Scientists Claim They Can Obtain Embryonic Stem Cells Without Killing the Embryonic..

[Michie]

...Person

No-one has a right to kill a human embryonic person


Swedish scientists claim to have developed an ethical way of removing stem cells from embryos without killing the baby. They say the development could revolutionize stem cell research by making it acceptable to those who object to the killing of children in the womb. Unfortunately, ethical concerns remain.

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) -

Stem cells hold enormous potential for healing patients with serious illnesses. Adult stem cells are now being used with amazing results and the progress is promising. The catholic Church is on the forefront , promoting this marvelous development which NEVER destroys life.

Embryonic stem cells are the basic cells that develop from the moment of conception. These cells have the remarkable ability to transform into any other specialized cells that the body needs. Following God's plan of creation, the cells develop into all the various organs and components of the body.

Continued- Scientists Claim They Can Obtain Embryonic Stem Cells Without Killing the Embryonic Person - Health & Wellness - Catholic Online

 

[New Legacy]

I did not read that the scientists were getting cells from within the womb, only that they could take them without destroying the embryo. This still requires IVF.

Finding a way inside the body, locating the zygote and extracting the cells is a very different thing.

 

[New Legacy]

This process of experimentation is unethical (in science if it recognized zygotes as human beings) and immoral. It is experimenting with human life that could be injured or killed.

The only moral route is to find ways of reversing development from adult specialized cells. When we start life, we are a cell that has many different ways to specialize. Cells form tissues and organs. It is basically like being in a neo-natal ward - every baby there will go on to specialize in a field and join others, providing a function for society.

Unfortunately for our body, once you get a profession as a cell, you are stuck with it. You can take a cell and grow millions of them, but they are all plumbers - hardly helpful if what you need is a accountant.

 

[Fantine]

The article was ambiguous. In sentence one, it said, "ethical concerns remain."

And yet in the last sentence it says: "We will be reporting on this development and hope that it shows the kind of promise which these scientists claim."

From this ambiguity I have drawn the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the act if it could be done without undue risk.

I suppose the risk of removing a single cell would be similar to the risk of performing an amniocentisis (which I believe is quite low) but at least it would be done for the purpose of healing, not prenatal diagnosis.

If there was a strong family history of the kinds of illnesses stem cell therapy is supposed to help (i.e. early Parkinson's disease) the "reward" might outweigh the "risk." In other families with better genetic histories, the risk might not be worth it.

 

[Erose]

I don't understand why they are still chasing this rabbit. The science has come up with nothing, and I do mean no cures from embryo stem cells. What makes them think that is going to change? So they kill babies for a very slim chance of coming up with a cure?

 

[Michie]

Everything I have read indicates adult stem cells have a much higher success rate.

 

[Erose]

Everything I have read indicates adult stem cells have a much higher success rate.

I believe that the last I heard it was over 70 treatments and cures from adult stem cells versus 0 from embryotic stem cells

 

[Michie]

I believe that the last I heard it was over 70 treatments and cures from adult stem cells versus 0 from embryotic stem cells

Yes. I don't understand why they keep probing the embryonic stem cells when adult stem cells have shown so much more promise.

 

[Fantine]

Since I'm not a scientist, I won't venture to read their minds. It does seem to be indisputable that the most perfect genetic match for an individual would be his/her own stem cells--perhaps their own embryonic stem cells stored for many years, and that if this research can be pursued without any ethical concerns there is no harm in following both paths.

 

[New Legacy]

The article was ambiguous. In sentence one, it said, "ethical concerns remain."

And yet in the last sentence it says: "We will be reporting on this development and hope that it shows the kind of promise which these scientists claim."

From this ambiguity I have drawn the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the act if it could be done without undue risk.

I suppose the risk of removing a single cell would be similar to the risk of performing an amniocentisis (which I believe is quite low) but at least it would be done for the purpose of healing, not prenatal diagnosis.

If there was a strong family history of the kinds of illnesses stem cell therapy is supposed to help (i.e. early Parkinson's disease) the "reward" might outweigh the "risk." In other families with better genetic histories, the risk might not be worth it.

If there is minimal risk, then it would not be unethical. However, the IVF aspect of it would be immoral. I don't see that they are or plan to remove cells within the womb.

 

[New Legacy]

I don't understand why they are still chasing this rabbit. The science has come up with nothing, and I do mean no cures from embryo stem cells. What makes them think that is going to change? So they kill babies for a very slim chance of coming up with a cure?

That type of research is problematic.

Using your own cells is completely different - you can grow organs that won't be rejected by your body. It is far easier to grow organs from embryonic stem cells then adult cells.

Also, science today is not about 'breakthrough cures'. Those happened at a time when science was simple and they could stop some of the big diseases with simply science, leaving us with complex problems that require lots of research. For example, there is no cure for cancer, but does that mean they have not done anything? Well, no- because survival rates today are far higher than decades ago.

Research is looking at one small detail at a time. It is not like back in the days when you find mold on a petri dish and you discover a cure for numerous diseases and problems.

 

[Erose]

That type of research is problematic.

What research are you speaking of that is problematic?

Using your own cells is completely different - you can grow organs that won't be rejected by your body. It is far easier to grow organs from embryonic stem cells then adult cells.

It is? When has any scientist grew a usable organ form embryonic stem cells?

Also, science today is not about 'breakthrough cures'. Those happened at a time when science was simple and they could stop some of the big diseases with simply science, leaving us with complex problems that require lots of research. For example, there is no cure for cancer, but does that mean they have not done anything? Well, no- because survival rates today are far higher than decades ago.

I disagree with this. It isn't as if science hasn't come up with cures in recent history.

Research is looking at one small detail at a time. It is not like back in the days when you find mold on a petri dish and you discover a cure for numerous diseases and problems.

Ok.

 

[Erose]

Since I'm not a scientist, I won't venture to read their minds. It does seem to be indisputable that the most perfect genetic match for an individual would be his/her own stem cells--perhaps their own embryonic stem cells stored for many years, and that if this research can be pursued without any ethical concerns there is no harm in following both paths.

Again, embryonic stem cell research has accomplished nothing except for the termination of life. And as of this moment in time, they haven't been able to source embryonic stem cells with killing someone.