Stem Cells

[Runlikethewind]

Should Stem cell research (Which has been banned, and still is to my knowledge) be allowed to continue or was it good that it was shut down?

I believe you are mistaken, embryonic stem cell research to my knowledge is still perfectly legal. Federal funding has been denied to this research but as far as I know private companies can and are doing this research. Someone might want to confirm this either way.

So let me just point out that these blastocytes are potential human beings. If these blastocytes are implanted and carried to term they become full grown human beings as in the case of the snowflake children. They have a unique human genetic code and they do have the potential of becoming human beings under the proper circumstances. I think this is an important fact to recognize in this issue, it may not effect anyones opinion but it is a fact that should at least be considered before being dismissed out of hand.

As for the argument that we already have all these blastocytes lying around and their just going to go to waste anyway, I say that they should never have been created in the first place. I thought to mention the slippery slope argument until I realized that test tube fertilization already started the landslide. As much as I hate to say it, I think it's already too late for peoples of strong religious conviction such as myself. It's hard to say your against this type of research when there are all these cells out there that are just going to go to waste and there is so much potential for cures in them. And so the research will be done and the cures will eventually be discovered. Before we know it, we will be having companies mass produce blastocytes, human embryos, and such, for the betterment of humankind. And of course the mass production will be allot easier and inexpensive if, instead of fertilizing eggs, we just cloned the ones we already got. And its not like we are cloning humans, they are after all just a clump of cells. By this point no one cares about whether they are human or not, or whether tey deserve any special consideration or not, since people don't get sick anymore. And hey since we have already started cloning blastocytes then why not just let these things grow a bit more so we can grow organs in the lab for transplant, why not just build a body factory so that anyone can get an upgrade anytime they want. Forget whether you need a new liver or not why not just get one since they are so cheap and easy to install by this point?

I know that the slippery slope argument is not the best, and I recognize my example above is a bit over the top. I am just claiming that, in my opinion, the slope has already started to slide. And, pessimistic as I am at times, I see no way of stopping it. All I can do is sit back and pray that God will see that the motivation in this is to save life and to better life and to pray that He will over look the fact that we are destroying the sanctity of human life in the process. Every time we take a step down this path the sanctity of human life becomes less and less. And I can already here people thinking, "What about all those people who are suffering and could really be helped by this research? what about the sanctity of their lives?" I still pray for them and for a cure for whatever they suffer from. But I am of strong faith in the teachings of my religion and believe that embryonic stem cell research amounts to the destruction of one life to save another. So hopefully we can find ways to cure disease without resorting to this. What might be nice to see is a way of extracting these stem cells without destroying the embryo, then maybe both sides of this issue could be satisfied to a certain degree.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Imagine if every sperm was considered to be sacred because it is half of a potential human, as is every egg. So my vote would be life the ban on stem cell research and relieve the world of some of it's misery. How about you?

There was a time in history when we did think this way and now we don't even see that unified sperm and egg as sacred, which just illustrates my last post on just how far the slope has slipped, in my opinion.

 

[jamaesi]

There was a time in history when we did think this way and now we don't even see that unified sperm and egg as sacred, which just illustrates my last post on just how far the slope has slipped, in my opinion.

So what is my life and the lives of so many others that could be cured or saved with these treatments? I'm getting the feeling that our value is... nothing. People complain about wheelchair ramps and then other people take away our hope for cures.

I remember taking turns crying in each other's arms with one of my friends who could also benefit from this research when the law that banned funding for this passed. This AFFECTS people around you! People who have already been born. People who were not expired or discarded zygotes. Just, it makes me want to cry all over again.

 

[Runlikethewind]

So what is my life and the lives of so many others that could be cured or saved with these treatments? I'm getting the feeling that our value is... nothing. People complain about wheelchair ramps and then other people take away our hope for cures.

I remember taking turns crying in each other's arms with one of my friends who could also benefit from this research when the law that banned funding for this passed. This AFFECTS people around you! People who have already been born. People who were not expired or discarded zygotes. Just, it makes me want to cry all over again.

How am I to respond to this? You are right in so many ways. Why do I place such value on zygotes, because there is the potential for them to become human, potential that, more than likely will never, be realized? Because I believe that they have a soul, a belief that I could never prove? Why do I place such value on these when there are people with lives and families and friends who suffer for lack of a cure? How quickly might my opinion change if it where I who suffered from some debilitating illness? Aasimar said in the OP

thousands of lives are lost every day, thousands of miscarriages, that serve no good and simply make those who are affected miserable.

And given my line of reasoning I have to conclude that God has created thousands of souls in the form of potential human beings and that God destroys the lives of these souls before they get to live causing misery and pain for their families. Why would God do such a thing? Why do people who do good suffer? Why do people who do evil don't suffer? I sound so confident and so arrogant in my last post as if we shouldn't try whatever means we have at our disposal to try and end pain and suffering. To say that we should not try whatever means that we have available to us does seem to devalue the lives of those who suffer. It is as if I where saying "I will only go so far to end your pain and no further, even when some of the greatest potential for success lies beyond the line that I have drawn." But yet, in my heart, I feel that there are lines that we should not cross no matter what the potential benefits may be. I know that sounds callous and cold but there must be a good reason for it if it is my belief that it is not I who have drawn this line as much as it is God who has drawn the line. There must be some way to explain why God would not want us to create and destroy embryonic stem cells for research when He creates and destroys them all the time for no apparent benefit or reason. Maybe it is a mystery, maybe I need to think about it more, maybe there is no way to know.

Please don't think that I place no value on the lives of those that suffer from illness and disease just because I feel that there are certain things in nature that we should not be tampering with. I pray every day (just about) for the sick and the dying, for their strength and perseverances. In fact I even see value in suffering as Christ taught us by his example on the cross. He could have ended his suffering at anytime but He did not. And for that we can be saved. For some reason it was better for Christ to suffer than for Him to end His suffering. Maybe it is better (in the eternal sense that this life is temporary and we are all going to suffer and die but all such things will cease in the life to come in heaven) that people suffer here and now even though their suffering could be put to an end, just like Christ. I don't know, maybe suffering is not inherently evil or bad, maybe it has an eternal, redemptive value for those who endure it. Maybe the need to comfort those who suffer provides a place for compassion in the world that would not necessarily be there if there was no suffering. even if we do cure disease will suffering end? Will not other disease rise to take the place of that which is cured? Will it put an end to war and violence and natural disasters? These are all tough questions and I don't know if I can answer them.

Again let me say that I realize my last post was a little harsh, I apologize for that. I do not try to place more value on the existence of stem cells than on the existence of people living around me. I try to love all humanity in all its forms, I sometimes fail.

 

[dawny0826]

This one has always very much interested me. After conception, there is a stage of human development called a Blastocyst. It is bascally a sphere of cells encapsulating a few "stem cells," That is, Pluripotent cells. Now the signifigance of this is these are remarkable human cells, capable of becoming endodermic, ectodermic, or mesodermic, (Interior "gut" tissue, epidermal and nervous tissue, and muscle/blood/bone tissue respectively.) For those who do not know, the remarkable think about these pluripotent cells if they have the potential to become any known human tissue. This would mean that researching these magnificent little cells have a very real potential to end cancer, diabetes, osteoperosis, arthritis, and many many other afflictions. Now the dilemma is that a Blatocyst is of course the conception of human life, which many religions hold to be sacred. So what is your opinion, do you think that the benefits outwiegh the costs? Consider that intercourse is not even required to create a Blatocyst, all that must happen is a sperm and an egg must meet, easily done in a lab or with Invitro-fertilization. The Blatocyst is then destroyed in the process of extracting the stem cells. So the question is where do you stand, and why? Should Stem cell research (Which has been banned, and still is to my knowledge) be allowed to continue or was it good that it was shut down?

I will post my opinion first since I started this I am Agnostic and as such to not believe the Catholic "Soul enters the Zygote at conception" arguement, thousands of lives are lost every day, thousands of miscarriages, that serve no good and simply make those who are affected miserable. The concept that a sphere of cells is sacred because it is a potential human to me is taking religion way too far. Imagine if every sperm was considered to be sacred because it is half of a potential human, as is every egg. So my vote would be life the ban on stem cell research and relieve the world of some of it's misery. How about you?

My mother in law suffers severely from Parkinson's Disease and I still cringe at the thought that we're using human embryos to further medical science, knowing that the medical science could provide ways to improve her quality of life.

Stem cell research wouldn't be so hard for me to digest if:

#1) There were greater restrictions on the number of embryos that are created during/for the in vitro process

#2) There was greater push to utilize stem cells that are found in chord blood

I applaud people who choose to conceive via in vitro fertilization and I realize the process often takes many embryos to achieve a viable pregnancy. I still believe it's more than possible to regulate this process to where we aren't left with such excess in human embryos.

Chord blood is an excellent source for the very same stem cells. But this process has been capitalized on. Mothers must pay companies to bank these cells, even if the cells are never utilized.

So, why not push for the usage of chord blood? Potential life isn't destroyed during this process. Allow mother and fathers the opportunity to affordably bank this blood by having them agree to donate to medical science as well. Win/win.

The logical thing to do of course, is use discarded cells for research before wasting them. My greatest problem with stem cell research is WHY there is such an excess of embryos and WHY more effort isn't taken to adopt out these embryos prior to using them for research.

Further, as a Mom to two, I would have gladly banked chord blood and donated to science had the process been more affordable.

 

[des]

First to respond to other posts, I don't think it is a "slippery slope". We define the actions that are allowable first. Then we proceed. We dont' define the actions after we proceed, or shouldn't anyway. I think that is done anyway following protocols and the like.

It is true it is not illegal, what is illegal is making new "cell lines". The ratioanale for making new cell lines is to create other lines that could provide for other types of research. By limiting the cell lines, you decrease the chance of cures or of effective therapies.

I wouldn't be cringing too much on acccount of this research. It is largely not really being done. (I think some in other countries and some with private dollars.) I also think at this rate there is unlikely to be any very effective treatment for Parkinsons.

Cord blood is useful, but it is a known therapy, to my knowledge. What we need, if we are to deal with more illnesses to to create alternative and new treatments. Cord stem cells (or any other stem cells) are NOT identical to embryonic cells. The age of the cell means that the cell is not quite as malleable. The older the less malleable. This is the science part of this. Of course, it is *harder* to work with more malleable cells, that's the research part. I think your ideas on cord blood are good, but I don't see them taking the place of research on embryonic stem cells. The ability to create more complex cell types would be enhanced by using embryonic stem cells vs other cells. Nerve cells, like those involved in Parkinson's, are the most complex of cells.

I don't think that the no. of embryos during invitro fertilization could be controlled. If they were the chances of it working would be seriously decreased. Since the odds of in vitro fertilization working are vanishingly small, by adding the no. of embryos you increase the chances of it working. You either decide it is ok to do in vitro fertilization, or that it is not, but not how to do it so it works. It only works with "too many" embryos. The science is pretty clear. (Also women are given more than one embryo, another way to increase the odds of it working. Of course, this makes the pregnancy more risky.)

Although some embryos are "adopted", the no. of actual adoptions will always be small. We are already talking of an expensive and not really terribly effective treatment. It is much easier to have a baby the old fashioned way. The no.of embryos will never match any supposed no. of "adoptions" despite all sorts of media attention. The fact that in vitro fertilization "adoptions" would be more risky and more expensive, means someone would have to fund this. It seems a dubious use of medical dollars. (In vitro fertilization is usually not covered by private insurance, often fails the first time, and increases the risk of multiple births, which are very risky. Increasing the availability thru, say public funding, would increase these costs thru our health care system that is already way overburdening.) I am not opposed to in-vitro fertilization but there is a clear science involved that can't be changed because it might be inconvenient to some people's morals. You need to decide if society should have this technology as it now exists. Either you allow it or you don't. If you allow it, it means there WILL be more embryos than can be used in pregnancies. These embryos will most likely be thrown away or stored indefinitely. Eventually these techniques will very likely produce fewer embryos-- I doubt they will ever be as easy as a regular pregnancy.
Not easy is going to translate to "too many" embryos.

You have a science (and perhaps art) here. The science doesn't change because you don't like aspects of it.

--des

My mother in law suffers severely from Parkinson's Disease and I still cringe at the thought that we're using human embryos to further medical science, knowing that the medical science could provide ways to improve her quality of life.

Stem cell research wouldn't be so hard for me to digest if:

#1) There were greater restrictions on the number of embryos that are created during/for the in vitro process

#2) There was greater push to utilize stem cells that are found in chord blood

I applaud people who choose to conceive via in vitro fertilization and I realize the process often takes many embryos to achieve a viable pregnancy. I still believe it's more than possible to regulate this process to where we aren't left with such excess in human embryos.

Chord blood is an excellent source for the very same stem cells. But this process has been capitalized on. Mothers must pay companies to bank these cells, even if the cells are never utilized.

So, why not push for the usage of chord blood? Potential life isn't destroyed during this process. Allow mother and fathers the opportunity to affordably bank this blood by having them agree to donate to medical science as well. Win/win.

The logical thing to do of course, is use discarded cells for research before wasting them. My greatest problem with stem cell research is WHY there is such an excess of embryos and WHY more effort isn't taken to adopt out these embryos prior to using them for research.

Further, as a Mom to two, I would have gladly banked chord blood and donated to science had the process been more affordable.