From the Jews of Israel: Green light for cord blood stem cell study

[Aces High]

I can only imagine how much more the Jews could accomplish if they were able to focus their resources on medical  and technological advances instead of diverting scarce resources to the  housing of  1.5 million murderous Arabs inside of Israel.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145626

[Aces High]

See if you can say, "Stem Cell study"  5 times in a row, quickly. 

[Dr. Dan]

This is good stuff. I know a lot of Israelis who recently had babies and saved the umbilical cord.  This is definitely much more ethical than using aborted babies..i mean embryos. 

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

If Jews stopped being self-hating and decided to cure their own (and the world's) diseases instead of doing everything in their power to help Nazis as Dr. Dan pointed out, we could soon see heaven on earth.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Oops, I meant Aces High

[Rubystars]

sounds good that they don't come directly from embryos

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

If they come from umbilical cells which are obviously not distinct human beings, then there is no moral problem at all.

[Rubystars]

If they come from umbilical cells which are obviously not distinct human beings, then there is no moral problem at all.

Unless some of those stem cells could in theory be pluripotent enough to potentially form an embryo, that's the only concern I have about it. I do think that it's very much morally superior to destroying an embryo that's already at the 8 cell stage though!

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

There is no way cord cells could turn into distinct human life left to their own devices. That is what is key. They are no different from unfertilized sperm and egg cells, at most. Neither are human organisms.

[Rubystars]

There is no way cord cells could turn into distinct human life left to their own devices. That is what is key. They are no different from unfertilized sperm and egg cells, at most. Neither are human organisms.

It's true that sperm and egg cells by themselves are not anything worth consideration. However some of the stem cells, the pluripotent ones, even if they're taken from skin cells or cord blood or whatever, can form something called an embryoid body that mimics regular embryonic development up to a certain point.

http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2008/0811/081113/full/stemcells.2008.146.html

[Meerkat]

Unless some of those stem cells could in theory be pluripotent enough to potentially form an embryo, that's the only concern I have about it. I do think that it's very much morally superior to destroying an embryo that's already at the 8 cell stage though!

every last cell in you can potentially be used as an embryo, im pretty sure we have the technology to reset a cell's gene blocking mechanisms which give it it's unique functions, if we don't have it yet, we will have it within a few short years.

[Rubystars]

every last cell in you can potentially be used as an embryo, im pretty sure we have the technology to reset a cell's gene blocking mechanisms which give it it's unique functions, if we don't have it yet, we will have it within a few short years.

True. I guess I feel weird about this whole thing because if we get upset about very early stage embryos being destroyed to harvest stem cells after conception but don't get upset at say, an embryo at the same level of development being destroyed because it happened to come from another type of cell other than a sperm and egg fused to make a zygote... then the scientists who are in that field might be inclined to laugh at conservatives for being ignorant of these facts. It becomes awkward to say 'cord blood' or 'adult stem cells' are ok and fine but embryonic stem cells are not, when the first two can also potentially form an embryo.

I do thing that it's better to use non-embryo derived stem cells because then you're not killing an embryo that's already alive and developing on its way to becoming a human being. On the other hand I think we also need to be vigilant when it comes to how these other types of cells are used. Are they being used to form embryos which will then be harvested, or are they simply being grown to produce specific tissues?

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I think you're right Rubystars. We now have the technology to create an embryo from non-egg cells. But this is completely unnatural and I think this is an abomination in and of itself. In and of itself a cord or skin cell is not a distinct human organism and has no way of becoming one. It does not have its own DNA or ability to turn into a human being. That is the bar that should be set, not what Frankenstinian (not to be confused with Fakestinian; Fakestinian "science" consists of smearing goat dung on your childrens' faces to protect them from the hot desert sun) science can do in the lab.

[Secularbeliever]

Unless some of those stem cells could in theory be pluripotent enough to potentially form an embryo, that's the only concern I have about it. I do think that it's very much morally superior to destroying an embryo that's already at the 8 cell stage though!

The umbilical chordis usually thrown away after birth.  I don't think there is any moral issue in using it to cure diseases.

[Rubystars]

I think you're right Rubystars. We now have the technology to create an embryo from non-egg cells. But this is completely unnatural and I think this is an abomination in and of itself. In and of itself a cord or skin cell is not a distinct human organism and has no way of becoming one. It does not have its own DNA or ability to turn into a human being. That is the bar that should be set, not what Frankenstinian (not to be confused with Fakestinian; Fakestinian "science" consists of smearing goat dung on your childrens' faces to protect them from the hot desert sun) science can do in the lab.

The thing is that if a human embryo IS created that could be a viable human being if allowed to fully develop, then it is worthy of consideration whether or not its origin is a sperm and egg or not. However I don't think there's anything wrong with most stem cell research that would come from using those types of stem cells. My point is that we also need to watch how those are used as well and not just write scientists a blank check on how to use them.

[Rubystars]

The umbilical chordis usually thrown away after birth.  I don't think there is any moral issue in using it to cure diseases.

There's not, unless it's used to create viable embryos.

[Meerkat]

True. I guess I feel weird about this whole thing because if we get upset about very early stage embryos being destroyed to harvest stem cells after conception but don't get upset at say, an embryo at the same level of development being destroyed because it happened to come from another type of cell other than a sperm and egg fused to make a zygote... then the scientists who are in that field might be inclined to laugh at conservatives for being ignorant of these facts. It becomes awkward to say 'cord blood' or 'adult stem cells' are ok and fine but embryonic stem cells are not, when the first two can also potentially form an embryo.

I do thing that it's better to use non-embryo derived stem cells because then you're not killing an embryo that's already alive and developing on its way to becoming a human being. On the other hand I think we also need to be vigilant when it comes to how these other types of cells are used. Are they being used to form embryos which will then be harvested, or are they simply being grown to produce specific tissues?

i define the begging of a life is when it is set in motion, i.e. when it starts consuming energy as an embryo in the womb.
the reason embryonic stem cells are more useful than adult stem cells is that an adult stem cell is more specialized. i.e. an embryo has no blocked genes, and hence, no defining characteristics, hence giving the people working of it a blank check. as an example of how much potential this has, you can outright build someone a new organ using embryonic stem cells with no possibility of auto-immune rejection (given you use the nucleus of the person who your building an organ for).

[Rubystars]

i define the begging of a life is when it is set in motion, i.e. when it starts consuming energy as an embryo in the womb.
the reason embryonic stem cells are more useful than adult stem cells is that an adult stem cell is more specialized. i.e. an embryo has no blocked genes, and hence, no defining characteristics, hence giving the people working of it a blank check. as an example of how much potential this has, you can outright build someone a new organ using embryonic stem cells with no possibility of auto-immune rejection (given you use the nucleus of the person who your building an organ for).

You could use someone's own adult stem cells and there are methods to make them pluripotent. I don't think it's right to destroy developing embryos.

[Meerkat]

You could use someone's own adult stem cells and there are methods to make them pluripotent. I don't think it's right to destroy developing embryos.

de-programming a cell effectively turns it into an embryonic cell.

[Rubystars]

de-programming a cell effectively turns it into an embryonic cell.

This is part of the problem I was trying to discuss in this thread. I think in those cases we need to watch how those cells are used. The fact that the origin of such cells are not actually from embryos but that the cells are turned into embryo-like cells does make a moral difference, but the fact that the cells might be misused is something we need to watch for. Does that make sense?