Replies

I was writing about the author's implication that cells are being taken from aborted babies for use in transgene experiments. However, I didn't explain what I was trying to say very well, because after re-reading the entire thread (I've been studying for the past couple of days and didn't have the time to write dissertations on the differences between embryonic and adult stem cells), I found that more than one poster misunderstood me.

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.