Stem Cell Research

[michabo]

Sperm and eggs are just haploid cells of the parents. No big deal there. Thats like refusing to have your back waxed on ethical grounds. At conception, the genetic makup of the zygote is that of a new, original human being.

I don't understand. You used the back waxing example - surely far more cells which contain the genetic makeup of an original human being are killed.

The reason why I believe that the zygote is so worthy of protection is two-fold. Sure. They can't yet feel pain, but would you conduct tests on somebody in a coma.

This doesn't make sense. You're arguing that we should not kill any animal or bacteria, no matter how small. What is it about the zygote that is worthy of protection?

Secondly I can't see any other place where you can honestly draw a line, except some arbitrary point such as the 16, 48 cell or 12, 24 week stage.

Again, this says nothing about the zygote which you want to protect. All it says is that you have not been able to articulate anything sacred about human life and so drew an arbitrary line. Make no mistake - the line at the zygote seems pretty extreme, but it is no less arbitrary than saying that every sperm is sacred.

(In fact, apart from the Monty Python reference, I've seen just such a sentiment expressed in the bible.)

 

[MarinoMan]

Sure. That doesn't morally justify it though. Lemme ask a question? Where would you say human life begins?

When you get a social security number...or when you are born. When you breath for the first time, your alive.

 

[MarinoMan]

Tumor - potential to kill host. Blastocyte - potential to become a unique human being.

Big difference.

Not a lab created blastocyte...no chance of becoming a human...none...at all...no chace...need I continue...

 

[Halitose]

I don't understand. You used the back waxing example - surely far more cells which contain the genetic makeup of an original human being are killed.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Back waxing destroys a lot of your hair. You shed a lot of your skin every day. You kill many bugs driving to work. No big deal. This is just life. A zygote is genetically a unique human being consisting of one cell, therefore worthy of our protection.

This doesn't make sense. You're arguing that we should not kill any animal or bacteria, no matter how small. What is it about the zygote that is worthy of protection?

See above.

Again, this says nothing about the zygote which you want to protect. All it says is that you have not been able to articulate anything sacred about human life and so drew an arbitrary line. Make no mistake - the line at the zygote seems pretty extreme, but it is no less arbitrary than saying that every sperm is sacred.

I'm not saying sperm is sacred, to the contrary no it aint. Lets take human development from the stage of fertilization until birth, where do you draw the line and say that the zygote, embryo, fetus is fully human?

(In fact, apart from the Monty Python reference, I've seen just such a sentiment expressed in the bible.)

???

 

[hitchhikerz]

When you get a social security number...or when you are born. When you breath for the first time, your alive.

so when you were in your mothers womb, kicking and moving around, you were not alive yet?

i beg to differ!!!

ask and woman who has had a baby. you are very much alive in the womb!!!

 

[stray bullet]

I was listening to NPR today and they were talking about stem cell research, and that got me to wondering what other people, thought about this topic. I'm all for it and think Bush is hindering research that could save countless lives.

There is nothing wrong with stem cell research. There is something unethical and immoral about human embryonic stem cell research, it is unnecessary.

Could you tell me what you think Bush has done to specifically hinder research?

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

Sure. That doesn't morally justify it though. Lemme ask a question? Where would you say human life begins?

At birth. When the eyes open, or the baby cries, or whatever it does once it hits the atmosphere outside the womb.

I am 100% for embryonic stem cell research. If one has to fertilize eggs, culture them, and then do whatever it takes to get stem cells, fine by me.

A mere lump of non-conscious tissue is simply not worth being concerned about, and certainly not when compared to a conscious, feeling, self-aware human being.

I have an emotional issue with aborting fetuses past a certain time period, say about 6 months in, but I see no moral problem with doing so.

I hate the thought that the US is hindered by laws restraining stem cell research. This is potentially one of the biggest advances in human history, and the powers that be in the US government are just stepping aside, rather than contributing to a poentially, incredibly positive branch of science.

 

[Halitose]

When you get a social security number...or when you are born. When you breath for the first time, your alive.

Why do you get charged with a double homicide when you kill a pregnant woman? So you can kill a fetus that if it had been prematurely born would have lived fine? (from about 28 weeks on)

 

[z3ro]

Isn't one of the big agruments brought up against evil that god made us, and he can do with us as he will? That if he decides to smite us all, who are the clay to tell the potter what it should be used for?

Well, why don't we get the same privelleges when we make life?

 

[Velo Princesse]

ask and woman who has had a baby. you are very much alive in the womb!!!

As a woman who has had a baby I would like to agree with you here. A baby is alive in the womb... However, what they use for stem cell research will never see the inside of the womb. So, that is not the same thing.

People on the anti-stem cell research side tend to believe that aborted fetuses are used, but that is simply not the case.

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

There is nothing wrong with stem cell research. There is something unethical and immoral about human embryonic stem cell research, it is unnecessary.

Could you tell me what you think Bush has done to specifically hinder research?

Bush has limited federal funding for research to 22 or so existing lines, which were created before anybody knew much about stem cells. It is entirely possible that none of these lines are inherently useful; furthermore, it is entirely possible that all of these lines have been tainted to the point of being made useful due to the primitive (relatively speaking) techniques used to culture them.

That is a hindrance.

You also state that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary. What information do you have that makes you state this with certainty? We do not know if embryonic stem cells are unique when compared to other types or not. That is why we do research, to find out.

 

[hitchhikerz]

Could you tell me what you think Bush has done to specifically hinder research?

he just saved the lives of numerous unborn babies.

 

[sc4s2cg]

Isn't one of the big agruments brought up against evil that god made us, and he can do with us as he will? That if he decides to smite us all, who are the clay to tell the potter what it should be used for?

Well, why don't we get the same privelleges when we make life?

There's a little something called the "soul" that is not physical so...we didn't create it

G-d bless,
sc

 

[hitchhikerz]

There's a little something called the "soul" that is not physical so...we didn't create it

G-d bless,
sc

 

[Velo Princesse]

he just saved the lives of numerous unborn babies.

How is it saving the LIVES of unborn babies if the stem cells used for research have never and will never see the inside of the womb? They will never be alive, don't you understand that?

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

he just saved the lives of numerous unborn babies.

No, actually he did not. Researchers wish to do research on excess fertilized embryos that have been created as a byproduct of fertility treatments. As has been stated above, a couple may have 4-8 fertilized embryos, but only use one. The rest are frozen indefinitely. Never to be used. For anything. They will not die until/unless the freezer that they are in runs out of electricity. But they will not develop or be born either.

So, how did Bush save lives?

 

[Halitose]

At birth. When the eyes open, or the baby cries, or whatever it does once it hits the atmosphere outside the womb.

What's so mystical about birth to actually endow one as a human. There is a moral inconsistancy here.

I am 100% for embryonic stem cell research. If one has to fertilize eggs, culture them, and then do whatever it takes to get stem cells, fine by me.

Sure. I am just the opposite, but surely that is the point of this thread to share ideas.

A mere lump of non-conscious tissue is simply not worth being concerned about, and certainly not when compared to a conscious, feeling, self-aware human being.

Great then we cankill all people who are inebriated, catatonic or in a coma.

I have an emotional issue with aborting fetuses past a certain time period, say about 6 months in, but I see no moral problem with doing so.

Fair enough.

I hate the thought that the US is hindered by laws restraining stem cell research. This is potentially one of the biggest advances in human history, and the powers that be in the US government are just stepping aside, rather than contributing to a poentially, incredibly positive branch of science.

Why not use adult stem cells? There are no moral problems there.

 

[hitchhikerz]

How is it saving the LIVES of unborn babies if the stem cells used for research have never and will never see the inside of the womb. They will never be alive, don't you understand that?

the egg that had to come from a woman could have been fertilised naturally and been born to be human beings

 

[z3ro]

There's a little something called the "soul" that is not physical so...we didn't create it

G-d bless,
sc

Sure we did; if we didn't put those cells together, then no soul would ever inhabit that person.

 

[sc4s2cg]

Sure we did; if we didn't put those cells together, then no soul would ever inhabit that person.

In other words..you just admitted that we didn't create the soul, rather we created the "house" for the soul correct?

G-d bless,
sc