Back to the Stem Cells

[Crazy Cooter]

We've had the morality discussion, now we can have another discussion about Stem Cells.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7904332/
"While this nation has been struggling through the thicket of political and ethical issues, the Koreans have done it," he said. "They are now, hands down, the world leaders in this area." - Harvard University's Douglas Melton

Are we losing the "race" for this knowledge?

[fredster]

Is there a "race"?

Is there something wrong with the stem cells we have?  You know that there are stem cells out there, there is no law in the US against using them.  If they were really really promising, wouldn't private companies be working with them?  After all, private companies come up with most of the great medical breakthroughs for cancer treatment, alzhemiers, etc.

Is the US the only people in the world that can make breakthroughs?  I thought the Germans and the French and the UK and the Japanese had labs too. 

[Bones]

We have similar laws here that are also being heavily debated.

From what I read, research into this area is very promising. It's not so much a shame that the race is being won elsewhere, it's more of a shame that the race will take longer to complete making potential cures decades away rather than years.

It should be obvious that the more brilliant minds that are working of this type of R&D the quicker the benefits will follow for everyone regardless of nationality.

[quarterback]

If they were really really promising, wouldn't private companies be working with them?  After all, private companies come up with most of the great medical breakthroughs for cancer treatment, alzhemiers, etc.

I don't know how accurate that statement is.  Without government funding, we very possibly wouldn't have a large number of the medical and technological advances that we now enjoy.

[Shape D.]

After all, private companies come up with most of the great medical breakthroughs for cancer treatment, alzhemiers, etc.

The currently isn't a cure for either of those.

Is there something wrong with the stem cells we have? You know that there are stem cells out there, there is no law in the US against using them.

There is however a law in the us about "new stem cells" you can use the ones we currently have, and you can use copies of the ones we have. but you can't go get more from new sources.  and the copied stem cells supposedly don't work as well as "new ones".

Is there a "race"?

Whatever butt faced scientist figures out the cure for one of the diseases these could cure, cancer, diabetes, alzhiemers, would probobly win a nobel prize. thus they are hiding secrets instead of sharing them, and trying to find a cure as fastly as possible on thier own prove they are smarter than everyone else.

[fredster]

The currently isn't a cure for either of those.

  So? That's not the point.  There are treatments they came up with.  Nobody said stem cells would be cures for anything have they?
The point is that if the field is so promising, then private companies have the manpower and resources to do what they want.

There is however a law in the us about "new stem cells

no, there isn't. There is a limit on Federal Funding of "new embyonic or fetal" stem cells.  Adult stem cells and blood dirived stem cells are open season.  Private groups can do what they want.  Universities can use all kinda stem cells from whatever is left from the original group and get funding.  Just don't use new ones. 

I don't know how accurate that statement is.  Without government funding, we very possibly wouldn't have a large number of the medical and technological advances that we now enjoy.

But there is government funding.  More than ever for stem cell research. It's just you can't use new lines for embyronic.  That's the only limit.

It's not a law, it's just a requirement for the federal funding. 

Has anybody complaining about this actually explained why it's such a big hassle to use the existing stem cells?  It's not the funding part of it is it? 

California came up with a bill to work on stem cells last year.  Who's working on that?  What's come out of that research?

[saint]

I was under the impression (and that should be considered anecdotal as I can't cite source) that the current stem cell lines had been diluted/polluted/corrupted in some fashion from long term handling/use that made usable stem cells extremely rare?

--- saint

Has anybody complaining about this actually explained why it's such a big hassle to use the existing stem cells?  It's not the funding part of it is it? 

[Crazy Cooter]

Correct.

[saint]

Timing is everything   On CNN just now:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/20/bush.stem.cells/index.html

Two interesting points. First that "The scientific community complains many of those stem cell lines are contaminated and could not be used for research. A study published in January in the journal Nature Medicine said all those lines are contaminated."

The second interesting point is that there's some talk of lifting the federal funding restrictions in congress. Be interesting to see how this pans out.

--- saint

[fredster]

And there's this -

"There were nowhere near 78 stem cell lines available for study; the NIH says the real number is 22, and they were developed with what now amounts to ancient technology. Researchers say more lines are needed. Some lines are better than others, or have different genetic qualities.

"Embryonic stem cell lines behave close to the same, but not the same. They grow a little differently," said Dr. Dennis Steindler, a researcher at the McKnight Brain Institute at the University of Florida who works with adult stem cells and stem cells harvested from mouse embryos. His work is not affected by Bush's policy.

"It's kind of like comparing a souffle from Julia Childs to one from me. They both look like a souffle, they both taste like a souffle, but they're going to be different."

More than 120 stem cell lines around the world have been created with new technology since the president's announcement. Some have built-in genetic characteristics that allow scientists to study how specific diseases develop. These are off-limits to researchers working with federal dollars."


And of course, this -

http://www.junkscience.com/dec04/jsa200402.htm

[fredster]

S. Korea has funding for more diverse research and they are making some pretty incredible discoveries.

So, I'd bet they'd sell it, what do you think? 

I guess what you telling me that it's okay to kill babies and take their organs and cells for your own good? 

(That's the basis of the ban you know...)

[saint]

And this...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/16/bush.stemcells.tm/index.html

"The bill contains a number of safeguards aimed at ensuring that it would apply only to embryos that would otherwise have been discarded. It stipulates that the embryos must have been created by individuals seeking fertility treatment and who then discovered that they had produced "in excess of the clinical need." It also requires that those donors give permission for the embryos to be used in stem-cell research, and forbids them from receiving any compensation.

As things look now, the bill has a good shot. By the end of last week, 200 members of the House--nearly half--had signed on as co-sponsors to the legislation authored by Delaware Republican Mike Castle and Colorado Democrat Diana DeGette. And the number of supporters is expected to grow when it is put to a vote. "

I'm not sure I see a downside here. Based on these guidelines, this is genetic material that would otherwise be discarded in most cases. I don't follow Bush's reasoning in threatening a veto. Note: There are many times when I don't agree with Bush's policies, but I can understand his reasoning. This time I don't understand what he's objecting to. Based on these guidelines there's no new genetic matter being created for stem cell research, just material scavenged for stem cell research. Objecting to the use of the excess material without objecting to the creation of the material in the first place (infertility treatments) doesn't make any sense to me.

--- saint

[fredster]

I don't follow Bush's reasoning in threatening a veto.

That's pretty simple.

A lot of people believe that any use of any embyros or fetal material is equal to killing babies and children.  Any use of this material was derived from abortions or "un-natural" creation of life.

Tampering with embyos and creation of fetal cells is "evil" by many people's standards.

That's the "downside". 

[saint]

If that's the basis for the ban (and I'm taking you at face  value, if I missed tongue-in-cheek let me know), then why hasn't he banned the stem cell research (or at least federal funding therefore) totally?

As far as I understood, the defense to protests against Bush's ban was that he hadn't banned research, just funding for new stem cell lines. That he hadn't banned research on existing stem cell lines.

<edit - spelling>

I guess what you telling me that it's okay to kill babies and take their organs and cells for your own good? 

(That's the basis of the ban you know...)

[saint]

Well yes, I understand that argument. But that doesn't seem to be the argument in question. The argument in question seems to be the source of stem cell material for research, not whether or not stem cell research should be  allowed.

Every defense of his policies I've ever heard have been that he's allowing research, just not new harvesting of embryonic stem cells. The distinction being that he's not anti-research, just anti-harvesting. The genetic material creating embryonic stem cells is created all the time in infertility research, and then quantities of it are simply discarded. Why not allow them to be used for research, if you allow the research on the existing stem cell lines? What am I missing?

If he believes it's morally wrong to do stem cell research, then he should have taken steps to ban or regulate it altogether. If he doesn't object to the research then I don't understand his objection to the source (being material already created that is normally just discarded). If he wants to regulate the research then again he can regulate research on new material as well as existing material.

--- saint

I don't follow Bush's reasoning in threatening a veto.

That's pretty simple.

A lot of people believe that any use of any embyros or fetal material is equal to killing babies and children.  Any use of this material was derived from abortions or "un-natural" creation of life.

Tampering with embyos and creation of fetal cells is "evil" by many people's standards.

That's the "downside". 

[fredster]

Saint,

Logically, you are right.

If he believes it's morally wrong to do stem cell research, then he should have taken steps to ban or regulate it altogether.

  I don't think he objects to the research.  Bush is just trying to restrict the sources.  He wanted so appeal to his base.

However, let me restate - " lot of people believe that any use of any embyros or fetal material is equal to killing babies and children.  Any use of this material was derived from abortions or "un-natural" creation of life."

That means these people want no more embyronic stem cells created or harvested by any means for any reason.   zero tolerance for killing babies is the key here. 

Not many people have any moral problems with using adult cells.

I have need of stem cell research also.  I don't agree with the total restriction, but I understand the motivation.

[saint]

However, let me restate - " lot of people believe that any use of any embyros or fetal material is equal to killing babies and children.  Any use of this material was derived from abortions or "un-natural" creation of life."

That means these people want no more embyronic stem cells created or harvested by any means for any reason.   zero tolerance for killing babies is the key here. 

Now that argument I fully understand. Not sure I agree (or disagree, I'm uncertain as to when life begins), but it's certainly one I can understand.

[Crazy Cooter]

The distinction being that he's not anti-research, just anti-harvesting.

I think that's a good description of Bush's policy.  The "problem" with it being some lines have mutated to the point that they have become unusable for accurate research.

Do we have to come together and define the point at where life begins before we can compete with the S. Koreans (I doubt this will ever happen)?  What about using the information they discover?  With the potential this research has, and the information currently being gathered, I see it similar to the "nuke" discussion.  Having a nuke requires great responsibility and definately adds to your countries military strength.  Stem Cell research also requires great responsibility and adds to your "medical strength".  I just wonder if we (the US) are going to completely fall behind as far as medical stuff goes.  Or will we get the information on the "black market" (so-to-say; which I think would be considered by most just as "bad" as doing the research ourselves)?

As a related topic, there is a short chronology of some of the human experiments that have been done (quite interesting actually):
http://www.ahrp.org/history/chronology.php
The site is biased, but provides a quick list for further research into the topics.

[shmokes]

Fredster, do you think that Merck and Phizer and research labs at private schools don't receive public funding for their research?  Just because Pfizer releases a new miracle drug it doesn't mean there wasn't grant money that led to that breakthrough.  It doesn't mean that the breakthrough wasn't the product of publicly funded research that Pfizer purchased from a university.  You seem to think that just because private companies are allowed to spend their own money on something that the case is closed.  The fact is that no matter how you dice it, this means that there is less money for stem cell research overall.  Less money for government research facilities, less money for private facilities.
 
There isn't wall built between private and public entities precluding overlap between the two.  Imagine applying your logic to roads.  Lets say that Bush pushes legislations through that says that no government funds are allowed for roadwork anywhere in the country, but the private companies that already do all of our roadwork are still allowed to continue doing it if they want to.  Do you really think this would have no appreciable affect on the quality of our roads?  The private companies that build and maintain our freeways receive public funds.

[daywane]

My brother and his wife just had there 1st child 1 year ago in March.
they had a sample of the umbilical cord saved for stem cell.
I think the cost is someting like $100.00
maybe be a yearly fee. ( not sure )
from what I know... diabetes will soon be a thing of the past

[jbox]

Do we have to come together and define the point at where life begins

Those lines in the sand have been drawn for a very long time now already.

What about using the information they discover?

Now that's the interesting question isn't it? Should governments ban doctors/researchers from utilising information that was achieved via unethical means?  Just because "someone else did it", does that relieve us of our burden when using that information? If the government was scaled back tomorrow so that all of the medical infrastructure was privately owned, would it then be automatically ok for me to go to a hospital for treatment? Can we ever draw a line somewhere between encouraging amoral activity and not letting their sacrifices go to waste?

[DrewKaree]

How do you use the information gotten by amoral means without encouraging that activity?

Since moral boundaries vary from person to person, I don't believe it to be possible to use that information without someone, somewhere saying to themselve "well I don't have a problem with that", and going ahead with their tests because it personally isn't a hangup for them.  Anyone remember the family that had a kid with some liver/heart/something disease that had another kid SOLELY for the purpose of using an organ of that child to save the first? 

It's one of the reasons this IS such a large issue.

The bigger question is this:  Why the push for embryonic stem cells when currently available adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells  are producing at least the same results?  We have options to do stem cell research that don't require the creation and destruction of embyros and those stem cells have/will/can/are been used with no problems. 

The sticking point seems to be the embryonic part before this, because the U.S. government has set some standards.  The U.S. government won't fund abortions on demand, although it can be done privately.  Essentially, to create the embryo is to attempt to create life.  The attempt is made for the sole purpose of destroying them to be used in research.  Some folks view it as life, and as the earliest abortion possible. 

[DrewKaree]

We've had the morality discussion, now we can have another discussion about Stem Cells.

Are we losing the "race" for this knowledge?

This still hasn't changed, it still IS a morality discussion. 

Moms around the world have stated it perfectly well.  "Well, if Jimmy told you to jump off a bridge, would you do THAT too?"

Just because they've done it and may be "winning" in a "race for knowledge", why does it behoove us to jump in and join the race?  Hitler won "the race" in figuring out whether or not certain chemicals were deadly to humans....should we have jumped into THAT experimental test program too?  Just because another country has done something doesn't REQUIRE the U.S. to do the same thing simply because "they did it first".  That "catch up" line of reasoning is silly.

Fredster, do you think that Merck and Phizer and research labs at private schools don't receive public funding for their research? Just because Pfizer releases a new miracle drug it doesn't mean there wasn't grant money that led to that breakthrough. It doesn't mean that the breakthrough wasn't the product of publicly funded research that Pfizer purchased from a university. You seem to think that just because private companies are allowed to spend their own money on something that the case is closed.

If it's something the federal government WON'T fund, then no, they DON'T receive federal funding for their research.  There MAY be grant money given to a separate study/test that may lead to a breakthrough, but NOT FOR SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT WON'T FUND.  Interesting twist on it, shmokes, but you're intermingling private, federal, and state funding and essentially stating that government funding is going to stuff it isn't allowed to be used for. 

Currently, there IS private funding going on for this, as well as the federal government has laid down guidelines for what it IS willing to fund.  Your roads analogy is silly.  If the FEDERAL government didn't give money to the states, then the STATES would take care of the roadwork.  As it stands, the STATES can do whatever they wish, as they already do with roads.  Demonstrate the effectiveness of the most beautiful roadways in the nation in West Virgina having ANY effect whatsoever on the local economy there, as those roads are a direct result of FEDERAL funding, while in Illinois, some of the worst roads in the nation exist.  You're comingling all public funding in your argument, and ignoring the fact that without ANY public funding, we'd still find a way around the issue, perhaps even cheaper, since government at any level would be taken out of the price-setting of roadwork.  Removing government from setting or obtaining pricing for something invariably results in lower pricing because there isn't a "payoff" to someone for a political contribution.

People also don't have MORAL problems with bad roads, which you've dismissed entirely for whatever reason. 

[allroy1975]

That means these people want no more embyronic stem cells created or harvested by any means for any reason.   zero tolerance for killing babies is the key here. 

doesn't  "zero tolerance" mean there is no tollerance for it?  It's not allowed?  at all?

I'm not very smart..but ..aren't we talking about abortions here?  they don't take away screaming babies right after the mother gives birth (after the full term..you konw...with all the huffing and puffing and pushing etc) and kill them, right?  That's a baby, right?  you're not allowed to kill a fetus.  Right?  but you are...right?  just as long as the person who's having the abortion puts the fetus in the trash can it's okay...right?  just don't use it for anything that could potentially help others in the future..right?

like I said...i'm not very smart...I get confused easily.  someone please explain this so I can understand it or maybe I should just stop reading the complicated threads.

Allroy

[DYNAGOD]

not for nothing ,but isnt this what international waters are good for???
 go get some pregnant crack whores who want an abortion, offer them 10 grand each and move them out to a multi million dollar floating  medical facility where the god police cant bother you, and conduct stem cell research till the cows come home!     
just go a couple miles off the coast and its monkey knife fights and stem cells for everyone!!       
      

[Crazy Cooter]

The bigger question is this:

[fredster]

The private companies that build and maintain our freeways receive public funds.

Not a bad idea.  I think they are doing that in Washington DC aren't they? 

I don't agree with the stem cell issue either.  I'm just saying what I hear from some of the anti-stem cell people I know personally.

If it's human fetal cells, regardless of where they come from, it's an abomination to them.  Zero Tolerance means none allowed under any circumstances.

We hear a lot of crap coming from that arena, but we haven't seen any treatments. Stem cell reseach has been going on for some time, but what tangible results have we seen so far?  I think it's worthy to note a lot of people have a lot of money on the line here.

They're not.  Doesn't the S. Korean's discoveries demonstrate this?

And what was that discovery?  That they could make more?  That they could clone?  Did it cure Parkinson's disease or Huntington's disease?  No.  It just proved they could make more didn't it?

Fredster, do you think that Merck and Phizer and research labs at private schools don't receive public funding for their research?

Pfizer and  Merck are multi-national companies.  Let the German's pay for it right?  Why is it that the US has to pay for all the research?  We have discussed this in former threads about the cost of medicine. 

just as long as the person who's having the abortion puts the fetus in the trash can it's okay...right?  just don't use it for anything that could potentially help others in the future..right?

1/2 right. If the people that have influenced Bush to go this route have thier way, then a person won't be able to have a fetus thrown in a trash can.

Abortions go back to the 1960 level.

[Dartful Dodger]

just go a couple miles off the coast and its monkey knife fights and stem cells for everyone!!

[Crazy Cooter]

And what was that discovery?

[Dartful Dodger]

DD, you didn't follow the link I posted for human experimentation did you?

[fredster]

That means any new tissue derived from that patient's cell line can be injected into that individual without triggering an immune reaction. If researchers can figure out how to fix the original defect, they may someday be able to generate replacement tissue that is custom designed to treat the patient's condition. Or at least that's the dream. No one knows yet whether those stem cells can be safely used in people.

[DrewKaree]

The bigger question is this:  Why the push for embryonic stem cells when currently available adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells  are producing at least the same results?

They're not.  Doesn't the S. Korean's discoveries demonstrate this?

It's demonstrated that they're capable of cloning the cells.  It doesn't answer the question I posed at all. 

Just because they've done it and may be "winning" in a "race for knowledge", why does it behoove us to jump in and join the race? Hitler won "the race" in figuring out whether or not certain chemicals were deadly to humans....should we have jumped into THAT experimental test program too?

We did!

I'll be more specific and gruesome for you, since you missed it.  Should we have jumped into that experimental test program to see if wiping out the Jewish population was a good idea?

You missed the glaring point.  The "tests" Hitler was conducting had nothing to do with science, but they WERE providing him with knowledge.  Did you miss that, or are you equating your examples with the genocide program Hitler wished to carry out?  His "experiments" had noble purposes too.  The "master race" was gonna be pure, have all the problems of the inferiors solved. 

not for nothing ,but isnt this what international waters are good for???
 go get some pregnant crack whores who want an abortion, offer them 10 grand each and...

This from the guy who says the Bible makes people ignorant?  So how long have you been reading it?

[Crazy Cooter]

Adult Stem Cell results: Most mutate when cloned beyond being usefull.
Embryonic Stem Cell results: Not only do they clone well, they can form multiple "adult" cell types.

How are these results the same?

I didn't miss the point of the Hitler comment.  You asked if we should have jumped in on human experimentation.  We did before, during, and after.  We are still doing it.  http://www.ahrp.org/history/chronology.php  I doubt anyone is going to stand up and defend Hitler or the Nazi regime (at least I hope not).

Or at least that's the dream. No one knows yet whether those stem cells can be safely used in people.

We've put monkey and pig parts in people.  We've put people parts in people.  M.I.T. has taken Stem Cells and placed it next to heart tissue and watched it adapt and start to beat.  IMO, the possibility probability of this working in humans is quite good.  Any "new treatment" is unknown at the start.  Somebody somewhere eventually tries it.  That somewhere might just be S. Korea and if it works... do we want US citizens flying out of the country to seek medical treatment?  There are enough that already do that.  I just think the US will have no choice but pick this up if we want to maintain a position near the top of the medical profession.

[DrewKaree]

Adult Stem Cell results: Most mutate when cloned beyond being usefull.
Embryonic Stem Cell results: Not only do they clone well, they can form multiple "adult" cell types.

How are these results the same?

I'm wondering how that tangent is somehow an answer to the original question posed.  I'll repost it:

The bigger question is this:  Why the push for embryonic stem cells when currently available adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells  are producing at least the same results?

What you've just done is tell us that while most adult cells may not be useful when cloned, there still are adult cells that ARE useful, which yet again, leads back to the question posed above. 

Maybe you're unclear on "the same results".  The testing they are doing on stem cells.  Adult/embryonic/umbilical.  None have demonstrated any more magical powers than the other types, progress IS being made with types OTHER than embryonic, and private funding can be used if embryonic tests wish to be done. 

The question remains.

I didn't miss the point of the Hitler comment.

Sure you did.  The human experimentation was to see how many they could kill, not test things out on.  The point was so glaringly obvious you passed it right up.

[Crazy Cooter]

None have demonstrated any more magical powers than the other types, progress IS being made with types OTHER than embryonic, and private funding can be used if embryonic tests wish to be done.

[shmokes]

Pfizer and  Merck are multi-national companies.  Let the German's pay for it right?  Why is it that the US has to pay for all the research? 

The U.S. doesn't have to pay for all the research.  But as an American I'd like America to stay ahead of Korea technologically.  I want to be the innovator selling the fruits of our research around the world, rather than buying it from the innovators in Korea.

What can I say....call me patriotic.

[Dartful Dodger]

I want to be the innovator selling the fruits of our research around the world, rather than buying it from the innovators in Korea.

What can I say....call me patriotic.

Are you an MD now?
Are these policies stopping YOU from developing this research?

I think what you meant to say is:

I want the USA to pay for a Korean studying medicine at a College in the US to develop this technology, so he/she can go back to Korea and give it to his/her government so the USA can pay for it twice.

What can I say....call me a liberal

[fredster]

The U.S. doesn't have to pay for all the research.

That's my point.
Let's see what these guys can do.

[shmokes]

Well...I hadn't looked at it from that angle, Dartful.  I suppose I can't argue that.  These policies, in fact, do nothing to stop me, a political science/information systems college student, from developing stem cell research.  How can I complain about a policy that doesn't expressly keep political science majors and computer geeks from working with embryonic stem cells.

Well people, wrap it up.  It's all over.  It looks like Dartful Dodger has bested us all with his uncanny grasp of the irrelevant.

[DrewKaree]

"Ignoring President Bush

[Avery]

Are you an MD now?
Are these policies stopping YOU from developing this research?

I'm a research scientist for a major pharmacutical company and can point at people who would be dead right now were it not for projects I had a hand in.   

Got a self righteous spin for that one?

[Avery]

"The bill contains a number of safeguards aimed at ensuring that it would apply only to embryos that would otherwise have been discarded.

In fact, UNDIFFERENTIATED stem cells are only around for a few divisions.

[Dartful Dodger]

I'm a research scientist for a major pharmacutical company and can point at people who would be dead right now were it not for projects I had a hand in.

[shmokes]

Yikes!

...Dartful's pulling out the typo attack.  How will Avery possibly recover from that one?

[Avery]

Wow, you're right shmokes, I'm way back in the corner now.  Any move I make from here and he'll slam me with something like, "Goering was a ham fisted typist too, you know".  That'd be a double Gershwin spell check on a double word score.

[shmokes]

I don't buy this business about people seriously considering these things to be a human life that we must protect at all costs from destruction.  It doesn't follow.  For one thing, if people really considered these things humans who cannot protect themselves, why do we allow them to sit around in freezers.  Why don't we set up a public insurance program, or make medicaid apply to them.  They, afterall, have no parents.

And even if they are humans, we certainly don't have qualms about sending humans to war for the greater good of society.  We know for a fact that some, tens of thousands even, will die.  These are humans who are self aware and have families and careers and aspirations.  We even believe in drafting these people and forcing them to go to their deaths for the good of the country as a whole.  How can you say that it is okay to send a soldier to his death, but that an embryo must be protected at all costs? 

Is cancer not as great a threat as Vietnam or Iraq?

[Grasshopper]

I always think it's a bit odd that pro-life supporters insist that a bunch of cells in a test tube with no central nervous system is definitely of equivalent worth to a fully formed human being, and yet many of them are quite happy to eat meat.

Based on the available evidence, I believe it is far more likely that a complex mammal such as a pig (which is actually fairly genetically close to a human) is conscious and aware of its own existence than a bunch of cells in a test tube. For a start the pig has a central nervous system, and acts in a manner that suggests at least rudimentary intelligence.

I'm not actually a vegetarian myself but if you're going to apply an extreme precautionary principle to protecting all (possibly) conscious life, then there does seem to be an inconsistency between some people's attitudes towards animals and the stem cell/abortion issue.

[Dartful Dodger]

I always think it's a bit odd that pro-life supporters insist that a bunch of cells in a test tube with no central nervous system is definitely of equivalent worth to a fully formed human being, and yet many of them are quite happy to eat meat.

I always think it's a bit odd that vegetarians, who are pro-death, insist that a human egg isn't a life.  These people will eat cheese and other animal byproducts, yet many of them are against eating eggs.

There does seem to be an inconsistency between some people's attitudes towards the animals' unborn and humans'.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There does seem to be an inconsistency between some people's attitudes towards the animals' unborn and humans'.

Here's a solution: How about we outlaw abortions, but then feed all the unwanted babies to fertile wild animals (infants are rich in protein!), then harvest the animals stem cells and use them in human experimentation in order to create disease-free mutant hybrid ani-people?

Right-to-lifer's get their births, the Peta people get happy, well-fed animals, and the progressive scientific community gets humans imbued with super-human animal skills! Everybody's happy!


mrC

[Crazy Cooter]

"The bill contains a number of safeguards aimed at ensuring that it would apply only to embryos that would otherwise have been discarded.

In fact, UNDIFFERENTIATED stem cells are only around for a few divisions.  Shortly thereafter inside and outside are defined.  An embryo prepared the normal way will NEVER yield undifferentiated stem cells.  You couldn't find it in time.

So fertility clinic freezer babies won't work?  They'd be too far developed?

[Avery]

I don't think they allow more than a few divisions before they freeze them.  I don't know when, but at some point your going to run into the same problems that keep NASA from freezing people to send them to Mars.