Poll: Stem cell research

[Snowalker]

I think even Christians should be pro now, I know I am, theres no legitimate reason not to, cause they just found out that one of the best type of stem cells is from menstrual blood... think about that, no one will/could be hurt by that.

 

[Snowalker]

I'm not against stem cell research itself, but apparently most of the stem cells used in it come from embryos. I'm opposed to using these for stem cell research for the same reason I am opposed to abortion; though it is not yet a living human, if left undisturbed it would almost certainly grow to be a human. Therefore, aborting it is depriving it of life. I am morally opposed to this as I believe every human has the right to life. However, I know my viewpoint isn't shared by most so I don't tend to express it often.

I will admit that I am not that familiar with stem cell research though. If there is some way to acquire significant amounts of stem cells without using aborted fetuses then I would in no way oppose stem cell research. Stem cells themselves are fine, it's when you kill a future life to get them that bothers me.

EDIT: Seems like I'm the only one against it. Can't say I'm surprised by that.

While you're right that stem cells can be taken from embryos.... if left undisturbed they wouldn't become human, they're actually a thing called a blastocyst, which is basically a sperm in an egg, that grew a couple of cells, its technically a clone, grown in a petri dish and everything, even if put in a woman, it would still need to be aided by science to become a fully formed human, and it still might fail then. I mean, yeah , it has the potential to grow into a human, and if thats enough to stop you, so be it. But saying that if left undisturbed it would become a human, well, it just isn't true. Also, this is the only method to get stem cell, we can also pull it from bone marrow and menstrual blood, which I stated in another post.. So, yeah.

I can provide sources if need be..

 

[Snowalker]

Ethics may not factor into it anymore, my science teacher metnioned that someone had recently found a way to turn any type of cell into stemcells.
we were talking about how science is constantly changing and did not go in depth about it.

This isn't accurate... erm, well, kinda, but not exactly. See, a stem cell is much a like cancer cell, but with a few key differences, so it could be possible to take a cell and make it act similar to a stem cell, but it would actually be a cancer, and... that sounds mighty dangerous. Though what is promising is the fact that we can now take adult stem cells, (Pulled from bone marrow) and force them to act like an embryonic stem cell, (pulled from blastocyst). Leaving literally no medical reason to use embryos... or again, we could just use menstrual blood because they produced embryonic like adult stem cells, making them literally the best of both worlds.

I can provide sources if need be...

 

[Thunderhorse31]

TL;DR: A fertilised egg can not become a person either, in the same way that sperm can't become a person.

C'mon dude, that's a weak point. A fertilized egg has the same DNA structure as a full-grown adult, a structure that is unique to itself, plus there's no scenario whatsoever where a single sperm would develop into a person.

In the same way that an embryo couldn't possibly develope into a full human being, or a fetus couldn't go on to live, or a baby couldn't survive. By your own logic, we have just as much reason to treat a child as disposably as we treat sperm

Again I say, c'mon dude.

We're not arguing in a vacuum here. The whole question of "viability" doesn't mean "If we stick this thing in a bubble or a petri dish and don't feed it/nourish it/do anything to it, will it thrive?" Because if that's the case, I know some 27 year olds who aren't technically viable.

You can't say an embryo/fetus/baby "couldn't possibly develop" into a full human being, because under normal circumstances, they absolutely would. We are not sticking these cells in a vacuum and saying "Live." Under normal conditions, that embryo/fetus/baby would go on to develop, live and thrive.

If your wife/girlfriend got pregnant and then 8 weeks later has a miscarriage, you don't say "Well fuck it, it's just a bunch of cells, you probably scratched more cells off of your arm today than you lost in that miscarriage." People are generally upset over that sort of thing, because they know a potential life has been lost. In another few months under the current conditions, that organism would have been fully grown.

Again, there's no scenario where the same can be said about a sperm cell. All cells are not equal.

But anyway, uh, stem cell research is good! Yeah, that's what this topic is about...

 

[Zirat]

I'm quite for it. As we have much to gain and practicly nothing to lose over this endavour. I'd go into greater depth but essentialy all my bases have been covered by previous posts.

 

[Internet Kraken]

I'm opposed to using these for stem cell research for the same reason I am opposed to abortion; though it is not yet a living human, if left undisturbed it would almost certainly grow to be a human.

You'd be surprised at how many pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). And those are just the ones that we know about because the pregnancy was diagnosed prior to the miscarriage. Factor in the ones that abort without the mother having any idea she was even pregnant and this certainty of life decreases dramatically. To me, saying I killed a child by aborting an embryo is equivalent to saying I killed a tree by stepping on an acorn.

You know I really wish people would stop bringing this up because, as I said before, a miscarriage is not the intended result of a pregnancy. It's not supposed to happen, so I don't see why it should make me reconsider my stance on abortion.

I'm not sure why people keep trying to poke holes in my logic when this isn't an issue of logic, it's an issue of morals.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

EDIT:

Under normal conditions, that embryo/fetus/baby would go on to develop, live and thrive.

Thought you might be interested in my post also.

EDIT: EDIT: I fail at editing.

I appreciate the heads up, thanks for the inclusion.

Now if trees were sentient beings that were guaranteed life, liberty, and property, I think your analogy would be apt.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Depend on where you get the stem cells from. I'm against certain methods of getting stem cells in the same way I oppose doctors giving patients diseases so that they can be tested on for cures.

EDIT: I hate to be that guy but holding fast to your religions beliefs and values doesn't make you crazy or a nut-job. That's like saying that holding fast to your secular values makes you a nut-job. "You believe in telling the truth? Moralist whack-job!"

 

[Flac00]

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.

Except from a scientific point of view. We know that embryonic stem cells are much more effective than Adult. The reason why embryonic research has not gone very far is because it has been stagnated by a lack of funding from the US government because of George Bush. Nobody has been saying we should grow zygotes to promote the research, so claiming that is completely speculative. At this point, the pursuit of Embryonic stem cells it at this point in its infancy. The fact that nothing truly lucrative has not come out yet is because that is not how science works. Things don't go instantly, and research takes time.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

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.

Except from a scientific point of view. We know that embryonic stem cells are much more effective than Adult. The reason why embryonic research has not gone very far is because it has been stagnated by a lack of funding from the US government because of George Bush. Nobody has been saying we should grow zygotes to promote the research, so claiming that is completely speculative. At this point, the pursuit of Embryonic stem cells it at this point in its infancy. The fact that nothing truly lucrative has not come out yet is because that is not how science works. Things don't go instantly, and research takes time.

"From a scientific point of view" doesn't really mean anything, that's pure speculation, with not a shred of proof, historical evidence, or developmental documentation behind it. This idea arises from the theory that a genesis stem cell could potentially be genetically altered into a genesis cell for any function, whereas adult stem cells are defined genesis cells, like osteogenesis cells, or dermal genesis cells, and are ready to "plug and play." Embryonic stem cells frankly haven't shown any significant kind of usability yet.

I don't know where you're saying that embryonic are much more effective than adult, because all major stem cell development has come from the adult side, and there has been nothing of significance on the embryonic side which would set it apart, otherwise they would have earned more funding from private investment looking to capitalize on it. Being nearly an anarchist, I don't believe that the government should necessarily be behind funding, but that's a different argument altogether. But there's an important thing to note...

If Adult stem cell is getting tons of funding, both private and public, whereas the embryonic stem cell is only getting public, that is a sign that the private market sees a viable, profitable future within adult stem cell research, and not in embryonic. Public money doesn't mean anything, because the government doesn't dish money economically, or practically, but politically.

Feel free to correct me, or point me to something I've missed about embryonic stem cells, but being a medical student, I'm always keeping my eyes open for new developments, and I'll admit I might have missed something.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

I have a theory about why adult stem cells are a better candidate for research than embryonic cells. The gist of it is that the uni-potential stem cell from an adult will be better for use in research than the omni-potential stem cells form a zygote because at least partially they have become a determined cell line (e.g. a muscle stem cell will never become a neuronal stem cell). Basically this is because there's just too much going on during embryogenesis for us to be able to intervene and cause a cell to go in a particular direction. It's all so interdependent that there may not even be such a thing as a clearly defined set of instructions to tell a cell what to do to become a certain thing or another. It could be visualized as sort of trying to open a crate from the outside with a crowbar that is inside the crate. Adult stem cells are to an extent free of this as they have only the potential to to become a few different lineages.

On Topic
I have no problem with steam cell research

 

[binvjoh]

Definitely pro.

From what I understand it's a technology capable of some rather amazing things.

 

[MartianWarMachine]

Pro. All research is good research. Even the ones that obviously tempt fate...

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

Medi-Gel, StimPaks, healing potions...

All of them are just straight stem cells.
Do your research.