Adult Stem Cells Provide Little To No Help

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by Magnetic Poles, Sep 20, 2006.

  1. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    In earlier threads, some posters have asserted that adult stem cells are just as effective as embryonic ones in healing people of disease. These claims come not from science, but from people's bias against using embryonic cells. Here is evidence that those assertions are simply not true:

    Full story at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14925729/
     
    #1 Magnetic Poles, Sep 20, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2006
  2. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    It does not matter one bit. Killing babies is still wrong. And if not killing babies means people continue to die from old age and illness, so be it.
     
  3. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can we never keep the hyperbole and emotion out of this discussion? Yes, killing babies is wrong. We can disagree on what constitutes a "baby", but last time I looked, a clump of cellular matter isn't a baby. And it isn't just old age, we are talking quality of life and even life itself for children afflicted with terminal diseases. This was not posted to become another debate rehash of earlier threads, but rather to make the point that those who claim adult stem cells are just as effective are probably not correct.

    If I had a child with a terminal disease that could be cured by using cells harvested from a zygote that would be destroyed anyway, would I use them? You bet your life I would.
     
    #3 Magnetic Poles, Sep 20, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2006
  4. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I also would add that if adult stem cells were as effective, I would wholeheartedly agree that we should use them. This would eliminate the controversy. However, sadly enough, it appears not to be true.
     
  5. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, killing babies is an emotional subject. I worry about people who dont think so.

    You cell matter argument is worthless. There is no proof either way. But I have seen ultrasounds of what you call cell matter and I have seen the results of what you call cell matter twice. Again I worry about somebody who is so callous to human life that you believe it can be discarded to suit your own needs.

    If the choice was to let my children die of disease or murder inocent children. I would let my children die and see them again someday. I would not under any circimstances murder an innocent baby.
     
  6. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Natural death by desiese and illness, old age is a part of life. Murdering babies in order to buy a few extra years on this earth is not an acceptable answer.
     
  7. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have not seen ultrasounds of a blastocyst. You have seen a fetus. Big difference.

    I worry about someone who would sacrifice his children over a wad of cells.
     
  8. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Natural too are blocked heart arteries, smallpox, polio, measles, cancer and other conditions man has successfully battled. And this isn't just about "old people" like I pointed out, not that old people have fewer rights than the young.
     
  9. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have seen the result and they are now 4 1/2 and 1 1/2 years old. They both started out as a blastocystfetusbaby. You are telling me it would have been ok to kill them when they were younger.
     
  10. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Battled by means that did not involve murdering babies.

    Murdering babies crosses the line.
     
  11. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a blastocyst, highly magnified:

    [​IMG]

    This is what we are talking about. Not a fetus. Not a baby.

    The ones to be used would be destroyed anyway. If you believe it is a baby, wouldn't this at least give their destruction some meaning?

    And what about the fact that 60-70% of blastocysts created naturally, are routinely flushed away by the body and are never implanted in the uterus. Not a very good track record. You, yourself, probably have many such "babies" that you never even knew about.
     
  12. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is both a fetus and a baby. I dont care if it has arms and legs. In 9 months it will be what I seen born as my kids. Living things dont change from one species to another when they grow. It is not a plant and becomes a baby. What you show in your picture is what a very young baby looks like.

    We should not be useing them or destroying them. I want no part of either. It is wrong.

    If they die naturaly then we did not murder them.

    For example did you know that %100 percent of people die and are buried in the ground. So if I go out and kill a few with a knife for my own personal benifit then it is ok right. Right, same argument.
     
  13. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am going to go home and play with the little blastocysts before they go to bed. The older blastocyst just got home from AWANAs, she is all excited to show me something. :sleeping_2:
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is plenty of evidence of the effectiveness of using adult stem cells as they are already providing help to people - www.stemcellresearch.org.

    The idea of using embryonic stem cells has never helped one solitary person and I sincerely doubt that it ever will. Even the advocates of this idea can only say there is potential that is decades away - in essence, pie in the sky by and by.
     
    #14 KenH, Sep 20, 2006
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2006
  15. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    MP, I would ask you for consistency. Earlier, you said,

    But then later, you said,
    You engaged in what you asked to be left out of the discussion, IMO.

    I don't have a good answer for you on what to do with the thousands of embryos that are already formed, and are frozen. But since they have the full genetic material that a grownup has, I can't go along with the "wad of cells" definition, and the subsequent destruction of them. I've always been bothered by the large numbers of them being created. But now that they're 'made,' I'm not feeling good about killing them.

    When you squash a caterpillar, are you killing a butterfly? It doesn't look or act like a butterfly yet; however, all that will make it a butterfly is contained in that living caterpillar. It is actively becoming a butterfly before its life is ended. It's life's biological end result will be a butterfly. Now granted, this analogy is not perfect--yet it makes the point, I think. And with one major added ingredient--butterflies don't have souls...they're not made in the image of God.

    The other concern I have, MP, is that we link the value of an individual to their usefulness. That slippery slope scares the heck out of me. Our "usefulness" is not how God judges us. The following from my life illustrates this:

    Several years ago, when I was a nursing home chaplain, I led a man named Paul to the Lord. Paul was 88 years old. He was blind, almost completely deaf, bedridden, and had severe arthritis. When I would visit with him, and when I witnessed to him, I had to lean down in his ear and holler. It took over an hour to share Christ with him. Yet he believed, and was saved.

    The world might look at Paul and say, "but what good was he to anyone? He couldn't do anything." Yet God didn't tie Paul's worth to his ability to be useful, but rather his inherent value to GOD because God had made Paul, and ultimately God had redeemed Paul.

    It was a great reminder to me that God does not view us in a utilitarian sort of way--and I'm very leery of looking at humans--born or yet to be born--in that matter.
     
  16. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    All arguments aside, this last comment is cold.

    MP,

    If you did not intend to start a debate, then why on earth did you start this topic in a debate forum and open with a challenge to those who view this process as evil and murderous?

    I, myself, am not exactly sure where I sit on this issue. Part of me knows that I believe in life at conception, that allowing the due course of nature (God's way) will mean that these embryos would eventually become babies. The other part knows that these embryos are marked for destruction, and in lieu of just destroying the unused embryos, they could at least be put to use in medical research. No matter what we do, even with adoption and what not, almost all of these created embryos will be destroyed. That is a simple fact.

    It's a very slippery slope with something like this, with many pro-lifers such as myself not knowing what to think.

    All I can do at this juncture is pray for God's guidance, and if these tests on these embryos go through, that He will forgive us if we've been on the wrong side of this issue.
     
  17. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a new way of obtaining embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. It involves removing a cell from the embryo and raising it with the "parent" embryo.

    This doesn't always work to produce new stem cells, but it often does AND the embryo can continue to develop to implantation stage.
     
  18. Not_hard_to_find

    Not_hard_to_find
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    0
    That sounds great! Perhaps a letter-writing campaign to our representatives to support additional research here would be in order.

    Thanks for the good info, Daisy.
     
  19. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    rbell, thank you for your rationally-worded response. First of all, my comment you felt to be inconsistent was a direct response to DeeJay's similar comment. However, you are correct, I did not intend this to be another debate about when a human life begins. It was to address the fact that there is new evidence to support the idea that adult stem cells may not be effective.
    I don't think your analogy is very good at all. A caterpillar is more of an analog for a human child. A blastocyst cannot live on its own, eat, think, feel, or anything anymore than the component sperm and ova can.

    As for souls, I think there could be discussion about that as well. As has been pointed out, in the Genesis story (BTW, I am not a literalist on this, but view it as parable), Adam was not a living soul until he had the breath of life. Soul may not be an invisible ghost, but we are all living souls. However, if someone wants to delve into this idea further, let's not do it in this thread, but start a new one about that.

    I agree totally with this. That is why I questioned DeeJay about his granting rights to a blastocyst over those of the elderly. Now, I have pointed out that stem cell research also has the potential to help children. But I drew from his comments that old people are going to die soon anyway, so what? That is not my position at all. I value the elderly, as I am approaching that status more rapidly than I want. DeeJay, if I misconstrue your comments, please clarify and accept my apology in advance.

    Since there is room for difference of opinion about when a life begins, lets keep this thread on topic...the value of stem cell research using embryonic vs. adult cells; and leave the loaded language about "killing babies" out of this discussion. As Daisy has aptly pointed out, they can even harvest from embryos without destroying them. Still, I think that if destruction is to happen, why not derive some benefit from it.

    This is a very emotional topic for many, so I ask we keep this on a rational level, fully understanding that others will vehemently disagree. I will try to do the same.
     
  20. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    You state my point, but add calousness that I dont have. I respect and care about the elerly. It is not "they are going to die anyway, so what." It is more along the lines of death is a natural part of life and murdering babies to prolong life is unexeptable.

    It is not about rights. Nobody has the right to take another life to prolong theirs. If I wanted to kill a 6 year old for his liver and you said no, are you granting him rights over me. No I never had the right to take another life. So blytoplasts have God given right as living humans. Elderly never had the right to kill them.

    You can not seperate this debate from the question of when life begins, that is the heart of this debate. MP if you are right then it is ok to harvist blastoplasts. MP if I am right then we are murdering babies and useing their bodies in an attempt to prolong life.

    MP if you are right then what we are doing is no different then picking plants and making pharmacuticals. If I am right then what we are doing is no different then murdering school age children to take their organs for our use.

    Since there is no proof either way I think we shoud err on the side of life. There is no doubt that what you call "a mass of cells" is alive. There is no doubt that it is human, since humans procreat and can only make other humans.

    I like to think about it backwards. My child was once a blytoplast (or what ever the word is) If you want to tell me that it would have been ok to kill my child if I would have done it early enought. I will never believe it, I will always consider it evil.
     
    #20 DeeJay, Sep 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2006

Share This Page

Loading...