tanstaafl28, I beg to differ. Embryos are, as you said, technically not babies, but they have started forming. That is like saying an egg isn't a chick. That is technically true. However, the chick has begun forming. this cycle mustn't be reversed.
Alas, an egg isn't a chick. I eat eggs for breakfast, so far, no chicks inside. The cycle is halted all the time as a course of nature, yet there are still more than 6 BILLION of us here.
What we are seeing here is the abortion argument spilling over onto the stem cell argument. The potential for life is precious, and should not be treated lightly, however, if it cannot be brought to term as an independent being, it can be of benefit to life which is already here, and should be.
There is a Law of Nature involved here: all life exists by consuming other life. We cannot change this fact. Despite ethical and emotional qualms, we must evaluate this situation from the standpoint of which option provides the greatest benefit to humanity as a whole.
An embryo is, at best, potential life, but it is not yet conscious or self-aware. Saving one embryo saves one life. Harvesting the stem cells from this embryo creates the potential to save many lives. Along with this potential comes the promise of extending quality of life. With this extension comes the possibility of more life being created.
Therefore, the greatest overall benefit to humanity comes from the sacrifice of the potential life in favor of the many living people who stand to benefit from it.
FYI, for all those saying that umbillical cord stem cells are the same as embryo stem cells, that's not the complete truth. Many of the stem cells from cord blood are multipotent, not pluripotent, as those found in embryos (which are almost 100% pluripotent)
I don't understand why people make a big deal of it. Its a cell. Its like when you bleed or even scratch yourself omg omg omg your killing cells. Cell death is part of life, without it we wouldn't be living. I think killing an animal is much worse thn using any type of cell. They are living thinking creatures. A cell is just a chemical machine.
crazjayz, that is the difference between stem cells and umbilical cord cells. i assume that the pluripotent cells are why we need stem cells. tanstaalf, an embryo is a potential human, just like an egg is a potential chick. It is good that you haven't found a chick in the egg. earlier, a lot earlier, i said that they make some eggs for the purpose of eating by not allowing the cell formation for chicks. If we could do the same with humans, that would stop the outcry against stem cell research. Catholics do the most of this. I am Catholic. If you can prove to them that the embryo isn't a potential human, that should stop them from protesing.
No, that wasn't my point. What I'm saying is that stem cells come in two variants, pluripotent and multipotent. Pluripotent are found I'm embryos, while cord cells are mostly multipotent. Now the difference between the two is that pluripotent stem cells can be differentiated in ANY cell in the human body. Multipotent stem cells can only be differentiated based on their germ layers (endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm). Thus pluripotent cells are more valuable and useful than multipotent stem cells.
First of all, sorry for the double post. Second, eggs are just that, eggs. They have not been fertilized, and thus there is no potential chick forming. In order to get stem cells you need the egg to be fertilized, thus forming a zygote, and eventually an embryo. So, what you are asking for KamikazeKrout is technically impossible.
FYI, for all those saying that umbillical cord stem cells are the same as embryo stem cells, that's not the complete truth. Many of the stem cells from cord blood are multipotent, not pluripotent, as those found in embryos (which are almost 100% pluripotent)
Crazjayz, thanks for that information. I was unaware of that. Perhaps the cord blood can provide a "stepping-stone" to further the research and make the case for further embryonic stem-cell research.
"All i am saying is that we could kill two birds with one stone. we could save lives and make them better" ----
I see what you're trying to say, I'm not proficient on the topic but I don't think that's possible with embryonic stem cells, which I believe are the subject of Stem Cell Therapy, as they are much more adaptable than adult stem cells. I understand scientists are searching for methods to use embryonic stem cells to save lives, without putting the embryo's future is jeopardy.
tanstaafl28 that is EXACTLY what they're trying to do with cord blood stem cells. Just because we have pluripotent stem cells, doesn't actually mean we know how to turn them into different cells. That's the real problem right now, and it's kinda the reason I personally think we should first explore with cord blood, then move over to actual embryos. Iono, I just feel that the embryos shouldn't be wasted on methods that haven't even been tested via other ways (such as testing on mouse embryos first).
thank you crazjayz for setting me straight. Since the only way to get a stem cell is to terminate embryos, the only way i would approve of it is if you use embryos that are destined to be aborted. When people want to abort their embryos, we should extract the stem cell(with the parent's permission)and then abort the embryo.
No problem KamikazeKraut. To be honest, I'm just putting the facts out there. Also, this whole idea of using embryos that are going to be aborted by mothers who don't want children is a GREAT idea, especially if it's viable. I haven't done any research, nor have I heard of this procedure being performed, but if it's possible, I think it's good. Personally, I feel sadden by the situation of these embryos (the aborted ones), but if they are unwanted from the start, we might as well make the use of their short life to benefit the greater good.
Now, do I believe in abortion? That's another story saved for another thread.
