Opinion on stem cell research

[redstar alpha]

there is another thread about abortions and I was wondering what peoples thought where on the use of embryo's (fertilished egg's) in research in to cancer and other killer diseases.
Should we allow it? When should the egg be destroyed? Do fetus's have souls?

 

[jdog345]

For it. BUT, you don't need to make a fetus to get them. just use umbilical cord blood. There are enough babies being born each year, so there would still be enough to have sufficient research. You could even offer incentives to mothers for their umbilical cord blood if there isn't enough.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Oh god yes, it's not like there's a shortage of people in the world. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't moving yet, it isn't alive.

 

[OverlordSteve]

Oh god yes, it's not like there's a shortage of people in the world. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't moving yet, it isn't alive.

This.

 

[John Galt]

Full steam ahead on it I say. I don't care about the potential children at stake, I think preserving human life is much better than just creating new at the expense of the old. As a society we should focus more on quality of life rather than the quantity of people around to enjoy it, that is, longevity over higher populations.

 

[meatloaf231]

Oh god yes, it's not like there's a shortage of people in the world. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't moving yet, it isn't alive.

Not only that, but scientific advancement is far more important than foolish feel-good moral standards.

To quote Andrew Ryan: "[...] where the scientist is not bound by petty morality." Heck yes for Rapture.

 

[vede]

This:

Full steam ahead on it I say. I don't care about the potential children at stake, I think preserving human life is much better than just creating new at the expense of the old. As a society we should focus more on quality of life rather than the quantity of people around to enjoy it, that is, longevity over higher populations.

 

[eggdog14]

I've yet to see a remotely legitimate argument against it from anyone.

It can only bring good things.

 

[John Galt]

Oh god yes, it's not like there's a shortage of people in the world. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't moving yet, it isn't alive.

Not only that, but scientific advancement is far more important than foolish feel-good moral standards.

To quote Andrew Ryan: "[...] where the scientist is not bound by petty morality." Heck yes for Rapture.

It's about damn time science learned how to convert other people's ugly children into pyrokinesis.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Oh god yes, it's not like there's a shortage of people in the world. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't moving yet, it isn't alive.

Not only that, but scientific advancement is far more important than foolish feel-good moral standards.

To quote Andrew Ryan: "[...] where the scientist is not bound by petty morality." Heck yes for Rapture.

It's about damn time science learned how to convert other people's ugly children into pyrokinesis.

Does that involve burninating?

 

[Alex_P]

Embryos aren't fetuses. A "fetus" is what it's called after the embryonic stage of development.

Embryonic stem cells are derived from a blastocyst. This is a clump of cells that have not yet changed into different classes of tissue (that's the point -- ESCs can become any kind tissue). The blastocyst stage precedes implantation, meaning that the egg is still just floating around.

A few hundred undifferentiated, unimplanted cells are nothing like a human being.

("Souls" are always a problematic concept, and even weirder here. Do monozygotic twins have one soul? That's what you're saying if you unequiovcally believe that souls are created at the moment of fertilization. It all gets very handwavy and hokey, as tends to happen whenever essentialism meets biology.)

-- Alex

 

[ElephantGuts]

The biggest problem I see with stem cell research would be that it helps people, as in, they don't die so much, as in increases overpopulation. But I suppose that's a fairly unethical argument, I certainly don't go around saying that people with cancer should hurry up and die so they won't take up so much space and resources here on earth. So, simply, yes I support stem cell research.

 

[Jumplion]

These

Oh god yes, it's not like there's a shortage of people in the world. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't moving yet, it isn't alive.

Full steam ahead on it I say. I don't care about the potential children at stake, I think preserving human life is much better than just creating new at the expense of the old. As a society we should focus more on quality of life rather than the quantity of people around to enjoy it, that is, longevity over higher populations.

 

[Janus Vesta]

I'm completely for it. It could save many lives. And the whole 'What about the babies?' thing is obsolete seeing as they don't use aborted fetuses anymore, they use blood from umbilical cords.

Scientist also know of an area in the brain which can produce stem cells which has been dormant for thousands of years. So I'm for genetic manipulation too. This ain't the 1960's, Rapture won't happen.

 

[anNIALLator]

Stem cells FTW. But not in a south park christopher reeve sort of way. While they're at it, they should make some plasmids. Or a 'Fix your 360' gene tonic.

 

[Hawgh]

in my opinion, an unborn child is a tumor which hasn't decided whether it's benign yet.
Reasearch fodder away!

 

[Cyborg_Incognito]

greater good fella

in the name of medical advancement we have to. plus, it's not like there's a people shortage ?

 

[Alex_P]

I'm completely for it. It could save many lives. And the whole 'What about the babies?' thing is obsolete seeing as they don't use aborted fetuses anymore, they use blood from umbilical cords.

Adult stem cells and cord stem cells are not quite as good as real embryonic stem cells.

-- Alex

 

[Cpt. Red]

Sure... I mean why not? And just so you know I laugh at these petty ideas of 'souls'...