Stem Cells from aborted fetuses
 

I heard recently (from a friend who is an MD) that in some test cases they were able to get seven (I think that's the right number) out of seven patients treated with stem cells for severe congestive heart failure to regenerate their dead heart tissues simply by injecting their own stem cells into the heart. All seven of the patients have since been released from the hostpital and are on their ways to full recoveries. None were expected to live for very long without this treatment.

It really opens the eyes though as to what this technology could mean to the medical field. We could cure countless diseases and drastically improve the quality of life for many people.

There is a major contraversy over whether human stem cells from aborted fetuses should be used to further medical science -- and in the event of a breakthrough, be used to cure diseases (like Alzheimer's).

I can see the justification in objecting to doctors actually paying women to harvest fetuses from their wombs in order to obtain stem cells. However, I can't see the justification in just allowing this resource to simply be destroyed when tapping it could mean so much good could be done.

I believe that in this case we are wasting a valuable resource. Whatever your stance on abortion. It happens. This is the only good that I can see coming of this. Anyone have an opinion?

My family is pro-life. My father had a series of neurological problems, and was one of the early "guinea pigs" for botox. But when he was offered stem cells, he turned them down.

I see nothing wrong with creating some sort of medical bank to preserve umbilical cords, but once stem cell research becomes legal/acceptable, you're going to have thousands of women having babies aborted for spare parts. I can only pray that we never morally sink so low!

I fully support it.

-Rudey

I understand your sentiments Honeychile.

If we can possibly find a cure for Alzheimer's and other terminal diseases, I am all for using stem cells from aborted fetuses.

I don't see that happening unless doctors, labs, etc start offering these women compensation for the stem cells.

If a child dies, the parents have the right to donate that childs body to science for study, or perhaps organ donation. I see no difference between this and stem cells.

You know people always concentrate on the what ifs, and they take the what ifs to an extreme. What if we had a baby factory with sweat shop pregnant workers constantly making fetuses for us?

-Rudey
--What if pigs could fly?

Completely support it.

True. Why would anyone have an abortion she wouldn't otherwise have so the parts could be used for medical research? Would women just think that's such a fun idea they'd be lining up on the streets to do it? I'm about as pro choice as they come, and I can't even imagine anyone doing that. It would be easy enough to prohibit compensation for it -- aren't there laws against selling body parts?

i think you're right (but i do see your concern as well, honeychile)....as far as laws against selling body parts, i dunno. aren't there some ppl getting, i dunno, a couple thousand for their eggs? maybe not a body part, really, but still.....??

As far as I know, people can sell eggs and sperm. I'd never do it myself, but it's legal, probably because lawmakers like the idea behind it because it helps people have babies.

I support it.

Support it.

I support stem cell research. If it can create a cure to Parkinsons and Alzhiemers i say go for it. I buried a grandfather last yr who had both and if it can s ave a human being and their family what we and the reagans and any other family went through it should be performed. this is a brain diease and all dieases should have some support for research to cure the problem.

Support it.

My sister-in-law's mother was a "guinea pig" for stem cell research a few years ago. Because the treatment, she was able to live a few more months (she died of causes unrelated to her illness) and got to spend time with her family and friends.

Seeing how much good could be made of this technology, it's puzzling to me why the religious establishment seems to be so strongly against it. Are there any religious people here that could give us explanations as to why this practice seems to be considered immoral by so many? I think it's immoral NOT to do it.

Now I am just guessing here, but it might have something to do with the fact that they think abortion is immoral. Since stem cells come for aborted fetuses, and to them abortion is wrong, it therefore automatically makes stem cell research wrong.

There are so many legal abortions every year, what would be the possible incentive for your scenario honeychile?

It would only become an issue if abortion were made ilegal again, and I had to get out my clothes hanger and draino and charge 500 bucks to help women do what they are going to do otherwise.

In fact, stem cell research is so promising that i think we should take a pro-lifer out and beat him in public naked with a wet noodle for every person that dies because they delay this research out of their inability to seperate issues in their own minds.

I realize that most absolute fudnamentalists have had their ability to critically think severely stunted, but please.

This is almost as bad as Christian scientists that let their children die.

I guess if religion was 100% logical, they wouldn't talk about "faith" so much..

That pretty much sums it up for me. If there are going to be abortions, we might as well take something positive from it. If abortions became illegal again, I would have to significantly alter my stance.

Support it.

There are a LOT of things that are legal, but not moral. What would be the travesty is the person who is totally against abortion accepting the stem cells from an aborted child for his own reasons. That brings a new level to hypocrisy.

As for your argument that women will have abortions whether or not it's legal, I would respond that murder will always happen, but it's still illegal.

I also resent your insult to my intelligence. Being a woman of faith does not make me an imbecile, although I sometimes feel like one, responding to such posts.

You keep your special brand of "morality" and I'll stick to mine. That way, we'll both be able to sleep at night!

Well good, don't have an abortion and you will never be in conflict with your morality.

And let your God punish other transgressors against your morality. Why usurp his role? If you are comfortable with being right in an absolute sense than you will be vindicated later after you/they die.

Note: this only really applies when you support legislation to enforce your morality on others. If you are just expressing a viewpoint, thats totally different:)

ALL legislation enforces someone else's morals/values/ideas on society. That's what it is. I don't necessarily disagree with people doing that. Without morals, what would guide us in making laws?

What bothers me though is legislating according to one specific religion in a country that welcomes many religions. We are not ruled by the Christian Taliban. Let's keep it that way, please?

Well, if women are going to have abortions anyway, at least something good can come out of it. I support this practice. Am I still pro-life now? lol

Probably more so, since the use of stem cells can save and improve human lives.

I don't think I've ever agreed with anything more than this.

Stem cell research comprises a large part of the real incentive to continue modern medical research.

If you're against it, provide me a reason beyond "God hates it" - this is the most 'pro-life' thing on the planet.

Or does God's law only apply to unborn children?

People don't understand that the research will be done anyway. Except instead of our country being the best in science, now we're playing catchup to fricking Korea.

-Rudey

Well, at least science on our soil. PLENTY of American scientists have moved overseas to work on this. You can bet that our pharmaceutical companies aren't letting this slow their research down either.

I have a feeling that the law will be called into question very soon. The value of stem cells is being discovered to be simply too great to ignore.

I have no money invested in American pharma. So far my investments in a certain country I dislike with a passion has paid off quite nicely in the past couple weeks alone.

-Rudey

I support full scale, unregulated stem cell research.

We can introduce regulations after we actually understand what is going on.

I support stem cell research.

I have doubts that those who are against it will turn down the new medical advances that came from it. And therein lies the hypocrisy.

My father did. It's simply a matter of walking the talk. And if you question this, read the second post.

Otherwise they would be thrown away.

I donated all three of my girls umbilical cords and placenta. I also had the option of "banking" it with a private company should we ever need it. I've read that a large percentage of umbilical cords and placenta's are trashed after delivery. I find that unfortunate since the research in this area is so promising. I am personally pro-life, but do support the research on stem cells from the afterbirth of a delivery (not that we would ever be able to differentiate then from those of an aborted fetus).

They are developing methods for some cases that allow for stem cells to be extracted from a patient's bone marrow for use in the same patient. Perhaps we are our own cures.

This is a very exciting time for medical science.

If you're interested in learning more about the stem cell research debate...
 

Here is an interesting article written by two of the members of the President's Council on Bioethics:

Reason as Our Guide by Elizabeth Blackburn and Janet Rowley

*Basically, this article is saying that some of the reports written by the President's Council on Bioethics were biased and contained incomplete information. Here is an excerpt:

And here is some correspondence regarding the article:

Taking the Stem Cell Debate to the Public by Leonard I. Zon, Laurie Zoloth, and Suzanne Kadereit

*This is a pro-stem cell research article. Here is an excerpt:

Beyond Therapy … by Robert Sinsheimer

*This one disagrees with the first authors' approach and reasoning, but agrees with stem cell research:

Ethics as Our Guide by Michael Cook

*This article is concerned about the lack of ethics in the first article, and seems to be somewhat anti-stem cell research:

Scientists and Bioethics Councils by Anne McLaren

*This article is written by a UK researcher that agrees with a lack of scientific evidence in the President's Council:

A Voice for Research, a Voice for Patients by Daniel Perry

*This article complains about the lack of patients on the President's Council:

Ethereal Ethics by Robin Lovell-Badge

*This article was written by a member of bioethics councils in the U.K., and criticizes the U.S.'s approach to stem cell research (the U.K. has been supportive of such research):


Anyway, sorry about the long post, but I thought some people might be interested in what the scientific community is saying about the topic.

I think these experts are pretty much dead-on.

We're taking these knee-jerk reactions from uninformed politicians and projecting them on the scientific and medical communities without really giving these communities much say in the deal. I'm not surprised by these opinions and I agree with most of them.