Skip to comments.The Village Idiot
Posted on 10/12/2004 6:55:20 AM PDT by skellmeyer
Research is moving forward to create cloned children out of left-over body parts from aborted babies and 'spare' IVF embryos according to a recent article from the National Post. To those who have been following the reproductive technologies, this is not news.
Chimeras, human-animal hybrids, have been created in the lab for years. Human DNA has been injected into cow and monkey ova and allowed to grow into embryos before being destroyed. Ova have been harvested from the ovaries of aborted girls and artificially brought to maturity and inseminated. Some countries outlaw this, others permit it as part of what is known as therapeutic cloning although the phrase seems something of a misnomer, given no known therapy uses the cells these techniques generate.
(Excerpt) Read more at bridegroompress.com ...
Could be Logan's Run with a touch of Big Brother coming our way if Kerry has his way.
Article sort of jumps around to make a very mysteries point!!!
Which, I have no idea what the point was.
I always think it's hilarious when people sign up on FR just to promote themselves. Such individuals post nothing but their own articles on the forum, and fail to disclose that they are just trying to publicize their own work.
Even funnier is when that same person is writing on a subject which they have just about no first-hand knowledge. You make it sound like there are evil scientists sitting in a lab somewhere trying to create a Frankenstein-type monster. A single transgene (which need not be obtained from a human embryonic stem cell) is integrated into a plasmid vector that is then injected into animal, and generally mouse, blastocysts. The blastocysts are not destroyed. They are implanted in a foster mother and are born. These blastocysts are what develop into the chimeric mice. BTW, the chimeric animals are not even the goal of transgene studies. The chimeric mice must then be mated with wild-type mice in order to obtain a mouse that is homozygous for the desired gene (the chimeric mouse is not homozygous). The progeny of the chimeric/wild-type cross that are homozygous are the mice that are examined.
The purpose of transgene studies is to create models of human disease in animals, because such experiments on humans are obviously unethical but also not even scientifically feasible, for reasons that are a little too involved to delve into on this forum.
I do value and believe in the sanctity of life. However, I also dislike seeing the truth distorted. Your argument would be a little more convincing if it did not completely misrepresent the science that you are using as an example of that argument.
We have to get back to the place we were,
where liberals are not the focus of our lives,
but they're a nuisance.
You would be suprised as to how far people, with no ethics, will stoop if they think they can make money on leftover babies and baby parts. This is one of the reasons why they want fetal stem cell funding, just in case there might be a goldmine in there somewhere. Do you think they REALLY want to help Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox?
There's no use of leftover babies and baby parts. The author is trying to create a scare about the use of human embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells do not come from babies. Adult stem cells may be obtained from placental tissue (a piece of a "leftover" baby is not required or used). But these are something else. He's playing very loose with the facts. That is where my problem lies.
Support the morons week?
OTOH, if they hand me Jenny Agutter the way she looked in "Logan's Run" . . . (evil grin)
That is simply a lie promulgated by people who delude themselves. A baby exists from the moment of conception. Embryonic stem cells are obtained by ripping apart the embryo at around the 8 or 16-cell stage. Those embryonic stem cells are totipotent. That means that if any one of those cells were left alone in the conditions they were MEANT to be left alone in, you'd have a baby, twins, triplets, octuplets, whatever.
You pretend that there is something called the 'pre-embryo' that exists after gamete fertilization and before womb implantation. In fact, that term was invented in 1979 by a pro-abort who wanted to do embryonic research. He knew people would yell about tearing up embryos, so he started promoting the idea that there existed this 'pre-embryo' and that it was ok to rip the baby apart during that stage of development.
Not one embryologist agrees that this is a valid term, nor do embryologists agree that what you do is valid. But embryologists are never consulted in these matters. Click here for more information.
WHUH? Please explain to me how an embryo is NOT a baby. Even John Kerry, who is a moral idiot, knows that all those leftover embryo's held in a frozen state in infertility clinics are babies.
What? No pictures?
I have been in the pro-life arena for at least 25 years. I have been in all aspects of it from opening a problem pregnancy center to lobbying at my state house. I have personally seen the results of a suction abortion and I have counseled women who have been tremendously damaged by their, sometimes multiple, abortions.
You don't need a lecture. You need to search out the truth for yourself. Go to all the pro-life websites and then compare what they say with what Planned Parenthood puts out. There are people in this world who truly believe that we are better off with out 1/3 of our population. And if some of them can figure out how to make money on the elimination of embryo's, they will try to do it. And if they can convince you that embryo's are just a mass of cells, then so much the better.
I don't know. Are you so stupid that you NEED pictures?
Sorry, the whole idea seems so ridiculous I expected The Island of Dr. Moreau.
Didn't give that one enough sensitive thought. Second time this week, I think.
My apologies as well. I should not have been so harsh.
Thanks for being so incredibly condescending. And no, I don't need a lecture, although you were very adept in giving me one that was not necessary.
Why are you assuming that I am not pro-life? I am pro-life in all circumstances. However, I have education on the subject of these kinds of experiments and know that they do not contradict my moral beliefs. That's because I know that the stem cells used to make transgenic animals are of the same species as the animal. If I were to make a transgenic mouse, I would use mouse embryonic stem cells. Since the cells used did not come from a human blastocyst, I have no problem with the procedure. I am very much against the cultivation of human embryonic stem cells. If you actually knew anything about the procedures which Mr. Kellermeyer so woefully misrepresents, you may not have a moral issue with them, either.
However, you are too busy pontificating about "leftover babies" and talking to me as if I were a complete idiot to get your head out from between your ischial tuberosities for long enough to educate yourself.
Embryonic stem cells do not come from babies.
When I said "baby" in that post, I was referring to an embryo or fetus, something much closer to the full term of pregnancy than the stage at which embryonic stem cells are taken.
A lot of people assume when they hear the word "embryonic" that these are what's taken from aborted babies. That's not true. Embryonic stem cells are extracted from a fertilized egg at whats called the "blastocyst" stage. In humans, this occurs at about five days after fertilization. This is the only time at which they can be extracted. I am opposed to the creation of human embryonic stem cells because it necessitates the killing of a human life.
When people hear the word "adult" stem cell, they don't realize that this refers to stem cells obtained from anything after the blastcyst stage. The procurement of adult stem cells does not necessitate the killing of human life. Adult stem cells can be obtained from placental tissue after a baby is born. Adult stem cells can be obtained from you and me right now, but it's easiest to get them from placental tissue. The confusion comes from the fact that the use of the words "embryonic" and "adult" in reference to stem cells does not conform to what most people think of when they hear the words.
Having provided you with a few definitions (which when I'm in a hurry I forget that most folks are not aware of), I'll tell you what I was trying to say in the post you reference. The point of this article is to scare readers who don't know anything about the subject. Now, I agree with the author's point, which is that certain types of experiments are immoral. However, he's trying to convince you of his argument not by telling you the facts, but by conjuring up stories that sound really horrifying for maximum effect. He is implying that babies are being aborted and their genetic material used in things such as transgene studies. And he's drawing a corollary to the use of embryonic stem cells. What I was trying to say when I stated that "embryonic stem cells do not come from babies" is that the author is creating a story and that the situation he describes cannot exist. For the babies he mentions in the piece to have actually been used, the cells would have to be adult stem cells. But transgene studies require the use of embryonic stem cells. I was trying to show that his article is full of you-know-what, but in my haste I said it in a way that was very much open to misinterpretation.
I probably don't disagree with the author's beliefs on the subject. However, I do have a problem with the fact that he is not being honest. That's where my issue with him lies.
There's other reasons that what the author alleges is preposterous, but this post is long enough, so I'm not going to bore you. Hopefully all the definitions helped. I wasn't trying to be pedantic. They were simply necessary to completely explain myself. That being said, I am going to bed, since it's 1:30 am where I am. If you want to discuss this further, I will be happy to do so at another time.
Dude, you need to hit the books some more. It is not possible to extract an embryonic stem cell from a fertilized egg. Your terminlogy is all screwed up.
Once a fertilized egg divides it isn't a fertilized egg anymore. Now it is an embryo. The blastocyst stage to which you refer is an embryonic stage, that is, it is a baby/<>. Furthermore, the cells in a blastocyst are totipotent, as you should already know. Totipotency means the cell, if handled correctly, would form a complete human child body.
Another way to say this: every ESC cell is functionally identical to a fertilized ovum. Think about that for a minute.
Now, I will grant that an ESC is not absolutely identical in every respect to a fertilized ovum because differentiation begins with the first cell division, but this technique of "harvesting embryonic stem cells" is really nothing more than a form of forced twinning in which you take ALL the twins or tuplets and kill them in the name of scientific research.
That's why the madmen in white coats want ESC's so badly. It is impossible to harvest enough eggs from women to do the embryo experimentation they want to do. Not only can they not round up enough women and force them into a pretty nasty drug regimen, that would also be too public and obvious. So ESC's help them slide by, getting the quantity of babies they need without anyone calling them on the fact that they are tearing up human children.
1. I am NOT a "dude."
2. My terminology is not "all screwed up." The embryonic period beings at 3 weeks after fertilization. Look it up in any embryology textbook. But I forgot, you are averse to facts.
3. Like I said, the terms "embryonic" and "adult" in reference to stem cells is not in agreement with what image enters someone's mind when they hear the words.
4. I know what an embryonic stem cell is.
5. I AGREE WITH YOUR PRINCIPLES. I'm simply not going to let you create false stories without calling you on it. And you're just upset that you've been shown up and can't seem like the "expert" that you were trying to portray yourself to be.
6. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
2) Your terminology is all screwed up. See the following links, all containing in-context quotes from embryology texts, plus commentary from a leading embryologist on the invention of the term "pre-embryo." Embryology texts on the use of the "pre-embryo" concept: http://cloninginformation.org/info/textbook_references.htm http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_42pre_embryosplitting.html http://www.all.org/abac/cwk001.htm
4)You may or may not know what an embryonic stem cell is. You certainly haven't demonstrated it yet, since your terminology is all screwed up.
5)I am glad you agree with me. However, there is nothing for you to call me on since I haven't presented any false information.
6)Your ability to form judgements on the matter of who is well-informed seems seriously impaired.
Tried to read the article at the link but my bi-focals are in the shop.
Try pointing me to some articles that weren't written by graduates of the Bible-Thumpers Technical Institute.
Coming from you, I take that as a compliment.
Chimeric animals are not "human-animal hybrids," you idiot. The ES cells are of the exact same species as the animal that will be injected with them. That's why your article is a pantsload.
Don't even bother me with your foolishness anymore.
Now, it is perfectly true that a chimera can be defined as you define it - a mouse-mouse knockout. However, if you were following biology AT ALL, you would know that trans-species knockouts have also been created numerous times.
This quote, for instance, "Since 1997, eight MAbs have been licensed for human therapeutic use; three of these are mouse-human chimerics and five are humanized murine MAbs. Each of these molecules has been the product of advances in biotechnology, and their success supports the view that the technology is in place for implementing an antibody-based defense strategy." taken from this Medscape article.
Now, I could pile on with that as well, since I subscribe to Science News and they've reported this kind of thing about once every other month for the last FIVE YEARS, but why make you look any stupider than you already do?
You might not like C. Ward Kischer, but he's a professor on-staff at the Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, The University of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson, Arizona. That means he actually HAS his graduate degree. You don't, as I recall. I think there might be a reason for that.