Status
Not open for further replies.
From The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR):

"Where do stem cells come from? Embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass of a blastocyst: the fertilized egg, called the zygote, divides and forms two cells; each of these cells divides again, and so on. Soon there is a hollow ball of about 150 cells called the blastocyst that contains two types of cells, the trophoblast and the inner cell mass. Embryonic stem cells are obtained from the inner cell mass."

glfredrick,

I don't understand, if you believe that it is up to God to end life, how can you oppose the use of a blastocyte to develop life-saving medicine yet support state-sanctioned murder?

G o o g l e : innocence project

"The Death Penalty Information Center has identified 129 inmates who have been released from death row since 1977 owing to new evidence. Nine were exonerated and freed last year after serving a combined 121 years behind bars" (Salt Lake City Tribune, April 17, 2010).

"...In Matthew 25, Jesus, himself a victim of capital punishment, teaches that what we do to one of his 'least brothers,' we do to him—which certainly should give us pause when we contemplate an execution. Sister Helen reminds us that he taught us 'not to return hate with hate, violence with violence.' She urges us to 'reflect on what capital punishment is doing to us as a society'" (McBride, American Catholic dot org).

But you oppose the use of cells are not yet differentiated that may save countless lives?
 
Last edited:
Roadkill, you made two excellent responses above. I will never understand how someone can believe that a blastocyst is of equal value to a human being. No. More valuable. They believe it better to keep the blastocyst and discard the human.

On your second point, I too have noticed what appears to be a paradoxical correlation between pro-lifers and, advocates for the death penalty. State sanctioned, calculated murder. How is it OK for the state to take a life but not OK for an individual. If there was evidence that the DP acted as a deterrent, I would have more difficulty in condemning it, but it does not. It is revenge, pure and simple.
 
As long as we "call" life something other than life, it seems perfectly okay to use or otherwise manipulate it for our own good. We once called non-persons "slaves" and felt the same rights with them. A "blastocyst" is nothing more than a baby, save for some time.

About criminals... If they have been rightly adjudicated and convicted of capital crimes, they have given up their rights willingly, knowing that the penalty for their actions was the death sentence. Babies have no say in the matter.

So far, there is no evidence that the cells from harvested babies is better than the stem cells harvested from willing blood donors or umbilical cords. Why not just use those?
 
that is just it - we dont know - and wont know till it is tried - things do get old and don't work as well
 
I am against abortion but I am also against a life being wasted. The stem cell study that I have qualified for and will hopefull have the procedure done early in 2011 uses the cells from a fetus that was aborted in 1991 that would have been discarded. They can now multiply the stem cells from this one fetus and make billions more. So in this scenario they are not "farming" embryo's to just discard in the name of science. So I view it like this while the fact that the fetus was aborted is certainly and undistuputably a tragedy would it not be a bigger tragedy to not allow that loss of life to give others a "Right to Life". In addition I ask this question if I or anyone else was murdered would anyone have a moral dilema with utilizing my organs to help save the life of others? I would want my organs to help someone else. Again I am not for abortion or destroying embryo's just for research purposes but if you can turn a negative into a positive I am for that.
 
As long as we "call" life something other than life, it seems perfectly okay to use or otherwise manipulate it for our own good. We once called non-persons "slaves" and felt the same rights with them. A "blastocyst" is nothing more than a baby, save for some time.
Well I guess you also condemn condoms, birth control pills and masturbation.

...
About criminals... If they have been rightly adjudicated and convicted of capital crimes, they have given up their rights willingly, knowing that the penalty for their actions was the death sentence. Babies have no say in the matter...
Except that a disproportionate amount are poor, non-white or simple-minded. Oh well, they are almost what we would have formerly called "non-persons" to use your term. Oh yes, DNA evidence has found many people on death row, or now executed, to never have been guilty at all. Oops! As I said, the death penalty is vengeance, pure and simple.

...So far, there is no evidence that the cells from harvested "babies" is better than the stem cells harvested from willing blood donors or umbilical cords. Why not just use those?
Stem cell research has long ago laid to rest this old chestnut.
 
Last edited:
John1, thanks for taking up those issues. Very much needed. Dani
 
A little light on the subject about why we are not using tissue harvested from a person so much as the stem cells from a fetus. I did a presentation in biophysics to the university this year about stem cells and the molecular biology. To save recreating my entire presentation. Stem cells made from human tissue is not able to be made identical to the stem cells from a fetus. A fetus stem cell can be used to create any type of tissue in the body being that in its very nature is what it does. Our genetic makeup as a baby tells our stem cells what to create whether its a muscle, myelin sheath, etc. As an adult, our tissue derived cells can be reprogrammed genetically to do the same thing however there is no guarantee it will make what the biophysicists tells it to. In order for us to create identical stem cells we would need to create the tissue in a vacuum whereas gravity has no baring. This is what I did my presentation on is a bioreactor in space to create these tissues and cells. In a vacuum or space we would be able to create identical cells and manipulate them to create whatever tissue etc,. we would need.

Being there is only one lab working to create tissue in a vacuum which is still not a true vacuum. The idea to only use tissue is a long way off from therapeutic right now but we are getting closer. The stem cells being used now are from an aborted fetus from 1991. I dont choose to judge the decisions of others however if they make that decision I do not understand wasting the possibility of preserving life to make a point to society's morality.
 
Well I guess you also condemn condoms, birth control pills and masturbation.

I didn't notice that I "condemn" anyone or anything. Those are your own, very highly charged, words.

I also am not against things that are not abortifacients. You are attempting to make me out to be an ogre. I am not. I am against the "morning after" pill and also the abortion pill RU486, both of which are abortifacient in nature.

Except that a disproportionate amount are poor, non-white or simple-minded. Oh well, they are almost what we would have formerly called "non-persons" to use your term. Oh yes, DNA evidence has found many people on death row, or now executed, to never have been guilty at all. Oops! As I said, the death penalty is vengeance, pure and simple.

I would admit that there are some people who have died from wrongful actions. There are a lot more who know exactly what they have done, and the percentages are not in favor of your position. Terms like "many people" are meaningless in a sense, for all they do is convey emotional charges, not true numbers of persons who were innocent versus those who were not.

In any case, the whole idea of equivocation between innocent unborn persons and criminals on death row is nothing more than a red herring argument. We're talking fetal cells here, not death row inmates. By your logic, we should also then be harvesting replacement organs from death row inmates. Life is life, right? When said that way, the point fails in multiple moral grounds.

We can give life from life in several ways, including fetal cell transfer from means other than destruction of viable embryos. We can give blood, we can share organs (like kidneys) where we have two, we can extract bone marrow, and we can share adult stem cells. I am all for utilizing these means if the donor is a willing participant. I would not be in favor if they need to be strapped to a table, and the life-matter removed by force.


Stem cell research has long ago laid to rest this old chestnut.

Really? I'd sure like to see some references to back up your contention. Everything I've seen indicates that actual fetal cell work has not panned out in any tangible way, but other forms of stem cells have already provided viable treatment options in some cases.

If you are going to attack me on a personal level for taking a stand for fetal life, go ahead, but at least have the integrity of bringing something other than inflated emotional charges my way. Remember, I too am part of the "family" that is dealing with a son that has PLS, and I too am part of the "family" who has already lost a baby. We've had to hurt in both instances. We are not strangers because of our views.
 
I understand where you are coming from but everyone has a right to believe and act on those beliefs as they see fit. However I do believe that if it was your life in a 3-5 year jeopardy your views would change rapidly whether you would admit it or not. I know mine did. When I think of the fact at 29 I could possibly not ever know the joy of having a child or if I do never seeing them grow up or enjoying a long marriage to my new husband, the stem cells of an aborted fetus of a rape victim or a 14 year old drug addict that will just throw her baby in the garbage anyway, sounds like hope not a morality question. Just saying...sometimes you have to be real and not live in the land of love and fluff :) I admire your passion on the subject and appreciate it.

Kel Bel
 
Kel Bel
Just for the record, not all ALS patients change their views on the stem cell issue. I have talked about this to my wife, who is without doubt looking at her last year of life (unless the LORD touches her with a miracle), and she is still staunchly opposed to embryonic stem cell use. Of course she is 50 not 29 and youth does have a flexability that can be lost with age. Still, it is simply a matter of perception; where does life begin. I have to admire my wives resolve which I attribute to her great faith in an all loving God.

I give due recognition to the fact that every one is entitled to their own oppion and hope those who read this will reciprocate in kind, but on a personnal note, my fear is that embryonic stem cell research will be effective. Then all of the dicussion about using aborted fetus from rape victims or left over embryos from in vitro fertilization will be forgotten and we will not be able to kill the unborn fast enough to keep up with the demand for embyonic cells.
 
Jim I second your recognition to the fact everyone deserves their right to their opinion. I have always upheld and respected that right for everyone as well. Thank you for your insight. I believe embryonic stem cells will be effective but I also want to reassure you and your wife that we are tons of biophysicists working in tandem to produce a perfect bioreactor as to create identical tissue cells in replacement for embryonic stem cells. I know with out a doubt if the embryonic stem cells prove effective the government will def give the university physicists grant money to new discoveries in space bioreactors and better home soil reactors. I know this to be true only because they are offering incentives right now for biophysicists in the field of expertise. Thank you for your reply.

Kel Bel the dirty fibber
 
Kel Bel
I hope you are right on both counts and I'll join you in being cautiously optimistic, but experiance tells me to follow the money and I am still fearful that path lies in killing the unborn.
 
Very controversial topic with many diferent opinions. One must choose based on their own beliefs and leave the folks with different opinions alone. What is OK for one person may not be good for others and thats a personal decision. PERSONALLY, if stem cells, no matter how they are harvested, can help Tammy I will be getting the treatment........if it ever comes. For those of you who appose stem cells, I understand and appreciate your decision, mine is different...... and Tammy and I are no better or worse for this belief.
God bless all of you....... By the way, Tammy is still doing OK on the vent.
Mark
 
you know what is very ironic is that everyone is attacking Geron and ATC for using embryonic stem cells, which are isolated from IVF...but no one is attacking Reneuron or StemCells Inc who are taking stem cells from Aborted Fetus's...

Both embryonic and fetal stem cells are terrible

As was mentioned above, there are many adult stem cells that are more useful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top