I don't think I'm whacked-out if I believe that stem-cell research is a very important development that should be researched in the United States. It's really interesting to hear some people saying how it's "playing god" and "unethical" until a family member gets diagnosed with a terminal disease and they need a new organ. I think the problem with the whole debate is that critics are shifting the image of stem-cell research towards actual human cloning. I highly doubt that many of us consider human cloning to be the purpose or a constructive use of stem-cell research.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Stem Cell Research
- Thread starter Agaric
- Start date
Werbung:
You've reminded me that I want to open discussion on the moral aspects of cloning. I'll chuck in some precursors to that here then:
The charge of playing god is usually an implicit appeal to naturalism: "Thou shalt not overstep the boundaries of that which you should be able to do."
This in itself is a meaningless charge. Where it might have significant import is as an admonition for scientists not to fall to hubris, and presume that we are able to do much more than we can in our excitement, as our understanding is at all times incomplete.
Most medical practicioners and researchers agree that stem cell research really has much potential medically and IS very important. Bush laid down the veto to additional funding because he believed that what stem cell research entails was tantamount to destroying human lives...which is consistent if vacuous- but he forgot to look up the facts of just how many 'human lives' our current practices were already destroying.
The charge of playing god is usually an implicit appeal to naturalism: "Thou shalt not overstep the boundaries of that which you should be able to do."
This in itself is a meaningless charge. Where it might have significant import is as an admonition for scientists not to fall to hubris, and presume that we are able to do much more than we can in our excitement, as our understanding is at all times incomplete.
Most medical practicioners and researchers agree that stem cell research really has much potential medically and IS very important. Bush laid down the veto to additional funding because he believed that what stem cell research entails was tantamount to destroying human lives...which is consistent if vacuous- but he forgot to look up the facts of just how many 'human lives' our current practices were already destroying.
Furious George
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 223
We live in the 21st Century. We have the technology, and the man power to have a working cure for terminal illnesses.
I don't think people connect this issue (morally) so much with cloning as they do with abortion. I'm not so up to speed on this issue, but I believe some of the supposedly more valuable stem cells have to come from aborted embryos. At minimum you could say its unpleasant to need to create a human embryo for the purpose of aborting it. So I can see the objection: If you're anti-abortion, this is way worse in that you're intentionally concieving for the purpose of aborting.
I just googled it and found this. Aparently they can produce some types of stem cells now without killing the embryo they take them from. Unfortunately it doesn't end the debate because the church and many folks in congress equate this to creating, then killing a twin.
If it were up to me, this cell extracting is happening at such an early stage in the development of an embryo (it only has 8 cells at the time that it's done) that I can't really see a big problem with it other than deciding how far the embryo has to mature before it inhereits human rights. (and thus couldn't be harvested) How far down that hill its appropriate to go is very unclear to me.
I just googled it and found this. Aparently they can produce some types of stem cells now without killing the embryo they take them from. Unfortunately it doesn't end the debate because the church and many folks in congress equate this to creating, then killing a twin.
If it were up to me, this cell extracting is happening at such an early stage in the development of an embryo (it only has 8 cells at the time that it's done) that I can't really see a big problem with it other than deciding how far the embryo has to mature before it inhereits human rights. (and thus couldn't be harvested) How far down that hill its appropriate to go is very unclear to me.
They're clutching at straws. I would lay the charge that they are now defending their position for the purpose of blocking all advancement in this field as opposed to actually sticking to their purported principles let alone that of the central doctrines of their religion.
This first reminds me of a similar debate on the abortion thread. Also, I'm somewhat skeptical about the removal of said cell having no harmful effect as I suspect that "the butterfly effect" should be at least considered here. Then again, I should probably wait until I know more about embryology before I comment further on the science.
Furious George
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 223
I'm pretty sure we can now harvest Stem Cells from skin tissues on our hands. Not to mention, you can extract them from the Placenta after birth.
Well, our country can debate all it wants over the viability of a small clump of cells, but meanwhile other countries are getting leaps and bounds ahead of us in stem-cell research. I'm sure one of these days Bush will start to piss blood and change his mind to "God wants me to approve stem cell research so I can stop pissing blood."
I agree. I think, as long as they get the stem cells from miscarriages or even abortions ( but then look who would be selling them ................) then why not use our technology?
No sales!
lizakollman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 54
i think this is a great quote, and amazingly well written! hahaha!
I hadn’t seen this post before, so I thought I would weigh in with my two cents. I am going to take a leap of faith and say that my views are different from what most of the posters in here have said.
When discussing stem cell research, you must make the distinction between Adult Stem Cell research and Embryonic Stem Cell research. The Adult Stem Cell research has already provided numerous cures and treatments, and holds the potential for much more. Embryonic Stem Cell research has provided zero cures and zero treatment. Bush blocked funding to it, but only federal funding. If any private group our individual wants to sink their money into embryonic stem cell research, they are legally able to. So if the embryonic form of this has as much potential as many claim it does, why have there been no cures or treatments discovered from it? If it is the miracle way forward, why aren’t companies and investors jumping at the chance to be involved with it? If embryonic stem cell research could cure cancer, or any other terminal illness, wouldn’t an assortment of companies want their name attached to it?
I vehemently oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research. In my humble opinion, the process kills a life with out any justification. If we begin to pursue it, where do we stop? Do we start looking at patients in a nursing home or prison as a source of new genetic material? And this is without even discussing the cloning aspects.
I have seen a few articles that say some of the same embryonic material can be taken from the amniotic fluid without any harm being done to the embryo or the mother. I need to look into it more, but I could support that.
When discussing stem cell research, you must make the distinction between Adult Stem Cell research and Embryonic Stem Cell research. The Adult Stem Cell research has already provided numerous cures and treatments, and holds the potential for much more. Embryonic Stem Cell research has provided zero cures and zero treatment. Bush blocked funding to it, but only federal funding. If any private group our individual wants to sink their money into embryonic stem cell research, they are legally able to. So if the embryonic form of this has as much potential as many claim it does, why have there been no cures or treatments discovered from it? If it is the miracle way forward, why aren’t companies and investors jumping at the chance to be involved with it? If embryonic stem cell research could cure cancer, or any other terminal illness, wouldn’t an assortment of companies want their name attached to it?
I vehemently oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research. In my humble opinion, the process kills a life with out any justification. If we begin to pursue it, where do we stop? Do we start looking at patients in a nursing home or prison as a source of new genetic material? And this is without even discussing the cloning aspects.
I have seen a few articles that say some of the same embryonic material can be taken from the amniotic fluid without any harm being done to the embryo or the mother. I need to look into it more, but I could support that.
Andy D. (and anyone else who cares to chime in), how to you feel about the recently discovered potential of amniotic stem cell research? I think it is a better option than embryonic stem cell research; I believe I remember a quote where they allege that small amounts of fluid taken from as little as 100,000 volunteer mothers has the potential to cure as many people as the population of the U.S. Do you think amniotic stem cell research is viable?
mamab
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 251
I have to agree with Andy D. I oppose Embryonic Stem Cell research as well. From everything I've read, it just hasn't produced the results they want it to.
In regard to the amniotic stem cell research, I don't have a problem with it as I understand it. They take amniotic fluid to check for birth defects/abnormalities, so obviously it isn't harmful to the mother or the baby. The baby produces more amniotic fluid, so it would be replaced. I haven't heard that statement, but if it would actually produce viable results, I'd be for it.
In regard to the amniotic stem cell research, I don't have a problem with it as I understand it. They take amniotic fluid to check for birth defects/abnormalities, so obviously it isn't harmful to the mother or the baby. The baby produces more amniotic fluid, so it would be replaced. I haven't heard that statement, but if it would actually produce viable results, I'd be for it.
Werbung:
I think the amniotic stem cell research sounds ok. At this point, it is still in the same phase as embryonic in that no one knows for sure what can or can not be done with the material that is collected. I can support amniotic if it doesn't harm the mother or the embryo.
Similar threads
