Embryonic stem cells restores some sight

So, now, as usual, we are playing deliberately stupid? You can get stem cells without using embryos.

Your ego and inability to conceed a point is noted.

No, I do not think you understand what is going on.

No embryos are thrown away. Eggs are stored, and fertilized for use. The only way to harvest stem cells from embryos is to take eggs and fertilize them. Now, these eggs (and there are thousands that will never even have a chance at being frtilized even in nature) are viable if implanted ... only we are not implanting them - we are harvesting the cells, cells that we can get elsewhere, for what reason?

Oh, its quite a bit closer to harvesting the organs from live donors than dead ones than you are admitting.

And that is why most people will at least acknowledge the ethical implications of it and maybe have a discussion about it rather than repeatedly avoid salient points as if teh real name of policy games is atheists never being wrong.

Like I said, its hard to be wrong when you never actually have go on the record for anything. So tell me, other than being an atheist (and preseumably just taking the opposite of any religious position), why do you think there are no ethical implications to embryonic stem cell harvestation?

 

Embryonic stem cells are the issue, though. The other types of stem cells aren't pluripotent. You cannot harvest stem cells from adults or umbilical cords that can develop into brain, nerve, eye, etc cells. You can only get stem cells for blood and skin, and maybe other naturally regenerative tissues, from adults and the umbilical cord. The only pluripotent alternative to embryonic cells is the method that has recently been used to turn regular somatic cells into pluripotent cells. However, as I mentioned, more research is needed into the cells produced by that method to determine if they are as good as ESCs.

Please, provide a link. Here are 5 links explaining that fertility clinics discard ALREADY FERTILIZED EMBRYOS and that ESC researchers take them instead of just letting them be destroyed.

Well, by all means, please explain how that is the case since I already explained how it isn't.

Are we not having a discussion? I acknowledge there are ethical implications. My argument is that these embryos are already going to be destroyed. May as well let scientists do something helpful with them. Now tell me why you think it would be better to just throw the embryos away.

 

No the issue is stem cells - and as there are several valid alternatives available for harvesting them (despite your opinion) there is no need to harvest embryos for this.

Indeed, as I pointed out 48 hours ago and you are still avoiding, the fact that someone raised ethical considerations is what forced scientists to go back and find these ways.

Ethics to you appears to be about what is easy, not about what is right in the slightest. And that is not ethical at all, is it?

No, they do not. They store eggs and fertilize them for implantation. If there are extra eggs eft over from a fertility treatement, then those will be discarded.

You are constantly switching standards trying to avoid being wrong.

But all you are ACTUALLY avoiding, is an ACTUAL discussion of the ETHICAL considerations - apparently by pulling an ostrich on the implication of what a fertilized egg is.

See above.

No, you do not. You are indeed doing a giant hand wave based on ever changing assesments of what an embryonic stem cell is and totally avoiding alternate methods of stem cells as if we absolutely NEED to do this to get stem cells? Therefore its ethical to harvest babies?

You are avoiding reality to avoid ethical implications, and because people with an actiual moral code a concern for human life raised the ethical concerns - viola - we use science to find valid alternatives.

Atheists continue to wail and find excuses.

 

Scientists want pluripotent stem cells for potential cures for blindness, Alzheimers, and Parkinsons. There are two ways to get new lines of these cells: from embryos and by inducing pluripotency. Induced cells may not be as reliable as embryonic cells. Other methods do not produce pluripotent cells. Period. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. If you know of some third method for producing new pluripotent cells then provide a link to it.

Did you read even one of those links? Here's the clearest one, from this link:

What is the source of embryos used for making embryonic stem cells?

The human embryonic stem cell lines that have been created at Harvard are derived from frozen embryos left over after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment and would otherwise have remained unused or discarded. These early stage embryos were donated, with informed consent, by patients who had completed their treatment. Harvard researchers also hope to derive embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer, or by producing embryonic-like induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells through the reprogramming of mature adult cells.

The clinics will discard embryos left over after in vitro fertilization, unless they're donated for research. So, again, please explain to me why it would be better to simply let the embryos be destroyed without any potential benefit to humanity.

And I haven't switched standards at any point in this discussion. I defy you to quote me switching standards.

You haven't explained how getting stem cells from embryos is like harvesting organs from living people. There is no "above" that I can "see."

I've been pretty consistent with regard to what constitutes an embryonic stem cell. You seem to be the only person here confused about the source. And I've mentioned alternate methods, and covered why embryonic cells are better for research purposes, so please explain how I've ignored them.

Really, I'd be happy if you just could go an entire post without making something up or repeating some bit of misinformation. I've provided links, maybe you should try doing the same.

 

That is interesting, I've been pretty consitant about what constitutes a stem cell, and the alternate methods of harvesting them, and the implications of these while you continue to ignore them.

Nope, not a single mention of what an embryo is or its potential, no mention whatsoever of ethical considerations, no acknowledgement that raising them is what lead to the alternate extraction methods, just the silliness that your definition of embryonic stem cell is what this debate is about.

What is the point of again giving you links to a points I am making that you refuse to even acknowledge.

All you'll do is change your goal post again.

One of us has been talking about stem cells, alternate methods of harvesting them, and the ethical considerations that come from allowing the production of viable human life for medical research .... when there are other methods available.

I suppose the your drive toward minutia is the best we can hope for from atheists.

 

You should read the debate between Burzmali and Neutral. Once you read the ridiculous posts from the religious side, then you can understand why this is in the religious section.

One side is posting links to help in the defence of SCR and the religous side is full of fluff and BS.

 

You haven't even made a point through this entire exchange. Not clearly, anyway. All I've seen you do is try to claim that fertility clinics don't actually store and eventually discard embryos, and then complain that I haven't addressed alternate stem cell sources (which I have now done at least twice). And then end with the usual, useless generalizations about atheists. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with this debate, so you can put that soapbox away.

So let's start over. Here is my point, for the third time. The embryos used to get embryonic stem cells are going to be discarded anyway. Better to use them to help humanity than let them be destroyed without gaining some benefit from them. Anyone who has a problem with embryonic stem cell research should really direct their ire at fertility clinics, who destroy far more embryos every year than embryonic stem cell researchers have ever destroyed.

Now what is your point?

 

Lets make teh same ones again:

#1 - you are deiberately obtuse and evasive.

#2 - There is no reason to use embryonic stem cells because there are valid alternatives. Embryos, whatever excuses you throw out, are potentially valid human beings. Andteh harvesting of medical research from humans in any state is something that should best be avoided - particularly if alternate methods are available.

Indeed, the very raising of these concerns is what lead to research and development of alternate methods of extraction.

Yet you cannot see this point, even after its been spelled out 5 times?

Yep, that is typical atheism.

 

Right back at ya.

Why is it better to let the embryos be destroyed by a fertility clinic?

Seriously, you should let this go. Did an atheist kill your parents?

 

Neutral, I dont think anyone is trying to argue that ESC research is without serious ethical concerns. The point some are trying to make is that IVF therapy often results in an excess number of embryos that are ultimately destroyed. As such, it is argued that using embryos to procure ESC lines would be a pragmatic solution to a complex ethical issue. Its important to remember that not all stem cells are equal- they can be toti, pluri, multi or uni potent. ESC currently offer the most toti potent and maaleable cell lines. While great advances have been made in developing protocols that dont require the destruction of an embryo ESCs derived from blastulas offer upside unmatched by other cell lines.

 

We get this a alot from atheists, its never them its .... everyone else.

You tell me what the ethical implications are of harvesting research material from human beings is? Given your total refusal to even acknowledge an ethical situation here, just how far, and on what excuses, do you think similarly minded men will go?

The devaluation of human life has a cost, and its a steep one.

Not too mention again, by raising these ethical questions, it forces scientists to find an alternate method that we don;t have to worry about the practice of harvesting cells from otherwise viable human beings.

Seriously, you try a little concept called personal responsibility. Lashing out like a tool ... of wait, that IS what atheists do - and as we see - its NEVER their fault.

 

So Bush was a dictator.

I was unaware that we had a Dictator over all Fifty States, and Republicans were against States Rights to use stem cells.

Darn, I learn something new every day...

 

Why is it better to let the embryos be destroyed by a fertility clinic?

 

I see Nuetral would rather cut and run then answer the question.