• 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.

The Stem-Cell Research Debate

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I didn't see a thread on the stem-cell research debate, so I made one. Here it is.

My personal belief is that stem-cell research should be allowed and supported by the government. The religous right says that tests with day old embryos is still murder. The catch is that there are millions of applicable embryos sitting in freezers all over the US, and if they aren't used is some way, within a few months they will be destroyed anyway. So what it comes down to, is that these embryos will be disposed of, but they could be used to save lives. So why wouldn't the Catholic Church want to save these lives, if that is all the embryos are good for? It may have to do with the lives that would be saved.

Post your thoughts on this topic, please.


Duke
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Duke, there's already a thread on stem cell research in the Abortion category.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well as kal-el said before there a thread on this already. However, I will still be kind enough to post. I beleive oe thing and only one thing. The cloning or the chance of cloning is wrong. It was wrong 3000yrs ago and guess what? It is stil wrong today.

However, if there still was a way to surmise the evidentiary support of the potential way of not being able to clone but to find cures for deseases like cancer and aids then I am all for it.

However, if the direct or indirect result is cloning then absolutely not Thats really my own opinion though. People may think cloning is cool. Or people may not even care for embryos. But I care for only one thing no cloning and no possible cloning.
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SKILMATIC said:
Well as kal-el said before there a thread on this already. However, I will still be kind enough to post. I beleive oe thing and only one thing. The cloning or the chance of cloning is wrong. It was wrong 3000yrs ago and guess what? It is stil wrong today.

However, if there still was a way to surmise the evidentiary support of the potential way of not being able to clone but to find cures for deseases like cancer and aids then I am all for it.

However, if the direct or indirect result is cloning then absolutely not Thats really my own opinion though. People may think cloning is cool. Or people may not even care for embryos. But I care for only one thing no cloning and no possible cloning.
Why are you opposed to cloning? Please explain.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I did not think to look in the abortion section because this would fall unter Pollitical platforms, not abortions.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SKILMATIC said:
Well as kal-el said before there a thread on this already. However, I will still be kind enough to post. I beleive oe thing and only one thing. The cloning or the chance of cloning is wrong. It was wrong 3000yrs ago and guess what? It is stil wrong today.

However, if there still was a way to surmise the evidentiary support of the potential way of not being able to clone but to find cures for deseases like cancer and aids then I am all for it.

However, if the direct or indirect result is cloning then absolutely not Thats really my own opinion though. People may think cloning is cool. Or people may not even care for embryos. But I care for only one thing no cloning and no possible cloning.


One thing to add to you statment, cloning is ultra expensive and extremly hard. For instance, out of 3000 possilbe clone embryos for a dog, only one worked. And that's a dog, for crying out loud.


Duke
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Duke said:
One thing to add to you statment, cloning is ultra expensive and extremly hard. For instance, out of 3000 possilbe clone embryos for a dog, only one worked. And that's a dog, for crying out loud.


Duke
For now it is hard, but look to the future, my friend. And of course it is expensive now. But the more we perfect it and it becomes commonplace, it will gradually decrease.
 

suetoneous

New member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Duke, I believe I just recently heard [on network news] that scientists hv invented a new process by which unborn fetus’ do not hv to be “violated.” Someone correct me if i'm wrong... If this is true then this whole topic is moot.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have not heard of this, but day-old embryos are not, scientifically, fetuses.


Duke
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
suetoneous said:
Duke, I believe I just recently heard [on network news] that scientists hv invented a new process by which unborn fetus’ do not hv to be “violated.” Someone correct me if i'm wrong... If this is true then this whole topic is moot.
That's interesting. O well, science has no bounds, so I would'nt be suprised.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There are ways to get stem cells other that from embryos, but they are very enefficient and impractical (yes, even less practical that getting them from embryos)
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
To add on to what I said earlier, it is possible to get stem cells from bone marrow, but it is very hard and you get very few. It is also possible to get them from the brain, but I hear that's downright suicidal.


Duke
 

Obras

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Duke, I don't know how you can even imagine destroying embryos. Anything that has the potential to become a human should never be senselessly murdered.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obras, if you didn' read my first statment, these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it, unless you have 50 billion$ laying around somewhere. There is nothing else you can do with these embryos other than research, unless you have a helluva lot of $$$. From your point of view, it is the lesser of 2 evils, because you can same millions of lives.


Duke
 
G

Gigles

Obras said:
Duke, I don't know how you can even imagine destroying embryos. Anything that has the potential to become a human should never be senselessly murdered.
These embryos ARE ALL GOING TO DIE ANYWAYS. Can you not understand this??
 

Obras

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Duke said:
Obras, if you didn' read my first statment, these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it, unless you have 50 billion$ laying around somewhere. There is nothing else you can do with these embryos other than research, unless you have a helluva lot of $$$. From your point of view, it is the lesser of 2 evils, because you can same millions of lives.


Duke
You should never take innocent lives. For anything. I understand that in a case like this it might seem very attractive but it is a very slippery slope that I don't want to go near.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obras said:
You should never take innocent lives. For anything. I understand that in a case like this it might seem very attractive but it is a very slippery slope that I don't want to go near.
It's not a matter of attraction, it's a matter inevitiability. It is inevitable that these cells will be destroyed. It is either to save lives or nothing at all. Which do you chose?


Duke
 

Obras

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Duke said:
It's not a matter of attraction, it's a matter inevitiability. It is inevitable that these cells will be destroyed. It is either to save lives or nothing at all. Which do you chose?


Duke
Death is an inevitiability. Do you know why murder is a crime? Because it speeds a certain individuals death up a lot. There is no way to prove we will save lives by destroying innocent embryos.
 

kal-el

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obras said:
Death is an inevitiability. Do you know why murder is a crime? Because it speeds a certain individuals death up a lot. There is no way to prove we will save lives by destroying innocent embryos.
Yes, death is inevitable...it's just everyone's mileage that distinguishs them. If we can come up with new treatments and/or cures for age old illnessess, you guys have the right to refuse these treatments. I would'nt want to infringe on your religious values.
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
kal-el said:
That's interesting. O well, science has no bounds, so I would'nt be suprised.
Science has made a way to get stem cells from adult fat and skin cells. So I am deffinetly against stem-cell. Just I don't think we should use embryos, because I think it is life, but I hear fat cells work equally as well as embryos. So then I have nothing against stem cell and I don't see why anybody else would.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When did you hear this? Unless something really new came up, it is still super ineffeicent, very expensive, and highly inconvenient to get stem cells from fat or skin. If you didn't know, these embryos must be desroyed anyway, and the only other thing that anyone can do with them is research.


Duke
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obras said:
Death is an inevitiability. Do you know why murder is a crime? Because it speeds a certain individuals death up a lot. There is no way to prove we will save lives by destroying innocent embryos.
Embryonic stem cells are no more alive than your fingernail. There is insurmountable evidence that hundreds of scientests have found that stem cells would cure many diseases, including so large killer ones like AIDS. And, I said about 4 times now, but I'll say it again: there is nothing else to be done with these embryos. Do you understand or should I say it a few more times?
 

Obras

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Duke said:
Embryonic stem cells are no more alive than your fingernail. There is insurmountable evidence that hundreds of scientests have found that stem cells would cure many diseases, including so large killer ones like AIDS. And, I said about 4 times now, but I'll say it again: there is nothing else to be done with these embryos. Do you understand or should I say it a few more times?
I do not care if there is nothing else to be done with the embryos. They shouldn't be destroyed.
 

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obras said:
I do not care if there is nothing else to be done with the embryos. They shouldn't be destroyed.

The only way to keep them from being destroyed is if you have tons of money and freezers, to keep them deep frozen until the end of time.


Duke
 

Obras

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Duke said:
The only way to keep them from being destroyed is if you have tons of money and freezers, to keep them deep frozen until the end of time.


Duke
Then let them die. We don't need to destroy them. Your argument is dangerously close to saying that you can't keep humans alive forever so why don't we take a few 100 live humans and dissect them in the name of science?
 
Top Bottom