• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

stem cell research. Can a compromise be worked out?

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Democrats believe that stem cell research can find cures for horrible diseases such as AIDS and cancer. Republicans say that taking life to save life is morally wrong. Could a compromise be worked out?

I propose we take the stem cells of animals. Preferably chimpanzees, who bear the closest resemblance to humans biologically. Maybe if we take the stem cells of chimpanzees, the stem cells will work for humans. Could this work?
 
H

hipsterdufus

dstebbins said:
Democrats believe that stem cell research can find cures for horrible diseases such as AIDS and cancer. Republicans say that taking life to save life is morally wrong. Could a compromise be worked out?

I propose we take the stem cells of animals. Preferably chimpanzees, who bear the closest resemblance to humans biologically. Maybe if we take the stem cells of chimpanzees, the stem cells will work for humans. Could this work?
It's going to take a presidential election to change federal policy on this. Alternatively, states can try to fund research on their own. Unfortunately, the US is already so far behind, probably other countries will be able to get the billions of dollars in profits that this research can potentially yield.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
dstebbins said:
Democrats believe that stem cell research can find cures for horrible diseases such as AIDS and cancer. Republicans say that taking life to save life is morally wrong. Could a compromise be worked out?

I propose we take the stem cells of animals. Preferably chimpanzees, who bear the closest resemblance to humans biologically. Maybe if we take the stem cells of chimpanzees, the stem cells will work for humans. Could this work?
We can, but they are not nearly as useful as embryonic stem cells in the same vein as adult stem cells. There is a misunderstanding that people are actually going and destroying fetuses for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells - this is not the case. Stem cells are harvested from a blastocyst, which exists only in the very, very, very early stages of fetal development. We're talking about 150 cells here, just a ball of undifferentiated cells.

The zygote undergoes cleavage, increasing the number of cells within the zona pellucida. When there are about 4 to 16 cells, the embryo is in the morula stage. When the number of cells reaches 40 to 150, a central, fluid-filled cavity (blastocoel) forms. The zona pellucida begins to degenerate. This stage in the developing embryo is the blastocyst, and lasts approximately until the implantation in the uterus. The outer cells develop into the placenta.
The developing zygote is not even attached to the uterus at the stage it is harvested.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
dstebbins said:
Democrats believe that stem cell research can find cures for horrible diseases such as AIDS and cancer. Republicans say that taking life to save life is morally wrong. Could a compromise be worked out?
My understanding is that the embryos would get thrown out anyways, so either way you're taking a "life". It's just something they can use to rally the base even if the base doesn't really understand any of it. Economically and technology wise we lose a lot to the European and Asian countries by not allowing stem cell research.
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Engimo said:
We can, but they are not nearly as useful as embryonic stem cells in the same vein as adult stem cells. There is a misunderstanding that people are actually going and destroying fetuses for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells - this is not the case. Stem cells are harvested from a blastocyst, which exists only in the very, very, very early stages of fetal development. We're talking about 150 cells here, just a ball of undifferentiated cells.



The developing zygote is not even attached to the uterus at the stage it is harvested.
What are you saying? Are you saying that we're not actually taking life? Or are you saying that we're taking one cell out of 150 of the same type? What exactly are you trying to say?
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
dstebbins said:
What are you saying? Are you saying that we're not actually taking life? Or are you saying that we're taking one cell out of 150 of the same type? What exactly are you trying to say?
I'm saying that if a blastocyst is destroyed, it's not anything particularly egregious. It's a small conglomeration of cells, that's it. It has no organs or even anything remotely akin to human features.
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Engimo said:
I'm saying that if a blastocyst is destroyed, it's not anything particularly egregious. It's a small conglomeration of cells, that's it. It has no organs or even anything remotely akin to human features.
the way you talk, I would assume you support abortion, yet I've seen many of your pro-life posts in the abortion board.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
dstebbins said:
the way you talk, I would assume you support abortion, yet I've seen many of your pro-life posts in the abortion board.
What? You must have me confused with someone entirely different. :confused:
 

SHodges

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The best compromise would be finding some politicians that aren't pandering towards religious nutjobs that would stop screwing around and allow stem-cell research to start taking place again. The idea of stopping it because they don't like a LEGAL activity is just "morally wrong" of someone who's supposed to be acting in our best interest to do.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
dstebbins said:
What are you saying? Are you saying that we're not actually taking life? Or are you saying that we're taking one cell out of 150 of the same type? What exactly are you trying to say?
We are taking cells in a petri dish.
 

Logos

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Location
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is a religious debate right now and we all know that with religion as bush sees it there is only good and evil so no to any compromise for now
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
10 Yrs. from now....I predict we will look back on the ban, and understand the impact it had on our country. The next wave in the industrial revolution is likely to be in genetic manipulation, and understanding of the human geonome....yet we are walking away from any hope of taking part in this. Economic growth is dependant on research....and we are already behind, five years is a very long time for technology to remain stagnant.
 

Blue Collar Joe

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
350
Reaction score
0
Location
USA Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
SHodges said:
The best compromise would be finding some politicians that aren't pandering towards religious nutjobs that would stop screwing around and allow stem-cell research to start taking place again. The idea of stopping it because they don't like a LEGAL activity is just "morally wrong" of someone who's supposed to be acting in our best interest to do.

And any politician that ignores the religious and moral objectors to this knows full well that they can write off their next election. It won't happen as long as they want to be in power.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It has been over 12 years since I donated three frozen embryos (I believe they were actually 48-celled zygotes) back to the fertility clinic for 'research purposes only'. At that time, the debate about stem cell research was just beginning to heat up and I still don't know to this day what happened to my donation. As it was a private organization with ties to a medical school, I would hope some good came of it.
Until people can come to the realization that religious belief has absolutely nothing to do with science and that, indeed, there are greater benefits to mankind in allowing the progression of such research than in using some dogma to halt it, I fear for our future here. Is it really fair to so many with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, et al to preach the(imagined) sins of this research? This is what breaks my heart.
 

Naughty Nurse

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
ngdawg said:
It has been over 12 years since I donated three frozen embryos (I believe they were actually 48-celled zygotes) back to the fertility clinic for 'research purposes only'. At that time, the debate about stem cell research was just beginning to heat up and I still don't know to this day what happened to my donation. As it was a private organization with ties to a medical school, I would hope some good came of it.
Until people can come to the realization that religious belief has absolutely nothing to do with science and that, indeed, there are greater benefits to mankind in allowing the progression of such research than in using some dogma to halt it, I fear for our future here. Is it really fair to so many with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, et al to preach the(imagined) sins of this research? This is what breaks my heart.
Good on you for making the donation, ngdawg.

Couldn't agree with you more!! If we take religious objection to its natural conclusion we would have to ban transfusions because certain people object on religious grounds.

If people want to organise their own lives according to their religious beliefs, I'm right behind them. But when they start trying to impose that on everybody else ...
 

talloulou

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I question the ethics of stem cell research and I'm not religious. Just thought I'd put that out there for all those who assume only the religious would worry about cloning and what not.

Plus I have yet to be convinced that embryonic stem cells are better than adult stem cells. Futhermore didn't a recent news story confirm the fact that a major research dr. falsified his embryonic stem cell claims????

I don't think it's unreasonable to question the practice of growing fertilized eggs for parts and then cloning them. We are assured the eggs will be disposed of while they are still a simple cluster yet were we not assured that most abortions would take place early on? Yet we have partial birth abortions occuring everyday. I need to be assured that scientists aren't going to grow test tube babies for parts. To me it's not a religious issue so much as an ethical one.

And as far as compromise goes......from what I understand stem cell research is not "banned." Our government isn't fully funding it with our tax dollars. If it's as promising as people claim why wouldn't private companies be funding it?
 
Last edited:

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
talloulou said:
I question the ethics of stem cell research and I'm not religious. Just thought I'd put that out there for all those who assume only the religious would worry about cloning and what not.
What are you questioning? You are a bit vague here.

Plus I have yet to be convinced that embryonic stem cells are better than adult stem cells.
The embryonic stem cells are pleuropotantial.

Futhermore didn't a recent news story confirm the fact that a major research dr. falsified his embryonic stem cell claims????
Yes. So?

I don't think it's unreasonable to question the practice of growing fertilized eggs for parts and then cloning them. We are assured the eggs will be disposed of while they are still a simple cluster yet were we not assured that most abortions would take place early on?
Stem cells don't come from aborted embryos. ALL embryonic stem cells come out of little plastic or glass dishes in a lab.

Yet we have partial birth abortions occuring everyday.
Huh? What does a second-trimester abortion have to do with embryonic stem cells? This is a weird and irrelevant argument.

I need to be assured that scientists aren't going to grow test tube babies for parts. To me it's not a religious issue so much as an ethical one.
There has been no talk about any such thing. I am not sure where you get this from. It also would be rather hard to do.

And as far as compromise goes......from what I understand stem cell research is not "banned." Our government isn't fully funding it with our tax dollars. If it's as promising as people claim why wouldn't private companies be funding it?
They are. However, the infrastructure is expensive. And while the state of CA has pumped a lot of money into it, the main funding now is in South Korea and Singapore. Incidentally, many of the US top scientists in this area thus have been recruited to these countries.

We are already behind and we will likely never catch up. Our ability to be significant in the area of stem cell medical research is probably lost at this time, and the top jobs moved to Asia. We lost this one.
 

talloulou

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
steen said:
What are you questioning? You are a bit vague here.
Well I have read numerous posts that claim it's the religious that oppose embryonic stem cell use. I'm just pointing out that's not always the case.

Stem cells don't come from aborted embryos. ALL embryonic stem cells come out of little plastic or glass dishes in a lab.
You missed my point.

Huh? What does a second-trimester abortion have to do with embryonic stem cells? This is a weird and irrelevant argument.
My point is that embryonic stem cell supporters claim the cells will be destroyed early on before they have developed beyond just being a "cluster." This same point was made when the country first began debating abortions. Most proabortionists claimed that abortions would be carried out before the baby was at all significantly developed. Yet we now view partial birth abortions as perfectly acceptable.

There are arguments going on in the abortion thread that claim personhood doesn't begin until 2 years of age! With this type of language it seems to me that we should be concerned about labs growing embryos for scientific research. Right now science is unable to bring a fertilized egg to full development without the use of a vessel (mother) but eventually they may be able to. We need to tread carefully when it comes to allowing this type of reseach.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Maybe you view them as perfectly acceptable...and they aren't done daily or regularly.( would that such claims for once be backed up legitimately) The fact that you are using the fake term 'pro-abortionist' speaks volumes for your lack of knowledge or insight in this regard.
 

talloulou

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
ngdawg said:
Maybe you view them as perfectly acceptable...and they aren't done daily or regularly.
Well partial birth abortions are legal in many states thus they are "acceptable" in our society.

The fact that you are using the fake term 'pro-abortionist' speaks volumes for your lack of knowledge or insight in this regard.
In what way is proabortionist a "fake" term. If it's a fake term why is it in the dictionary? Some may not like the term but that doesn't mean it is "fake." Good heavens.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have 3 and it's not in any of those....you can look it up online, but it's not a legit word and most certainly used in a derogatory manner at any rate.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
talloulou said:
You missed my point.
You were talking about stem cells and abortions, as if abortions somehow were the source of the pleuripotential embryonic stem cells.

My point is that embryonic stem cell supporters claim the cells will be destroyed early on before they have developed beyond just being a "cluster." This same point was made when the country first began debating abortions.
Once the development progresses to the blastocyst stage, differentiation has occurred, and the stem cells are no different than adult stem cells in that area.

Most proabortionists
Who are they?

.. claimed that abortions would be carried out before the baby was at all significantly developed.
What baby? We were talking abortions, after all.

Yet we now view partial birth abortions as perfectly acceptable.
Some do, some don't. That hasn't stopped pro-life from spewing endless lies about it (That's the subject of other treads, though).

There are arguments going on in the abortion thread that claim personhood doesn't begin until 2 years of age!
Irrelevant to me. "Person" is a legal term, not a biological one. And the legal community is clear that "person" doesn't apply to the unborn.

With this type of language it seems to me that we should be concerned about labs growing embryos for scientific research. Right now science is unable to bring a fertilized egg to full development without the use of a vessel (mother) but eventually they may be able to. We need to tread carefully when it comes to allowing this type of reseach.
Ah, yes, of course. Science should not proceed just because it can; that is how we end up with monsters in lab coats. We have all heard of Mengele, after all. Not a lot of relevance to stem cells, though.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
talloulou said:
Well partial birth abortions are legal in many states thus they are "acceptable" in our society.
Reality is, of course, that there is no such thing, that the vocabulary is invented by pro-lifers for the purpose of deliberate, dishonest distortion.

In what way is proabortionist a "fake" term.
Ah, back to that lying claptrap. Yes, you of course want me to define you as a theocratic, misogynistic fundie pro-slaver, right? We can certainly go down that route again. For now, lets just point out the pro-choice are not advocating abortion but rather are advocating the woman's right to chose what happens to her own bodily resources. I suggest you drop the deceptive claptrap insults of mislabeling others, or you will receive the exact same treatment, and it all descends into a big fight instead. But the choice is all yours. Drop the lying misrepresentation, or we fight. What do you choose?

If it's a fake term why is it in the dictionary? Some may not like the term but that doesn't mean it is "fake." Good heavens.
So why are you pro-slavery?
 

talloulou

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
steen said:
Reality is, of course, that there is no such thing, that the vocabulary is invented by pro-lifers for the purpose of deliberate, dishonest distortion.
So what is the politically correct term for an abortion that takes place late and the fetus is delivered to the extent that its head is out of the mothers body before being killed? Or are you saying these types of abortions do no actually occur?

I can understand disdain about the term proabortionist so I will refrain from using it.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
talloulou said:
So what is the politically correct term for an abortion that takes place late and the fetus is delivered to the extent that its head is out of the mothers body before being killed? Or are you saying these types of abortions do no actually occur?
I am not sure what you mean with "politically correct, but if you with "late" means second trimester, then the medically-accurate and correct terminology would be "dilation and intact extraction," abbreviated as D&X

(Abbreviated so to distinguish it from the D&E, the "dilation and extraction" where pieces of the second-trimester fetus are removed with forceps through the cervix. This method results in more instrumentation inside the uterus and thus increases the risk of perforation, and it also results in more cervical dilation and hence a greater risk for cervical instability ["incompetent cervix"] at a later pregnancy. So if I was a woman seeking a second-trimester abortion, I would much rather undergo the D&X procedure than the D&E procedure.)

If you with "late" are talking about 3rd trimester, on the other hand, then it is pro-life fantasy scare mongering.

I can understand disdain about the term proabortionist so I will refrain from using it.
I am glad you figured out that misrepresentation can go both ways. I appreciate you staying away from the worst of the pro-life deceptive, revisionist linguistic hyperbole in that area of misrepresentation.
 
Top Bottom