Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCI research for a cure – What kind of research do you support?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Steven Edwards
    Faye, are you implying that Gateway For A Cure is a religious organization? If so, I don't think they are. Their definition of SCNT is ... inaccurate and incomplete.
    No I'm not implying gateway for a Cure is a religious org. As a matter of fact they are associated with Dr. McDonald, but they do share the aversion of using "fertilized egg cells", similar to many of the religious folks I talk to.

    The religious folks I talk to much prefer using the eggcell as a growth medium for the adult cell nucleus to create patient matched tissue, even after I mention the word "cloning".

    I always add that if it weren't for cloning, none of us would be alive. After all the only reason we age and get wrinkles is because our cellular cloning process becomes somewhat defective.

    Comment


    • SCNT preferred over ESCR?

      Steven, let me give you an example of a catholic woman who has an easier time with SCNT than with ESCR from left-over blastocysts:

      Which is more pro-life: to destroy these embryos, which will never become children because they are not transplanted into a woman's womb? Or to give these embryos value by using them to advance life-saving research? I have to admit that I don't how to handle this ethical hot potato. But I can tell you that over the years, watching this disease take my life and the lives of my friends away little by little, sometimes makes me deeply question my own beliefs.

      So, this brings us back to the issue of cloning. The key to understanding the issue lies in the distinction between reproductive cloning -- which should be banned immediately -- and life-saving, therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is entirely moral, in agreement with the fundamental values of all of the major religions, and offers great promise for curing terrible, fatal diseases that affect young and old people alike. Therapeutic cloning will save lives; it cannot create them.
      http://www.cureparkinsons.org/stem.htm

      Comment


      • Joan Blessington Snyder prefers cord blood stem cell research, though.
        ...it's worse than we thought. it turns out the people at the white house are not secret muslims, they're nerds.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Steven Edwards
          Joan Blessington Snyder prefers cord blood stem cell research, though.
          Yup, she's suffering from stem cell confusion too

          as a Roman Catholic...
          who is both pro-life but also pro-stem cell research (altho i prefer cord blood research to embryonic), i have been walking a tightrope on the stem cell issue for years. i sometimes find myself playing devil's advocate to the different sides (for example, up at church, i find myself endorsing embryonic stem cell research and at the PAN forum, i was outspoken in my defence of cord blood research rather than embryonic). i don't do this as if i am playing games or just to be contrary but rather as a o/c urge to get to the bottom of all this rethoric about a culture of life vs. a culture of death.
          From Braintalk, a 43,000 member forum for people with CNS disorders: http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/index.php

          Seriously though, it's clear from my previous post that she prefers SCNT over other ESCR. She has ethical problems with ESCR on fetilized eggs, and would prefer UCB over that.

          However I do not see her having any problems whatsoever with the SCNT method of obtaining ESC's, if you read the link I provided in my previous post.

          Comment


          • Originally Posted by Wise Young

            , the cloning of embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer is quite controversial.

            Full post

            Wise.
            Here is another example of some religious person who's OK with SCNT, but not with ESCR from left-over blastocysts.

            state Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, believes that one form of embryonic stem cell research - somatic cell nuclear transfer - can be reconciled with committed, Republican, conservative pro-life politics.

            Somatic cell nuclear transfer, also called therapeutic cloning, involves removing the genetic material from a human egg cell, and then transplanting the full complement of genetic material from an adult cell, such as a skin cell. This unfertilized cell is electrically stimulated and then, scientists believe, can then be made to divide in the laboratory and then "teased," scientists hope, into any number of kinds of human cells. Those cells could then be used to treat any number of human diseases, theoretically.
            But can it be called a human embryo - a human clone, in other words - and does it have a soul?
            Eissler said he's been told by scientists that this technique does not yield a potential human being; for him, that puts it in ethically safe territory.
            "The dividing line is whether it's a human being or not," Eissler said. "I'm trying to learn the science. That's why I've latched onto somatic cell nuclear transfer; you have the chance to help people, and not tread on an ethical area.
            "I think you're a lot closer to destroying life within in-vitro fertilized embryos than in somatic cell nuclear transfer. I feel like it's a pro-life position trying to save these kids who have diabetes or paralysis."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Faye
              Yup, she's suffering from stem cell confusion too
              LOL x 3

              Comment

              Working...
              X