Abortion Debate Forum - Human Hybrid Embryos


Human Hybrid Embryos	Join us now!

Medical Questions-> Health Forums -> Abortion Debate -> Human Hybrid Embryos

Medical Questions

Author

Message

Jules

Moderator

Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3760
Location: Merrie Englande, UK

Thanks: 79

Thanked:66

Human Hybrid Embryos Posted: 09-04-07 10:11am


htt p://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/article s/news/news.html?in_article_id=479756& in_page_id=1770 Now I know this could go on a different debate board but I think it is pertinent here I think I am correct in believing that pro-life, as a general rule, are against the creation of human embryos that are to be destroyed in experimentation or simply because they are surplus to requirements after IVF. But what about these hybrid embryos? They are 99.9% human - is that close enough to matter? I would love opinions on this one please, from everyone!

Georgia59

Supporter

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 5542
Location: Along the Mississippi, USA

Thanks: 89

Thanked:31

Posted: 09-04-07 13:44pm


Well I'm not pro life and I don't really have an issue with the using the embryos or disposing them after ... but that's really interesting. I don't even know what to think of it. Cow's eggs and human cells........ weird.

sillyakchick

Supporter

Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2688

Thanks: 5

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-04-07 17:16pm


Ummmm...NO. I don't really think we should tamper with the local animals, Dr. Moreau.

Verizon-y

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3291

Thanks: 2

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-04-07 17:22pm

sillyakchick wrote:

Ummmm...NO. I don't really think we should tamper with the local animals, Dr. Moreau. Exclamation

My GOD! Millions of people, many of them children and babies, are suffering unspeakably and dying all over the world, and this research could save some of them!

You don't want to tamper with the animals? How do you think almost all medical research is done?

sillyakchick

Supporter

Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2688

Thanks: 5

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-04-07 17:37pm

futureshock wrote:

sillyakchick wrote:

Ummmm...NO. I don't really think we should tamper with the local animals, Dr. Moreau. Exclamation

FIRST of all, I think that using animals for research is barbaric and disgusting.

SECOND of all, I think the idea of combining genetic materials from different animals is horrifying. Have you hever seen a mouse growing a human ear on its back? That is a freakish abomination! Just because we CAN does not mean we SHOULD do something.

THIRDLY, YES millions (billions, actually) of people all over the world

are consuming it at a rate which is completely unsustainable. We are like hideous locusts who will completely decimate this entire planet and then look around and say "uh,,, wot we got to eat then?" Because there are TOO MANY OF US! Because we have too many children and we have used technology to sustain the lives of sooo many people that in the end it will kill us all....IMHO

Birch

Supporter

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 3963
Location: Bliss,

Thanks: 129

Thanked:12

Posted: 09-04-07 17:40pm


Three cheers for research to cure chronic dieseases! Three boos for animal research! This gets 1.5 of each. Futureshock, for myself in regards to animal related research, I find it hard to reconcile that while animals are so different from humans that it's okay to do research on them (morally) but since animals are so different than humans then why are we doing research on them for medicinal human purposes? Did that make any sense?

Verizon-y

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3291

Thanks: 2

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-04-07 18:26pm


I actually have very ambivalent feelings about animal research. I protested against it in college and almost went to jail. Animals are not very different from us, which is why we can extrapolate research data to the human population. Sillyakchick, Please accept my apology. I very badly misread your meaning in your post.

sillyakchick

Supporter

Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2688

Thanks: 5

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-05-07 09:32am

futureshock wrote:

I actually have very ambivalent feelings about animal research. I protested against it in college and almost went to jail.

Animals are not very different from us, which is why we can extrapolate research data to the human population.

Sillyakchick,
Please accept my apology. I very badly misread your meaning in your post.

Embarassed

That's OK. Even if you vehemently disagreed with me, it'd still be OK!

I'm glad you went to jail....I mean, I'm glad you believed that much in it that you were willing to protest and be jailed for it. I haven't done that yet, but it's something I would like to do before i get old. Somehow, they just never see a 5 foot chick as menacing enough to arrest. Very
Happy

Carifairy

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Posts: 2610
Location: Charlotte n.c.

Thanks: 12

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-05-07 09:56am


I have a problem with this... The animals genetics could introduce something into the human that is unwanted, and even undesirable. I worry about the possibility of diseases, etc.. We should stick to embryonic stem cells

Verizon-y

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3291

Thanks: 2

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-05-07 10:05am

Carifairy wrote:

I have a problem with this...

The animals genetics could introduce something into the human that is unwanted, and even undesirable.

I worry about the possibility of diseases, etc..

We should stick to embryonic stem cells

Do you mean the mitochondria? (sp?)

I was curious about this also, and here is an answer as to why scientists would want to do this in the first place, and what effects the new dna would cause:

"Because human egg cells are difficult and costly to retrieve from women's ovaries—and because human egg retrieval poses risks to the donors—scientists have been wanting to know whether animal eggs may serve as well. A major question has been whether the remnants of mitochondrial DNA that typically remain in an animal egg would be compatible with the nuclear DNA contributed by the human cell.

The new work suggests that the answer to that question is yes, scientists said—though with a number of caveats. Most important, researchers said, the paper stops short of proving beyond a doubt that the stem cells retrieved from the hybrid embryos are truly capable of growing for long periods of time in lab dishes, and that they can turn into every known kind of cell.

Even so, said Douglas Melton, a Harvard University cell biologist and cloning expert, the work is a big advance because it offers a new system for exploring the mechanisms by which egg cells get adult cells to act in embryonic ways. That could provide deep insights into human development, wound healing and tissue regeneration."
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Hum an-Rabbit-Clone-Embryo14aug03.htm

Georgia59

Supporter

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 5542
Location: Along the Mississippi, USA

Thanks: 89

Thanked:31

Posted: 09-05-07 12:21pm

Carifairy wrote:

I agree. Stem cells are the way to go!!!

Verizon-y

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3291

Thanks: 2

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-05-07 13:20pm


These are embryonic human stem cells, in the animal hybrid model. Did anybody read my previous post?

Carifairy

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Posts: 2610
Location: Charlotte n.c.

Thanks: 12

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-05-07 13:38pm


YES, but 99.9 is not 100% I became pregnant on BC that was 99.9% effective.. That small percentage could introduce NEGATIVE ANIMAL DISEASE into the mix. I believe we should STICK to 100% human stem cells, whether from adults or humans.

Verizon-y

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3291

Thanks: 2

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-05-07 13:54pm


You didn't read my post. It explains why scientists are turning to these hybrids.

Verizon-y

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3291

Thanks: 2

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-05-07 13:54pm


"Because human egg cells are difficult and costly to retrieve from women's ovaries—and because human egg retrieval poses risks to the donors—scientists have been wanting to know whether animal eggs may serve as well. A major question has been whether the remnants of mitochondrial DNA that typically remain in an animal egg would be compatible with the nuclear DNA contributed by the human cell.

Moo

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 1066
Location: London

Thanks: 21

Thanked:111

Posted: 09-05-07 15:12pm

Carifairy wrote:

I agree 100% with this

Georgia59

Supporter

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 5542
Location: Along the Mississippi, USA

Thanks: 89

Thanked:31

Posted: 09-05-07 22:35pm

futureshock wrote:

"Because human egg cells are difficult and costly to retrieve from women's ovaries—and because human egg retrieval poses risks to the donors—scientists have been wanting to know whether animal eggs may serve as well. A major question has been whether the remnants of mitochondrial DNA that typically remain in an animal egg would be compatible with the nuclear DNA contributed by the human cell.

I read and understood this. I still advocate using human stem cells and not mixing with any animal parts.

If it helps, I also advocate eating food that is not genetically modified.....etc.

Verizon-y

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 3291

Thanks: 2

Thanked:0

Posted: 09-06-07 05:47am

Georgia59 wrote:

futureshock wrote:

I read and understood this. I still advocate using human stem cells and not mixing with any animal parts.

If it helps, I also advocate eating food that is not genetically modified.....etc.

< span class="postbody">

Well then I undestood it differently from you, I guess. I take this article to mean that OBVIOUSLY 100% human embryonic stem cells are the best, but

"Because human egg cells are difficult and costly to retrieve from women's ovaries—and because human egg retrieval poses risks to the donors—scientists have been wanting to know whether animal eggs may serve as well."

Jincks013

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 1173
Location: ,

Thanks: 22

Thanked:8

Posted: 09-06-07 07:43am


[quote=]But opponents believe mixing of human and animal genetic material defies nature. They are also unhappy about the destruction of embryos that such research inevitably entails. but the embryos will never be implanted and the cells won't be used for therapy - this is about studying the development of diseases in a Petri dish." [/quote] Cautiously in favor of this line of research. It will chill the PL OMGZ you're killing a BABY!!1!1! nonsense but open a door for the "you're playing god" routine to start up. This is science.. religion has no place in it. It has the potentional to do much good; the resultant embryo's will be destroyed; not implanted so I see no problem with it.

Georgia59

Supporter

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 5542
Location: Along the Mississippi, USA

Thanks: 89

Thanked:31

Posted: 09-06-07 12:22pm

futureshock wrote:

Georgia59 wrote:

futureshock wrote:

I read and understood this. I still advocate using human stem cells and not mixing with any animal parts.

If it helps, I also advocate eating food that is not genetically modified.....etc.

Harvesting human egg cells and stem cells are two totally different things.

Stem cells come from many places, and can be very easy to obtain. Such as embryos, fetal cells (taken from aborted fetuses), umbilical cord blood, the placenta, and certain adult tissue.

yes human egg retrieval isn't easy, but the point was I think they should just use stem cells and avoid the whole human/animal mix.