stem cell research
fact: the stem cells that are procured are taken from an aborted baby
fact: these same stem cells can be found in the umbilical cord
why take away life to make life better on some humans?
the cost outweighs the profit in this case
however, seeing that humans are greater than animals (dont get me wrong, i love animals and would never want anyone to harm one for fun), i would much rather the testing be done on animals than on humans that have been killed for this purpose
The Black Forrest
03-02-2006, 10:15
Chat with somebody with hutchinsons or Hodkins, MS, and you can see the need to help these people.....
Chat with somebody with hutchinsons or Hodkins, MS, and you can see the need to help these people.....
i understand your compassion... i feel bad for these people too. i was very close with this mentally ill person, who ended up dying.
the thing is, though, that it is wrong to take them from an aborted baby. why not extract them from the umbilical cord?
Commie Catholics
03-02-2006, 10:22
i understand your compassion... i feel bad for these people too. i was very close with this mentally ill person, who ended up dying.
the thing is, though, that it is wrong to take them from an aborted baby. why not extract them from the umbilical cord?
Why is it wrong?
Whotookthisname
03-02-2006, 10:27
Why not use both? That way nothing is wasted.
If a life is given to help save thousands or more...then the death is inherently justified.
Lionstone
03-02-2006, 10:28
Well, is the baby getting aborted anyway or does it get offes specifically for stem cells.
I mean, if its going ANYWAY why not take the stem cells?
Why is it wrong?
there are so many reasons
this can lead to abortions getting justified, it is just unethical to kill off a life to help make someone's life better
"Why not use both? That way nothing is wasted.
If a life is given to help save thousands or more...then the death is inherently justified.
a human life is not something that should be wasted or put to "good use." a human life is not a thing, it is a person
The Black Forrest
03-02-2006, 10:31
there are so many reasons
this can lead to abortions getting justified, it is just unethical to kill off a life to help make someone's life better
People already justify abortions. This will not induce people to have more.
Commie Catholics
03-02-2006, 10:33
there are so many reasons
this can lead to abortions getting justified, it is just unethical to kill off a life to help make someone's life better
a human life is not something that should be wasted or put to "good use." a human life is not a thing, it is a person
You say it's 'unethical'. You say it 'should' not be wasted. Why? Give reasons that aren't just a matter of opinion.
The UN abassadorship
03-02-2006, 10:33
They arent babies, not even close. They are unused cells, you want the prevention of these cells to help countless number of living, breathing, suffering people? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :confused: :confused: :confused: :mad:
Whotookthisname
03-02-2006, 10:37
a human life is not something that should be wasted or put to "good use." a human life is not a thing, it is a person
Read what I posted. Now read it again. Now read it a third time, as it seems you're not quite comprehending what I'm saying.
I'm saying that once a child has been aborted, what do they do? They throw it away. Now, if you give that aborted child a purpose and allow it to HELP SAVE THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS, then the child has not died in vain.
The lives of many greatly outweigh the life of one.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1329446.htm
Scientist have found stem cells from nose. This eliminates all ethical problems.
Valdania
03-02-2006, 10:55
Listen Shqipes, we get a new god-botherer every month who comes in and starts a few of these sorts of threads.
They generally don't stick around for very long; although from your post count I'm surprised you're not aware of this.
Cromotar
03-02-2006, 11:05
:rolleyes:
- Umbilical cord stem cells do not have the versatility or usefulness of fetus stem cells.
- The fetus will be destroyed anyway, might as well let them do some good.
- Millions of adult humans with diseases > some fetuses that will never develop.
- Abortion is justified, and legal.
- Opinion/Personal moral != fact.
New Dennistoun
03-02-2006, 11:10
Do you think your going to stop countries like China or N Korea from doing this sort of resarch?
HELL NO
Its much better that since this resarch is going to be done ANYWAY, no matter what religious extremists cry, that it is done by the more ethically minded countries in the west where we can even have this debate about it.
This is vital resarch and we're dam lucky it;s being done in a vaugly open manner and with some regulation.
Intracircumcordei
03-02-2006, 11:11
fact: the stem cells that are procured are taken from an aborted baby
fact: these same stem cells can be found in the umbilical cord
why take away life to make life better on some humans?
the cost outweighs the profit in this case
however, seeing that humans are greater than animals (dont get me wrong, i love animals and would never want anyone to harm one for fun), i would much rather the testing be done on animals than on humans that have been killed for this purpose
I think you should relize that they don't abort babies to get the stem cells, they use aborted babies that would be aborted anyway and just trashed.
Although I have no issue whatsoever with stemcell research. I myself tend to be prolife leaning persoanlly while I beleive others should have their own choice so I tend to be grudgingly prochoice. I think however it should be very much more allowable in the case of miscariages, as why wouldn't you like to see your would be child advance genetic and medical capabilities.
If there is a reason I'm not sure. I totally disagree with killing babies FOR stem cell research though, but I think we should be clear.
Although in the case of say china etc.. who has population control that is a very odd situation. I don't so much agree with forced population control but I can twistedly see why it may be implemented.
Newtsburg
03-02-2006, 11:38
If a life is given to help save thousands or more...then the death is inherently justified.
Be careful with this statement. Would we be justified in killing an 8-year old to save thousands of people?
Pure Metal
03-02-2006, 11:46
:rolleyes:
- Umbilical cord stem cells do not have the versatility or usefulness of fetus stem cells.
- The fetus will be destroyed anyway, might as well let them do some good.
- Millions of adult humans with diseases > some fetuses that will never develop.
- Abortion is justified, and legal.
- Opinion/Personal moral != fact.
plus: fetus =/= baby.
the OP cries that babies are being killed but, medically or biologically speaking, they aren't... and i would hardly call a bundle of unaware, non-concious cells a baby. i wouldn't even call it sentient or intelligent life, just cells. crying about baby-killing is sensationalist.
now, if it were actually fetuses being aborted and used for stem cell extraction after the 19th week, then that *would* be killing 'babies' (the same reason i'm against abortion after that week) as they generally become concious and self aware at that time.
Candelar
03-02-2006, 12:00
fact: the stem cells that are procured are taken from an aborted baby
No they're not : they're taken from a byoplast - a miniscule little thing of about 150 cells - which is nowhere near being a baby, and which, left to nature, has only about a 50% chance of becoming a baby anyway. Nature (or God, if you like) aborts far far more "babies" than people do.
however, seeing that humans are greater than animals (dont get me wrong, i love animals and would never want anyone to harm one for fun), i would much rather the testing be done on animals than on humans that have been killed for this purpose
Since the point of stem cell treatment is to regenerate human cells in damaged organs, only human stem cells will do. No doubt all the early research into the technique was done on animals, but they can never be used in the treatment itself.
As for human beings being "greater" than animals - only in the minds of human beings!
As for human beings being "greater" than animals - only in the minds of human beings!
that was very hard for me to say, being an animal lover, but i accept the facts. i would never harm an animal in my life, except for gross bugs :p , but i know that humans are more important. animals act on instinct, humans on instinct as well as intuition
Whotookthisname
03-02-2006, 20:07
Be careful with this statement. Would we be justified in killing an 8-year old to save thousands of people?
Yes.
The lives of the many outweigh the life of one. In every scenario.
If my death meant that thousands of lives would be saved, then my death would be inherently justified.
Free Mercantile States
03-02-2006, 22:06
fact: the stem cells that are procured are taken from an aborted baby
....not necessarily. It depends a) on what exactly you consider to be a baby, and b) what you consider to be aborted. If it wasn't more than an unstructured group of 100 undifferentiated cells that was never implanted in a uterus in the first place, can you actually consider it to be an aborted pregnancy? Is such a thing that has no ultrastructure or differentiation whatsoever, is not conscious or self-aware, does not think, remember, feel emotion, or feel pain, and is physically indistinguishable from the embryo of a rat or bird really a baby? What if it is an unfertilized female egg electrochemically 'tricked into dividing, with no potential to ever become a fetus?
fact: these same stem cells can be found in the umbilical cord
You obviously don't know the definition of the word 'fact': it means an assertion that is undoubtably and objectively true. Adult stem cells are less flexible, mutable, and useful compared to their embryonic equivalents, are found in a tiny fraction of the numbers, and are much more difficult to extract and culture. There's no equivalency there.
why take away life to make life better on some humans?
Why create a tiny clump of cells with no more consciousness or complexity than a bacterium and harvest it 2-3 days later and use the cells to save a living, breathing, thinking, suffering human life? What a question....
the cost outweighs the profit in this case
How do you figure? How can one possibly assign identical value to an unthinking microscopic cell group with no resemblance to the human species, compared to a real, live sick or dying person who thinks, feels, remembers, and suffers every day, condemned to die? You're sacrificing the life of a bacterium equivalent to save anywhere from one to hundreds of suffering and dying human lives. Oooo! Let's not kill the penicillin mold either!
however, seeing that humans are greater than animals (dont get me wrong, i love animals and would never want anyone to harm one for fun), i would much rather the testing be done on animals than on humans that have been killed for this purpose
See, the problem is that whole "animal cells don't grow into human parts" thing....those so-called "genes" they discovered a couple centuries ago?
Newtsburg
03-02-2006, 22:08
Yes.
The lives of the many outweigh the life of one. In every scenario.
If my death meant that thousands of lives would be saved, then my death would be inherently justified.
What if one death can save four lives and improve another two?
Tactical Grace
03-02-2006, 22:09
Abortions happen anyway. Think of stem cell research as recycling.
Dinaverg
03-02-2006, 22:11
What if one death can save four lives and improve another two?
Welll, I'm just guessing that since 4>1, yeah, that case too.
Good Lifes
03-02-2006, 22:12
These types of questions really cause cognitive dissonance (conflict in the mind).
I'm both prolife and prochoice. I think abortion should be legal but rare.
I'm pro life to the point that I don't think we should have "test tube babies" if you have to create 10 zygotes for every child that is born. But the fact is we have test tube babies. Some argue that they should be adopted and placed in a surogote mother. Great, except those potential mothers are being flushed themselves and creating another 10 zygotes. So the moral decision becomes, do we make use of those zygotes or kill them with no good coming from their deaths. The options that are being taken by most prolifers is flush them and forget them, or leave them frozen forever. I have to say that this is the moral equivilant of abortion. I don't understand how anyone who claims to be prolife can support the waste of 10 potential cures with no good whatsoever.
As others have said, there is a real difference between abortion just to harvest cells and abortion that is going to happen anyway. Again, if I could wave a wand and stop abortion, I would. But the fact is the abortion takes place, how can it be moral to totally waste the life when it could hold a cure?
Drunk commies deleted
03-02-2006, 22:14
fact: the stem cells that are procured are taken from an aborted baby
fact: these same stem cells can be found in the umbilical cord
why take away life to make life better on some humans?
the cost outweighs the profit in this case
however, seeing that humans are greater than animals (dont get me wrong, i love animals and would never want anyone to harm one for fun), i would much rather the testing be done on animals than on humans that have been killed for this purpose
Fact: Stem cells aren't present in babies. To get stem cells you need an embryo that has not yet developed organs of any kind. It's no more a baby than a cancerous tumor is.
Fact: Umbilical cord stem cells aren't the same as stem cells made by cloning the patient. They don't share the patient's DNA.
Dempublicents1
03-02-2006, 22:17
fact: the stem cells that are procured are taken from an aborted baby
Incorrect. The embryonic stem cell lines currently used were taken from excess embryos (embryos, mind you - embryonic stem cells can only be obtained from blastocysts, a stage that has long been passed by the time a woman would even know she is pregnant) from in vitro fertilization clinics.
fact: these same stem cells can be found in the umbilical cord
Incorrect. The stem cells found in the umbilical cord are adult stem cells. They have less proliferative potential than embryonic stem cells and cannot differentiate into all types of cells.
why take away life to make life better on some humans?
No one is suggesting that we should. The embryos used in the current lines were already slated for destruction and would have been incinerated if they were not used for stem cell research. They were extra embryos that were not needed to get the couple pregnant. Those that are proposed to be under use for therapeutic cloning, likewise, would never be implanted or develop past the embryonic stage, and would thus not be losing any life.
I think you should relize that they don't abort babies to get the stem cells, they use aborted babies that would be aborted anyway and just trashed.
Material from abortions is never used to get embryonic stem cells (it wouldn't even be possible). It is rarely, if ever, used to get fetal stem cells (closer to embryonic stem cells) because the fetus is generally destroyed by the abortion procedure itself.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...3/s1329446.htm
Scientist have found stem cells from nose. This eliminates all ethical problems.
These are neural stem cells. They are lineage-dependent, and do not have the proliferative capacity of embryonic stem cells. They could certainly be used in a few types of cases, but do not eliminate all uses for stem cells.
- Umbilical cord stem cells do not have the versatility or usefulness of fetus stem cells.
Actually, fetal stem cells have about the same versatility as umbilical cord cells. They are still essentially adult stem cells which are already somewhat differentiated, and thus cannot be used to get any cell in the body.
Dempublicents1
03-02-2006, 22:20
Fact: Stem cells aren't present in babies.
Technically incorrect. Embryonic stem cells aren't present in babies. Adult stem cells are, as they are present in all adults, up to and including the elderly, who tend to have much less of them.
Fact: Umbilical cord stem cells aren't the same as stem cells made by cloning the patient. They don't share the patient's DNA.
At this time, we don't have any stem cell lines created by cloning, although we will at some point. However, the idea behind umbilical cord cells is generally that the umbilical cord blood should be saved for use in the patient later on. For some diseases, this may work. For others, it would not.
Drunk commies deleted
03-02-2006, 22:21
Technically incorrect. Embryonic stem cells aren't present in babies. Adult stem cells are, as they are present in all adults, up to and including the elderly, who tend to have much less of them.
At this time, we don't have any stem cell lines created by cloning, although we will at some point. However, the idea behind umbilical cord cells is generally that the umbilical cord blood should be saved for use in the patient later on. For some diseases, this may work. For others, it would not.
1) Yeah, I thought of that right after submitting my post but didn't bother to edit it.
2) Yeah, but that's where the future lies for stem cell therapy, no?
These are neural stem cells. They are lineage-dependent, and do not have the proliferative capacity of embryonic stem cells. They could certainly be used in a few types of cases, but do not eliminate all uses for stem cells.
Well, life is learning. Could you care to post link, though.
[NS]Piekrom
03-02-2006, 22:48
first you need to define how we can tell that it is a human lif form without making out own individual cells as life forms unto themselfs. these are not from aborted babies but rather cells that have not made any determination as to what they will be yet. secondly umbilical stem cells are of a highly inferior quality that does not get anywere close to the ability and strength of the other type.
Dempublicents1
03-02-2006, 23:09
1) Yeah, I thought of that right after submitting my post but didn't bother to edit it.
2) Yeah, but that's where the future lies for stem cell therapy, no?
1) =)
2) That's certainly what we're hoping for. It's pretty much the only way to get around the problem of rejection without lifelong immunosuppresants, which cause all sorts of problems themselves.
Quote:
Well, life is learning. Could you care to post link, though.
Unless you have access to papers online, I won't be able to find much, but this site discusses the discovery of the stem cells in question.
http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/neuralstem.htm
Unless you have access to papers online, I won't be able to find much, but this site discusses the discovery of the stem cells in question.
http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/neuralstem.htm
Thanks. I'll read it.