Stem cells have cured an HIV+ patient

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

As Peter once said, "WHY ARE WE NOT FUNDING THIS????"

 

[Tsaba]

I think he is politely telling you to shut up, and to not pick a religious flame fight over this topic.

I think the problem is that he is trying to make it a religious flame and she is pointing out that not all religious people are against stem cell, seriously though, I believe in God, but, if it's here for us on Earth I'm all for it. God put it here for a reason, put the mother F***er to work. I am however not for the whole slaughter sale of unborn children. The world is however a little over populated and if some dumb teenage girl couldn't keep her legs closed and wants to kill her child then go for it (OH SNAP, A religious guy for abortion(Fuck off)). I do however see a line between a farm and abortion.

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

This is just another reason why I can't understand why people get all pissy over stem cell research.

I'd like to see those anti stem cell research groups refute this now.

Dude, they only have one argument against stem cell research anyway--"DIS IZ ABORSHUN!!!11!1!!eleventyone!!1"

Which it isn't, but try explaining that to the fanatical uber-moos who vote SOLELY based on that issue.

 

[dj Facchiano]

People who argue against stem cell research really boil my blood.

It's one of a few things that could set me off on command. I just don't understand the moral issue at all. It doesn't register with me.

Fuck I'm of the persuasion that they should grow an exact clone of use from birth. Lobotomise it and keep it in a farm somewhere so if and when anything goes wrong with us. We can just take what we need from it and keep on trucking. Then inject the thing with ton's of stem cells and see if it grows back. If so..... Profit.

Ok maybe that's a bit farfeched... but I can dream can't I.

ever read a book called house of the scorpion?

 

[Tsaba]

This is just another reason why I can't understand why people get all pissy over stem cell research.

I'd like to see those anti stem cell research groups refute this now.

Dude, they only have one argument against stem cell research anyway--"DIS IZ ABORSHUN!!!11!1!!eleventyone!!1"

Which it isn't, but try explaining that to the fanatical uber-moos who vote SOLELY based on that issue.

If I remember right they got around that by getting stem cells from the Placenta.

 

[SadisticPretzel]

This is just another reason why I can't understand why people get all pissy over stem cell research.

I'd like to see those anti stem cell research groups refute this now.

The same ones that are on the record as claiming condoms cause HIV? Don't hold your breath.

OT: This is encouraging. If only we could actually USE stem cell research without people getting pissy over a bunch of tissue...

 

[spartan231490]

Eh, it's a little of both. It requires a bit of a unique setup for both the donor and patient, so we're nowhere close to having a pharma mass-producing it.

precisely. How can u massprduce a specific mutation that results in cells not having the receptor site that the virus targets.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

Assuming your version of events that occurred before you were born is accurate (not a safe assumption, due to you being unable to "process data" at the time), your parents' experience is atypical. The vast majority of people who have miscarriages give at least two shits. All emotions are "in the mind". That doesn't make them inherently invalid.

Honestly, I've met a good number of people over the course of my life in multiple countries and from what I can tell, the trauma involved in any sort of miscarriage or still-birth is based on both the amount of time the baby has had to develop, and the environment in which the parents live. If the parents are from a suburban town and don't really have anything else to worry about, it might hit them hard. People like my parents went through a lot in their life, and the premature death of an unborn child just didn't phase them.

And I appreciate you trying to demean me through sarcasm, but I've had a lot of time to talk to both parents about this, so I think I have a pretty firm grasp of what their opinion of the situation is.

You are arguing a school of thought (the name of which escapes me) that suggests that someone who has completed their maturation is more valuable than someone who has not. Under this school of thought, if a car is about to strike two people, one of whom is a 25 year-old man with a graduate degree and one of whom is a 2 year-old, assuming you only have time to save one, it is more ethical to save the 25 year-old. The reasoning is that the 25 year-old is "complete", and therefore more valuable to society.

Also, by this reasoning, infanticide is a much less serious crime than homicide, because infants are incapable of reason. Taken to extremes, advocates of this school of thought would say that euthanasia by request of a conscious Nobel laureate is a worse crime than drowning a newborn.

Most people don't feel this way. I don't care to argue ethics right now, but I will say that I am thankful that most people do not ascribe to this school of thought. Most parents (at least the good ones) would find any economic hardship difficult to resolve with this mindset.

Oh goody, ethics. You're talking to the wrong person here if you want an ethical debate.

As far as I know, there are no ethical "schools of thought" that outright declare "that someone who has completed their maturation is more valuable than someone who has not", but it falls under utilitarianism. Basically utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of actions, and not the motives, and I personally think this is a great way to look at this scenario.

Sure a baby is cute, but consider saving the baby vs saving the 25 year old.

Kill the baby:
Rid the world of yet another sap on humanity contributing to over-population.

Kill the 25 year old:
Rid the world of someone who has (in most cases) just started contributing to society.

No matter what other factors might be involved, felicific calculus produces a much lower utility for killing a baby than killing an already established, potentially well-learned human being.

It's unfortunate that you aren't comfortable with my big words. I'm not sorry, but it's unfortunate. Semen still isn't a fetus, and your analogy is still weird.

No, you just use big words for the sake of using big words while actually clarifying nothing what-so-ever in an attempt to confuse the reader and seem smarter than you actually are... and that... slightly perturbs me. I wouldn't say it makes me uncomfortable.

And I dare you to quote me saying semen is a fetus. All I insinuated through that analogy is that their survival co-exists on the same ethical plane for me.

 

[loremazd]

Everyone who is saying that "the vast majority of naysayers are NOT religious", or that "the vast majority is only religious because the majority of people are religious" doesn't really know what they are talking about... sorry.

Religion is the sole basis as to why this is still an ethically shaky issue. You could be an Atheist and be against stem cell research, but the reason why you are against it is one of religious origin, instilled in our minds by family, friends, or shitty documentaries.

Otherwise, you would feel no compassion for a god damn embryo.

I mean seriously, do you weep for each wasted "potential child" every time you fap as well?

I might if I ejaculated fertilized embryos capable of cellular proliferation and differentiation into a fully-formed human. Alas, I only squirt haploid spermatozoa. My wife also only ovulates haploid eggs. I guess your testes operate differently than mine.

I'm not opposed to stem cell research. In fact, I think that we should be funding it... heavily. But you do realize that you're basically suggesting that people shouldn't be sad when a woman miscarries, right? Go tell a woman who miscarried that her grief is over the death of a "god damn embryo" that she shouldn't feel compassion for. Let me know how that turns out. I'll foot the hospital bill.

I know exactly what I'm "basically suggesting".

Miscarriages don't have to be a traumatic experience. Trauma is entirely in the mind. My mom had a miscarriage before she had me and my sister, and neither one of my parents gave 2 shits (True story). Both of my parents are whiny and emotional all the time, but neither one cared about a pre-lifeform with no sentience what-so-ever...

I guess you could say that for them, it was a "no-brainer". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No, but seriously, you can use as many big words as you want to describe pre-human life. None of them will change the fact that, no matter what animal classification we are looking at, the embryo is NEVER considered to be the same.

An embryo is not a human. It cannot think, it cannot process data, and it would be much better used to save a life with previously established roots and responsibilities.

All emotions are "in the mind" you goofball. Last time I checked we are robots and cant pick and choose what we feel. It's why you cant magically turn on a switch to love someone you're not into. Would you tell the same to someone suffering from postpardum depression? PTSD? Suck it up?

I know you likely view these physiological processes as "more serious" or whatever, but it;s the same process that comes with the elation of carrying a child and subsequently loosing it. Your parents are hardly an example of how people -should- react to things because its none of your damn business how people react to things. If someone is sad that they were growing a life and it didn't make it, then they should, because it's their damn body.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

That's some amazing stuff. Also a good indicator of what can be done if we invested more money into the research. Unfortunately not enough people are privvy to the facts of the issue, and have decided that it's immoral or unethical. My mother worked did stem cell research as part of her post graduate work, so I can tell you that ethics don't really play a part in it. Her work was exclusively with bone marrow and blood from umbilical cords. Hell, even the embryonic stuff isn't really morally questionable. The embryos that they use (or try to) for research are aged samples that are nearing the end of their shelf life. If an embryo goes past a certain date, they trash it. Question of trash or life saving research? Well it's a life! It's better off in the garbage. Jeez. Also, let's forget to mention that without a great deal of stem cell research, those embryos would be nothing more than garbage. No potential for life there.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Not people. Religious people. Big difference.

Ah yes, because they're not real people

Even non religious people get angry over stem cell research. Usually because they only listen to the majority who don't like it and they won't do any research of their own on the subject, but still, it's not just crazy fundamentalists who do it.

No. 'People' is everyone. 'Religious people' are people with an agenda that is related to old thinking. The people against stem cell research are either uninformed or biased (or both), but the vast majority of them are religious.

Are you seriously that pedantic? Obviously he didn't mean everyone. 'People' doesn't in fact mean that...'everyone' would mean that.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

Everyone who is saying that "the vast majority of naysayers are NOT religious", or that "the vast majority is only religious because the majority of people are religious" doesn't really know what they are talking about... sorry.

Religion is the sole basis as to why this is still an ethically shaky issue. You could be an Atheist and be against stem cell research, but the reason why you are against it is one of religious origin, instilled in our minds by family, friends, or shitty documentaries.

Otherwise, you would feel no compassion for a god damn embryo.

I mean seriously, do you weep for each wasted "potential child" every time you fap as well?

I might if I ejaculated fertilized embryos capable of cellular proliferation and differentiation into a fully-formed human. Alas, I only squirt haploid spermatozoa. My wife also only ovulates haploid eggs. I guess your testes operate differently than mine.

I'm not opposed to stem cell research. In fact, I think that we should be funding it... heavily. But you do realize that you're basically suggesting that people shouldn't be sad when a woman miscarries, right? Go tell a woman who miscarried that her grief is over the death of a "god damn embryo" that she shouldn't feel compassion for. Let me know how that turns out. I'll foot the hospital bill.

I know exactly what I'm "basically suggesting".

Miscarriages don't have to be a traumatic experience. Trauma is entirely in the mind. My mom had a miscarriage before she had me and my sister, and neither one of my parents gave 2 shits (True story). Both of my parents are whiny and emotional all the time, but neither one cared about a pre-lifeform with no sentience what-so-ever...

I guess you could say that for them, it was a "no-brainer". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No, but seriously, you can use as many big words as you want to describe pre-human life. None of them will change the fact that, no matter what animal classification we are looking at, the embryo is NEVER considered to be the same.

An embryo is not a human. It cannot think, it cannot process data, and it would be much better used to save a life with previously established roots and responsibilities.

All emotions are "in the mind" you goofball. Last time I checked we are robots and cant pick and choose what we feel. It's why you cant magically turn on a switch to love someone you're not into. Would you tell the same to someone suffering from postpardum depression? PTSD? Suck it up?

I know you likely view these physiological processes as "more serious" or whatever, but it;s the same process that comes with the elation of carrying a child and subsequently loosing it. Your parents are hardly an example of how people -should- react to things because its none of your damn business how people react to things. If someone is sad that they were growing a life and it didn't make it, then they should, because it's their damn body.

I'm not trying to discredit those who feel sad about a miscarriage, I'm just saying that in the grand scheme of things, there are wayy worse things that could happen to you. And this isn't even about miscarriages... its about using an embryo to save lives.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

This is awesome.

However...I still don't know where I am on embryonic stem cells, I mean with this, it was probably taken from the spine of an adult. Which is awesome, but for some reason I still don't like the idea of using an embryo.

 

[Tharwen]

If that's true, then HIV immunity is possible.

It doesn't sound like it could ever be widespread though, because those cells were unique to him.

 

[Cocamaster]

But boiled down, religious institutions are against medicine as a concept, because it "subverts God's will."

That's not true. SOME fundamentalist organizations are against it, but throughout history most medical and scientifically advancements were not only encouraged and sponsored by religious institutions, they were accomplished by them to the point of leading to the Scientific Revolution. It wasn't until the beginning of the "age of enlightenment" that the divide between the sciences and religion really started, pushed primarily by the secular scientific community.

The dark ages are the only time organized religion really moved against scientific advancement, and it was only one part of the Catholic Church, for about two centuries. The negative effects of the Dark ages on science have been greatly exaggerated in modern times and that argument ignores many of the important advancements that occurred during that age, including the development of the modern scientific method we use today.

The bible was not written by people who believed in women as equals, that homosexuality is okay, or that questioning the system is a good thing.

If you're going to criticize the book, you would do well in reading it beyond Leviticus. While the homosexuality issue is very much debatable (there are only four passages in the book that even talk about it, one is mistranslated from the Hebrew and two may be even talking about something completely different altogether and scholars don?t necessarily agree about the meaning of the fourth), there are many more examples of women not only being man?s equal but his superior than there are passages that impose their subjugation, and the teachings of the new testament actually encourage us to "test all wisdom" and seek the truth where it lay; it?s the very reason the church was so into science during the renaissance.

OT: As for the topic, as others have said, most people who oppose stem cell research argue against the embryonic kind, and it is on moral grounds based on the belief of the sanctity of human life. There are many other types of stem cell researches being done that are perfectly acceptable for pretty much everyone.

I?m not telling you folk what to believe, just putting this out there. The argument is very complicated, and most people seem to want to simplify the camps' views a little too much.

 

[Gudrests]

Stem cells save lives. fact. yet people area against them?

so theres another reason why religion need to GTFO of modern society.

But it all boils down to...save one and kill one before it knows whats going on....or let one die and let one be born...

And...lets face it women will get pregnant JUST to kill the baby