Is Embryonic Stem Cell Research Immoral?

[eriador]

Well said!

[lovesonia]

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. The blastocyst includes three structures: the trophoblast, which is the layer of cells that surrounds the blastocyst; the blastocoel, which is the hollow cavity inside the blastocyst; and the inner cell mass, which is a group of approximately 30 cells at one end of the blastocoel.

Just my two cents:
I don't think embryonic stem cell research is immoral. I think it could prove to be very useful.


[Edit: link]

[LilBee91]

I think that harvesting stem cells from embryos is similar, at least in the case of embryos that are the product of fertility treatments and will never be used (as declared by the "parents"). I see no problem in harvesting cells from these embryos that will never use them and using those cells to help others.

I agree with that. Sitting in storage forever, unwanted, does no good to anybody. Still, if someone might bring one of those embryos to life, they should be given the chance.
Now, making embryos for the sole purpose of getting stem cells is wrong, or at least more wrong than taking them from spares.

[eriador]

I agree that the creation of embryos solely to harvest cells is possibly MORE wrong, but I still think that it is acceptable. The probability of finding a genetic match for a patient in an unused embryo is so tiny that to get the most benefit from stem cell treatment (not research, that works with ANY line) we would need to clone embryos. I'm all for it, even if it is a bit worse than just taking "waste" embryos.

[Eaquae Legit]

There's everything that I omitted. You said it was because it backed you up that I omitted it. Unfortunately for you, none of them back you up. The closest that one comes is #7: "A spiritual state regarded as a transcending of corporeal death." But it says NOTHING about needing a soul to be alive. So I would submit that you were not using a commonly understood definition of the word "life". Hence, I believe that it was YOUR responsibility, not mine, to make that clear.

*grin* Ah, young padawan, you have learned well.


(No, seriously, I'm really happy to see your arguments and your debate maturing. Keep it up!)

[eriador]

*grins*

*feels warm inside*

Thanks EL!

[Jebus]

I think the Christians on this board would like you to stop making them sound like complete retards.

Isn't this against the rules of the board? Or don't they apply when the person being attacked is generally disliked?

When I say something like that I get a thousand people all over me for breaking the rules. What gives?

It's because people need me to vent their frustrations for them.

And Jebus, it's not retarded to have different views. You are the epitome of closed-mindedness.

You're right, it's not retarded to have different views, you should really try some of them; your own don't seem to be working out too well.

[LilBee91]

Jebus can say whatever he wants. It's one of the fundamental laws of the universe.