Religious Stance on Stem Cell Research

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

This is the fifth time I've said this: I believe human life begins once a woman becomes pregnant. Okay?

Once a woman becomes pregnant.

That's not before or after, but once a woman gets pregnant.

Just so the people in the back hear, that's when a woman is pregnant.

If those 150 cells were in a woman's uterus, then, obviously, she would be pregnant. I, personally, and I believe that there are others that feel differently, believe that once an entity grows 75 times as when first created, that is life, and has the potential to become a full-sized human being.

Who in the process we are talking about has become pregnant?

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

If I didn't "get this" I wouldn't be talking about it. Please stop de-valueing my opinion because it is not the same as your own. These "bundles of cells" have the potential to become human beings... why don't you seem to be getting this? Because our opinions differ, not because you don't seem to get it. I personally have a problem with these cells being used as science experiments and being tossed into the garbage. Is that straightforward enough for you?

Look at it like this: Energy. Potential and kinetic energy. As a blastocyst, it has the potential (potential energy) to become a human (kinetic energy). So, while a stone at the top of the hill isn't moving, it has the potential to move greatly if pushed down that hill... Just like in this situation... Geeky, I know...

As I've said twice already, I would not have any problem with aborted fetused, or blastocysts that were scraped out of a woman's uterus at the doctor's office to be used in stem-cell research, just like I have no problem with people donating their bodies to research once they die, but I do have a problem with harvesting cells in a test-tube that will be discarded after being tested on. It just seems wrong to me.

I don't know if I am going to volunteer to have one of "them" (if it isn't a human, don't you think you should be considering it as an it, istead of a them?), I don't think there should even be a situation where they look for a woman to implant the cells into in the first place.

ah what the heck...might as well give it a try. This has already all been said, but I'll try to make it simple.

Take these premises

A:blastocysts

B:Sperm and Eggs

C:have the potential to become human

D:Life occurs when a woman becomes pregnant

E:The blastocysts they are using have not made a woman pregnant

possible conclusions:

F: Using these blastocysts is wrong, according to these premises

G: Using these blastocysts is not wrong, according to these premises


Now,

A=C, agreed?
B=C, agreed?

If A=F, because of C
Then, B=F, because of C

Except you don't seem to think B=F, therefore B=G, therefore A=G

Your other argument is that, if D, then F

If D=F, then ~D=G

BUT E tells us that D hasn't happened, therefore ~D. (~=not, by the way)

Therefore G.


You have not yet put forth an argument where using these blastocysts is wrong, which is what people have been telling you. Your viewpoint is entirely valid, but the reasons you have put forth are not. Feel free to point out where you think my calculations have gone wrong.

[Displaced Flames fan]

It is amazing how black and white people on both sides of arguments try to make the issue at hand.

It's a very complex issue. Not all people who oppose embryonic stem cell research...or rather the federal funding of it, do so for the same reasons. Opposition is not always rooted in religious beliefs.

I have seen an astounding number of reports that say embryonic stem cell research has produced virtually nothing and that the real fruit of stem cells lies in the research being done on 'adult' stem cells. Yet, I've seen an equal number of reports that say the exact opposite. Anyone want to take a guess at how that is possible?

Many opponents use the slippery slope argument to oppose SRC. I don't buy those arguments in this case, but I understand them. They're not craszy or sick. They just don't have much faith in humanity. Frankly, who can blame them.

But lets blame religion...it's so cut and dry.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I have seen an astounding number of reports that say embryonic stem cell research has produced virtually nothing and that the real fruit of stem cells lies in the research being done on 'adult' stem cells. Yet, I've seen an equal number of reports that say the exact opposite. Anyone want to take a guess at how that is possible?

But lets blame religion...it's so cut and dry.

Well, even though it's in the thread title, I'm not sure religion is the problem here. I think we can all agree that if creating a blastocyst in a laboratory were tantamount to creating a human being and then destroying it, we'd all be opposed to it. The problem is one of the definition of life. For me, the Christian Bible actually has very little to say on the topic of blastocysts.

I may be able to shed some light on the embryonic vs. adult stem cell debate though. It's pretty clear to anyone in the biz that both are going to be useful someday. But they have different traits.

Embryonic stem cells are completely undifferentiated. They could become any kind of cell. They can also divide ad infinitum, which makes them very useful both scientifically and therapeutically. A therapy using embryonic stem cells would in all likelihood be inexpensive to produce, because existing sources of stem cells could be used for any individual anywhere, in any part of their body. If we could prompt those cells to divide and become new neurons or nerve cells, they could in theory be recruited to sites of brain or spinal cord injury, meaning that paralyzed people could walk again, or brain-damaged people could have restore brain function. There are some encouraging results in animal studies, but--and this is important--we're pretty far from developing actual therapies. These things take time--but they'll take even longer if the Federal government refuses to fund the research.

Adult stem cells are not completely undifferentiated. They are already nerve cells, blood cells, bone marrow, etc. They are also not as good at dividing, meaning that they cannot be produced in a lab ad infinitum. However, it would probably be easier to treat nerve damage with an adult nerve stem cell, for instance, than it would be using an embryonic stem cell, assuming they too could be recruited to the site of an injury. There would be greater risks involved, and a vastly greater expense in the long run, because of the issues noted above. However, in both cases vastly more research is needed.

As for the "debate"--well, it probably has to do with government funding. Which projects government funds has a measurable effect on the scientific debate. Another example of this is studies on marijuana. The government only funds studies which attempt to find that marijuana is harmful. Therefore, most studies funded by the government find that marijuana is harmful--even though the actual data aren't that convincing. If the Federal government gets off its high horse, we may find that the research objectives of labs around the U.S. becomes more balanced.

[Calgaryborn]

The only reason this conversation has legs is because
it is a political issue. President Bush never outlawed stem-cell
research. He actually funded stem cell research. He even funded
in a limited way embryonic stem cell research. I believe he was the first
President to do so.

What he didn't fund was the destruction of embryonic
stem cells because he found that personally offensive. He along with millions of tax paying Americans see such an action as a taking of human life. This wasn't a position that he picked up after he was elected. He ran and won two elections having this open view point.

So did Superman die because of President Bush and those hoards of
right leaning Christians? No of course not. Stem cell research is being well funded by California and other sources. Research is being done in Europe as well. The fact is research takes time. Also it isn't unheard of for research scientists to exaggerate how close they are to the cure. It is after all how they get their paycheck.

All President Bush has done is make an unpopular decision based on a personal(public) conviction.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

But when science risks my morals, that's when I have to be against it.

And that is it in a nutshell.
That is also why we must endeavour with all our might to eliminate theism from politics. We must work extra hard at removing the blight of theocracy so humans have a chance at moving "forward" in life as opposed to being constantly dragged back into the middle ages.
Why man allows religion to contuinually attempt the answers of "why" <eg. why we are here> is beyond me.
Where were these people when man was using animals to advance medical causes? Silently praying?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The only reason this conversation has legs is because
it is a political issue. President Bush never outlawed stem-cell
research. He actually funded stem cell research. He even funded
in a limited way embryonic stem cell research. I believe he was the first
President to do so.

What he didn't fund was the destruction of embryonic
stem cells because he found that personally offensive. He along with millions of tax paying Americans see such an action as a taking of human life. This wasn't a position that he picked up after he was elected. He ran and won two elections having this open view point.

So did Superman die because of President Bush and those hoards of
right leaning Christians? No of course not. Stem cell research is being well funded by California and other sources. Research is being done in Europe as well. The fact is research takes time. Also it isn't unheard of for research scientists to exaggerate how close they are to the cure. It is after all how they get their paycheck.

All President Bush has done is make an unpopular decision based on a personal(public) conviction.

Following former president Ronald Reagan's death due to Alzheimer's in 2004-JUN -- a slow, lingering disease that took a decade to kill him -- Nancy Reagan and all of her family, except for Michael Reagan, mounted a campaign to encourage President Bush to relax restrictions on embryo stem cell research. Fifty-eight senators, almost all Democrats, sent a letter to President Bush, urging the same action.
A federal bill passed the House on 2005-MAY-24 to allow government funded research on embryonic stem cells extracted from surplus embryos in fertility clinics. It was later passed by the Senate. President Bush vetoed it -- his first veto of his presidency.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Following former president Ronald Reagan's death due to Alzheimer's in 2004-JUN -- a slow, lingering disease that took a decade to kill him -- Nancy Reagan and all of her family, except for Michael Reagan, mounted a campaign to encourage President Bush to relax restrictions on embryo stem cell research. Fifty-eight senators, almost all Democrats, sent a letter to President Bush, urging the same action.
A federal bill passed the House on 2005-MAY-24 to allow government funded research on embryonic stem cells extracted from surplus embryos in fertility clinics. It was later passed by the Senate. President Bush vetoed it -- his first veto of his presidency.

Yes he vetoed spending money on research that involved killing embryos. That's not akin to outlawing it.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

And that is it in a nutshell.
That is also why we must endeavour with all our might to eliminate theism from politics. We must work extra hard at removing the blight of theocracy so humans have a chance at moving "forward" in life as opposed to being constantly dragged back into the middle ages.
Why man allows religion to contuinually attempt the answers of "why" <eg. why we are here> is beyond me.
Where were these people when man was using animals to advance medical causes? Silently praying?

So you're going to force your morals on the rest of us, Cheese? Isn't that hypocritical? Morals have no religion. It's not religion saying 'woah, wait a minute here... what are we doing?' it's morals. You're saying that because scientists have no qualms about doing what others perceive as immoral all in the name of 'the advancement of humankind' or whatever, they get to enforce their morals on the rest of us?

[AC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes he vetoed spending money on research that involved killing embryos. That's not akin to outlawing it.

http://www.masslive.com/editorials/r...340.xml&coll=1

But in the summer of 2001, Bush handed down his policy, which limited the expenditure of federal funds to a small number of stem cell lines that were already in existence.The president and his supporters touted his approach as a masterful compromise that would please opponents of stem cell research without unduly restricting scientists from doing their work.

But in practice, the president's policy was anything but that. In effect, Bush's formula forced many U.S. scientists, who rely on federal funds to support their work, to get out of the stem cell business.

The bill that the president vetoed would have allowed those scientists to go back to work. And it would have allowed those who are suffering with a debilitating disease, often without hope, to know that there are people who are working toward a cure.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...67_page2.shtml

The president, who promotes something known as the “adoption option,” met last year with a group of parents and their children who owe their lives to couples who bequeathed them their leftover frozen embryos.

Millions of federal dollars now go to programs that promote the “adoption option,” like the National Embryo Donation Center in Knoxville, Tenn.

Deliveries here are not made by the stork, but by FedEx. Batches of frozen embryos are flown in from couples across the country. But the number of so-called adoptions through programs like this one totals only about 100.

Right now, federally funded stem cell research is allowed, yet highly restricted, applying to only research on embryos created before August 9, 2001. Out of the 78 cell lines that were included in that group, only 20 are viable to use and the embryos available are very limited which make it very hard for scientists to experiment at all.

So using excess embryos that would otherwise be thrown away in an effort to lessen the suffering that a countless number of people are enduring and will endure unless we can help them is wrong, but allowing them to be thrown away is A-OK?

The fact is that the cells come from the inner cell mass of left over blastocyst in fertility clinics.

Scientifically, a single celled protist such as a paramecium is more alive than a hollow ball of 100 to 150 completely undifferentiated cells. A blastocyst is alive in the sense of the constituent cells making up its structure are alive, but it is not considered an organism that can be killed. A paramecium can respond to stimuli, feed for its self, grow using cues from its own nervous system, reproduce sexually and evolve; all of which a blastocyst can not do.

[AC]

The argument that the embryo has the potential for life can be taken apart through basic logic.

Yes, an embryo does have that potential, but only if it is implanted in a uterus for it to grow.

However, since these embryos, left over from fertility clincs will never be implanted, there can never be that potential so often talked about. The two options available are either to throw away the embryo, or to use it to help countless people of all generations to come after us.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...67_page2.shtml

He recently did a survey of the nation’s fertility clinics and found that excess embryos are not only frozen, but many — thousands a year — are routinely destroyed with the patients' consent.

"Well some people say they’re life, and my response is: you can slowly destroy them or you can destroy them in a quicker way," Caplan says. "But to say that their fate is anything other than destruction is a delusion, and everybody knows it. There’s no escaping it."

The fact is, these embroys will be destroyed. Either they are used to help countless millions, or they are thrown away.

The problem isn't a lack of morality, it's a lack of education on the subject.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So you're going to force your morals on the rest of us, Cheese? Isn't that hypocritical? Morals have no religion. It's not religion saying 'woah, wait a minute here... what are we doing?' it's morals. You're saying that because scientists have no qualms about doing what others perceive as immoral all in the name of 'the advancement of humankind' or whatever, they get to enforce their morals on the rest of us?

I agree that morals have no religion--in fact, religion tends, in my view, to muddle morality, which works best when it derives from a personal sense of ethical behaviour.

However, I'm a little puzzled by the statement that by doing stem cell research, scientists are "forcing their morals" on other people. Do people who eat meat "force their morals" on vegetarians? Why should a few people who believe that stem cell research is immoral get to decide that no-one should be allowed to do it? Isn't that "forcing their morals" on the scientific community?

Moreover, if creating blastocysts for stem cells is immoral, then surely creating them for reproductive purposes and then discarding them is immoral too. Why is no-one picketing fertility clinics?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I agree that morals have no religion--in fact, religion tends, in my view, to muddle morality, which works best when it derives from a personal sense of ethical behaviour.

However, I'm a little puzzled by the statement that by doing stem cell research, scientists are "forcing their morals" on other people. Do people who eat meat "force their morals" on vegetarians? Why should a few people who believe that stem cell research is immoral get to decide that no-one should be allowed to do it? Isn't that "forcing their morals" on the scientific community?

Moreover, if creating blastocysts for stem cells is immoral, then surely creating them for reproductive purposes and then discarding them is immoral too. Why is no-one picketing fertility clinics?

Let's just say that scientists find a cure for something through the use of creating blastocysts, and I then develop that illness. Now, that's quite a dilemma. I can refuse treatment and die in order to prove my point, or I can accept treatment and live assuming that they would have found the cure for that illness by then anyways, through other means. As soon as they find the cure though, they aren't going to continue looking for a more 'ethical' cure.

As a meat eater I would never force a vegetarian to eat meat. As a matter of fact, the world is doing more and more to cater to their needs, by creating all organic fruits and vegtables, dairy products that don't come from animals, etc. Why can't science do the same for people who feel that the creation or blastocysts for scientific purposes is immoral?

I wouldn't picket fertility clinics for a number of reasons, namely that the people using them are desperate (much the same reason I'd never call someone who had an abortion a babykiller... even though I feel that way.) Also, it doesn't take into consideration the people who are going to the for other sorts of treatment. As well, you get into the whole, "my morals aren't your morals" thing. Who am I to tell these people what they're doing is wrong? (The couple that is.) If I don't want others forcing their morals on me, how can I force my morals on someone else?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Let's just say that scientists find a cure for something through the use of creating blastocysts, and I then develop that illness. Now, that's quite a dilemma. I can refuse treatment and die in order to prove my point, or I can accept treatment and live assuming that they would have found the cure for that illness by then anyways, through other means. As soon as they find the cure though, they aren't going to continue looking for a more 'ethical' cure.

You assume that there will be an ethical cure found sometime soon?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

You assume that there will be an ethical cure found sometime soon?

No, and that's the problem. Why bother looking for an ethical cure, when it's quicker and easier to research on leftover stem cells? If scientists spent some time trying to 'extract' stem cells rather than 'create' them, I'm sure they'd have figured it out by now.

[Calgaryborn]

AnthonyCook

The left leaning articles you shared left some information out. These scientists who are suppose to be out of work because Bush won't fund the destruction of embryos; they weren't employed in government funded embryonic stem cell research to begin with. To say that the federal government is the largest funder of embryonic stem cell research is deceptive. They haven't funded stem cell research except in the limited ways being discussed.

Iowa-Flames-Fan

It is a moral issue because my taxes would be funding the destruction of embryos. Bush recognized that for millions of Americans that would be offensive. Bush hasn't disallowed you from supporting the destruction of embryos for what ever possible benefits that might produce. Go for it. Just don't ask Bush to spend your neighbors money on something they find morally offensive.

Scientists don't have a right to tax payers money.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

FireFly: You make a lot of good arguments, so I'll address them one by one.

Originally Posted by FireFly

Let's just say that scientists find a cure for something through the use of creating blastocysts, and I then develop that illness. Now, that's quite a dilemma. I can refuse treatment and die in order to prove my point, or I can accept treatment and live assuming that they would have found the cure for that illness by then anyways, through other means. As soon as they find the cure though, they aren't going to continue looking for a more 'ethical' cure.

"Curing illness" is of course only one reason to study stem cells--though it's understandably the Left's favourite, because it makes for the best sound bites. In fact, much of the research that gets done never leads to cures directly, but instead enhances our understanding of cell development, embryology, the healing of injuries, etc.

With that said, I have to say that the scenario you describe, in which you get an illness or injury that can only be treated with stem cell therapies (assuming they even work) presents more than a dilemma. It leaves you in the position of preferring one of these scenarios: a) stem cell research has found a cure, but you refuse treatment and die (assuming it's something fatal) or b) stem cell research was banned and no cure was ever found, so you die anyway.

As a meat eater I would never force a vegetarian to eat meat. As a matter of fact, the world is doing more and more to cater to their needs, by creating all organic fruits and vegtables, dairy products that don't come from animals, etc. Why can't science do the same for people who feel that the creation or blastocysts for scientific purposes is immoral?

You can't compare the fact that private industry (along with some regulations) has provided vegetarians with the option of not eating meat, or of eating organic food (which is totally different, btw) to your "choice" not to allow stem cell research. The reason is simple: whether scientists are allowed to pursue a certain line of research affects everyone. Whether I choose to have a hamburger at lunch doesn't. But there's a further problem with this analogy:

If A) you believe it is immoral to destroy a blastocyst for scientific purposes and B) therefore stem cell research should not proceed because of how it affects you morally, regardless of whether it affects you PERSONALLY, then vegetarians have a real problem, because:
A) they believe it is immoral to kill an animal for food and B) therefore it should be illegal to eat meat for anybody, regardless of whether it affects them personally.

I wouldn't picket fertility clinics for a number of reasons, namely that the people using them are desperate (much the same reason I'd never call someone who had an abortion a babykiller... even though I feel that way.) Also, it doesn't take into consideration the people who are going to the for other sorts of treatment. As well, you get into the whole, "my morals aren't your morals" thing. Who am I to tell these people what they're doing is wrong? (The couple that is.) If I don't want others forcing their morals on me, how can I force my morals on someone else?

Here's where I get confused. If using blastocysts for scientific research constitutes someone else forcing their morals on you, why is that not the case for blastocysts that are created and discarded for fertility purposes? Also, if they're going to be discarded anyway, why not use them to help people? Isn't that a net moral good?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by FireFly

...God loves all his children. Love the sinner hate the sin. Says so right in the Bible. Therefore, it's also incorrect and the "God Hates Fags" group is a bunch of liars.. which is another sin that God hates, but He'll forgive them for it, if they ask for it.

Actually, I would argue that the biblical position is better stated: "love the sinner, hate your own sin."

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

"Curing illness" is of course only one reason to study stem cells--though it's understandably the Left's favourite, because it makes for the best sound bites. In fact, much of the research that gets done never leads to cures directly, but instead enhances our understanding of cell development, embryology, the healing of injuries, etc.

Absolutely. The problems that I have with stem cell research is the method they are procured. Yes, I understand that these cells are 'thrown away' otherwise. I would honestly prefer that, but again, that's just me. If there was a way for scientists to 'extract' stem cells instead of 'making' them, this wouldn't be a debate at all! So why is it that scientists won't spend the time to figure out how to 'extract' them?

With that said, I have to say that the scenario you describe, in which you get an illness or injury that can only be treated with stem cell therapies (assuming they even work) presents more than a dilemma. It leaves you in the position of preferring one of these scenarios: a) stem cell research has found a cure, but you refuse treatment and die (assuming it's something fatal) or b) stem cell research was banned and no cure was ever found, so you die anyway.

A bit far, no? Again, the problem with stem cell research is the method of procurement. Find a new method of procurement, and continue on like happy campers. which leaves us with a c) and a d) option. (I notice that you conveniently left out my scenario in which one can assume regular science would have found the same cure, or in this case, scientists find a different method of extracting stem cells and can continue on with their research without ANY ethical dilemmas at all.

You can't compare the fact that private industry (along with some regulations) has provided vegetarians with the option of not eating meat, or of eating organic food (which is totally different, btw) to your "choice" not to allow stem cell research.

Yes I can. Science has found other methods for people to get the proteins and such that vegetarians need from alternate sources. They determined that there were enough humans that wanted such products, so they went ahead and found a way to make them without the use of animals or animal byproducts. Yes I realize organic foods are different, but again, the same theory applies. What difference does it make if I like my fruit with pesticides? Let's give those who prefer organic foods the option of buying organic foods.

The reason is simple: whether scientists are allowed to pursue a certain line of research affects everyone. Whether I choose to have a hamburger at lunch doesn't. But there's a further problem with this analogy:

Absolutely agree. Which is why I, and many persons, don't have a problem with stem cell research, but a problem with the way these cells are created and destroyed. Solution: find a new way to procure stem cells.

If A) you believe it is immoral to destroy a blastocyst for scientific purposes and B) therefore stem cell research should not proceed because of how it affects you morally, regardless of whether it affects you PERSONALLY, then vegetarians have a real problem, because:
A) they believe it is immoral to kill an animal for food and B) therefore it should be illegal to eat meat for anybody, regardless of whether it affects them personally.

Wrong. Vegetarians have a choice. Currently, I do not. Stem cell research ABSOLUTELY WILL affect me in some way. My family has a history of hereditary colon cancer. You think they aren't going to find a cure for that? Do I just not have children then because I know they'll likely get cancer and I don't want 'dirty' treatment? If research goes along with the current method of procuring these cells, then I will NEVER have a choice. If they find a different way to get stem cells, we'll all benefit without having it bother our morals.

Here's where I get confused. If using blastocysts for scientific research constitutes someone else forcing their morals on you, why is that not the case for blastocysts that are created and discarded for fertility purposes? Also, if they're going to be discarded anyway, why not use them to help people? Isn't that a net moral good?

Because I am not forcing my morals on someone else. Using blastocysts for research could develop a treatment that I would then have moral issues taking. If someone else wants to make and kill 5 babies just to have one, that's their own moral decision and does not affect me.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

AnthonyCook
The left leaning articles you shared left some information out. These scientists who are suppose to be out of work because Bush won't fund the destruction of embryos; they weren't employed in government funded embryonic stem cell research to begin with.

That also means they cannot be funded now.

Federal funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells is limited to research involving only those cell lines that were approved by the Bush administration in August 2001.

Any lab conducting stem cell research cannot use any federal money for any work related to the stem cells (including something as small as using a printer bought with federal money for information pertaining to stem cell research). The exception is for the few lines harvested before the August 2001 - but seeing as that is now over 5 years ago, those stem cell lines are almost all gone.

No lab with ANY percentage of their funding from federal sources can really do any stem cell research. Since the vast majority of academic (non-industry) research is funded by the NIH, a federal institution, this rules out the vast majority of research labs in the country.

The limited amount of funding from private sources will be unable to keep pace with the needs of the stem cell research community. Less restricted availability of federal funds for human embryonic stem cell research would certainly accelerate progress in this field, and improve the health of the American people in the long-term.

The fact remains that he pulled the plug on funding for research of embryos after Aug. 9, 2001.

The significant part is what is allowed. And in this case, there are sever restrictions on the stem cell lines that are useable.

A limited number of human embryonic stem cell lines have been approved for use by scientists receiving federal funds in the United States. In August 2001, President Bush mandated that if scientists were using federal funds, research could only be conducted on the cell lines that were already in existence, grown from fertilized eggs that were to be discarded at in vitro fertilization clinics.

This regulation stated that no additional human stem cell lines could be generated from additional blastocysts. In the long term, this will place severe restrictions on the scientific process in this field and will limit the ability of scientists to compare the potential of human embryonic stem cell lines for tissue repair, to that which can be accomplished from other sources, such as adult stem cells.

There are only 20 cell lines are eligible for federal funding in the USA. Detailed information on those 20 cell lines can be found at the National Institutes of Health Human Stem Cell Registry at http://stemcells.nih.gov

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

To say that the federal government is the largest funder of embryonic stem cell research is deceptive. They haven't funded stem cell research except in the limited ways being discussed.

I didn't say that.

Originally Posted by FireFly

If someone else wants to make and kill 5 babies just to have one, that's their own moral decision and does not affect me.

Please do not try and twist the situation to one of baby killing. It's misleading and just wrong. You are turning this into an abortion issue, which is far off base of this discussion.

Originally Posted by FireFly

The problems that I have with stem cell research is the method they are procured. Yes, I understand that these cells are 'thrown away' otherwise. I would honestly prefer that, but again, that's just me.

This is just my curiosity, but why do you think simply throwing them out without using them to help others is better?

Originally Posted by FireFly

If there was a way for scientists to 'extract' stem cells instead of 'making' them, this wouldn't be a debate at all! So why is it that scientists won't spend the time to figure out how to 'extract' them?

This is an excellent point. But to suggest that scientists aren't spending time to figure out how to extract stem cells in a way that wont result in the destruction of the embryo just shows you haven't done any research into the topic.

There are several separate studies currently into this aspect of stem cell research. One such, is extracting single cells from 8-10-cell early human embryos.

However, when single cells are extracted, they are seveley less likely to be able to replicate and culture. One specific research into this found that, only 2 cell lines out of 91 single cells cultured. So research and advancements are slow to ccur.

But there certainly are advancements being made into extracting stem cells without destroying the embryo.