posted
I am currently working on a persuasive essay for english regarding Stem Cells. I've been getting very deep into the topic and its become very perplexing/interesting. Now my question to fellow hatrackers is whats your opinion, are you for or against it (just wondering on how the average person feels on the subject)? I know of all the morale/religious and political problems that floats with the topic, so it was hard for me to finnaly decide. But i must say im pro Stem Cell research, just because of all the maraculous help it can provide towards the curing of diseases. So, what are your opinions?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am pro research. Because such a large mass of stem cells are present in both the (I think the placenta or is it the cord?) by products of natural births and the waste of abortion clinics could be used as a viable source of research. Though I can easily understand the view that doing such research is "killing babies" I prefer to point out that the point of stem cell research isn't to just use stem cells as a medical technology for a variety of fields, but it is also to work towards creating a synthetic version that could be mass produced.
I know that my views may be frowned upon, but I do hope that my views will help you Postman.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am also pro reasearch, although I am also pro life, which can be looked at as a contradictory statement but try not to. I think abortion is ok only if it is an undeveloped embryo and for good reason. Stem Cell research could save lives in the future and these are undeveloped embryos.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it needs to be at least mentioned that there are other sources of stem cells besides embryos. From my understanding, embryonic stem cells are the most usefull type that we know of, but the others certainly have potential as well. I'm somewhat dissapointed that in many people's opinion, stem cells are synonymous with embryonic stem cells.
I have no problem whatsoever with stem cell research in general. However, when it comes to research on embryonic cells, I am a bit more undecided.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think research restrictions need to be relaxed, otherwise the United States is likely to fall behind in a potentially remarkable field of bioscience.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What isn't often mentioned in the debates is that there are existing lines of stem cells. My school has access to a few. Most research centers do. As these lines were culled from (IMHO) less ethically enlightened times and the damage has been done, I don't see why scientists shouldn't put them to good use the same way they do with everything else.
And, as mentioned above, there are other forms of stem cells not drawn from embryos
For those reasons, I don't see any cause to make a huge fuss over the ethics of stem cells or why gathering support for making new lines is so vital. Our nation has a lot more important concerns and sometimes I wonder if these highly inflammatory issues are deliberately highlighted to draw attention away from real problems.
(my personal opinion: anti-use)
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
More lines will eventually be needed anyways, otherwise everyone won't have access to whatever procedures and science comes out of stem cell research.
I don't really see the big argument over getting new lines. The grand majority of embryos being used are ones that would have been DISCARDED anyways. The argument that killing them for stem cells is wrong, but it someone MORE wrong than just plain throwing them away boggles my mind, especially when that argument stands in the shadow of the medical advances that could be made from this research.
I'm pro-research in every way. Let's do it, and do it the right way, and once it's done we'll never have to come back to it again.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a side note, anyone know anything about banking cord blood? All I know is that when I was pregnant, everyone seemed to be "advertising" that. They'd say how important it was, but not a lot of info on why.
I didn't do anything about it. I figured if it was something I had to shell out money for and it was worth doing, the least they could do was to convince me *why* it is so important.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am against embryonic stem cell research for two reasons:
One, I don't like how those embryonic stem cells are acquired. For similar reasons, I (along with most people) am against tests that are dangerous physically or psychologically to humans.
Two, the potential for getting stem cells from other sources seems promising enough that considering the problems inherent in embryonic stem cells, it seems reasonable to me to wait and see if we can avoid embryonic stem cells completely.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it works, they should use it within reason. Especially if it can save lives. I think I saw a special where stem cell research cured a form of chemically induced Parkinson's.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes there are many other sources of stem cells. Everyone contains stem cells in there body, healing is shows that, but those stem cells are only mulitpotent, meaning they can only be one certain type of cell. See with my contradictory statement(in my mind) is that, i would never want to see a living fetus die, but if abortion occurs, dont let that go to waste, such things can come from it. Also the definition of when a human becomes a human is undefined. 5-7 days after fertilization occurs a blastocyst forms. Blastocysts are totipotent, they can become any cell in the entire body. Now in my belief system, something like that has not devolped any brain, or any form of human, it has the potential yes, but not hasnt reached that yet. If scientists were allowed access to those types of cells, i believe SC research would proceed more smoothly. But as many people on hatrack have said, there are many other places for stem cells, and embryonic dosent always have to be tagged to it. Adult stem cells, they help in curring cancer and other blood diseases. There are many ways SC research could be helpful. Too bad its not government funded.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone know anything about umbilical cord stem cells? A while back I heard that they might even be as versatile as embryonic cells. Haven't heard much since then, though.
Really, that's my biggest problem with the whole embryonic stem cell debate. It seems like we could sidestem most of the controversy if we put more focus into alternative stem cell sources.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think stem cell research is very exciting and I am interested in seeing further developements.
So many people seem to think that means we have to use killed embryos. That's not true. There are many other ways to get stem cells, and they are being researched.
It's a little known fact that not a single person has been cured as a direct result of embryonic stem cells. Stem cells from alternative means have saved hundreds of lives already.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheDisgruntledPostman: If scientists were allowed access to those types of cells, i believe SC research would proceed more smoothly. But as many people on hatrack have said, there are many other places for stem cells, and embryonic dosent always have to be tagged to it. Adult stem cells, they help in curring cancer and other blood diseases. There are many ways SC research could be helpful. Too bad its not government funded.
I don't know that much about the current US rules on this. My understanding is that government funding for stem cell research is allowed, except on embryonic stem cells obtained from embryos killed 2001 or thereafter. However, it is not illegal. Am I wrong?
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but the potential for embryonic stem cells is also greater. Growing new organs isn't going to be done with adult stem cells taken from bone marrow.
More research needs to be done before it can be dismissed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'd think we're decades away from figuring out how to make organs without making babies first. It may sound easy, but it isn't. And we can get stem cells from germ cells, umbilical cords, and adults without killing babies.
In my opinion, the ends don't justify the means if you have to kill embryos to get the stem cells.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well in the book im reading on the subject for my essay "stem cell now" (very good and informative book). Christopher Scott mentions how people are confusing Embryonic Stem Cell Cloning/Theraputic Cloning with Genetic Cloning. What they are trying to do with SC is to clone the cells, so there are more of them. With Theraputic cloning, a blood cell SC would be removed for instance, than cloned to make more of that certain cell. Its quite interesting. No human cloning, that just gives SC research a bad rep.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
either im going crazy, but i thought i read pre-reposting someone talking about cloning (god all these hours of no sleep more work are killing me)
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Oh, I'd think we're decades away from figuring out how to make organs without making babies first. It may sound easy, but it isn't. And we can get stem cells from germ cells, umbilical cords, and adults without killing babies.
In my opinion, the ends don't justify the means if you have to kill embryos to get the stem cells.
You'd rather them just throw the embryos away and not get any use out of them at all?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if you have to kill human life to get them, yes. Throw them away. However, you don't have to kill human life to get stem cells. You can get stem cells from miscarriages, amniotic fluid, and umbilical cords.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Throwing them away doesn't kill them? What, do they gestate independent of the womb and preserved in a medical waste bin?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yanking them out of the womb killed them. Or growing them in a petri dish and not implanting them in a womb killed them. Don't be dense.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In theory, experimenting on embryos that are going to be dead anyway for an extremely good cause honestly doesn't bother me much. But if it were to in any way lead to more embryos being dead, I would have serious problems.
So that is why I do have some concerns with embryonic stem cell research--the fear that one might lead to the other.
Kinda like the fear that the selling of organs could lead to people losing them against their will.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see this just like I do cloning, why the hell would you be so afraid of it if it can vastly benefit our level of technology.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: Yanking them out of the womb killed them. Or growing them in a petri dish and not implanting them in a womb killed them. Don't be dense.
I'm not dense, I'm wondering at your moral ambiguity that says either it is or isn't okay for them to be killed via lack of implantation/womb yanking, but that regardless of that fate, using them in research that might save millions of lives is WORSE.
Perhaps you can clear up the confusion.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ends don't justify the means. It's that simple, Advent. There are some roads too dark to take no matter what nebulous benefits might come out of them.
Please realize that cloning experiments cause the death of lots and lots of created human embryos as they try to keep the created embryos alive longer and longer. That's basically experimenting on human babies. And what great benefits will you get from cloning humans anyway? We've got plenty of humans produced the regular way.
Embryonic stem cell research also comes from the deliberate killing of human embryos.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Embryonic stem cell research also comes from the deliberate killing of human embryos.
Does it, Theaca? I don't know enough. Can they use tissue from embryos that died for other reasons? Or are they creating zygotes in a petri dish and then killing them?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: I think if you have to kill human life to get them, yes. Throw them away. However, you don't have to kill human life to get stem cells. You can get stem cells from miscarriages, amniotic fluid, and umbilical cords.
posted
Yes, I read that. I simply don't know enough about what is *possible*. Your statement that I quoted above implied that you *have* to deliberately kill embryos in order to do the research. Hence the confusion.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, You don't have to kill embryos for the express purpose of doing research with them. Embryos from things like abortions or the left overs from some types of medical fertilization/implantation are just as useful.
I don't think Theaca realizes that this is what Lyr is talking about though, the choice between throwing these embryos away or doing stem cell research with them. As far as I understand it, this is actually the central question in the stem cell research debate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, that's what I assumed, but I also tend to assume that Theaca knows more than I do on this subject. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, those embryos are still deliberately killed for one reason or another. So I'm still against abortion or medical fertilization cell research.
However, you can use naturally miscarried babies for research, with the family's permission, and that would be similar to organ donation. I'm in favor of that.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would've happily donated my miscarriage to scientific research if I had known it were possible.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, embryonic stem cell research DOES always cause the deliberate death of embryos in all cases at this time. Here is a quote that is a pretty good explanation:
“At the current state of technology, (embryonic stem-cell research) requires the intentional destruction of a human being...That living and growing embryo is then destroyed when it is five to seven days old to harvest its stem cells" ---Father Tad Pacholczyk, director of education for the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia who holds a doctorate degree in neuroscience from Yale University.
Since it is impossible to catch a spontaneous miscarriage as early as 7 days of age, every single embryonic stem cell is obtained by deliberately creating and then destroying a human being.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theaca, But you're not answering the question. Given that these things are going to happen, is it actually worse to use the discarded embryos to try to cure other people than it is to throw them away?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if someone wanted to get pregnant invitro, and they created say, a dozen embyos, as is really the norm for such a process. Then let's say the woman used half a dozen of those in the process, got pregnant and wanted the rest to be gotten rid of.
Would you, or would you not support the use of those other half dozen embryos for research?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If she's right, abortions wouldn't count either. You can't know that you are pregnant that early on because technically, you aren't until implantation occurs.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I murdered you today and took your heart, you'd be dead. Since you are dead, you won't need your heart anymore, so I'll just give it to Fred over here. After all, you don't need it anymore.
No. It's immoral and circular logic. The ends don't justify the means. Don't produce the embryo for stem cells. Don't kill a fetus for stem cells or salvage stem cells from aborted tissue. Use other types of stem cells. I feel like I keep saying the same thing.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you don't support harvesting the organs of a murder victim?
edit: To explain, these embryos are created and destroyed whether there is research done on them or not. The choice offered here is not whether or not they'll be created but not brought to term, but whether they'll be used in research or discarded.
edit 2: As such, saying "Don't create them in the first place." isn't really an answer. They're going to be created (or not) independently of whether or not they are going to be used for stem cell research.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point that they are they are trying to make is that the embryos are not being created for the purpose of stem cell research. They are being created for other reasons, and then being used for stem cell research.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But they WERE made. You can't stop that, and I don't think you'll ever be able to. Were the new abortion laws that some are trying to come up with to pass, it would outlaw abortion, but it wouldn't outlaw invitro fertilization.
I know you disagree with the creation and destruction of embryos, but the fact of the matter is, they are still there, and they WILL be killed, there's nothing you can do to stop it. You'd rather them just die and help no one, than die and possibly help others?
That's exactly the same as saying a murder victim's organs should go to waste, regardless of what the family wants.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
So I disagree with making embryos for any reason. OK? And there is no informed consent when the parents or the scientists are the ones discarding the embryo. So it's still wrong in my book to use the tissue.
Most embryos made are destroyed or die off for one reason or another during the creation, petri growth, or implantaion. That's reason enough for me to be against the process. Human life needs moe respect than that.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theace, You are really, really not answering the question - in fact, you're again answering the question that people have explicitly said they aren't asking - and I don't know how to state it any clearer than it's been stated by three different people now.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Restate the question? I'm not dodging anything. I'm being as clear as I know how to be at 2am.
I say it's wrong to use the material gotten from created embryos. No matter why they were made. No matter what magical outcome could be invented. It's unethical and it's a path we shouldn't take.
And I don't believe that doing this to embryos is even necessary to stem cell research when we have all these other ways to get stem cells.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
