:wall:

 

By the time a woman gets an abortion, her baby has already differentiated enough that its stem cells are "adult" stem cells, not embryonic. A baby is an embryo for less than 6 days. Abortions cannot supply embryos for research, period.

 

My point exactly.

 

Abortion and the gay agenda have nothing to do with stem cell research, as myself and others have reasoned in several posts in this thread.

 

I agree.

 

Pretty much everyone's arguing from ignorance.

 

Why did you include gay agenda in my quote? I didnt put it there.

How does one harvest embryonic stem cells?

How does one harvest embryonic stem cells?

You trolling or curious?

How does one harvest embryonic stem cells?

You trolling or curious?

 

Curious obviously.

How does one harvest embryonic stem cells?

You trolling or curious?

Well, I'm hoping to make a point. But I'd like someone to clarify first.

The short of it -

Embryonic stem cells come from embryos. Usually at that stage, the baby is referred to as a "blastocyst" and resembles a ball of cells. This is about 4-5 days after fertilization, when normally the baby would be moving down the fallopian tubes into the uterus. To "harvest" cells, a scientist will "scrape" the insides of the blastocyst, or flatten it onto a petri dish.

 

Another technique is called budding - when the baby is only about 8 cells, the scientist will separate one of those cells and use that to grow stem cells. Getting into semantics, this process is still considered morally unacceptable since if budding happened in nature, identical twins would have formed. Also, in the research done to come up with this process, all of the hosts the cell came from were neglected and died.

 

The biggest source of embryos comes from the unused frozen leftovers of IVF. Usually this is between 6-100 embryos, usually less.

 

In order to have a theoretically feasible treatment using embryonic stem cells, about 8 million embryos are needed. Considering woman have fewer egg cells, embryonic stem cell treatment is not feasible.

 

 

I know I said otherwise earlier, but another source scientists would like to exploit for embryonic stem cells come from aborted female fetuses. The idea is to use all the egg cells in their ovaries for embryos, and it would "solve" the problem of the number of embryos needed.

So I know the topic has been focusing on embryonic stem cells, but stem cells are really cool in general:

 

Stem Cells reverse heart damage.

As promising as the article may seem, they are adult stem cells from THE SAME PATIENT. This is not a generic cure for all of us. I do like the results, though

 

Also, the advantage of a "true" stem cell would be that it able to repair all kinds of tisue damage, not just heart.

 

Another side not is that, in other studies, the new heart cells died and the treatment only was a temporal fix.

:wall:

 

By the time a woman gets an abortion, her baby has already differentiated enough that its stem cells are "adult" stem cells, not embryonic. A baby is an embryo for less than 6 days. Abortions cannot supply embryos for research, period.

 

My point exactly.

 

Abortion and the gay agenda have nothing to do with stem cell research, as myself and others have reasoned in several posts in this thread.

 

I agree.

 

Pretty much everyone's arguing from ignorance.

 

Why did you include gay agenda in my quote? I didnt put it there.

 

My sad attempt at humor.

Combined with my sad understanding capabilities, that's another 4 forum posts lost....