Embryonic stem cells restores some sight

Done. In the event that I am going to die, the heart image on my driver's license indicates that doctors are allowed to chop me up and use me to help others. Similarly, embryos that are going to die anyway are used to help others. If you really have a problem with this, then you should be picketing fertilization clinics. They discard thousands of embryos every year.

 

So, we should picket fertility clinics that are trying to facilitate the natural progress of embryonic development into human beings ... because the process fails?

Indeed, there is no actual moral question to even be entertained at teh thought of harvesting fertilized eggs from women (who would otherwise develop into viable human beings) for stem cells just might be ethically ... questionable? Everything is already happening and is unchangeable, eh?

Worse, we'll play silly games and decide taht when you die you can be chopped up - but, being alive and deliberately killed to be chopped up? Oh, wait, that might raise some of those sticky points that need to be addressed.

We might also want to talk about recent scientific advances that are allowing scientists to induce stem cells from live tissue rather than embryos - meaning we have no reason to be harvesting embryos at all.

Indeed, we can also be strengthing adoption practices and education/out reach to provide alternative's to abortion in the first place. Of course, as abortion is apparently as normal as rolling down one's window on a hot day, I guess there is not need to even acknowledge that the process of harvesting an embryo is removing something that would otherwise develop into a viable human being.

In short, once again, very little demonstarted understanding of eth scientific or ethical considerations of eth problem set, no real solutions, but rather a desire to simple state, "What is the religious position? Well, I believe the opposite!"

 

What federal funding went into this study? If Bush did anything to stop it, it would have to do with federal funding, after all, he didn't make it illegal, he just stopped federal funding for it.

 

That is what Dr. Rascher said......

 

See Post #6

No, thats what I said.

 

Shouldn't this be in the science/technology section? Why did you put this in the religion section unless you just intentionally wanted to take a jab at religious people for making you feel bad about being gay?

I don't mean to make this personal, but we both know that's why you put this thread here instead of where it belongs.

 

The process doesn't fail. They produce more embryos than are necessary, just in case the first three fail. After there is success, the left over embryos are stored for 2 years. After 2 years, the completely viable embryos are discarded if the parents don't put them up for adoption. That results in thousands of embryos, which may be perfectly fine if implanted in a womb, being destroyed.

 

I hope they all die out instead. Soon

 

This has nothing to do with eugenics.

These are often stem cells from embryos that will never develop anyway.

 

Since you're so up on it, don't you know? Perhaps you ought to look into it. Just to help you get started....check out ESC rejection and terratomas. Let me just repeat. IF this was so promising, private funding would be chomping at the bit. They are not.

 

Some people are allergic to peanuts. Let's force companies to not make peanut products!!

 

In other words, I avoided almost all the substance of the issue you raised and completely and totally ignored the moral and ethical questions, as well as valid scientific alternatives.

The embryos still have to be fertilized BTW. That means its not a dormant egg cell - it is a fertilzed egg that has begun the process of transforming into a life.

That you would ignore that process entirely as if there is no ethnical considerations whatsoever - indeed, pointedly ignore attempts to raise them - is extremly disingenous.

The idea of abortion being a cut and dry issue?

This is espcially so when there are other methods available to harvest stem cells.

 

Or, we could force companies who use peanuts in their products to put that on labels so consumers, many of whom ARE allergic to peanuts, can avoid their products - as required.

Terrible governments.

 

I myself am against over-reaching government. But why is it that people who use words like "liberty" the most, are the ones who hate actual "liberty" when they talk about forcing people to not be able to marry who they want and not have abortions if they want and not perform experiments on (*)(*)(*)(*)ING EMBRYOS etc.?

 

ummm yeah...

 

The rest of your post was irrelevant to mine.

An embryo is already fertilized. That's what makes it an embryo. WTF are you talking about?

Abortion is irrelevant to this issue. Embryonic stem cells come from embryos discarded by fertility clinics. They were never implanted, and therefore never aborted. Fetal tissue research used aborted fetuses. You seem to be confusing the two.

I agree that this whole thing is moot if the process used to turn somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells results in effectively the same thing. Current research is promising, but more is necessary.

 

Only because it makes sense and yours does not.

Your inaccuracy. What is stored are eggs - not embryos. Eventually, reality will settle in through the arrogance.

Discarded, eh? Or harvested.

And there is the point, unaddressed as usual, that there are alternate methods of harvesting stem cells.

There are already several viable methods available.

Hence the ethical considerations, which, exactly as charged, are avoided by you.

Now, how nice was it that someone with a clue and concern about morality went, "Wait, this is ethically VERY questionable. Maybe we should should actually SEE if this is the only method available before we rubber stamp this!"

Turns out that person(s) was correct.

And yet, because that origin comes from and is often associated with the church - you reject it, as quickly as you reject any ACTUAL discussion of the ethical implications of the process.

Now that is another example of the superior morality of atheism - the utter avoidance of ethical issues.

 

What I find telling is the fact that these cells will end up being destroyed anyway if not used.

Its better to simply destroy them rather than attempt to learn from them?

 

Yeah, or it was full of incorrect and irrelevant material, like stuff about abortion.

Egg storage is different. It's something fertility clinics also do, but this discussion (and ESC research) is concerned with embryo storage. It's called embryo cryopreservation. Look it up sometime. Why would fertility clinics say they're discarding embryos if they're just discarding ova? Are you actually suggesting that ESC scientists get frozen eggs and fertilize them themselves? Why would they do that if they can just get fertilized embryos?

Yes, discarded. The fertility clinic holds onto the embryos for 2 years and then discards them. That is, unless the parents take them or a research group comes by to take them. I don't know what definition of "harvesting" you're using that actually describes that process.

And I mentioned the one alternative method. So I don't know why you think it was unaddressed. Did you read the whole post before responding?

I didn't reject it. There isn't enough known about the converted cells to determine if they're as good as embryonic stem cells. If they are, then great! We don't know if they are, though.

 

How about YOU answer you own question.

Is it a good idea to harvest eggs, not embryos, and then fertilize them just so you can harvest stem cells .... when there are alternate methods of stem cell harvestation available?

How about an atheist take a stab at the moral implications, as you are all want to tell us you are better at it anyway.

 

#1 - yes, they do. There are alternate means of harvesting stem cells.

#2 - you are simply dodging the ethical implications, as if harvesting eggs for invetro fertilization means that doing so to cull cells deliberately from an otherwise viable embryo is the same thing.

Tell me, is harvesting organs from a a person who is dead ehical? Yep.

Is harvesting organs from a live person ethical? Oh, well, this is a little different isn't it.

 

Not embryonic stem cells. The only way to get embryonic stem cells is from embryos.

I don't think you understand what is going on here. No one is harvesting eggs specifically to create embryos for ESC research. If they were, we could have a different debate about the ethical implications.

Here's what's actually happening: A fertility clinic develops embryos for a couple. More embryos are developed than necessary, so the rest are frozen for possible future implantation. After 2 years, the couple doesn't use the embryos and they don't want to pay to store them for longer, so the fertility clinic decides to discard them. Up to this point, ESC researchers are not involved in any way. If ESC research did not exist, this process would still happen. Now that the embryos are going to be thrown away, ESC researchers step in and say "hey, we'll take those if you aren't going to use them."

It is no different than organ donation from a brain-dead person. The person's brain is dead, but their body would keep going if connected to machines. These embryos will not be implanted and won't develop into fetuses, but they could be stored indefinitely (at least for 30 years) if kept in cryo. The dead person's family opts to shut off the machines and donate his organs. The embryos' parents opt to not pay for further storage and donate them to science.

So, to reiterate: if you have a problem with ESC research, then you need to be protesting against fertility clinics. They are the source for the embryos, and they destroy thousands of them every year. Far more than ESC research has ever destroyed.

Edit: Yes, embryos have been created for the sole purpose of ESC research. However, this rarely is the case and it's completely counter to the recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, the National Institutes of Health, and the ethics advisory board of the European Commission.

 

The answer: they aren't.

The eggs were fertilized for implantation at a future date if initial fertility treatments were unsuccessful. They are then saved if not needed. After a period of time if they are unused they are destroyed.

Even if the sperm and eggs are not combined before hand to create embryos, they will be destroyed the same.

Why let them go to waste?

 

The answer: they aren't.

The eggs were fertilized for implantation at a future date if initial fertility treatments were unsuccessful. They are then saved if not needed. After a period of time if they are unused they are destroyed.

Even if the sperm and eggs are not combined before hand to create embryos, they will be destroyed the same.

Why let them go to waste?

 

I don't see what this has to do with religion. Surely there might be non-religious people that understand the ethical reasons of why you would not destroy one unique human life to benefit another.

Especially wouldn't want a federal government to decide what human life is disposable for practical use and what human life is worth saving. Which is why federal government shouldn't fund it.

Much more success has been achieved through adult stem cells. It should be obvious that a lot of this hype for chopping up embryos is done by people who relish the thought of it. Sick.