Embryonic Stem Cell research

[Miracle Storm]

I haven't see a discussion about this and would like to know others perspective on it. However you feel about it, negatives and positive I would like to know.

thanks

 

[lux et lex]

I think it's great and there are so many unknown possibilities that it brings. I'm really hoping there loosening of Bush's draconian laws regarding embryonic stem cell research, because there is so much potential.

 

[shinbits]

if they're going to throw the stem cells away anyway, then it might as well be used for research.

 

[Miracle Storm]

I am encouraged to see at least two positive responses.

Most Christians I have encountered likened it to abortion.

Gives me hope for the future for my stepmom with MS. I am sure yesterday Obama gave much hope to people yesterday.

 

[Archivist]

This was a very good move on the part of our new President.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You know what...there have been many countries (other than the United States) who used Embryonic stems cells and guess what, nothing. But yet, adult stem cells seems to work...So it's really going to be interesting when we put a ton of money in this research that has yielded nothing already. I like how every science was saying that embryonic stem cell research "have potential" even when other scientist around the world was using it but that potential didn't seem to ever rise. I also find it funny how people just silence adult stem cells as if the "potential" was never there, though they have found far more uses of it then they thought possible.

 

[Archivist]

You know what...there have been many countries (other than the United States) who used Embryonic stems cells and guess what, nothing. But yet, adult stem cells seems to work...So it's really going to be interesting when we put a ton of money in this research that has yielded nothing already. I like how every science was saying that embryonic stem cell research "have potential" even when other scientist around the world was using it but that potential didn't seem to ever rise. I also find it funny how people just silence adult stem cells as if the "potential" was never there, though they have found far more uses of it then they thought possible.

Research using adult cells had a head start on embryonic stem cells, so treatments derived from such cells have already advanced to human trial stage.

I haven't heard any respected scientists suggesting that we abandon adult sterm cell research. However such scientists do recognize the great potential that exists using embyronic stem cells. Give it time.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Research using adult cells had a head start on embryonic stem cells, so treatments derived from such cells have already advanced to human trial stage.

I haven't heard any respected scientists suggesting that we abandon adult sterm cell research. However such scientists do recognize the great potential that exists using embyronic stem cells. Give it time.

Maybe in the United States adult stem cells had a head start but other countries were using embryonic stem cells and it had not yielded anything. And while we are waiting for embryonic stem cells to showcase it's potential, we continue to disregard the babies (we call them embryos) that they used for trial and error. Sorry, if I am not too happy about that.

 

[Archivist]

Maybe in the United States adult stem cells had a head start but other countries were using embryonic stem cells and it had not yielded anything. And while we are waiting for embryonic stem cells to showcase it's potential, we continue to disregard the babies (we call them embryos) that they used for trial and error. Sorry, if I am not too happy about that.

The facts show otherwsie. Bone marrow transplants – which are actually transplant of adult stem cells - have been going on since the 1950's. The first embyronic stem cells were not isolated until 1998.

 

[dies-l]

I think that it is a complicated issue. For those who sincerely believe that a single unique human cell is entitled to all of the rights and privilieges of a fully formed human being (that life begins at conception), then I don't see how you could support embryonic stem cell research. Neither could such a person support the use of birth control pills (or other contraceptives whose mechanism of action takes place in the uterus) or in vitro fertilization. All of these processes involve the destruction of unique human cells.

However, I find that I am leaning more and more away from the "[human] life begins at conception" mentality. Honestly, I don't have a concrete answer of when life begins; morally speaking, I believe it begins before birth, but I have yet to find a basis in reason or in Scripture to believe that it begins at the moment of conception. This is a tough question, I think.

That being said, I believe that abortion is always immoral. The question, therefore, is whether the destruction of unique human cells that have no potential of growing into a fully developed infant is tantamount to abortion. If so, do the ends justify the means in the case of embryonic stem cell research? That is to say, do the potential benefits outweigh the damage that is caused? And, this is a question that I have difficulty answering, partly because I lack the knowledge of science to make that determination

If such destruction is not tanatamount to abortion, I think that it is necessary to ask whether the practice is likely to encourage unethical medical practices (such as causing women to become pregnant solely for the purpose of destroying the embryo for scientific research)? This, I think is my biggest fear with stem-cell research. If we can regulate it sufficiently to deter such unethical practices, then I think it is a good thing. My suspicion, however, in a global economy, such as the one we now live in, such regulation is quite difficult.

All that being said, when the issue came up for a vote in my state back in November, I voted in favor of allowing funding for embryonic stem cell research, and my wife voted against. I think that this is the only issue or candidate on the ballot about which we ultimately voted differently, and I think that both of us were very much in the middle on the issue.

Interesting issue -- I am curious to see what other believers have to say on this.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The facts show otherwsie. Bone marrow transplants – which are actually transplant of adult stem cells - have been going on since the 1950's. The first embyronic stem cells were not isolated until 1998.

If I remember what was written in my Neurobiology history book, those bone marrow transplants didn't happen until the late 1960's early 1970's but they knew about stem cells since 1800's. And I'm sure scientist knew about embryonic stem cells long before they isolated it, it just took them a lot longer to get to the embryonic stem cells (jee I wonder why) then adult stem cells (which are more easily accessible) and don't involve the death of children for trial and error sake. But scientist all over the world has been using embryonic stem cells and they still haven't even showcased progress.

 

[lux et lex]

Just as a note, there are no children dying. Embryonic stem cells must be taken before 8 days after the cells start to divide. A high number of embryos do not get past this point. Calling them children is over-emotional and HIGHLY speculative.

 

[one11]

I think that it is a complicated issue. For those who sincerely believe that a single unique human cell is entitled to all of the rights and privilieges of a fully formed human being (that life begins at conception), then I don't see how you could support embryonic stem cell research. Neither could such a person support the use of birth control pills

Birth control pills? I thought birth control pills trick the women's body into being pregnant and therefore she does not ovulate.

I think you are thinking of the morning after pill, which is different.

Stem cells: Neutral at this point. I think it is kinda creepy in a way, but that doesn't mean I believe people with diseases shouldn't keep hoping for a cure whatever it may be.

 

[Archivist]

If I remember what was written in my Neurobiology history book, those bone marrow transplants didn't happen until the late 1960's early 1970's but they knew about stem cells since 1800's. And I'm sure scientist knew about embryonic stem cells long before they isolated it, it just took them a lot longer to get to the embryonic stem cells (jee I wonder why) then adult stem cells (which are more easily accessible) and don't involve the death of children for trial and error sake. But scientist all over the world has been using embryonic stem cells and they still haven't even showcased progress.

Actually the first successful bone marrow transplant between a related donor and recipient was performed in 1956 by Dr E Donnall Thomas in New York. Perhaps they didn't become common until the 1960's, but they were done in the 1950's.

I'm not arguing that they didn't know about embyronic stem cells prior to 1998, but they weren't doing research using them prior to 1998 when they were isolated. You were the one who said that "maybe in the United States adult stem cells had a head start but other countries were using embryonic stem cells and it had not yielded anything." That isn't true--adult stem cells were being used decades before embyronic stem cells. Therefore it will take time for embyronic stem cell research to yield results.

 

[lux et lex]

Birth control pills? I thought birth control pills trick the women's body into being pregnant and therefore she does not ovulate.

I think you are thinking of the morning after pill, which is different.

Depends on the type of birth control. There are 2 types of birth control pills -- the combined pill and the Minipill. The combined pill contains both estrogen and progestin, while the Minipill contains only progestin.The progestin in the Minipill may prevent ovulation; however it may not do this reliably each month. The Minipill works further by thickening the mucous around the cervix and preventing sperm from entering the uterus. The lining of the uterus is also affected in a way that prevents fertilized eggs from implanting into the wall of the uterus. The estrogen in the combined pill prevents ovulation, but the progestin still acts as a fail safe if an egg does eke out.

Contrary to popular belief, the morning after pill is just a higher dose of birth control. In fact, you can find out the ratio and take the prescribed extra amount of birth control if you don't have access to the MAP. (this isn't recommended, but will work...for most pills I do believe it's 3)

 

[dies-l]

Birth control pills? I thought birth control pills trick the women's body into being pregnant and therefore she does not ovulate.

Many birth control pills have more than one mechanism of action, and one of them is to make the uterus inhospitable to the newly fertilized embryo in the event that an ovum is fertilized. If you believe that fertilization is the point at which human life begins, this seems like it would be a risk you would not want to take.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Actually the first successful bone marrow transplant between a related donor and recipient was performed in 1956 by Dr E Donnall Thomas in New York. Perhaps they didn't become common until the 1960's, but they were done in the 1950's.

I'm not arguing that they didn't know about embyronic stem cells prior to 1998, but they weren't doing research using them prior to 1998 when they were isolated. You were the one who said that "maybe in the United States adult stem cells had a head start but other countries were using embryonic stem cells and it had not yielded anything." That isn't true--adult stem cells were being used decades before embyronic stem cells. Therefore it will take time for embyronic stem cell research to yield results.

Based on Dr. E. Donnall Thomas own autobiography, that bone marrow transplant was done on mice not humans. The dates I was given was for the first human bone marrow transplant. And what I am trying to say is that even other countries whom had been using human embryonic stem cells for 10+ years had not yielded anything (maybe anything is too strong of a word, the results were not promising). So I find it highly interesting that we allow these babies to die simply because of "possibilities". Isolation of embryonic stem cells of mice were done in the 1980's but again, we hear no information about that because the results were not promising. And before the Embryonic stem cell ban was put in force in 2001, they still had 64 embryonic stem cell line that they were allowed to continue but still we hear no information about the embryonic stem cells research because it didn't pan out.

And as for the person whom said they are not babies because they take the embryo out before implantation...I'm one of those weird people who believe that it starts at conception. And if it HAS to be taken out after 8 days (which I always thought it was 14, but maybe the 14 days means when it becomes adult stem cell and the blastocyst is formed about the 5th day so I can kinda see the 8 day thing) of implantation, that means the scientist have to implant and abort that child before it goes in the Petra dish, that's just creepy (though I'm fully aware in the scientific community, creepy isn't a good enough reason to stop a project).

And I'm sorry that I implied that embryonic and adult stem cells had the same time. That was wrong of me, I knew better.

 

[max1120]

I think it is an awsome blessing! We are going to find cures for horrible diseases like diabetes, cancer, HIV, heart disease, and Alzheimer's just to mention a few that are being studied. Also we are going to be able to help people who are paralyzed finally walk again and regain the use of their bodies. The blind are going to have sight. We are going to have a healthier happier world and I am greatful for this gift and for President Obama!

Max

 

[lux et lex]

No, the embryo is never implanted. It is allowed to generate in the test tube. Just like in IVF...the embryos are not immediately implanted, they are allowed to generate for a while to see which ones would have the best chance.

 

[Miracle Storm]

And as for the person whom said they are not babies because they take the embryo out before implantation...I'm one of those weird people who believe that it starts at conception. And if it HAS to be taken out after 8 days (which I always thought it was 14, but maybe the 14 days means when it becomes adult stem cell and the blastocyst is formed about the 5th day so I can kinda see the 8 day thing) of implantation, that means the scientist have to implant and abort that child before it goes in the Petra dish, that's just creepy (though I'm fully aware in the scientific community, creepy isn't a good enough reason to stop a project).

And I'm sorry that I implied that embryonic and adult stem cells had the same time. That was wrong of me, I knew better.

The cells are not taken out of a women's body...
Now I haven't said much in here because I am not really as up to date on the subject as I would like to be..plus I know it can be a sensative issue.
One thing to remember though is that the stem cells would only be disposed of if not used for research.

I have been against abortion my whole life, but it seems the lines kind of blur when they start making embryos in a dish that can be trashed anyways...and this is done for women who need outside help having babies..What do you think is the right thing to do with the extra embryos if the mother doesn't need them or want anymore kids? Should they be dilligently looking for someone to implant the cells into, should the mother be forced to have the embryos implanted, should they be trashed or should they be used to improve the lives of people who are suffering in ways we can only imagine?
I don't really expect you to answer that question nor am I trying to put you on the spot because I do know it is a sticky subject but am only trying to make a point and possibly failing



http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.