NationStates Jolt Archive

This is to call attention to the repeal on Stem Cell Research Funding shown bellow. Needing 144 approvals by Sunday 2nd Jan. Please feel free to discuss and/or telegram me with any questions or thoughts.

Description: UN Resolution #82: Stem Cell Research Funding (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: 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 ever 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 Democratic Republic of Teken
The Armed Republic of Aliste

Approvals: 1 (Teken)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 144 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jan 2 2005

(The repeal is strongly influenced by the work of The Armed Republic of Aliste and I would like to take this oppotunity to thank them.)

First of all I couldn't care less about an embryo. People are creating new ones all the time. All the time.

Second, people do have to pay for things they don't agree with, why should this be any different? Do you think everyone likes to pay the wages of the doctor who performs the abortion or the person who marries same sex couples, do you think everyone wants to pay for the maternity leave?

Third, how do you know embryonic research hasn't helped anyone? Did you ask every nation? It's certainly not going to help anything if you ban it.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

The whole basis of this repeal appears to be that you think it is unethical.

I think that the thousands of nations who voted for it didn't find it unethical, so why should I accept your view point as a basis for repealing it?

If you can come up with a better arguement - one that is grounded in fact and not opinion - I will reconsider not supporting it.

I would be gratified to see this ill-conceived resolution repealed. However, I do not agree with the justifications provided for repeal by the above author. Accordingly, Ecopoeia's support has been withheld.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Electricity didn't help anybody either...until they invented a lightbulb.

I have a few points to make:

Embryonic stem cells are typically procured from batches of embryos that are slated for destruction. While I'm not sure how we'll ever agree where to draw the line between life and non-life, we can at least agree, I'm sure, that there is no ethical problem with using embryos that have no potential for becoming life for research?

The end more than justifies the indeterminate ethics of the means. I personally don't believe that the potential for life is the same as life. You obviously believe differently. Regardless, these embryos don't even have a potential for life. In return for using them, we gain valuable knowledge that could someday cure any number of diseases including:

Diabetes
Cystic Fibrosis
MS
Heart Disease
Various Cancers
Kidney Disease
Liver Disease

It could also one day allow us to regenerate limbs for amputees, restore sight to the blind, hair to the bald, and teeth to the deep south.

I find it difficult to understand why you choose to blindly adhere to your dogmatic belief system when the benefits far outweigh (IMHO) the social cost (as far as I can tell, there is no social cost).

That's all.


L8r Dude.

:rolleyes:

The "its ICKY!" arguement again. How... original.

:headbang:

:rolleyes:

The "its ICKY!" arguement again. How... original.

:headbang:
You sound suprised, I thought that that was the standard arguement for this sort of situtation.;)

*rewinds the tape*

It's Memorex. ;)

This is to call attention to the repeal on Stem Cell Research Funding shown bellow. Needing 144 approvals by Sunday 2nd Jan. Please feel free to discuss and/or telegram me with any questions or thoughts.

The record for one of these attempts is 32. You're not likely to beat it, as the average is 24.

Description: UN Resolution #82: Stem Cell Research Funding (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Standard stuff.

Argument: 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.

They're taking stem cells from the embryo and not hiding that. No attempt at misleading people found.

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.[/quote]

True.

That doesn't preclude future developments. It's the same arguement behind why we should stop searching for a cure to HIV.

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?

Freedom of speech goes against some people's beliefs and we force it. Also, ethics are relative and in this case the NSUN has proven it doesn't cross their definition of what the line is.

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

1) See above about ethics. To me, it's perfectly ethical.

2) No one has been cured of AIDS and no cure for cancer has been found. Should we stop looking for those just because we haven't got results yet?

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.

No sources means no evidence. Not accepted as an arguement.

Go here and read the linked article about adult cells (which you should have posted as part of your evidence): http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382182&highlight=Stem+Cell

And, while that is so, it's still easier to grow my own sources that will be terminated.

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

No proof it is unethical. Just an opinion.

Thank you,
The Democratic Republic of Teken
The Armed Republic of Aliste

Approvals: 1 (Teken)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 144 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jan 2 2005

(The repeal is strongly influenced by the work of The Armed Republic of Aliste and I would like to take this oppotunity to thank them.)

That explains everything.

You might want to take a long, hard look at the previous threads on this. You'll find we've shot down better arguements than this.

Uhm, I'd like the link. :D

Uhm, I'd like the link. :D

Posted. Check the links.

Uhm... the only one I see is the one to the Yahoo article I posted, and those were from fat-derived or marrow-derived stem cells.

Yes. Exactly as intended.

Thanks for the feed back, all valid arguments. As far as ethics is concerned, I do believe this is an unethical resolution - although please note that that is not my sole basis for the repeal. I respect all nations different perspective and if you do not think this resolution is unethical then obviously I dont expect you to approve it on that basis.

The repeal obviously hasn't been worded to well, which has been made quite clear! The repeal is more to draw attention to how unnecesary this resolution is. The way I see it there are millions of alternative medcines/possible cures for all of the diseases, illnesses, etc. you have mentioned. There has already been much research into stem cells and there seems to be nothing like the advances there has been in other areas of medicine. The repeal really raises the question: Why should this feild of science use the money that would normally go to other, more successful areas of treatments? :confused:

Quote:
Thank you,
The Democratic Republic of Teken
The Armed Republic of Aliste

Approvals: 1 (Teken)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 144 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jan 2 2005




That explains everything.

You might want to take a long, hard look at the previous threads on this. You'll find we've shot down better arguements than this.


I thought that last put down was a little unneccesary, what do you expect from a proposal that had been about for 20 minutes!?! :(

I agree that more funding is needed to research this more.

Thanks for the feed back, all valid arguments. As far as ethics is concerned, I do believe this is an unethical resolution - although please note that that is not my sole basis for the repeal. I respect all nations different perspective and if you do not think this resolution is unethical then obviously I dont expect you to approve it on that basis.

The repeal obviously hasn't been worded to well, which has been made quite clear! The repeal is more to draw attention to how unnecesary this resolution is. The way I see it there are millions of alternative medcines/possible cures for all of the diseases, illnesses, etc. you have mentioned. There has already been much research into stem cells and there seems to be nothing like the advances there has been in other areas of medicine. The repeal really raises the question: Why should this feild of science use the money that would normally go to other, more successful areas of treatments? :confused:
first, there is no cure to many exict disseas.
second, the fact something has solution doesn't mean you can't search for better one.
and last, you can't ban science reserches without harm all the reserches, and many time the most valuable inventions come from "un impotrant" area.

Is this one of the good old 'embryonic stem cell research is EEEEVIL!' kind of topics? Again?

Mon Dieu, just stop it. I cannot see why people honestly think taking an embryo from willing participants should be banned. It's like telling a child they can't go to the bathroom - even if it would be good for them - just because of some foolish school rule. Let my nation research embryonic stem cell uses. You never know, we might be able to offer you some help one day :eek:

Thanks for the feed back, all valid arguments. As far as ethics is concerned, I do believe this is an unethical resolution - although please note that that is not my sole basis for the repeal. I respect all nations different perspective and if you do not think this resolution is unethical then obviously I dont expect you to approve it on that basis.

Wow. +20 respect points.

The repeal obviously hasn't been worded to well, which has been made quite clear! The repeal is more to draw attention to how unnecesary this resolution is. The way I see it there are millions of alternative medcines/possible cures for all of the diseases, illnesses, etc. you have mentioned. There has already been much research into stem cells and there seems to be nothing like the advances there has been in other areas of medicine. The repeal really raises the question: Why should this feild of science use the money that would normally go to other, more successful areas of treatments? :confused:

The reason has to do with the fact that some diseases, such as cancer, can only be cured through genetic engineering or through treatments developped using stem cells. Cancer results from a genetic defect, sometimes caused by outside sources, that pops up during cell division. Something doesn't "copy right" with the new genetic data and the rate of cell division and normal "death after # divisions" programming seems to be missing. The result is well known.

The problem is, we have only two ways to eliminate the disease: Either spend time, money, and effort to try to reengineer the entirety of humanity to be immune to it, or use stem cells to come up with an effective "vaccine" for it. However, cancer is actually a minority of the human genetic problems.

The problem is that human DNA is full of junk. Not even the advanced sciences of DLE can say when a certain combination of junk data will surface or what problems they will create when they do, as sometimes it is individual and sometimes it isn't. Worse, sometimes genetic diseases skip one generation, a handful of generation, or even 100+ generations. Every parent has to deal with the possibility their child may be born with some rare genetic disease that some distant ancestor of theirs had which has not shown up since then.

Also, there are many other uses stem cells can be put to, such as healing injuries that today leave people unable to function as they once did and yet still alive. And while adult stem cells are useful, the problem I have is they tend to have already mutated from their parents and have already decided which traits are dominant. I need to get the stem cells from before that mutation and before that choice of trait dominance if I have any hope of being able to accurately target certain genetic problems.

Now, all of that doesn't even account for the possibilities we haven't thought of that may require some unique trait of embryonic stem cells to discover.

I thought that last put down was a little unneccesary, what do you expect from a proposal that had been about for 20 minutes!?!

Wasn't refering to how long it had been up.

Saying we've shot down better arguements doesn't say whether or not your arguement was good. It does say we've dealt with better, but not the actual level of your arguement.

Mainly, the problem is we've been over this particular one. Check the other topics on it to see which ones we have been over to see what we have dealt with and maybe get a few ideas for an arguement to build.

Well doesn't look like im going to get anywhere; thanks for your time anyway.