Poll: School Project Debate - Stem Cells and the controversies therein.
- Thread starter Nox13last
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I am fine with stem cell research when it is coming from blastocysts (I think this the technically correct term) are never going to develop into humans anyway as in ones gotten through abortions or unused haploids that were either donated or set aside for fertilization and were never used. I am not entirely sure how I would feel of purposefully breeding blastocysts to harvest stem cells, but since the world seems to have an abundance of unused blastocysts, I don't think there is much to worry about there yet.
As far as the research not being effective yet, that is part of what doing research is about. It is not going to be correct the first time around. It takes years of effort before something might come of it, or we find out we are entirely wrong about the potential benefits of stem cells. But currently, I support the research effort.
As far as the research not being effective yet, that is part of what doing research is about. It is not going to be correct the first time around. It takes years of effort before something might come of it, or we find out we are entirely wrong about the potential benefits of stem cells. But currently, I support the research effort.
I'm not wild about the idea of killing embryos. However, abortions go on everyday, and nothing good is coming of them. We waste their cells. Since it happens anyway, we might as well use stem cells to find cures. It only makes sense.
Well someone's impatient. I was going to make a quick and hasty response but then I read that you are doing this for a school project. So I decided to take some time to think out my stance on the issue before responding.Nox13last said:
Anyways my own personal stance is undecided. Not enough research has gone into stem cell research yet for me to truly believe it can live up to its potential.
Also you asked why so many people are opposed to stem cell research. Well it's mostly because you have to kill for it. You may not consider an embryo to be alive but other people do. It all depends upon what qualify as being "alive". Plus an embryo is still the potential for life. Leave it alone and it can develop into a living creature. So even if it's not alive when you kill it could have been if you had not done so. Also you're killing it to improve the life of another person. So some people see it as sacrificing one person just so another may live better. Other people don't like it because it's unnatural.
One of the misnomers that always interested me about this debate was people talking about how the fetus is "A life". Well of course it is, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not it counts as a person until it's born (or at some predetermined time before, such as conception, when the heart starts beating, when it looks human, etc).
Personally, I believe that it does not count as a person. It is the potential for a person, but not an actual person, and if giving up the potential for a person can save many preexisting people (as well as other potential people in the future), then yes, it should be done.
Personally, I believe that it does not count as a person. It is the potential for a person, but not an actual person, and if giving up the potential for a person can save many preexisting people (as well as other potential people in the future), then yes, it should be done.
It's not that, but if there's anything not appropriate, then this work is invalidated.MaxTheReaper said:
Telling them to man up is not going to work when I get a fail.
Apology, please. I don't have a problem with the cuss, but I have a potty-mouth of my own I need to curb for this assignment. And it hurts.
Honestly?
Embryos≠people.
What makes it wrong to kill a person - what gives them a right to life? Is it the violation of their intelligence? Their "souls?" The suffering you cause? The future you deprive them of?
Because the blastocytes involved in embryonic stem cell research have none of these.
Embryos≠people.
What makes it wrong to kill a person - what gives them a right to life? Is it the violation of their intelligence? Their "souls?" The suffering you cause? The future you deprive them of?
Because the blastocytes involved in embryonic stem cell research have none of these.
if someone agrees with abortion i dont see how they could be against this, given the fact that this helps people. not that anyone mentioned abortion but thats what i think.
also yes there are religious arguments. it's not for us to destroy life etc etc, to which i reply " shut up, you went on crusades and killed thousands" that or my strong anti-religion views in general.
yes there are ethics, but it is not a life. its just a bundle of cells. its no more a life than a sperm or an egg. the whole thing about it possibly curing diseases and other such excellent medical advances is more than enough reason to go ahead with it.
also yes there are religious arguments. it's not for us to destroy life etc etc, to which i reply " shut up, you went on crusades and killed thousands" that or my strong anti-religion views in general.
yes there are ethics, but it is not a life. its just a bundle of cells. its no more a life than a sperm or an egg. the whole thing about it possibly curing diseases and other such excellent medical advances is more than enough reason to go ahead with it.
Sorry. I persued the issue with Quote Button.MaxTheReaper said:
Doug's opinion will be stricken from the print job.
And yet, some people differ. Removing the potential for life is (to some) just as bad as killing proper.GRoXERs said:
It's like not disclosing the truth and allowing someone to believe something that's incorrect is as bad as outright lying and denying the truth. A bit.
All for it.
It's an unfertilized egg, they could make them into Christmas ornaments for all I care. I wish people would bother to take care of the human beings that are actually alive and fully developed instead of worrying about this nonsense.
It's an unfertilized egg, they could make them into Christmas ornaments for all I care. I wish people would bother to take care of the human beings that are actually alive and fully developed instead of worrying about this nonsense.
It has great potential and should be researched furhter.
An embryo is a blueprint for a human, nothing more. It's just a cluster of cells, without a brain or indeed any organs at all. It can't feel pain (or anything else) and is no more sentient than a bit of your skin or muscle tissue.
So, I'm all for stem cell research. Of course, a line has to be drawn. Once the inner organs including nerve-cells start developing (and the embryo becomes a fetus, which, while at that point still more resembling a fish than a human, may slowly begin developing conscousness), it is too close to a living human being and from that point onward I have to agree with the nay-sayers. But that still leaves a large windows for use of embryos' tissue for study.
By the way, unfortunately the research on adult stem cells (the ones that don't require an embryo's tissue) isn't as far ahead. Making them fully pluripotent again hasn't worked (so far), so for now we can't solely rely on those, unfortunately.
An embryo is a blueprint for a human, nothing more. It's just a cluster of cells, without a brain or indeed any organs at all. It can't feel pain (or anything else) and is no more sentient than a bit of your skin or muscle tissue.
So, I'm all for stem cell research. Of course, a line has to be drawn. Once the inner organs including nerve-cells start developing (and the embryo becomes a fetus, which, while at that point still more resembling a fish than a human, may slowly begin developing conscousness), it is too close to a living human being and from that point onward I have to agree with the nay-sayers. But that still leaves a large windows for use of embryos' tissue for study.
By the way, unfortunately the research on adult stem cells (the ones that don't require an embryo's tissue) isn't as far ahead. Making them fully pluripotent again hasn't worked (so far), so for now we can't solely rely on those, unfortunately.
Here's how I see it.
Women WILL get abortions no matter what, and they know they are killing the fetus. Scientist want to learn as much as they can. They want to study the stem cells. They're going to die anyway, so why not put them to use to help us out?
Women WILL get abortions no matter what, and they know they are killing the fetus. Scientist want to learn as much as they can. They want to study the stem cells. They're going to die anyway, so why not put them to use to help us out?
Another one for "Waste-Not-Want-Not".Portal Maniac said:
Which brings me to another issue, if I may temporarily derail it.
Why is abortion an issue? Why is it so much of an issue that it's referred to as "The A Word", like it's the Deplorable Word out of the Chronicles of Narnia? It's upto the owner of the womb to get the undesired offspring sucked out and slammed. Not the petitioners.
Ok, sorry.
(I might make a splinter topic about that, actually.)
/topicderailment
If Stem Cells are capable of doing all of that, then it's a worthy technology to be harnessed. Forget all the moral ethics about it, not like we NEED anymore humans in this world anyways.
Also, I'd love to be able to grow two extra pairs of arms.
Also, I'd love to be able to grow two extra pairs of arms.