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.