posted
See, that actually answers the question of what to do with them after they are made instead of the whether or not to make them question you kept answering.
So you do think it's worse to use them to cure other people than it is to throw them away.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: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 more respect than that.
I don't think I'm understanding you here, Theaca. For clarification, are you saying you're against the entire in vitro fertilization process?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Although, again, not one single person has been cured from embryonic stem cell research so far. So there ARE no lives being saved yet, meanwhile stem cells from other places ARE saving lives. But most people act like if we don't use 7 day embryos for this, and the government won't use funds for it, that we're holding up progress. We aren't, at least not yet.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the official position of the Catholic church, Juxtapose. Part of it has to do with fact that it is a process that skips marital sex completely. But my non-religious objections focus on the fact that to give you life, Juxtapose, there were probably several other embryos that were destroyed or frozen. As a prolife person, I'm against that whole process. Using those embryos for stem cell research would therefore be wrong too.
I certainly don't care when other people do it, it's legal, and I rejoice when babies are born, but, I'm not going to say it's ok with me to mess with human embryos in a laboratory. For any reason.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're consistant, I'll give you that. No hard feelings or anything. I didn't realize it was an official position, but I'm glad to have learned something. Out of curiosity, is it also a policy that conception should only happen through (marital) sex? Besides the immaculate variety, of course.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much, Juxtapose. Using a turkey baster or laboratory are both considered wrong. However, there is one kind of infertility method where they take sperm collected after normal, marital sex and they take an egg from the wife and they place both of these into the uterus in hopes that they will unite. This works if the sperm is unable to swim to the egg on its own for various reasons without intervention. Some sources seem to think this might be ok. It seems ok to me, I think.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a couple of thoughts to balance out the buzzwords:
I'm "pro-life" too. I think humans are wonderful things with wonderful potential. I'm so "pro-life" that I think it's well worth the destruction of a dozen or so unintelligent masses of cells to that a baby can be born into a family that loves him so much they are willing to pay thousands of dollars just for the chance of having him.
I think human life deserves way more respect than it gets a lot of the time. To me, though, stem-cell research is important because we value human life so much. Even if such research doesn't lead to 'miracle cures', it will undoubtedly lead to better understanding of human life and development. I think the chances are very good that it would therefore lead to vast improvements in medicine and understanding of aging even if only indirectly.
I disagree with the "magical thinking" arguement above. Sure if we already had 10 more years of science in other areas it might make current SC research or even Embryonic SC research (hereafter ESC) more productive, but that doesn't mean what's going on now is worthless because we aren't farther ahead in other areas. It's just as likely that ESC research will advance the areas of human genome and cell decay research as it is the other way around.
I think there is a lot more potential to ESC and other research than we hear about, precisely because of fears of being accused of "playing god". Want to postpone or eliminate aging/death? Playing God. Want to learn to improve the human body at a genetic level? Playing God. Personally, if there is a God, I think it's very arguable that we were meant by Him to "play god". And if in your playing you find a way to give us advantages that improve the quality of our lives, I say "Play away". After all, many people consider themselves "children of God". Human children play at being human adults all the time. Why shouldn't children of God play at being God?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, while I agree with your last statement to some extent, I think that there is so much power in unlocking genetic power that there is a lot of responsibility that comes with it. This power should not be taken lightly, and we always need to think about the consequences. The movie GATTACA comes to mind. There really are a lot of ethical things to consider as we do unlock these mysteries.
Call me conservative. I don't like to rush into anything.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, I'm 100% with you on that. I agree that there needs to be caution. However, I disagree with the notion (not that you've offered it) that because something is dangerously powerful it should therefore never be explored.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
i can see theres alot of dispute of the killing of a human embreyo for research, but there's a big question to go with it. Just when are humans considered human? Some scientists want to raise a fertilized embryo to its blastocyst stage, 5-7 post fertilization. Is that hollow cell considered human, or just a ball full with genetic information?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Have people ever been particularly cautious with this sort of research and these kind of groundbreaking ideas? My understanding of scientific history is that you simply follow the path the knowledge takes you. Somtimes, like with nuclear power and weapons, and chemical weapons and that sort of thing, society and governments place restrictions and bans on things, and in the medical field ideas that eventually prove to be ridiculous, or immensely harmful may be dropped but if embryonic stem cell research yields enormous dividends I don't see anyone putting the breaks on it, Ethan Hawke and Malcom McDowell movies or not.
Additionally I'd like to give Squicky props for that great first post, loved it .
Additionally I'm all for it, and I tend to often wonder how many people fighting it, would continue to fight it if diseases and disorders potentially proved to be cured in the distant future that directly effected them. I do not direct this at Theaca specifically, but rather at the general populace that fights things like this when they are vague, general concepts but develop distinctly different points of view when issues directly effect them.
Anyway, I imagine the rules will be relaxed once the current administration is bounced in a few years, and states like California already appear to be fighting hard to be development central for the research in the country in the future. I believe Arnold is already fighting hard for California to be the frontrunner in research in this area just as Silicon Valley was a mover and shaker in the computer, hardware and software industry over the past four decades.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheDisgruntledPostman: i can see theres alot of dispute of the killing of a human embreyo for research, but there's a big question to go with it. Just when are humans considered human? Some scientists want to raise a fertilized embryo to its blastocyst stage, 5-7 post fertilization. Is that hollow cell considered human, or just a ball full with genetic information?
That's the crux, and it has always seemed rather apparent that most of the religiously devout, will never bow to anything post-conception. Note the term "baby" used interchangeably by so many on the pro-life/anti-stem cell research side for anything post conception no matter how simplistic in form.
I don't really think agreement will ever be possible with those truly hardened onto either side of the issue. Fair enough, I think both sides are motivated by their heart as much as anything and that's what is most important. I appreciate the civility in the thread as normally this kind of issue gets my cranky pants on in a hurry, hopefully I haven't offended anyone .
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by graywolfe: Karl,states like California already appear to be fighting hard to be development central for the research in the country in the future. I believe Arnold is already fighting hard for California to be the frontrunner in research in this area just as Silicon Valley was a mover and shaker in the computer, hardware and software industry over the past four decades.
It just sounded like a huge waste of money to me as I've read about California. Deliberately spending tons and tons of California tax money on research with embryonic stem cells obtained post 2002 sounded ridiculous. I don't think we're at the point yet where it is so necessary (to researchers) that that particular type of stem cell is more necessary to study than all the other types, which are NOT prohibited from using federal monies. Seems like a big waste of money. How do the Californians who know something about the issue feel about it, I wonder.
(edit to add: since the only cells not allowed federal moneys are stem cells made since 2002, then I wonder. Aren't there any embryonic stem cells made in 1999, 2000, 2001? Save California a ton of money to just do that instead and use federal grants for their researches. But maybe I'm missing something, since I am against it in the first place?)
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theca: most early strains of stem cells became contaminated before people realized the research value of an uncontaminated strain. The total number of federally eligible uncontaminated strains not unvailable for other reasons is extremely, extremely small.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, if that is true, what about the rest? If federal funds can be used for all kinds of research including all stem cell research except embryonic ones, and we still have much, much to learn about those available stem cells, then is it worth spending all this California tax money to focus on the one thing we can't use federal funds for?
If I lived in California and I realized where all that money was being channeled into, I'd be pretty upset even if I were a fan of embryonic stem cell research. Significant advances that are practical are years away, at least. Meanwhile the federal law could always be changed, this is still a major ongoing debate. So choosing to divert all those funds now seems like a terrible use of California funds.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be angry about that use of money too.
I'm waiting for someone to prove that we need embryonic stem cells to further the research that will cure everything. You hear about it all the time, but as Theaca has said...no one has done it. No one has cured or saved anyone with embryonic stem cells. ON the other hand, some fascinating and wonderful things are being accomplished with adult stem cells. Why are we not focusing on that? We already have success in the area, and they can be obtained without any moral question at all.
I'm all for donating cord blood, too. Like Theaca, I'd love to see significant advances toward curing diseases made with stem cell research, I just don't see the necessity to use embryonic stem cells, especially when ALL the current success hasn't come from that source.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't follow that argument. Just because something hasn't produced results yet doesn't mean that it won't. You don't stop when you find something good, you keep going until all options have been exhausted. Besides, until it is studied, you don't know whether or not it will be less or more effective than the other stem cells being used. I say explore every avenue, and every option.
Also, not ALL of that California money is being used specifically for embryonic stem cell research, some of it is being used on other forms of SC research as well. I don't see the problem with that, they want to bring bio-tech firm business to California so that when the advances are realized, they will be the ones to reap the benefits. It's an investment, governments make them all the time. They want to corner the market, and they are well on their way to doing so. Researchers will flock to California to develop new technologies and techniques.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't follow that argument. Just because something hasn't produced results yet doesn't mean that it won't. You don't stop when you find something good, you keep going until all options have been exhausted. Besides, until it is studied, you don't know whether or not it will be less or more effective than the other stem cells being used. I say explore every avenue, and every option.
Also, not ALL of that California money is being used specifically for embryonic stem cell research, some of it is being used on other forms of SC research as well. I don't see the problem with that, they want to bring bio-tech firm business to California so that when the advances are realized, they will be the ones to reap the benefits. It's an investment, governments make them all the time. They want to corner the market, and they are well on their way to doing so. Researchers will flock to California to develop new technologies and techniques.
And there it is. If California corners the market, we can and will produce the veritable brain drain of scientists across the country working in this field and potentially tangential fields. Others actually in the industry can speak more effectively to the issue, but making California the spearpoint in this specific research and development area can only help the state not hurt it.
As for why esc instead of just stem cells, or cord blood cells, all the scientists I've heard discuss the issue have stated that esc's have by far the highest potential in this area of research, there isn't an equality or equivalency between adult and embryonic stem cells, esc's apparently hold far more promise and possibility in the field.
So suffice it to say, that's where the research should continue to go, I have no issue with augmenting research with cord blood extracted cells, and adult stem cells but I'll follow the scientists expertise when it comes to this. It may take time, but all research takes time, and evolves over time, and I'm more than happy for researchers to take as much time as they need, this is far too important to shunt aside simply due to time issues, or minor fiscal issues which could and would likely be rendered irrelevant with the passage of time.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If laboratories were willing to pay for stem cells, and it were federally funded to perform research on them (after 2002) would there be people who 'donate' their embreyos to the labs for money, much like sperm donors do now? Perhaps this is a concern of pro-lifers. I don't know, since I'm not deeply informed on the positions of various groups, but reading the thread that is a thought that occured to me.
quote:If California corners the market, we can and will produce the veritable brain drain of scientists across the country working in this field and potentially tangential fields.
Not to mention the holy grail of bio-research: basic patents.
I'm not sure how you could look at "focusing our money into a predicted highly valueable/useful area that other people aren't working on" and come away angry at the misuse of money. To me, it looks like a really smart bet, albeit one available only to places, like California, that have the size to go it alone.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mmmm. IF that is all true, and it pans out.
Since I don't live in California, and don't really understand the situation, I'm not angry, though. I do have doubts that things will pan out. I wonder if there will be a huge waste of funds thrown into building things or for researching unlikely projects that could have been put to better use. Furthermore, I wonder if the funds will dry up in a couple years when public opinion changes and leave all those researchers with half finished, useless information. I suppose I should do some reading when I get a chance.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Theaca is answering the question, and her answer makes sense to me.
I don't feel like searching, but I remember reading about how the results of the experiments Nazi doctors had conducted on concentration camp inmates were sealed, rather than being used. The situation is a much better analogy, I think, to Theaca's point of view than that of the murder victim (because, as she noted, the victim or his next of kin gives permission--and the parents of such a fetus are not morally able, in her view, to give this permission because of their complicity/culpability in its death). I seem to recall the phrase "tainted fruits" being used in what I read, though I could be making that up. Basically, the idea was that using the Nazi research would in a way justify it, and make us perhaps more indifferent to the evil from which these ends might come. If you believe all abortion is murder and should be illegal, how much more of an uphill fight will that be once we have grown more attached to the wonderful research results from embryonic stem-cell research?
I don't know if agree with Theaca, because, while I am opposed to abortion in general, I don't know that unimplanted embryos "count," in my book. But if I were convinced that unimplanted embryos deserved legal protection, then my stance would perfectly mirror Theaca's.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I didn't realize it was an official position, but I'm glad to have learned something. Out of curiosity, is it also a policy that conception should only happen through (marital) sex? Besides the immaculate variety, of course.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I don't like to rush into anything.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I don't think we're at the point yet where it is so necessary (to researchers) that that particular type of stem cell is more necessary to study than all the other types, which are NOT prohibited from using federal monies. Seems like a big waste of money. How do the Californians who know something about the issue feel about it, I wonder.![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
