Bush's first veto

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I certainly agree...it's always a matter of who's ox gets gored! Cheney has a g-ay daughter and that alters his view a bit. The danger of course is that they run out of available stem cells and abortion for profit becomes a reality...obviously, I have problems with that as I suspect many do, but I see no reason there can't be safeguards installed from the beginning to prevent that!

Somerfrost,
To my knowledge, these embryos don't come into existance through abortion.
They are harvested from the female donor and fertilized invitro.
Those that successfully come to term are the "snowflake" babies that surrounded Bush in his photo op.
However, since there are far more embroyos created than are implanted, the surplus are stored in liquid nitrogen until they are no longer viable.
We can start seperate threads on abortion and g-ay rights. These topics are not germain to the stem cell issue.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
To my knowledge, these embryos don't come into existance through abortion.
They are harvested from the female donor and fertilized invitro.
Those that successfully come to term are the "snowflake" babies that surrounded Bush in his photo op.
However, since there are far more embroyos created than are implanted, the surplus are stored in liquid nitrogen until they are no longer viable.
We can start seperate threads on abortion and g-ay rights. These topics are not germain to the stem cell issue.

I only mentioned g-ay rights in the context that initially arose from Pgardn's post...folks with personal involvements tend to alter their point of view whether it be stem cell, g-ay rights, or the fact that an Arab family is moving in next door! Abortion is germain to this issue as it remains the one significant danger. I support this research and recognize the tremendous benefit that it can produce to millions of people, my only issue is safeguards for the future when hopefully scientists have developed successful treatments for those millions requiring a huge supply of stem cells! I'll repeat myself...there is no reason this can't be done! There is no need to debate the morality of abortion here, that takes my concerns out of context!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I only mentioned g-ay rights in the context that initially arose from Pgardn's post...folks with personal involvements tend to alter their point of view whether it be stem cell, g-ay rights, or the fact that an Arab family is moving in next door! Abortion is germain to this issue as it remains the one significant danger. I support this research and recognize the tremendous benefit that it can produce to millions of people, my only issue is safeguards for the future when hopefully scientists have developed successful treatments for those millions requiring a huge supply of stem cells! I'll repeat myself...there is no reason this can't be done! There is no need to debate the morality of abortion here, that takes my concerns out of context!

Somerfrost,
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with much of your position.
Abortion is not the source of embryonic stem cells.
As far as needing a "huge supply of stem cells", that really isn't the case.
Of the 78 cell lines presently allowed, none of the colonies came from aborted fetuses. The issue is the current limitation of scientific investigation to those existing cell lines. Since stem cells are undifferentiated (therein their value), they can be replicated invitro to supply research. A "huge supply" is not necessary.
I agree that allowing more cell lines to be used for investigation should be done. It must be done.
My point is that discarding embryos is a complete waste, though it does serve a "moral" and political agenda.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with much of your position.
Abortion is not the source of embryonic stem cells.
As far as needing a "huge supply of stem cells", that really isn't the case.
Of the 78 cell lines presently allowed, none of the colonies came from aborted fetuses. The issue is the current limitation of scientific investigation to those existing cell lines. Since stem cells are undifferentiated (therein their value), they can be replicated invitro to supply research. A "huge supply" is not necessary.
I agree that allowing more cell lines to be used for investigation should be done. It must be done.
My point is that discarding embryos is a complete waste, though it does serve a "moral" and political agenda.

Political...yes! Moral...well, I think we agree there! No, my concern doesn't involve the research phase rather, down the road, where will the supply be generated for treatment of hopefully millions of folks who will benefit? Again, address this now and the issue goes away for me...I just don't want to see women getting pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting their baby for stem cells...there has already been a case involving something very similar so it's not science fiction.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Political...yes! Moral...well, I think we agree there! No, my concern doesn't involve the research phase rather, down the road, where will the supply be generated for treatment of hopefully millions of folks who will benefit? Again, address this now and the issue goes away for me...I just don't want to see women getting pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting their baby for stem cells...there has already been a case involving something very similar so it's not science fiction.

Thanks for the question.
Women don't become pregnant and then have their baby aborted to supply stem cells. That would be scientifically impossible. The cells would already have become differentiated long before the time that the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.
The value of stem cells is that they have not become differentiated, that is...
they haven't become nerve, heart, mucscle, etc tissue.
Stem cells (undifferentated cells) come into existance at the early stages of development, stage eight mitosis. This is when the fertilized ovume has divided eight times. At that point, it is a cluster of cells called an embryo.
At the next stage of mitosis (cell division), a tube develops that will later become the heart. Next comes the beginnings of neural tissue.
The stage of development that holds promise is before this occurs.
Embryos are created in a petri dish, outside of the donor female, for implantation. Eggs are harvested and fertilized invitro. The surplus have been stored in liquid nitrogen should the need for reimplantation occur.
Those that aren't needed are stored until they are no longer viable, then discarded.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Thanks for the question.
Women don't become pregnant and then have their baby aborted to supply stem cells. That would be scientifically impossible. The cells would already have become differentiated long before the time that the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.
The value of stem cells is that they have not become differentiated, that is...
they haven't become nerve, heart, mucscle, etc tissue.
Stem cells (undifferentated cells) come into existance at the early stages of development, stage eight mitosis. This is when the fertilized ovume has divided eight times. At that point, it is a cluster of cells called an embryo.
At the next stage of mitosis (cell division), a tube develops that will later become the heart. Next comes the beginnings of neural tissue.
The stage of development that holds promise is before this occurs.
Embryos are created in a petri dish, outside of the donor female, for inplantation. Eggs are harvested and fertilized invitro. The surplus have been stored in liquid nitrogen should the need for reimplantation occur.
Those that aren't needed are stored until they are no longer viable, then discarded.

OK, thanks for that clarification...in that case, I have no objection whatsoever! Do you recall the case I'm referring to? A woman wanted to abort her fetus/child in order to use something (thought it was stem cells) to help her ailing father. He was apparently a well-known scientist, perhaps a Nobel winner? Anyway, her argument centered around the fact that her father's life was more valuable than an unborn...raised the hair on the back of my neck instantly!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

OK, thanks for that clarification...in that case, I have no objection whatsoever! Do you recall the case I'm referring to? A woman wanted to abort her fetus/child in order to use something (thought it was stem cells) to help her ailing father. He was apparently a well-known scientist, perhaps a Nobel winner? Anyway, her argument centered around the fact that her father's life was more valuable than an unborn...raised the hair on the back of my neck instantly!

I'm not familiar with the case.
I personally do not believe that a life should be taken to preserve someone elses. In my opinion, that's just plain wrong.