I've been reading some about stem cell research and how the government (Pres. Bush) is against embryonic stem cell research.
It's thought that stem cells from embryos can develope into cells that when transplanted into humans have the potential to cure terrible diseases such as Parkinsons, diabetes, Lupus and many others. It's true(according to what I've read) that the embryo dies when cells are harvested. Lots of people, including President Bush, are against funding stem cell research for this reason. Can somebody tell me what the difference is between destroying an embryo to harvest its stem cells and destroying an unwanted child through abortion? I definitely am against abortion for birth control and that's why most abortions are performed. At the same time I would love to see my friend cured of her life threatening Lupus, my husband of his Alzheimers, (although it's already been discovered that stem cell implantation won't be much help with Alzheimers) and I'd love to be rid of my Type 2 Diabetes. I feel somewhat like a hypocrite
for being against abortion for birth control but being for stem cell research in the hope of seeing a cure for my friend, my husband and myself. But there it is anyway. Selfishness is one of my many character flaws.
Stem Cells don't have to come only from feotus's (I think) you can take them from placenta and umbilical cords as well (I think). I think that is where most stem cells for reasearch currently come from and they are using these stem cells towards research for Parkinson's etc.
I think the main debate comes from the fact that they want to produce foetus's through IVF from doner sperm and eggs specifically for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. The foetus would of course then be destroyed. Most people are against that form of harvesting stem cells, I think.
I see no problem in harvesting stem cells from placentas and umbilical cords, if anything it should be compulsory, (but i also think blood donation and organ donation should be compulsory) otherwise all they do is incinerate the plancenta and cord, so it's better to do something with it rather than do nothing with it.
But I guess if you have that theory, then why not use aborted or miscarried foetus's as well instead of them just being destroyed? And if you do that then why not be able to create feotus's just for the purpose of stem cell harvest?
I think that is why everyone is so against stem cell research, they see it as a small step towards bigger and worse "crimes". One step leads to another sort of thing.
As someone with a disease in my family though that could be cured or at least helped with some of the work they are doing through stem cell research I have kind of a vested interest in it. But even though I would like to see it go ahead for personal reason I also want that for everyone else with a disease.
I think doing it with umbilical cords and placenta is the way to go for now. Until we can prove it actually works anyway, we don't know if we're even doing any good by harvesting it, let alone creating foetus's specifically for it.
IVF embryos are only 8 cells or so. No heart beat, nothing but cells. They have never been implanted, just hanging out in a dish. Embryos from abortion do have heart beats ect.
Thanks for that explanation, Fuscia. That certainly puts a easier to accept spin on it. With that in mind I have no problem with creating embryos for stem cell harvesting. But I still have a problem with abortion even at that early stage that is performed as a means of birth control. And I am convinced that that is why most abortions are performed. And in my mind that is dead wrong.
I think something else that some are concerned might happen is the sale of embryonic cells.
Some fear that women may become pregnant just to abort, so the cells can be sold. It sounds kind of far out, but if the demand grew high enough, things like that could happen.
I suppose that very thing would happen and that would not be good. However,
stem cells can be produced and harvested from In Vitro Fertilized eggs. These
eggs have no heart beat, were not produced as the result of an act of love, they are just so many cells. Most of them are thrown away. Why not use them
for something good? I agree that laws would have to be passed making it illegal to get them from a pregnant woman so that she could make money from it. I also agree that passing a law would not stop it completely. Every law that is passed has the potential of being broken just for profit. I just think that the potential for good would be so worth it.
I think in the end it will come down to personal choice amoung patients.
There is a guy at church who has parkinsons real bad. He has had the oportunity to recieve some of that fetal tissue stuff injected into his brain, kind of like what Micheal J. Fox did.
He chose not to and to live with his desease.
I would like to think in the same situation, I would also choose not to use embyonic tissue or fetal tissue to cure myself.
I have not walked in those shoes yet. Thats like saying you will go to war and be a hero. You plan on being a hero, but who knows what will happen when the bullets start flying.
You just don't know for sure until it happens to you.
If others want to use some of this technology, I may or may not think it's wrong, but I won't judge them or look down of them.
It's such a grey area.
Personally, if it's a fertilized egg, whether a minute old or whatever, I would not use it.
The cells taken from a baby umbilical cord or by other means, I don't see a problem with it.
I would not use the cells either Dave. I think that we need to look at umbilical cord cells more. Think of the potential for harvesting cells from the cords.
Reading through this discussion thread, I'm in general agreement with what's said and about not having to resort to using embryonic stem cells. But what of Ron Reagan Jr's speech at the recent Democratic Convention concerning stem cell research? He said that the "... theology of a few.." shouldn't forstall the health and wellbeing of the many in regards to doing stem cell research. But I feel he misrepresented the issue. First of all, there are already 4 lines of embryonic stem cells that are allowed to be federally funded (per the NIH website). Apparently, the rationale was that these were already being researched when President Bush instituted the ban on federal funding. Second, there are other stem cells (non-embryonic) that might be harvested potentially (from bone marrow). And then there are umbilical cells as some of you already mentioned that might be used.
All of this makes me wonder what I believe to be an even deeper question: are political leaders able to be informed well enough to make sure laws are up to date for the fast pace of technology? Each member of Congress (House and Senate) has a staff of what, maybe up to a couple hundred - many of these are interns, and pages? Can a staff like this be equiped to keep up with research inside and outside of government?
A point well-made, Jankenpoe. My feeling is that each person in Congress has many sources to turn to for information. Information on anything...not just stem cell research. It's their jobs to make sure they ask questions of the right people to get the right information. Gathering this information is, I would think, the major part of their function. Lord knows they have plenty of people working for them who would be able to do this.
Stem cell research is the most exciting possibility to come along since the discovery of DNA. If we let it slip through our fingers for the sake of politics, it would be a terrible, terrible loss to humanity.
My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that cells used are not viable human beings. Certainly they can't be called anything else but human beings, but at that point, they have not been fertilized, they are only a few cells in a petri dish. There's no heartbeat, no
development and no act of love brought them into being. Am I wrong about that? If they are just unfertilized eggs and can be used to possibly cure devastating illnesses, eggs that are discarded by the female body every month anyway, why not use them for something good?
I have been known to oversimplify things. Maybe I'm doing it again.
The government is designed to move slow. Laws takes years to get passed, and most of the time, the law is a generic compromise, so they can get it passed.
Technology will speed past the government and they will pass laws on some of this stuff, after it has been invented or grown.
Embryonic stem cells. They come from fertilized eggs, but the embryo is only 8 cells or so before it is implanted. Many times for genetic testing, a cell is shaved off to be tested for diseases at this stage.
07-15-2004 09:25 AM
