Philotic Web

Who here believes that we should support stem cell research. It could help our society so much.

I really honestly think we should pursue stem cell research but to me there should be rules governing where the cells are harvested from. Using the placenta and umbilical cords of newborns I don't think is a problem, but using aborted fetuses is wrong. I know abortion is legal in many places but to me it is wrong. This is an issue of opinion for me and in no way do I think that anyone else has to believe the same thing. I fully agree that stem cell research can lead us farther into the future by allowing us to develop new ways to preserve our longevity. Imagine being able to grow a heart for a patient waiting for a transplant, or a kidney. Imagine skin grafts being a thing of the past. Policy makers have to wake up and realize this is beneficial and stop beating around the bush. If something can promise this much good for the future, why not?

Using the placenta and umbilical cords of newborns I don't think is a problem, but using aborted fetuses is wrong.

If the fetus is already aborted, you don't want it to be used for research? You can either use it for stem cells, or you can let it go to waste. Neither will bring it back, but one will bring about some benefit.

That comment was a matter of opinion. I don't support abortion so naturally I don't support the use of fetuses to aid research. This comes directly from my personal beliefs and in no way do I ever intend to speak out against such use if said research is pursued. Science will do what it wants and as I am not a scientist, I will not stand in it's way. Dead is dead, and I suppose there is no logical reason why the fetuses could not be used. As is aforementioned, it is simply a matter of personal belief for me.

That comment was a matter of opinion. I don't support abortion so naturally I don't support the use of fetuses to aid research.

Right. This is what I'm asking about. Say somebody decided to have an abortion. You now have a dead fetus, and nothing can undo what has been done. You can either use it for the advancement of science, or do nothing with it.

On one hand, only good can come from it. On the other hand, nothing. You choose nothing?

Right. This is what I'm asking about. Say somebody decided to have an abortion. You now have a dead fetus, and nothing can undo what has been done. You can either use it for the advancement of science, or do nothing with it.

On one hand, only good can come from it. On the other hand, nothing. You choose nothing?

True. But wouldn't that also serve as a roundabout justification of abortion?

So those thinking of aborting could morally allow it, saying that they are advancing science?

It doesn't make sense to me that one would end a human life in order to extend another human life without permission of the martyr.

Right. This is what I'm asking about. Say somebody decided to have an abortion. You now have a dead fetus, and nothing can undo what has been done. You can either use it for the advancement of science, or do nothing with it.

On one hand, only good can come from it. On the other hand, nothing. You choose nothing?

True. But wouldn't that also serve as a roundabout justification of abortion?

So those thinking of aborting could morally allow it, saying that they are advancing science?

It doesn't make sense to me that one would end a human life in order to extend another human life without permission of the martyr.

And that is EXACTLY what I was getting at. Thank you for putting it into words, akrol.

I think it is ridiculous that the U.S. stopped funding for stem cells it could help so many lives. Just wait once a celebritey supports the stem cells so will the rest of the world

To save one who is alive is better then to bring someone into the world where they are not wanted

Alexander/shadow, many celebrities do already. Michael J. Fox is a huge supporter. So was Christopher Reeve.

Right. This is what I'm asking about. Say somebody decided to have an abortion. You now have a dead fetus, and nothing can undo what has been done. You can either use it for the advancement of science, or do nothing with it.

On one hand, only good can come from it. On the other hand, nothing. You choose nothing?

True. But wouldn't that also serve as a roundabout justification of abortion?

So those thinking of aborting could morally allow it, saying that they are advancing science?

It doesn't make sense to me that one would end a human life in order to extend another human life without permission of the martyr.

And that is EXACTLY what I was getting at. Thank you for putting it into words, akrol.

Who's ever actually going to say, "I wasn't going to have an abortion, but since it'll help advance science, I guess I will after all." I really can't believe that that would be the one factor that convinces someone to abort, or even make them feel better about it once they've decide.

I just can't see a logical reason not to obtain some benefit after the fact. Ending a life to save another life may not make sense, but the life isn't being ended for that or any other purpose. It's just being ended regardless.

I'm against stem cell research involving the killing of embryos or fetuses. Bone marrow stem cells, fine.
Mostly for the same reasons that I'm against abortion - one life is worth just as much as another.

I'm against stem cell research involving the killing of embryos or fetuses. Bone marrow stem cells, fine.
Mostly for the same reasons that I'm against abortion - one life is worth just as much as another.

Didn't they say there were more ways of collecting stem cell than from embryos?

Thus the bit saying 'bone marrow stem cells, fine'

I haven't read any of the previous comments to this topic and I'm stating my opinion:
I think stem cell research is kind of like a drug. You find it weird the first time, but it starts to get addicting because it helps "solve" all of your problems.
I think that if stem cell research is done purely for the prupose of healing others, and not for some other random diobolical prupose such as cloning (?), then it sounds fair enough.
If scientists happen to reach a stage where stem cell research can be used for many other kidns of things (perhaps it might randomly lead to the cure for cancer) then could it not also cause cancer if done by the wrong mind(s)?
That's only an example, I don't know enough to say it might actually be possible, but that can happen, just as it has happened in the past with many other things.
So, I think if the research is being in moderate proportion, then I suppose I can say I support it.

Aesculpaius, I think it is really interesting that you use the name of a mythical healer, and yet seem to have so little knowledge of medicine or science.

I don't think stem cell research has the possibilty of being addictive. For one, micromanipulation and tissue culture aren't really fun. Though, I suppose you could argue that making scientific advances is fun.

Also, cloning is not "random" or "diabolical." It's a reproductive technology that has been progressively improved upon since it was first concieved. (Ah, a repro pun!) It is not currently done in humans due to ethical debates, one of which is the use of embryos. (Since cloning involves in some way de-nucleating an ovum, reprogramming a somatic nucleus and combining the two.)

As to your cancer argument, stem cells would not "randomly" lead to the cure for cancer. While many discoveries are made as unforseen corollaries to a given experiment, the methods are still methodical, well documented and repeatable. Not random.

Also, any form of research, thought or discovery could lead to some kind of damage, which is why things are regulated.

I support stem cell research, I don't know anyone who doesn't. The real question is whether or not you support embryonic stem cell research, which I don't, because I belief human life begins at conception, and in fact embryonic stell cell research really ought to be an irrelevant question at this point, since I just read an article about scientists creating electrically active neurons from induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (stem cells created from adult somatic cells).

http://www.examiner.com/x-1242-Science- ... atic-cells


[edit]
and just today, creating stem cells from skin cells: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1342585

iPSC are an interesting idea, but often run into a number of technical problems, usually involving their reprogramming. However, I am avidly following the journals about them.

(Also, be careful with pop science articles. Both of those have misrepresented facts in them.)

iPSC are an interesting idea, but often run into a number of technical problems, usually involving their reprogramming.

which has now been accomplished successfully (that being the point of the above article)

(Also, be careful with pop science articles. Both of those have misrepresented facts in them.)

for the most part they're all I have to work from, since I don't have access to any real journals for the most part though, they're pretty good for keeping up with recent developments.

Actually, it has been shown that they think they can successfully create iPCS. I know you think you caught me out, but, no. These are still so new they are being characterized. It also hasn't really been proven how well they differentiate into functional adult cells. Yes, they have electrically active neuronal cells. That is not the same thing as a functional neuron. It also fails to mention whether or not they controlled it such that the neurotransmitters are the correct ones.

Also, if you are reading pop science, be careful acting like an expert. I know that it's all that's generally available to the public, but it's also generally written by people who don't understand the subject, so it's being filtered to you through people who don't get it. So, while the gist is usually ok, the details are often not.