Bush's first veto

[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.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

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.

... and that's exactly the position extremist anti-choicers and anti-stem cell researchers take. If you believe life begins at conception, then you can't support harvesting stem cells. Nor should you be supporting fertility clinics, but they don't tend to take their thought processes that far.

Mind you, I'm ardently pro-stem cell research and also ardently pro-choice (after much, much soul searching and hypothetical arguing with myself years ago as a teenager and young adult). And I can respect, if disagree with, people who are consistent in their beliefs about when life begins and when it is appropriate to end it. What makes me so crazy about Bush is it's all about political posturing-- stem cells, valuable, full human beings! Discarded clinic embryos... wha? What did you say? Me no understandy...

Again, guys; I love how, in the midst of all the passionate horse-race talk, these off-talk issues can come up and people can disagree and debate and toss around ideas kindly and with civility. You all make me proud to be a horse-racing fan and honored to be a member of this board.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

... and that's exactly the position extremist anti-choicers and anti-stem cell researchers take. If you believe life begins at conception, then you can't support harvesting stem cells. Nor should you be supporting fertility clinics, but they don't tend to take their thought processes that far.

Mind you, I'm ardently pro-stem cell research and also ardently pro-choice (after much, much soul searching and hypothetical arguing with myself years ago as a teenager and young adult). And I can respect, if disagree with, people who are consistent in their beliefs about when life begins and when it is appropriate to end it. What makes me so crazy about Bush is it's all about political posturing-- stem cells, valuable, full human beings! Discarded clinic embryos... wha? What did you say? Me no understandy...

Again, guys; I love how, in the midst of all the passionate horse-race talk, these off-talk issues can come up and people can disagree and debate and toss around ideas kindly and with civility. You all make me proud to be a horse-racing fan and honored to be a member of this board.

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".