Stem cell research question.

[Traveler]

Why oppose stem cell research? For those that oppose stem cell research - Why is stem cell use so different than organ transplant, bone marrow transplant or blood transfusion technology?

The Traveler

[pam]

I think the biggest controversy or the biggest obstacle people have with the acceptance of it is the embryonic stem cell research.

I've never been opposed to it. In fact I welcome it. I was reading an article several months ago about how stem cells could help replace destroyed cells in the brain that cause Alzheimers. What a wonderful thing if it did work for those with this horrible crippling disease.

I also watched just a couple of days ago..Michael J. Fox on an interview supporting stem cell research and how it would help those with Parkinsons.

But again..I don't think people oppose it UNLESS embryonic stem cells are used. Just my opinion.

[applepansy]

I agree Pam. There are two types of stem cells. Embryonic stem cells means a baby dies. Stem cells are found in cord blood after the baby is born and in.......brain freeze. sorry.

Anything but Embryonic stems cells is fine with me and I think the research needs to happen. Just don't kill babies to get the stem cells.

applepansy

Edited April 13, 2009 by applepansy
typo

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Interesting to me that Sen Hatch does not oppose embryonic stem cell research. This put him in opposition to some of his right-wing buddies.

But a baby does not die to provide these cells. Mormons believe in a pre-existence and that souls are sent from there and do not originate when a sperm combines with an egg.

As I used to say, Mormons believe in a God that can tell a womb from a petri dish and other "Christians" don't.

[Tarnished]

My brother and I had a conversation about this today. He asked us what we would do with the left over eggs and sperm after we are done having kids through Invetro Fertilization. He had done a paper on the subject and discovered that most of the time the embryos that are created in the petri dishes that are unused are destroyed, his argument was that if they are going to be destroyed then why not donate them to embryonic stem cell research. The question comes down to when the spirit first enters the embryo. This of course brought up miscarriages and abortions for a good reason (such as both mother and baby dying). Truthfully if the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, then why not donate them to stem cell research. Without stem cell research my husband would not have had his bone marrow transplant when he had cancer this last time.

[pam]

Through my reading on the subject (and I've read a lot about it) they are not derived from eggs that are fertilized within a woman's body. It's done at the laboratory level.

Here is a great website with lots of information:

What are embryonic stem cells? [stem Cell Information]

[Guest Godless]

Through my reading on the subject (and I've read a lot about it) they are not derived from eggs that are fertilized within a woman's body. It's done at the laboratory level.

Here is a great website with lots of information:

What are embryonic stem cells? [stem Cell Information]

I'm no expert on the subject, but I'm pretty sure you're right. The embryos that are used for embryonic stem cell research are those that would otherwise have been destroyed. There's no chance that they ever would have been able to develop into the fetal stage.

I think another part of the controversy is the fact that stem cells can also be taken from aborted fetuses. But that's a whole other can of worms. Speaking strictly in regard to embryonic stem cell research, there's really no need for the controversy. Unfortunately, as Cpt. Curmudgeon said, some people can't tell the difference between a human being and a petri dish (or small mass of a handfull of cells, to put it a different way).

[pam]

Not every egg that is fertililized in a petri dish is used for invitro. So why not use it for stem cell research?

[Moksha]

Not every egg that is fertililized in a petri dish is used for invitro. So why not use it for stem cell research?

Makes sense.

[pam]

For anyone interested in what the Church' stand is on it: Taken from lds.org

Lincoln Journal Star 26 May 2005 Misstatement: “Mormons, for example, oppose abortion, but find some embryonic stem cell research morally acceptable. According to Mormon belief, life does not begin until a human embryo attaches to the mother's uterus after about 14 days. That is the moment, according to Mormon theology, at which the human spirit joined with human flesh and a resulting full human being is created.”

Fact: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official position on the moment that human life begins. Further, the Church has not taken a position on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research.

[pam]

Let me clarify my stance on this. Any one that gets pregnant and then has an abortion STRICTLY for the use of the stem cells...I'm opposed.

[Elphaba]

Interesting to me that Sen Hatch does not oppose embryonic stem cell research. This put him in opposition to some of his right-wing buddies.

The reason Hatch is in favor of embryonic stem cell research is because he makes a distinction between a fertilized egg in storage, and a fertilized egg that will be/has been attached to the uterine wall.

If the fertilized egg is never going to be attached to the uterine wall, which is the only way an actual baby can grow in the uterus, he sees no reason not to use those fertilized eggs for research.

This is probably the only thing Hatch and I agree on.

Elphaba

[Soul_Searcher]

I often wonder on the controversy too. I personally dont have a problem with any type of stem cell research, embryonic or otherwise. Ive nursed people with some pretty horrendous, evil diseases. If stem cell research can go some way to providing a cure, then does it matter whether it came from cord blood or in a lab??

Oh and who said the baby dies?? The baby does not die, the blood needs to be taken from the cord asap, thats all. Baby lives and stays healthy.

[pam]

And that's the reason I am so totally for stem cell research. That was in response to Elphaba's post.

Here is an short interview with Michael J. Fox where he mentions what has already been said in this thread.

[Elphaba]

And that's the reason I am so totally for stem cell research. That was in response to Elphaba's post.

Here is an short interview with Michael J. Fox where he mentions what has already been said in this thread.

Actually Pam, you said it before I did. I just didn't see it.

Sorry,

Elph

[Wants2Know]

I am all for embryonic stem cell research - as long as there are very strict oversights guarding the ethics and manner of the creation of the embryo's and disposal of waste. I think it has a high potential to be somehow scientifically misused and abused, and that scares me. But... the potential outcomes have incredible possibilities for the health of humankind, that it's utterly ridiculous to ignore and/or outlaw the scientific potential.

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Unfortunately, as Cpt. Curmudgeon said, some people can't tell the difference between a human being and a petri dish (or small mass of a handfull of cells, to put it a different way).

I didn't say people, GL, but you're right, too. We don't have enough people thinking deeply enough about this.

[Jim108]

Interesting to me that Sen Hatch does not oppose embryonic stem cell research. This put him in opposition to some of his right-wing buddies.

But a baby does not die to provide these cells. Mormons believe in a pre-existence and that souls are sent from there and do not originate when a sperm combines with an egg.

As I used to say, Mormons believe in a God that can tell a womb from a petri dish and other "Christians" don't.

"Mormons believe in a God that can tell a womb from a petri dish and other "Christians" don't"

So Mormons are not Christians? I don't think thats right. Jim

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

"Mormons believe in a God that can tell a womb from a petri dish and other "Christians" don't"

So Mormons are not Christians? I don't think thats right. Jim

Look up "other."

[Islander]

I think once the debate moves away from our theological foundation we are just treading water.

From a "humanistic" standpoint, the trend seems to be that as long as it is not illegal nothing is wrong. We are, in the West, at a junction where man's desires have no limits and laws are created to accommodate such with no regard for history, ethics, the word of God or morality. We are arriving to a point where morals, ethics and behavior are completely relative and no more than shifting sand pushed by the wind of social hunger.

I am sincerely sorry for those that struggle with chronic illness and diseases. Breaking down ethical, moral and historical social constrains invariably opens the gate for unrestrained practices, the impact of which we can not even begin to imagine. There is no practical way to maintain operational control of embryonic stem cell lines worldwide. There are individuals in the world that have more resources, ingenuity and influence than governments.

I wonder why not concentrate on other kinds of stem cells? Just like they want to push carbon emission controls at ALL costs, they can push other lines of stem cell (non-embryonic) at ALL costs because it is the right thing to do, the moral thing to do the ethical thing to do.

Or is this a case for "situational" ethics?

Edited April 14, 2009 by Islander

[Moksha]

"Mormons believe in a God that can tell a womb from a petri dish and other "Christians" don't"

So Mormons are not Christians? I don't think thats right. Jim

Wouldn't a better conclusion be that they have more discernment in this instance?