Embryonic Hypocrisy

[Guest LadyC]

thoughtful, i never use wikipedia as a source for anything. ok, tell ya what... i can't do it tonight because i'm working on my church's website (and posting here while files upload), but i'll pull up some of the articles citing studies tomorrow, or tonight if i have time, and post them for you. k?

[forrestkc]

I have been pointing this out for over a year on here. IVF involves harvesting about 25 eggs or so, fertilizing all them, implanting a few, then either freezing the rest or just flushing them down the sink. How could one possibly be against Embryonic Stem Cell research, which would just use those otherwise discarded fertilized eggs, if they have no problem with IVF. Its a completely inconsistent position to have.

[Kansasdad]

When faced with the IVF solution my wife and I rejected it with out hesitation. We likewise reject embryonic stem cell research as well. Thoughtful, don't dismiss what Lady C is telling you. Really do some research and you will find nothing but problems after problems with embryonic stem cell research. If nothing else, it is wasting precious resources that could be spent on other stem-cell research that actually does have real potential.

God Bless,

K.D.

[Smalcald]

It is just a different world view.

If you don't believe that a human life starts at conception but at some other point, then yeah of course why would we not do these things. If you do believe that a human life begins at that point of conception which I do, then it has implications that I cannot ignore.

[Guest LadyC]

here are a few articles to start off with.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/08/...in2447355.shtml

Scientifically, all embryonic stem cells tend to become cancerous; they require permanent, dangerous, immunosuppressive drugs because the body rejects them as foreign; and they are difficult to differentiate into the needed type of mature cells. Non-embryonic stem cells, however, do not become cancerous; they are far less likely to cause rejection (especially the

youngest, including umbilical cord and amniotic/placenta); and they have been used therapeutically since the late 1950s (originally for leukemia) because they have the amazing ability to form the right type of mature cell merely upon being injected into a body that needs that type of cell.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/284/6/681

i've read this one before, but can't recall what it said, and i don't have the money to pay for it again.

http://www.leaderu.com/science/promisestemcell.html

A recent attempt to treat diabetes in mice using embryonic stem cells showed that the cells did not form insulin-secreting cells, but did form tumors. Experiments at treating Parkinson's disease in animals gave a slight benefit, but also killed 20% of the animals with brain tumors caused by the embryonic stem cells.

The scientific literature is filled with similar results, even after over 20 years of research with mouse embryonic stem cells. Cries for more human embryonic stem cell lines to be made available for federal funding are unjustified, as research on current lines shows insufficient evidence that they are either safe or effective. Proponents are playing on the emotions of the vulnerable--lacking facts and making empty promises.

In contrast, adult stem cells (including umbilical cord blood stem cells) have already shown effectiveness in treating disease. It may be surprising to know that there have been hundreds of quiet advances in adult stem cell research while the loud praise heaped on embryonic stem cells lacks scientific credibility.

http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html

Embryonic Stem Cell Advantages

1. Flexible