Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cells Cultivated Free of Animal Contaminants
qewl writes "In a follow-up to this story, researchers at Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology have created a new method of growing human embryonic stem cells that has overcome the major obstacle of animal contaminants to their use for human treatments. As President George W Bush has restricted federal funding of this research to limited cell lines existing since 2001, scientists have strived to find ways to keep the lines pure. Irina Klimanskaya and colleagues at ACT grew the stem cells from the beginning on a cell and serum-free mixture called an extracellular matrix. "The importance of this work, of course, is that by eliminating contact with animal and human cells, you minimize the risk of contamination with pathogens that could be transmitted to patients and the population at large," Dr. Lanza at ATC said."
You guys think that conservative people simply want to push religious beliefs on yourselves. While you guys have no evidence to prove that embryos are not alive, other people (like those Russians described in an earlier post) are developing methods that do not use embryonic cells. Well, the embryonic cells that have been already extracted can be used I guess (if they are alive, your super scientists made them unviable for life already, or in other words, killed them). But I don't see why anybody (private or public) should be allowed to continue extracting embryonic cells, despite of funding or whatever.
How about 'from parents to offspring', mothers can't do it alone and neither can fathers.
Last time I checked, the baby comes out of the mother, not the father. And incidentally, it's a baby, not an "offspring."
we should be asking "When can a life be protected under the law?". That question can be answered.
Actually, when you phrase it that way, the moral imperative is clear. Life must always be protected under the law. And it's not just moral, either. The 14th amendment to the Constitution demands it.
Well, let me comment on Nature. It's an important publication. Real scientists, you know, the guys that aren't the fuck-ups that science journalists are, submit to and read the magazine.
As to the American people, the anti-science (and anti anything that isn't being blasted from a pulpit) crapola come out of that country will likely render it an ignorant-laden superpower relying upon foreign researchers to keep it going. But hey, if mass stupidity is what the masses want, then give it to them. By the time they figure out that pulpit politicians and sleazy politicians who smooze up to them sold the US down the river, everyone else will be so far ahead that you'll make a great source of cheap labor for Mexicans and Canadians
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
He's obviously talking about NOT DESTROYING AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE.
He's obviously not talking about eating fruit -- the death of non-human plant life.
He is not talking about masturbation, or even spitting -- both actions by an individual that destroy some of their *own* cells.
So please don't be a jerk and purposely twist what this person is saying.
An embryo or foetus in it's mothers womb, or a birthed baby, is AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN LIFE.
If you disagree, consider:
- YOU WERE ONCE ALL THREE - embryo, fetus, baby
- BUT YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING TODAY.
- AT WHICH POINT DID YOU BECOME AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING
(For arguments sake, consider it was when you took your first breath)
- NOW GO BACK ONE HOUR FROM THAT POINT
- IN WHICH WAY ARE YOU NOW LESS OF A DISTINCT INDIVIDUAL, LESS OF A HUMAN?
WORTHY OF MURDER?
- KEEP GOING BACK SOME MORE...
If you are honest, you will see where this process leads -- that the only *safe* time to labels cells as not an individual human life is *before* the conception occurs.
If not, where is the arbitrary line in the sand that you draw?
The embryo and fetus in the mother's womb is A HUMAN LIFE, IT IS *NOT* HER BODY.
Even in cases of incest or rape, if conception has taken place, destruction of the pregnancy is the destruction of an individual human life - i.e. MURDER without just cause. Or do you think the son should pay for the crime of the father?
> Many embryos are spontaneously aborted
> can be preserved if doctors proscribe mandatory anti-aborfactants
> fail to take such medicaton be considered child abuse, murder or neglect?
No. It has been always acceptable to, in cases of extremely serious illness, to deny treatment other than nutrition and shelter and leave the future of the life in God's hands.
Or is the failure of a parent to approve the *forced* separation of conjoined twins, that would definitely kill one of them, approval for murder?
In the September 22 ruling, three Appeal Court judges ruled that the case came down to an issue of self-defence -- the right of the stronger twin to be released from a sister who would eventually kill them both.
[CNN Article]
Welcome to this retrograde new world: where the "self-defense" of the "stronger" individual is the foundation of the law and the arbiter of life and death.
A world where the stronger mother can abort her newborn - for any reason.
So is it any wonder that we now begin to hear this: "Study: Newborn euthanasia underreported"
[CNN Article]
People who forsake mercy should not expect it from God.
The will of about half the half the people who voted - most of whom can't even pronounce "embryonic stem cell", let alone have a policy opinion on it. How about the will of the people who mostly say they want us out of Iraq? Oh, right - on that, the president is taking a leadership stand with an unpopular policy. The simple explanation that it's all concocted to keep his corporate constituents feeding off the people, by feeding us lies, couldn't possibly explain the mass of contradictions and waste we're feeding $2.5 TRILLION to this year.
--
make install -not war