I don't think we should ban abortion or stem cell research. I agree it's wrong to use abortion as a form of birth control, but if the fetus is going to die anyway, we should at least help others with it. My example is Jacob Jabonski, that 16 year old who is paralyzed from the neck down. If you take away stem cells, you take away his life. And that is cruel.
A blasocyt isnt even an actual human. Just about 120 cells. While yes, it is a potential life it is technically not alive or a concious living organism.
The pro-life movement has never been opposed to responsible medical research. But we also know that there is no more evil or dangerous force on earth than science without morality. Whether fetal tissue research or embryonic stem cell research is morally defensible or not is dependent on how the tissue and cells are obtained.
I utterly fail to see why embryonic stem cell research is controversial. I'd worry more about harming a worm or a fly than using a blastocyst for research. It matters little if embryonic is less effective than adult or vice versa; the problem here is WHY does it generate so much controversy? People can be so thick at times.
If the material comes from umbilical cords, or placenta, or from babies who died in some natural manner (miscarriage, stillbirth, accident, etc.) few people would raise a moral objection.
However, America crossed the line when it began using parts taken from babies who were intentionally killed by abortion, and we obliterated the line when we began creating human life for the stated purpose of destroying it and using it in medical experiments.
@geewhiz747 Hundreds of patients can be treated from the stem cells obtained from one aborted fetus. People can and do have abortions so the question really is can we use the already aborted fetus for good or do we just throw it away. It is a common misconception that babies are aborted so that others may be treated. In fact babies are aborted, full stop. Whether we use them for stem cell treatment or not has no affect on whether people choose to have an abortion.
@AdrianPasch That's like saying, "People already murder people, so why not rob the dead victim's graves to make something useful of our lives?" Do you realize how dumb you sound?
@geewhiz747 At the end of the day it is a personal question that we all have to answer for ourselves. There is no one thing in the world that everyone agrees on including stem cell treatment.Personally I fully believe in using them and if it was necessary for me I wouldn't hesitate. However real debating is on facts and shouldn't include personal insults. For the record I also believe in the right to safely and legally abort...
@AdrianPasch What facts have I not presented? Yes, I will use personal insults whenever necessary. I call it like I see them. No, the "safe" and legal killing of innocent human beings isn't a "personal" issue. Just like war, poverty, and social injustice is not reduced to "Well, its just an opinion, so let's allow it to happen"
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
well although i am against abortion for the sake of contraception or gender preferance (as in china ). what alot of people dont realise is that stem cell research doesnt lead to the death of any embryo that would not have occured if embryonic stem cell research never existed (ie stem cell reasearch does not encourage more abortions )...also abortion and stem cell research should be differing moral questions with research falling into the moral standing organ donation and cadavier donation ..imo
What the average person does not realize is that today human embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that were created for IVF and have lethal genetic defects (such as extra chromosomes or trisomy). These embryos can NOT give rise to a live birth. No way, no how. Nonviable. They are not human beings and they have zero chance of becoming human beings. Yet they CAN become hESC lines.
To simply throw these embryos away is, INMHO, unethical and immoral.
Help Save Little Baby Girls in India that are being aborted! Special Interest Are Interfering with my pro life work.
Please Contact me through my website (world wide web. Cell.MD )" or (CellMD . com") My you tube reply link is being sent to the wrong channel and I think it was sabotaged by special interest... Remember it’s (Cell.MD) we can blog or video conference together. It's a new website and took me 3 years to build.
The same lying Atheist con artists who tell us Stem Cell research can do everything but raise the dead when we haven't seen them discover shit with it are the ones who told us birth control and abortion made sex safe back in the '60s resulting in an AIDS epidemic killing 500 times our KIAs in Vietnam
I want to let everyone know that baby's are not the only source of stem cells. They can be extracted from umbilical cords. That means that it doesn't have to be a question of ethics anymore. Everyone comes with a cord =D now we have a use for them. Yay
If you focus on nothing but the actual medical successes, you would certainly say that adult stem cell research is an area of study that yields results, while embryonic stem cell research is a dead end. Even if ethics were not in the equation, results speak for themselves. Funding should go where the proven benefit is.
You can't adopt a stem cell, but you can adopt an embryonic human being. Confusing the two terms will hinder your ability to think about this issue clearly.
This is my own personal opinion, and seeing as, where I live, I'm allowed to have one of those. As are you.
Adopt an embryo, that's fine. But let me tell you, people aren't going to stop being careless (unfortunately). Meaning that there are going to be FAR more stem cells that someone can adopt. What's going to happen to the ones that DON'T get adopted?
There's a right and there's a wrong to it.
Do I believe that the child is "alive" when they're an embryo?
@TwoOssify the embryo could hardly even be called a "child". It has no nervous system, no brain, no spinal chord, no differentiated cells AT ALL in fact. The blastula is a ball of totepotent stem cells that have not taken on any form whatsoever. Destroying them is just like losing cells when you scratch your nose or have a period.
@BoyGenteel - so are the stem cells that make up a blastula. A blastula is less specialized and structured that a simple algae or mold - things we destroy without thought. How is a blastula somehow above them? It has no nervous system yet we afford it more rights than a fly or a mouse. Answer me this!
@BoyGenteel . An embryo in everyday use of the word has the connotations of a semi formed child - an embryo in the organogenesis phase where organs and nervous system take shape. "Embryos" used in ESCR however are blastulas at the cleavage stage. A blastula is roughly 150 undifferentiated totepotent stem cells. There are no organs what so ever and it cannot feel pain and does not have the slightest inkling of a brain. Why then can we not use it to cure crippling diseases!?
@BoyGenteel A blastula is less specialized and structured that a simple algae or mold - things we destroy without thought. How is a blastula somehow above them? It has no nervous system yet we afford it more rights than a fly or a mouse. Answer me! Is it because human cells have SOULS?! How ridiculous. What happens to souls when the embryo splits into two twins. Do they have half a soul each, or when two embryos merge (which happens) does one soul die? Face it there is no such thing as a soul
Instead of focusing on minimizing defects by reducing pollutants, dioxin, pesticides, they have opted to research and use stem cells. What a strange way to patch for problems?! We need to acknowledge our faulty decisions and regroup. Why is it that these defects can be moderated using wild plant genetics and because of this the plants are being modified? Nonscientists and religious leaders are unable to make a totally informed decision.
With embryonic stem cell research for medicine at such infant stage, pushing blindly toward the research without considering its ethical implication with other groups will only lead to greater social division. Because whether you like it or not, not all people who determine whether or not a cure can be used universally are scietists. There are ethicist, lawyers, politicians and sometimes even religious official, whose opinions are weighed as much as the opinions of the scientists.
Up until now, the only type of stem cell that had any medicinal succes has been from pluripotent progeny cells, such as marrow cells. The focus of stem cell research has been shifted in the past 10 years from studying its behavior to reverse programming the DNA for converting its potency for medicinal usage. But the fact of a matter is, we are NOWHERE close to using embryonic stem cell in any practical way.
Consider me goofy: but when we as individuals realize that every ceel in our body is completely "reprogrammable/re-teachable," we can prevent and cure ourselves.
The evidence exists in problems that children learn about and incorporate into themselves that they learn from others. When these children learn otherwise they self-correct at the cellular levels.
A story I recall is a child cancer patient who imagines his good cells destroying the cancer cells. Later tests prove it works.
what a load of trite - when ivf was being introduced people argued that having a child in anything but the natural way was wrong and now its fine. No one wants to stop adult stem cell research. The more negative videos on esc i watch the more i realise that they are the ones that are totally one sided and offer little to no honest commentary on why leading scientists want to look into esc.
I mean... the philosophy of embryonic stem cells is just stupid in some cases. The guy said "all we're talking about is this little dot - well that's raight, and guess what everyone of us used to be that little dot". If that's the case, our body is consisted out of trillions and trillions of atoms who used to be trees, watter or whatever... so that analogy is really stupid.
Estoy a favor de las celulas madre adultas porq son tus propias celulas las q se van a usar para curarte sin hacerle danho a nadie, los cientificos han descubirto q las celulas madre adultas son tan versatiles como las embrionarias, pero aun faltan mas estudios para hacerlo masivo.Aun estamos en panhales.
Adult stem cells are the future of regenerative medicine.
This is not a matter of opinion but matters of FACT. Adult stem cells have worked in numerous non-hematopoietic conditions, whereas ES cells have not been used clinically once. If you click on our channel "cellmedicine" you will see numerous successes of adult stem cells.
No practical applications of ESC have been developed because ESC research is still in its infancy due to all the restrictions on its research and the ridiculous maze of redtape that scientists have to navigate in order to do private research. Even if all the restrictions on ESCR were lifted, it will take at least a decade for it to reach the same stage as ASC applications are today.
Embryonic stem cells have not had much success because you cant really take these cells from an umbilical cord and use them since the body would reject them, adult stem cells have had more success because if adult stem cells are taken from my body and used on my body, it is the same tissue and my body will not reject them.
That is partially true, but how can harvesting embryonic stem cells in umbilical cords from newborn babies kill anyway? The umbilical cord is sometimes thrown in the bin after birth. They used to make cosmetics out of umbilical cord materials, is it less ethical to use them instead for medical research? If the parents say no then that is fine too since some have primitive ritual for the cord, I think some culture buries the umbilical cords or something like that.
Embryonic stem cells are not derived from umbilical cords. From umbilical cords we get adult stem cells, which are already assisting hundreds of thousands of actual human patients.
it dosent destroy humans! stop saying this! a simple gentic code its not a life! a bird has more life of a a genetic cord! and we still kill them! the only thing that destroy humans is to kill people because there is not a cure to save them!
thats not true..it may evolve in life or it may not...it is just a dna..no nervous system...no feelings...when you eat a steak you do more harm to destroy an embryo
Of course it's true. No science textbook in the world supports your contention that the embryo isn't a human being because the nervous system isn't yet fully formed. Most hold that fertilization commences a new human being's life; the others, at worst, remain neutral on the matter. I'm glad you don't eat steak; neither do I. But that bears no relevance on the humanity of human embryos...
an embryo can still die or be rejected by the organism withing the few weeks. A ball of cells is not a life, and you got it wrong, embroyionic stem cells is an ethical dilemma so scientiests are devided over this issue. What is life ? where it starts ?? even sperm should be consider a life than? embryo can cure cancers and regenerates organs and can be used by couples in the future to produce cells to repair our body tissues. if they want a child they just let it go.Peace
"An embryo can still die?" Sure. So do newborns. So do senior citizens. You're committing the fallacy that denies the personhood of embryos because they often die of natural causes; by that logic, most of us can be considered non-persons. As for curing and regenerating tissue, that's what ADULT stem cells are doing. Just watch the video. Remember: the function of embryonic stem cells is to proliferate; the function of adult stem cells is to REPAIR.
it is a new field. We still dont know much about stem cells. I am a biologist and in my experience on animals embryoinic stem cells seems to have more chance to be specialized in different tissues. -in the future we may learn how to switch adult cells in young ones!! An adult, a young man can die but they have memories, personalities differents. an embryo dosent. We thorw so many embryos away and i still dont understand why.
Considering that embryonic stem cells were isolated in animals as far back in 1981, it's not THAT new a field. Embryonic stem cells are a liability because they are so unstable and uncontrollable (the flip side to being so "versatile"). A newborn baby doesn't have too many memories, but that doesn't make her any less of a human being than an adult. And, since embryos are human beings, we shouldn't be "throwing any away." They can be and should be adopted, which is a growing practice.
boyGenteel, i am a young resercher but i work with embryonic stem cells almost every day here in Europe, and let me tell you we dont know that much. there are so many process that are unknow. An embroy dosent have any memory at all, it is less than a plant.Embryos are not humans for me but if that is your opinion i respect it but i dont agree. Many of them are frozen and some catholic government prefered to thorw them in the trash rather to find cures. The world is also overpopulate.
Plenty of others who've worked with ESCs have found them to be extremely difficult to control, whereas ASCs and induced pluripotent stem cells are far easier to work with. If the personhood of a human embryo is my "opinion," then apparently those who write for encyclopedias and science textbooks hold the same "opinion."
many other scienties insted agrees with my "opinion". However I think all the indviduals and who generates the embryo should be free to determine what they want to do with it. soon it will be a right just like abortion.
yes just like abortion. if you are religius you shouldnt even look at an adult stem cells video on youtube since religion wants to limit scientists in almost every aspect
What does religion, may I ask, have to do with this? If you're against parents beating their born children, then you should also oppose parents having their unborn children killed, as we know that, scientifically, human embryos are human beings.
because the Catholic church is against abortions and destruction of an embryo. The Church is also against condoms, and even hybrid cells composed by animal's embroys and human genetic code. An embryo has 90% to become a life but it is not totally sure. For me the life of an human starts at the 4 months of pregancy, before that we are not different from a piece of iron.
The Catholic Church is also against throwing your four-year-old daughter out of a moving helicopter. Should we be for something simply because the Catholic Church opposes it?
If you really equate a young embryonic human being to a piece of iron, then I know that you're not really a biologist.
your pareer dosent affect me. millions of biologist like me share the same opinion. Do reserach and you ll see it. Different opinions make people grow and reflect, that is why i am talking to you. But since you try to offend me, this is the end of the conversation. Mine was a criticism towards the Church. In your ethics is more right that someone dies of cancer or stay on a wheel chair or has daily pian rather then destroying a ball of cells for cure diseases. End of the conversation.
"Pareer"? Max, I apparently understand this issue much more than you do, having researched it for seven or eight years. I can also distinguish animal life -- including embryonic human animal life -- from a mineral. You're guilty of bringing religion into a debate when losing the debate on science. You don't need to be Catholic or even believe in God at all to understand that human embryos are human beings, just as you and I are. Nice job changing the subject, Max.
Wow! You God?? Shall we worship you since you have determined life starts at 4 months? Wait, anyone believe life starts earlier than 4 months? Maybe we should worship him/her? As for me, I will take the biblical view. Something to think about: if God is for sure, then you've got real problem. But if God is not real, then no real loss, heh?
@antiaudist that is a fucking ridiculous way to live your life. What if Islam is true? What if Buddhism is true. Shouldn't you, with your logic, worship all gods because if they are real you will be saved and if they aren't "no real loss" then eh? NO REAL LOSS!? The real loss is the unimaginable suffering people endure because of religious dogmas. Stem Cell research involves blastulas that lack brains or even neurons. They are not HUMAN in any sense
@jpmahone What's so ridiculous about my life? I don't worship any other gods because they do not offer absolute redemption for me. They are all religious trying to please their gods. My God, Jesus Christ, demands that his work on the cross take care of me. As sinner, Christ took care of my sin and will never hold it against me if I should stumble. Can't find any better gift. If the Bible is true, judgment falls on you since you reject this free gift of God. That's the real loss.
@love2mtnbike8888 . Thats illogical, if the Koran is true you go to hell and as all religions are unfalsifiable it is just as likely to be true. The huge probably however with religion is infinite regression. "Who created the Earth?" "God" , "Who created God?" "...he was always there....."
The big question here is when the life beggins. There are so many different oppinions and none of those are right or wrong.
Personaly, I think that a human life starts when the individual can live by himself without any external help. That's what distinguish a fetus and a baby.
So, in order to save the patients life (therapeutic cloning) I'd not oppose to usage of embryonic stem cells.
Also, I don´t care much about religion everyone has the right to have opinions.
Some say "life begins at 40," but that doesn't mean it's SCIENTIFICALLY so. We can't legally kill 35-year-olds. The SCIENTIFIC beginning of a human life is when fertilization takes place, whether that individual can live without outside help or not.
doctors declare a patient's death when there are brain death, well in a 6 week blastocyst there isn't a single nervous cell, only totipotent stem cells. So, because of that some say that a human life beggins when the brain is formed ( I'm actually more radical as you saw). What I'm trying to tell you is that isn't a total consensus even inside sciense. This matter was discussed in paris last month by UNESCO's bioethics comite and yet no official position about non-reprodutive cloning.
If we're going to start talking about 'human life' regardless of weather it can live on it's own or not, then life starts before fertilization. Sperm is alive, and most adult males have killed more people then Hitler could ever hope for.
Let me address your first point, as I have no idea where you're going with your second. Sperm and unfertilized ova are alive, yes, but neither sperm nor ova are human beings, according to science textbooks and encyclopedia entries. Each must be ADDED to something in order to become an embryonic human being, whereas nothing must be added to an embryo, except nutrition and a hospitable environment -- two things we still need as born humans.
A single cell with the genetic code is not a human being. You have these all over and inside of your body. The potentiality for a human being does not denote a human being.
No, our bodies are not filled with human embryos; our bodies are filled with cells that contain our DNA. These, however, are not entire human organisms, as we know human embryos to be.
Yeah, because an "entire human organism" is a cell with human DNA in it. No brain, no eyes, can't feel love, can't feel pain, and lacks all the attributes that we refer to that seperates us from any other life form.
The problem, Motion, is I'm coming at this issue from a scientific standpoint, whereas you're coming at it (as many pro-ESCR people do) from a touchy-feely, non-scientific viewpoint, such as "can't feel love" or "smaller than the period at the end of this sentence" or "can't laugh or cry." It's silly to argue that an embryo has no brain or eyes, for that begs the question: "when are they added?" But they're never added; all is there in the very first cell.
Scientifically, it's a precourser to a human. It's a potential human. Humans have certain traits and features, and a fertalized egg only has the genetic code to potentially form them, but itself is not a human in the sense anyone would talk about with when it comes to ethical treatment.
I'm talking about them right now in precisely that sense, as do embryologists, bioethicists, and scientists, because nothing is added to an embryo after sperm fertilizes ovum. You're trying to work backwards in order to fulfill your predetermined conclusion, but it's not working.
Nothing is "added" to the embryo, sure. But that does not mean it is anything more then a precursor to an actual human. You cause no pain or suffering if you were to destroy one of these cells.
"You cause no pain or suffering if you were to destroy one of these cells."
-- which, of course, is irrelevant to the issue, but thanks for playing. Sentience and the ability to suffer are not requisites for personhood, just as people in comas do not cease to be human beings. If nothing is added, which you are acknowledging, then that means that everything is in the embryo from cell one, and only development and growth take place from that moment forward.
Of course that's what it means. Spontaneous generation was refuted, in case you don't know. Pregnant women do not swallow a pill that will add a brain and nervous system to her unborn child.
And of course comatose people do not lose their brains, but that wasn't your assertion. You wrote that destroying a human embryo "causes no pain," as though that's the main criterion here.
Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with this. What a stupid comment, of course women do now swallow a pill to add the brain. But just because the brain is not added doesn't mean it is there. It must be generated by the developing embryo. The blastocyst that is used for stem cell research does not have a brain, and is not life anymore then the mold on a bread loaf. The only crucial difference is that studying bread mold doesn't have the same potential to save millions of lives.
Are you, perhaps, unaware, that you keep strenghening my argument at the expense of your own? If the brain is "generated by the developing embryo," then that means that everything comes from within, and the onset was the moment of fertilization. Everything is there right from the first cell; only development and growth take place from then on. Somehow, you keep missing this point, even though the embryology textbooks are on my side, not yours. Now why is that?
I'm not going to deny clear facts about how humans are formed. But there are certain reasons we afford certain rights to lifeforms. These are things like the ability to feel pain, and to have experiance. A blastocyst lacks in all the areas that matter when deciding what is ethical treatment.
If I'm reading this correctly, you're now backtracking from your statement that an embryo is a mere precursor to a human being and moving on to the argument that certain human beings are not worthy of human treatment, based upon their "lack of experience." That would follow the usual progression, yes. You're working backwards from a predetermined, preferred outcome.
You're not reading correctly. I said this is how humans are formed, not that this is already a human. You can acuse me of any of the bullshit you feel like, but a blastocyst is not a human, or deserving of treatment afforded to humans.
What part of my argument are you still having difficulty with? I've refuted everything you've written already. No science textbook holds that "ability to feel pain" or "to have experience" is a criterion for status as a human being. "EMBRYO -- is an animal or plant in an early stage of its development" -- WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA
The point where we should not experiment on piles of unfeeling, unknowing organic matter even if it has some of the best promises for treatment and cures to terrible conditions.
1. Again, this is no mere "organic matter," but rather (as I've explained and cited) actual, already-existing human beings. Not just "human," but also human beings.
2. As we're seeing confirmed more and more each week, ESCR does NOT hold "some of the best promises for treatment and cures," as ASCs and other types of cells are already treating (IN HUMANS) juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal-cord injury, MS, and dozens of other ailments.
@BoyGenteel It doesn't matter whether ESCR is more promising than other treatments or not, its the debate about where we may use organic matter that is incapable of feeling pain (has no neurons, no organs at all actually) to cure a fully formed human being that endures immense pain on a day to day basis
The zygote is one cell and it becomes an entire human being. If you understood cell biology you would know that cells do not contain a brain within in them but divide and multiply before specializing in certain tissues. Millions and millions of cells make up the central nervous system - each one alone is not a brain, but when working together they become one.
Embryology textbooks are not on your side because if you read them you would realize how stupid you sound.
That's odd...someone has already quoted from embryology textbooks on this very thread, and the results aren't very favorable to your silly arguments, jpmahone.
Let us know when you actually make yourself familiar with a biology textbook. I'll be happy to cite from plenty more that demonstrate the beginning of a human being's life.
@BoyGenteel , go ahead. Where are these quotes that do not favour my arguments? I await them eagerly. As for my experience in biology I am in my senior year Cell Biology Major and feel very much at ease discussing embryology. What biology background lead you to spout such misinformed arguments?
I've provided one so far (I have at least a dozen more sources but will spread them out), as has ThomasJ. Perhaps you'll ignore them and pretend we never responded to you. I've been dealing with people like you for nine years.
@BoyGenteel "I've provided one so far (I have at least a dozen more sources...."
This is what you keep doing, repeating the idea that you've justified your argument many times before. You rely on circular reasoning - ie: an embryo is human therefore we can't kill it. Why can't we kill it? because its human. You need to actually lay out the reasons WHY a blastula is afforded the same rights as a living human being. Why something with no nervous system cannot be used to help those in immense pain
"You rely on circular reasoning - ie: an embryo is human therefore we can't kill it. Why can't we kill it? because its human."
That ain't circular reasoning, dearie. Circular reasoning implies "X leads to Y and Y leads to X." What you have written here is, essentially, "X leads to Y....why Y...because of X."
No, those aren't the only two possible outcomes. Once we understand that these embryos are human beings (a point you may be conceding), and that they are ALREADY alive, we understand that each deserves a chance to be implanted. Our laws should be amended to reflect that. Your question is no different from someone who wanted to kill 10,000 homeless people, and then either dump them into the lake or "use" them for research so that they don't go to "waste," a sickeningly utilitarian argument.
What you don't seem to understand is that they were ALREADY being destroyed. Fertility clinics fertilize usually fertilize around 10 eggs, then implant 3 or 4 into a woman. The rest are destroyed. This was happening even when no research was being done.
And even when stem cell research was not being done, this was the common practice. Might as well use them for something good.
If you believe that life is sacred, then use what was already being destroyed for the good of already living people.
None of these embryos should be destroyed, as they are human beings. You're not telling me anything I don't already know here, Manx. The practice of destroying embryonic human beings, for any reason, should be immediately outlawed worldwide. Furthermore, some states are trying to enact legislation that would ensure that no more embryos are created than will be implanted (as the law decrees in Italy). IVF technology is also improving to the level at which that will likely happen, anyway.
There is obviously no arguing with you. Even if somebody states a reasonable argument, you will come up with some magical answer. Nobody should murder anyone, but it happens. Nobody should go to war, but they do. Bad thing shouldn't happen anywhere, but they DO.
Be realistic, the Utopian society you envision will never happen. And you are against any good coming of what IS. Things will never be what you and others like you, envision they SHOULD BE. Realism.
Oh, I don't know about that -- you're certainly still here.
What "magical" answers have I put forth? This is rather basic stuff. You don't need to live in a "utopia" to want science to be ethical. If documents were found from Germany, confirming "promising" results from the experiments performed on victims of concentration camps, would you just go along with the flow?
And, amazingly, you're ignoring the whole point of this video: ADULT cells.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Science and faith can never truly hold hands and reconcile their differences.
You are obviously a person of faith. So no. Your idea of "ethics" can not mesh with science. And yes, there were scientific breakthroughs that did come of that horrible period of time.
So yes, I believe that good can come of this. And no, I also believe that the benefits of embryonic stem cell research outweigh the benefits of adult stem cell research.
"You are obviously a person of faith." Actually, I'm an agnostic who understands basic human reproductive biology. And face it: adult stem cell research is going to leave embryonic in the rear-view mirror. Many former-ESC researchers have moved over to induced pluripotent cells, not because they "had to" but because they see them as more promising (and, perhaps, more ethical).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Too bad you're wrong. However, you win. Just keep believing wrongly. You are obviously not going to listen to anything but your own opinion (which is wrong BTW). So I'm done arguing with you. Try and justify your blinders all you want.
Huh-kay, big guy. Thanks for playing, anyway. That's what people of your ilk do: they can't refute what I'm saying, and so they just chant, "Nyah-nyah, you're wrong." You can leave if you want (not that you have to), but newcomers to the thread will see that I'm the one presenting facts and reason here.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Call it what you want. I have already refuted what you sai. I have already overcome your supposed argument. What you present are not facts. Just your twisted opinions. Whatever. Go on. Insult me all you want.
Really? When did you refute anything I've said. Here you go: "numerous secular science textbooks accurately cite fertilization as the beginning of a new human being's life." Try refuting that. I'm not insulting anyone, but pointing out the holes in your argument. Instead of acting as though you've been wounded or something, go back and notice that that's the same thing you tried to do with my arguments.
"numerous secular science textbooks accurately cite fertilization as the beginning of a new human being's life.
Okay, justify this in your own words. WHY is fertilization the beginning of human life? Did you know that a quarter of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort? What happens to the souls of these "children"?
This time read my comment and answer each point directly instead of waffling on about people making fools of themselves.
Thank you, Thomas. People who believe in God and people who don't (and people who may hope God exists but aren't entirely sure) really should get along better than they do. But we should be able to agree on scientific fact, such as the fact that human embryos are human beings, even if they don't fulfill people's "preconceived" (ha) notions of what human beings look like.
@BoyGenteel "human embryos are human beings" is not a "scientific fact". The embryos used in stem cell research have not even begun to differentiate. They harvest a small ball of 150 totepotent cells called a blastula. At this stage there is not a single neuron, let alone a nervous system. Blastulas are NOT human beings, they are balls of cytoplasm and DNA.
@ThomasJS1. ESCR uses 3day old bastula's that are a cluster of only 150 undifferentiated cells. There is no nervous system, there isn't even a single neuron! There is no conscience - killing a fly is more immoral than using a blastula.
I don't think you know a lot about human biology. If you did, you would understand that the concept of what is human and what is not is not absolute. The "embryos" used in stem cell research are at the blastula stage where the zygote has divided into around 150 undifferentiated cells. That last point is key as the blastula has not taken on any human form and remains a clump of unspecialized cells. A ball of cells with no neurons, no nervous system is not human - it does not have a "soul"
I can't tell you how hilarious I find it that a devoted atheist is using the lack of a "soul" (a theological concept I don't have much to do with) in order to argue that a human zygote isn't a human being. I also find it rather absurd that a self-proclaimed biology student seems to believe in spontaneous generation. This is going to be fun.
@BoyGenteel I don't know where you get this cretinous idea of spontaneous generation as i have laid out human development for you quite clearly. A zygote does not contain within it bones. After many many divisions some cells will migrate to where bones are needed and change their shapes and secrete compounds that will eventually become bones. They make these compounds with minerals passed to them through the placenta. As you will also find i have explained how unbelievable the idea of souls is
jp: You are arguing that the bones, nervous system, et al, do not originate and develop from the first cell. Believing that an entity can go from not existing there to existing there means believing in spontaneous generation. No one ever said that a miniature brain and a miniature pancreas and whatnot exist at fertilization. They develop from that first cell. Cell division takes place; nothing is ever "added" to a zygote, embryo, or fetus.
@BoyGenteel , yes yes you are getting it now. Everything does come to be from the first cell but that does not mean the first cell contains everything that a child will have when it is born - moreover it does not have a conscience, cannot feel pain and does not have a nervous system. Therefore destroying it before it has become any of these things is not immoral.
Wow you just can not get your head around organogenesis can you? How many times must i explain it. Please just erase the term 'spontaneous generation' from your mind as it DOES NOT EXIST. Here we go, one more, nice and simple.....
Sperm fuses with egg to form a zygote. Zygote enter cleavage becoming a blastula. Blastula invaginates at the vegetale pole to form 3 distinct germ layers - now the stem cells have begun to differentiate into endoderm, mesoderm and ectoderm.
@BoyGenteel exactly that is what i keep saying so why keep mentioning it. Just eliminate it from the conversation and get back on topic. The blastula - "B L A S T U L A" - is a ball of stem cells. Agree? As i have outlined in the P1/2 and P2/2 reply they do not contain all the ingredients of a human being. They take nutrients, proteins and minerals (provided by the mother) from OUTSIDE of them to grow into a child. Before this takes place they cannot feel pain. Why not use them to save lives?
"because.. the ability to feel pain is not a criterion for personhood." - okay great im glad you outline your point for once. I think given that a blastula cannot feel pain, has no organs at all, no bones, and is the size of a pin head it should not be consider worthy of the same respect as a living human being or even a embryo in the gastrulation stage.
* My question to you = would you honestly not sacrifice 150 undifferentiated stem cells to help a young girl with severe burns?
I don't think we should ban abortion or stem cell research. I agree it's wrong to use abortion as a form of birth control, but if the fetus is going to die anyway, we should at least help others with it. My example is Jacob Jabonski, that 16 year old who is paralyzed from the neck down. If you take away stem cells, you take away his life. And that is cruel.
veson231 3 weeks ago
A blasocyt isnt even an actual human. Just about 120 cells. While yes, it is a potential life it is technically not alive or a concious living organism.
nintend04life 1 month ago
@nintend04life Science states that at the time of conception, an entity of the species HOMO SAPIENS comes into existence. Stop playing dumb.
geewhiz747 1 month ago
The pro-life movement has never been opposed to responsible medical research. But we also know that there is no more evil or dangerous force on earth than science without morality. Whether fetal tissue research or embryonic stem cell research is morally defensible or not is dependent on how the tissue and cells are obtained.
geewhiz747 2 months ago
I utterly fail to see why embryonic stem cell research is controversial. I'd worry more about harming a worm or a fly than using a blastocyst for research. It matters little if embryonic is less effective than adult or vice versa; the problem here is WHY does it generate so much controversy? People can be so thick at times.
TheYipedo 3 months ago
@TheYipedo because HOW of they are obtained... you are no less obtuse my dear.
geewhiz747 2 months ago
If the material comes from umbilical cords, or placenta, or from babies who died in some natural manner (miscarriage, stillbirth, accident, etc.) few people would raise a moral objection.
However, America crossed the line when it began using parts taken from babies who were intentionally killed by abortion, and we obliterated the line when we began creating human life for the stated purpose of destroying it and using it in medical experiments.
geewhiz747 2 months ago
@geewhiz747 Hundreds of patients can be treated from the stem cells obtained from one aborted fetus. People can and do have abortions so the question really is can we use the already aborted fetus for good or do we just throw it away. It is a common misconception that babies are aborted so that others may be treated. In fact babies are aborted, full stop. Whether we use them for stem cell treatment or not has no affect on whether people choose to have an abortion.
AdrianPasch 1 month ago
@AdrianPasch That's like saying, "People already murder people, so why not rob the dead victim's graves to make something useful of our lives?" Do you realize how dumb you sound?
geewhiz747 1 month ago
@geewhiz747 At the end of the day it is a personal question that we all have to answer for ourselves. There is no one thing in the world that everyone agrees on including stem cell treatment.Personally I fully believe in using them and if it was necessary for me I wouldn't hesitate. However real debating is on facts and shouldn't include personal insults. For the record I also believe in the right to safely and legally abort...
AdrianPasch 4 weeks ago
@AdrianPasch What facts have I not presented? Yes, I will use personal insults whenever necessary. I call it like I see them. No, the "safe" and legal killing of innocent human beings isn't a "personal" issue. Just like war, poverty, and social injustice is not reduced to "Well, its just an opinion, so let's allow it to happen"
geewhiz747 3 weeks ago
May i use this for my Biology paper?
XGrellSebastian 6 months ago
@XGrellSebastian - yes, you may. Thanks, rosaryfilms
rosaryfilms 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
may i use this for a research paper
LEILASUBIA 7 months ago
@LEILASUBIA - yes, you may. thanks
rosaryfilms 7 months ago
may i use some of your information for my research paper
LEILASUBIA 7 months ago
This is a video of anti stem cell, the reason being they exaggerates the adult stem cell benefits in order to down play embryonic stem cells.
Adult stem cell is well documented to have killed the patient sometimes since there is a limit to adult stem cells.
Embryonic stem cell on the other hand holds more potential for complex diseases such as bone marrow, spinal chord, and neurological.
Embryonic stem cell don't need to kill babies at all, but according to people my sperms are babies too.
Neosaigo 7 months ago
Mind if I use this in my grade 9 science essay?
Flawgasm 8 months ago
@Flawgasm - you have my permission. Thanks, rosaryfilms
rosaryfilms 8 months ago
Comment removed
LavaShark44 4 months ago
This... is the way forward. IThe Bible has an insightful reference to 'Adult Stem Cells' found in the Book Of Genesis.
ulys3ss21 9 months ago
could they one day use Stem Cell to get all us men grow a 12 inche penis
alienhddna 9 months ago
well although i am against abortion for the sake of contraception or gender preferance (as in china ). what alot of people dont realise is that stem cell research doesnt lead to the death of any embryo that would not have occured if embryonic stem cell research never existed (ie stem cell reasearch does not encourage more abortions )...also abortion and stem cell research should be differing moral questions with research falling into the moral standing organ donation and cadavier donation ..imo
mysixspoons 9 months ago
@mysixspoons
What the average person does not realize is that today human embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that were created for IVF and have lethal genetic defects (such as extra chromosomes or trisomy). These embryos can NOT give rise to a live birth. No way, no how. Nonviable. They are not human beings and they have zero chance of becoming human beings. Yet they CAN become hESC lines.
To simply throw these embryos away is, INMHO, unethical and immoral.
mafarmerga 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is not a moral issue. God did not tell us that this should not be done.
86THECRITIC 11 months ago
APA citation? Rosaryfilms. (Producer). (2006). Adult stem cell results & embryonic stem cells video [Video Webcast]. YouTube. Gerard Health Foundation. Ruddy, R.B. [President]. Retrieved from (enter URL)
Thanks, this is going to "blow-away" those in my class against stem-cell research!
remfanbeforu 1 year ago
Thanks. This really helped me out with my science project.
lolzor523 1 year ago
@rosaryfilms could i use this video in my grade 8 science project???
yoyoongogo 1 year ago
@yoyoongogo - yes, thanks!
rosaryfilms 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
16:23 Leave that up to the scientists to figure out.
And there are too many humans on this planet besides..
nerfgunn 1 year ago
Comment removed
nerfgunn 1 year ago
Comment removed
nerfgunn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Help Save Little Baby Girls in India that are being aborted! Special Interest Are Interfering with my pro life work.
Please Contact me through my website (world wide web. Cell.MD )" or (CellMD . com") My you tube reply link is being sent to the wrong channel and I think it was sabotaged by special interest... Remember it’s (Cell.MD) we can blog or video conference together. It's a new website and took me 3 years to build.
Remember Its (world wide web Cell.MD)
cellmd 1 year ago
The same lying Atheist con artists who tell us Stem Cell research can do everything but raise the dead when we haven't seen them discover shit with it are the ones who told us birth control and abortion made sex safe back in the '60s resulting in an AIDS epidemic killing 500 times our KIAs in Vietnam
Texasjim2007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like happy endings..
sisko2222 1 year ago
I want to let everyone know that baby's are not the only source of stem cells. They can be extracted from umbilical cords. That means that it doesn't have to be a question of ethics anymore. Everyone comes with a cord =D now we have a use for them. Yay
jalbroven91 1 year ago 2
awsome it should work for the worst case of self harm to repair tissue too i think its cool i love stem cell research
dumbtrooper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The solution is working on ADULT STEM CELLS RESEARCH not on EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS!!
CHECK The first natural Adult Stem cells enhancer product!!! i need distributors worldwide!!! check my web for full details:
moussa.stemtechbiz(dot)com start now!!! and change your wealth and the health of millions worldwide!
STEMenhancer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you focus on nothing but the actual medical successes, you would certainly say that adult stem cell research is an area of study that yields results, while embryonic stem cell research is a dead end. Even if ethics were not in the equation, results speak for themselves. Funding should go where the proven benefit is.
eighthdaytoo 1 year ago
mroctopuslungs: "So by your standards is the semen inside my testicles millions of humans?"
No, dearie. Perhaps you need to learn the difference between a SPERM CELL and an embryonic human being.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago 2
You can't adopt a stem cell, but you can adopt an embryonic human being. Confusing the two terms will hinder your ability to think about this issue clearly.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago 2
This is my own personal opinion, and seeing as, where I live, I'm allowed to have one of those. As are you.
Adopt an embryo, that's fine. But let me tell you, people aren't going to stop being careless (unfortunately). Meaning that there are going to be FAR more stem cells that someone can adopt. What's going to happen to the ones that DON'T get adopted?
There's a right and there's a wrong to it.
Do I believe that the child is "alive" when they're an embryo?
No. I honestly don't.
TwoOssify 2 years ago
@TwoOssify the embryo could hardly even be called a "child". It has no nervous system, no brain, no spinal chord, no differentiated cells AT ALL in fact. The blastula is a ball of totepotent stem cells that have not taken on any form whatsoever. Destroying them is just like losing cells when you scratch your nose or have a period.
jpmahone 2 years ago
Wrong. The cells on your nose are not complete organisms; they are PARTS of an organism.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
@BoyGenteel - so are the stem cells that make up a blastula. A blastula is less specialized and structured that a simple algae or mold - things we destroy without thought. How is a blastula somehow above them? It has no nervous system yet we afford it more rights than a fly or a mouse. Answer me this!
jpmahone 2 years ago
Yes, the stem cells are parts, and the human blastocyst is the complete human organism (human being).
The cells on your face or the hairs on your head are analogous to stem cells, perhaps, but not to an embryo.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
@BoyGenteel . An embryo in everyday use of the word has the connotations of a semi formed child - an embryo in the organogenesis phase where organs and nervous system take shape. "Embryos" used in ESCR however are blastulas at the cleavage stage. A blastula is roughly 150 undifferentiated totepotent stem cells. There are no organs what so ever and it cannot feel pain and does not have the slightest inkling of a brain. Why then can we not use it to cure crippling diseases!?
Think about it...
jpmahone 2 years ago
@BoyGenteel lol
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BoyGenteel A blastula is less specialized and structured that a simple algae or mold - things we destroy without thought. How is a blastula somehow above them? It has no nervous system yet we afford it more rights than a fly or a mouse. Answer me! Is it because human cells have SOULS?! How ridiculous. What happens to souls when the embryo splits into two twins. Do they have half a soul each, or when two embryos merge (which happens) does one soul die? Face it there is no such thing as a soul
jpmahone 2 years ago
Stem cell treatment is liberal bullshit. The name Stell cell research is really just a cover up for human/animal crossbreeds.
HotDlCK 2 years ago
how to become a christian
Godisreal101
GodIsReal101 3 years ago
check out our take on recent stem cell news some americans are paying attention watch?v=XDVSRxaz0gk
TheNewLowNewsShow 3 years ago
Instead of focusing on minimizing defects by reducing pollutants, dioxin, pesticides, they have opted to research and use stem cells. What a strange way to patch for problems?! We need to acknowledge our faulty decisions and regroup. Why is it that these defects can be moderated using wild plant genetics and because of this the plants are being modified? Nonscientists and religious leaders are unable to make a totally informed decision.
supermatrices 3 years ago
With embryonic stem cell research for medicine at such infant stage, pushing blindly toward the research without considering its ethical implication with other groups will only lead to greater social division. Because whether you like it or not, not all people who determine whether or not a cure can be used universally are scietists. There are ethicist, lawyers, politicians and sometimes even religious official, whose opinions are weighed as much as the opinions of the scientists.
aquaamant 3 years ago
Up until now, the only type of stem cell that had any medicinal succes has been from pluripotent progeny cells, such as marrow cells. The focus of stem cell research has been shifted in the past 10 years from studying its behavior to reverse programming the DNA for converting its potency for medicinal usage. But the fact of a matter is, we are NOWHERE close to using embryonic stem cell in any practical way.
aquaamant 3 years ago
Consider me goofy: but when we as individuals realize that every ceel in our body is completely "reprogrammable/re-teachable," we can prevent and cure ourselves.
The evidence exists in problems that children learn about and incorporate into themselves that they learn from others. When these children learn otherwise they self-correct at the cellular levels.
A story I recall is a child cancer patient who imagines his good cells destroying the cancer cells. Later tests prove it works.
Kingery4President 3 years ago
thanks a lot this helped hugely with my religion and society revision!
brapyoghurt 3 years ago
what a load of trite - when ivf was being introduced people argued that having a child in anything but the natural way was wrong and now its fine. No one wants to stop adult stem cell research. The more negative videos on esc i watch the more i realise that they are the ones that are totally one sided and offer little to no honest commentary on why leading scientists want to look into esc.
olyellerbird 3 years ago
I mean... the philosophy of embryonic stem cells is just stupid in some cases. The guy said "all we're talking about is this little dot - well that's raight, and guess what everyone of us used to be that little dot". If that's the case, our body is consisted out of trillions and trillions of atoms who used to be trees, watter or whatever... so that analogy is really stupid.
markomanius 3 years ago
LOVE THE VIDEO
roxstar125 4 years ago
roxstar125, thank you!
rosaryfilms 4 years ago
someone should do research on brain transplants for people... if they ever get that technology
12345bybi 4 years ago
wtf?^
SeanGizzle 4 years ago
Estoy a favor de las celulas madre adultas porq son tus propias celulas las q se van a usar para curarte sin hacerle danho a nadie, los cientificos han descubirto q las celulas madre adultas son tan versatiles como las embrionarias, pero aun faltan mas estudios para hacerlo masivo.Aun estamos en panhales.
Adult stem cells are the future of regenerative medicine.
auroraaa0 4 years ago
This is not a matter of opinion but matters of FACT. Adult stem cells have worked in numerous non-hematopoietic conditions, whereas ES cells have not been used clinically once. If you click on our channel "cellmedicine" you will see numerous successes of adult stem cells.
cellmedicine 4 years ago
No practical applications of ESC have been developed because ESC research is still in its infancy due to all the restrictions on its research and the ridiculous maze of redtape that scientists have to navigate in order to do private research. Even if all the restrictions on ESCR were lifted, it will take at least a decade for it to reach the same stage as ASC applications are today.
NeophyteNihilist 4 years ago
The reason adult stem cells got their alleged "head start" is because THEY'RE EASIER TO ISOLATE AND TO WORK WITH THAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
Embryonic stem cells have not had much success because you cant really take these cells from an umbilical cord and use them since the body would reject them, adult stem cells have had more success because if adult stem cells are taken from my body and used on my body, it is the same tissue and my body will not reject them.
raulitech 4 years ago
rau - I would like you to take a quick look at "Tony Snow on Embryonic Stem Cell Veto" I think that the 4 1/2 minutes might be help for you.
UBB
Unklebillybob 4 years ago
If embryonic stem cell research has treated nothing its because nobody has been allowed to do so.
raulitech 4 years ago
raulitech, the main problem with embryonic stem cell research is that it destroys human beings.
rosaryfilms 4 years ago
That is partially true, but how can harvesting embryonic stem cells in umbilical cords from newborn babies kill anyway? The umbilical cord is sometimes thrown in the bin after birth. They used to make cosmetics out of umbilical cord materials, is it less ethical to use them instead for medical research? If the parents say no then that is fine too since some have primitive ritual for the cord, I think some culture buries the umbilical cords or something like that.
raulitech 4 years ago
Embryonic stem cells are not derived from umbilical cords. From umbilical cords we get adult stem cells, which are already assisting hundreds of thousands of actual human patients.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
it dosent destroy humans! stop saying this! a simple gentic code its not a life! a bird has more life of a a genetic cord! and we still kill them! the only thing that destroy humans is to kill people because there is not a cure to save them!
max10wonderboy 4 years ago
Whether you like it or not, Max, a human embryo is, scientifically, a human being.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
thats not true..it may evolve in life or it may not...it is just a dna..no nervous system...no feelings...when you eat a steak you do more harm to destroy an embryo
max10wonderboy 3 years ago
Of course it's true. No science textbook in the world supports your contention that the embryo isn't a human being because the nervous system isn't yet fully formed. Most hold that fertilization commences a new human being's life; the others, at worst, remain neutral on the matter. I'm glad you don't eat steak; neither do I. But that bears no relevance on the humanity of human embryos...
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
an embryo can still die or be rejected by the organism withing the few weeks. A ball of cells is not a life, and you got it wrong, embroyionic stem cells is an ethical dilemma so scientiests are devided over this issue. What is life ? where it starts ?? even sperm should be consider a life than? embryo can cure cancers and regenerates organs and can be used by couples in the future to produce cells to repair our body tissues. if they want a child they just let it go.Peace
max10wonderboy 3 years ago
"An embryo can still die?" Sure. So do newborns. So do senior citizens. You're committing the fallacy that denies the personhood of embryos because they often die of natural causes; by that logic, most of us can be considered non-persons. As for curing and regenerating tissue, that's what ADULT stem cells are doing. Just watch the video. Remember: the function of embryonic stem cells is to proliferate; the function of adult stem cells is to REPAIR.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
it is a new field. We still dont know much about stem cells. I am a biologist and in my experience on animals embryoinic stem cells seems to have more chance to be specialized in different tissues. -in the future we may learn how to switch adult cells in young ones!! An adult, a young man can die but they have memories, personalities differents. an embryo dosent. We thorw so many embryos away and i still dont understand why.
max10wonderboy 3 years ago
Considering that embryonic stem cells were isolated in animals as far back in 1981, it's not THAT new a field. Embryonic stem cells are a liability because they are so unstable and uncontrollable (the flip side to being so "versatile"). A newborn baby doesn't have too many memories, but that doesn't make her any less of a human being than an adult. And, since embryos are human beings, we shouldn't be "throwing any away." They can be and should be adopted, which is a growing practice.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
boyGenteel, i am a young resercher but i work with embryonic stem cells almost every day here in Europe, and let me tell you we dont know that much. there are so many process that are unknow. An embroy dosent have any memory at all, it is less than a plant.Embryos are not humans for me but if that is your opinion i respect it but i dont agree. Many of them are frozen and some catholic government prefered to thorw them in the trash rather to find cures. The world is also overpopulate.
max10wonderboy 3 years ago
Plenty of others who've worked with ESCs have found them to be extremely difficult to control, whereas ASCs and induced pluripotent stem cells are far easier to work with. If the personhood of a human embryo is my "opinion," then apparently those who write for encyclopedias and science textbooks hold the same "opinion."
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
many other scienties insted agrees with my "opinion". However I think all the indviduals and who generates the embryo should be free to determine what they want to do with it. soon it will be a right just like abortion.
max10wonderboy 3 years ago
Riiiiiiiiiiiight...and parents can beat the hell out of their child if they so wish, right, because "it's theirs"?
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
yes just like abortion. if you are religius you shouldnt even look at an adult stem cells video on youtube since religion wants to limit scientists in almost every aspect
max10wonderboy 3 years ago
What does religion, may I ask, have to do with this? If you're against parents beating their born children, then you should also oppose parents having their unborn children killed, as we know that, scientifically, human embryos are human beings.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
because the Catholic church is against abortions and destruction of an embryo. The Church is also against condoms, and even hybrid cells composed by animal's embroys and human genetic code. An embryo has 90% to become a life but it is not totally sure. For me the life of an human starts at the 4 months of pregancy, before that we are not different from a piece of iron.
max10wonderboy 3 years ago
The Catholic Church is also against throwing your four-year-old daughter out of a moving helicopter. Should we be for something simply because the Catholic Church opposes it?
If you really equate a young embryonic human being to a piece of iron, then I know that you're not really a biologist.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
your pareer dosent affect me. millions of biologist like me share the same opinion. Do reserach and you ll see it. Different opinions make people grow and reflect, that is why i am talking to you. But since you try to offend me, this is the end of the conversation. Mine was a criticism towards the Church. In your ethics is more right that someone dies of cancer or stay on a wheel chair or has daily pian rather then destroying a ball of cells for cure diseases. End of the conversation.
max10wonderboy 3 years ago
"Pareer"? Max, I apparently understand this issue much more than you do, having researched it for seven or eight years. I can also distinguish animal life -- including embryonic human animal life -- from a mineral. You're guilty of bringing religion into a debate when losing the debate on science. You don't need to be Catholic or even believe in God at all to understand that human embryos are human beings, just as you and I are. Nice job changing the subject, Max.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
Wow! You God?? Shall we worship you since you have determined life starts at 4 months? Wait, anyone believe life starts earlier than 4 months? Maybe we should worship him/her? As for me, I will take the biblical view. Something to think about: if God is for sure, then you've got real problem. But if God is not real, then no real loss, heh?
antiaudist 3 years ago
@antiaudist that is a fucking ridiculous way to live your life. What if Islam is true? What if Buddhism is true. Shouldn't you, with your logic, worship all gods because if they are real you will be saved and if they aren't "no real loss" then eh? NO REAL LOSS!? The real loss is the unimaginable suffering people endure because of religious dogmas. Stem Cell research involves blastulas that lack brains or even neurons. They are not HUMAN in any sense
jpmahone 2 years ago
@jpmahone What's so ridiculous about my life? I don't worship any other gods because they do not offer absolute redemption for me. They are all religious trying to please their gods. My God, Jesus Christ, demands that his work on the cross take care of me. As sinner, Christ took care of my sin and will never hold it against me if I should stumble. Can't find any better gift. If the Bible is true, judgment falls on you since you reject this free gift of God. That's the real loss.
love2mtnbike8888 2 years ago
@love2mtnbike8888 . Thats illogical, if the Koran is true you go to hell and as all religions are unfalsifiable it is just as likely to be true. The huge probably however with religion is infinite regression. "Who created the Earth?" "God" , "Who created God?" "...he was always there....."
jpmahone 2 years ago
@jpmahone To add to my response to you, instead of attacking me, why not consider what I have said?
love2mtnbike8888 2 years ago
@love2mtnbike8888. I did consider what you said, i considered it to be misguided and misinformed. Where is your defense of it?
jpmahone 2 years ago
The big question here is when the life beggins. There are so many different oppinions and none of those are right or wrong.
Personaly, I think that a human life starts when the individual can live by himself without any external help. That's what distinguish a fetus and a baby.
So, in order to save the patients life (therapeutic cloning) I'd not oppose to usage of embryonic stem cells.
Also, I don´t care much about religion everyone has the right to have opinions.
Sorry for bad english
dakermit 3 years ago
Some say "life begins at 40," but that doesn't mean it's SCIENTIFICALLY so. We can't legally kill 35-year-olds. The SCIENTIFIC beginning of a human life is when fertilization takes place, whether that individual can live without outside help or not.
BoyGenteel 3 years ago
doctors declare a patient's death when there are brain death, well in a 6 week blastocyst there isn't a single nervous cell, only totipotent stem cells. So, because of that some say that a human life beggins when the brain is formed ( I'm actually more radical as you saw). What I'm trying to tell you is that isn't a total consensus even inside sciense. This matter was discussed in paris last month by UNESCO's bioethics comite and yet no official position about non-reprodutive cloning.
dakermit 3 years ago
If we're going to start talking about 'human life' regardless of weather it can live on it's own or not, then life starts before fertilization. Sperm is alive, and most adult males have killed more people then Hitler could ever hope for.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Let me address your first point, as I have no idea where you're going with your second. Sperm and unfertilized ova are alive, yes, but neither sperm nor ova are human beings, according to science textbooks and encyclopedia entries. Each must be ADDED to something in order to become an embryonic human being, whereas nothing must be added to an embryo, except nutrition and a hospitable environment -- two things we still need as born humans.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
A single cell with the genetic code is not a human being. You have these all over and inside of your body. The potentiality for a human being does not denote a human being.
MotionFur 2 years ago
No, our bodies are not filled with human embryos; our bodies are filled with cells that contain our DNA. These, however, are not entire human organisms, as we know human embryos to be.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
Yeah, because an "entire human organism" is a cell with human DNA in it. No brain, no eyes, can't feel love, can't feel pain, and lacks all the attributes that we refer to that seperates us from any other life form.
MotionFur 2 years ago
The problem, Motion, is I'm coming at this issue from a scientific standpoint, whereas you're coming at it (as many pro-ESCR people do) from a touchy-feely, non-scientific viewpoint, such as "can't feel love" or "smaller than the period at the end of this sentence" or "can't laugh or cry." It's silly to argue that an embryo has no brain or eyes, for that begs the question: "when are they added?" But they're never added; all is there in the very first cell.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
Scientifically, it's a precourser to a human. It's a potential human. Humans have certain traits and features, and a fertalized egg only has the genetic code to potentially form them, but itself is not a human in the sense anyone would talk about with when it comes to ethical treatment.
MotionFur 2 years ago
I'm talking about them right now in precisely that sense, as do embryologists, bioethicists, and scientists, because nothing is added to an embryo after sperm fertilizes ovum. You're trying to work backwards in order to fulfill your predetermined conclusion, but it's not working.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
Nothing is "added" to the embryo, sure. But that does not mean it is anything more then a precursor to an actual human. You cause no pain or suffering if you were to destroy one of these cells.
MotionFur 2 years ago
"You cause no pain or suffering if you were to destroy one of these cells."
-- which, of course, is irrelevant to the issue, but thanks for playing. Sentience and the ability to suffer are not requisites for personhood, just as people in comas do not cease to be human beings. If nothing is added, which you are acknowledging, then that means that everything is in the embryo from cell one, and only development and growth take place from that moment forward.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
Just because nothing is added does not mean "it's all in there."
The brain is not added, but there is no brain. And people do not lose their brain when they go into comas.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Of course that's what it means. Spontaneous generation was refuted, in case you don't know. Pregnant women do not swallow a pill that will add a brain and nervous system to her unborn child.
And of course comatose people do not lose their brains, but that wasn't your assertion. You wrote that destroying a human embryo "causes no pain," as though that's the main criterion here.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with this. What a stupid comment, of course women do now swallow a pill to add the brain. But just because the brain is not added doesn't mean it is there. It must be generated by the developing embryo. The blastocyst that is used for stem cell research does not have a brain, and is not life anymore then the mold on a bread loaf. The only crucial difference is that studying bread mold doesn't have the same potential to save millions of lives.
MotionFur 2 years ago
Are you, perhaps, unaware, that you keep strenghening my argument at the expense of your own? If the brain is "generated by the developing embryo," then that means that everything comes from within, and the onset was the moment of fertilization. Everything is there right from the first cell; only development and growth take place from then on. Somehow, you keep missing this point, even though the embryology textbooks are on my side, not yours. Now why is that?
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
I'm not going to deny clear facts about how humans are formed. But there are certain reasons we afford certain rights to lifeforms. These are things like the ability to feel pain, and to have experiance. A blastocyst lacks in all the areas that matter when deciding what is ethical treatment.
MotionFur 2 years ago
If I'm reading this correctly, you're now backtracking from your statement that an embryo is a mere precursor to a human being and moving on to the argument that certain human beings are not worthy of human treatment, based upon their "lack of experience." That would follow the usual progression, yes. You're working backwards from a predetermined, preferred outcome.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
You're not reading correctly. I said this is how humans are formed, not that this is already a human. You can acuse me of any of the bullshit you feel like, but a blastocyst is not a human, or deserving of treatment afforded to humans.
MotionFur 2 years ago
What part of my argument are you still having difficulty with? I've refuted everything you've written already. No science textbook holds that "ability to feel pain" or "to have experience" is a criterion for status as a human being. "EMBRYO -- is an animal or plant in an early stage of its development" -- WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
The point where we should not experiment on piles of unfeeling, unknowing organic matter even if it has some of the best promises for treatment and cures to terrible conditions.
MotionFur 2 years ago
1. Again, this is no mere "organic matter," but rather (as I've explained and cited) actual, already-existing human beings. Not just "human," but also human beings.
2. As we're seeing confirmed more and more each week, ESCR does NOT hold "some of the best promises for treatment and cures," as ASCs and other types of cells are already treating (IN HUMANS) juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, spinal-cord injury, MS, and dozens of other ailments.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
@BoyGenteel It doesn't matter whether ESCR is more promising than other treatments or not, its the debate about where we may use organic matter that is incapable of feeling pain (has no neurons, no organs at all actually) to cure a fully formed human being that endures immense pain on a day to day basis
jpmahone 2 years ago
@MotionFur I completely agree "a blastocyst is not a human, or deserving of treatment afforded to humans."
jpmahone 2 years ago
BoyGenteel you are an idiot.
The zygote is one cell and it becomes an entire human being. If you understood cell biology you would know that cells do not contain a brain within in them but divide and multiply before specializing in certain tissues. Millions and millions of cells make up the central nervous system - each one alone is not a brain, but when working together they become one.
Embryology textbooks are not on your side because if you read them you would realize how stupid you sound.
jpmahone 2 years ago
That's odd...someone has already quoted from embryology textbooks on this very thread, and the results aren't very favorable to your silly arguments, jpmahone.
Let us know when you actually make yourself familiar with a biology textbook. I'll be happy to cite from plenty more that demonstrate the beginning of a human being's life.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
@BoyGenteel , go ahead. Where are these quotes that do not favour my arguments? I await them eagerly. As for my experience in biology I am in my senior year Cell Biology Major and feel very much at ease discussing embryology. What biology background lead you to spout such misinformed arguments?
jpmahone 2 years ago
I've provided one so far (I have at least a dozen more sources but will spread them out), as has ThomasJ. Perhaps you'll ignore them and pretend we never responded to you. I've been dealing with people like you for nine years.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
@BoyGenteel "I've provided one so far (I have at least a dozen more sources...."
This is what you keep doing, repeating the idea that you've justified your argument many times before. You rely on circular reasoning - ie: an embryo is human therefore we can't kill it. Why can't we kill it? because its human. You need to actually lay out the reasons WHY a blastula is afforded the same rights as a living human being. Why something with no nervous system cannot be used to help those in immense pain
jpmahone 2 years ago
"You rely on circular reasoning - ie: an embryo is human therefore we can't kill it. Why can't we kill it? because its human."
That ain't circular reasoning, dearie. Circular reasoning implies "X leads to Y and Y leads to X." What you have written here is, essentially, "X leads to Y....why Y...because of X."
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
@MotionFur really well argued. BoyGenteel needs to study biology before talking such shite.
jpmahone 2 years ago
Comment removed
lightmanx 2 years ago
Here is the answer: It does not matter.
Let's say that a fertility clinic has 10,000 embryos. These embryos are left over and are going to be destroyed anyway. Would you rather they
A) Are used for stem cell research, which could possibly help those already alive STAY alive? or
B) Be destroyed needlessly, for no good reason?
Keep in mind, these are the ONLY 2 possible outcomes as it stands today. So, where is your argument now?
I does not matter where you think life begins.
lightmanx 2 years ago
No, those aren't the only two possible outcomes. Once we understand that these embryos are human beings (a point you may be conceding), and that they are ALREADY alive, we understand that each deserves a chance to be implanted. Our laws should be amended to reflect that. Your question is no different from someone who wanted to kill 10,000 homeless people, and then either dump them into the lake or "use" them for research so that they don't go to "waste," a sickeningly utilitarian argument.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago 2
What you don't seem to understand is that they were ALREADY being destroyed. Fertility clinics fertilize usually fertilize around 10 eggs, then implant 3 or 4 into a woman. The rest are destroyed. This was happening even when no research was being done.
And even when stem cell research was not being done, this was the common practice. Might as well use them for something good.
If you believe that life is sacred, then use what was already being destroyed for the good of already living people.
lightmanx 2 years ago
None of these embryos should be destroyed, as they are human beings. You're not telling me anything I don't already know here, Manx. The practice of destroying embryonic human beings, for any reason, should be immediately outlawed worldwide. Furthermore, some states are trying to enact legislation that would ensure that no more embryos are created than will be implanted (as the law decrees in Italy). IVF technology is also improving to the level at which that will likely happen, anyway.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago 3
There is obviously no arguing with you. Even if somebody states a reasonable argument, you will come up with some magical answer. Nobody should murder anyone, but it happens. Nobody should go to war, but they do. Bad thing shouldn't happen anywhere, but they DO.
Be realistic, the Utopian society you envision will never happen. And you are against any good coming of what IS. Things will never be what you and others like you, envision they SHOULD BE. Realism.
Humanity should benifit.
lightmanx 2 years ago
"There is obviously no arguing with you."
Oh, I don't know about that -- you're certainly still here.
What "magical" answers have I put forth? This is rather basic stuff. You don't need to live in a "utopia" to want science to be ethical. If documents were found from Germany, confirming "promising" results from the experiments performed on victims of concentration camps, would you just go along with the flow?
And, amazingly, you're ignoring the whole point of this video: ADULT cells.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Science and faith can never truly hold hands and reconcile their differences.
You are obviously a person of faith. So no. Your idea of "ethics" can not mesh with science. And yes, there were scientific breakthroughs that did come of that horrible period of time.
So yes, I believe that good can come of this. And no, I also believe that the benefits of embryonic stem cell research outweigh the benefits of adult stem cell research.
lightmanx 2 years ago
"You are obviously a person of faith." Actually, I'm an agnostic who understands basic human reproductive biology. And face it: adult stem cell research is going to leave embryonic in the rear-view mirror. Many former-ESC researchers have moved over to induced pluripotent cells, not because they "had to" but because they see them as more promising (and, perhaps, more ethical).
BoyGenteel 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Too bad you're wrong. However, you win. Just keep believing wrongly. You are obviously not going to listen to anything but your own opinion (which is wrong BTW). So I'm done arguing with you. Try and justify your blinders all you want.
You can reply all you want. I'm done.
lightmanx 2 years ago
Huh-kay, big guy. Thanks for playing, anyway. That's what people of your ilk do: they can't refute what I'm saying, and so they just chant, "Nyah-nyah, you're wrong." You can leave if you want (not that you have to), but newcomers to the thread will see that I'm the one presenting facts and reason here.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Call it what you want. I have already refuted what you sai. I have already overcome your supposed argument. What you present are not facts. Just your twisted opinions. Whatever. Go on. Insult me all you want.
lightmanx 2 years ago
Really? When did you refute anything I've said. Here you go: "numerous secular science textbooks accurately cite fertilization as the beginning of a new human being's life." Try refuting that. I'm not insulting anyone, but pointing out the holes in your argument. Instead of acting as though you've been wounded or something, go back and notice that that's the same thing you tried to do with my arguments.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago 2
@BoyGenteel .
"numerous secular science textbooks accurately cite fertilization as the beginning of a new human being's life.
Okay, justify this in your own words. WHY is fertilization the beginning of human life? Did you know that a quarter of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort? What happens to the souls of these "children"?
This time read my comment and answer each point directly instead of waffling on about people making fools of themselves.
jpmahone 2 years ago
i like bioethics. when thinking about embryonic stem cell research, why should i take the life of another to better me?
peeairoh 2 years ago 2
Very well thought out arguement BoyGenteel.
It's nice to see there are other Agnostics out there that know that ESCR is worthless. And that actually know what a human being is.
ThomasJS1 2 years ago 2
Thank you, Thomas. People who believe in God and people who don't (and people who may hope God exists but aren't entirely sure) really should get along better than they do. But we should be able to agree on scientific fact, such as the fact that human embryos are human beings, even if they don't fulfill people's "preconceived" (ha) notions of what human beings look like.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
@BoyGenteel "human embryos are human beings" is not a "scientific fact". The embryos used in stem cell research have not even begun to differentiate. They harvest a small ball of 150 totepotent cells called a blastula. At this stage there is not a single neuron, let alone a nervous system. Blastulas are NOT human beings, they are balls of cytoplasm and DNA.
jpmahone 2 years ago
@ThomasJS1. ESCR uses 3day old bastula's that are a cluster of only 150 undifferentiated cells. There is no nervous system, there isn't even a single neuron! There is no conscience - killing a fly is more immoral than using a blastula.
jpmahone 2 years ago
I don't think you know a lot about human biology. If you did, you would understand that the concept of what is human and what is not is not absolute. The "embryos" used in stem cell research are at the blastula stage where the zygote has divided into around 150 undifferentiated cells. That last point is key as the blastula has not taken on any human form and remains a clump of unspecialized cells. A ball of cells with no neurons, no nervous system is not human - it does not have a "soul"
jpmahone 2 years ago
I can't tell you how hilarious I find it that a devoted atheist is using the lack of a "soul" (a theological concept I don't have much to do with) in order to argue that a human zygote isn't a human being. I also find it rather absurd that a self-proclaimed biology student seems to believe in spontaneous generation. This is going to be fun.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago 2
@BoyGenteel I don't know where you get this cretinous idea of spontaneous generation as i have laid out human development for you quite clearly. A zygote does not contain within it bones. After many many divisions some cells will migrate to where bones are needed and change their shapes and secrete compounds that will eventually become bones. They make these compounds with minerals passed to them through the placenta. As you will also find i have explained how unbelievable the idea of souls is
jpmahone 2 years ago
jp: You are arguing that the bones, nervous system, et al, do not originate and develop from the first cell. Believing that an entity can go from not existing there to existing there means believing in spontaneous generation. No one ever said that a miniature brain and a miniature pancreas and whatnot exist at fertilization. They develop from that first cell. Cell division takes place; nothing is ever "added" to a zygote, embryo, or fetus.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
@BoyGenteel , yes yes you are getting it now. Everything does come to be from the first cell but that does not mean the first cell contains everything that a child will have when it is born - moreover it does not have a conscience, cannot feel pain and does not have a nervous system. Therefore destroying it before it has become any of these things is not immoral.
jpmahone 2 years ago
If everything doesn't come from within, then it must come from beyond. Again, your argument boils down to spontaneous generation.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
@BoyGenteel
P1/2
Wow you just can not get your head around organogenesis can you? How many times must i explain it. Please just erase the term 'spontaneous generation' from your mind as it DOES NOT EXIST. Here we go, one more, nice and simple.....
Sperm fuses with egg to form a zygote. Zygote enter cleavage becoming a blastula. Blastula invaginates at the vegetale pole to form 3 distinct germ layers - now the stem cells have begun to differentiate into endoderm, mesoderm and ectoderm.
jpmahone 2 years ago
Of COURSE spontaneous generation does not exist. That's what I'M explaining to YOU, even though you're having difficulty grasping the concept.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
@BoyGenteel exactly that is what i keep saying so why keep mentioning it. Just eliminate it from the conversation and get back on topic. The blastula - "B L A S T U L A" - is a ball of stem cells. Agree? As i have outlined in the P1/2 and P2/2 reply they do not contain all the ingredients of a human being. They take nutrients, proteins and minerals (provided by the mother) from OUTSIDE of them to grow into a child. Before this takes place they cannot feel pain. Why not use them to save lives?
jpmahone 2 years ago
"They take nutrients, proteins and minerals (provided by the mother) from OUTSIDE of them to grow into a child."
...and, if a child takes in nutrients, proteins, and minerals -- also obtained from outside his person -- he will grow into an adult.
"Before this takes place they cannot feel pain. Why not use them to save lives?"
-- because, as I explained to you, the ability to feel pain is not a criterion for personhood.
BoyGenteel 2 years ago
@BoyGenteel
"because.. the ability to feel pain is not a criterion for personhood." - okay great im glad you outline your point for once. I think given that a blastula cannot feel pain, has no organs at all, no bones, and is the size of a pin head it should not be consider worthy of the same respect as a living human being or even a embryo in the gastrulation stage.
* My question to you = would you honestly not sacrifice 150 undifferentiated stem cells to help a young girl with severe burns?
jpmahone 2 years ago