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.'"

Comments

Exciting

[FroMan]

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.

Re:Exciting

[Hungus]

I dunno FroMan, the whole idea of a child being a lump of tissue so lets scrape it out / chop it up etc is pretty darned vile to begin with if you ask me. Anything that encourages people to not slaughter their children is pretty good in my book so on that we also agree.

Re:Exciting

[shaitand]

Who said anything about children? We aren't talking about people, or babies, or children.

We are talking about something that literally was never been (an expression synonimous with "never existed").

It's something that could potentially turn into a baby, or a number of other things (which is what makes it useful).

Next thing you know people will be crying baby-killer if a man masterbates or uses a condom.

Does this mean????

[HEXAN]

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.

Re:Well then..

[shaitand]

There is no such thing as a baby in the womb. Babies are by definition something which is born. The ridiculous sentiments which are attached to them should be reduced as much as possible, not encouraged.

The cells are alive of course, but once they've formed into anything (like a far developed fetus) they are useless. By definition once the fetus has reached the point at which it's no longer a collection of cells but a human it is worthless for the research we are talking about.

At the point where these cells are useful they are less human than the living cells in a blade of grass. Or do you feel there are moral issues to consider when debating mowing your lawn?