Stem Cell Research

[ClaireZ]

Yes, the definition that I provided is the definition for all of life, but the thing that makes the fertilized egg human is that it has the full genetic makeup of a human being.


----------
Ephesians 6:11
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

and? No matter what your view is on the value of a fertilized egg, it still makes more sense for science to use them to further the lives of actual human beings, rather than to toss them out as garbage.

 

[Ladyberg]

There is a biggie that a fertilized egg can not do though. It can not survive on its own.

Dependency is not the issue here. If it were, then I could say that all adult humans are dependent on the Earth and cannot survive without it. Dependency then cannot be used to validate life.


----------
Ephesians 6:11
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

 

[Randall McNally]

A fertilized egg is indeed a human life. Here are some of the basic biological qualifications for life:

1) Reproduces
2) Has highly ordered structure
3) Energy utilization (Metabolism)
4) Growth and development
5) Response to the environment (stimulus)
6) Possession of a genetic program

Now, having listed the six main characteristics of life, doesn't a developing fertilized egg meet these requirements? A fertilized egg reproduces by means of cell division, and thus also is growing and developing as a result of cellular division. A fertilized egg is also highly ordered in its structure, receives nutrients from its mother (metabolizes), and responds to its environment. And last, but not least, a fertilized egg contains the complete genetic information of a full-grown adult human (which makes the fertilized egg human). If a fertilized egg is a human life, then it cannot be considered simply as property.

You're correct that an embryo is "life," but it's arguable whether or not it's a "human life." But we really don't even need to go there.

Since an embryo is incapable of developing on its own - and incapable of caring for itself long after viability - it must be cared for by others. If you give parents that responsibility - property rights, essentially - then the state must allow them the freedom to implant them, donate them, sell them, whatever. Otherwise, the state has the final say and any freedom is ultimately illusory.

It is a lot better than simply not giving the embryo a chance at life. In vitro fertilization is a very expensive procedure and if a couple cannot afford it, taking on another couple's fertilized egg when it is cheaper is a great way to allow them to have the procedure and to give the embryo a chance at life.

Again, why would it be cheaper but for your scheme? And what of the ethical considerations that you seem to have ignored?

 

[-Truth-]

Dependency is not the issue here. If it were, then I could say that all adult humans are dependent on the Earth and cannot survive without it. Dependency then cannot be used to validate life.


----------
Ephesians 6:11
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

It is though.



These fertilized eggs are frozen and will be just thrown away once the patient has accepted one.

 

[Randall McNally]

Dependency is not the issue here. If it were, then I could say that all adult humans are dependent on the Earth and cannot survive without it. Dependency then cannot be used to validate life.

The earth doesn't make a conscious choice to care for adult humans (sorry pagans).

 

[Ladyberg]

and? No matter what your view is on the value of a fertilized egg, it still makes more sense for science to use them to further the lives of actual human beings, rather than to toss them out as garbage.

Why is it that embryonic stems cells are needed and adult stem cells are being ignored?The problem with embryonic stem cells is that they differentiate into different types of cells to easily, thus making them extremely hard to control. If the stem cells do not develop into the type of cells that we want them to they form tumors in the test subject. Seeing as how they can be so unpredictable and uncontrollable, embryonic stem cells can actually cause more harm than good to a patient if they do not differentiate into the cells that they want them to.


----------
Ephesians 6:11
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

 

[-Truth-]

Why is it that embryonic stems cells are needed and adult stem cells are being ignored?The problem with embryonic stem cells is that they differentiate into different types of cells to easily, thus making them extremely hard to control. If the stem cells do not develop into the type of cells that we want them to they form tumors in the test subject. Seeing as how they can be so unpredictable and uncontrollable, embryonic stem cells can actually cause more harm than good to a patient if they do not differentiate into the cells that they want them to.


----------
Ephesians 6:11
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

Trial and error.

It is very controversial so the research hasn’t gone into it as the other.

Tomas Edison didn’t make the light bulb on his first try.

This is how we advance in science.

 

[quantumspirit]

perfectly ethical, because stem cells do not come from aborted embryos, but rather from petri dish fertilizations of donated egg and sperm.

 

[Ladyberg]

Tomas Edison didn’t make the light bulb on his first try.

The light bulb is not a human life while a fertilized egg is.

The whole point that I am trying to make here is that there are other sources of stem cells and that their success is being ignored in order to push embryonic stem cell research. I personally do not think that we even have the ability to control embryonic stem cells. They are supposed to develop into a recognizable human being, not to be taken out and develop into what ever we want them to. It is all a matter of luck if the implanted embryonic stem cells differentiate into the cells that they are intended for. This form of research seems to me to be something that is out of our reach.





----------
Ephesians 6:11
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

 

[Ladyberg]

perfectly ethical, because stem cells do not come from aborted embryos, but rather from petri dish fertilizations of donated egg and sperm.

There is nothing different between an embryo that is in a mother's body and that of a fertilized egg in a petri dish. Its location does not make it any different. It is a human life regardless of where it is at.


----------
Ephesians 6:11
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

 

[night2day]

Do you think that stem cell research is ethical or not?

Research of the stem cells taken from the placenta, umbilical cord, and bone marrow which has already proven to be of great benefit, yes.

Research involving stem cells in which a human life within the most vulnerable of stages is destroyed, definitely not. There's also the matter in which stem cells of this type have had destructive consequences. A rapid onset of the multiplication of cells for example. Cancer and tumors. Why expect anything else...especially considering the type of cells that are being played and toyed with.

What I fail to understand is why all the media focus on "embryonic" stem cells while ignoring all the benefits derived from the other types of stem cells. I can only conclude it has less to do with actual research and more with attempting to justify support for the abortion issue and all related matters. It's already been made public several years ago late-term/partial-birth abortion babies could be "harvested" for their organs. Except for the age and place of the child, how does this matter differ from the other? The results are still the same.

 

[-Truth-]

The light bulb is not a human life while a fertilized egg is.

The whole point that I am trying to make here is that there are other sources of stem cells and that their success is being ignored in order to push embryonic stem cell research. I personally do not think that we even have the ability to control embryonic stem cells. They are supposed to develop into a recognizable human being, not to be taken out and develop into what ever we want them to. It is all a matter of luck if the implanted embryonic stem cells differentiate into the cells that they are intended for. This form of research seems to me to be something that is out of our reach.





----------
Ephesians 6:11
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

It is only out of reach if you never try.

Yes there are successes in adult stem cell and it isn’t being ignored. But the whole embryonic research is very controversial, being it will ruffle some feathers, so that get the press. It don’t mean they have ended their research in the adult stem cell.

Fertility clinics have a surplus they are just throwing away. Here is where you should be focusing your attention at. Should we get rid of fertility clinics? They are the ones throwing them away when instead of just tossing them they can be put to good use.

 

[Ladyberg]

It is only out of reach if you never try.

They are trying and all they are showing is how they are having problems controlling the embryonic stem cells. I personally think that it is an area that we are not supposed to tread in due to the nature of those cells. We should not take cells that are supposed to develop into a recognizable human being and turn them into something else. How they are so unpredictable and uncontrollable helps to validate this claim.

Fertility clinics have a surplus they are just throwing away. Here is where you should be focusing your attention at. Should we get rid of fertility clinics? They are the ones throwing them away when instead of just tossing them they can be put to good use.

And the point that I am trying to make is that they do not have to be discarded or be used for research. They can be implanted into a woman, giving it a chance at life.


----------
Ephesians 6:11
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

 

[Doctrine1st]

So why isn't virto infertilization not a big morality issue, while the notion embryonic research is, if through virto there are actually embryos being destroyed everyday?

 

[ForeRunner]

And the point that I am trying to make is that they do not have to be discarded or be used for research. They can be implanted into a woman, giving it a chance at life.

Theoretically, they could be, but the whole point of IVF is to have your own biological children. Getting IVF with someone elses eggs doesn't make sense, in that case, might as well adopt.

Your arguement is totally non-existant

 

[Milla]

Theoretically, they could be, but the whole point of IVF is to have your own biological children. Getting IVF with someone elses eggs doesn't make sense, in that case, might as well adopt.

Precisely. I'm opposed to IVF to begin with - it seems so selfish to spend thousands of dollars trying to get yourself pregant when clearly your physiology or your spouse's did not intend you to be so - when there are so many children around the world needing homes. It only adds to the wastefulness that so many embryos are fertilized then binned. What is so important about passing on one's own genes? Children can be a legacy, but it is not in their genetic code, it is in the people you raise them to be, the role in this world for which you prepare them.

It is a lot better than simply not giving the embryo a chance at life. In vitro fertilization is a very expensive procedure and if a couple cannot afford it, taking on another couple's fertilized egg when it is cheaper is a great way to allow them to have the procedure and to give the embryo a chance at life.

I am anti-abortion. I am also of the belief that life does begin at conception. But there comes a question of where one can do the greater good. An embryo sitting in cold storage at an IVF clinic is not suffering. A child in an orphanage in Siberia or China, a child in foster care, bounced from home to home, a baby born to a mother addicted to drugs, who abandons the child at the hospital, these children are already suffering. They need a home now. If one cares so much for human life, one ought think of them before one thinks of a proto-human yet unaware of its environment. For me, if the choice is between letting a child catch and die of tuberculosis in some third-world orphanage, and letting an embryonic child never see awareness of the world, well, I will choose to help the child who is already sentient and aware.

 

[ClaireZ]

well, I will choose to help the child who is already sentient and aware.

Excellent ---Reps!!

 

[Milla]

Excellent ---Reps!!

Thank you, ClaireZ. Your posts which I have seen seem very compassionate and erudite to me, so your good opinion is especially valuable.

 

[Vylo]

Embryos are not human beings. They have Human DNA, but beyond that have nothing that makes them distinctly human, such as human thought.

 

[trunks2k]

And the point that I am trying to make is that they do not have to be discarded or be used for research. They can be implanted into a woman, giving it a chance at life.


----------
Ephesians 6:11
Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes.

Yes they can and are implanted in other women. But before that happens, the people from which the original embryos came must give permission to do so. From my understanding, a lot of people do not give such permission. On top of that the embryos don't have an infinite shelf life. They can only be used for a certain period of time. I believe that the supply of extra embryos far outweighs the demand for them. So either way, there are embryos that are getting destroyed.