stem-cell research Options

[smile4me]

do you support stem-cell researching? why or why not?
should federal funding be given to these researchers?
do you support embryonic or adult stem cells (or both)?

[heyyfrankie]

weren't there topics on this already? i searched but i couldn't find it!
---
to answer your question, i think that it is the parent/adult's choice. i mean, it does go to a good cause.

[waitwaitwait]

If it helps us and doesn't hurt anything in the process, then it's worth spending money on.

[ItzOnlySydney]

^ agreed, it's helps =)

[smile4me]

If it helps us and doesn't hurt anything in the process, then it's worth spending money on.

would killing embryos be considered as "hurt"?

[*mona lisa*]

would killing embryos be considered as "hurt"?

Although I consider them as humans (others don't), they can't get "hurt". They are still developing and they can't feely anything or suffer any pain.

[*not_your_average*]

I support all kinds of stem-cell research. Embryonic stem-cells have so much potential for cures, so I do think we need it.

[smile4me]

Although I consider them as humans (others don't), they can't get "hurt". They are still developing and they can't feely anything or suffer any pain.

hm. maybe i didn't express my thoughts well enough.
i didn't consider "hurt" (as waitwaitwait put it) as physical pain. i thought of "hurt" as harming something.
and i consider killing as harming.

^ agreed, it's helps =)

i guess the question here is whether killing a "life" for a life is legit. if it helps, is it worth killing an embryo that could have become a person?

[sadolakced acid]

embryonic stem cells don't come from anything that could possiblily turn into life.

they come from fertilized eggs from fertility clinics that are going to be thrown away.

that's into the garbage.

a round of fertilization trial produces an average of 11 or so viable eggs. only 2 or 3 are implanted. that leaves about 8 embryos that are thrown away.

these embryos could benifit tons of people, like those with diabetes (regenerate pancreatic islet cells), those with cancer, AIDs, etc.

and yet, because of current legislation, even if the couple agreed to donate the left over eggs to research, they can't be used for research.

the other source is cord blood.

these are two sources that would not kill anything that might become a life. and yet, not used.

[sweetabandon]

mm.. right it's just like my view on abortion. as long as it's a teenie weenie little cell with barely anything going on.. go ahead an use it for research as long as the parents completely approve of it. Maybe it can be an alternative for teenage mothers who want to have an abortion. That way they'll get what they want and contribute to science.

[b0st0ngrl]

If the carrier of the embryo decided to abort it then why can't we use that embryo? It's not like we just randomly pick people off the street and say, "We're going to kill your embryo for stem cell research."

[DisneyPrincessKa...]

we watched a movie on stem cell research about 2 weeks ago in morality. it stated that:

-stem cells taken from embryos are not nearly as useful as they thought they would be
-stem cells are very very common
-they can be found in: placenta, umbilical cords, and fat (america has enough of that!)

so, why are we killing potential babies when we can get stem cells that are more useful from a source that america has in huge abundance.

stem cell research is good, it can help and should be funded, but there's no sence in destroying embryos for it

[sammi rules you]

^ we're not killing potential babies..we're putting use to the ones that would have died anyway.

[fameONE]

A revolutionary breakthrough thanks to stem-cell research could cure cancer tomorrow. But thanks to legislation from those right-wing bastards, thats not going to happen.

I'm wrong? Who's to say that the preceeding is impossible?

[*not_your_average*]

we watched a movie on stem cell research about 2 weeks ago in morality.  it stated that:

-stem cells taken from embryos are not nearly as useful as they thought they would be
-stem cells are very very common
-they can be found in: placenta, umbilical cords, and fat (america has enough of that!)

so, why are we killing potential babies when we can get stem cells that are more useful from a source that america has in huge abundance.

stem cell research is good, it can help and should be funded, but there's no sence in destroying embryos for it

In another debate, I also saw a post in which you said you attend a Catholic school. Could that possibly be the reason that the video was arguing against stem-cell research?

You can only do so much with other parts (umbilical cord, placenta, etc.) Embryos have the most potential for finding cures. Would you rather save one life and kill millions of others? That would be messed if you'd rather save an embryo rather than millions of humans.

An embryo is an embryo. A fetus is a fetus. A baby is a baby. Period.

[sadolakced acid]

we watched a movie on stem cell research about 2 weeks ago in morality.  it stated that:

-stem cells taken from embryos are not nearly as useful as they thought they would be
-stem cells are very very common
-they can be found in: placenta, umbilical cords, and fat (america has enough of that!)

so, why are we killing potential babies when we can get stem cells that are more useful from a source that america has in huge abundance.

stem cell research is good, it can help and should be funded, but there's no sence in destroying embryos for it

i'm going to guess you weren't fully educated on stem cells.

there are different types of stem cells. stem cells are any cell that will become another cell.

adults have tons of stem cells, in your fingernails, in your fat, in your bones, everywhere.

however, the ones in your fingernails will only become keratin containing cells (fingernail material); and the ones in your fat will only become adipose tissue (fat cells), and the ones in your bones are will only produce bone cells.

therefore; adult stem cells have limited useability.

you cannot take the stem cells of pancreatic islet cells and use them to cure diabeties. because pancreatic islet cells don't have stem cells. if a virus kills your pancreatic islet cells, you're diabetic now.

the only cells that we currently know will create pancreatic islet cells (cure diabeties), cardiac muscle (repair heart after heart attack), brain tissue (cure alzheimer's, schizophrenia, necrosis), are embryonic stem cells.

now, embryonic stem cells can be found in the amniotic fluid and the umbilical cord. However, these cells are harder to use; they've mostly picked which cell they want to become.

the best cells for stem cell research come from the embryo:

now: if an embryo is stem cells, it means no brain, heart, lungs, or anything has formed.

and embryo consisting entierly of stem cells is no more a human than a ball of ameobae is. both can turn into a human, one just takes a hell of a lot longer.

now: the a source for embryonic stem cells would NOT be abortions.

it would be from fertility clinics.

if a couple goes to a fertility clinic, they harvest some 60 or so of her eggs, and get a sperm sample from him. they let the sperm fertilze the egg in vitro, which usually results in some 17 or so fertilized eggs.

now, of these 17 balls of embryonic stem cells, about 9 or so are good candidates to implant in her uterus.

however; only 2 or 3 are actually implanted.

so; you have per couple, about 14 balls of embryonic stem cells that either get frozen (if the couple may wish for another baby again), or thrown away.

that's right. the source for embryonic stem cells would be the trash can. and only of willing people.

so, walk into a fertility clinic, go threw everything, they say "well, looks like you'll be having twins. can we use the left over eggs for research? we ensure you they will not be grown into humans"

and if the couple says no, they throw the eggs away, or freeze them.

and only if the couple says yes, then they'd take the eggs and separate the cells, allow them to divide a little, and then use them for research.

that's it. that's where the embryonic stem cells would come from. not from embryos from abortion clinics, but from eggs that are currently being thrown away.

the 'life' (which some people believe is there) is already being 'killed'- why not save a million lives with it?

[whomps]

uhh...

Wow, can you not spam?

Anyways, I wrote an entire essay on this in the 8th grade, and I was against Stem Cell research. And abortion. Yeah.

[*not_your_average*]

uhh...

Yeah, this is the same guy who post nonsensical, trying-to-be-intelligent topics in The Lounge. Idiot.

Back on topic:

Embryos are not humans. So why the hell are we treating them like it?

[*mipadi*]

so, why are we killing potential babies when we can get stem cells that are more useful from a source that america has in huge abundance.

You make it sound as though the researchers are going around to pregnant women, beating them senseless, and stealing their fetuses; or that the researchers are harvesting babies specifically for this purpose. That is not how they get stem cells. Embryonic stem cells usually come from embryos from fertility clinics that are going to be thrown away anyway. Why not put them to an actual use?

[smile4me]

You make it sound as though the researchers are going around to pregnant women, beating them senseless, and stealing their fetuses; or that the researchers are harvesting babies specifically for this purpose. That is not how they get stem cells. Embryonic stem cells usually come from embryos from fertility clinics that are going to be thrown away anyway. Why not put them to an actual use?

going along with harvesting babies....
if stem cell research were allowed and government placed restrictions on the amount of embryos/fetuses taken from the ivf clinics (a very high likelihood), there could be mass harvesting of embryos/fetuses solely for the use of stem cell research. is that ethical?

[sadolakced acid]

read the f**king thread.

the entire f**king thread.

thank you!

have a nice day.

[ghetosmurph]

There are many tales of the medical miracles ESCs will allegedly bring us: cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, you name it. Most people dont really have any idea what ESC research is. And as a rule, they don't mention possible alternatives—namely, so-called adult stem cells (ASCs), which are obtained without the ethical conflicts of harvesting human embryos.

The mainstream media are doing a lousy job of informing the public on the state of stem-cell science. By and large, they're telling people all about the potential of ESCs—especially the supposed ability to become any type of cell—without talking about certain little drawbacks, like a tendency for ESCs to be rejected and even to become cancerous.

More importantly, the media aren't telling people how much more advanced ASC research is, or how rapidly it's making breakthroughs. Certainly they're not telling people about it nearly as often as they're hailing the promise of ESCs—and when they do, they tend to undermine the news with pooh-poohing, often-groundless quotes from ESC advocates.

Adult stem cells routinely treat or cure more than 80 different diseases, while no ESC research is anywhere near becoming a human clinical trial. In their minds, ESC backers have a purely scientific motivation while ASC backers have a religious one. As people picture themselves standing for the cause of reason against the forces of dogma, they also don't realize that the ESC research vocabulary—so filled with "mays" and "coulds" and "one days," promising a miraculous future somewhere down the road—reflects a dogma all its own. Douglas Melton, a diabetes researcher well known for attacking successful ASC efforts than making any real progress on his own with ESCs, is one of the most-quoted stem-cell experts in the country. But what, precisely, has Melton accomplished toward curing diabetes with ESCs? When interviewed by The Wall Street Journal last year, the most he could say was "We are convinced we can do it. We just don't know how." That's not science; that's faith. But it's not a religious faith, and so people don't see it for what it is.

Ira Black, a neurologist at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, is one of the most important ASC researchers in the country, the author or co-author of more than 200 studies. He's also head of one of four labs that has published results showing the ability to convert ASCs into all three basic "germ layers" formed during early embryonic development. (One gives rise to connective tissues, muscles, and the circulatory system. One leads to development of the skin and the nervous system. The last gives rise to the gastrointestinal tract, respiratory tract, and endocrine glands.) The importance of such findings can't be overstated, since the only advantage ESCs ever appeared to have over ASCs was the ability to become all cell types. With that gone, the excuse for ESC research vanishes.

Embryonic stem-cell backers often charge their critics with caring for abstract religious doctrine, not for suffering people. Yet that description arguably may be best suited to many if not most of the ESC advocates themselves. ASC researchers, on the other hand, are almost always practicing physicians. They watch people suffer; they watch them die. They want to help them and to do so as soon as possible.

ECS advocates have done a good job of misleading people into thinking it will produce a cure for many human maladies, and so the public has demanded ESC work because they're misled, meanwhile, maybe billions of dollars and millions of lives will be wasted.


this is a brief summary of a magazine article by Michel Fumento, a well researched journalist.... I hope this gives you all a little look at how slanted your atguments for ECS are........

[gotblog4me?]

O.k. ghetosmurph, I can't read the whole thing, it's too long, but i agree with u, cuz i know ur stand. Does everyone here bleieve that we have souls? ok then, if an embryo isn'ta baby, not a person/ doesnt have a soul, then when the heck does it become one? when the mother decides to keep it? that doesnt make sense, that's like saying we're God.

and for those who don't think that an embryo shows signs of life, that's bull, as soon as the egg is fertilized it shows signs of life, there is no question about it, and for this person: "^ we're not killing potential babies..we're putting use to the ones that would have died anyway. " it is absolutely impossible for someone to decide whether an embryo will live or not, you can predict, but it is almost impossible to decide at that early of a stage, that's ridiculous!

DisneyPrincessKate: RIGHT ON!!! stem cells are extremely common, they can be found in all the places she stated, we did a huge project on this at my school in biology, and they don't actually have the "healing abilities" that some have rumored them to have! Abortion is wrong also for the record, there is no justification for killing someone.

And for those ppl who say its the parent's choice, think about it, if somone came up to your parents and asked them if they would donate you to research that is positively deadly, and your parents said yes, that's the same thing as the embryo being given to research, it IS a person, the only difference is that it isn't developed enough to speak for itself!

"You can only do so much with other parts (umbilical cord, placenta, etc.) Embryos have the most potential for finding cures. Would you rather save one life and kill millions of others? That would be messed if you'd rather save an embryo rather than millions of humans." the exact same cells are found in the umbilical cord etc. that are found in the embryo, do your research or shut up. No offense, but I find it ridiculous that anyone can possibly see this as moral.

Thank you, I'll be back, there is no way to make abortion or stem cell research moral!

[*mipadi*]

O.k. ghetosmurph, I can't read the whole thing, it's too long, but i agree with u, cuz i know ur stand. Does everyone here bleieve that we have souls? ok then, if an embryo isn'ta baby, not a person/ doesnt have a soul, then when the heck does it become one? when the mother decides to keep it? that doesnt make sense, that's like saying we're God.

One of my favorite debate tactics is when someone poses a question, then assumes an answer and works with it, rather than letting anyone else answer. No, not everyone believes that humans have souls. Some believe that humans are merely forms of life that have evolved over time to become (slightly?) more intelligent than other life forms, and that there's nothing else inherently special about them. Not everyone believes we all have souls that go to Heaven when we die.

And for those ppl who say its the parent's choice, think about it, if somone came up to your parents and asked them if they would donate you to research that is positively deadly, and your parents said yes, that's the same thing as the embryo being given to research, it IS a person, the only difference is that it isn't developed enough to speak for itself!

"You can only do so much with other parts (umbilical cord, placenta, etc.) Embryos have the most potential for finding cures. Would you rather save one life and kill millions of others? That would be messed if you'd rather save an embryo rather than millions of humans." the exact same cells are found in the umbilical cord etc. that are found in the embryo, do your research or shut up. No offense, but I find it ridiculous that anyone can possibly see this as moral.

Thank you, I'll be back, there is no way to make abortion or stem cell research moral!

I don't think you completely understand where embryonic stem cells come from, so let me attempt to clarify. They do not come from embryos that are intended to develop into babies. We're not talking about a situation in which a couple gets together and has sexual intercourse with the express purpose of terminating it to harvest stem cells. That is utterly ridiculous. Here's what really happens: a couple is having trouble conceiving a child, so they go to a fertility clinic. The man contributes some sperm (we don't need to discuss the actual process involved in doing this; use your imagination); the woman contributes some ovum (eggs). Or either the man or the woman contributes their sex cells, and an outside source contributes the complementary sex cells. Whatever the case, these sex cells are mixed together in a petri dish and allowed to fertilize. 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? The logical solution is to dispose of them--no one needs them, they're hardly even embryos, and no one's going to use them. But wait--why not use their stem cells for some purpose? These embryos are going to die anyway--why not put them to good use?

It's ridiculous to consider those fertilized eggs in a petri dish "life." Even though some traits are genetic, it takes nurturing and upraising and an environment to make a person--not the mere act of fertilization. If they're going to be thrown out anyway, I say, why not use them?

[demolished]

I only supported if it used to preserve endanger speicies or to clone prehistoric animals. As long, its prehistoric and safe animals.

[sadolakced acid]

please read the whole f.ucking thread. thank you, and have a nice day.

if you did that, you'd know:

Adult stem cells are seriously lacking. They cannot create cardiac muscle or brain tissue, or pancreatic islet cells.

we do know the embryos will never become human. they are ones that are to be destroyed because of current legislation.

[ghetosmurph]

Here's what really happens: a couple is having trouble conceiving a child, so they go to a fertility clinic.

whoops problem 1 right there..... the processes used by fertility clinics are not moral.... i understand that some peopl cannot or have a hard time having children.... that does not give them the right to use unconvertional methods which result in the sacrafice of human life.... i am sorry, keep trying the normal way, and if it dosen't work, adopt.....

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? The logical solution is to dispose of them--no one needs them, they're hardly even embryos, and no one's going to use them. But wait--why not use their stem cells for some purpose? These embryos are going to die anyway--why not put them to good use?

It's ridiculous to consider those fertilized eggs in a petri dish "life." Even though some traits are genetic, it takes nurturing and upraising and an environment to make a person--not the mere act of fertilization. If they're going to be thrown out anyway, I say, why not use them?

Now if you agree that you have 12 fertilized eggs, and you put 1 back in the mother and that one becoes a baby, then you must realize all 11 others have the exact same potential and theerefore are already alive..... they are all in early stages of life..... it is in no way ridiculous to consider those fertilized eggs life because YOU just did less than 10 sentances above...... yes it takes nurturing and upraising in an environment like the mother's womb in order for the baby to be born..... but not to make a person..... the person was already made as soon as you gave it life.....

and also......

would ppl. who tell other ppl. to please read the entire f***ing thread stop being a f***ing hypocrites and read the entire f***ing thread themselves please?!?!?! IF YOU HAD, you would kno from my 1st post here that Ira Black found a way to convert all adult stem cells into all 3 germ layers, giving them the exact same potential as embryonic stem cells. The only advantage ESCs ever appeared to have over ASCs was the ability to become all cell types. With that gone, the excuse for ESC research vanishes.
And you would also have known that ESCs have the potential to create cardiac muscle or brain tissue, or pancreatic islet cells..... They haven't figure out how to do any of these said things.... and that with the ability to convert to all 3 germ layers ASCs now have tht exact same potential!!!!!! Oh and you would also know that the only reason these embryo's would not become human is b/c they are never given a chance, b/c they are left without the nurturing they need......

Thank You, and you have a nice day too......

[XoJennaoX]

whoops problem 1 right there..... the processes used by fertility clinics are not moral.... i understand that some peopl cannot or have a hard time having children.... that does not give them the right to use unconvertional methods which result in the sacrafice of human life.... i am sorry, keep trying the normal way, and if it dosen't work, adopt.....

You yourself cannot define what is moral and what is not. By the sound of your statement I'm assuming you also do not believe in any kind of contraceptive or birth control, since they are unconventional methods and they also sacrafice a potential life. Those sound to me like the same views as the church... *warning* not everyone will agree with the religous view so don't try and justify what is acceptable and what is not through your own moral discretion.

would ppl. who tell other ppl. to please read the entire f***ing thread stop being a f***ing hypocrites and read the entire f***ing thread themselves please?!?!?! IF YOU HAD, you would kno from my 1st post here that Ira Black found a way to convert all adult stem cells into all 3 germ layers, giving them the exact same potential as embryonic stem cells. The only advantage ESCs ever appeared to have over ASCs was the ability to become all cell types. With that gone, the excuse for ESC research vanishes.
And you would also have known that ESCs have the potential to create cardiac muscle or brain tissue, or pancreatic islet cells..... They haven't figure out how to do any of these said things.... and that with the ability to convert to all 3 germ layers ASCs now have tht exact same potential!!!!!! Oh and you would also know that the only reason these embryo's would not become human is b/c they are never given a chance, b/c they are left without the nurturing they need......

Thank You, and you have a nice day too......

Yes they discovered to have the same potential but potential means just that... a chance. Embryonic stem cells are easier to identify and isolate than adult stem cells, that significantly increases the chance of finding a cure. Time is a HUGE factor. To use adult stem cells from a patient's own body for treatment of a disorder could take to long to grow an efficient quantity of cells, that risk you are taking is many lives that could have likely been saved. Adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities and expected errors made in DNA replication during the course of a lifetime. But yes i agree with some of what you are saying. Personally I think we should be able to study both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells for the time being and then leave it for science to decide which of the cells will be best for treatment.

[sammi rules you]

i don't think anyone has the right to decide what is morally acceptable for other people to do. each and every person has their own set of morals, different from anyone else's and people have the right to make their own choices. not everyone is going to bow down to one person's set of morals. if a person thinks it's morally acceptable for them to use a lab to create a kid because they want their DNA to be in their child, then so be it. you may not like it, and wouldn't do it yourself, and that's fine. but you don't have the right to tell them it's not right and to stop the couple from doing so.

[*mipadi*]

Now if you agree that you have 12 fertilized eggs, and you put 1 back in the mother and that one becoes a baby, then you must realize all 11 others have the exact same potential and theerefore are already alive..... they are all in early stages of life..... it is in no way ridiculous to consider those fertilized eggs life because YOU just did less than 10 sentances above...... yes it takes nurturing  and upraising in an environment like the mother's womb in order for the baby to be born..... but not to make a person..... the person was already made as soon as you gave it life.....

Ah, my other favorite debate tactic--when you can't make a legitimate point, put words in someone else's mouth to make it look like he is unable to make a point.

I do not agree that all eleven are "alive," nor did I ever say that--certainly not less than "10 sentances [sic]" above. You misunderstood my point about nurturing, so let me clarify for you. I do not consider a fertilized egg to be a "person." A person is a human who has been born, who has been introduced into an environment outside a womb and is nurtured in some way with the goal of turning that person into an adult.

A fertilized egg is not "alive." It cannot exist outside of a womb. It is not living.

[ghetosmurph]

Yes they discovered to have the same potential but potential means just that... a chance. Embryonic stem cells are easier to identify and isolate than adult stem cells, that significantly increases the chance of finding a cure. Time is a HUGE factor. To use adult stem cells from a patient's own body for treatment of a disorder could take to long to grow an efficient quantity of cells, that risk you are taking is many lives that could have likely been saved. Adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities and expected errors made in DNA replication during the course of a lifetime.

Yes time is a huge factor.... and adult stem cells are already being used and effectivly treating many diseases... The lives are being saved, right now, and ASC research is getting very little funding. ASC research is so much further than ESC it isn't funny, if funded correctly ASC research would eclipse ESC 10 times over.... Adult stem cells may have more DNA replication erreors however, if you look into it, in the trials they have done with ESCs on animals, ESCs have a much higher rejection rate than ASC's..... The body recieves the ASCs much better, one of the reasons ASC research is so far ahead, and now that ESC has lost any advantage it had b/c of the ability to transform ASCs the reseach should be done on how to get the transformed ASCs to start fixing these problems. The ASC's have a much lower rejection rate meaning that once they harness the potential powers of stem cells ASCs would be better and safer for using on patients. People are already being cured by stem cells and ASC research is showing that it dosen't have to be done with the use of embyos..... ASC's could take too long to grow an efficeint quantity if cells but people deserve the chance to live.... With ESC reasearch at where it is, would you sacrafice the lives of people that we have the power to help now in order to do a to of research on something else that has the same potential, higher rejection rate, and is nowhere near clinical use???? Use the Funding somewhere where it is helping people now, seeing as there are no really major advantages that ESC research has over ASC anymore.... Just because the general public believes that ESC's are going to be the salvation and cure for a plethera of human diseases, legislators are putting the money there, taking it away from people that it is actually helping

Oh and on the morality issue......

i don't think anyone has the right to decide what is morally acceptable for other people to do. each and every person has their own set of morals, different from anyone else's and people have the right to make their own choices. not everyone is going to bow down to one person's set of morals. if a person thinks it's morally acceptable for them to use a lab to create a kid because they want their DNA to be in their child, then so be it. you may not like it, and wouldn't do it yourself, and that's fine. but you don't have the right to tell them it's not right and to stop the couple from doing so.

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. 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??? There has to be a point where we draw the line and say, under no religion can that be considered morally acceptable. And if you pick where innocent lives are killed as that line, such as we did in the 9/11 attacks, you must realize that abortion contreception, birth controll, ESC research, all falls under that category. They are the same thing, the only difference is that mass murder isn't socially acceptable and abortion is.....

[*mipadi*]

It takes a lot of nerves to liken stem cell research to terrorist acts. I imagine you feel that researchers are nothing more than terrorists, too? That either we're with you, or we're with the terrorists? Do you plan on encouraging military action against scientific researchers, too?

[gotblog4me?]

i don't think anyone has the right to decide what is morally acceptable for other people to do. each and every person has their own set of morals, different from anyone else's and people have the right to make their own choices. not everyone is going to bow down to one person's set of morals. if a person thinks it's morally acceptable for them to use a lab to create a kid because they want their DNA to be in their child, then so be it. you may not like it, and wouldn't do it yourself, and that's fine. but you don't have the right to tell them it's not right and to stop the couple from doing so.

O.K, for that up there^^ thats true, we can;t make ppl choose the right thing to do, but that doesnt change thew fact that it is bad, and if every1 had their own set of morals to live by, that means that one person can think its "moral" to commit murder, so you can't tell him he's wrong b/c he has his own set of morals now doesnt he? hence, there has to be some sort of moral order, it isn't moral to kill someone with no just cause. Don't you see how your reasoning would bring the world into complete chaos!?

Ah, my other favorite debate tactic--when you can't make a legitimate point, put words in someone else's mouth to make it look like he is unable to make a point.

I do not agree that all eleven are "alive," nor did I ever say that--certainly not less than "10 sentances [sic]" above. You misunderstood my point about nurturing, so let me clarify for you. I do not consider a fertilized egg to be a "person." A person is a human who has been born, who has been introduced into an environment outside a womb and is nurtured in some way with the goal of turning that person into an adult.

A fertilized egg is not "alive." It cannot exist outside of a womb. It is not living.

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"

and by the statement "do not consider a fertilized egg to be a "person." A person is a human who has been born, who has been introduced into an environment outside a womb and is nurtured in some way with the goal of turning that person into an adult." that a 8 month year old baby, still in a mother's womb, who can feel and react to pain, and has all the characteristics of a normal human being, is not a person? as i said before, you cannot decide when someone gets a soul, or becomes a person.

Oh, and by the way, for that same person with the smiley big mouthed face avatar (no offense, this is a friendly debate of course) for your information, any possible theory for evolution has been proven wrong, and I'm not saying i don't believe that we evolved, I actually do, however I also believe in something called an "ultimate designer" (a.k.a: God) so saying we are just more advanced forms of life, and the fact that we are smarter than other animals by chance, is completely bogus.

[ghetosmurph]

I do not consider a fertilized egg to be a "person." A person is a human who has been born, who has been introduced into an environment outside a womb and is nurtured in some way with the goal of turning that person into an adult.

so just b/c you don't want the baby, it is ok to cut it to peices while it's halfway out, such as in partial birth abortion??? or to be cut to pieces 2 month's earlier when it has the full apperance of a human, all the fingers and toes, and could survive outside the mother's womb?, with the help of prenadle care tht is.... it has happened many times before. Therefore, unless the mother wants it, the baby is not alive yet..... hmmmm aren't we posing our moraity on someone else in the this situation too??? how about the baby??? aren't we posing our morality on the baby by deciding that it is ok to kill it just b/c we dont want it??? The fetus get's it's food and waterthrought the womb, it gets what it need to continue growing (and living) in that environment. You need air, water, food..... If we took away what you needed to survive you would die too..... you cannot therefore say that if we take what it needs to survive away from it and it dies, it is not human....

[gotblog4me?]

to mipadi: Personally, by ur last post, i think you're just being defensive now.

Yay ghetosmurph!!!! we're on a roll!

[ghetosmurph]

It takes a lot of nerves to liken stem cell research to terrorist acts. I imagine you feel that researchers are nothing more than terrorists, too? That either we're with you, or we're with the terrorists? Do you plan on encouraging military action against scientific researchers, too? 

Would you pose your morals upon the terrorists and tell them what they want to do isn't right and try to stop them??? if so i have every right to impose my morals on you, tell you ESC reserch is wrong, and try to stop you from supporting it. No with me or the terrorist was not the point, it's called reading comprehension, i just assumed eveyone learned by 5th grade, sorry

[*mipadi*]

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.

No, no; just because you say I contradict myself, does not mean I did. Potential to be something, and being something, is completely different. Say I hold up a bowling ball. It has the potential to be in motion--indeed, a bowling ball has a lot of kinetic energy. Is that to say the bowling ball is in motion? No. It would take some action--in this case, dropping it--to make it so. Being something, and potentially being something, are different. Very different.

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"

I believe this is an over-generalization of a concept applied to a specific case.

and by the statement "do not consider a fertilized egg to be a "person." A person is a human who has been born, who has been introduced into an environment outside a womb and is nurtured in some way with the goal of turning that person into an adult." that a 8 month year old baby, still in a mother's womb, who can feel and react to pain, and has all the characteristics of a normal human being, is not a person? as i said before, you cannot decide when someone gets a soul, or becomes a person.

Nor can you. A baby in a womb is arguably a person, yes, but we're getting way, way off the subject of stem cells here. A baby and a fertilized egg in a petri dish are completely different things. You can't make a connection to a baby in the womb, and a person, and expect the leap from fertilized egg to person to come naturally. You're bringing up issues with abortion, which is a concept far removed from that of stem cell research.

Oh, and by the way, for that same person with the smiley big mouthed face avatar (no offense, this is a friendly debate of course) for your information, any possible theory for evolution has been proven wrong, and I'm not saying i don't believe that we evolved, I actually do, however I also believe in something called an "ultimate designer" (a.k.a: God) so saying we are just more advanced forms of life, and the fact that we are smarter than other animals by chance, is completely bogus.

Wondeful! Can you show me some evidence that evolution has been completely debunked, because I missed the headlines on that report.

so just b/c you don't want the baby, it is ok to cut it to peices while it's halfway out, such as in partial birth abortion??? or to be cut to pieces 2 month's earlier when it has the full apperance of a human, all the fingers and toes, and could survive outside the mother's womb?, with the help of prenadle care tht is.... it has happened many times before. Therefore, unless the mother wants it, the baby is not alive yet..... hmmmm aren't we posing our moraity on someone else in the this situation too??? how about the baby??? aren't we posing our morality on the baby by deciding that it is ok to kill it just b/c we dont want it??? The fetus get's it's food and waterthrought the womb, it gets what it need to continue growing (and living) in that environment. You need air, water, food..... If we took away what you needed to survive you would die too..... you cannot therefore say that if we take what it needs to survive away from it and it dies, it is not human....

I am not talking about abortion. I am not talking about a person. I am not talking about a baby. I am not talking about a fetus. I am not talking about anything that has been implanted in the womb. I am talking about an embryo in a petri dish. If you have to bring issues of fetuses, babies, and partial-birth abortion into this debate, than your argument is clearly much weaker than you thought. Points about abortion, fetuses, and babies are non-sequiturs, and are politically-charged topics that deviate from the real issue at hand: the use of stem cells to help cure various diseases. We're not talking about abortion, or harvesting fetuses. That is just ridiculous.

[sammi rules you]

any possible theory for evolution has been proven wrong

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.

now kiddies, let's go over the qualifications for organisms to be living things:

Living things are made of cells.
Living things obtain and use energy.
Living things grow and develop.
Living things reproduce.
Living things respond to their environment.
Living things adapt to their environment.

i've bolded the characterstics an embryo has without the help of a host womb. embryos do not obtain and use energy (or food). embryos cannot grow and develop without a host. embryos cannot reproduce themselves. embryos do not have the capability to respond or adapt to their environment.

now, for an organism to be considered a living thing, it must have all of those characteristics. therefore, an embryo in a petri dish is not even close to being considered living.

[ghetosmurph]

Potential to be something, and being something, is completely different. Say I hold up a bowling ball. It has the potential to be in motion--indeed, a bowling ball has a lot of kinetic energy. Is that to say the bowling ball is in motion? No. It would take some action--in this case, dropping it--to make it so. Being something, and potentially being something, are different. Very different.

which is only proving my main point 2 posts ago, the ASC research is doing actual good for actual people, actually, right now!!!! ESC research is no longer needed, you can achieve everything you wanted from ESC research with ASC research!!!! Please go back and read it!!!

A baby in a womb is arguably a person, yes,

Thank you, but now i am not saying you contridicted yourself, i proved it

but we're getting way, way off the subject of stem cells here. A baby and a fertilized egg in a petri dish are completely different things. You can't make a connection to a baby in the womb, and a person, and expect the leap from fertilized egg to person to come naturally.

Unfortunately we can, the connection between the fertilized egg and the baby was made earlier, you have 12 fertlilized eggs, you stick one in the mother and it becomes a baby. all 12 others are known by the doctors to have that exacy same potential (if given the environment and nourishment which they get in the mothers womb) to live.... wait potential isn't the right word..... it will ACUTALLY become a baby if you let it... therefor by the law of transitive properties (a=b and b=c therfore a=c) we can expect you to make the "leap"

You're bringing up issues with abortion, which is a concept far removed from that of stem cell research.
I am not talking about abortion. I am not talking about a person. I am not talking about a baby. I am not talking about a fetus. I am not talking about anything that has been implanted in the womb. I am talking about an embryo in a petri dish. If you have to bring issues of fetuses, babies, and partial-birth abortion into this debate, than your argument is clearly much weaker than you thought. Points about abortion, fetuses, and babies are non-sequiturs, and are politically-charged topics that deviate from the real issue at hand: the use of stem cells to help cure various diseases. We're not talking about abortion, or harvesting fetuses. That is just ridiculous.

Abortion and stem Cell research go hand and hand, seeing as stem cell research is being fuled by the acceptance of the concept of abortion!!!!!!!! The concept that it is morally acceptable to kill a person, as you said earlier, befor they are fully developed. the concept that is is ok to kill a child while it is halfway out the mother. The concept that you can fertlize egges in a petri dish and then thak the other living parts which ar given no chance for survival and throw them away or cut them up to experiment with!!!!! It is all part of the same concept that deals with the same argument, on different levels...... and yes they are politically charged topics and so is this!!!! Tis is the deviation from the real issue at hand. You cant kill a weed by snipping off the top, you havee to go for the roots, and the root of this matter is te moral acceptance of abrtion, contreception, birth controll nd everything else!!!! My argument is clearly much stonger than you believe it is, not vise versa. Whether a fetus is a baby is a huge abortion argument that would determine the morality of abortion, and also the morality of stem cell research. if it is immoral to abot a baby b/c a fetus is seen as a human, than it would be immoral to cut apart a fetus for scientific purposes..... One issue is in direct varitation to the other...

[sammi rules you]

^ read my previous posts. killing (or should i say using for other purposes, since unliving things can't be killed) embryos isn't killing lives. it's more like recycling embryos. embryos are not lives.

[ghetosmurph]

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.

Lets see here you have 12 items to choose from, until you chose 1 they all have the exact same potential.... therefore they all have the same potential to live, just because 1 is chosen and is given the oppertunity to live, that dosen't mean the others do not have the potential....... elementary my dear

now kiddies, let's go over the qualifications for organisms to be living things:

Living things are made of cells.
Living things obtain and use energy.
Living things grow and develop.
Living things reproduce.
Living things respond to their environment.
Living things adapt to their environment.

i've bolded the characterstics an embryo has without the help of a host womb. embryos do not obtain and use energy (or food). embryos cannot grow and develop without a host. embryos cannot reproduce themselves. embryos do not have the capability to respond or adapt to their environment.

now, for an organism to be considered a living thing, it must have all of those characteristics. therefore, an embryo in a petri dish is not even close to being considered living.

and if we take away you food, water and air, the conditions you need to live, you would die....
if we take away the nourishment and environment of the womb, the conditions an embyo needs to live, it will die too, which it dose.... and in which case, you are correct, it is no longer living. what happened to it is the same as what happens to you when you are suffocated, dehydrated, and starved all at the same time, also could be compared to taking a fish out of water. If you take away what it needs to live it dies. However for the fish ther are a few minutes where it is still alive, and for you a few seconds before you black out before you cannot breathe. there is also a time where the embryo is stil alive looking for the conditions it needs which are supposed to be there when it forms..... it is the time in which they put the 1 back into the mother and leave the 11 others to die...... so yes they are alive for a time, but like anything else living, whithout what they need they die........

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.

Lets see here you have 12 items to choose from, until you chose 1 they all have the exact same potential.... therefore they all have the same potential to live, just because 1 is chosen and is given the oppertunity to live, that dosen't mean the others do not have the potential....... elementary my dear

now kiddies, let's go over the qualifications for organisms to be living things:

Living things are made of cells.
Living things obtain and use energy.
Living things grow and develop.
Living things reproduce.
Living things respond to their environment.
Living things adapt to their environment.

i've bolded the characterstics an embryo has without the help of a host womb. embryos do not obtain and use energy (or food). embryos cannot grow and develop without a host. embryos cannot reproduce themselves. embryos do not have the capability to respond or adapt to their environment.

now, for an organism to be considered a living thing, it must have all of those characteristics. therefore, an embryo in a petri dish is not even close to being considered living.

and if we take away you food, water and air, the conditions you need to live, you would die....
if we take away the nourishment and environment of the womb, the conditions an embyo needs to live, it will die too, which it dose.... and in which case, you are correct, it is no longer living. what happened to it is the same as what happens to you when you are suffocated, dehydrated, and starved all at the same time, also could be compared to taking a fish out of water. If you take away what it needs to live it dies. However for the fish ther are a few minutes where it is still alive, and for you a few seconds before you black out before you cannot breathe. there is also a time where the embryo is stil alive looking for the conditions it needs which are supposed to be there when it forms..... it is the time in which they put the 1 back into the mother and leave the 11 others to die...... so yes they are alive for a time, but like anything else living, whithout what they need they die........

sorry, computer went haywire and sent me back to what i had just typed and so i posted again not knowing my origional had gone through

[sammi rules you]

and if we take away you food, water and air, the conditions you need to live, you would die....
if we take away the nourishment and environment of the womb, the conditions an embyo needs to live, it will die too, which it dose.... and in which case, you are correct, it is no longer living. what happened to it is the same as what happens to you when you are suffocated, dehydrated, and starved all at the same time, also could be compared to taking a fish out of water. If you take away what it needs to live it dies. However for the fish ther are a few minutes where it is still alive, and for you a few seconds before you black out before you cannot breathe. there is also a time where the embryo is stil alive looking for the conditions it needs which are supposed to be there when it forms..... it is the time in which they put the 1 back into the mother and leave the 11 others to die...... so yes they are alive for a time, but like anything else living, whithout what they need they die........

no, that's not true. these embryos are not and have never been living. they are not alive for a time. they have never been introduced to a womb and are not and will not be living without a mother. they are simply a bunch of cells, which is not considered a living organism. nothing is taken away from them; a womb is not given. there is no womb to put them in anyway. without a womb, they will not ever be living things.

however, i am a living thing. true, if you take away those things, i will die. dying is something that living things do. you have to first be living to die. embryos have never been living, therefore, cannot be killed or die.

[*mipadi*]

which is only proving my main point 2 posts ago, the ASC research is doing actual good for actual people, actually, right now!!!! ESC research is no longer needed, you can achieve everything you wanted from ESC research with ASC research!!!! Please go back and read it!!!

That doesn't prove your main point at all. It's not even related to the different between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells--it's an analogy to physics that shows the different between life and the potential for life. I'm not even sure how you are using that as evidence to make your point about the differences between adult stem cells and embyronic stem cells, aside from the fact that you hoped you could say that, and that no one would notice that your statement makes no sense.

Secondly, as someone else noted, your "facts" are hard to swallow, primarily because you have not provided evidence of one of your core claims: that adult stem cells are more useful in research than embryonic stem cells. Provide evidence to support that claim, and I'll listen. Unless you are an authority in the field, you can't make a claim such as that without at least linking to relevant evidence.

Thank you, but now i am not saying you contridicted yourself, i proved it

How have you proven it? You can't simply claim you have proven something; you have to show how. What you did is take a statement out of context and hope that, once again, no one would read up a bit and see the point I was making. Let me put it out there simply for you: A baby in the womb could arguably be a person. A fertilized egg is not a baby. Therefore, you cannot use those two statements to support your claim that a fertilized egg is a person. You are, once again, not making any sense, and merely claiming to have made a point. I do not follow at all your argument here.

Unfortunately we can, the connection between the fertilized egg and the baby was made earlier, you have 12 fertlilized eggs, you stick one in the mother and it becomes a baby. all 12 others are known by the doctors to have that exacy same potential (if given the environment and nourishment which they get in the mothers womb) to live.... wait potential isn't the right word..... it will ACUTALLY become a baby if you let it... therefor by the law of transitive properties (a=b and b=c therfore a=c)  we can expect you to make the "leap"

I am, once again, not following you. If you wish to use the transitive property and express this in mathematical terms, we can do so; unfortunately, I fail to see what a, b, and c are equal to. I see that a = a fertilized egg; I presume b = a baby. I'm not sure what c equals; perhaps a person? Even if I fill that in for you, it still doesn't go to say that a = b and b = c, so therefore a = c, because you have not yet shown that a = b. That is, of course, if I correctly judged a, b, and c to be what you intended.

Abortion and stem Cell research go hand and hand, seeing as stem cell research is being fuled by the acceptance of the concept of abortion!!!!!!!! The concept that it is morally acceptable to kill a person, as you said earlier, befor they are fully developed. the concept that is is ok to kill a child while it is halfway out the mother. The concept that you can fertlize egges in a petri dish and then thak the other living parts which ar given no chance for survival and throw them away or cut them up to experiment with!!!!! It is all part of the same concept that deals with the same argument, on different levels...... and yes they are politically charged topics and so is this!!!! Tis is the deviation from the real issue at hand. You cant kill a weed by snipping off the top, you havee to go for the roots, and the root of this matter is te moral acceptance of abrtion, contreception, birth controll nd everything else!!!! My argument is clearly much stonger than you believe it is, not vise versa. Whether a fetus is a baby is a huge abortion argument that would determine the morality of abortion, and also the morality of stem cell research. if it is immoral to abot a baby b/c a fetus is seen as a human, than it would be immoral to cut apart a fetus for scientific purposes..... One issue is in direct varitation to the other...

No, no, no. You are, once again, trying to use politically-charged innuendo to deviate from the point of this debate. Let me address several points you bring up:

1. "Stem cell research is being fuled [sic] by the acceptance of the concept of abortion." No, no. There is a wide gap between abortion and stem cell research. This is, again, an attempt to bring emotion into a debate by using politically-charged vocabulary. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?
2. "The concept that it is morally acceptable to kill a person, as you said earlier, befor [sic] they are fully developed. the concept that is is ok to kill a child while it is halfway out the mother." Whoa whoa whoa! Do not put words into my mouth. I did not bring abortion into this; you did. Because this is a debate about stem cell research, not abortion (a point you seem to have failed to note) I have steered clear of the abortion issue. You cannot accuse me of saying things in regard to abortion, because I have not yet stated a stance on abortion. I'm discussing the topic at hand--stem cell research. As such, I have no need to start bringing up politically-charged concepts that do not belong in this debate, such as abortion.
3. "if it is immoral to [abort] a baby b/c a fetus is seen as a human, than [sic] it would be immoral to cut apart a fetus for scientific purposes....." Many people have pointed this out, including myself, but since you seem to ignore them, I am going to put it out for you in as simplest and obvious a way as possible: stem cells are not obtained by cutting apart fetuses that have been implanted into a womb. They come from fertilized eggs, not fetuses. They come from genetic material that is never, ever going to develop into a human being, a baby, a fetus, or anything else.

[ghetosmurph]

^ read my previous posts. killing (or should i say using for other purposes, since unliving things can't be killed) embryos isn't killing lives. it's more like recycling embryos. embryos are not lives.

True, however, the process used to get the dead embryos in the 1st place (the embryos in the mother's wo are very much alive) is wrong, b/c you are killing the embryo's and then using them to forward a scientific cause, no stem cell research is not killing the embryo's however it relys on the dead embyos. And the fact that it supposts the killing of innocent human life to forward it's cause, makes it immoral, why support something immoral when there is a better, and moral, alternative out there primarily ASCs

please if go back and read al my previous posts b/c each point in here is thouroghly adresses and i am tired of repeating myself

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/co...ry/a0036366.cfm

Please read the entire article, you can tht many of my hard to swallow facts havec ome from this researched article

[sammi rules you]

i, too, am tired of repeating myself.

embryos cannot be dead. embryos cannot be killed. things have to first be living to be dead or killed. the embryos used in stem cell research have not been in a womb, therefore, only have one living characteristic, therefore, are not, have not, and will never live.

do not try and tell me to go back and read posts, because i do believe it is you who needs to do that.

edit;;
and please don't double post.

[ghetosmurph]

That doesn't prove your main point at all. It's not even related to the different between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells--it's an analogy to physics that shows the different between life and the potential for life. I'm not even sure how you are using that as evidence to make your point about the differences between adult stem cells and embyronic stem cells, aside from the fact that you hoped you could say that, and that no one would notice that your statement makes no sense.

I am using it as an example between Actual and potential life. ASC research is currently saving actual lives. it has been used in actual clinical trials, on actual people. ESC research hype is all about it's potential to slove this and that disease, but that is all it is potential. ASC research has figuredout how to tranform ASCs giving ASC and ESC the same potential.... now ESC uses the result of an immoral activity to continue it's research, this activity namely being the creation and starvation of human life. The Fertility Clinic, creates the life and by only putting 1 embryo back in, only giving 1 embryo the chance to live, and the rest of the embryos are left to die b/c they are not put in the conditions they need. you put 12 ppl in a container, take 1 out, and seal the container air tight leaving the rest inside. Same concept 1 is given the chace to live, the others are not and die, but for a time they are still alive. This means that innocent lives are being killed through this process and ESC reasearch is using that to futher thier causes all b/c of the potential of the research. Why support it when ASC research has the exact same potential and it is actually currently helping ppl?!

How have you proven it? You can't simply claim you have proven something; you have to show how. What you did is take a statement out of context and hope that, once again, no one would read up a bit and see the point I was making. Let me put it out there simply for you: A baby in the womb could arguably be a person. A fertilized egg is not a baby. Therefore, you cannot use those two statements to support your claim that a fertilized egg is a person. You are, once again, not making any sense, and merely claiming to have made a point. I do not follow at all your argument here.

I am, once again, not following you. If you wish to use the transitive property and express this in mathematical terms, we can do so; unfortunately, I fail to see what a, b, and c are equal to. I see that a = a fertilized egg; I presume b = a baby. I'm not sure what c equals; perhaps a person? Even if I fill that in for you, it still doesn't go to say that a = b and b = c, so therefore a = c, because you have not yet shown that a = b. That is, of course, if I correctly judged a, b, and c to be what you intended.

embryos cannot be dead. embryos cannot be killed. things have to first be living to be dead or killed. the embryos used in stem cell research have not been in a womb, therefore, only have one living characteristic, therefore, are not, have not, and will never live.

a fertilized egg is a baby in it's 1st stages, it develops like a baby, it later looks like a baby, and later is a baby... just becayse it cannot survive outside the womb that dosen't mean that it is for a time or was a life. It can be dead. If you ferilize the eggs in a petri dish, it is only for a certain amount of time that you can put the eggs back into the woman, that is whay they throw them away, It is during that amount of time that if you put the fertilied egg back into the woman
it will develop into a baby. The other fertilized eggs will do the exact same thing for tht certain amount of time before they basically become inactive and wont develop if put back into the mother's womb. I that sense the period where it will still develop is the period where it is alive, the period where it will not, it is for all intensive purposes dead. So as a review a fertilized egg is a baby in it's 1st stages and without what it needs to develop it becomes inactive, and in my words dead.

No, no, no. You are, once again, trying to use politically-charged innuendo to deviate from the point of this debate. Let me address several points you bring up:

1. "Stem cell research is being fuled [sic] by the acceptance of the concept of abortion." No, no. There is a wide gap between abortion and stem cell research. This is, again, an attempt to bring emotion into a debate by using politically-charged vocabulary. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?
   
   
   
2. "The concept that it is morally acceptable to kill a person, as you said earlier, befor [sic] they are fully developed. the concept that is is ok to kill a child while it is halfway out the mother." Whoa whoa whoa! Do not put words into my mouth. I did not bring abortion into this; you did. Because this is a debate about stem cell research, not abortion (a point you seem to have failed to note) I have steered clear of the abortion issue. You cannot accuse me of saying things in regard to abortion, because I have not yet stated a stance on abortion. I'm discussing the topic at hand--stem cell research. As such, I have no need to start bringing up politically-charged concepts that do not belong in this debate, such as abortion.
   
   
   
3. "if it is immoral to [abort] a baby b/c a fetus is seen as a human, than [sic] it would be immoral to cut apart a fetus for scientific purposes....." Many people have pointed this out, including myself, but since you seem to ignore them, I am going to put it out for you in as simplest and obvious a way as possible: stem cells are not obtained by cutting apart fetuses that have been implanted into a womb. They come from fertilized eggs, not fetuses. They come from genetic material that is never, ever going to develop into a human being, a baby, a fetus, or anything else.

I am sorry if think i am attempting to use politics to further my argument, i am not, I believe that the acceptance of the concept of abortion in our society goes hand in hand with the acceptance of the concept that embryos arent living. The argument that embyos aren't living is the main argument used by abortion lobbyists, and is the same argment being used by others here.however, for the sake of the fact that this is a stem cell topic i will try to evade any further refrences to abortion or any thing else that could appear as a politically charged innuendo


The womb dose not magically give life to the fetus, the fetus has life, the womb gives it the nourishment, and protective environment it needs to grow, without that environment, the fetus cannot grow and eventually becomes inactive. The embryonic stem cells are what is first inside the fetus, they are not a specific type of cell, yet. They have the ability to become 1 of any 3 of the germ layers of cells, which was it's advantage. ASCs are primarly already 1 type or another. ESC research uses the inactive fetus left from petri dish mixings to harvest the embryonic stem cells and in an attempt to find a way for them to cure diseases and rebuild tissue. ASC research dose the same thing however ASC did not have the ability to change from 1 form to the other until IRA blck discovered how to transform them. ASCs are alreay being use on people and helping them, ESCs are still in the research stage. ESC lost thier advantage over ASC. ASC has the potential now do everything ESC has had the potential to do and is much futher along in development. Why would you needlessly support ESC research? It has no advantage anymore!!!

editt//** The fertilized egg is a stage of the fetus which is a stage of a baby

[sammi rules you]

did you read my characteristics of a living organism at all?

sure, if it had a womb it could do those things. point is, it doesn't. therefore is not living.

would you please read what i post?

[sadolakced acid]

would ppl. who tell other ppl. to please read the entire f***ing thread stop being a f***ing hypocrites and read the entire f***ing thread themselves please?!?!?! IF YOU HAD, you would kno from my 1st post here that Ira Black found a way to convert all adult stem cells into all 3 germ layers, giving them the exact same potential as embryonic stem cells. The only advantage ESCs ever appeared to have over ASCs was the ability to become all cell types. With that gone, the excuse for ESC research vanishes.
And you would also have known that ESCs have the potential to create cardiac muscle or brain tissue, or pancreatic islet cells..... They haven't figure out how to do any of these said things.... and that with the ability to convert to all 3 germ layers ASCs now have tht exact same potential!!!!!! Oh and you would also know that the only reason these embryo's would not become human is b/c they are never given a chance, b/c they are left without the nurturing they need......

i did read that.

and you know, forming the three germ layers isn't enough. They can't be forced from the three germ layers into those.

they have the potential to become everything, mayhaps. but for now, and for the next hundred years or so, we can't get the fundamental germ layers to become what we want. they're already too specialized.

[ghetosmurph]

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.....

[sadolakced acid]

the fundamental difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells is this:

Adult stem cells have already specialized themselves. We currently do not know how the specialization is done. it may be a protien release, or a DNA edit. either way this specialization is done, it means the Adult stme cells are contaminated, and will always try to become what they were originally. This makes them highly unusable, because sure you have ectoderm, mezoderm, and endoderm, but it doesn't matter if all they will become is schwann cells, liver cells, and epithelium. sure, you can force them to other cell types, but they will always want to revert. therefore, Adult stem cells are only useful for tissues to which there are adult stem cells. It's not good to put neuron stem cells into someone's brain only to have them revert to adipose tissue.

embronic stem cells haven't chosen which way to go. they are a blank slate, not one that has been erased. if they are forced to one cell type, they will stay that way. there is nothing it will try to revert to.


Adult stem cells have a much higher probability of becoming something you don't want it to become. Adult stem cells will ignore your forcings. they've chosen what they want to be, and they'll always try to be that.

[sammi rules you]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[ghetosmurph]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[gotblog4me?]

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.

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!

[ghetosmurph]

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.

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

'

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.

[sammi rules you]

^ 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.

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.

[Spirited Away]

I just wanted to address a couple of things in this thread that caught my fancy.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.)

[smile4me]

ohgeebus. i didn't realize there were so many responses.... wahh i wanna read em..no time. but for now..i spotted something

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?

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

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...

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

[sadolakced acid]

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...e=post&id=11778

belh

[Spirited Away]

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...e=post&id=11778

belh

...

is that yooooh?

[sadolakced acid]

^ 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?

[sammi rules you]

YOU CAN'T KNOW.

i so definitely saw him first.....pssh. i'm specialist.

[sadolakced acid]

YOU CAN'T KNOW.

i so definitely saw him first.....pssh. i'm specialist.

sammi...

it's special, specialer, specialest.

not specialist. that's... yea.

[ichigofan]

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.

[Mulder]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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

[anoniez]

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

um... since when? every single time?

[*kryogenix*]

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

Wow. That's just propaganda, if not flat out wrong.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

How is it an aborted fetus? Am I missing something?

[sadolakced acid]

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

[anoniez]

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

..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...

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[timeflies51]

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.

[ichigofan]

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

[sarahcastro]

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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.