Slashdot Mirror
Fetuses Provide Stem-Like Cells to Mothers
Flatline5150 writes "Excerpt from this
article on Boston.com: 'Many a pregnant woman has moments when her fetus seems like a little parasite, all take, take, take. But new research suggests that a fetus may also be giving back a lifelong gift: cells that appear to act like stem cells, migrating to diseased organs in the mother and trying to fix them.'"
Getting people pregnant may cure them of cancer?
Doctors are going to have a whale of time!
"Bend over the table Miss Johnson. I'm going to cure your cancer. It may take several doses though..."
I'm not surprised since previous research has shown that a mother's cells can exist in the blood stream of an offspring several years after birth and the mother's blood stream can contain the offspring's cells as well.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Whats abortion do in this case?
Wow, very interesting. I wonder if that has any effect on life expectancy. I.e. is it part of the reason women live longer than men? It would be interesting to see a study comparing mothers versus non-mothers. Although I suspect that the process of raising kids might have a life-reducing impact, counter-acting the overall numbers.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
I'm a guy! Males can't get pregnant! No Fair!
Maybe something like THIS might be possible eventually, though.
-- Kevin J. Rice
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
I'm a guy!
A guy on Slashdot? What are the odds?
Eating pregnant mothers can be even healthier !
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
Many a pregnant woman has moments when her fetus seems like a little
parasite, all take, take, take.
That seems to be the most offensive viewpoint I think a parent could
take towards their child. Surely they could have come up with a better
description? The rest of the article is pretty upbeat about mothers,
but starting the article off like that is really offensive.
Anyways, as someone who is very pro-life I find this excellent. Stem
cell research does not need to require the death of a child. There are
plenty of other sources of stem cells that can be used. When someone is
pushing for aborted children to be used for harvesting stem cells, they
have an agenda. Stem cells can also come from a number of other
sources, such as baby teeth, amniotic fluid, and a number of other
places. The scientists that want to study stem cells have a number of
other places to get them, and they can get them without causing a
political movement around them. And now it looks like there is another
source of stem cells to be used.
Bravo for the scientists that are searching for new sources of stem
cells and side stepping the moral issues associated with abortion.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
It seems to me as though this debate could possibly end a long-standing conflict about whether fetuses should or should not be harvested for valuable stem cells, which have various and sundry medical applications. This debate has been similar to abortion, but it seems now as though these cells that are produced might be able to be harvested alone, with no harm to the child, the mother, or the pro-life lobbyists. ;) It seems like a bona fide solution which would allow for stem-cell-like research without need to harvest fetuses. The only problem now remaining is how to extract these cells.
Where's the fetus going to gestate? Are you going to keep it in a box?
The problem is, though, the possibility of a very scary alternative: Women getting pregnant to harvest stem cells, and then aborting the baby (possibly late-term) to avoid actually giving birth.
Since this would 1) get around the ban on stem cells from aborted babies, but 2) still result in an abortion, you've just skirted the legal issue surrounding the production/research of *new* stem cell lines, and still terminated the life of the child via legal means.
Same end, very different -- and at present, legal -- means.
I find that possibility absolutely chilling.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
I've wondered if that may be one of the reasons why some couples start looking more and more like each other.
The "two become one flesh" thing might be a bit more literal than some people might think. Using ones sense of smell to help choose a mate might be useful in getting a better genetic match - of course that's assuming you don't have artificial hormones and scents screwing things up. Some women's cycles cause them to flip from one preference (more similar genes) to another (more different) though...
Not sure what happens if a woman has children from many different men. Wonder how her immune system would handle the fetal cells with so many variations of DNA.
On a vaguely related note: human chimeras. Mosaicism and Chimerism.
Why don't you people have a movement that simply refuses to use the results of such research and spare the rest of us of your religious propaganda.
I personally do not want to die of some disease that took 20 years longer to cure because of people who can't distinguish a zygote from a human being.
This discovery clearly implies the fetus is an independent organism providing a symbiotic benefit to its host.
Much like the bacteria in our intestines, it provides some benefit to the greater organism. Ergo, it's a separate and distinct living entity and it's species is, by definition, HUMAN.
And if it's species is human, it MUST be given HUMAN RIGHTS, including, but not limited to, the right to life.
QED.
Gotta love when science redefines the debate.
In a box- with some socks. He gives them air, to be fair.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
That seems to be the most offensive viewpoint I think a parent could take towards their child
Well then, Mr FroMan (I'm guessing unmarried and childless), prepare to be offended. I know over a dozen mothers in their 30s and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM had that exact feeling at least once during each pregnancy.
It's a natural reaction, because it happens to be true.
I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Slashdot Moderators', but that he can have the right to have babies.
" by your line of reasoning, my lung provide a symbiotic benefit to my heart."
Your lung is a part and parcel of your body, literally sprung from your DNA. Bactieria are not. They are completely dependant on you, but are not truly part of you. You can kill off your bactieria and live. You can't kill off your lungs and live (without artificial breathing assistance).
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Science, despite claims of objectivity, does not operate in a vacuum. It must operate in the social realm, subject to ethical obligations. Religion is a common source of ethical rules. I assume that most readers here come from a background that values the Old Testament book of Exodus (whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim).
The pro-life arguments that I've heard are all based on the religious notion of the sanctity of all human life in whatever form or stage of development. The "flamebait" appearing in this thread is similarly constructed.
For your pro-choice consideration, however, I offer the book of Exodus, Chapter 21:
Meaning that the fetus is property, not humanity. Injury to it is repaid like other property damages.
Meaning that the mother is humanity, not property. Injury to her is repaid like other human loss.
Now, these verses suggest that intentionally causing harm is still a wrong deed, but it does prove false (in religious context) the claim that a fetus is a human.
Personally, I'm willing to allow a woman the choice to sell her own property. *shrug* That's not the same thing as suggesting that stem cell research requires murder.
We need to be able to reverse engineer the construction and function of stem cells then develop the capability to make custom stem cells on demand that can be taylored to use in poeple. The bluprints for these cells could be stored in computers and manufactured using biotech/nanotech.
It would be fantastic to conduct a stufy of women who had tinnitus before getting pregnant (once, twice or perhaps more) and any correlation between getting pregnant and any possible lessening of the level of ringing in her ears. Or perhaps one where an audiologist at least tests hearing acuity before/after/between getting pregnant
Tinnitus is truly an unmet medical need. I'm sure that many of us who suffer with trauma to the inner ear wonder what stem-cell research portends for us. In the meantime the American Tinnitus Association is a good clearing house for Tinnitus information. Including lists of physicians who are knowledgeable in this area.
Currently the only model for alleviation (besides experiments in "masking" the sound and electrical stimulation of the eardrum) is the Jasterboff Model of retaining the sufferer with a means of "tuning the brain out" from noticing the "sound". I've not tried it yet, but I'm told it's met with considerable success for some patients.
It's unfortunate that the most you'll get from a great many audiologists and ENTs is "Sorry, I can't help you". Googling around, you'll find a number of boards where people talk about their condition, possible cures and provide support for one another.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
President Bush has sharply restricted federal funding for research on human embryonic stem cells to keep the government from supporting research that he believes destroys human life.
Yet another reason, far as I'm concerned, to get that bum out of office!
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
> I'd say I'm as religious as FroMan, possibly more
Interesting. How do you compare or, for that matter, measure religiousness?
My goodness, it'd be hard for you to be wronger! (-:
The cells at that point are totally human and nearly undifferentiated, which is quite a different thing to being grass cells or whatever. What you're promulgating is exactly the same lie as the "it's only a fish... it's only a reptile..." bullshit which was common a decade or two ago.
Yeah? So what is it that our local maternity hospital almost routinely rescues halfway to term? A ball of grass? A mystery mass of foetal cells? At what point does a baby stop being that mythical lump of cells and start being a baby? It's certainly not at term. And if babies can survive at 20 weeks prem, how about 21?
I have a nephew who was waaaay prem, and aside from the fact that his sister was nearly the same size as him while they grew up ("are they twins?"), you'd never know. He's a normal adult now, the same as you or I.
Get an education - you don't need to be a conservative or a religious bigot to see a fact when one whacks you across the face, and the real-life observation here is that the only difference between a baby in utero and one in Daddy's arms is that the second one is breathing and the first is on a lifeline.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Another Monty Python fan, I see. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The principles from ancient Egypt is hogwash. Egypt copied a lot of stuff from Israel. Specifically, Moses and the people he was imported with had a massive impact on their culture. Their medicine and stuff is totally different - you won't find lizard blood and camel dung in Irael's prescriptions - and so are most other things, despite the obvious influence of the imports. Including the theology - the soterology has different bases, and is distinct in every important detail.
As to the Red Sea, because it is impossible ("Circular Reasoning, v: see "Circular Reasoning"), you will not look. Several friends of mine have been there, donned the aqualungs, done the dive, the whole kit and kaboodle, and yes, things there are as stated.
Do some actual research before propagating your prejudices.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Saganaga wrote: Actually, babies that are born as early as 19 weeks are sometimes saved. I personally know the parents of a baby who was born at 24 weeks and is doing fine today.
I've read in an unreliable source that only *one* baby has ever survived after being born at 19 weeks, but my understanding is that before 20 weeks, the lungs just aren't well-developed enough to carry oxygen no matter what is done. I suspect that the 19 week baby may have actually been a 20 week miracle where the date of conception had been miscalculated. Until someone comes up with a workable artifical womb, I doubt very much that the 20 week limit will be crossed.
According to this article on preterm labor, the baby must make it at least to week 20 or it will not survive, and at 24 weeks, they only have a 50% chance of survival.
Another source states that surviving babies born before 25 weeks (just over 6 months--the third trimester) have a 50% chance of being disabled or worse. (Developmentally delayed, blind, etc.) This means that a baby born at 24 weeks has a one in four chance of turning out normal. Your friend is very fortunate to have beaten those odds.
As for independence, I think you are probably missing the point. There is a major difference between being dependant on others for food and water and being dependant on the functioning of someone else's bodily organs-- being dependant on someone else's lungs for oxygen. (As I mentioned, a ventilating machine will not work because the lungs don't work. A heart/lung type machine won't work because the blood vessels aren't strong enough, etc.) An unborn child isn't dependant on others like a person on a ventilator, it is dependant on others like a vampire that needs blood to live. A cute vampire that will grow out of it eventually, but a vampire all the same.
All of these complexities...much of which we do not know about attest to the amazing power of the Creator.
Answer: I don't hate babies, even when they spit up. (Or have incredibly stinky diapers.) But we're not talking about babies here. We're not even talking about human fetuses (which despite all of the rhetoric to the contrary, do fit all of the same criteria as other parasitic organisms. The only difference is that the female of other parasitic organisms generally doesn't end up acting as a host to more of the same species.) We're talking about a mass of undiffentiated cells.
It could become a fetus, which in turn could become an infant. But at the moment, it's a blob in a petri dish with nothing to distinguish it visually from a similar blob of cells coming from a cat, a horse, or a wolverine. It can't survive outside of that petri dish, and it certainly isn't a human being. It has no brain, no heartbeat, no feelings, and no sensory apparatus. It's nothing but a little blob of potential something, and if that little blob happens to have occurred in the process of IVF, it's most likely to become wasted potential.
Think of all of the people out there suffering from things like diabetes, or Parkinson's. They could benefit immensely from stem-cell research, if couples who have had IVF (or the fertility clinics) had the option to donate these cell masses for the research, but they don't have that option. Thanks to short-sighted, religiously biased legislation, it's illegal. Some people oppose using zygotes for research on the grounds that it is somehow "disrespectful". So, how is thawing them and pouring them down the sink drain more "repectful"? Yet, most "pro-lifers" who are vocal on abortion say nary a word about frozen embryos -- other than to oppose research that has the potential to save the lives of many currently born, living, breathing people. That, IMNSHO, is the real tragedy; that the fate of so many is held hostage to hysterical concern for a little clump of cells that stands a good chance of not turning into a person into the first place.
Oh, and BTW, here's an interesting set of statistics on miscarriage (spontaneous abortion). Even the most ardent pro-lifer would have to admit that, from these numbers, "God's will" is more dangerous to a fetus than all of the Planned Parenthood clinics put together.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
...then you're up the creek again, and paddle free by over 700 years. Oops. See what I mean about research? And my interest is only casual.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Welcome to real life. Stripping away illusions like that is seldom pleasant, but it makes us more rational, capable people every time.
As to "opposing abortion", that's a complex question. What it basically boils down to is whether you're willing to speak for those who have no voice or not.
Too many people are willing to tie reason up and burn it on the altar of convenience - and one example of that is people arbitrarily decreeing unborn babies to in some way not be human. That in turn allows them to argue for the rights of the poor suffering mother (who in the vast majority of cases was just careless and is now trying to elude the consequences, hard as that observation may be on rape victims in the same predicament), while ignoring the rights of her totally helpless child.
If a mother shakes her newborn to death because it won't stop crying, she gets charged with murder. She would also be charged with murder if she got a thug to put a knife through her child. Yet if she gets a doctor to put a knife through that very same child only a few days or weeks earlier... nothing.
It's about human rights. Who will speak for those who have no voice?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing