Stem Cells

[transcript80]

Because it is the result of an abortion.

 

Where I live, it is not (as I stated previously, IVF story). Also, as stated by others, in most (if not all) of the cases of abortion, the fetus/embryo (depending on how old it is) is NOT suitable for embryonic stem cell harvesting. The older the fetus, the more differentiated the cells are.

 

I get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are not very educated about the abortion procedure and how stem cells are obtained. I do not know the legislature in the country you live in, but here, aborted ambryos are not used for stem cell research. Also, its is forbidden to sell IVF embryos. Research itself is bound to strict rules, there are ethical committees that have to give a green light to all such research projects. Reasearch on TRUE embryonic stem cells is rare. Mostly, some kind of adult stem cells, or murine stem cells are used.

 

As a former research technician working with stem cells, I can say that there are no dark basements under hospitals where Mengele-like scientists are dissecting fetusses in search of stem cells for their unholy reasearch for their supervisor, Dr. Beelzebub, pHd.

 

 

I'm not going to support something that is made possible by something I'm adamantly against. Especially since there are other means of doing the same research, means that don't rely on abortions. And to clarify, I'm also against in vitro fertilization (and that is due to my religion).

 

I'm also against embryonic stem cell research for the reasons I've been discussing with Rob. I don't like the mindset legalizing it will create.

 

You are entitled to have your own optinion, I have nothing to argue about that. Point is, that there is no true substitution for embryonic stem cells. Compare it to medical tests on animals: it is good to test new drugs on lab rats instead of humans, but it is not a true substitution for the intended use: a human.

 

On a side note: what is wrong with IVF?

Edited November 11, 2011 by transcript80

[sees_all1]

On a side note: what is wrong with IVF?

 

If you can understand or appreciate why some people think embryonic stem cell research is wrong, you can apply their logic to IVF.

 

Most of the time for IVF, multiple egg cells are harvested and then fertilized. Once a woman becomes pregnant, she doesn't need to have another baby implant itself. The end result are a bunch of humans in petri dishes left orphaned.

 

Also, you can probably understand the whole idea behind a religious view of marriage and sex, and how IVF involves procreation, but leaves no place for love.

[transcript80]

If you can understand or appreciate why some people think embryonic stem cell research is wrong, you can apply their logic to IVF.

 

People see embryonic stem cell research as destruction of human life and thus wrong. IVF is creating life, so what is the problem?

 

Most of the time for IVF, multiple egg cells are harvested and then fertilized. Once a woman becomes pregnant, she doesn't need to have another baby implant itself. The end result are a bunch of humans in petri dishes left orphaned.

 

An orphan is a human without living parents. Even if you choose to see a clump of cells as a human being (different discussion), its parents are alive and thus not an orphan.

Also, the created life is not killed. It is left in "hibernation" (meaning frozen storage). If the parents decide to have anbother baby, these "left over" embryos can be used, leaving the argument invalid.

 

Also, you can probably understand the whole idea behind a religious view of marriage and sex, and how IVF involves procreation, but leaves no place for love.

 

So if 2 people love each other (religious or not, again another discussion) and they cannot have a baby because of a biological issue, they should not be able to procreate? I mean.... I can see the issue, but IVF is used to help 2 people that love each other and want to procreate but are hindered by nature.

 

In most dominant religions, sex "has" to have a procreational purpose, themed in love for each other. The result would be a baby. Bypassing sex through IVF does not exclude the love part. It just helps bypassing biological challenges.

[sees_all1]

An orphan is a human without living parents. Even if you choose to see a clump of cells as a human being (different discussion), its parents are alive and thus not an orphan.

Also, the created life is not killed. It is left in "hibernation" (meaning frozen storage). If the parents decide to have anbother baby, these "left over" embryos can be used, leaving the argument invalid.

Orphaned meaning abandoned. It's not what "can" happen, it's what does happen. Theoretically in IVF, one egg cell could be fertilized with one sperm cell and then implanted, leaving one child and no others frozen or discarded. Theoretically it could happen, but in reality it doesn't.

Also included in the process is embryo profiling, where the scientist selects the "best candidates" and discards the others, so created life is killed.

[The Dark Lord]

My question is, why aren't we funding this? Are the pro life people really holding us back from a wealth of medical breakthroughs?

 

Basically, yes.

 

The research is pretty limited in the United States, from what I understand. I'm not too savvy with this subject, but I remember some things that one of my old biology professors once told us in class about the subject.

 

@the IVF argument

 

Technically, IVF is sex. :) A male gamete (sperm) fuses with a female gamete (egg) producing a zygote. Sexual reproduction has thus occurred.

[Nomrombom]

Didn't we establish in the abortion thread that anti-abortionists don't have any right to force people not to get abortions?

 

And thus, haven't we established that there is no reason not to use the resources obtained from an abortion? It's like the Native Americans and the buffalo. They used everything they possibly could when they had to kill one in order to maximize the value of that buffalo's gift to them. If abortion is going to happen anyway (and it will), why not make the best of it?

[Guest Rob]

Didn't we establish in the abortion thread that anti-abortionists don't have any right to force people not to get abortions?

 

I doubt it. It's still an ungoing debate, for sure. I agree with the second half of your post, though.

[user1991]

+1

[jasignhagj]

Why do people get so hung up on the potential for life?

 

I mean, there are millions of people dying all over the world right now. Aren't they a tad more important than a child that only exists in a hypothetical future?

Sums it up pretty nicely.

[Giordano]

Why do people get so hung up on the potential for life?

 

I mean, there are millions of people dying all over the world right now. Aren't they a tad more important than a child that only exists in a hypothetical future?

Sums it up pretty nicely.

I agree as well.

[Nomrombom]

Why do people get so hung up on the potential for life?

 

I mean, there are millions of people dying all over the world right now. Aren't they a tad more important than a child that only exists in a hypothetical future?

Sums it up pretty nicely.

I agree as well.

Eloquently stated, dear chap.

[Guest Rob]

Why don't we introduce a heavy fine/tax for an abortion? That way, if fetuses were used for stem cell research, the number of abortions shouldn't increase much. Just a thought, I figured it may help please both sides of the argument.

[Racheya]

That makes NO sense. Who'd have to pay, the woman? What sort of crazy idea is that. Often women who need abortions wouldn't be able to afford the procedure in the first place. If you mean making the hospital pay to use embryonic cells, I don't really think it's any business of the taxman if one woman wants to let a doctor use the aborted foetus. Why should they have to pay? Nobody is going to go 'Oooh, I'm going to abort my foetus JUST to help that nice man at the hospital with his research!'

[Vezon Dash]

Why don't we introduce a heavy fine/tax for an abortion? That way, if fetuses were used for stem cell research, the number of abortions shouldn't increase much. Just a thought, I figured it may help please both sides of the argument.

 

You help neither side. It also leads to this...

 

[Guest Rob]

The idea was to hopefully encourage people not to get abortions, or, better yet, encourage them to practice safe sex so they wouldn't need to get an abortion. I'm trying to please both sides here, so that abortions would be legal, though there'd be a deterrent. Any compromise obviously wouldn't be ideal for either the pro-lifers or pro-choicers, though I can't think of a much better compromise. Do you have a suggestion for that? I'm aware mine does has its disadvantages, so someone could probably think of something that would satisfy both groups.

 

Unless your point was that there is no possible compromise, or if someone here is thinking that.

 

Why don't we introduce a heavy fine/tax for an abortion? That way, if fetuses were used for stem cell research, the number of abortions shouldn't increase much. Just a thought, I figured it may help please both sides of the argument.

 

You help neither side. It also leads to this...

 

 

The idea was that it would hopefully lead to this.

 

[Vezon Dash]

There really is no way to compromise between the two. The supply of fetuses that provide the stem cells will diminish, those who were against abortion wouldn't really get much out of it since they weren't going to have an abortion in the first place, and those who can't afford it will turn to falcon punches and coat-hangers. As radical of an idea as birth control is, some people aren't smart enough to use it, or it just fails. Sometimes it just happens.

[sees_all1]

:wall:

 

By the time a woman gets an abortion, her baby has already differentiated enough that its stem cells are "adult" stem cells, not embryonic. A baby is an embryo for less than 6 days. Abortions cannot supply embryos for research, period.

[Vezon Dash]

:wall:

 

By the time a woman gets an abortion, her baby has already differentiated enough that its stem cells are "adult" stem cells, not embryonic. A baby is an embryo for less than 6 days. Abortions cannot supply embryos for research, period.

 

Fetus =/= embryo

[sees_all1]

:wall:

 

By the time a woman gets an abortion, her baby has already differentiated enough that its stem cells are "adult" stem cells, not embryonic. A baby is an embryo for less than 6 days. Abortions cannot supply embryos for research, period.

 

Fetus =/= embryo

 

The only thing controversial about stem cell research is embryonic stem cell research. I don't understand why people are trying to bring abortion into this debate, as a bunch of dead 3 month old fetuses won't help stem cell research more than a bit of your skin.

[Vezon Dash]

The only thing controversial about stem cell research is embryonic stem cell research. I don't understand why Duff is trying to bring abortion into this debate, as a bunch of dead 3 month old fetuses won't help stem cell research more than a bit of your skin.

 

FIFY.

 

I agree though. This is about stem cells, not abortion.

[Guest Rob]

The only thing controversial about stem cell research is embryonic stem cell research. I don't understand why Duff is trying to bring abortion into this debate, as a bunch of dead 3 month old fetuses won't help stem cell research more than a bit of your skin.

 

FIFY.

 

I agree though. This is about stem cells, not abortion.

 

Abortion was mentioned in the very first post after the OP in this thread, it's not Duff exclusively.

 

And the abortion issue is one of the main reasons why stem-cell research is such a debated topic.

[Vezon Dash]

The only thing controversial about stem cell research is embryonic stem cell research. I don't understand why Duff is trying to bring abortion into this debate, as a bunch of dead 3 month old fetuses won't help stem cell research more than a bit of your skin.

 

FIFY.

 

I agree though. This is about stem cells, not abortion.

 

Abortion was mentioned in the very first post after the OP in this thread, it's not Duff exclusively.

 

And the abortion issue is one of the main reasons why stem-cell research is such a debated topic.

 

T'was more or less a joke.

[sees_all1]

Abortion was mentioned in the very first post after the OP in this thread, it's not Duff exclusively.

 

And the abortion issue is one of the main reasons why stem-cell research is such a debated topic.

The issue isn't abortion, it's respect for human life. Abortion is related to stem-cell research about as much as pest control is related to scientific experiments on lab rats (The issue is animal rights or respect for animals). Someone from PETA would argue that both are morally unacceptable, but that doesn't mean you have to bring up both to discuss one.

 

Also, adding comments about abortion does nothing to further understanding about what is being debated (embryonic stem cell research) and why its being debated, and adds to the confusion about what is going on and why people take issue with it.

[transcript80]

:wall:

 

By the time a woman gets an abortion, her baby has already differentiated enough that its stem cells are "adult" stem cells, not embryonic. A baby is an embryo for less than 6 days. Abortions cannot supply embryos for research, period.

 

My point exactly.

 

Abortion has nothing to do with stem cell research, as myself and others have reasoned in several posts in this thread.

[The Dark Lord]

:wall:

 

By the time a woman gets an abortion, her baby has already differentiated enough that its stem cells are "adult" stem cells, not embryonic. A baby is an embryo for less than 6 days. Abortions cannot supply embryos for research, period.

 

My point exactly.

 

Abortion and the gay agenda have nothing to do with stem cell research, as myself and others have reasoned in several posts in this thread.

 

I agree.

 

Pretty much everyone's arguing from ignorance.