Aborted face lifts?

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:53 pm

I am against embryonic stem cell research of any kind.. a human being is a terrible thing to waste (unless they are murderers, or pedophiles, or liberals..)

But... we now have evidence of the slippery slope that you libs never thought would happen. Sure.. Saving geriatric patients from Alzheimer's syndrome is a noble cause.. but how about decreasing the wrinkles under your eyes? or regaining those nice pink perky nipples that you enjoyed as a teenager?

Fetuses harvested for cosmetic procedures

Did you ever think that harvesting human cells would result in the kind of petty desire that old people have to look young? I did!!!

Lawyers love to talk about the slippery slope, how you bend the rules a little or do something a little wrong and it leads inevitably to worse. But sometimes the slope turns into a precipice and you find yourself looking into the abyss. Use of fetal tissue for cosmetic purposes - especially fetal tissue conceived only for that purpose - is such precipitous plunge.

We are not just talking about curing some disease.. just people getting old that don't want to be...

Exclusive clinics in various worldwide locations are offering face lifts and cosmetic procedures using tissues from aborted fetuses and stem cells from human embryos. The cells are said to rejuvenate the skin.

How would you feel, if you were wearing a dead baby on your face? That is a curious thing to me.. I wouldn't like it myself.. but some people wouldn't mind I guess..

The optimum age of the fetus is 8 to 12 weeks. Reportedly, women in poor nations are paid up to $200 to carry a baby until the appropriate time for "harvesting" the cells.

An honest 8-12 weeks work I guess.. the true horror is that anybody would pay money to a mother to carry a baby for that amount of time.. a perfectly viable, healthy baby.. just to make some old person lood good.. Science.. got to love it!!

...thousands of women have already done it and it is organized by a seemingly respectable British clinic and carried out in Rotterdam, Holland, where rules regarding stem-cell therapies are less strict.

Holland!! Fuggin' hollandaise!! It tastes good, but it's bad for your heart!

The presupposition that human embryonic stem cell research is to cure only human ailments is totally blown. If a "clump of cells" can be used to cure Parkinson's disease, then why not sagging jowls, or fleshy cheek bones? Why not? Somebody please explain this to me.

Raymond

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:10 pm

Have not seen you in a while, Ray. Good to see your return..and with a controversial subject indeed. I will have to really digest what you have posted, before I comment further. Just wanted to say it is good to see you.

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:27 pm

Why thank you Marie! I read here every day.. I only post when something interests me.. and I rarely post new topics.. but this subject had not been broached.. and it should.

I have plenty more info on this subject.. check out this article from the London Daily Mail.

It seems interesting to me.. I am opposed to any research involving infanticide.. A human, even in it's earliest stage is still a human.. but.. even I am occasionally swayed by people who argue that it could cure Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's disease... but for cosmetics?

And... what is the difference really? If you argue that the killing of a pre-born baby is OK because it could cure some ailment.. then why not wrinkles or droopy jowls?! What is the difference?

Raymond

Captain Ray · Post by **Captain Ray** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 8:02 pm

flopstock wrote: If it's gonna be done and from your post I'll assume it is being done -though i don't know that factually, better to steer it towards cures, one would think. The idea that because some might use the technology for personal gain it should negate any possible good for mankind that can be achieved, is not sound logic. It should be regulated and governed.

Many of todays cures and treatments found their origin in someone trying to make a buck.

But by refusing to become part of the solution, we isolate ourselves from having any influence on the procedure. We cannot argue or debate the means to the end objective, if we are not willing to participate in it. or discuss the possibilities.

I have read, and reread what you posted several times.... but I don't know what you are saying.

Raymond

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 10:46 pm

A human is a human no matter what stage or age.

I haven't heard of this cosmetic use. I have a question or clarification - Stem cells are also in the after birth correct? or not ?

Patsy

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 10:57 pm

Scrat wrote: Goddamn bible thumping idiot.

I guess its better for you if those frozen embryos are tossed out in the trash instead of being put to a constructive life saving use? Helping people walk again? Stem cells that can regrow a childs liver so the child can be healthy again?

Religion has got to go. It's pure stupidity. :-5

What are you talking about Scrat? Did you even read the article he linked? What frozen embryos are you talking about? And I think the thread is talking about cosmetic surgery, not regenerative application for legitimate diseases and disabilites (not that embryonic stem cell research has shown any applicable promise in that regard). Pay attention from now on.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:09 pm

Scrat - you stated stem cells from the after birth are not the right ones that are needed. Needed for what ? cosmetic use or cures?

I'm all for the use of stem cells for cures.

As long as ROE vs WADE exist - why waste what can cure.

Patsy

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:33 pm

Scrat wrote: I've read more about this subject than you have.

How in the world could you possibly know that?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:45 pm

I don't agree with a aborted fetus stem cells to be used for wrinkles or to plump up your lips or anything else.

I can't imagine anyone being ok with that procedure.

Stem cells for cures yes.

As far as Scrat knowing more than me - that's a slam for a prior discussion we had . It's ok Scrat - I'll provide the proof.

Patsy

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:51 pm

Scrat wrote: God told me.

I doubt it, He's on my side.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:01 am

I do work in the medical field.

Thread " Tweaker bites the dust " Alcatraz ring a bell.?

Patsy

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:29 am

No one here so far has explained why they think it's okay for a cure but not okay for cosmetic reasons? Explain your reasoning.

I think creating embryos for a cure or cosmetic reasons, either one, is abominable. Nobody should be paid to conceive and then abort.

That said, if it's going to happen anyway, then a cosmetic reason is just as good in my book as a medical reason.

We already use cadaver skin. Baby skin is the next logical, and gross, step.

Science can go too far.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:19 am

I wasn't aware women were being paid to abort. That goes to show you, where there's a demand - there's a buck to be made. I myself will keep my wrinkles, alittle lipo would be nice.

Families store the umbilical cord for those just in case situations. Thousands wait for a remedy for their ailment. Unfortunately we will not all agree, it is certain that stem cells are beneficial.

Patsy

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:59 am

I thought you had read up on this Scrat. Let me share the results of a Rand survey with you concerning the availability of embryonic stem cells from IVF clinics. There are approx. 400,000 embryos in storage at IVF clinics. According to the Rand survey 88.2% of these embryos are being held for family building purposes and only 2.8% are designated for donation to science for research. That's about 11,000. Still alot, you say. Rand says:

Although the 11,000 embryos designated for research might seem like a large number, the actual number of embryos that might be converted into stem cell lines is likely to be substantially lower. Because assisted reproductive technology clinics generally transfer the best-quality embryos to the patient during treatment cycles, the remaining embryos available to be frozen are not always of the highest quality. (High-quality embryos are those that grow at normal rates.) In addition, some of the frozen embryos have been in storage for many years, and at the time that some of those embryos were created, laboratory cultures were not as conducive to preserving embryos as they are today. Some embryos would also be lost in the freeze-and-thaw process itself.

To illustrate how such laboratory conditions might limit the number of embryos available for research, the RAND-SART team performed a series of calculations. Drawing upon the few published studies in this area, they estimated that only about 65 percent of the approximately 11,000 embryos would survive the freeze-and-thaw process, resulting in 7,334 embryos. Of those, about 25 percent (1,834 embryos) would likely be able to survive the initial stages of development to the blastocyst stage (a blastocyst is an embryo that has developed for at least five days). Even fewer could be successfully converted into embryonic stem cell lines. For example, researchers at the University of Wisconsin needed 18 blastocysts to create five embryonic stem cell lines, while researchers at The Jones Institute used 40 blastocysts to create three lines.

Using a conservative estimate between the two conversion rates from blastocyst to stem cells noted above (27 percent and 7.5 percent), the research team calculated that about 275 embryonic stem cell lines could be created from the total number of embryos available for research.[1] Even this number is probably an overestimate because it assumes that all the embryos designated for research in the United States would be used to create stem cell lines, which is highly unlikely.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_brief ... ndex1.html

The fact remains that the only stem cells that have shown a practical benefit have been adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells. ESC's have only shown potential and that potential is dependent on overcoming some serious hurdles such as biological rejection, uncontrolled cell growth, and tumors. None of these disadvantages exist with adult stem cells or umbilical stem cells.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:43 pm

As I said we will not all agree on this issue. As Scrat said - it will come down to money, whether a politician is paid to put a stop research or visa versa. Money will play a dominant roll.

I feel this way - no one in our country should be in pain - disabled (disease) - handicapped (spinal injury) when science has given hope and proven cures right around the corner. As long as the law allows abortions then the law should allow research. Some will find this barbaric, you can bet if the politicians son was confined to a wheelchair, he would endorse research. And this research is only barbaric until it hits home.

Scrat - Red Glitter mentioned women were getting paid to conceive and abort?

I don't know if that is true?

Patsy

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:51 pm

Patsy Warnick wrote: As I said we will not all agree on this issue. As Scrat said - it will come down to money, whether a politician is paid to put a stop research or visa versa. Money will play a dominant roll.

I feel this way - no one in our country should be in pain - disabled (disease) - handicapped (spinal injury) when science has given hope and proven cures right around the corner. As long as the law allows abortions then the law should allow research. Some will find this barbaric, you can bet if the politicians son was confined to a wheelchair, he would endorse research. And this research is only barbaric until it hits home.

Scrat - Red Glitter mentioned women were getting paid to conceive and abort?

I don't know if that is true?

Patsy

I am against stem cell research, but when put this way, I have to do a bit of thinking cuz I think you are right.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:21 pm

So questioning your baseless statements and debunking your claims is an inquisition? Well, at least an imposition, no? I'll refrain. Go ahead, make all the false assertions you wish 'cause there is so much wrong with what you post on this subject.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:29 pm

I don't understand what Adam just posted.?

I posted how I feel about the issue. Opinions are not wrong.

Patsy

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:11 pm

Patsy, I was speaking to Scrat. He had posted the following. I should have mad that clear.

Scrat wrote: You can have your inquisition with someone else participating.

Now, I don't understand what Scrat just said. :wah:

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:44 pm

I also feel if we don't voice our opinions and push for a positive decision to continue research for cures now. Then a younger generation will decide, and then the push will be motivated to reduce wrinkles and plump lips and tits.

The young individual confined to a wheelchair now - won't feel his feet for years, or never.

Scrat - it's not can we - it's should we? Yes. Our vaccines to protect people are obsolete - new diseases rear their presents daily.

Sacrifices are made in science / research it's that simple. We're not going against God - we're trying to keep up with growth process - technology.

After all it's not the good old days, where a large family is up at 4:00 A.M. to maintain the farm/fields and dinner is on the table at 5:00 P.M., and the disease at that time to worry about was Polio. Sacrifices were made for that cure too.

So, That's how I feel, and I could go on forever..

Adam Thank You

Patsy

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:17 pm

Scrat wrote: I have never read it but the sensational nature of the statement makes me think it is from some religious source which I pay no heed to at all.

Could it happen? Definitely. Women have children for money why not concieve then sell the embryos?

I definitely agree that money will decide this issue, even the dim mind of the religious zealots can smell a dollar bill. As far as I know what the big fight is about now is government funding of stemcell research. Private funding is available and being done but not on a scale that would be beneficial to the masses.

Did you two read the article linked by Captain Ray? The paragraph that states (in other countries) *reportedly* women are being paid to carry until the cells "are ready to be harvested?" That the usual age is 8 to 12 weeks?

I think saying it's okay for a crippled/diseased person but not okay for someone whose wrinkled face causes them shame and discomfort is hypocritical at best. Who are you to decide? Really- who are you to decide this? Can anyone here answer that? Since we've already taken God out of the equation, who is to say that someone can use stem cells or aborted fetii for their illness or their skin graft but the next person's desired use for it "isn't good enough/isn't ethical?" Bah!

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:33 pm

Your president decided Dear. Bush vetoed a bill for stem cell research not me - not Scrat.

Government works slow - hopefully allowing research for a disease will pass through before a bill for wrinkles on the forehead.

Patsy

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:39 pm

Patsy, you can call me Red.

I am saying that if we're going to use stem cells for purposes we deem ethical, then there's no reason we can't use it for cosmetic reasons. One person's ethics is not necessarily that of the next. Using one's own stem cells is one thing. Using that of a dead fetus (or even an adult!) is another to me. So I'm not for it period. But if we are going to use it, then let it be used for all purposes.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:52 pm

Red, I'm not sure where you stand. Maybe I don't understand what you just said.

If the law allows stem cells to be used - you want them to be used for wrinkles and everything, but yet you don't approve.??

Do you agree with abortions?

I really don't understand. We / Government allows research to cure diseases that's the first step - and we can't get that....

I don't care if a womans lips aren't plump - or if their forehead has wrinkles, they can walk and talk..

You are in a little town of Arizona

Patsy

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:40 am

Patsy, I will try to make myself clearer as to where I stand.

I accept abortion as a necessary evil. I don't condemn anyone for having one for any reason.

That said, I would like to see aborted fetuses get proper burials rather than be dumped in the biowaste bin at the clinic or...used for research purposes. Even if stem cell can cure a disease, I don't think we should push science this far just because we can. I would prefer to see other ways created.

In a nutshell, you could say I don't support stem cell research because I feel it's unethical. However if it's going to occur, then I would question the ethics of those who say it's fine for cures but not for cosmetic reasons. To me that is very hypocritical. It ought to be fine for both. After all, aborted fetii are going to be wasted if we don't use them, so why not use them also for vanity reasons as well as curing illness? Either way, you're using dead babies so what's the point of limiting the use to medical reasons?

Yes, I live in a small Arizona town. Does this mean something? It sounds like you might be implying you think I am ignorant because of my location.

I will let you clarify that.

weber · Post by **weber** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:30 am

RedGlitter wrote: Patsy, I will try to make myself clearer as to where I stand.

I accept abortion as a necessary evil. I don't condemn anyone for having one for any reason.

That said, I would like to see aborted fetuses get proper burials rather than be dumped in the biowaste bin at the clinic or...used for research purposes. Even if stem cell can cure a disease, I don't think we should push science this far just because we can. I would prefer to see other ways created.

In a nutshell, you could say I don't support stem cell research because I feel it's unethical. However if it's going to occur, then I would question the ethics of those who say it's fine for cures but not for cosmetic reasons. To me that is very hypocritical. It ought to be fine for both. After all, aborted fetii are going to be wasted if we don't use them, so why not use them also for vanity reasons as well as curing illness? Either way, you're using dead babies so what's the point of limiting the use to medical reasons?

Yes, I live in a small Arizona town. Does this mean something? It sounds like you might be implying you think I am ignorant because of my location.

I will let you clarify that.

WOW.....Red

If you figure abortions for any reason are okay or are going to happen anyway, why would you want the fetus buried properly. If it is okay to abort, destroy the fetus, what is sacred to be buried. If it is scred after, it is sacred before and should be protected then.

I was reading and yes there are some reasons like rape, danger to life of mother, etc. that abortion should be between God and the mother/father. But abortion on demand, in other words just go out and have fun and get rid of the results, that seems wrong to me and should not happen. But if abortion does happen, and we know it is going to, why not use the fetus to save lives, help the disabled.

I am against stem cell research....I just figure it is going to happen anyway and I would like to see it handled in a moral manner, or as moral as possible.

Oh well, I am not even sure I know what I just said.....sometimes in spite of all our efforts, things happen and we have to do our best with whatever.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:55 am

Red,

It sounds like your talking in circles.

Like I said - Only if it hits HOME - then you'll going to want that cure.

Hopefully that cure will be available.

Patsy

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:45 pm

Miriam,

Because I think an aborted fetus should be buried does not mean I think abortion is wrong. As I said, I accept it as a necessary evil. As long as humans have sex there will be abortions. There always have been abortions. Whether it was done from plants given by an old wisewoman or a coat hanger on the kitchen table, as long as women have a desperate need to not be pregnant, abortion will exist. This idea that women "go out and have fun" and then "just abort the results" is a tired myth. I don't know any woman who takes it that lightly. There may be a handful but they would be few. And even still, it is their option.

Patsy, you did not explain your remark so I must assume you meant it the way I took it in which case it was uncalled for. The call already has :hit home" and I wasn't looking for stem cells then either. I'm not talking in circles, you're just not able to understand how things are not cut and dried in my view. At any rate, I still say if you're going to be unethical and use dead babies to find a cure, then it's no less ethical to use them for wrinkles. Use is use.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:20 pm

RED,

Small Town AZ - Little Town AZ - by midnight last night it was like a one way street / Skipped record.

I'm not saying the research should be limited or designated for one purpose.

I just want the research, and I tried to explain why I agree with the research.

Sorry to hear the circumstances have hit home, I've had more than my share too.

Patsy

P.S.

The miss understanding couldn't be the wine.

weber · Post by **weber** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:08 am

Red

You are a very patient and kind person. I like that and want to be that way.

RedGlitter wrote: I still say if you're going to be unethical and use dead babies to find a cure, then it's no less ethical to use them for wrinkles. Use is use.

and I agree with this. I thought though, in a way, that we already had the wrinkles covered with collagen products.....oh I guess that is from afterbirth, maybe. I have a feeling the scientests will want all of stem cell stuff though.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:30 pm

Patsy Warnick wrote:

P.S.

The miss understanding couldn't be the wine.

:wah: Was that what it was?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:35 pm

miriam wrote: Red

You are a very patient and kind person. I like that and want to be that way.

and I agree with this. I thought though, in a way, that we already had the wrinkles covered with collagen products.....oh I guess that is from afterbirth, maybe. I have a feeling the scientests will want all of stem cell stuff though.

Thank you very much, Miriam. :-4 What a nice thing for you to say.

I know some collagen comes from animals such as cows...do we also use human collagen? I know people can use their own collagen for themselves but do we also use collagen from cadavers or ...donators? I'm really not sure.

I think human vanity will win this one in the respect that if stem cell is permitted for research, it'll only be a matter of time until it's made available for cosmetic use. The potential for profit would be too great to pass up. :-2

weber · Post by **weber** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:15 pm

RedGlitter wrote: Thank you very much, Miriam. :-4 What a nice thing for you to say.

I know some collagen comes from animals such as cows...do we also use human collagen? I know people can use their own collagen for themselves but do we also use collagen from cadavers or ...donators? I'm really not sure.

I think human vanity will win this one in the respect that if stem cell is permitted for research, it'll only be a matter of time until it's made available for cosmetic use. The potential for profit would be too great to pass up. :-2

I don't know Red

I had forgotten that collagen came from cows and I seem to remember it coming from human miscarriages or aborted fetus'. What I remember is that I would check the ingredients because I didn't want to use anything from a fetus, but I may have been mistaken.

I do believe you are right that if stem cells get used for research and for growing new tissue for people, it won't be long before it will be used for wrinkles. Wonder if I could get some to grow me some brains.:wah:

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:09 pm

Patsy Warnick wrote: I don't agree with a aborted fetus stem cells to be used for wrinkles or to plump up your lips or anything else.

I can't imagine anyone being ok with that procedure.

Stem cells for cures yes.

As far as Scrat knowing more than me - that's a slam for a prior discussion we had . It's ok Scrat - I'll provide the proof.

Patsy

And I could have done a quote on any number of posts here.....................GET A GRIP PEOPLE.............................PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!

These are fetuses that are aborted LEGALLY with parental consent!!!!! OMG what are you people thinking! We ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PLUMPING 50 year old faces or lips......................WE ARE TALKING about a potential cure for some of the most notorious nerve damaging diseases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It could be a very real breakthrough. Get a GRIP!!!!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:35 pm

nvalleyvee wrote: And I could have done a quote on any number of posts here.....................GET A GRIP PEOPLE.............................PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!

These are fetuses that are aborted LEGALLY with parental consent!!!!! OMG what are you people thinking! We ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PLUMPING 50 year old faces or lips......................WE ARE TALKING about a potential cure for some of the most notorious nerve damaging diseases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It could be a very real breakthrough. Get a GRIP!!!!

Now now, NVV....calm down please. I think we all have a good grip here, just some differing opinions.

Maybe we're thinking...hmm...dead babies? Where do we draw the line if we start using baby cadavers? I mean really, what would be considered inappropriate after that? And what's so wrong about plumping lips with dead baby tissue? If it's good enough for a spinal disease cure then it's good enough for fat lips, no?

I can only speak for myself. I support abortion and any woman's right to have one for any reason. But that fetus is still a human as I see it. Not a tumor, not a parasite, but a human fetus. Why does it not deserve a proper burial? Why should it be considered refuse?

Let me ask everyone this: If we weren't talking about stem cells from aborted fetii, but instead a cure for disease could be found from actual full term babies who had unfortunately died, would it be acceptable to use them? For a cure? Would that make it right?

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 9:49 pm

RedGlitter wrote: Now now, NVV....calm down please. I think we all have a good grip here, just some differing opinions.

Maybe we're thinking...hmm...dead babies? Where do we draw the line if we start using baby cadavers? I mean really, what would be considered inappropriate after that? And what's so wrong about plumping lips with dead baby tissue? If it's good enough for a spinal disease cure then it's good enough for fat lips, no?

I can only speak for myself. I support abortion and any woman's right to have one for any reason. But that fetus is still a human as I see it. Not a tumor, not a parasite, but a human fetus. Why does it not deserve a proper burial? Why should it be considered refuse?

Let me ask everyone this: If we weren't talking about stem cells from aborted fetii, but instead a cure for disease could be found from actual full term babies who had unfortunately died, would it be acceptable to use them? For a cure? Would that make it right?

Oh goodness graceness....mercy me.

Maybe we're thinking...hmm...dead babies? - I never said dead babies

using baby cadavers -I never said baby cadavers

And what's so wrong about plumping lips with dead baby tissue? - I did say something is inherently wrong with this

I support abortion and any woman's right to have one for any reason. But that fetus is still a human as I see it. Not a tumor, not a parasite, but a human fetus. -

The fetus is a human as you say and can be an organ donor transplant only by its parents wishes. What is wrong with that? Do you object to organ donation?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:09 am

NVV, I know you didn't say dead babies or cadaver babies, that was me talking. If stem cells come from aborted fetuses then to me that's using a dead baby for research purposes. I'm not comfortable with that.

I had a good post going but it vaporized and now I can't remember what all I said.

Re: organ donation, I'm not a donor and I don't support it personally. That said, if someone else wants to donate their parts, I accept that as their business. I just don't completely agree with it but that might be another issue. I do have difficulty with parents donating their aborted baby to research. That bothers me.

The point I was trying to make albeit unsuccessfully

about the lip plumping, was that I am not understanding why several members have said it's ethical to use fetal cells or tissue for finding a cure for disease but wrong to also use those same parts for vanity reasons. I mean presumably there would be enough for both. I would think if you are going to use them you would use them however possible. I think if you're going to have stem cell research, why stop there when you could make a person happier with themselves by using fetal stuff for cosmetic reasons. It seems hypocritical not to.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:15 am

RedGlitter wrote: NVV, I know you didn't say dead babies or cadaver babies, that was me talking. If stem cells come from aborted fetuses then to me that's using a dead baby for research purposes. I'm not comfortable with that.

I had a good post going but it vaporized and now I can't remember what all I said.

Re: organ donation, I'm not a donor and I don't support it personally. That said, if someone else wants to donate their parts, I accept that as their business. I just don't completely agree with it but that might be another issue. I do have difficulty with parents donating their aborted baby to research. That bothers me.

The point I was trying to make albeit unsuccessfully

about the lip plumping, was that I am not understanding why several members have said it's ethical to use fetal cells or tissue for finding a cure for disease but wrong to also use those same parts for vanity reasons. I mean presumably there would be enough for both. I would think if you are going to use them you would use them however possible. I think if you're going to have stem cell research, why stop there when you could make a person happier with themselves by using fetal stuff for cosmetic reasons. It seems hypocritical not to.

Sorry..........no vanity crap. If people want to look younger let them pay the big bucks for it...................if people can be healed can we not use the unwanted babies?