Thread: Stem Cell research

Stem cell research and the results we got from it aren't meant to make us live forever.
They can help people with serious diseases to have better life, as long as it lasts.

I voted fantastic, though I also have no desire to live forever.

I am all for doing the research to find a cure. I do not see the moral implications. The problem with the naysayer argument (unfortunately a religion-backed one which means there will inevitably be blind followers) is just a result of people being afraid of the unknown. Could this one day lead to such advanced developments such as cloning? Maybe. But I'd draw the line well before that, and not for moral reasons. For economic, sustainment, global population reasons. Oh and because anybody with lots of money could clone him/herself a million times and take over the world


Sorry for taking that jab at "religion" again, but we know there is skepticism in the "Church" and so I feel it's very pertinent to the way some people may answer the poll question.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

I am all for doing the research to find a cure. I do not see the moral implications. The problem with the naysayer argument (unfortunately a religion-backed one which means there will inevitably be blind followers) is just a result of people being afraid of the unknown. Could this one day lead to such advanced developments such as cloning? Maybe. But I'd draw the line well before that, and not for moral reasons. For economic, sustainment, global population reasons. Oh and because anybody with lots of money could clone him/herself a million times and take over the world


Sorry for taking that jab at "religion" again, but we know there is skepticism in the "Church" and so I feel it's very pertinent to the way some people may answer the poll question.

Do you think there are no moral implications to embryonic stem cell research?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Do you think there are no moral implications to embryonic stem cell research?

I knew this was coming. I agree that it is a VERY touchy subject, but only because of the "popular" way of thinking in the world.

I tend to look at these things from a purely scientific standpoint. We are talking about embryos that are not used in in vitro fertilization, but similarly cultivated for the stem cells.

The same "con" argument is used in abortion debates: when is the embryo considered a human being, and when that life is terminated, is it immoral?

I certainly value human life. The way I've lived my life to this point (without going into details) would certainly support this. However, the embryo is cultivated in as inhumanly (read: not inhumanely) a manner as possible.

Scientifically speaking, we take a sperm cell and an egg cell, and allow them to become fertilized in a dish filled with nutrients that mimics a womb/fallopian tube/whatever. If that activity to you is the beginning of a human life, then we will never agree on the subject. That act, coupled with the culturing of the stem cells that can adapt to a number of various applications, is a biological remedy which the field of medicine has discovered.

It can be very useful. It can help save lives. It can help improve the quality of life of disabled or terminally ill human beings. There is no consciousness, no pain, and in my mind, nothing immoral about it. There is no "soul" which can be measured (21 gram urban myths aside), so we can leave that argument at the door.

Not that it drives my point home any, but I read somewhere (sorry I don't have a citation) that there are something like half-a-million embryos in the United States which are dedicated to stem cell research. They are either used immediately and discarded, or frozen cryogenically for future use. I think the future is here, ladies and gentlemen, and I'm glad for it.

Hope that answers your question.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

Scientifically speaking, we take a sperm cell and an egg cell, and allow them to become fertilized in a dish filled with nutrients that mimics a womb/fallopian tube/whatever. If that activity to you is the beginning of a human life, then we will never agree on the subject. That act, coupled with the culturing of the stem cells that can adapt to a number of various applications, is a biological remedy which the field of medicine has discovered.

It can be very useful. It can help save lives. It can help improve the quality of life of disabled or terminally ill human beings. There is no consciousness, no pain, and in my mind, nothing immoral about it. There is no "soul" which can be measured (21 gram urban myths aside), so we can leave that argument at the door.

.

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?

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 Seraphim

Do you think there are no moral implications to embryonic stem cell research?

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.

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?