What's wrong with using Stem Cells?

[mr. nails]

what's wrong with using stem cells? i honestly don't see wtf the problem is. cloning a person/animal isn't what i'm talking about either. for the past 20 some odd years scientists have been using stem cell research to cure diseases. from parkinson's to diabetes stem cell research is being used as the cure. basically from what i know there are 2 types of stem cells. the young embryo stem cells and the adult stem cells. the embryo stem cells are taking from babies i'm guessing, probably from aborted children and adult stem cells are taking from grown adult tissue. now, i'm not stating it's good to abort a child to fix ur own body, but let's say a baby dies prematurally. instead of just throwing that kid in the garbage why not just use it's stem cells to do research and god forbid cure some of these damn diseases we have flowing around the world. as for the adult stem cells i guess just grab that shit off of ur buddy. either way, if the cells ur getting are doing no harm or ur getting them off of something that is gonna die or dieing... what's the problem?

[lynx]

It's bad, George says so so it must be true.

Heaven forbid that someone should treat him with stem cells, he might just grow a brain.

[j2k4]

It's bad, George says so so it must be true.

Heaven forbid that someone should treat him with stem cells, he might just grow a brain.

Misleading.

George objects to rampant use of embryonic stem cells, believing (with good reason) that abortionists might use the "therapeutic" argument to allay concerns over abortion, or, indeed, parlay this mis-perception into "embryo-farming".

Recent (and heretofore "impossible") advances in the potentialities of non-embryonic stem cells seem to bear out the previously (and routinely) ridiculed idea that the embryonic characteristic is nowhere near as critical as once believed.

BTW-

Hi, lynx.

[lynx]

No, not misleading at all.

George used the embryonic stem cells argument to foster an anti-abortionist position, not the other way round. Other countries have managed to word legislation which make such fears unfounded, but George just banned it out of hand without a care for the potential loss of therapeutic treatments.

The fact that there have subsequently been advances in the use of non-embryonic stem cells is all very well, but George couldn't possibly have known that was going to happen.On that point alone I would have to label his actions as irresponsible.

Furthermore, much of the work on non-embryonic stem cells would not have been possible without the information gained from the study of embryonic stem cells. Had that information not been obtained before George's ban, or outside the USA, the work on non-embryonic stem cells would have been severely hampered.

[j2k4]

No, not misleading at all.

George used the embryonic stem cells argument to foster an anti-abortionist position, not the other way round. Other countries have managed to word legislation which make such fears unfounded, but George just banned it out of hand without a care for the potential loss of therapeutic treatments.

The fact that there have subsequently been advances in the use of non-embryonic stem cells is all very well, but George couldn't possibly have known that was going to happen.On that point alone I would have to label his actions as irresponsible.

Furthermore, much of the work on non-embryonic stem cells would not have been possible without the information gained from the study of embryonic stem cells. Had that information not been obtained before George's ban, or outside the USA, the work on non-embryonic stem cells would have been severely hampered.

Ah, sorry, misleading again.

George didn't ban such research, he merely said no federal money would be spent on it.

The government is not a panacea in any case; if the government weren't regarded as the eternal money tap, Bush might never have even felt compelled to pronounce on the matter, apart from noting his personal abhorrence of relying on embryos.

Let's not forget, he is entitled to state an opinion, too.

[Polarbear]

the embryo stem cells are taking from babies i'm guessing, probably from aborted children and adult stem cells are taking from grown adult tissue. now, i'm not stating it's good to abort a child to fix ur own body, but let's say a baby dies prematurally. instead of just throwing that kid in the garbage why not just use it's stem cells to do research and god forbid cure some of these damn diseases we have flowing around the world.

holy motherfucking mary. who told you this bullshit. stem cells are not taken from babies.

they destruct embryos at a very early stage (4-5 days old) that have never seen a female body, they do not kill or use a fetus.

the fertilisation happens in vitro for the sole purpose of science. it was never ment to be human life.

those embryos consist of 100-150 cells. in my opinion one can't speak of human life, but this is a question of one's personal ethic.

if you against abortion you are probably against stemcell research as well.

here are pictures of such an early stage embryo:



it's basically a couple of cells, that have been artificially brought together.

if you put them into an uterus it may develope into human life, though it's very rare.

when you masturbate you waste much more (male) cells than with this method.


a fetus has developed organs and is inside the woman's body. the term is used after the 8th week of a pregnancy.


stem cells can be used to cure a lot of diseases or even to breed organs (skin for fire victims for example).

[mr. nails]

guess i'll be going over to europe to fix my diabetic issues over there since this america place thinks so badly of it?

Stem Cells cures mice of diabetes.

[Barbarossa]

Hooray for all the diabetic mice! A cure at last

[necromantic]

instead of just throwing that kid in the garbage why not just use it's stem cells to do research

Well when you put it that way

[Quylui]

what's wrong with using stem cells? i honestly don't see wtf the problem is. cloning a person/animal isn't what i'm talking about either. for the past 20 some odd years scientists have been using stem cell research to cure diseases. from parkinson's to diabetes stem cell research is being used as the cure. basically from what i know there are 2 types of stem cells. the young embryo stem cells and the adult stem cells. the embryo stem cells are taking from babies i'm guessing, probably from aborted children and adult stem cells are taking from grown adult tissue. now, i'm not stating it's good to abort a child to fix ur own body, but let's say a baby dies prematurally. instead of just throwing that kid in the garbage why not just use it's stem cells to do research and god forbid cure some of these damn diseases we have flowing around the world. as for the adult stem cells i guess just grab that shit off of ur buddy. either way, if the cells ur getting are doing no harm or ur getting them off of something that is gonna die or dieing... what's the problem?

There is an ongoing religious and moral debate on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. However, new research shows that non-embryonic stem cells can be taken from a plethora of sources, even the umbilical cord. This is where the argument for non-government funded stem cell research loses ground; if the government is against embryonic stem cell research, it should still promote other stem cell research. The fear is that by promoting ANY sort of stem cell research that deals with any sort of life may promote abortion, which Bush has stated he is vehemently against.