Stem Cell Research

[Halitose]

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.

Just because it wont make it to the womb is not argument enough when it comes to human life. I say again, why not just use adult stem cells harvested from bone marrow? There are no moral, ethical, religious problems here and you can still achieve great scientific advances.

 

[Velo Princesse]

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

Actually, the fact that a woman's eggs can not be fertilized naturally is usually the reason she would go to a fertility clinic to begin with.

 

[Halitose]

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?

They are alive. Ask the researchers. Until they were frozen, those cells were actively dividing and if given enough time and nutrition and of course a viable habitat (womb), they would have started forming the physical body of another unique human being.

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

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


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


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

Ok. I agree with your logical extensions pretty much on all points. There is nothing mystical about birth. It is simply an event at which one can point, and say definitively that some state has changed. Unborn to born. Not human to human.

I would not say that we could kill inebriated, etc people. Anencephaletic people, yes. People in irreversible comas, yes. Brain dead of any type, yes. Drunk or asleep? No. They have awareness, both past and future, they are simply not using it at a particular instant in time.

Nothing wrong with using adult stem cells. Go for it. However, they may not be able to do all the things that embryonic cells can do. That is why we should be able to experiment on BOTH.

 

[Velo Princesse]

Just because it wont make it to the womb is not argument enough when it comes to human life.

How does that make any sense? It will never become a human life. Without a womb it won't grow into a person, it will just sit frozen until it gets thrown out. Or, it can be used to save actual human lives...

I say again, why not just use adult stem cells harvested from bone marrow? There are no moral, ethical, religious problems here and you can still achieve great scientific advances.

How about because there isn't enough bone marrow to be used in transplants for people who need it so there certainly isn't an excess to be used to harvest stem cells?

Or, because donating bone marrow is painful and dangerous so most people don't do it thus bringing us back to my first point?

 

[z3ro]

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

So you admit we created the house; that means we can do what we will with the house, correct?

 

[Halitose]

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

Are you suggesting that invitrofertilized kids don't have souls?

 

[Citizen of Earth]

So let me ask you: what exactly is it about this single-celled human that is so worthy of our protection?

Among the various chemicals in the acrosome is the dormant Jesus chemical, but it doesn't become manifest until mixing with the dormant Jesus chemicals in the egg. Mix two dormant Jesus chemicals together, and out pops the "soul." It's obvious.

 

[Velo Princesse]

They are alive. Ask the researchers. Until they were frozen, those cells were actively dividing and if given enough time and nutrition and of course a viable habitat (womb), they would have started forming the physical body of another unique human being.

Okay, I'll give you that but becoming a human being, by your own admission, depends on that viable habitat that these particular cells will never be given. So, since it isn't destined to form the physical body of another unique human being, why can't it be used to save the life of a unique human being?

 

[Halitose]

How does that make any sense? It will never become a human life. Without a womb it won't grow into a person, it will just sit frozen until it gets thrown out. Or, it can be used to save actual human lives...

How about because there isn't enough bone marrow to be used in transplants for people who need it so there certainly isn't an excess to be used to harvest stem cells?

Or, because donating bone marrow is painful and dangerous so most people don't do it thus bringing us back to my first point?

So when does it become a human life, because I'm arguing that it already is a human life?

 

[sc4s2cg]

So you admit we created the house; that means we can do what we will with the house, correct?

Nope, but you still did not answer my question. Once you answer, I will further my points but I need to know your stance first.

G-d bless,
sc

 

[Citizen of Earth]

To ask what constitutes "life" is to ask how complex a chemical process must become for us to throw our arms up in the air and give up trying to understand how the process works.

To define life is to define where to stop investigating.

 

[stray bullet]

Bush has limited federal funding for research

Meaning, he has limited the amount of money going to a yet unproven branch of science.
He isn't blocking research, he just isn't wasting tax payer money on something useless.

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.

Developmental processes are highly conserved. If they wish to study development, then they can study it in other species as the majority of stem cell research is done.

 

[charityagape]

never mind

 

[Velo Princesse]

So when does it become a human life, because I'm arguing that it already is a human life?

I don't know for sure. What I do know is that without the possibility of implantation it has no potential to become a human life. After all, we can't grow a grown man in a petry dish.

And a few posts ago you spoke of it needing a viable habitat, which it will never have. So, it cannot grow into the unique human being that it could become if implanted.

 

[Halitose]

Ok. I agree with your logical extensions pretty much on all points. There is nothing mystical about birth. It is simply an event at which one can point, and say definitively that some state has changed. Unborn to born. Not human to human.

I would not say that we could kill inebriated, etc people. Anencephaletic people, yes. People in irreversible comas, yes. Brain dead of any type, yes. Drunk or asleep? No. They have awareness, both past and future, they are simply not using it at a particular instant in time.

Nothing wrong with using adult stem cells. Go for it. However, they may not be able to do all the things that embryonic cells can do. That is why we should be able to experiment on BOTH.

Okay. So our differences at this stage are probably then on religious grounds. I believe God gave life, and He should be the only one to take it.

So we can kill people who are brain dead, anencephaletic or in a coma (irreversable is sometimes debatable). On what moral grounds? Because their lives aren't worth living any more?

 

[hitchhikerz]

never mind

????

 

[charityagape]

????

I posted something and then decided to research it a little more.

 

[Halitose]

I don't know for sure. What I do know is that without the possibility of implantation it has no potential to become a human life. After all, we can't grow a grown man in a petry dish.

And a few posts ago you spoke of it needing a viable habitat, which it will never have. So, it cannot grow into the unique human being that it could become if implanted.

That is where my problem lies. If we don't know for sure where human life begins, what are those embryos doing in petri dishes? Should we not have used artificial insemination instead of invitro?

 

[Velo Princesse]

That is where my problem lies. If we don't know for sure where human life begins, what are those embryos doing in petri dishes? Should we not have used intracytoplasmic sperm injection or artificial insemination instead of invitro?

Well, to avoid getting off topic, lets just work with what we have. People use invitro. I, thankfully, have never needed it so I don't know why. Either way, that's how it is, so for as long as we are using invitro there is no reason we shouldn't use the biproducts of the invitro to save lives. Otherwise, we are just throwing it away and what good does that do?