Stem Cell Research

[Velo Princesse]

And, what I said is that I don't know. I have never studied the science of it all... someone might know, but that person doesn't happen to be me in particular.

 

[charityagape]

Why use embryonic stem cells at all? It seems adult stem cells and cord blood cells are just as useful.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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?

Because once brain activity ceases, you're not classified as a "person" anymore. We are nothing more than our brains.

 

[Halitose]

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?

Fair enough. I might grudgingly consent. Although we are still faced with the moral dilemma of doing scientific experiments on humans (possibly, since we are not in agreement about where life actually begins)

 

[Halitose]

Because once brain activity ceases, you're not classified as a "person" anymore. We are nothing more than our brains.

If I remember correctly fetal brain activity starts somewhere at 16 weeks, so by your own definition birth is not the point of the begining of life.

 

[Velo Princesse]

Why use embryonic stem cells at all? It seems adult stem cells and cord blood cells are just as useful.

1- If we don't use them they just get thrown out so why not use them?

2- Adult stem cells are in limited supply and of limited use

I can't find the info on cord blood, but I know from experience that preserving it until it can be used is a very expensive prospect.

www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.html

 

[Velo Princesse]

If I remember correctly fetal brain activity starts somewhere at 16 weeks, so by your own definition birth is not the point of the begining of life.

IMHO the point when brain activity starts is probably when life begins.

 

[z3ro]

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

Hey now, we created the house, why can't we do with it what we will?

 

[Velo Princesse]

Fair enough. I might grudgingly consent. Although we are still faced with the moral dilemma of doing scientific experiments on humans (possibly, since we are not in agreement about where life actually begins)

Is there not a moral dilemma as to whether or not they should be discarded?

I know that, even if I did think they were alive, it would seem far more moral to me to use them to save other lives than it would to throw them away.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

IMHO the point when brain activity starts is probably when life begins.

Actually, life probably began millions of years ago. After that, it's pretty much been life, life, life non-stop. I think we should be arguing when "personhood" begins...

 

[Halitose]

Actually, life probably began millions of years ago. After that, it's pretty much been life, life, life non-stop. I think we should be arguing when "personhood" begins...

My bad. Distracted typo. I meant "the life of a unique human being" or as you said "personhood"

 

[Velo Princesse]

Actually, life probably began millions of years ago. After that, it's pretty much been life, life, life non-stop. I think we should be arguing when "personhood" begins...

Sort of splitting hairs here aren't you, Todd?!?

 

[DaveS]

May I add to this that if we don't use a few bad by-products of a good thing to make another good thing then we will be making millions of bad things in animal experimentation/vivisection for very few good things. Ethically, from this point of view it is better to use a few who would never have lived than use thousands that have already lived.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Sort of splitting hairs here aren't you, Todd?!?

Nope.

Because when we talk about when "life" begins we start to muddy the waters. Anti-abortionists will say "Of course life begins at conception." And in a certain sense they're right. You really can't argue against it, since a zygote is what we call "alive". Heck, the sperm and egg that made it was alive. You can, however, argue when life becomes a person.

 

[DaveS]

Because when we talk about when "life" begins we start to muddy the waters. Anti-abortionists will say "Of course life begins at conception." And in a certain sense they're right. You really can't argue against it, since a zygote is what we call "alive". Heck, the sperm and egg that made it was alive. You can, however, argue when life becomes a person.

And no one, of course knows that. I suppose you could say, is ignorance a crime?

 

[Velo Princesse]

May I add to this that if we don't use a few bad by-products of a good thing to make another good thing then we will be making millions of bad things in animal experimentation/vivisection for very few good things. Ethically, from this point of view it is better to use a few who would never have lived than use thousands that have already lived.

Very well said. Is that your real age? Just curious

 

[funyun]

No worries. I understand the diffs between an embryo and a fetus. Here's where the problem lies, its not really a scientific one, but rather an ethical one. Isn't a embryo a very immature human being? All an embryo - I'm gonna jump the gun and say zygote - needs to develop into a mature human being is :

1. Nutrition
2. Oxygen
3. A womb (be it arteficial)
4. Not be kil... er... discarded.

If an embryo is human are we allowed to kill it or conduct experiments on it?

All an egg needs is a sperm and the above 4 things in order to form a human being. So it follows that we should make the menstrual cycle illegal as well. If you're going to talk about human potential, which is all a blastocyte is, then you can push the envelope back all the way to sperm and eggs too.

 

[DaveS]

Yes? Thanks! I suppose I could make it slightly less philosophical on the whole 'good' thing and 'bad thing but.. there ya' go!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And no one, of course knows that. I suppose you could say, is ignorance a crime?

The definition of the word "person" is arbitrary. It's a word with no objective meaning. We pick a point in time and call it a person based on what "feels" correct to us.

 

[DaveS]

All an egg needs is a sperm and the above 4 things in order to form a human being. So it follows that we should make the menstrual cycle illegal as well. If you're going to tal about human potential, which is all a blastocyte is, then you can push the envelope back all the way to sperm and eggs too.

True. I suppose it does make a difference when sperm and egg come together but really the only difference even then between cells in the body and the embryo is that the embryo has potential for growth into a human. However, we don't actually know that it ever will and we don't really know when it will become a human. I ask again, is ignorance a crime?