The Stem Cell experiment, good or bad?
I think so far there is way more to the issue of stem cell and so far all that has been posted are arguments that are one sided and only have some facts supporting opinions rather than looking at all the facts .
"All the facts"? Which ones are we missing?
Playing God is a bad thing when human lives are lost in the process .
Stem cell research is "playing God"? Or was that a general statement?
To quote Abaddon: As god isn't playing god we may as well. For the 'playing god' argument to work it actually has to BE an argument, and without satisfactory definitions of 'god' and what god should 'play' (which are obviously impossible to define), the statement is not an argument but is a logical fallacy; Appeal to Tradition.
This was interesting, see what you think, 3 scientific arguments against the use of embryonic stem cells:
There are at least three compelling scientific arguments against the use of embryonic stem cells as a treatment for disease and injury. First and foremost, there are profound immunological issues associated with putting cells derived from one human being into the body of another. The same compromises and complications associated with organ transplant hold true for embryonic stem cells. The rejection of transplanted cells and tissues can be slowed to some extent by a good "match" of the donor to the patient, but except in cases of identical twins (a perfect match), transplanted cells will eventually be targeted by the immune system for destruction. Stem cell transplants, like organ transplants, would not buy you a "cure"; they would merely buy you time. In most cases, this time can only be purchased at the dire price of permanently suppressing the immune system......The risk that genetic mutations would be introduced into embryonic stem cells by genetic engineering is quite real, and such mutations would be difficult to detect prior to transplant.
The final proposed resolution has been to generate a large bank of embryos for use in transplants. This would almost certainly involve the creation of human embryos with specific immune characteristics ("Wanted: sperm donor with AB+ blood type") to fill in the "holes" in our collection. Intentionally producing large numbers of human embryos solely for scientific and medical use is not an option most people would be willing to accept. The three proposed solutions to the immune problem are thus no solution at all.
Alternatively, the use of "therapeutic cloning" has been proposed. In this scenario, the genetic information of the original stem cell would be replaced with that of the patient, producing an embryonic copy or "clone" of the patient. This human clone would then be grown as a source of stem cells for transplant. The best scientific information to date from animal cloning experiments indicates that such "therapeutic" clones are highly likely to be abnormal and would not give rise to healthy replacement tissue.
Transplanting incompletely differentiated cells runs the serious risk of introducing cells with abnormal properties into patients. This is of particular concern in light of the enormous tumor–forming potential of embryonic stem cells. If only one out of a million transplanted cells somehow failed to receive the correct signals for differentiation, patients could be given a small number of fully undifferentiated embryonic stem cells as part of a therapeutic treatment. Even in very small numbers, embryonic stem cells produce teratomas, rapid growing and frequently lethal tumors. (Indeed, formation of such tumors in animals is one of the scientific assays for the "multipotency" of embryonic stem cells.) No currently available level of quality control would be sufficient to guarantee that we could prevent this very real and horrific possibility.
The full article can be read here:
and does recognise the worth of the research
All the more reason more research is needed...
Personally I feel there is nothing wrong with useing stem cells even if they were made from embryos that were specifically grown for that purpose.
It all a question of potentiality. If say,, a women donated 20 eggs and a man donated the sperm to make embryos,, to harvest stem cells, what's the big deal. Every time a man ejaculates 200,000,000 sperm die with out reaching their potential,, everytime a woman ovulates and doesn't get pregnant and carry to full term those egg cell die with out reaching their full potential,(just imagine how awful it would be if every human egg cell got impregnated and went full term). Worrying about embryos that are not grown to full term seems to make as much sense as a women worrying about her poor egg cells that didn't get fertilized each month or a man feeling sad every time he jerks off over the tremendous loss of potential life in the millions of sperm cells that never impregnated an egg cell.
I look at it this way, an embryos does not have a funtioning brain, does not feel pain, does not know what life is. If we don't get all emotional about the subject i think we should be able to reason that those embryos used to make stem cells would most likely never have been a fully developed human anyway, and would never be missed because it never had a personality and would never know what it missed by not being a fully developed human.
And far as the term playing "God" with embyos I guess the same line of reasoning can be used when a person either uses or does not use birth control,, they are playing "God" the same way medical personel are when they grow embryos for research.
I think the moral issues raised in this research is mainly a product of christian origen. If person's conscience is so sensitive that they view it as wrong they should not be able to impose their conscience on others who feel it not wrong. They could however reject any treatment that uses stem cells for themselves personally,, but they should not legislate laws to force others to suffer because of their scruples.
No, a fetus is not "living". A ball of cells smaller than this . period, is not "living".
Heart is beating (Since 18-25 days)
Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days
I think that you need to do a little more research on this if you are going to argue about it. I have been researching this for 6 years or so.
Abortion I mean and when a fetus is considered living or not. Wouldn't you say it is living if it has a heartbeat?
I don't think that most of us on the board are even qualified to determine the health issues involved with this type of science . That was some very good article posted on the dangers of gene manipulation . I also think to view this in the same context as masturbation and menstration is a mistake . The sperm dies in time reguardless of masturbation and exits thru the urine . Most sperm die in the process of procreation .
I still think this is all a matter of public opinion and is not something determined by politicians alone . Reguardless of what Abaddon has to say the issue is a moral one as well . The US government keeps insisting that they can determine some code of ethics based on religious beliefs as well .
Here's another way to look at it:
Since most egg cells and sperm cells die without ever producing another human being,, why let them all go to waste,,why not use some of them to help the now living.
Blasocysts and zygotes tendancy to frequently NOT develop into embryos due to spontaneous abortion is one of the chief ridiculers of the 'every sperm is sacerd' school of thought.
But I still think zygotes are alive and a form of life.
Yes, but so are bacteria. You're right, but that piece of data isn't neccesarilly an argument either way. It's like saying chlorophyll is green.
The phrase 'playing god' STILL doesn't MEAN anything. You can say it all you like, it has no more meaning than hitting your keyboard with a foam hammer to randomly type characters.
I think so far there is way more to the issue of stem cell and so far all that has been posted are arguments that are one sided and only have some facts supporting opinions rather than looking at all the facts.
Stop complaining and bring what you feel are the arguments from the other side.
I don't think that most of us on the board are even qualified to determine the health issues involved with this type of science.
The 'health issues' have to be determined by research. Just like they normally do. That is what will "determine the health issues involved with this type of science". Of course, we could just tell people who may be able to benefit from stem cell research in the future they can die as we're not going to bother to even research the area?
That was some very good article posted on the dangers of gene manipulation.
No, that was stuff that fitted in with your opinions. Doesn't mean it was 'good'.If the same 'logic' was applied to other areas of tissue donation we still wouldn't have transplants. Would you refuse an organ transplant or a blood transfusion?
I also think to view this in the same context as masturbation and menstration is a mistake. The sperm dies in time reguardless of masturbation and exits thru the urine. Most sperm die in the process of procreation.
By your logic then, the fact that many fertilised eggs never even become implanted and simply die is all we need to know.
Reguardless of what Abaddon has to say the issue is a moral one as well.
You can state that all you like heathen. What you are yet to do is argue that convincingly. Getting snitty just because you don't HAVE a counter argument to having meaningless moralistic statements rebuffed doesn't get anyone anywhere.
The US government keeps insisting that they can determine some code of ethics based on religious beliefs as well .
Like the US government knows shit about ethics?
First and foremost, there are profound immunological issues associated with putting cells derived from one human being into the body of another.
This argument would have disallowed ALL organ transplants and blood transfusions plus most vacination. As jws points out, all the arguments made by the material you provide merely underline we need more research; we are at a level of knowledge with stem cells roughly equivalent to organ transplants in the 1950's.
Are you saying a heart beat or detectable electrical activity in the brain donates humanity?
You can't be saying that stopping ANY heart beating is wrong, not unless you are a Jain or a extreme animal liberationalist.
You have not responded to the FACT that the amount of nerve tissue in a 12-week fetus is smaller than that in a pet rat. Regardless of whether a heart is beating or not, regardless of electrical activity in the brain (or tissues that will become a brain), to define a first-trimester fetus as the 'same' as a new born requires one to assert beliefs not supportable by physical evidence.
You are welcome to have those beliefs, but not to compel others to follow them.