Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 85618	2007-12-16 06:50:00	Do you support Stem Cell Research?	radium (8645)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
621735	2007-12-17 04:20:00	Another single-mindedly pointless poll, voted mainly by people who haven't got a clue about what the controversies are. :groan: I could have had more options including research on embryo stem cells and Skin Stem Cells. Pointless, far from it. It's PF1 Chat, we are open to discussion here. How do you know what everyones understanding is on STR? People are confusing the research with human embryo stem research, which is where 99% of the controversy lies. I understand the controversy over human embryo stem research, which in my opinion holds the best potential for forward progress, rather than harvesting them from skin.	radium (8645)
621736	2007-12-17 04:25:00	I'm at a loss. There should be the option 'I'm somewhere in between'. Because, stem cell when perfected will save hundreds of millions of lives, and while that prospect looks mighty fine at first, the consequences will be harsh and severe for all human beings on the planet. Far too often I am instantly branded as callous and inhumane for holding my perspective, but I'd like you to think for the future - if people keep living, and keep procreating at a much faster rate than the death rate, the earth will be grossly overpopulated. Natural resources we take for granted today will become objects every nations will wage wars for. For example, even fresh drinking water is starting to become short supplied, and the world's human population keeps growing. Most of us here don't want New Zealand to become overpopulated and would like to keep our natural landscapes. However, if the whole world becomes overpopulated, then influxes of illegal immigrants will be inevitable. And with illegal immigrants and growth in population sizes, most if not all of our land will be transformed into living areas and Auckland may even become a slum. The earth is already struggling to keep the rising 6.6 billion people alive, and it will be a matter of time until that number grows to a disproportionate number that will take its toll. However, as with most humans, I would probably say otherwise if myself or a loved one was affected by something that only stem cell can cure, but until that happens, I'm standing my ground.	qazwsxokmijn (102)
621737	2007-12-17 04:54:00	Oh dear,will you ever say the right thing? All that education gone to waste. Ok we live in a Democracy and we can think what we like we dont have to be sheep and all agree on everything. What makes ones opion more valid then anothers...nothing it's their opion!! Long Live Democracy!!!	memphis (2869)
621738	2007-12-17 05:16:00	Background When a baby is conceived, the first cells that develop are what is called "stem cells". These are cells that do not have a specific function like being part of a finger or a kidney or whatever. But as these cells reproduce, the "daughter" cells do have such specific functions. In a sense, stem cells are the "factories" that produce the cells that do the real work. Some medical researchers believe that healthy stem cells could be implanted into a sick person, and -- with the proper techniques applied -- produce healthy cells of the appropriate type to replace dead or damaged cells in the patient. At present, this is all in the research stage. Experts in the field generally agree that the basic idea sounds like it should or at least could work, but to date the results of experiments have been disappointing. While some sick people treated with stem cell techniques have shown improvement, the results are not statistically significant. That is, some number of sick people get well even if they get no treatment at all, and the number of sick people who have gotten well after stem cell treatments is not significantly greater than the number who could have been expected to get well on their own anyway. Some critics say that this proves the whole idea is a blind alley. Defenders reply that the research is still in the early stages, and it's not fair to demand positive results this soon. The problem Many people have come out in opposition to stem cell research. Why? Because the major source of stem cells for research today is embryos, and the embryos are destroyed in the process of extracting the stem cells. What's the big deal? Genetically, an embryo is a human being A very tiny, undeveloped human being, but a human being nonetheless. Even if stem cell treatments ultimately prove successful, embryonic stem cell treatment involves the deliberate killing of a human being in order to use his body parts to treat another human being. Supporters of embryonic stem cell research point to all sorts of good that might result. They paint glowing pictures of the diseases that might be cured and the people who might be helped. But does this justify killing an innocent human being? Surely we all appreciate the value of organ transplants. No one questions that many, many lives have been saved because of organ transplants, and many more have been improved in one way or another. But a continuing problem is the shortage of healthy organs available for transplant. There are long waiting lists for transplant organs. Suppose that someone suggested that this probably could be easily solved if we made it legal to kill selected people so that there organs could be "harvested". Think of all the good that could result! Why, one such person could provide dozens of organs -- a heart for this patient, two kidneys for two more, retinas, bone marrow, etc etc. Think of how many lives could be saved by one death! Wouldn't that make it worth it? And we could carefully choose the people who would be selected as donors. They could be chosen from particularly disliked groups, like minorities, the handicapped, or lawyers. How would you react to such a proposal? That is exactly what is being proposed here. Medical researchers think that they may be able to save or improve the lives of some people by killing others. So they insist that it should be legal to kill these human beings in order to help others. Good out of tragedy To date, the major source of embryonic stem cells for this research has been the remains of aborted babies. This has led to an additional argument: These were babies who were going to die anyway. Their mothers were going to have abortions whether the remains were harvested for stem cells or not. So what is the harm? Abortion is a tragedy, but at least this way some good comes out of it. Here's the harm: Deliberately killing someone in order to benefit yourself cannot be excused on the grounds that you were going to kill this person anyway. Suppose I murdered my father in order to get my inheritance sooner. Would a court say, Hey, if I had killed him in some fit or irrational rage that would have been wrong, but if I did it for money, well, it's okay then. Or here's a closer analogy. Suppose that some militant racist group went around lynching black people. Hundreds of innocent blacks are killed. Public outrage grows. Then one day this group announces a new program: Whenever they lynch a black person, they will promptly deliver the body to the nearest hospital, where organs can be removed for transplant. Even if you don't approve of lynching or racism, they say, surely you must applaud us for this. Think of all that good that can be done. Maybe a lynching is a tragedy, but at least this way some good will come of it. Would you find that line of argument convincing? Or would you be appalled by the callousness, the shear absurdity of it? Indeed, one has to wonder if some of the support for this research is not motivated by a desire to justify abortion. After all, if every abortion could now potentially save lives, doesn't that make abortion a positive good? Sure it does -- just like donating the bodies of lynching victims for organ transplants makes lynching a positive good. A side note: alternative sources Embryos are not the only possible source of stem cells. There are stem cells in fat tissue. (And I need only look in the mirror to know that there's plenty of fat tissue around.) There are stem cells in umbilical cords. There has been some success at harvesting stem cells from these sources. At present, it is not clear if these sources are just as useful (from a technical point of view) as embryos. The slippery slope At least one company, the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicene of Norfolk, Virginia, is now fertilizing embryos in the laboratory using donated sperm and eggs specifically for the purpose of harvesting these embryos for stem cells. (When I say "donated", I don't mean that they were given for free. Women were paid $1200 to $2000 for their eggs. The news reports I've seen didn't mention what the men were paid for their sperm.) In other words, human beings are now being conceived for the express purpose of being killed and their body parts harvested for the benefit of others. So okay, right now it's "just embryos". Maybe that doesn't disturb you too much. After all, embryos are very small, don't look particularly human, probably don't feel pain or have any consciousness. But ... If it becomes generally accepted that an embryo can be freely killed and harvested for parts, how long before a more developed baby in the womb can likewise be killed and harvested? And if unborn babies can be killed and harvested, why not newborns? Or if killing embryos is acceptable because they are unconscious or have no feelings, what about people in comas? And if that's okay, then what about people who are paralyzed? What about anyone who I think is less important or less valuable to society than me? Once we declare that some human lives may be sacrified for the good of others, who decides which human beings can be killed, and for whose benefit?	memphis (2869)
621739	2007-12-17 06:28:00	I don't see anything wrong with embryos. After all, we eat them with bacon on toast in the morning. :2cents: Most of us eat the nourishment the embryo was supposed to get - not the embryo itself.	pctek (84)
621740	2007-12-17 06:44:00	Most of us eat the nourishment the embryo was supposed to get - not the embryo itself. You don't eat egg yolks? That's the best part!	qazwsxokmijn (102)
621741	2007-12-17 06:58:00	The yolk is not the embryo. It is the nourishment provided for the growing embryo, which if the egg has been fertilised, is a small "spot" at one end. (As I understand it.)	Richard (739)
621742	2007-12-17 07:48:00	I suport crossbredding with fish, Then we could live under-water. I'm yet to figure out how to do the actual cross-breeding....Though I'm pretty sure it concerns naked swimming.	Metla (12)
621743	2007-12-17 08:16:00	I suport crossbredding with fish, Then we could live under-water. I'm yet to figure out how to do the actual cross-breeding....Though I'm pretty sure it concerns naked swimming. You been watching to many Kevin Costner movies	plod (107)
621744	2007-12-17 17:57:00	Interesting article on the morning KTLA news here . . . The harvesting of fat cells with their own stem cells are being used to replace the tissue removed in women during mastectomies . The results are all good so far, and since the use of the cells are auto-harvested-implanted, there is no rejection issue either . As for harvesting unborn embryos of humans . . I find it wrong on many levels . Just as I find partial birth abortions where they allow the body except for the head to pass thru the vagina and then proceed to suck the brains out of the baby to kill it is barbaric . In a legal technicality . . the baby is not considered born until the head is passed and therein lies the problem . In a moral technicality . . . the mother and physician (the "Do no harm" oath-taking person?) is absolved of any legal ramification and exonerated of responsibility . . . the gilded and perfumed but inwardly rotten noblesse of doing good for the greater number yet destroying a singular entity to do so . In a spiritual technicality . . . a life has been destroyed with all the responsibilities of blood guilt and unjustifiable taking of a life for specious reasons . There appears to be a muting if not total destruction of natural affection . I believe that intentional murder . . at any level of life immediately past conception . . . is criminal and answerable to more than the local government or constabulary . I therefor eschew IUDs, but not "conception-barring" devices . This is not a religious epiphany . . but something I have believed and known for years before and since enlightenment . Just knowing here that I am going to open a new bag of discourse, I also refuse to practice cannibalism by accepting human body parts for transplant . A pig heart valve, OK . . . but a human heart valve . . No . I would therefor not accept any human stem-cell applications to be implanted into my own body . Animals are for consumption; humans are not . I can see the distinction . Some others have smothered their conscience to ignore the obvious . Yet others have stated they fear no payback for their actions and standards . As far as eating unborn chickens . . . we also consume ovaries and reproductive organs in the form of apples, vegetables and nuts and beans .	SurferJoe46 (51)
1 2 3 4 5 6