Da Pirates Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 So I heard today that Stem Cells have the potential to cure fatal illnesses like Cancer, Diabetes, ALS & many others. My question is, why aren't we funding this? Are the pro life people really holding us back from a wealth of medical breakthroughs? I've just recently read up on Stem Cell Research and it looks like it has amazing potential for society. What are your views on Stem Cell Research? BR BR BR? HUEHUEHEUEHUE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I'm fine with it as long as one of the viable options that isn't an aborted fetus (there are several) is used. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 As barbaric as it might come off in principal, we were thrown into some pretty miserable and unfair conditions just to survive. We can either fight for our lives or die. Either way, there's no such thing as peace. That's just the way of things. Don't look at me. I didn't make the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I'm fine with it as long as one of the viable options that isn't an aborted fetus (there are several) is used.If a fetus is already aborted, shouldn't we use it in whatever way we can, though? I doubt there are many fetuses that are aborted purely for the purpose of improving stem-cell research. I could be wrong with this, since it is purely an assumption, though. But if the fetuses are aborted anyways, shouldn't we use them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pegpenguin Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Thats a poor view of the world crusty. Just because there is conflict and hardship doesn't mean peace isn't achievable. Giving up at the first sign of trouble gets you no where. As for the stem cell research, I'm totally for it, but abortion isn't an option I see as legal, because no matter how you try to rationalize it, it is a human. But there are other ways to acquire stem cells, and I feel like we should pursue them. My grandfather died from alzhiemers, and my mother from cancer, and I wish the pain I saw them endure on no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamtaro Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I'm indifferent about the issue. Pro-life people are fine with adult stem-cell research, but I think the argument that the pro-life people (in the US) are making is that embryonic stem cell research is legal in Europe and many other locations (including my own state of Michigan, actually) and hasn't been able to produce any tangible results yet. Allegedly, many cures have been found through adult stem cell research, but few, if any, through embryonic. I don't know enough about the issue to comment on that, but that's what I've heard from being surrounded by Catholics all day, every day (so that's probably extremely biased). I don't really agree with the pro-life here, but I can't say I like the idea of using aborted fetuses. Player since 2004. All skills 1M+ XP."If it were possible to cure evils by lamentation..., then gold would be a less valuable thing than weeping." - Sophocles"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Gabe Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Thats a poor view of the world crusty. No it's a realistic view. I agree with Crusty. Three months banishment to 9gag is something i would never wish upon anybody, not even my worst enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Thats a poor view of the world crusty. Just because there is conflict and hardship doesn't mean peace isn't achievable. Giving up at the first sign of trouble gets you no where. I'm not implying we should all just crawl under rocks and die. I'm saying that there are many situations in life where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. For example, how do you think we have established territories and food sources to the point they are now? A lot of "sacrifices", for lack of better wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I'm fine with it as long as one of the viable options that isn't an aborted fetus (there are several) is used.If a fetus is already aborted, shouldn't we use it in whatever way we can, though? I doubt there are many fetuses that are aborted purely for the purpose of improving stem-cell research. I could be wrong with this, since it is purely an assumption, though. But if the fetuses are aborted anyways, shouldn't we use them?No, because it tries to put some kind of validation on abortion. "It's okay because we harvested the cells". Especially given that there are multiple viable options for harvesting in ways other than embryonic, I see no need to allow embryonic stem cell harvesting. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enfield Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 ^^, umm the development of the world has not been due to sacrifice - it's been due to technological innovation. human intelligence, in other words. The first people who discovered plants grew from tiny seeds, and were able to convince everyone to grow things in addition to hunt and gather, even when the results wouldn't be seen for years - those are the types of people we owe the world we live in to. "sacrifice" has always happened; it's been a constant throughout history, a way to ensure our survival, or something like that. Not a way to advance humanity. In the paleolithic era 40-60% of babies were killed so a stable population could be maintained. That's certainly a lot of sacrifice! If you want to know why humans got themselves into that unfortunate position it's because humans got better at surviving very fast (something our genetics weren't adjusted to), so our birthrate got to be out of proportion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 If a fetus is already aborted, shouldn't we use it in whatever way we can, though? I doubt there are many fetuses that are aborted purely for the purpose of improving stem-cell research. I could be wrong with this, since it is purely an assumption, though. But if the fetuses are aborted anyways, shouldn't we use them? I would guess it's because they are still seen as human beings with the right to privacy. Even if undeveloped and dead, whatever characterizes "humankind" is a mind-boggling concept to us humans. Especially given that there are multiple viable options for harvesting in ways other than embryonic, I see no need to allow embryonic stem cell harvesting. I don't know where I heard this from, but I thought the "newer" the stem cell, the more plasticity it has making it easier to manipulate and experiment on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprint Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Stem cells come from more than just aborted fetus(es?), just an aborted fetus is a gold mine of stem cells compared to the other methods. But i'm pro choice so take the stem cells for aborted fetus(feti?). Atleast something good will come out of it. On a side note, what is the plural for the word fetus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randox Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 On the issue of where the stem cells come from, I have no issues with using an aborted fetus. I might not be pro abortion (nor am I pro life), but if the fetus is already aborted, then why not try to make some good come from something bad. At least try to make it count for something. I have family with cancer, and in a few decades my life might very well depend on an organ transplant. If it could become possible to repair the organ, or grow a new one, that would be amazing for me, and could easily add a decade to my expected life span. Even more importantly, if I have children, it is very possible that they could inherit the same genetic defect I have. The tests have never been performed to see if other people in the family have it, since it is quite possible for them to never be discovered if it doesn't cause any issues, so I don't even know if the trait is recessive or not. The important part is, my DNA carries a potentially fatal defect, one that could very probably be entirely negated with stem cell intervention at birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enfield Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 ^^^, you are right the embryonic stem cells are the best to use (most undifferentiated, best at replicating, etc.). But the science is developing really fast. The embryonic cell controversy is becoming a non-issue. We are getting closer to being able to re-program other types of stem cells into embryonic ones, or at least giving them some of the capabilities of them, etc. (all you have to do it seems is find the right cocktail of enzymes to expose them to, and they'll revert). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I never liked the idea of using an aborted fetus for stem cell research because of my views on abortion. But furthermore, people will begin to start saying, "Abortion isn't a big deal, because you're contributing to stem cell research." It's a long way down the slippery slope. | My Tumblr | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprint Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Like i've said before pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion. abortion is always the worse choice of the two but the woman should have the right to choose. But as long as it is aborted we might as well make use of it as much as we can, it's the least we can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I understand that. But honestly, the rationalization of abortion being okay will happen if they are told constantly that their aborted fetus will be used to further research that could save lives. Just how I see it. | My Tumblr | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 ^^, umm the development of the world has not been due to sacrifice - it's been due to technological innovation. human intelligence, in other words. The first people who discovered plants grew from tiny seeds, and were able to convince everyone to grow things in addition to hunt and gather, even when the results wouldn't be seen for years - those are the types of people we owe the world we live in to. "sacrifice" has always happened; it's been a constant throughout history, a way to ensure our survival, or something like that. Not a way to advance humanity. In the paleolithic era 40-60% of babies were killed so a stable population could be maintained. That's certainly a lot of sacrifice! Perhaps not the development of the modern world, but the foundation that allowed our intelligent ancestors the opportunity to prosper in the first place has definitely been crafted by our primal, biologically-geared methods/tendencies. After all, survival is a necessity to make any progress. What did people do in the meantime while crops were supposedly growing? Kill for food and territory. The world was newer and these abstractions like morals and rights were as non-existent as the internet. Now with a better understanding of technology and empathy, the monstrosity is thinning out, but back then they didn't have much of an option. And in the context of today (economy, prison hierarchy, advertisement, national security, World of Warcraft, etc.), some of this still rings true. We're still killing each other - just now it's done formally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vezon Dash Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Stem cell research is good. It is like recycling garbage. Why waste the garbage (fetuses) if we can just recycle (research) it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberly Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I'm fine with it as long as one of the viable options that isn't an aborted fetus (there are several) is used.If a fetus is already aborted, shouldn't we use it in whatever way we can, though? I doubt there are many fetuses that are aborted purely for the purpose of improving stem-cell research. I could be wrong with this, since it is purely an assumption, though. But if the fetuses are aborted anyways, shouldn't we use them?No, because it tries to put some kind of validation on abortion. No, you just think it does because you hold an unrealistic life-view that abortion will suddenly cease to exist. There is no reason to not use fetal stem cells if the fetus was already aborted. Allowing stem cells to be used would not affect precious legality on limiting or restricting abortions further for the same reason that 'pulling the plug' on organ-donating people in vegetative states with no hope of recovery would prevent harvesting vital organs. There is no slippery slope here. It's making the best of an already tragic situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 No, you just think it does because you hold an unrealistic life-view that abortion will suddenly cease to exist. There is no reason to not use fetal stem cells if the fetus was already aborted. Allowing stem cells to be used would not affect precious legality on limiting or restricting abortions further for the same reason that 'pulling the plug' on organ-donating people in vegetative states with no hope of recovery. There is no slippery slope here. It's making the best of an already tragic situation. I don't hold any such unrealistic life-view. I'm under no delusions about the future of abortion on this planet; but I have no desire to give people another possible motivation for procuring one. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprint Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 And people will rationalize killing if you say it's ok as long as you're killing bad people. But i've yet to see men in tights running around stopping people from breaking into cars. The human mind doesn't quite work like that for normal people. Unless you're saying you'd rationalize it if you were a woman and thought you'd be helping medical research. I have yet to hear of a woman walking into a clinic and sing to the clerk that she wants an abortion, it's usually a sensitive subject, even for the person getting the abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I have a feeling abortion counts would increase greatly if embryonic stem cell research was legalized. You cannot deny that a person would feel a lot better about killing someone (thus more inclined to do it) if they knew it could possibly aid in the effort to save other lives. EDIT:@Sprint: Why do you think law enforcement exists? People do try to prevent others from killing each other. | My Tumblr | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 No, you just think it does because you hold an unrealistic life-view that abortion will suddenly cease to exist. There is no reason to not use fetal stem cells if the fetus was already aborted. Allowing stem cells to be used would not affect precious legality on limiting or restricting abortions further for the same reason that 'pulling the plug' on organ-donating people in vegetative states with no hope of recovery. There is no slippery slope here. It's making the best of an already tragic situation. But what about the aspect of physical mutilation? It's not the same as just pulling a plug - it's putting a (would-have-been-a-person) through dissection and chemical processes. I think the actual experimentation is where most of the controversy lies. I have yet to hear of a woman walking into a clinic and sing to the clerk that she wants an abortion, it's usually a sensitive subject, even for the person getting the abortion. On the other hand, this cannot be stressed enough in abortion threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberly Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Aborting a baby is done because the person doesn't want the baby, not because they want to lather up in sweet sweet stem-cells a la futurama-style. it's putting a (would-have-been-a-person) through dissection and chemical processes. I think the actual experimentation is where most of the controversy lies. Those stem cells are not people. I have a feeling abortion counts would increase greatly if embryonic stem cell research was legalized. Did suicide spike through the roof when organ transplants came to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now