can researchers take stem cells without killing the unborn baby?

Question

or does it just kill the baby?

Answer 1

Stem cells don't come from babies, they come from blastocysts.

"Embryonic" stem cells is actually a misnomer. These cells come from blastocysts. which are developmentally younger than embryos.

Stem cells are derived from blastocysts that are left over after couples have had children using in vitro fertilization. For couples using in vitro fertilization, the woman has eggs harvested, which are then fertilized by sperm in a dish in the clinic. Eggs that are successfully fertilized are allowed to divide for 3-6 days, forming tiny balls of a 100 or so cells called blastocysts. These are frozen, and when the couple is ready, a few of these are implanted in the woman's womb.

After the couple has conceived, they must decide what to do with the left over blastocysts. Some couples pay to keep their remaining blastocysts frozen, but most left over blastocysts are simply discarded! These discarded blastocysts, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, could be used to derive stem cells. The lines that are approved by the Federal government were created when couples donated their unwanted frozen embryos to research.

The blastocysts are like tennis balls, solid on the outside, but hollow in the middle. Stem cells are found in a little lump inside that hollow ball. Researchers have found a way to crack the ball in half and remove the stem cells.

Stems cells removed from the hollow ball can never develop into a human. The hollow ball contains the instructions or blue print to create a human from the stem cells. Without the instructions, a human can never form.

Once the stem cells are removed and placed in a dish in the lab, they continue to make exact copies of themselves, called daughter cells. They will only make exact copies of themselves and nothing else until a researcher adds different chemicals, or molecular signals, that tell the stem cells to become something else. Once we understand what makes them become what ever cell type, be it heart, pancreas, liver, or spinal cells, we have exquisite control over the repair process, being able to replace the cell type we want with more of the tissue derived from stem cells.

Answer 2

DanE is right. The blastocyst does not constitute a baby.

But if you are of the opinion that a fertilised egg constitutes life, this presents part of the problem currently under debate. Actually, legislation has just been passed through the Senate allowing this research to go forward in Australia.

Stem cells are taken from the blastocyst which has not yet formed the notochord, which is the beginning of the nervous system and brain. The chances of the blastocyst finally forming a foetus is impossible without the nuturing environment of the uterus.

The blastocyst contains three primary germ layers that the researchers are interested in. Particularly the mesoderm, as this is the region of the blastocyst that gives rise to cells that will later differentiate into organ cells, like the heart, liver and pancreas.

Remember that many governments have legislated for the right of women to abort unwanted pregnancies. To disallow research on both unwanted embryo's or embryo's that have been produced by cloning etc would be both hypocritical of these governments, and naive.

Additionally, people are already able to use Assisted Reproductive Technology to overcome infertility, and in so doing give people the right to risk producing infertile offspring. How much debate did this generate before it was implemented? Very little.

There is much to be gained and hopefully lives to be saved as a result of stem cell research.

Answer 3

I completely agree with you. I find it interesting also that you are not a Republican. I myself am a Democrat and I am completely against embreyonic stem cell research. If scientists would just commit to trying to make advances with adult stem cells or cord blood stem cells, many of the diseases that they so often site could easily be cured without destroying human life. It is completely unethical to create life just to destroy it. Why should a human child have to die to save a person that has already enjoyed a full life. The assertion that an embreyonic cell is not human life is preposterous. Some day science will reach the point where a child will be able to survive outside the womb from even that point. I hate to say that I support Bush on anything, but I truely am glad about him vetoing the bill. Adult stem cell research must go forward, but embreyonic stem cell research is completely unethical.

Answer 4

Embryonic stem cells are also harvested from discarded blastocytes.

A blastocyst is a cell mass of about 100 cells or so, following the fertilization of a human egg cell.

Fertility clinics frequently make a half-dozen or so for each woman seeking In-Vitro Fertilization - IVF. Only one is implanted.

Extras are discarded. These are groupings of cells, a far, far cry from an embryo. It is because they have not yet differentiated into bone, blood, and muscle tissue is the reason scientists are interested in them.

There isn't a baby, so to speak. There is a grouping of cells that could become a baby, if implanted.

Answer 5

No need to kill the baby for taking stem cells.

Answer 6

Stem cells are taken from an umbilical cord..not a live birth baby...and the baby doesn't feel it...it is merely the tube that feeds the baby while in the womb

Answer 7

when you take certain vital nutrients the human body produces it's own stem cells naturally. These nutrients helps the body's natural stem cell production increase 1000% or more.

Medical scientists have known this for years.

Answer 8

If someone needs stem cells, they can get them epithelial, like a swab in the nose. Use your own, no need to use a baby's.

Answer 9

Latest engineer have to design those kind of bioengineering product for future research...that is my aim and objective as well.

Answer 10

it kills the baby; that's why conservatives are so against it. don't you think if researchers could do it without killing babies, then there wouldn't be debates in congress all the time?!