Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

stem cells

Expand Messages
  • meanders2001
    Dear Les and all, the reasons for NOT breeding are explicitly evident in comparison to the counterpart. However, I would like to know the position of the
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Les and all,
      the reasons for NOT breeding are explicitly evident in comparison to
      the counterpart. However, I would like to know the position of the
      veehementers, and mainly the ones who see the No breed with No
      exception as a solution for Gaia, facing the question of researching
      the cure for degenerating deseases such Parkinson, Alzheimer, cancers,
      diabetes, illnesses leading to strokes and so on by the usage of
      embryos and umbilical chords.

      Are the veehementers against Science progressing towards this
      direction, believing that Medicine should not advance in terms of
      estimulating new human beings in order to prolong the life of the
      already existing ones?
      What if one of the veehementers or their beloved ones got some of the
      above mentioned health problems and the biggest hope was to receive
      some stem cells from a newcomer due to the lack of samples in donation
      banks and most of times because the chances of compatibility are found
      roughly within the family? Should the sick ones just live with the
      problem and let to die sooner even knowing that some new baby could
      give them average life-span?

      Sometimes, I get caught in this sort of dillema: wouldn't just one
      simple reason -saving a life of one you love who's just waiting and
      waiting a transplant of healthy cells- be enough to worth the generation
      of the promissing stem cell and umbilical chord and then, instead of
      being PRO-VHE, isn't the case of supporting some INvoluntary (better
      adding 'or reluctant'?) human (limited) perpetuation? -INVooRHuLP
      (that may be Dutch words to 'in for help')? Love, me.
    • Vishwas Thoke
      ... You mean is it okay to force a new life into existence just to save an existing one? And then to create yet another if this new life too develops the same
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "meanders2001" <meanders2001@y...>
        wrote:

        > What if one of the veehementers or their beloved ones got some of the
        > above mentioned health problems and the biggest hope was to receive
        > some stem cells from a newcomer due to the lack of samples in donation
        > banks and most of times because the chances of compatibility are found
        > roughly within the family?

        You mean is it okay to force a new life into existence just to save an
        existing one? And then to create yet another if this new life too
        develops the same complications and needs healthy stem cells? (which
        is very likely, since it is the same family)

        To me, that sounds very cruel.
      • meanders2001
        ... Dear Vishwas Thoke, No, I did NOT mean that it s OK, neither I suggested that the option of a new breed is simply to FORCE and JUST to save an existing
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "Vishwas Thoke" <vishwasthoke@y...>
          wrote:

          > You mean is it okay to force a new life into existence just to save an
          > existing one?
          Dear Vishwas Thoke,
          No, I did NOT mean that it's OK, neither I suggested that the option
          of a new breed is simply to FORCE and JUST to save an existing one.
          The point is that sometimes may occur that it is almost the only way
          to preserve someone's life that you judge to be worth to keep alive.

          >if this new life too develops the same complications and needs
          healthy stem cells? (which is very likely, since it is the same family)

          The idea of getting healthy cells within the family (and perhaps
          through a new breed) is no other that it's because there are huge
          guarantees of saving the existent life and you are wrong to suppose
          that a new breed would get same sort of problems. It seems you are not
          familiar with themes such deseases and transplantations; congenital
          factors; DNA expression; probabilities of compability. May I SUGGEST
          that you read more about stem cells and umbilical chord applications
          and you would eventually realize that transplants of this case can be
          debatable as one of least stressfull(social/environmental/financial/
          emotionally, etc speaking) solution at the tally.

          > To me, that sounds very cruel.
          What sounds cruel is that aparently you were capable to consider only
          the possibility of failures of the new breed and no other points of
          my original post did touch your sensibility. Love, me.
        • Les U. Knight
          ... direction, believing that Medicine should not advance in terms of estimulating new human beings in order to prolong the life of the already existing ones?
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            >Are the veehementers against Science progressing towards this
            direction, believing that Medicine should not advance in terms of
            estimulating new human beings in order to prolong the life of the
            already existing ones?<

            I can't speak for everyone, but since this therapy doesn't require
            additional breeding, I see nothing wrong with using aborted embryos
            and umbilical chords to save existing lives. Some VHEMTers object to
            treatments extending life expectancy but that's a separate issue from
            VHEMT. I think increasing life expectancy is a minor factor in our
            excessive density.

            The latest figures for the US have just been released by the CDC, and
            we're living slightly longer than before.

            In terms of human impact years, one new US human is 77 years.
            Foregoing one of those is the same as increasing the lifespan of 20
            people by nearly 4 years each. It seems to me that avoiding
            conception is far more effective in improving our desnsity than dying
            early.

            Les
          • Vishwas Thoke
            ... Oh no, I perfectly understood your point there. I concede that I am not aware of the stem cell research fully. But yes, I always consider the negatives
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > What sounds cruel is that aparently you were capable to consider only
              > the possibility of failures of the new breed and no other points of
              > my original post did touch your sensibility. Love, me.

              Oh no, I perfectly understood your point there.

              I concede that I am not aware of the stem cell research fully. But
              yes, I always consider the negatives first, because a whole new life
              is involved here, which will have been created for an existing life.

              Regards,

              Vishwas
            • meanders2001
              ... improving our desnsity than dying early.
              Message 6 of 7 , Mar 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "Les U. Knight" <les@v...> wrote:
                > It seems to me that avoiding conception is far more effective in
                improving our desnsity than dying
                early.<
                you mean to improve the levels of density to lower rates, actually?
                Or did I misunderstanding something?
                Thanks Les, me.
              • Les U. Knight
                Yes, less density is an improvement. An elevator with a carrying capacity of 20 provides a much nicer ride with 10, particularly if you re short. Les ...
                Message 7 of 7 , Mar 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes, less density is an improvement. An elevator with a carrying
                  capacity of 20 provides a much nicer ride with 10, particularly if
                  you're short.

                  Les

                  --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "Les U. Knight" <les@v...> wrote:
                  > It seems to me that avoiding conception is far more effective in
                  improving our desnsity than dying
                  early.<
                  you mean to improve the levels of density to lower rates, actually?
                  Or did I misunderstanding something?
                  Thanks Les, me.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.