Stem Cell Research For or Against?

[Texmaster]

For those of you who dont know, stem cells are cells that have the potential to grow into any type of cell in the body. Scientists believe that with these cells they have the potential to cure many different kinds of diseases in the future.

Stem cells however only reside in embryos making this a hot topic. (they are also in the umbicial cord as well but not as many)

There are three major sources of these embryos , some are harvested from aborted fetuses, some from invetro fertiziliation clinics where the terms have expired to continue to freeze the emberyos, and finally breeding embryos specifically for their stem cells.

I dont see why anyone has a problem harvesting these cells from invetro clinics when they will discard the embryos anyway. As long as they have conscent from the donors, it shouldn't be a big deal.

At the same time I see big problems harvesting these cells from aborted fetuses and harvesting them from embryos whose only purpose was to be created for the cells.

Why step on toes if you dont have to? The medical community has already said they only need a very small amount of embryos for research so why not use embryos that will be discarded anyway?

Looks like it would save a lot of trouble. Sure, it doesn't make everyone happy but it also doesn't go out of its way to offend some who have religious issues.

Opinions?

 

[Cattlegod]

here is what i have to say about it. some will agree with me and some will hate me for it.

see that embryo?

let a pot of coffee sit on the counter for a week and you will have more life than that embryo has.

the embryo is not capable of thought, collective imagination or even making any decisions period.

anyone who believes otherwise is entitled to their opinion, but in my opinion they are dense for not seeing it this way.


EDIT:

I am for stem cell research.
I am for abortion.
I am for human cloning.
I am AGAINST experimental genetic engineering.

 

[Elledan]

Toss 'em away with the trash or use them for research? Not such a hard choice, is it?

 

[narzy]

never heard it like that cattlegod, but you do have a point. how can people object to somthing that is going to save live's? i mean nothing else is going to happen with the egg and sperm that just sit there forever and rot in a test tube, I say do somthing with it, there is plenty to go around and make real babies.

 

[loup garou]

What Elledan said.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Toss 'em away with the trash or use them for research? Not such a hard choice, is it? >>



For some people its a question of life. Of course I dont see how it can be applied here since life will be gone anyway.

 

[Kosugi]

Tex,

Agreed. If you are going to discard them anyways, then it would be immoral not to use them to help scientists conquer disease.

The funny thing is, a poll of Catholics revealed they are in favor of stem cell research 4 to 1! It's only the Catholic leadership, and Bush's ethics, that are getting in the way.

 

[GL]

Either they're put out in the garbage, or they can be put to use to give some other poor chap (likely thousands) a second chance at life. Besides, the scientists have quit using the aborted fetuses for this according to SciAm as they have enough supply from invetro clinics.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are incorrect about stem cells being present only in the fetus of umbilical cord. The are present in the adult too in all kinds of tissue such as bone and brain. The stem cells you rever to are called embryonic stem cells as differiented from adult stem cells. At present the best scientific info is that embryonic stem cell research has proved more promising that research done on adult stem cells.

I am for this research partially for the reasons given so far, but one need be aware that certain absolutist phenomena like the Catholic church have defined themselves into a corner by defining a human being as a fertilized ova, coupled with an absolute notion of the sacredness of life. Once one embraces this notion, there is no room for compromise or turning away from a sense of horror at the notion of this kind of research. It is critical, I would agree, that some notion of the sanctity of life be adhered to in the face of a relativistic notion that life is meaningless and prisoners can be harvested for their organs, used for medical experiments like how long they can swim in a tank of water, etc. The notion that live begins at conception has a certain logic to it that is appealing, but also produces the kind of conundrum that we are stuck with here. Matters of tremendous importance ride on these definitions and they need to be concidered with all the good will and seriousness we can muster.

There doesn't appear to be any back door out of the position that life is both sacrosanct and conception generated, and the tremendous medical advances and the corresponding life preserving benefits derived from embryonic stem cell research so we're gonna have a fight and sore loosers. Clearly, for the future, there needs to be a new understanding that preserves the sanctity of life for real living breathing people, and the potential our intelligence afords us to produce miracles.

 

[WordSmith2000]

I am waiting for the anti-abortionists to weigh in on this one. I am alredy sick and tired of the fundamentalists who say that using material that would otherwise be thrown away is ?an abomination.? You say that every sperm is sacred, every egg is sacred, and every embryo is sacred, and do not want them thrown away? Then volunteer your womb, your wife?s/mother?s/sister?s/daughter?s womb for these embryos then, because that is the only way you are going to save this ?little baby.? Oh, and you have to pay the $10,000 it costs to have the implantation done as well.

It is time for anti-abortionists to start putting their wombs and wallets where their mouth is when it comes to stem cell research. Of course, this is not going to happen because the bible thumpers really do not have the courage of their convictions. They like to ?talk the talk? but they are not going to open their wombs (and more importantly their wallets) to ?walk the walk.?

 

[Moonbeam]

WS2000, what are you offering as a bulwark against a slide into a 'Secular Humanist' future where life has no value. Why thump the thumpers if you can neither appreciate their concerns or offer anything i of value as an alternative. Just a question....I don't want to sound like I'm thumping a thumper thumper.

 

[RedFox1]

let a pot of coffee sit on the counter for a week and you will have more life than that embryo has.

What's your point? The controversy arises here because this is human life. Is it alright to use humans for research, provided that they're especially bred for that purpose? I don't think so.

What if it's discovered that certain cells, which can be harvested from human infants, have potential medical uses. Is it alright to raise human infants in laboratories with the express purpose of slaughtering them to harvest their cells. No, and I don't think that it's much different.

I like to think that expiriments using human embryos are the kind of thing limited to Nazi laboratories and bad science-fiction movies.
-Russ

 

[skywhr]

Thread started yesterday by me
thread

 

[GL]

But Redfox1, we're not talking about using human beings (defined as being capable of living outside the womb) in experiments. We are talking about human embryos. Human life is exhibited in many less-than sacred things. When you cut your hair you are ridding yourself of dead cells. Likewise if you scratch your back, or cut your finger nails.

 

[KingHam]

<< But Redfox1, we're not talking about using human beings (defined as being capable of living outside the womb) in experiments. We are talking about human embryos. Human life is exhibited in many less-than sacred things. When you cut your hair you are ridding yourself of dead cells. Likewise if you scratch your back, or cut your finger nails. >>



Do you honestly believe that there is no difference between finger nails and embryos?

KingHam

 

[GL]

Absolutely not. But I don't pretend to believe that embryos and human beings are the same thing either.

 

[Elledan]

<< I like to think that expiriments using human embryos are the kind of thing limited to Nazi laboratories and bad science-fiction movies.
-Russ >>

Uhm, maybe it's just me, but the Nazis did nothing of this stuff...

But if you want to deny millions of people access to medicines which could have been developed using those excess cells, then go ahead, but don't think many will agree with you.

Point is that those embryos are no longer of use to anyone. They're left-overs. They'll never grow into Humans. Shall we just let them rot or use them for something useful?

 

[Raspewtin]

Undecided about stem cell research since I really don't know enough.




<< The controversy arises here because this is human life. >>



Human life is no more or less important that other life in the big scheme of things.

 

[warcleric]

The problem is the gateway it opens. I do not want to see cloning of an entire human being, nor do I want to see genetic altering of embryo's. Cloning specific body parts for transplants and genetic manipulation of developed human beings to rid them of genetic diseases would be a major benefit to society, but I fear how far this will be taken. Imagine that the genome is perfected within the next 5 years....well that gives everyone born up to this point about 25 years of usefulness left, because we will be replaced by these superior born humans as soon as they start hitting adulthood.

 

[ggavinmoss]

For.

-geoff

 

[GL]

warcleric, unfortunately the &quot;slippery slope&quot; argument is quite true. However, you have to remember that most people in this world are moderates and won't be interested in going to the extremes that technology allows them to. Also, remember that cloning has nothing to do with who we really are except for our physical embodiments.

 

[warcleric]

GL: still, it will upset the balance of nature in ways that we cannot comprehend. Whether people want to believe it or not, our entire purpose as a species and as individuals is to reproduce, when we are no longer needed for that process, then what?

 

[Moonbeam]

Long ago I invented a story that illuminates my attitude toward some of the genetic tinkering fears. Says one Australopithicene to another, &quot;this evolution stuff has me worried.&quot; We have all been genetically engineered by natural selection.

 

[Texmaster]

<< You are incorrect about stem cells being present only in the fetus of umbilical cord. The are present in the adult too in all kinds of tissue such as bone and brain. The stem cells you rever to are called embryonic stem cells as differiented from adult stem cells. At present the best scientific info is that embryonic stem cell research has proved more promising that research done on adult stem cells. >>



And thats exactly why I didn't mention them. The scientific community sees far more promise in embryonic stem cells. The reason I mesntioned the stem cells in the umbilical cord is for the same reason, they also contain the stem cells scientists have deemed more promising.




<< The notion that live begins at conception has a certain logic to it that is appealing, but also produces the kind of conundrum that we are stuck with here. Matters of tremendous importance ride on these definitions and they need to be concidered with all the good will and seriousness we can muster. >>



Agreed. And the way around that problem for some would be to use embryos that are already going to be discarded. Creating them for this sole purpose is a political and moral door that shouldn't be opened because its not necessary.



<< There doesn't appear to be any back door out of the position that life is both sacrosanct and conception generated, and the tremendous medical advances and the corresponding life preserving benefits derived from embryonic stem cell research so we're gonna have a fight and sore loosers. >>



The way out can be a correlation between organ donating and stem cell donating. You could win many more people with religious conscerns over (and not all are Christians) if you limit stem cell harvesting to embryos frozen that are marked for distruction and provided you get the donor's permission.

 

[GL]

You have to remember that we humans are limited in our capacity to understand the world around us. What we think is a superior human may fail miserably. There's a reason we are what we are right now. A lot of old people right now feel useless and it didn't take genetic modifications to make them feel that way - just cockiness from us younger generation who feel they have nothing to contribute when they have a lot.