Stem Cell Research
alius42
Join Date: 2002-07-23 Member: 987Members
Join Date: 2002-07-23 Member: 987Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Whats your stance?</div> As for my opinion I'm all for it, using any source it can be taken from, mostly because it is considered waste and would be disposed of with no benefit to society. For those of you against using things such as umbilical cords and such, why are you against that? Considering it would just be fried in an incinerator as opposed to seriously helping improve someones quality of life. What do you think of research pretty much being halted in the US? What do you think of the benefits they can provide? Share your opinions!
Comments
*cue religious people saying this is morally wrong and we're all going to rot in hell forever* Yeah well your god doesn't cure cancer.
I didn't mean that. But you will rot in hell. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Im just kidding. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I didn't mean that. But you will rot in hell. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Im just kidding. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would still like to see your opinion on it Bos. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Aye we have it here in Australia, curses <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> And admittedly it looks promising. However I personally was VERY disappointed at the incredible lack of knowledge Australia citizens showed in the matter.
Stem cell research to date has been done on Adult stem cells. And it looks like it could be really fruitful. As I have been told, ALL the advantages (correct me if im wrong) quoted by the pro-stem cell research doctor (a vet if I remember correctly) pushing the bill to parliament were not taken from embryo stem cell research. That wasnt even legal here. They were all taken from what scientist using adult stem cells had achieved and predicting.
People were easily deluded into thinking Mr Reeves was going to be stuck in his wheelchair forever if we didnt legalise the use of embryos for science. All gains in the area of stem cell research had been done with adult stem cells, so I am left here wondering why exactly we needed the embryonic ones? No doctor actually claimed that there was stuff that could be down with embryonic that couldnt be done with adult stem cells.
So I opposed the use of unused embryos. As for umbilical cords and placenta - rock on. Use that stuff, nothing wrong with that. But human embryos? No. Its a very suspicious area, ethics and the embryo, and personally I would rather see that we didnt use it.
Slippery slope lads. If you have no religious standpoint, then it is impossible to rational oppose embryonic stem cell research. But I do have a religious standpoint, and thus Im opposed.
Why did we need to use embryos? Your guess is as good as mine.
Aye we have it here in Australia, curses <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> And admittedly it looks promising. However I personally was VERY disappointed at the incredible lack of knowledge Australia citizens showed in the matter.
Stem cell research to date has been done on Adult stem cells. And it looks like it could be really fruitful. As I have been told, ALL the advantages (correct me if im wrong) quoted by the pro-stem cell research doctor (a vet if I remember correctly) pushing the bill to parliament were not taken from embryo stem cell research. That wasnt even legal here. They were all taken from what scientist using adult stem cells had achieved and predicting.
People were easily deluded into thinking Mr Reeves was going to be stuck in his wheelchair forever if we didnt legalise the use of embryos for science. All gains in the area of stem cell research had been done with adult stem cells, so I am left here wondering why exactly we needed the embryonic ones? No doctor actually claimed that there was stuff that could be down with embryonic that couldnt be done with adult stem cells.
So I opposed the use of unused embryos. As for umbilical cords and placenta - rock on. Use that stuff, nothing wrong with that. But human embryos? No. Its a very suspicious area, ethics and the embryo, and personally I would rather see that we didnt use it.
Slippery slope lads. If you have no religious standpoint, then it is impossible to rational oppose embryonic stem cell research. But I do have a religious standpoint, and thus Im opposed.
Why did we need to use embryos? Your guess is as good as mine. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We don't NEED to use embroys but the embryonic cells are MUCH more receptive to change then the adult cells, at least from what I know. I also agree that they definately shouldn't be aborting fetuses just to get stem cells. But why not take advantage of something that was just going to be disposed of? Its not neccesary to legalize embryonic stem cell research but it would definately open up a much wider array to test from.
Well as I said its the slippery slope. Now that it IS okay to use and embryo to do scientific tests on, why cant some lady choose to abort her fetus and have the stem cells extracted? She is able to have abortion on demand in some states. She doesnt need a decent reason, she just has to say "I want an abortion". Now she has had an abortion, and there is a fetus left over. That becomes waste. There is now a precedent for using waste embryo's, they CAN be used for scientific testing.
Now these embryos were all from IVF, so no one had an abortion for them, but I still think it sets the precedent that its open season on embryos.
Those same stem cells in the embryos are found in the umbilical cord and placenta. Why not them?
Now these embryos were all from IVF, so no one had an abortion for them, but I still think it sets the precedent that its open season on embryos.
Those same stem cells in the embryos are found in the umbilical cord and placenta. Why not them? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you didn't read my original post I did mention umbilical stem cells, which usage is still currantly banned. I also thought of the possibility of abuse but there would obviously have to be strict regulations on it then. Also I can see abortion laws changing in the near future so who knows.
Stem cells don't require abortion, as marine said umbilical and placental cells are a great source of stem cells as well. Not to mention the presence of less effective stem cells in adult fatty tissue.
(please don't feel like I'm trying to catch you in a loop here either, I honostly just want to know your opinion. I don't mean any harsh feelings from any of the other posts either, this is a discussion forum. Its not arguing. We just have a difference of opinion.)
I take it that as an antiabortionist you believe as I do that an embryo is human the second it is concieved, so I can see why you oppose it.
allus I did read your original post and I thought that umbilical and placental waste WAS legal. Guess I'm wrong. I suppose that was done to prevent women from having children merely for the sake of cash for birth waste?
I personally have nothing against using that waste, but hey.
I take it that as an antiabortionist you believe as I do that an embryo is human the second it is concieved, so I can see why you oppose it.
allus I did read your original post and I thought that umbilical and placental waste WAS legal. Guess I'm wrong. I suppose that was done to prevent women from having children merely for the sake of cash for birth waste?
I personally have nothing against using that waste, but hey. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see why they don't just make the waste property of the hospital to do with what it wishes though, then the women has no "ownership" over it and it can benefit society which far outways the negetives.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats slippery about that? Like you said, we have set a precendent using waste IVF cells for tests. Now if a featus is aborted then it too is just waste, so why not use them? I say that if a woman choses to have an abortion (and thats one hell of a step to take, women do not take it lightly) and then says to the doctor "you can use the remains for research" then go for it. Of course, some women may want the remains to be buried for religious or sentimental reasons. On my driver's license it clearly states that doctors can use any part of my dead body for medical purposes: how is this differant? If the use of such embriotic cells, or the organs in my body, can be used to better someone else's life, or even save a life, then why should we prevent scientists from using them?
*glances over shoulder at the storm of controversy this post will produce <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> *
I'd say it's a corpse.
Your analogy with organ transplantation has merit however. The question is whether legal minors can be organ donors. When a child dies, can its parents decide to donate its organs? I don't know, but I guess they can't.
Hmm, if a child dies, one that is not capable of making the choice to donate their organs, then it should be up to the parents. If a child has made a decision not to donate their organs, then their rights should be respected. A 2 year old baby is not able to make such a choice, whereas a 14 year old teenager is. There is though a grey area in between where a child might be able to make such a decision, but the actual question has not been raised. In such circumstances, I believe it should be the parent's choice.
---
flamebait alert, but in response to Bosnian:
The anti-abortionists have a bit of a problem here - letting healthy children and adults die from illnesses stem-cell research could fix doesn't really sit well next to the "all unborn foetuses should have the right to life" point of view.
I see stem-cell research like this:
- Doctors are given free use of the afterbirth (Placenta and umbilical cord)
- Consentual use of aborted fetuses.
What I think anti-abortionists see, or want people to see:
- Matrix-esque farms of fetuses being slaughtered and thrown in a garbage disposal.
- Women concieving children, then making cash off of aborting them. (And as anyone with an education will tell you, human organ trading is illegal in the US).
Am I wrong?
- Women concieving children, then making cash off of aborting them. (And as anyone with an education will tell you, human organ trading is illegal in the US).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite true, it's illegal here in Australia as well. Certainly there could be no financial reward being implemented: all organ and blood donations here are exactly that: donations.
I think that anti-abortionists do tend to get the wrong idea about abortion as a whole. Women do find themselves in positions where it's not a good time for them to have a child. I for one would rather a fetus be terminated than see a woman try to raise a child that she was both unprepared and unable to adequately care for it. Now before you say "well why did she place herself in a position to be pregnant in the first place", understand that we all make mistakes. Since most anti-abortion supporters are Christians, remember these words from your own teacher: "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone".
Embryonic stem cells are basically the cells in the blastula that can change into ANYTHING in the human body, you name it. The stem cells go through a series of specializations (for example, embryonic --> basic skeletal stem cell --> bone marrow --> "final" bone cell). Embryonic stemcells haven't specialized, ever.
On the other hand, adult stem cells have already specialized once or twice. The places where you find a stem cell are where they have specialized, for example, if you take a stem cell out of bone marrow, it can ONLY specialize into something in the skeletal system. You can't make it despecialize. So good luck curing ... like lung ruptures ... with bone marrow stemcells.
I'm certainly not against harvesting stem cells out of embryos for science. Okay, the embryo is a cell that has the potential to become a human being. Well if you think about it, my skin cells, if manipulated, ALSO have the potential to become a human being (cloning). When I scratch my arm, I am killing a thousand potential lives, am I not?
So I don't have any qualms about destroying skin cells and thus I'm not concerned about destroying an embryo. Especially if I know that the destruction will lead to medical research, perhaps the saving of a life.
Adult stem cells, placental stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells, even cells from abortions that <i>would have happened anyway</i> - can't argue against using those.
For real though, thats one of the bigger problems in the states. Things get wasted all to often. Mr.Bush smites the viles of cancer curing agents with his giant bilble'o'pwnage. Maybe I will rot in hell, then again its better than rotting away during my life from a disease that kills me in months.
Now think about human anatomy as being the first layer, and cells being the second layer. By researching stem cells and their behaviors could have monumentous leaps in medical science. If we could really understand the whole cell thing we could do almost anything, like regrow limbs or a new liver for a dying person. It would save lives (good remember?)
But on the other hand think about this, would you give up your son or daughter to save hundreds of people? It may not be that extreme, but still we are all people and they ALL have the right to live.
Personally I'd donate an aborted fetus, or a miscarrage to stem cell research for the sole fact that I might save another life.
Incidently, the reason they harvest steam cells from fetuses is simply a numbers games. Yeah you can get them from the umbilical cord etc, but only in very low numbers. Using fetal stem cells has the greatest potential for manipulation. Adult stem cells are different, haemopoeitic stem cells that make immune cells, blood cells and a few other things for instance, can't make other fully differentiated tissues easily, if at all. Hence the current interest in fetal stem cells.
arrr matey, did you read my post??
How to go around getting the material needed would go something like this:
Upon a birth of a child, the parents have the option of saving the umbilical cord for research and future use (if the children gets cancer)
Any aborted fetus is automatically donated to stem cell research, regardless, along with a 'packaging fee' that the mother is forced to pay. This will hopefully discourage Matrix-esque fetus farming.
Any cell of a fetus has the ability to multiply and grow into a human being (if it isn't completely formed), it doesn't make sense to say "The fetus has been killed." If this action was somehow proven to be 'murder,' it is justified, since one person has been sacrificed for the good of humanity. There shall be an annual "Fetus Day" that commemerates the unknown fetuses that were sacrificed for the good of humanity. This ethical system is utilitarianism, so the replacement of one moral system is more or less justified if it is replaced with another moral system.
As for abortion,
Abortion is wrong.
Letting an unprepared woman take on the task of raising a child is equally wrong.
In both cases, the child has not a chance to live.
Therefore, I propose (with sarcasm) that any woman who wants to abort a fetus should also be systematically aborted.
There. Everyone's happy.