• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

Embryo - the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception

little different from what gets shot into a kleenex

I don't pretend to know what goes on, thats why i said "early abortions". Just telling what I've heard others talk about. Frankly I don't really have an opinion on Stem Cells or Abortion, I just enjoy arguing :devil:.
 
OdgenTugbyGlub said:
I don't pretend to know what goes on, thats why i said "early abortions". Just telling what I've heard others talk about. Frankly I don't really have an opinion on Stem Cells or Abortion, I just enjoy arguing :devil:.

nor was i smugly pontificating about it
just putting out the info for debate

:argue
:fueltofir
:flame:
 
DeeJayH said:
embryonic stem cells result from potential human lifes
it ends that potential when harvested
the other normal, everyday stem cells can be harvested with no ill effect
Embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing to date, as far as i am aware
where as normal stem cells have proven useful and viable, without ending a potential life
how about we explore regular stem cells before ending the lives of future people, when there may be nothing to be gained, but the end of lives

Normal, non-embryonic stem cells have already been explored, and they are extremely hard to harvest, and the process is very expensive. Since the embyos are scheduled for destruction likewise, it comes down to saving lives through research, or doing nothing at all. Embryos are not alive, they become alive at birth.


Duke
 
DeeJayH said:
in the eyes of abortionists
not in the eyes of anti-abortionists

Acctually, in the eyes of the law. :roll:


Duke
 
Duke said:
Acctually, in the eyes of the law. :roll:
Duke

not for long

Dubya
Dubya

righting the havoc on the leftist activist supreme court
One can only hope
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The commercial harvesting of left over embryos for research purposes with create intense economic incentive to create more excess, not less, much the same as the black gooey mess from crude oil refining became the plastics industry.
Except that the mebryos don't polute, so that's a silly argument.
To my knowledge, no practical application has yet arisen from embryonic stem cells.
Before the wright brothers, no practical application of aircrafts had been found either. Guess we should have stopped with De Vinci's drawings and left it there.
And there's that sticky moral dilemma that these embryos are human beings.
No, they aren't. They don't fit what a 'being" is.
Okay, they're really really tiny human beings. But what else are they? Now, as has been said, they're gonna get flushed anyway. They're certainly insensate, but does that alter the morality?
Well, a moment ago, you didn't give a **** about Africans dying from AIDS, and now you care about lumps of cells? I can't decide whether you are a hyporite or whether you were dishoinest somewhere along the road.
If ESCR becomes a commercial proposition, won't increased demand lead to deliberate production of embryonic humans for cultivation and harvesting? What do you think the research will lead to, if not that?
And what is wrong with that? More embryos for stem cells (Well, they are actually not even blastocysts, so they actually aren't embryos either), that sounds like just more material to develope curing cells from.

I can envision one line of research that requires genetically close stem cells for tissue matching purposes...which leads to cloning. Cloning goes to lots of fun places, but let's just say that cloning is both clearer and cloudier than embryonic stem cell research, depending on what you're looking at, and the moral issues are different, also.
Well, if the person waiting for the kidney that you selfishly refuse to give up for his survival instead can clone a stemcell into a kidney and survive that way, what is it then to you?
One of the big concerns on ESCR is that aborted fetuses have the potential to provide enormous quantities of partially or fully differentiated stem cells
That is an incredibly stupid claim. Aborted fetuses are months ahead in development of the stage where pluripotential stemcells can be extracted. The stage where stemcells are extracted is even before the stage where implantation occurs in the uterus.

Stemcells come from petridishes, not from abortions.

It is disturbing when people make silly claims like this; it indicates that they uncritically were listening to the flat-out lies tha the prolife liars are spewing.

How could the research be complete if those avenues aren't explored? Are people going to argue that those parts are going to be tossed in the incinerator anyway, why not use them to save lives?
Because their cells already differentiated. There are no embryonic stemcells left to extract from an implanted embryo or fetus.

Didn't you know this?

On the whole, embryonic stem cell research opens terrible moral doors,
But not the ones that you claim.
At the same time, it's not like embryonic stem cell research is not going on. It's just not going on in the United States, and it's not being paid for by the US taxpayer. How much of that is in your consideration, and why?
Why should we let the processes and industries go to other countries, and leave the high-skilled, well-paying jobs for other countries? How does that serve the tax payer, to rob them of the jobs where they actually would earn enough to pay taxes?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. The driving force behind the embryonic stem cell research debate is the desire of the abortion clinics to find a profitable market for their waste product and to establish a moral justification for their existence.
Aborted embryos or fetuses are to far advanced for peuripotential stemcells to be extracted. The abortion "waste products" are not useful for stemcell research or treatment.

Your knowledge of developmental stages and the research that you are ranting against is astonishingly weak. You frankly are ignorant of what you are speaking about.
 
DeeJayH said:
not for long

Dubya
Dubya

righting the havoc on the leftist activist supreme court
One can only hope

If you call following the dictation of the constitution havoc and activism, then I call you mad.


Duke
 
steen said:
Except that the mebryos don't polute, so that's a silly argument.

So you either lack an understanding of the history of technology, or you lack vision. Which is it?

steen said:
Before the wright brothers, no practical application of aircrafts had been found either. Guess we should have stopped with De Vinci's drawings and left it there.

Funny you should mention that. At the time, Langley was trying to fly a catapult launched aircraft from a ship. It got launched all right. Straight into the water.

The Wright brothers planes worked.

The government funded Langley, the Wright brothers were privately financed. That's an excellent comparison you brought up.

steen said:
No, they aren't. They don't fit what a 'being" is.
Well, a moment ago, you didn't give a **** about Africans dying from AIDS, and now you care about lumps of cells? I can't decide whether you are a hyporite or whether you were dishoinest somewhere along the road.

Africans dying of AIDS had a choice, or their parents did. Needless to say, embryos don't. Africans have their own governments to babysit them. Embryos in American petri dishes have the US Constitution.

steen said:
Well, if the person waiting for the kidney that you selfishly refuse to give up for his survival instead can clone a stemcell into a kidney and survive that way, what is it then to you?

Yep. I'm selfish. There's no higher need than an individual's survival. Since it's my kidney, it's my survival that matters, not theirs. And if it's a baby's stem cells that have to be ripped out at an early stage of development, that baby's survival is more important than a defective with a bad kidney. One man's misfortune doesn't give him a right to destroy another life to compensate.

steen said:
That is an incredibly stupid claim. Aborted fetuses are months ahead in development of the stage where pluripotential stemcells can be extracted. The stage where stemcells are extracted is even before the stage where implantation occurs in the uterus.

That's nonsense. Firstly, there's a sizable after-market now for aborted baby body parts. Secondly, it does depend on what stage of the pregnancy is aborted, yes? Of course yes. Early first trimester scrape and suck abortions will yield vast amounts of the desired stem cells.

steen said:
Stemcells come from petridishes, not from abortions.

Stem cells come from anywhere. Adults have stem cells. There's plenty of useful stem cell material in umbilical cords. Embryonic stem cells, however, can be extracted from abortions.

steen said:
It is disturbing when people make silly claims like this; it indicates that they uncritically were listening to the flat-out lies tha the prolife liars are spewing.

What's really disturbing is the ignorance evident in your post.

steen said:
Why should we let the processes and industries go to other countries, and leave the high-skilled, well-paying jobs for other countries? How does that serve the tax payer, to rob them of the jobs where they actually would earn enough to pay taxes?

Because this is a free country in which R&D is supposed to be conducted by the private sector, and neither the private sector nor the public is allowed to experiment on human beings. Besides which, if an American corporation wished to invest in stem cell research, or the more questionable embryonic stem cell research, well, money's portable. There's no law stopping them from investing in a company off shore. Then American stockholders can own the process, and naturally the moral aspects of any success would impact on the current pro-life opposition.

Funny, though. There's not much news about private investors hopping on the ESCR band wagon. If that ain't a good indication that the science is too immature, nothing is. One should question why political hacks are pressing the issue. They usually only make that kind of noise when they're lining their friends' pockets.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So you either lack an understanding of the history of technology, or you lack vision. Which is it?



Funny you should mention that. At the time, Langley was trying to fly a catapult launched aircraft from a ship. It got launched all right. Straight into the water.

The Wright brothers planes worked.

The government funded Langley, the Wright brothers were privately financed. That's an excellent comparison you brought up.



Africans dying of AIDS had a choice, or their parents did. Needless to say, embryos don't. Africans have their own governments to babysit them. Embryos in American petri dishes have the US Constitution.



Yep. I'm selfish. There's no higher need than an individual's survival. Since it's my kidney, it's my survival that matters, not theirs. And if it's a baby's stem cells that have to be ripped out at an early stage of development, that baby's survival is more important than a defective with a bad kidney. One man's misfortune doesn't give him a right to destroy another life to compensate.



That's nonsense. Firstly, there's a sizable after-market now for aborted baby body parts. Secondly, it does depend on what stage of the pregnancy is aborted, yes? Of course yes. Early first trimester scrape and suck abortions will yield vast amounts of the desired stem cells.



Stem cells come from anywhere. Adults have stem cells. There's plenty of useful stem cell material in umbilical cords. Embryonic stem cells, however, can be extracted from abortions.



What's really disturbing is the ignorance evident in your post.



Because this is a free country in which R&D is supposed to be conducted by the private sector, and neither the private sector nor the public is allowed to experiment on human beings. Besides which, if an American corporation wished to invest in stem cell research, or the more questionable embryonic stem cell research, well, money's portable. There's no law stopping them from investing in a company off shore. Then American stockholders can own the process, and naturally the moral aspects of any success would impact on the current pro-life opposition.

Funny, though. There's not much news about private investors hopping on the ESCR band wagon. If that ain't a good indication that the science is too immature, nothing is. One should question why political hacks are pressing the issue. They usually only make that kind of noise when they're lining their friends' pockets.

Oh, congratulations, you found one government funded project that went wrong. Wow, I wonder if there is anything that the government did right. :roll:

Look at this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/health/4326698.stm
There you go.

About AIDS, it is frequently gotten from unsterilized syringes. That is not a choice. It is transfered in other unsafe medical procedues, like blood transplants.

Embryos in petri dishes are not diddly-squat to the US Constitution, for they are not, legally, alive.

Duke
 
The National Institute of Health Wouldn't Lie
http://stemcells.nih.gov/StemCells/...C05BECED}&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#wherefrom
What classes of stem cells are there?
There are three classes of stem cells: totipotent, multipotent, and pluripotent.

A fertilized egg is considered totipotent, meaning that its potential is total; it gives rise to all the different types of cells in the body.

Stem cells that can give rise to a small number of different cell types are generally called multipotent.

Pluripotent stem cells can give rise to any type of cell in the body except those needed to develop a fetus.

Where do stem cells come from?

Pluripotent stem cells are isolated from human embryos that are a few days old. Cells from these embryos can be used to create pluripotent stem cell "lines" —cell cultures that can be grown indefinitely in the laboratory.

Pluripotent stem cell lines have also been developed from fetal tissue obtained from fetal tissue (older than 8 weeks of development).

Oh, and 91% of abortions are first trimester abortions. Needless to say, an increased demand for pluripotent stem cells would increase the market value of the resource harvested from bimbos.
 
Duke said:
Embryos in petri dishes are not diddly-squat to the US Constitution, for they are not, legally, alive.

"legally alive"? I had some bozo on another thread tell me that taxation isn't theft because it's "legal". Will you lawyers give a honest man a break? The embryo is alive, or this discussion wouldn't be happening.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"legally alive"? I had some bozo on another thread tell me that taxation isn't theft because it's "legal". Will you lawyers give a honest man a break? The embryo is alive, or this discussion wouldn't be happening.


What I am saying is that under the law, a fetus or an embryo is not alive, so abortions are would be murder and so would stem-cell research. Taxation has nearly nothing to do with this, is taxation theft? I would think not. You think that the embryo is alive, I think it is not, hence this discussion continues.


Duke
 
OMG! Will people stop pretending the Embryo isn't alive. Yes, it is alive. So are rectal cells. The fact that it is living is ethically immaterial. It doesn't matter, life or no. Embryos are not persons; they ought to be fully exploited for the greater good. There is net gain, zero loss.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
OMG! Will people stop pretending the Embryo isn't alive. Yes, it is alive. So are rectal cells. The fact that it is living is ethically immaterial. It doesn't matter, life or no. Embryos are not persons; they ought to be fully exploited for the greater good. There is net gain, zero loss.

It is that embryos are not fully alive as human beings.


Duke

(OMG:lol:)
 
True, but who cares anyway? If it were a damn test-tube newborn, and if that were the ony way to get stem-cells, it would still be ok, since the good would outweigh the harm, and the newborn isn't a person anyway any more than than the embryo. It's merely closer to personhood.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
True, but who cares anyway? If it were a damn test-tube newborn, and if that were the ony way to get stem-cells, it would still be ok, since the good would outweigh the harm, and the newborn isn't a person anyway any more than than the embryo. It's merely closer to personhood.


I dissagre, a baby is a human being and a person. It is different than the embryo, for it has been born. Life, actual life is not to be played with like that. Think "Brave New World". ;)


Duke
 
I liked the BNW society...well, for the most part anyway. Bokinovsky process---decantation? Awesome ;) Tht is perhaps the ultimate utilitarian society, taken to the utopian level.


Hypothetically, there is little wrong with an efficient, productive society full of happy workers. It was a dystopic novel that accidentally showed something completely, diametrically opposed to the original intention--a utopia.
 
Last edited:
Duke said:
What I am saying is that under the law, a fetus or an embryo is not alive, so abortions are would be murder and so would stem-cell research. Taxation has nearly nothing to do with this, is taxation theft? I would think not. You think that the embryo is alive, I think it is not, hence this discussion continues.

The taxation bit was an example of some other lawyer-wannabe arguing against the obvious. It's relevance here is limited.

I say the embryo is alive. If it's thawed out and planted in a human uterus, it'll grow up.

What we need to figure out is how you think dead cells can reproduce and create growing lines of research material. Perhaps those "dead" embryos are descendants of Lazarus?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The taxation bit was an example of some other lawyer-wannabe arguing against the obvious. It's relevance here is limited.

I say the embryo is alive. If it's thawed out and planted in a human uterus, it'll grow up.

What we need to figure out is how you think dead cells can reproduce and create growing lines of research material. Perhaps those "dead" embryos are descendants of Lazarus?

I say that when this embryo has been placed in a human uterus and grows up and is born, it is human.
I guess that is what it comes down to, difference in opinion.
I am not saying that these cells are dead, I am saying that they are not human beings.

(Lazarus:roll:)


Duke
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So you either lack an understanding of the history of technology, or you lack vision. Which is it?
Neither. You are merely making false claims.

Africans dying of AIDS had a choice, or their parents did. Needless to say, embryos don't.
But their parents do. Exactly. Thanks for pointing that out. Seems like you just sunk your own artgument. Rather silly of you, but there we are.
Africans have their own governments to babysit them. Embryos in American petri dishes have the US Constitution.
You are actually lying again, as the US Constitution doesn't have the US Constitution to babysit them. Amazing how your argument seems to be based on you trying to present your wishful thinking as a fact. That merely makes you look like a liar.
Yep. I'm selfish. There's no higher need than an individual's survival. Since it's my kidney, it's my survival that matters, not theirs.
And you won't die from donating that extra kidney. You live just fine with just one kidney. So it is no more your life than, f.ex, it is the woman's life when she choses to not give of her bodily resources against her will and have an abortion. You just provided the classic argument for abortion rights.

And if it's a baby's stem cells
It isn't. Babies really don't have meaningful stemcells. We are talking about early embryos. Well, to be technical, we are really talking morulas here, not even yet blastocysts, and therefore not yet membryos in the scientific sense.

that have to be ripped out at an early stage of development, that baby's survival is more important than a defective with a bad kidney.
Other than it not being a baby, it is fascinating that you put a lump of non-sentient, non-sensate cells abobe a person. Guess that for you, life only matter until birth. After that, per your writings, I suspect you merely see them as welfare leeches.
One man's misfortune doesn't give him a right to destroy another life to compensate.
And he wouldn't. Live donation of your extra kidney is safer than giving birth.

Therefore, you should be able to be forced to give that kidney, right? After all, as long as it doesn't kill you, you can be forced to give of your bodily resources against your will, right?
That's nonsense. Firstly, there's a sizable after-market now for aborted baby body parts.
Yes, the prolife lie-sites are full of that lie. Let me see, was it 20/20 who had the guy on there talking about it? How was it he later put it? "[The prolifers] paid me a lot of money,. so I lied and reported all this stuff about selling fetuses."

To bad for your argument that prolifers have been shown to lie time after time after time, until it now is established that they are almost incapable of making an argument without lying.
Secondly, it does depend on what stage of the pregnancy is aborted, yes? Of course yes. Early first trimester scrape and suck abortions will yield vast amounts of the desired stem cells.
Nope.
Stem cells come from anywhere. Adults have stem cells. There's plenty of useful stem cell material in umbilical cords.
Not Pleuropotential stemcells.
Embryonic stem cells, however, can be extracted from abortions.
And your scientific evidence for this claim is...?
What's really disturbing is the ignorance evident in your post.
That you don't understand what I am talking about is evidence of your ignorance of even basic medical science. You projecting your ignorance onto me merely shows that you now are resorting to the more primitive defense mechanisms.
Because this is a free country in which R&D is supposed to be conducted by the private sector, and neither the private sector nor the public is allowed to experiment on human beings.
But then, "beings," individual biological entities, do not include the few cells in a dish anyway, so your claim is nonsense, it is just prolife radical revisionist linguistic hyperbole.
Funny, though. There's not much news about private investors hopping on the ESCR band wagon. If that ain't a good indication that the science is too immature, nothing is. One should question why political hacks are pressing the issue. They usually only make that kind of noise when they're lining their friends' pockets.
How many billions did California just put into state-funded stemcell research? They are probably to late, though. Singapore is rapidly cornering the market, and can then be the next pharmaceutical giant, leaving American Enterprise foundering. Prolifers must be Luddites.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I say the embryo is alive. If it's thawed out and planted in a human uterus, it'll grow up.
And if the sperm is ejaculated and planted in an egg, it can grow to be that embryo.:roll:
 
Steen, he's also lying on the "survival is the highest need of the individual" nonsense. This is also where Ayn 'batshit-insane" Rand gets biology wrong as well. I am suprised you didn't bring up the concept of Biological Altruism n nature to refute this nonsense quickly. In nature, both humans as well as other animals frequently sacrifice their safety, lives for the good of others. Survival isn't the highest need; reproduction and continuity of line are in animals. Survival of the individual is secondary to that.
 
Last edited:
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Steen, he's also lying on the "survival is the highest need of the individual" nonsense. This is also where Ayn 'batshit-insane" Rand gets biology wrong as well. I am suprised you didn't bring up the concept of Biological Altruism n nature to refute this nonsense quickly. In nature, both humans as well as other animals frequently sacrifice their safety, lives for the good of others. Survival isn't the highest need; reproduction and continuity of line are in animals. Survival of the individual is secondary to that.
You are right in that. In some populations, that even is the way the population works, where the members of a group duke it out and the whole clan then goes to the mating grounds where the rest of the group then runs interference for the winner against all the other groups (There was a fascinating writeup in one of the popular journals about that a few years ago regarding walrushes).

But no, I am rarely surprised when creationists lie. That seems to be just about all they do.
 
Back
Top Bottom