Thread: Stem Cell research

How about this:

You want to get stem cell therapy.


You do the oofa-ooffa dance with your wife, if you catch my drift, and 4 weeks later remove the "cell tissue" that will be used to treat you. It will be as close a genetic match as you can get, customized especially for you.

Any moral implications to that?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

How can that not be seen as the begining of a human life?

Well it's not the beginning of consciousness. That seems more important.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

How can that not be seen as the begining of a human life?

Isn't that exactly what makes embryonic stem cells so valuable--that they are human cells? You can't use monkey cells, or mice cells, you have to use human cells.

So, where else can you get human cells, if not from a human organism?

Where would you put it if there were no willing recipients? You certainly can't "grow" a human in a petri dish.

But that's neither here nor there. My point was that the embryos are cultured for a purpose other than to become humans. They are "grown" to become hosts for stem cells.

Judging from your response (and correct me if I'm wrong, please) you are both:

a) In the opposition of the embryonic stem cell research camp.
b) In agreement that human life begins at the joining of the sperm and the egg.

I did preface the whole thing by saying that it's a very sticky situation. I'm just... "imploring" I guess would be the right word... people to look at things from a different point of view.

From a purely biological/scientific standpoint, its on the same level as (and I'm prepared to be crucified for this one) cultivating monkeys or mice or tadpoles or bacteria or whatever. We tend to put human existence, even at the earliest phases, above the rest of the animal/botanical kingdom simply because we are capable of rational thought. I tend to disagree with that stance.

We've learned how to do these things. I don't look at it as "playing god" or whatever some might call it because I don't believe there is a god. I believe in humanity and doing what it takes to make people's lives better. That embryo's purpose is not to become a human life because we have the ability to intervene and use what's needed for another purpose.

Is this leaving a lot of potential for opening another can of worms (cloning, etc)? Absolutely. But that's why I also said we need to keep a close eye on things. I didn't even vote for option A. I voted for option B because I believe we need to tread lightly and be careful to not let this turn from a helping others thing to a self-serving thing.

I had a couple ****tails so forgive my rambling. It's Friday. Now, back to more ****tails. Have a great weekend guys.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I do, I think that preventing the use of embryonic stem cells that would be tossed in the dumpster because of cultural and religious beliefs is definitely immoral.

It was not the religious belief system that created that backlog of embryonic stem cells in the first place, though was it?

That would be the reponsibility of the $cientific community.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

I had a couple ****tails so forgive my rambling. It's Friday. Now, back to more ****tails. Have a great weekend guys.

Bottoms up, you Tabac swashbuckler!

Originally Posted by Seraphim

How about this:

You want to get stem cell therapy.


You do the oofa-ooffa dance with your wife, if you catch my drift, and 4 weeks later remove the "cell tissue" that will be used to treat you. It will be as close a genetic match as you can get, customized especially for you.

Any moral implications to that?

OK, I'll bite, but only because you cast the line. Sure it's moral as long as it's between consenting parties from both sides.

(EDIT: Also keeping in mind that this should be used for medical benefit for those who need it. Not so that I can use my unborn child to be a clone of myself or whatever other twisted hidden agendas certain sick individuals may have. Again, purely for the betterment of an existing human life.)

But that point is moot, at least now. This is not how it works. The way I described above is how the embryos are cultured, not via the oofa-oofa dance.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Bottoms up, you Tabac swashbuckler!

Thanks, friend. I'll tip one to you when I hit the bar later. Hopefully the bar doesn't hit me.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

OK, I'll bite, but only because you cast the line. Sure it's moral as long as it's between consenting parties from both sides.

(EDIT: Also keeping in mind that this should be used for medical benefit for those who need it. Not so that I can use my unborn child to be a clone of myself or whatever other twisted hidden agendas certain sick individuals may have. Again, purely for the betterment of an existing human life.)

But that point is moot, at least now. This is not how it works. The way I described above is how the embryos are cultured, not via the oofa-oofa dance.

That certainly sounds like an agenda to me.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

Thanks, friend. I'll tip one to you when I hit the bar later. Hopefully the bar doesn't hit me.

Please do.

Something along he lines of:

"And dishhh ones, fer ol' Seraphim.....*hic*, that rapscallion!"

Originally Posted by Seraphim

That certainly sounds like an agenda to me.

Right, but not a twisted hidden agenda.