stem cell research

[cacophony]

also, because i know you're dying to know my opinion on this (), i have mixed emotions about the decision. i understand obama's motive and i agree that the US has to renew its leadership in the world in the field of science. the bush years threatened to send us back to the days of explaining natural phenomena as feats of the gods. science needs to have its good name restored and it's important that government separate itself from religious ideology.

however. even a secular society has to be based on a common sense of morality. an ideology, if you will. if no consensus can be reached, is it the government's place to decide the issue? if 49% of the population is against the idea of embryonic stem cell research(according to a recent pew poll), is it justifiable to put tax-derived government money towards support of it?

take the abortion issue. i assume most of us here agree that abortions should be legal, private and safe. but the country is split almost evenly on the issue. would it be right for the government to fund abortion clinics?

i guess this is where i feel like government should take a step back. where such a tiny sliver of majority exists that it is almost statistically insignificant, i feel the government should simply abstain from financial commitment. sure, make it legal, make it safe, create opportunity. but don't reach into the pockets of the people who are strongly against it to advance the cause.

but that's just me.

[Juanita Rodriguez]

One point that's always missed in the anti-stem cell front is their inability to disassociate most stem cells do not come from aborted fetuses. The last I read, only 5% are from abortions.

If I recall correct, the majority of cells come from bone marrow.

I've just read the entire arguement and in every post it's the ugly word abortion.

Like many others opposed, I'm sure my post will go in one ear and out the other. I'm not allowed to say sucking blind fks, I guess huh?

LET'S SEE IF JUANITA GET BANNED TOMORROW!!!

I'll be baaaaaack.


AND, yet to hear the win/lose monetary side of the arguement. and, again

[bryantm3]

well, the debate is over embryonic stem cell research, which, by definition, comes from embryos. most of these embryos are frozen in labs waiting to be used by the women and men that donated them... that's where my disapproval begins. storing sperm is okay. it's a little weird for people to have kids they don't know about, but, whatever floats their boat. storing unfertilized eggs is okay. those are both parts of the body that cannot survive, or grow into a human being, on their own. however, after conception, the embryo will develop into a human being unless there is intervention- which is freezing. that's when you are restricting the right of a person to grow and develop.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

however, after conception, the embryo will develop into a human being unless there is intervention- which is freezing. that's when you are restricting the right of a person to grow and develop.

Well that isn't strictly true. The embryos are created in vitro to be used by couples who can't conceive naturally. They always create many more embryos than they will actually end up using. And the embryo will only grow and develop if it is implanted into a womb. All the while they are in a test tube they aren't really a life.

The embryos that are used for stem cell research are those that would be discarded anyway. Nobody is going to implant them and "grow a baby" from them. So really the question is this - better in the dustbin or used for research that could help save other's lives?

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

however, after conception, the embryo will develop into a human being unless there is intervention- which is freezing.

As BB points out, intervention is also necessary for the embryo to develop by us "intervening" to plant it into the womb.

Originally Posted by BB

All the while they are in a test tube they aren't really a life.

Before anyone calls you on it, I just want to point out, I know what you meant by 'life' - sense of suffering/self awareness, perhaps a sense of self stretching into the future, etc. And in that sense, I agree - I also judge the two states differently. It's still life, but I know where you're coming from.

(Oh god, I don't want to get bogged down in this one again! )

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

Well that isn't strictly true. The embryos are created in vitro to be used by couples who can't conceive naturally. They always create many more embryos than they will actually end up using. And the embryo will only grow and develop if it is implanted into a womb. All the while they are in a test tube they aren't really a life.

it's splitting hairs at that point. no one is arguing whether or not the embryo will develop unless it's implanted into a womb. so far science hasn't been able to invent an electrified womb, and until that day we can all assume we're all on the page that says, "p.s. please add womb."

you could have also split the hair by saying not every fertilized egg grows into a healthy baby that gestates normally and can survive on its own after 9 months (give or take). either way you take the guts out of the argument by making the obvious point.

it's pretty clear that bryantm3's point is ultimately a "where does life begin" statement. if a person believes fundamentally that life begins at conception then the test tube argument is a moot point.

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

The embryos that are used for stem cell research are those that would be discarded anyway. Nobody is going to implant them and "grow a baby" from them. So really the question is this - better in the dustbin or used for research that could help save other's lives?

well humans are made up of quite a bit of protein. since people are going to die anyway, why don't we process them into food sources?

deliberately hyperbolic, as is my specialty.

the point is that the "why let them go to waste" argument doesn't hold water if you believe those embryos were lives. look, we don't even do organ donation unless the deceased has given written consent. so obviously it's not just an issue of pragmatism. there's a strong, if illogical instinct in humans to protect and preserve, even when a person's free will can no longer intervene. it seems to me that that sets a kind of precedent. we establish that rights exist on one end of the non-life spectrum, why don't they exist at the other?

additionally, it's a bit highfalutin to make the claim that these destroyed embryos are going to save lives. by and large they're not. the vast majority of these embryos will be destroyed in the effort to pursue scientific theory to a dead end, with research collected along the way. so far stem cells have yielded very few practical results. while it's true that embryonic stem cells have the advantage of being programmable so that they can develop into any kind of cell, making their research applications fairly limitless, there are enough non-embryonic stem cell sources available that they should be the first line of resources for these early days of research. we THINK stem cells will save lives someday. we also thought gene therapy would cure cancer. there are countless scientific "breakthroughs" that have yet to yield much more than the promise of life in a far distant future.

fundamentally it comes down to the same old argument about where life begins. which is why i don't think it's appropriate for the US government to fund this research. the issue is so closely divided amongst the populace, for better or for worse. one side shouldn't have the right to trample the other. not while private funding and alternate sources and grandfathered lines exist.

[Juanita Rodriguez]

[quote=cacophony;109570... look, we don't even do organ donation unless the deceased has given written consent... and alternate sources and grandfathered lines exist.[/quote]

BUT, did you know (in some states) signing your name on the line of consent of organ donor, you are somewhat agreeing to be a test rat while still living?

AAAAH, throwing things off, as is my specialty.

Another thread on that sometime in the future. Maybe.

[cacophony]

make sure you send me about 50 random PMs when you get ready to start that thread.

[Juanita Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by cacophony

make sure you send me about 50 random PMs when you get ready to start that thread.

If it's puzzles you like, it's puzzles you'll get.

Everything's a puzzle though. So, like it or not it's puzzles you're gonna get.

[cacophony]

i read an item in wired about embryonic stem cell research today and the writer was discussing the concern in the scientific community about a potential provision in obama's proposed lift of the ban. apparently early drafts of the ban include a mandate that any new lines intended to be derived from the destruction of in-vitro embryos must have the informed consent of the parents. key word being "informed."

At issue are informed consent requirements for women who donated eggs left unused during fertility treatments, and eventually used to generate embryonic stem cells.

Though egg collection has long been governed by widely lauded consent standards established by the National Research Council and International Society for Stem Cell Research, those standards didn’t previously meet the letter of the NIH’s proposed law.

The NIH requires consent forms that clearly mention human embryonic stem cell research, forbid donating eggs for the benefit of a specific person, and contain various other stipulations that were generally mentioned during older consent processes, but not rigorously codified. These rules could have a massive impact on existing and proposed research.

i'm just wondering what the general take on this is. i don't understand how you can argue against informing people of the eventual destination of their discarded embryos. why isn't it their right to know?

his argument seems to be that if people KNOW their embryos will be used for research, they'll be reluctant to donate. is that really an argument to not inform people? is that moral?

is it just me, because of my views on embyronic stem cell research?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/escguideline/