Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[palerider]

Well maybe you should start because its just as equally important as science in deciding if a foetus is alive or not.

So since an infant can't express emotion or demonstrate any intelligence beyond screaming from discomfort or hunger does that mean that it is not alive?

And yes, you havn't taken much intelligence into this discussion

Cute. Is that what passes for debate in your sphere?

 

[9sublime]

So since an infant can't express emotion or demonstrate any intelligence beyond screaming from discomfort or hunger does that mean that it is not alive?

No, it is alive. I never said it wasn't alive. Maybe you should read what I'm saying. You want to keep an unborn foetus alive because it is a real human being with feelings and emotions. Well maybe you should take such a stance on keeping all living animals alive as some of them will have (before the child matures) a greater intellect than the child.

 

[Coyote]

Nope. They are not genetically complete. If they were, they would be growing and developing into mature human beings. You have gloamed onto a bit of science that you don't understand and trying to torture it into supporting your postion. The fact remains that if you did a DNA test on either type of trophoblastic tumor, you would find the mother's DNA present while that is not true of an unborn.

You are wrong.

A complete molar pregnancy occurs when the nucleus of an egg is either lost or inactivated. The sperm then duplicates itself because the egg was lacking genetic information. Usually there is no fetus, no placenta, no fluid and no amniotic membranes.

However, a partial molar pregnancy the egg is normal and fertilized by a sperm. This most frequently occurs when two sperm fertilize the same egg. There may be partial placentas, membranes or even a fetus present in a partial mole. Rarely, a partial mole will exist with twin pregnancy. These are genitically completely human.

If this wrong - show me.

 

[Coyote]

Again, somatic cells are not stem cells. You demonstrate how much you don't know on the subject when you bring this sort of thing forward. And once again, the ground has been broken on stem cell research by those who study adult stem cells. The protocalls are nearly identical once the cells are separated. Embryonic stem cells are a dead end.

From your link:

Stem cell research has been around for almost as long as microscopes. Though it is only within the 1980s that more sophisticated genetechnology developments have allowed for the culturing (growing of cells) in laboratories.

If you classify peering into a microscope wondering what they were looking at research, then I suppose the study has been going on, but by your own article, serious research didn't begin until the 1980's. In the 20 years since, there is a long and still growing list of diseases that have been successfuly treated with adult stem cells. No disease, however, has been successfuly treated with embryonic stem cells even though the protocalls are nearly identical.

I might give on that point - I don't know that much on stem cells. But I do think not enough time has been had yet (and research has been so politically restricted) to determine for sure whether fetal stem cells are a dead end or not.

 

[palerider]

No, it is alive. I never said it wasn't alive. Maybe you should read what I'm saying. You want to keep an unborn foetus alive because it is a real human being with feelings and emotions. Well maybe you should take such a stance on keeping all living animals alive as some of them will have (before the child matures) a greater intellect than the child.

Again. I have never said that unborns were either emotional or intelligent. Neither of those are requirements of being human beings.

If you are arguing for the rights of animals, then start a thread. This one is not about animal rights.

 

[palerider]

I might give on that point - I don't know that much on stem cells. But I do think not enough time has been had yet (and research has been so politically restricted) to determine for sure whether fetal stem cells are a dead end or not.

Research has not been politically restricted. The fact that government money is not being used in the research does not constitute political restriction. The fact is that most of the advancements in adult stem cell research have been made without government money as well as are most medical advancements.

The very fact that the protocals are now known and have been for decades and that no effective cure for even one disease has come out of fetal stem cell research is enough of an indication that they are a dead end. I can't think of any other branch of research that has shown so little promise that has been kept artificially alive for this long. The pro choice industry needs desperately for this research to succeede in some way, no matter how small in order to bolster thier flagging support.

 

[palerider]

You are wrong.
These are genitically completely human.

If this wrong - show me.

If you mean genetically "completely human" in the sense that there is no DNA from another species present, then yes, they are completely human. But then so are toenail clippings. They are not human beings however as is the case with unborns at any stage of development. If they were genetically completely human in the sense that an unborn is, then they would continue to mature and grow.

You should know that your argument has failed when you find that you must attempt to compare a tumor to a healthy human being.

 

[Coyote]

Research has not been politically restricted. The fact that government money is not being used in the research does not constitute political restriction. The fact is that most of the advancements in adult stem cell research have been made without government money as well as are most medical advancements.

These days federal funding contributes a great deal to research efforts (look at NIH for example)- it does make a difference in what does or does not get studied. Many research initiatives get partial funding from federal sources as well. Can you back up your claim with any sources?

The very fact that the protocals are now known and have been for decades and that no effective cure for even one disease has come out of fetal stem cell research is enough of an indication that they are a dead end.

How long has the use of embryonic stem cells as cures or help for diseases, specifically been studied?

I can't think of any other branch of research that has shown so little promise that has been kept artificially alive for this long. The pro choice industry needs desperately for this research to succeede in some way, no matter how small in order to bolster thier flagging support.

I don't think the "pro-choice industry" (what ever that is) cares one way or the other about stem cell research. The people that seem to care the most are the people with diseases they hope might be helped by it.

 

[Coyote]

If you mean genetically "completely human" in the sense that there is no DNA from another species present, then yes, they are completely human. But then so are toenail clippings. They are not human beings however as is the case with unborns at any stage of development. If they were genetically completely human in the sense that an unborn is, then they would continue to mature and grow.

It is completely and genetically a human with the genetic material of two parents - biologically and scientifically, it is as "human" as a fetus.

You should know that your argument has failed when you find that you must attempt to compare a tumor to a healthy human being.

Not at all. The very fact that you have to now qualify your definition by adding "healthy" to it means that what defines a "human" is not strictly scientific or biological.

I wonder then - is an unhealthy "human" no longer human?

 

[palerider]

I don't think the "pro-choice industry" (what ever that is) cares one way or the other about stem cell research. The people that seem to care the most are the people with diseases they hope might be helped by it.

Most of the diseases that are the big hopes for embryonic stem cell research have already been successfully treated with both adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells.

 

[Coyote]

From NIH on Embryonic Stemcell Research:

Have human embryonic stem cells successfully treated any human diseases?

Scientists have been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) only since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, Federal funds to support hESC research have been available since only August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on Federal funding for hESC research. Because many academic researchers rely on Federal funds to support their laboratories, they are just beginning to learn how to grow and use the cells. Thus, although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages.

 

[palerider]

It is completely and genetically a human with the genetic material of two parents - biologically and scientifically, it is as "human" as a fetus.

No it isn't because if you analyze it, you will find both the DNA of the mother and of the father. You will find no DNA to match either the mother or the father in an unborn. Your argument fails on every level.

Not at all. The very fact that you have to now qualify your definition by adding "healthy" to it means that what defines a "human" is not strictly scientific or biological.[/quote[

Even an unhealhy or deformed unborn is still a human being. What I was commenting on is the fact that those on your side of the argument inevetably decend into trying to compare unborns to adults who are so badly diseased or injured that they will never recover or plants of all things in an effort to make some point. If you had a valid argument, you could provide credible science that states explicitly that the offspring of two human beings is at some point, something other than a human being. You can't do that however, and you know you can't, so you equivocate, and bloviate, and engage in all manner of sophistry. Look back through this thread and see all of the different crap that you and your bud have thrown against the wall in an attempt to make something stick. Every attempt has been easily defeated with simple science.

 

[palerider]

From NIH on Embryonic Stemcell Research:

Have human embryonic stem cells successfully treated any human diseases?

Scientists have been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) only since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, Federal funds to support hESC research have been available since only August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on Federal funding for hESC research. Because many academic researchers rely on Federal funds to support their laboratories, they are just beginning to learn how to grow and use the cells. Thus, although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages.

That does not change the fact that since then, the list of diseases that have been successfully treated by adult and cord blood stem cells has continued to grow exponentially while fetal stem cells continue to draw a blank.

 

[Coyote]

That does not change the fact that since then, the list of diseases that have been successfully treated by adult and cord blood stem cells has continued to grow exponentially while fetal stem cells continue to draw a blank.

You are ignoring the facts in that statement.

 

[Coyote]

No it isn't because if you analyze it, you will find both the DNA of the mother and of the father. You will find no DNA to match either the mother or the father in an unborn. Your argument fails on every level.

Either you're not making sense...or I'm not understanding what you are trying to say here...

Even an unhealhy or deformed unborn is still a human being.

By that statement, then so is a molar pregnancy (trophoblastic tumor).

What I was commenting on is the fact that those on your side of the argument inevetably decend into trying to compare unborns to adults who are so badly diseased or injured that they will never recover or plants of all things in an effort to make some point. If you had a valid argument, you could provide credible science that states explicitly that the offspring of two human beings is at some point, something other than a human being. You can't do that however, and you know you can't, so you equivocate, and bloviate, and engage in all manner of sophistry. Look back through this thread and see all of the different crap that you and your bud have thrown against the wall in an attempt to make something stick. Every attempt has been easily defeated with simple science.

I believe I used simple science to refute your point. I kept my argument to one point: what is the definition of a human being?