Embryonic Stem Cells Get a Boost

[SkinWalker]

By your argument should we kill people that are unable to move their limbs due to a spinal injury.

 

I highly doubt that anyone would agree by looking at my words in this thread that this is actually my argument. Please quote the statement I've made saying this.

 

Please also acknowledge that we agree that it is both ethical and appropriate to utilize embryonic stem cells for research and, ultimately, medicine (which saves the lives of the very people injured above you fallaciously and inappropriately accuse me of arguing the murder for). This is because:

 

• We both agree that brainwaves are a sign of personhood.
  
• Embryonic stem cells come from blastocysts.
  
• Blastocysts have no brains.
  
• The lack of a brain is indicative of no brainwaves.
  
• Brainwaves have never been reported as detected in a blastocyst (again -no brain).
  
• Thus, the use of embryonic stem cells for research and medicine is appropriate and ethical.
  

 

That, my friend, is how to construct a logical argument where the premises end in a conclusion.

[GarfieldJL]

I highly doubt that anyone would agree by looking at my words in this thread that this is actually my argument. Please quote the statement I've made saying this.

 

Nerve development begins extremely early in development, unless you're saying they are creating these whatever want to call them in a test tube which makes it even more unethical. We're talking about stages in development that there are brain waves, and that is extremely early in development.

 

Please also acknowledge that we agree that it is both ethical and appropriate to utilize embryonic stem cells for research and, ultimately, medicine (which saves the lives of the very people injured above you fallaciously and inappropriately accuse me of arguing the murder for). This is because:

 

• We both agree that brainwaves are a sign of personhood.
  
• Embryonic stem cells come from blastocysts.
  
• Blastocysts have no brains.
  
• The lack of a brain is indicative of no brainwaves.
  
• Brainwaves have never been reported as detected in a blastocyst (again -no brain).
  
• Thus, the use of embryonic stem cells for research and medicine is appropriate and ethical.
  

 

And again I'm going to say I don't think it is remotely ethical to create life in order to destroy it in such a fashion. It is devaluing human life and making it a commodity, it isn't needed because you can get cells with the same properties without messing with Embryonic Stem Cells which are called Embryonic for a reason.

 

That's something the Catholic Church has gotten right, because if we didn't allow fertility clinics, abortions, etc. we wouldn't be having this ethical argument.

[SkinWalker]

Nerve development begins extremely early in development, unless you're saying they are creating these whatever want to call them in a test tube which makes it even more unethical. We're talking about stages in development that there are brain waves, and that is extremely early in development.

 

You're wrong. Again. We're not talking about stages in development where brain waves are present. We're talking about the first few hours of development where the embryo is just a blastocyst. See the illustration and citations above.

[GarfieldJL]

You're wrong. Again. We're not talking about stages in development where brain waves are present. We're talking about the first few hours of development where the embryo is just a blastocyst. See the illustration and citations above.

 

Again I'm asking where did they make these blastocysts as you called them, if they are making them in a test tube only to destroy them it is highly unethical. You're creating life only to kill it.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Again I'm asking where did they make these blastocysts as you called them, if they are making them in a test tube only to destroy them it is highly unethical. You're creating life only to kill it.

They're not creating them to destroy them or creating them for the sole purpose of experimenting on them and then destroying them, they're going to be destroyed anyway, and it's both illogical and immoral to simply destroy them if experimentation upon them could save or improve lives. As mentioned in the OP, the cells were part of embryos that were to be used for in vitro fertilization, where many embryos are created in case some do not develop properly once implanted.

[SkinWalker]

Again I'm asking where did they make these blastocysts as you called them, if they are making them in a test tube only to destroy them it is highly unethical. You're creating life only to kill it.

 

They're creating them with the purpose of providing couples with a means of reproducing with their own DNA. The woman's eggs are hyperfertilized using the man's sperm, thus producing more embryos than needed. These additional embryos are then stored in case the first are unsuccessful so the fertilization process need not be done again. Once the couple has a viable fetus, I believe they decide whether to continue storing the embryos or to turn them over to the fertility clinic.

 

Scientists wish to use these embryos, which are destined for destruction (they're typically pitched with medical waste like gauzes, syringes, etc.), for stem cell research and, possibly, to harvest stem cells for therapeutic uses. The potential for these stem cells is far better than adult stem cells based on their pluriopotency.

[GarfieldJL]

They're creating them with the purpose of providing couples with a means of reproducing with their own DNA. The woman's eggs are hyperfertilized using the man's sperm, thus producing more embryos than needed. These additional embryos are then stored in case the first are unsuccessful so the fertilization process need not be done again. Once the couple has a viable fetus, I believe they decide whether to continue storing the embryos or to turn them over to the fertility clinic.

 

Scientists wish to use these embryos, which are destined for destruction (they're typically pitched with medical waste like gauzes, syringes, etc.), for stem cell research and, possibly, to harvest stem cells for therapeutic uses. The potential for these stem cells is far better than adult stem cells based on their pluriopotency.

 

And this is why I'm against fertility clinics and invitro fertilization. If they want a kid so badly they can adopt.

 

Question, what exactly are you saying Stem Cells can fix, some may actually work, but they would be capable of using skin cells from the individual instead. What things would Embryonic Stem-Cells be able to do that altered skin cells can't.

[SkinWalker]

And this is why I'm against fertility clinics and invitro fertilization. If they want a kid so badly they can adopt.

To each their own. Lots of people are against lots of things. My wife is against chicken fried steak -I like it though.

 

Question, what exactly are you saying Stem Cells can fix, some may actually work, but they would be capable of using skin cells from the individual instead. What things would Embryonic Stem-Cells be able to do that altered skin cells can't.

 

Cures are possible for leukemia, Krabbe’s Leukodystrophy, Parkinson's, spinal chord injuries, damaged organs, etc., etc. The possibilities are perhaps greater than can currently be imagined given the irrational restrictions on the research. Adult stem cells, particularly those from the person receiving the treatment have shown some successes in these areas, but embryonic stem cells have many advantages over them: they divide more rapidly; they're more pluripotent (they can become more different kinds of cells); they potentially more abundant (adult stem cells are more rare -perhaps 1 in 1,000 cells of bone marrow); an embryonic stem cell line is practically immortal -adult stem cells have a limited shelf life; and so on and so one.

 

In the end, the objections to the use of embryonic stem cells for research and therapy are irrational and illogical. These objections are based on the superstitions of various religions and not on scientific fact. To support this claim, one can merely read through this thread and see how over and over the fact that a blastocyst isn't a person has been made abundantly clear, yet the irrational objection remains. Over and over the fact that an abundance of embryos that are destined to be destroyed has been shown to exist, yet the response is "I'm against that too."

 

These are irrational and unreasoned responses based on preconceived conclusions originating in religious doctrine. Religious doctrine is based on supernatural claims. Supernatural beliefs are held in spite of a lack of empirical evidence and in spite of evidence to the contrary. Beliefs such as this are, therefore, superstitious.

[GarfieldJL]

To each their own. Lots of people are against lots of things. My wife is against chicken fried steak -I like it though.

 

I wasn't aware that Human life is equivalent to a piece of poultry on the dinner table?

 

 

Cures are possible for leukemia, Krabbe’s Leukodystrophy, Parkinson's, spinal chord injuries, damaged organs, etc., etc. The possibilities are perhaps greater than can currently be imagined given the irrational restrictions on the research. Adult stem cells, particularly those from the person receiving the treatment have shown some successes in these areas, but embryonic stem cells have many advantages over them: they divide more rapidly; they're more pluripotent (they can become more different kinds of cells); they potentially more abundant (adult stem cells are more rare -perhaps 1 in 1,000 cells of bone marrow); an embryonic stem cell line is practically immortal -adult stem cells have a limited shelf life; and so on and so one.

 

No, that isn't very likely for some of those, anything that is genetic in nature, stem cells won't do squat, particularly Leukemia. Stem cells are not a cure all, they can do some organ regeneration, however there are some organs in the body that can regenerate on their own, such as your skin and the liver.

 

Furthermore adult stem cells can be created from altered skin cells.

 

In the end, the objections to the use of embryonic stem cells for research and therapy are irrational and illogical. These objections are based on the superstitions of various religions and not on scientific fact. To support this claim, one can merely read through this thread and see how over and over the fact that a blastocyst isn't a person has been made abundantly clear, yet the irrational objection remains. Over and over the fact that an abundance of embryos that are destined to be destroyed has been shown to exist, yet the response is "I'm against that too."

 

I'ts still playing God, the reason I'm against the other stuff is because if I was for the other stuff I'd be a hypocrit.

 

These are irrational and unreasoned responses based on preconceived conclusions originating in religious doctrine. Religious doctrine is based on supernatural claims. Supernatural beliefs are held in spite of a lack of empirical evidence and in spite of evidence to the contrary. Beliefs such as this are, therefore, superstitious.

 

That is your opinion, that is not necessarily fact.

[SkinWalker]

I wasn't aware that Human life is equivalent to a piece of poultry on the dinner table?

 

Chicken-fried steak is not poultry. Nor is it paltry. It has more value than a discarded human embryo if it isn't being used for research or medicine.

 

No, that isn't very likely for some of those, anything that is genetic in nature, stem cells won't do squat, particularly Leukemia.

 

You're completely and utterly wrong. There are data to show it. Indeed Burt et al (2004) demonstrated the value of stem cell therapy in leukemia years ago.

 

Stem cells are not a cure all, they can do some organ regeneration, however there are some organs in the body that can regenerate on their own, such as your skin and the liver.

 

Only with minor -very minor- injury or disease. This is why both skin and liver are among the more frequent organs to receive transplants.

 

I'ts still playing God,

Lets leave superstition and the supernatural out of rational discourse. If the objection isn't rational and logical it should be discarded.

 

That is your opinion, that is not necessarily fact.

 

Oh, it is completely factual. I challenge you to provide empirical data to support religious doctrines of transubstantiation, virgin birth, zombie messiahs, sudden cessation of planetary rotation followed by sudden resumption, etc. These are myths and fables based on the myths and fables of prior civilizations -there is evidence to support that. Religious adherents conveniently ignore and overlook such evidence, compartmentalizing their beliefs from reality to avoid the dilemmas created, but the data are there.

 

Reference(s):

 

Burt, Richard K; et al (2004). Embryonic Stem Cells As an Alternate Marrow Donor Source: Engraftment without Graft-Versus-Host Disease. Journal of Experimental Medicine. 199(7): 895–904.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I knew stem cell research was important and useful, but it never really occurred to me that they were using embryos that'd otherwise be lost. Further strengthens my stance that the opposition to these procedures is ridiculous.

 

And again I'm going to say I don't think it is remotely ethical to create life in order to destroy it in such a fashion.

Let's try to be realistic for a second here. Embryos are sometimes, just like in the human body, created and then destroyed. Given that this happens, doesn't it make more sense to use them to save lives than to throw them in the trash?

 

You can't say that you're against this stance because you'd rather in-vitro fertilization didn't happen, because in reality it does. It's just as with golf, really, you gotta play the ball as it lies.

 

I'm against donor children myself as it raises a whole lot of ethical issues, even more so than adoption... but it happens, and as long as it does, I'm for using embryos to save real, living human lives.

 

This sounds like one of those debates on abortion and contraception in which certain religious people cling to the notion that abstinence-only sex ed and abortion bans are the best way to reduce teen sex - even though all objective studies have found that this is approach has a disastrous track record.

 

I'ts still playing God

Define 'playing God'. I'm asking because this is an expression I really do not understand. Is the rest of medical science 'playing God', too? After all, we've lengthened life expectancy from the 'natural' 30 or so years (or was it even shorter than that before the Egyptians?) to a good 80+. We fly without wings. We make 'dead' people come to life with defibrillators.

 

Why aren't any of these things 'playing God', and what's wrong with 'playing God' in the first place?

[Vikinor]

There are some things that I don't think humans should meddle with...yet. Stem Cell research was one of them. I have mixed feelings about it though. If the cells are there, they aren't being used and could possibly go to waste, do it.

 

Sometimes you have to make sacrifices. This will probably sound horrible to you Garfield(and I don't mean it to), but you could think of the cells as little martyrs.

[SkinWalker]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7929690.stm

 

Finally, science can continue.

[True_Avery]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7929690.stm

 

Finally, science can continue.

Least those cells will finally go somewhere else other than the trashcan.

[kipperthefrog]

I'm glad there are people out there who want to protect our science and advancement from organized ignorance.

[RoxStar]

Bring on the Stem Cells!

 

 

"Put them straight into my pancreas boys!"

 

I haveType 1 Diabetes

 

I'm glad that we can actually make use of the stockpile of embryos now. (Not opening a moral debate on that, you don't have to be pro-life to know that it was an absolute waste to have such a resource blocked off)

[GarfieldJL]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7929690.stm

 

Finally, science can continue.

 

More like infantcide being sanctioned, this is why I'm against fertility clinics, abortions, etc.

 

Human life shouldn't be a commercial object, which is what this is doing.

 

 

Some of the conditions they are saying this research will fix is a load of garbage, I highly doubt they can fix conditions which are genetic in nature (despite what abortion advocates claim). That includes diabetes, because it is caused by genetics.

[RoxStar]

That includes diabetes, because it is caused by genetics.

 

With all due respect sir, you do not know the first thing about my illness. If I had about 25,000 USD on hand, I would hop on a plane to Japan to receive stem cell therapy to stimulate the growing off islet cells in my pancreas, causing my body to produce insulin on its own accord once again. It truly works and many diabetics have undergone such experimental procedures.

 

I was not born with diabetes and is relatively rare for that to actually happen. The vast majority of diabetics are diagnosed just before puberty (I was 14). Type 1 Diabetes is an autoimmunal disease caused by the body destroying islet cells in the pancreas. Stem cells can cause these cells to regenerate, but there is no guarantee that another autoimmunal reaction will destroy them once again. However most diabetics reach upwards of 15 years before having to undergo the therapy once more. The sheer amount of money saved, pork taken out of the healthcare system, and lives extended and saved makes this breakthrough well worth it. Stem cells do not have to come from abortions and believing and telling others that they do is highly unethical, I dare say even immoral.

 

So when you say

 

I highly doubt they can fix conditions which are genetic in nature ....that includes diabetes, because it is caused by genetics.

(ellipsis is my addition for a concise quote)

 

You must mean "I really have no idea what I am speaking about and am merely making the rounds between Kavar's Corner and the Senate to spout my usual spiel to anyone that will listen"

[GarfieldJL]

With all due respect sir, you do not know the first thing about my illness. If I had about 25,000 USD on hand, I would hop on a plane to Japan to receive stem cell therapy to stimulate the growing off islet cells in my pancreas, causing my body to produce insulin on its own accord once again. It truly works and many diabetics have undergone such experimental procedures.

 

Some diabetes are genetic in nature or there genetically there is a heightened risk for it. Yours sounds different in nature to some of the others I've heard of. What I was referring to overall is the advertising that it's a cure-all which it isn't. Such as saying it will cure Down Syndrome which is a load of garbage.

 

I was not born with diabetes and is relatively rare for that to actually happen. The vast majority of diabetics are diagnosed just before puberty (I was 14). Type 1 Diabetes is an autoimmunal disease caused by the body destroying islet cells in the pancreas. Stem cells can cause these cells to regenerate, but there is no guarantee that another autoimmunal reaction will destroy them once again. However most diabetics reach upwards of 15 years before having to undergo the therapy once more. The sheer amount of money saved, pork taken out of the healthcare system, and lives extended and saved makes this breakthrough well worth it. Stem cells do not have to come from abortions and believing and telling others that they do is highly unethical, I dare say even immoral.

 

Well here's the thing the only stem cells President Bush was denying funding for research on was from abortion clinics and fertility clinics, the adult stem cells were perfectly acceptable, as were stem cells from the umbillical cord of a newborn.

 

The reason that that treatment hasn't been approved in the US could include the fact that they don't know the side effects. From some sources I've heard that one could be looking at an increased risk of Cancer.

 

You must mean "I really have no idea what I am speaking about and am merely making the rounds between Kavar's Corner and the Senate to spout my usual spiel to anyone that will listen"

 

I know more about the topic than you think... I realize I haven't had a lot of sleep here recently.

 

Btw, if you would like me to ellaborate on something or counter a particular argument I've made do so, don't personally attack me in a Juvenile manner.

[True_Avery]

If I recall, the scientific community has never said it would be a cure-all.

 

Some diabetes are genetic in nature or there genetically there is a heightened risk for it. Yours sounds different in nature to some of the others I've heard of. What I was referring to overall is the advertising that it's a cure-all which it isn't. Such as saying it will cure Down Syndrome which is a load of garbage.

Source for "I've heard about".

 

Source for "Advertising it's a cure-all".

 

Source for "cure Down Syndrome".

 

Well here's the thing the only stem cells President Bush was denying funding for research on was from abortion clinics and fertility clinics, the adult stem cells were perfectly acceptable, as were stem cells from the umbillical cord of a newborn.

So, the fact they throw away and don't use stem cells from fertility clinics every day doesn't matter?

 

http://www.lifenews.com/bio449.html

 

Either way, the cells are going to die. It is just if they are used to save someone, or put into a trash can.

 

The reason that that treatment hasn't been approved in the US could include the fact that they don't know the side effects. From some sources I've heard that one could be looking at an increased risk of Cancer.

Source for "treatment hasn't been approved in the US could include the fact they don't know side effects".

 

Sources for "increased risk of cancer".

 

I know more about the topic than you think... I realize I haven't had a lot of sleep here recently.

Care to back that up? So far you've called pro-choice infant murderers and made speculation on "sources" you did not source.

 

Some of the conditions they are saying this research will fix is a load of garbage, I highly doubt they can fix conditions which are genetic in nature (despite what abortion advocates claim). That includes diabetes, because it is caused by genetics.

http://www.healthandage.com/public/health-center/27/news/8063/Stem-cells-can-reverse-genetic-kidney-disease.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/07/science/sci-stem7

http://fetus.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/stem_cells/

http://fetus.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/stem_cells/learn_more.asp

http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/News/8747

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/nci-asc022908.php

 

Nice try.

 

More like infantcide being sanctioned.

I believe you have to be an infant to be classified under infanticide. Not a collection of brainless, blank slate cells.

 

this is why I'm against fertility clinics, abortions, etc

So, if a woman is about to die along with her baby because of a womb problem and the only way to save the mother is to abort, you are for both of them dying instead?

 

If someone is raped at 13 and becomes pregnant, they are murders for aborting?

 

If a couple is having trouble conceiving or cannot without help, going to a fertility clinic is evil?

 

Other than an incredibly selfish superstition, why are you against them? And no, "I don't like killing babies" is not an answer, because only psychopaths like killing babies.

 

Human life shouldn't be a commercial object, which is what this is doing.

And how do you define human life?

 

A pile of blank slate cells do not think. They are as relevant as the cells in your bone marrow.

 

They do not know what to be yet. They have the -possibility- to become a baby, but they also have the possibility to become any other cell in your body.

 

Its like banning the use of legos because you could make legos look like a baby, when at the same time you could use them to make hundreds of other things.

 

Thing is, you are so concentrated around the fact you think these are fetus'...

 

They aren't. They are purer and more malleable versions of the same cells found in adults.

 

 

That. Not this:

 

One has a brain, the other does not even have brain cells. One is a pile of blank slate cells, the other is a collection of various determined cells. One feels pain, the other does not.

 

Life isn't precious. If it was, your god wouldn't of rained hell and killed thousands of people in his early days. Were there babies? Pregnant women? Children? For a book that seems to call life precious, those in it weren't above killing thousands to further the teachings. And, being that you are christian, I am going to assume your philosophy that life is precious starts with your faith.

 

Which, in reality, would only be relevant if the stem cells were living humans instead of a collection of blank cells. It is relevant, however, on the basis of the origins of your superstition.

 

Or does living life not matter? I seem to also recall that you support Israel's fighting Hamas. Our fight in the Middle East. Even torturing people.

 

Where does the line on life cross with you exactly? Do you require them to be born, and then forget about them until they do something bad?

[EnderWiggin]

They aren't. They are purer and more malleable versions of the same cells found in adults.

 

Just to back up what Avery is saying:

 

The adult cells are multipotent, meaning they can turn into more than one type of cell, true. However, Garfy, Avery is correct: They are not pluripotent, like the stem cells we're talking about here are. Pluripotent means that they can become any type of cell.

 

To reinforce:

An example of a multipotent stem cell is a hematopoietic cell — a blood stem cell that can develop into several types of blood cells, but cannot develop into brain cells or other types of cells.

 

Pluripotent stem cells can give rise to any fetal or adult cell type. However, alone they cannot develop into a fetal or adult animal because they lack the potential to contribute to extraembryonic tissue.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

The adult cells are multipotent, meaning they can turn into more than one type of cell, true. However, Garfy, Avery is correct: They are not pluripotent, like the stem cells we're talking about here are. Pluripotent means that they can become any type of cell.

 

You mean they can't yet. I'd honestly be for further research on the adult cells, that way there wouldn't be the ethics issue.

[EnderWiggin]

You mean they can't yet. I'd honestly be for further research on the adult cells, that way there wouldn't be the ethics issue.

 

They can't at any point. They're classified as multipotent because they, by definition, are unable to do what pluripotent cells can.

 

Please get some sort of biological backing before you make false claims please.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

They can't at any point. They're classified as multipotent because they, by definition, are unable to do what pluripotent cells can.

 

Please get some sort of biological backing before you make false claims please.

 

Aren't they able to make stem cells out of skin cells now? Seriously to say that it isn't possible and dismiss it right off is dismissing the fact that we can make scientific advances to change how a cell behaves.

[EnderWiggin]

Aren't they able to make stem cells out of skin cells now? Seriously to say that it isn't possible and dismiss it right off is dismissing the fact that we can make scientific advances to change how a cell behaves.

Not pluripotent ones, which was my original point

 

_EW_