Spinal-Cord Injury Victim First to Undergo Embryonic Stem-Cell Therapy

[wsansewjs]

Still have not addressed the problem with how these embryos come to be in the first place which is just as problematic as the killing of embryos. As I said earlier, not killing the embryo is a step forward but does not completely address the moral issues at play in this debate. And is spending an eternity in the freezer really much better than killing them either?

Now we are going back to the full circle again... What happens to those eggs that were naturally discharged by active women during their periods?

Is that too early to call it 'killing?' Personally, I do believe that we ALL do agree that killing is not an option.

-Josh

[Fallen Buckeye]

Goes back to the question of whether it is an act of will. A woman is not willfully killing someone in your scenario, and I think common sense tells you that miscarriage is fundamentally different than abortion, contraception, harvesting embryos, or morning after pills.

Take a look at this video. You can see for yourself that adult stem cells lead to viable treatment options while respecting the sanctity of human life. Win-win.

http://youtu.be/lAI5rLnnCBE

[wsansewjs]

...adult stem cells lead to viable treatment options while respecting the sanctity of human life. Win-win.

Once again, the adult stem cells leading to viable treatment options is still NOT enough for certain diseases, cancers, and conditions.

-Josh

[FayeforCure]

Goes back to the question of whether it is an act of will. A woman is not willfully killing someone in your scenario, and I think common sense tells you that miscarriage is fundamentally different than abortion, contraception, harvesting embryos, or morning after pills.

Once more:

Clem and Buckeye, the solution is simple: Given your religious convictions I would suggest you don't partake of the cures that are being developed, just as the Jehova Witnesses refuse blood transfusions.

At least the Jehova Witnesses are not trying to ban blood transfusions for the rest of us 

BTW are you aware that you probably overstepped your own moral reasoning already?



Quote

Vaccines Grown on Aborted Fetal Tissue
The following vaccines are grown on aborted fetal tissue - rabies, some mumps, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis a, smallpox (some), ipv. One of the single measles vaccines is further attenuated in diploid cells



http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/abortedtissue.htm

Just like Jehova Witnesses are respectful of others' wishes, so do I request you are too.

I am adamantly opposed to war spending, but my tax monies go there anyway.

[Fallen Buckeye]

You're really seeing what you want to see here. Here is a sampling of treatments produced or showing promise:

Adult stem cell transplants are also widely used to treat such diseases as anemias, leukemias, lymphomas, and other cancers. Additional treatable diseases are Fanconi anemia, pure red cell aplasia, juvenile chronic myelogenous leukemia, juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia, immune deficiencies, and some genetic diseases. [35]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1747686/posts

Advances in the use of 'adult stem cells' to treat other diseases have been impressive and reports of possible success using adult stem cells to treat disorders are emerging every day.
•A major study has shown that treating heart muscle that has been damaged by a heart attack with stem cells can repair the injured heart tissue.  Patients who were studied showed a measurable improvement in heart and lung function. 1
•UCLA researchers reported the first successful adult neural stem cell transplantation to reverse the effects of Parkinson's disease and demonstrate the long term safety and therapeutic effects of this approach in spring 2009.2
• Research has shown a variety of promising approaches to the treatment of Alzheimer’s with adult stem cells. Adult stem cell therapy may offer a safe and effective treatment for a disease which was previously considered to be irreversible.3
•In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood. The results published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) show that insulin-dependent diabetics can be freed from reliance on needles by an injection of their own stem cells. The therapy could signal a revolution in the treatment of the condition.4
•Twenty-three patients regained their eyesight following limbal (adult) stem cell transplants. This treatment has helped many suffering from blindness for years, including victims of Iraqi mustard gas attacks.5
•Ninety percent of 19 patients with various autoimmune disorders, such as systemic lupus, are in remission or have improved after treatment with their own blood stem cells.6

http://healthworldnet.com/HeadsOrTails/Adult-Stem-Cell-Therapy/?C=7863

You can use the links to look up their references if you'd like. Not to mention the fact that you could see for yourself someone successfully treated for the effects of TB. So you can see for yourself the wide utility of adult stem cells. Treats ailments ranging from cancer to blindness to TB to heart problems. Simply put, your argument does not hold water.

Also, though you would be interested to see some unintended side effects of using embryonic stem cells:

EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS are another potential source for regenerative treatments. But, we pointed out, unlike adult stem cell treatments, ES cells cannot be used in human studies because of two fundamental safety issues. First, they cause tumors in animal studies. For example, in one recent experiment, ES cells were injected into a mouse in the hope they would rebuild the animal's damaged knee. Instead, the cells obliterated the knee by stimulating tumor growth. (More recently, an adult stem cell animal study successfully rebuilt joints without causing tumors.)

Thank you and good night.

[FayeforCure]

You are proving once again that adult stem cell treatments are an excellent option for blood related conditions. Unfortunately central nervous tissue damage is NOT a blood related disorder.

[hooplady]

SCI is like nothing else, and it will take a treatment like nothing else to fix it.  Doesn't sound like adult stem cells are the answer to this one.  So if Faye & I wear mooncups and harvest our own damn blastocysts, is that ethically OK with everybody?  I promise not to kill 'em, but I dunno how I will take their little pulses...

[wsansewjs]

Its this kind of rank hypocrisy that I find so nauseating when it comes to these discussions.

To whom? 

-Josh

[Fallen Buckeye]

Faye, apparently  'life' is only valuable if it is only still a potential life.  The second that it emerges from the womb, it seems to lose all meaning or value according to the other posters in this thread.

Its this kind of rank hypocrisy that I find so nauseating when it comes to these discussions.

That's an unfair characterization. And frankly that's a bold statement for someone who does not know the details of my personal life, and I'd wager that you know little about how most like-minded posters spend their time as well. I could provide several examples to refute this claim, but I will offer only one for the time being. (This is a little off-topic for stem cell research, but in the same respect life umbrella.) If pro-lifers really do not value life after birth, then why is it that Emergency Pregnancy Services - a program largely devoted to preventing abortion - also provides material support such as clothing, diaper, cribs, etc. to new mothers. Also, if they have no concern for life after birth why would they bother to offer counselling to  mothers who've had abortions and who may have other issues. In fact, I know that many of these pro-lifers who rally against embryonic stem cell research and abortion are just as active in helping the poor, the disabled, and those at the margins of society. Here's the links in case you want to verify that these services exist.
http://www.epsjax.org/ourprograms.html
http://www.fcws.org/
http://www.pregnancyjacksonville.com/our_services.htm

Now I really try to assume that even those who disagree with me have good intentions, and I try to treat them with the respect they are due as a human being. So if I have ever said anything that could be construed as disrespectful, I apologize. I really am trying to present a respectful argument based on facts and logic and morality. Although I feel disrespected by your statement, I'm going to assume you genuinely misunderstand my motivation and worldview and call it even. In the meantime, I will continue to pray that you all may come to see the true sanctity of a human life from conception to natural death. God bless.

P.S.-Faye, I am admittedly no expert, but I believe Alzheimers and Parkinsons are nervous system conditions which were mentioned as probably treatable through adult neural stem cells. And also I'm not saying necessarily that it's impossible to treat with embryonic stem cells. Even so, the question really should be not is it possible, but is it just to exploit a person by taking what we need from them and then putting them into a freezer forever or to being using treatments that inadvertently uphold another process that destroys lives (IVF)? These people do not have the ability to speak for themselves which I why I feel the obligation to protect them not because of disdain for you or a lack of compassion for people who suffer from terrible burdens such as your son.

[FayeforCure]

P.S.-Faye, I am admittedly no expert, but I believe Alzheimers and Parkinsons are nervous system conditions which were mentioned as probably treatable through adult neural stem cells. And also I'm not saying necessarily that it's impossible to treat with embryonic stem cells. Even so, the question really should be not is it possible, but is it just to exploit a person by taking what we need from them and then putting them into a freezer forever or to being using treatments that inadvertently uphold another process that destroys lives (IVF)? These people do not have the ability to speak for themselves which I why I feel the obligation to protect them not because of disdain for you or a lack of compassion for people who suffer from terrible burdens such as your son.

You are right about Alzheimers and Parkinsons being nervous system disorders, and it would be wonderful if we saw people with Alzheimers and Parkinsons be cured en masse by adult stem cell treatments...........which is however not true. Why are people still dying of Alzheimers and Parkinsons if effective adult stem cell treatments were available?

I hope we can both agree that taking one single cell from a blastocyst and returning it to the freezer where more than 600,000 blastocysts are already stored so that we may heal hundreds of thousands of people of horrendous conditions, is acceptable.

BTW, help for disabled people or young single mothers is "feel good" stuff. I have a disabled child and I am a single mother........and I never found there to be any substantial on-going help. All they ever do is collect names to show how good they are and give sporadic help. Compared to the passion of saving the unborn lives, it's quite pathetic.

I have also not seen the 60 yrs old and up women who are so passionate about saving the blastocysts, ever offering their uterusses to bring any of these blastcysts to life The numbers that are currently frozen are about 600,000 and continues to increase. Why aren't these pro-life women helping to bring the blastocysts to life?

[BridgeTroll]

Faye, apparently  'life' is only valuable if it is only still a potential life.  The second that it emerges from the womb, it seems to lose all meaning or value according to the other posters in this thread.

Its this kind of rank hypocrisy that I find so nauseating when it comes to these discussions.

That's an unfair characterization. And frankly that's a bold statement for someone who does not know the details of my personal life, and I'd wager that you know little about how most like-minded posters spend their time as well.

Be careful FB... you may soon be accused of racism too...

[FayeforCure]

Faye, apparently  'life' is only valuable if it is only still a potential life.  The second that it emerges from the womb, it seems to lose all meaning or value according to the other posters in this thread.

Its this kind of rank hypocrisy that I find so nauseating when it comes to these discussions.

So true! Fortunately two-thirds of Americans are VERY supportive of embryonic stem cell research on cells donated by patients at IVF clinics, regardless of what their religion tells them.

Many Americans approve of stem cell research for curing serious diseases

Most Americans trust their own judgment on the subject more than their churches or other authorities


Share

June 28, 2011
By Claudene Wharton


University of Nevada, Reno sociologist Mariah Evans, lead author of the study published this month, “U.S. attitudes toward human embryonic stem cell research.”

While research using human embryonic stem cells has roused political controversy for almost two decades, little has been done to scientifically assess American attitudes on the subject.

New research from the University of Nevada, Reno provides decision-makers with a much clearer picture of how their constituents truly feel about the subject.

The study, “U.S. attitudes toward human embryonic stem cell research,” published this month in the journal, Nature Biotechnology, was conducted by University of Nevada, Reno faculty members Mariah Evans (lead author) and Jonathan Kelley, who surveyed a large, representative national sample of 2,295 respondents in 2009. Their most significant findings include:

- More than two-thirds of respondents approved of using therapeutic cloning (nuclear transfer of the patient’s own genes) and stem cells from in vitro fertilized embryos to cure cancer or treat heart attacks, while only about one in six respondents did not approve. Therapeutic cloning remains banned in the United States today. About one in six respondents had mixed feelings or was undecided.

- Over two-thirds of respondents also approved of a newer, less-researched method â€" using modified adult cells as an alternative to using cells from in vitro fertilized embryos â€" if the use could cure cancer or treat heart attacks. Less than 15 percent did not approve. About one in five had mixed feelings or was undecided.

- Almost half (43 to 47 percent) of respondents also approve of use of therapeutic cloning, stem cells from in vitro fertilized embryos and stem cells from an adult to treat allergies, but slightly over one in four do not. And, 28 to 29 percent have mixed feelings or undecided in this regard. These findings indicate that while more respondents approve of the use of these methods for treatment of less-serious conditions than disapprove of it, the approval is not as strong as it is for using these methods to treat more serious conditions and diseases, such as cancer or heart attacks.

- Respondents were not as approving of use of these methods for cosmetic purposes, such as creating new skin to restore someone’s youthful appearance. Almost one-half (45 to 50 percent) disapproved of this use, while only slightly more than one-quarter (25 to 29 percent) approved of this use. About one-quarter had mixed feelings or were undecided.

- Respondents did not support human reproductive cloning, neither of themselves nor of a child who died, with almost three-quarters (71 to 73 percent) disapproving and only about one in 10 approving. About one in five had mixed feelings or was undecided.

- Respondents were quite evenly divided in their thoughts on animal cloning with slightly over a third approving, slightly over a third disapproving, and about one-quarter having mixed feelings or being undecided.

Evans, a sociologist, also found it interesting that the majority of respondents trusted their own judgment most when deciding on their approval or disapproval on stem cell research issues, rather than looking to their church or other authorities, such as governmental ethics committees.

“The vast majority, over two-thirds, said that in deciding whether it is right to allow these treatments, they would follow their own judgment,” she said. “Only 4 percent gave greater moral weight to the Catholic Church than to themselves, and even among committed church-going Catholics, only about one in five defer to the church on these matters.”

The study also revealed that despite the Catholic Church’s firm opposition, support for the use of stem cell research for the cure or treatment of serious diseases was almost as strong among Catholic laity as among Protestants. Even those in the most disapproving demographic group, churchgoing fundamentalist women, were still more in favor than opposed.

To view the entire study as published in Nature Biotechnology, go to http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n6/full/nbt.1891.html.

Fallen Buckeye is in the very, very tiny minority and I would suggest that FB apply his/her moral direction to his/her own life rather than force it on others.

"Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to condemn than to think."
-Emma Goldman

[Fallen Buckeye]

I don't look to the majority to decide what is right and wrong. A majority of people also used to smoke like chimneys. Didn't work out so well. Also, if you read the part where Catholic and Protestants feelings toward stem cell research are compared you will see that which type of stem cell is not specified which really means either the article is poorly written or the survey questions are. The Catholic Church is not opposed to all stem cell research, so the Church's position is mischaracterized. (BTW I also have never condemned stem cell research as a whole only embryonic stem cell research.)

I have no desire to and indeed cannot force my beliefs on others. However, I hope in presenting the facts that I can help people begin asking questions of themselves that will lead them to the truth. For those who are interested, this link contains a document outlining some of the reasoning behind why I so adamantly defend the sanctity of life which is of course intimately and naturally related to marriage and family.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html Good night and God bless.

Finally, I would like to say I am disappointed that this conversation has degraded to the point that my integrity and intelligence are being attacked. If advocating for justice means sacrificing my pride, then so be it. If anything, I hope I have been gracious in my opposition. I disagree with your positions, but I wish you no ill will. God bless you and good night.

[FayeforCure]

Also, if you read the part where Catholic and Protestants feelings toward stem cell research are compared you will see that which type of stem cell is not specified which really means either the article is poorly written or the survey questions are. The Catholic Church is not opposed to all stem cell research, so the Church's position is mischaracterized. (BTW I also have never condemned stem cell research as a whole only embryonic stem cell research.)

The entire article is about American attitudes towards embryonic stem cell research...........so you are even in the minority among your religious peers..........which I assume is catholics.

The article is unambiguous about its assertions:

The study also revealed that despite the Catholic Church’s firm opposition (to ESCR), support for the use of stem cell research (the type the church opposes ie ESCR) for the cure or treatment of serious diseases was almost as strong among Catholic laity as among Protestants.

The words "stem cell research" usually gets equated with ESCR among catholics, and people like you try to convince us that adult stem cell research is both sufficient and better and is supported by the Catholic Church. I don't know why you even bother as most people who support ECSR are well-aware of the Catholic Church's position.

When I was a poll greeter at San Juan Del Rio Catholic church in 2004, and I had a simple sign saying:
Support Stem Cell Research
The priest immediately asked me kindly to remove it because he said it was offensive to the catholics. I said: "Why? It doesn't say "embryonic" stem cell research. Catholics shouldn't be offended by the sign because they do support adult stem cell research." So catholics immediately assume we are talking about ESCR when the words stem cell research are uttered.

The article clearly states that despite their church's opposition, the majority of Catholics support ESCR, just like they do for the PILL and other birth control methods besides the condom that their church is against.

BTW I always thought it was wrong for counties to pay churches for use as election locations. They should be using schools and other public places instead.