Is embryonic stem cell research okay?

[ashley.hunt60]

I'm all for it, but I want to find your views on it. This is more or less directed at the pro-life community, but all votes are welcome. Explanations wanted both ways.

 

[Orion]

My vote is yes, but I'm not pro-life. The abortion of a few cells for the sake of scientific advancement that may provide cures for millions of people is not a big deal to me at all. To give you a better perspective of my views: I am shocked that there is even a debate about it, that's how inconsequential it is.

Mind you, I also suppose the harvesting of stem cells from non-embryonic sources, like umbillical cord blood; but I don't think it should be one or the other. Scientific research should be harvesting from all sources for the sake of research.

 

[b.larset]

If it is not the result of destroying a fetus.

 

[Josie]

Adult stem cells...yes. No need for embryonic stem cells. I'm not even sure they've even been proven to work....

 

[ADK_Forever]

Q&A: Embryonic Stem Cells: Exploding the Myths

Critics of embryonic stem-cell research say those cells have never cured anyone. Is that true?

True, but pointless.

Transplanting a kidney never cured anybody until someone had the idea of trying it, and then worked out the regimen that would prevent a transplanted kidney from being rejected by its grateful recipient. The proper way to phrase the statement is "embryonic stem cells haven't cured anybody yet."

Q&A: Embryonic Stem Cells: Exploding the Myths : NPR

Some interesting facts about issues of Embryonic Stem Cells.

 

[molten_dragon]

Yes, absolutely. Fetuses are not people, but those that could be helped by embryonic stem cell resesarch are, therefore, it's not only okay, but should be encouraged as much as is practical.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes, absolutely. Fetuses (human beings in the fetal stage of their life, growth and development) are not people, but those that could be helped by embryonic stem cell resesarch are, therefore, it's not only okay, but should be encouraged as much as is practical.

:shock: :doh

Translation; "They aint like us so we can kill them if we want to."

Thank you for this illustration.

Denial is an ugly thing.

 

[kerussll]

Adult stem cells...yes. No need for embryonic stem cells. I'm not even sure they've even been proven to work....

Do you even know the difference between adult or embryonic stem cells? Are you in any way qualified to tell scientists what they need and don't need?

 

[Josie]

Do you even know the difference between adult or embryonic stem cells? Are you in any way qualified to tell scientists what they need and don't need?

Ummmmmm.....if you knew my life story (no, I'm not going to divulge that information) you would realize that I do know about stem cell research.

 

[molten_dragon]

:shock: :doh

Translation; "They aint like us so we can kill them if we want to."

Yes, this is exactly it. We kill living things which are different than us all the time because it benefits us in some manner. Nearly all living creatures do. What makes this different?

Thank you for this illustration.

You're welcome.

Denial is an ugly thing.

Someone doesn't have to be in denial to disagree with you. I've looked at the facts of the matter and drawn my conclusions based on those facts.

Regardless of all that, perhaps instead of offering up your usual trite and meaningless sound bites, you'd like to comment on the subject at hand?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

We should absolutely use embryonic stem cells for research. If abortion has an upside, this is it.

 

[kerussll]

Ummmmmm.....if you knew my life story (no, I'm not going to divulge that information) you would realize that I do know about stem cell research.

ummm ok? Then you should know that adult and fetal cells aren't interchangeable.

 

[Josie]

ummm ok? Then you should know that adult and fetal cells aren't interchangeable.

Who said they were?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Adult stem cells...yes. No need for embryonic stem cells. I'm not even sure they've even been proven to work....

So you are for taking unused embryos from I.V. Fertilization treatments and just rinsing them down the sink or throwing them in an incinerator rather than using them for basic medical research?

That is really the question here. Either we just throw them away, or we try to use them to cure diseases that currently have no cure. I don't even get why its a moral question. If someone is not against in-vitro fertilization, then they should not be against embryonic stem cell research. Sure, some of those embryos can be "adopted" which by the way is pure selfishness considering the millions of actual orphan children in the world that need families, but anyway you look at it, most of the unused embryos from those treatments will simply be frozen until they are of no use anymore (which is killing them), flushed down a sink (which is killing them), or thrown into an incinerator (which again is killing them)....or we could do the humane thing and allow them to be used for medical research in the hope that in a few decades we will yield stem cell treatments from them that will further reduce human suffering.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So you are for taking unused embryos from I.V. Fertilization treatments and just rinsing them down the sink or throwing them in an incinerator rather than using them for basic medical research?

I hadn't even stopped to consider the number of surplus embryos created by fertility treatments. There's really no sense in letting all of those go to waste.

 

[Laila]

I'm all for it, but I want to find your views on it. This is more or less directed at the pro-life community, but all votes are welcome. Explanations wanted both ways.

Absolutely it is but I am not Pro life.

I support the Government funding tax payers money into stem cell research because I do believe it would benefit society.

 

[kerussll]

Who said they were?

You said there was no need for fetal cells and we could just use adult. They don't do the same thing, so taking one away arbitrarily is really not ok.

 

[Sadie]

Adult stem cells are fine for any type of research/cure.

Embryonic stem cells garnered from cord blood and stored for future use by the family is also fine.

"Growing" embryos for the exclusive purpose of harvesting stem cells is unnecessary; we have enough disregard for life, both born and unborn.

 

[kerussll]

Adult stem cells are fine for any type of research/cure.

Embryonic stem cells garnered from cord blood and stored for future use by the family is also fine.

"Growing" embryos for the exclusive purpose of harvesting stem cells is unnecessary; we have enough disregard for life, both born and unborn.

What is the family supposed to do with a bunch of cells? They would have to be given over to a research lab to do any good. We don't need to grow embryos for harvesting because we already have plenty of unwanted ones.

 

[phattonez]

Okay, so here is the real issue. You can take human eggs, which definitely are not fetuses, destroy their DNA, and implant the DNA of an adult. This, in theory, should produce an embryo and then a human. The problem is that what we have created is a human. Note that this technique does not require a fetus, but it produces it, so that can present a problem. As of right now, though, it is a moot point, because these cells are not developing correctly due to things like epigenetic inheritence and histone modifications that would not be present in fetal DNA.

The more exciting method that is being developed is the Yamanaka Method. This creates induced pluripotent stem cells. Basically, you can avoid the whole fetus issue by making a stem cell from a somatic cell. The only problem is that these cells easily become cancerous. So right now, stem cell research is held up until we can solve the problem of how to change the other heredity (which is basically modification of DNA without changing the DNA sequence).

 

[obvious Child]

So you are for taking unused embryos from I.V. Fertilization treatments and just rinsing them down the sink or throwing them in an incinerator rather than using them for basic medical research?

It's amazing how ignorant people are about this subject.

Apparently incinerating unused IVF embryos is okay, but using them to potentially save lives is wrong.

If abortion foes actually gave a **** about unborn life, they'd be picketing IVF clinics.

And people wonder why I have little more then contempt for social cons.

 

[Gina]

It's amazing how ignorant people are about this subject.

Apparently incinerating unused IVF embryos is okay, but using them to potentially save lives is wrong.

If abortion foes actually gave a **** about unborn life, they'd be picketing IVF clinics.

And people wonder why I have little more then contempt for social cons.

Absolutely and they are hypocrites on this point. I have had a few debates with women who used IVF to conceive, but when it comes to using excess embryonic stem cells which will be flushed as they become inviable, those same women ignore that fact. Pro-lifers say life begins at conception. So why aren't they picketing IVF clinics? They destroy embryos past their shelf life all the time. An abortion is no more murder than the flushing or incineration of embryos past their shelf life, IF, one believes life begins at conception.

 

[obvious Child]

Absolutely and they are hypocrites on this point. I have had a few debates with women who used IVF to conceive, but when it comes to using excess embryonic stem cells which will be flushed as they become inviable, those same women ignore that fact. Pro-lifers say life begins at conception. So why aren't they picketing IVF clinics? They destroy embryos past their shelf life all the time. An abortion is no more murder than the flushing or incineration of embryos past their shelf life, IF, one believes life begins at conception.

Because pro-life has nothing to do with abortion. Sounds odd doesn't it? It's really anti-slut. Most pro-life peoples' positions are not logically consistent. Against abortion and against contraception. Against abortion and for abstinence only which has been proven time and time again not to work. Against abortion and not against IVF.

However, I did meet a guy who was totally against abortion, for comprehensive sex ed, wanted financial aid for people who gave kids up for adoption (and more aid for adopters) and wanted IVF banned. Most consistent pro-life person I've ever met.

 

[Gina]

Because pro-life has nothing to do with abortion. Sounds odd doesn't it? It's really anti-slut. Most pro-life peoples' positions are not logically consistent. Against abortion and against contraception. Against abortion and for abstinence only which has been proven time and time again not to work. Against abortion and not against IVF.

However, I did meet a guy who was totally against abortion, for comprehensive sex ed, wanted financial aid for people who gave kids up for adoption (and more aid for adopters) and wanted IVF banned. Most consistent pro-life person I've ever met.

Indeed, I agree and that's a good observation, most arguments from conservatives center around blaming the woman. So yes, logically, they should be on every street corner handing out condoms, but of course they aren't. Pro-lifers, the great majority I have engaged, are completely illogical.

One of those I referred to, praised god for her two little miracles, but couldn't see the logic in allowing embryonic stem cell research.

I've never met a consistent pro-lifer.

 

[obvious Child]

What I never understood was people who were against plan B without realizing that the next step many women take is abortion. Apparently not letting fertilization happen is WORSE then an actual abortion. Letting the sperm die and not letting an egg release is better then a full on abortion.

What the...?