we might find a way to revert human aging. And I don't know why are people against embryonic stem-cell research? That's the only way we can find a youth fountain. By the way, who have been closely contacting stem-cell researching facility? Did you apply to the usage of the nutrition of stem-cell?

I heard Russia people are crazily fond of stem-cell cure, right?

 

I agree with you on the matter of stem-cell research, but for totally different reasons. I belive the only way to find cures for many diseases are through stem-cell research.

However, I understand why many do not agree with stem-cell research. The stem-cells that are used are from a human fetus. So people see researching on these steam-cells as taking away the life of a human.

[Stargazer]

I was under the impression that the stem cells are taken from embryos that would be discarded anyway, from fertility clinics for example.

[learnin to learn]

I was under the impression that the stem cells are taken from embryos that would be discarded anyway, from fertility clinics for example.

 

I think they do but some people still think that when we experiment on human steam cells we are destroying life

[Michaelangelica]

Worldwide, we flush about a billion female eggs a month down the loo.

What is the problem with harvesting a few hundred/thousand if it stops human disease and suffering?

Scientists seek eggs after stem cell vote

Anna Salleh

ABC Science Online

Thursday, 7 December 2006

Embryonic stem cells could be grown into islet cells to treat diabetes, say researchers

Australian stem cell researchers will start negotiating with IVF clinics to access human eggs following this week's landmark decision to overturn a ban on creating cloned embryos specifically for scientific research.

News in Science - Scientists seek eggs after stem cell vote - 07/12/2006

[InfiniteNow]

Worldwide, we flush about a billion female eggs a month down the loo.

It really is an "every sperm is sacred http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002085385040727366&q=every+sperm+is+sacred" type argument against it. Silly really.

[TheBigDog]

It really is an "every sperm is sacred" type argument against it. Silly really.

Only because it disagrees with your own beliefs. One man's silly is another's sacred.

 

Now, in your book, at what point of embryonic development does it become taboo to engage in destructive experimentation?

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Sorry TBD, I'm diabetic, and if one more stupid religiously powerful group prevents stem cell research any longer because it MIGHT result in life, instead of helping me cure my disease NOW, I'm going to vomit. It WILL happen sooner or later, and frankly I'm getting tired of the heels being dragged because of legal and political imposition of religious belief.

 

 

I find it curious that there isn't a parellel (which means equal intensity and frequency as well) out cry on testing in non-humans, because god doesn't love mice embryos as much or something. No wonder we're so socially retarded.

 

Hot buttons being pushed,

[Zythryn]

Only because it disagrees with your own beliefs. One man's silly is another's sacred.

 

Excellent point.

 

Now, in your book, at what point of embryonic development does it become taboo to engage in destructive experimentation?

Bill

 

Although not asked to me, I will give my two cents.

I do have a tough time with excactly where. For me, it is right around the time the fetus is able to survive without the mother.

 

As for the current argument that embryos should be held sacred...

Every single individual I have heard make this argument is so hypocritical their arguments are non-sensical.

The reason I say this is I have yet to hear any of them argue to make IVF clinics illegal, or to make throwing the embryos out in the trash illegal, or bringing charges up against women that smoke, drink, or do anything else that leads to an embryo becoming dislodged or a miscarraige down the road.

 

The ESC research is not what destroys these embryos, they were already slotted for destruction when the IVF clinic was ready to toss them in the garbage. Go after the IVF clinics if you really want to address the issue.

[TheBigDog]

Excellent point.

 

 

 

Although not asked to me, I will give my two cents.

I do have a tough time with excactly where. For me, it is right around the time the fetus is able to survive without the mother.

 

As for the current argument that embryos should be held sacred...

Every single individual I have heard make this argument is so hypocritical their arguments are non-sensical.

The reason I say this is I have yet to hear any of them argue to make IVF clinics illegal, or to make throwing the embryos out in the trash illegal, or bringing charges up against women that smoke, drink, or do anything else that leads to an embryo becoming dislodged or a miscarraige down the road.

 

The ESC research is not what destroys these embryos, they were already slotted for destruction when the IVF clinic was ready to toss them in the garbage. Go after the IVF clinics if you really want to address the issue.

Never post drunk, right? F it!

 

OK, I see three critical phases with an embryo. First is the phase that if can survive without the mother. Very early in the development. Then is the phase that it cannot survive without the mother - late early to middle. And then is the phase that it can survive without the mother again - when if separated it becomes a viable independant life.

 

I have no problem with experimentation in phase one. To me this is simple chemistry. Once it reaches a point that it needs a maternal host I say that experimentation is taboo. I do not know when that is - so sue me!

 

Somewhere in the second stage I believe that the mother's responsibility becomes the survival of the baby. And certainly in the third phase any action against the baby would be equal to murder.

 

It is a fine line to walk.

 

On a personal note Shannon had an ictopic pregnancy several years ago (call him 3.5) and had to have a philopian tube removed in an emergency surgury. I don't lose any sleep over this as it was a clear cast of making a life saving choice for Shannon. She also had a miscarriage (call it 2.5) but was rather early term. I think that miscarriages are far more common that most people think. And until the advent of early pregnancy tests many went almost unnoticed.

 

As for the comment that a billion are flushed down the lue every month, this is just crap. There is a huge difference between a pregnancy and a period. It is as different as potential energy and kinetic energy.

 

I love stem cell research. But I love the *effective* research. While there is potential in embryonic cells, every single active therapy is from other types. The outlook for breakthroughs is still there. But it has yet to yield a single therapy.

 

The whole thing needs to be approached with care. To dismiss the emotional impact of this moral discussion is not good. If the US is not investing in it, the so much the better for other nations who will have a leg up in the financial gains from the research. Or does the rest of the world feel without US dollars that no breakthroughs will ever be made? Forgive us our consideration to the people of our country and the power of the democtatic system. If there was money in it wouldn't the all powerful corperations that run the US have already made it legal?

 

Don't post drunk

 

Bill

 

PS(edit) none of this is aimed toward you Zyth. I need to go to sleep.

[InfiniteNow]

Perhaps validity would have been found if obstacles were not forceably imposed.

I love stem cell research. But I love the *effective* research. While there is potential in embryonic cells, every single active therapy is from other types. The outlook for breakthroughs is still there. But it has yet to yield a single therapy.

 

Most discoveries happen by accident. This is something we KNOW will help, but we prevent it. That's just f*$king brilliant. Yeah... way to go. Like stem cell research won't happen when the political powers that be are replaced.

 

Maybe if I bury my head in the sand the tiger won't see me.

[TheBigDog]

Most discoveries happen by accident.

Then most specific research is meaningless.

 

Bill (two can cherry pick)

[somebody]

I really support stem-cell research. With the research tremendously and progressively going on, we might find a way to revert human aging. And I don't know why are people against embryonic stem-cell research? That's the only way we can find a youth fountain. By the way, who have been closely contacting stem-cell researching facility? Did you apply to the usage of the nutrition of stem-cell?

I heard Russia people are crazily fond of stem-cell cure, right?

 

If you are talking about finding cure for aging then you should be little more specific than "stem-cell research". As we all know, there are other use of stem-cells (like cure for diseases) which can also be achieved with adult stem-cells in your body (for example bone marrow).

 

Overall, I am somewhere in between because in terms of finding cure for diseases, researchers can use adult stem-cells. But for something more dynamic like the human aging, i support the research (ethically speaking).

[pgrmdave]

What I don't understand about opposition to stem cell research is that it appears that the majority of opposition comes not from the destruction of the embryo, but of the research done on it. The majority of the embryos being used are slated to be destroyed. They will either be destroyed without helping research, or with helping research. They will never be life. Never. Not a chance. If it's going to be killed, why not let it be used for something good?

[Zythryn]

What I don't understand about opposition to stem cell research is that it appears that the majority of opposition comes not from the destruction of the embryo, but of the research done on it. The majority of the embryos being used are slated to be destroyed. They will either be destroyed without helping research, or with helping research. They will never be life. Never. Not a chance. If it's going to be killed, why not let it be used for something good?

 

Excactly! But most people arguing against ESC research SAY they are arguing against the destruction of embryos. Yet, they don't argue against other things that cause the destruction of those same embryos.

[TheBigDog]

What is also not said is that there is a huge amount of research happening all over the world on embryonic stem cells. Are US embryos more scientifically viable than those in other countries? No. The issue is that people want US tax dollars to fund it. And the federal ban is stopping the flow of US funds into embryonic research. Why can't the US let other nations fund something?

 

I am not opposed to stem cell research. But I hesitate to invest heavily in embryonic which has to date yielded only hopes and debate, while other forms of research have working therapies. If we have a limited amount of money, where should we invest it?

 

Bill

[pgrmdave]

I don't mind people arguing that other forms of research may be more viable, but do we need a law to ban the federal government from funding it? Is our congress so mismanaged that they have to tie their hands in order to not fund something that may not produce results?