bones wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:09:30 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote:


We currently use cadaver tissue in medical research and have done so
for a long time. It is ethically, morally, and for many religions,
spiritually, plus legally permissable. Aborted fetus tissue is also
cadaver tissue -- why isn't it acceptable?


If the fetus tissue is cadvar tissue, then the aborted fetus, by
defintion, is an aborted human being.

I'm on the fence in some ways mainly because I do not know as much as
I should or could about the issue(s).. I have this sinking feeling
that many are being led to believe that this line of reseach, good or
bad, is leading to rapid profound cures that are just within our grasp
if only we had more money
From all that I have read I just don't think that this is the case and
there seems to be a bit of dishonsesty involved.

So just what do you think is the motivation behind the people who are
misleading the public? Is it a plot to cause more abortions? Sheesh.

BTW, stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. The least promising
ones (for research) come from adults, somewhat more promising ones come
from umbilical cords, and the most promising ones (and the ones that are
causing the controversy) come from excess blastocysts which are produced
in fertility treatments, and that would be otherwise discarded.

In fact, if you actually LISTEN to the responsible and knowledgeable
people who call for more stem cell research, they state up front that
treatments are years away. You recently had successful treatment for
cancer, which was wonderful. You looked GREAT at the Western Clave,
Harry. What if, say 30 years ago, we decided not to spend money for
cancer research because treatments were many years away?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.