stem cell research

tiassa, your first three paragraphs look like they agree for the most part with what I said:
"What do kids need to know--other than that it is dangerous, and generally to stay away from experimenting with any of them so that they don't get a disease/addicted/arrested?"
Schools should want good law-abiding citizens. This does not mean they need to know the ins and outs of every sexual practice/hallucinogen/way to commit theft. We need to spend more time educating people so that they can better contribute to society as a whole.

I hope you were a little more sensitive about that when you discussed it with your girlfriend. Just because people die, and can die at any time does not make it okay to hurry death along--or not to try and prolong life when we can.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This and that ....

Well, there's the part of the Drug War that cites the dangers of the black market as a reason to stay away; hamstring or eliminate the black market through legalization, and this danger withers or evaporates. In addition, we learn horror stories about substances like psilocybin and marijuana that just aren't true; if the schools are going to bother introducing these subjects to students, they ought to do it honestly. One of the saddest things I ever heard amid an associate's meth habit was that when he found out they lied about some drugs, he figured they lied about all drugs. Having watched and even intervened against the repetition of this process, I feel I'm qualified to say that it's a bad result from a bad practice: don't lie to kids--they're smarter than that.

I think this is irrelevant; she chose the doctor and made the decision before telling me she was pregnant. Now, we see, in the religious terms, God endowing a life through conception, and then taking a life by not fostering the fetus with a heartbeat. Hmmm ... seriously: should we have a funeral? After all, by that interpretation, it was a living person just like you and me.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a delicate subject and I'm sorry if I offend anyone but here is my opinion.

Didnt the government decide that stem cell research only be done with unused embryos from invitrofertilization? Wouldnt the embryos be eventually left for death because there was no use for them? Shouldnt research in a country where it can be closely monitored and regulated be allowed. the researchers would just find some other country where it is legal and do their research there. Who knows what atrocities they might do.

Plus you arent killing someone if they are going to die one way or another. Its like using organs of already dead people for life of others.

I'm sorry if the next statement offends anyone.

Didnt the catholic church outlaw learning and such in the dark ages. So people werent allowed to even paint pictures. How does that go against chrisitian beliefs to learn and progress society. Wouldnt the belief that stem cell research is wrong go against christian beliefs. Eventually no one could stop the rennaissance and thats what we are on the threshold of right now.

We can either let it progress with minor regulations or let it progress with civil war, bloodshed and horrible attrocities.

You cant stop it from happening so why dont you try to regulate it at the least?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what's with all the Christian bashing??

Tiassa,

I think you are being sterotypical, not all Christians are against sex-education. I am all for it. If you are going to teach someone that sex before marriage is a bad thing (which it is, but I won't go into that now) then you have to tell them why it bad.
~Anywho, back to stem cell research~
My personal thought, most likely full of flaws because I talk before I research:
Why don't we just ask for adult volunteers to donate their stem cell instead of killing off innocent embryos (or babies as I like to call them) if people are really interested in this kind of research, I'm sure someone will volunteer.
~Or we could just stick to the whole "use the stem cells from someone who has already died" that doesn't bother me at all
-JS

 

Stem cells in adults are unable to morph into all of the different types of cells while embryonic stem cells can. Those cells are also able to reproduce indefinitely.

That all depends on where one sees that life begins. Many Christians believe it happens at conception rather than birth. While I agree that life does begin before birth, the question when still remains. Stem cells are harvested from a week old embryo. At that stage it is not a person in my book. It has barely begun to tissues. Life begins when the embryo begins to form a working neural net and begins to learn.

It really does not go against Christian beliefs to progress, it goes against their inability to learn or change. There is no commandment that states you shall not prevent humanities progress. It seems they find it easier to do that rather than learn and change.

Unfortunately that is to little information. Honestly, I believe most kids do drugs because of outright curiosity. Unfortunately the lies fed to schoolchildren only increase that curiosity and adds a sense of awe. Silence leads to the same exact road. Hasn't anyone thought about actually telling their kids the flat out truth? I think Dan's approach is a little to simplified. Kids rarely listen when given statements like 'you'll regret it.' They need to know just enough to balance your 'you'll get hurt' warning and their curiosity.
The worst failing is the lack of education on ways to get off a drug. It would be nice if nobody ever tried drugs but that is not going to happen. Parents talk about a drug and its affects on your life without ever addressing its affects on you immediately or the mindset it puts you in. Only one person I can think of talks about drugs affects to kids in this way, the dealer down the street. He seems to be doing well with that approach.

 

Suggest ...

You all take a look at Porfiry's post in the 'Biotechnology & Genetics' forum under 'Human Embryo cloned' with the link:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/explorations/2001/112401ezzell/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And the link to the sciforums thread is -

http://www.sciforums.com/t4701/s/thread.html

Just to make it easy for you.

I think this is a case where science, ethics, and morality massively overlap so there is no correct place for this discussion.

 

Hi all,
I am arationalist, not a christian, but I believe life begins at conception. And it always amazes me that so many "fellow non-christians" (or muslims, etc. for that matter) seem to overlook this thing. the point is that I prefer thinking in discrete states when they are possible to discern. And here we have an excellent example of such a possibility. The moment of feritilisation in extremely well defined, whereas any other criterium for the starting point of life is not.
For example: When are you born? At the moment the mother's cervix is about 10 cm wide? or at the moment the head if the baby/'nearly-human' comes out? or at the moment the umbilical cord is cut?
you tell me. I have no clue.
Or do you think that "formlessness " is the feature that defines the state of being "not-yet-human".
Even though it is highly unlikely that there is any "real" sensation in an early embryo does not change the fact that it is a living organism, nor is the fact that it cannot survive outside the protective environment were one may find such life forms.

Back to the issue:

I thought that stem cells are called stem cells because thay do have the ability to morph into specialized cell types. And I believe there is also some very promising research on the growing in vitro of stem cells taken from adult human beings. As long as this research is still promising, I believe we should not want to clone hamun beings for their stem cells.
Nor do I think we should want in vitro vertalisation if that means that only one in thousands of embyos can grow into adulthood. Surely there must be a more efficient (and more ethical) way.
I say nay.

 

That is true and adult stem cells do have that ability. However, they cannot morph into all of he different cell types. It seems like they can only become a few. We can not identify what ones will turn into what types so they give much less promise into study and practical use.
At least this is what is believed. It is interesting and ironic that more results have been discovered in adult stem cells than in ones taken from embryos. In fact there hasn't been any breakthroughs with embryonic stem cells yet!

 

Wha..wha..WHAT!

“And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them” (Deuteronomy 7:2).

 

Originally posted by Merlijn

As one fellow non-believer to another, I urge you to consider the issue of life (e.g. cellular life) vs. human life.

True, the moment of fertilization can be thought of as well-defined. But then a fertilized egg develops into a blastocyst. And the blastocyst can split into several parts, giving birth to twins, triplets, etc. From which follows that a fertilized egg cannot in itself represent the life of a singular human individual. Moreover, fertilized eggs often fail to latch on to the uterus and pass through and away. Are we then to define a human life as starting when a blastocyst attaches to and grows within the uterus?

Form vs. formlessness is of course not adequate for defining human life. A human cancer cell has the complete genome of a fertilized egg and will divide indefinitely, yet it is not human life.

Sure, you can think of embryos as living organisms within a particular environment. But so are cancer cells. None of that makes an embryo somehow special.

I believe with respect to embryos that the real issue is the potential for human life. That is not the same as actual human life. As far as potential goes, an isolated non-fertilized egg and a viable sperm laid side by side also represent potential for human life. That does not make them somehow special or untouchable. For that matter, a skin cell has potential for human life, since it ought to be possible eventually to induce any cloneable cell to become embryonic without the use of an egg. Still that does not entitle every single human cell to the protections of a human individual.

IMHO, what defines someone as a human individual is the mind, consciousness, sentience, individuality. IOW, a functioning brain. Under that definition, even a fully grown human body that is braindead is not a human individual -- and I think that is perfectly appropriate. For early-term embryos, a functional human brain is demonstrably absent -- which, while not making them brain-dead, still makes them brainless -- and therefore not human individuals and not entitled to the same treatment and protections as human individuals are.

So, the confusion between human life and potential for human life is quite needless.

 

Face it.

I can not fathom how anyone can even consider the possibility that stem cell research wil not, sooner or later, continue to advance. Can anyone recall a scientific discovery, popular or not, that has not been advanced by research? What kind of light has been cast upon the kind of people who have attempted to block scientific research in a historical context? One does'nt have to like it, but it will not stop. At least not for long. Resources and energy would be much better spent on creating ethical applications for such research than making a foolish effort to stop it completely.

 

Extra! Extra! Topic revival!

USA Today: Cloning technique might quell moralist objections

Well, it was still on the forum's front page, so I thought to revive the present topic as opposed to starting a new one.

It's merely a matter of patience. Whereas some had no moral objections to the prior method, it seems those moral objections held by others will soon be disappearing.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It may be of interest at this point to remind people that recent studies have shown that placental/umbilical blood is packed with stem cells which are of unprecedented quality.

No abortion.
No cloning.
No bad stuff.
Unless it's bad to use the parts that are to be thrown away.

 

Yes, but can we exploit them, yet?

BBCboy

That almost stands to reason, but do we have a method of exploitation yet?

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

TIASSA

I'm not fully up to scratch on how far the studies have reached but I do know that a couple of projects are on going and the possible prospects are very exciting.

For use with people today it will probably be a case similar to tissue typing that denotes whether or not a new kidney grown from a stem cell will 'take' or not but for the future it's envisaged that every person born will have their own stem cells stored and once married with some elements of cloning technology, when that individual needs a new kidney/liver/eyeball, they have one grown in a lab.

Your own DNA, and so no possiblity of rejection .
(Ooh, there's that word again.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

skipped over the lot of it,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

joke

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

however I see that the hardcore right wing is pro death except for this one issue, so I am thinking to passify them why not just allow them to baptise the stem cells? It would solve their main concern of the child going to hell because it was not saved! and that scientists are sacrificing them to satan (under that long name that I cant remember at the moment...) as you cant properly sacrifice a baptised child. I think it is a fair compramise, they get to save it's soul we get to save millions/billions of lives and continue scientific research.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

/joke

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The funny thing is that this is hidden under the idea of 'family values' or even 'christian family values' and yet not to long ago it was the christian thing to do to rape beat and kill women and children without conscern for their souls as they were baptised from birth! Or the driviing of the pike through a pregnant womans stomach to kill her and the child the most painfull way imaginable, if the stomach was hit then they were digtested from the inside! That was/is practiced still in most wars christians call holy. It is despicable to think that 'christian family values' are being thrust upon the rest of the world in such a way. Just think a world of christians were women and children have no legal status and were the world is ruled by a war lord bent on destruction of it's own creation... I personally find that there is no real religious thing about this issue and that the only reason christianity involves itself is because it has more desscusting uses for the child whom would grow up in the hell that they created for it. I find that as the child is doomed to die any way why not use the stem cells? The child would live on and save more lives than jesus.

I am personally opposed to it I think it is nasty and inhuman, that and stem cells can be removed from a doner just as easily and the only reason that the scientists dont like to use them is because they are older, and yet they will yeild no results from the embryo's stem cells because they havent had the time to develop to function properly. Which is the very reason they want them! Eek! I know that there are better easier and faster ways to play god than through stem cell research. That and there are other options, such as nanites and such. If given as more funding they could easiely overtake the stem cell projects in their results.

Basically my opinion is that they should take stem cells from donors as they do tissue and organs instead of harvesting them from the unborn (creepy), however that should not impeed a womans right to choose as it is her body (even if I dont like the option it should be up to her).

 

A_Believer,

Well... to get the stem cell you have to kill the embryo. The embryo is a human being. Thus, the question now is: Is it immoral to kill a human being? Well... you can answer that by yourself...

No, it shouldn't be granted funding... we should spend the money on the education of our children or on research for more important things such as medicines...

Love,
Nelson

 

Bambi

I have to give you credit here: this is in fact the first time that I hear a challenging, smart response on the matter.
I don't have time right now to give you an answer...and to be honest I do not have one yet. ...you got me. And being a fellow-smartass this is something I encounter rarely. hehehehe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!