Fetal stem cells save lives

[mAlice]

what about stem cells from the umbilibcal cords full term live births? can't these be used for research? seems like this would be a way to make both sides happy.

Yes.

During pregnancy, the umbilical cord is the lifeline between mother and baby. Once the umbilical cord is discarded after your baby's birth, you lose the chance to preserve the precious stem cells it contains that are an exact match for your child. By preserving your baby's stem cells, he or she will have a guaranteed source of perfectly matched cells in the event a life threatening illness develops and the cells need to be used to combat the disease.

http://www.cordpartners.com/faq/#preserve

 

[Kerad]

Once again the "they're only going to go to waste" crowd is heard from. And once again I'll ask "what happens when they are gone?" and "what happens when someone wants specific characteristics of their stem cells?" While I am pro-abortion in order to keep unfit/unwanting parents from having kids, I am rather distressed to hear about all these aborted fetuses coming out of Russia and elsewhere. Is there any doubt that many of these fetuses are coming from desperate women who are told "hey... you want to make some extra rubles? Get pregnant, abort the fetus at a particular point, and we'll give you cash!"?

And now we have an American doctor doing what would be illegal in the US out in the Dominican Republic. I don't see how anyone can believe that once billions of federal dollars are dropped into a newly legalized embryonic stem cell business that US physicians and reproductive science clinics are all going to maintain a high degree of moral objectivity over increased profits. Once there's a substantial profit to be made from embryos there won't be 400,000 leftovers from fertility treatments... there will be millions of "leftovers" as clinics offer discounts/freebies to couples willing to provide extra embryos.

I guess only in America will people get up in arms about puppy mills, but have no problem with the potential for embryo or fetus mills.

We can play "Worst Case Scenaro" with anything.

Guns: If people are allowed to have guns...won't some people use them as murder weapons?

Cars: If people are allowed to have cars, won't some people get in car wrecks and die? Or use them as a murder weapon?


As with anything else...when you have a case where something can be used in an illegal manner, you make up laws to govern that activity. If someone breaks those laws, you arrest them and punsh them accordingly.

 

[mAlice]

Suppose it could only be harvested from actual babies - does it then become a miracle to get it, to - you know, save lives? What if it came from adults - and, you know, you'd have to go round up some old folks or some homeless people, kill 'em off and swipe their precious bodily fluids?

Kinda reminds me of Oliver Goldsmith's A Moderate Proposal (that's the one where he proposes that the Irish eat their children to solve the two problems of overpopulation and starvation).

I guess at heart, I don't trust the general character of the human race not to be barbaric in the face of such things - I think there are plenty of people who would be willing to do whatever it takes. I'm reminded of a show I once saw where people were offered immortality but they had to kill someone to get it. People would do it.

Ok, ok, it's all a little far-fetched. Maybe. I just think this kind of thing just reinforces my thinking that, whenever someone wants to win a point on a subject, two tried and true points get raised. One is - trot out how the children will be affected (hey, it's working for Hezbollah now). The other is, hey it will save lives! But really - it's just going to make you look better.

Now if we could only use those embryos to make a better gasoline!

You can't get away from the evil that will be done unless you stop doing the good as well.

 

[SamSpade]

As with anything else...when you have a case where something can be used in an illegal manner, you make up laws to govern that activity. If someone breaks those laws, you arrest them and punsh them accordingly.

Unless of course, someone raises the point that - embryos aren't "people" so therefore - it's ok. Not illegal. You pass a law - ALLOWING it.

Of course, making something *illegal* guarantees it won't happen. Especially since there'll always be someone to CHECK and make sure.

 

[Bruzilla]

what about stem cells from the umbilibcal cords full term live births? can't these be used for research? seems like this would be a way to make both sides happy.

I agree 100% with you, but I think there's a bit of the "the grass is always greener" thinking going on. I have yet to see or read anything that proves all these stem cell treatments really works. So far it's been nothing but theory and marketing. So if you're a patient paying thousands and thousands of dollars on treatments that aren't yielding benefits, it won't be long before you tell the quack that you've had enough. The quack will likely not admit that the problem is that the treatment, or theory of treatment is bogus, but that the patient needs "purer" stem cells.

I would guess that the stem cells from a new born's cord are every bit as pure as the ones from an aborted fetus, but I would also guess that when these treatments fail the first source of the problem to be considered will not be the failed technology but the type of stem cells used.

 

[SamSpade]

You can't get away from the evil that will be done unless you stop doing the good as well.

I'm enjoying this discussion - but I don't follow you here. Are you saying that the two balance each other?

 

[Larry Gude]

Dear Konservative Kerad...

:shrug:

Not sure what sort of comments you're expecting? It's obvious from the article that it's illegal (in the U.K.) to use stem cells for that particular pupose.



Seems that dispite lack of proof that the cells have any effect on wrinkles, there are people out there willing to shell out thousands of dollars (pounds, rubles, etc.). We all know if there are idiots with money....someone will find a way to take it from them.

Let's not gloss over the other information in the article...





....even though we already were aware of it.

...in prior installments of the great stem cell debate my question, as yet unanswered, is this;

(preface) The clear goal of human cell investigation is...immortality.

That goal, that desire has been mans golden ring since we started using leeches and bleeding people to death to try and save them.

So, if we are on the threshold of truly being able to do it all, grow a new heart, liver, etc, the brain is next and then the power, the mechanism to, say, re-start someones brain as we do already with hearts.

Do we simply go all the way to being able to keep each individual alive forever?

If so, what is the real value of life if there is no death?

We're not talking about harvesting some of your own hair to grow more. We're not talking about storing some of your own blood before a big operation. Nor are we talking about skin grafts. We're talking about using, harvesting, what was on it's way to being a person, not a hair or a piece of skin, in order to fix and repair another.

Just because we can (or may well soon be able to) should we?

Should we?

 

[mAlice]

I'm enjoying this discussion - but I don't follow you here. Are you saying that the two balance each other?

No. I'm saying you can't have the good without the bad. There will always be people who don't care enough to do things the good way. They see a short cut (in this case aborted babies), and a way to make the mighty dollar.

One bad apple syndrome.

 

[Larry Gude]

He shoots...

I guess only in America will people get up in arms about puppy mills, but have no problem with the potential for embryo or fetus mills.

...he scores!

 

[mAlice]

I agree 100% with you, but I think there's a bit of the "the grass is always greener" thinking going on. I have yet to see or read anything that proves all these stem cell treatments really works. So far it's been nothing but theory and marketing. So if you're a patient paying thousands and thousands of dollars on treatments that aren't yielding benefits, it won't be long before you tell the quack that you've had enough. The quack will likely not admit that the problem is that the treatment, or theory of treatment is bogus, but that the patient needs "purer" stem cells.

I would guess that the stem cells from a new born's cord are every bit as pure as the ones from an aborted fetus, but I would also guess that when these treatments fail the first source of the problem to be considered will not be the failed technology but the type of stem cells used.

But you can't find cures unless you do the research. As for patients spending thousands of dollars on something that works, that's money that may go back onto research for all I know. Like having expensive cosmetic surgery not only gives doctors practice, but money spent on said surgery also assists on docs working on deformed or mangled babies free of charge.

 

[Larry Gude]

Dearest...

We're discussing the article, no? You're always confusing when you post. I prefer face to face when having a conversation with you.

I don't see a problem with using a "cure", for lack of a better word, for more than what the cure was created for if it will improve someone's life.

No, I don't really think it's ghoulish to grow a human ear on a rats ass, and somebody might need an ear... and that just bleeds into another old argument. Why is it okay to have cosmetic surgery to improve one's appearance if one had been mangled, but not okay to nip and tuck. Not my argument, just an example.

...I didn't find the word 'abortion' in the entire forst part of the article, which is all I read.

So what is it about stem cells that has set tongues wagging in the beauty world? They are the building blocks of every human body but are far more plentiful in embryos, which are still growing, human foetuses, or newborn babies, than in adults.

Immortality awaits.

 

[Bruzilla]

As with anything else...when you have a case where something can be used in an illegal manner, you make up laws to govern that activity. If someone breaks those laws, you arrest them and punsh them accordingly.

Great point, but what laws would be broken? The medical community has a special relationship with the government in most cases, i.e., "stay the hell out of our business!" Who in the government can say how many embryos are needed for fertility treatments? 1? 5? 30? They are depending on input from the clinics to determine that, and the clinics will be the one with the greatly increased profits, so how much of an honest broker of the truth would they be? Can you say ENRON or Arthur Anderson?

Also, the only way that the government can turn the funding taps on is to declare that embryos are not a human life, so what laws could be broken by selling/marketing them? You can't say that they are human lives when someone's trying to make a profit off them, but not a human life when they are being used for altruistic purposes.

Right now there's limited funding for research, which is keeping the demand for embryos down... hence the 400,000 sitting in cold storage because right now they are worthless. Once billions of research dollars become available, the research outfits will be screaming for all the embryos they can get, and at that point the embroys will no longer be worthless. Money changes everything.

 

[mAlice]

...he scores!

Not really. I wouldn't be up in arms about puppy stem cells, either.

On the one hand you have a living, breathing, heart beating creature. On the other, you have cells in a petri dish. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to differentiate.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not passing judgement...

Why is it okay to have cosmetic surgery to improve one's appearance if one had been mangled, but not okay to nip and tuck. Not my argument, just an example.

...so, chill.

Cosmetic surgery, as I understand it, is just now starting to get into the stem cell game.

Nipping and tucking and implants and lippo et al aren't using human building blocks and cosmetic surgery is, at best, a postponing of inevitability.

Stem cells are leading us to immortality. I think that is a huge issue. If we can live forever we are no longer human because humans are mortal.

 

[Larry Gude]

Goody...

Not really. I wouldn't be up in arms about puppy stem cells, either.

On the one hand you have a living, breathing, heart beating creature. On the other, you have cells in a petri dish. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to differentiate.

...then you can address this one;

Stem cells are leading us to immortality. I think that is a huge issue. If we can live forever we are no longer human because humans are mortal.

...because that's my #####.

 

[mAlice]

...I didn't find the word 'abortion' in the entire forst part of the article, which is all I read.



Immortality awaits.

Further down in the article

The Treatment: Anti-ageing stem-cell injections made from aborted foetal tissue, £15,000 The past 12 months have seen this popular holiday resort become the stem-cell capital of the developed world, treating hundreds of patients in a year.

The upmarket clinic opened last year in one of the island's most luxurious hotels - Villa Nova - after Ukrainian stem-cell researchers, who have been secretly pioneering stem-cell studies with aborted human foetuses for 20 years, teamed up with U.S. investors backed by the Caribbean tourist industry.

 

[Kerad]

Unless of course, someone raises the point that - embryos aren't "people" so therefore - it's ok. Not illegal. You pass a law - ALLOWING it.

Of course, making something *illegal* guarantees it won't happen. Especially since there'll always be someone to CHECK and make sure.

I'm pretty sure "we've" had this discussion before...the morality of embryonic stem cell research.

No...making something illegal does not guarantee it won't happen. That's why you attempt to capture and punish the lawbreakers.

 

[mAlice]

...then you can address this one;




...because that's my #####.

Stem cells are leading us to immortality. I think that is a huge issue. If we can live forever we are no longer human because humans are mortal.

I think that's a little far fetched, but even if it weren't, if mortality is such an issue, why has mankind always looked for the "fountain of youth" and eternal life, only to shun it when it's discovered?

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

Further down in the article

...would you like a cookie? I still didn't mention abortion.

 

[Bruzilla]

But you can't find cures unless you do the research. As for patients spending thousands of dollars on something that works, that's money that may go back onto research for all I know. Like having expensive cosmetic surgery not only gives doctors practice, but money spent on said surgery also assists on docs working on deformed or mangled babies free of charge.

I don't mean to be insulting here... although it will sound that way... but the same argument could apply to what the Nazis did to the Jews. A lot of what we learned about the effects of high-altitude flight, things that bettered my life while flying in the Navy, came at the cost of the lives of hundreds of men and women in the death camps. Many medical discoveries were made at the cost of these innocent lives, and millions more have benefitted from that knowledge, but at what cost? Where do you draw the line? Is it okay to destroy an embryo in the name of research, but not a fetus? Is it okay to destory a fetus but not a human being? If the primary importance is research, and bettering the lives of some, then why place limits?

Remember that it was only a few years ago, back around 1997, that stem cell research really grew into fruition. Back then the sole focus of this effort was stem cells from embryos. The conventional wisdom at the time was split. On one side it was "these embryos are leftovers that are discarded so they should be used. These embryos are not fetuses, so no life is being taken, and funding should be allowed." On the other side was "once you minimize human life by declaring that embryos are not life, you start down the slippery slope of legitimizng killing the fetuses for their stem cells." After reading that article I can see that one side was right and one was not. We are now using stem cells from aborted fetuses from poor countries with desperate people to offer treatments that are highly dubious as to their benefits. How much farther down the slope are you willing to go?