Mr Moto, you’re wrong. Cord blood is not the same as they are multipotent, not pluripotent like embryonic stem cells. In other words; cord cells can only become certain cells (blood, marrow, etc), while embryonic cells can become any cell (nervous, pancreatic, whatever).
Calm Kiwi, BobLibDem, we are not talking about abortion (where are people getting this?). We are talking about the fertilized eggs from in vitro fertilization that remain unused and are to be destroyed.
Hentor you’re more than welcome. Let me know if you need any more info. I’m at thielka1 at hotmail dot com.
Bricker, thank you for your response. I suppose we have to agree to diagree on this one.
My problem is not that Laura Bush is speaking on this, she has every right to. My problem is that she is misleading the public, and that she’s not being honest about it.
If she said exactly what Bricker ** has said, I could at least respect her speech as an opinion. But she states it as fact, and it’s wrong!
There is so much political wrangling already in who gets executed and who doesn’t that it is scary to add another layer of complexity–another political tool.
And I think many of our current execution methods, ostensibly chosen for their humaneness, would not lend themselves to the donation of the organs. If we trumpet lethal injection, for example, as being a humane method of execution, it’s difficult to then switch and say that we’re going to go with a less humane method so that we can do a little organ harvesting on the side. (Note: I do not know that lethal injection makes the organs unusable, though I guess that I would guess it to be true or I wouldn’t have attempted to use it as an example.)
Of course, I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty, so that influences me.
It should also be noted that I am not morally opposed to fertility treatments that involve the destruction of many embryos, though I continue to find that strong a desire for reproduction, by any means necessary, to be rather scarily single-minded. (Thus speaking as a happily childfree person who, admittedly, doesn’t understand the urge for reproduction even when it’s easy.)
It certainly is possible that it is her own independent sincere belief. But I would be more convinced of that if she ever expressed a view divergent from her husband’s on any subject.
Back to abortion: I was mistaken and this is not an abortion issue- my apologies. But some do consider blastocysts to be human, thus the opposition from the right to life faction. I still maintain that much of the opposition is that it might work and create a larger market for blastocysts, which of course would be opposed by those that consider them to be humans with rights.
Such a thing exists, but there are a couple problems.
First, these services are marketed to parents as a means of insurance; if the kid gets sick with something that can be treated with a stem-cell transplant, there is an immediate source of cells. For this reason, some parents reject cord-blood collection as “ghoulish”. Depending on the agency, the cord blood can be directed to someone else, but this not true of all agencies.
Second, not all obstetricians are trained to collect cord blood. My own OB had done exactly two collections before mine, which is two more than most OBs do. There is a special procedure that must be followed; it’s not as simple as drawing blood into a tube or gathering a part. IIRC, the umbilical cord had to be cut a certain way to ensure the maximum amount of available cord blood. (I could be wrong; I wasn’t exactly paying attention at the time.)
Third, the cost of collection and storage isn’t cheap. Currently, it’s costing around fifty bucks a year to store the cord blood; it cost $25 for the collection kit, and around $750 for the initial processing. We were responsible for these costs. Insurance generally doesn’t cover this.
If a system similar to the Red Cross’s blood-donation and storage system were developed where there was no cost to the donor family, but the cord blood were “pooled” for anyone’s use, I’d have no problems with that.
Honestly, I can’t even get through the rest of the posts before answering this one. **light strand ** you’re an asshole.
My wife and I are starting IVF treatment in 2 weeks. This will involve a number of embryos that may be left over if the first few tries work. (Hopefully the first will). Either way, we’ve decided that any embryos left will be either saved for future use by us, or donated if we decide to not not have more children.
Donating them will help couples that can’t have children to still raise a family. I see nothing wrong with that. What of us having a biological child raised by another couple? No compunctions here. We’ve tried for so long for a family, we’d be honored to help someone else. As long as it isn’t you. Thaw out on a counter, indeed. That’s a potential child to a couple that can’t have one on their own. Again, you’re an asshole.
I can only hope you either grow up fast, or are denied adoption. You obviously have no respect for life unless it has the physical characteristics of a human. :rolleyes:
I’d say the same for you, except that your posting history makes it clear that growing up, being mature, and demonstrating intellect are vastly different concepts.
In your little fantasy world, do you imagine that all your little left over embryos will be needed and wanted, and will not sit waiting to be discarded in some fashion? Is there a dearth of other people’s embryos waiting for people to adopt (let alone a dearth of actual children waiting to be adopted)? If this fantasy allows you to do what you want to do, so be it. However, don’t accuse other people of immaturity or being an asshole.
Wow, you got me there. Please forgive me for trying to keep in mind couples that may want the help. I’ll just say fuck-off to them based on your argument. Based on what I’ve seen, the embryos are wanted by thousands of infertile couples. But, thanks to your post, I can now feel comfortable keeping them frozen for eternity. We won’t have them destroyed, but since they aren’t needed in any case, might as well leave them frozen.
Thanks Hentor, you alone have helped to make our decision so much easier.
Well, if the power goes out forever, I guess we have more to worry about, huh? Are you trying to start some kind of pissing contest? I’m just saying what we’re doing. What do you care about it?
That’s what happens to many of the embryos now. light strand is asking if that result is better than something else being done with the embryos that will never be allowed to develop. How does that make ls an asshole?
Whoa! duffer, dude I’m not advocating anything but stem cell research for embryos that are being destroyed by the wishes of the people who created them, and have very few options.
I’d appreciate if you go back and read what I wrote in it’s entirety before you get to calling me names.
The arguments for morality that have been raised in this thread do not really offer legitimate support for Bush’s restrictive stance towards this issue.
First off, if it bothers the president so much that “human life” will be “murdered” in the pursuit of medical breakthroughs, why isn’t he trying to ban or push regulatory restrictions on IVF? Aren’t IVF clinics “murdering” hundreds of lives each year, when their customers opt not to store or incubate unused embryos? To be consistent, it seems the president needs to also speak out against IVF just as he speaks out against abortion.
(But wait! Perhaps he is afraid of alienating all of those middle-class infertile couples out there (like duffer?). This would why we hear a lot of about those baby-killin’ abortionists, but IVF clinics get hardly any wrath at all.)
Secondly, if morals are at stake, why is it okay to allow federal funding on a few cell lines, but not on more? Why is it ethically permissible to exploit those 21 “human beings”, but it is not ethical to exploit more than that? Again, to be consistent with the idea that no human life should be play with under any circumstances (except for war and the death penalty, of course::rolleyes::), it seems that the president needs to take an all or nothing stance. Right now all it looks like is that he is trying to placate camps on both sides of the petri plate.
To the conservatives: “Look, my restrictions put a stop to all those evil-doin’ mad scientists who want to run experiments on innocent lil babies!”
To the scientific community: “Look, I’ve allowed for more federal spending on stem cell research than any other administration!”
And third, it bothers me that the president’s opinion on morality stands to affect the future of medical research so strongly. His objections are not grounded on what is in practice in law. Abortion is legal and associated with few regulatory restrictions. IVF is legal and AFAIK, has very little in the way of regulatory restrictions. But the one activity that attempts to make lemonade out of lemons to help other people is considered too immoral for Uncle Sam’s wallet?
Am I the only person who finds it ironically amusing that Bush is opposing stem-cell research with the “sanctity of life” argument, after the high number of executions he presided over while serving as Governor of Texas?
