Stem Cells: Major Breakthrough?

TrekkieMage · **Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:47 pm Stem Cells: Major Breakthrough?**

No More Need to Destroy Embryos?

WeAz's comment earlier about stem cells reminded me about this...

This is HUGE news in stem cell research. Hopefully this will allow researchers to develop new healthy (unlike the 22 available now) stem cell lines, without the risk of destroying embryo's.

La Forge · **Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:09 pm**

I was for it before and I still am.

If there is a way to do it without destroying embryos, all the better.

WeAz · **Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:15 pm**

If the cells are have the same capabilities, then I'm all for it. If they aren't as ranging in their mutations, I still support Embryonic research. I'd support even if these are as capable.

Republican_Man · **Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:36 pm**

I'm not going to vote on this yet, but if this is the case, and it really works, then I can't really see a problem with this.

TrekkieMage · **Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:37 pm**

The biggest problem is that federal funding on stem cells is banned right now, so they can't really go very far with it right now. If the ban is lifted they could make some really substantial progress sooner.

Republican_Man · **Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:39 pm**

They shouldn't lift the ban because then there will be groups that will no doubt continue to use the conventional methods. If they had a specific provision allowing for this but keeping the embryo destruction ban in place, I'd be fine with it.

TrekkieMage · **Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:46 pm**

But eventually this method could, and would take over. As soon as they get the stem cell lines going (which are theorectically immortal, but the first lines were flawed) they won't need to go get more as often.

Getting a new scientific...thing (for lack of a better word at the moment) off the ground is always rough. With stem cells there's at least the promise that it'll improve rapidly once funding starts happening again.

LightningBoy · **Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:15 am**

Interesting, this seems acceptable.

I have no problems with stem cell research when there is no live being taken to harvest them.

Republican_Man · **Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:20 am**

WeAz · **Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:45 am**

TrekkieMage · **Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:15 am**

Republican_Man · **Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:20 am**

Even so, the ban should still be lifted under those specified conditions. That's a good compromise, too, I think, and it's the only way you might get the so-called "Christian right" to support such a measure.

LightningBoy · **Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:35 am**

webtaz99 · **Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:16 am**

I wish more people who are pro- or con- about stem cells would learn the science behind it.

There's a big rush to use the power of stem cells (no doubt due to the pharmaceuticals drooling over the potential profits).

The true goal is to take an idividual's "adult" stem cells, "reprogram" them to an embryonic state, clone them, and then return them to the patient.

All the other techniques being explored are "short cuts" and are not what the patients truly need. Over and beyond restrictions due the the murder of infants, embryonic stem cell research should only be allowed to lead to the "reprogramming" of "adult" stem cells, which is where stem cell therapy really needs to go.

TrekkieMage · **Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:22 pm**

webtaz, this method would not destroy any embryos. That and by studying both types of cells at the same time we can make a lot more progress. What happens if we don't study embryonic stem cells, and focus only on reverting the adult stem cells? We might figure it out, but then we wouldn't know how to *control* the stem cells. Which is what scientists are trying to do right now.

Also, in terms of knowing the science behind it, I'm not sure how many people realize how many of these 8 to 10 cell embryo's are "killed" in the natural world. The embryo only grows past around this stage if it's implanted in the mother's womb, which doesn't always happen. If there is no implanation, the embryo comes out in her next period.

Then there are the embryos that are frozen in fertility clinics. What happens with those is when the doctor picks the *healthiest* embryo he implants it in the mother. The others? Not so healthy. There is a much lower chance of a child being carried to term with those.

So, LB, your "higher standards to define life" don't seem to agree with the development of human life. That and with this new research, no embryo's will be harmed, so if a woman did decide that she wanted to have a child from that ball of cells, she could.

Wow, that was a long rant

WeAz · **Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:05 pm**

LightningBoy · **Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:41 am**

TrekkieMage · **Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:05 pm**

By scientific defenition, for something to be alive it must demostrate the following abilities:

1. Homeostasis: maintaining a constant temperature.
2. Organization: having one or more cell.
3. Metabolism: produces it's own energy.
4. Growth
5. Adaptation: The ability to change or evolve.
6. Response to stimuli: usually motion
7. Reproduction: usually used to say producing a whole new individual.

At the 8-cell stage a human embryo is not human life. At the very least it can not do 6 - it feels nothing and it does nothing other than grow and divide. Arguably it does not do 7, while the cells do replicate (growth), they are not reproducing another whole human.

Also, viruses like HIV have their own set of RNA and are not considered life. And, there are single celled organisms that are considered to be life. So the argument that something is more than one cell and has DNA can't hold up to the science and understanding we have of life right now.

WeAz · **Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:18 pm**

It's a known fact that Stem Cell's are life. The question is, are they human life? I don't believe so, for the reason stated above.

Founder · **Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:35 pm**

HIV doesn't become Human does it?

I find it surprising how pro-abortion people delude themselves into believing it's ok to do it because it's not a life yet. You're arguing semantics in effort to sooth your conscience.

The fact is that it becomes a Human life and has absolutely no choice in it's death. Which is ironic since Libs market their position as pro-choice.

WeAz · **Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:00 pm**

Conservatives oppose life-saving treatment, and call them selves pro-life?

Republican_Man · **Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:13 pm**

Link, the Hero of Time · **Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:59 pm**

Founder · **Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:14 am**

WeAz · **Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:11 am**

It wasn't a joke.

The embryo's aren't human yet. We're focusing on what it is when we break it apart. Not what it will be 9 months from then. If I treated all things like they would be, I have to treat you like you're dead. Because eventually, thats what will happen.

And also, they are frozen. They aren't growing in any way.