NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey look! (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050917/fob6.asp)
It appears that we may be on the way to being able to use stem cells withoutdestroying a potential life.

Surely those of you who disapproved of stem cell therapies due for that reason can now support it?

EDIT:
Yes, I know that the Whitehead report was done with embryonic stem cells. What I am trying to discuss is the possibility that we could cause cells from a person to revert into a stem cell state. If we understood the mechanisms of it, I would think it could be possible.

I am completely supportive of stem cell research, unless it involves destroying a life.

I've heard that you can get loads of them from umbilical cords. That would be useful, take the cords after birth.

Sorry, but cloning technology means every cell in your body now has the potential to become a human being. You kill thousands of potential lives everytime you scratch your butt.

Sorry, but cloning technology means every cell in your body now has the potential to become a human being. You kill thousands of potential lives everytime you scratch your butt.

I just scratched my butt out of spite.

I’m not against stem cell research, of any kind. I am, however, against the government funding it.

Hey look! (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050917/fob6.asp)
It appears that we may be on the way to being able to use stem cells withoutdestroying a potential life.

Surely those of you who disapproved of stem cell therapies due for that reason can now support it?

just so you know, most people (and the Church, most of the republican party etc.) didn't oppose stem cell research but rather the destruction of life some forms of it involved

Good. Can we get around to SAVING LIVES now that we aren't harming the Bush' delicate moral viewpoint?

I am completely supportive of stem cell research, unless it involves destroying a life.

I've heard that you can get loads of them from umbilical cords. That would be useful, take the cords after birth.

I'm going to bump the stem cell explanation thread once again, but suffice it to say that your statement makes it obvious you don't know what you are talking about.

You can get loads of adult stem cells from umbilical cords. Adult stem cells != embryonic stem cells.

Good. Can we get around to SAVING LIVES now that we aren't harming the Bush' delicate moral viewpoint?

actually its the other way around, every source with a PhD has been saying adult is the way to go for a while now. its been the other side dangling promises that "christopher reve would have gotten up and walked out of that chair" that has held this research back

actually its the other way around, every source with a PhD has been saying adult is the way to go for a while now.

What a silly thing to say, considering that it simply isn't true.

It would be like saying, "Every source with a Ph.D. has said that we electrons exist instead of protons."

its been the other side dangling promises that "christopher reve would have gotten up and walked out of that chair" that has held this research back

No, that was the actors and others that got in on the debate just as uninformed as the, "OMG, WE HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING AT ALL TO KNOW WHAT EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS DO! THEY JUST WON'T WORK!" bs.

The fact that a bunch of uninformed actors and politicians made silly comments on one side does not diminish the truth behind the research.

I'm generally against embryonic stem cell research. Saying life began at conception has always been a convient moral cut off for me. But reverting cells back to an embryonic state is something I never considered. I suppose I would be okay with it. But if they could truely make them form embryos capable of developing into an adult then it sort of makes you wonder how it would be any different then just using an embyro itself.

Being in contact with plenty of PhD's on a regular basis I can say that most advocate both embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research. More progress has been made with adult stem cells, but most also believe that embryonic stem cells hold more promise.

It doesn't matter if emybronic stem cells hold promise or not. If you consider an embrup humann life that is worthy of protection then you can't really justify their use. Not anymore then you could justify killing an adult and harvesting his organs simply because that one person could save a lot of lives.

I'm generally against embryonic stem cell research. Saying life began at conception has always been a convient moral cut off for me. But reverting cells back to an embryonic state is something I never considered. I suppose I would be okay with it. But if they could truely make them form embryos capable of developing into an adult then it sort of makes you wonder how it would be any different then just using an embyro itself.

Being in contact with plenty of PhD's on a regular basis I can say that most advocate both embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research. More progress has been made with adult stem cells, but most also believe that embryonic stem cells hold more promise.

It doesn't matter if emybronic stem cells hold promise or not. If you consider an embrup humann life that is worthy of protection then you can't really justify their use. Not anymore then you could justify killing an adult and harvesting his organs simply because that one person could save a lot of lives.

Just to check for logical consistency, I would assume that you are completely opposed to in vitro fertilization then?

One of the things that I've always thought that usually gets me a lot of horrified stares...

We have abortions, yes? Fight against them all you want, they're going to happen. Whether in a clinic with a doctor or a skeeze in an alley with a coat hanger, they're going to happen. This is something you must accept, because we're dealing with the human race here. Nothing can be done to completely get rid of it, so we have to make it as safe and as productive as possible.

What I heard was that the people who wanted to do this research in the first place wanted to do it with the embryos that had already been aborted. No extra loss of life, and the abortions going to research to vastly improve the human quality of life overall. They wanna cure cancer with the stem cells, right? Let them take the leftovers! What else are you going to use them for? Let something productive come from an indesireable but unstoppable practice.

If someone can explain to me why you shouldn't put the resources we have to use, then I'll listen. Cause right now they're just being wasted, and I think they should have a little bit more effect than that.

I dont know how people can be against embryonic stem cell research, as the embryos are extras from fertility clinics and are destroyed anyway. The way i look at it we may as well use the cells that are created.

I supported it to begin with. Always sounded like turning lemons into lemonade to me.

Just to check for logical consistency, I would assume that you are completely opposed to in vitro fertilization then?

Yes, though if you only fertilized a few eggs and used all of them then I might not have as much of a problem with it. They currently fertilize a lot and select for the most viable ones. I still have reservations about this, however, because the sucess rate is low. You end up creating a lot of embryos destined to die. Though lots of embyros don't make it when doing it the natural way as well.

I’m not against stem cell research, of any kind. I am, however, against the government funding it.

I think if the government can find funds to do things like study the crunch in Potato Chips, they can fund something that could potentially cure ALS and alzheimers.

Then again, that's just me. I think the government should spend more on educating the US and research grants than padding special interests and lining the pockets of the rich. Just my opinion.

As a quite vocal non-supporter of the "sanctity of life" crap, I'm all for it. Life ain't sacred. Who said that? God? God's been the prime source of death to begin with.

You can't make an omlett without breaking a few eggs, so if you can't save a life without breaking a few ovaries, go for it!

One of the things that I've always thought that usually gets me a lot of horrified stares...

We have abortions, yes? Fight against them all you want, they're going to happen. Whether in a clinic with a doctor or a skeeze in an alley with a coat hanger, they're going to happen. This is something you must accept, because we're dealing with the human race here. Nothing can be done to completely get rid of it, so we have to make it as safe and as productive as possible.

What I heard was that the people who wanted to do this research in the first place wanted to do it with the embryos that had already been aborted. No extra loss of life, and the abortions going to research to vastly improve the human quality of life overall. They wanna cure cancer with the stem cells, right? Let them take the leftovers! What else are you going to use them for? Let something productive come from an indesireable but unstoppable practice.

If someone can explain to me why you shouldn't put the resources we have to use, then I'll listen. Cause right now they're just being wasted, and I think they should have a little bit more effect than that.

Selling aborted babies and embryos gives financial insentive for abortionists to push for abortions. I don't know how strong of an influence this is, but it is certainly a conflict of interest. Maybe I wouldn't be so much against using embryos that were aborted anyway if their was no profit made.

Also, legalizing something simply because it will happen anyway is not a sound argument. All crimes would occur anyway even though we make them illegal. Should we abolish all laws?

The intent of making abortion illegal is to cause more women to decide to keep their babies or give them up for adoption.

I agree that illegal abortions would occur anyways, but I also imagine that there would be fewer of them. I know a lot of people who don't do things simply because its illegal even though they could get away with it. Also some people seem to be overly influenced by the laws when deciding their own moral code. They think, "it's legal, it can't be that bad" or "it's illegal so it must be bad."

When abortion was illegal many licenced doctors with pro-choice beliefs secreatly performed abortions. I'm sure women had trouble finding out who to go to since these doctors certainly wouldn't advertise. And I'm sure more of them went to butchers then would have otherwise.

Another point is that if you believe abortion is imoral and that you are killing innocent life then it is no more justified to say that we need to legalize it for the safety of the mother then it is to say that we should train gang members gun safety so they don't injure themselves when they go out and kill people. I appologize in advance for making such a comparison. I'm only applying the concept to another situation, in no way do I mean to equate women getting abortions with gang members.

And my final point. Because abortions will happen regardless of the legality, I think the pro-lifers should put a lot more effort in dealing with the reasons women chose abortions, instead of focusing all their energy on the legality of it. If our society didn't force women to chose between their carrers and having children (that is businesses allowed more maternal leave, and similar things), if we fixed our welfare system, if we encouraged birth control, but pointed out that birth control isn't fool proof and often fails, if we gave women emotional support, if we didn't judge women for making mistakes, etc. etc. etc. We could do a lot better to fight abortion.

What I heard was that the people who wanted to do this research in the first place wanted to do it with the embryos that had already been aborted.

This is completely incorrect. Aborted tissue cannot be used to obtain embryonic stem cells. In fact, most women don't even know they are pregnant at the blastocyst stage (the only stage at which embryonic stem cells can be obtained). On top of that, embryonic/fetal tissue is generally pretty much destroyed by an abortion procedure.

The embryos that have been used in embryonic stem cell research in the states were discarded embryos from in vitro fertilziation clinics. In these clinics, they make more embryos than are needed for implantation. They try to pick out the ones that look the best to use in the woman, and the rest are either frozen indefinitely or incinerated (depending on the wishes and money of the couple trying to get pregnant).

You are correct that embryonic stem cells can be and have been obtained from tissue that would otherwise be discarded, but it has nothing at all to do with abortion.

Edit: If you want a decent explanation of the types of stem cells and where they come from: Look up a thread called, "Stem Cells: Fact and Fiction." I've been trying to bump it the past couple of days but the search isn't working on my computer.

I think Dempublicents1 is correct about the embryos coming from IV clinics. I wasn't thinking before I went on my rant about being agianst it. I'm still against using these embryos nonetheless. Researchers do use aborted fetus parts, just not for embryonic stem cells as far as I'm aware.

This is completely incorrect. Aborted tissue cannot be used to obtain embryonic stem cells.
*remembers, once upon a time*, expressing the exact same thought as Ellanesse just did, and getting told off by Dempublicants for it*
:D
Keep up the spreading of facts.

*"Once upon a time" meaning "a few months ago". Or something like that.