Headlines Stem Cell Research

[Pachyderm]

Do you think stemcell research should be restricted?

There has been a lot of talk about it by Ron Reagan, the wives of the candidates, and the candidates themselves, among many others. I am pro-choice and not very religious; I guess this situation doesn't really involve my ethics. So it's understandable that I would support more stem cell research. I also think it's a form of supression, not to allow people to research something as comprehensively as possible, including stem cells. Embryos are made to be destroyed is how somepeople view it, but really where is the loss when we find cures and medical advancements for some of the illnesses today that have no cures or advancements? Anyway, what do you guys think?

 

[otepsoul]

i dont know alot about it,so i cant give a good anser.

 

[Pachyderm]

I like your intent though. Thanks for replying with an ambiguous post.

 

[morelos]

as long as abortion is legal and as long as organ donation is legal, make good use of good material. period. i'm assuming, from context, you mean the really controversial 'embryonic stem cell research' as opposed to the non-banned, non-cared-about 'adult stem cell research.' adult stem cells cannot be cultured into different things as can embryonic stem cells.

in england, they have a stem cell bank, where they culture stem cells into more stem cells for research. it's like bootstrapping itself into a huge research industry. we're already behind MEXICO in cancer treatments, and we'll be behind ENGLAND in brain and organ disorder treatments within five years.

go george, go. you're rollin' us back. currently anti-war protest music from the 1960s fits. soon enough we'll be buyin' slaves and going around in buggies because you've sucked up all the world's oil and sold it to us for all our money.

i can't wait to see 1861 in rewind mode.

~ dan ~

 

[Pachyderm]

Mexico?! Oh wow. I did not know that/ I best be prepared for the change...I think I am going to buy Morelos as my slave.

 

[wiseman]

true if we can cure diseases that have had no advancements for many years at the price of a few dead embryos i see no real losses, besides what exactly are the embryos gonna say about it when they havent been fully developed. once and if we cure malignant diseases with the research everyone will sorta forget about what had to be done to get there in the first place.

 

[Skorch]

true if we can cure diseases that have had no advancements for many years at the price of a few dead embryos i see no real losses, besides what exactly are the embryos gonna say about it when they havent been fully developed. once and if we cure malignant diseases with the research everyone will sorta forget about what had to be done to get there in the first place.

What you're saying is that the ends should justify the means, and quite frankly that just doesn't cut it. It's one thing if you simply don't have any moral qualms over issues like abortion or killing embryos, but it's quite another if your excuse is simply that it's okay because we're helping sick people. You run into serious moral dilemmas with that kind of thinking, and you will come against arguments such as "would you kill 1 innocent person to cure all the diseases of the world". If you can answer yes to that one easily, then how bout if it's 10? 1000? 100,000,000? Where do you draw the line? You can't base your argument on something as flimsy as "once we have what we want, everyone will forget what it took to get it".
You have to truly believe that killing the embryos is not the same as killing a person, otherwise your logic is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Icarus]

My cousin's life was saved by stem cells.

This is a hard issue for many people, but there's too much to be lost. If somebody aborts an embryo, then minimize the loss of life! An unborn child may die, but if you don't use the stem cells, then who else may die?

There's no question about this for me...

 

[undiehiker04]

No Offense to ANYONE OUT THERE THIS IS MY OPINION What else are we supposed to do with the fetuses?it is much better to use them to try to help mankind and help understand us better

 

[voiceofreason]

People have the wrong idea about this. Yes, they take embryos (a mass of cells) developed for that purpose, and then they grow what is called cell lines from them. That is what they use to do the research.

I'm not paralyzed or have MS or such a disease, but if I did, I would surely want reseachers to use anything they could to help me.

Just another case of people trying to trample on the rights of others...

 

[morelos]

like i said, as long as viable embryos are legally available (read: abortion is legal), there's no reason NOT to.

and skorch, you make a compelling "ends do not justify the means" argument. his discussion was somewhat short and probably could have been better justified.

is killing an embryo the same as killing a person?

i say no. many people say yes. i say, "is eating a poppy seed the same as doing opium?" they contain the same chemicals, and the poppy seed can grow to become an opium poppy, but in its current state is nothing more than a viable seed-precursor. likewise, an embryo is a person-precursor. a cluster of viable cells situated in an incubator usually conducive to its growth.

the question, for me, is "when does the person-precursor become a person?"

and i answer it as follows: the minute it could naturally survive if removed from the womb, its rights as a human should be protected. my hand has no rights if disembodied from me. it dies. modern technology should not be allowed (not only because it inherently invalidates faith-based arguments, but) because eventually there will be developed an artificial womb in which a baby can be grown for harvest, so "what about an incubator" is not allowed to feasibly create a grey zone. there can not be a grey zone here. it is binary. when you're 18, you can have sex, own a car, vote. binary. you either are or you aren't. so, when you're able to live after extraction from the parent, you're a human. before that, you're not.

likewise an embryo dies if disembodied from the parent organism. thus i argue an embryo is not a person.

it really, REALLY depends on your definition of "person" more so than ANYTHING else where you take your stand on this.

i'm 12943213890% positive dangeo23 will disagree with me on this, but i'm also 12943213890% positive he will provide no sufficient argument for his "opinion."

i would expect skorch to provide a valid argument against my opinion and i would thus voice respect of his opinion.

~ dan ~

 

[DanGeo23]

should it be restricted was the question....
the word restricted is defined as: To keep or confine within limits.
so in my opinion yes stem cell research needs to be restricted... banned no... restricted yes... I think what people don't like about stem cell research (me included) is the farming of embryos with the only purpose to extract cells... embryos that could continue its gestation into a viable human being... I think they made a movie about that once.. not sure what it was called... humans had clones that were alive just to provide organ donor matches for the person whom they were clones of...

GWB stated that

A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.

Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children.... ......
As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

.....As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.

stem cells can also be found in umbilical cords and placentas... which are discarded everyday... if we have enough stem cells that will keep reproducing... why do we have a dilema...
for the Right the sacrifice has already been made... don't let it be in vain
for the Left cultivate the already existing ones... conservation...

 

[Pachyderm]

But what about the medical advances that we could possibly make. Sure, those embryos can invariably be used to help people with their furtility, but what about the ones that wont be used? Why can't they be used for both? What about people who have terminal diseases that are using drugs that make futile effort in reducing the pain? What about cures for such diseases. Eventually we will find something to reduce pain/suffering, prolong life, cure diseases, but when will that be? How long will it take. Sure, it might take a long time finding the answers with no restrictions on such technologies, but it is a step further, without any real affect on you or anybody.
Wouldn't it be the suppression of freedom not to let scientists experiments and let them have freewill, to let them find the cures and medicines that you might possibly have or will have?

 

[voiceofreason]

should it be restricted was the question....
the word restricted is defined as: To keep or confine within limits.

Are you a stem cell researcher? No?

So, I've got to ask, how do you propose to tell scientists what they should and shouldn't do?

You can't.

And that is the problem when people who don't understand the science try to "manage" scientific discovery...

 

[morelos]

science has, historically, rendered atrocities worse than mention.

 

[DanGeo23]

Are you a stem cell researcher? No?

So, I've got to ask, how do you propose to tell scientists what they should and shouldn't do?

You can't.

And that is the problem when people who don't understand the science try to "manage" scientific discovery...

WTF are you talkin about... I specificly stated there shouldn't be a bad... but that making a human clone organ farm is distubing and should prolly be restricted... put limits on what they can use... otherwise we may end up with donation centers where people donate embryos like they do plasma... disturbing..

 

[dustinzgirl]

I support stem cell research, becuase I do not feel that we can limit science unless that science conflicts with the health and safety of humanity. For instance, I would take stem cell research over weapons research any day. And i need a clone to wash the dishes anyways.

 

[dustinzgirl]

WTF are you talkin about... I specificly stated there shouldn't be a bad... but that making a human clone organ farm is distubing and should prolly be restricted... put limits on what they can use... otherwise we may end up with donation centers where people donate embryos like they do plasma... disturbing..

I agree that this is disturbing, I am not sure how I feel about cloning humans, but I think animal and plant cloning is acceptable. I do not think that we will have embryo donation centers like we have plasma centers, but we can already donate our sperm and eggs for science, so where does it end?

Where is that last step that science takes before we become what we fear?

I always thing of that saying:

God created man, man creates science, Man kills God, Science kills Man.

I have no idea where I read that, but it has always stuck in my head.

 

[deus_ex_machina]

Do you think stemcell research should be restricted?

There has been a lot of talk about it by Ron Reagan, the wives of the candidates, and the candidates themselves, among many others. I am pro-choice and not very religious; I guess this situation doesn't really involve my ethics. So it's understandable that I would support more stem cell research. I also think it's a form of supression, not to allow people to research something as comprehensively as possible, including stem cells. Embryos are made to be destroyed is how somepeople view it, but really where is the loss when we find cures and medical advancements for some of the illnesses today that have no cures or advancements? Anyway, what do you guys think?

i think it shouldnt be. thats what i think

 

[rbutler_7]

Its sort of a catch 22 for myself because I’m not sure that anyone dieing from a devastating disease that the advanced stem cell research could prove to cure would turn down help because they feel that it troubles their ethnical beliefs. We have been harvesting blood forming stem cells (hsc's) for years to cure many blood disorders with great success. It is very easy for people to see what’s wrong with the process of this research (myself included) but it has also vividly presented itself as a great potential cure to many horrible diseases that I would not wish upon anyone. So we ask ourselves the question- should we sacrifice science for ethics? I would say we already have.