DescentBB

Kerry says if elected, one of the first things he'll allow is stem cell research. Couldn't agree more. Letting religious views interfer with the potential benefits to the human race that stem cell research promises is uncognizable. Bush should not have put the
kabash on this one.

true...but ill believe it when i see it

let see how birds handles his new job.

off to E&C.

i'm all for it. if we can grow new body parts when one of our own fails, how can that possibly be bad?

it would be different if people were sneaking into people's homes at night and aborting fetuses to use to sell kidney's on the black market, but we're talking about fetuses that will be aborted anyway, stem-cell research or not, right?

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you all here. True, the embryos used for stem-cell research will most likely be discarded or remain frozen. This doesn't make it any more right to destroy them. As has been often said, the end does not justify the means. How long do you think it will be until embryos are created for the express purpose of stem cell research? How scary is the concept of an embryo farm? There are fine alternative sources of stem cells, including umbilical cords and the adult human body. These sources do not contain any attached ethical issues and will allow research in this direction to continue. I have already heard of stem cells being taken from elsewhere in a cancer patient's body and used at the site of the cancer to re-grow healthy cells. A great deal of potential exists in stem-cell research without the need for embryos. Also, this isn't a strictly religious issue; I'm sure there are many who are not particularly religious who are opposed to embryonic stem-cell research as well. Remember, just because a certain technology is possible does not mean it should be utilized without restraint; see human cloning for another example.

Top Gun wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you all here.

...

A great deal of potential exists in stem-cell research without the need for embryos.

So... how do you disagree here?

Top Gun wrote:Remember, just because a certain technology is possible does not mean it should be utilized without restraint; see human cloning for another example.

see also; Top Gun's avatar.

Sure why not ban it here and let the research go ahead in places like India where no one cares who is selling fetuses for research. That way when the technology is perfected we can all benifit without feeling dirty.

Right. Lets face it guys you can ban whatever you like in North America but if it has potential to become a multi-billion dollar market (how much would you pay to save your child's life) it will be developed somewhere. The best we can do is put some kind of regulations on it and try to keep the scum out of the market.

exactly.

I think a lot of Americans tend to forget that we arn't the world and we cannot stop progress.

The issue isn't if stem cell research will be done with embryos. The issue is if stem cell research will be done in the United States, with embryos.

You don't need a fetus to harvest stem cells. You only need a blastocyst. Blastocysts haven't embedded themselves into the wall of the uterus yet.

You probably know more that me about it Dcrazy but isn't quantity an issue with blastocysts?

Tetrad, I disagree with allowing embryonic stem cell research, as Kerry proposes. President Bush placed limits on stem cells derived from embryos but not from other sources.

Kufyit: What does my avatar have to do with anything? It's not uninhibited use of technology; it's a piece of military hardware. I don't see your point.

Ford, Gooberman, et al.: I'm aware that the United States can't control legislation in other countries. However, we can control what goes on on our own soil. At least for now, I'm not looking for a global ban on embryonic stem cell research. Even though I'd support it, I know it's impossible.

DCrazy: I'm aware that the embryos used are early in development. This doesn't change my stance.

Top Gun: Umbilical cords are formed from the outer wall of the blastocyst (the trophoblast). You can't harvest pure stem cells from there. Likewise, true stem cells cannot create the extra-embryonic stuff that the trophoblast becomes, such as the placenta or umbilical cord.

Ford Prefect: Though you're right, in that blastocysts don't grow on trees, once stem cells have been harvested they can be cultured.

Scientific facts about this stuff (where I'm getting most of my information): http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... Cells.html

Topgun: you can't use a piece of military hardware (as you put it) for whatever someone wants.

Topgun will you try to ban a cure for Alzhimers, or a therapy for spinal injury recovery if it comes from stem cell research?
I think not, and since it is impossible to withold a cure like that from the U.S. then you might as well accept the moral difficulties of the research.

Sigh... until they start using force to harvest embryos, or start using born infants, I don't see much of a problem of any kind. But then, I have been noted as pretty liberal...

The problem is, we cannot start "harvesting" (killing) fetuses for stem cells without putting ourselves on the edge of a cliff. You know how these things work, once you start down a path you finish it. How has that ever failed to come about? Your actions have consequences. When you've done something once, it's easier to do it again, or in slightly different form. At first it'll be only already-killed fetuses, then people start killing their fetuses so that they can donate stem cells, and before long we have a blood donation system with stem cells--except that each "donation" is marked by the death of a child. I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but when have we ever started something and stopped before we finished? We started pushing Indians off their lands despite the fact that we had plenty of our own; now the Indians are either on reservations or mixed with the American culture. When we start things, we tend to finish. When we start harvesting cells from dead babies, we put ourselves on a slope that might not end until we are killing our kids on a regular basis so that we can give a few people longer lives. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the life of an unborn child is more important than extending the life of someone who has already lived a full life and has a terminal illness.

That said, we don't HAVE to "harvest" stem cells from embryos. There ARE alternate methods. They might not be as effective, and I don't claim to know much about it, but isn't it better to save a child's life and give even a slightly diminished chance to the recipient of the cells?

i thought i heard ron reagan give a speech on it where he said you can use your own skin cells. it was on the talk radio station out here last week on the drive home from work. not sure how anyone can make a moral issue out of using your own skin to grow yourself a new liver, but i guess we'll see eh?

Yes you're right Stryker it is a slippery slope. If a value is placed on something such as stem cells then there will be those who will sell them, and do things to produce those cells that most people will find distastefull to say the least. But that augers more for controlled research than for banned research. Ban it here in North America and it will take place in much less controlled circumstances elsewhere. Control it here with pressure to develop ways to produce stem cells from non-living sources and then, when a cure is discovered for some serious illness, that cure will not have to come from cells harvested in some third world country in circumstances that you won't like. And if there is a cure it will be used in North America no matter where it comes from or the source of the cells.
Like I say would you deny your injured child the chance to walk again?

You can't fear progress because of what might happen, especially with the prospect of curing major diseases and disabilities. We can argue all day about the ethics of killing fetuses (or fetii, as I like to call em) but as far as I'm concerned, I put the already-living before some faceless fetus. If I can cure diabetes or spinal chord injuries in exchange for some unborn blastocytes (not even really babies yet) then who are you or anyone else to deny them of their cure?

An unborn fetus can respond to pain, move intelligently, suck its thumb, etc. Just how is it not a child? It doesn't have much of a face yet, does it? 1-week old babies don't have much difference between their faces either, do they? Is a fetus not supposed a child, because we can't hear it laughing, crying, and talking to us? Does that mean we can kill them because we want to? And they aren't the only way to have stem cell research, as most of you seem to believe. Try looking into some alternate methods of getting stem cells; you'll be surprised.

As for the government pushing the stem cell research in the right direction, that's all well and good, but in the meantime, fetuses are dying to furnish stem cells. We can argue all day long; it'll come down to a few basic facts in the end.

1. If killing fetuses is wrong, "harvesting" stem cells from them is also wrong

2. Fetuses can respond to sensory stimulation. They might not be able to think logically yet, but so what? Do dogs act any more intelligently than these fetuses can? Are we allowed to kill dogs at will?

3. The Government can't do everything. They can push stem cell research in the right direction, but it will still remain cheaper just to take a killed fetus and get the cells off it for a long time to come. In the meantime, fetuses will be dying to feed this desire for stem cells. Plus, if it turns out that we cannot grow stem cells without a fetus, we probably won't end up banning using stem cells from fetuses, will we?

3. THERE ARE ALTERNATE METHODS!!! Who needs the fetuses to die so we can get their stem cells, anyway? If there are alternate methods, why not use them only? It's not like fetuses are some overwhelming fountain of miraculous stem cells that will cure every disease known to mankind. Got diabetes? Eat less sugar. People never used to suffer from diabetes. They also used to eat about 20 pounds of sugar/year/person. Today, we eat over 160 pounds/year/person. People didn't suffer from cancer much long ago. They also didn't have microwaves, nuclear power plants, TVs, or computers. Who wants to make the connection? But that's another subject for another topic.

Stryker wrote:3. THERE ARE ALTERNATE METHODS!!! Who needs the fetuses to die so we can get their stem cells, anyway?

They're going to die anyway.

Stryker wrote:An unborn fetus can respond to pain, move intelligently, suck its thumb, etc. Just how is it not a child?

just for the record, they would be using fetuses from wayyyyy before the point where it could even have a thumb, as by that time the stem cells are already developed into unique cells to make that baby's thumb and are useless for stem cell research.

Say your child was shot to death in some spurt of school violence. Would you cut off the hand of your dead kid so that someone you don't know *MIGHT* have a new hand? Why don't we just cut up dead bodies and use the parts for the people that are living? Hey, we won't even need funerals any more!

...

You are entirely missing the point. Once a human is born there are no stem cells left!

And you know that organ donation checkbox on the back of your driver's license? What do you think they do with the organs you let them take?

DCrazy wrote:What do you think they do with the organs you let them take?

Play the funeral march?

Stryker wrote:Why don't we just cut up dead bodies and use the parts for the people that are living?

Excellent idea. And as noted, we already do it!

Also, none of these "alternative methods" produce pluripotent stem-cells, that is, cells able to become any cell type. Their limit is somewhere around three or four types per source, and they are limited in their ability to split, too.

Once a human is born they still have stem cells. As WOA pointed out, these cells are not capable of becoming any cell. Still, there are various types of these cells throughout the body, each type capable of becoming any of 3-4 different types of cells. People choose to donate organs after they die. That's their choice. Babies don't have that choice. WOA, you missed my point with the dead body comparison. yes, we already do it. But those people aren't forced to become donors, fetuses are!

Stryker wrote:Why don't we just cut up dead bodies and use the parts for the people that are living?

This comment is making me wonder whether Stryker might be kidding or playing devil's advocate throughout this thread. Are you serious, Stryker?

Also, will everyone please stop referring to blastocysts and embryos as fetuses? There is no fetus until around 3 months after conception. I don't think a fetus would be any more useful than a grown adult for stem cell research.

I don't see any sane reason to think that a tiny ball of identical cells has any more mind, consciousness, soul, or right to life than a carrot.

aldel wrote:Also, will everyone please stop referring to blastocysts and embryos as fetuses? There is no fetus until around 3 months after conception. I don't think a fetus would be any more useful than a grown adult for stem cell research.

I don't see any sane reason to think that a tiny ball of identical cells has any more mind, consciousness, soul, or right to life than a carrot.

That doesnt make them any less human than us.

Now, my feelings against abortion aside, I see absolutely no reason why we shouldnt be able to take stem cells from aborted embryos/fetuses/blastocysts/whatever. There are some things you can only do with those kinds of stem cells currently and I think we need to be getting on it. If and when we find a way to do everything with non-embryonic stem cells than we can cut them out of the loop entirely, but until then we owe it to every american who has a non-cureable illness to research these avenues for treatment.

Kerry is pro-abortion!! You can't possibly let someone like that in office!!!

You know, stem cell research can be done with adult stem cells, which doesn't kill the person unlike babies!

Those "embryos/fetuses/blastocysts/whatever" are REAL PEOPLE!!! Aren't you glad your mother didn't kill YOU?? If those baby humans could say anything about it, don't you think they'd want to live??!! duh!

I quote my PD sig: Why do people MURDER their children simply for convenience???!!! Abortion just doesn't make any sense!!!

For the record, those babies do have souls.

Don't forget, adoption is a wonderful option!

Kerry is pro-abortion!! You can't possibly let someone like that in office!!!

So much better to let in a "war president"!

Kd527 wrote:Kerry is pro-abortion!! You can't possibly let someone like that in office!!!

Kerry is pro choice. I dont think anyone would advocate that it is good to have an abortion, just that it is good to have it as an option. I have mixed feelings on the subject. I believe that in a perfect world abortions would never be needed because everyone would have access to birth control and proper meical care while dealing with a pregnancy, and miscarriages, rape, and incest would never happen. Unfortunately we are not in an ideal world and some people dont have access to birth control and proper medical care. Some pregnancies go terribly wrong and endanger the mother, and children are convieved by incest and the horrors of rape. Unfortunately in those times there is a place for an OPTION to have abortion. It may not make it any less greusome, but it is unfortunately needed.

Kd527 wrote:You know, stem cell research can be done with adult stem cells, which doesn't kill the person unlike babies!

At present not all things that can be done with embryonic stem cells can be done with adult stem cells. If and when it becomes possible to do all the things we can do with embryonic stem cells with ault stem cells, I will be the first one to call for the banning of embryonic stem cell research.

Kd527 wrote:Those "embryos/fetuses/blastocysts/whatever" are REAL PEOPLE!!! Aren't you glad your mother didn't kill YOU?? If those baby humans could say anything about it, don't you think they'd want to live??!! duh!

If I had known as an embryo when I know now about what kind of life I would have ended up enduring, and the idiotic people I would have ended up alling my "family", I'm not quite sure if I would have wanted to be aborted or not.

Kd527 wrote:I quote my PD sig: Why do people MURDER their children simply for convenience???!!! Abortion just doesn't make any sense!!!

If it is an abortion of convenience I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is a despicable practice and selfish people who abort children for their own selfish ambitions should indeed be called murderers. But there are sometimes occasionally other circumstances at work. Sometimes the preganacy would almost certainly kill the mother and to save her an abortion is the only answer or else both could die. Or the child was convieved of rape and the mother would be unable to love the child the way it deserves thanks to the emotional scarring. How would you like to be a child born of rape and know that when your mother looks at you, all she can see is the rapists face? It is sad, yes, but it can be slightly better than the alternative.

Kd527 wrote:For the record, those babies do have souls.

And those souls are with God now. Be happy that they are in a better place than we are.

Remarks like, "OH T3H NOES!! KIRRY IS TeH BAbAY KIELLAR!" aren't going to garner your posts a lot of respect around here, Kd. People tend to pay a little more attention to well-developed arguments, not bold, italic and/or red text with capitalized buzz words and excessive punctuation.

I'm actually rather surprised that this debate hasn't segued into human cloning at all. It seems that creating a clone of one's self and using that to gather stem cells from for research, gene therapy, etc. would be much more appealing than having to even use the phrase "harvest a fetus." Granted, that would practically double the cost of such research and treatments, but it gets even harder to argue the morality of denying someone life (since you are alive already, after all).

As for embryonic stem cell research in its current form, though currently I feel the benefits outweigh the costs, I have a couple of mild aprehensions. I wouldn't mind knowing what the source of the embryos is and what compensation might be getting delivered to the "parents". The idea of some sleaze-bag ex-used car salesman cajoling would-be parents into selling a would-be child to Phizer, Bristol-Meyer , et. al. is no less than a bit nausiating. Of course, it could be worse, but not too many expectant-mothers waking up in a bathtub full of ice-- Well, you see what urban legend that's leaning towards already.

Using an embryo sitting in cold storage that was donated or would have been aborted doesn't really bother me at all though. They're little bundles of cells that can be stimulated to grow into replacement body parts, nerve cells, and other tissues that the human body can't reproduce very well on its own.

So much better to let in a "war president"!

Despite Goob's glibness, he's hitting near a valid point with this. In war (this is a general statement, not a criticism of any particular war), nations send soldiers, theorizing that each dead soldier saves the lives of ten, a hundred, a thousand, or any other number of people. Now let's say you could take one human embryo and clone it over and over, as necessary, using its stem cells for researching and manufacturing treatments to previously incureable and/or untreatable diseases. One embryo, copied over and over and over, to wipe out diabetes, develop a cure for altzheimers, regrow damaged spinal cord tissue, replace lost limbs, etc., etc., etc. How's that compare to a single soldier dying in war? Of course, it can't be done on US soil at present, since the Bush Jr. administration has banned human cloning and embryonic stem cell research.

The problem with cloning is that the clone will never be as good as the original. Humans just can't copy something as complex as a cell.

This should be a moot point, as we can get WAY more stem cells out of an adult than we can any fetus. The cells are even more pure than fetus cells.
On a side note, Abortion is wrong, as the fetus is 100% capable of surviving to be a fully functional human being, therefore it's murder.

I can't even tell if that is sarcasm...

My sarcasm-o-meter is going haywire. I can't trust it anymore. I accuse one person of not saying what they believe... which was possibly rude of me, sorry about that... and now I'm starting to wonder about everything I read. Serves me right, I guess.

Stryker wrote:Say your child was shot to death in some spurt of school violence. Would you cut off the hand of your dead kid so that someone you don't know *MIGHT* have a new hand? Why don't we just cut up dead bodies and use the parts for the people that are living? Hey, we won't even need funerals any more!

because they wouldnt be stem cells, they'd be hand cells.

Goob, I honestly don't think it is. This thread has been overrun.