T1B

88 wrote:Wolfman makes some good points. But I don't know whether randomness in terms of the origin of the stem cells is important. I think there are only a few lines available now for research, which means that they aren't particularly random.

420 wrote:Location: Oaxaca, Mexico


AP, are you really in Wa-hawk-a, Mexico???

I actually agree with a majority of your previous post

Atomic Punk wrote:

420 wrote:Location: Oaxaca, Mexico


AP, are you really in Wa-hawk-a, Mexico???

Yes, between the states of Oaxaca and Michoacan. I visit the Fresno area during all of the harvest seasons. The girls are smoking hot down here... if you like Latinas like I do.

Wolfman wrote: 2) If other sources of stem cells are more easily harvested (umbilical cords/placentas)--why go to all the trouble to have sperm and egg meet, etc ??

I have a feeling that this embryonic stem cell issue is tied into the abortion industry and that is the driving force behind it. Stop killing babies (and that is what we are doing in these late term abortions/infanticides) and maybe the majority of people will get on board as it were.

88 wrote:Wolfman makes some good points.

KC Scott wrote:Hint - Abortion and Stem Cells
Are Not
The SAME!!!

420 wrote: I've driven down to Oaxaca from Houston via the Pan American Highway on one of the 420 "World Tours" with the magic bus.

Nice drive, and I stopped in to see friends in Cuernavaca on the way. Have you been to Tasco?

What are you doing down there?

Tom In VA wrote:

KC Scott wrote:Hint - Abortion and Stem Cells
Are Not
The SAME!!!

In your opinion and not based on scientific law. In fact, as to whether or not a human life is involved in both cirumstances is arbitrarily based on appearance and function. But most of all desire.

Meaning, it's not a human life unless WE WANT IT TO BE a human life. In that respects, abortion and embryos used to harvest stem cells ARE the same.

That's the real bottom line.


Try to accept that as truth and fact based primarily on the facts I gleened from Mike's posts, rather than go on the attack.

Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors.They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. The blastocyst includes three structures: the trophoblast, which is the layer of cells that surrounds the blastocyst; the blastocoel, which is the hollow cavity inside the blastocyst; and the inner cell mass, which is a group of approximately 30 cells at one end of the blastocoel.

KC Scott wrote:There's the pro-life crap..

KC Scott wrote: Maybe you WANT IT to be human life, but the reality is it's test tube glop unless inplanted in a uterus.

War Wagon wrote:

KC Scott wrote:There's the pro-life crap..

Pro-life crap?

Why do you hate babies, Scott?

Atomic Punk wrote:

420 wrote: I've driven down to Oaxaca from Houston via the Pan American Highway on one of the 420 "World Tours" with the magic bus.

Nice drive, and I stopped in to see friends in Cuernavaca on the way. Have you been to Tasco?

What are you doing down there?

Never been to Tasco. In Michoacan there is a town called El Fresno. Maybe that's why there are so many Mexicans up there in Cali. Down here, I'm the mojado.

dumpater diver wrote:I have a feeling that this embryonic stem cell issue is tied into the abortion industry and that is the driving force behind it.

Mikey wrote:It's ignorant pro-life crap like this that makes me wonder if human race will have any chance to survive:

dumpater diver wrote:I have a feeling that this embryonic stem cell issue is tied into the abortion industry and that is the driving force behind it.

What possible motive would the "abortion industry" have to be the "driving force" behind "this embroynic stem cell issue".

At least this ignorance is coming from an old fuck who won't be around too much longer. My teenage kids are 1000% better informed than this. Maybe there is some hope for the future.

Atomic Punk wrote:Zy420,

I don't need no stinking badges.

I don't need to be impressed by the posers of the world. Dig?

Mikey wrote:It's ignorant pro-life crap like this that makes me wonder if human race will have any chance to survive:

dumpater diver wrote:I have a feeling that this embryonic stem cell issue is tied into the abortion industry and that is the driving force behind it.

What possible motive would the "abortion industry" have to be the "driving force" behind "this embroynic stem cell issue".

At least this ignorance is coming from an old fuck who won't be around too much longer. My teenage kids are 1000% better informed than this. Maybe there is some hope for the future.

mvscal wrote:

88 wrote:Please show me a study or give me some other reason to believe that if women were paid to provide blastocysts for medical research, the pool of women who would provide the blastocysts would represent a random, representative sample of our socio-economic strata.

Good point. Bottom feeders are the last people we need genetic material from.

88 wrote: ...tell me why outlawing late term abortions (which a huge percentage of the population supports, including people like me who do not object to very early term abortions)

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I see the Lab Rat is around this morning, so maybe he can answer a question for me. As I understand it, stem cells can replicate most any other kind of cells. Wouldn’t this make them the bestest option for breast augmentation? Just add a bunch more breast cells to existing breasts?

To be honest, we don't know what the hell we're doing with stem cells. Yeah, they're pluripotent and all that, but we haven't really got a grip on how all the genetic master-switches that determine what the cells turn into flip on and off. I've heard tales of them growing "ear" in a Petri dish but haven't had the time/interest to see if that's true. We don't know what the little buggers will do over the long term or what cell chemicals are needed to keep them from going all "hinky" (e.g., cancer, spreading to where they weren't supposed to go, etc.). That's one of the reasons, IMNSHO, we need to do more research. We don't really know if it'll work the way we want, but neither do we know if it's a dead end.

Your idea of using stem cells for breast augmentation sounds scientifically feasible...but I'm guessing that the "microscopic cell = full human being" folks would absolutely go apeshit if doctors used stem cells to make some stripper go up a cup size.

I have a great pic of a typical embryo used for stem cells that I cut out of a National Geographic article. It shows this little ball, sitting in -and dwarfed by- the eye of a frigging needle. I use the pic to show kids and their parents just what it is we're arguing about as a society. It turns out that a hell of a lot of scientifically-illiterate morons are running around thinking that we get stem cells from aborted fetuses or that the embryos look like little shrimplike critters. It doesn't change the mind of folks who believe that full human life begins at conception (and that's not my point in showing the pic), but it does better inform folks so that they stop spreading misconceptions/lies about what the embryos are and where they came from. Some folks have actually decided to go "pro-stem cell" once they face their misconceptions and see what the embryo looks like and know its source.