Poll: Stem cell research

[Odegauger]

Figures that there'd be this much support for MAINSTREAM SCIENCE from a bunch of TECHNOCRAT FASCISTS like you all, what with the lot of you being TECHNOLOGY-ADDICTED NERDS.

fuck progress
luddism 4 lyfe yo

 

[Jetsetneo]

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. 100% Agree with this. Religous and in favor of Science. It can happen people. It can happen.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Of course - the fetuses have already been aborted, if you can cure diseases with them, why not?

 

[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.

That would be grealy more convincing if it weren't for miscarrages and deaths by delivery and babies dying emmediately after birth being so common, aside from where modern medicine can intervene. However, since you said designed, I have to point out that the human body wasn't "designed" to survive pregnancies

Miscarriages and deaths by birth are not the intended result of a fertilized egg so I don't see how this applies at all. And I don't see how it makes any sense to claim how the human body wasn't designed to survive pregnancies. I'm not even sure what relevance that even has.

But you already know what I mean anywas so it just seems like you're being pedantic.

 

[Onoto]

Aborted fetuses are not used in embryonic stem cell research. From a practical perspective, it'd be messy and complicated, neither of which are endearing qualities to scientists. Saying, "Hey, why not? The fetuses would be wasted otherwise!" doesn't cut it, because they wouldn't be wasted otherwise. (There's also the point that such an answer ignores the central ethical question, which is neither helpful nor healthy, but I digress.)

The embryos used in stem cell research are created for stem cell research. There's no recycling going on. The only exception is when a couple freezes a fertilized egg with an eye towards implantation eventually decides not to, but that's not commonplace and hardly skirts controversy in any case.

 

[Bags159]

To Quote Peter Griffin: "Why are we not funding this!?"

Haha, I just saw that episode recently.

I wonder where we'd be now if the church hadn't been all up in our scientific grill? Obviously I voted yes.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Stem cell research scares me. Mostly due to the fact that people who understand it the least are the ones crying the loudest. This is usually the case with embryonic stem cell research in particular, where people make statements similar to this:

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.

...despite all evidence to the contrary. I could make the same exact claims about drinking unicorn blood, and it would be no less of a pipe dream based on similar information.

By the way YouBecame I'm not saying you made this statement about embryonic stem cells specifically, I was just using it as an example.

Johnnyallstar summed it up nicely already. Adult stems cells are already a proven success, and are the origin for all the "miraculous" recovery stories that have been given as examples. Embryonic cell research causes too many ethical dilemmas and have only failed so far - why keep pushing this line of thought when a safer, less problematic, more successful method exists?

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. You can't just treat an embryo like a skin cell or a hair follicle, can you? Different rules should apply.

 

[FalloutJack]

SCIENCE!

Unlock the secrets of genes and cells with this wonderous power!

 

[Puzzlenaut]

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

I'm not just talking physical strength here; there is no reason why in a few years the rich won't be able to make their children taller, fitter, more attractive and even more intelligent

 

[Haydyn]

I had a whole rant about this typed out, but have chosen to not post it due to the overwhelming amount of people pro stem cell. I'm one of the biggest liberals I know when it comes to social issues, and coming from Olympia Washington, the Capitol of a liberal state, and yet when I get on the Escapist I am one of the most conservative people here. Where's the balance?

 

[llew]

Pros: save lives
Cons: world is over-populated as it is
so im undecided ***** about it all you like its my oppinion with a valid point

 

[Puzzlenaut]

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

I'm not just talking physical strength here; there is no reason why in a few years the rich won't be able to make their children taller, fitter, more attractive and even more intelligent

People aren't "born intelligent". They develope and gain knowledge through learning. As for the rest, while plossible, it would be entirely irrelevent and incredibly expensive. So what if a rich bastard might be able to have taller children than normal. Who cares?

People are born with the capacity for intelligence. I can assure you that that much is true.
And its scary because it will a create two-tier system in society where the upper classes are all incredibly good at everything and beautiful and the rest of us are like retards by comparison.
Its all just theory right now, but in a society like America's it is easily conceivable that this is possible, and there is no denying that it would be sa terrible thing for so many reasons.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Pro. I have very little patience for those who would deprive others of potentially life-saving treatment because of some sick approximation ethics.
If it were a matter of blending toddlers, I would be against it.
Right now, though, it's a matter of giving little kids the gift of sight and so on.

 

[spacewalker]

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.

 

[moretimethansense]

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.

The fetuses are being aborted anyway, banning stem cell research only means thet every aboted fetus gets thrown in the trash.
It's not as tyhough stem cell research wil mean that a load of peole will be forced in to abortions simply for mre cells.
My view is that even if you are against abortion, you should support stem cell research as it can save lives by using what would otherwise amount to medical waste.

Obviously I'm pro research.

 

[Crazy_Dude]

It could help millions of people all over the globe and save countless of lives.

And religious zealots have to be against it like with all big breakthroughs in science.\

I am pro and I annoy the hell out of me too anyone who is against it. You arent killing anyone with it and you can save countless of lives. Is there even a downside?