The Stem Cell Topic

[Chisoxfn]

I saw where a few days ago on the ticker that the US was trying to get stem cell research banned internationally.

 

This is a topic that really pisses me off. The way I understand it, getting a stem cell and doing research on Stem Cells in no way, shape or form takes away a babies life. I thought they just used tissues from the uterus or the fetus or something along those lines, but they don't just go out killing babies or anything like that.

 

I'm unsure of the procedure but I do know their are a ton of benefits to stem cells. The fact that you could regrow cells is amazing, especially in situations where someone has cancer and there cells are the major cause. Well now you could replace those cells and rebuild healthy ones. Also, for those that need nerve endings and such to rebuild, such as someone that is paralyzed, well this is a possibility and for anyone with any type of head trama where they lost a ton of brain cells, once again this is a help.

 

To me stem cells are the first step to really exponentially increasing a persons life expectancy and I for one want to be alive when this type of thing happens so I can see many things, plus living a couple hundred years aught to give me at least decent odds of watching the Sox play in and win a World Series

 

Anyway, I was wondering what others thought of this issue and also for those that know a little more on it, please pass on some details on how exactly they get the cells, and such.

[FlaSoxxJim]

There are essentially limitless horizons for human health applications derived from nearly totipotent stem cells (actually, stem cells are merely pluripotent – capable of differentiating into most types of specialized tissues but not capable of developing an entire individual). While I abhor the thought of people living even longer than they do now (there’s gonna be 8.5 billion of us in just 20 years!), I’m stunned by the possibilities of applied stem cell science.

 

Jas, stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst stage of early embryonic development (formed about 4 days post-fertilization). This is the cell mass that goes on to form almost everything in the developing fetus except the placenta and other in-utero support tissues – that is derived from the outer blastocyst layer.

 

Stem cell lines right now have been most successfully derived from two different sources, and both of these are based on either naturally or artificially fertilized embryos not taken to term. One line is derived from terminated pregnancies, with the consent of the donor. The other line is derived from unused human embryos fertilized at in vitro fertilization clinics, also with the consent of the donors. For the Fundamentalists, this becomes an odd dilemma. A cell line from terminated pregnancies is an abomination, but what about that from frozen embryos in excess of clinical need but fertilized for reproductive rather than research purposes? If these won’t be used to make babies, then what is the Fundamentalist’s solution for getting rid of tthem? Dumping them? Morally that should enrage them more than a traditional abortion, because these “incipient human lives” were willfully created and not just conceived on accident. Keep ‘em frozen indefinitely? Is that a better quality of life for the “incipients”? Do useful, important stem cell research with them? Yeah, ok, but not with the ones from abortions…

 

Now, I could go off on any number of rants here, but I’ll limit myself to two. In regard to the IVF clinics, it drives me absolutely nuts when these parents of mega-multiples via artificial means decide to proceed with having all four, five, six, seven… implanted babies despite the fact that it jeopardizes the lives of the unborn kids and PERMANENTLY compromises their health and quality of life. The kicker, of course, is that “It’s Gawd’s will” that all the babies be born despite the risk and cost. The apparent fact that it was God’s will that these couples didn’t conceive is never considered, of course. I’m actually not in the least bit against IVF, but there is a serious double-standard here, the latest and greatest medical marvels can be used to thwart the will of the Big G when a couple needs their baby, but not when their own doctors tell them that selective reduction of the less viable implants should be enacted for the health of the most viable.

 

My other rant centers on the enlightened self interest of empowered Conservatives who realize that something they should rail against as part of the party line could actually do them some good (file under “can’t walk it like they talk it”). The same blindness to personal moral ambiguity that keeps Dick Cheney from vigorously attacking gay rights as his buddies (oh, yeah, his daughter’s gay, and he loves her so maybe gay’s aren’t evil…), and has thus far kept Rush from demanding he be incarcerated as per the zero tolerance for losers he has preached for years is coming to the fore now. Nancy Reagan has openly warmed to the notion of stem cell research because – you guessed it – the cure for Alzheimer's may come from stem cells. It won’t happen in time to help Ron (is he like 100 now?), but Alzheimer's research has understandably become a pet cause for the family.

[DBAHO]

I had to write a paper for English this year about the issue of cloning. It's a really dicey subject cos it can go both ways. Stem cell research can be used for good, but organisations like CloneAid use it for the wrong reasons.

[cwsox]

It's a really dicey subject cos it can go both ways.

That is true for everything from Twinkies to nuclear power. Anything can be used for good or for ill. Big deal. Stem cell research needs to proceed for the tremendous good it can do. And thigs like CloneAid will never be more than big talk in tabloids. Unless it is like FarmAid and they get Willie Nelson to sing.