what's the problem with stem cell research?

[JamesM]

BO, do you know if you can donate your placenta to medical science after you give birth? Has the doctor (or anyone else - the hospital, a nurse, etc.) brought this up at all? I'm curious...

 

Here is a place that stores placentas:

 

http://www.lifebankusa.com/

[FleshNBones]

I was going to correct this absurdity, but I have already been beaten to the punch.

 

Are valid pro-life arguments really so thin on the ground that their proponents need to resort to such ridiculous hyperbole and myth to make a point?

 

Cheers,

D.

I posted here because it occured to me that all of this anger for the religious right on this matter is unjustified, and their support for fetal stem cell research has only benefited (maybe entertained) the researchers. There is a lot of talk about cures, and treatments, but none of it is coming from this type of research.

I think throwing away human life is cruel especially when nothing is gained. I wonder why they are so eager to clone people.

 

 

Some things just aren't practical.

[annieo]

I posted here because it occured to me that all of this anger for the religious right on this matter is unjustified, and their support for fetal stem cell research has only benefited (maybe entertained) the researchers. There is a lot of talk about cures, and treatments, but none of it is coming from this type of research.

I think throwing away human life is cruel especially when nothing is gained. I wonder why they are so eager to clone people.

 

 

Some things just aren't practical.

 

First of all, as I said in my OP, the stem cells were harvested from the umbilical cord, after it was cut and before I delivered the placenta. The baby (my bouncing 11 year old boy) was and is fine, he was lying peacefully in my arms when all this took place. The cord had been cut, the syringe went into my end of the cord. I know I'm repeating myself, but I want this to actually get through.

 

And from what I was told, by the doctor who suggested the procedure, was that if he ever needed a bone marrow transplant, he had a guaranteed match with the stem cells from this procedure, which are on ice (we pay an annual storage fee). AND if his sister, dad or I needed a bone marrow transplant, these cells provided a much better that average chance of a match, compared to direct bone marrow transplant from a donor.

 

If this is the only use for stem cells (and from what I have read about research into treatment for MS, and a variety of other neurological disorders), I'd say that made it well worth it. I watched a friend watch her husband die, after the transplanted bone marrow in his body started shutting down his organs (graft versus host disease). Not pretty.

 

No one was harmed in the taking of the stem cells from my/my son's umbilicus(I didn't feel a thing), I absorbed the expense, and God forbid, if we need those cells, they're there.

 

How is this not practical??? How is this harmful????? How is this a sin??????

 

I am not now (nor have I ever) suggested that any living being (including embryos) be "terminated" for the use of their cells. The idea is abhorrent. But many people on this thread (and in the Vatican !!!) seem to have equated stem cells with embryonic cells.

 

Every time a baby is born, there is the opportunity to harvest the cells from the umbilicus. Hurts no one, might be a cure for something one day. Spread the freaking word!

[disgracian]

Well said, annieo. James, would you like to stop pushing this illusion that killing fetuses to harvest their cells is the only alternative to adult stem cells, mmm? I have no inclination to play your game by being badgered into defending a position I never claimed to hold.

 

Cheers,

D.

[FleshNBones]

No one was harmed in the taking of the stem cells from my/my son's umbilicus(I didn't feel a thing), I absorbed the expense, and God forbid, if we need those cells, they're there.

 

How is this not practical??? How is this harmful????? How is this a sin??????

 

I am not now (nor have I ever) suggested that any living being (including embryos) be "terminated" for the use of their cells. The idea is abhorrent. But many people on this thread (and in the Vatican !!!) seem to have equated stem cells with embryonic cells.

 

Every time a baby is born, there is the opportunity to harvest the cells from the umbilicus. Hurts no one, might be a cure for something one day. Spread the freaking word!

You have no idea what I was talking about. Did you notice some of the articles I pulled off the Vatican's website?

 

I am guessing you are a hate Bush, but support his ideas and opinions kind of person.

I'm sorry I posted here.

[FleshNBones]

Well said, annieo. James, would you like to stop pushing this illusion that killing fetuses to harvest their cells is the only alternative to adult stem cells, mmm? I have no inclination to play your game by being badgered into defending a position I never claimed to hold.

 

Cheers,

D.

But that is the position you were defending, and that is the position the Church was attacking.

 

The only reason people bash the Church on this issue is because they are trying to promote fetal stem cell research, or abortion. Do you have a reason of your own?

[JamesM]

First of all, as I said in my OP, the stem cells were harvested from the umbilical cord, after it was cut and before I delivered the placenta. The baby (my bouncing 11 year old boy) was and is fine, he was lying peacefully in my arms when all this took place. The cord had been cut, the syringe went into my end of the cord. I know I'm repeating myself, but I want this to actually get through.

 

You stated your position very clearly. I personally do not disagree with you. And from what I have read, the Catholic Church does not either. Using adult stem cells or placentas are excellent ways to produce stem cells.

 

How is this not practical??? How is this harmful????? How is this a sin??????

 

I don't believe it is, nor do I know of any religious people who would think that using stem cells which does not destroy lives is harmful or sinful.

 

I am not now (nor have I ever) suggested that any living being (including embryos) be "terminated" for the use of their cells. The idea is abhorrent. But many people on this thread (and in the Vatican !!!) seem to have equated stem cells with embryonic cells.

 

I apologize if it appeared that way. I think the thread progressed that way when it appeared that all stem cell research is opposed by the Church...either Protestant or Catholic. It is not. The opposition is only to embryonic stem cell research.

 

Here is an article addressing that very issue....

DENVER, July 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Earlier this week, Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, the director of Education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center and one of the foremost bioethicists of the Catholic Church, reiterated that the Church is an enthusiastic supporter, not an enemy of stem-cell research.

 

According to the Catholic News Agency, Fr. Pacholczyk conducted his presentation concerning the science and ethics of stem cell research and cloning on Sunday before a large crowd gathered at the John Paul II Center for the New Evangelization in Denver.

 

During his presentation, Fr. Pacholczyk debunked what he described as the “ten media myths about stem cell research and cloning” that have been perpetuated about stem-cells and the Catholic Church. Fr. Pacholczyk, who holds a doctorate in Neuroscience from Yale University, conducted post-doctoral research at Harvard Medical School, and studied theology and bioethics in Rome, explained that it is the source of stem cells is at the heart of the ethics in stem-cell research.

 

Among the four primary sources of human stem cells (human embryos, fetal tissues and organs from aborted or miscarried babies, pregnancy matter (umbilical cord, placenta, amniotic fluid), and adult tissues and organs), the extraction of stem cells from human embryos is always morally evil on account of the method necessarily destroying the life of the embryo. Fr. Pacholczyk explained that the Catholic Church only applauds that research which uses stem-cells procured from methods that do not violate human life.

.

.

.

Unlike embryonic stem cells, stem cells derived from adult tissues and pregnancy matter have shown impressive results without carrying any ethical dilemma or risk of tumors and death to patients. Fr. Pacholczyk listed dozens of diseases currently treatable using these stem cells, including sickle-cell anemia, leukemia, spinal cord injury, and heart disease.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jul/06072709.html

 

 

Every time a baby is born, there is the opportunity to harvest the cells from the umbilicus. Hurts no one, might be a cure for something one day. Spread the freaking word!

 

This is true, and an excellent point to make. We are in agreement.

[JamesM]

Well said, annieo.

 

We actually agree on something. She did an excellent job.

 

James, would you like to stop pushing this illusion that killing fetuses to harvest their cells is the only alternative to adult stem cells, mmm?

 

Okay....if you think that this is what I was doing. However, I could point out that your perception is incorrect. I think my post pointed out quite well that the utilization of placentas was an excellent alternative to embryonic stem cells. I even provided a link to an organization that stores cords for future use. Perhaps you noticed it, yes?

 

I am guessing that this is a question that must be answered. We answer questions directed at us, yes?

 

 

I have no inclination to play your game by being badgered into defending a position I never claimed to hold.

 

First, there is no game being played by me. While I am enjoying the discussion, I do not consider this a game...especially when I see the good results for annieo's child. And feel free to avoid all games here.

 

Second, I apologize if your position is not as it appears. I am not certain I gave you a position, but perhaps my words inferred that I did so based on what your words stated.

 

 

Cheers,

James

[Star Gazer]

First of all, as I said in my OP, the stem cells were harvested from the umbilical cord, after it was cut and before I delivered the placenta. The baby (my bouncing 11 year old boy) was and is fine, he was lying peacefully in my arms when all this took place. The cord had been cut, the syringe went into my end of the cord. I know I'm repeating myself, but I want this to actually get through.

 

And from what I was told, by the doctor who suggested the procedure, was that if he ever needed a bone marrow transplant, he had a guaranteed match with the stem cells from this procedure, which are on ice (we pay an annual storage fee). AND if his sister, dad or I needed a bone marrow transplant, these cells provided a much better that average chance of a match, compared to direct bone marrow transplant from a donor.

 

ELEVEN YEARS AGO????? Isn't harvesting cells from the umbilical cord a relatively new thing?

 

This was actually on The Today Show the other day. As for being a match, there's been tons of research on this showing that keeping the stem cells from a placenta to benefit that child or even its sibling might not be worth it. There's actually no guarantee that your son's cells will actually be a match for his own, and even only like a 10% chance, and doctors don't recommend it anyway. For example, if your son comes down with leukemia, that's a mutation of his marrow. By the time he gets sick, (1) he might not be a match by then of his own original/young cells, and (2) doctors are hesitant to put "bad" cells that are capable of mutating back into a sick child. The match is more likely to be with a sibling, and even then it's only like a 1/3-1/5 shot or something. I cannot cite to anything, but I've heard similar things on other shows like Dateline or whatever. That said, those stem cells can work wonders for people at large - like in research for paralysis, or something.

 

There's also the concern that people who have 10 year olds now, who didn't harvest stem cells at birth, will purposefully get pregnant just to get more stem cells from the next child to save the first. Has anyone ever read, "My Sisters Keeper"? Not a SCR issue, but a similar concern.

 

I agree with James though - the primary concern/controversy is over embryonic stem cell research.

[annieo]

You have no idea what I was talking about. Did you notice some of the articles I pulled off the Vatican's website?

 

I am guessing you are a hate Bush, but support his ideas and opinions kind of person.

I'm sorry I posted here.

 

You're right - I have no idea what you're talking about, and I doubt I'm alone.

 

AND you're wrong! I don't hate anyone, but I think Bush (and his "ideas and opinions") have taken a great country and put it back a few hundred years, politically speaking.

[annieo]

ELEVEN YEARS AGO????? Isn't harvesting cells from the umbilical cord a relatively new thing?

 

This was actually on The Today Show the other day. As for being a match, there's been tons of research on this showing that keeping the stem cells from a placenta to benefit that child or even its sibling might not be worth it. There's actually no guarantee that your son's cells will actually be a match for his own, and even only like a 10% chance, and doctors don't recommend it anyway. For example, if your son comes down with leukemia, that's a mutation of his marrow. By the time he gets sick, (1) he might not be a match by then of his own original/young cells, and (2) doctors are hesitant to put "bad" cells that are capable of mutating back into a sick child. The match is more likely to be with a sibling, and even then it's only like a 1/3-1/5 shot or something. I cannot cite to anything, but I've heard similar things on other shows like Dateline or whatever. That said, those stem cells can work wonders for people at large - like in research for paralysis, or something.

 

There's also the concern that people who have 10 year olds now, who didn't harvest stem cells at birth, will purposefully get pregnant just to get more stem cells from the next child to save the first. Has anyone ever read, "My Sisters Keeper"? Not a SCR issue, but a similar concern.

 

I agree with James though - the primary concern/controversy is over embryonic stem cell research.

 

You could be right, Star Gazer, the cells might not be useful. But when the possibility was presented to me, how could I refuse. If there is even a miniscule chance that they could help either one of my children (or be used for research), I still feel that it was worth the money.

 

I'm Canadian, and usually we are a little behind the States in terms of innovative medical procedures, but yes, it was 11 years ago.

 

Anybody who would have a baby for stem cells is a little misguided, IMO, but on the other hand, if you have a sick child, there aren't a lot of things you wouldn't do as a parent to save them.

 

Back to the Vatican, the edict was that stem cell research (and anybody who participates in stem cell research) is commiting a sin. They have not specified embryonic stem cells. Maybe they should get an edict editor

 

And JamesM/disgracian, thanks for the props. Anger clarifies my words, obviously.

[FleshNBones]

Back to the Vatican, the edict was that stem cell research (and anybody who participates in stem cell research) is commiting a sin. They have not specified embryonic stem cells. Maybe they should get an edict editor

I am not aware of the edict or what source you obtained it from.

You will not get an apology for a position the Church is not taking, and may not have taken.

[DutchGuy]

None of us are in the field of stem cell research, or know anything about it apart from a few quoted articles.

 

I don't think we're in any position to say what the experts "should" focus resources on.

 

I study biotechnology and had several courses on ethics (stem cell research, organ donation, prenatal diagnostics) as well as courses on stem cells and stem cell research.

 

Stem cells are like a swiss knife, while other cells available are a bended spoon at best. Ofcourse harvesting stem cells from embryos is not ideal, and there will be a more elegant substitute in the future, but how long will it take? Every day that stem cell research isn't allowed means deaths years from now.

 

Why are embryonic stem cells so special? Because they are pluripotent, more so than adult stem cells. Cells contain all genes to build and maintain an organism. In order to be a, say, liver cell, 'heart', 'kidney' and 'eye' genes have to be turned off, 'silenced'. Stem cells still have all genes available and can still be turned into any cell type possible. This is also true for adult stem cells, however, embryonic cells have genes available that regulate the development of the foetus, adult stem cells have inactivated these genes. It's like a house is being built with a scaffold and if it's done they take it away. We need that scaffold if we want to replace a roof tile.

 

Science is being told what to do by the people though. The biggest field of research is 'heart and blood vessel diseases'. Because people drink, eat and smoke themselves to death, science has to fix it, never mind millions of kids that are sick just because they were born that way, the people, (and the grey haired men that run countries) want to lower their cholesterol.

 

And now the people don't want embryo research. Because the people don't know what it is all about. And the most ignorant of them all, believers, are ofcourse the most outraged. Xenophobic, afraid of what they don't know. Wasn't it god himself who took out a rib of Adam to clone him a wife? Pick up a book other than the bible and maybe learn something for a change. Religion is only holding progression back. Bush should remember that the only reason that he is president today is because one man did not believe the Earth was flat and discovered America. The man that discovered antibiotics was nearly lynched because cured syphilis, undoing gods revenge on sinners.

[JamesM]

I study biotechnology and had several courses on ethics (stem cell research, organ donation, prenatal diagnostics) as well as courses on stem cells and stem cell research.

 

So you are a college student? Or are you a professional scientist who studies biotechnology?

 

Of course harvesting stem cells from embryos is not ideal, and there will be a more elegant substitute in the future, but how long will it take? Every day that stem cell research isn't allowed means deaths years from now.

 

So, you think it is okay to end the lives of many, many embryos to save other lives?

 

Are you in favor of killing prisoners for their organs? And if not, why not...so many lives would be saved who will die. Isn't it better to save the lives of the innocent than to keep those condemned to die alive?

 

Stem cells still have all genes available and can still be turned into any cell type possible. This is also true for adult stem cells, however, embryonic cells have genes available that regulate the development of the foetus, adult stem cells have inactivated these genes.

 

But, embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Why do we feel it is so much better to destroy lives to heal lives when we can actually create cures without destroying lives?

 

We get so hung up on "the ignorant believers" who "stand in the way of progress" that we don't sit back and examine the reality....there are answers and cures without the need for terminating human lives. Adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction.

 

It's like a house is being built with a scaffold and if it's done they take it away. We need that scaffold if we want to replace a roof tile.

 

There are many different types of scaffolds. Would you want a scaffold that caused the death of the builders of the scaffold? Or would it be much better to build the house with a scaffold that ended no lives?

 

Science is being told what to do by the people though.

 

Scientists are people who also do what they feel is "proper." As you know, ethics are an important part of science, too. Your assumption seems to be that only the scientists have the capability of monitoring scientific research.

 

The biggest field of research is 'heart and blood vessel diseases'. Because people drink, eat and smoke themselves to death, science has to fix it, never mind millions of kids that are sick just because they were born that way, the people, (and the grey haired men that run countries) want to lower their cholesterol.

 

We agree. Too much money is put into cures and not enough into prevention. However, much of the reason for this is not driven by religion or ignorance, but instead it is driven by .....money.

 

The gray haired old men have the money to pay for the cures, while the millions of sick kids do not. This is sad.

 

And prevention is better for people, but if all disease was prevented, then drug companies would lose business. So, they focus on what pays.

 

And now the people don't want embryo research. Because the people don't know what it is all about.

 

But they do know that embryos must lose their lives if the stem cells are to be harvested. This is enough for those who see that "baby" humans will be destroyed to save the lives of "adult" humans.

 

And the most ignorant of them all, believers, are ofcourse the most outraged.

 

This is almost too funny except I think you believe it to be true. I am friends with many "believers" who are PhD scientists...including a father...who know a lot more than I am wagering that you do. Funny thing is...they feel that the push for embryonic stem cell research is being driven by politics. People who are ignorant of what can be done without destroying embryos are latching onto the public protests by Hollywood actors and actresses. These people certainly are not smarter than the "believers" when it comes to research. They simply have accepted what they are told.

 

Ignorance easily goes both ways, but the one fact that cannot be ignored is...embryonic life must be destroyed before stem cells can be harvested.

 

Xenophobic, afraid of what they don't know.

 

No, while it is fun to stereotype, this is totally false. While ignorance can lead to xenophobia, just because someone disagrees with the prevailing belief in science does not mean that the person is afraid of what they don't know. In the case of embryonic research, it is actually because of what they DO know.

 

Pick up a book other than the bible and maybe learn something for a change. Religion is only holding progression back.

 

Again, the assumption is that religious people only read the Bible. And while it is sarcastic and fun to say, it is (at least in my personal experience) not even close to true. But hey, it is a good way to vent.

 

As for religion holding back progression, it is IF you define the destruction of human lives as progression.

 

Bush should remember that the only reason that he is president today is because one man did not believe the Earth was flat and discovered America.

 

While you obviously have some insight into science, do you have much in history? Yes, I have a minor in history, and I love to read history.

 

Here are some articles to read.....

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

http://arc.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

http://www.textbookleague.org/26flat.htm

 

...and I could go on and on.

 

If your assumption is that Christians believed that the earth was flat, then it is wrong. If you thought that Columbus was the only one who believed the earth was round, then you are mistaken.

 

Please research this subject for future reference.

 

As for Bush being president because Columbus discovered America, maybe. However, one could easily argue that it is because the Vikings discovered it. Or perhaps because the.... Oh well.

 

The man that discovered antibiotics was nearly lynched because cured syphilis, undoing gods revenge on sinners.

 

Do you have any source that shows this to be true?

 

Anyhow, interesting post, but as I have shown, there are numerous statements that are not true.

 

The opposition to embryonic stem cell research is only for one reason....it ends the lives of humans to save the lives of other humans. This is unethical, immoral, and plain wrong by any standard.

[DutchGuy]

So you are a college student? Or are you a professional scientist who studies biotechnology?

I'm a college student.

So, you think it is okay to end the lives of many, many embryos to save other lives?

 

Are you in favor of killing prisoners for their organs? And if not, why not...so many lives would be saved who will die. Isn't it better to save the lives of the innocent than to keep those condemned to die alive?

Firstly, it is widely suggested to use the cells of allready aborted embryos in consent with the 'parents'.

Secondly, I do not see the abortion of an embryo as ending a life. An embryo is merely potential life, most people wouldn't even be able to tell a whale embryo from a human embryo. An embryo has no feelings, no emotions, the only value it has is the value the 'parent' gives it. Clearly someone that aborts an embryo does not consider it a living human being.

 

I would like to see that prisoners on death row got screened so that if they matched a person in need of an organ, that organ could be harvested (meaning that the prisoner got executed earlier or stay alive untill there would be use for his/her organs).

 

I also would like to see the worst criminals to be subjected to clinical testing, thereby paying back to the community for what they did. Don't think I go Mengele on you, even animal testing is very humane, trust me, I've seen it.

 

But, embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Why do we feel it is so much better to destroy lives to heal lives when we can actually create cures without destroying lives?

 

We get so hung up on "the ignorant believers" who "stand in the way of progress" that we don't sit back and examine the reality....there are answers and cures without the need for terminating human lives. Adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction.

Do you really think there would be a demand for embryonic stem cells if there were other options? You can operate a person with household tools, but everybody agrees medical instruments are better.

 

Embryonic stem cells would give us the power to get cures faster, cheaper and better. I already admitted that there will most likely be better solutions in the future but it may take decades. My question is, do we let thousands of people die so we can save embryos, people that have families, families that are also destroyed. Whereas embryos have no loved ones (except people that put that value on embryos, but then again, those people won't abort).

 

 

There are many different types of scaffolds. Would you want a scaffold that caused the death of the builders of the scaffold? Or would it be much better to build the house with a scaffold that ended no lives?

There is no other scaffold in this matter. Developing a scaffold (making 'embryonic stem cells' out of adult stem cells may take decades, decades in which people die).

 

Scientists are people who also do what they feel is "proper." As you know, ethics are an important part of science, too. Your assumption seems to be that only the scientists have the capability of monitoring scientific research.

Scientists can't do jack if they are not supported by the government or even their own boss. Ethics are important because science needs to be put in perspective, otherwise scientists would do the most outrageous experiments just to see what happens. Given the fact that scientists are people too and that they are very much concerned with ethics, I don't see why laymen have to mix into business they don't fully understand.

 

We agree. Too much money is put into cures and not enough into prevention. However, much of the reason for this is not driven by religion or ignorance, but instead it is driven by .....money.

 

The gray haired old men have the money to pay for the cures, while the millions of sick kids do not. This is sad.

 

And prevention is better for people, but if all disease was prevented, then drug companies would lose business. So, they focus on what pays.

Agreed

 

But they do know that embryos must lose their lives if the stem cells are to be harvested. This is enough for those who see that "baby" humans will be destroyed to save the lives of "adult" humans.

Embryos are not babies. An embryo has the value (and very much appearance) of a snail. The boiling of mussels is more inhumane than aborting an embryo. Jacking off causes millions of potential lives to cease existing. It's up to the people, if you don't want to be cured at the expense of embryonic rest material, then don't. But the people that do want to be helped in this manner should be able to.

 

This is almost too funny except I think you believe it to be true. I am friends with many "believers" who are PhD scientists...including a father...who know a lot more than I am wagering that you do. Funny thing is...they feel that the push for embryonic stem cell research is being driven by politics. People who are ignorant of what can be done without destroying embryos are latching onto the public protests by Hollywood actors and actresses. These people certainly are not smarter than the "believers" when it comes to research. They simply have accepted what they are told.

 

Ignorance easily goes both ways, but the one fact that cannot be ignored is...embryonic life must be destroyed before stem cells can be harvested.

Politicians have scientific advisors. And religious advisors for that matter. Fact to the matter is that once you 'believe', you feel differently about embryos and it really is no option anymore to extract cells from them. Once the option is ruled out, the half ass substitutes look a lot more attractive.

 

'Embryonic life' does not exist.

 

No, while it is fun to stereotype, this is totally false. While ignorance can lead to xenophobia, just because someone disagrees with the prevailing belief in science does not mean that the person is afraid of what they don't know. In the case of embryonic research, it is actually because of what they DO know.

No, of what they think to know. They think to know that abortion is murder.

 

Again, the assumption is that religious people only read the Bible. And while it is sarcastic and fun to say, it is (at least in my personal experience) not even close to true. But hey, it is a good way to vent.

 

As for religion holding back progression, it is IF you define the destruction of human lives as progression.

Ofcourse I don't think they only read the bible. But they do believe that it is the only truth. In that case it doesn't matter what you read besides the bible, because the moment it contradicts with the bible, it's being discarted.

 

While you obviously have some insight into science, do you have much in history? Yes, I have a minor in history, and I love to read history.

 

Here are some articles to read.....

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

http://arc.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

http://www.textbookleague.org/26flat.htm

 

...and I could go on and on.

 

If your assumption is that Christians believed that the earth was flat, then it is wrong. If you thought that Columbus was the only one who believed the earth was round, then you are mistaken.

 

Please research this subject for future reference.

 

As for Bush being president because Columbus discovered America, maybe. However, one could easily argue that it is because the Vikings discovered it. Or perhaps because the.... Oh well.

The essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Also only a flat Earth would be able to have a tree in it's centre. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”

 

Keep in mind that these words are the exact truth as spoken by god.

 

I know that Columbus was not the only one that thought the Earth was spherical.

 

As for the vikings, they never mapped the location.

 

Do you have any source that shows this to be true?

 

Anyhow, interesting post, but as I have shown, there are numerous statements that are not true.

 

The opposition to embryonic stem cell research is only for one reason....it ends the lives of humans to save the lives of other humans. This is unethical, immoral, and plain wrong by any standard.

Look for 'Paul Ehrlich' and 'magic bullit'.

 

Your conclusion is wrong. Not only are embryos not human beings, not using embryonic stem cells for research will cost real lives.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Secondly, I do not see the abortion of an embryo as ending a life. An embryo is merely potential life, most people wouldn't even be able to tell a whale embryo from a human embryo.

 

? Are you trying to argue that an embryo is not alive? Then why do you have to kill it?

 

Also, it's stupid to say that just because it looks like a whale embryo that it is one. Jeeze, do you think it's going to morph into a puppy or something?

 

Embryos are not babies. An embryo has the value (and very much appearance) of a snail. The boiling of mussels is more inhumane than aborting an embryo. Jacking off causes millions of potential lives to cease existing. It's up to the people, if you don't want to be cured at the expense of embryonic rest material, then don't. But the people that do want to be helped in this manner should be able to.

 

Again... your argument is that if something doesn't look particularly human it's ok to kill it? Do you extend this idea to developmentally disabled people as well?

 

I'm sorry to tell you this, but I have a strong background in Biotech and Genetics... Just because you don't think it looks human... doesn't mean that it isn't. I think the proof is in the DNA.

 

Also... How can you not see the obvious difference between a sperm and and embryo? That's high school biology.

[FleshNBones]

Firstly, it is widely suggested to use the cells of allready aborted embryos in consent with the 'parents'.

Do you consider them property of the parrents?

Secondly, I do not see the abortion of an embryo as ending a life. An embryo is merely potential life, most people wouldn't even be able to tell a whale embryo from a human embryo. An embryo has no feelings, no emotions, the only value it has is the value the 'parent' gives it. Clearly someone that aborts an embryo does not consider it a living human being.

This is a political opinion. A human embryo is biologically human, and seperate from the mother.

When you talk about value, you are referring to is social status. You seem to extend that viewpoint to antisocial people like death row inmates.

Social status doesn't mean anything in Christianity.

Do you really think there would be a demand for embryonic stem cells if there were other options?

Absolutely.

There two kind of solutions. There is the technically correct solution, and there is the politically correct solution.

With politics, having the politically correct solution is more important than providing working or practical solutions. The goal of the average politician is to acquire more power.

Embryonic stem cells would give us the power to get cures faster, cheaper and better. I already admitted that there will most likely be better solutions in the future but it may take decades. My question is, do we let thousands of people die so we can save embryos, people that have families, families that are also destroyed. Whereas embryos have no loved ones (except people that put that value on embryos, but then again, those people won't abort).

What it hasn't given us is results.

 

For the sake of argument, let's assume that it will produce working results 30 years from now. By then, treatments using adult stem cells should be mature, and widely available. I guess the question is, would there be a market for fetal stem cell treatment once it is ready? Would we be better off investing in vacuum tubes?

Your conclusion is wrong. Not only are embryos not human beings, not using embryonic stem cells for research will cost real lives.

There is a lot of hype behind embryonic research, but there are no real results to speak of. Only adult stem cell research has produced results.

[DutchGuy]

? Are you trying to argue that an embryo is not alive? Then why do you have to kill it?

 

Also, it's stupid to say that just because it looks like a whale embryo that it is one. Jeeze, do you think it's going to morph into a puppy or something?

There's no mentioning of 'killing'. There is mentioning of abortion, or termination. If you take an embryo out of the womb, it will not live.

Also, I'm not saying that human embryos are whale embryos? I'm merely illustrating the huge difference between an embryo and a full grown baby.

 

Like I said, it's your own right to regard embryos as 'alive' and 'living', but since it is allowed to abort embryos, it should also be allowed to use the rest material. Even if you regard embryos as living, we still use deceased people for research as well.

 

Again... your argument is that if something doesn't look particularly human it's ok to kill it? Do you extend this idea to developmentally disabled people as well?

 

I'm sorry to tell you this, but I have a strong background in Biotech and Genetics... Just because you don't think it looks human... doesn't mean that it isn't. I think the proof is in the DNA.

 

Also... How can you not see the obvious difference between a sperm and and embryo? That's high school biology.

As I am referring to the phenotype, of more importance is the resemblance mentally. Embryo's feel no pain, they are not aware, they don't exist yet spiritually. Disabled pople are living, caring, productive human beings, that have the right (and possibility) to decide over their own lives. An embryo is the property (and still a part of) the carrier. I personally do not believe that the 'father' has any right what so ever to decide whether the embryo is kept or aborted. After it gains the characteristics of a living organism (being able to live outside the womb) the father (see how this time I leave the '...' out) gains his right to decide about his son or daughter.

 

I didn't say it wasn't human, I'm saying that it is not a living human being. It has the potential to be a living human being, and that also accounts for sperm and egg cells. Ofcourse I see the difference between gametes and embryos, but my point is still valid. Gametes, as well as embryos, are not able to live on their own or withouit artificial help and therefore are not living individuals.

[DutchGuy]

Do you consider them property of the parrents?

I don't consider them parents, but I do consider them property of the carrier. Politically, this has been expanded to the male as well, although don't agree with that.

This is a political opinion. A human embryo is biologically human, and seperate from the mother.

When you talk about value, you are referring to is social status. You seem to extend that viewpoint to antisocial people like death row inmates.

Social status doesn't mean anything in Christianity.

Without the mother, the embryo can not start to live. It is technically a parasite and therefore very unseperate from the mother.

Not social, value given by the carrier. Society has nothing to say about the embryo that a woman carries. If a raped girl does not want to keep an embryo, she is fully allowed to get rid of it. From the point that the foetus is capable of living, society (the law) forbids to terminate the pregnancy.

I do not compare embryos to death row inmates, you asked me if it was okay to kill prisoners for their organs and I stated that it would be okay if they had gotten their death sentence anyway.

 

Social status means the world to christianity. Gays, Atheists, criminals, the promiscuous, they all go to hell. Do not feed me lies about everybody being equal to god because god himselve destroyed whomever he thought to be unjust. God killed the entire world population exept for Noah and his family (even killing all innocent animals, why the flood eh, just give everybody else a heart attack) only because he thought the people were of low social status. And god destroyed Sodom and Gomorra, saving Lot and his daughters because they were just (whereafter Lot had sex with his daughters, by the way).

Absolutely.

There two kind of solutions. There is the technically correct solution, and there is the politically correct solution.

With politics, having the politically correct solution is more important than providing working or practical solutions. The goal of the average politician is to acquire more power.

 

What it hasn't given us is results.

 

For the sake of argument, let's assume that it will produce working results 30 years from now. By then, treatments using adult stem cells should be mature, and widely available. I guess the question is, would there be a market for fetal stem cell treatment once it is ready? Would we be better off investing in vacuum tubes?

There is a lot of hype behind embryonic research, but there are no real results to speak of. Only adult stem cell research has produced results.

Ofcourse there are no results in fetal stem cell reserch because it is being held back everywhere.

If there would be results 30 years from now, it is most likely that those results would have been achieved way earlier if there was they opportunity to use embryonic stem cells.

[twice_shy]

I have no problem with umbilical cord stem cell research. Umbilical cords can be used and will provide for thorough researc.

[blind_otter]

Did you know that stem cells are present in human breast milk?

 

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20081102-16879.html

 

Think of the possibilities. Women donate breast milk all the time nowadays, there are programs for premies and for adults with compromised immune systems to get donated breast milk (it is all tested for diseases/drugs).

His team cultured cells from human breast milk and found a population that tested positive for the stem cell marker, nestin. Further analysis showed that a side population of the stem cells were of multiple lineages with the potential to differentiate into multiple cell types. This means the cells could potentially be “reprogrammed” to form many types of human tissue.

[twice_shy]

Precisely BO. There are many ways to conduct stem cell research.

 

But why libs are pushing for embryonic stem cell research? Easy, it helps their abortion cause.

[FleshNBones]

I don't consider them parents, but I do consider them property of the carrier. Politically, this has been expanded to the male as well, although don't agree with that.

The embryo is the offspring of two parents so yes they are parents.

Without the mother, the embryo can not start to live. It is technically a parasite and therefore very unseperate from the mother.

Not social, value given by the carrier. Society has nothing to say about the embryo that a woman carries. If a raped girl does not want to keep an embryo, she is fully allowed to get rid of it. From the point that the foetus is capable of living, society (the law) forbids to terminate the pregnancy.

I do not compare embryos to death row inmates, you asked me if it was okay to kill prisoners for their organs and I stated that it would be okay if they had gotten their death sentence anyway.

Technically, all humans are parasites. We don't exactly photosynthesize our own energy. The parasite you call an embryo is as seperate from the mother and you are from your food.

This topic has everything to do with abortion.

Social status means the world to christianity. Gays, Atheists, criminals, the promiscuous, they all go to hell. Do not feed me lies about everybody being equal to god because god himselve destroyed whomever he thought to be unjust. God killed the entire world population exept for Noah and his family (even killing all innocent animals, why the flood eh, just give everybody else a heart attack) only because he thought the people were of low social status. And god destroyed Sodom and Gomorra, saving Lot and his daughters because they were just (whereafter Lot had sex with his daughters, by the way).

Jesus reached out to everyone including prostitutes, tax collectors, leppers, the possessed, the poor, and even the rich.

Salvation is not a birthright, it isn't won through popular vote, and it can't be bought.

Ofcourse there are no results in fetal stem cell reserch because it is being held back everywhere.

If there would be results 30 years from now, it is most likely that those results would have been achieved way earlier if there was they opportunity to use embryonic stem cells.

I don't remember embryotic stem cell research being outlawed in the US. I am pretty sure it isn't being funded with government dollars.

 

Put enough rockets motors on a brick, and you can make it fly. That doesn't make it practical.

[Untouchable_Fire]

There's no mentioning of 'killing'. There is mentioning of abortion, or termination. If you take an embryo out of the womb, it will not live.

Also, I'm not saying that human embryos are whale embryos? I'm merely illustrating the huge difference between an embryo and a full grown baby.

Like I said, it's your own right to regard embryos as 'alive' and 'living', but since it is allowed to abort embryos, it should also be allowed to use the rest material. Even if you regard embryos as living, we still use deceased people for research as well.

 

Um... what's the difference between Terminating and Killing? Would it be acceptable if Nazi's terminated or post-natally aborted Jewish people?

 

Why does it matter that an embryo can't live outside of a womb?

 

I can't live outside of our atmosphere without some sort of technological assistance. Does that mean you may freely abort me as well?

 

Yes abortion is currently legal in this country, and we should use corpses for research, so long as the proper people have granted authority to do so. However, we should not build a situation which openly encourages creating life for the sole purpose of it's destruction.

 

As I am referring to the phenotype, of more importance is the resemblance mentally. Embryo's feel no pain, they are not aware, they don't exist yet spiritually. Disabled pople are living, caring, productive human beings, that have the right (and possibility) to decide over their own lives. An embryo is the property (and still a part of) the carrier. I personally do not believe that the 'father' has any right what so ever to decide whether the embryo is kept or aborted. After it gains the characteristics of a living organism (being able to live outside the womb) the father (see how this time I leave the '...' out) gains his right to decide about his son or daughter.

I didn't say it wasn't human, I'm saying that it is not a living human being. It has the potential to be a living human being, and that also accounts for sperm and egg cells. Ofcourse I see the difference between gametes and embryos, but my point is still valid. Gametes, as well as embryos, are not able to live on their own or withouit artificial help and therefore are not living individuals.

 

It is a slippery slope to argue that it's Ok to "terminate" an organism based on transient features such as phenotype and the ability to feel pain. Genotype and

 

You cannot arbitrarily choose a developmental stage of a person's life and say "this person we can kill". Then backwards try to justify that position so it doesn't seem ridiculous.

 

Here is the basic difference between your standpoint and mine. You simply don't care if an embryo might a person or not. I do.

 

I look at it like this. If he or she is a human, then killing it is murder, which is the worst of the possible outcomes. So, from there I say... what circumstances allow us to commit murder... then apply it to this situation.

 

Trust me, I've put a lot of time and thought into the stages of human development to see if one would permit us to end it's life at that point without due cause. So far I have found no appreciable evidence which would support that action. Pretty much all the stages in our development are linked... or are similar to another stage.

 

Then again... I don't assume I'm the smartest person on the planet either. I think that makes a difference.

[DutchGuy]

Um... what's the difference between Terminating and Killing? Would it be acceptable if Nazi's terminated or post-natally aborted Jewish people?

Whether you agree or not, to me, 'abortion vs killing' is like 'preventing sickness vs curing', the person wasn't cured because he never got sick, the embryo never got killed because it never became a living being.

Why does it matter that an embryo can't live outside of a womb?

 

I can't live outside of our atmosphere without some sort of technological assistance. Does that mean you may freely abort me as well?

You are already living. In this case you should be 'cured' by providing you the technical support to survive. You can't be aborted (please use the word correctly), no already living person can be aborted.

Yes abortion is currently legal in this country, and we should use corpses for research, so long as the proper people have granted authority to do so. However, we should not build a situation which openly encourages creating life for the sole purpose of it's destruction.

Ah, but you don't create life, do you? By the way, you could manipulate the circumstances so that the embryo would never be able to develop to a living human being, therefore taking away the potential of being a living thing. Terminating a pregnancy that never could result in a baby, how do you feel about that?

 

Cattle is being created for the sole purpose of destruction.

It is a slippery slope to argue that it's Ok to "terminate" an organism based on transient features such as phenotype and the ability to feel pain. Genotype and

 

You cannot arbitrarily choose a developmental stage of a person's life and say "this person we can kill". Then backwards try to justify that position so it doesn't seem ridiculous.

I'm also pro euthanasia.

Here is the basic difference between your standpoint and mine. You simply don't care if an embryo might a person or not. I do.

That's right.

Do you believe in anticonception?

Do you believe in the morning after pill?

Do you believe in the intrauterine device? (did you know that it allows embryos to form and keeps it from nesting into the womb)

 

Or are you just being a hypocrit?

I look at it like this. If he or she is a human, then killing it is murder, which is the worst of the possible outcomes. So, from there I say... what circumstances allow us to commit murder... then apply it to this situation.

Maybe we could accuse embryos of having weapons of mass destruction.

Or maybe we could say that this way, it could never grow up to own lots of oil.

Trust me, I've put a lot of time and thought into the stages of human development to see if one would permit us to end it's life at that point without due cause. So far I have found no appreciable evidence which would support that action. Pretty much all the stages in our development are linked... or are similar to another stage.

 

Then again... I don't assume I'm the smartest person on the planet either. I think that makes a difference.

I'm not saying I'm the smartest person in the world. I am convinced of my own opinion though. In college they force us to think about these things and trust me, I did and still do.