stem cell research

[Sazar]

I'd like you to elaborate on this point a bit. I believe life begins at conception, how is that a matter of ignorance and PR? Can you prove that life does not begin when conception occurs? If you can prove that, undeniably, then anyone who argues could be considered ignorant. PR?

Life is being destroyed here in anycase.

I see no outcry over the destruction of embryo's in fertility clinics. Further the conception in this case is "un-natural".

If one can consider embryo's to be life created in a petri dish then why not an argument over the destruction of all the embryo's that are thrown away? Why the outcry over the use of the same embryo's for something to SAVE LIFE?

We are talking about a viable, already living person's life being saved.

The PR in this case is with regards to the surrounding circumstances. Life at conception is a brilliant idea but it is not viable nor self-sustaining which is why I do not personally subscribe to it. Further it is conception in natural circumstances, not a test-tube or petri dish or at least thats what I THOUGHT it was supposed to mean

While agreeing or at least condoning the creation of life in a lab and then disagreeing with the use of embryo's which were going to be destroyed anyways for research smacks to me of hypocrisy.

Please explain why those embryo's cannot be used for research?

 

[Petros]

Please explain why those embryo's cannot be used for research?

I'll do it for him: Because it's not necessary. When you can do the same research without doing any harm or offending people, why not do it harmlessly and without offense (unless the goal is to offend as well)?

 

[Eck]

It seems that many people form their opinions on this controversial hot topic without being fully informed. I actually wrote a paper on this subject for my Composition I class in Fall, 2004. For those interested, check it out...

http://eck.cjb.net/stemcells.doc

It's a very informative, somewhat persuasive paper.

 

[Eck]

Life is being destroyed here in anycase.

I see no outcry over the destruction of embryo's in fertility clinics. Further the conception in this case is "un-natural".

If one can consider embryo's to be life created in a petri dish then why not an argument over the destruction of all the embryo's that are thrown away? Why the outcry over the use of the same embryo's for something to SAVE LIFE?

We are talking about a viable, already living person's life being saved.

The PR in this case is with regards to the surrounding circumstances. Life at conception is a brilliant idea but it is not viable nor self-sustaining which is why I do not personally subscribe to it. Further it is conception in natural circumstances, not a test-tube or petri dish or at least thats what I THOUGHT it was supposed to mean

While agreeing or at least condoning the creation of life in a lab and then disagreeing with the use of embryo's which were going to be destroyed anyways for research smacks to me of hypocrisy.

Please explain why those embryo's cannot be used for research?

Sounds like Sazar has written my paper as well. I've heard you address just about all the arguments against stem cell research that I did.

 

[muzikool]

Every day, all over the world, people are healed of afflictions that there are no "cures" for. Blind people see, paralyzed people walk, cancer disappears, permanent physical wounds disappear... doctors and others refer to these things as "unexplainable" because they are scared of the word miracles, or because they don't believe in them.

God heals people. I believe it, I've witnessed it, and I've been fortunate enough to hear about the things mentioned above and many others -- first-hand accounts from friends or others closely connected to friends. These things don't usually make the news, which is why you normally won't hear about them happening. I can't answer questions as to why God chooses to heal or save some and not others. There are some people who have a good understanding of this, but I'm not one of those. The only comment I can make on this is that God often heals people who have faith, or are surrounded by those who have faith -- I can't say this is the case 100% of the time though.

I'll comment more later...

 

[Sazar]

I'll do it for him: Because it's not necessary. When you can do the same research without doing any harm or offending people, why not do it harmlessly and without offense (unless the goal is to offend as well)?

But you cannot do the same research. That is what the kink in this argument is.

 

[Sazar]

Sounds like Sazar has written my paper as well. I've heard you address just about all the arguments against stem cell research that I did.

You plagarized me

 

[Mastershakes]

Every day, all over the world, people are healed of afflictions that there are no "cures" for. Blind people see, paralyzed people walk, cancer disappears, permanent physical wounds disappear... doctors and others refer to these things as "unexplainable" because they are scared of the word miracles, or because they don't believe in them.

God heals people. I believe it, I've witnessed it, and I've been fortunate enough to hear about the things mentioned above and many others -- first-hand accounts from friends or others closely connected to friends. These things don't usually make the news, which is why you normally won't hear about them happening. I can't answer questions as to why God chooses to heal or save some and not others. There are some people who have a good understanding of this, but I'm not one of those. The only comment I can make on this is that God often heals people who have faith, or are surrounded by those who have faith -- I can't say this is the case 100% of the time though.

I'll comment more later...

Why did you have to bring that in.
I have no faith (other than faith in myself, family, and friends)
We've been breeding on this planet for 3 million years. This demonstrates the resilience and strength of our species. We've overcome disease after disease, plague after plague. How? Evolution. The strongest have always survived, and their offspring carry on that strength.

Believe whatever you want to believe in. The power of the mind, and positive thinking bring about 'miracles' IMO - I understand and appreciate all other views --- religious, scientific, and the invisible forces the mind can exert on it's subject.... the body. There is something intangible about our mind's ability to absorb and overcome disease and sickness. Many factors can contribute to healing the body, that is only one of them.

Mind over Matter.

 

[muzikool]

Why did you have to bring that in.
I have no faith (other than faith in myself, family, and friends)
We've been breeding on this planet for 3 million years. This demonstrates the resilience and strength of our species. We've overcome disease after disease, plague after plague. How? Evolution. The strongest have always survived, and their offspring carry on that strength.

Believe whatever you want to believe in. The power of the mind, and positive thinking bring about 'miracles' IMO - I understand and appreciate all other views --- religious, scientific, and the invisible forces the mind can exert on it's subject.... the body. There is something intangible about our mind's ability to absorb and overcome disease and sickness. Many factors can contribute to healing the body, that is only one of them.

Mind over Matter.

We don't agree, but thanks for not responding in such a way that is the tendency for many. The fact is that life is very much an issue of beliefs/faith/philosophy, and so if I'm to share my POV on such a subject then I have to share my faith... the two are intertwined.

 

[Son Goku]

If they could do the research without taking the stem cells from a living fetus, that would be a good compromise... The feasability of that, is another question though, seems to be some peeps argument.

As to people mentioning what would happen to all those fetuses, tbh I'm not sure how aware people are at large, that this even takes place at fertility clinics... It wouldn't be an issue of hypocracy, if people aren't aware the fetuses are slated to be killed, and many (I previously read mention of this) as stem cells comming from aborted fetuses... There is one thing which I haven't seen anyone mention though in the discussion here...

People who consider the fetus to be human, could very well see what's taking place as murder... If one was in the hospital and the only procedure that could save their life, is one that in their own eyes would ential killing another person (yes fetus here). Would the patient want the procedure done? Would they want to benefit from research that employed such methods, or would they tell the doctor "I'd rather die, then accept such help at the cost of another". I throw that question out there, not to argue a particular point so much, as to put the flip side out. If one was in need of surgery themself and the only procedure that could help was based off what we're discussing, what would people's personal decisions be? Would they consider benefiting from that which they consider to be morally questionable research, to be morally questionable itself? Obviously there's a certain element that is defined for one's self here.

I normally don't enter into these discussions (and I would be careful calling ignorance if one's views are different), one of the big reasons I don't enter in... I'm not really for abortion for instance, but for me, I consider life to begin before conception. You see, I happen to believe in reincarnation... The way I look at it, it's more akin to a soul trying to re-embody and then being denied life/re-embodiment. If one considers it from the perspective of one who believes in reincarnation, and also takes karma (as well as group karma, and the necessity of people to be in embodiment together to work it out amongst the collective), well the question can change somewhat for one.

I doubt either side (in the abortion issue for instance) looks at it the way I do, so seldom see reason to bring up what I do happen to think on it. That's where I come from however...

 

[Geffy]

a lot of people say there is a lot of potential in this area, others say if there was potential then we would have seen it by now.

I believe there is potential in this area of science. The reason we havent seen much yet is the limit on the embryos themselves. Certainly in the UK anyway it is illegal for experimentation to be carried out on embryos older than 14 days I believe. This poses a severe limitation as most of the interesting embryonic development takes place after this time. From what I can remember of a program regarding this issue if the limit was extended by even a week or better by two weeks then some far greater discoveries and more useful experimentation could be performed.

 

[Perris Calderon]

the main point in favor is that fetuses that are otherwise discarded are used...why does anyone want to waste these fetuses?

I don't agree with much of the opposition, however, as I made mention, the research will turn marginal decisions whether or not to have an abortion in the favor of one

if this happens even one time, it's one time too many for me, and I envision this becoming a very persuasive factor in the decision making process for women who have a moral and emotional struggle with what they may or may not do.

 

[Eck]

Simple solution: Aborted fetuses should not be used at all. But embryos created by fertility clinics should be.

 

[LordOfLA]

OKay most of this is pretty deep but I'll say one thing:

Stem cells have already restored sight to a blind women here in the UK by growing a new cornea in her eye.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31500-13337227,00.html

 

[falconguard]

this is a donor related issue, by donating their embryo couple can make the decision to donate their embryo, they have usualy done this and are apprised of their rights on wheter they would like to consider anything else. if you did not donate anything, than your opinion means nothing, it would be the equivalent of having a penis in an abortion debate. irregardless of what you believe embryos are discarded, some are viable some are not, simple as that.

 

[Perris Calderon]

it would be the equivalent of having a penis in an abortion debate. .

having a penis excludes me from an abortion debate?

 

[Son Goku]

I'd like to see someone tell the president or Congress that their opinions don't matter, because they didn't have an abortion and donate a fetus... I imagine the reply would be along the lines of "who has the power of government in this country", though for reasons of re-election (OK, not in Bush's case) they probably wouldn't say that directly

I will say this though... I was born with rather bad eyes, and I could have gone blind at an extremely young age. My mother had to put drops in my eyes (and from her account, extremely painful one's) to preserve my vision.

Anyhow, by the time I got glasses, my vision was something like 20/200 (due to a rather bad astigmatism), and the bozotic eye doctor told me to wear the glasses all the time. (Didn't need them for reading.) A year latter my vision was 20/400 and he inquired if I wore them all the time. Then, the same man told me I shouldn't have, as it'd make my eyes worse. Course I was like 8 years old at the time, and how many 8 year olds question what the doctor previously told them to do?

Both my sisters are largely in the same boat, and the younger of my 2 sisters (though they're both older then me) had been told that without it she could go blind... With corrective lenses, we can all see well enough to pass an eye exam for motor vehicle, drive, etc, but vision not 20/20 with corrective lenses... Anyhow, for me, the answer is laser surgery (just haven't had the money, college student..., though my parents are thinking they'll have it next summer, and said they'd like it done... They optomotrist out here, last time I saw him said that glasses really aren't good anymore, and could make the vision worse. He after looking at my eyes said I'm a perfect candidate for PK, and should seriously consider it. He did write another presciption though.)

All said, if I were told "we can do something for you, but we need to take stem cells from aborted fetuses", I can't say that I would feel comfortable (from the stand point of conscience) with the prospect that the cost would be another baby...

 

[falconguard]

having a penis excludes me from an abortion debate?

you can debate it all you want, but ultimately do you have the right to impose your opinion on a woman? Where is the equal right, equal freedom outrage? to argue that you have the right over a womans reproductive process reduces that woman to nothing more than a reproducing factory, with ownership rights to whomever has claim.

I thought we did away with slavery and ownership of people? Is this not the USA?

Stem cells are cells that are free of any genetic marker that tell them to grow up to be kidneys, livers or brains, hence the word stem, when given the right marker they can be coaxed to grow into something else, as Lord's cornea example. The cells have to be live, aborted fetuses are dead material and thus don't have viable cell use. Stem cells exist in the Zygote and some can even be harvested from umbilicals.

 

[LordOfLA]

To quote Star Trek: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

That justifies the aborted fetus argument in 11 words.

So many people on earth WILL benefit from stem cell research that the few aborted fetuses that it costs morraly to treat them are justified. Ok it didnt have much choice in the matter, but it wouldn't anyway until it was of legal age.

If they parent(s) are wavering on the idea of abortion the kid wouldnt be looked after as well as it could be if were wanted. If stem cell research therefore tips te balance to abortion. Thats a good thing. One less neglected child. One less neglection lawsuit, millions saved of tax payers money.

In all, my opinion comes down to this. Get over it and move forward with medical research. It should be done and will be done by someone, licensed or not.

 

[ThePatriot]

To quote Star Trek: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

That justifies the aborted fetus argument in 11 words.

So many people on earth WILL benefit from stem cell research that the few aborted fetuses that it costs morraly to treat them are justified. Ok it didnt have much choice in the matter, but it wouldn't anyway until it was of legal age.

If they parent(s) are wavering on the idea of abortion the kid wouldnt be looked after as well as it could be if were wanted. If stem cell research therefore tips te balance to abortion. Thats a good thing. One less neglected child. One less neglection lawsuit, millions saved of tax payers money.

In all, my opinion comes down to this. Get over it and move forward with medical research. It should be done and will be done by someone, licensed or not.

I didn't wan't to weigh in on this issue much, but I'd just like to point out that though that quote holds merit in many cases, it is not carte' blanche to forget integrity. My view is this, if it was an aborted fetus that the stem cells were harvested from, then you can pretty much equate that to a human sacrifice for someones needs. My moral obligations will NOT allow me to sacrifice ANY life for the betterment of my own. Even if the aborted fetus and the medical need were in no way connected (medically/socially/monetarily...etc), it is still saying that taking a life is acceptable as long as it's making someone elses better. Now, I realize that I am speaking from an anti-abortion view, and I also realize that there are A LOT of kids who are neglected/abused/ignored/etc..., but I don't believe killing them is the answer. I also don't mean to ride you LordofLA, I respect everyone's opinion on this issue, I just wanted to put my 2 cents in.