Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[Archaea]

Don't harvest humans. Don't kill second or third trimester fetuses for research.

That's my line.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Here's another thought: Should we not donate blood because nuclei from white cells could potentially be used to clone a human being? In principle, any adult cell has potential to become a human being when inserted into an egg in the lab.

The fertilized egg has no potential with a uterus. White blood cell has no potential to become a human being without inserting it into an egg. Orrin Hatch makes the argument that the 3-day old blastocyst does not have potential to become a human being without the help of a physician and implantation into the uterus. I sort of like that argument, even though I'm not an Orrin fan.

In the video, the major argument is that the blastocyst has potential to become a human being. That's true, if the blastocyst is properly implanted into a uterus--but it still requires that extra step to have true potential. But the blastocyst in the test tube is still one artificial step away from complete potential. So one step away from complete potential to become a human being is bad, but two steps away is OK? I guess it's just a question of where you draw the line.

he makes the argument that the embryo needs nothing more than you or your children need to survive. It needs food, and a hospitable environment.

Your newborn has no potential to survive without you.

Any reliance on Orrin Hatch for anything moral or intellectual is putting you on very thin ice, I have to say!

Folks, just watch the video. Some of you will come away skeptical of embryonic stem cells , some of you will be convinced it is the right thing.

[MikeWaters]

Let me add, that I watched the first four speakers. Two of them pro-, two of them anti-.

One that is pro, bought up the question, for what research is it ethical to destroy embryos? To research male pattern baldness? Cosmetic things? Are we really comfortable with that? If not, then you are admitting that the embryo has more than zero moral standing.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

he makes the argument that the embryo needs nothing more than you or your children need to survive. It needs food, and a hospitable environment.

Your newborn has no potential to survive without you.

Any reliance on Orrin Hatch for anything moral or intellectual is putting you on very thin ice, I have to say!

Folks, just watch the video. Some of you will come away skeptical of embryonic stem cells , some of you will be convinced it is the right thing.

I forgot the most important recent development.

Just a couple of weeks ago I heard about a paper where they were able to harvest stem cells from a blastocyst without destroying the embryo. Embryos could be carried to full term to generate a healthy mouse.

This isn't difficult to imagine (harvesting stem cells without destroying the embryo). Knock-out and knock-in mice are generated by injecting additional stem cells to the inner cell mass. Removing a few cells without destroying the embryo isn't harmful either.

[Archaea]

It's not traditional life, it's predatory life at most.

We need the research, and it seems far-fetched to me.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's not traditional life, it's predatory life at most.

We need the research, and it seems far-fetched to me.

????

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Don't harvest humans. Don't kill second or third trimester fetuses for research.

That's my line.

So you're opposed to in vitro fertilization?

Or it's OK to do in vitro and put the 3-day old blastocyst on deep freeze for the rest of it's existence, or till the power goes out or someone forgets to fill the liquid nitrogen tank.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I forgot the most important recent development.

Just a couple of weeks ago I heard about a paper where they were able to harvest stem cells from a blastocyst without destroying the embryo. Embryos could be carried to full term to generate a healthy mouse.

This isn't difficult to imagine (harvesting stem cells without destroying the embryo). Knock-out and knock-in mice are generated by injecting additional stem cells to the inner cell mass. Removing a few cells without destroying the embryo isn't harmful either.

This is ethically important. Whether the embryo is destroyed or not.

I should add, that I don't take the unspoken LDS position as the Lord's position. I think the Lord expects us to study it out and make our own prayerful decision.

And having said that, advocacy can be part of that process. You telling me what you think, and me telling you what I think.

[MikeWaters]

Here is an related question: is there no demand for these embryos? For example, couples where the wife is infertile? I realize that many of these might want an egg donor + husband's sperm?

I think part of the problem is that the original mothers/fathers don't want to donate them.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is ethically important. Whether the embryo is destroyed or not.

I should add, that I don't take the unspoken LDS position as the Lord's position. I think the Lord expects us to study it out and make our own prayerful decision.

And having said that, advocacy can be part of that process. You telling me what you think, and me telling you what I think.

I completely agree. I think a lot of complicated issues the Church doesn't take a position on merely because the issues are too complicated, not because there isn't a true moral answer.

I can see both sides of the argument. Even though they have used ES cells to restore movement to hind limbs of paralyzed rats, most of the rats develop nasty teratomas (weird tumors) months later. It could very well be an over-hyped bunch of bologna, sort of like gene therapy.