Thread: Stem cell research...

Originally Posted by Hutch

JMS it was not I, I take no offense from anything that you have said. I disagree with you, but that is the nature of the world. As I'm pro-choice I defend your right to choose different from me. I think you know that if I had an issue I'd be more than willing to take it up with you.

Ditto.

j

I'm very interested in the leaps they've made in non-embryonic stem cell research. I read an article about researchers being able to take fat from a woman who has had to remove her breasts due to cancer and extract stems cells which allowed her to regrow her breasts. Cancer's gone, new boobs, and lipo- what's there to dislike in this situation?

It's exciting to me to live in this era of amazing research. I feel confident that stem cells soon will be harvested as easily and uncontroversially as giving blood. Breakthroughs such as the one in the article I mentioned are hopefully just the beginning. If I understand it correctly, there's a chance that many problems that face us will be a thing of the past. Of course, it stands to introduce a lot of problems too, but I'm still excited to see where this technology goes.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

I'm very interested in the leaps they've made in non-embryonic stem cell research. I read an article about researchers being able to take fat from a woman who has had to remove her breasts due to cancer and extract stems cells which allowed her to regrow her breasts. Cancer's gone, new boobs, and lipo- what's there to dislike in this situation?

New boobs are okay in my book.

Topics like this break down to ethics which is a major topic in science and medicine and always has been.

Those who adopt an absolutist point of view tend to have those ideas instilled by their religion. These views proclaim that there is a clear division between what is right and what is wrong and there is no grey area. All are subject to those morals whether they think they are or should be or not. I have always had trouble with such outlooks as the arguments for them are often too simplistic and sometimes even false and misleading, designed only to support the bigger picture of one's faith.

Those who support a more relative point of view see ethics or morality as pertaining to the people and circumstances of each argument individually. This is how people can rationalise the good nature behind theft to feed the hungry or support assisted suicide for the painfully suffering infirm. The challenge associated with these outlooks often has so much grey area that debate cannot always come to a consensual conclusion.

People who see themselves as clearly in one camp or another seem to have immense difficulty if not the outright impossibility of changing outlooks. I have come to think that it will always be this way. Personally, I support all attempts to broaden arguments and consider new data and new ideas which makes me something of a relativist. I also strongly support stem cell research for the betterment of all humanity and decry those who would seek to shut down progress and force their personal brand of morality on the population at large.

But that's just me.

X

In other words, new boobs are ok with you too

How about this:

Embryonic stem cell research is a mostly untested process. We don't know how effective it may or may not be. That's kind of a risky endeavor.

So, here's what we should do: take the "already doomed" embryos, implant them, let them grow to term, and then harvest fully formed and functional body parts and organs for transplant to help others who are more in need of them.

Any philosophical issues with that?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

How about this:

Embryonic stem cell research is a mostly untested process. We don't know how effective it may or may not be. That's kind of a risky endeavor.

So, here's what we should do: take the "already doomed" embryos, implant them, let them grow to term, and then harvest fully formed and functional body parts and organs for transplant to help others who are more in need of them.

Any philosophical issues with that?

Obviously, everyone has issues with that. But what does that have to do with embryonic stem cell research? I don't see any connection.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Obviously, everyone has issues with that. But what does that have to do with embryonic stem cell research? I don't see any connection.

j

As an example: it has been mentioned that many embryos are out there as a result of fertility treatment. What happened to the other embryos? They became someone's children.

Supporters seem to want to differentiate between an embryo and a fetus, but there isn't much difference besides time between the two. An embryo is worlds different than an unfertilized egg. At the point the egg is fertilized the process of growth begins. Growth towards becoming a human being.

You can differentiate between an infant and a child and an adult, but at what point does one become the other? And aren't they all the same person regardless of what point in their development they are?

As someone who had been told that my wife and I would not be able to have children, I can tell you from personal experience that there is a HUGE difference between an unfertilized egg, and a fertilized one. An unfertilized egg=no children, fertilized egg=children.

So, if harvesting body parts etc from a full grown fetus is unacceptable, why is terminating the growth of a fertilized embryo acceptable?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

As an example: it has been mentioned that many embryos are out there as a result of fertility treatment. What happened to the other embryos? They became someone's children.

Supporters seem to want to differentiate between an embryo and a fetus, but there isn't much difference besides time between the two. An embryo is worlds different than an unfertilized egg. At the point the egg is fertilized the process of growth begins. Growth towards becoming a human being.

You can differentiate between an infant and a child and an adult, but at what point does one become the other? And aren't they all the same person regardless of what point in their development they are?

As someone who had been told that my wife and I would not be able to have children, I can tell you from personal experience that there is a HUGE difference between an unfertilized egg, and a fertilized one. An unfertilized egg=no children, fertilized egg=children.

So, if harvesting body parts etc from a full grown fetus is unacceptable, why is terminating the growth of a fertilized embryo acceptable?

Because there is an enormous difference between a sentient being and a clump of cells. This is the crux of the debate -- the difference between a life and a potential life. Not every potential must be realized.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Because there is an enormous difference between a sentient being and a clump of cells. This is the crux of the debate -- the difference between a life and a potential life. Not every potential must be realized.

j

By that same argument, then not every life must be saved? (i.e.-why bother with stem cell research to save lives in the first place?)




And I'll come to reason #2 why I'm against stem cell research- scientists more often than not really don't know what they are doing.

Genetically modified foods. Sure, they may grow great under adverse weather conditions, and be pest resistant. But are they still digestable? Have you noticed that there are alot more food allergies now then 20-30 years ago?