Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

undotwa · Mar 8, 2003, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by xenu:
LOL.

You want state and church seperate, but are happy to pass laws based on your personal religious beliefs.

Hate to be the one to tell you this, but the stuff that constitutes you, starts with the egg and the sperm.

You are being a consumate hypocrite if you don't call masturbation, or mensturation murder.

I'm pretty certain sperm doesn't have unique genetic code. Human life begins at conception. Using contraceptives like condoms isn't murder, because your killing no one. Sperm doesn't constitute another human being.

Oh and another thing, the seperation of church and state just means the seperation of the church as an institution from the government. In England it kinda isn't because the head of state is the head of the Anglican church.

Cipher13 · Mar 8, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by undotwa:
I'm pretty certain sperm doesn't have unique genetic code. Human life begins at conception. Using contraceptives like condoms isn't murder, because your killing no one. Sperm doesn't constitute another human being.

<Antiabortionistmode>But each sperm or egg has the POTENTIAL for life, which is being denied it; this is akin to murder</Antiabortionistmode>

Well, technically, sperm does have a unique genetic code; it will be similar to its "fathers" DNA, but the word you used is 'unique', and unique it is. Overlapping, other errors in crossing over, mutations, this, that and the other make it unique. It's very difficult to make a perfect copy. Anyway, a sperm is haploid anyway, so it doesn't really matter all that much.

undotwa · Mar 8, 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
<Antiabortionistmode>But each sperm or egg has the POTENTIAL for life, which is being denied it; this is akin to murder</Antiabortionistmode>

Well, technically, sperm does have a unique genetic code; it will be similar to its "fathers" DNA, but the word you used is 'unique', and unique it is. Overlapping, other errors in crossing over, mutations, this, that and the other make it unique. It's very difficult to make a perfect copy. Anyway, a sperm is haploid anyway, so it doesn't really matter all that much.

And sperm on it's own, if fed enough nutrients will never ever develop into a human being. So it's not murder. The only problem is that Catholics believe in the sacredness of the 'sexual act'. However thats something completely different and nothing to do with this topic.

Cipher13 · Mar 8, 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by undotwa:
And sperm on it's own, if fed enough nutrients will never ever develop into a human being. So it's not murder. The only problem is that Catholics believe in the sacredness of the 'sexual act'. However thats something completely different and nothing to do with this topic.

Hahahaha.

No, it certainly won't. But an embryo fed enough nutrients won't either, if it's placed in a frying pan with the heat up, will it? Nope, sure won't. Is that murder?

Again, the argument used is that each sperm has the potential to create life. I don't agree with it, but hey.

I'm all for abortion to a point, and the freedom of sexual acts. But then again, I seem to be for a lot of things that piss Catholics off.

Back on track: cloning.

I see Mr. Natural hasn't defended himself... wow. Incapable? Yep, I think so.

Zimphire · Mar 8, 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Mostly ethical. Although Zimphire was in earlier so it went religous for a bit. Disintegrated into personal attacks and wimpered out.

It did? Actually what I said was

I really don't have a opinion on this. I am not really for it...

I wouldn't want to support something I wasn't sure of. I surely wouldn't want to be held responsible for actions like this, if something turned out bad.

Then I said

t's not a religious issue so much as a moral one. And yes, our laws are primarily based on moral issues. You can have morals outside of religion.

So no, it was never religious when I was in here a bit.

vmpaul · Mar 8, 2003, 11:45 AM

I stand corrected. Maybe I was thinking of all the other threads.

Zimphire · Mar 8, 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I stand corrected. Maybe I was thinking of all the other threads.

No problem

I myself have gotten threads mixed up many times.

xenu · Mar 8, 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by undotwa:
I'm pretty certain sperm doesn't have unique genetic code. Human life begins at conception. Using contraceptives like condoms isn't murder, because your killing no one. Sperm doesn't constitute another human being.

Oh and another thing, the seperation of church and state just means the seperation of the church as an institution from the government. In England it kinda isn't because the head of state is the head of the Anglican church.

No sperm, no baby. If your god created sperm to fertilise an egg, then its murder. You cannot have it both ways.

You do not get to determine the cut-off date for when "life" starts. Although you seem to feel you have the right to do so - something you deny the pro-choice camp.

I get you - the church and state are separate, as long as the church gets to write the laws. Lovely.

Back to cloning. Lucky you lot weren't around when IVF was being developed.

Zimphire · Mar 8, 2003, 04:17 PM

xenu I am pretty sure one could say life starts when the sperm and egg meet and conception starts, and not seem too weird saying it.

xenu · Mar 8, 2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
xenu I am pretty sure one could say life starts when the sperm and egg meet and conception starts, and not seem too weird saying it.

Zimphire I am pretty sure one could say life needs the sperm and egg, and not seem too weird saying it.

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the purely religious argument.

If you want to acknowledge that hypocrisy, fine. If you want to acknowledge that the 'egg meets sperm cut-off date argument' is a purely emotional argument, fine. We can all then move on.

Zimphire · Mar 8, 2003, 04:36 PM

Xenu it's not purely a emotional arguement.

You can't have life without both. One without the other isn't life.

Cipher13 · Mar 8, 2003, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Xenu it's not purely a emotional arguement.

You can't have life without both. One without the other isn't life.

I love it when religious folk make things up to fit their ways of life.

I'm sorry, but without EITHER there is no life.

Sperm exists solely to fertilise an egg; an egg exists solely to be fertilised.

Together, they create life.

Now, personally, I take the scientific stand, and say "who gives a sh!t?". I'm all for contraceptives. I'm also for abortion, to a point.

You are not allowed to be pro-life and still be pro-contraceptive, unless you also want to be pro-hypocrisy.

Zimphire · Mar 8, 2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I love it when religious folk make things up to fit their ways of life.

Well its good thing I am not doing this.

I'm sorry, but without EITHER there is no life.

Sperm exists solely to fertilise an egg; an egg exists solely to be fertilised.

Together, they create life.

I am glad we agree. Neither is life apart, together they create life.

You are not allowed to be pro-life and still be pro-contraceptive, unless you also want to be pro-hypocrisy.

That is highly subjective.

That is like calling Oxygen water. Without Hydrogen, it's not water. They both need each other to make water.

The sperm and egg are not life. They need each other to make life.

Cipher13 · Mar 9, 2003, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
1. Well its good thing I am not doing this.

2. I am glad we agree. Neither is life apart, together they create life.

3. That is highly subjective.

That is like calling Oxygen water. Without Hydrogen, it's not water. They both need each other to make water.

The sperm and egg are not life. They need each other to make life.

1. Oh, but you are.

2. Sorry, I phrased it badly. Without one or the other there is no human life to be had. Either, on its own, is still life, like it or not. A sperm is alive. And human life is impossible without either - so isn't destroying one destroying what makes life possible, and therefore murder?

3. Err... go back to school.

undotwa · Mar 9, 2003, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I love it when religious folk make things up to fit their ways of life.

I'm sorry, but without EITHER there is no life.

Sperm exists solely to fertilise an egg; an egg exists solely to be fertilised.

Together, they create life.

Now, personally, I take the scientific stand, and say "who gives a sh!t?". I'm all for contraceptives. I'm also for abortion, to a point.

You are not allowed to be pro-life and still be pro-contraceptive, unless you also want to be pro-hypocrisy.

The egg hasn't been fertilized yet. When conception occurs, that is when human life begins. Not before, not after.

simonjames · Mar 9, 2003, 01:14 AM

ummm the topic is about cloning and I am no expert on religious matters but as the bible was written in the middle ages and cloning wasn't even thought of then I can't see why religion is being brought into this debate.

Cloning is not playing 'god' - correcting genes for good or aesthetic purposes is playing 'god'.

As I wrote a couple of pages back - I cannot see any benefit in cloning. I can see great benefits in stem cell research and the possibilities from it are potentially earth-shattering.

vmpaul · Mar 9, 2003, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

The sperm and egg are not life. They need each other to make life.

Would you apply this to a fetus and mother as well?

They need each other to make life. A fetus is not viable without a womb.

Zimphire · Mar 9, 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
1. Oh, but you are.

Hold on, let me check..

Nope, still not doing it. My reasoning has NOTHING to do with religious matters Cipher. No matter HOW bad you want them to be.

2. Sorry, I phrased it badly. Without one or the other there is no human life to be had. Either, on its own, is still life, like it or not. A sperm is alive. And human life is impossible without either - so isn't destroying one destroying what makes life possible, and therefore murder?

Neither one is a human life until AFTER conception. I surely hope you aren't saying a cup full of semen = a human life. If you are claiming that, by all means, why do you support abortion?

No, it's not till the two concept and FORM a growing human .

3. Err... go back to school.

This coming from a 19 year old know it all.

Zimphire · Mar 9, 2003, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by undotwa:
The egg hasn't been fertilized yet. When conception occurs, that is when human life begins. Not before, not after.

Oh come on undotwa, stop making things up to fit your life.

Would you apply this to a fetus and mother as well?

They need each other to make life. A fetus is not viable without a womb

I could say the same thing about a newborn baby. It can't live on it's own either. It needs a parent or someone taking care of it. Left on it's own, it will die.

Anyhow, this isn't a abortion, when is a baby a baby topic. I think this was about cloning.

undotwa · Mar 9, 2003, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Would you apply this to a fetus and mother as well?

They need each other to make life. A fetus is not viable without a womb.

The mother simply provides nutrients (oxygen and food etc. and protection to the fetus. A child without those, of any age will die aswell.

undotwa · Mar 9, 2003, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by simonjames:
ummm the topic is about cloning and I am no expert on religious matters but as the bible was written in the middle ages and cloning wasn't even thought of then I can't see why religion is being brought into this debate.

Cloning is not playing 'god' - correcting genes for good or aesthetic purposes is playing 'god'.

As I wrote a couple of pages back - I cannot see any benefit in cloning. I can see great benefits in stem cell research and the possibilities from it are potentially earth-shattering.

The Bible wasn't written in the Middle Ages, there have been scripts found which are thousands of years old. Even from the New Testament, there have been scripts found to have been written 400-500 A.D.

I agree, the benefits of stem cell research is earthshattering. However just about all of the advances in stem cells are in adult stem cells, there has been little evidence to support the fact that embryonic stem cell research (which the Catholic Church opposes) is of any value to medicine.

Cipher13 · Mar 9, 2003, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
1. Hold on, let me check..

Nope, still not doing it. My reasoning has NOTHING to do with religious matters Cipher. No matter HOW bad you want them to be.

2. Neither one is a human life until AFTER conception. I surely hope you aren't saying a cup full of semen = a human life. If you are claiming that, by all means, why do you support abortion?

No, it's not till the two concept and FORM a growing human .

4. This coming from a 19 year old know it all.

1. Fine, I believe it is religious for you. That isn't the argument at hand htough.

2. I'm glad we agree. I never said it was a *human* life. I said it is life, which it is; and it makes HUMAN life possible.

It is the *only* way to make human life. Denying its purpose is surely against your religious morals, no?

Again, you're making things up to suit you, whether you see it or not.

3. Why is my age relevant? Are you trying to demean me, somehow? My age has nothing to do with the simple fact that you're friggin' ignorant. Not my fault, don't be bitter.

I'm not responding to you again. This is off topic. No more thread derailment. If you want to discuss this further, contact me privately. I assume you won't.

Cipher13 · Mar 9, 2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by undotwa:
The egg hasn't been fertilized yet. When conception occurs, that is when human life begins. Not before, not after.

But Daniel, preventing the egg and sperm meeting is sorta like "pre-emptive abortion", isn't it?

Zimphire · Mar 9, 2003, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
1. Fine, I believe it is religious for you. That isn't the argument at hand htough.

And you can keep on believing that. However, I find it quite pretentious on your part to actually think you know why I believe in something, even better than I do. But ok.

2. I'm glad we agree. I never said it was a *human* life. I said it is life, which it is; and it makes HUMAN life possible.

So are skin cells, should I not scratch if I have a itch, in fear of killing them?

It is the *only* way to make human life. Denying its purpose is surely against your religious morals, no?

Not that I know of. Again, I think you are talking about Catholic doctrine. I am not Catholic.

Again, you're making things up to suit you, whether you see it or not.

And you keep making this baseless statement over and over again. I am not making anything up Cipher. But just to humor me, please show me some proof that I am making it up.. this should be interesting..

3. Why is my age relevant? Are you trying to demean me, somehow? My age has nothing to do with the simple fact that you're friggin' ignorant. Not my fault, don't be bitter.

Who is trying to "demean" who now Cipher? This last response tells me, that not only are you young, but you are also immature as well. Keep on with the jr highish baseless accusations

I'm not responding to you again. This is off topic. No more thread derailment. If you want to discuss this further, contact me privately. I assume you won't.

Well good, then I wont have to respond to another post full of baseless accusations and name calling. No, I do not wish to contact your privately, As I don't feel I can learn anything from your condescending attitude you seem to have with anyone that disagrees with you.

vmpaul · Mar 9, 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by undotwa:
However just about all of the advances in stem cells are in adult stem cells, there has been little evidence to support the fact that embryonic stem cell research (which the Catholic Church opposes) is of any value to medicine.

Just plain wrong. There have been advances on BOTH fronts. The problem with embryonic stem-cell research is that it's been virtually stopped because of Bush's policies.

From Wired magazine:
On Aug. 9, 2001, President Bush declared that scientists who receive federal research funds could work only with the 60 or so stem-cell lines that had been created before that day. In reality, however, the number of usable lines turned out to be fewer than 10.

In actuality there are no approved therapies...yet. There are very promising theories and anecdotal evidence but we won't KNOW until the research is done. How idiotic is it it to not even look in a potentially promising area? Especially when the opposition is using unrealistic scare tactics to make it's argument?

vmpaul · Mar 15, 2003, 09:46 PM

There's a broad coalition attempting to circumvent Bush's restrictions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/science/16STEM.html

madsenj37 · Mar 16, 2003, 07:33 AM

We cant feed the people who are here already... why add more to the equation. The money could be better spent on curing a disease or something that is beneficial to society. Thats my feeling. And no its not like Galileo at all. Galileo had a theory that went against teh thought of the time. Cloning is not a theory and its consequences are far greater than knowing the earth goes around the sun.

vmpaul · Mar 16, 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by madsenj37:
We cant feed the people who are here already... why add more to the equation. The money could be better spent on curing a disease or something that is beneficial to society. Thats my feeling. And no its not like Galileo at all. Galileo had a theory that went against teh thought of the time. Cloning is not a theory and its consequences are far greater than knowing the earth goes around the sun.

It's ABOUT curing diseaes. That's ALL it's about. Not adding additional people.

Read the thread.

undotwa · Mar 17, 2003, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
But Daniel, preventing the egg and sperm meeting is sorta like "pre-emptive abortion", isn't it?

I don't see your logic.

I by no means support contraceptives, but IMHO it wouldn't be classified as murder. It is simply a selfish act of deliberatly not wanting to bring life into the world.

madsenj37 · Mar 17, 2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
It's ABOUT curing diseaes. That's ALL it's about. Not adding additional people.

Read the thread.

Topic: Why are people so anti-cloning?

vmpaul · Mar 17, 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by madsenj37:
Topic: Why are people so anti-cloning?

Because they don't understand the issue.

Again, read the thread.

madsenj37 · Mar 18, 2003, 03:30 AM

Actually I do undertsand the issue better than you give me credit for. I dont believe in invitro fertilization, which is adding more people just like human cloning would be, which is what I referenced earlier. I dont believe in IVF because people can adopt. If you cant have kids on your own adopt a kid who can use the love and caring. We arent giving everyone a first chance yet we want to cure diseases and give others a second chance. IVF clinics give us leftovers, which is where we get blastocytes for use and research into cloning. Because I think IVF is not necessary I dont think that cloning should take place. If it matters at all I am currently studying this subject at UC Santa Cruz and I am not a first year student nor am I religious. Thats right, I have what some consider an extreme view at a liberal school and I am not religious. I am a philosophy minor and a politics major. Except for very scientific details on how cloning actually takes place at the cellular level, I am very informed. Now that said with the current politics, since IVF is legal, there is no reason to waste blastocytes. Certain cloning should be researched only because there is no reason to just toss unused blastocytes in the garbage. I can get into my views farther if you like

vmpaul · Mar 18, 2003, 12:52 PM

Sorry if I seemed abrupt but if you've read the thread you can see that almost everybody assumes that cloning techniques are going to used for reproductive ends. The truth of the matter is that NO reputable medical or research scientist is advocating reproductive cloning. But people seem to be swept up by Hollywood sci-fi and right-wing scare tactics to lump therapeutic & reproductive cloning together with no distinction. And there is a BIG distinction. On to the issues...

Well, IVF is legal and has been legal for decades. It's also a fact that hundreds, maybe thousands, of embryos are discarded every week. These embryos could be used in research that could alleviate the suffering of people who've contracted very debilitating diseases and injuries. It's also a political fact that no politician is calling for the end to IVF. Why the distinction? Because the fundamental right-wing of the Republican party are trying to get a legal definition of when life begins so they can overturn Roe v. Wade. They don't care abut the people who are suffering from these debilitating diseases. All they care about is their political agenda.

President Bush has limited federal finding of stem cell research to the 60 lines, at the time of his speech, that were already in existence. The reality is that less than 10 lines were viable for research purposes. As a result, almost all federal funded stem cell research has come to a halt. Federally funded research is important because it provides an environment where research and results are shared. This isn't the case in private research where results are withheld to protect possible patents. Shared research and results publication avoids duplication that slows advances. There is also a very structured peer review system in public research that has served the scientific community for decades. This insures results are accuarate and prescribe to cerain scientific principles for results verification.

I think it's pretty flippant to wave off IVF and just say people should adopt. It disregards humanities most overriding instinct. Is there anything more fundamental than the urge to reproduce? To see YOUR lineage, attributes (both physical & cultural) passed on to your blood offspring? There's no reason both systems can't exist side by side as they do today.

madsenj37 · Mar 18, 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Sorry if I seemed abrupt but if you've read the thread you can see that almost everybody assumes that cloning techniques are going to used for reproductive ends. The truth of the matter is that NO reputable medical or research scientist is advocating reproductive cloning. But people seem to be swept up by Hollywood sci-fi and right-wing scare tactics to lump therapeutic & reproductive cloning together with no distinction. And there is a BIG distinction. On to the issues...

Well, IVF is legal and has been legal for decades. It's also a fact that hundreds, maybe thousands, of embryos are discarded every week. These embryos could be used in research that could alleviate the suffering of people who've contracted very debilitating diseases and injuries. It's also a political fact that no politician is calling for the end to IVF. Why the distinction? Because the fundamental right-wing of the Republican party are trying to get a legal definition of when life begins so they can overturn Roe v. Wade. They don't care abut the people who are suffering from these debilitating diseases. All they care about is their political agenda.

President Bush has limited federal finding of stem cell research to the 60 lines, at the time of his speech, that were already in existence. The reality is that less than 10 lines were viable for research purposes. As a result, almost all federal funded stem cell research has come to a halt. Federally funded research is important because it provides an environment where research and results are shared. This isn't the case in private research where results are withheld to protect possible patents. Shared research and results publication avoids duplication that slows advances. There is also a very structured peer review system in public research that has served the scientific community for decades. This insures results are accuarate and prescribe to cerain scientific principles for results verification.

I think it's pretty flippant to wave off IVF and just say people should adopt. It disregards humanities most overriding instinct. Is there anything more fundamental than the urge to reproduce? To see YOUR lineage, attributes (both physical & cultural) passed on to your blood offspring? There's no reason both systems can't exist side by side as they do today.

Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral, now matter how long. That being said I personally feel that IVF is not necessary. I have an urge to do dufferent things all the time, but I dont because of will power. I was adopted and so was my mom and all of her brothers and sisters. I am not trying to get you to change sides, merely understand where I come from. I think it is great that you actually feel strongly one way whereas people just look the other way when it comes to things like this.

madsenj37 · Mar 18, 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Hahahaha.

No, it certainly won't. But an embryo fed enough nutrients won't either, if it's placed in a frying pan with the heat up, will it? Nope, sure won't. Is that murder?

Again, the argument used is that each sperm has the potential to create life. I don't agree with it, but hey.

I'm all for abortion to a point, and the freedom of sexual acts. But then again, I seem to be for a lot of things that piss Catholics off.

Back on track: cloning.

I see Mr. Natural hasn't defended himself... wow. Incapable? Yep, I think so.

The arguement is that yes a blastocyte, a sperm and egg conjoined, has the potential to become a human life. But that is not the only arguement. We do not actually know at which point life starts, so when we say if it doesnt resemble a human, its not, we are defining it without actually knowing the answer. We are taking an educated guess, and not all educated guesses are right. I do not look the same as I did a year ago, or 20 years ago, and twenty years from now I wont look like I ever had before. Part of being a human is constant growth and development. A pine tree cannt grow from a rock or a peach pit. It can only come from the seeds of a pine cone. That is why the potential arguement is made. Humans can only come from a human blastocyte. Also, sperm by themselves have a very poor chance of being the one to fertilize the egg, its something like a 1 in a billion chance. But once a blastocyte is formed inside teh womb naturally, it has a very good chance of becoming a person. The other arguement is about the sentience of the blastocyte. It is obvious that a blastocyte which has been formed for only a few days has not developed the power to feel emotional pain, that is wht some feel it is not human. That is a rational arguement, however we are already formed humans and do have sentience, feeling and compasion. We have a high brain capacity also. And some feel that we must use our sentience and intelligence to protect all innocent living creatures. If we do not give a blastocyte a chance it will never become a human. We control its fate, and it is up to us to decide who will be bown and who will not. Once again, I do not expect people to just agree with me, but these are the feelings of those on the minority side.

madsenj37 · Mar 19, 2003, 05:02 PM

This point is not addressed to any specific person. I just wanted to say taht some people do not "buy" teh potentiality arguement of a blastocyte. they say that potential has nothing to do with it. Right now the use of cloning to help prevernt diseases only has potential. So potentiality is a huge part of teh arguemnet. We are trading one potential for the other in either case.

vmpaul · Mar 19, 2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by madsenj37:
This point is not addressed to any specific person. I just wanted to say taht some people do not "buy" teh potentiality arguement of a blastocyte. they say that potential has nothing to do with it. Right now the use of cloning to help prevernt diseases only has potential. So potentiality is a huge part of teh arguemnet. We are trading one potential for the other in either case.

To say that it's a just a debate about one potential(a human being) vs. another potential (therapies & cures) is misleading. It's much more than that.

To me, the argument that anti-stem cell people put forth about 'protecting' embryo's lacks all perspective. Let's remember what is being sacrificed here. First, stem cells are derived from cells that has divided a couple of times. It's not a fetus in a womb. There is no womb. It's not a baby. It's a cell that has divided.

It's a debate about relative merit. Does the sacrifice of a couple cells in petrie dish outweigh the benefits of possible therapies and cures to help living, breathing productive members of our society? I think they do. There are a number of areas where the benefits to society outweigh the negatives. Handguns kill 10,000+ every year in the U.S.. You would think the right-wing would support a ban on guns since it's so concerned about life. Not likely. How about something less politically controversial. 40,000 people die every year on our nations highways. Yet I hear no calls for us to abandon the automobile. We accept the negatives because the positives are so overwhelming. Here we're talking about cells in a laboratory.

Plus, there are a number of advances in therapeutic stem cell research already. I've posted these before but I'll do it again for you.

Here are some of the potential's that have had preliminary trials and advancement:
1) Stem cells could be injected into any organ (heart liver, brain) and help in the healing and re-growth of that damaged organ. Some preliminary work has been done on heart attack patients who have severely damaged heart muscle.

2) Stem cells could be used to bridge damaged nerves in spinal cord injuries. This has been done in mice and the results are staggering. Crippled mice have actually regained use of their limbs after stem cell therapy.

3) Use stem cells to grow tissue in the lab for transplantation. They've grown cartilage in petrie dishes already.