[Knotbored]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

I have a question. Is the objection to stem cell research because people don't want human embryos being used? Is this similar to the objection to abortion, that a fetus or embryo, no matter the age, is sacrosanct?

If so then what about the used of umbilical cord stem cells? That is certainly not a "life" to be violated.

I don't think I have ever seen an argument over umblical cord stem cell research, as a matter of fact its the argument most used against using the unborn. Do you have any sites indicating objections to umbilical cord research?

[pyritechips]

I have seen no objections to umbilical cord stem cell research but my point is that all I have every seen is arguments against stem cell research period because most people are under the impression that they only come from fetuses.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

I have seen no objections to umbilical cord stem cell research but my point is that all I have every seen is arguments against stem cell research period because most people are under the impression that they only come from fetuses.

Gotta disagree. I think that most of those against using fetuses are not against adult stem cell research. Although many do not want either funded by the govt.

[pyritechips]

I think when it comes to something like stem cell research we have to look at it from different facets. One is the moral aspect and the other is economical. Why research it and how to pay for it.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

I think when it comes to something like stem cell research we have to look at it from different facets. One is the moral aspect and the other is economical. Why research it and how to pay for it.

Boggles me how there is a moral aspect. And until it is proven to be not a viable thing to research it should be a no brainer. We have researched a lot of dead ends. This is not a dead end. Far from it.

[pyritechips]

The moral angle is a religious one in my opinion. I just got an idea for a thread that I don't think has been done before. Keep your eyes open for it.

[Knotbored]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

The moral angle is a religious one in my opinion. I just got an idea for a thread that I don't think has been done before. Keep your eyes open for it.

I think you still miss the point. No religious, moral or political objection exists about stem cell research that does not use fetuses. The wild acusations by the ultra-left about objections to stem cell research in general is a figment of their imagination.

[pyritechips]

I think the media also sensationalize it. All I ever hear is fetuses. Only recently did I see an ad on TV asking people to donate umbilical tissue.

[lotuseclat79]

Medicine's New Toolbox (4 web pages).

An alternative way to make stem cells could open a window on human disease.


Reprogrammed: Scientists have genetically modified skin cells so that they behave like embryonic stem cells, which can develop into virtually every tissue type in the body. Credit: Junying Yu/University of Wisconsin-Madison

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

Stem-Cell Breakthrough.

Scientists Foresee Breakthroughs With Stem Cells


A stem cell from human umbilical-cord blood. David Scharf/Science Faction-Corbis

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

Journal retracts claim of sperm made of stem cells.

A scientific journal has retracted a controversial paper claiming to have created the first human sperm from embryonic stem cells.


AFP/HO/File – Handout photo shows human sperm. A team of British scientists claimed Wednesday to have created human …

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

'Ethical' Stem Cell Crop Boosted from non-Embryonic Tissue.

US researchers have found a way to dramatically increase the harvest of stem cells from adult tissue.


The research was done using fibroblast skin cells

-- Tom

[Knotbored]

Is it fair to suggest that none of the several breakthroughs mentioned here would have been investigated if aborted fetuses financed by federal funds were easily available to these researchers?

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by Knotbored

Is it fair to suggest that none of the several breakthroughs mentioned here would have been investigated if aborted fetuses financed by federal funds were easily available to these researchers?

Hi Knotbored,

Yes, I would agree that it is fair to suggest, however, on the point "none" I would replace it with "some" and "may have not been investigated until a later time frame".

The path of the future is indeed as your post points out framed by our choices, and since the choice you pose regarding "if aborted fetuses financed by federal funds (being) easily available to these researchers" is at best speculation and otherwise dismisses a different set of researchers bound by ethics which would have indeed pursued the breakthroughs we have now come to be aware exist.

-- Tom

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Knotbored

Is it fair to suggest that none of the several breakthroughs mentioned here would have been investigated if aborted fetuses financed by federal funds were easily available to these researchers?

Is it fair to ask, "What difference does it make"?