Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Downthestretch55
Genuine Risk,
I was responding to Somerfrost's post about a concern he had about a woman that was willing to abort her fetus so that organs could be transplanted to her father..though I don't know about the case cited.
He needed clarification as to where stem cells came from and what they were used for. I hope I provided the information requested.
Again, stem cells come from unused embryos that are surplus from "fertility clinics". At that stage, they are not viable "human beings". They are destined to be discarded should an appropriate surrogate mother not be found. The amount of available embryos sitting in a thermos of liquid nitrogen is way beyond that possibility.
My opinion is that they are NOT viable human life at that point. They are a cluster of undifferentiated cells that can be used for scientific purposes. In my belief, there is a huge difference between an embryo and a fetus.
Discarding embryos denies the scientific community of finding answers that could help many people.
If you go back to my first post on this thread, you'll see the genes that are of specific interest to my son. His quest is to find the genetic "triggers" that cause a condition that occurs AFTER stage eight mitosis called (in "lay man's terms) hole in the heart. It's when the heart malforms and blood pumps between the left and right ventricles. This condition is seen in six of ten thousand live births and the newborns are rushed to the OR for "open heart surgery".
It is my hope that he and his fellow scientists can pursue their investigations and thereby help many, without the interferance of "moral politicians".
|
DTS, I apologize if I'm being unclear-- I have NO issue with stem-cell research; I think it's offers great possibilities for all kinds of medical conditions, and I, too, think there is a difference between an embryo and a fetus, just as I think there is a difference between a fetus and a baby. I'm with the WHO; pregnancy doesn't begin until the embryo attaches to the wall of the uterus. I'm saying that assorted religious right-wingers out there will stamp their feet and yell that as soon as an egg is fertilized it is now "life" and must not be used in the name of scientific research. I was pissed-off at Bush's wussy little deceptive "compromise" back in 2001, and I'm pissed-off at his stupid pandering veto, even though I expected no better from him. My point was, if these right-wingers are forced to pursue their line of thinking far enough, they usually start backing away from the full implications of insisting life begins with a fertilized eggs, which are that fertility clinics are baby-killing factories, since they discard thousands of fertilized embryos. Which, of course, they aren't; that's silly. Just as silly as refusing to let discarded embryos be used for research.
Screaming liberal here, remember? Pro-choice, pro-sex ed, pro stem-cell research, pro-raising the minimum wage, pro universal health care and all that. Anything that can make the lives of everyday Americans better.
And thanks for the info on the specifics of embryos-- it was really interesting reading!!!