Smith: No embryonic stem cells

NJ.Com ^ | June 10, 2004 | TOM HESTER JR.

[MadIvan]

The nation should honor President Reagan by committing itself to finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease, Rep. Chris Smith said yesterday, but not by using embryos for stem cell research.

Smith, R-Washington Township, who was first elected with Reagan in 1980, yesterday blasted those who have used Reagan's death on Saturday after a decade-long bout with Alzheimer's to advocate embryonic stem cell research.

[hocndoc]

Lots of supposition, there.

First, there's a move to have those embryos adopted by couples who can't make their own embryos. There has also been a move in the last few years to make fewer embryos, so that there are fewer to store. It is also possible now to freeze harvested oocytes, rather than make more embryos than are to be implanted.

Second, we are all going to die, but that does not negate our right not to be killed by someone else. Why don't we turn all death row prisons into organ farms?

[hocndoc]

That embryo looks just like I did. And of course, my son and daughter and grand daughter looke enough like that to be indistinquishable! As a matter of fact, that looks just like my neighbor.

[hocndoc]

Do you deny all religions except yours?

Who gave you the ultimate truth?

Your logic is poor, btw. There is a huge difference between denying all medical treatment and refusing to cross the line between non-maleficence and utilitarianism. It is always wrong to use one human being for the benefit of another, while preventing the first from his inalienable right to life and liberty to make his own life as he wishes.

[hocndoc]

You have it backwards.
The anti-life have found a new way to divide and attack the pro-human rights advocates.

I can remember when everyone scoffed, just as you do when some philosophers predicted the slippery slope of in vitro fertilization, that would result in the devaluation of human lives, making them commodities to be used and discarded as the owners wished. And here we are, with parents ordering hundreds of embryos created for evaluation for treatment of a sibling and destroyed if not the right immune match. (JAMA, May report of 9 couples who had 500 embryos created, less than 50 were implanted, 5 babies were born)

If only it were safe and rare, huh?

[hocndoc]

Next, we could look at the babies born to unwed mothers or in the wrong neighborhood, or test for IQ early on.

Maybe the utilitarians could tell us their definition of humans. Then, we could at least use the girls they determine are less than humans - not quite as equal as they are - as oocyte donors and gestators.

[Straight Vermonter]

The embryonic stem cells are derived from discarded embryos. Is this a trick question?

[Dimensio]

No tricks. Some people are under the misconception that embryonic stem cells are harvested from aborted fetuses (Matt Stone and Trey Parker seem to believe this). You apparently know better, so I have no argument with you.

[MHGinTN]

Dr. Gearhart does harvest embryonic germ cells from aborted fetuses because these germ cells have not yet left the embryonic totipotent stage to begin the long process of gametogenesis. His goal, mainly, is to derive ova for conceiving embryos for experimentation and to study potentials for parthenotes, but his research is delving into other 'pathways of differentiation' issues. So yes, there are embryonic stem cells being harvested from fetuses with Gearhart and his colleagues.

[Your Nightmare]

Please, cite one treatment that has been shown possible from embryonic stem cells.

argumentum ad ignorantiam

You're assuming if I can't prove something true it must be false. You are also asking to show results from a research field in it's infancy. And you're ignoring the fact that research has been hampered by politics and lack of funding.

But still, there is plenty of research that shows treatment that might be "possible from embryonic stem cells." Go to PubMed and search on embryonic stem cells (you might notice all the foriegn sounding names of the researchers). You don't think all this research is being done because the researchers like playing with embryos, do you? They see the possiblity of treatment with embryonic stem cells.

Here's the story I posted in #59 if you had any say in it:

In December of 1967, a South African surgeon, Dr. Christiaan Barnard, transplanted the heart of a 23-year-old woman killed in a motor vehicle accident into the chest of a middle-aged man. He lived for eighteen days, until the powerful drugs used to suppress rejection weakened him and he died of pneumonia. All further research was ended.

[MHGinTN]

At this point in the research on embryonic stem cells, worldwide focus is upon trying to figure out just exactly how the differentiation of stem cells takes place and if that differentiation is reversible form pluripotent to totipotent then back to pluripotent along a tissue lines desired. Why? Because a few experiments (human trials outside the uSA) have killed the treated patients.

May I ask, if this exploitation of human beings at their earliest age as embryo is cannibalism (and I firmly believe it is since the human embryo is a human ORGANISM in her/his earliest age of a lifetime), and some of the world wants to do this cannibalism for medical reasons, why we in America must be herded into cannibalism also?

[Your Nightmare]

May I ask, if this exploitation of human beings at their earliest age as embryo is cannibalism (and I firmly believe it is since the human embryo is a human ORGANISM in her/his earliest age of a lifetime), and some of the world wants to do this cannibalism for medical reasons, why we in America must be herded into cannibalism also?

Cannibalism? Who has suggested we start eating embryos?

You are making a moral arguement. We were discussing the science. They are two separate issues. Don't pretend that because you believe something is immoral that the science is bad.

[MHGinTN]

The science tells us that at least one individual human being starts a lifetime to be lived, at the conception event. With cell division, it is apparent to science that at least one individual human being is expressing their ORGANISMAL life, even to the exquisite level of starting the division of cells to build his or her own placental 'space capsule' for the water world to be lived in for nine months and the blood to be circulated through his or her own constructed umbilicus. The living 'thing' doing this designation of cell lines is called an embryo, but this is indeed the same human ORGANISM who will exit the life support protection of his or her Mother in nine months time, to then live in the air world. All during that nine months, it is the same individual or individuals (in the case of twinning) who first manifested as embryonic human(s). Why would you divorce moral principles from the treatment of these youngest individuals when you would willingly apply moral principles to older individual humans?... Or would you?! I will not concede to allow some to divorce moral principles from scientific endeavors. I find it shocking that you advocating doing that, but then I do recall that there are persons in all walks of life who profess themselves to be a-moral, above fundamental moral principles, wise enough to deal with any situation from a transactional/utilitarian perspective setting moral principles aside to be defined incident by incident.

Not cannibalism? Not eating the embryos for their stem cell body parts, so this is not cannibalism? Well, to harvest the stem cells of these individual human ORGANISMS in order to try and sustain the life of older individual humans fits my understanding of cannibalism and would likley fit with the vast majority of my fellow Americans, so I'll continue to use the term with the confidence that it accurately describes the actions planned with alive embryonic human individuals.

[qam1]

Personally, I consider every fertilized embryo to be a human being. If it is to be destroyed, then let it be destroyed. No experimentation on it, or on aborted fetuses.

So I guess you would also be against a death row prisioner donating his body to science/medical research

I would also ban IVF.

So you basically would be preventing ~40,000 kids from being born every year. So much for being "pro-life"

If embryonic stem cell research bears fruit, then there will be no stopping this therapeutic pipeline, and therapeutic cloning will surely follow to "prevent incompatible tissue rejection".

Or it could lead to cures for crippling dieases.

I don't know what's worth losing an election over any more.

Not this because by putting in Kerry you will increase the real killing of kids via more abortions.

[qam1]

(JAMA, May report of 9 couples who had 500 embryos created, less than 50 were implanted, 5 babies were born)

And what's the problem?

Math wasn't my best subject so maybe I missing something but the way I see it

If there was no IVF there would be net total of 500 unfertilized eggs that would never be born,

However with IVF you lose 495 out the 500 that would have been lost anyhow but you now have a net gain of 5 new lives.

5 new lives vs Zero, So how is this a pro-life issue when life comes out on top

[PatrickHenry]

The crippled should choose to remain crippled, and they will be repaid in the next life.

Much to think about ...

[Dimensio]

The crippled should choose to remain crippled, and they will be repaid in the next life.

What if the crippled in question do not share your particular religious fantasies?

[PatrickHenry]

What if the crippled in question do not share your particular religious fantasies?

They must be whipped until they see the light.