NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear fellow U.N. members,

First, let me begin by saying that the title of this resolution is misleading.

It's actually a resolution for embryonic stem cell research - that's basically taking an 'egg' from a woman and 'sperm' from a man - then creating an embryo in a dish - only to be later destroyed by having it's stem cells harvested.

I don't think anyone would be against adult stem cell research, that's stem cells harvested from bone marrow, fat, umbilical cord blood, etc.

The stem cells taken from such places have great promise - they have worked.

Had this resolution been for adult stem cell research, I would not have hesitated to vote for it.

But I do not think it is necessary to fund embryonic stem cell research, it crosses an ethical line. Even if you are for embryonic stem cell research, why would you want to force others to pay for it's funding - when it may go against their own beliefs?

It's simply not ethical, and here is what really infuriates me: no one has every been helped by embryonic stem cells.

Also, there is new research (please Google, no sources at hand as of now) - that shows adult stem cells can be reprogrammed to by just as potent as embryonic stem cells.

We should be investing our money in this type of research, not embryonic stem cell research which is unethical.

Thank you,
The Armed Republic of Aliste.

The people of Demographika wish for this resolution to be passed. It is their view that embryonic stem cell research is no less ethical than adult stem cell research.

Our vote goes in the FOR column. However, we wish to express a concern that the resolution is poorly formed, poorly presented, poorly written, and overrated in its effectiveness. Its intention however, the people support.

To the people of Demographika,

As intelligent people, I'm sure you see what is so wrong with this resolution.

It is not as ethical as adult stem cell research.

Adult stem cell research are stem cells gathered from human beings without killing them. Bone marrow, blood from umbilical cords, and fat.

Fat! The very thing people get operations for to get rid of! How about harvesting all of those stem cells from the fat as well?

Embryonic stem cell research always results in the destruction of a living human embryo. That's not ethical, and I'm sure you see how it is much less ethical than adult stem cell research.

Why are we putting money into embryonic stem cell research when it has never helped anyone - and adult stem cell research has - and where embryonic stem cell research is unethical - and adult stem cell research is not?

Vote against this resolution, please.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

The colonists of Ollieland agree with the people of Demographika. Whilst it could be argued that embryonic stem cell research is unethical, why is it more unethical than adult stem cell research? The colonists of Ollieland will be voting for this ammendment.

Embryonic stem cell research is more unethical than adult stem cell research because...

In order to harvest the stem cells from embryos, you must destroy the living human embryo. Where as with adult stem cell research, you do not have to.

Destroying a barely formed life in a petri dish to possibly save thousands of lives is unethical?

To the Colonists of Ollieland,

If you had read my post, no one has every been saved - let alone helped - by embryonic stem cells.

Also, 'adult stem cells' can be reprogrammed to be just as potent as embryonic stem cells.

This renders embryonic stem cell research - useless.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

It is our view that embryonic destruction is acceptable, as the embryo has not attained self-awareness or sentience. AFTER viability, however, we view it as destruction of a life.

Until there is proof from an internationally recognised scientific institute that embryo's are in fact self-aware [a prospect we do not see happening], we are more than happy to aid in the advancement of science.

To the people of Demographika,

I understand what you are saying, and let me say that is one of the most - if not the most - intelligent arguments I have heard from anyone who is pro-embryonic stem cell research.

I guess this is where we disagree, I look at it as a very black and white issue.

The embryo either is a human life, or it is not a human life. If it is, it must be protected.

Unfortunately, science has spoken and has said that in fact - the human embryo is a human life.

Granted, it is in the earliest form of development - but it is a human life. This is why I feel it must be protected.

What are we saying to people when we fund research like this? We are saying that, "Although there are other more acceptable means to help people with stem cells, we feel human life is expendable and desposable."

I'm sorry - but that is unethical and wrong, in my opinion.

I have faith in the good people of Demographika - and am sure they will vote against the resolution, as they are a moral and intelligent people.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

The Federation of Meteor Impact Victims agrees with Demographika. The stage in development they are in is a clump of cells no more self-aware than a colony of bacteria. Besides, they are produced for IVF, and many of them go to waste in said process. Would you rather they were flushed down a medical waste disposal, than go to research that could save lives?

The resolution will not mandate funding for the creation of embryos for reasearch, only to use those that would go to waste. The only other way to use them is to make it mandatory that they all be implanted in someone. Even if you operate from a definition of human life that includes a clump of cells, this resolution still does not mandate ending any lives.

We feel that the embryo is not a human life yet in that it is not viable. It is going to be a human life, should development continue, but it is not a human life yet. Abortion is already legal in Demographika up until viability, and embryonic stem cell research is more moral than abortion.
We have great moral security over the issue of a foetus' rights. In Demographika, murderers are tried for two murders if their victim is pregnant with a potentially viable foetus.

The people of Demographika are becoming agitated that their decision is being questioned by a nation who's government they describe as 'corrupt' and 'immoral' . [OOC: That doesn't mean me in person, I'm liking this discussion, it does mean the people.] They are also angry at the arrogance displayed by the addition of "The Armed Republic of Aliste" at the end of a previous communiqué, which they have taken as a threat to imply that the nation of Aliste is backing their words with force.
Whilst they recognise the arguments your nation has presented, they are still firmly of the opinion that voting in favour of the resolution at hand is the correct course of action, and a vote against it would be inconsistent and nonsensical considering the history of Demographikan legislation on the subject of abortions and foetus' rights

The stage in development they are in is a clump of cells no more self-aware than a colony of bacteria.

And because it is not aware, it is not a human life? Well I'm sorry, but science greatly disagrees with you.

The embryo is either a human life or it is not. In all scientific reasoning and truths, it has been decided that the embryo is a human life.

Whether it is aware or not, is not the point.

Besides, they are produced for IVF, and many of them go to waste in said process. Would you rather they were flushed down a medical waste disposal, than go to research that could save lives?

This is irrelevant. The resolution is that of do I wish to support funding for embryonic stem cell research.

No, I do not wish to support funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The resolution will not mandate funding for the creation of embryos for reasearch, only to use those that would go to waste.

Actually, this is just false.

The resolution is to fund embryonic stem cell research. It says nothing about 'using what will go to waste'.

And if you know anything about embryonic stem cell research, the only way is to create them in a petri dish.

Even if you operate from a definition of human life that includes a clump of cells, this resolution still does not mandate ending any lives.

Wrong. The human embryo is a human life, correct? If you disagree, you're going on the record as disagreeing with science.

So by destroying that embryo, which you have to do if you are going to harvest the stem cells from the embryo (the whole point of embryonic stem cell research) - then you're going to destory a human life - correct? Correct.

----------------------------------------------------

And to the people of Demographika:

Because it is not yet viable, it is not yet a human life?

So what do you tell a pregnant woman whose baby is kicking? Heh.

Because it is not yet viable, it is not yet a human life?

So what do you tell a pregnant woman whose baby is kicking? Heh.

A child at that stage in its development is protected under Demographika law as a human life. An embryo, however, is not a human life yet.

Unfortunately for you Demographika, you have put yourself in an awkward position.

You see, what you are telling me that it gradually becomes more of a human life as it develops, that somewhere between conception and birth - it becomes a human life.

I suppose by this definition, a 4 year old girl is less human than a 40 year old woman.

You see, this is not true. It's wishful thinking, really - under your definition there would be no reason to protest abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

But many people are agitated, because in fact they (the embryo/fetus) are human lives.

Science does not disagree, and neither do many of the supporters of abortion or embryonic stem cell research.

The embryo is a human life, period. From the very point of conception, a human life has been created.

Not a religion argument, my friend - I am not religious. These are scientific arguments. Take them or leave them. [OOC: I'm liking this discussion as well. :)]

"Scientists know that these cells, harvested from human embryos, could eradicate many diseases"

Man, if I had a nickel for everything science "knows" I'd be Bill friggin Gates. Now maybe the reason they don't know anything is that we haven't let them study the cells very hard, but this wouldn't be the first time we poured lots of money into something useless..
I'm all for stem cells, but not pulled out of babies ><

The PRNEK, whilst not being a member of the UN, would like to point out the following list:

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm


Not only is Adult Stem Cell research more "moral", but it is also much more effective.

"Scientists know that these cells, harvested from human embryos, could eradicate many diseases"

Man, if I had a nickel for everything science "knows" I'd be Bill friggin Gates. Now maybe the reason they don't know anything is that we haven't let them study the cells very hard, but this wouldn't be the first time we poured lots of money into something useless..
I'm all for stem cells, but not pulled out of babies ><

Exactly, Otaku Stratus! See, you got the right idea.

I'm not against stem cell research, if this resolution was about adult stem cell research I'd be all for it - no hesitation.

But let's face it - embryonic stem cells have yet to help anyone - and new research show that adult stem cells can be reprogrammed and made just as potent as embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cell research is unethical. Adult stem cell research is not. Embryonic stem cells are harvested by destroying the human embryo - a human life. Adult stem cells are harvested from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, fat, etc. and this does not result in destroying a human life. Embryonic stem cell research has never helped anyone. Adult stem cell research has.

It's black and white, as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the support Otaku. :)

---------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: Sorry I missed your post, PRNEK. But yes, exactly - adult stem cell research is more 'moral' and it is also much more effective.

Thanks for the support, PRNEK. :)

I'll give you my experience:

Right now, my nation is suffering under an epidemic of two viruses, both of which makke anything seen on Earth look like a mild head cold. And yes, I am including AIDS, Ebola, and the rest of the superviruses in that category.

The first virus infects the nervous system and causes pain beyond your ability to imagine in the abdoman. It usually sets on in early childhood and, with the exception of specially-engineered viruses that are prohibitively expensive, we have to use powerful narcotics with extreme hallucinogenic side-effects to treat the victims just to give them a chance of survival. Euthanasia, always a free choice, is a popular decision of those that wish to be off teh narcotics but cannot afford to buy the engineered viruses. It has no known cause of infection and no known method of spreading. The victims are purely random.

The other virus is a mutation of the first that causes a person to stop producing melanin and causes them to require constant infusions of blood just to survive. The people generally become extremely feral and take to attacking people at night, biting into a vein, and drinking their blood directly. The viruses designed to deal with the first disease are totally worthless against this one, as it also infects the blood. It can be spread by blood or, in the most potent cases, by saliva. It has so far also resisted all attempts to engineer something to kill it, including viruses that would kill AIDS a hundred times over.

You can understand why we want to go to stem cell research. There is a hope we can use that to find and engineer something to stop those two viruses. If not, I shudder to think of what will happen when they spread to other nations.

DemonLordEnigma,

I understand completely, there is nothing wrong with adult stem cell research.

But this is embryonic stem cell research - this is different.

You must destory human embryos in order to harvest the stem cells.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

DemonLordEnigma,

I understand completely, there is nothing wrong with adult stem cell research.

But this is embryonic stem cell research - this is different.

You must destory human embryos in order to harvest the stem cells.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Actually, human embryos are worthless to my people. They're not human, so the debate of the humanity of embryos does not affect them. The genetic differences between them and humanity, which they evolved from, are too great for humans to be considered more than a distant relative.

Actually, there is something wrong with adult stem cells: I need stem cells that can mutate intoo anything to investigate all possibilities. The first disease could come in through the liver, the kidney, the eye, the teeth, or over a billion other places on the body. It may be hair follicle #42659467 on your back that is the infect point. We don't know and our medical science is baffled by how it spreads. And the second one is so potent we may need to engineer a multitude of specialized cells to fight it.

However, to deal with ethics, the stem cells are only taken from embryos that are going to be aborted anyway. While limiting our ability to get genetic samples foor testing, this does prevent the question of growing embryos in a lab and the ethics of that.

Wait, DemonLordEnigma,

I'm confused, your people are not human? But this is the...the United Nations...of Earth.

So that means, but you can't...guh. I'm confused. Heh. :confused:

Wait, DemonLordEnigma,

I'm confused, your people are not human? But this is the...the United Nations...of Earth.

So that means, but you can't...guh. I'm confused. Heh. :confused:

I'm not the only nonEarth nation, or empire in my case, that is part of the UN. That has caused a few things to be considered in the past that would normall be ignored, such as the allowing people to marry across species borders with the last resolution. And no one said you had to be on Earth to be in the UN.

Interesting, DemonLordEnigma.

I was unaware there were nations from other planets apart of the U.N.

Hmmmm...

I think that the main thing people should look at is the fact that Aliste states previously, This research has not been recorded to have saved or helped any lives. Whether or not the good intention is there, the fact of the matter is, why should we put money into something that isn't actually known to help anyone?+

I think that the main thing people should look at is the fact that Aliste states previously, This research has not been recorded to have saved or helped any lives. Whether or not the good intention is there, the fact of the matter is, why should we put money into something that isn't actually known to help anyone?+

I am pretty sure before they started using x-rays to a medical benifit, there had never been any evidence that they saved lives either. Penicillin was discovered in mould.

Just because something hasn't been shown to save lives yet, or make lives better, doesn't mean it won't. And there is a lot of potential in them, which makes it worthwhile investigating.

I think that the main thing people should look at is the fact that Aliste states previously, This research has not been recorded to have saved or helped any lives. Whether or not the good intention is there, the fact of the matter is, why should we put money into something that isn't actually known to help anyone?+

Why should we put money into developping medications to help treat and cure AIDS when those meds have yet to be proven to help? Why should we put money into developping new vaccines when those vaccines have yet to be proven to help? Why should we funnel money to cure cancer and AIDS when so far they have been failures? Why should we funnel money into developing alternatives to fossil fuels when they have yet to succeed?

The arguement is fallacious. Just because something has yet to succeed doesn't mean it won't. And even a failure gives science information it will need to succeed next time. If you're not willing to take the risk of failure, you're not willing to take the risk of success or advancement. Every attempt to advance comes with the possibility of failure and alack of proof it will actually help.

I would just like to say that there has been lots of process and foward-movement and breakthroughs with adult stem-cells. There has been no such process movements or breakthroughs with embryotic stem cells. It is impossible to find cures with embriotic stem cells.

The Emirate of Portuspain

I think that the main thing people should look at is the fact that Aliste states previously, This research has not been recorded to have saved or helped any lives. Whether or not the good intention is there, the fact of the matter is, why should we put money into something that isn't actually known to help anyone?+
i'm really glad no one with your attitude talked to Dr. Jonas Salk in 1954.

the year before he finally perfected the polio vaccine.

just because embryonic stem cell research hasn't produced any cures yet, doesn't mean it won't in the future.

as far as the ethical issue goes, it is the opinion of Finaco's scientists that the definition of human includes self-awareness and cognition. since an embryo is capable of neither, an embryo is not human. (this is also why euthanasia of the permanently brain-dead is legal in Finaco -- they no longer have awareness or cognition and therefore are no longer human.) we believe the defining quality of humanity is our minds, not our flesh. so flesh with no mind is not a human.

so our science disagrees with yours. Finaco will be voting for this resolution in keeping with the principles and ethics of our own nation.

Why should we put money into developping medications to help treat and cure AIDS when those meds have yet to be proven to help? Why should we put money into developping new vaccines when those vaccines have yet to be proven to help? Why should we funnel money to cure cancer and AIDS when so far they have been failures? Why should we funnel money into developing alternatives to fossil fuels when they have yet to succeed?

The arguement is fallacious. Just because something has yet to succeed doesn't mean it won't. And even a failure gives science information it will need to succeed next time. If you're not willing to take the risk of failure, you're not willing to take the risk of success or advancement. Every attempt to advance comes with the possibility of failure and alack of proof it will actually help.

True and i would usually be inclined to agree with you but there's a whole human rights issue involved with this one. Taking cells from babies or whatever way you choose to look at it (i personally see it as babies) is immoral to many people, especially as many of you voting for this issue are anti aboritionists, there's very slight differences

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=373860