• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Stem cell research

B

BigToque

Lifer
I got into a discussion with my girlfriend about stem cell research. She seems to be fairly knowledgeable on the subject, and I know basically nothing.

One thing we are in disagreement about is how many places are going about getting their stem cells for research. She says that the place most come from for research is from harvesting human embryo's. Imagine the fields of humans in the matrix being harvested for their energy. Like that, but being harvested for the stem cells. She believes that obtaining the cells in this fashion is unethical. She pointed out that they could get just as many from a childs umbilical cord after birth. This makes harvesting embryos unethical but also unnecessary.

I say it's fine.

What do you think?

Note: This is not a question of whether or not stem cell research is right or wrong, just a question about the method of obtaining the stem cells.

edit: terrible spelling - I'm tired 🙂
 
Originally posted by: MazerRackham
If a woman chooses to have an abortion, there's nothing wrong with collecting the stem cells IMHO.
Click to expand...

Well, I see no problem if the fetus is dead.

I'm refering to something a little different. Imagine the fields of humans in the matrix being harvested for their energy. Like that, but being harvested for the stem cells.
 
My thoughts:
1) It seems clear with present technology that stem cells from embryos are better than stem cells from any other source. This will change, but at the moment it is reality.
2) The embryos are being burned anyways, why not get something valuable from them?

I'd be singing a different tune if abortions were performed specifically to get the tissue. But that just isn't the case.
 
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, but then I am not religious at all, have no religious beliefs. I think that has quite a bit to do with it.
 
there are no matrix fields of humans being harvested for anything, nor will there ever be. the embryos are not harvested for the purpose of stem cell research, they are harvested in fertility clinics so that sterile couples can have children. they harvest more than necessary, because the first few might not work out. the rest can then either be stored in a refridgerator until some power outage causes them to go bad, tossed in the trash immediately, or used to further medical knowledge.
 
Your girlfriend isn't as educated on the subject as you think, most people arent but still choose one side or another based on (biased) arguments they have heard in the past. Stem cell research in the US is done only by people who are issued the right to by the government (and no new research can be done as of a few years ago). Cells are "recycled" more than they are "harvested," since they are taken from inviable embryos. Furthermore, umbilical cord stem cells are not nearly as useful as embryonic stem cells for research/medical purposes. The matrix thing is just paranoia, it's nothing like that.
 
Originally posted by: rezinn
Your girlfriend isn't as educated on the subject as you think, most people arent but still choose one side or another based on (biased) arguments they have heard in the past. Stem cell research in the US is done only by people who are issued the right to by the government (and no new research can be done as of a few years ago). Cells are "recycled" more than they are "harvested," since they are taken from inviable embryos. Furthermore, umbilical cord stem cells are not nearly as useful as embryonic stem cells for research/medical purposes. The matrix thing is just paranoia, it's nothing like that.
Click to expand...

new research can be conducted, it just can't a.) use stem cell lines not existing previously (list is maintained by NIH) OR b.) be federally funded. if you are not federally funded, you can do whatever the hell you want (see thomson @ harvard).
 
6 cells! The embryos are only 6 freakin cells! 6 cells that can help cure many uncurable diseases! WTF would people be against this?!
 
dream theater made an interesting song about this, called the Great Debate. Its pretty intense and has some cool sample work of sound bites from the media.
 
Originally posted by: DrNoobie
6 cells! The embryos are only 6 freakin cells! 6 cells that can help cure many uncurable diseases! WTF would people be against this?!
Click to expand...

because people are idiots 🙂
 
Originally posted by: DrNoobie
6 cells! The embryos are only 6 freakin cells! 6 cells that can help cure many uncurable diseases! WTF would people be against this?!
Click to expand...

because a church told them to be.

 
Originally posted by: gistech1978
Originally posted by: DrNoobie
6 cells! The embryos are only 6 freakin cells! 6 cells that can help cure many uncurable diseases! WTF would people be against this?!
Click to expand...

because a church told them to be.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

I see no problem with extracting the cells.
 
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
dream theater made an interesting song about this, called the Great Debate. Its pretty intense and has some cool sample work of sound bites from the media.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that CD sucks. Their worst album ever.
 
I voted "yes" to the question as you worded it, in that I think it's wrong to harvest human embyos for the purpose of stem cell research.

I'm not dead set against stem cell research itself. I just think that we have our priorities wrong on the issue. Our two main causes of death are heart disease and cancer. We eat and eat, and put all kinds of chemicals into our bodies because that's what we're conditioned to do, and then when we get sick we look for a "magic pill" to cure us, while still doing the things that got us sick in the first place. The magic pill can be anything, today it's stem cells.

I'm against abortion as birth control. I don't look at this as a religious issue at all. I don't have any religious convictions influencing my thoughts. It's easy to say that it's just a few cells, but I know that I used to be just a few cells myself. If I got stem cell researched as an embryo, I wouldn't be here now, so I'm glad that I wasn't. Since I view most abortions as unethical, telling me that the embryos are just going to be burned anyway so we might as well get some use out of them is analogous to saying that the poached elephants are dead anyway so we might as well use the ivory. The elephants shouldn't have been killed to begin with so it doesn't make it any better. All that does is create a market. Rationalizing it doesn't legitimize it.

I'm fine with stem cell research that doesn't kill infants for source material.

It's easy to blame religion for standing in the way of this, but really it's an ethical issue that we're going to have to wrestle with as a society.

 
Originally posted by: lirion
I voted "yes" to the question as you worded it, in that I think it's wrong to harvest human embyos for the purpose of stem cell research.

I'm not dead set against stem cell research itself. I just think that we have our priorities wrong on the issue. Our two main causes of death are heart disease and cancer. We eat and eat, and put all kinds of chemicals into our bodies because that's what we're conditioned to do, and then when we get sick we look for a "magic pill" to cure us, while still doing the things that got us sick in the first place. The magic pill can be anything, today it's stem cells.

I'm against abortion as birth control. I don't look at this as a religious issue at all. I don't have any religious convictions influencing my thoughts. It's easy to say that it's just a few cells, but I know that I used to be just a few cells myself. If I got stem cell researched as an embryo, I wouldn't be here now, so I'm glad that I wasn't. Since I view most abortions as unethical, telling me that the embryos are just going to be burned anyway so we might as well get some use out of them is analogous to saying that the poached elephants are dead anyway so we might as well use the ivory. The elephants shouldn't have been killed to begin with so it doesn't make it any better. All that does is create a market. Rationalizing it doesn't legitimize it.

I'm fine with stem cell research that doesn't kill infants for source material.

It's easy to blame religion for standing in the way of this, but really it's an ethical issue that we're going to have to wrestle with as a society.
Click to expand...

i feel similarly
 
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: rezinn
Your girlfriend isn't as educated on the subject as you think, most people arent but still choose one side or another based on (biased) arguments they have heard in the past. Stem cell research in the US is done only by people who are issued the right to by the government (and no new research can be done as of a few years ago). Cells are "recycled" more than they are "harvested," since they are taken from inviable embryos. Furthermore, umbilical cord stem cells are not nearly as useful as embryonic stem cells for research/medical purposes. The matrix thing is just paranoia, it's nothing like that.
Click to expand...

new research can be conducted, it just can't a.) use stem cell lines not existing previously (list is maintained by NIH) OR b.) be federally funded. if you are not federally funded, you can do whatever the hell you want (see thomson @ harvard).
Click to expand...

not only can the research not be federally funded, but the building staff, electricity, etc... cant be federally funded

and i voted 'no' being in the field dealing with people who do stem cell research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top