Slashdot Mirror
New Stem Cell Source - Your Bone Marrow
BoogieChile writes "ABC News is reporting that a team of researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles, lead by Dr John Yu, are aiming to extract renewable stem cells from bone marrow - extracted from the patient him/herself - for a source of neural stem cells for treatment of brain cancers, Alzheimers and other neurological disorders.
Problem solved! Yipee!
New spinal column, anyone?" 'Course the story has no details - post anything else you can find below.
This has been known for a LONG time. The problem is the cells are no where near as effective as fetal cells because of their inability to diferentiate as well (meaning they can't become as many 'body parts' and when they can, they are normally inferior because of the way in which stem cells in the body are retained during aging).
Also, other countries are already advancing with fetal stem cells. Take a look at annoucements from all over the world - countries that we're decades behind us are already passing us because of the religiously based rules imposed upon science by the 'Moral' politicians/lobbying groups. The cloning issues are progressing the same way. China and India are already advancing past us - and some of the most valuable scientists in the field are LEAVING the Unites States because of the limits that are being put on their research.
All I know is people are going to have abortions - be it medically or with a coat hanger - whether I, you, the president, god, etc., agree with it. They always have, they always will. We might as well use them towards some good. Unfortunately, some people feel it's better that we say "No, its bad. I won't listen." and let the already doomed fetuses be simply thrown away. At least, until their loved one dies and they realize they could have been saved with methods derived from stem cells.
The fact of the matter is this is the equivalent of saying "Well, we have diamons...but, take a look at this cubic zirconium...we shined it up real nice and it might be as good as a diamond." Except its NOT. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to make 'fake diamonds' (clone/in vitro fertilize) because that would be wrong too.
(And, apologies for spelling errors...I tried to look it over, but I know I must have made a few...maybe...)
New spinal column, anyone?
That doesn't even make sense. I guess they mean spinal cord. Christopher Reeve couldn't do shit with a new set of vertebra.
I bet the submitter of this story and the editor who posted it about have an embolism when they hear a computer user call their "tower" a "CPU."
are so quick to make that decision, do you want the mothers who cant afford their kids, or know they will be unable to raise them, to bring them to your door to pay for / love / raise them as your own??
;)). The choice is a deeply personal one, so it's not right for me to say one way or another why she made the choice she did, but I would like to think that it was influenced by the promises (made and delivered upon) that the rest of the family would help her raise the baby without the assistance of the scumbag father.
What if his answer is yes? Can't we agree that at least some women choose not to abort because they know that an adoptive family can be found?
My sister in law found herself in this situation (someone who reads my posts regularly is starting to be able to piece together her life story together by now
The real point here is that what you're accusing the other fellow of is hypocrisy. Even if he is, that doesn't make him wrong; if I say murder is wrong, and then kill someone, that doesn't make murder right.
Consider the fact that murder of a two year old solves the problem of a mother who can't afford her kids as well as abortion of a 6th month fetus solves the same problem. Simply because an idea solves a problem doesn't make it right either.
As far as the anybody else's damn business business, you're begging the question that the baby is a separate life. Clearly you don't think so, and he does, and so that's the point of debate.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Do the ends justify the means? No.
Did the ends justify the means in this case? Yes.
I don't think the ends always justify the means, but you cannot deny that it was worth the sacrifice of these few animals in order to discover insulin. However, if his research had gone for naught, then it would have been a waste. The problem is, you just never have the luxury of knowing 100% what will happen. But this is a great example of why research should be allowed to happen. Of course, things should be monitored, and recorded, and regulated - but I think it has to happen. What you don't see right away is all of the research that happened because of the discovery of insulin. That could eventually lead to a cure for diabetes.
Fascinating story by the way, I had never heard about the discovery of insulin.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The lesson here is to not put that much support into these so called scientists that become so emotional and arrogant with matters such as this. Most likely, many of the scientists arguing so fervently for embryonic stem cell research had forgotten the original point of concern and thus debate and regressed into an animalistic pattern of "My team is better than yours and you suck" in which their stubborness restricted them from seeing clearly. Their point of debate should have been about finding a solution that does not harm others (the ethical portion). This could be solved by either A) finding another solution or B) proving to all that there is actually no harm done. Instead, like all liberals they chose to act as enraged monkeys throwing poop and slapping the ground. This can be evidenced by their arrogant statements and obvious content for anyone who dares to question them or the results of their actions. All attrocities happen in this circumstance and they win no real support from anyone who employs logic and reason.
Much like the actual debate of abortion, the real issue is avoided and actually hidden by a wall made of emotional sound bites. Liberals have their chants about "get your laws off my body" and "my body, my choice" yet ignore that their refusal to address the actual issue at hand only shows their own internal reluctance to debate the issue amongst themselves much less satisfactorily come up with a conclusion that debases the issue pressed agains them. The rest is buried in a sea of hypocricy and a very selective and ironic application of who qualifies for that "CHOICE." The ONLY argument here that is valid is: "What defines 'human' during gestation" or worded differently, "When is that growing lifeform a human?"
Avoiding that issue and pandering to the ID of self important and narcissistic people is the tactic of rapists and murderers (not to mention Tyrants throughout history). I have seen this argument many times by wife/child beaters/molesters, murderers, thieves and other people who instead of internally accepting their own choices instead make excuses and try to alter the perspective of reality to a point that they can live with their choices. There is ALWAYS a reason for the murder, rape, etc.
Consider one potential beneficiary of stem cell research - spinal cord injury. There are 11,000 new cases each year in the US. Each CASE has estimated lifetime costs of $2,185,000 mostly funded by insurance and medical schemes.
That makes a potential $2.4 billion a year that could be saved in the US alone. Why aren't insurance companies *pouring* cash into stuff like stem cell research - or if they are why aren't we seeing any results.
What about the father? I'd say it's very much his damn business. Ignoring the main point of contention, (at what point the cells are a baby or human) if your argument is that this mass of cells belongs to the mother to do what she pleases, tell me why half of it does not belong to the father? If you want to play this as a property rights game then at least part of the fetus belongs to the father.
FWIW, being a brand new father, I don't in the least agree with this "it" business and am merely trying to objectifiy what I consider a human for the sake of dicussion and because I understand that this is my opinion and others disagree. I would love to hear some one tell me that my daughter was any less human than them when she would get the hiccups while she was still in the womb.
Vote Quimby.
Um, wouldn't being opposed to infanticide be pretty much "pro-life"? I mean, the whole point is that they want to keep the infant alive. That's pretty much the definition of "pro-life". They are for life.
you do know infanticide != abortion, right? The reason the prolife movement is called prolife is that the basis for most antiabortion arguments is that the fetus or embryo or whatever they deem the point humanity begins, has an inherent right-to-life that overrules the womans right to choose over her body. Go take a class or something. DA.