Fetal tissue and how it has advanced medical science.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm anti-abortion, so in my world, there wouldn't be tissue to experiment with. But that's beside the point.

Though umbilical blood also contains quite a lot of stem cells and could also be used without harming anyone.

In your world, illegal abortions would be preformed by unqualified people and many women would bleed to death in alleys, abandoned warehouses, etc. The tissue produced might be tossed out or sold on a black market. That is the world you want?

You really have to pick a reality. Abortion would exist in both.

originally posted by: The GUT
Should we grow some of them little suckers for harvesting then? I know it's more complicated than that, but it all starts to lead to those kind of questions.

Thanks Gut this gives me an opportunity to vent. Good point.

Off course we should, it is possible, we could have pre-born tube baby nurseries where the facilitators are disengaged narcissistic zombies. (" He is sucking his thumb" "Yeah should be ready for harvest next week")

Or why not reimburse female "carriers" who can carry them full term. Some one will do it for money I have no doubt. Breeding stables with perfect studs.
Heck the Nazi regime contributed enormously to our knowledge of genetics, right. Why shouldn't we? We just call it some thing nice like "advance" "improvement" "cure" "liberal rights" "science".
We give it a name we can swallow. Fast Food.

I have no confidence in the human race.
You know why? I am human too.

a reply to: reldra
My slogan is not provided as a comparison.

Your assumption is not valid.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ketsuko
And I wonder where some of you stand on animal testing. If "we're just going to abort them anyhow" is your excuse for this, then you should be all in on animal testing. Somehow, I don't think you all are.

That is testing on live animals. Like picking u p a kitten and dropping a new makeup chemical into it's eye. It is not the same.

You have to kill a living being in order to have the tissue.

a reply to: reldra

Whether it would occur or not has no bearing on my disgust for the process.

I don't want to get into another abortion debate. I've stated, for the record, that I am against it.

Period.

We're talking here about it's value as a scientific tool. Science will advance.

But do we advance science with no moral values at all?

Why not simply experiment on human adults?

I'm sure much could be learned as well.

a reply to: ketsuko

Not always, but usually, organ donors are already dead.

a reply to: butcherguy

although i can't tell if your being satirical (i don't know where cat lover land is....i thought it was right here....) i "catch a vibe" that says you are on the good side

yes, there will always be people who need killing, and there will always be good people willing to do the killing. but embryos will cease to divide.....naturally........ plenty for experiments...... from willing donors....

theres plenty of war going on, but i will make a bet with you...... there will be more.

when was plenty ever enough in the land of plenty?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

Though umbilical blood also contains quite a lot of stem cells and could also be used without harming anyone.

Those are a different kind of stem cell. Embryonic stems cells are special.

But the murdered babies they're harvested from AREN'T special?
Sick.
Paging Dr. Mengele...Paging Dr. Mengele...

a reply to: beezzer

ahhhhhh. the american dream............. KILL IT!!!!

a reply to: beezzer

But do we advance science with no moral values at all?

Do we retard scientific advancements because of some people's desire to promote their personal version of morality?

Sacrificing children for the sake of science

The fetuses presented a special test case. Since the fetuses were still alive at the beginning of the experiment in their mothers’ wombs, “in vivo” experiments were possible. This phrase “in vivo” is Latin and means “within the living.” With already deceased specimens, they could only measure the presence of amino acids after death. This type of analysis is an “in vitro” (in the glass, think in vitro fertilization) procedure. With the still-living fetuses, they could actually inject a known amount of amino acids, S-L-methionine and S-L-cysteine, “in vivo” into a living fetus and test how much of these substances were incorporated into fetal organs via the biological machinery of life over a set amount of time. The researchers therefore conducted the “in vivo” experiments by surgically cutting open the uterus of the mother, lifting out the living fetus with the umbilical cord still attached, and injecting the amino acids into the umbilical vein.
liveactionnews.org...


Then they waited 10 minutes with the heart still beating and the fetus still moving to allow the body to distribute and metabolize the amino acids. After 10 minutes, they cut the umbilical cord, dissected the brain and liver from the body of the fetus, and dropped the organs into liquid nitrogen to await analysis.

The researchers in this case killed children because they “sought to better design infant formula especially for prematurely born infants.”

The basis for federal research guidelines… has roots in the Holocaust’s biomedical experiments, which became part of the basis for something called The Belmont Report, born from the Nuremberg trials after the Nazi’s conducted biomedical experiments, is the guideline for human subjects research….

www.hhs.gov...

a reply to: fixitwcw

I gave you another star!

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: boymonkey74

A lot of what we know about exposure, frostbite can be attributed to Joseph Mengele in concentration camps.

Yeah, science can and will advance.

But is it worth it?

(rhetorical question)

that didnt take long.
it is not the same thing and you damn well know it

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: beezzer

But do we advance science with no moral values at all?

Do we retard scientific advancements because of some people's desire to promote their personal version of morality?

Apparently not.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ketsuko
And I wonder where some of you stand on animal testing. If "we're just going to abort them anyhow" is your excuse for this, then you should be all in on animal testing. Somehow, I don't think you all are.

That is testing on live animals. Like picking u p a kitten and dropping a new makeup chemical into it's eye. It is not the same.

You have to kill a living being in order to have the tissue.

a living being has to be alive for it to be killed

a reply to: IAMTAT

Ah, the special little snowflake syndrome!

Embryonic stem cells have properties that NO OTHER stem cell has. Those properties are only present for 6 days. Fetal stem cells are "unique" too, but for a little different reasons. Blood and amniotic fluids, bone marrow, etc., just don't have the same flexibility that embryonic and fetal stem cells do.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: reldra

Whether it would occur or not has no bearing on my disgust for the process.

I don't want to get into another abortion debate. I've stated, for the record, that I am against it.

Period.

We're talking here about it's value as a scientific tool. Science will advance.

But do we advance science with no moral values at all?

Why not simply experiment on human adults?

I'm sure much could be learned as well.

just cause the science does not fit your moral or ethical complex does not mean they are not there.

abortions are going to happen no matter what. why do people not get that
even if all trained professionals in the world stopped performing them tomorrow they would still happen.
the difference would be instead of the woman having her procedure done in a safe and clean environment she would be squeezing it out into a dumpster somewhere.
instead of having viable tissue for medical advancements there would be more food in the alleys for the stray animals.

yeah, your idea is much better

Medical advances can be tertiary goods. They can and sometimes do come about only as a result of human evil. But this is not an argument in favor of human evil.

Charity, for instance, can and is often created and inspired by terrible poverty and deprivation. But this is not an argument in favor of poverty or deprivation. It would, of course, be much better to have the charity without the poverty.

Some good things, like forgiveness, can only exist because of some evil. You cannot have forgiveness without offense or wrong-doing. But medical advances are a thing like charity, not a thing like forgiveness: You CAN make them without the necessity of evil deeds done.

It is not true that you can only have advances in stem cell research by terminating potentially viable fetuses. You can, for instance, take stem cells and other tissue from spontaneously aborted fetuses, or fetuses that were never viable.

Given all that I have just said, why exactly should medical advances using fetal tissue make me feel more accepting to abortion, if I already believe it to be evil?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: IAMTAT

Ah, the special little snowflake syndrome!

Embryonic stem cells have properties that NO OTHER stem cell has. Those properties are only present for 6 days. Fetal stem cells are "unique" too, but for a little different reasons. Blood and amniotic fluids, bone marrow, etc., just don't have the same flexibility that embryonic and fetal stem cells do.

How callous!
You believe these "little snowflakes" (more dehumanization to rationalize brutal murder) are not special?

originally posted by: Oneredbird

Given all that I have just said, why exactly should medical advances using fetal tissue make me feel more accepting to abortion, if I already believe it to be evil?

That is an excellent point.