have you ever picked a flower? accidentally pulled off a leaf?
=o that's killing life! that is already living, and now it's dead.
..why is that ok? that's way more living than an embryo in a petri dish.
Full Version: stem-cell research
QUOTE(ghetosmurph @ Jun 12 2005, 8:50 PM)
but b/c it goes inactive, there is a time where it is for all intensive purposes living, but when it goes in active it is in a sense dead.... do you see my point here? the life is not given to the fertilized egg or fetus by the womb, it is living, but unless the womb is there to nurture and protect it, it will nt reach the next stage of development and become inactive. for tht time of activity outside the womb, it is living, nd not given the chance to develop.... It isnt living by the time it get to the scientists and researchers, but for a time it is living.... anyway, tht is only a side point, the major pont is that ASC research allows for all the potentail from ESC, it is so much more advanced, and it dosen't have any affiliations with thing tht can be considered against ones religon basically. ASC is the win win situation, but b/c of all the ESC hype it isn't getting the media coverage it should.....
an embryo in a petri dish is no more a life than any cell in a petri dish. each of those cells, theoretically, can create a life. just because one will become a life much easier than another one doesn't make it more alive.
Since any cell in the perti dish can theoretically create a life, why dont they take those cells?? it's because something happened in the creation of the embryo that made that cell change, that cell started developing, it came alive, it became a human life. And it those cells, the ones which allow the baby to grow that they are taking. it isn't necessarily the ECS researchers fault but I still believe there must be a better more moral solution. A better way to solve these problems without supporting an activity which i do not believe to be moral. ASC research presents that solution, which is why i support it.
because we don't have the technology to use ASCs yet.
we don't hvae the technology to use anything but ESCs right now.
and no, waiting is not an option.
the more you wait the more people die.
we don't hvae the technology to use anything but ESCs right now.
and no, waiting is not an option.
the more you wait the more people die.
QUOTE(touch my monkey @ Jun 12 2005, 6:25 PM)
well now that just stopped me from believing any of these "facts" that come from you, because that is so far from true. if anything, as days pass, evolution is being more and more proven to be true. might wanna get your facts straight.
and ghettosmurf, the embryos being used do NOT have the potential to live because they don't have a womb to be implanted into to make them living.
and ghettosmurf, the embryos being used do NOT have the potential to live because they don't have a womb to be implanted into to make them living.
Like I said, I am for evolution, I think it does happen, however, I do believe that God guided it all, all I think is that some people are in too much of a hurry tto prove evolution, the proof will present itself, alot of the stuff that exist in biology books has been proven as wrong, but still tought, I may have been a little general with my previous statement. I'm sorry, but there have ben things proven wrong that are still tought as fact. I didn't mean to be so general.
Oh,btw just cuz its kind of a heated debate in here, that doesnt mean we can't all be friends in the other forums and such right?
just trying to keep some peace. However I still do think stem cell research is wrong. That's my final stand, I didn't reeally read any of the recent arguments, but that's my final stand and I'm done with this debate. Thanks!
QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jun 12 2005, 9:40 PM)
because we don't have the technology to use ASCs yet.
we don't hvae the technology to use anything but ESCs right now.
and no, waiting is not an option.
the more you wait the more people die.
we don't hvae the technology to use anything but ESCs right now.
and no, waiting is not an option.
the more you wait the more people die.
umm i think you have that backwards, did you read the article i linked on page 2?? we have and are using ASCs now ESC technology is still in the testing phase.... we have ASC now. ESC is all about the potential, which they havent figured out how to harness, and now with the cell transformation of ASCs whatever advantage in potential that ESCs had is gone. your right, waiting is not an option, that is why it is being used now, and why i believe more of the Funding should go into ASC's to help the people whom we have the power to help, now.
Yes and you are correct in that ASC's will try to revet to what they were and might be less useful in the brain and such areas, however the fact of the matter is that it can still be done. it is an alternative, and since they haven't figured out how to use ESCs to replicate any of those things yet, i believet tht we should put more of the funding into where it is helping ppl now.
This has been fun, it's always good to debate worthy oponnents, it gives me a chance to see how much more i can learn on a subject and prepares me to better defend my views angainst others. Since i believe that my point has been made, as have the rest of yours, which i can clearly see, i believe it is time to focus my efforts eslewhere. Thanx, I really had a lot of fun doing this, hope to see the rest of you around on CB
QUOTE(ghetosmurph @ Jun 12 2005, 11:13 PM)
umm i think you have that backwards, did you read the article i linked on page 2?? we have and are using ASCs now ESC technology is still in the testing phase.... we have ASC now. ESC is all about the potential, which they havent figured out how to harness, and now with the cell transformation of ASCs whatever advantage in potential that ESCs had is gone. your right, waiting is not an option, that is why it is being used now, and why i believe more of the Funding should go into ASC's to help the people whom we have the power to help, now.
Yes and you are correct in that ASC's will try to revet to what they were and might be less useful in the brain and such areas, however the fact of the matter is that it can still be done. it is an alternative, and since they haven't figured out how to use ESCs to replicate any of those things yet, i believet tht we should put more of the funding into where it is helping ppl now.
This has been fun, it's always good to debate worthy oponnents, it gives me a chance to see how much more i can learn on a subject and prepares me to better defend my views angainst others. Since i believe that my point has been made, as have the rest of yours, which i can clearly see, i believe it is time to focus my efforts eslewhere. Thanx, I really had a lot of fun doing this, hope to see the rest of you around on CB
Yes and you are correct in that ASC's will try to revet to what they were and might be less useful in the brain and such areas, however the fact of the matter is that it can still be done. it is an alternative, and since they haven't figured out how to use ESCs to replicate any of those things yet, i believet tht we should put more of the funding into where it is helping ppl now.
This has been fun, it's always good to debate worthy oponnents, it gives me a chance to see how much more i can learn on a subject and prepares me to better defend my views angainst others. Since i believe that my point has been made, as have the rest of yours, which i can clearly see, i believe it is time to focus my efforts eslewhere. Thanx, I really had a lot of fun doing this, hope to see the rest of you around on CB
'
you don't understand what i ment... do you?
ASC's are farther along yes... but we don't have the technology to use them like we have to use ESCs. Our current technology will let use us ESCs in ways ASCs can never be used, like regrowing whole limbs.
ASCs are farther along... but they'll read a tecnology road block, and ESCs will pass them.
^ true, ASCs will not grow parts that ESCs are used for..i think that's a much better alternative then traumatizing someone with the burden of being made fun for having anatomic (sp?) limbs.
can you show me this proving wrong of what we've been teaching as fact? nothing that is being taught (yes, there's an a in there!) as fact has been proven wrong....if it was, people wouldn't be teaching it.
and please don't show me something from the bible as proving it wrong. because that's not proof at all.
QUOTE
I'm sorry, but there have ben things proven wrong that are still tought as fact. I didn't mean to be so general.
can you show me this proving wrong of what we've been teaching as fact? nothing that is being taught (yes, there's an a in there!) as fact has been proven wrong....if it was, people wouldn't be teaching it.
and please don't show me something from the bible as proving it wrong. because that's not proof at all.
I just wanted to address a couple of things in this thread that caught my fancy.
On morality, while the sacred text may state that it is honnorable to die for one's religion, I doubt it says it's acceptable to kill innocents the name of one's religion. In fact, the very same sacred text says "it is forbidden to attack noncombattants, even if they belong to the attacking countries". Those who did the evil deed twisted the words of the Prophet Muhammad who said 'a criminal will be punished only for his own deeds'. What crime did those in the towers commit? The hijackers were not following the morality of their religion, they were following an evil. If they believe evil to be moral, then we, as a moral society, must find ways to destroy them else more evil will befall us. And so, to answer your question, we very much have a right to stop them.
They have a right to decide for themselves, but they were also deciding to end the lives of those who wished to live. In that, they obviously committed the very crime they accuse innocents of. Which makes them... hypocrites. Cowardly hypocrites who can't even face the opponent but harm the innocent bystanders. Is that moral? Maybe to them, but to those of us who are sane, we know better... I hope.
I believe that it is acceptable to impose our way of life upon another IF AND ONLY IF we are sanctioned by love and the hope that our ways can improve lives, not destroy them.
On the subject of stem-cell research, my stand is pro. I wouldn't want to carry 11 babies. If I could put them to a better use than being thrown away, in this case to help advance science for the betterment of mankind, I will do so.
Having the potential to live doesn't mean something is alive. The two are different. Having the potential means there could be a chance it could live, and being alive means it's already living. The potential to live doesn't equate life.
If a baby is crying in a trash can, he/she is alive and needs to be saved. Though they baby cannot live in that environment he/she IS already living.
However, saying that something is alive because it has the potential to live is ridiculous. In your words, "that's like saying" a boiled egg had the potential to live so it's living. Hopefully, you and I could agree that it is not.
QUOTE(ghetosmurph @ Jun 12 2005, 4:26 PM)
Oh and on the morality issue......
Ok then you believe everybody has the right to decide what is morally acceptable for him or her and noone should have another's morals pushed upon him correct?? OK then answer me this question: Was it morally acceptable for the Alqueda people to fly the 747's into the twin towers??? They believed that according to thier sacred laws they were commiting the highest act of giving one's life for religion.... they believed they were doing the will of Allah, therefore, do we have her right to try to stop them??? According to your statement, we don't.
Ok then you believe everybody has the right to decide what is morally acceptable for him or her and noone should have another's morals pushed upon him correct?? OK then answer me this question: Was it morally acceptable for the Alqueda people to fly the 747's into the twin towers??? They believed that according to thier sacred laws they were commiting the highest act of giving one's life for religion.... they believed they were doing the will of Allah, therefore, do we have her right to try to stop them??? According to your statement, we don't.
On morality, while the sacred text may state that it is honnorable to die for one's religion, I doubt it says it's acceptable to kill innocents the name of one's religion. In fact, the very same sacred text says "it is forbidden to attack noncombattants, even if they belong to the attacking countries". Those who did the evil deed twisted the words of the Prophet Muhammad who said 'a criminal will be punished only for his own deeds'. What crime did those in the towers commit? The hijackers were not following the morality of their religion, they were following an evil. If they believe evil to be moral, then we, as a moral society, must find ways to destroy them else more evil will befall us. And so, to answer your question, we very much have a right to stop them.
QUOTE(ghetosmurph @ Jun 12 2005, 4:26 PM)
Why should they bow to our set of morals, they should have the right to decide for themselves..... if they want to kill innocent lives we don't have the right to tell them it's not right and keep them from doing it..... You may not like it, and wouldn't do it yourself and that's fine....... They should be able to make thier own set of choices...... right???
They have a right to decide for themselves, but they were also deciding to end the lives of those who wished to live. In that, they obviously committed the very crime they accuse innocents of. Which makes them... hypocrites. Cowardly hypocrites who can't even face the opponent but harm the innocent bystanders. Is that moral? Maybe to them, but to those of us who are sane, we know better... I hope.
I believe that it is acceptable to impose our way of life upon another IF AND ONLY IF we are sanctioned by love and the hope that our ways can improve lives, not destroy them.
On the subject of stem-cell research, my stand is pro. I wouldn't want to carry 11 babies. If I could put them to a better use than being thrown away, in this case to help advance science for the betterment of mankind, I will do so.
QUOTE(gotblog4me? @ Jun 12 2005, 4:44 PM)
as for that, don;t you see, he's not saying you deliberately said you considered those life, but that you end up contradicting yourself when first you say, these embryos have no potential to live (they are not alive, they cannot live, etc, anyway you want to put it) but in saying that "So one fertilized egg is implanted into the woman's uterus to develop into a baby" you disprove your your first statement, by showing that the embryo does have the potential to live! and henceforth is alive.
Just because something cannot survive, outside of a certain environment, doesnt mean it isn't living... that's like saying, "oh, there's a baby crying in a trash can, it cant survive there, so it must not be living anymore"
Just because something cannot survive, outside of a certain environment, doesnt mean it isn't living... that's like saying, "oh, there's a baby crying in a trash can, it cant survive there, so it must not be living anymore"
Having the potential to live doesn't mean something is alive. The two are different. Having the potential means there could be a chance it could live, and being alive means it's already living. The potential to live doesn't equate life.
If a baby is crying in a trash can, he/she is alive and needs to be saved. Though they baby cannot live in that environment he/she IS already living.
However, saying that something is alive because it has the potential to live is ridiculous. In your words, "that's like saying" a boiled egg had the potential to live so it's living. Hopefully, you and I could agree that it is not.
september 11th was alqueida forcing thier morals on the people in the buildings and planes.
if they had simply committed suicide, i wouldn't care. but they forced thier beliefs upon others.
which puts them in the same leauge as bush and some christians i know.
if they had simply committed suicide, i wouldn't care. but they forced thier beliefs upon others.
which puts them in the same leauge as bush and some christians i know.
i would like to note:
the first person to grow embryonic stem cell sin culture was a devout christian.
the person who funded the first attempt to establish an embryonic stem cell line was a devout christian.
they both recognised that ESC technology uses embryos that are 3 to 4 days old, when it's still litereally a ball of cells.
only at day 14 do the cells even start orienting themselves in the general location they need to be.
here's a quote from a book i'm reading right now; the proteus effect (paraphrase)
just because an embryo has the potential for life doesn't make it alive. every person has the potential for death, but that doesn't mean they're dead, right?
(excuse the double post. and edit didn't seem to work right.)
the first person to grow embryonic stem cell sin culture was a devout christian.
the person who funded the first attempt to establish an embryonic stem cell line was a devout christian.
they both recognised that ESC technology uses embryos that are 3 to 4 days old, when it's still litereally a ball of cells.
only at day 14 do the cells even start orienting themselves in the general location they need to be.
here's a quote from a book i'm reading right now; the proteus effect (paraphrase)
just because an embryo has the potential for life doesn't make it alive. every person has the potential for death, but that doesn't mean they're dead, right?
(excuse the double post. and edit didn't seem to work right.)
ohgeebus. i didn't realize there were so many responses.... 
wahh i wanna read em..no time. but for now..i spotted something
its just a technicality..but they usually use more than one because the chances of one fertilized egg surviving is slim.
and...about the ASC and ESC..i thought ASC has been doing better?
-http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
-http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp
er...and being a bit bipolar here, but heres why ASC aren't as good as ESC...
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Adult_stem_cells
wahh i wanna read em..no time. but for now..i spotted somethingQUOTE
Naturally the rate of fertilization is higher than in nature, so the fertility clinic ends up with, say, a dozen fertilized eggs. Now, the couple naturally only wants one child--who would want twelve at once, for God's sake? So one fertilized egg is implanted into the woman's uterus to develop into a baby. Lo and behold, there are still eleven fertilized eggs in that petri dish? Well, what are we going to do with them?
its just a technicality..but they usually use more than one because the chances of one fertilized egg surviving is slim.
and...about the ASC and ESC..i thought ASC has been doing better?
QUOTE
Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue).
-http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
QUOTE
Research on adult stem cells has recently generated a great deal of excitement. Scientists have found adult stem cells in many more tissues than they once thought possible. This finding has led scientists to ask whether adult stem cells could be used for transplants. In fact, adult blood forming stem cells from bone marrow have been used in transplants for 30 years. Certain kinds of adult stem cells seem to have the ability to differentiate into a number of different cell types, given the right conditions. If this differentiation of adult stem cells can be controlled in the laboratory, these cells may become the basis of therapies for many serious common diseases.
-http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp
er...and being a bit bipolar here, but heres why ASC aren't as good as ESC...
QUOTE
Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime. However, there are a number of clinically proven adult stem cell successes.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Adult_stem_cells
QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jun 23 2005, 1:06 AM)
...
is that yooooh?
^ yea. was on the phone with sammi and people and they were looking for the link. so i posted in in this thread. i know, i know... it's spam. oh well.
ehh. fae, what's your real name?
ehh. fae, what's your real name?
YOU CAN'T KNOW.
i so definitely saw him first.....pssh. i'm specialist.
i so definitely saw him first.....pssh. i'm specialist.
QUOTE(touch my monkey @ Jun 24 2005, 12:42 AM)
YOU CAN'T KNOW.
i so definitely saw him first.....pssh. i'm specialist.
i so definitely saw him first.....pssh. i'm specialist.
sammi...
it's special, specialer, specialest.
not specialist. that's... yea.
I support Stem Cell research because I was under the impression the the Government was Seperate from the Church. Stem Cell research doesnt hurt anybody and it doesnt kill but you know what kills diseases and its not for sure that Stem cell research will help the fight of deadly diseases but its worth a try.
i can see why some people would think of embryonic stem cell research as killing a life, but only harvesting a few cells could save thousands of lives. Nothing is being "killed" as it does not exist....but that single cell could save a life...possibly a childs. Whether you're religious or not, you probably would want to save as many lives as you could.
i would like to point out that:
the source of embrionic stem cells is unused eggs from in vitro fertilization.
the source for adult stem cells is aborted feotuses
the source of embrionic stem cells is unused eggs from in vitro fertilization.
the source for adult stem cells is aborted feotuses
QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Feb 7 2006, 9:58 PM)
i would like to point out that:
the source of embrionic stem cells is unused eggs from in vitro fertilization.
the source for adult stem cells is aborted feotuses
the source of embrionic stem cells is unused eggs from in vitro fertilization.
the source for adult stem cells is aborted feotuses
um... since when? every single time?
QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Feb 7 2006, 10:58 PM)
i would like to point out that:
the source of embrionic stem cells is unused eggs from in vitro fertilization.
the source for adult stem cells is aborted feotuses
the source of embrionic stem cells is unused eggs from in vitro fertilization.
the source for adult stem cells is aborted feotuses
Wow. That's just propaganda, if not flat out wrong.
yes, every single time.
the term adult stem cell refers to the fact that the stem cell has already differentiated and is begining to become a specific tissue cell.
the term adult stem cell refers to the fact that the stem cell has already differentiated and is begining to become a specific tissue cell.
QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Feb 7 2006, 11:13 PM)
yes, every single time.
the term adult stem cell refers to the fact that the stem cell has already differentiated and is begining to become a specific tissue cell.
the term adult stem cell refers to the fact that the stem cell has already differentiated and is begining to become a specific tissue cell.
How is it an aborted fetus? Am I missing something?
aborted feotuses are the source for adult stem cells.
granted; it theoretically would be possible to get adult stem cells from actual adults.
but it is highly unlikely given the avalibility of aborted feotuses and the fact that they have a lot of adult stem cells.
EDIT:
when i said every single time, i meant for research.
my source: The Proteus Effect: Stem Cells and Their Promise for Medicine
granted; it theoretically would be possible to get adult stem cells from actual adults.
but it is highly unlikely given the avalibility of aborted feotuses and the fact that they have a lot of adult stem cells.
EDIT:
when i said every single time, i meant for research.
my source: The Proteus Effect: Stem Cells and Their Promise for Medicine
QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Feb 7 2006, 10:18 PM)
aborted feotuses are the source for adult stem cells.
granted; it theoretically would be possible to get adult stem cells from actual adults.
but it is highly unlikely given the avalibility of aborted feotuses and the fact that they have a lot of adult stem cells.
EDIT:
when i said every single time, i meant for research.
my source: The Proteus Effect: Stem Cells and Their Promise for Medicine
granted; it theoretically would be possible to get adult stem cells from actual adults.
but it is highly unlikely given the avalibility of aborted feotuses and the fact that they have a lot of adult stem cells.
EDIT:
when i said every single time, i meant for research.
my source: The Proteus Effect: Stem Cells and Their Promise for Medicine
..umm i haven't read the book, but i'm pretty sure aborted foetuses would definitely not be the only source for adult stem cells. the whole premise of using adult stem cells for therapy is to have them be patient-specific, which would entail getting them directly from the patient so you wouldn't have GVHD complications.. and therapeutic cloning hasn't been used on adult stem cells. I've heard of fetuses being used, but definitely not every single time...
well; i'll admit it's probably dated information.
yes, the eventual goal is to be able to have patient specific stem cells, but i doubt they've gotten to that point yet.
they're probably still using aborted feotuses most, if not all of the time.
yes, the eventual goal is to be able to have patient specific stem cells, but i doubt they've gotten to that point yet.
they're probably still using aborted feotuses most, if not all of the time.
Compare the amount of tiny, little embryos to the amount of experienced human lives that we are going to save through this.
You've got my opinion.
You've got my opinion.
I support stem cell research because it could help learn more about incurable diseases like aids and HPV and can help make a cure. I support both types =D
stem cell research should not be attempted because it messes with dna and could become cloning and that messes with god and how we where made
The most common source for stem cell research are very early fetuses that were created in a lab from artificial insemination that were not implanted in the woman who wanted them, not aborted fetuses...the fetuses often used in stem cell research would be thrown away if not used for the research and have never been living and never had the chance to be living because they were never inside a womb.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.