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)?

[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?

[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......

[*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.