This is just sick and wrong on so many levels!

[James_xeno]

Spectre of babies from the unborn

Women seeking fertility treatment could one day be offered donor eggs grown from the tissue of an aborted foetus, researchers said yesterday.

In an experiment that raises the prospect of babies with "unborn mothers", ovarian tissue was removed from seven dead foetuses and kept alive in a laboratory for four weeks.

The egg-producing follicles in the tissue continued to develop normally but did not reach the stage at which they released a healthy egg cell.

One of the scientists working on the experiment said the study could help solve the worldwide shortage of donor eggs for fertility treatment and medical research.

Although the research raises a host of ethical dilemmas, the use of eggs from foetuses is not banned in Britain.

But clinics are unlikely to be given permission to carry out the procedure within the foreseeable future.

Preliminary results from the experiment were presented in Madrid to the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction.

A team of Israeli and Dutch researchers collected ovarian tissue from seven foetuses aborted between the 22nd and 33rd weeks of pregnancy.

Six of the foetuses were aborted after doctors diagnosed severe medical problems, including one with a genetic disorder.

The other came from a mother with a serious psychiatric illness who felt unable to look after the baby.

Immature "primordial" egg-producing follicles appear in a female foetus around the 16th week of pregnancy.

The team took slices of ovarian tissue from the foetuses and cultured them in a solution of hormones and bovine calf serum for four weeks.

Some of the cells developed from the immature primordial resting stage to the secondary growth stage.

Before follicles are ready to produce eggs, they must go through many more stages of development.

Scientists have yet to create conditions in the laboratory to take follicles to ovulation.

Dr Tal Biron-Shental, of the Meir Hospital, Kfar Saba, Israel, who was involved in the study, said: "If you could mature them, you could use them for IVF donations. But there is a lot of ethical questions. Since these are still preliminary results we do not have answers to this yet."

Several teams of scientists around the world use ovarian tissue from foetuses for research. Many are working on ovarian tissue transplants for girls and young women facing chemotherapy that could make them sterile.

Prof Roger Gosden, a specialist in ovaries at the Jones Institute of Reproductive Medicine, Virginia, said that egg donation from foetuses raised questions of consent. He also questioned whether foetal donations were necessary or feasible.

"It is interesting material to study but it is very very rare and when it is obtained people have to be very sensitive to the ethics," he said.

"I do not think you need it because you can obtain biopsy ovarian material from women, with their consent, who are undergoing gynaecological procedures."

Dr Franoise Shenfield, a lecturer in infertility at University College London and an expert in medical ethics, said that society was not ready for unborn mothers.

"We have to be extremely careful before research is done into this," she said. "From a research point of view, these eggs could be valuable, but most people would be disturbed. They are already disturbed about abortion anyway.

"I would be very troubled by this, not only for ethical reasons but for psychological reasons, because what is the public going to think about where these eggs have come from?"

Nuala Scarisbrick, of the anti-abortion group Life, said: "This is macabre. It is sickening and disgusting, even by the low standards of reproductive technology."

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said: "We do not consider the use of tissue from this source to be acceptable for infertility treatment."

WTF! NO REALLY WTF!?

Can you this parent-child conversation:

"Well John, we think you're old enough to learn the truth now. You see, your mother is sterile, meaning she couldn't have children on her own. So we had a few doctors cut the eggs out of some murdered unborn female child, fertilize them and then put them into your mother so you could be created. Your real mother is a dead aborted 6 or 7 month old unborn child."

I don't have words to describe my thoughts and feelings about this..... I..

Morally, ethically, legally.. this is fucking outrageous!

P.S. a cookie to whomever recognizes a least the two major (sad) ironies of this idea.

[Poophy]

Although the research raises a host of ethical dilemmas, the use of eggs from fetuses is not banned in Britain.

Come on parliament, you need to think of this stuff before scientist do! Other wise they can do whatever crazy shit they want, you need to start banning random crap like building a house out of cat corpses, other wise your just saying its ok!

If they feel a real need to take eggs from copses, why cant they just make that another organ donor thing?

Please note: the first part was sarcasm, and personally if people (both the people who aborted the fetus and the people who are artificially inseminated with them) are ok with it, then I don’t mind.

[amy]

Well, it is kind of weird. If it were necessary I wouldn't care but what about all the children waiting for adoption, or all the willing adult donors?

[Samurai Drifter]

Hmmm, I dunno. It seems to me that it's making good use out of something bad (abortion).

[Nega-Brent]

I don't see a problem with this. If new life can be created from death, then what's the problem? The baby is already dead, nothing is going to change that. This seems no different than organ donation, albeit for less urgent reasons.

[Poophy]

O I cant wait to see the new “dead babe” jokes!

What’s the difference between a ham and a dead baby?

My mommy’s not a ham.

[Battle_Pope]

O I cant wait to see the new “dead babe” jokes!

What’s the difference between a ham and a dead baby?

My mommy’s not a ham.

poophy it's gold, GOLD! Be the first to capitalize on this man

[Cleese]

Reduce

Reuse

Recycle

[Gundampilotspaz]

I see no problem with this.

A testament to the advancements in genetic engineering.

[Satan]

O I cant wait to see the new “dead babe” jokes!

What’s the difference between a ham and a dead baby?

My mommy’s not a ham.

this procedure is worthwhile just for making it possible for poophy to say that

[Dramatic Conclusion]

Oh my God, stop wasting millions making babies, start adopting the ones we already have! >_<

[Nega-Brent]

Oh my God, stop wasting millions making babies, start adopting the ones we already have! >_<

Damaged goods.

[Belial]

Oh my God, stop wasting millions making babies, start adopting the ones we already have! >_<

I agree in most regards, I'd adopt before I sought out In vitro fertilization for my spouse, but people should be allowed to have the choice, though I think doctors should stress adoption as a preferred and much more socially responsible rout.

[James_xeno]

OK people seem to be misunderstanding some fundamental points of this issue. So I'll deal with the many ethical, moral and legal issues of this later.

1. It's not "just organ donation."

this =/= consented organ donation

this =/= organ donation only

this =/= organ donation

this = non-consented, non-life/healthsaving organ/egg theft and forced reproduction

2. You can not take the eggs or sperm for the purpose of reproduction (IVF,ect) or any other reason, even from signed organ donors, without express individual consent to do so.

3. The problem isn't lack of female organ donors or lack of viable female egg donors, it's a lack of female egg donors. You see, organ donation =/= egg donation. That's the problem they have now. So they've come up with this as a way to get around the fact that most women do not want to donate their eggs. If people who can object, do so. Then go after those who can not. (With the nice little added psychological, legal and propagandical bonus of dehumanizing the unborn even further.)

Again, I'll deal with the many ethical, moral and legal issues of this later.

[Belial]

Your morality carries no weight outside of your own head.

Thanks for playing. Next!

[James_xeno]

Your morality carries no weight outside of your own head.

Thanks for playing. Next!

Sorry but only that one little line at the end of the post was my personal view.

I'll sum it up in a way everyone could understand.

1. This is not the same as a lifesaving, or any other organ donation. This is taking without consent, an egg from someone else's body, not as an organ replacement. But as a means to reproduce. Not to help or save lives, but to make lives. (Gota love the sick irony in creating a new life, a new child from the stolen body parts of a different, murdered child.)

2. Accepted medical ethics (and possibly law in some places) do not regard the donation of an ovum or sperm for the purpose of reproduction, as being the same as organ donation. They are two completely different things. Express individual consent for organ donation does not equal any consent at all for ovum or sperm donation. That's not something anyone could give as unauthorized, and thus unwarranted proxy consent for in the place of the person donating!

To put it simply, if the person can't or doesn't consent to something like this, then you don't do it.

Express individual consent for organ donation =/= consent for ovum or sperm donation.

3. The only problem here is a lack of female egg donors. One of the main reasons most women don't want to donate is because donating an egg means the creation of child which is biologically theirs. We're not talking about life or death and it's not as if there is no other way to get them. In a more ethical way.

[Samurai Drifter]

Dude, the baby is already dead. Let it be used to create a new life.

[Belial]

The baby is dead, God is dead, morality is an invention to control the masses. These ideas have been pounded into you from birth to death to the point where any derivation causes feelings of confusion, fear, and anger. This isn't an Anarchist or Leftist way of thinking, its the result of decades of psychological research. Take your fear and hate mongering someplace else James_xeno, we have no need for it here.

[Gundampilotspaz]

"Morality is an agreement with yourself to play by your own rules. To thine own self be true or you spoil the game."

[Satan]

James, I think I understand what you're saying. I think that since we don't need this process, it shouldn't be used, be if a situation arose where there weren't enough donors and there were no orphans or other children up for adoption, then I'd have no problem with it. As things are, I'd rather it not be used, but if it is, it is. Nobody here is taking you seriously. I hope you aren't expecting results, because we all have different basic moral beliefs. I'm not saying don't make your case, I'm just pointing out that no matter how logical it is, it will probably fail.

[James_xeno]

The baby is dead, God is dead, morality is an invention to control the masses. These ideas have been pounded into you from birth to death to the point where any derivation causes feelings of confusion, fear, and anger. This isn't an Anarchist or Leftist way of thinking, its the result of decades of psychological research. Take your fear and hate mongering someplace else James_xeno, we have no need for it here.

Ok, now I am beginning to fully understand who and what it is I'm debating against. The complete lack of logic, the absence of even the most basic comprehension of reality or the workings of society, and a blind religious like ideological closed-mindedness and zeal.

First off:

1. "God" has/had nothing to do with my argument or the ethics of which I referred to.

2. I personally don't believe in any type of religion or their gods.

3. But seeing as how you like to make assertions. Your proof for the death of "God?"

4. The opinion that "morality is an invention to control the masses" (Well besides being just an opinion and that I was talking about M ethics) is nothing more then an invention of propaganda to help try and validate the ideology of its creators. (a different opinion.. see, opinions work both ways.)

5. "These ideas have been pounded into you from birth to death to the point where any derivation causes feelings of confusion, fear, and anger.." - lol No rebuttal even necessary for this..

6. "This isn't an Anarchist or Leftist way of thinking" - Well except for the fact that it's purely the invention of and exclusively peddled by the left/neo-left through the theories and movements such as postmodernism, deconstructionism and the innumerable fallacies of absolute relativism.

7. "its the result of decades of psychological research" - Who's research?!

8. "Take your fear and hate mongering someplace else James_xeno, we have no need for it here." - Ok, I ask this in the nicest way possible given your insults and the inanity of your responses... What the fuck are you talking about?! Debate the topic or get lost!

This topic wasn't meant to be an argument over ideology. But look at it now....

[Belial]

While none of the points in your previous post even slightly resembled debate, I'm going to humor you and pretend that you actually had anything to say worth rebutting.

1. "God" has/had nothing to do with my argument or the ethics of which I referred to.

2. I personally don't believe in any type of religion or their gods.

If you don't believe in a deity then why are you arguing the rights of a bundle of cells devoid of sentient thought or even emotion? If this was being done with animal cells would you argue as loud?

4. The opinion that "morality is an invention to control the masses" (Well besides being just an opinion and that I was talking about M ethics) is nothing more then an invention of propaganda to help try and validate the ideology of its creators. (a different opinion.. see, opinions work both ways.)

Its not opinion, its been proven in countless studies that morality is subjective. When you start saying that a subjective morality is instead objective and that if if oppose this morality I am somehow flawed, the only logical reason for this is because you seek to control people who's ideas differ from your own by forcing your beliefs upon them.

5. "These ideas have been pounded into you from birth to death to the point where any derivation causes feelings of confusion, fear, and anger.." - lol No rebuttal even necessary for this..

7. "its the result of decades of psychological research" - Who's research?!

What you perceive as objective morality and ethics are actually social norms that have been taught to you since birth. When these norms are violated you react with feelings of confusion and anger. This is the reason why you are sickened by what you see as a gross violation of the social norms you hold so dear. As for where I am drawing these facts from I suggest you take about four years of psychology and then get back to me. I trust that the following studies will prove most helpful in your understanding of the ideas I have briefly summarized above.

Lewin (1943)

Sherif (1936)

Cosmides (1989)

Coch & French (1948)

Milgram (1963)

Zimbardo (1971)

The rest of your post is trash and as such I have discarded it as useless.

[Reinas]

James, I think I understand what you're saying. I think that since we don't need this process, it shouldn't be used, be if a situation arose where there weren't enough donors and there were no orphans or other children up for adoption, then I'd have no problem with it. As things are, I'd rather it not be used, but if it is, it is. Nobody here is taking you seriously. I hope you aren't expecting results, because we all have different basic moral beliefs. I'm not saying don't make your case, I'm just pointing out that no matter how logical it is, it will probably fail.

Any post with and "inch of morality" is usually not taken seriously.

Hell, any post that isn't in agreement with the majority is not taken seriously!

Its not opinion, its been proven in countless studies that morality is subjective. When you start saying that a subjective morality is instead objective and that if if oppose this morality I am somehow flawed, the only logical reason for this is because you seek to control people who's ideas differ from your own by forcing your beliefs upon them.

What you perceive as objective morality and ethics are actually social norms that have been taught to you since birth. When these norms are violated you react with feelings of confusion and anger. This is the reason why you are sickened by what you see as a gross violation of the social norms you hold so dear. As for where I am drawing these facts from I suggest you take about four years of psychology and then get back to me. I trust that the following studies will prove most helpful in your understanding of the ideas I have briefly summarized above.

Okay, so basically, you're harping on James because he holds a different view on how aborted fetus cells will be used. At the same time, you say his thinking was forced upon him since he was a little tyke and that's why he's an idiot.

Yet, yet, you two hold the similar ethic and morality aside from this topic because you both are still here and not in jail.

And, in addition to that, you've gone off topic and into psychological research proves to you that James is an idiot for thinking something else that contrasts with your view.

EL OH EL.

On topic: there's something a little disturbing about using an aborted fetus' cells for your own kid.

[Belial]

I'm not calling James and idiot. I'm simply making sure he understands why he thinks all of this is "sick and wrong". Only when one understands the reasoning behind their thoughts and emotions can they hope to progress logically in to the future.

[Samurai Drifter]

Ok, now I am beginning to fully understand who and what it is I'm debating against. The complete lack of logic, the absence of even the most basic comprehension of reality or the workings of society, and a blind religious like ideological closed-mindedness and zeal.

You just described yourself.