PDA

View Full Version : Anybody Want to Talk about Stem Cells?


mscomc
11-07-2009, 04:25 AM
So in the past, I know there have been alot of discussions about stem cell research in regards to: ethics, benefits, adult vs embryonic stem cells, sources of stem cells like chord blood etc etc etc.

I wanted to contribute in the past, but I didnt feel like i had adequate info to contribute effectivley. I recently did a 6 month course on stem cell biology for my phD program. I personally am NOT a stem cell biologist. My biochemistry is scoped towards cell-signalling in lipid synthesis. But I know that stem cell info can be confusing sometimes.

If anyone has any questions regarding the matter.....i am not an expert, but maybe I can clear some things up :)

hope to talk to you soon friends; Malcom :wink:

Buzzard
11-07-2009, 04:45 AM
So in the past, I know there have been alot of discussions about stem cell research in regards to: ethics, benefits, adult vs embryonic stem cells, sources of stem cells like chord blood etc etc etc.

I wanted to contribute in the past, but I didnt feel like i had adequate info to contribute effectivley. I recently did a 6 month course on stem cell biology for my phD program. I personally am NOT a stem cell biologist. My biochemistry is scoped towards cell-signalling in lipid synthesis. But I know that stem cell info can be confusing sometimes.

If anyone has any questions regarding the matter.....i am not an expert, but maybe I can clear some things up :)

hope to talk to you soon friends; Malcom :wink:

I'd be interested in hearing what you have learned on the subject. Since I have no adequate info to contribute effectively, I am all ears for what you have to say on the science/medical level.

shon8121
11-07-2009, 04:46 AM
*jumps in*
I want Stem Cell research to cure shtuff!

que
11-07-2009, 04:55 AM
http://gallery.dirtyhandschoppers.com/gallery/albums/Posters/this_will_not_end_well.sized.jpg

MattHughesRocks
11-07-2009, 04:58 AM
No questions here Sir.

mscomc
11-07-2009, 05:26 AM
I'd be interested in hearing what you have learned on the subject. Since I have no adequate info to contribute effectively, I am all ears for what you have to say on the science/medical level.

Well then lets get this shing dig started :)

ok so the first thing you have to analyze is cellular capacity.

1) Adult stem cells are multipotent in capacity. They can only regenerate other cells from the tissue from which they originate from. ie: A blood stem cell (called a hemtapoietic stem cell) can turn into: red blood cell, white blood cell, or platelet as it comes from bone marrow.....but it cant make brain stem cells, liver, pancreas etc etc

2) Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent in capacity. The cells can make any cell of any germ layer. Ie: The endoderm, ectoderm, and mesoderm. Which means any cell from sensory epitehlia, to heart, to lung, to liver, bone (osteoblast) etc etc

The next issue is source of cells

1) adult stem cells are readily found in the body. For example, going back to blood stem cells (a type of adult stem cell)....we know they are found in the bone marrow ........BUT!!!! they are only found in a ratio of about 1 stem cell to 10,000 comitted cells (ie: red blood cell, white blood cell, platelte etc). So isolating them is VERY hard.

2) Embryonic stem cells are taken from inner cell mast of a 5-6 day old blastocyst. You cant get embyronic stem cells (at least not easily ) after this point. But assuming you are in the inner cell mass, there is a large abundance of embyronic stem cells.

3) A source of cell that has been brought up in the past, by I beleive texasRN (im sorry if i am wrong) is chord blood, as in umbilical blood after the baby is born. This is also a very rich source of stem cells. However, these stem cells are only multipotent stem cells / adult type

Actually using stem cells (embryonic vs adult) to make new cell lines for therapy use

---Ok so this next part for a scientist working in a lab is very crucial.

Adult stem cells are not good for research use because not only are they: not in abundant supply, not easily isolated, they have limited capacity to turn into many types of cells (remember my definition from above)....but they biggest problem is that when working with them in vitro (petry dish) they almost never "work" they die real easy, and never proliferate without extreme difficulty or luck.

Embryonic cells are apparently the complete opposite. You can get them in huge supply (apart from the ethical issues), they have unlimited capacity to make new cell lines of any cell type, and when you use them for in vitro experimenation, they proliferate very easy and work very well.


------------anyway i know that probably alot to take in. If you guys like, I could go into more info about problems with actually giving treatment, and some weird new techniques medical scientists are trying to do so that we may NEVER NEED EMBYRONIC CELLS :frantics:

NateR
11-07-2009, 06:58 AM
I have no problem with stem cell research as long as it doesn't involve embryonic stem cells.

Even if it is something that could benefit me, I don't care. No one needs to lose their life so that I can live a few more years.

TexasRN
11-07-2009, 12:37 PM
I'm very interested in this topic and am only aware of the cord blood uses due to the line of work I'm in. I know that at Duke we are doing great research with treating many terminal illnesses with the stem cells we harvest at our cord blood bank. It's not just about leukemia and such now, it's quite amazing what they are doing. I can get more information on Monday and will gladly discuss this part of the issue. I'm quite passionate about using all cord blood that otherwise would be just tossed in the trash.

I am less familiar with the other stem cell uses. My bf works in a research lab and he does DNA cloning with applications to cure prostate cancer and detect early pregnancies almost as soon as they happen. A lot of what he does is above my head due to me only having nursing classes and not the biochemistry classes he majored in. It's again something I can get more information on from him which won't be until tomorrow.

So, I am all for discussing this and learning more. Get as detailed as you like. Thanks.


~Amy

shon8121
11-07-2009, 02:52 PM
I'm under the impression that with the procedure of "In Vitro Fertilization" causes multiple eggs to be impregnated with sperm... but usually only one is "taken" by the mother and the rest are discarded.

Rather than throwing these away, we could instead use them for Stem Cell research, and we'd get them in abundance.

TexasRN
11-07-2009, 03:47 PM
I'm under the impression that with the procedure of "In Vitro Fertilization" causes multiple eggs to be impregnated with sperm... but usually only one is "taken" by the mother and the rest are discarded.

Rather than throwing these away, we could instead use them for Stem Cell research, and we'd get them in abundance.

They do fertilize several eggs and see how many "take." Then they implant as many as 4 into the mom depending on how many the mom is willing to take a chance on surviving the process. The average/usual number is 3 at a time. The rest are then frozen for later use, they are not just discarded. Those embryos are their children and most are unwilling to donate them for scientific research.


~Amy

shon8121
11-07-2009, 04:01 PM
They do fertilize several eggs and see how many "take." Then they implant as many as 4 into the mom depending on how many the mom is willing to take a chance on surviving the process. The average/usual number is 3 at a time. The rest are then frozen for later use, they are not just discarded. Those embryos are their children and most are unwilling to donate them for scientific research.


~Amy

Not that Wikipedia is the best source ever... but:
"Alternatives to donating unused embryos are discarding them (or having them implanted at a time where pregnancy is very unlikely), keeping them frozen indefinitely, donating them for use in embryonic stem cell research."

It would seem discarding them is an option... so I would hope they would be instead donated to research in those cases.

TexasRN
11-07-2009, 04:46 PM
Not that Wikipedia is the best source ever... but:
"Alternatives to donating unused embryos are discarding them (or having them implanted at a time where pregnancy is very unlikely), keeping them frozen indefinitely, donating them for use in embryonic stem cell research."

It would seem discarding them is an option... so I would hope they would be instead donated to research in those cases.


I should have been more clear, my bad. Yes, it's an option but typically the people who have frozen embryos keep them frozen for later use in case the ones they implant don't take or if they desire future pregnancies. There have been court cases with custody battles fought over fertilized, frozen embryos. I guarantee you that most IVF couples will not ever agree to donate their unused embryos for scientific research.


~Amy

shon8121
11-07-2009, 04:52 PM
I would. Haha.

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 05:17 PM
They do fertilize several eggs and see how many "take." Then they implant as many as 4 into the mom depending on how many the mom is willing to take a chance on surviving the process. The average/usual number is 3 at a time. The rest are then frozen for later use, they are not just discarded. Those embryos are their children and most are unwilling to donate them for scientific research.


~Amy

I would like to add that their are adoption programs where couples donate the embryos and a childless mother becomes impregnated and carries the baby to term.

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 05:25 PM
I am quite excited about the future uses of stem cells. We pay to have cord blood cells frozen in case our family ever needs it.

In another thread, there was a story about a pharmaceutical company using a cell line derived from an aborted fetus to make an anti-aging cosmetic skin cream. Please discuss your understanding of the ethics of stem cell research.

Shon8121, do you think it was morally correct for Germans to use the skins of murdered Jews to make lampshades? Was it morally correct to pull the gold fillings out of the teeth of murdered Jews to melt it down for bullion? After all, they were already dead . . . might as well put the bodies to good use.

shon8121
11-07-2009, 05:34 PM
I am quite excited about the future uses of stem cells. We pay to have cord blood cells frozen in case our family ever needs it.

In another thread, there was a story about a pharmaceutical company using a cell line derived from an aborted fetus to make an anti-aging cosmetic skin cream. Please discuss your understanding of the ethics of stem cell research.

Shon8121, do you think it was morally correct for Germans to use the skins of murdered Jews to make lampshades? Was it morally correct to pull the gold fillings out of the teeth of murdered Jews to melt it down for bullion? After all, they were already dead . . . might as well put the bodies to good use.

Whoa. Way to go! "Shon, are you a terrible person!?" Thats what I kind of feel like was hidden in between the lines there "Play The Man".
Uh, I do not consider myself a terrible person. But uh, was it morally acceptable for Germans to do what they did? Well thats an interesting question.
In my little corner of the world, I would say no.

But according to them in their world, it was ok. They saw Jews as less than human, much like we see Animals as less than Human, so we do with them as we please.
And I find it odd that you are comparing potential life (as in somewhere in the neighborhood to 16 cells) to someone who lived presumably to adulthood, was killed, and then their body parts were used for random things. It's a completely different subject... and a weird analogy in my opinion.

que
11-07-2009, 05:37 PM
using dead jews as lampshades is a far cry from using embryos that are going to be otherwise thrown away as research to help cure things like parkinsons, certain cancers, etc. weird analogy indeed.

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 05:54 PM
Whoa. Way to go! "Shon, are you a terrible person!?" Thats what I kind of feel like was hidden in between the lines there "Play The Man".
Uh, I do not consider myself a terrible person. But uh, was it morally acceptable for Germans to do what they did? Well thats an interesting question.
In my little corner of the world, I would say no.

But according to them in their world, it was ok. They saw Jews as less than human, much like we see Animals as less than Human, so we do with them as we please.
And I find it odd that you are comparing potential life (as in somewhere in the neighborhood to 16 cells) to someone who lived presumably to adulthood, was killed, and then their body parts were used for random things. It's a completely different subject... and a weird analogy in my opinion.

To be accurate, you can't say "potential" life. When does life begin? Birth? As soon as brainwaves are active in a fetus? As soon as the nervous system is developed enough to feel pain? "Quickening"? The earliest age that a fetus can survive outside the womb? You are begging the most important question.

I am all for trying to make the best out of a tragedy to save lives. My driver's license has me listed as an organ donor; however, even if I had a relative in need of an organ, I wouldn't participate in a scheme to kill someone to harvest their organs.

As far as placing value on life depending on the number of cells, if a 16 cell organism was found on Mars would you call it "potential" life or life? How much would you be willing to pay to fund a mission to Mars to collect that life form and bring it back to earth to sustain it?

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 05:59 PM
using dead jews as lampshades is a far cry from using embryos that are going to be otherwise thrown away as research to help cure things like parkinsons, certain cancers, etc. weird analogy indeed.

It was a shocking analogy to stimulate thought about the value of life and the treatment of human remains. Would you use cosmetic skin cream made from a process using the remains of an aborted fetus?

shon8121
11-07-2009, 06:05 PM
To be accurate, you can't say "potential" life. When does life begin? Birth? As soon as brainwaves are active in a fetus? As soon as the nervous system is developed enough to feel pain? "Quickening"? The earliest age that a fetus can survive outside the womb? You are begging the most important question.

I am all for trying to make the best out of a tragedy to save lives. My driver's license has me listed as an organ donor; however, even if I had a relative in need of an organ, I wouldn't participate in a scheme to kill someone to harvest their organs.

As far as placing value on life depending on the number of cells, if a 16 cell organism was found on Mars would you call it "potential" life or life? How much would you be willing to pay to fund a mission to Mars to collect that life form and bring it back to earth to sustain it?




When does "life" begin? Great question! Are my sperm alive? I think that would qualify as "life", wouldn't you? Oh if only so many hundreds of Millions of Sperm weren't killed in the effort to find ONE egg, then maybe I could see your point here... but alas, single or barely multi-cellular life isn't really looked upon as so important when we look at it objectively.

But again you compare killing some random stranger to the barely multicellular potential life that is being discarded anyway... So I don't understand how you can compare these two things logically.

Oooooooh! Life on other planets! That would be valuable, just like Stem Cell Research is!

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 06:24 PM
When does "life" begin? Great question! Are my sperm alive? I think that would qualify as "life", wouldn't you? Oh if only so many hundreds of Millions of Sperm weren't killed in the effort to find ONE egg, then maybe I could see your point here... but alas, single or barely multi-cellular life isn't really looked upon as so important when we look at it objectively.

But again you compare killing some random stranger to the barely multicellular potential life that is being discarded anyway... So I don't understand how you can compare these two things logically.

Oooooooh! Life on other planets! That would be valuable, just like Stem Cell Research is!

Sperm is a live cell from an organism but is not the organism itself. At conception, the DNA profile of a unique organism is established and that organism will keep developing until he/she dies in a nursing home someday, as long as he/she is provided with oxygen, nutrition, water, etc. Life begins at conception. At that point it is extremely undeveloped but it is life. You are placing value by the state of development. The ethics of that can be discussed - you can say that an embryo is so undeveloped that you don't give it much value -but to call it potential life is really using strange language.

We, as humans, place different value on life. In general, I consider the life of a woman to be more valuable than a man. It could be a quaint notion left over from chivalry, I don't know. Please do a quick google search on Princeton ethicist Peter Singer and his thoughts on the value of life. He is pushing the definition of life later than birth. He is arguing that because infants don't possess autonomy and aren't capable yet of complex thought, killing an infant is not the same as killing a human being.

mscomc
11-07-2009, 06:31 PM
[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="4"]I am quite excited about the future uses of stem cells. We pay to have cord blood cells frozen in case our family ever needs it.


Well, than lits continue to rap on friend!

Ok, so I guess I can talk about some of the problems being encountered with stem cell based therapy....and some future things scientists are trying to do to eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells (many of these scientists themselves have previously used embryos).

Problems with treatment with Adult stem cells

----ok so as i mentioned earlier, adult stem cells are realllly hard to isolate. But, a really good source is chord blood. But heres the problem, chord blood is a only a source of hematopoietic stem cells (blood stem cells). So on their own, they are only good for: blood disorders, using them in leukemia patients to help re-populate the bone marrow etc etc ......and there is some success with this. However, new research is showing this may actually be a double edged sword. Because if a person uses autulogously(chord cells that were harvested from your chord after you were born), yes there may be an initial effect for treatment, but those chord cells will probably have the same cancer factors that gave you leukemia in the first place.

other problems are as follows in regards to treatment

1) we still dont know all the sources of adult stem cells

2) we dont know why some adult stem cells will proliferate (ie: re-populate a cell line that may have died, such as in leukemia) and some just remain dormant and dont do anything.

3) what actually triggers adult stem cells to move to a place of injury and re-populate the site. There has to be some kind of immuno signalling involved, but the exact mechanism remains unknown.

Problems with embryonic stem cells

Apart from actually getting them, the major problem (and this is a big one) is the cellular signal that tells an embryonic stem cell to turn into any cell we want in NOT known. For example, there is a signal that theoretically directs the formation of every cell type. It could be via inhibition of certain genes, and enchancement of others...

-------For example, I may know a guy who is in liver failure. So i need liver cells. If i take an embryonic stem cell, and attempt to culture it...it will grow liver cells with no problem. BUT that same culture will also grow: pancreatic cells, brain, heart, bone, fat etc etc etc......In other words, it will grow every single cell line, and not always in a 1:1:1:1 ratio with eachother. Many times, the differentiation is seemingly random. So, until we can force direction of only the cell line i want to use (ie: my example of liver cells), embyronic stem cell treatment is also at a stand still. On top of that, trials in rats, show a very large immuno response to treatment, and sometimes death as a result of stem cell injection!!!!!


New Hope

----despite what many people may think. Scientists who use embryonic stem cells, also wish they can find another source to make any cell we want, as we are all aware of the ethics surrounding the issue. One really exciting thing people are doing now, or at least trying to do is Epigenetic Reprogramming. A very simplified chain to the cell progression is as follows:

Embyronic stem cell -----> after embryo stage, will turn into Adult stem cells ------> these turn into progenitor cells --------> these turn into our mitotic cells that make up most of our body (ie: skin, red blood cells, white blood cell, liver, heart, neuron etc etc)

----basically, we are trying to take a normal cell, such as a skin cell (or even an adult stem cell, which would be better infact) and re-program it to to go backwards into the timeline and make it into an embryonic stem cell :frantics:

The idea is: Embryonic stem cells can turn into anything because essentially, every gene in its nucleus is TURNED ON. but over time as it turns into an adult stem cell, and then a normal cell, certain genes turn off which makes that cell unique to other cells. So, if I can turn on all the genes of a normal cell again, I will have what we call an Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell that has the properties of an embryonic stem cell, and we didnt need an embryo. This has been done in a lab. BUT (always a but :) ) It is very very inefficient as of right now. Suppose I try to induce 1000 cells skin cells to do this, I would be LUCKY TO GET 1 induced stem cell. So more research is needed, but there is hope :) ........THIS IS ONE REASON CHORD BLOOD is reallllllly helpful. So if you are guys are harvesting chord blood, good job!


Anyway, thats alot of info im sure. If anyone wants me to clear anything up or explain something else, lemme know, and ill see if i can :wink:

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 06:31 PM
Of course, Wikipedia is not the most reliable source. I am posting this to stimulate thought about the value and definition of life. Please read more thoroughly at other sources to confirm this information for yourself. This thinking is by an elite philosopher at an Ivy League University:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:

First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.
Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.[29]

In his book Rethinking Life and Death Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.


Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.[30]

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood — "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[31] — and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[32]

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 06:37 PM
Well, than lits continue to rap on friend!

Ok, so I guess I can talk about some of the problems being encountered with stem cell based therapy....and some future things scientists are trying to do to eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells (many of these scientists themselves have previously used embryos).

Problems with treatment with Adult stem cells

----ok so as i mentioned earlier, adult stem cells are realllly hard to isolate. But, a really good source is chord blood. But heres the problem, chord blood is a only a source of hematopoietic stem cells (blood stem cells). So on their own, they are only good for: blood disorders, using them in leukemia patients to help re-populate the bone marrow etc etc ......and there is some success with this. However, new research is showing this may actually be a double edged sword. Because if a person uses autulogously(chord cells that were harvested from your chord after you were born), yes there may be an initial effect for treatment, but those chord cells will probably have the same cancer factors that gave you leukemia in the first place.

other problems are as follows in regards to treatment

1) we still dont know all the sources of adult stem cells

2) we dont know why some adult stem cells will proliferate (ie: re-populate a cell line that may have died, such as in leukemia) and some just remain dormant and dont do anything.

3) what actually triggers adult stem cells to move to a place of injury and re-populate the site. There has to be some kind of immuno signalling involved, but the exact mechanism remains unknown.

Problems with embryonic stem cells

Apart from actually getting them, the major problem (and this is a big one) is the cellular signal that tells an embryonic stem cell to turn into any cell we want in NOT known. For example, there is a signal that theoretically directs the formation of every cell type. It could be via inhibition of certain genes, and enchancement of others...

-------For example, I may know a guy who is in liver failure. So i need liver cells. If i take an embryonic stem cell, and attempt to culture it...it will grow liver cells with no problem. BUT that same culture will also grow: pancreatic cells, brain, heart, bone, fat etc etc etc......In other words, it will grow every single cell line, and not always in a 1:1:1:1 ratio with eachother. Many times, the differentiation is seemingly random. So, until we can force direction of only the cell line i want to use (ie: my example of liver cells), embyronic stem cell treatment is also at a stand still. On top of that, trials in rats, show a very large immuno response to treatment, and sometimes death as a result of stem cell injection!!!!!


New Hope

----despite what many people may think. Scientists who use embryonic stem cells, also wish they can find another source to make any cell we want, as we are all aware of the ethics surrounding the issue. One really exciting thing people are doing now, or at least trying to do is Epigenetic Reprogramming. A very simplified chain the cell progression is as follows:

Embyronic stem cell -----> after embryo stage, will turn into Adult stem cells ------> these turn into progenitor cells --------> these turn into our mitotic cells that make up most of our body (ie: skin, red blood cells, white blood cell, liver, heart, neuron etc etc)

----basically, we are trying to take a normal cell, such as a skin cell (or even an adult stem cell, which would be better infact) and re-program it to to go backwards into the timeline and make it into an embryonic stem cell :frantics:

The idea is: Embryonic stem cells can turn into anything because essentially, every gene in its nucleus is TURNED ON. but over time as it turns into an adult stem cell, and then a normal cell, certain genes turn off which makes that cell unique to other cells. So, if I can turn on all the genes of a normal cell again, I will have what we call an Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell that has the properties of an embryonic stem cell, and we didnt need an embryo. This has been done in a lab. BUT (always a but :) ) It is very very inefficient as of right now. Suppose I try to induce 1000 cells skin cells to do this, I would be LUCKY TO GET 1 induced stem cell. So more research is needed, but there is hope :) ........THIS IS ONE REASON CHORD BLOOD is reallllllly helpful. So if you are guys are harvesting chord blood, good job!


Anyway, thats alot of info im sure. If anyone wants me to clear anything up or explain something else, lemme know, and ill see if i can :wink:

Thank you. Very informative.

shon8121
11-07-2009, 06:39 PM
I'm sure Peter Singer is not advocating that no one be punished if they take an infants life. Without checking your recommendation, I think I already understand what he means. Perhaps he means that a child cannot be identified as Democrat, Republican, Marxist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc etc etc because they are too young to decide their position logically. Thats what I've often heard about Dawkins and I assume Singer is just showing similar thoughts.

But if you have proof that he think opposite to my first claim, then he quite clearly sucks. Haha.
***EDIT***
Singer is merely claiming that killing a "being" that desires to continue living and can more so prepare and think forward of future events is different than killing an infant with no idea of any of those concepts. I think thats an accurate way to look at life, but by no means permisses the murder of new-born Babies. He's certainly not advocating the acceptable murder of infants that have been born already.
***END EDIT***

I think you are removing a lot of the importance of the Sperm away from it. It's half of what you consider "life". Technically, offspring are like a copy of their parents... a way towards immortality as some have said... but nevertheless an slightly imperfect copy.

People have often asked me, "What if you were aborted?" well then technically I wouldn't care because I would have never truly known.
But the truth of the matter is, I'm here because the pregnancy before me was terminated. Had my mother carried that fetus to term, her situation would have dramatically changed and she probably would never have even met my father and I wouldn't be here.

So it's not always just a loss of life. Other things can occur that allow new and also unexpected life to begin and prosper. With Stem Cell research, think of the untold number of lives we will be saving... from potential mothers to their potential childrens children. I think that potential weighs significantly more than discarded (or wasted by implanting at a time when the woman cannot become pregnant) "in vitro fertilization" cells.

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 06:40 PM
using dead jews as lampshades is a far cry from using embryos that are going to be otherwise thrown away as research to help cure things like parkinsons, certain cancers, etc. weird analogy indeed.

I don't think they are equally egregious, but I think they are on the same side of the moral law.

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 07:07 PM
I'm sure Peter Singer is not advocating that no one be punished if they take an infants life. Without checking your recommendation, I think I already understand what he means. Perhaps he means that a child cannot be identified as Democrat, Republican, Marxist, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc etc etc because they are too young to decide their position logically. Thats what I've often heard about Dawkins and I assume Singer is just showing similar thoughts.

But if you have proof that he think opposite to my first claim, then he quite clearly sucks. Haha.
***EDIT***
Singer is merely claiming that killing a "being" that desires to continue living and can more so prepare and think forward of future events is different than killing an infant with no idea of any of those concepts. I think thats an accurate way to look at life, but by no means permisses the murder of new-born Babies. He's certainly not advocating the acceptable murder of infants that have been born already.
***END EDIT***

I think you are removing a lot of the importance of the Sperm away from it. It's half of what you consider "life". Technically, offspring are like a copy of their parents... a way towards immortality as some have said... but nevertheless an slightly imperfect copy.

People have often asked me, "What if you were aborted?" well then technically I wouldn't care because I would have never truly known.
But the truth of the matter is, I'm here because the pregnancy before me was terminated. Had my mother carried that fetus to term, her situation would have dramatically changed and she probably would never have even met my father and I wouldn't be here.

So it's not always just a loss of life. Other things can occur that allow new and also unexpected life to begin and prosper. With Stem Cell research, think of the untold number of lives we will be saving... from potential mothers to their potential childrens children. I think that potential weighs significantly more than discarded (or wasted by implanting at a time when the woman cannot become pregnant) "in vitro fertilization" cells.

Shon8121, I noticed your edit about Singer. Please do some more research and make another edit. You state that Singer is "certainly not advocating the acceptable murder of infants that have been born already." Disabled rights advocates picket and protest Singer because he argues that it is acceptable to kill handicapped infants. The Nazi-hunter, Simon Weisenthal, has spoken out against him. Here is a quote that directly contradicts what you just said:

“When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”

You need to think through the consequences of your philosophy of life because it could lead to outcomes that you don't foresee.

Black Mamba
11-07-2009, 07:18 PM
Well, than lits continue to rap on friend!

Ok, so I guess I can talk about some of the problems being encountered with stem cell based therapy....and some future things scientists are trying to do to eliminate the need for embryonic stem cells (many of these scientists themselves have previously used embryos).

Problems with treatment with Adult stem cells

----ok so as i mentioned earlier, adult stem cells are realllly hard to isolate. But, a really good source is chord blood. But heres the problem, chord blood is a only a source of hematopoietic stem cells (blood stem cells). So on their own, they are only good for: blood disorders, using them in leukemia patients to help re-populate the bone marrow etc etc ......and there is some success with this. However, new research is showing this may actually be a double edged sword. Because if a person uses autulogously(chord cells that were harvested from your chord after you were born), yes there may be an initial effect for treatment, but those chord cells will probably have the same cancer factors that gave you leukemia in the first place.

other problems are as follows in regards to treatment

1) we still dont know all the sources of adult stem cells

2) we dont know why some adult stem cells will proliferate (ie: re-populate a cell line that may have died, such as in leukemia) and some just remain dormant and dont do anything.

3) what actually triggers adult stem cells to move to a place of injury and re-populate the site. There has to be some kind of immuno signalling involved, but the exact mechanism remains unknown.

Problems with embryonic stem cells

Apart from actually getting them, the major problem (and this is a big one) is the cellular signal that tells an embryonic stem cell to turn into any cell we want in NOT known. For example, there is a signal that theoretically directs the formation of every cell type. It could be via inhibition of certain genes, and enchancement of others...

-------For example, I may know a guy who is in liver failure. So i need liver cells. If i take an embryonic stem cell, and attempt to culture it...it will grow liver cells with no problem. BUT that same culture will also grow: pancreatic cells, brain, heart, bone, fat etc etc etc......In other words, it will grow every single cell line, and not always in a 1:1:1:1 ratio with eachother. Many times, the differentiation is seemingly random. So, until we can force direction of only the cell line i want to use (ie: my example of liver cells), embyronic stem cell treatment is also at a stand still. On top of that, trials in rats, show a very large immuno response to treatment, and sometimes death as a result of stem cell injection!!!!!


New Hope

----despite what many people may think. Scientists who use embryonic stem cells, also wish they can find another source to make any cell we want, as we are all aware of the ethics surrounding the issue. One really exciting thing people are doing now, or at least trying to do is Epigenetic Reprogramming. A very simplified chain to the cell progression is as follows:

Embyronic stem cell -----> after embryo stage, will turn into Adult stem cells ------> these turn into progenitor cells --------> these turn into our mitotic cells that make up most of our body (ie: skin, red blood cells, white blood cell, liver, heart, neuron etc etc)

----basically, we are trying to take a normal cell, such as a skin cell (or even an adult stem cell, which would be better infact) and re-program it to to go backwards into the timeline and make it into an embryonic stem cell :frantics:

The idea is: Embryonic stem cells can turn into anything because essentially, every gene in its nucleus is TURNED ON. but over time as it turns into an adult stem cell, and then a normal cell, certain genes turn off which makes that cell unique to other cells. So, if I can turn on all the genes of a normal cell again, I will have what we call an Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell that has the properties of an embryonic stem cell, and we didnt need an embryo. This has been done in a lab. BUT (always a but :) ) It is very very inefficient as of right now. Suppose I try to induce 1000 cells skin cells to do this, I would be LUCKY TO GET 1 induced stem cell. So more research is needed, but there is hope :) ........THIS IS ONE REASON CHORD BLOOD is reallllllly helpful. So if you are guys are harvesting chord blood, good job!


Anyway, thats alot of info im sure. If anyone wants me to clear anything up or explain something else, lemme know, and ill see if i can :wink:

Thank you Malcom for sharing your information on this topic. :) My university just started offering stem cell classes so I'm hoping to eventually take a course on it. It's really fascinating stuff.

I'm not sure if you have heard about this, but recently researchers here in the US have found a way to reverse adult stem cells into their embyronic stage.

mscomc
11-07-2009, 07:23 PM
Thank you Malcom for sharing your information on this topic. :) My university just started offering stem cell classes so I'm hoping to eventually take a course on it. It's really fascinating stuff.

I'm not sure if you have heard about this, but recently researchers here in the US have found a way to reverse adult stem cells into their embyronic stage.


LOL, thats what Induced Pluripotent Stem cells are----it was the last thing i mentioned in my post :wink:

Thats okay grasshopper. Other names for it are: iPS, induce emrbyronic stem cell and a few other i cant think of.

NateR
11-07-2009, 07:39 PM
I would. Haha.

You would donate your own children to be murdered for scientific research and then laugh about it? :blink:

I really hope you never have kids and if you do then I feel sorry that they are stuck with a dirtbag like you as a father.

NateR
11-07-2009, 07:54 PM
When does "life" begin? Great question! Are my sperm alive? I think that would qualify as "life", wouldn't you? Oh if only so many hundreds of Millions of Sperm weren't killed in the effort to find ONE egg, then maybe I could see your point here... but alas, single or barely multi-cellular life isn't really looked upon as so important when we look at it objectively.

But again you compare killing some random stranger to the barely multicellular potential life that is being discarded anyway... So I don't understand how you can compare these two things logically.

Oooooooh! Life on other planets! That would be valuable, just like Stem Cell Research is!

Arguments like this simply reveal your level of ignorance in this debate.

It can be considered a scientific FACT that life begins at conception because, from a purely genetic standpoint, once the sperm fertilizes the egg a complete and unique DNA strand is formed. This specific DNA code doesn't exist prior to fertilization and it contains 100% of the genetic information that that person will carry with them for the rest of their life. No new genetic information is ever added during the pregnancy process.

So, arguing from genetics alone, a single-celled embryo is as fully human as 30-year-old adult. That's not a religious dogma, it's a scientific fact.

shon8121
11-07-2009, 08:03 PM
Shon8121, I noticed your edit about Singer. Please do some more research and make another edit. You state that Singer is "certainly not advocating the acceptable murder of infants that have been born already." Disabled rights advocates picket and protest Singer because he argues that it is acceptable to kill handicapped infants. The Nazi-hunter, Simon Weisenthal, has spoken out against him. Here is a quote that directly contradicts what you just said:



You need to think through the consequences of your philosophy of life because it could lead to outcomes that you don't foresee.

Uh... how am I the only one that understands Singers quote? He's talking about if you terminate the pregnancy upon discovering the infant will be severely mentally or physically handicapped. I'm not saying I agree with him, but he's not advocating that you muder a child after it has been born.

shon8121
11-07-2009, 08:13 PM
You would donate your own children to be murdered for scientific research and then laugh about it? :blink:

I really hope you never have kids and if you do then I feel sorry that they are stuck with a dirtbag like you as a father.

I'm curious... I'm being as civil as possible, yet I have been accused of attacking people - by you. Yet here you are, accusing me of being a "dirtbag"?
I hope you see the error of your judgement sooner rather than later. I do not deserve such comments.
It's technically not my children if there are extra's we don't intend to use that were made specifically if a prior attempt at fertilization fails. If these are just "cells" that are intended to be discarded if we choose not to Donate them or something, I would much rather they go to research to aid in curing diseases and cancer for the greater benefit of mankind. If thats being a dirtbag, I guess I'm the biggest one there is.


Arguments like this simply reveal your level of ignorance in this debate.

It can be considered a scientific FACT that life begins at conception because, from a purely genetic standpoint, once the sperm fertilizes the egg a complete and unique DNA strand is formed. This specific DNA code doesn't exist prior to fertilization and it contains 100% of the genetic information that that person will carry with them for the rest of their life. No new genetic information is ever added during the pregnancy process.

So, arguing from genetics alone, a single-celled embryo is as fully human as 30-year-old adult. That's not a religious dogma, it's a scientific fact.


Another "not so nice" accusation. If I had called you ignorant at any point in time, would you consider that an attack? And "debate"... I thought we were simply having a discussion.

Huh? Are you talking about Genetic Recombination? Thats not quite unique DNA, because its half the Mother and half the Father. And those codes existed prior to fertilization.

You would agree that Blueprints to a Building are much different than a Building itself? Sure, in essence, it the same design... but a lot of steps are necessary to get from a Blueprint to a Building.

mscomc
11-07-2009, 08:17 PM
Arguments like this simply reveal your level of ignorance in this debate.

It can be considered a scientific FACT that life begins at conception because, from a purely genetic standpoint, once the sperm fertilizes the egg a complete and unique DNA strand is formed. This specific DNA code doesn't exist prior to fertilization and it contains 100% of the genetic information that that person will carry with them for the rest of their life. No new genetic information is ever added during the pregnancy process.

So, arguing from genetics alone, a single-celled embryo is as fully human as 30-year-old adult. That's not a religious dogma, it's a scientific fact.

I dont know if this is where is SHON is coming from when he said potential life, but he may mean this (obviously he can clarify later).

True, at conception the DNA in that zygote is the same as it will be in all cells. But many scientists who I have spoken to who do embryo research tell me that they themselves are religious people, but they dont view the embryo as "life" at that point. As it has no: CNS, PNS, organs etc. It has the potential for it yes, but not yet.

Anyway, just a thought. I dont agree with it, but maybe some do.

Black Mamba
11-07-2009, 08:19 PM
LOL, thats what Induced Pluripotent Stem cells are----it was the last thing i mentioned in my post :wink:

Thats okay grasshopper. Other names for it are: iPS, induce emrbyronic stem cell and a few other i cant think of.

I had no idea about that. :) I didn't even know there was a fancy name for reversal of adult stem cells until now. Thanks for informing me.

I'll be learning all about this soon enough. I have 2 more units until I reach upper divison status and can start taking all the fun classes. Biochem, virology, parasitology, the real meaty concepts of cellular molecular bio....I'm looking forward to start applying it too. :cool:

But for now, I will continue to humble myself to you, Sensi Malcom, and absorb any and all of your information. :D

~Grasshopper Danelle "Lil D"~

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 08:21 PM
Uh... how am I the only one that understands Singers quote? He's talking about if you terminate the pregnancy upon discovering the infant will be severely mentally or physically handicapped. I'm not saying I agree with him, but he's not advocating that you muder a child after it has been born.

Shon8121, please look closer. Singer is advocating not just abortion, but infanticide. Infanticide means killing a child after it has been born. He is advocating infanticide.

mscomc
11-07-2009, 08:30 PM
I had no idea about that. :) I didn't even know there was a fancy name for reversal of adult stem cells until now. Thanks for informing me.

I'll be learning all about this soon enough. I have 2 more units until I reach upper divison status and can start taking all the fun classes. Biochem, virology, parasitology, the real meaty concepts of cellular molecular bio....I'm looking forward to start applying it too. :cool:

But for now, I will continue to humble myself to you, Sensi Malcom, and absorb any and all of your information. :D

~Grasshopper Danelle "Lil D"~

BAHAHAHAAHA, sensei......i still have a hard time balancing my savings account sometimes.....be careful what you pick up from me :laugh:

shon8121
11-07-2009, 08:32 PM
Shon8121, please look closer. Singer is advocating not just abortion, but infanticide. Infanticide means killing a child after it has been born. He is advocating infanticide.

"In 1989, when Peter Singer attempted to speak during a lecture at Saarbrucken, he was interrupted by a group of protesters including advocates for the handicapped. He offered the protesters the opportunity to explain why he should not be allowed to speak. The protesters indicated that they believed he was opposed to all rights for the handicapped. They were unaware that, although Singer believed that some lives were so blighted from the beginning that their parents may decide their lives are not worth living, in other cases, once the decision is made to keep them alive, everything that could be done to improve the quality of their life should, to Singer's mind, be done. The following discussion revealed that there were many misconceptions about his positions, but the revelation did not end the controversy. One of the protesters made it clear that to enter the discussions was a tactical error."

Look. I said if you can find him saying that he thinks killing babies is ok and that no one should be punished, then I accept your proposal that he thinks infanticide is ok... but so far, I've found nothing like that. Just misinterpretations.

But I don't even care about Singer.
I agree that killing newborn Children is so far in the wrong as I cannot find an adequate word for it. Is that not good enough for you?

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 08:43 PM
"In 1989, when Peter Singer attempted to speak during a lecture at Saarbrucken, he was interrupted by a group of protesters including advocates for the handicapped. He offered the protesters the opportunity to explain why he should not be allowed to speak. The protesters indicated that they believed he was opposed to all rights for the handicapped. They were unaware that, although Singer believed that some lives were so blighted from the beginning that their parents may decide their lives are not worth living, in other cases, once the decision is made to keep them alive, everything that could be done to improve the quality of their life should, to Singer's mind, be done. The following discussion revealed that there were many misconceptions about his positions, but the revelation did not end the controversy. One of the protesters made it clear that to enter the discussions was a tactical error."

Look. I said if you can find him saying that he thinks killing babies is ok and that no one should be punished, then I accept your proposal that he thinks infanticide is ok... but so far, I've found nothing like that. Just misinterpretations.

But I don't even care about Singer.
I agree that killing newborn Children is so far in the wrong as I cannot find an adequate word for it. Is that not good enough for you?

I am glad you think that way. What Singer is saying is that the infant's "personhood" is predicated upon the decision of the parents. If the infant (not fetus, infant) is not wanted by the parents then, since the infant does not have autonomy and is not yet capable of rational thought, the infant is by definition not a human person and can be killed. He thinks that if the parents want the infant then of course it can live. He isn't advocating mandatory extermination of all handicapped babies. He has just moved further down a slippery slope than you have. He not only is pro-choice in abortion before birth but pro-choice for infanticide of handicapped newborns.

shon8121
11-07-2009, 08:47 PM
I am glad you think that way. What Singer is saying is that the infant's "personhood" is predicated upon the decision of the parents. If the infant (not fetus, infant) is not wanted by the parents then, since the infant does not have autonomy and is not yet capable of rational thought, the infant is by definition not a human person and can be killed. He thinks that if the parents want the infant then of course it can live. He isn't advocating mandatory extermination of all handicapped babies. He has just moved further down a slippery slope than you have. He not only is pro-choice in abortion before birth but pro-choice for infanticide of handicapped newborns.

I can see where he's coming from because I understand his frame of thought... but I do not agree with him on this stance. It is indeed a very complicated subject.

No one has yet brought up some hypothetical situations like a young girl being raped and subsequently impregnated by her father. Would you then advise an Abortion as being acceptable? What if the woman would die as a result of giving birth?

mscomc
11-07-2009, 08:49 PM
I had no idea about that. :) I didn't even know there was a fancy name for reversal of adult stem cells until now. Thanks for informing me.

I'll be learning all about this soon enough. I have 2 more units until I reach upper divison status and can start taking all the fun classes. Biochem, virology, parasitology, the real meaty concepts of cellular molecular bio....I'm looking forward to start applying it too. :cool:

But for now, I will continue to humble myself to you, Sensi Malcom, and absorb any and all of your information. :D

~Grasshopper Danelle "Lil D"~

Oh for the love of god dont take Virology if you dont have to. I took it as a 4th year undergrad (as it was a 4th year class) and it was the hardest thing I HAVE EVER DONE.....the research papers we had to read and be tested on, i swear even now my head cant take it. I cant tell you how many times i contemplated jumping off a roof and cutting my wrists on the way down.......but hey, dont let me deter you :laugh: lol

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 09:03 PM
"In 1989, when Peter Singer attempted to speak during a lecture at Saarbrucken, he was interrupted by a group of protesters including advocates for the handicapped. He offered the protesters the opportunity to explain why he should not be allowed to speak. The protesters indicated that they believed he was opposed to all rights for the handicapped. They were unaware that, although Singer believed that some lives were so blighted from the beginning that their parents may decide their lives are not worth living, in other cases, once the decision is made to keep them alive, everything that could be done to improve the quality of their life should, to Singer's mind, be done. The following discussion revealed that there were many misconceptions about his positions, but the revelation did not end the controversy. One of the protesters made it clear that to enter the discussions was a tactical error."

Look. I said if you can find him saying that he thinks killing babies is ok and that no one should be punished, then I accept your proposal that he thinks infanticide is ok... but so far, I've found nothing like that. Just misinterpretations.

But I don't even care about Singer.
I agree that killing newborn Children is so far in the wrong as I cannot find an adequate word for it. Is that not good enough for you?

Please read this article by an atheist UK journalist in a mainstream UK newspaper. Here is the link so you can see for yourself and make sure I am not taking quotes out of context:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/peter-singer-some-people-are-more-equal-than-others-551696.html

This isn't some dry academic theory. It affects the most important decisions in every person's life. Say you are old and sick and want to die. Under the old Judaeo-Christian ethic, you have an immortal soul given to you by God, and He will reclaim it from you when He's good and ready. Under preference utilitarianism, your preference - which harms nobody else - should be met, with a lethal injection from a friendly doctor if necessary. The scale of Singer's intellectual ambition is staggering. He is trying to lead an ethical revolution unparalleled since paganism was beaten and banished by the Judaeo-Christian ethic. "You can't expect such a radical shift," he says dryly, "without a few fights."

Thus far, most British atheists like me can travel along Singer's philosophical path - goodbye God, hello utilitarianism - without stumbling. But then we get to animals, and disabled babies are just a few steps away. "You shouldn't say animals," he says in a level tone when I raise the topic, "to distinguish between humans and non-humans. We are all animals." This objection captures Singer's thoughts in a neat sound bite. He thinks there is nothing special about being human. "Every living thing has preferences, and those preferences need to be taken into account," he says. "Non-human animals can't be left out of utilitarian equation."

For Singer, this isn't so radical. "All we are doing is catching up with Darwin," he explains. "He showed in the 19th century that we are simply animals. Humans had imagined we were a separate part of Creation, that there was some magical line between Us and Them. Darwin's theory undermined the foundations of that entire Western way of thinking about the place of our species in the universe. Yet for a century, we've carried on like nothing happened, abusing animals in the most terrible ways. The idea that humans are special and can tyrannise animals as much as we like is about to fall."

So he advocates a new kind of equality. It's not the equality of human beings - he attacks that, saying that a person in a vegetative state on a life-support machine is "obviously not equal to a healthy person". No, he advocates the equality of anything that is capable of feeling pain and having preferences. "Look: pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimised, regardless of the race, sex or species of the being that suffers. It's a simple fact that a three-year-old human has pretty much the same self-awareness, rationality and capacity to feel pain as an adult ape. So they should be given equal moral consideration."

I try to find an analogy that would dramatise his argument. Gunning down a load of normal people in a supermarket is worse than shooting the same number of cows in a field - but that's not because of their species. It's because normal humans have a capacity to want to carry on living - and relatives who will grieve for them - to a greater degree than cows. If you were massacring severely brain-damaged humans who had the same understanding of the world as a herd of cows, both would still be very wrong, but it would be equally wrong. It's pain and grief and denial of a living creature's will to carry on that count - not species. He nods.

And here is where killing babies comes in. When Singer compares severely disabled babies to animals, he seems - out of context - to be insulting the disabled. In fact, he is trying to make us take cows and pigs and dogs far more seriously. He believes that severely disabled or defective animals who cannot live except in terrible pain can legitimately be killed. Why, he asks implicitly, should this not be the case for human babies?

"Almost everybody accepts that some people can be killed," he says blankly, putting the abortion debate that has erupted in Britain over the past week into context. "The concept of brain death" - the belief that people on respirators can legitimately be killed - "shows that. We have begun to think in terms of quality of life, instead of all life equally being sacred. That's why it is logical to now start thinking about severely defective babies, and whether it is always wrong to kill them."

He continues, "All I say about severely disabled babies is that when a life is so miserable it is not worth living, then it is permissible to give it a lethal injection. These are decisions that should be taken by parents - never the state - in consultation with their doctors." This is, he believes, already happening. "What do people think amniocentesis
and the selective abortion of Down's Syndrome foetuses are? All I am saying is, why limit the killing to the womb? Nothing magical happens at birth." It is a small step, he seems to think, from abortion to infanticide. "Of course, infanticide needs to be strictly legally controlled and rare - but it should not be ruled out, any more than abortion."

I feel slightly uncomfortable, but Singer tries to assure me that this is mere sentimentality. He reminds me that, already, few doctors struggle to save anencephalic babies (those born with only a brain stem and no upper brain) or those with spina bifida. It is not a long journey to Singer's ethics of putting them - and a handful of others - out of their misery.

shon8121
11-07-2009, 09:10 PM
That seems quite in line with what I've already acknowledged. I hope you don't think I'm ok with late term abortions or anything... unless the pregnancy will undoubtably kill the mother for some reason... but otherwise I'm already aware of Singer's position.
I think the underlying principle he's trying to help people recognize that Vegetarianism is the way to go!

Too bad I cannot participate. I'm a meat eater. I'm aware that it's not logical for someone in my position... but... I can't stop! Chicken is sooooo good.

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 09:12 PM
I can see where he's coming from because I understand his frame of thought... but I do not agree with him on this stance. It is indeed a very complicated subject.

No one has yet brought up some hypothetical situations like a young girl being raped and subsequently impregnated by her father. Would you then advise an Abortion as being acceptable? What if the woman would die as a result of giving birth?

I would suggest that the rape victim put the child up for adoption. That poor girl who was kidnapped, raped and held captive for 18 years bore two children by her rapist. It is a heart-wrenching situation. Those children are not any less human than I am. I would not kill them now. I would not be for their abortion before birth.

Your hypothetical situation about the life/health of the mother is rare and would depend on the exact circumstances. It might be justified in some rare nightmare circumstance.

I think there have been about 50 million abortions in America since Roe vs. Wade. I would bet that a fraction of 1% have occurred under circumstances which you are asking about.

Please look in the Politics section and find the post about the woman with 16 abortions in as many years. Unfortunately, repeat abortions for birth control is a much more common occurrence.

shon8121
11-07-2009, 09:21 PM
I would suggest that the rape victim put the child up for adoption. That poor girl who was kidnapped, raped and held captive for 18 years bore two children by her rapist. It is a heart-wrenching situation. Those children are not any less human than I am. I would not kill them now. I would not be for their abortion before birth.

Your hypothetical situation about the life/health of the mother is rare and would depend on the exact circumstances. It might be justified in some rare nightmare circumstance.

I think there have been about 50 million abortions in America since Roe vs. Wade. I would bet that a fraction of 1% have occurred under circumstances which you are asking about.

Please look in the Politics section and find the post about the woman with 16 abortions in as many years. Unfortunately, repeat abortions for birth control is a much more common occurrence.


I'm not at all claiming that a majority of the Abortions fall under the criteria I presented... but certainly some of those are a result of Rape. I would bet its well over 1% too... so I guess one of us should run out and find some statistics if it's out there. Haha.

And who said we should kill those children who were born from Jaycee Dugard's bizarre situation??? I was merely proposing if the girl in question had the opportunity, do you think it's morally acceptable that if she wants to rid herself of the things that remind her of that tragic emotionally scarring event, that it be allowed if it's within whats designated as a proper amount of time after being impregnated?
(not that abortion isn't also an emotional scarring event, I've heard it can be)

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 09:27 PM
I'm not at all claiming that a majority of the Abortions fall under the criteria I presented... but certainly some of those are a result of Rape. I would bet its well over 1% too... so I guess one of us should run out and find some statistics if it's out there. Haha.

And who said we should kill those children who were born from Jaycee Dugard's bizarre situation??? I was merely proposing if the girl in question had the opportunity, do you think it's morally acceptable that if she wants to rid herself of the things that remind her of that tragic emotionally scarring event, that it be allowed if it's within whats designated as a proper amount of time after being impregnated?
(not that abortion isn't also an emotional scarring event, I've heard it can be)

Putting the children up for adoption would "rid herself of the things that remind her of that tragic emotionally scarring event."

shon8121
11-07-2009, 09:28 PM
Putting the children up for adoption would "rid herself of the things that remind her of that tragic emotionally scarring event."


You don't think the Pregnancy and the thought of carrying the child full term wouldn't bother a woman knowing how it got there?

I'm not a woman... and I'm assuming neither are you so maybe we're not quite qualified to make such claims? *shrug*
Who knows....

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 09:31 PM
I'm not at all claiming that a majority of the Abortions fall under the criteria I presented... but certainly some of those are a result of Rape. I would bet its well over 1% too... so I guess one of us should run out and find some statistics if it's out there. Haha.

And who said we should kill those children who were born from Jaycee Dugard's bizarre situation??? I was merely proposing if the girl in question had the opportunity, do you think it's morally acceptable that if she wants to rid herself of the things that remind her of that tragic emotionally scarring event, that it be allowed if it's within whats designated as a proper amount of time after being impregnated?
(not that abortion isn't also an emotional scarring event, I've heard it can be)

Rape and incest are the reason for 0.3% of abortions according to a resource I found on the internet. 98% are elective for socioeconomic reasons.

J.B.
11-07-2009, 09:39 PM
http://www.malice4you.com/images/lolcats/legendary%20thread.jpg

shon8121
11-07-2009, 09:40 PM
Rape and incest are the reason for 0.3% of abortions according to a resource I found on the internet. 98% are elective for socioeconomic reasons.



Interestingly as well, I found that only 25 percent of Women who are raped (this was a number frequently reported by some random organization) decide abortion is the way to go for them.

Ok. So I was incorrect in claiming it would probably be over 1 percent based off of the little research I have done so far. Dang it.

Black Mamba
11-07-2009, 09:47 PM
Oh for the love of god dont take Virology if you dont have to. I took it as a 4th year undergrad (as it was a 4th year class) and it was the hardest thing I HAVE EVER DONE.....the research papers we had to read and be tested on, i swear even now my head cant take it. I cant tell you how many times i contemplated jumping off a roof and cutting my wrists on the way down.......but hey, dont let me deter you :laugh: lol

Wowsers, I thought Virology would have been fun. The teacher who teaches it taught me my intro to cell/molecular bio class last semester. He's good, but even then his tests were hard. I can only imagine a 500 level course. :blink:

I'm not required to take Virology, it's offered as one of my electives. I've also been eyeing an electron microscopy lecture and lab, but the course description is super vague on what it entails.

Buzzard
11-07-2009, 10:24 PM
You would donate your own children to be murdered for scientific research and then laugh about it? :blink:

I really hope you never have kids and if you do then I feel sorry that they are stuck with a dirtbag like you as a father.

I was wondering how long it would take for you to start calling shon8121 names. I see it didn't take that long at all. Way to go.

shon8121
11-07-2009, 10:25 PM
I was wondering how long it would take for you to start calling shon8121 names. I see it didn't take that long at all. Way to go.

Eh. *shrug*
I'm not too worried about it. He'll calm down eventually. :wink:

J.B.
11-07-2009, 10:30 PM
I was wondering how long it would take for you to start calling shon8121 names. I see it didn't take that long at all. Way to go.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a360/shockdamonkey/bawwww.jpg

Buzzard
11-07-2009, 10:30 PM
Eh. *shrug*
I'm not too worried about it. He'll calm down eventually. :wink:

My magic 8 ball says otherwise. :laugh:

Play The Man
11-07-2009, 10:56 PM
I love the interaction between Buzzard and JB Rattlesnake. They are like a grumpy, old married couple.:laugh:

mscomc
11-07-2009, 11:14 PM
Wowsers, I thought Virology would have been fun. The teacher who teaches it taught me my intro to cell/molecular bio class last semester. He's good, but even then his tests were hard. I can only imagine a 500 level course. :blink:

I'm not required to take Virology, it's offered as one of my electives. I've also been eyeing an electron microscopy lecture and lab, but the course description is super vague on what it entails.

LoL sorry, i didnt mean to deter you. If you love virology, hey VALLY FORGE. I guess alot if it also depends on the prof you get, im sure you know what I mean. Some profs really wanna teach you, whereas others just see you as some twit using up THEIR oxygen, especially in science. Electron microscopy on the other hand, is a very, very useful course. Its very essential to molecular and cellular bio studies, especially when you are doing gene therapy experiments.:laugh:

mscomc
11-08-2009, 01:27 AM
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a360/shockdamonkey/bawwww.jpg

You know, the picture of that rabbit had me thinking....where in the hell have i seen this before? and then it hit me....lol

----we had this campaign in canada when i was kid in the late 80's. it was to promote kid safety. I dont know if you guys had it in the states.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIU0HwKUKzk

maybe rearnakedchoke will remember this, ha:)

J.B.
11-08-2009, 02:04 AM
I love the interaction between Buzzard and JB Rattlesnake. They are like a grumpy, old married couple.:laugh:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/a/a5/Awesome_angry.png/600px-Awesome_angry.png

Buzzard
11-08-2009, 05:31 AM
I love the interaction between Buzzard and JB Rattlesnake. They are like a grumpy, old married couple.:laugh:

Yeah, I have my own innernets stalker. How lucky I feel. Puddin'Pie is cranky, he started crying.

To address JB, what a great example NateR shows when he attacks the poster but not the argument.

Play The Man
11-08-2009, 07:41 AM
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/a/a5/Awesome_angry.png/600px-Awesome_angry.png

:wink:

J.B.
11-08-2009, 01:43 PM
Yeah, I have my own innernets stalker. How lucky I feel. Puddin'Pie is cranky, he started crying.

To address JB, what a great example NateR shows when he attacks the poster but not the argument.

I thought I told you to stop using your pedophile slang to address me.

I don't care what kind of candy you have, I will NOT get in your van.

Play The Man
11-09-2009, 06:44 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573265,00.html?test=faces



Chloe Levine was born seemingly perfect — she was the happy and healthy baby her parents had dreamed of.

But by the time she was 9 months old, Chloe was not reaching the milestones her older sister Shayla had met at that age.

Chloe’s right hand was constantly clenched in a tight fist – she couldn’t even hold her bottle. And she wasn’t able to crawl; she would "shuffle" her body across the floor in a seated position, her mother, Jenny, recalls.

Soon after Chloe’s first birthday, the Levines, who live in Denver, learned their daughter had suffered a stroke in utero and had become afflicted with cerebral palsy.

"A part of me just died," Jenny Levine said. "At that point there was no cure for her, no treatment other than therapies – speech, physical and occupational therapy for the next 18 years. As parents, that was not fine. We wanted her to have as normal a life as possible; we didn’t want her to face a life of disability."

The Levines remembered they had banked stem cells from Chloe’s umbilical cord at her birth, and wondered if they could be used to help treat her.

Stem cells from bone marrow have been used in medicine for about 40 years, primarily in the treatment of blood diseases, cancers and immune disorders, said David Zitlow, vice president of corporate communications at Cord Blood Registry, the world’s largest cord blood bank. Stem cells have been known to jumpstart a person’s immune system, especially after an intense round of chemotherapy.

But there are advantages to using stem cells from your own umbilical cord – the cells are younger, they have not been exposed to environmental factors like viruses or chemicals, which can alter the cell’s structure and function – and if you are using your own cord blood cells, your body can’t reject them, Zitlow said.

The collection process at birth is simple: Once the baby is born, the blood is drawn from the umbilical cord with a syringe, placed in a special bag and sent to the parents’ blood bank of choice to be stored indefinitely. It’s not painful, unlike collecting cells from the bone marrow.

Zitlow said that science has shown the umbilical cord cells are smart – once they are reinfused into the body, they migrate to the exact spot of injury and help the damaged cells or tissue repair itself.

The Levines were in luck: Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, a professor of pediatrics and pathology at Duke University, was conducting a study where children with cerebral palsy were injected with their own cord blood cells.

On May 28, 2008, at the age of 2, Chloe received a 15-minute re-infusion of her stem cells.

"The doctor is really cautious about what she tells patients," Jenny Levine said. "She didn’t have a whole lot of results coming in. The best case scenario, we’d see signs of improvement in six months to a year."

Within four days, her parents saw a noticeable difference, although Kurtzberg said most kids show benefits three to nine months later.

The rigidity on Chloe’s right side loosened up and her speech started to improve. She was able to ride her toy tractor, which in the past had been too difficult for her to pedal.

"Her life is completely normal, she doesn’t drag her right foot, she can use her right hand," Jenny Levine said. "She rides a bike, a scooter…we’re taking her skiing this year. She’s fabulous."

At this time, Kurtzberg said she does not know how long the effects of cord blood will last on kids like Chloe, but if there is a good chance it will be "durable and last indefinitely." This is essential, since most babies have enough cells for only one infusion.

Doctors are currently researching the effects of umbilical cord cells and their effects on brain injuries, type I diabetes, neurology and cardiology. Kurtzberg is also studying cord blood infusions on babies with birth asphyxis (hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, which is damage to the central nervous system due to a lack of oxygen. It often leads to developmental delays) and babies with congenital hydrocephalus (an excess of cerebrospinal fluid on the brain at birth).

In the near future, Kurtzberg will conduct a randomized trial to objectively determine if cord blood cell infusions are beneficial to kids like Chloe, or if other factors play a role in their success.

Dr. Charles Cox, from the University of Texas-Houston Medical School, has been studying cord blood cells for the past 2 1/2 years.

"Umbilical cord blood cell therapy for traumatic brain injury has a lot of pre-clinical work that has been done, suggesting that it’s beneficial," Cox said. "I believe that cord blood is equivalent or better than bone marrow-derived cells."

Cox said if the parents do not choose to save the cord blood, it is considered medical waste and thrown away.

"Really, the issue of cord blood banking today comes down to trying to understand what the future holds in terms of regenerative medicine as a field," Cox said. "So, the long-term look is, and even the intermediate-term look is that it’s not science-fiction. I see it expanding and accelerating over the next two to five years."

mscomc
11-09-2009, 07:36 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573265,00.html?test=faces

"Zitlow said that science has shown the umbilical cord cells are smart – once they are reinfused into the body, they migrate to the exact spot of injury and help the damaged cells or tissue repair itself"

Thats a really good story gregory. Its a great application of chord blood stem cells. I know you are just posting the story, so dont take what I am going to type a going against you:wink:

The part i bolded isnt entirely true. And goes back to what i posted earlier about problems with adult stem cells (in this case the chord blood). In research, we have been able to tag (with a fluorescent marker) blood stem cells that we inject I.V into a person and trace where it goes. It has been shown many times, that the about 90% of the stem cells end up going to other major areas of blood usage (like the liver, or remain in blood vessels). About 10% will make it to the affected region, like the bone marrow for example. Luckily, that appears to be good enough, as you can still get good effect from it, as seen in this case. But further research to full direct all stem cells to where we want to go would be great for future research.

Tyburn
11-10-2009, 12:09 AM
So in the past, I know there have been alot of discussions about stem cell research in regards to: ethics, benefits, adult vs embryonic stem cells, sources of stem cells like chord blood etc etc etc.

I wanted to contribute in the past, but I didnt feel like i had adequate info to contribute effectivley. I recently did a 6 month course on stem cell biology for my phD program. I personally am NOT a stem cell biologist. My biochemistry is scoped towards cell-signalling in lipid synthesis. But I know that stem cell info can be confusing sometimes.

If anyone has any questions regarding the matter.....i am not an expert, but maybe I can clear some things up :)

hope to talk to you soon friends; Malcom :wink:
What exactly about Stem Cells do you wish to discuss :huh:

Tyburn
11-10-2009, 12:10 AM
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/a/a5/Awesome_angry.png/600px-Awesome_angry.png

:laugh::laugh:

Dont you EVER post that in an argument against me. I shall not be ammused

mscomc
11-10-2009, 12:16 AM
What exactly about Stem Cells do you wish to discuss :huh:

Have you read the last 6 pages :) ????

Im just trying to help people understand things about stem cells that they may not understand, and why getting them to treat our problems is an issue right now. I am quite knowledgeable on the subject, but in case anyone else isnt, who may want to be, i was just trying to offer some tutorial like info.

Tyburn
11-10-2009, 09:13 PM
Have you read the last 6 pages :) ????

Im just trying to help people understand things about stem cells that they may not understand, and why getting them to treat our problems is an issue right now. I am quite knowledgeable on the subject, but in case anyone else isnt, who may want to be, i was just trying to offer some tutorial like info.

Oh...well I did up to A Level Biology so I have a fair idea of what they are...but of course really my only concern would be on a moral level, if your not really talking about that, then I'm happy not really to contribute, if that makes sense :)