I must admit I'm having trouble understanding the opposition to human stem cell research given the obvious benefits. In light of the current todo over whether or not the US will apply federal funds to the research, I thought I'd try to get some opinions from not only the Colonials, but the overseas contingent as well.

You know what is really weird, we just had another baby about 2 months ago, there is a form to fill out if you want your Placenta, you have to buy it back....

Wasn't it technically part of my wife?

The "body" of opposition springs from the fact that stem cells can be extracted from embryos. In order for the stem cells to be affective i.e. that they match the genetic make-up of the person requiring them; a clone of the person is created by extracting the nucleus of a normal adult cell from the future recipient and implanting it in a human egg given by a donor. The egg has it's nucleus removed prior to the implantation of the recipients DNA. The egg is then tricked into thinking it has been fertilized - usually by applying an electric current to it - and the cell then starts to divide- oh sounds so easy but it isn't ;) . After a number of divisions - not sure how many - you have an embryo which contains enough stem cells to be useful to the recipient. All of this has been done in a lab, the egg is not implanted into a woman.
The issue is one of ethics. The embryo has the potential to be a human, it is also a clone. So not only are we creating life we are destroying it as well. For some people this is a step too far. I'd like to point out here that not all the anti's are religious there are plenty of people who see this as unethical on humanistic grounds as well. Equally there are those who see no problem, the embryo is only a ball of cells created for a purpose and the clone issue is a non-starter as the embryo is destroyed in the processes of extracting the stem cells. There is also the possibility that we could un-differentiate adult cells ie. effectively converting them into stem cells without the need for the clone. Whilst this hope remains alive it gives weight to the anti argument.

K.

But not all stem cell research is done on cloned embryos. There are benefits of studying the stem cells of actual babies as well. When a child is born, the umbilicle cord is full of stem cells that have not been assigned yet. What is wrong with doing research on these cells? There are groups opposed to this as well even though it would mean no harm to any "person" including the baby that spawned the cells. There are theories that research could mean these cells can be used to "create" organs for transplants as well as treatments for diseases such as Parkinsons. Yet, people still throw up the red flag. Why?

But not all stem cell research is done on cloned embryos. There are benefits of studying the stem cells of actual babies as well. When a child is born, the umbilicle cord is full of stem cells that have not been assigned yet. What is wrong with doing research on these cells? There are groups opposed to this as well even though it would mean no harm to any "person" including the baby that spawned the cells. There are theories that research could mean these cells can be used to "create" organs for transplants as well as treatments for diseases such as Parkinsons. Yet, people still throw up the red flag. Why?
I am guessing lack of information.
Just because the information is out there, does not mean people activly go look for it. It is most likely a case of "Our pastor said it is bad, so it is" kind of thing. And you can replace Pastor with any leader of peoples. Works the same on any side of the issue.

And you can replace Pastor with any leader of peoples. Works the same on any side of the issue.
That only holds true if you're prepared to swallow their diatribes:rolleyes:

That only holds true if you're prepared to swallow their diatribes:rolleyes:
AH! But you see, there is diatribe on both sides of the issue. So if you go for the (do the research for the betterment of man) side or the (it's experimenting on People) side, it's the same thing, just different sides of the same coin. But as Vassago pointed out, maybe there is a middle ground, but not to many people seem to be aware of that fact.

But not all stem cell research is done on cloned embryos. There are benefits of studying the stem cells of actual babies as well. When a child is born, the umbilicle cord is full of stem cells that have not been assigned yet. What is wrong with doing research on these cells? There are groups opposed to this as well even though it would mean no harm to any "person" including the baby that spawned the cells. There are theories that research could mean these cells can be used to "create" organs for transplants as well as treatments for diseases such as Parkinsons. Yet, people still throw up the red flag. Why?

True, but for the 6 billion of us who haven't got an umbilical cord stored somewhere it's currently the only realistic hope.

This technology wouldn't - or at least i should say isn't intended to - grow organs. Organs are complex structures and we are only just begining to understand how a stem cell knows what it will become. The technology provides cells that can be used to repair damaged organs including the brain. A stem cell placed next to a nerve cell should turn into another nerve cell that's not the same as saying let's grow a kidney or a heart.

A more fundamental question is if we repair a brain damaged by parkinsons does the disease continue to attack the brain and damage the new tissue? That goes for most of the degenerative diseases.

K.

True, but for the 6 billion of us who haven't got an umbilical cord stored somewhere it's currently the only realistic hope.

This technology wouldn't - or at least i should say isn't intended to - grow organs. Organs are complex structures and we are only just begining to understand how a stem cell knows what it will become. The technology provides cells that can be used to repair damaged organs including the brain. A stem cell placed next to a nerve cell should turn into another nerve cell that's not the same as saying let's grow a kidney or a heart.

A more fundamental question is if we repair a brain damaged by parkinsons does the disease continue to attack the brain and damage the new tissue? That goes for most of the degenerative diseases.

K.

As I stated, the organ generation is only a theory, but it's a very complex theory that *should* work since stem cells are not written with the genetic code that designates their function. This is how the theory states they can be used to repair organs and nerve cells as well. The degeneration would probably still occur, but since stem cells can duplicate very rapidly, that shouldn't be a problem. It would just require proper injections.

I must admit that I fall squarely into the "lack of information" category. I've heard the hype from both sides but haven't had the time/hasn't been a priority enough to research the issue for myself. I would almost, but not quite, say I fall into the 'What's a stem cell?' option on the poll. :o

You know what is really weird, we just had another baby about 2 months ago, there is a form to fill out if you want your Placenta, you have to buy it back....

It seems like I remember something like that from when I had my daughter, and if I remember correctly, they were wanting to charge a pretty hefty sum for it. :eek:

...were wanting to charge a pretty hefty sum for it. :eek:This is only an assumption, and I'd have to do some checking to verify it, but given current bio-hazard vs. public safety concerns, you could assume that the normal course of action is simply to immediately dispose of the afterbirth in one of the readily available, bio-hazard disposal containers. In order for the patient to take it with them you would have to take into consideration the expense in both labor and materials to contain and transport the sample in a contamination-free manner...it's not as if you can just wrap it up in some newspaper and take it with you:eek: . I could see some extra cost from that point.

It seems like I remember something like that from when I had my daughter, and if I remember correctly, they were wanting to charge a pretty hefty sum for it. :eek:

I have to ask, why would anybody actually want it back ?:confused:

I have to ask, why would anybody actually want it back ?:confused:There's an old adage about it bringing good luck. Some will dig a hole, place the placenta inside, and plant a tree on top.:confused:

Or, there are now options to simply store the placenta for future use of the stem cells contained, because of the perfect genetic match to your child.

Or, there are now options to simply store the placenta for future use of the stem cells contained, because of the perfect genetic match to your child.
So one would take it home and keep it in the freezer, trouble with that is one might just mistake it for something else and bung it in the oven :eek:
Gross :D

So one would take it home and keep it in the freezer, trouble with that is one might just mistake it for something else and bung it in the oven :eek:
Gross :DThey don't store it at home, Rich...storage facilities.

You never know, though...probably very high in protein:D

You know what is really weird, we just had another baby about 2 months ago, there is a form to fill out if you want your Placenta, you have to buy it back....

Don't some people eat it? . . . . . . . .placenta and chips please - oh and some curry sauce to pour over it

Col

Don't some people eat it? . . . . . . . .Col
Americans apparently, now of course they're being charged for their supper.
There's capitalism for you ;)
I'm told it tastes like liver by the way, I'd need onions with it:D

They don't store it at home, Rich...storage facilities.

I bet it's cheaper at home in the freezer:p

I bet it's cheaper at home in the freezer:pYes, but then you have all of your visiting British friends trying to fry it up with some onions...

Yes, but then you have all of your visiting British friends trying to fry it up with some onions...
So you wouldn't share your vittles with us ? :mad: :p

I actually saw a video on tv a few days ago about new mothers who have parties at their homes where the placenta is made into a sort of spread and eaten with crackers. The participants lived in London. They had an attorney present who said there was nothing in British law that states it's illegal or unsanitary to do so. They also mentioned the low fat, high protein characteristics and health benefits of doing so.

Now in America, there was a family who tried to do the same. The parents were arrested for cannibalism. Go figure.

I actually saw a video on tv a few days ago about new mothers who have parties at their homes where the placenta is made into a sort of spread and eaten with crackers.
Yuk! and I bet the crackers were low fat:eek: :D

Yuk! and I bet the crackers were low fat:eek: :D

Probably low sodium too. I wonder what the sodium content for placenta would be...:rolleyes:

Probably low sodium too. I wonder what the sodium content for placenta would be...:rolleyes:

Somewhere between 76 and 82 % , depending on the temp of the placenta ;)

My Dad is sitting in a care facility wasting away with Parkinson's Disease. I sometimes wonder if the stem cell 'war' would still be waged if leaders of the religous right all had Parkinson's Disease, or maybe some of their loved ones. It's easy to be high and mighty when you aren't betting against your own family. This is typical of the RR, ignorance is bliss. :mad:

My Dad is sitting in a care facility wasting away with Parkinson's Disease. I sometimes wonder if the stem cell 'war' would still be waged if leaders of the religous right all had Parkinson's Disease, or maybe some of their loved ones. It's easy to be high and mighty when you aren't betting against your own family. This is typical of the RR, ignorance is bliss. :mad:
This also seems to be how some diseases get the spotlight & celebrity backing... eg Michael J Fox, Christopher Reeves
If they weren't suffering from the problem, would they be so enthusiastic about supporting its research? (human nature I guess)

If they weren't suffering from the problem, would they be so enthusiastic about supporting its research? (human nature I guess)Does the motivation behind the support truly matter? There are certain members of the species that do nothing, unfortunately, without the prospect of personal gain. If they rally to a cause due to a perceived gain, they are still rallying behind the cause and the cause prospers. The only item really in question is the amount of kudos you bestow upon them for the perceived selflessness...and that takes away from the cause itself by placing emphasis upon the self in a selfless act.

Another philosophical morning...:D

I actually saw a video on tv a few days ago about new mothers who have parties at their homes where the placenta is made into a sort of spread and eaten with crackers. The participants lived in London. They had an attorney present who said there was nothing in British law that states it's illegal or unsanitary to do so. They also mentioned the low fat, high protein characteristics and health benefits of doing so.

Now in America, there was a family who tried to do the same. The parents were arrested for cannibalism. Go figure.

Dis not Tom Cruise and his wife eat the placenta of their child. For those who want to try..http://www.twilightheadquarters.com/placenta.html

selfless act.

Another philosophical morning...:D

As long as we are being philosophical, then I have to say that there are no such things as "selfless acts" as defined as "doing something without regard to your self". Yet, it is integral to society to pretend that they do. Sort of like the term "double-think" from 1984.

An example of doing something without regard to yourself: Father throwing himself in front of a bullet to save his child.

If we examine that in terms of motivation, then there are two basic values at stake for the father. One, he could lose his life, which he values. Two, he could lose his son's life, which he also values. His action is decided by which he values greater. We only ever do what we want to do out of the options available. The father would have wanted to kill himself for his child because it would be saving the thing he valued most, thus it is selfish, and thus everything we do is selfish. It is impossible to do something soley, or in any part, for someone else by the very fact that the "someone else" is not your self, because you only ever do what you want to do, not what they want to do. In this way, you can never sacrifice what you most value--you can only ever sacrifice a lesser value to a greater one.

The point: what we really mean by "selfless" is the state of wanting to do and beneiftting from what benefits others. What we really mean by "selfish" is the state of wanting to do and benifitting from what does not benefit others.

I probably didn't make any sense, but this is actually a valid point that I brewed over for years. In the end, it pretty much comes down to the technical wording of a definition and that's all.

The father would have wanted to kill himself for his child because it would be saving the thing he valued most, thus it is selfish, and thus everything we do is selfish. but to follow your line of reasoning, the act of selfishness destroys the self and therefore becomes, by definition, selfless.

but to follow your line of reasoning, the act of selfishness destroys the self and therefore becomes, by definition, selfless.

No, because if that were true, suicide would be considered a selfless act.

Add on:

I might have mangled it, but trust me: you can't do something not for yourself.

No, because if that were true, suicide would be considered a selfless act.

I can think of cases where this might be true. :rolleyes:

but to follow your line of reasoning, the act of selfishness destroys the self and therefore becomes, by definition, selfless.

Not if looked at the level of the Gene. By throwing himself in the path of the billet the father is insuring that his genetic information will be passed on to the next generation. hence the selfish gene.

ok, ok, ok. Pessimists all:rolleyes:

How about this, then...
The father, sacrifices(the operative term here) his life for the child:

for the pure love of the child = selfless act.
knowing he will die (suicide) but that his death will serve a greater purpose = selfless act
to insure his genetic code survives and therefore he himself survives vicariously through his offspring = twisted, but still destroys the self even though the original incentive was selfish. Passing of genetic material does not impart experiences or any portion of the self. Genetic transferrance of memory is NOT reality and just because someone shares your genetic code does not make them you...unless you cloned yourself:eek:

...using stem cells:rolleyes:

...and even then, different experiences at different developmental stages(nature vs. nurture) do create emotionally different people regardless of genetic makeup:D

to insure his genetic code survives and therefore he himself survives vicariously through his offspring = twisted, but still destroys the self even though the original incentive was selfish. Passing of genetic material does not impart experiences or any portion of the self. Genetic transferrance of memory is NOT reality and just because someone shares your genetic code does not make them you

it is not "the self", that is being protected (that is being simplistic. but the gene (or a percentage of them)..

it is not "the self", that is being protected (that is being simplistic. but the gene (or a percentage of them).. hence "self-less"

or, a more accurate exposition:
the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question...we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

...unless he was cloned:eek:

...using stem cells:rolleyes:

hence "self-less"

or, a more accurate exposition:


...unless he was cloned:eek:

...using stem cells:rolleyes:

But is is still the gen that is acting in a selfish way, i.e maximising its chances of being passed into the next generation..

I can think of cases where this might be true. :rolleyes:

Using my definition of selfless, indeed, so can I.;)

ok, ok, ok. Pessimists all:rolleyes:

How about this, then...
The father, sacrifices(the operative term here) his life for the child:

for the pure love of the child = selfless act.
knowing he will die (suicide) but that his death will serve a greater purpose = selfless act
to insure his genetic code survives and therefore he himself survives vicariously through his offspring = twisted, but still destroys the self even though the original incentive was selfish. Passing of genetic material does not impart experiences or any portion of the self. Genetic transferrance of memory is NOT reality and just because someone shares your genetic code does not make them you...unless you cloned yourself:eek:

...using stem cells:rolleyes:

...and even then, different experiences at different developmental stages(nature vs. nurture) do create emotionally different people regardless of genetic makeup:D


You are right, if you use my definition of the word 'selfless'.:D

Ok so lets change that slightly and save if the man saves a complete stranger and dies in the process is that not completley selfless?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1562729,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1562729,00.html)

Ok so lets change that slightly and save if the man saves a complete stranger and dies in the process is that not completley selfless?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1562729,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1562729,00.html)

Again, the answer is yes if you don't define selfless as having nothing to do with the self. Everything has everything to do with the self. Seriously, I never expected to convince anyone in a couple of posts as this is a completely abstract concept. It changes absolutely nothing tangible, only how you look at things. In order to do anything, you need to have a motivation to do it. That's all I'm saying.