This page has moved to a new address.

Adult Stem Cells the Answer? On Oprah? Yes....

Think Christianly: Adult Stem Cells the Answer? On Oprah? Yes....

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Adult Stem Cells the Answer? On Oprah? Yes....

There has been a lot of debate on the need for embryonic stem cells vs. adult stem cells. But the reality is, embryonic stem cells are treating "zero" diseases while adult stem cells are treating around 90.

But don't take my word for it....let the Oprah show confirm that for you (wow did I just say that???)

Watch this clip, it is 3:43

Adult stem cells provide real hope to those who struggle with Parkinson's disease. Watch the clip to learn why.

(HT - STR Blog)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

6 Comments:

Blogger Frank said...

Jonathan,

This embryonic stem cell debate should not even be a debate.

A blastocyst (NOT an embryo) of 16 or so cells does not a human make.

Yes, much progress has been made whith adult stem cells but embryonic cells are much more "potent" than adult or even umbilical stem cells.

A study of the words Totipotent, Pluripotent and Multipotent is necessary for anyone who really wishes to understand the issue of why embryonic cells (which is a poor choice of words since it is not, in fact, an embryo but a blastocyst) are essential to progressing this promising treatment.

Embryonic stem cells, unlike other stem cells, are totipotent making them much more valuable to science that other kinds of stem cells.

Here is an excellent start for those that wish to understand the matter:

http://www.lifecellinternational.com/power-of-stem-cells-and-cord-blood/what-are-stem-cells/types-of-stem-cells

and this form the NIH:

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

April 8, 2009 at 9:56 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Morrow said...

"A blastocyst (NOT an embryo) of 16 or so cells does not a human make."

so if this is not genetically human, what is it? Any textbook you pick up on this admits this is human.

Also, the person who discovered the process using embryo (James Thomson at Wisconsin) admitted in Nov of 2007 that he could do exactly the same thing with adult stem cells. Pluripotency is the issue.

Moreover, ALL of the experimental evidence of trying to use embryonic stem cells have led to tumors (teratomas)...they cannot get the cells to stop reproducing. If embrionic stem cell research were so promosing, don't you think the venture capitalists would be investing right and left in it? There wouldn't be a need for govt funding like in CA or MO a couple of years ago.

Moreover,Histocompatibility is a major problem. Our body will reject foreign substances and attack it which is why it needs to be our own stem cells.

Embryos are not just clumps of cells, like other groups of cells in the body. Any IVF couple who had a child will tell you that!

Regarding: "A fetus is just a larger clumps of cells…[notice assumptions about size and moral status]"

If these embryos aren’t human, this wouldn’t be an issue.

Common views of personhood assume a continuity of personal identity from the earliest points of the pregnancy. Personhood is a matter of essence, not function.

Personhood is not a degreed property. The difference between an embryo in the lab and fetus in the womb is one of location and maturity--both are fully human and genetically distinct entities.

For more on embryology and the issues of pluri-potency etc... see

www.bioethics.org
www.cbhd.org

So i think your question is when a human gets rights? so on your view when is that? And why?

April 8, 2009 at 1:04 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Morrow said...

oh yea, here is the link to the article in the New York Times - "Man Who Helped Start Stem Cell War May End It"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/science/22stem.html?_r=1&ex=1353387600

April 8, 2009 at 1:39 PM  
Blogger Frank said...

so if this is not genetically human, what is it? Any textbook you pick up on this admits this is human.

Hello Jonathan,

The central issue here is "What makes us human?"

And, by "human" I presume you mean fully deserving of all rights bestowed on us by our Creator, correct?

If these 16 cells of the blastocyst are, in fact, human then we all should be outraged that they are abusing these kids by keeping millions of them in freezers all across the US.

If these cells are human then flushing them down the drain (as happens every day) is mass murder on an unimaginable scale.

Why are you not outraged, Jonathan? Should you not be helping the police hunt down women who abort during the fist trimester? Shouldn't these women spend the rest of their lives in prison for their crimes against children?

Shouldn't the doctors who manufacture test tube babies be hunt down and arrested for their part in this genocide?

The answer? Of course not. You and I both know that there is something "less than human" about this mass of cells.

You and I both know that it's not really "murder" for a women to abort at 4 weeks just as we both know that it certainly IS murder if she aborts one day before the baby is due.

Why is this, Jonathan? Why the lack of consistency? I think I know the answer. Do you?

April 10, 2009 at 6:56 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Morrow said...

Hello Frank, I think you are getting the cart before the horse on this one.

Before we both head off prosecuting millions of people...let's answer a very fundamental question.

Actually, 'humaness' is not in question--genetics settles that. as soon as a sperm / egg come together, you have a unique genetic individual--and a human one, not a butterfly, or snake. I think we are in agreement here and any embryology text book will bare that out.

I think this is a human rights issue, not a religous one. here is why...

"If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. And if it has human parents, it must be human.And living humans, or human beings like you and I, are valuable aren’t they? From conception, all that’s added to the unborn is a proper environment and adequate nutrition. But those are the same things all of us need. And not only that. There’s one quality all of us have equally that demands equal treatment: we all have a human nature."

you said:

"The answer? Of course not. You and I both know that there is something "less than human" about this mass of cells."

What precisely do you mean by less than human here?

"You and I both know that it's not really "murder" for a women to abort at 4 weeks just as we both know that it certainly IS murder if she aborts one day before the baby is due."

What do you see as the relevant difference here since neither has left the womb yet?

Finally, I think you have in mind the debate about personhood - not humanness.

So on your view, when does a human get "rights" and why??

April 10, 2009 at 9:35 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Morrow said...

Regarding the homocide question here is one perspective pertaining to CA law:

Abortion and Homicide by Gregory Koukl

Some observers denounce the use of the word "murder" to describe the destruction of a fetus. Yet this "rhetoric" is completely consistent with California law.

Under the category "Crimes against the Person," or a fetus, with malice aforethought." [emphasis mine] After the definition, we find among the exceptions: "This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act which results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act....The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus."

The only difference between legal abortion and punishable homicide in the state of California is the consent of the mother. How does the mere consent of the mother change the innate value of the unborn human inside her?

However one answers this question, the fact is that abortion is legal in California. But this can't hide a second fact: Apart from the stipulated exceptions, killing the unborn is still homicide. It's murder. Those who do so are prosecuted.

On the fundamental issue, then--the innate value of unborn human beings--pro-lifers are not extreme, but in concert with the law's general assessment of the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Pro-lifers are not inconsistent; the law is.

certainly something to think about...is consent the only difference...should it be? Just think of laws pertaining to double homicides with pregnant women...does merely wanting the baby - or fetus (which is just latin for little one) - confer human rights and protection under the law?

April 10, 2009 at 9:58 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home