Stem cell research is so controversial because many are concerned that life will be destroyed...?

Question

...merely for the purpose of stem cell research. I'm not well-versed on the subject really but, out of curiosity, why couldn't we use the stem cells of a miscarried pregnancy for the same purpose? Or, is there an automatic assumption that since there was a miscarriage that there must've been a problem with the child itself and, therfore, the stem cells would be useless?

I apologize if I sound stupid....like I said, I'm not well-versed on the subject.

Tonalc, I can honestly say--having had several miscarriages myself--that if it were allowed, I would have gladly donated the stem cells so that a positive (potential cures, etc) could be derived from a negative (the loss of the baby). That's just me, though...

Answer 1

At the time a miscarriage occurs the embryo is already too old to yield any embryonic stem cells. So Far scientists have only been able to create embryonic stem cell lines out of embryos that are just a tiny ball of less than a hundred cells. As soon as the embryo implants into the uterus (a few days after fertilization) dramatic changes occur and the cells that can give rise to embryonic stem cells change so profoundly, they loose that capacity.

Answer 2

It appears that the only way to get a large enough supply of steam cells to do any meaningful research is to make "embryo factories" that create a large number of embryos of a predictable genetic lineage (probably from cloning) for the sole purpose of destroying them.

Apparently the number of embryos left over from fertility clinics and miscarriages are too few in number, too poor in quality (fertility clinics freeze the extra embryos which makes them weak), and are too much of a random mix of gene lineages (since they are left-overs, not purpose made), to do any meaningful research.

Most religious conservatives believe that creating and killing a new life just for the possibility of giving a few more years to an old person, who probably already had a full life, is unfair to the young embryos who never had their own shot at life.

-----edit----
I don't know about miscarriages, since I am not a doctor, but I assume that an embryo that had gone through a traumatic event such as this might not be strong enough to survive and create steam cells?

Interesting thought, though.

Answer 3

I would think it would be hard for the parents of a miscarriage to agree to donate the cells for research.

I'm not sure about the automatic assumption.

You don't sound stupid. It's an interesting question.

Answer 4

I think people need to get of the "feotus" hype, stem cells can be gathered from the placenta/umbilical cord as well, but they'd just rather have a blanket ban on the whole field rather than permiting those cells to be collected for research.

Answer 5

Oh please, we kill in the name of "freedom" every day. And these are grown human beings with a nerve system that can feel pain, with a family, with a developed brain. You're talking about a bunch of cells here. Every time Bush picks his nose he's destroying DNA.

Answer 6

It IS a complex problem...science, ethics, common sense (or lack thereof...)

This is a little lengthy, but decent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy