I say go for it, it's just another way for people to play God. :|

 

It depends how and for what these stem cells help for...I know we can cure cancer with it (least in theory?) but can we predetermine baby's eye, skin, hair colour, etc?

 

That's something that would come from genetic engineering in general. I think Stem Cell only affects regenerating cells. Then again, I know the bare minimum about it :lol:

I support all forms of stem-cell research, ESPECIALLY embryonic, as it's the most crucial and leaves for the most possibilities.

 

 

 

Kind of like this:

 

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 122757.ece

This controversy is obsolete. No one is going to bother harvesting embryonic stem cells when they are only available for 10 days during the development of an embryo. The Bush administration's ban on federal funding for that type of research forced scientists to look for other methods of creating pluripotent cells, and they found them. You can reprogram them from hair. A billion times easier and without the sticky ethical issues.

 

 

 

but but I love my hair :cry:

 

 

 

Anyone else find it painfully ironic that Bush actually helped science?

I say it's awesome - all kinds of it. I learned a bit about it in GCSE Biology and though I don't know loads of research ect on it I know that stem cell research has massive potential.

 

 

 

I personally don't find anything wrong with embryonic stem cells, as long as a woman isn't forced into an abortion to do it (I do believe she should have the choice), what's the point of wasting them?

There are ways of getting stem cells that don't involve the killing of innocent children, those ways are perfectly fine.

 

 

 

An embryo has no personhood.

 

 

 

It has no thoughts, feelings, hopes, ambitions, dreams, friends, instincts, conceptual schemes, reason, logic, morals, consciousness, knowledge, or anything that goes into being a person.

I'm all for it. Embryos aren't people as far as I'm concerned, and if it can cure genetic diseases, that's great.

 

I say go for it, it's just another way for people to play God. :|

 

It depends how and for what these stem cells help for...I know we can cure cancer with it (least in theory?) but can we predetermine baby's eye, skin, hair colour, etc?

 

That's something that would come from genetic engineering in general. I think Stem Cell only affects regenerating cells. Then again, I know the bare minimum about it :lol:

 

 

 

Not sure about the technicals, but that's an awesome idea. Genetic engineering has masses of potential.

There are ways of getting stem cells that don't involve the killing of innocent children, those ways are perfectly fine.

 

 

 

An embryo has no personhood.

 

 

 

It has no thoughts, feelings, hopes, ambitions, dreams, friends, instincts, conceptual schemes, reason, logic, morals, consciousness, knowledge, or anything that goes into being a person.

 

 

 

But it is alive, and it is human, and that's enough for me, particularly when there are better ways of getting stem cells.

Let it be, There are far more worse things in the world... Far more worse.

There are ways of getting stem cells that don't involve the killing of innocent children, those ways are perfectly fine.

 

 

 

An embryo has no personhood.

 

 

 

It has no thoughts, feelings, hopes, ambitions, dreams, friends, instincts, conceptual schemes, reason, logic, morals, consciousness, knowledge, or anything that goes into being a person.

 

 

 

But it is alive, and it is human, and that's enough for me, particularly when there are better ways of getting stem cells.

 

What defines human though? What makes humans so different from the animals we kill for food, or clothing?

There are ways of getting stem cells that don't involve the killing of innocent children, those ways are perfectly fine.

 

 

 

An embryo has no personhood.

 

 

 

It has no thoughts, feelings, hopes, ambitions, dreams, friends, instincts, conceptual schemes, reason, logic, morals, consciousness, knowledge, or anything that goes into being a person.

 

 

 

But it is alive, and it is human, and that's enough for me, particularly when there are better ways of getting stem cells.

 

What defines human though? What makes humans so different from the animals we kill for food, or clothing?

 

arrogance.

There are ways of getting stem cells that don't involve the killing of innocent children, those ways are perfectly fine.

 

 

 

An embryo has no personhood.

 

 

 

It has no thoughts, feelings, hopes, ambitions, dreams, friends, instincts, conceptual schemes, reason, logic, morals, consciousness, knowledge, or anything that goes into being a person.

 

Well, neither does somebody in a coma. They just did and will have more.

 

 

 

But, stem cells are gathered from embryos that wouldn't have a chance at a life (much less a good one) anyways, so I can't say it matters. One abortion could save a hundred people, or whatever the hell they claim stem cells can do now. A cure for death.

Say a man lost 70% of his blood, and was in critical status. If we knew how to harness these stem cells, we could change the millions of stem cells into millions of blood cells, therefore saving his life.

 

 

 

Bad example: We have blood banks now, and waiting to grow his own blood would take so long, that the man in question would have died long before it was ready. We do not HAVE millions of stem cells readily available.

 

 

 

Anyway: I'm in favor of all stem cell research.

 

 

 

Aborted fetuses are no good source for stem cells, and they are rarely use (reason posted before, only 10 day old fetusses could be used). Usually, scientists use umbilical stem cells, or embyos that are "left over" from IVF treatments.

 

 

 

Stem cell treatment can not determine eye color, hair color or whatever. Its main use is to repair/restore damaged/lost organs. This ultimate goal will not be reached (at large scale) in another 20 years or so, most likely (if at all) much later.

 

 

 

The Bush administration had not helped a bit. reverting adult stem cells to embryonic ones is possible, but not on a large scale, it is more expensive, risky (in terms of failure) and they will never become as available as normal ones. All the Bush administration did was waisting precious money and time that was invested in "working a way around legislation". Good riddance, see you not-later, Bush boy!

There are ways of getting stem cells that don't involve the killing of innocent children, those ways are perfectly fine.

 

 

 

An embryo has no personhood.

 

 

 

It has no thoughts, feelings, hopes, ambitions, dreams, friends, instincts, conceptual schemes, reason, logic, morals, consciousness, knowledge, or anything that goes into being a person.

 

Well, neither does somebody in a coma. They just did and will have more.

 

 

 

But, stem cells are gathered from embryos that wouldn't have a chance at a life (much less a good one) anyways, so I can't say it matters. One abortion could save a hundred people, or whatever the hell they claim stem cells can do now. A cure for death.

 

But why kill one baby to save 100 people, when you can cut someone's hair and save that same 100?

The Bush administration had not helped a bit. reverting adult stem cells to embryonic ones is possible, but not on a large scale, it is more expensive, risky (in terms of failure) and they will never become as available as normal ones. All the Bush administration did was waisting precious money and time that was invested in "working a way around legislation". Good riddance, see you not-later, Bush boy!

 

But if you think about it, if we can revert cells back to their omni, pluri or even multipotent states then there would be no need for embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't that be great? It's just my opinion that we should do what we can to take away our dependance of embryonic stem cells.

 

 

 

Although, the Bush administration was definitely a hindrance on research. The USA is still very far behind on this technology even after Obama lifted the ban, I heard some of the greatest scientists took their labs to countries like Singapore or something.

The Bush administration had not helped a bit. reverting adult stem cells to embryonic ones is possible, but not on a large scale, it is more expensive, risky (in terms of failure) and they will never become as available as normal ones. All the Bush administration did was waisting precious money and time that was invested in "working a way around legislation". Good riddance, see you not-later, Bush boy!

 

But if you think about it, if we can revert cells back to their omni, pluri or even multipotent states then there would be no need for embryonic stem cells. Wouldn't that be great? It's just my opinion that we should do what we can to take away our dependance of embryonic stem cells.

 

 

 

One of the current big projects in genetics as officially began at the 1st International Conference of the New Era in September 2008 is finding the "signals" that cause an adult cell to revert to a pluripotent state, and then the signals that would cause it to develop into a certain specialized cell.

 

 

 

The advancements made in the last two or three years have been in huge leaps. The primary purpose of the conference I mentioned above was to begin a new project similar to the Human Genome Project that will eventually result in a complete database of every genetic mutation* that contributes to multivariable, autosomal common diseases.

 

 

 

So I wouldn't dismiss reprogramming just yet. It is already quite an attractive alternative to embryonic stem cells, since it doesn't require destroying a fetus.

 

 

 

*"Mutations" is not the correct, term, I used it for simplicity. It is actually Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, SNP.

my opinion on the subject is, if it has the ability to advance human civilization, why not?