Stem Cell Research

March 31, 2006

Stem Cells SCR is all the rage as the new hope of the medical industry. It’s pretty cool technology that you should be familiar with.

The hubbub about SCR seems to come from the conservative right which has a problem using fetuses to “harvest” stem cells. The conservatives are quick to point out that stem cells can be obtained from after birth placentas & even some teeth.

A quick review of SCR flash presentation will demonstrate that doctors are taking stem cells from babies when they only are 5 cells.

Which begs the question, When does a fetus have a soul? Or when does a group of cells constitute a fetus? a baby? I think there are three distinct stages of fetal development to look at.

Weeks 40-32 the baby has fully developed and can be born with relatively low risk. The Bible certainly makes a case that babies in this time frame would have a soul. Luke 1:39-45 39At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!”

Weeks 32-20. Week 20 is the start of brain development & most organs have been formed. Does a fetus have a soul at this time? I think so. A pattern of development has been set forth by DNA. I would argue that the map DNA provides is created by God and a 20 week old fetus would have a soul.

Weeks 0-12 is known to be the riskiest time for fetus progression. This is why most couples wait three months prior to making a pregnancy announcement. Miscarriage is pretty common these days. The fetus is a conglomerate of random cells that have just started growing.

Do 5 cells constitute an unborn child? Personally I’m not sure. I hope you’ll post an opinion. At the end of the day we could be curing a great many ailments with stem cells but because doctors are being stubborn about using the cells of placentas and teeth and the conservative right is stubborn about giving in to the debate, more people are dying and suffering needlessly.

March 31, 2006 | Filed Under Politics

Comments

11 Responses to “Stem Cell Research”

J-Dub on March 31st, 2006 11:56 am

This is quite a conundrum. The interesting thing about embryonic stem cell research is that they use embryos (already fertilized and multi-celled) from fertility clinics. Typically, when a couple undergoes in-vitro fertilization, several eggs are fertilized. As the eggs develop, some are inserted in the womb while others are discarded. Scientists just want to use the embryos that were going to be discarded anyway. So if Embyonic Stem Cell Research is morally unacceptable, isn’t in-vitro fertilization also morally unacceptable?

It’s a tough question. I for one would tend to believe life starts at conception. However, that would support the conclusion that in-vitro fertilization is a sin, which I’m not sure I agree with. So what am I saying? I guess my position is that if federal financial assistance went towards embryonic stem cell research, I wouldn’t make a big deal about it. If the administration continues to not support the research, I can understand that as well.
Lis on July 17th, 2006 3:43 pm

The U.S. Senate will vote on three important bills dealing with stem-cell research and cloning beginning Tuesday, July 18. No amendments will be allowed for any of the bills. It will take 60 votes out of 100 for any one to pass, otherwise they will be dead for the remainder of the year.

Of the three bills to be considered, H.R. 810, which would require federal funding of research using stem cells obtained by killing human embryos. S. 3504 - the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act - which would make it a federal crime for a researcher to use tissue from a human baby who has been gestated in a woman’s womb - or an animal womb - for experimentation and S. 2754 - the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act - which would encourage scientists to seek ethical stem-cell alternatives.
Anastasia on July 21st, 2006 3:16 am

Schwarzenegger gives $150M stem cell loan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_stem_cells
Dr. "S" on August 7th, 2006 11:16 am

Here is the churches take.

Hey Brian,

I was giving a lot of thought to one of the topics we last spoke on, namely, when does the soul come into ones “body”, during their physical development?

I think we, as human beings and children of the great and merciful Lord, have to understand that God, in His ineffable wisdom, reveals to us that which He wishes when the time is right to each of us. St. Maximus the Confessor, writes; “If, according to the Apostle, ‘Christ dwells in our hearts by faith,’and ‘all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him,’ then all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in our hearts. They are revealed to the heart in proportion to each one’s purification by the commandments.”
This being yet another example of fruitful faith.

Lastly, during my spiritual reading, I came across an excerpt from St Ambrose, who writes; “…I will prove… that men have existed before they were born… Jacob, who while yet hidden in the secret chamber of his mother’s womb supplanted his brother… Jeremiah likewise existed before his birth to whom the message comes: ‘Before I formed you in your mother’s womb, I knew you; and before you came forth from the belly, I sanctified you, and appointed you for a prophet among the nations’ (Jer. 1:5). What testimony can we have stronger than the case of this great prophet, who was sanctified before he was born, and known before he was shaped? What, again, shall I say of John, of whom his holy mother testifies that, while he yet lay in her womb, he perceived in spirit the presence of his Lord, and leaped for joy, as we remember it to be written, his mother saying: ‘For lo, as soon as the voice of the salutation entered my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy’ (Lk. 1:44).”

Later Bro.

Dr. “S”

p.s.
the Demetre dance are my patented moves, please, those of you at home, do not attempt them on the football field.
Stem Cell Misconceptions on August 8th, 2006 8:21 am

Hmmm………You know I’ll have to chime in on this one. Time to hear from a research scientist (me).

First off, raise your hand if you had heard about embryonic stem cell research before about four years ago.

What, nobody?!?!

There’s a reason for that. You see, adult stem cells had been used for years to treat many diseases and health problems; embryonic stem cells had fizzled worse than cold fusion. The best case scenario after years and years of private research with embryonic stem cells is tumor-ridden, cancer-infested rats in laboratories. The best case scenario with adult/umbilical cord stem cells has been limitless advances in medicine.

So what happened? Let’s review….

You’re an investor looking to invest a significant amount of money into medical research. You are propositioned by two sets of research scientists. One of them is able to show you people and animals successfully treated with adult stem cells, and a history of success. The other group shows you no human successes, catastrophic animal tests, and speaks imaginatively and passionately about the potential to cure disease with embryonic stem cells. Who gets your money?

That’s right…..the team studying adult stem cells.

You’re not alone. This has been the pattern for years now. Nobody wants to put their money into bad science, and nobody wants to invest in dead research when similar research is experiencing booming success. So the lion’s share of funding has gone to adult stem cell research, as would be the logical investment. Embryonic stem cell researchers and companies, with no product to sell because of no successes, and with funding going to adult stem cell competitors because of their successes, are running out of money. So what do they do?

That’s right. You demand taxpayer dollars for your research!!!

So now there’s a need to feed from the public trough. Your field is becoming obsolete, and money is no longer coming in; why not ask the government for grants, they have lots of money!?!?!?!!

So here we stand today. Starved for cash and on the verge of becoming extinct, embryonic stem cell researchers now want welfare for their projects. Liberals, ever anxious to prove human life does not begin until it is both born and wanted, see a chance to tug at public heartstrings and desensitize people to life in the womb: we can cure cancer, Alzheimer’s, and baldness if you just let us harvest the fetuses! Really, we’ll start with the really young ones if it bothers you too much to see the arms severed!! It’s just a cluster of cells, after all…..

It’s like an eight-track tape company demanding taxpayer dollars to improve the sound quality of the ribbons: Really, we’ll produce as good or better of a sound as digital CDs if you just give us time and money and let us do our thing!!! If you don’t help us, we’ll go out of business and you’ll never know just what might come of further eight-track tape ribbon research!

It is dead science, it is unsuccessful science, and there is a better and very successful alternative already out there. There is, quite literally, no honorable reason for embryonic stem cell research, none. That is why in a competitive market it is going broke, and that is why they seek government welfare. If it is so promising and successful, there should be thousands of investors lining-up to fund the projects (just like with adult stem cell research); but even with their best sales pitches, the investors aren’t buying what they’re selling. That’s no accident.

The following post will address the in-vitro/life stuff……to be continued……
Titans on August 8th, 2006 8:36 am

I am very, very Pro-Life, but I do not have a problem with in-vitro fertilization, when done properly. By this, I mean that instead of having 100 embryos made, a couple or few should be made at a time and all be given the chance to be fruitful. The responsibility starts with respect for life, and yes life begins at conception.

Unless you can point out some other stage in development where you’re willing to say that - yes he/she is now alive, no they weren’t alive sixty seconds ago. I see no other point for this but conception.

The problem with the debates on these topics is that the liberal alternative is never really necessary.

1.) You don’t need 100 embryos at once for in-vitro fertilization.
2.) You don’t need embryonic stem cell research.
3.) You don’t need to publicly fund research that might – just might – be genocidal, and is considered such by millions of citizen taxpayers.

Our President may be an excessive spender, deaf on immigration issues, mute on defending himself and the administration, and ridiculously married to the “big tent” GOP philosophy, but he’s right on one thing:

We should always err on the side of life.

Bush is not preventing the funding of embryonic stem cell research – he is preventing welfare for embryonic stem cell research.

Pro-Lifers are not against in-vitro fertilization, they are against the mass production of unimplanted embryos which already are conceived with life.

My advice: if you see shades of gray on life issues, it’s only because you’re not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

God bless all of you!
–Titans (for the purposes of this post, call me “Stem Cell Misconceptions”)
Anastasia on August 28th, 2006 3:16 pm

I don’t think I commented on this topic!? Is someone else using my name?!

Comment by Anastasia — July 21, 2006 @ 3:16 am
It definitely would not have been at 3:16am either!
Lis on February 13th, 2007 4:21 pm

The debate rages on
Scientists clone mice from adult skin stem cells
http://newswire.rockefeller.edu/?page=engine&id=592
Lis on April 13th, 2007 9:04 am

The U.S. Senate voted 63-34 yesterday in favor of S. 5, which would allow federal tax dollars to be used as an incentive to destroy human embryos for stem-cell research. President Bush has promised a veto, and 67 votes were needed to override that veto.

In stark contrast to claims that embryonic stem cells hold the most promise for medical cures, a study published Tuesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association shows 13 young Brazilians with type 1 diabetes have been able to stop taking insulin shots, thanks to a promising treatment with their own stem cells — not embryonic stem cells.

Thankfully, President Bush opposes the legislation and said he would veto it. “This bill crosses a moral line that I and many others find troubling. If it advances all the way through Congress to my desk, I will veto it,” the president said in a statement after the vote.

Why does our tax dollars have to fund this research? After new technology is discovered the private sector will be the profiteers.
JO ANN FREEMAN on April 22nd, 2007 10:00 am

TO VETO THIS WOULD MEAN LOOSING ALOT OF PEOPLE WE
LOVE WHO COULD BENEFIT FROM STEM CELLS.
WE HAVE MEDICAL MIRACLES RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES, YET WE FEEL THIS IS WRONG.
LOOK AT IRAQ, BUSH IN KNOW WAY SHOULD BE HAILED AS A SAINT.
IT’S HYPOCRITICAL TO SAY THE LEAST.
DO UNTO OTHERS…

MAYBE WE SHOULD START THERE.
IF THESE EMBRYOS HAD NO POSSIBILITY OF LIVING, WHERE IS THE HARM? THE CELLS HAVEN’T EVEN FORMED BODYS.
GOD’S MIRACLE MAY BEGIN WITH LIFE BUT YET YOU DON’T KNOW HOW TO LET PEOPLE LIVE THEIR OWN. DO UNTO OTHERS…
Lis on November 20th, 2007 1:39 pm

Stem cell breakthrough uses no embryos

Scientists have made ordinary human skin cells take on the chameleon-like powers of embryonic stem cells, a startling breakthrough that might someday deliver the medical payoffs of embryo cloning without the controversy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_sc/stem_cells_9