Stem Cell Research

[Seil]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

There exists a widespread controversy over stem cell research that emanates from the techniques used in the creation and usage of stem cells. Human embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting a stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. However, recently, it has been shown in principle that embryonic stem cell lines can be generated using a single-cell biopsy similar to that used in preimplantation genetic diagnosis that may allow stem cell creation without embryonic destruction.[29]

Opponents of the research argue that embryonic stem cell technologies are a slippery slope to reproductive cloning and can fundamentally devalue human life. Those in the pro-life movement argue that a human embryo is a human life and is therefore entitled to protection.

Contrarily, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that such research should be pursued because the resultant treatments could have significant medical potential. It is also noted that excess embryos created for in vitro fertilisation could be donated with consent and used for the research.

The ensuing debate has prompted authorities around the world to seek regulatory frameworks and highlighted the fact that stem cell research represents a social and ethical challenge.

Since there's been a controversy surrounding this forever, I thought I'd just give a brief overview and say: yea or nay?

[Zoran]

I'm not completely sure about stem cells. Yea its great and all but, your mainly eating a baby to become stronger or recover.

[adamark]

Blastocysts are not babies. Not even close.

The stem cell debate is pointless because the fundamentalist christians frame the debate around their own personal definition of life. They are willfully ignorant of the various other definitions that don't share their own biases.

[Lady Cygnet]

There was a thread about this before a few months ago, and I'll say now what I said then: If stem cell research can be done without destroying embryos (and I will see if I can track down the article that said it could be done), I'm all for it.

In addition, permitting stem cell research to take place doesn't automatically guarantee that unethical people will obtain research positions, much less begin reproductive cloning.

[Demetrius]

I dunno, nobody's stomping down the door... I think if we try to keep clear of religion and keep this strictly a gain/loss I think we'll be okay.

My personal views are that to avoid the whole moral controversy scientists should be concentrating first on how to replicate the properties of the darn things. They're made up of basic materials and reactions, some cloning may be needed, but I don't think that is too much of an issue if it isn't cloning a whole embryo, growing it and getting into the bad part where it could be considered killing the thing. I mean there must be an artificial way to replicate the effects/properties of the little buggers. I think that the few cells that are garnered through pregnancy that can be harvested with no ill effects should be used expressly for this purpose. Then the debate could end and the real progress could happen.

[Lady Cygnet]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

My personal views are that to avoid the whole moral controversy scientists should be concentrating first on how to replicate the properties of the darn things. They're made up of basic materials and reactions, some cloning may be needed, but I don't think that is too much of an issue if it isn't cloning a whole embryo, growing it and getting into the bad part where it could be considered killing the thing. I mean there must be an artificial way to replicate the effects/properties of the little buggers. I think that the few cells that are garnered through pregnancy that can be harvested with no ill effects should be used expressly for this purpose. Then the debate could end and the real progress could happen.

I hadn't considered that, but I'm sure that it's a good idea to see about producing synthetic stem cells. Working synthetic stem cells would allow research without raising the same old moral and ethical dilemmas.

Scientific American has a pretty good (and long, so I didn't post it) article about adult stem cells and their potential. I'm all for the use of adult stem cells, use of methods to obtain embryonic stem cells without harming a living fetus or embryo, and if a fetus or embryo were to die of natural causes, I would have no issues with the parents donating the embryonic stem cells for research.

[Krylo]

I'd just like to point out that they take the stem cells from embryos that are left in stasis in fertility clinics.

To explain this: A couple goes in and is like "Oh, we want a child," so the doctors there take a bunch of eggs and thousands of sperm, and try to fertilize them all, because there's a rather large margin of error when trying to make these things.

So you end up with a couple who wants one, maybe two kids, with about fifteen frozen embryos.

Those frozen embryos are either going to be used for stem cell research or destroyed.

There's really no huge moral quandry there that I can see. Either way they get destroyed. In the one case they're tossed in an incinerator or a dumpster, in the other they're used to cure diseases and heal injuries that we can't heal without them.

Where's the moral issue here? Destroy them, or destroy them and save lives? Seriously.

P.S. Could you guys not debate whether topics are forbidden or not? I mean, really? If they are, it's not like we're gonna ban everyone for posting in the discussion. We'll just close it and say "Hey, don't talk about that here." It's really just spammy.

Speaking of which, I'mma delete all the "Is this ok to talk about" posts.

[Donomni]

It's that very reason that some people changed their minds about stem cells.

Sadly, the majority of people against it just ignore this.

[Tendronai]

I'm in favour of it, because of what Krylo said. The embryos being considered are not going to be used to create life. They are going to be disposed of. I think it makes more sense to use them for something which could help humanity rather than just tossing them in the dumpster and then complaining about the lack of medical progress.

[Xaeta]

Personally I don't see what the big deal is.

If at the cost of [unborn] human life we proceed to prolong and ease our own lives, have we not done that for the past thousands of years that humanity has been on Earth? We are constantly killing each other ONE WAY OR THE OTHER to make our lives easier. Unborn embryo's made SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of growing stem cells to help people walk, feel, (etc) again is no different from anything we've already done.

I'm for it, and I don't see the point in arguing to defend an unborn being with no conscience or sentience to defend itself. As long as you're growing embryo's SPECIFICALLY for such actions, then there is no F***ING problem. You're unborn children aren't at stake, nor are they even at stake.