Stem Cell Research article

by DevonMcBride 112 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Iforget

  IVF is not done for the procurment of embryo's to be destroyed. Show me where they are developing embryos for mere scientific research. They are talking about using cells that will not divide into a blastocyst. They are talking about using embies that will not make it. NEVER EVER HAVE I SEEN ANYTHING ABOUT USING IVF FOR THE PURPOSE OF CELL DIVISION ONLY. Parents must donate or the clinic must donate with parental consent.

  And technically they do not all have 46 chromosones. That is why many do not thrive and basically why women who try so hard cannot achieve a pregnancy. Survival depends on the embryo developing and using the genetic material to become a fetus. Once an embryo reaches blast stage on day 5 it turns into one cell again and then you have viable material. I have great pictures of it if you care to educate yourself before you begin an argument.

  DUH .. I did it in hopes of the embryo's thriving and implanting. It simply does not happen with every single egg even if you use ICSI. But then again according to you women who chose to work don't deserve to be able to have children if they can't do it naturally. Talk about judgemental and insensitive.

  I would have gladly given those cells which I knew beyond a doubt would not develop to a lab to test for cures for cancer or whatever they needed them for.

  Your argument is not viable, much like a 2 cell embryo that has fragmentation and is dark. I have pictures of those as well if need be so you can clearly understand that you simply have no idea of which you speak. But you have proven yourself to be an ass over and over. Wonder how many chromosomes a donkey has?
• 

  EvilForce

  About my vegetarianism.....if I'm on a deserted island w/ a wild boar as the only food soure.....I win. I'm building a fire and having a pig BBQ....or a pig picken as they say in da South. Ideology is easily supported in the abstract. Harder to do so in the here and now.
  
  I like living. I imagine I always will. Is it fair? I don't know. All I know is that I've fought hard to get where I am now. I'll probably keep on fighting in 20, 30 or 40 years too.
• 

  the_classicist

  Oh bullshit. It's called 'Survival' and humans have been doing whatever they need to do to survive for thousands of years. I agree with EvilForce: if it's me or a clump of cells that hasn't formed in to anything yet, and it'll save my life---I win.

  Classicist, if you don't think that Stem Cell Research is good, then no one's forcing you to use it; it's your choice. But don't condemn everyone else for not seeing it your way. When all the bleeding hearts such as yourself have taken care of all the emotionally, mentally and physically shattered children of this world who were born to people who should have never had kids, then you can whine about saving cells........or bacteria.

  Wow, an argument from selfishness and an ad hominem attack all in one. You're certainly an irrational piece of work, Mary.

  IVF is not done for the procurment of embryo's to be destroyed. ; Show me where they are developing embryos for mere scientific research. ; They are talking about using cells that will not divide into a blastocyst. ; They are talking about using embies that will not make it. ; NEVER EVER HAVE I SEEN ANYTHING ABOUT USING IVF FOR THE PURPOSE OF CELL DIVISION ONLY. ; Parents must donate or the clinic must donate with parental consent. ;

  First part, embryos are used from IVF for research purposes with the owner's consent: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp. Right now, creating embryos for research purposes is illegal in the USA, but not in other countries where they are doing this. The fact that we are creating human life knowing that they "will not make it" is in and of itself unethical and that statement covers the rest of your rant. Mind you, ethics is always a few years behind medical research and peoples' selfish wishes.

  An embryo is a human life; it has the full ability to become a fully-formed human. Please tell me how it is not a human life, rationally and you certainly aren't making a valid argument by saying that they aren't viable most of the time. They aren't viable because they are created artifically. It reminds me of WWI, throwing a bunch of soldiers toward the enemy trench in hoping a few would get through to their target. Both cases are a waste of life. If in nature, when two people mate and nuclear fusion does not take place, then a new life is not created and it is still an ovum with some genetic material floating around in the cytoplasm that will be eaten up by DNA polymerase and that ovum will be ejected out of the human body. But scientists, in the IVF clinic, can make sure that fusion takes place, thereby creating a human life; otherwise, if no fusion takes place, then a human life is not created and the ovum will stay a single celled orgainism, as an ovum can not replicate by mitosis like other cells as it's genetic code is incomplete.
• 

  the_classicist

  About my vegetarianism.....if I'm on a deserted island w/ a wild boar as the only food soure.....I win. I'm building a fire and having a pig BBQ....or a pig picken as they say in da South. Ideology is easily supported in the abstract. Harder to do so in the here and now.
  
  
  
  

  Would you kill and eat your husband or another human to stay alive on that deserted island?
• 

  EvilForce

  Cannibalism isn't what we are talking about here. But I would like you to answer again if you would vow an oath never to use research, treatments, or therapies that were derived from embryonic stem cells. Can you honestly say/vow this?
• 

  the_classicist

  Strawman.

  Then I would say your analogy is false in the first place for you are equating the killing of a human life for your own medical purposes with eating a wild boar, unless you weren't trying to make the analogy in the first place. If you think that morals are relative, you should then know that the realtivist morality is philosophically and logically unsustainable. So if the eating of animals is wrong, it should always be wrong. That assumes you have a logical reason why eating animals is wrong, besides emotional reasons.
• 

  EvilForce

  I was editing my post while you were writing yours. Doh!
  
  Being human IS irrational. Humans are NOT logical. Your stand Class is the epitome of illogical thinking. Yet you somehow have deluded yourself into thinking your stance is the more logical solution and the rest of us are all irrational. Why can't you admit you are being illogical and making an emotional, hence irrational moral judgement call? Be honest for crying out loud.
  
  Your choice is a value judgement. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just as my stand is MY value judgement.
• 

  the_classicist

  I was editing my post while you were writing yours. Doh!

  D'oh, indeed!

  Being human IS irrational. Humans are NOT logical. Your stand Class is the epitome of illogical thinking. Yet you somehow have deluded yourself into thinking your stance is the more logical solution and the rest of us are all irrational. Why can't you admit you are being illogical and making an emotional, hence irrational moral judgement call? Be honest for crying out loud.

  Hey, I'm debating with people who act like rational naturalists and with people who yell out names as children (not you). My position is logical, but it assumes that human life begins at conception. Now, given relativist philosophy, this becomes not illogical, but another value judgement among many, which are all more valid than mine (for example, when I express my opinion, it becomes "shoving it down people's throats"). An embryo is the simplest form of life that will grow into a complete human being, I make the conclusion that it is a human life because of that: both potential and existing. To take away that life is to do so unjustly as you become God by saying who can live and who cannot. I don't see what's so illogical about that argument, unless you wish to elucidate further.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  WTF? do you have your encyclopedia of fallacies out?

  Strawman. I indicated an embryo with 46 chromosome that can be come a fully-formed human.

  it's not a strawman. don't push me dude. ignoring the arguments, while calling other arguments fallacious IS a red herring.

  an EGG, at conception, IS a cell with 46 chromosomes. so we ARE talking about the same thing. cells with 46 chromosomes. all cells in the human body have the complete genetic code for that human (46 chromosomes). a liver cell has the entire code, but only a certain part of the code has been executed. just admit it, and move on already. sheesh. you're being illogical with your refusal to define technically the difference between clump of cells that have divided from one, and an embryo.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  The fact that we are creating human life knowing that they "will not make it" is in and of itself unethical and that statement covers the rest of your rant.

  this of course has no technical backing, but is rather just a value judgement, based on your "philosophy" which is a cover for your religion.

  and i would also like to know if you are willing to vow to never use any treatments developed from stem cell therapy. please advise.