Stem Cell Research article

by DevonMcBride 112 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  EscapedLifer1

  Class,

  you still do not understand the science. How many times does the point have to be made that these embryos that we are discussing are NON-viable. They were given every chance to develop but for a variety of reasons, they will NEVER make it. They are not a human at this point, but a mass of half-a-dozen progenetor cells.

  Now, your assertion that even bacteria "hurt", or feel pain. That is just nonsense. Pain is a sensation generated by nerve cells, transmitted electrically through a nervous system to a central processing unit (brain), where the entity's brain process these electrical impulses as "pain" stimulus. Now, six identical cells CANNOT feel, sense, comprehend, or experience pain.

  Please, before you start spouting your moral superiority, try and do a little research, so that you don't sound so ill informed and insensitive.

  Best regards,

  Brandon
• 

  the_classicist

  Class....you are surely going to tell me you are either vegan or vegetarian are you not? Surely a higher form of life such as an octupus, cow, or pig shouldn't be sacrificed on the alter of the BBQ grill should it?

  No, I am not, which is what you were expecting anyway. Humanity is the highest form of life (well, you might include dolphins: so long and thanks for the fish). From the biological perspective, it is illogical for humans to kill their own young, but it is quite natural for us to kill other life forms for sustinence.

  What about all those pesky embryos that don't attach properly to the uterine wall? Not viable eh? If it is life should it not be able to fend for itself somehow? You assign artificial values to when, how, where life begins.

  Human life begins at conception, when the lifeform has 48 chromosomes. My knowlege of biology is more limited than yours, but I assume that if it doesn't attach to the uterine wall, it will not survive, right? That's nature, but it is not natural to procure abortion or purposely kill your own kind out of selfish reasons.

  I was not insulting you by calling you a man was I? I said it was funny how the most rabid anti-abortionist were men. How is that an insult? It was an observation. Quite an astute one I might add.

  I would consider "rabid" an insult, it attributes a negative quality to myself which is not true. It's like pulling an ISP and calling you a pedophile b/c you're gay. But both you and I know that's not true.

  Are you swearing an oath to never, ever use a procedure or treatment that utilizes embryonic stem cell research? Can you make that vow?

  Again, the research is indirect, but I would not use embryonic stem cells as that would directly be infringing on another's right to life. They can get stem cells from other place, you know.
• 

  the_classicist

  you still do not understand the science. How many times does the point have to be made that these embryos that we are discussing are NON-viable. They were given every chance to develop but for a variety of reasons, they will NEVER make it. They are not a human at this point, but a mass of half-a-dozen progenetor cells.

  I know that, I'm not an idiot. What I'm saying is that it's unethical to procure them in the first place: to create life in order to destroy it.

  Now, your assertion that even bacteria "hurt", or feel pain. ; That is just nonsense. ; Pain is a sensation generated by nerve cells, transmitted electrically through a nervous system to a central processing unit (brain), where the entity's brain process these electrical impulses as "pain" stimulus. ; Now, six identical cells CANNOT feel, sense, comprehend, or experience pain.

  You didn't even read what I've said throughout this thread. Please stop setting up a strawman.

  Please, before you start spouting your moral superiority, try and do a little research, so that you don't sound so ill informed and insensitive.

  I've a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. I'm no expert, though.
• 

  EvilForce

  Class....just as you have put an artificial judgement on other species in which to eat. You have put an artificial judgement on your own superiority. I find the killing of innocent animals for food rather distasteful and inhumane. Yet I will not infringe on your right to choose otherwise.
  
  I will also not infringe on your right to decline any medical procedure or treatment you do not agree with.
  
  But you see Class.... folks like you are trying to push YOUR PHILOSOPHY and value judgements down my throat. You are trying to stop me from excercising my rights as to what I use as MY value judgements for my own medical care and those I seek to offer my patients.
  
  Using rabid to describe anti abortionists was not meant to offend you. I'm sorry if it offended you and retract it. Rabid according to Websters means: b : going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion. I feel/felt anti abortionist go to extreme lengths. Maybe it's a matter of semantics.
  
  Talk to someone with degenerative nerve damage about how they should respect the dignity of life while they are slowly becoming shells of their former self day by day losing all their supposed humanity. It's heart wrenching.
  
  Before you claim that the science behind these claims are hyped perhaps you should investigate some of them. I remember back in 1986 when popular newsrags said that HIV/AIDS would be untreatable.....that until we could harness genetics and change eye color HIV/AIDS would never be treatable. WRONG!
• 

  the_classicist

  Class....just as you have put an artificial judgement on other species in which to eat. You have put an artificial judgement on your own superiority. I find the killing of innocent animals for food rather distasteful and inhumane. Yet I will not infringe on your right to choose otherwise.

  I have the argument from human nature both for eating animals and for not killing one's young, which is not an artifical pontification, but a biological reality.

  I will also not infringe on your right to decline any medical procedure or treatment you do not agree with.

  Stem cells are only experimental in their medical usage. I would gladly use stem cells for treatment if they didn't cause a human life. And scientifically, they don't have to take a life and I would gladly pay more for the extra work it would cost scientists to prepare a treatment that doesn't.

  But you see Class.... folks like you are trying to push YOUR PHILOSOPHY and value judgements down my throat. You are trying to stop me from excercising my rights as to what I use as MY value judgements for my own medical care and those I seek to offer my patients.

  Ah, here's the problem with today's left wing (I'm talking left wing in social matter such as these, I'm left in economic and other social matters as well): stating my opinion is not considered valid and by stating my opinion I'm somehow pushing my "value judgements down [your] throat." I would not stop you from using stem cells, but using stem cells at the cost of human life is immoral.

  Using rabid to describe anti abortionists was not meant to offend you. I'm sorry if it offended you and retract it. Rabid according to Websters means: b : going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion. I feel/felt anti abortionist go to extreme lengths. Maybe it's a matter of semantics.

  The OED defines rabid as "Furious, raging; madly violent..." I know that you're a good person, though, so I take no offence and I hope I've caused no offence to you either. And I must say, I do prefer "pro/anti abortion" instead of that "pro choice/pro life" crap.

  Talk to someone with degenerative nerve damage about how they should respect the dignity of life while they are slowly becoming shells of their former self day by day losing all their supposed humanity. It's heart wrenching.

  Certainly is, but we should not use pity as an excuse to end human life and it's not a rational statement either. It is biologically programmed in any animal to prolong one's life as long as possible, but, in terms of human treatment, that doesn't mean we should treat if all we're doing is to delay death rather than produce a meaningful length to one's life.

  Before you claim that the science behind these claims are hyped perhaps you should investigate some of them. I remember back in 1986 when popular newsrags said that HIV/AIDS would be untreatable.....that until we could harness genetics and change eye color HIV/AIDS would never be treatable. WRONG!

  It's possibly that the claims are hyped, or that they won't work so well in practice, but, as you correctly point out, this does not mean that they definitely are hyped. It's like a news story I watched a few days ago wherein they stated that they've "cured" HIV. Well, according to the independent scientist they interviewed, the researcher who made that claim did so prematurely and with hype. There's much politics when fundings involved on both sides.
• 

  EvilForce

  When it comes to funding there are politics involved surely. But all claims are subject to peer review and other procedures before actually moving on. It is in fact the media that usually hypes these findings. "Cure for Cancer on Horizon" sells newspapers. "Identification of a polyclonal B-cell activator in Plasmodium Falciparum Shows Great Promise In Malaria Subset" doesn't quite cut the mustard.
  
  While talking about young / old is a biological reality. The significance which you assign to each is an artificial or value judgement. You have to see this. Denying this is illogical. It is YOUR PERSONAL philosophy. And that's ok. But don't LIMIT my choices by denying the activities that I choose to pursue. Fine....have your groups pay for alternative research using cells you find appropriate. Just don't stop my supported groups.
  
  You said you would gladly pay extra. (This isn't even entirely possible, but for the sake of debate ...ok) How much extra are you willing to pay? How much can we raise taxes or cut other spending to do this? Money is a finite resource. The stem cells being harvested now would otherwise be thrown in the trash....ok incinerator. Can I ask how much you spend on anti-abortion activities? How much you donate time & effort to said causes? Do you promote adoption alternatives locally? Your profile says you are 18 and I think you are in school so I can guess at your answers.
  
  However...my debate stands to the white picket fence, 1/2 acre, SUV driving, suburbanite, Republicans, making $ 100,000+ that are anti-abortion. When I ask them specifically what they do....they stammer.....hymm....haw......for once they have to get their hands dirty with ACTUAL effort to put behind their ideology....well they fold like a deck of cards.
  
  I agree pro-life / pro-choice is silly. Let's call it what it is.
  
  This would be like having a deer killed because it got hit by a car. But you take the stand that since it's not "deer season" you shouldn't eat the meat. So leaving the carcass on the road to rot benefits no one. But you have held to your moral / law abiding standard. These stem cells exist. If not used will be discarded with the trash.
  
  Women are not getting abortions to donate stem cells. They have made a decision to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason. Shouldn't some good come from the "sacrifice of the fetus"? Otherwise it's just like the deer carcass on the side of the road.
• 

  rem

  >> Human life begins at conception, when the lifeform has 48 chromosomes. My knowlege of biology is more limited than yours, but I assume that if it doesn't attach to the uterine wall, it will not survive, right? That's nature, but it is not natural to procure abortion or purposely kill your own kind out of selfish reasons.
  
  I think you may be on shaky ground on this "argument from nature". Abortion (miscarriage) is quite natural. It is also quite natural for animals to kill those of their own kind - even for food. There may be a moral argument against this practice, but certainly you cannot argue that this is not natural. Anything that happens in nature is natural.
  
  I also think you are a bit disingenuous in how you categorize a clump of cells with a certain probability of becoming a human vs. a living person. If you are religious, do you believe these clumps of cells are going to heaven? Do you hold funeral services for them? The problem is that many people have black and white thinking on the matter, when really it is a complex issue and there are gray areas.
  
  I think we can only agree to disagree on our individual interpretations of what makes a person a person. For instance, I do not see a clump of cells with a probability of becoming a living, breathing human a full human with full human rights. I do see a fetus that is fairly far along in the process as being a human. Where is the line? It's hard to say, but just having 48 chromosomes doesn't cut it for me. It that were true, then the cells on my toenail would be fully human and I would hesitate to clip them.
  
  Perhaps there is some objective way of solving it... maybe determining when the probability of life hits a certain threshold, or when sentience begins, or a combination... I don't know, but that's a real discussion. Ending the thought process at the number of chromosomes in a cell is, in my mind, naive.
  
  rem
• 

  the_classicist

  You said you would gladly pay extra. (This isn't even entirely possible, but for the sake of debate ...ok) How much extra are you willing to pay? How much can we raise taxes or cut other spending to do this? Money is a finite resource. The stem cells being harvested now would otherwise be thrown in the trash....ok incinerator. Can I ask how much you spend on anti-abortion activities? How much you donate time & effort to said causes? Do you promote adoption alternatives locally? Your profile says you are 18 and I think you are in school so I can guess at your answers.

  I don't spend any money or time on anti-abortion activities as I know that it's completely futile to do so in Canada, unless you overthrow the government and throw away the constitution (or at least all the precedents that made abortion legal).

  However...my debate stands to the white picket fence, 1/2 acre, SUV driving, suburbanite, Republicans, making $ 100,000+ that are anti-abortion. When I ask them specifically what they do....they stammer.....hymm....haw......for once they have to get their hands dirty with ACTUAL effort to put behind their ideology....well they fold like a deck of cards.

  Well, I live in a 1300 sq ft. house in a working class area that is also semi-industrial (not as bad as it sounds, though; the house was completely renovated by the landlord, but there was quite a mice problem for a while). I only made $7050 last year and I must admit, I didn't work a single day for that; it came from the family trust, which also happens to be a corporation for tax purposes. So, what do I do? I'd like to think I debate well about the subject, but that's my subjective opinion.

  This would be like having a deer killed because it got hit by a car. But you take the stand that since it's not "deer season" you shouldn't eat the meat. So leaving the carcass on the road to rot benefits no one. But you have held to your moral / law abiding standard. These stem cells exist. If not used will be discarded with the trash.

  Well, as for the deer, a dead deer would be able to absorbed into the ecosystem. Here's the moral problem with using these fetuses: they were procured by immoral means and to use them directly would be co-operating in that immorality. To insist that we use fetal tissue for stem cell research will only create a perpetual cycle of injustice. For example, a sucessful treatment is created using fetal stem cells. Their use will create demand for more embryos to be destroyed for the increasing number of patients. And so the cycles of abortion and creating embryos in order to destroy them continues.

  Though, that is debatable.
• 

  the_classicist

  I think you may be on shaky ground on this "argument from nature". Abortion (miscarriage) is quite natural. It is also quite natural for animals to kill those of their own kind - even for food. There may be a moral argument against this practice, but certainly you cannot argue that this is not natural. Anything that happens in nature is natural.

  Miscarriage is natural, but for humans, purposely causing the death of one's own young is not. It is quite natural for other animals to kill their own young, but not humans or any other kind of animal closely related to us, so that's a false analogy.

  I also think you are a bit disingenuous in how you categorize a clump of cells with a certain probability of becoming a human vs. a living person. If you are religious, do you believe these clumps of cells are going to heaven? Do you hold funeral services for them? The problem is that many people have black and white thinking on the matter, when really it is a complex issue and there are gray areas.

  A clumb of embryonic cells do have the ability to become a human being and I don't feel it's too useful to discuss religion with a naturalist, but I'll do so anyway. Yes. No. Happy?

  I think we can only agree to disagree on our individual interpretations of what makes a person a person. For instance, I do not see a clump of cells with a probability of becoming a living, breathing human a full human with full human rights. I do see a fetus that is fairly far along in the process as being a human. Where is the line? It's hard to say, but just having 48 chromosomes doesn't cut it for me. It that were true, then the cells on my toenail would be fully human and I would hesitate to clip them.

  I don't see an embryo as a full person, either, but all humans have the right to live. Using your the cells on your toenail is also a false analogy, because if you let your toenails grow, they'll still be toenails. You do not end your own existence by cutting them. By destroying an embryo, you are destroying someone else's existence, which is quite a pontificaton.

  Perhaps there is some objective way of solving it... maybe determining when the probability of life hits a certain threshold, or when sentience begins, or a combination... I don't know, but that's a real discussion. Ending the thought process at the number of chromosomes in a cell is, in my mind, naive.

  It's completely logical and rational, though.
• 

  EvilForce

  It's completely rational and logical..... TO YOU! Not to me. LOL.
  
  Deciding that a fetus is a "human" at the stage of viability is just as logical and rational as your assertion.
  
  Yes you may debate well. But what about rolling up your sleeves and getting your hands dirty for your beliefs? Get's harder. Also, we will never really face the decision since you and I are men. It's like me defining the only acceptable woman I find attractive IF I was straight and you telling me the only acceptable man you would date...if only you were gay. LOL
  
  While "fighting" abortion may be futile as you say can't you encourage adoption or alternatives to abortion by supporting those causes with your time and money? I'm back harping on the "put your money where your mouth is".
  I thought as you did when I was your age so there is still hope for you. :)
  
  Since you are arguing from a chromosomes point of view, what about clones then? Are cloned cells and clones automatically human life???