Poll: Stem cell research

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

As long as they do so carefully and as ethically as possible, then yeah, sure.

But for the love of gaming, please stay out of cloning/DNA manipulation. Cloning (as in, a full organism and not simply cloning hearts/lungs/etc) comes with WAAAAY too many ethical concerns for our society to deal with just yet, and DNA manipulation will either lead to a Gundam SEED scenario (bad), or weaken our DNA pool (VERY bad).

As long as we avoid those two situations, I'm cautiously in favor.

 

[archvile93]

Pro, because it's extremely useful, and if I heard right fetuses aren't required anymore.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Pro. Sorry, I'd like tos ay more, cause usually when I get into this conversation, the argument of abortion comes up, but I dont wnat to bring that and overcomplicate the issue.

There's also talk of things being done with unbilical cords, and I don't see what that shouldn't be done either.

Some people like to do stuff with the umbilical cord to commemorate the birth.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

Pro. Sorry, I'd like tos ay more, cause usually when I get into this conversation, the argument of abortion comes up, but I dont wnat to bring that and overcomplicate the issue.

There's also talk of things being done with unbilical cords, and I don't see what that shouldn't be done either.

Some people like to do stuff with the umbilical cord to commemorate the birth.

Most people don't keep them though. That means that that becomes discarded by the person (in theory) and is treated as medical waste and they do whatever it is they do with it. Of course, you'd probably be asked if you want to keep it or care if they do whatever research or anything else with it. Some people get upset over the strangest things. If I had a part of me cut off/out, I wouldn't want to keep it, so why would I care what they did with it unless they used my arm to beat someone to death or something. XD

 

[Ekonk]

Pro, but we gotta watch out for eugenics.

 

[YouBecame]

I am heavily pro stem cell research. Such a powerful technique to cure all sorts of problems lie at the harnessing of stem cells heavily outweighs the anti arguments in my opinion.

 

[Drunkenclam]

The real question is would you eat a three week old fetus?

 

[funguy2121]

What is your opinion on stem cell research? Personally I'm pro-stem cell research because of stories like this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.250845-Stem-cells-have-cured-an-HIV-patient?page=1] and this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107529-Magic-Gun-Sprays-Skin-Cells-to-Heal-Burns-Almost-Instantly]

We win!

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

I am totally for stem cell research but utterly against other genetic-modification type things, namely selecting embryos for 'good' genes, something only the rich would be able to do, making their babies smarter and fitter and better looking and shit. The thought of people just being born biologically superior is pretty frightening.

Being "biologically superior" is only important if our society runs on biological makeup. We don't grant power and money for the one who can swing the stick the hardest, so it's irrelevant

You've never heard of Baseball or Cricket, have you? Also, intelligence does have something to do with our genetic make up, making the issue of a genetically superior person not only possible but almost certain in the event of eugenics.

On topic, I'm kind of a mixed bag on the subject. The heartless, cold, bastard in me says that people should die naturally and that prolonging life isn't always the best idea. For those among you that believe in evolution, there's really only two ways for us to truly evolve; natural selection or unnatural selection. Natural selection requires the death of the infirm. Unnatural selection is eugenics and leads to things like the holocaust and slavery. There is currently no other means by which we can go about evolving past our current state without one or both of these ideas being implemented.

Most specifically, I'm against what has already been brought up. The idea that stem cells are created and then harvested and what isn't harvested is destroyed. I find this theoretical practice to be abhorrent and entirely unethical. If stem cells are obtained through other means, I'm fine with it, even understanding the paragraph above.

 

[Onoto]

Wait wait wait wait. There is more than one kind of "stem cell research." Asking such a question is like asking "are you pro or anti gas?" It isn't definitive enough. Are you asking adult or embryonic, because there is a vast difference.

Adult human stem cell is safe harvesting of stem cells from an adult's body which has proven to be nearly miraculous in it's applications. I am fully for this.

Embryonic stem cells have yet to show any significant medical advancement that is not completely outstripped by adult stem cell research. As such, it has so far been an incredible waste of time and money, and signs are showing that it will most likely continue to be that way, so in practical terms, I'm against.

Also, the idea of growing zygotes to form stem cells isn't my cup of tea.

I see a lot of people are saying basically "Religion is making you do stupid things" and that saddens me, because it really shows a complete lack of understanding, or a complete lack of care towards the understanding of the religious argument against embryonic stem cell research. It shows also the total immaturity of people who just blindly bash religion as being worthless or idiotic, because it's cool to do so.

EDIT: Just a note, the two examples given by the OP were of Adult stem cells. Just pointing that out as evidence for my arguments.

This post is right on the flippin' money. Adult stem cell research is wonderful, promising, and actually productive while embryonic stem cell research is not. Two completely different areas that warrant two completely different answers. I remember talking to a senior researcher from Boston Scientific at an biomedical engineering panel last year, and he was of the opinion that ultimately the ethics debate will be irrelevant since companies and institutions will simply stop wasting money on embryonic stem cell research, probably within the decade. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but the fact that he said that at all is interesting.

I've got ethical problems with embryonic stem cell research, but no problems whatsoever with adult stem cell research. Can't even conceive any problems with them, honestly.

 

[Sarge034]

If the research is done in an ethical manner go for it. I want cybernetics too. I'm serious, think about it you get injured in combat and loose an arm. Right now you get a stand in so you don't have a pinned up sleeve. If we had cybernetics they could not only get a functional replacement but be able to contenue being a soldier if they wanted to.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Then by your morals would you also consider masturbation to be wrong as the sperm could have become a person? Just curious.

A sperm alone can not become a person. Only when the sperm fertilizes the egg do I consider destroying it be a problem. After the egg is fertilized, a life will come from it.

Splitting hairs. The whole "conception deadline" a lot of people seem to use weirds me out, because a lot of people seem to think that deciding 3 months or 4 months or something as too late to terminate is an utterly arbitrarily chosen deadline completely fail to realise that the exact same can be said of the conception deadline. "If 8 months is the deadline, why not 7 months?" Taken down to where most people who are against abortion seem to take it, ie, inception, why not pre-inception? I always hear the whole "sperm on its own can't survive", but, neither can a fertilised egg, as well as a fetus or even a newborn child

EDIT: Wow I failed at making the consise. TL;DR: A fertilised egg can not become a person either, in the same way that sperm can't become a person.

It's difficult to explain, but basically the reason I can not consider egg and sperm alone to be people is because they are both designed to be disposed of. It is only when the sperm and the egg join together that they are no longer considered disposable. There has to be a conscious effort by both a man and a woman to fertilize an egg. It is natural for both sperm and egg to be disposed of, however it is not natural for a fertilized egg to be disposed of. Basically if left undisturbed a fertilized egg will develop into a human being while sperm and egg alone will not, which is why I do not consider them to be people.

It's not easy to express what I'm saying but I'm pretty sure you get what I mean somewhat. You can argue the semantics of what life can really be interpreted as all day but in the end it probably won't sway my view on this because I've already spent a long time pondering these same questions myself. I used to be all for abortion until I went through a phase in which I greatly reevaluated my view of humanity and the value of human life.

 

[jhlip]

There is so much potential for stem cell research, and I fully support any move to continue research of stem cell use.