How can a scientist not know that embryonic stem cells come ONLY from embryos, NOT from stillbirths or miscarriages?
Your gratuitous insult aside, there’s nothing at all wrong with my analogy. American women, and their children, were protected from thalidomide because the FDA does move slowly. Have you forgotten what happened when researchers tried to race ahead, skipping animal research and going straight to human, using fetal cells (not embryonic) to treat Alzheimers’? The patients developed teratomas inside their skulls. I believe that was also in China.
No, embryonic stem cells can come from stillbirths and miscarriages.
Animal research does not necessarily correlate to human results. In the end, it comes down to whether or not we have the cojones to test on humans. Willing and completely informed participants of course, not willy-nilly.
To Crazie:
No, I’m not an anti-religious bigot. I just choose not to believe. My biggest issue with the stance of completely opposing embryonic stem cells is the fact that if the baby is already dead, what harm is there in using the stem cells for research? I completely agree that creating a market for aborted fetuses is bad, if the fetuses are aborted specifically for the stem cells.
Think of it like this, I’m a corn farmer and I pick corn for food, but my crop has failed, I’ve only got greenery to show for it and not a single ear of corn. Is it wrong for me to sell the rest of the biomass for biodiesel production?
Like a poster just above me stated, following your “logic” we should outlaw organ donations, many donors are kept alive just to keep the organs ripe for harvest, others are pronounced early in order for doctors to get at the organs because they have a patient who needs one. How is that any different?