Promising stem cell research
Joe Carter looks at a breakthrough in stem cell research.
...scientists from Harvard and Wake Forest report that they have discovered a new source of stems cells that have the ability to create muscle, bone, fat, blood vessel, nerve, and liver cells in the laboratory. These newly discovered stem cells, which they have named amniotic fluid-derived stem (AFS) cells, may represent an intermediate stage--“halfway houses”--between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells.
Early research seems to suggest that the AFSC will have the benefits of ESC, without the drawbacks - both ethical and medical. Cures from these cells will not be derived from a destroyed human embryo. No cloning is needed to produce large quantities needed. So far, tumors have not been a problem.
If this research pans out, which who knows because medical research tends to oversell and underperform, should this not be the solution to the ESCR debate. Why go after a cure that is at best morally "gray," when there is a cure with no morally quandries?
If this bypasses the ridiculous objections of the Christian Right, I'm all for it. Hopefully, scientists can start doing real research on cures for sick people in need without having to worry about the stupid "every sperm is sacred" mentality of ignorance.
Posted by: Cineaste | 08 January 2007 at 06:34 PM
Cineaste,
Social conservatives will never abandon that absurd notion that every sperm, and every egg must be protected because all are bound to be children. All of them.
The other day, Sullivan wrote about parents who abort fetuses with Down Syndrome. I've tried to spark this before, if there is a "gay gene," surely social conservatives will endorse abortion, right? Because there's no chance they're going to accept that God must have created gays, and that they should be loved as a result.
Posted by: Sam | 09 January 2007 at 08:48 AM
Social conservatives will never abandon that absurd notion that every sperm, and every egg must be protected because all are bound to be children.
I, for one, hope you are wrong. However, as long as we have far left extremist pro-abortionists demeaning human life by declaring that we must keep abortion legal throughout pregnancy, rather than limiting abortions reasonably, we will have the opposite extremists telling us to save every zygote.
Me personally, as a conservative, I do believe that the fetus deserves protection, but that the point of personhood, legally speaking, does not have to be conception.
There are more moderate conservatives out here, those of us who don't blanch at the mention of John McCain, who don't feel that zygotes are much more than "a clump of cells" (NOTE: Once they begin differentiating, they are no longer such), and who would like to see contraception taught alongside abstinence.
I think that what we see in the electorate, on both sides, is a move back to the middle. Of course, on the left, the secularist/atheists will oppose the Dems in their party who are religious and not strict separationists. They will also oppose those who don't support abortion on demand. But again, they are the extreme.
On the right, the extremists (imho) are the "protect the zygote no fetal stem cell research" types (sorry Aaron ;). As long as we set clear guidelines for the types of cells that are *not* permissible to research on, I think we are fine. Also, btw, on the extreme right are those categorically against the right to die, against immigrant "amnesty" of any kind (like work programs), and Dominioinsts.
There, who didn't I piss off yet?
Posted by: seeker | 09 January 2007 at 02:02 PM