Stem Cells

[Riku3220]

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.

I don't think abortion is something that people are just going to change sides on just because it helps people. Look at all of the people who aren't organ donors.

 

Anyways, I think stem cells for aborted fetuses are fine. Might as well make some use out of the aborted fetuses.

[Duff]

Honestly, what is going to prevent irresponsible kids who are willing to have abortions from continuing to have sex and abortions if they can tell people that the fetus isn't going to waste?

[Sprint]

Honestly, what is going to prevent irresponsible kids who are willing to have abortions from continuing to have sex and abortions if they can tell people that the fetus isn't going to waste?

Probably money, it cant be that cheap that people can pop abortions like candy. Teens do have a sense of money. Hell as a parent make the teen pay for it, it'd be a life lesson. *inb4flame*

[Kimberly]

Honestly, what is going to prevent irresponsible kids who are willing to have abortions from continuing to have sex and abortions if they can tell people that the fetus isn't going to waste?

 

If a kid is irresponsible, it doesn't matter what happens, they'll justify it by whatever means necessary because they are, by your own definition, irresponsible. Those sorts of people would do whatever they want and grasp at any straw to lessen their own guilt.

 

Life is paramount. It's sacred. So if there is no way to stop abortions as they are, why would we not grasp with both hands whatever we can to continue preserving and stimulating life? That seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face.

[Zierro]

Those stem cells are not people.

 

I could replace it with (would-have-been-a-person's-arm) and it would still touch on the issue of human rights. Either way you look at it, it's still the act of physically experimenting on a (could-have-been-sacred) component of something literally classified as "human" against its will it never had but could've.

 

I don't know whether I'd classify that as a breach of rights or not, but I'm interested in hearing opinions.

[Duff]

From what's been said, it sounds like there are other options for researching the exact same things. I'm all for using those other means. But if we can do the same research without killing a human (or fetus, whatever), I don't see why we wouldn't.

 

I know you do not agree, but I see a fetus as a human being. Therefore, I am against embryonic stem cell research because many people will justify their actions (killing a child), since it might be contributing to said research. It doesn't matter if you believe they shouldn't and that doing so is wrong; people will convince themselves of it being okay. And personally, I think it's awful if anyone justifies killing another person with something as unsure as embryonic stem cell research.

[Riku3220]

Question for everyone: What do you guys think about harvesting the organs of the dead to give to living people, organ donors or not?

[Zierro]

Question for everyone: What do you guys think about harvesting the organs of the dead to give to living people, organ donors or not?

 

Pro: The living need it more than the dead.

Con: "Look everyone, I have Chuck Norris's liver!" (The dead still deserve to rest in peace and not have their remains, and as an extension, their entity, be disturbed.)

 

I can never make up my mind about this subject. Oh wait, just did.

[Guest Rob]

 

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.

I don't think that the abortion count would significantly increase if stem-cell research was legalized. I can't see many people deciding to abort their child based purely off of the fact that the aborted child would be helping science. If a mother was willing to do that, then she'd probably be able to think of plenty of other reasons to abort it too.

 

Another thing to consider is those who would benefit from stem cell research. If the amount of abortions increased slightly (I say slightly as I don't think it would significantly increase it) but more lives were saved or improved drastically, could it be considered worth it?

 

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.

 

They might feel better about it, but I don't think they'd be more inclined to do it if they knew the fetus would be going towards stem-cell research. It'd be almost like a murderer killing an adult because he knew their heart would be donated to save someone's life, almost.

 

Honestly, what is going to prevent irresponsible kids who are willing to have abortions from continuing to have sex and abortions if they can tell people that the fetus isn't going to waste?

I'm generalizing here, but I don't think that most irresponsible kids who are willing to have unprotected sex would be informed enough to truly know what stem cell research is. Basically I'm saying that the majority (not all!) of girls who get pregnant at a young age might not be aware of what stem-cell research is, or, (to put it bluntly) be smart enough to understand it. For that reason, I don't think that those kids would be more motivated to have sex unprotected knowing that they can abort because the fetus isn't going to waste. They wouldn't know that it's going to waste.

 

I hope I made sense there, it felt like I was rambling a bit there.

[Duff]

The dead decide ahead of time whether they will allow their organs to be harvested. I see no decision being given to these unborn children (or simple fetuses, whichever).

 

Say all people's organs were harvested, and they were not given a choice, yet we could get organs from other means (just assume there is another means). I'd think many people would be way less supportive of harvesting than this other means of attaining the organs.

 

@Rob: To me, word would get out really fast; word that simply "aborted fetuses can be used to help research methods of curing AIDS and cancer". The details of the research wouldn't get out/be understood by most of the public having abortions, but I think eventually all people would know that generalized 'fact' in quotes above. Why would a young adult have need to understand embryonic stem cell research when all they need to tell his/herself is that it's okay cause it's furthering research (in order to make them feel better about it/justify it)?

[Kimberly]

The hardest thing I had to do was allow my mom's organs to be harvested after her passing. It wasn't my choice though, or my right to deny it. She helped people, and we aren't at the point yet where we can turn down organ donation. All the more reason to continue experimentation.

[Vezon Dash]

Question for everyone: What do you guys think about harvesting the organs of the dead to give to living people, organ donors or not?

 

I don't think they should take organs from non-donors.

 

Revolutionary idea here. (Brace yourselves for what I am about to say.)

 

 

I think that they should start breeding humans as livestock. They can use these "livestock" humans for organs, research, and other uses that is 'unethical' for us to use 'real' humans for. However, these humans will and should be kept completely separate from normal humans. They would not learn to talk or think for their own in order to keep those human rights activists from being all angry.

 

[Kimberly]

Revolutionary idea here. (Brace yourselves for what I am about to say.) [snip]

 

What point are you driving at with such an exaggerated comparison?

[Randox]

I don't really get the slippery slope thing with abortions and embryonic stem cells. To me, that's pretty much the same as the argument that condoms should be available (for free) in high schools because that makes having premarital sex easier. Yeah, there are probably people out there who would have chosen an option other than abortion if not for the contribution to stem cell research, but I really don't think there is going to be some kind of abortion craze as a result. Abortion is already happening, and its going to keep happening, whether people like it or not, so why not make the best of the situation. Ultimately, I think it does more good than it does bad.

[Duff]

That's basically the movie The Island. Didn't turn out too well, haha. :P

[Zierro]

Revolutionary idea here. (Brace yourselves for what I am about to say.) [snip]

 

What point are you driving at with such an exaggerated comparison?

 

That boredom can lead to terrible things. :anxious:

[Riku3220]

Question for everyone: What do you guys think about harvesting the organs of the dead to give to living people, organ donors or not?

 

I don't think they should take organs from non-donors.

 

Revolutionary idea here. (Brace yourselves for what I am about to say.)

 

 

I think that they should start breeding humans as livestock. They can use these "livestock" humans for organs, research, and other uses that is 'unethical' for us to use 'real' humans for. However, these humans will and should be kept completely separate from normal humans. They would not learn to talk or think for their own in order to keep those human rights activists from being all angry.

 

We could do it easily with cloning. Give everybody a clone and then get rid of it whenever we need a heart or something. Unfortunately, they have will and whatnot. Think about how unfair it would be if the only reason you exist is to keep your other self alive just because that you was born first.

 

It is kind of strange that you think harvesting organs from everybody is wrong but not farming humans though.

[Vezon Dash]

Revolutionary idea here. (Brace yourselves for what I am about to say.) [snip]

 

What point are you driving at with such an exaggerated comparison?

 

That boredom can lead to terrible things. :anxious:

 

It isn't boredom. If you think about it, it would solve quite a number of our problems. We could do what the Nazis tried to do during the Holocaust, but it would be morally correct since aren't actually humans per say.

 

@Riku

 

It is because they are real humans, and they specifically said "No, don't take them." However, harvesting from a human with no rights is completely different.

[Duff]

 

Literally exactly what happens.

 

Except the clones break out!

[Kimberly]

It isn't boredom. If you think about it, it would solve quite a number of our problems.

 

It doesn't solve anything. At the point of birth, they are protected by human right laws.

[Riku3220]

 

Literally exactly what happens.

 

Except the clones break out!

You mean

 

[hide=][/hide]

[Guest Rob]

@Rob: To me, word would get out really fast; word that simply "aborted fetuses can be used to help research methods of curing AIDS and cancer". The details of the research wouldn't get out/be understood by most of the public having abortions, but I think eventually all people would know that generalized 'fact' in quotes above. Why would a young adult have need to understand embryonic stem cell research when all they need to tell his/herself is that it's okay cause it's furthering research (in order to make them feel better about it/justify it)?

 

That's a good point, and I can't deny that would happen. I imagine the pro-life side would be able to think of a simple counter to that argument, something about how killing to save is completely contradictory. But I do agree that the amount of abortions would rise, though by how much is the question for me at the moment.

 

The entire idea of the greater good could also be addressed here. Assuming abortions don't increase by much, would the amount of lives saved not help to balance out those lost by abortions? If major diseases likes AIDS or forms of cancer could be cured as a result of stem cell research, millions and possibly billions of lives could be saved, as opposed to the thousands lost in abortions.

 

Obviously both of my points have two underlying debates unto themselves (If abortion is right/wrong, if killing one person to save many [assuming abortion is considered to be murder, which I'm addressing that it is in order to not open another debate]). Whether or not you agree with me would be where you stand on those two arguments, I suppose.

 

It isn't boredom. If you think about it, it would solve quite a number of our problems. We could do what the Nazis tried to do during the Holocaust, but it would be morally correct since aren't actually humans per say.

 

No, it'd basically be exactly what the holocaust was. They would still be humans, with the same ability to think, learn, and feel. They just wouldn't be able to read/write/talk because they would have been denied an education.

[Vezon Dash]

It isn't boredom. If you think about it, it would solve quite a number of our problems.

 

It doesn't solve anything. At the point of birth, they are protected by human right laws.

 

Not if they are a special breed of human that has no rights.

[Kimberly]

Not if they are a special breed of human that has no rights.

 

To be a human being is to have human rights. The issue debated when it comes to abortion is when that personhood begins. Many legislation stating that personhood begins at conception is shot down because people can't sift through their morality to pin down a definition.

[sees_all1]

Mods, can you move your abortion debate into the abortion thread, and stick to discussing stem cells in here? kthxbai

 

 

Having looked into this topic a bit, there are a few things to note:

-AFAIK, all successful treatments to date have been from adult stem cells. I would expect to a huge fuss in the media for a successful treatment using fetal cells, mostly because of the left-wing bias and/or the moral debate flaring up.

-The biggest problem so far in using fetal cells is that although they can form *anything* in the body, they also form tumors. Until this can be resolved, there will be no treatments using fetal cells

-The biggest problem so far in using adult cells is that they can't form *everything*, and they don't have *unlimited* growing potential. If I understood correctly, these cells would only replicate a few times before they wouldn't replicate anymore.

 

Getting a tad into ethics, a reason that may have been overlooked as to why embryonic research is considered unethical by some is the fact that harvesting cells from a developing baby (in the stage that scientist do it) is about the same as cutting off someone's arm, if you put it to scale. Also, at that point in life, you can't ask permission, so you're forcefully taking.