Cloning and Stem Cell Research
 

So, what do you guys think about cloning and stem cell research. I am all for both, to a certan extent. Stem Cell reasearch should be allowed, but to appease certan groups the source would have to be from the aborted.

Abortion topics aren't really allowed here. Neither are religious. And the argument for stem cell research is firmly rooted in each. As such, unless someone can find a way to make this discussion happen without resorting to either of those topics, then myself or anothermod will have to close this.

Well yes a lot of people will be against stem cell research, and sadly it does fall into both categoried shiney mentioned.
I am for stem cell research, because I think that it truly does have potential to solve a lot of medical problems we currently have.
The only true downside that I see is that if someone is against it, then there is no easy way to make them dislike it any less. A majority of the time, if someone is against abortion then they will be against stem cell research because of siilar reasons to their dislike of abortion.

As shiney said this topic is very borderline on beeing closed, but there really is no way to discuss this without bringing abortion/religion into it...

I was just reading this in a book the other night:

"Genetic manipulation may ultimately reduce the frequency , at least in certain populations, of genes responsible for birth defects. It may also promote other genes that are culturally held desirable, governing body type, appearance, and intelligence test scores. Neither most advocates nor most opponents of these techniques have fully thought out the implications of calling them "engineering." Civil engineers -- as Henry Petroski has argued in a series of books -- advance through mistakes and even disasters, but misdesigned people cannot be rebuilt as failed bridges, collapsed tunnels, and failing roads may be. At the very least, in vitro fertilization may actually help increase the incidence of infertility"

I just thought that parallel was interesting. We progress through mistakes, and we learn which are blind alleys by walking down them to see what is there. You don’t know if a hypothesis can stand up or not until you test it.

I don't believe it is all religious argument.

There is still the argument that we don't know where life begins. At what stage does the fetus become alive? If we were able to point exactly where life begins we may be able to use cells from those aborted fetusai to do research. The person against stem cells may not be happy about this, but thier mind might change after they see how much stem cells are helping people. But that all relies on us findin when life starts and I don't think that can ever be proven, I think at some point people(the ones making deciosions) will agree to a time that abortion is illegal because the fetus is alive.

And why do they object to it so much? Morality stemming usually from personal conviction or religion. Both of which cannot be civilly argued because they are inherently impractical. (I'm not bashing religion or anything of the sort, merely saying it's not practical as in not scientific. It is emotion, not fact.) Hence it can't really be debated under that pretense either. Zeth brings up an interesting point. But I'm just hesitant to see where this goes..

What does this have to do with anything? People aren't going out of their way to get abortions to give us more stem cells. The research merely uses stem cells that happen to be available. That this availability is linked to abortions isn't the point. That the thing these cells came from may or may not have been alive at some point is not the point. There are a variety of oral surgeries that involve putting the gums from cadavers into living people. There's no moral outcry against that. No one cares how alive the cadaver may have been at some point in the past. Stem cells are no different.

I read somewhere that they found another source for stem cells in hair follicles and in children's baby teeth. So aborted fetuses are no longer neccessary. And if aborted fetuses are no longer neccesarry for stem cells, then abortion all comes down to Women's rights.

Edit: Oh wait, found it.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...7083414B7F0000

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...EDF&sc=I100322

While I agree that already aborted fetuses should be used in stem cell research, women actually have made money off of selling fertilized eggs for stem cell research - a couple of years ago, this would be thousands of dollars. The problem is that, by doing the research with aborted fetuses, and paying for the stem cells inside, you have effectively created a market. People will sell fetuses for money the same way you sell cows.

The "fertilized eggs" you speak of are generally the result of in vitro fertilization. Their fates are to be frozen forever and ever and ever, be disposed of, or be used. In vitro fertilization produce more viable embryos then the woman will ever use.

Some hardcore pro-lifers might think that killing an in vitro zygote is the same as abortion, and while I won't disrespect that point of view, I think many people see a difference between the two actions. I don't see a whole lot of people protesting fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization, anyway.