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?
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?
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.
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 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?
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 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.
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?
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 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.
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.
We are taking cells in a petri dish.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?
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.
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.
What are you questioning? You are a bit vague here.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.
The embryonic stem cells are pleuropotantial.Plus I have yet to be convinced that embryonic stem cells are better than adult stem cells.
Yes. So?Futhermore didn't a recent news story confirm the fact that a major research dr. falsified his embryonic stem cell claims????
Stem cells don't come from aborted embryos. ALL embryonic stem cells come out of little plastic or glass dishes in a lab.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?
Huh? What does a second-trimester abortion have to do with embryonic stem cells? This is a weird and irrelevant argument.Yet we have partial birth abortions occuring everyday.
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.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.
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.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?
steen said:What are you questioning? You are a bit vague here.
Stem cells don't come from aborted embryos. ALL embryonic stem cells come out of little plastic or glass dishes in a lab.
Huh? What does a second-trimester abortion have to do with embryonic stem cells? This is a weird and irrelevant argument.
ngdawg said:Maybe you view them as perfectly acceptable...and they aren't done daily or regularly.
The fact that you are using the fake term 'pro-abortionist' speaks volumes for your lack of knowledge or insight in this regard.
You were talking about stem cells and abortions, as if abortions somehow were the source of the pleuripotential embryonic stem cells.talloulou said:You missed my point.
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.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.
Who are they?Most proabortionists
What baby? We were talking abortions, after all... claimed that abortions would be carried out before the baby was at all significantly developed.
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).Yet we now view partial birth abortions as perfectly acceptable.
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.There are arguments going on in the abortion thread that claim personhood doesn't begin until 2 years of age!
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.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.
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.talloulou said:Well partial birth abortions are legal in many states thus they are "acceptable" in our society.
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?In what way is proabortionist a "fake" term.
So why are you pro-slavery?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.
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.
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&Xtalloulou 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 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.I can understand disdain about the term proabortionist so I will refrain from using it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?