Embryo Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research is murder and it is evil.

(Happy? )

 

How is it that they are dead if they are and have been growing for 5 days? It's alive and it's human but it's not human life...now...doesn't that make any sense whatsoever.

 

www.stemcellresearch.org

 

Here's a good article

'Healing' via human sacrifice

Deceptive, irresponsible, outrageous hype and blatant lies - these are the tools being used to convince people that changing administrations from Bush to Kerry will lead to cures for all their present and future suffering from illness and disease.

The worst news of all - it's working.

[snip]

The great significance of these legal and technical terms is that they predict the legal status and moral treatment the unborn child will receive. This includes not only abortion but also creation of embryos for implantation, freezing "leftover" embryos, human experimentation, research and now human cloning.

So fluid use of these terms is how the likes of Ron Reagan can "rightfully" make their case for human cloning and ESCR and still sleep at night. No fetus is created or destroyed because the human life created is sacrificed before it reaches the age of 9 weeks. That means only embryos are created and destroyed.


[Link to entire article]

 

And another good article. This one from the current secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.!

Why Bush's stem-cell policy is reasoned — and why it's working
By Tommy G. Thompson

As Americans, we cherish human life. We celebrate a pregnancy and the birth of a child as one of our greatest gifts. We also suffer when disease ravages and robs the life we so cherish.
But what happens when our respect for the sanctity of life collides with our desire to find therapies and cures for debilitating diseases? This is the dilemma our society wrestles with when it comes to human embryonic stem cells and their potential to treat, and perhaps cure, the most wretched diseases facing humankind.

[snip...]

[Link to entire atricle]

 

Whether any of you like it or not, there are many cures that have come about because of people using aborted baby parts, discarded embryos, etc. It is a fact of life. I'm not saying it is right.

So most of you are saying that if the frozen embryos are going to be discarded, you would rather them go to the trash heap than to research to benefit people, correct?

AVL1984

 

No, incorrect. A decent, respectful burial would be proper for them.

 

I seriously doubt you're going to get these people to do that. If they aren't used, they are eventually discarded....so???

AVL1984

 

I understand your reply, but not the rolleyes. Can you elaborate on your use of that emoticon in this context?

 

The rolleyes? I guess they would be because at present there are only two available options, let them be discarded or allow them to be used for research. Which would you chose given those options?

AVL1984

 

Name a few of the many. I would be interested in hearing specifically what those cures are.

 

Something that might be worth noting is that embryonic stem cell research is being push so hard right now because it is the cheaper method of getting stem cells. There are several other viable options out there but they are all more expensive than embryonic stem cell. The push is coming from pharmaceutical companies and is indeed profit driven, ethics has little to play their view of things since this is a margin issue.

Just note. I'll probably toss something in here tommorrow after my classes. This is an important topic.

Might be good to define personhood.

 

Name a few of the many. I would be interested in hearing specifically what those cures are. </font>[/QUOTE]I personally am not a scientist, but my cousin is and has done work for many bio companies. I know that they have assisted greatly in research on diabetes, skin conditions, and several other things. Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message. Do your own research, just like you would for anything else. You can also contact the CDC in Atlanta or many of the research clinics such as Mayo, John Hopkins, etc.

AVL1984

 

I probably should have clarified this.

1. Is it ethical to use frozen embryos that are alive from something like in vitro fertilization for stem cell research? This necessitates the killing of the embryo.
2. Is it ethical to create embryos in the lab so that stem cells can be taken from them for research (this necessitates the killing of the embryo).

This page explains it a bit:
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/2004-06-11.htm

Thanks for the link, Ken!
</font>[/QUOTE]I found a different explanation at this site:

http://www.asrm.org/Patients/FactSheets/invitro.html

1. IVF is a method of assisted reproduction in which the man's sperm and the woman's egg (oocyte) are combined in a laboratory dish, where fertilization occurs. The resulting embryo is then transferred to the uterus to develop naturally. Usually, two to four embryos are transferred with each cycle.
2. According to the latest statistics, the success rate for IVF is 29.4% deliveries per egg retrieval
3. Success with IVF increases with the number of cycles attempted up to four cycles.

If I understand this correctly, on average it takes more than one egg retrieval for success. Let's assume 5 embryos are required.

The options on what to do with those are discussed here:

http://www.ivf.com/ivffaq.html

Q: What happens to any extra pre-embryos?
A: A maximum of four pre-embryos will be transferred to the uterus for possible implantation (per cycle or up to 16 as discussed in the preceeding article). Patients will have several other options regarding the disposition of the remaining pre-embryos. One option is to freeze pre-embryos for your later use. Other options are to donate or simply dispose of them. Excess pre-embryos, if any, belong to you, and you will determine what is to be done.

I don't know the statistics, but this process will result in from 1-15 "extra" embryos to be dealt with in one of these ways.

 

So you're saying that, given the option of using them to cure diseases and relieve human suffering, or giving them a "proper burial", you would choose the latter? Of what benefit is the latter to anybody?

 

Actually this site
http://www.inciid.org/ivf.html
provides a different slant.

Embryo Freezing

If an IVF procedure fails, the couple should wait at least one month while the wife recovers before undergoing superovulation and egg retrieval again. Saving eggs for future use by fertilizing them with sperm and then freezing them as pre-embryos can be helpful. Frozen pre-embryos can be transferred during subsequent spontaneous (natural) ovulation cycles without subjecting the wife to any additional medications and another egg retrieval.

At the right time during succeeding treatment cycles, the frozen preembryos are thawed and transferred into the uterus as with any IVF attempt.

The ability to preserve pre-embryos for future use lowers the total cost of repeated IVF treatments since the most costly first few stages (ovulation induction, egg retrieval, fertilization) don't have to be repeated. Another advantage is that one or more pre-embryos can be transferred during a natural ovulation cycle when the woman's uterus is naturally ready for implantation.

Only about half of frozen pre-embryos survive thawing, and less than 20 percent lead to pregnancies. Most U.S. centers now freeze preembryos. Improved freezing and thawing techniques are currently being developed and will almost certainly lead to more centers offering preembryo freezing in the future.

It seems as if the unused embryos from the first cycle can be frozen and used for the next cycly instead of harvesting new ones. However, half of these die and using frozed embryos is not as successful. It's a complicated business and the ethics aren't that simple.

 

Who killed the embryos to do the research?

NO!