Creating embryos to serve as stem cell donors...

[Lindsey 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/05/05/donor.babies.ap/index.html

Maybe somebody can make that clicky.... I wonder what people, who do not have a problem with abortion, feel about this. I'm not wanting to start another debate about pro-life/pro-choice. I think that's been beat into the ground here. But I would like to hear what people think who see an embryo as tissue....

Peace~
Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[WrongWay 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/05/05/donor.babies.ap/index.html

There. Cicky.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[quade 3]

I'm a little confused by the article. It doesn't seem to make it clear whether the embryos are brought to full term and then the stem cells are harvested (which I think is wrong) or if the stem cells are taken from a blastoplast (just a few hundred cells of tissue) which I don't really have all that much of a problem with.

Ironic ain't it?

Here's my line of reasoning.

A blastoplast is not yet "life" therefore taking a few cells to save an already born individual shouldn't be a problem.

However, creating life for the sole purpose of serving another is, in my opinion, just flat out wrong. Then again, I'm almost certain my opinion would change if I already had a child with some defect that could be treated this way. It would still disturb me that I was creating Peter to save Paul and there would be other issues as well, but as a parent I might want to over look the ethics of that for the sake of the first born. Sure would (or at least could) suck to find out at some point in your life that the only reason you exist was to save the life of one of your siblings. That your parents really didn't want you other than as a "treatment" for your sib.

I guess it all depends on where you draw the line on when "life" begins, which, unfortunately, is fundamentally tied to the basic abortion rights issue, so I don't think there's any way to debate this topic without bringing up the other.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

However, creating life for the sole purpose of serving another is, in my opinion, just flat out wrong. Then again, I'm almost certain my opinion would change if I already had a child with some defect that could be treated this way. It would still disturb me that I was creating Peter to save Paul and there would be other issues as well, but as a parent I might want to over look the ethics of that for the sake of the first born. Sure would (or at least could) suck to find out at some point in your life that the only reason you exist was to save the life of one of your siblings. That your parents really didn't want you other than as a "treatment" for your sib.

Interesting viewpoint.

In your first statement you claim that it is "flat out wrong", but then go on to say that you'd likely do it anyhow. Where do you draw the line? Would you do anything to save the life of your child? What about your wife; parents; girlfriend; best friend?

Interesting.

Who else shares this viewpoint?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Lindsey 0]

Yeah...you're probably right, but while I think that women should have a right to choose abortion, I'm not so sure what I think about creating an embryo (or blastocyst) just for the stem cells. I'm assuming that they are just harvesting at the blastocyst stage, but that's just my assumtion, because it's at this stage that the cells are totipotent.

In my mind, I don't have an answer to whether or not there is some fundamental life in an embryo. I don't necessarily believe that the embryo has a RIGHT to develop into a child just because it has the POTENTIAL to. I think that a woman does have the right to decide whether she will have a child.

So the issue of abortion definately figures into this issue. I think it's obvious that people who think women do not have a right to abortion would also hold very strong negative opinions about this debate. I think that people who believe that women should have a right to choose abortion may have varying opinions on the issue of creating embryos to harvest the stem cells. I'm really interested in what people in this group think.

I don't know where I stand on this, myself. I happened upon that article around 2 or 3 this morning, and....well my mind takes off in strange directions at that time of day...lol.

Edited to add: I just looked back at the article and it does seem that they are NOT harvesting at the blastocyst stage, but choosing which embryos to grow into children....Hmm... I didn't read it very thoroughly. Still....I'm interested in thoughts

Peace~
Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[quade 3]

Quote

In your first statement you claim that it is "flat out wrong", but then go on to say that you'd likely do it anyhow. Where do you draw the line? Would you do anything to save the life of your child? What about your wife; parents; girlfriend; best friend?

Well that's the difference between theory and practice. Which, BTW, is why I believe that when it comes to the pro-choice/pro-life debate the opinions of people without a uterus don't really count nearly as much as those that have them.

Go back and read what I said. I'm against creating life solely for the benefit of another. Taken to the extreme, it's a little like having kids -only- so you'll have someone to take care of you in old age. It's a selfish act and one I'm totally against.

Again, that said, if I had a child and knew the -only- way to save it was to have another one, it would be really tempting and maybe I'd do it anyway. Too bad the 2nd child has no say in the matter and yeah I'd lose a little bit of sleep over that -- seriously. I'd also make -damn- sure either of the kids didn't find out about it until they were both old enough to fully understand.

So, yeah, as a parent I'd want to have the option -if- it were available, but generally speaking, I think the practice of birthing children as pharmaceuticals opens up a can of worms that is beyond simply unethical, it's inhuman.

Which, BTW, is why I'm so into the concept of cloning, but here we yet again enter into the murky world of what is and what is not "life".

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,257]

I have absolutely no problem with harvesting stem cells from an embryo, any sperm and egg have the potential to be a human, because a sperm and egg come together then replicate a few times doesn't mean they are now human, just that their a bit closer. Crude way of putting it I know but I hope it showed my view.

As for creating designer children for the purpose of curing original offspring, that gets complicated. At the moment I think people who are pushing for this are fully aware of the consequences of their decisions and the responsibilities they will then have.
However if these techniques become widely available can it be guaranteed that all parents will fully appreciate the weight and importance of the decision to have a new designer kid?

oh and,

Quote

Which, BTW, is why I believe that when it comes to the pro-choice/pro-life debate the opinions of people without a uterus don't really count nearly as much as those that have them.

That would make you completely pro choice then right?

Finally

Quote

I think the practice of birthing children as pharmaceuticals opens up a can of worms that is beyond simply unethical, it's inhuman.

Most of the time when people talk about inhuman acts it seems to me that they refer to what I as a cynical bastard would consider to be raw human nature. Not at all related to the subject, just a vague thought.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 3]

Quote

That would make you completely pro choice then right?

Well, as a matter of fact, yeah, but don't misconstrue that to mean that I organize a lot of pro-choice rallys for my sisters in the NOW nor does it mean I think abortions should the used as contraception.

However, if something pops up on the ballot and it's pro or anti choice I'll vote pro choice every time because who the F am I to tell a woman she can't have control over her own body? I'd certainly like to leave as many options open as legally and (in what is my opinion) ethically possible.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,257]

woah, I'm not attacking you, I'm also pro choice, I was just making sure I knew where you were coming from on this.

Just seemed a bit odd that you were against designer babies to treat existing kids then saying it's all up to the woman, but like you said opinions are likely to change with first hand experience.

Edit: Can't say I've ever been to a rally either.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,635]

Related story:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3700015.stm

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[falxori 0]

Quote

I'm a little confused by the article. It doesn't seem to make it clear whether the embryos are brought to full term and then the stem cells are harvested (which I think is wrong) or if the stem cells are taken from a blastoplast (just a few hundred cells of tissue) which I don't really have all that much of a problem with.

i think this line in the article will help :
"The chosen embryos "were allowed to be born so they could donate tissue to benefit someone else."

my question would be different, what is the effect on the new born child?
if its taking a heart so it could be transplanted in someone, i.e taking the child's life to save his brother, then no.
but if its something like "stem cells from the umbilical cord blood " or even "donating bone marrow" which has no long term effect on the donor, thats ok in my book.

but i dont know where the line is, dpepends on who you ask...

as for the psychological effect, i think its a matter of how you present it while the child is growing up.
i think i'd be honored to know i've saved the life of someone close to me.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 3]

Quote

"The chosen embryos "were allowed to be born so they could donate tissue to benefit someone else."

It's a tortured sentance. Embryos aren't born, children are. Also, you can only donate something with your own knowledge and consent. If the stem cells are taken immediately after birth my guess is that they're taken -- not donated.

Either the article was poorly written or intentionally ambigous. I choose to think it was simpy poorly written.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lindsey 0]

Who'da thunk....
(translated for those who don't speak Arkansaw..."who would have thought..." lol)

Quote

Related story:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3700015.stm

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[quade 3]

Only proving the point that a person can really be against something for a LONG time, but when it effects them personally . . . their opinion might change.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

as for the psychological effect, i think its a matter of how you present it while the child is growing up.
i think i'd be honored to know i've saved the life of someone close to me.

I don't know if my concern would be of the psychological effect to either of the children, but more of the issue of genetically selecting children to for, like quade said, a pharmaceutical role. Whenever we push a new limit, I have to wonder where it will lead.... When this becomes common practice, it will likely cease to raise so many eyebrows. What kind of mindset will we develop about children's roles and children's rights. This seems to be the type thing we might select livestock for, but it strikes me oddly when it's in the context of children. I'm not saying that progress like this is wrong, because I really don't know. These are the things I think about though.

Peace~
Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[falxori 0]

i dont know.
if i could save my child by having another, without causing any harm to the new born child, and if i'll be able to support this child and love him/her just as i would love any of my children, i think i would go for it.

anyway, as long as no harm is done to the baby, i think the moral issues, like abortions should be left to the parents.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[quade 3]

Quote

anyway, as long as no harm is done to the baby, i think the moral issues, like abortions should be left to the parents.

No doubt about it. It's a tough question.

You just touched on -some- of the factors involved, but here's the one that caught my eye, " . . . just as i would love any of my children . . . " which, to me, implies that even in this abstract discussion, that this child is somehow viewed slightly differently. Maybe that's not exactly what you meant, but it does seem to set this one apart from that one. There seems to be a very subtle difference -- not blatant, certainly not usury, but a subtle difference none the less.

I wonder if it would be possible to save the cord blood stem cells from all children and then create some sort of stem cell bank?

Unfortuantely, GWB has forbidden research in this area.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lindsey 0]

Of course there's a difference, and I don't think it's very subtle. It's genetically selecting a child for a particular use. That doesn't preclude one from loving this child, but it certainly opens a new door.... For a parent to believe that there is no difference would be to delude oneself. However....like others, I don't think I would hesitate to take advantage of the same technology if I were faced with losing my child. And I'm certain I would love the second child too.

Lindsey

Quote

There seems to be a very subtle difference -- not blatant, certainly not usury, but a subtle difference none the less.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[falxori 0]

Quote

" . . . just as i would love any of my children . . . " which, to me, implies that even in this abstract discussion, that this child is somehow viewed slightly differently.

no, i simply meant that i wouldn't see this child diffrently than any other of my children.

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[falxori 0]

Quote

It's genetically selecting a child for a particular use.

we already do it in a way, maybe not for a particular use, but even today you scan in advance for many genetic illness , messing with the natural odds.

where is the line between avoiding illness and chossing eye color and height ? we each have our own answer...

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Where do you draw the line? Would you do anything to save the life of your child? What about your wife; parents; girlfriend; best friend?

Interesting.

Who else shares this viewpoint?

Nancy Reagan. She just came out publicly calling for the relaxation of stem cell research regulations which she has been privately lobbying for a long time. Well, ever since they figured out it could treat Alzheimers. Another example of the ultra conservative religious agenda only being as useful as it is convenient.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Quote

Where do you draw the line? Would you do anything to save the life of your child? What about your wife; parents; girlfriend; best friend?

Interesting.

Who else shares this viewpoint?

Nancy Reagan. She just came out publicly calling for the relaxation of stem cell research regulations which she has been privately lobbying for a long time. Well, ever since they figured out it could treat Alzheimers. Another example of the ultra conservative religious agenda only being as useful as it is convenient.

Whoa there, Killer. I wasn't trying to politicize the issue or pass judgement. Just curious about peoples viewpoints. As far as 'ultra-conservatives' go, Reagan? You think so? Next to Bush he seems like a, well, not ultra-conservative.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[wmw999 2,132]

I heard about this a few days ago too; it troubles me. It troubles me both more and less than people selecting for eye color, boy, girl, or other frivolous reasons (and yes, I know that some people select for a gender to avoid a high-likelihood gender-related genetic problem).

That said, it may be that it's something we have to get our brains around. At one time, it was thought that going 60 mph would take the air out of your lungs.

Dunno. It takes thought, and not just quick judgements. And yes, I'm quite sure my mind would be made up more quickly if I had a child who could benefit.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

I was just trying to point out that people many times take a stance on an issue that they believe to be morally superior without thinking of the real world consequences and the impact on individual lives. That to me, is the bread and butter of the conservative-christian movement. But then you find all these examples of members of that group doing drugs, or using prostitutes, etc. People make rules up because they think it will help society. But it turns out, when it comes down to it, they really don't want to follow them themselves.

Essentially, it sounds like a good idea to ban stem cell research based solely on their origin. But when the reality of what it can do to help individual people with problems sets in, it doesn't seem like such a good idea. Many times it takes an individual's personal experience to get them to change their mind about restricting things that could benefit others.

Quote

Next to Bush he seems like a, well, not ultra-conservative.

Yeah, well so does.....hmmm, was trying to think of a funny ultra-conservative even further right than Bush, but couldn't. Checked the attached for guidance...nope, non there either