Embryonic Stem Cell research

[daydreamergurl15]

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

I do remember my genetics teacher saying that they create it like in vitro in order to control the time in which they take out the blastocyst. But I still think it's sick that they get a human donor, create the life and then destroy it. I have my opinions on in vitro but I'm going to leave that topic alone. My objection is to what the scientist are doing in the first place, after that their moral obligation is up to them because they have already went against my initial objection and I stop thinking about what they should do afterward. As for "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 fully believe that adult stem cells has done a great deal to help alleviate the suffering. It has yet to cure but it's been great therapeutically.

 

[Miracle Storm]

I do remember my genetics teacher saying that they create it like in vitro in order to control the time in which they take out the blastocyst.

They do create the embryo like in vitro. They remove the egg which is placed in a dish until which time the egg is ready to be fertilized at which time they add sperm.
The embryos not used by the potential mother are either frozen for later use, destroyed or donated, but like I said this is done outside the women's body is a lab dish.

But I still think it's sick that they get a human donor, create the life and then destroy it. I have my opinions on in vitro but I'm going to leave that topic alone. My objection is to what the scientist are doing in the first place, after that their moral obligation is up to them because they have already went against my initial objection and I stop thinking about what they should do afterward.

Are you saying you object to the initial decision of in vitro fertilization? If you are that is fine, your moral objections are just as valid as anyone else...I am just trying to see where you are coming from.

As for "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 fully believe that adult stem cells has done a great deal to help alleviate the suffering. It has yet to cure but it's been great therapeutically.

That didn't really answer the question, but only changed the subject to adult stem cells of which I certainly don't object. But like I said I didn't expect an answer...only giving something to think about.
I believe the hope is that embryonic stem cells can cure many of these debilitating diseases...we will see. But I think that if it is 'moral' to dispose by letting the embryos thaw in which the cells just die, I believe there should be no question in the minds of the people who believe it moral. The ones who find the disposal immoral to destroy the embryos, I would find it interesting to know there feelings on in vitro and what they think should be done with the extra unwanted embryos..But if you don't feel comfortable discussing your feelings on the subject I completely understand.

 

[lux et lex]

If you are against stem cell research, you should also be against IVF, unless every egg that is taken out is again replanted. See: Octomom.

 

[Lyndiette]

I heard on a radio talk show the other day that any adult cell can
be transformed into a stem cell. I see no problem with research
being done under this circumstance.

Embryonic research I don't agree with.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

They do create the embryo like in vitro. They remove the egg which is placed in a dish until which time the egg is ready to be fertilized at which time they add sperm.
The embryos not used by the potential mother are either frozen for later use, destroyed or donated, but like I said this is done outside the women's body is a lab dish.
Are you saying you object to the initial decision of in vitro fertilization? If you are that is fine, your moral objections are just as valid as anyone else...I am just trying to see where you are coming from.
That didn't really answer the question, but only changed the subject to adult stem cells of which I certainly don't object. But like I said I didn't expect an answer...only giving something to think about.
I believe the hope is that embryonic stem cells can cure many of these debilitating diseases...we will see. But I think that if it is 'moral' to dispose by letting the embryos thaw in which the cells just die, I believe there should be no question in the minds of the people who believe it moral. The ones who find the disposal immoral to destroy the embryos, I would find it interesting to know there feelings on in vitro and what they think should be done with the extra unwanted embryos..But if you don't feel comfortable discussing your feelings on the subject I completely understand.

My answer was to say that I'm for anything adult stem cell and not embryonic. Anything they do after they harvest the embryonic stem cells are up to them because I already object to the fact that they are harvesting them in the first place.

And here is what I don't get, if the excitement over embryonic stem cells is that they are ploripotent (meaning they can differentiate into any of the adult stem cells and become like a tissue, muscle, blood, etc...) and they say because of this (well, it's not that simply but you understand) then it can someday cure specific diseases...well, if they can turn into any adult stem cells anyway, then why not hold the same excitement for the adult stem cells and use them instead? I know I don't know all the mechanisms that goes inside the embryonic stem cells but if the excitement is that they can turn into ANY of the three tissue types (endoderm, mesoderm, ectoderm) and the adult stem cells can too (though they would have to be cultured in one of the specifics tissue types), I don't see why we have to use embryonic stem cells.
(I just realized I repeated that sentence oh well haha).
Plus, the coolest thing about the adult stem cells is that they can take it right out of your own body and it will be a perfect fit, whereas the embryonic stem cells, you have to fine the right donor. Errrrr, I don't get the excitement, though I should say that from the adult stem cells for some things, you have to find a donor, unless you save the umbilical cord.....You gotta love God's design.

lux et lex, I already said I have my opinions about IVF but I don't really want to get into that.

 

[Miracle Storm]

My answer was to say that I'm for anything adult stem cell and not embryonic. Anything they do after they harvest the embryonic stem cells are up to them because I already object to the fact that they are harvesting them in the first place.

And here is what I don't get, if the excitement over embryonic stem cells is that they are ploripotent (meaning they can differentiate into any of the adult stem cells and become like a tissue, muscle, blood, etc...) and they say because of this (well, it's not that simply but you understand) then it can someday cure specific diseases...well, if they can turn into any adult stem cells anyway, then why not hold the same excitement for the adult stem cells and use them instead? I know I don't know all the mechanisms that goes inside the embryonic stem cells but if the excitement is that they can turn into ANY of the three tissue types (endoderm, mesoderm, ectoderm) and the adult stem cells can too (though they would have to be cultured in one of the specifics tissue types), I don't see why we have to use embryonic stem cells.
(I just realized I repeated that sentence oh well haha).

There is of course much promise with ASC but some problems I have read are that they have trouble getting them to multiply and they need alot. I also cannot find where adult stem cells can be turned to anything unlike embryonic stem cells that are a blank slate.
But I know that embryonic stem cells have their drawbacks too, such as rejection.
I am not saying that one is better than the other, but at this point we simply don't know where the miraculous break throughs are going to come from.

If your heart is against it I respect your feelings on it and I appreciated this civil discussion getting to hear your pov.

lux et lex, I already said I have my opinions about IVF but I don't really want to get into that.

understandable.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

There is of course much promise with ASC but some problems I have read are that they have trouble getting them to multiply and they need alot. I also cannot find where adult stem cells can be turned to anything unlike embryonic stem cells that are a blank slate.
But I know that embryonic stem cells have their drawbacks too, such as rejection.
I am not saying that one is better than the other, but at this point we simply don't know where the miraculous break throughs are going to come from.

If your heart is against it I respect your feelings on it and I appreciated this civil discussion getting to hear your pov.

No, I don't mean blank states, I mean that they too can turn into the three major tissues but they have to be cultured from those specific areas, because they are mature already.

 

[Miracle Storm]

No, I don't mean blank states, I mean that they too can turn into the three major tissues but they have to be cultured from those specific areas, because they are mature already.

Do you have a link to an unbiased source that says that?
I have searched and can't find anything that states that...

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Do you have a link to an unbiased source that says that?
I have searched and can't find anything that states that...

Well...that's what stem cells are. The cells are what turn into the tissues (when I say tissues I mean the endoderm, mesoderm, ectoderm) that is needed. Stem cells are stored in those specific areas in the tissues, they are undifferentiated and can repair and replace any damaged cell. I don't really go online to find anything about stem cells (other than people's view on them), I just use my science books. I can give you the names if you want them.

Hey, while going back and re-reading one of the cell pages just now, I found out that they called adult stem cells ploripotent but not in the sense of embryonic stem cells...cool, though I doubt anybody cares.

Sorry, I said it wrong, stem cells are unspecialized and can become any cell in the body. Like a repair system if that makes sense. It repairs and becomes of what is needed in the body. Example: like bone marrow, the stem cells would become any type of blood cell that is needed in that area. In the brain, it could become any type of nerve cell that was damaged...etc.

What is in italicized I edit to clarify.

 

[shinbits]

I'm curious to know what kind of medical developments and treatments result from this.

 

[Miracle Storm]

Well...that's what stem cells are. The cells are what turn into the tissues (when I say tissues I mean the endoderm, mesoderm, ectoderm) that is needed. Stem cells are stored in those specific areas in the tissues, they are undifferentiated and can repair and replace any damaged cell. I don't really go online to find anything about stem cells (other than people's view on them), I just use my science books. I can give you the names if you want them.

Hey, while going back and re-reading one of the cell pages just now, I found out that they called adult stem cells ploripotent but not in the sense of embryonic stem cells...cool, though I doubt anybody cares.

Sorry, I said it wrong, stem cells are unspecialized and can become any cell in the body. Like a repair system if that makes sense. It repairs and becomes of what is needed in the body. Example: like bone marrow, the stem cells would become any type of blood cell that is needed in that area. In the brain, it could become any type of nerve cell that was damaged...etc.

What is in italicized I edit to clarify.

I'll take you up on that offer to give the name of your science books...because some of the assertions contradict what I have come to learn about asc.
thanks.

I'm curious to know what kind of medical developments and treatments result from this.

me too, excited as well.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I'll take you up on that offer to give the name of your science books...because some of the assertions contradict what I have come to learn about asc.
thanks.


me too, excited as well.

Biology Seventh Edition by Campbell and Reece
ISBN# 0-8053-7171-0
Chapter 21: The Genetic Basis of Development
Chapter 22: Nervous System
Chapter 42: Circulation and Gas Exchange (you can skip everything and go to page 881 under the headline "Stem Cells and the Replacement of Cellular Elements)..They use the word pluripotent stem cells which should be known as adult stem cells because on page 418 is when they said that adult stem cells are ploripotent. When you read the chapter you will see in that specific paragraph they exclude embryonic stem cells.


Biological Psychology by James W. Kalat 8th Edition
ISBN # 0-534-58816-6
Chapter 5: Development and Plasticity of the Brain
Under "Generation of New Neurons" you will find more info on stem cells that are directly related to the ones in the brain.
Under "Brain Grafts" they talk a very little about the stem cells and where they can be taken from.
Chapter 8: Disorders of Movement
Under "Therapies Other than L-Dopa"


Concepts of Genetics by King, Cummings, & Spencer 8th Edition
ISBN # 0-13-191833-8
page 595 it specifically talks about Stem Cell Research (I was going to write the whole thing for you because it's a full page but I figured it would be plagiarism)
Chapter 23: Developmental Genetics of Model Organisms
Under "23.9 Cell-Cell Interactions in C. elegans Development"
Two good chapters to read about cell in particular are
Chapter 2: Mitosis and Meiosis
Chapter 18: Cell Cycle Regulation and Cancer


Neurobiology Molecules, Cells and Systems (second edition) by Gary G. Matthew
Cannot read ISBN # because of the "used" sticker.
Though, I can't give you a specific chapter b/c the cells are discussed in every chapter.

Also, I have tons of lecture notes on cells but the teacher took the information from another book, which we didn't have to buy so I don't the info of the books.

Have fun. You should know though, when they say the word "stem cells" 99% of the time they mean adult stem cells but when they speak of embryonic, they usually say the name.

 

[rcorlew]

Here is an odd point that I never hear talked about by any one, scientist or politician and I cannot figure out why.

The embryonic stem cells they seek do not require the destruction of any fertilized eggs, the umbilical cord and placenta themselves are loaded with these very cells and would require no lose of life or potential life to harvest.

The loss of life or potential life is what the vast majority of the opposition is, and why I oppose it. I have not heard of any "promised" cure being delivered from this research which has been going on for over a decade now.

All scientist are alike, when they need money they will claim just about anything to get it, does anyone else remember when NASA was about to get their budget cut in the 90's because people began to view them as a mere curiosity, then magically they hold a press conference just days before the budget was about to be voted on saying they might have found the possibility of life in a meteorite that had fallen to earth and was recovered some time earlier. Turns out that what they found was merely amino acid chains and they could have contaminated the sample upon contact with the earth while the meteorite was in a magma like state. But the hype worked, they got their money and all is forgotten about.

I pose this question but it is not intended to be a mean spirited jab at anyone, but with all the millions of scientists who have been working on a cure for cancer alone with more than a trillion dollars spent taking over 100 years and is yet to produce a cure, can we still go one believing what they are telling us?

 

[Miracle Storm]

Here is an odd point that I never hear talked about by any one, scientist or politician and I cannot figure out why.

The embryonic stem cells they seek do not require the destruction of any fertilized eggs, the umbilical cord and placenta themselves are loaded with these very cells and would require no lose of life or potential life to harvest.

Very good point. The only time I have ever heard of banking cords is when I was pregnant, bored in the waiting room and picked up a pamphlet. I wish I would have done it. But it seems there would be alot more publicity on the subject.
I am pretty ignorant when it comes to stem cells, but when you watch on tv the use of embryonic stem cells make a parylized rat walk again you can't help but hope. I wonder what the difference is, exactly, between embryonic stem cells and umbilical cord stem cell..

The loss of life or potential life is what the vast majority of the opposition is, and why I oppose it. I have not heard of any "promised" cure being delivered from this research which has been going on for over a decade now.

All scientist are alike, when they need money they will claim just about anything to get it, does anyone else remember when NASA was about to get their budget cut in the 90's because people began to view them as a mere curiosity, then magically they hold a press conference just days before the budget was about to be voted on saying they might have found the possibility of life in a meteorite that had fallen to earth and was recovered some time earlier. Turns out that what they found was merely amino acid chains and they could have contaminated the sample upon contact with the earth while the meteorite was in a magma like state. But the hype worked, they got their money and all is forgotten about.

I pose this question but it is not intended to be a mean spirited jab at anyone, but with all the millions of scientists who have been working on a cure for cancer alone with more than a trillion dollars spent taking over 100 years and is yet to produce a cure, can we still go one believing what they are telling us?

I dunno..lot of greedy people out there, but I would say most scientist are in the field they are in because they want to help people.

 

[rcorlew]

I dunno..lot of greedy people out there, but I would say most scientist are in the field they are in because they want to help people.

I seriously suspect it is because they cannot cure these disorders, and in most honest likelihood will not ever be able to cure these disorders especially when they enter into the field with a presumption that an answer will lie in place A and never look at place B.

All, and I repeat ALL discoveries are by accident and then expanded on, the discovery of penicillin, the discovery of DNA, the cure for polio. I could go on, but the point is that these scientists are looking in the wrong places because they cannot see what is already there because they are chasing a rabbit into the mirror.

That's life, if your keys were always where they were supposed to be you would never lose them and have to go looking for them where they are not supposed to be until you find them. It is the same with science, instead of following the same path everyone else is taking and winding up with the same results, try taking the path you are not supposed to take to end up with something different, that's when discoveries happen.

But all the money is on embryonic stem cells for now, until another rabbit comes along, but before it was embryonic stem cells it was DNA, and before it was DNA it was genes, the rabbit always changes but the results are always the same, but you go on hoping for a new and better rabbit and I will keep watching, knowing that you will never catch him.

 

[Miracle Storm]

but you go on hoping for a new and better rabbit and I will keep watching, knowing that you will never catch him.

and you "know" that how?

Yes, well, I will keep hoping and I am pretty sure I will not be let down.

"shhhhh...I'm hutin' wabbit"​

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I seriously suspect it is because they cannot cure these disorders, and in most honest likelihood will not ever be able to cure these disorders especially when they enter into the field with a presumption that an answer will lie in place A and never look at place B.

All, and I repeat ALL discoveries are by accident and then expanded on, the discovery of penicillin, the discovery of DNA, the cure for polio. I could go on, but the point is that these scientists are looking in the wrong places because they cannot see what is already there because they are chasing a rabbit into the mirror.

That's life, if your keys were always where they were supposed to be you would never lose them and have to go looking for them where they are not supposed to be until you find them. It is the same with science, instead of following the same path everyone else is taking and winding up with the same results, try taking the path you are not supposed to take to end up with something different, that's when discoveries happen.

But all the money is on embryonic stem cells for now, until another rabbit comes along, but before it was embryonic stem cells it was DNA, and before it was DNA it was genes, the rabbit always changes but the results are always the same, but you go on hoping for a new and better rabbit and I will keep watching, knowing that you will never catch him.

To me, honesty even if they cure these diseases, I wonder how God feels about this. I can't imagine Him being too pleased that we are disrupting His design (that which starts at conception) so we can "hope" to find a cure for these disease.

 

[rcorlew]

and you "know" that how?

Yes, well, I will keep hoping and I am pretty sure I will not be let down.

"shhhhh...I'm hutin' wabbit"​

This is coming from the same group of people that cannot even cure the common cold, my hope resides only in God's plan, and not to the capabilities of any person.

And yes, I too believe that life begins at conception, but all the eggs are in the "fertilized egg" basket so to speak and nobody looks elsewhere.

 

[Miracle Storm]

This is coming from the same group of people that cannot even cure the common cold, my hope resides only in God's plan, and not to the capabilities of any person.

Yes, my hope too is in God. But God has used scientist to better health, and improve the quality of many lives.

And yes, I too believe that life begins at conception, but all the eggs are in the "fertilized egg" basket so to speak and nobody looks elsewhere.

i think they do.."elsewhere" just doesn't get as much publicity as the more controversial subjects.

 

[rcorlew]

Yes, my hope too is in God. But God has used scientist to better health, and improve the quality of many lives.
i think they do.."elsewhere" just doesn't get as much publicity as the more controversial subjects.

But also allows us to suffer in our own arrogance

Romans 1:28 And because they thought it was worthless to acknowledge God, God allowed their own immoral minds to control them. So they do these indecent things.

Ezekiel 20:25 I also allowed them to follow laws that were no good and rules by which they could not live.

Putting stock in people who categorically deny God is foolish.

Obadiah 1:3 The pride of your heart has deceived you, dwelling in the clefts of the rock; his dwelling is lofty, saying in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?

Jeremiah 49:16 Your dreadfulness has deceived you, the pride of your heart, you who live in the clefts of the rock, who hold the height of the hill. Though you should make your nest as high as the eagle, I will bring you down from there, declares Jehovah.

Jeremiah 10:14 Every man is stupid from lack of knowledge; every refiner is put to shame by the carved image. For his molten image is a lie and no breath is in them.

And one of the smartest man to have ever lived said in a speech that his greatest work was done by trying to find "the Gardner at work"

[SIZE=-1]I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things. 26[/SIZE]

Excerpted from:

Einstein and God

By Thomas Torrance

I cannot and will not trust those who seek to deny God through their work, and so neither would Einstein whom I may disagree with certain aspects of his faith, at least he was seeking God, and just understood that he would never be able to understand all there was to understand, in his humbleness he conquered the greatest stumbling block for thinkers of any era.