NationStates Jolt Archive

That's a really good idea, actually. It would greatly increase the efficiency of creating stem cells and would boost supplies for medicinal and therapeutic use.

Locking women up during their period is the only good idea the OP has ever introduced to NSG.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070802/sc_nm/stemcells_dc;_ylt=AtE29s0TWxDf6rjsSWqH8Bus0NUE

Apparently, some researchers have found a way to trick a human egg into developing into an embryo without sperm and derive stem cells from that. Obviously this raises the question that "Is deriving stem cells from a non-fertilized human egg embryo tantamount to taking a life?" If so, I think we should dedicate a few states in the Midwest to housing the jails for all the women who routinely take the lives of unborn babies through menstruation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070802/sc_nm/stemcells_dc;_ylt=AtE29s0TWxDf6rjsSWqH8Bus0NUE

Apparently, some researchers have found a way to trick a human egg into developing into an embryo without sperm and derive stem cells from that. Obviously this raises the question that "Is deriving stem cells from a non-fertilized human egg embryo tantamount to taking a life?" If so, I think we should dedicate a few states in the Midwest to housing the jails for all the women who routinely take the lives of unborn babies through menstruation.

Since fertilized eggs have a 75% chance of being flushed out of the body instead of resulting in a pregnancy, I think this call is long overdue. Any woman who has had more than one period is a serial killer. *nod*

http://www.maj.com/gallery/Mikey-Ramone/Random/crap.png

Bad idea. That's all I have to say.

All women are mass murderers. I can believe is.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070802/sc_nm/stemcells_dc;_ylt=AtE29s0TWxDf6rjsSWqH8Bus0NUE

Apparently, some researchers have found a way to trick a human egg into developing into an embryo without sperm and derive stem cells from that. Obviously this raises the question that "Is deriving stem cells from a non-fertilized human egg embryo tantamount to taking a life?" If so, I think we should dedicate a few states in the Midwest to housing the jails for all the women who routinely take the lives of unborn babies through menstruation.
I think anyone who was making previous embryonic stem cell research out to be murder was unreasonable in the first place; if the embryos from abortion are going to be discarded otherwise, shouldn't they actually be PUT TO USE so that they can SAVE LIVES? What makes embryonic stem cells favourable over other stem cells in the first place is how they are UNSPECIALIZED, and for the cells to be unspecialized the embryo would have to be pretty early in development, which would imply that it'd be MUCH earlier in development than many aborted fetuses. The only "ethical dilemma" here is that of using the majority's tax dollars to fund something that supposedly only benefits a small minority of people, but even then it's a small minority that's rather vulnerable...

Vaginas are wonderful, magical places. I like them a lot. :)

Vaginas are wonderful, magical places. I like them a lot. :)

But of course, while you are "liking them a lot", the eggs in question probably do not remain unfertilized. :)

As to the OP, the question I have is are those embryos viable? Could they develop into babies? I am only curious to see if this means that human parthenogenesis is actually possible.

As to the use of stem cells, I say go for it. What I object to is parents who have a second child specifically to cull parts (blood, bone marrow, organs...) in what is too often a series of painful proceedures for a first child who has some genetic medical condition. If, instead, it were possible to use stem cells to help child number one so that child number two could live his or her own life without having to be an organ farm, then by all means, use whatever stem cells you can, either fertilized or non! Heck, if I were such a parent, and fertilized embryos were the way to go, I would happily provide THOSE.

As to the use of stem cells, I say go for it. What I object to is parents who have a second child specifically to cull parts (blood, bone marrow, organs...) in what is too often a series of painful proceedures for a first child who has some genetic medical condition. If, instead, it were possible to use stem cells to help child number one so that child number two could live his or her own life without having to be an organ farm, then by all means, use whatever stem cells you can, either fertilized or non! Heck, if I were such a parent, and fertilized embryos were the way to go, I would happily provide THOSE.

What? People actually do that? Nah, that's got to be an urban myth.

If so, I think we should dedicate a few states in the Midwest to housing the jails for all the women who routinely take the lives of unborn babies through menstruation.

I recommend Ohio, might improve it a bit.

I recommend Ohio, might improve it a bit.

I recommend Michigan, might improve it a bit. :p

I recommend Michigan, might improve it a bit. :p

As do I, I feel that Michigan would be greatly improved if they were to adopt such a policy.

I recommend Michigan, might improve it a bit. :p

Cheap imitation, that just sums up Ohio right there doesn't it?

Cheap imitation, that just sums up Ohio right there doesn't it?

Hey, at least we only have a 5.5% unemployment rate!

Hey, at least we only have a 5.5% unemployment rate!

Like I said, cheap imitation. You guys just can't go all the way. :p