|
|
Post by silversno on Sept 8, 2004 8:47:20 GMT -5
Okay. Stem Cell Research. Tough Topic, but Ehh...
I found out that Stem Cell Research actually DOESN'T kill lab babies. ^^ The Scientist only take the 'leftover's and use them to make the cells. If they didn't use them, they would be flushed to the sewage system anyway. (and i'm serious)
It can cure Diabetes and many other diseases. (i know them, i just cant think of any right now...)
soooo.....
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 9, 2004 1:45:46 GMT -5
Thankfully, the US ban on it doesn't stop other countries from doing it. (Yay India!) That's what really irks me. These are fetuses (Is that the right plural?) that are going to be discarded anyway. It's not saving any lives to ban it, but it could cost us some to keep it banned. Why is this an issue? I don't understand...
|
|
|
|
Post by silversno on Sept 9, 2004 8:43:40 GMT -5
Thankfully, the US ban on it doesn't stop other countries from doing it. (Yay India!) That's what really irks me. These are fetuses (Is that the right plural?) that are going to be discarded anyway. It's not saving any lives to ban it, but it could cost us some to keep it banned. Why is this an issue? I don't understand... Here here! *bows to they're almightyness* |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Sept 9, 2004 14:26:54 GMT -5
Yeah, stem cell research is good. Especially since IVF and abortion are legal anyway. I think stem cell is less controversial than abortion, at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Sept 12, 2004 10:14:38 GMT -5
My one problem is everyone seems to share the idea that stem-cell is the cure all and by not researching it we are losing lives constantly, when this is definitely not the case.
It has potential. It could cure Alzheimer's and Diabetes. But we don't know that.
Using still born, dead, etc. etc., and such fetuses is ok by me. But using fetuses from an abortion is very against me.
I am against abortion. And I am against the use of stem cells from aborted babies. By using those cells, people will have even more weight for abortion, claiming that abortion is good because it brings more stem cells!
Basically, if the baby wasn't aborted, or killed or whatever, fine by me. But do not, do not use aborted fetuses.
|
|
|
|
Post by silversno on Sept 12, 2004 15:55:55 GMT -5
My one problem is everyone seems to share the idea that stem-cell is the cure all and by not researching it we are losing lives constantly, when this is definitely not the case. It has potential. It could cure Alzheimer's and Diabetes. But we don't know that. Using still born, dead, etc. etc., and such fetuses is ok by me. But using fetuses from an abortion is very against me. I am against abortion. And I am against the use of stem cells from aborted babies. By using those cells, people will have even more weight for abortion, claiming that abortion is good because it brings more stem cells! Basically, if the baby wasn't aborted, or killed or whatever, fine by me. But do not, do not use aborted fetuses. They (the scientists) have already PROVEN diabetes can be cured by Stem Cell research in Mice, and chickens. Why not Humans? (i know so much on the diabetes side, considering i have it) |
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Sept 12, 2004 17:24:38 GMT -5
Clearing this up...
First off, the 'ban' on Stem Cell research in the USA is not a ban on Stem Cell research. It is not illegal in the USA to do Stem Cell research, in fact, in some cases, the government would be willing to put money towards it! So what is this ban, then, you ask? The ban simply keeps government money away from scientists who create a Stem Cell line (which comes from the developing child) after the 'ban' went into place. The government will give money to scientists who work on the several dozen or so lines created before then. Since there wasn't a 'ban' back then, the scientists aren't penalized.
Second, there are two types of Stem Cell research. One kind uses Stem Cells from unborn children, the other uses so-called Adult Stem Cells, which are taken from someone who is already grown. These Stem Cells can come from various places in the body, such as the umbilical cord, and do not result in any loss of life whatsoever. For this reason, some people choose to keep their childrens' umbilical cords, so if they need the Stem Cells later, they have them ready.
The Adult Stem Cell research is farther along than the other kind, and can already be used in some cases. The other kind (can't remember the name) has actually had many problems, such as causing cancer in lab rats, which is why little private money is put towards it. The Adult Stem Cells seem to have quite a bit of potential themselves, and they may be able to solve the problems targeted by the other kind of research.
I'm not voting in the poll. None of the choices fit my response. I know that some Stem Cell research will work, because Adult Stem Cells have already been used. I would put 'It.Kills.Lab.Babies.', but by choosing that, I would be forced to negate my beliefs because of the '(no actually it doesn't)' afterwards. Polls shouldn't reflect their author's opinion, the author's post should.
|
|
|
|
Post by lei on Sept 16, 2004 15:31:38 GMT -5
Stem cell research is morally wrong, in my opinion.
Firstly, I am against abortion, because it violates the constitution. I know I'll get some disagreement here but, hey, it DOES state that everyone has a right to life and liberty. Why not unborn babies? People say, 'oh, its ok, really. They're only FETUSES, after all'. Hogwash. They're BABIES. And someone who is in favor of murdering a BABY is just sick. Sorry about being so harsh. I know a lot of people just don't give it much thought. Maybe you didn't. Maybe you should. (oh, and the reasoning that “it’s legal and they’d be flushed down the sewer anyway” is kind of bad. It SHOULDN’T be legal, if the US had any real Americans left. I think Washington, Lincoln, and our founding fathers would be ashamed of us)
I believe using body parts of dead persons is wrong too. Even still-born babies. Because would you like it if they chopped you up when you die for some experiment? Probably not. I think I read somewhere that they can do what they do with stem cells of dead babies by duplication or something. I have no problem with Adult stem cell research, btw. Like someone else already said, it gives the abortion movement a lot more weight if they can use stem cells as an argument.
Oh, and ditto to Ikkin’s last paragraph. I didn’t vote either.
~lei~
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 17, 2004 14:56:19 GMT -5
I believe using body parts of dead persons is wrong too. Even still-born babies. Because would you like it if they chopped you up when you die for some experiment? Probably not. Since I'm an organ donor, no, I don't mind. I don't care about what happens to my body after death, since I will no longer be using it. I think it's a waste for my heart, kidneys, lungs, corneas, etc to rot in the ground when they could be going to save someone's life. If you can use it, go ahead and take it from me once I'm dead. I'm not terribly concerned with the state of my corpse anyway since I will most likely be cremmated. If you are not against it for religious reasons (I think if you're jewish you're supposed to go into the Earth with everything you had starting out...?) you should be an organ donor! Every day people die waiting to receive organs. I know I'm getting off topic but... you should also register with the Red Cross's life saver program. They will make appointments with you when they need blood, and when you are in need of blood they will make sure it gets to you. Platlettes (Sp?) are also constantly needed but less talked about. This is the fluid in your blood, it is yellowish and clear, and your blood cells float in it. When you donate this they take out your blood, put it in a centerfuge, and seperate it from your blood cells. Your cells are put back into you and the fluid is kept for medical use. Since your cell count doesn't go down you can give this more often than blood. You can also donate marrow. Your bone marrow helps to make the cells of your immune system, if healthy marrow is given to someone it can help them make these cells too. This is more difficult and does have a longer recovery time, plus you have to be a good match so it is not rejected. There's a lot that you can do to help save others when you are alive, and when you die you can give to the world a legacy of love and selflessness. Lei, you've told us why you're against Abortion, (Which isn't really what we're debating right now) but I don't really understand your stance on the research. I do agree that Adult Stem research seems to be much better. (From a folical stem cell, they've grown skin with sweat glands and hair and everything!) If the other kind is really less effective and more dangerous, it will eventually fall to the wayside while the other kind surpasses it. There will be no need to ban it, since it will eventually become obsolete on it's own anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 17, 2004 15:03:55 GMT -5
*wonders if this is predictable*
I know little about stem cell research. What I think is wrong if emrbyos are created/destroyed just for the sole purpose of stem cell research OR harvesting (there's few things in my mind more despicable than making an emrbyo to get the cells and then killing it since the purpose is served). Otherwise, though, stem cell research is fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 17, 2004 15:16:54 GMT -5
My understanding is that the embryos are not created for the sole purpose of the research. Most of them are from fertility clinics.
Save Mary Sue wants a child and can't have them on her own so she goes to a clinic. They take her eggs and her husband's sperm and make an embryo, place it in her uterus and... bingo! Miracle of life. However it doesn't just take one embryo, they will make six or more embryos since the first several won't always take in the uterus and miscarriages occur. If the first embryo takes and is carried to term they have five embryos they don't know what to do with. Mary Sue doesn't want six or more children, and the embryos are destroyed.
So now instead of being discarded, the extra fetuses are given to the researchers.
(Do I agree with this process? No. Would I rather have the embryo go to potentially life-saving medical research than be flat out discarded? Yes.)
If there are any holes in my understanding of this process and of the procudures by which fertility clinic embryos are handled after they are not needed, please educate me on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 17, 2004 15:20:46 GMT -5
My understanding is that the embryos are not created for the sole purpose of the research. Most of them are from fertility clinics. Save Mary Sue wants a child and can't have them on her own so she goes to a clinic. They take her eggs and her husband's sperm and make an embryo, place it in her uterus and... bingo! Miracle of life. However it doesn't just take one embryo, they will make six or more embryos since the first several won't always take in the uterus and miscarriages occur. If the first embryo takes and is carried to term they have five embryos they don't know what to do with. Mary Sue doesn't want six or more children, and the embryos are destroyed. So now instead of being discarded, the extra fetuses are given to the researchers. (Do I agree with this process? No. Would I rather have the embryo go to potentially life-saving medical research than be flat out discarded? Yes.) If there are any holes in my understanding of this process and of the procudures by which fertility clinic embryos are handled after they are not needed, please educate me on this. One of the reasons for the US ban was the fact scientists were doing just what I said. Creating embryos for the sole purpose of stem-cell harvesting and research. That's why so many people were adamantly against it. And that's what I have the problem with. I also don't like the feritility process you mentioned. But if the only two options, period, involved discard or research, then research is better. But the process isn't the greatest. |
|
|
|
Post by lei on Sept 18, 2004 7:50:36 GMT -5
Sorry, If you got me wrong there. I wasn't too specific. I have no problem with donating body parts after death. In fact I will probably do it.
But I am against scientists/doctors helping themselves to a dead person's body parts without their having given permission during their life. I heard once about a teenage girl who died of some disease which affected her eyes as well. Anyway, the doctors removed the outer lining of her eyeballs without her, her parents', or her friends' permission. Then they went and did some experiment with them and the mother found out a while after the funeral.
Now, I realize that this is impossible to ask a fetus whether it would like to donate its body parts. And that is why I believe it to be wrong. Because I believe that the fetus has just as much right to life as we do, and should the same level of life as we do. Right now, baby chimpanzees have more rights than baby humans, although you'd think it would be the other way around.
Kinda busy here. Post again later.
|
|
|
|
Post by theunorthodox on Sept 23, 2004 1:16:44 GMT -5
Not sure if I should even bother posting my opinion...It doesn't fit under any of the poll choices and I know I would get attack by at least four of the people here, if not everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by roriegurl on Sept 23, 2004 1:22:14 GMT -5
Stem-cell research....tricky..... Uh.....I doubt my opinion would matter in this case, its not under any of the choices  |
|
