The Stem-Cell Research Debate (1 Viewer)

[Duke]

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]

Duke, there's already a thread on stem cell research in the Abortion category.

 

[SKILMATIC]

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]

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]

I did not think to look in the abortion section because this would fall unter Pollitical platforms, not abortions.

 

[Duke]

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]

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]

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]

I have not heard of this, but day-old embryos are not, scientifically, fetuses.


Duke

 

[kal-el]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Gigles]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?