A "unique" service, indeed.
From http://www.stemlifeline.com/
"StemLifeLine is proud to offer a unique service to individuals who have undergone in vitro fertilization. Until now, there have been only three options for embryos remaining after individual childbearing needs have been fulfilled. They could be donated to research, given up for “adoption” to other couples or discarded. We provide a fourth option for these embryos which is to generate personal stem cell lines that can one day be used to create personal therapies.
StemLifeLine derives and cryopreserves stem cells from remaining stored embryos. Derivation of stem cell lines from human embryos is a highly sophisticated and delicate process which requires state-of-the-art cell culture facilities and a skilled staff.
Derivation basics
Stem cell derivation is a process that takes several months and entails isolating, growing and characterizing the stem cells from the embryo. Through the derivation process, StemLifeLine preserves the viability of the cells within the embryo by growing them as stem cells. The embryos are essentially transformed into the resulting stem cell lines. "
What those folks who seek these services probably doan know is that
they ain't had no success wif any embryonic stem cells--
all the success stories is wif' adult stem cells...so why does we need ter cannibalize baby embryos in hopes of gainin' immortality?
We'uns is headed into a cold wasteland. Soon enough, we'll be told why "inferior" children ought not live (as Dr. Peter Singer already advocates) and as manipulation fantasies multiply like rats, the definition of "inferior" will grow to include "conditions" such as pigeon toes an' singin' off key.
7 comments:
hi AB, i left a final comment on your previous post.
interesting post. not sure how you got from harvesting stem cells to deciding on the definition of inferior life ... nonetheless i guess the point is defying nature somehow in our silly, vain efforts to cheat death.
when we have so much of something, it becomes meaningless, doan it?
Ga-ROSS
I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED TO STEM CELL RESEARCH.
I can be very conservative at times and this is one of them.
I also want no surgery on my own body, do not wish to have anybody's organs transplanted into me, nor do I want to transplant myself into someone else. In addition, I do not want to donate blood, and would rather bleed to death than take anyone else's blood in me.
My family is horrified by my opinion on that topic, but that is how I feel.
Shoot, I hope that don't make me a Scientologist!!
Hey Red and Infini....
Serious stuff, this.
Aunty is a simple minded soul on this topic. Ain't no need ter use a living embryonic baby ter make spare parts fer others. It means youse in the bidness of creating life in order to destroy it fer its parts --techno-canibalism.
Red, Aunty cain't think of no definition of inferior human life-- there ain't no such a thang in my book. ALL human life is precious. But the marketers of bio-engineerin' dervices would have us think that some lives was inferior to others. Baloney.
No Contessa, youse no scientologist, youse jes' cautious.
I hopes ya goot a decent version of a lvin' will...they will farm ya fer parts if ya sign one of them standardized papers the hospitals shove at ya'.
Its semantics, perhaps, but, it seems to me you may take issue with the very creation of these embryos, outside of their natural development environment ~ i.e. in the lab. Since, originally the desire to create new life, where none could be naturally created, is what resulted in their development.
And, of course, one must consider the consequences of such a service. Like, did they consider what they would do with the leftovers? and the concept of leftover humanity ~ does that seem quite repugnant to anyone else but me?
It all brings me back to the short-sighted ways in which we continually try to cheat nature ~ defy life and cheat death. Using one life or lives to repair the deficits of another ... implicitly grades life on some sort of scale. Whether we acknowledge such or not.
I see myself as a vessel of creation, only its instrument, no its instigator ... and as such, NOT qualified to judge any life worthy, superior, inferior. When we make ourselves judges and graders of life, we fail miserably. My clinical background forces me to ask: "At what point does enhancement of life and extension of life expectancy (at either life's beginning or end) become an implicit judgement of life and its worth?
Just wondering out loud ...
Still, let's get back to the embryonic leftovers. If they get destroyed, does that constitute murder? And what of donating them to research? What does that constitute? What do we do with all these lives? Did we consider that before creating this depository of embryonic elements?
Regarding living wills ~ indeed, AB. Without a living will or a family member who will accurately communicate your wishes in the event you cannot, medical professionals must act to honour the ethics and laws governing their own profession. Medical professionals ~ when faced with a life or death crisis ~ have no obligation to search for living wills, or the like. They concern themselves exclusively with saving life.
I wonder, when does refusing lifesaving treatment become self-destructive? What happens when our desires ~ i.e our concept of what our life should be like - conflict with life, itself? Noam sayin'?
wow. this is a cheery topic. thanx for the drag down.
I doan normally cotton to them "slippery slope" arguments. But this one's worth a ponder.
I did a serious post today too. Must be the weather.
Artfulsub,
yeah--slippery slope arguments slide down easier when ya' git ter see the argument in actual practice--like this company's promo literature--I mean, they's jes' sayin' it right outloud!
I'se comin' over ter yore place to see what serious bidness ya' got goin' on over theah.
Post a Comment