[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A short list of those humans saved by embryonic stem cells please?

Can it be very short?

I had a family friend who had ALS. All treatments she received, at best, halted or slowed the progression for a time. The one exception was an experimental embryonic stem cell treatment, for which she needed to be flown out to California to get. This actually improved her condition, an essentially unheard of result. I remember that before she was getting this treatment, the copious literature my father had read on the subject was all so dire and hopeless that he actually had me look to see if there had been Vatican certified instances of a miracle remission, just to have some hope. To give you an idea, it also fell to me to order books on suicide from Amazon.

The treatment existed only because there was a dispute over whether it fell under the Bush policy. Once it was determined it did fall under that policy, the people running the project had the choice of dropping everything and and assuming the huge risk of a mid-life career change from science into venture capitalism, or dropping that particular branch of research and keeping their secure jobs.

They chose the latter, and her condition never improved again.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

So now discussing the point at which a human life becomes a human life is mythology? This has nothing to do with God or my personal dogma.

You said life starts at conception, that is a very commonly held belief by Christians.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

There is no answer as to when an unborn baby stops being a disposable fetus and magically becomes a valid human.

That is completely beside the point. Embryonic stem cell research does not "kill" embryos, fetuses, or babies. If the embryo is "dead," what is wrong with using its cells to save peoples' lives? If you are apart of a religion that doesn't allow organ donations, I can understand the conflict. However, if you feel that one life can save another, what is the problem?

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What I'm saying is selfish is people who are incapable of having children and are thus willing to create multiple human lives with the hope that one of them will "take".

Versus having sex day after day with so many "dead" embryos that would make Elizabeth Bathory look like an amateur.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

My point is that saying "x is better than y" is not an objectively adequate justification for any action, which is the argument ColdWarrior was trying to make.

... and is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

However, if "abortion" to you means "the termination of a fertilized egg", then sorry - it's the exact same thing, except that one is in a petri dish in a freezer and the other is in a woman's body.

Again, stem cell researchers do not do abortions. These are two completely different subjects. A 40-year-old man "aborted" in a car accident, put on ice, then had his bone marrow transplanted to a cancer patient is no different than a "dead" embryo that had cells used to rehabilitate (and possibly cure) someone with cerebral palsy.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

None of these are the deliberate, artificial, human-enacted termination of a human life.

... and are completely inconsequential in regards to embryonic stem cell research.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't give two sh!ts what various "circumstances" you want to come up with for why abortion is right. Either you believe it's right or you don't. If you believe that there are any justifications for the act of abortion, then you believe that abortion is okay.

Oh, I see. So killing people is okay because we go to war and kill people to defend your freedoms. Or perhaps you killed someone while you were defending yourself from that person when he or she attacked you in your home. Perhaps you killed someone out of mercy because they were incurably in so much pain, it would have been torture to let them live. Maybe a police officer shot and killed a serial killer who had 15 children all tied up and ready to be raped and murdered. So naturally, it's OK to kill someone because there aren't ever any exceptions or circumstances where killing someone might be an acceptable course of action. You are either for killing or against it. Nothing in between.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Have you noticed that I have not brought God, dogma, or spiritual belief into this discussion?

Well, you didn't bring any logic to the discussion, so I assumed it had to do with God, religious dogma, or spiritual belief.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That debate is certainly relevant to the discussion of embryonic stem cell research, since such research will inevitably result in the destruction of embryos.

The embryos are already "dead"! What difference does it make? The research doesn't "kill" them, so your opinion about abortion is absolutely irrelevant. I'm not even sure why it was apart of the discussion in the first place. The unused embryos would literally be thrown away or incinerated, just like any other organic tissue, might as well put them to good use and cure people.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Can it be very short?

It can be so short as to be non-existent, yes.

I had a family friend who had ALS. All treatments she received, at best, halted or slowed the progression for a time. The one exception was an experimental embryonic stem cell treatment, for which she needed to be flown out to California to get.

First of all I'm sorry for you and your family's loss. I have some questions about this situation.
1) How long ago was this?
2) Obviously, I see a great deal more information on adult stem cells being used to treat ALS than embryonic stem cells, do you recall the nature or name of the treatment?

Here is an interesting article from the ALS Association showing the promise of adult stem cell usage; ALS.org

The major difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells is that the embryonic cells are pluripotent meaning they can differentiate to many useful cell-types for regenerative therapy. Adult stem cells were long-thought only capable of regenerating cells for the tissue from which they're extracted. This is no longer the case and there are a wealth of studies suggesting they can be grown and used to treat a variety of conditions. A new advancement called iPS developed by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka in Japan for example, reprograms normal skin cells into an embryonic stem cell types, using the addition of 3-4 genes. No embryos, eggs, or cloning are used in the process. Again, with these possibilities available through advancement as opposed to simply saying; "it's a blob"; we might be able to avoid marginalizing ethical differences, learn more about embryonic and adult stem cells, and discourage any notion of milling one life for another.

This actually improved her condition, an essentially unheard of result.

Improved conditions are not unheard of at all, rather quite common. In one clinic for example, 19 of 53 patients reported improved conditions using stem cells extracted from the patient's hipbone. Improved mobility (legs, arms) and/or improved breathing and or/ improved strength. Some patients reported a regaining of muscle strength and/or an improvement of balance, sleeping or a reduction of spasms. One advantage of using adult stem cells from the patient is that they are less likely to be rejected by the body upon transplantation.
x-cell Center

I remember that before she was getting this treatment, the copious literature my father had read on the subject was all so dire and hopeless that he actually had me look to see if there had been Vatican certified instances of a miracle remission, just to have some hope. To give you an idea, it also fell to me to order books on suicide from Amazon.

If anything, the Amazon books on suicide would inform you that any number of people might seek it for any number of reasons. What did you learn from the Amazon books on suicide??? Regardless of what people might consider "miracle remissions", there are plenty of instances of improved quality of life and in fact, extended life. Neither adult nor embryonic stem cells have produced a cure.

To be frank, ALS is a dire condition subego, it follows logically that most of the literature on the disease would be somewhat dire in nature.

The treatment existed only because there was a dispute over whether it fell under the Bush policy. Once it was determined it did fall under that policy, the people running the project had the choice of dropping everything and and assuming the huge risk of a mid-life career change from science into venture capitalism, or dropping that particular branch of research and keeping their secure jobs.

Bush's policy as I understand allowed for the use of already available stem cell lines without the use of new cells. There were several years worth of available embryonic stem cells at the time and the crux of Bush's opposition was the Federal funding of it. I think it's a valid ethical conundrum that requires more consideration than the notion that an embryo is "a blob". Which, by the way sounds increasingly ignorant with each passing year of research.

They chose the latter, and her condition never improved again.

There have been several treatments of mice, their treatments were not halted, but they still eventually succumbed to the disease. Your friend did not die because embryonic stem cell therapy was ceased, she died because she had ALS. This is ALS as we understand it today subego.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You said life starts at conception, that is a very commonly held belief by Christians.

It should be noted, it's not uncommon in the medical community either.

Again, stem cell researchers do not do abortions. These are two completely different subjects. A 40-year-old man "aborted" in a car accident, put on ice, then had his bone marrow transplanted to a cancer patient is no different than a "dead" embryo that had cells used to rehabilitate (and possibly cure) someone with cerebral palsy.

They're two entirely different discussions? You wouldn't rather we use aborted fetuses for medical advancement or are you opposed? After all, the fetus is going to the trash right?

Oh, I see. So killing people is okay because we go to war and kill people to defend your freedoms. Or perhaps you killed someone while you were defending yourself from that person when he or she attacked you in your home. Perhaps you killed someone out of mercy because they were incurably in so much pain, it would have been torture to let them live. Maybe a police officer shot and killed a serial killer who had 15 children all tied up and ready to be raped and murdered. So naturally, it's OK to kill someone because there aren't ever any exceptions or circumstances where killing someone might be an acceptable course of action. You are either for killing or against it. Nothing in between.

Poor argument. If there is a means of producing a positive outcome without killing, should you kill anyway?

Well, you didn't bring any logic to the discussion, so I assumed it had to do with God, religious dogma, or spiritual belief.

Since you've not offered any logic to the discussion, it is likewise feasible that you're simply being an antagonist. You know he's a Christian so everything he says must be in light of Christianity right? Does this logic hold for you also? You will find a Christian perspective and simply oppose it by this virtue alone?

The embryos are already "dead"! What difference does it make? The research doesn't "kill" them, so your opinion about abortion is absolutely irrelevant. I'm not even sure why it was apart of the discussion in the first place. The unused embryos would literally be thrown away or incinerated, just like any other organic tissue, might as well put them to good use and cure people.

*edited to include; What embryos are already dead??? How can they be used for in vitro fertilization if they're already dead. Many of these frozen embryos must be implanted to ensure one will grow. Research suggests the possibility of determining which ones are dead and using those and I'd favor this approach, but it is mistaken to say "they're already dead!". A great deal of them are in fact living, human embryos. That's how in vitro works olepigeon.

There's that "cure" word again. There are zero cures from embryonic stem cells olepigeon. If there are other means of producing embryonic stem cells, wouldn't this be optimal?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Obama can tell the Vatican to suck it, and that religion should not interfere with medical advancement.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5132491.ece

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Dr. Mengele would be so proud!

Wow, an INDIRECT Godwin's law post. Cool!

First, the Vatican has influence only over those of a specific religion. Second, religion is usually the basis of individual codes of moral and ethical behavior. Moral, ethical behavior is crucial to social activity, and without it you have people doing things like Mengele did. Third, Mengele was a monster, interested in less than useful bits of "knowledge" that had only his interests in torture as motivation, while medical research SHOULD be tempered with a strong regard for "first do no harm." Since any decent scientist knows that he or she doesn't know everything, that means being cautious in one's research, especially when lives are concerned.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

shifuimam, I can assume you are against in vitro fertilization.

Success rate of in vitro fertilization of a women > 40 = 14%

86% of the embryos goes to the toilet.

Source for these numbers please? And your statement that any embryos go "to the toilet" is pretty hyperbolic. An embryo that doesn't implant is reabsorbed pretty quickly, not ejected. It helps to know how the whole process works.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Wow, an INDIRECT Godwin's law post. Cool!

I was wondering when the first person to throw a Godwin flag was going to show up. Congratulations!

First, the Vatican has influence only over those of a specific religion. Second, religion is usually the basis of individual codes of moral and ethical behavior. Moral, ethical behavior is crucial to social activity, and without it you have people doing things like Mengele did.

That was essentially my point. By insisting that it was "The Vatican" that was behind all dissent (or "The Jews" which were Mengele's bad guys), it negated all the reasonable bio-ethical concerns that come from not Catholic sources. Take away ethical concerns, and you've got people doing all kinds of heinous acts in the name of science and medicine.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It should be noted, it's not uncommon in the medical community either.

In what, Christian Scientist Clubs? I can't remember ever hearing a doctor refer to an Embryo as anything other than a collections of cells. Certainly not alive, and certainly never as a human being.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They're two entirely different discussions? You wouldn't rather we use aborted fetuses for medical advancement or are you opposed? After all, the fetus is going to the trash right?

Whether someone was raped and killed or slipped in a bathtub and died is inconsequential to donating organs (unless it was substance abuse related). It doesn't matter how you feel about rape or bathtubs. Regardless if I'm for or against abortions, yes, I do believe that using stem cells from an aborted fetus (note, this could be miscarriage or premature) is preferable than just throwing it away or incinerating the fetus. When I die, I'm donating my entire body. Hopefully some brilliant medical student will use my cadaver for study to get his or her degree, then continue to help millions of people.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Poor argument. If there is a means of producing a positive outcome without killing, should you kill anyway?

That doesn't apply to every situation. Shifuimam gave an absolute, you're either for abortion or you're against it; there is nothing in between. If complications arise during a birth the jeopardizes the life of both the mother and the child, do you just let them both die because you're against abortion? Do you kill the mother?

If a man is going to kill a school bus full of children unless he himself is killed, do you just let him go kill 40 kids because you're against killing? What positive outcome is there?

Claiming absolutes is stupid.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*edited to include; What embryos are already dead??? How can they be used for in vitro fertilization if they're already dead.

An embryo is not life by itself, ask shifuimam. It's a collection of cells. Technically it's not dead because it's not even alive.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Research suggests the possibility of determining which ones are dead and using those and I'd favor this approach, but it is mistaken to say "they're already dead!". A great deal of them are in fact living, human embryos. That's how in vitro works olepigeon.

They aren't alive to begin with, not in the sense that shifuimam is insisting. I know how in vitro works. The embryo has to be intact to work.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are zero cures from embryonic stem cells olepigeon. If there are other means of producing embryonic stem cells, wouldn't this be optimal?

Mice have been given back nearly 90% of mobility after having a spinal cord severed. I'd call that pretty damn close to a cure. We are now starting human clinical trials because they can actually be properly funded.

As I already stated, embryonic stem cell research does not determine where the cells come from. I also stated that stem cells can be collected from afterbirth, but somehow that got construed into only meaning abortions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all I'm sorry for you and your family's loss.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

1) How long ago was this?
2) Obviously, I see a great deal more information on adult stem cells being used to treat ALS than embryonic stem cells, do you recall the nature or name of the treatment?

She received the treatment in 2002. I didn't find out details until after the treatment got yanked, so I didn't bother to get the name.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Improved conditions are not unheard of at all...

Judging by the dates from the links you provided, she had already passed by the time these treatments would have been (even potentially) available. At the time, improved conditions were unheard of.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If anything, the Amazon books on suicide would inform you that any number of people might seek it for any number of reasons. What did you learn from the Amazon books on suicide???

I wasn't getting them for a why, I was getting them for a how. They were never used.

I got the impression the decision based less on her wishes, and more on the risk of her husband going to prison for it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To be frank, ALS is a dire condition subego, it follows logically that most of the literature on the disease would be somewhat dire in nature.

Well, my father, for people who know him, is the go-to guy when you get a fatal disease, so he's researched many dire conditions. He said he had never experienced a situation where the authors had such a forlorn attitude. Even with other hopeless situations, he said that at least there was an attitude of "well, we're getting there". There was none of that here.

Again, this was a few years back. I wouldn't be surprised if the very examples you cite have improved the morale of those who research and treat it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Bush's policy as I understand allowed for the use of already available stem cell lines without the use of new cells. There were several years worth of available embryonic stem cells at the time and the crux of Bush's opposition was the Federal funding of it. I think it's a valid ethical conundrum that requires more consideration than the notion that an embryo is "a blob". Which, by the way sounds increasingly ignorant with each passing year of research.

If the (mind-bogglingly vast) responsibility of dealing with this conundrum fell to me, you would be one of the people I'd want to help, precisely because we'd take (somewhat) opposing ethical approaches.

I predict that were that to pass, one of the conclusions we would swiftly arrive at is there is no single monolithic 8 year policy that can decently cope with something so nuanced.

This makes me question the ethics of the solution we received.

IIUC, even Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch asked Bush to allow promising lines created without federal funding to be added to the "allowed" list.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There have been several treatments of mice, their treatments were not halted, but they still eventually succumbed to the disease. Your friend did not die because embryonic stem cell therapy was ceased, she died because she had ALS. This is ALS as we understand it today subego.

Perhaps I engage in hyperbole when I consider giving someone with a fatal degenerative disease an extra six moths of unassisted walking and playing with the kids as being "saved". As is obvious, I have a personal stake.

On the other hand, I don't think I'm engaging in rationalization when I observe that my personal experiences pretty much fly in the face of the two major themes in this thread: embryonic stem cells have dubious value (certainly not the case at the time), and the policy didn't stop anyone (it almost directly stopped her from getting an effective treatment).

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Source for these numbers please? And your statement that any embryos go "to the toilet" is pretty hyperbolic. An embryo that doesn't implant is reabsorbed pretty quickly, not ejected. It helps to know how the whole process works.

Google is your friend.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...te&btnG=Search

http://www.jonesinstitute.org/ivf-success-rates.html

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/infertility/ivf.html

And unsuccessful transfered embryos goes to the toilet.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

In what, Christian Scientist Clubs?

If it doesn't matter where stem cells come from, why would it matter to you where a view comes from? You've fashioned kind of a small box for yourself here intellectually olepigeon. Suffice it to say if there can be godlessprolifers.com, there can be a long continuum of thought on the matter.

I can't remember ever hearing a doctor refer to an Embryo as anything other than a collections of cells. Certainly not alive, and certainly never as a human being.

Because there is no reason for the medical community to opine on a complex social matter. They generally refer to it as an embryo and not a collection of anything. It would be scientifically hasty and pretty rigid ideology in the court of public opinion. While you might be quick to deny any advancement on the matter, we may come to find out a great deal more about the human embryo as I've already indicated with a prior link.

Whether someone was raped and killed or slipped in a bathtub and died is inconsequential to donating organs (unless it was substance abuse related).

Whether or not they're being killed for their organs in fact is an ethical question that needs to be asked by anyone interested in sanity. Furthermore, with increasing knowledge and developing society, abortion may become more rare which puts this resource at risk. As I've mentioned, I think most people are pretty pragmatic and appreciate the amount of academia on medical ethics. This is why such a great deal of effort is being used to research the flexibility of adult stem cells and the alternative means of producing/extracting embryonic cells. Pro-life? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of your personal view, there is a concerted effort to not marginalize the ethical question of harvesting humans for humans.

It doesn't matter how you feel about rape or bathtubs. Regardless if I'm for or against abortions, yes, I do believe that using stem cells from an aborted fetus (note, this could be miscarriage or premature) is preferable than just throwing it away or incinerating the fetus. When I die, I'm donating my entire body.

Well then this begs the question of compensation for the valuable resource and very much has to do with abortion. Any action that might offer incentive for a questionable industry founded overwhelmingly on societal ill should be challenged intellectually. Maintaining an embryo is "a blob" is intellectually lazy and may soon be patently ignorant.

Hopefully some brilliant medical student will use my cadaver for study to get his or her degree, then continue to help millions of people.

They might be better served moving from the neck-down.

That doesn't apply to every situation. Shifuimam gave an absolute, you're either for abortion or you're against it; there is nothing in between. If complications arise during a birth the jeopardizes the life of both the mother and the child, do you just let them both die because you're against abortion? Do you kill the mother?

No and as standard practice the mother is the primary patient, the baby is the second unless the mother expresses otherwise. I have no problem with this in a purely logical sense as the mother can live to produce more offspring.

If a man is going to kill a school bus full of children unless he himself is killed, do you just let him go kill 40 kids because you're against killing? What positive outcome is there?

So... you're in favor of water-boarding? Torture? I wouldn't have seen that coming.

Claiming absolutes is stupid.

So why do you insist on arguing absolutist view?

An embryo is not life by itself, ask shifuimam. It's a collection of cells. Technically it's not dead because it's not even alive.

I'm not having a discussion with shifuiman and if I were, we'd likely disagree on that notion. I've been pretty clear on how I feel about the "collection of cells" or "it's a blob" argument. You and I seem to be a little farther apart ideologically so I've decided to take issue with your post.

They aren't alive to begin with, not in the sense that shifuimam is insisting. I know how in vitro works. The embryo has to be intact to work.

You're welcome to respond to shifuiman if you'd like??? Living or dead is simple enough terminology.

Mice have been given back nearly 90% of mobility after having a spinal cord severed. I'd call that pretty damn close to a cure. We are now starting human clinical trials because they can actually be properly funded.

Fascinating. Here's a study showing paralyzed mice (having induced laboratory spinal cord injuries) walk again with the use of no stem cells.
news-medical.net
Do you have a link for your study? I'd be curious to read it.

As I already stated, embryonic stem cell research does not determine where the cells come from. I also stated that stem cells can be collected from afterbirth, but somehow that got construed into only meaning abortions.

No, but embryonic stem cell research could lead to unhealthy market practices. A market practice I and many others would like to avoid. You can pretend people with my view either don't exist or dwell in small pockets of zealous Christian communes, but the only one who will have suffered ignorance at the end of the day is you my friend.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Google is your friend.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...te&btnG=Search

http://www.jonesinstitute.org/ivf-success-rates.html

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/infertility/ivf.html

And unsuccessful transfered embryos goes to the toilet.

Citation after the fact (and after being asked for the source) is not a good way to support your statements. Further, your numbers may come from valid sources (if IVF clinics are objective enough to be valid-and I think these are), but your understanding of what happens in the uterus is not valid. Absorbed, not ejected. The immune system is actually part of the mechanism that decides on whether the embryo implants or is rejected, and if it does not implant, it is attacked by immune cells, (NKCs, macrophages, etc.) and absorbed. More info here (an online community discussing IVF failures and their reasons).

UnUSED embryos may be destroyed, but they would not be flushed. Biohazard and all that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Thinking and feeling do not determine the value of life. A quadriplegic feels nothing

I've known quadriplegic people, and I think they would object to that idea.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

A heavily brain-damaged individual is incapable of thinking beyond the capabilities of an infant or, sometimes, an animal. However, these people still have value.

I never said babies and animals are without value. I think it's best to avoid killing babies and animals. However, an embryo has the thinking abilities of a rock.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It's not less or more. It's equal. A human life is equal to a human life. If undeveloped babies (embryos, fetuses, whatever) are considered human (many people do, as there is no concrete proof to the contrary), they are equal to other humans.

Why? This is a bold statement that requires a strong logical argument (which I asked for), but you offer none.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Then perhaps it was a poor example, but I think that it's pretty clear in society that we greatly value human life over animal life.

In general, yes. In every case, no. There are many human lives intentionally ended and animal lives intentionally saved, so we can't use this as a reliable measure.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What do you define as human relationships?

I admit I haven't fully thought out what all qualifies as a human relationship, but I'll tentatively go with "mutual feelings of affection or need with a person."

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

At what point do you view an unborn baby as more than "an undifferentiated blob of cells"?

Um, when it is more than that? To be generous, let's say the presence of any recognizable organs. This way growing fetuses pass the test and HeLa cells don't.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Citation after the fact (and after being asked for the source) is not a good way to support your statements. Further, your numbers may come from valid sources (if IVF clinics are objective enough to be valid-and I think these are), but your understanding of what happens in the uterus is not valid. Absorbed, not ejected. The immune system is actually part of the mechanism that decides on whether the embryo implants or is rejected, and if it does not implant, it is attacked by immune cells, (NKCs, macrophages, etc.) and absorbed. More info here (an online community discussing IVF failures and their reasons).

UnUSED embryos may be destroyed, but they would not be flushed. Biohazard and all that.

Goes to the toilet can be taken literally and figuratively. You are taken it literally, when it's mean to be taken bother literally and figuratively.

Goes to the toilet, destroyed, absorbed, eaten for breakfast. Whatever. The fertilized egg is gone, never to be life. I don't care if it's absorbed or eaten for breakfast.

If your against destroying embryos or fertilized eggs, then you must be against IVF.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Goes to the toilet can be taken literally and figuratively. You are taken it literally, when it's mean to be taken bother literally and figuratively.

Goes to the toilet, destroyed, absorbed, eaten for breakfast. Whatever. The fertilized egg is gone, never to be life. I don't care if it's absorbed or eaten for breakfast.

Context is important. You quoted/restated hard numbers, and then switched to figurative wording without any indication that the different parts of your post were meant differently. I went with the way you posted-the only information I had.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If your against destroying embryos or fertilized eggs, then you must be against IVF.

That demonstrates some people's tendency to sort things into neat, binary stacks. It's either black or white. It's either this or that. In this case, it's not that clear cut. ANY fertilized egg that is not implanted, for whatever reason, is reabsorbed. This includes those that are fertilized but just don't quite "make the cut." There is no current research that gives even rough estimates for how many times an egg is fertilized but does not implant because this happens so quietly that there's no external evidence at all. In other words, "destroying fertilized eggs" happens NATURALLY (and for that you can substitute "by God's will" or any other suitable phrase) probably millions of times every day. Before you challenge me on that, do some research on how extremely complex the whole process of fertilization, transit through the fallopian tube, implantation and then growth is. So very many things have to go just right, and there is evidence that many, many times things don't go right, or there is a genetic abnormality gross enough that the embryo isn't really viable, or a large number of other issues including what might be called "bad luck."

Saying that any loss of a fertilized egg is a bad thing is not terribly forthright; it is in fact, quite disingenuous. And this sort of argument has been used to inflame the discussion about abortion out of proportion to the actual content of the points on either side.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If your against destroying embryos or fertilized eggs, then you must be against IVF.

False dichotomy.

I know a couple who produced a small number of eggs, which resulted in the same number of children. No destroyed eggs.

It's possible to be opposed to destroying embryos or fertilized eggs and in favor of IVF.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Context is important. You quoted/restated hard numbers, and then switched to figurative wording without any indication that the different parts of your post were meant differently. I went with the way you posted-the only information I had.

Here are my exact words:

Success rate of in vitro fertilization of a women > 40 = 14%

86% of the embryos goes to the toilet.

If the success rate is 14%, then the rest of the 86% goes to the toilet. What's so hard to understand?

You just took it literally when it wasn't meant to be.

Okay, 86% goes to the trash, bites the dust, or gets eaten for breakfast.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Here are my exact words:



If the success rate is 14%, then the rest of the 86% goes to the toilet. What's so hard to understand?

You just took it literally when it wasn't meant to be.

Okay, 86% goes to the trash, bites the dust, or gets eaten for breakfast.

Your words and phrasing are the only clue anyone has to what you mean. You used a very concrete, literal set of numbers, and then hyperbole. The math is obviously not the issue, but the line in your head between facts and figurative wording did not come across. And it took you more than one post to actually SAY that you meant "toilet" figuratively, adding to the confusion. Not that I'm easily confused; I'm just used to people saying what they mean. One reason I don't wander into the Pol Lounge much.

Let's get back on the subject, shall we? How about starting with the fact that Christians aren't the only group who have moral problems with such issues...?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

False dichotomy.

I know a couple who produced a small number of eggs, which resulted in the same number of children. No destroyed eggs.

It's possible to be opposed to destroying embryos or fertilized eggs and in favor of IVF.

How successful was IVF when scientist first experimented with test tube babies?

Would you be against medical treatment using embryonic stem cells if scientist are successful extracting stem cells from embryos say 30% of the time, without killing the embryo?

Would this be a false dichotomy knowing that you are creating life and that 70% of it goes to the toilet?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Let's get back on the subject, shall we? How about starting with the fact that Christians aren't the only group who have moral problems with such issues...?

You don't believe a vast majority of those who opposes embryonic stem cell research are Christians, like Pres. Bush who wanted human embryo cloning banned?

Who are the most outspoken against embryonic stem cell research? Christians.

What other religious groups are outspoken against embryonic stem cell research? Jews? Hindus? Buddhist? Muslims? Scientologist?

Of course, not all Christian, because I know many do support embryonic stem cell research, especially here in California since we passed a bill to support its funding.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You don't believe a vast majority of those who opposes embryonic stem cell research are Christians, like Pres. Bush who wanted human embryo cloning banned?

Ahh yes, the obligatory George Bush reference.

Who are the most outspoken against embryonic stem cell research? Christians.

What other religious groups are outspoken against embryonic stem cell research? Jews? Hindus? Buddhist? Muslims? Scientologist?

Of course, not all Christian, because I know many do support embryonic stem cell research, especially here in California since we passed a bill to support its funding.

There are so many flaws in this line of reasoning, it's difficult to know where to start. I guess I'll start as I always do; with substantive data to back my claim. An article highlighting the complex continuum of thought and concerns from stem cell research professionals;
genomicsnetwork
Among the concerns raised by stem cell research scientists, these were the most common;

• Unnecessary hype that may lead to patient disappointment
  • Concerns about coercion or ‘instrumentalisation’ of the female body
  • The impossibility of getting fully informed consent
  • The potential prohibitively high cost of any stem cell therapies
  • “Maverick” scientists going to clinical trials too early and endangering patients’ lives
  • Widespread commodification and commercialisation of the human body
  • The complexity of resource allocation. Given that people around the world are dying of diseases that
  are cheap to prevent, how can expenditure on this research be justified?
  • Embryonic stem cell research is preferable to exploiting poor people to donate their organs to wealthier people

There was no mention of "my Christian God", there was no mention of "pro-life", there was no such thing. There was only a sane, well-rounded range of thought on this matter in context of medical ethics. Not a dissociative, antagonistic, and ignorant rant about George Bush and Christians. Furthermore, over 70% of people in the US claim to be Christian. It follows logically that most opposed to embryonic stem cell usage in the US would be Christian.

Lastly, touting the merits of yet another funding measure California has passed is laughable in light of the fact that your State is friggin' bankrupt. Unless I, in the midwest help pay, California ain't funding shxx!

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You don't believe a vast majority of those who opposes embryonic stem cell research are Christians, like Pres. Bush who wanted human embryo cloning banned?

Who are the most outspoken against embryonic stem cell research? Christians.

What other religious groups are outspoken against embryonic stem cell research? Jews? Hindus? Buddhist? Muslims? Scientologist?

Of course, not all Christian, because I know many do support embryonic stem cell research, especially here in California since we passed a bill to support its funding.

I didn't say "majority" at all. I just said that Christians weren't the only group that opposed research using human embryos. And not all groups opposed to such research are religious groups. I know of a loose group of vegans who are against all animal testing and particularly against human biological research.

But if you're going to focus on Christians, why not be a little more careful about using the label? The most vocal group of Christians opposing embryonic stem cell research here in the US have been the so-called "conservative, evangelical Christians." It's interesting to note that a whole lot of this sub-group are also in relatively high income brackets, members of "big box" churches, and while college educated, they tend to have little scientific training (MBAs, various liberal arts, and a wide variety of other non-science majors).

There's a huge population of this sub-group here in San Antonio, Texas, and they have a nasty habit of ignoring inconvenient facts like "not everyone in the world is Christian," "the traffic laws of the state of Texas actually apply to everyone," and "I don't care what your pastor preached last week, we're at work to work, so get back to work." Pretty sad, really.

On the flip side, there ARE very thoughtful, very well scientifically trained Christians who oppose intemperate research without sufficient prior research to show that the costs are warranted. A large number of this group are also here in San Antonio. The interaction of the two groups is fun to watch.

Oh, and please differentiate between "loud, ignorant, conservative wind bags who use the label "Christian" but would never let Christ into their church because of the long hair and sandals" and those who actually live their chosen religion. It's only fair.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There was no mention of "my Christian God", there was no mention of "pro-life", there was no such thing. There was only a sane, well-rounded range of thought on this matter in context of medical ethics. Not a dissociative, antagonistic, and ignorant rant about George Bush and Christians. Furthermore, over 70% of people in the US claim to be Christian. It follows logically that most opposed to embryonic stem cell usage in the US would be Christian.

Forget it. You'll never convince the OP. Bigots typically don't respond well to logic, or they wouldn't be bigots in the first place.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Let us who don't share those stupid Evangelical Christians ideas, get the medical treatment we need.

Dawn of a new day. Yeah.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Obama can tell the Vatican to suck it, and that religion should not interfere with medical advancement.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Wow, Obama is on a roll.

Now he tells the anti-abortion proponents to suck it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/...a_abortion_ban

Will you feel the same way if BO decides to pour money into animal testing, and tells ALF and PETA to "suck it" and that Gaia worship should not interfere with medical advancement?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Will you feel the same way if BO decides to pour money into animal testing, and tells ALF and PETA to "suck it" and that Gaia worship should not interfere with medical advancement?

And why would I be against animal testing? I use to work in a animal testing lab.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Ahh yes, the obligatory George Bush reference.


There are so many flaws in this line of reasoning, it's difficult to know where to start. I guess I'll start as I always do; with substantive data to back my claim. An article highlighting the complex continuum of thought and concerns from stem cell research professionals;
genomicsnetwork
Among the concerns raised by stem cell research scientists, these were the most common;

• Unnecessary hype that may lead to patient disappointment
  • Concerns about coercion or ‘instrumentalisation’ of the female body
  • The impossibility of getting fully informed consent
  • The potential prohibitively high cost of any stem cell therapies
  • “Maverick” scientists going to clinical trials too early and endangering patients’ lives
  • Widespread commodification and commercialisation of the human body
  • The complexity of resource allocation. Given that people around the world are dying of diseases that
  are cheap to prevent, how can expenditure on this research be justified?
  • Embryonic stem cell research is preferable to exploiting poor people to donate their organs to wealthier people

Wow, those are pretty generic concerns that could've applied to IVF and organ donation, and many new medical treatments.

Concern about high cost? Concern about “Maverick” scientists going to clinical trials too early and endangering patients’ lives. Concern about commodification and commercialisation of the human body. Concern about Embryonic stem cell research is preferable to exploiting poor people to donate their organs to wealthier people.

Potential prohibitively high cost of any stem cell therapies. What?

Haha... Good stuff.


Potential dangers, potential high cost, potential commodification and commercialisation of the human body, potential of “Maverick” scientist going mavericky.

Those aren't real concerns. Those are hysteria.


I heard you can pay a woman to carry your child through IVF if you don't want to carry the child yourself. It's called outsourcing surrogate childbearing. How's that for commodification and commercialisation of the human body?

Or how about paying prohibitively high cost for organs from organ donations? How's that for commodification and commercialisation of the human body? How's that for potential prohibitively high cost?


Seriously.

This thread topic started with an article about FDA approving the first human testing of embryonic stem cells. Which means the FDA felt that it was safe enough after many experience were done on animals. Banning embryonic stem cells won't stop “Maverick” scientists. “Maverick” scientists don't obey regulations and laws. So why you want laws to control “Maverick” scientists? I have no idea.

[hyteckit]

Even if embryonic stem cell therapy cost $50k or $100k, it is worth it. But it'll be more like $10k, similar to IVF.

Imaging you are paralyze and now you can walk again. You can start walking and working. You can have your life back. You can start making a living for yourself, instead of milking of the government from disability checks every month. The government saves $500/mo by not having to fork out those disability checks.

If anything, I say embryonic stem cell has the potential to lower medical cost of many treatments.

Organ donation will not be so limited and prohibitively high cost, as embryonic stem cell can repair organ tissue. You can even create a heart, so many lives would be saved instead of going into a lottery hoping you would get a heart transplant from an organ donor.

And as you said "Embryonic stem cell research is preferable to exploiting poor people to donate their organs to wealthier people". Eliminate the black market organ donation where poor people sell their organs for money, or poor people get killed, just so their organs can be harvested.

So the potential Embryonic stem cell research has lots more advantages than the disadvantages you mention.


Besides embryonic stem cell therapy won't cause much more than IVF since the procedure isn't that much different.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Among the concerns raised by stem cell research scientists, these were the most common;

• Unnecessary hype that may lead to patient disappointment
  • Concerns about coercion or ‘instrumentalisation’ of the female body
  • The impossibility of getting fully informed consent
  • The potential prohibitively high cost of any stem cell therapies
  • “Maverick” scientists going to clinical trials too early and endangering patients’ lives
  • Widespread commodification and commercialisation of the human body
  • The complexity of resource allocation. Given that people around the world are dying of diseases that
  are cheap to prevent, how can expenditure on this research be justified?
  • Embryonic stem cell research is preferable to exploiting poor people to donate their organs to wealthier people

And you thoughtfully read the list and agreed with its ideas? Or are you just citing any tripe you can find to back up your preconceived notions?

For crying out loud, these could apply to just about any scientific advancement ever — and several could apply to uncontroversial everyday activities like buying a bagel for breakfast ("How can expenditure on these bagels be justified when there are starving kids in Africa?").

Also the human body is already commercialized. When your boss tells you "I want you to do this," and you do it? You're renting out the use of your body.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Wow, those are pretty generic concerns that could've applied to IVF and organ donation, and many new medical treatments.

Concern about high cost? Concern about “Maverick” scientists going to clinical trials too early and endangering patients’ lives. Concern about commodification and commercialisation of the human body. Concern about Embryonic stem cell research is preferable to exploiting poor people to donate their organs to wealthier people.

Potential prohibitively high cost of any stem cell therapies. What?

Haha... Good stuff.


Potential dangers, potential high cost, potential commodification and commercialisation of the human body, potential of “Maverick” scientist going mavericky.

Those aren't real concerns. Those are hysteria.


I heard you can pay a woman to carry your child through IVF if you don't want to carry the child yourself. It's called outsourcing surrogate childbearing. How's that for commodification and commercialisation of the human body?

An excellent example. What you'll notice is that poor people are providing a risky service to wealthy people. A woman might make $18k- $45k renting her womb and evidence suggests the more money you have, the less likely you'll be to enter the practice. Maybe they should unionize.

I don't get you hyteckit. You explain above with two iterations of the same point how those aren't real concerns, they are hysteria; completely marginalizing their importance, then go on to indicate with two perfect examples of why the concerns aren't hysterical at all. You're so bent on being antagonistic that you're not even seeing my point in your arguments.

Or how about paying prohibitively high cost for organs from organ donations? How's that for commodification and commercialisation of the human body? How's that for potential prohibitively high cost?

If there is a practice, there is risk of abuse and if there's one example of someone's care being compromised due to donorship status, it requires pause. The questions simply need to exist. Whether you like it or not, they do.

This thread topic started with an article about FDA approving the first human testing of embryonic stem cells. Which means the FDA felt that it was safe enough after many experience were done on animals. Banning embryonic stem cells won't stop “Maverick” scientists. “Maverick” scientists don't obey regulations and laws. So why you want laws to control “Maverick” scientists? I have no idea.

I never said I want laws to control "maverick scientists". You're all over the place. I cited the list as an example of rational concerns that span a broad range of thought that aren't invoking the Christian God.

If there is a means of collection/production that does not marginalize the ethical concerns of a great many both in and out of the medical community; is there a problem in supporting it? What is so much more promising about embryonic stem cells than a wealth of other regenerative treatments?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And you thoughtfully read the list and agreed with its ideas? Or are you just citing any tripe you can find to back up your preconceived notions?

Some I do, some I don't. I didn't comprise the list Chuckit. These are concerns raised by those in the profession. I cited them to indicate that a sane, well-rounded discussion can be had spanning a wide range of concerns having nothing to do with the "Christian God", "Christianity", "pro-life", etc... I did so for the benefit of the feeble-minded here who wait until the Christian opines, then offer their antagonistic view of Christianity with very little to offer by way of rational discussion on the actual issue. Don't believe me? Read the thread.

For crying out loud, these could apply to just about any scientific advancement ever — and several could apply to uncontroversial everyday activities like buying a bagel for breakfast ("How can expenditure on these bagels be justified when there are starving kids in Africa?").

I guess I'd argue that we're actually talking about a much broader scope than that, but I'm not sure it's worth my time.

Also the human body is already commercialized. When your boss tells you "I want you to do this," and you do it? You're renting out the use of your body.

Yep and there are a great deal of laws encompassing the employer-employee relationship including the formation of unions to protect the more "vulnerable". You and hyteckit are doing a knock-down job of making my arguments for me. I'll let y'all take it from here. Good luck with stupendousman, Chongo, and vmarks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Even if embryonic stem cell therapy cost $50k or $100k, it is worth it. But it'll be more like $10k, similar to IVF.

link to the proposed cost please?

Imaging you are paralyze and now you can walk again.

Imagine the same outcome with the use of no stem cells at all.

You can start walking and working. You can have your life back. You can start making a living for yourself, instead of milking of the government from disability checks every month. The government saves $500/mo by not having to fork out those disability checks.

Yayy, you can have all these things and more without any stem cells, adult or embryonic.

If anything, I say embryonic stem cell has the potential to lower medical cost of many treatments.

A great many treatments can lower the cost of subsequent treatments. You're so bent on this singular treatment, you've not even considered the links and data I've provided on alternative treatments showing as much if not more promise.

Organ donation will not be so limited and prohibitively high cost, as embryonic stem cell can repair organ tissue.

So can adult stem cells and other treatments.

You can even create a heart, so many lives would be saved instead of going into a lottery hoping you would get a heart transplant from an organ donor.

Link to the creation of a working heart please Dr. Jarvik?

And as you said "Embryonic stem cell research is preferable to exploiting poor people to donate their organs to wealthier people".

I didn't say that. I cited it as a fair-minded illustration of the broad range of discussion on the matter; not invoking the Christian God. Maybe, maybe not.

Eliminate the black market organ donation where poor people sell their organs for money, or poor people get killed, just so their organs can be harvested.

... but I thought this was all paranoid, delusional, hysterical...

So the potential Embryonic stem cell research has lots more advantages than the disadvantages you mention.

Only because you're not aware of anything other than embryonic stem cell usage. You've essentially found a position to oppose with absolutely 0 thought on the broadening field of regenerative treatments.

Besides embryonic stem cell therapy won't cause much more than IVF since the procedure isn't that much different.

You have no idea what it'll cost do you?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If it doesn't matter where stem cells come from, why would it matter to you where a view comes from?

It only matters when they try to pass it as law.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Suffice it to say if there can be godlessprolifers.com, there can be a long continuum of thought on the matter.

He seems to be quite the contradiction. I guess you can find anything on the internet.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because there is no reason for the medical community to opine on a complex social matter. They generally refer to it as an embryo and not a collection of anything. It would be scientifically hasty and pretty rigid ideology in the court of public opinion. While you might be quick to deny any advancement on the matter, we may come to find out a great deal more about the human embryo as I've already indicated with a prior link.

The person is neither a scientist or a doctor, though it doesn't make his opinion any less valid. It just doesn't pertain to the discussion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Whether or not they're being killed for their organs in fact is an ethical question that needs to be asked by anyone interested in sanity. Furthermore, with increasing knowledge and developing society, abortion may become more rare which puts this resource at risk. As I've mentioned, I think most people are pretty pragmatic and appreciate the amount of academia on medical ethics. This is why such a great deal of effort is being used to research the flexibility of adult stem cells and the alternative means of producing/extracting embryonic cells. Pro-life? Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of your personal view, there is a concerted effort to not marginalize the ethical question of harvesting humans for humans.

You're pushing it to extremes. Killing people on purpose just to harvest organs is a lot less ambiguous than abortion. The question about where a woman's rights end and when the baby's begins is equally contested as much as abortion itself. Regardless of your views on abortion, it will happen. It has been a moral issue for thousands of years, and will continue to be so. Women will still get abortions no matter how enlightened you think a civilization will be. I'm not advocating a holocaust for a cure.

This may be a point at which we'll never agree. I do not believe abortion is a replacement for birth control. If a woman is choosing to have unprotected sex, then just going off and getting an abortion, there are deeper issues there. The woman is a danger to herself as well as others and should probably be institutionalized.

However, if a young girl or woman is raped repeatedly (say, by her father as it happens often in many poorer regions) and is impregnated, and it is decided after counseling she should be allowed to have an abortion, I think she should be able to do so.

If she has an abortion, I believe it should be permissible to use the aborted fetus or child for stem cells, organ transplant, or any other host of medical treatments to benefit others.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Maintaining an embryo is "a blob" is intellectually lazy and may soon be patently ignorant.

An embryo without sperm is not life, even by shifuimam's definition. Keeping embryos on ice is no different than keeping sperm on ice. The embryo will never amount to anything, so why not use it for something positive.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No and as standard practice the mother is the primary patient, the baby is the second unless the mother expresses otherwise. I have no problem with this in a purely logical sense as the mother can live to produce more offspring.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or if you're just quoting medical practice. In any event, that is a classic example of why abortion should not be made illegal, and why it is not simply a two-sided issue.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... you're in favor of water-boarding? Torture? I wouldn't have seen that coming.

No. Torture is unreliable at best, and even prisoners can be constructive members of society. There's a difference between an immediate threat that can be handled with a predictable conclusion, and getting information that is most likely inaccurate or wrong and using that information to form a decision with unpredictable results.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So why do you insist on arguing absolutist view?

I state things from a non-philosophical view. I also didn't state that my view is the only correct view, as shifuimam insists of her (his?) views. I'm insisting that there are gray areas when it comes to abortion with both clear, moral decisions and ambiguous situations that need more consideration. It was never my intention to get into abortion matters as it pertains to stem cell research.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're welcome to respond to shifuiman if you'd like??? Living or dead is simple enough terminology.

A dead person still has living cells. I think it's a little more complex.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Fascinating. Here's a study showing paralyzed mice (having induced laboratory spinal cord injuries) walk again with the use of no stem cells.
news-medical.net
Do you have a link for your study? I'd be curious to read it.

A similar study was done by University California Irvine, University California Davis, and Northwestern University in Chicago. You can just Google "mice stem cells spinal cord" and you'll get most of the studies right at the first few links.

While the link you provided showed improvement by rerouting neural pathways from the spinal cord to the surrounding nerves, there was only a partial restoration of mobility with little confidence by the subject of their movements. The studies using stem cells that actually addressed the spinal cord directly showed restoration of 80% or more in mobility. That is a huge difference between the results of the two studies.

I don't think the two studies are mutually exclusive, though. The stem cell studies showed that, while the spinal cord was bridged, it too did a lot of rerouting of nerves. They're both interesting insights into how the body deals with traumatized parts of the body. The brain itself does similar patchwork. People with severe brain trauma will drift in and out of coherence and consciousness as neural pathways are reworked and regenerated in the brain.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, but embryonic stem cell research could lead to unhealthy market practices. A market practice I and many others would like to avoid.

There is no more or less market risk with embryonic stem cell research as there are for any other medical practice.

[hyteckit]

ebuddy,

They are not valid concerns to ban embryonic stem cell research. It's just hysteria against embryonic stem cell research.

You might as well ban IVF and organ transplant if those concern you've listed are valid concerns.

Potential prohibitively high cost. Potential abuse of the treatment. Potential danger of the treatment. Oh no. The horror.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It only matters when they try to pass it as law.

Like I said, it is silly to open a new commodity that offers incentive to an industry founded overwhelmingly on societal ill if for nothing more than dependance on a resource societal advancement would see decline. Plus, this offers a marketplace for an industry already wrought with abuse of laws and women as I've shown with data in other threads. We never agreed on that then, I wouldn't expect much now, but I am intrigued by your notion on abortion below.

He seems to be quite the contradiction. I guess you can find anything on the internet.

He? If you click on the members page there's quite a lengthy list of people in that forum's relatively short life-span.

This is what bothers me about issues like this. Bioethics boards and countless medical professionals can all expend a great deal of academia on issues ranging from embryonic stem cell research to cloning and can even oppose it with very good reason such as this board in Illinois cbhd.org who opposes cloning embryos, but my internet friends must immediately attempt to marginalize anything they feel stands in their way of making an argument.

I mean, I can cite mayoclinic.com in which they state; Extracting stem cells from the embryos destroys the embryos. This raises significant ethical questions.
I'm comfortable with my company of respect for uncomfortable conversations and discipline to not immediately marginalize ethical questions we don't want to address.

The person is neither a scientist or a doctor, though it doesn't make his opinion any less valid. It just doesn't pertain to the discussion.

What person?

While I agree with you that anyone can have a valid opinion, my prior citation was an article in Journal Nature. The article refers to research conducted by doctors and scientists yes.

Gardner, R. L. , Meredith, M. R. & Altman, D. G. Journal of Experimental Zoology 264, 437 - 443 (2002).
Weber, R. J. et al.Development 126, 5591 - 5598 (1999).
Piotrowska, K. & Zernicka-Goetz, M. Nature 409, 517 - 521 (2001).
Davies, T. J. & Gardner, R. L. Human Reproduction, (in the press).
Plusa, P. , Piotrowska, K. & Zernicka-Goetz, M. Genesis 32, 193 - 198 (2002).

You're pushing it to extremes. Killing people on purpose just to harvest organs is a lot less ambiguous than abortion. The question about where a woman's rights end and when the baby's begins is equally contested as much as abortion itself. Regardless of your views on abortion, it will happen.

Yes of course. Not unlike the opposition to it as this will always occur as well. You are also correct that it is currently a legal practice with some legislative oversight. Given the information we have on hand after decades of the practice, we can now see the myths behind its legalization. I've long-maintained a problem with the industry and its profitability on the backs of desperate people. I've cited a number of abuses of law, abuses of "patients", and abuses of scared, pregnant girls. Videos have been posted, numbers have been posted, and countless legal entanglements have been posted all showing a problem with the industry. It stands to reason that I would not want to add more complexity to an already questionable industry. If it is being abused in its current state, incentivizing the practice will not somehow make the important ethical questions disappear.

It has been a moral issue for thousands of years, and will continue to be so. Women will still get abortions no matter how enlightened you think a civilization will be. I'm not advocating a holocaust for a cure.

I'm not saying you will nor am I comparing anything to the holocaust.

This may be a point at which we'll never agree. I do not believe abortion is a replacement for birth control. If a woman is choosing to have unprotected sex, then just going off and getting an abortion, there are deeper issues there. The woman is a danger to herself as well as others and should probably be institutionalized.

I'm not sure about your views on institutionalizing them, but we're in general agreement here. With nearly half of abortions being repeat abortions and the overwhelming majority of women polled who've had the procedure saying; "didn't want", it is patently apparent that they are in fact using abortion as birth control.

However, if a young girl or woman is raped repeatedly (say, by her father as it happens often in many poorer regions) and is impregnated, and it is decided after counseling she should be allowed to have an abortion, I think she should be able to do so.

I'd be all for abortion in this .0001% instance as well. Unfortunately, our laws are not crafted in a way to manage such granular phenomena.

If she has an abortion, I believe it should be permissible to use the aborted fetus or child for stem cells, organ transplant, or any other host of medical treatments to benefit others.

Then you are making an allowance for a new marketplace; one built upon an industry founded overwhelmingly on societal ill. Perhaps you're correct, there is no common ground for us here.

An embryo without sperm is not life, even by shifuimam's definition. Keeping embryos on ice is no different than keeping sperm on ice. The embryo will never amount to anything, so why not use it for something positive.

An embryo that has not been fertilized (without sperm) is not an embryo. Are you talking about oocytes, eggs and if so what does that have to do with any of this?

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or if you're just quoting medical practice. In any event, that is a classic example of why abortion should not be made illegal, and why it is not simply a two-sided issue.

You asked me a question and I answered it olepigeon. You asked If complications arise during a birth that jeopardizes the life of both the mother and the child, do you just let them both die because you're against abortion? Do you kill the mother? I answered "no" and as standard practice this would never be the case regardless of abortion legislation. I think the current relationship between mother and child in this instance is perfectly logical. It doesn't surprise me that you'd use a historically successful point for supporting abortion, but I think this argument is less compelling than the wealth of dangers already posed to women by the abortion industry and actually has dismally little to do with the "health of mother" argument statistically.

No. Torture is unreliable at best, and even prisoners can be constructive members of society.

... but death is more effective? I think you'll want to read your hypothetical again. I think you've gotten caught up in a sort of ideological rut.

There's a difference between an immediate threat that can be handled with a predictable conclusion, and getting information that is most likely inaccurate or wrong and using that information to form a decision with unpredictable results.

I merely softened your hypothetical from death to torture and for whatever reason, you missed that entirely. Torture is not pleasant. There's no reason to torture someone unless you're as positive they're going to blow up a bridge as you are the man blowing up the bus in your example. Question is, which bus, what bridge? It works. There's a wealth of information and many years of thwarted efforts to affirm it.

I state things from a non-philosophical view. I also didn't state that my view is the only correct view, as shifuimam insists of her (his?) views. I'm insisting that there are gray areas when it comes to abortion with both clear, moral decisions and ambiguous situations that need more consideration. It was never my intention to get into abortion matters as it pertains to stem cell research.

I do as well. See, it generally takes about 5 posts to establish that I'm not arguing from the Judeo-Christian perspective because of the rampant antagonism inherent in the responses I get. I don't think you're arguing from a philosophical position, but I most definitely think you're arguing against what you perceive a philosophical stance with blatant disregard for the content of their position. You don't have to look far to see it and in fact this was illustrated well in your first couple of responses to me. This is not my problem. This is the intolerance of my audience. You'll rarely if ever see me argue from any religious or philosophical perspective. I don't think you need to. When a practice is questionable, it's questionable for any number of reasons having nothing to do with; "because the Bible says so". Why? Because I'm not willing to stretch Scripture to suit whatever argument I'm trying to make. It may or may not have anything at all to do with the issue at hand.

A dead person still has living cells. I think it's a little more complex.

Right. Adult stem cells that we're discovering are much more flexible than we once thought. I fear so much has been made of embryonic stem cells out of political interest that many aren't even willing to look upon (or invest) in alternative treatments. Treatments that do not compromise a great deal of valid, ethical concerns as affirmed by the numerous examples given by you and hytechit.

A similar study was done by University California Irvine, University California Davis, and Northwestern University in Chicago. You can just Google "mice stem cells spinal cord" and you'll get most of the studies right at the first few links.

Using your suggestion of "mice stem cells spinal cord", the top selection was;
ScienceDaily
In the study, NSCs from mice in which a green marker protein was expressed only in nerve cells known as motor neurons (the cells that are defective in SMA) were transplanted into the fluid bathing the spinal cord of mice with an SMA-like disease.
The transplanted cells developed into a small number of motor neurons and the treated mice showed improved muscular function and increased lifespan, when compared with untreated mice.
An NSC is an adult neural stem cell olepigeon and one of the most promising advancements of adult stem cell research. Again, adult stem cells show a much greater flexibility than once thought. This example supports my position.

The second one down was this;
ScienceDaily
This example is similar to one I mentioned earlier that essentially reroutes messages by blocking half of the long nerve fibers in different places and at different times on each side of the spinal cord.
This is a treatment using no stem cells and all very promising as the mice in this experiment regained control of their legs within 8 weeks. This example supports my position.

The third one down is citing another use of NSCs.
sci-infopages.com
Are we using different browsers? I even added "80%" to see if I could find the particular study you're talking about and I found nothing.

While the link you provided showed improvement by rerouting neural pathways from the spinal cord to the surrounding nerves, there was only a partial restoration of mobility with little confidence by the subject of their movements. The studies using stem cells that actually addressed the spinal cord directly showed restoration of 80% or more in mobility. That is a huge difference between the results of the two studies.

You've not cited a study. You gave me google words that support what I've been saying all along. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you were to actually provide your study, it would affirm my point as well. I guess I'll take your word that it doesn't because I don't have all week to help you make your point?

There is no more or less market risk with embryonic stem cell research as there are for any other medical practice.

There is indeed market risk among other risks. Dr. Arnold Kriegstein, a neurologist who serves as director of a stem cell and tissue biology program at UCSF had this to say;
"The whole field could be damaged by the outcome of one failed early trial," he said. "I am not saying (a human trial) shouldn't be done, but we should really be cautious about it." Haste has laid waste in biomedicine before, most notably in the field known as human gene therapy. Trials were commenced in a flurry of early excitement but on shaky scientific ground. That led to shortcuts, serious ethical lapses and at least one widely reported death of a clinical trial participant.
San Francisco Chronicle

When you marginalize the ethical questions involved here, I think you lack respect for the field, I think you lack respect for patients, and I think you lack respect for the wide array of implications. Like you said, we'll likely continue to disagree.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I mean, I can cite mayoclinic.com in which they state; Extracting stem cells from the embryos destroys the embryos. This raises significant ethical questions.
I'm comfortable with my company of respect for uncomfortable conversations and discipline to not immediately marginalize ethical questions we don't want to address.

I understand that, people are going to be divided by this. Some think it's life, others do not. Probably won't ever be an agreement. As you've pointed out with the other website, there are apparently quite a few people with no religious denomination who believe an embryo is alive.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Given the information we have on hand after decades of the practice, we can now see the myths behind its legalization. I've long-maintained a problem with the industry and its profitability on the backs of desperate people. I've cited a number of abuses of law, abuses of "patients", and abuses of scared, pregnant girls. Videos have been posted, numbers have been posted, and countless legal entanglements have been posted all showing a problem with the industry.

I've seen you post the exceptions and the minority. This is true for any medical practice, such as cosmetic surgery. Most abortion clinics are non-profit.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It stands to reason that I would not want to add more complexity to an already questionable industry. If it is being abused in its current state, incentivizing the practice will not somehow make the important ethical questions disappear.

A poor person selling their own organs is not the same as having an abortion. The mother doesn't gain anything from it. I think the only "black market" for abortions that would develop is if it is made illegal and women have no recourse. Because stem cells can be acquired by non-debatable methods, there isn't a market for fetuses and embryos. There isn't any gain for a woman to have an abortion for the sake of stem cell research.

Again, I'm not advocating abortion. I'm just stating that when they occur, I don't see a moral issue in using the embryos or fetuses for embryonic stem cell research. I don't think there should be a ban on it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not sure about your views on institutionalizing them, but we're in general agreement here. With nearly half of abortions being repeat abortions and the overwhelming majority of women polled who've had the procedure saying; "didn't want", it is patently apparent that they are in fact using abortion as birth control.

Which is important to keep sex education in schools and not that "abstinence only" crap that keeps getting peddled. Teens and adults will have sex, it's the nature of things. I think that if some teens go to a party, get stupid, and get pregnant, they need to have some serious counseling before any decision regarding abortion is made. If the the girl isn't ready, doesn't want to go through it, doesn't want to have the child, thinks it's a mistake, etc. then I think she should be encouraged to have a C section and put the kid up for adoption as an alternative to abortion. However, if she makes the decision, I think we need to honor that decision. I don't know what, but there needs to be some sort of serious repercussions if she didn't learn the first time.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd be all for abortion in this .0001% instance as well. Unfortunately, our laws are not crafted in a way to manage such granular phenomena.

I think the reason it just remains legal is because of how much money it would cost the state and federal governments by making every abortion a trial-by-trial basis. Making it illegal alienates too many women and their struggles. It's not a clear cut moral case.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

An embryo that has not been fertilized (without sperm) is not an embryo. Are you talking about oocytes, eggs and if so what does that have to do with any of this?

Meant fertilized egg, not an embryo. Got confused.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think the current relationship between mother and child in this instance is perfectly logical. It doesn't surprise me that you'd use a historically successful point for supporting abortion, but I think this argument is less compelling than the wealth of dangers already posed to women by the abortion industry and actually has dismally little to do with the "health of mother" argument statistically.

The wealth of dangers you speak of is minimal. The risk of those dangers will increase dramatically when women don't have any recourse and go see back ally "doctors."

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... but death is more effective? I think you'll want to read your hypothetical again. I think you've gotten caught up in a sort of ideological rut.

I gave an example of a situation where killing someone is an acceptable course of action because the outcome is relatively certain. I then stated that torture is not acceptable, it doesn't render any real useful information, and that any actions taken based on that information is unpredictable. One doesn't have anything to do with the other because the situations in which the outcomes are garnered are completely different.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I merely softened your hypothetical from death to torture and for whatever reason, you missed that entirely. Torture is not pleasant. There's no reason to torture someone unless you're as positive they're going to blow up a bridge as you are the man blowing up the bus in your example. Question is, which bus, what bridge? It works. There's a wealth of information and many years of thwarted efforts to affirm it.

The difference is when and is. The example I gave of killing someone was a person in the act of trying to kill a bunch of kids. You make the decision to kill the man to save the kids. If a man claims he's going to kill a bunch of kids on a later date, torturing him may or may not give you the information you need. The problem with torture is that people will tell you anything you want to hear even if it is wrong. There have been many studies on torture and it has shown again and again that it is unreliable. It doesn't work. There's a wealth of information and many years of bungled attempts to thwart efforts to discredit it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right. Adult stem cells that we're discovering are much more flexible than we once thought. I fear so much has been made of embryonic stem cells out of political interest that many aren't even willing to look upon (or invest) in alternative treatments. Treatments that do not compromise a great deal of valid, ethical concerns as affirmed by the numerous examples given by you and hytechit.

They're more flexible, but not as flexible. It's like trying to write a novel. You can work with a blank sheet of paper, or one those adlibs and fill in the blanks.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've not cited a study. You gave me google words that support what I've been saying all along. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you were to actually provide your study, it would affirm my point as well. I guess I'll take your word that it doesn't because I don't have all week to help you make your point?

Current studies show between 70% and a full recovery from damaged spinal cords, or more than 80% on average.

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine...egrow-16522-1/
http://www.cellmedicine.com/news162.asp
http://www.advancedcell.com/press-re...-retinal-cells
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0621084832.htm
http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology...d-rats-4395-1/
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_ev...nogel_mice.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nalcord_2.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/ap...mice_walk.html
http://www.arcog.com/article/?Articl...g3B2Y3O2t253z1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1106061038.htm
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hmn/w02/feature.html

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is indeed market risk among other risks. Dr. Arnold Kriegstein, a neurologist who serves as director of a stem cell and tissue biology program at UCSF had this to say;
"The whole field could be damaged by the outcome of one failed early trial," he said. "I am not saying (a human trial) shouldn't be done, but we should really be cautious about it." Haste has laid waste in biomedicine before, most notably in the field known as human gene therapy. Trials were commenced in a flurry of early excitement but on shaky scientific ground. That led to shortcuts, serious ethical lapses and at least one widely reported death of a clinical trial participant.
San Francisco Chronicle

You were talking about the development of a black market for aborted fetuses and embryos as a result for embryonic stem cell research. This article is talking about risking an entire field of medicine by rushing things, taking shortcuts, etc. Stem cell research is taking a very cautious step forward, it is more touchy subject than gene therapy (which has made a comeback, by the way.) If it is rushed and something truly horrible happens, funding and support for stem cell research would be all stopped. The entire field would come to a stand still. If scientists are proceeding with more care this time, the chances of black market abortions is minimal.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Link to the creation of a working heart please Dr. Jarvik?

Stem cells creating a working heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AvB_uFuiic

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Stem cells creating a working heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AvB_uFuiic

Adult rat stem were cells used on a dead rat heart, and human adult stems cells will be tried on a dead pig heart, queue ALF and PETA protesters.

[ghporter]

How about using "adult" cells on a scaffolding to build a beating heart? One of the hardest things to do with any cell culture is to give it structure, which leads to function. U Mn researchers "decellularized" a pig heart, leaving only the organic framework, then introduced cells from a newborn (technically cellularly "adult"). The cells grew into a heart all by themselves.

This brings all sorts of potential to the table; using your own cells to build a new organ that is rejection-proof is only one possibility. No stem cells needed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I've seen you post the exceptions and the minority. This is true for any medical practice, such as cosmetic surgery. Most abortion clinics are non-profit.

We'd probably argue whether or not hundreds of millions of dollars in "surplus funds" equates to profit, but we can save that for the next abortion thread.

A poor person selling their own organs is not the same as having an abortion. The mother doesn't gain anything from it. I think the only "black market" for abortions that would develop is if it is made illegal and women have no recourse. Because stem cells can be acquired by non-debatable methods, there isn't a market for fetuses and embryos. There isn't any gain for a woman to have an abortion for the sake of stem cell research.

I do recall your acknowledgment of alternative means for developing embryonic-like stem cells and I'm wholly in favor of these alternatives. I'm also not expressing a concern over a "black market" for fetal tissue donation, rather an open incentive to abortion providers. This could also lead to cheaper abortions or other related incentives by signing off. Again, it stands to follow that I do have a problem with the abortion industry. Oil companies, tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, and a wealth of others have been brought before congressional hearings, but somehow Planned Parenthood gets a pass. We have "sin" taxes on tobacco and alcohol, but for whatever reason over $300 million dollars of tax revenue is being fed to the single largest abortion provider in the country. None of it makes any sense. However, incentivizing the abortion industry is, but one of many concerns. Many of which I highlighted earlier in a bulleted list that was marginalized by a couple of other posters. Using examples I might add, that only supported my position.

Which is important to keep sex education in schools and not that "abstinence only" crap that keeps getting peddled. Teens and adults will have sex, it's the nature of things. I think that if some teens go to a party, get stupid, and get pregnant, they need to have some serious counseling before any decision regarding abortion is made. If the the girl isn't ready, doesn't want to go through it, doesn't want to have the child, thinks it's a mistake, etc. then I think she should be encouraged to have a C section and put the kid up for adoption as an alternative to abortion. However, if she makes the decision, I think we need to honor that decision. I don't know what, but there needs to be some sort of serious repercussions if she didn't learn the first time.

I've often stated that I believe we've gone too far down the road of legalization to simply pull the plug on abortion. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd create some way of allowing only one abortion per person. This allows for all, but the most rare of circumstances and would essentially cut the rate of abortions in half. This would likely require the use of a magic wand however. Because it would be even more difficult to enforce any kind of repercussion for not learning the first time, I'm left with no choice, but to completely oppose abortion.

**leaving the remainder of the abortion piece for an abortion thread. Likewise on the torture piece.

They're more flexible, but not as flexible. It's like trying to write a novel. You can work with a blank sheet of paper, or one those adlibs and fill in the blanks.

As we understand their differences today, yes. However, I'm not convinced this will be the extent of our knowledge in say... two to three years. I'm also not convinced that embryonic stem cells are more promising than the wealth of alternatives we're uncovering.

Current studies show between 70% and a full recovery from damaged spinal cords, or more than 80% on average.

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine...egrow-16522-1/

This study is employing a nano-engineered gel (a polymer) that merely inhibits scar tissue at the injury site, not stem cells of any kind. Later in the article it indicates that at some point they may use this gel in conjunction with stem cells, but they don't specify adult or embryonic. In fact, I'm left to believe adult stem cells because they can actually be extracted from the patient, are most definitely capable of enough specialization to treat spinal injury, and are less likely to be rejected. This is not support for embryonic stem cells and there is no mention of percent-success/mobility or percent improvement.

http://www.cellmedicine.com/news162.asp

Rats were given grafts of human spinal stem cells (hSSCs). These are neural stem cells olepigeon. NSCs are adult stem cells. There is no mention of percent-success/mobility or percent improvement.

http://www.advancedcell.com/press-re...-retinal-cells

This one works for you and does also mention a 50% overall improvement. In this they are using human embryonic stem cell-derived neural precursors. I'm interested to see what advancement offers by way of avoiding ethical problems by the continued development of NSCs.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0621084832.htm

This one is more interesting. There were essentially 8 different controls. All of them started off with a transplant of embryonic stem cell-derived motor neurons. Some groups received injections of a drug called rolipram, others received transplants of neural stem cells, but only the rats given the full cocktail of rolipram and neural (adult) stem cells showed improvement; 50%. I score one for both of us on this example.

http://news.bio-medicine.org/biology...d-rats-4395-1/

Another good one for you, but no mention of percent improvement. They're considering the unexpected role of non-neuronal cells in the recovery of motor function. Again, this is all very much in its infancy and while exciting, doesn't necessarily illustrate why embryonic stem cells are more promising than alternative regenerative treatments IMO.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_ev...nogel_mice.htm

This is just another article on the same study in your first example, the nano-engineered gel made of a polymer that stimulates axons. i.e. a kind of synthetic scaffolding. No stem cells at all, no percentage improvement.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nalcord_2.html

This example uses fetal brain stem cells. I cited studies earlier that suggest we might be able to extract these from portions of a living brain without damage. I've also found a company that is actually using embryonic stem cells from premies. It's not easy to ask for the donor in this instance, but they've managed to find moderate success. If I were to choose which field of embryonic research to fund, this might be it. By funding at the federal level, my money might go to any number of entirely fruitless endeavors. While this study shows promise, without percentage improvement there's really nothing to suggest it is more promising than the alternatives not only presented by me, but by you above.

http://www.livescience.com/health/ap...mice_walk.html

Interestingly, this is another article on one of your examples already given. I was looking to the provider of the cells; StemCells.Inc to find that they are the first company to directly identify and isolate human neural stem cells from normal brain tissue. I then found a company that has collected about 12 livers from premature infant deaths and says her team has been able to harvest cells from the livers seven to eight hours after death. This is more akin to organ donation and while it has problems, does work around at least part of the ethical dilemma.

http://www.arcog.com/article/?Articl...g3B2Y3O2t253z1

Researchers at the UC Irvine Reeve-Irvine Research Center have used adult human neural stem cells to successfully regenerate damaged spinal cord tissue and improve mobility in mice.
This supports my argument.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1106061038.htm

This is one I cited earlier supporting my position; using NSCs.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hmn/w02/feature.html

These in fact come from aborted fetal tissue and support your argument.

I don't know olepigeon. Neither this issue nor abortion has me out on the street corner with a sign, I just don't see why embryonic stem cell research is defended with such disregard for alternatives and immediately marginalizes every argument offering concern. The man in this article cites the same concerns, but by leaving it in private hands which is an argument I've not seen from anyone here.

As far as your examples are concerned; there were a total of 11.
- 3 dups, 2 of them supported my view, 1 supported yours.
- 3 general studies supporting my view and 4 general studies supporting yours
- 1 "draw" that required both embryonic and adult stem cells.
IMO, these were not a very strong collection of links as they were provided by you and supported both of our arguments equally.

You were talking about the development of a black market for aborted fetuses and embryos as a result for embryonic stem cell research. This article is talking about risking an entire field of medicine by rushing things, taking shortcuts, etc. Stem cell research is taking a very cautious step forward, it is more touchy subject than gene therapy (which has made a comeback, by the way.) If it is rushed and something truly horrible happens, funding and support for stem cell research would be all stopped. The entire field would come to a stand still. If scientists are proceeding with more care this time, the chances of black market abortions is minimal.

I've been talking about a whole bunch of concerns. They were discounted as hysterical. I disagreed. The crux of the issue for me is not a "black market" for aborted fetuses. It could be a perfectly open market as far as I'm concerned, I'm still opposed. I cited this quote as just another example of a professional in the industry with real concerns.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

How about using "adult" cells on a scaffolding to build a beating heart? One of the hardest things to do with any cell culture is to give it structure, which leads to function. U Mn researchers "decellularized" a pig heart, leaving only the organic framework, then introduced cells from a newborn (technically cellularly "adult"). The cells grew into a heart all by themselves.

This brings all sorts of potential to the table; using your own cells to build a new organ that is rejection-proof is only one possibility. No stem cells needed.

Creating a new heart would be more difficult and complex than repairing a damage heart with embryonic stem cells. Obviously would be more cause than just repairing a damaged heart with embryonic stem cells. But it's good to have both options available. I'm sure there would be cases where the heart to too damage to be repair by embryonic stem cells, and would require a new heart.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8006