FDA approves first human embryonic stem cell safety trial (3 days after Pres. Bush left)

Scientific American ^ | 1-23-09 | Jordan Lite

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

“Injecting these stem cells into these people with spinal cord injuries is not resulting in the destruction of any embryos.”

Getting the embrionic stem cells to inject into others requires the destruction of the embryos. The injections happen after the embryo is destroyed.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

“This makes it sounds like they are taking cells directly from fetuses instead of limited lines grown in the lab”

The lines grown in a lab come from fetuses.

[Gondring]

Injecting these stem cells into these people with spinal cord injuries is not resulting in the destruction of any embryos.

[Gondring]

I suppose that using the organs from someone who is already dead is also a problem for you, eh? Better to just let them rot?

[aruanan]

I suppose that using the organs from someone who is already dead is also a problem for you, eh? Better to just let them rot?

There's a difference between using organs from someone who has given his informed consent before he died and selecting someone because he has a kidney you need and killing him for it.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

“Injecting these stem cells into these people with spinal cord injuries is not resulting in the destruction of any embryos.”

The stem cells come from embryos that have been destroyed. There is no other way to get them.

You cannot inject embryonic stem cells until you have them to inject. That requires destruction of embryos.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

“There’s a difference between using organs from someone who has given his informed consent before he died and selecting someone because he has a kidney you need and killing him for it.”

Thank you.

See my reply 306, if you are interested.

[aruanan]

I know someone who had embryonic stem cells implanted in her retina back in the late 1990’s. She worked at the University of Chicago Hospitals as a volunteer. I don’t know whether it worked. She never was without those special glasses with the special cutting on the lenses. I don’t think she was around there much longer after the surgery.

[Gondring]

There's a difference between using organs from someone who has given his informed consent before he died and selecting someone because he has a kidney you need and killing him for it.

What about someone who did not give consent, but is already dead? Just curious (since that's a closer analogy to what we have here).

[Gondring]

The stem cells come from embryos that have been destroyed. There is no other way to get them.

Not true, as has been pointed out a few times on the thread.

You cannot inject embryonic stem cells until you have them to inject. That requires destruction of embryos.

American liberty required the sacrifice of patriots' lives. Are you saying that by exercising liberties today, we are killing patriots?

No embryos or blastocyst will be killed by this research; this line was generated more than a decade ago. Are you saying that this potential help for mankind should be discarded, rather than potentially saving lives? Using it does not take any lives, but may save lives. That seems to be the pro-life approach. Discarding it wouldn't take any lives, and wouldn't help save any lives. That doesn't seem to be the pro-life choice...it seems to be the agenda-driven, anti-humanity path.

[aruanan]

What about someone who did not give consent, but is already dead? Just curious (since that's a closer analogy to what we have here).

You mean, from any accident victim who is still fresh enough or is still alive but judged by doctors not able to make a recovery just take whatever someone else thinks he needs to give to someone else? Why stop there? I'm sure they must have assets that they certainly won't need any longer that could help the recipients of the organ "donations" in their post-op recovery.

Informed consent underscores the primacy of the individual and his own choices for his own life. Doing away with it while appealing to societal benefits is utilitarianism that puts a few people in charge of taking with impunity whatever from whomever for reasons that are ostensibly for everyone's benefit but that actually are rationalizations of an individual's or a small group of individuals' fantasies of retrofitting society for paradise. Requiring and respecting informed consent will have real world consequences but they are nothing compared to what happens when individuals are simply raw material for the technocrats.

[Gondring]

The law recognizes the right of parents to give consent for donation of a child’s organs. Parents were consulted regarding these embryos.

[aruanan]

The law recognizes the right of parents to give consent for donation of a child’s organs. Parents were consulted regarding these embryos.

Not the same. The first is about consent after a life has ended. The second is about taking a life, be it ever so humble. You may as well say that parental consent okays a child to be sold into slavery, except in this case that offspring will never even have the possibility of escape that mere slavery would afford.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

“Not true, as has been pointed out a few times on the thread.”

Do not confuse embryonic stem cells that only come from destroyed embryos with adult stem cells that do not destroy any live being.

This thread is on embryonic stem cells. They do require the destruction of embryos to harvest the stem cells.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

“No embryos or blastocyst will be killed by this research; this line was generated more than a decade ago.”

The embryos were already destroyed, that is the reason they will not be killed. They already have been killed.

Your question about liberties ignores that others, who have not had any say have and will be killed. Do you think it is OK to randomly kill someone because someone else believes it may help them, even though there is no science proving that?

Patriots protect the innocent, they do not follow random killing sprees in hopes that something good might come from it.

[Gondring]

okay, have it your way. Flush the cells down the toilet. You can probably find one of your friendly neighborhood abortion clinics to do it for you...they should be able to help you with the task.

As for me, I’d like to see them go to some good use, promoting life and relieving distress.

[Gondring]

Exactly right.

The sanctimonious crowd likes to ignore the reality.

[Gondring]

Do you support the research here?

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

First, if it is truly science, it will stand or fall without anyone's support. Second, from the link: "The derivation of human embryonic stem (hES) cells currently requires the destruction of ex utero embryos1, 2, 3, 4. A previous study in mice indicates that it might be possible to generate embryonic stem (ES) cells using a single-cell biopsy similar to that used in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), which does not interfere with the embryo's developmental potential5." This is link provides opinions and wishful thinking. No proof it is possible. This is not science, this is opinion. I do not support it since it does not exist.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

One more thing. There has been zero therapies with embryonic stem cells that have helped anyone. The results of the therapies have all done nothing to assist the patient’s medical condition and, sometimes, have created tumors. I do not support taking a bad situation and making it worse. I do not support the killing of unborn children on the rhetoric that some day it will do wonders, when there is no proof it has done any good.

Stop killing the unborn.