Slashdot Mirror
Cells From Liposuction Function As Stem Cells?
texchanchan writes "Plastic surgeon Peter Fodor MD filtered stem cells out of fat sucked from people's oversized body parts, then cultured them into 'bone, cartilage, skeletal muscle and nerve cells.' At the rate of 10,000 stem cells per cm3 that's a lot of stem cells. Combine that with this and you might be on the road to regeneration. And, you can have your stem cells banked for later disasters after your liposuction."
Large linux hackers now will have a source of real income
Who run Barter Town?
And all this time I have been using it to make plastic explosives. Stupid Brad Pitt.
The cells that come out of fat are unwanted anyway, so why not just use them. The right really shouldn't have a problem, as long as they don't use it to grow babies for research, otherwise, they'll be howling to the moon, although they probably will anyway..
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
to help people who have health problems and not freak out the religious. This is a very good thing.
Albuquerque PC
This article is narrow, and consequently difficult to read. Could someone please widen this for me? Thanks!
Having Liposuction? Give the Fat to Scientists
Wed May 1, 6:10 PM ET
By Kathleen Doheny
LAS VEGAS (Reuters Health) - If you're undergoing liposuction, you're no doubt happy to kiss that unsightly fat goodbye. But you might not want to throw it away.
The excess fat that looks so bad on your tummy, backside or thighs, it turns out, is a mother lode of stem cells, and some cosmetic surgeons now suggest you might want to bank that fat. Later, they hope to draw on those banked stem cells--unspecialized cells that can be transformed into many different types of specialized cells--for use in additional cosmetic procedures or other types of operations or treatments, if necessary.
"Fat happens to be rich in stem cells," said Dr. Peter Fodor, a plastic surgeon at Century City Hospital near Los Angeles and a UCLA clinical associate professor of plastic surgery, who will present his latest research Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery in Las Vegas. Every 100 cubic centimeters of bone marrow yields up to 10,000 stem cells, Fodor told Reuters Health. But the same amount of fat contains a million stem cells.
In their research, Fodor and his colleagues isolated stem cells from liposuction specimens of 10 patients and grew them into more fat cells as well as into bone, cartilage, skeletal muscle and nerve cells.
"The possibilities are endless," Fodor said. Suppose a patient is involved in a motor vehicle accident and bone is needed for repair. "You could take their stored stem cells, make bone, put it back in (their body) to heal up the fracture," Fodor said. Or, a woman may have fat removed from her thighs, bank it, and then, later have it injected into her hands to give them a more youthful look.
Besides finding a rich source of stem cells in the discarded fat, Fodor and his team found the fat to be a source of collagen, the fibrous part of bone, cartilage, tendons and other connective tissue. Fodor and his colleagues harvested the collagen from the liposuction specimens of 10 patients and then successfully reinjected it into soft tissues. For example, this reinjected collagen might plump up a face that has begun to look emaciated with age.
As for stem cells, using those collected from a patient's body eliminates the risk of rejection when later reintroduced. It also avoids the ethical issues involved in using stem cells derived from embryos. Stem cells are already being looked at by researchers to treat a variety of diseases and conditions, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites), stroke, burns, heart disease and diabetes.
One of Fodor's co-presenters, Dr. Marc Hedrick, is the CEO of StemSource in Thousand Oaks, California, which banks stem cells from liposuction patients.
Fees for StemSource banking are not yet set, said Dr. John K. Fraser, StemSource's chief scientific officer and a veteran stem cell researcher. But he expects the initial collection and processing cost, which will be charged by participating doctors, to be about $1500 to $2000, including 5 years of storage. After the initial 5 years, the storage fee is expected to be about $100 per year. Those who donate up to 10% of their cells for research will receive an additional 5 years free storage, Fraser said.
The average surgeon's fee for liposuction is $2,049, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
The concept of using banked stem cells from liposuctioned fat for future procedures "sounds feasible," said Dr. Farshid Guilak, director of orthopedic research at Duke University Medical Center and a stem cell and arthritis researcher. His lab and at least one other have also grown stem cells from fat into the more specialized cells, he said.
However, he cautioned that a number of studies will be required to prove that using stem cells from liposuctioned fat for cosmetic or reconstructive procedures works well. "We need to prove that transformation of cells from one type to another is irreversible," Guilak said. The safety of the procedures must also be proven.
Slashdot, come for the goatse, stay for the trolls.
I'm rather skinny...
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
That just gives "suck my ass" a whole new meaning.
AMCGLTD.COM. Where cats, science fictio
I'm not fat, I'm merely continually regenerating.
FatPhil
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
...Enlarge your P****
I guess that's better than turning it into soap!
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
will now be able to provide the world with stem cells
So does this mean the fatter I get, the more stem cells I'll have to repair my body later in life? Quick, somebody hand me that tub of Ben & Jerry's!
10,000 per every 100cc is the rate I saw on the article. But even at 100 per cc that's still a lot of stem cells. So even with the total costs you're talking about a nice bank of totally rejection proof stem cells at under 20k. That's almost 1/10 of the price I've seen quoted as a "reasonable estimate" in the last few articles. "attention Kmart shoppers, stem cells kits are now on blue light special!"
Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
At last, I've found my calling ... I'm to be a stem-cell donor ... he11, I'm gonna be the mother lode!
I've seen the man...he could keep a whole lotta people hooked up with spare parts. :)
You may not agree with that belief, and you have every right to disagree with it, but you should respect the fact that some conservatives actually have reasons for our positions ;)
Does anyone who followed Groening's Life In Hell remember "Akbar and Jeff's Liposuction Hut"?
This page accidentally left blank
I don't think making a liver out of greasy fat is the best way to go...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
231 w!#! woepri wewqer08dasgiusa8 ufuduu ls hjlf&nbs p; fjlhjl&n bsp;&nbs p;gfjf&n bsp;&nbs p; Wtf (Score:-1) apache Apr 22 apple May 1 (3 recent) askslashdot May 2 (10 recent) books May 2 (3 recent) bsd May 1 (2 recent) developers May 2 (3 recent) features Apr 24 interviews Apr 23 radio Jun 29 science May 2 (12 recent) yro May 2 (6 recent) by Anonymous Coward on 14:13 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452600) Make some sense or go home, moron. Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted. [ Reply to This | Parent ] faq code awards journals subscribe older stuff rob's page preferences submit story advertising supporters past polls topics about bugs hof hgjk&nbs p; / /  ; nbsp;&nb sp;
Lame! blah! eowtqwoe sao0931 safad
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
having a fat ass will lead you to the road of health.
Nice to see that our fat is not a human life and should not be treated as one... :)
plain old text (Score:0)
... (Score:1) ... I'm to be a stem-cell donor ... he11, I'm gonna be the mother lode!
... (Score:0)
by trollercoaster on 14:06 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452535)
(User #250101 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: 12:21 Thursday 04 October 2001)
Having Liposuction? Give the Fat to Scientists
Wed May 1, 6:10 PM ET
By Kathleen Doheny
LAS VEGAS (Reuters Health) - If you're undergoing liposuction, you're no doubt happy to kiss that unsightly fat goodbye. But you might not want to throw it away.
The excess fat that looks so bad on your tummy, backside or thighs, it turns out, is a mother lode of stem cells, and some cosmetic surgeons now suggest you might want to bank that fat. Later, they hope to draw on those banked stem cells--unspecialized cells that can be transformed into many different types of specialized cells--for use in additional cosmetic procedures or other types of operations or treatments, if necessary.
"Fat happens to be rich in stem cells," said Dr. Peter Fodor, a plastic surgeon at Century City Hospital near Los Angeles and a UCLA clinical associate professor of plastic surgery, who will present his latest research Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery in Las Vegas. Every 100 cubic centimeters of bone marrow yields up to 10,000 stem cells, Fodor told Reuters Health. But the same amount of fat contains a million stem cells.
In their research, Fodor and his colleagues isolated stem cells from liposuction specimens of 10 patients and grew them into more fat cells as well as into bone, cartilage, skeletal muscle and nerve cells.
"The possibilities are endless," Fodor said. Suppose a patient is involved in a motor vehicle accident and bone is needed for repair. "You could take their stored stem cells, make bone, put it back in (their body) to heal up the fracture," Fodor said. Or, a woman may have fat removed from her thighs, bank it, and then, later have it injected into her hands to give them a more youthful look.
Besides finding a rich source of stem cells in the discarded fat, Fodor and his team found the fat to be a source of collagen, the fibrous part of bone, cartilage, tendons and other connective tissue. Fodor and his colleagues harvested the collagen from the liposuction specimens of 10 patients and then successfully reinjected it into soft tissues. For example, this reinjected collagen might plump up a face that has begun to look emaciated with age.
As for stem cells, using those collected from a patient's body eliminates the risk of rejection when later reintroduced. It also avoids the ethical issues involved in using stem cells derived from embryos. Stem cells are already being looked at by researchers to treat a variety of diseases and conditions, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites), stroke, burns, heart disease and diabetes.
One of Fodor's co-presenters, Dr. Marc Hedrick, is the CEO of StemSource in Thousand Oaks, California, which banks stem cells from liposuction patients.
Fees for StemSource banking are not yet set, said Dr. John K. Fraser, StemSource's chief scientific officer and a veteran stem cell researcher. But he expects the initial collection and processing cost, which will be charged by participating doctors, to be about $1500 to $2000, including 5 years of storage. After the initial 5 years, the storage fee is expected to be about $100 per year. Those who donate up to 10% of their cells for research will receive an additional 5 years free storage, Fraser said.
The average surgeon's fee for liposuction is $2,049, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
The concept of using banked stem cells from liposuctioned fat for future procedures "sounds feasible," said Dr. Farshid Guilak, director of orthopedic research at Duke University Medical Center and a stem cell and arthritis researcher. His lab and at least one other have also grown stem cells from fat into the more specialized cells, he said.
However, he cautioned that a number of studies will be required to prove that using stem cells from liposuctioned fat for cosmetic or reconstructive procedures works well. "We need to prove that transformation of cells from one type to another is irreversible
Read the rest of this comment...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
There's only one problem (Score:0, Redundant)
by Anonymous Bullard on 14:06 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452536)
(User #62082 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
I'm rather skinny...
--
A. Bullard
the Mooh dept.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Whoa Nelly (Score:0, Troll)
by dscottj on 14:06 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452538)
(User #115643 Info | http://www.amcgltd.com/)
That just gives "suck my ass" a whole new meaning.
-----
AMCGLTD.COM [amcgltd.com]. Where Science Fiction, Anger, and Cats come together.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
That'll be my excuse from now on... (Score:2, Funny)
by fatphil on 14:06 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452539)
(User #181876 Info | http://fatphil.org/)
I'm not fat, I'm merely continually regenerating.
FatPhil
--
Usually at karma-cap, please upmod my troller account instead.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Gives a whole new meaning to... (Score:0, Troll)
by fehlschlag on 14:07 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452541)
(User #543974 Info)
...Enlarge your P****
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Fight Club (Score:1, Redundant)
by mjh on 14:07 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452547)
(User #57755 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: 16:18 Thursday 17 January 2002)
I guess that's better than turning it into soap!
--
Software Liability? Geez, I hope not. [slashdot.org]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
/. readers (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 14:07 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452548)
will now be able to provide the world with stem cells
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Yay! (Score:1)
by MarkusH on 14:08 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452555)
(User #198450 Info)
Every 100 cubic centimeters of bone marrow yields up to 10,000 stem cells, Fodor told Reuters Health. But the same amount of fat contains a million stem cells.
So does this mean the fatter I get, the more stem cells I'll have to repair my body later in life? Quick, somebody hand me that tub of Ben & Jerry's!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
10,000? (Score:3, Interesting)
by AlaskanUnderachiever on 14:09 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452562)
(User #561294 Info)
10,000 per every 100cc is the rate I saw on the article. But even at 100 per cc that's still a lot of stem cells. So even with the total costs you're talking about a nice bank of totally rejection proof stem cells at under 20k. That's almost 1/10 of the price I've seen quoted as a "reasonable estimate" in the last few articles. "attention Kmart shoppers, stem cells kits are now on blue light special!"
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:10,000? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 14:12 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452590)
I assume they'd just combine the cutlery & vaccum cleaner sections for that.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Found my calling
by rHOnDO (hunter@snowgoose.com) on 14:10 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452568)
(User #513440 Info)
At last, I've found my calling
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Found my calling
by Anonymous Coward on 14:12 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452589)
You misspelled "load".
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Sixteenth post! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 14:10 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452571)
2^4 post!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
soap (Score:1)
by bj3g2j on 14:11 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452582)
(User #309443 Info)
tonight, we make soap.
-- oh that's nice
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Unfortunately... (Score:3, Funny)
by EFGearman (`egearman' `at' `ibss.net') on 14:12 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452587)
(User #245715 Info)
All my stem cells will be barbecue-flavored.
EFGearman
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Joke net (Score:3, Funny)
by interiot on 14:13 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452601)
(User #50685 Info | http://68k.org/~interiot/)
All "For once I'm glad I'm so fat!" jokes, please post under here.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Joke net (Score:1)
by ndinsil on 14:15 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452616)
(User #454614 Info)
For once I'm glad I'm so fat!
(Someone had to do it.)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Comming soon to a neighborhood near you. (Score:2)
by www.sorehands.com on 14:13 Thursday 02 May 2002 (#3452602)
(User #142825 Info | http://www.barbieslapp.com/)
A Fat-stem cell donation center. Next to the Red Cross blood donation center.
Donate your fat cells, get free liposuction, juice, and a cookie.
Being fat is an evolutionary advantage.
I'm a Biology major currently, so I'm right in there with the cloning stuff. I'm rather curious as to how the anti-cloning people are going to react to this; seeing as how the major argument AGAINST stem cell research is the usage of embryos, the use of fat-based stem cells should THEORETICALLY be OK. At least there's a nigh-endless source of fat cells, so we won't have any problem getting raw materials.
Personally, I'm just waiting for some religious nut to condemn this on the grounds that fat cells have souls. I dunno...if my fat were sentient, I think I'd have a lot more to worry about than just stem cell research.
"It never got weird enough for me." - HST (RIP)
Seriously, I guess if I can manage to actually
achieve normal weight for awhile (I'm too skinny),
it might be worthwhile to do that just for the
purpose of harvesting some fat in case of later
damage...
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I know I'm bending the troll over a table and doing unspeakable things to it, but just because someone has reasons doesn't make them right. A serial killer has his reasons too.
_______
2B1ASK1
People, before getting excited about the stem cells in your bellies, have in mind the way media tend to represent science...
So far stem cells haven't really been successfully used in all the magical ways the article suggests. We have a long way to go on that. And that means research. And THAT's what stem cells are good for and really needed. I hope the whole argument about stem cells will shift, now that there are more pallatable sources of stem cells than human embrios, umbilical cords and so forth. It's a whole other question how voters are gonna take it, though (see the Science literacy discussion)
Is this why everyone was so mad at the right? Because of a misunderstanding?
We don't oppose stem cell research. We oppose the destruction of embryos. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that embryos are people and deserve protection. The other side should admit that that claim at least has merit, even if they don't agree. (Meaning it's a respectable, legitimate opinion; not just being hard to get along with or obstructionist.)
I don't think you'll find anyone on the right (at least, anyone who fully understands the issues) who will oppose stem cell research that does not involve killing embryoes. Hopefully the distinction is very clear to everyone.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
In related news: Through selling their fat to science, millions of fat, ugly, poor people became slender, beautiful, rich people, tusly throwing off the delicate natural balance where 90% of the population is unfit (Darwinally speaking) to breed, leading to a previously unimaginable population boom as people proceed to "get it on", which causes widespread overpopulation (although skinny people do admittedly take up significantly less room than their beefier counter-parts), mass starvation (which in a poetic justice sort of way leads to more skinny people, sex, and babies, rinse, lather, repeat), and ultimately the demise of Western Civilization. But what a way to go ;)
Yes. See my posts on this thread so far. I'm not insisting I'm right, but I would like people to understand and consider the reasons for my beliefs before dismissing them and calling me names.
I always say I don't deserve to object to someone's opinions until I'm capable of explaining the reasons behind those opinions as well as he is. Some issues just are not clear-cut, and it's the people who try to insist things are simple that usually cause most of the fighting.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
any wealthy skinny people want some fat... er... stem cells, yeah, stem cells... to "bank" away for future needs? if you'll pay for the lyposuction and a nominal fee, i've got about 50 pounds i'm willing to part with.
-rp
I hope this means that one day I can have liposuction paid for by my insurance company. They can suck out my fat, use the stem cells to grow a complete set of new organs for me, and transplant the new and unrejectable organs. Poof! A skinner, brand new me!
-- Adam
yes but your "reasons" are based on fictional superstitions not facts. it is in fact, out of fear of science because the only atmosphere that catholicism can fluroush in is one that rewards ignorance of the facts, and that is not science. well not good science anyways. i dont respect ignorance of reality and i dont think that it shoudl ever be respected. it should be noted racism and bigotry are positions as well, neather of which i support eather.
-
Some of us who consider ourselves right of center on many matters (fiscal matters, matters of law and authority, individual freedoms) may not be part of the "right-to-life" crowd. Please let us try to keep that in mind! I acknowledge the right of the "right-to-life" crowd to characterize an embryo as a "human being" and thus decide that any work on embryos (or destruction of same) isn't acceptable to them, but that doesn't mean that everyone on the "right" of the political spectrum agrees!
I agree that it would be a good thing (because of the stand some people have on embryonic work) to have an alternative. I too hope this pans out.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
BTW, can you get stem cells to divide in the laboratory and remain stem cells? If so, it seems that the quantity extracted shouldn't matter. This really does sound like a convenient source, though.
Well, I can agree (with the needed exact definitions) that embrios are human life. But there are other sources of stem cells, as we see, and research souldn't be stopped by considerations on general basis.
On the other hand, I am all for precise regulation, possibly by the government, of all scientific research, especially the parts related to human genetics. But isn't government involvement exactly what you, conservatives don't like?
The fact that it may be possible to have an enormous potential supply of stem cells from this source makes the conservative stand against using embryonic stem cells (which is admittedly creepy) look much more reasonable.
It turns out that science found a way to accomodate a legitimate social concern and to potentially supply necessary raw materials for important scientific/medical research. Those tricky scientists.
Here's hoping it pans out. Then we can have endless human raw materials to hack. It'll be better than Mindstorms.
Guac-foo.
Lots of petrified grits
Liposuction fee = $2049
Stem cell processing = $1200
Stem cell storage = $100/yr
The self-storage option begins to look attractive!
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
This is very hopeful! Be your own best friend.... lose some weight via liposuction (get healthier, if the surgery doesn't kill you) and at the same time create a pool of stem cells that can be used to help regenerate yourself and other people (potentially, if everything works out). Now, I'm assuming your own stem cells are most likely more compatible with your own body chemistry, so they'd be the most use in healing you.
:) Thin and healthy in one (slightly complex) step....
Gee, I hope this pans out....
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
Which, as the other poster pointed out, does not make them right.
Take for example your own Web site, wherein you refer to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression." Do you have any idea how sick that is? I don't know if you're aware of this, but there are a few things that decent society general accepts:
- The South was on the wrong side of that particular war.
- Owning other human beings, locking them up, and violently forcing them to perform hard labor (slavery) is wrong.
- Hatred of an entire race of people simply because of the color of their skin is also wrong.
Now, you are entitled to your opinions, of course. I've seen so many like you that I know it's not worth my time to try to convince you otherwise. But you need to realize that just because you have some deeply-held belief doesn't mean that it's right. Now, more to the point, and getting back on topic:Thousands of people die every day from diseases that we might be able to cure or at least treat with the help of embryonic stem cells. And that is where the folks on the other side of this debate are coming from. They're not out on some sort of bloodthirsty quest to murder as many "babies" as they can.
the fact that thin people are 4.8 times more likely to develope ALS and I've got to confess that I'm somewhat glad that I haven't kept any of my new years resolutions.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
As dangerous as Lyposuction is at least it isn't as immoral as aborting fetuses for stem cells. Epecially since any progress that has been made medically with stem cells has used adult stem cells not fetus ones.
Ok, so we can grow stem cells into any other tissue. How long before a single stem cell can be coaxed into growing a limb? Acutally the limb is probably harder than just growing a whole embryo.
Will the every sperm is sacred crowd move into the no diet corner?
We've been able to get stem cells for a long time. The quantity isn't overly important if the cells aren't useful for development. The reason the embryo cells are so valuable, is that they do a better job of developing any tissue.
im mad at the right(religious right) because they "believe, rightly or wrongly" and then force those beliefs on others. the key word is belief, which varies from person to person. stem cell research is just one of many examples.
"Shut up brain or ill stab you with a Q-tip" Homer Simpson
Why is it so creepy to say I don't believe in killing embryoes? I realize many people are not going to agree with me, but why is that opinion "creepy"? It's like some people think there's absolutely no basis in the world for the belief.
There's a lot of opinions I don't hold, but I still respect them because they are backed up by legitimate points. Isn't it legitimate to say, "Hey, I think killing an embryo is wrong?"
I'm so grateful there are alternatives to embryonic stem cells appearing on the horizon, and I hope these efforts produce spectacular results that will really benefit humanity. Hopefully some day work like this will lead to a solution that will satisfy everyone.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Eating ice cream and chocolate now will increase your life span. The only other thing you need is an artificial heart.
Start running to the fridge and hope that science will save your fat ass.
From what I know about stem cell banking, everything is still done on a private pay basis. I've seen a few brochures on banking fetal umbilical cord blood cells for possible use in future stem cell transplants. One thing those brochures never mention is the small percentage of people that will actually make use of those stem cells. Reading through the brochures, it seems more like they're playing off your fears that your child MIGHT get a cancer in the future that MIGHT get cured by those stem cells you're paying a couple hundred dollars a year to store. If you actually compared the number of banked stem cells that have been used in this manner to the total number of accounts at these cell banks, you'd find that a very small percentage (less than 1% i think) are actually used. We sat down and did the math and it comes out to a little over $200,000 per PERSON. This is definitely not financially viable which is why insurance companies will never pay for it.
It's just like those ads you see on TV that advertise getting full-body CT scans. Sure you can go and get scanned and possibly find some sort of cancer and end up having your life saved, but if you extend this to the whole country, it's not financially viable. The yield of finding cancer (especially in young, healthy people) is so low that it is impractical to scan everyone.
Your actions on earth echo in eternity.
Just because the fat is gone, doesn't mean you are any healthier. There still is cholestrol, high blood pressure and gazillions of problems that excerise helps reduce. Liposuction doesn solve any of them
...a bit more ethical and acceptable than previous methods of getting stem cells.
--Kylus
Idiot-proof something, and Life will build a better Idiot.
"Plastic surgeon Peter Fodor MD filtered stem cells out of fat sucked from people's oversized body parts..." "Combine that with this and you might be on the road to regeneration."
Yeah... I knew that... I'm not fat, I'm saving up body parts in case I need them.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Example
Quebec may revise Civil Code to stop human cloning ,
Russia bans human cloning,
or even
Bush prods Senate to adopt ban on all cloning
People are afraid of where this might lead, and seem to care less where the cells come from. The way countries(not counting Quebec) are headed it will be legaly removed from the posibility.
'God' forbid there may be other uses for stem cells besides Full Human cloning. I'm sure one or another person might agree.
So Get ready to die from your congenital heart defect because you can't clone yourself a new heart.
Thanx GW!
But I'll beleive this when they pump some nice new cartilage back into my knees!
Actually I think the parent poster was probably saying that the killing of embryos was creepy, rather than the conservatives' stand against it.
Gotta love ambiguous grammatical constructs. . . ;)
that you should sell all your stem cells and buy me a delorean.
Re-read what he said. I took it to mean that research on embryonic cells is creepy, not that disliking such research is creepy. I think you've gone into "Auto-defensive" mode :-)
;-)
-YARWN (Yet another right-wing nut
"and then force those beliefs on others" This is the distinction. Only one group in this debate wants to tell the other group what to do. The other side just wants to follow their OWN beliefs.
Murphy was an optimist.
cue the rim-shot!
So if an Alzheimer's patient is cured with stem cells, does that mean they'll go from being senile to being fatheads?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Yeah,
The reason I should go through the risk of surgery to have my thighs reshaped is not to improve the way they look, it's a procative health procedure!
Yippee! Thank you thank you Thank you for such a rational!
reference to the prick song of the same name?
:)
god i love that album
"You may not agree with that belief, and you have every right to disagree with it, but you should respect the fact that some conservatives actually have reasons for our positions" And in the same vein, you should respect the beliefs of the people who are in favor of stem cell research. Unfortunately, YOUR side is the one who is trying to force your opinion on everyone else. I find your concept of "respect" as a one way street to be the root of the entire problem. After all, noone is forcing YOU to participate, right? What gives you the right to force others NOT to participate? Nothing does. :-)
Murphy was an optimist.
I've always thought that Jenny Craig should expand right next to a McD's, but this will do fine if the technology shows promise.
Very similar to Moe's Retox Center right next to the Detox Center on Simpsons.
---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
The problem is, that if someone believes an embryo is a human being worthy of protection, then it's incumbent upon them to protect it, no matter who it belongs to.
I'm sure you don't have a problem if someone intervenes in child abuse case, after all. A parent may have quite a bit of latitude in how to raise a child, but intervention to prevent that parent from injuring or killing that child is entirely justified.
If you believe, then, that embryos deserve the same rights as a child, what else can you do but "force your beliefs" on those who are killing them?
So anyway, in this particular case, it's great that they can isolate such large quantities of stem cells safely from an adult human, but it's still rather limiting. All those cells will ever be able to form is bone, cartilage, and whatever else that particular type of multipotent cell can give rise to. This is why it's still important to many biologists to be able to collect less-differentiated stem cells. With only that type of cell, we may not be able to learn much about diseases that aren't specifically related to that limited set of tissues. (Though of course there's still a lot left to be learned about even a specific type of multipotent stem cell.)
Steven N. Severinghaus
A big potential problem with stem cells harvested from fatty tissue is that the fatty tissue is where your body tends to store any chlorinated (or other halogenated) hydrocarbons/organic molecules that you happen to ingest during your lifetime. Halogenated organics have a bad tendency to be carcinogenic and mutagenic, so how would you trust that the genetic material in such stem cells has not been compromised? All kinds of toxic stuff like DDT, PCBs, etc that were spread all over our environment are now irremovably incorporated into much of our food supply and yes, everyone who lives and eats in the continental USA has a fair amount of these substances stored in all your fatty tissues.
As a Texan, I am sure he understands how to play Possum and he seems to be playing it very well with the Democrats. Guess the cloning issue is moot now with more evidence that adult stem cells do the same as aborted fetus cells. It might be a good idea for his political opposition to drop the "Bush is a Stupid Idiot" line of attack because if he is an idiot and he beats them at every punch, what can you say about them?
Oh wait, this isn't a political site. Never mind! :)
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Next time I have to fill out a driver's license application, I can put "fat ass" down in the organ donor questionnaire part and be completely serious about it.
The fact that it may be possible to have an enormous potential supply of stem cells from this source makes the conservative stand against using embryonic stem cells (which is admittedly creepy) look much more reasonable.
FWIW, nobody is saying that embryos are the only source of stem cells; many of these same conservatives have long been calling for the use of adult stem cells in research. What the research community is saying is that embryonic stem cells are more scientifically valuable and hold more promise than their adult counterparts. None of that has been changed by this discovery. IANAMD, but you can bet the farm that many will use this as an excuse to claim that embryonic stem cell research is no longer needed, but that is not the case, and we should not let such claims go unchallenged.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
The bad news is that Mrs. Smith suffered a stroke after a liposuction procedure dislodged a little too much fat into her bloodstream. The good news is that we can rebuild her - for a modest fee.
Perhaps "serial killer" wasnt't the best example, now was it?
The only time when the phrase "I pulled it out of my ass" is not sarcasm.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Bottom Line: if you get an abortion or a liposuction, you are doing science a favor.
People can be so stupid sometimes. Why in the world are people crying about not being able to study using tissue of humans in the embryonic stage? Our morals have gone straight down the crapper.
It's like George W Bush outsmarted everyone this time!
I hereby offer my vast stores of lipids for the benefit of humanity.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
You're right, I went into auto-defensive mode. I reread it and realized it didn't mean what I thought.
Just so used to people jumping on me and dismissing me as a nut, it's hard to notice when they aren't. :)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Gee, I have multiple sclerosis, and one of the more promising treatments to re-myelinate neve sheaths is stem cell transplants. I'm also overweight - gee, it's hard to lose weight when you can't move fast enough to exercise :(
...
This would be a great way to kill two birds with one stone! This looks even better than bone marrow stem cells, or nasal stem cells. Now, how to come up with the money from my SSDI payments
Lemon curry?
This is really old news. Adult stem cell research has produced results in tests, is starting to mature, and seems to be free of many of the technical problems plaguing embryonic stem cell research such as rejection and the formation of cancerous cells. This is not even considering the ethical problems surrounding the manufacturing of humans for harvest.
Please see the following website for links and further information:
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/
Barring some kind of an anti-right conspiracy, it is difficult to understand why there is so little coverage of adult stem cell breakthroughs in the mainstream media.
But from the prejudiced tone of your ridiculous post, it sounds like an anti-right conspiracy might not be so far-fetched. So how many credit hours in the field of Intolerance must once complete nowadays to get a degree in Biology?
Dear Mr. Moderator,
Whoosh.
Sincerely,
AC
This argument would make sense if the allegedly immoral actions in question only affected those people who chose to partake in them (using drugs, extramarital sex, etc). In this case, another life is the sticking point, and you can't expect those who believe that the unborn are a human life to stand by and watch them be killed.
I really wonder why I always hear this sort of argument from some on the pro-choice side... it shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the pro-life point of view (is this mutual?)
Cloning theoretically makes men unnecessary.
Once human cloning has been perfected, and once women figure out how to change the oil in their own cars (*), men are toast.
(*) Not that all men do; but if you look at the gender breakdown of your average Jiffy Lube you'll know what I mean.
Unfortunately, it is mutual. The two sides will never see eye to eye, but it is always a plus to be able to talk about it while being civil. Thank you for that. :-) But your point simply shifted the particular belief being contested. The pro-choicers hold the belief that the object in question is not a human until the third trimester or birth, which is different from the stance the pro-lifers take. So it is once again a case of one side trying to force a belief on the other side.
Murphy was an optimist.
...and can't you just wait until your relatives are old and needy? "Dan, could you put on 20 pounds for your dear, sweet momma?"
Er, the phrase "war of northern aggression" is a sort of good-natured joke phrase that is used down here in the South, the fact that this person has it on his/her web page does not automatically make him/her an unreconstructed racist. Though there are more than enough of those to go around for my taste. :P
Seriously, i can't wait till they combine this with nanotechnology. Then you really have real-time regeneration. Slice my finger off, nanobots convert fat cells into stem cells, put them into place and remake the nerve/bone/muscle/skin cells into a whole new finger. Sounds groovy to me, only about 30-40 years away from this (or less).
Immortality, here i come.
As I said, I sure hope this becomes an acceptable source of stem cells, but I realize sometimes these things don't pan out.
From what I'm reading here, it seems there is indeed a problem. Embryonic stem cells are "pluripotent" stem cells, which is a step above the "multipotent" stem cells available from this procedure. Apparently the multipotent stem cells cannot produce as many types of tissues as the pluripotent type. So unfortunately, this may not be an adequate solution.
But the results still remain to be seen; I earnestly hope we will find ways to fill this need without having to take more embryoes.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Looks like Ed Norton & Brad Pitt's soap making business is going to go bankrupt.
I'm curious how it is that every fertilized embryo is a potential life? Most women can only have around one child every year, and yet they ovulate every month. Given that we can artifically fertilize almost every harvested egg, it seems that we have a surplus!
Clearly there are many fertilized embryos that have no potential to become developed humans. What is the moral obstacle to the use of these surplus embryos?
im mad at the right(religious right) because they "believe, rightly or wrongly" and then force those beliefs on others.
Ya, I heard that hundreds of years ago they believed that murder and rape was MORALLY WRONG and created laws against such things. The religious right may be overbearing (ok, they ARE!), but it is always important to examine things that may have a severe moral affect on society.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Long time listener first time caller...
You all are missing the point here. Screw the hands or face..stick it where it wants to be, in the Boobs!! They are fat anyway...breakthrough all natural breast enlargement! Isn't science wonderful!
Guess the cloning issue is moot now with more evidence that adult stem cells do the same as aborted fetus cells.
/. summary): ... then cultured them into bone, cartilage, skeletal muscle and nerve cells.
C'mon read the article (or even just the
Peter Fodor
Only these four types of cells were produced from the fat cells. Researchers have known for some time that fat cells were "multipotent", i.e. able to produce cells of many other types. However, they also know that embryonic stem cells are "totipotent", i.e. able to produce cells of all other types. So, research into other sources of totipotent stem cells is still highly desirable.
Also, the banned stem cell research in question involves the use of embryonic stem cells (i.e. cells cultured in a Petri dish for the purposes of in vitro fertilization), not "cells from aborted fetuses", since they aren't stem cells anyway.
Regardless of that, the ban on the use of embryonic stem cells doesn't even make sense from an ethical perspective: why should it be somehow nobler to take the embryonic stem cells produced for IVF and throw them away , instead of doing life-saving research on them?
The standard response to this is that people will somehow "justify" obtaining an abortion on the grounds that the cells will go to some use, but as I just said, those cells come from IVF, which couples only use as an absolute last resort anyway (it's very expensive - over $20,000 per attempt; very painful; and still only about 20% successful.)
Finally, do you really think Bush came up with that idea on his own? He said himself that it was the result of long, intense debate with lots of people.
So, I'm not about to peel off my "Bush Is A Stupid Idiot" bumper sticker any time soon. (Just kidding. The only bumper sticker I have says "Nader/LaDuke.")
As someone else pointed out, I apparently completely misunderstood what you were calling "creepy." Sorry about that, sometimes my brain catches up with what I type quickly, sometimes it takes too long. :)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
This is of cause good news for G.W Bush, who is trying to, and will ultimately suceed in banning the use of stem cells from embryos. A slightly old European viewpoint of this can be found at the BBC .
This time I could be arsed.
You wouldn't be in favor of forcing your beliefs on a defensely human embryo, would you? ;)
From a "certain point of view," those who oppose embryonic stem cell research are simply trying to prevent people from forcing their beliefs onto those others. The real disagreement is we believe embryos are people and worthy of protection, whereas many people do not.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Perhaps the parent poster was referring to the collection of umbilical cord blood. Or perhaps, even more likely, the parent was simply referring to the continuing search for other sources of totipotent stems cells within the adult human body. Your huge leap to the conclusion that the post was somehow an apologism for abortion was utterly unjustified and off-topic. How on earth did anybody get the idea that people were going around inducing abortions to collect the stem cells??
I'd say "Godwin" is definitely appropriate. (Was that just a typo on your part, or is "Godwin" a verb now?)
"The South was on the wrong side of that particular war."
;)
Ie, the losing side, so we can rewrite the history.
"Owning other human beings, locking them up, and violently forcing them to perform hard labor (slavery) is wrong."
It wasnt about slavery for the most part. Lincon was willing let them have slavery if he could preserver the uninon.(I may be wrong about this one) By the way, how do you differentiate between income tax and slavery? You mean youve managed to get out of having them take a large portion of you labor results for their own uses? Obviously its only worng in certain cases.
"Hatred of an entire race of people simply because of the color of their skin is also wrong."
Agreed.
ANd before you start in on me, im a "damned yankee" from Conneciticut, and just enjoy being difficult.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Let's say that "Bob" gets mad at "Bill" for some minor reason (e.g. Bill looked at Bob's wife the wrong way). Bob then kills Bill. Everyone else forces their belief that it was wrong to kill Bill on Bob, either in the form of inprisoning him or executing him.
"Joe" steals "Nancy's" car. The community forces their belief on Joe that he should not have stolen Nancy's car by taking it away from him and then putting him in prison for several years.
These are all examples of a group of people forcing their beliefs on another. If you think that this is incorrect, and people who think that stealing is wrong should just tell thieves their "point of view" and leave it at that, well, then, please tell me what your address is, as I could use a new car.
More directly, why is it that people who believe that killing a fetus is murder only get to force their views on murder on that subset of murderers who happen to have killed people who had been born?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
The whole human race is diagnosed with severe cardiovascular disease and colesteral intolerance not to mention 89% of the pulation being obese and the remaining 11% are overweight.
Why?
Seams that an overabundance of those weight-gain genes were distributed in the early 2000 years to fight cancer.
:-)
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
first u go on talking about "cloacking" all the time and even spell it wrong and now ur telling me ur making bones out of fat? uuuh hum. don't u ppl know alchemy and magic are long dead?!
;P)
--tzan
p.s.for all the ppl u who didn't realize that's a joke: go hang urself wiht ur shoelaces!
p.p.s. i will not be responisible if anybody does wht i just mentioned (nowadays u gotta b carfull
I think it is possible to respect an opponents position by debating them honestly, taking their ideas seriously, refraining from derriding them as "nuts" and still (obviously) disagreeing, opposing them and even seeking to enact policy that reflects your own position.
If you take (as I do) the position that a human organism (even in it's fetal stage of development) has an intrinsic moral value then yes you have the right to force others NOT to participate in destroying it. Just as it is right to enact laws forbiding slavery rather than simply refraining from owning slaves oneself. IF on the other hand a human organism has no such value then I guess your point stands, though since you (as a human organism) have no intrinsic moral value I don't see why others should respect your "rights" since your rights are the result of your intrinsic moral value. Those two extreme positions are the most logically consistent, neither position compels me to respect your right to destroy a fetus (if position 1 is true; because I am *right*. If position 2 is true because I simply prefer to and I have the votes.)
Attempting to find a middle ground where human organisms have moral value and rights at some stages of development but not at others is logically problematic and raises more questions than it answers. What confers that moral value? When is it conferred? Birth is simply one of several possibilities and is a fairly arbitrary one at that. (for instance: a premmature infant has moral value but an overdue fetus months more developed, active, self-aware doesn't? why?).
You have an interesting point, but I'd like to expand on it. Your example of forcing beliefs on an embryo would be a good one, arguing that someone is forcing a belief on someone else in either case. The difference is that (almost) everyone acknowledges a post birth embryo to be human, but it is a split before birth. So on one hand you have the inflicting of a belief on a being that 100% of the people believe is human, and on the other side there is a large uncertainty about the humanity recieving the belief. I know I didn't say this very well, I'm not sure how to type it any clearer though. Sorry...
Murphy was an optimist.
So precisely how does the magical transformation from fetus into human occur? Where is the hard science which supports the irrational claim that people are more important than non-human animals, and that a fetus is a non-human animal which somehow turns into a human animal?
And what is the scientific name for a fetus, anyhow? I presume that a fetus is some sort of monkey until it comes out of the womb, so surely it has a different scientific name than the animals (people) that they turn into at that magical moment.
Look, unless you're calling the belief in law a superstition, you're just being ridiculous claiming that somehow "science" is against the pro-life stance. I've never yet heard of some significant biological distinction between a chicken and a fertilized chicken egg which make them different species, so why is a human and a fertilized human egg a different species? Or are you going to advance the position that a fetus isn't alive?
Why can't everyone just call a spade a spade and admit that the pro-choice stance is the very reasonable position that human life is cheap and convenient murder is unfortunate but not a big deal? Much like "collateral damage" in war, killing a fetus is killing a person, but noone is going to argue when they're dead so why bother with it?
That is a very reasonable position, and it really is the pro-choice position if you examine the matter. The alternative is mostly the supersition that every human life really is valuable and precious. You can argue that really the fact that the rich get more protection than the poor is just fine as there's no rational argument against that. You can argue that killing people isn't a big deal if there aren't going to be major consequences. That's fine. It works out.
But if you really want to disagree with all superstition, including the superstition that human life is in fact valuable, don't do it based on the supersitition that ignorance is bad or the supersition that that wisdom or knowledge is 'good'. After all, there's no actual factual evidence to show that people who know more are in any way superior or better than those who don't.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I know what you're saying, and you have a valid point. My question is, do those who don't consider an embryo a person concede they might be mistaken? If so, then we ought not to kill them until absolutely sure.
Your points are good, and need to be expressed. I thought you were pretty clear, esp. considering what a complex issue this is.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Keyword: FERTILIZED!
Just because an egg drops (most) every month, doesn't mean it's fertilized. Yes there is the potential to artificially fertilize every egg, but that is merely a potential. The act of fertilization provides the potential to become a human being. There is where your argument falls on its face.
Yeah, and billions of people will die in the future that killing everyone who has HIV now would prevent. However, no sane person would advocate killing everyone who tests positive for HIV. The simple fact that there are people who might be saved by whatever it is that you want to do doesn't inherently make it right.
Do you believe that pro-life people don't care about the sick? Hell, they're the people with the position that all human life is important. Do you think that pro-life people don't think about the sick, or care about them?
I believe that most people in the pro-life camp think that those in the pro-choice camp believe that killing is bad but sanctioneable. Not that killing is good.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Slavery was wrong. The Southern states seceded because of the way they were being treated over the slavery issue. However, the war itself was fought over their right to secede from the Union. This is a fine distinction, to be sure, but I find it to be a valid one. I believe that slavery was wrong (and so do most other reasonable people), but I also believe that secession is not unconstitutional. I have to side with the Confederacy on that point.
The results of the Civil War included the abolition of slavery, which was a good outcome. However, that outcome had a dreadful expense, both in human life and the nature of the American republic. Most people will say that outcome was worth the cost; I would say that history has yet to answer the question.
stem cell research is just one of many examples.
And on many of the other examples you do THE EXACT SAME THING. I will assume (though I may be wrong) that you support laws against rape, slavery, pedophilia. because you "believe, rightly or wrongly" that these things are wrong and then force those beliefs on others (If nobody disagreed we wouldn't need laws at all now would we?).
(If you are a pro-slavery NAMBLA member in prison for rape I apoligise for accusing you of logical inconsistency)
"At the rate of 10,000 stem cells per cm3"
Funny, I thought that rates had something to do with time...
1: a magnitude or frequency relative to a time unit; "they traveled at a rate of 55 miles per hour"; "the rate of change was faster than expected"
Just think of the untapped riches in the
blubber of fat and lazy americans!
Damn straight. And if you believed that wearing plaid or practicing judaism was a bad thing, what else could you do but force your beliefs on those who do that sort of thing?
Course, it probably wouldn't earn you a lot of thanks. You'd be internally consistent and justified, but the people around you would be every bit as justified in hating your guts.
The worst thing about this is that people see it as such a self-defeating decision. Real, suffering human lives could be saved using this technology, by sacrificing an single-celled organism with no nervous system.
So I don't really blame the religious right for being consistent to their beliefs. I do blame them for having arbitrary beliefs, for the way they utilize their clout to give a relatively small group a disproportionately large voice, and for taking advantage of people's relative ignorance about the subject to force the issue before Americans have really had a chance to consider what's at stake.
I'd love to examine it. Problem is, once you outlaw stem-cell research, there's no real reason to continue the examination. I dislike the religious right for trying to force the issue so soon, when so few Americans understand what they have to gain and what they stand to lose.
I believe that most people in the pro-life camp think that those in the pro-choice camp believe that killing is bad but sanctioneable. Not that killing is good.
No, they are wrong. Many of us actually believe that conciousness is worth preserving. Not a lump of cells.
Thus we do not value a the early stages of an embryo as much as a more mature embryo.
I personaly view an embryo as a potential person. And, yes, taking that potential away is unfortunate.
But billions of eggs and sperms are wasted every day, and every one of them holds this potential (to a lesser degree), who mourns them?
Fact is, not all potential humans can get a shot at existance, so we better make sure that those who do get a good shot at it!
And that is one of the reasons I am pro-choice.
If you are to young and pregnant, have an abortion. You may waste that potential but you can have another baby later, when you are ready, and give that potential human (who wouldn't get the chance otherwise, people doesn't make infinite number of babys) a better start in life.
Just my 0.02 kr
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
I'm actually glad you walked down this path, in a way. ee, I don't think that all homo sapiens count as human beings. I can think of quite a few pieces of slime that certainly LOOK like people, but need to be summarily executed. In short, I don't think that simply having the genetics makes you human. I think that your actions and experiences make you human. And I don't think you are human until you've had those experiences. I can slice my hand open and spill MILLIONS of living cells with human DNA on the ground, are you going to mourn for the millions of "intrinsic moral values" that I just doomed to die? I didn't think so...
Murphy was an optimist.
LOL Well, if you wait long enough, the dilemma does go away on its own! Either side has the possibility for error, these are beliefs we are discussing. If there were no chance for error, they'd be facts. :-) But, sometimes you gotta follow your belief. I have to decide to be atheist, Hindu, Christian, pagan... And there is NO WAY to prove conclusively which one is right, since they are all belief structures. You never know the right way until the end (if then!)..
Murphy was an optimist.
The parent post had discussed why it is still important to collect totipotent stem cells. The only current source being embryos, it was thus proposing exactly what I argued against.
Cloning does not make men unneeded. All you get is carbon coipies with progressive genetic damage.
But, there is already science afoot that makes us males unneeded. A fertility research center is Autrailia (I wish I could find a link, but I can't) is doing research that would allow any cell in a doner body to act as an erzats sperm cell. This was originally devised to hel;p men who were 100% sterile.
Of course, two women having a child this way will only be able to have daughters.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I'll contribute to the research of science. Someone come suck my overweight body.
> I've never yet heard of some significant biological distinction between a chicken and a fertilized chicken egg which make them different species, so why is a human and a fertilized human egg a different species?
>killing a fetus is killing a person, but noone is going to argue when they're dead so why bother with it?
The issue has little to do with species. A hang-nail is human. A tumor is human. Given the proper environment and technical support, you might grow a person out of them. That doesn't mean they *are* people. We don't hold funerals for hang-nails, or for the billions of early abortions performed by God that go unnoticed by us.
Actually, this is not true.
At least two groups claim otherwise.
- Racists who think that black/white/whatever people are not fully human, or at least "not equally equal" to the rest of humanity.
- Then, you have (more interestingly) those who don't make a distinction between human life and other suficciently advanced life (usually mamal).
I hate the guts of the first group, but the other one has a point, well, sort of...I don't think there is any "objective" reason to value human life higher than, say a horse.
I do however value human life higher than other lifeforms, but that is a completely subjective stance to take. I value mankind higher because they are my species!
And I value my friends and family higher than the rest of mankind, because I know them.
I mean, if you ask any (non religious) human what makes a life more valuable than another they would answer intelligence (naturally, because it places us on top).
If you could ask the horse however, I think you would get a completely different answer that would classify horses as the most valuable life form.
Values are completely subjective, and depend entirely on who you ask.
If this wasn't true, there would for example be no war. A large part of training for war is objectification of the enemy.
(It's hard to kill an actual person, since most people value human life.)
For example, the enemy is often given a nickname to isolate them from the rest of mankind in the troops eyes. Some american examples are Fritz (German), Charlie/Gooks (Vietnamese), Skinnies (Somalian), Chrunchies/Towel Heads (Iraki).
This has been done by all armies in all times.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
And, you can have your stem cells banked for later disasters after your liposuction."
Disaster? Lipo's gross as hell, but most times I wouldn't call it a disaster.
I thought the only thing this removed human fat was good for was soap...
Kind of makes you see that quote in a new light. Now waiting for the 'web services' people to say something like "SOAP. I make and sell SOAP."
--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
Hmm, I thought we had a simple miscommunication. Until this discussion, I really hadn't realized that there were intelligent, well-informed people who objected to IVF on moral grounds. You learn something new every day...
Unfortunately, that probably only widens the gap between us. I suppose I should have known better than to wade into such a polarized debate. Godwin indeed; this discussion isn't going to go anywhere.
There are moral arguments to IVF in general, but a) they're off-topic and b) I've no real formed opinion on them.
Is this the same Senator Hatch that thought the DMCA was a good idea? Sounds like maybe his judgement is a little suspect.
just keep pushing (Score:-1, Offtopic)
W WW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
by on by by on by on by on Thursday May 02, @03:43PM (#3452849)
(User #534407 Info)
d0n't ever stop
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
es before posting your or people's messages before posting your or people's messages before posting your oo
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
If this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to SourceForge.net:
* Browser type
* User ID/Nickname or AC
* What steps caused this error
* Whether you used the Back button on your browser
* Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy, or any sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously
* How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day
* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
Thank you.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I am not coservitive and I have plenty of reasons for my convictions about everything from science literacy to abortion, btw I am pro-life I don't need a god to tell me that dehuhumanizing and destroying human life is ethically wrong.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
He was making nitroglycerin (eventualy TNT).
Sheesh. You'd think people don't read the anarchists handbook anymore.
Of course, he did it the hard way. Glycerin is the easy chemical to get, check the hair care aisle.
so gwb was right and superman is an immoral jackass, the ends dont justify the means there are always alternatives
Now you can literally eat your way to a long life, lol.
My mom never taught me to sign.
You have a rather limited view of the war if you believe that the only thing it was about was slavery. Flying a confederate flag does not make you a black hater, by any means; it's just a story fabricated by the black worshipping popular culture.
In japan it's legal to recombine human and animal DNA... So while the rest of the planet lives in fear of clones, the land of the rising sun will also be the land of the catgirl ;-)
Oh great, now the price of soap will skyrocket...
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Advocates of abortion have been quick to use "science" as justification for their actions. It's an outrageous abuse of science, akin to advocating murder because the fat cells can now be used for research into stem cells. What's wrong with using rat embrios? Why butcher people for "research"? No, the abortionists don't care about anyone but themselves. Your specific issue will be useful to craven people, and it won't be true tomorrow when people figure out how to make this fat dance a little better.
Yesterday, I'm sure you would have laughed at the very idea of using liposcutioned fat cells for stem cell research. Heck, I'm still laughing, but mostly becuase it shows the abortionist argument that dead babies are the only source of stem cells as the complete bullshit.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The use of liposcuctioned fat cells to make stem cells just goes to show how little we know and how much we are at the begining of this kind of study. Who knows what people will be able to make cells do next. The more we learn the more we can do.
I laughed out loud when I read it, but it's wonderful. Fat cells really are the undiferentiated cell mass the abortionists would like you to think an embrio is. Fat cells will never grow into a person and killing them or forcing them to grow into nerve cells is perfectly ethical.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
"A hang-nail is human. A tumor is human."
No, a hang nail and a tumor are a part of a person. A fetus is an entire person, but one cell from it is just a cell from a person. Are you really so dumb that you don't see the distinction? Hell, if we don't hold funerals if I remove a hang-nail from you, would you mind if I removed your hand? Noone hold's funerals for hands. Or maybe the equivalent amount of cells from your spine? Noone would hold a funeral for a hang-nail's worth of spine cells, would they? Hey, how about if I just took a pound of flesh from you. Say, your heart? A fetus who ways a pound can be aborted, and it's just a lump of cells. Isn't your heart just a lump of cells? So if it's just a lump of cells, who cares what you do with it, right?
"We don't hold funerals for hang-nails, or for the billions of early abortions performed by God that go unnoticed by us."
That's because we don't notice them. We do hold funerals for the billions of late abortions performed by God (usually just called death, but I don't see why we shouldn't call an old man dying of cancer an abortion, since his life is being aborted), but that's because we notice them.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I fully respect your positions, and your right to have your positions.
Therefore, I will not conduct research on you or anyone in your household.
If there are willing volunteers, what natural[1] right gives you the power to tell them they can't volunteer?
[1] - Almost said "God-given" but then that answers the question. With a loop, but the question is answered.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I will not be lectured on ignorance by someone who can't use capital letters or punctuation marks....
Oh...and it's "EITHER"
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
That says a lot. Cool imagery -- I see archaeologists sifting through our records, determining that "They Sacrificed animals and babies to this God called Science.
In return, this God gave them Wisdom."
I think if someone wants to participate in an experiment, then they have the legal right to do so. It's their bodies and products of their bodies, far before any sentience or even central nervous system.
Besides, far larger embryos and fetuses have been aborted naturally; I would have had an older sister. Why should that tissue somehow be sacred? Why can't my mom help the cause of science to help her get through her sorrow? Why can't she have a silver lining?
Potential for abuse? Sure! There's potential for abuse when you hand your kid the car keys. It's everywhere, all around you! Boo!!! ;-)
Seriously, as with any other technology there will be checks and balances. But outright banning something because it's distasteful to you seems like the ledge of a very slippery slope that many past civilizations started to slide down just after their peak.
Was the Internet bubble our peak?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I agree, and I'm not personally for or against embryonic stem cells. But to critique someone for fighting for their moral beliefs is hypocritcal if you believe that certain moral standards (eg: rape is bad) should be upheld by government.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
(grins)
Inside every fat person there are 1000s of 1,000,000s of thin people wanting to get out. :)
I'm not "big". I'm just nearer than I appear.
I am a Karma Library.
Keep up that sitting and snacking.
You dismiss the surplus of fertile cells produced by most of us as merely a potential.
Yet you advocate saving a 'potential' life by accepting the suffering of those who need stem cell therapy. Isn't there a slight hypocrisy here?
In the same argument, I could be judged a multiple murderer by having lived to the age of 21 and having made no moves to have children as yet. Don't I know that I have had the potential to have children and bring new life into the world for years?!! Oh my God, lock me up now!!!
Spelling out that 'The act of fertilization provides the potential to become a human being' may be accurate but at the same time misses the point. Most of us make a daily choice not to go out and get ovae fertilised, and in doing so, allow them to die. Yet they contained within themselves the potential to be a new life. Which is where the entire 'potential' argument breaks down.
To my mind, for as long as a growing embryo/fetus/whatever is entirely dependent upon its mother to be brought to term, it's her business to choose what happens to it. It's a part of her, despite only sharing half her DNA. Why should she be a slave to it?
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie
...than we thought.
Not only do THEY last forever, but they might even make you last forever.
(I suppose we'll see the undertakers filing suit against Hostess any day now...)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
What is commonly called "liberalism" in the US is in fact usually something closer to socialism or marxism. True liberals are people like Thomas Jefferson, who was not exactly anti-religion. A true liberal nowadays is usually referred to as a libertarian.
As far as religion goes, the funny thing is, most "liberals" are in fact very religious. They believe in an entity that they believe should be all knowing, all powerful, in control of everything, and of course always benevolent. I am of course not talking about God but about Government. Nature abhors a vacuum. Liberals are generally athiests (or at least secular and not religious) and so they've simply chosen government as the "higher power" they believe in.
I've always said that religion stops a thinking mind. Well I'm coming to the conclusion that it is not religion that is stopping anyone from thinking but that there are people out there who cannot or will not think for themselves and that religions is simply one of many crutches that are used by the mentally incompetent to avoid having to deal with reality. Any ideology can be used as such a crutch. The most you can hope for is that the idiots choose an ideology that keeps them out of everyone's hair.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I don't think it's wrong to critique somebody for trying to impose what you see as unwarranted regulations upon your behavior. That seems like a no-brainer to me, and a good starting point.
I think you're just overdoing your argument. You're saying, essentially, that if you impose any sort of standards on others, then it's hypocritical of you to criticize anybody else for trying to impose their standards on you. The implication is not only that you're a hypocrite, but that such hypocrisy is a BAD thing, and you're being UNREASONABLE by criticizing them.
Imagine that group X was trying (with some success) to pass a law that required you to keep your children locked up in small boxes until they turned 18 years old. The average non-anarchist would now be not only a hypocrite, but a BAD, UNFAIR person for speaking up to criticize the campaign. Pretty messed up where that sort of logic can lead, isn't it?
In some strict logical sense, what you say may be true. But to accept your argument would completely devalue the meaning of the word "hypocrisy". Either we need to get used to most of our actions being somewhat hypocritical by some standard or other-- OR we'd need to agree on less-absolute standards for judging hypocrisy (with all of the subjective baggage that would be required.)
The point is that logic can be a silly thing if used in the wrong way. Nothing says it better than that old Emerson saw: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."
In return, this God gave them Wisdom."
Gosh, I hope not. Those archeologists creep me out a lot more than anyone on either side of this debate.
This is my impression of your previous point:
"You support restrictive legislation to outlaw things like robbery and rape, don't you? Then you shouldn't critique the religious right for seeking this particular piece of restrictive legislation. And if you do, you're being a hypocrite."
So where do you draw the line?
And the point is, I don't have to say where I'll draw the line. But I won't draw it in such a way that I'm wrong to criticize what I consider to be stupid law.
If the religious right (or anyone else) wants to come right back at me and criticize the fact that I support laws against arson and insurance fraud, let 'em. They have that right. They even have the right to dislike me intensely if they feel that I'm imposing my views on them.
Course, something tells me that my views will be a lot less controversial to their camp (and the rest of America) than their views will. I also think that my views will naturally be supported by most Americans, and I won't have to resort to political bomb-throwing and quick-fix legislation in order to impose them on a public that (according to polls) doesn't necessarily agree.
Now if you accept that hypocracy is sometimes a sweet, wonderful thing, then I accept your argument. But the implication seemed to be that it's wrong to be a hypocrite.
So you've just made an argument that might, in theory, brand me as a nasty hypocrite for criticizing a plan to use toddlers as fertilizer. When your line of reasoning can produce such bogus results, don't you think that it might have some flaws?
All of your other points make sense, but this one's really out there.
This is an interesting development, but there's still something of a problem with the idea of using these stem cells. Adult stem cells are still pluripotent, but it is more difficult to have them become a certain type of cell. Embryonic stem cells are, well, "Uberpluripotent", because they change to any given somatic cell with relative ease.
I personally throw all of my support behind the idea of using excess fetuses from in vitro fertilization, as they would be thrown away in either case, but this way go to save lives. Why would this offend anyone at all?
We oppose the destruction of embryos. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that embryos are people and deserve protection
I can see that you would oppose the murdering of human beings, but why oppose use of excess embryos not used in in vitro fertilization clinics? The only protection that you can provide to them would be from the clinic to the trash bin where they're going to be put as things are. Why not use those cells that would have been garbage to save lives?
The only thing that I openly admit that I cannot understand is why you (meaning the rights and the religous folks in general) would oppose a technology that's turning garbage into the best medical advance since penicillin. Is it better to throw a person away, or turn that person into the most capable of surgeons?
There's a chance you might not agree with me, but I'll tell you what's in my mind so you can understand my thinking about this issue. I believe that throwing embryos away is murder. I recognize that that brings up a lot of unanswerable questions, such as, "What are we supposed to do with all those embryos? It would be impossible to bring all of them to maturity and have them born!" I have no answer for this, or probably any other questions this line of thinking brings up. I can only tell you how I see it at the moment.
All of my beliefs on this subject stem from my acceptance of an embryo as a human being. That is based on the embryos genetic identity as a human being. I am addressing how we should construct our laws as an honorable people, not religious questions of how should we live to please God and so on. Someone else on this thread posted a great link yesterday that makes an entirely non-religious case for accepting embryos as persons before the law, Libertarians for Life. I read parts of it today and found that it said a lot of things I already believed.
There are a lot of hard questions about this. The fact that we cannot answer all of these questions, or that some of the answers may be unpleasant, should not guide us as we make decisions that are right for everyone. I ask that we prove the embryo to not be a person beyond a shadow of a doubt before we deprive him of his rights before the law.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I wanted to wait till I had time to sufficiently comment on this. You've made some great points, and if you'll have the patience to read through this, I'll try to show you more of my point.
Wait long enough. That's exactly the point. The side I'm on says, "Wait." You haven't proved that embryo is not a person. How can you take its life unless you are certain you are not depriving a person of his or her life? You wouldn't drop poison in a water supply hoping you don't kill anyone; you avoid taking the potentially harmful action because it is wrong to put people at risk that way.
Here's two possible facts, with two possible responses on our part, for a total of four hypothetical situations:
Assume an embryo is a person, and assume we grant an embryo the same protections under the law that we grant to all other human beings. If this is the situation, we have taken no wrong actions. (One might say it's wrong to not use the embryo's stem cells to save lives, but we don't find any other case where it's considered wrong to not take a life to cure someone else's problem. I might donate my liver upon my death, but I'd like to keep it while I'm alive, and I'm not a criminal for doing so.)
#2: Assume an embryo is a person and we deny embryos the same protections under the law that we guarantee to other people. In this case we have done something wrong: we are killing people (embryos) without just cause. (In general, it is unjust to act as an aggressor against someone else who has been non-aggressive toward you.)
#3: Assume an embryo is not a person and we do not grant the rights to embryos that we grant to people under the law. In this case we have done nothing wrong because we have not taken the lives of people.
#4: Assume an embryo is not a person, but we grant embryos the rights that people have under the law. In this case, while our decision was groundless, we have done nothing wrong. Even though in this case the embryo is not a person, we are still not taking any lives.
Now, as you said, we cannot prove which of the possible facts is true: the embryo is or is not a person. We cannot control the facts, we can only control our actions. We must choose the action that guarantees we are doing nothing wrong. We must make sure we take no action that might result in the loss of life of a person.
The fact that some people think that an embryo is not a person is not a reason to declare the embryo not to be so. If the embryo is a person, then it is not a dispute between the two sides of this issue; it is a dispute between the defenseless, nonaggressive unborn person and the aggressors who would deprive this person of his life and rights under the law. As long as a chance remains that that embryo is a person, nobody can justly say that the law should not treat the embryo as a person. The majority should not be able to vote rights away from a minority, especially a defenseless and nonaggressive minority.
When we execute a criminal our law insists that the criminal must be proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Well, I say that if we are going to end the life of an embryo, we must prove it to be a non-person beyond a shadow of a doubt. The jury is the entire country, and we have not come to a unanimous verdict declaring the embryo to be a non-person. Thus, there can be no legal authority for depriving that person or possible person of its life.
Phew! Did you read all that? My thanks if you did. I'm not interested in forcing my belief system upon anyone (although as you can see, I sure like talking about it :) ). I am interested in making sure my government guarantees my rights and the rights of all those around me, including those who cannot speak for themselves.
Thanks for the talk. I've been just enraptured the last 24 hours or so as I've seen so many intelligent, civil discussions in this thread between people on both sides. Of course, I browse at 4+, so there's probably some less civil stuff down there I missed! :) Thanks for helping to keep it nice.
A great link someone else gave out was Libertarians for Life, which made an entirely non-religious case for protecting the unborn, much as I hope I have done here. I found the site echoed a lot of my thinking about how the law should work on this issue. I am not interested in using the government to force my beliefs on people, so my opinion on the legality of taking an embryo's life is not directly based on my religious beliefs. There are plenty of things I think are wrong that I would never ask the government to outlaw. In a nutshell my legal stance is based only on my belief of what a government should do, which is, that it should guarantee my rights extend as far as possible but stop at you.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Someone may have mentioned this, but you read too much into what they guy said. He basically just said (in the original post) that these stem cells may not provide all the information that embryonic stem cells do. I believe what he was saying was, "Unfortunately, it looks likely that this great discovery is still not the great discovery that will allow us to research stem cells in a way that everyone agrees is right."
Mostly he was just letting us know that we may not have the solution we're looking for, yet. He said it was still important to collect totipotent and pluripotent stem cells, but he did not say whether it was important enough to justify the taking of an unborn human's life. I think he did a good job of acknowledging both sides in making his statement. (He recognizes why it is important to many people to protect the lives of embryos, although he unfortunately may not personally agree with that.)
Before you repond, check my posting history. I'm very definitely on the same side of this as you are. The sides here aren't really us and them, though; it's them and the unborn. We're just tbe people behind the government that's supposed to step in and preserve the rights of the nonaggressive unborn. My main point is that we can't just say, "Well, most of us think embryos aren't people, so let's legalize ending their lives and using them for any purpose." A majority cannot vote to take away the rights of the minority. (Well, as we've seen in history, they can, but I mean it's not right to do it.) You have to prove a murderer guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt before executing him; we should have to prove an embryo to be a non-person beyond a shadow of a doubt before depriving him of his life and other rights of personhood. And there's more than just a shadow of a doubt here! :) The jury is the entire citizenry, and we haven't come to a unanimous verdict. Without a unanimous verdict, there hasn't been due process, and we can't just declare the embryos to be non-people and deprive them of their lives. We have to take the only course of action that guaratees we don't make a mistake and unjustly take a life.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
If so many people are calling you a nut that you are unsure when they aren't, maybe you should start paying a bit of attention.
*grin* If you wait long enough, the "potential person" dies anyway, so there is not much of a difference.. However, this is continuing to be a VERY good discussion, and I did read your entire post. I really liked: "In a nutshell my legal stance is based only on my belief of what a government should do, which is, that it should guarantee my rights extend as far as possible but stop at you." - A most apt and excellent statement, I fully agree. But, on to teh rebuttal: You used punishing criminals as an example, and I am in favor of punishing a murderer 100%. However, when we convict the murderer, we only convict for the victims. We do NOT convict for the loss of possible descendants, grandchildren, etc. We cannot account for what MIGHT be, only what is. Also of import is the fact that the vast majority (99%+) of citizens feel that murder is bad, it is nowhere near as decisive about abortions... (~50%?)... I do not think a 50% rate is enough to enact an infringing standard.
Murphy was an optimist.