Breakthrough by NUS scientists: safe stem cells

Strait Times ^ | August 5, 2002 | Salma Khalik

[carenot]

Does a corpse have a right to life?

Maybe so. I have read about some "dead" ones waking up in the morgue.

[syriacus]

By your definition of human being my nails i cut this morning are human beings.

The scientists we are talking about are pretty keen on working with human embryos in the early stages.

Ask any scientist who studies embryos if he would mistake nail cells or blood cells for human embryos.

These scientists are NOT interested in

• nail cells or
• blood cells, or
• (even in mixed human and animal cells.)

These scientists are interested in the cells of individual human beings in early stages of development. They are not interested in undifferentiated blobs.

As the Nature article points out, the fertilized human egg begins differentiation when it first begins to divide.

Pro-aborts might want to believe the embryos aren't "Persons," but they would have to be blind believers in the NARAL myth of undifferentiated blobhood to think the embryos aren't human beings.

[carenot]

Nevertheless, a corpse has no right to life. If some part of it can be used to save someone's life, it would be criminal not to use it.

I will go for that. But not until I have been dead for 3 days, off of the "life support" that "keeps the dead body alive".

[carenot]

I see that to you, a blastocyst is a person.

Ain't you glad your Mama didn't think the way you do?

What do you think a blastocyst is?

[syriacus]

Great article; thanks for the link, S

Glad to do it. I was so happy to hear that the scientists studying human embryos were finally opening their eyes to reality.

I really wonder how the pro-aborts will spin this. They're so comfortable with their myths.

[carenot]

All the successful research and healing done with stem cells I've seen was done with adult stem cells, not embryonic.

I read where they tried the embryonic cells and made the patients a lot worse. There was nothing they could do.

I haven't heard what happened to those poor people.

It has been over a year.

[MHGinTN]

Probably dismiss it as 'only an opinion' ... they do that more and more now, since their champions such as Boxer and Harkin have bolstered their lies for so long without being exposed by 'media'.

[carenot]

By your definition of human being my nails i cut this morning are human beings.

Oh, sure, put your cut off nails in a dish with the perfect temperature and nutrients and see what grows!

That is not a good argument.

[syriacus]

champions such as Boxer and Harkin have bolstered their lies for so long without being exposed by 'media'.

Hostility to the idea of early differentiation is so very "unscientific." Like saying the earth is flat.

From the Nature article: Your destiny, from day one

The first hint that the blastocyst was not the unassuming orb it appeared came in the 1980s. Two little-noticed studies from Jean Smith of Queen's College in Flushing, New York, showed that the mouse blastocyst, rather than a being a symmetrical sphere, is slightly distorted and has recognizableaxes1, 2. What's more, these axes appeared to match up with those of the fetus, suggesting that the former sets up the latter.

The findings prompted Richard Gardner, an embryologist at the University of Oxford, UK, to repeat the work, drawing similar conclusions3 . But it took another five years before Gardner could make anyone listen. "People were quite hostile, [to the idea of early differentiation in the mammalian embryo]" he recalls

.

Is the Flat Earth society still around? If so, they could think about recruiting NARAL members ... NARAL members can be so gullible.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Ever heard of a movie with Arnold Shwartzeneggar in it called the 6th day if not SEE IT it will scare the hell out of you made in 2000 its what we talk about in cloning today !

The 6Th Day

[gcruse]

I'll watch for it, thanks.

[MHGinTN]

'Now available on VHS and DVD'

[exmarine]

the moral relativism behind this type of science is palpable. It doesn't take a philosophic giant to discern the godless worldviews of the people behind this research.

[Snidely Whiplash]

What do you think a blastocyst is?

Perhaps this will be of some help:

Embryonic Development - Early Blastocyst The blastocyst stage occurs approximately four days after fertilization. At this point, the embryo is a ball of approximately a dozen cells measuring 0.1-0.2 millimeters across.

The question isn't really whether this ball of cells can (not necessarily will) eventually develop into a human being, but whether said ball of cells is a Person, i.e. a being with rights.

Regards,
Snidely

[gcruse]

the moral relativism behind this type of science is palpable.
It doesn't take a philosophic giant to discern the godless worldviews
of the people behind this research.

Same goes for injecting disease into
people.  The worldview behind that
is shocking.  The fact that it triggers
the immune response and confers
protection doesn't justify the chance
someone took the first time they
did it.  If God wants you to die
of smallpox, then you should
die.  Right?  Wrong.

[Mark Bahner]

"And ....according to the article, they are human embryonic stem cells."

Well, yes, that's a given. I wasn't attempting to ignore that fact...I just thought that was understood. (The article is about how they can now use all human cells, rather than having any animal cells. This adds to the safety, because the potential for transmitting animal diseases can be eliminated.)

[AKA Elena]

You must hate us people who believe in life -- but your writing as though we are stupid and none of us likes to be "talked down to" --

With some respect, whatever might be due to you, I do believe that when God said, "Before you were in the womb, I knew you" ... that He spoke of the soul.

Please calculate for me what the worth of any "Born" person's soul might be, and then do some calculating on the input of the "soul". Perhaps actual sentience, by definition, can only be thought of in our limited terms, but I can calculate that every "Wise God emplaced Soul", will forever know that his/her life was subverted in the name of Pride of Man.

I believe the cognizance of the soul is incalculable, and I will try for all of my life to suade folks, such as yourself, that all pre-borns from the moment of conception (no matter where conceived) have that ephemeral soul and that we (MAN) has no right to use that "embryo" for any purpose which thwarts his/her NATURAL progression into a tiny child.

Again, we are not stupid, so please stop with the superior attitude!

[Mark Bahner]

"Genetically the embryo is human."

Yes, and genetically, a cadaver is human. In fact, if there is a heart/lung machine involved, basically the only non-working part can be the brain. But that's the only really important part!

[Mark Bahner]

"The moron who wrote the Roe v Wade opinion said that if "fetuses" (Greek for baby by the by) were persons then they would be Constitutionally protected."

That's not "moronic" at all. The unborn absolutely are NOT "persons" according to The Law (the U.S. Constitution).

The U.S. Constitution requires a census to count ALL "persons" in the United States. Pregnant women are NOT counted as 2 "persons."

Ergo, we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the unborn are NOT "persons," according to The Law (the Constitution).

[Mark Bahner]

"You must hate us people who believe in life..."

What in the world gives you the idea *I* don't "believe in life"?

"...but your writing as though we are stupid and none of us likes to be "talked down to" --"

Sorry. It wasn't my intention (in that particular instance ;-)) to "talk down" to anyone. The point that I was addressing is that it isn't a good analogy to say that, "A (five day old) embryo is to an adult human, as a tadpole is to a frog." Instead, a better analogy would be "A (born) baby is to an adult human, as a tadpole is to a frog."

"I believe the cognizance of the soul is incalculable, and I will try for all of my life to suade folks, such as yourself, that all pre-borns from the moment of conception (no matter where conceived) have that ephemeral soul and that we (MAN) has no right to use that "embryo" for any purpose which thwarts his/her NATURAL progression into a tiny child."

Well, you can try to persuade me. Right now, I think the human embryo, up to the point where it begins to develop a working brain, has no rights. Needs no rights. Wants no rights.

If I "killed" 100 million embryos of 40 cells each, to save even 100 lives of persons already born, I would have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I'd think that I'd done pretty well (saving 100 lives).