What are your views on stem cell research? should it have been granted funding? is it morally right?

I would like to hear some christian and non-christian views on this please.

As long as the ethics get ironed out its a real leap forward. I don't believe harvesting embrio's (sp?) is ethical but I believe down here in AUS' some success has been made in stimulating the body to produce and utilise its own dormant stem sells.

your for the death of unborn children to further your own knowledge of science? you would be willing to kill a child to save your life from an illness that you may contract in the future?

Which part of my post didn't you read/understand?? the part about harvesting embrio's being unethical, or the part about stimulating the already existing stem sells in a human adult??

A Believer,

Your phrase ”you are for the death of unborn children” Is deliberately emotive but has no real meaning. An embryo is not a child, so the reference to children is very misleading. It might be possible to talk of a potential child in the same way that one can talk about a chicken egg being a potential chicken. But until either develop into something more than a small cluster of cells then each entity has no identity and no rights.

to further your own knowledge of science? Or in other words to vastly extend the knowledge of mankind in order to help relieve real pain and suffering that currently exists throughout the world.

you would be willing to kill a child There you go again – an embryo is not a child – it has no identity – it is not a person.

Cris

I completely agree, an embryo is not a human being...however lets not forget this is coming from a christain perspective.

We need that research. I would gladly see a few embryo die to heal millions and prevent their pain or death. It is not just the immediate implications as well that you have to look at but all the unexpected knowledge and its applications as well. As stated before an embryo is not a child.

Hiya,

As Christianity purports - mankind was made in the image of God. How ironic that mankind is capable of continiung the process all on his own.

Secondly, is this advancement not a natural step in human evolution?

Take care

1) Re: Harvesting embryos--The only need for this would come from the commercial aspect; that is, the need to economize the process in order to increase profits. Deliberate fertilization and abortion for the purposes of comemrcial science is only unethical and immoral because we, as people, place a certain value on human life. For the record, the idea sickens me. But given twenty years of lessening the tragedy of abortion by putting the otherwise-discarded tissue to use for human benefit, we should be able to find ways to work around it. What about being able to clone the damn things? This, however, requires much work with source stem-cells. If one still has a problem with it, we can compare it to theories of warfare: we reap a greater benefit from this tragedy.

2) Re: A_Believer--Stop inventing demons merely to have a shadow over which you might feel a sense of triumph. Until religious objectors stop holding back education and allow the rest of society to educate children on a number of issues--sex, drugs, crime, &c--the tragedy of abortion will continue to haunt us. Ne'er will we eliminate it totally--among the mass of Christian lore is one Kasdaye (Kesdeya or Kasdeja), a fallen angel who taught the practice of abortion to mankind. Certes, the angel fell, but it would appear that abortion is heavenly knowledge at least. According to Gustav Davidson's A Dictionary of Angels, Kasdaye is among seven angels who led the apostate angels in Enoch 1. The intervening centuries have done nothing to settle the issue of abortion, and in the meantime, the Christian echelon continues to call for the maintenance of conditions which seem demonstrably conducive to abortion. What's more important, then: keeping children ignorant of vice, or saving the unborn from abortion? In a fit of what I consider rare perspicacity, a supermodel (I believe Nikki Taylor) appearing on Maher's Politically Incorrect several years ago related that, while people may think of her own morals however they choose, at least she did not fall into the trap that her religiously-educated friends fell into, ceasing their educations after high school and pumping out hungry mouths with little or no idea of how to support and educate them.

3) Re: ...willing to kill a child...--On the one hand, I won't deny the sense of relief felt when the burden of whether or not to abort was lifted from my girlfriend and I--no fetal heartbeat. To the other, let's take a good, cold look at the situation: I am only adopted because I was conceived too early for the Roe v. Wade decision. At the time of my birth, abortion was a whole different matter, and had my mother chosen that route, it might have been by the coat-hanger. If we want to approach the idea of fetal viability, then I'll concede that my personal principle is that abortion ceases to be an option at that point. But otherwise, to invest in the potential of an embryonic mass of cells leads us back to Monty Python: Every sperm is good, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets irate ... or something like that. Every sperm cell and every ovum has human potential, and you're not about to tell me a woman who menstruates is immoral.

4) Re: ...willing to kill a child to save your life from an illness...--See, this is what I talk about when I criticize redemptive religions when I say it makes people selfish. Who says this is about one life? Alzheimer's, cancer, and a host of human mortalities may be averted. This bodes well for the human race in general. So it's not just about one person. Why do I aim at redemptive religion with this? Well, as long as you're worried about your own salvation, you're focusing on yourself. Those evil, world-minded infidels understand a little more about their place in the living scheme, and tend to look at what such a thing as stem cell research can offer the whole of humanity, as opposed to the redemptive concern for one's own self.

5) Re: ...willing to kill a child to save your life from an illness... (part 2)--Does anyone remember the "Bart's Comet" episode of The Simpsons? Even if you haven't seen it, worry not, for the concept still works. But there's a great line in there from Moe Syszlak after the comet crisis ends happily: Let's go burn down the observatory so this can never happen again! Of course, as they storm the museum of natural sciences, a dinosaur skeleton crashes down on Moe, who laments, "Oh, my back! I only hope medical science can cure me." To translate across to the present: Given the longstanding ethical quandaries facing scientists, I would propose to the anti-animal research people that they refuse any cancer treatment that was developed by animal testing; I would also propose that A_Believer should, in the future, refuse any medical treatment that was developed by stem-cell research. If the cure is born of evil sin, then why would a person wish to reap its benefits?

thanx,
tiassa :cool:

:D

well maybe its just me but a child is a child from the moment it is concived. We are all created in gods image, by saying it's allright to kill a person, and embryo in this case, you deface God and all those that believe and follow him. Murder is Murder. weither it be of an undeveloped child or a fully-grown adult. you cant justify the ends by the means.

I will not deny you your opinion. The course of your moral decisions, then, seems clear.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

This question relies on what a child really is. At what point do you consider the beginnings of life an actual human life. A_Believer: What is the difference between a child and a sperm then. Is masturbation a case of mass murdering children. There is not a large leap from sperm to conception. What is the defining thing that a conceived child has that a sperm does not?

From a wider, human race perspective: There should be unlimited research on stem cells and there should be no limits to how the material can be collected. The human race is still in its evolutionary developmental infancy and we should not place any artificial restrictions on being able to rapidly improve our dire fragile existence and ensure our continued survival. It is unfortunate that there are some people who are squeamish about using and collecting fundamentally very useful human cells and who are unable to see and benefit from this fundamental research. Again we see religions favoring human suffering rather than healthy long lives.

In terms of preventing the development of potential new human life there is no practical difference between using an embryo for research, to the use of contraception, to the stress of a bad day that prevents a couple from having sex that night. We could also extend this to include the restriction of pornographic material that, if made more available, would almost certainly help stimulate many couples to have sex more often and create more human life.

Cris

Not too long ago, a young man ticketed for Minor In Possession of Alcohol in the state of Missouri, where life begins at conception, put a wrinkle into the legal system. Aged twenty years and five months at the time of his citation, he contested that if life begins at conception, then he was, officially, 21 years old and qualified for the purchase, possession, and consumption of alcohol. Because the statute read "aged 21 years", and said nothing about conception or birth, the courts found on his behalf and threw out the citation.

So this poses all sorts of questions about voting (a sudden addition of young voters could tip the scales to the liberal parties), driving, military service, &c.

But what I wonder is what will be the psychological effect--and therefore the practical effect--of causing couples to come down and register with the state the morning after good sex; doctors should not worry about a "birth certificate", but rather a "conception certificate". What a bureaucratic nightmare: My husband did me really well last night so I need to apply for a Possible-Conception Certificate, form number 666-13d.

Not to mention that miscarriages would be subject to homicide investigations ....

There's a lot of work to do, A_Believer. I suggest you start now, for the entire society would have to be overhauled.

That being said, I would like to see a detail of your views, A_Believer, pertaining to stem-cell research, cloning (it's human potential, is it a life?), and the other aspects of the subject you've introduced.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tiassa,

LOL

Cris

Until religious objectors stop holding back education and allow the rest of society to educate children on a number of issues--sex, drugs, crime, &c--

What are you saying here? Do public schools need to teach about sex, drugs, and crime? I think kids learn that easily enough on their own. Basic reading, writing, and math skills are a lot more appropriate (which U.S. schools do pretty miserably). 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?

I would say it's not much of the government's concern anyway. It would be far better to make more producers in society to raise the standard of living than try and put patches on problems.

doctors should not worry about a "birth certificate", but rather a "conception certificate".

Why do we need a birth certificate anyway? It seems fairly dumb to me--as does state-imposed marriage licenses. Why does the government need to stick its nose into my marriage? Or how much money I make? Or what kind of things I buy? The whole thing seems rigged so that they can employ a few more bureaucrats and suck more money away from people who actually produce.

As far as the embryonic stem cell stuff goes, I keep hearing false arguments that we "can't stop science" or similar statements. We stop science all the time. We could just completely remove the FDA if we wanted to <i>really</i> unencumber science. Then we could get drugs to the market fast and cheap. However, people tend to want to balance the thrust of science with an eye to their own safety. In extension, it is reasonable for some to extend this desire for safety to even an embryonic human.

What really seems to be under the surface here is the abortion debate all over again. If it can be shown that dead embryos help cure other people, then there is <i>more</i> reason to abort all the embryos we can to get whatever product. However, I cannot see how anyone could weigh the convenience of one person over the life of another. Life is more important than convenience, we should know that.

So what's your stance on the issue, yes do stem cell research or no???

What about all the aborted embryo's that come from IVF programs??? wouldn't they need to be taken to full term (I mean ALL of them) if they are considered as living human beings??

Still everyone is ignoring the fact that major steps have been taken (with initial success) that will do away with embryo harvesting for stem cells...I believe the dormant stem cells in adults will eventually be able to be stimulated back into action...its been done in mice so far.

My take on stem cell research is that it should be done on adult stem cells. Bush's compromise, however, is understandable (given the circumstances) and admirable, since it does not fund further baby-murders. Its kinda like heart transplants -- use a dead person's heart, but don't go out and have a person killed just so you can take their heart (and other organs) and use it in a transplant.

As for in vitro techniques, I knew nothing about it until the issue came up, and I now think its wrong, to the extent that there are many more being killed by the process than are being given a full life. from what I have heard, in vitro sounds basically like mass-murder. Its enough enough to abort one fetus at a time -- lets do several. :rolleyes:

~Caleb

What are you saying here? Do public schools need to teach about sex, drugs, and crime? I think kids learn that easily enough on their own. Well, Dan, they already do teach children about these things, and poorly. Like sex: basic sex education is a necessary piece of knowledge in modern society. As are tidbits about prevention of disease and pregnancy, and other safety habits. But Christians, in pursuit of a goal they find appropriate, wish to turn loose as many uneducated kids as possible to reproduce like rabbits. It's observable in my lifetime. Why should a young girl get herself knocked up straight out of high school because it's all she knows to do, and she doesn't know how to prevent it? Yet in order to respect Christians, we apparently should stop educating all children in knowledge they're going to need before they're done with school. It sounds nice to let them wait until college to learn what a vagina and a penis are supposed to do together, but the fact is that they'll more than likely need to know before then.

Drugs? Hey, it's proven in the US that the lies told schoolchildren in order to keep them off drugs backfired. Maybe a little bit of truth would have helped? Hmmm?

Crime? Heck, if it's not a school's job to teach children to be upright and to avoid crime, why don't we just issue 9mm's on day one and teach them the skills of the black market by fifth grade? I remember a host of propaganda films about sex, drugs, and crime during my younger schooldays. At that time, if the parents had objections to those parts of the curriculum, their children were exempted from the session. Since then, we've struggled with the idea that if a parent doesn't want their kids learning about STD transmission rates, then nobody in the school district should learn it. These moronic moralists need to sit down, shut up, and just pray for the best for their kids, since the kids are going to hit the world unprepared.Basic reading, writing, and math skills are a lot more appropriate (which U.S. schools do pretty miserably). I tend to agree with you, as well as toss some history in there. But even those are subject to Christian objections: library books, curriculum books ... certes, there are the social-cause idiots who think Twain is racist, but they're their own problem for another day. Should we just go back to Guffey's Reader and teaching kids Bible passages in school? But as I noted, some of the things we are teaching kids we do because despite what the parents wish to believe, their kids might need this knowledge before they go to the college of their parents' favor and fail to learn it there. A bit of reality is definitely needed here; we've done about as well with the reading, writing, and arithmetic as we have reducing teen pregnancy in this country. Considering that we have a history in this country of young girls being pregnant before they know how ... we might want to consider the merits of sex ed.Why do we need a birth certificate anyway? It seems fairly dumb to me--as does state-imposed marriage licenses. Why does the government need to stick its nose into my marriage? Y'ever get a tax break because you're married? Y'ever have to get a passport, driver's license, or other document that requires proof of age?Or how much money I make? Taxes, taxes, taxes ... what is so damned offensive about taxes? Or is it like our more wealthy citizens who believe that the only appropriate thing to do is to take more from the people who don't have more to give? Hello? It's part of your responsibility to your country. As to what you buy ... yeah, I agree with you there, unless you're going to claim a deduction on your taxes, in which case you have to demonstrate the cause. In that case, yeah, they need to know what you're buying. We could simplify the tax code, but it seems the people don't want that.However, I cannot see how anyone could weigh the convenience of one person over the life of another. What, we should have had a funeral when the doctor extracted the dead, rotting tissue from my girlfriend that never achieved a heartbeat before it died? Something about fetal viability ....? It's an issue far more complex than Christians would like to paint it.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

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.

What, we should have had a funeral when the doctor extracted the dead, rotting tissue from my girlfriend that never achieved a heartbeat before it died?

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.

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?" 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 hope you were a little more sensitive about that when you discussed it with your girlfriend. 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 :cool:

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?

Tiassa,
It's an issue far more complex than Christians would like to paint it.
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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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/

:cool:

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:
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.
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.

I thought that stem cells are called stem cells because thay do have the ability to morph into specialized cell types.

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!

We are all created in gods image, by saying it's allright to kill a person, and embryo in this case, you deface God and all those that believe and follow him. Murder is Murder. weither it be of an undeveloped child or a fully-grown adult. you cant justify the ends by the means.


“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.


I am arationalist, not a christian, but I believe life begins at conception. ... The moment of feritilisation in extremely well defined, whereas any other criterium for the starting point of life is not. ... 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.


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.

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.

USA Today: Cloning technique might quell moralist objections (http://usatoday.com/news/healthscience/health/cloning/2002-02-01-usat-stem.htm) Scientists say they have created a monkey embryo without fertilization and then taken stem cells from it to grow new organ tissue. The technique may bypass ethical objections raised against embryo research.

Led by Jose Cibelli of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, Mass., researchers conducted the research in macaque monkeys, close genetic relatives of humans. ACT created controversy in November with its announcement of cloned human embryos.

In the new research, the scientists created a line of stem cells through "parthenogenesis," the development of an egg into an embryo, without sperm fertilizing the ovum. The process involves tricking the egg chemically to begin the cell division process. In reptiles, parthenogenetic eggs can grow in the womb, but in mammals they fail to develop. Ongoing work in producing human stem cells by parthenogenesis, Cibelli says, makes him "100% sure this will work."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 :cool:

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.

BBCboy

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

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

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.) :eek:

skipped over the lot of it, :(joke:) 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. :(/joke:)

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,

What are your views on stem cell research? should it have been granted funding? is it morally right?

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

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 ;)