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 ...
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
3)If you want a description of the differences between embryonic and adult stem cells, see this link and/or this link
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.[4] 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.