Embryonic Stem Cell Research (with embryos)

Haven't had this discussion in a while.

Killing babies is bad, even if it's for science. Yes, that sounds stupid, but it's true. Everyone calls embryo's "potential", but that's a major understatement. Embryo's have reached the point where they are as likely to die as a five-year-old child.

It boils down to where you draw the line for being human. Is it when the heart beats? Is it when brain function occurs? Is it when it gains self consciousness? Is it when the baby is born? Is it when it graduates from high school? My point is that these are all just random things that happen throughout growth, so what makes one more significant than the other?

"Self consciousness" is widely accepted as the drawn line, but is it okay to kill an unconscious man just because he won't realize it? Of course not!

And no, sperm and egg cells do not have the potential to become a human, only when together do they have that chance. Thus, unless they are together, they have zero potential and are not humans.

No human has ever been cured by embryonic stem cells to this day, only rats; and, in most of those cases, the only reason the rats were cured is because they grew the embryonic stem cells into adult stem cells.

Also, Japanese scientists have devised a way to turn skin cells into embryonic stem cells, so what's the point of using actual embryos? There is none.

Case and point: embryonic stem cells is a waste of time and money and is flat out wrong.

I honestly don't see how the majority of embryos used for stem cell research/procedures have the potential to grow into living human beings.

An embryo that is cloned from another... for the sheer purpose of science... as nearly all are... never had the potential to be born. They were created solely for the purpose of being harveste for their stem cells. Were it not for that purpose, they never would have been created in the first place.

I realize that there are other methods, but you can't deny the obvious benefits of having an endless supply of Stem Cells through the use of embryotic duplication.

Your statement about Embryotic Stem Cell Research never being responsible for a medical success is somewhat irrelevant, seeing as it is illegal in 22 states, and does not recieve any federal funding. Either way, it has certainly been indirectly helpful towards the progression of the methodology.

I am open to other methods, if only to shut up those preaching about 'immorality,' but I certainly don't think the practice is wrong, by any stretch of the word.

ReconToaster wrote:I honestly don't see how the majority of embryos used for stem cell research/procedures have the potential to grow into living human beings.

An embryo that is cloned from another... for the sheer purpose of science... as nearly all are... never had the potential to be born. They were created solely for the purpose of being harveste for their stem cells. Were it not for that purpose, they never would have been created in the first place.

In this case, you're adding environment to the potential. The body automatically cares for the embryo and thus potential is great, but without it being on the body, the embryo requires manual care.

In this case, you're suggesting that because nobody cares about the embryo becoming an adult, it has little to no potential, which is true. But in that case, we are still murdering it, as we are still the ones stopping it from becoming an adult.

ReconToaster wrote:I realize that there are other methods, but you can't deny the obvious benefits of having an endless supply of Stem Cells through the use of embryonic duplication.

Sure I can. We can clone adult stem cells, from which all cures have come, and they do not become adults. We can reverse-engineer skin cells and they have no chance of becoming adults. But embryos can, and if taken care of, will become adults.

ReconToaster wrote:Your statement about Embryotic Stem Cell Research never being responsible for a medical success is somewhat irrelevant, seeing as it is illegal in 22 states, and does not recieve any federal funding.

Under Bush, funding was given to stem cells that were already harvested. They got all the money they needed, and still couldn't produce results. Plus there are 28 other states and the rest of the world. There's been enough work done on it to prove that they are less useful than adult stem cells (as most of them ended up being grown into adult stem cells).

ReconToaster wrote:I am open to other methods, if only to shut up those preaching about 'immorality,' but I certainly don't think the practice is wrong, by any stretch of the word.

Judge how you wish, so long as you have backing behind your judgment.

CivBase wrote:Haven't had this discussion in a while.

For a good reason.

ReconToaster wrote: An embryo that is cloned from another... for the sheer purpose of science... as nearly all are... never had the potential to be born. They were created solely for the purpose of being harveste for their stem cells. Were it not for that purpose, they never would have been created in the first place.

But there are still lines derived from aborted babies, which could be discontinued and replaced with the lines derived from skin cells.

ReconToaster wrote:I realize that there are other methods, but you can't deny the obvious benefits of having an endless supply of Stem Cells through the use of embryotic duplication.

And all we want is for some of those lines to be replaced by stem cells retrieved from less controversial methods.
Think about it: If we do that, this whole debate is over.

ReconToaster wrote:I am open to other methods, if only to shut up those preaching about 'immorality,' but I certainly don't think the practice is wrong, by any stretch of the word.

I would like some of those people to be shut up too. Namely that quack doctor on Oprah who claims women can stay young forever by taking hormone supplements, and those nutjobs who proclaim that scientific immortality is nigh.

Some people need to be hauled out of the clouds and grounded to reality.

Civ wrote:In this case, you're suggesting that because nobody cares about the embryo becoming an adult, it has little to no potential, which is true. But in that case, we are still murdering it, as we are still the ones stopping it from becoming an adult.

Call it what you like, but it still never had the chance of living in the first place. No potential.

Now, if scientists were going out and snatching embryo's from pregnant women... that would be a different story.

Civ wrote:We can clone adult stem cells, from which all cures have come, and they do not become adults. We can reverse-engineer skin cells and they have no chance of becoming adults.

That's great. We should keep up the effort on making that an easier process, and making it more widespread. I'm not arguing that Embryonic Stem Cell Research is the best option, but instead, that it is not 'immoral.'

Rasq wrote:For a good reason.

*holds up left hand and places right hand on something written by Richard Dawkins

"I hereby solemnly swear not to turn this into a religious argument."

Rasq wrote:But there are still lines derived from aborted babies, which could be discontinued and replaced with the lines derived from skin cells.

Are you referring to abortions had in the 'Name of Science,' or fetuses that are aborted for unrelated reasons, and donated to medicine? If it is the latter of the two, then I can't say there's anything wrong with that. If it's already been aborted, you might as well make use of the remains.

Rasq wrote:And all we want is for some of those lines to be replaced by stem cells retrieved from less controversial methods.
Think about it: If we do that, this whole debate is over.

Agreed

Rasq wrote:I would like some of those people to be shut up too. Namely that quack doctor on Oprah who claims women can stay young forever by taking hormone supplements, and those nutjobs who proclaim that scientific immortality is nigh.

Yeah, I read some article in 'The Rolling Stone' about some scientist who claims that we are closing in on the age of 'Singularity,' wherein humans will be made one with machines, and the dead can be brought back to life.

I *facepalmed.

I'm not gonna stick around for another Holy War between the Atheists and everyone else.

Bye.

If the babies already being aborted, I don't care if science uses it.

But most stem cell research isn't being done with embryo's anyway.

If we aren't using embryo's.... this is pointless, although, so are all our other 'debates'

I believe in stem cell research at any cost, potential is potential, but thats only potential. Potential is not tangible, and you can use that research and knowledge to save something that is real. A living human...

My sister is actually into this field, especially since the ban was repealed in my state.

x Gauz x wrote:I believe in stem cell research at any cost, potential is potential, but thats only potential. Potential is not tangible, and you can use that research and knowledge to save something that is real. A living human...

You have potential to become an adult... but you're not... so ima kill you. Oh, wait, you're talking about being a human, not an adult... in that case, where do you draw the line?

It's true, embryos that were already aborted should be able to be used for embryonic stem cell research... but abortion is wrong IMO, for reasons I have already stated.

But I already am a born human, I do believe I am worth more than a fetus..

While it is the destruction of a life, why does it matter? It is the parents option, and the parents do not want to go through birth. Forcing someone to give birth is not someting I would have done.

A lot of things can go wrong with birth..

a lot of things can go wrong with people to.

Also, you can't really abort fetuses. Since the embryo only becomes a fetus just barely before the last time you can legally abort it. And its even long after that that the fetus develops any form of conscious.

KristallNacht wrote:a lot of things can go wrong with people to.

My sentiments exactly... God this is like the second time I've agreed with you. Something aint right...

But I'd say for this then adoption is the better action - people always need adopted kids (or so sitcoms have lead me to believe). Whereas the birth thing is harder to dismiss.

CivBase wrote:

x Gauz x wrote:I believe in stem cell research at any cost, potential is potential, but thats only potential. Potential is not tangible, and you can use that research and knowledge to save something that is real. A living human...

You have potential to become an adult... but you're not... so ima kill you. Oh, wait, you're talking about being a human, not an adult... in that case, where do you draw the line?

It's true, embryos that were already aborted should be able to be used for embryonic stem cell research... but abortion is wrong IMO, for reasons I have already stated.

You are arguing that something that has the potential to become something else should be treated as that something else. While I disagree with that notion, I also (as I've stated) disagree that embryos used for this had any potential in the first place.

THEY WERE CLONED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING HARVESTED. WERE IT NOT FOR THAT CAUSE, THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN CLONED IN THE FIRST PLACE. The argument you are giving is almost spiritual, which I don't want to get in to, but these things are created in a lab environment. The conception is staged by scientists, and then very soon after, harvested. The merging of sperm and egg does not automatically make something suddenly devine and untouchable. Such an argument is silly.

"You was just workin' with them sperm, but now one got into that there egg over there, so you best not touch it cause that'd be gosh darn immoral."

ReconToaster wrote: The merging of sperm and egg does not automatically make something suddenly devine and untouchable. Such an argument is silly.

Since it is genetically distinct from the mother, I think the argument of "My body, my choice" is null. It hasn't been used yet, but I'd like to preempt it.

Also, as we said, it will have the potential to become a human being. It's as tangible as a 50 ton boulder rolling down a mountainside.

ReconToaster wrote: "You was just workin' with them sperm, but now one got into that there egg over there, so you best not touch it cause that'd be gosh darn immoral."

So... what was the egg and the sperm doing in the same petri dish again?