Features

VaporTrailx1 · #26

Here are the only two arguments needed to continue stem cell research:

1. Abortion is still legal and taking place either way. I view it as fucked up, but you wanna know what, why throw those useful stem cells in the incinerator?

2. Sanctity of human life? The guys who outlawed stem cell research had no problem dropping bombs on people.

We can grow ears on the backs of mice. think of the possibilities here.

Tadao · #27

You need to specify which stem cell research. Embryonic or adult? Then again I don't think you know anything about it.

Tadao · #28

I can't even play if you're gonna use talking points. You are saying that is the end all on an argument for research? I guess it was funny. :/

ZeldaQueen · #29

Quote:

Originally Posted by pac-man

You gotta admit ZQ, you make some weird analogies/references.

Sorry, my mind does make leaps. Then it forgets that no one else can see where it's going.

And howzabout this argument? Something isn't considered alive unless it's heart is pumping blood and it's breathing. Embryos, until the sixth week, have no heartbeat. (I'm not really sure how young embryos are when used in stem cell research

)

VaporTrailx1 · #30

The point is with embryonic stem cells, Why is throwing away something more morally justifiable than using it since it's there?

ok. The fetus has already met the business end of the vacuum cleaner. Why throw all those useful cells away? It's like a pizza guy getting an order canceled. Should he throw the pizza in the garbage or eat it?

Tadao · #31

ZQ, I don't think I will ever be able to claim when something is alive or not.

VT, I think the reason why people have a problem with it is because, (and I'm not clear on this), I believe they fertilize the eggs and start life and then take the stem cells from that life which in turns kills any hope for that life. I don't believe they take the cells from abortions.

VaporTrailx1 · #32

ahhh. that makes sense. All I knew about it was from the episode of south park where Cartman tried to sell a few hundred aborted fetuses to stem cell research.

Tadao · #33

I love that episode.

ZeldaQueen · #34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadao

ZQ, I don't think I will ever be able to claim when something is alive or not.

VT, I think the reason why people have a problem with it is because, (and I'm not clear on this), I believe they fertilize the eggs and start life and then take the stem cells from that life which in turns kills any hope for that life. I don't believe they take the cells from abortions.

Oh, I get it.

And as for my theory, just think of it. A person is considered dead if they don't have a pulse and aren't breathing. I'm just saying that that's my thoughts on the matter.

Colonel Flagg · #35

Adult stem cells are what they came from. Stem cells from hair follicles can be teased to grow more hair follicles, thus curing male-pattern baldness. (I kid, of course.) Embryonic stem cells are differentiable. Under different conditions, they can be made to grow into lung tissue, or liver tissue, or nerve tissue, or brain tissue, or .... This is why they are so valuable and desirable for research. The "existing stem cell lines" were either not of sufficient differentiable quality to generate this level of diversity, or they were contaminated.

Again, what is missing is the starting material to make the leap forward. Looking at historical advances in medical science, it is conceivable that we will develop the ability to generate fully differentiable stem cells without resorting to the harvesting of human embryos (that admittedly would be discarded by fertility clinics, as they are today). It will just take 8 years longer than it could have.

Tadao · #36

I hear you ZQ, it's just that I eat plants, kill bacteria and squish spiders. All of these are alive but what do I consider alive? Only the spider?

Flagg, that's kinda what I was thinking, I'm just not sure of at what point they harvest the embryonic stem cells? No one comes right out and says. When they say that they are disgarding the embyos, they are talking about fertalized eggs that are just beggining the very first stages of life right? I my self have been part of a few too many abortions. I'm not getting all embryo rights here. It just seems that there are way too many uncomfortable taboo things involved and therefore we aren't bieng told the naked science of what is involved.

pac-man · #37

Colonel Flagg · #38

T - I'm not a good-enough debater to be able to convince anyone toward one side or another of this issue. What I can say (not being a molecular biologist or a biochemist) is that the general tenor of the past 8 years has cast a long shadow on science in general. Humanity has a natural distrust of what it does not fully understand, and this is a prime example.

Where the cells come from is not an ethical dilemma - the embryos would be discarded or destroyed anyway. Ethics rears its head when the word "research" is used. Now scientists are performing "research" on human embryos. They want to begin cloning humans. Next they will be experimenting on fetuses. They are playing God. They are making the ultimate "DBGB" which will ultimately take over the world (thanks, Pac). They are evil, evil people and they should be destroyed.

It's absurd. We demonize those men and women whose life's work is to find a cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Spinal cord injuries, and other terminal cases. Why? Because they dare to use something we would otherwise have thrown away.

pac-man · #39

If the other shoe does drop, I think it will come in the form of a statement like, "Uh, we can't do shit with stem cells in humans; thanks for the grant, though." from researchers.

Colonel Flagg · #40

At least the opportunity to try has been given, regardless the eventual outcome.

Tadao · #41

Don't get wrong, I'm all for it. Even if it was for a Dead Baby Gun.

BurntToShreds · #42

So if Obama says that science, and not ideology, will determine his administration's decisions, then why not use pluripotent stem cells? They can be made from skin cells, and the process to create them was discovered back in 2007. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Dr. Boogie · #43

From what I've read, reasearchers are having some difficulty getting those cells to adapt, such as the cells becoming cancerous.

kahljorn · #44

Quote:

So you're saying that Bush's beliefs and those of his most ardent and vocal supporters didn't affect his policy? Oookay...

thats exactly what i was saying in the thread why is christianity the target ;o

VaporTrailx1 · #45

What would be the problem with creating Wrath of Kahnesque superhumans? Sure it seems wrong at first. But when you realize that AI computer systems will be able to outsmart us within 50 years it's a whole new ballgame. Normal humans will not be able to compete against the Robotic onslaught. If we're really worried about them replacing us normal humans, we could give them short lifespans like Blade Runner Replicants.

The choice is Kahn or SkyNET?

pac-man · #46

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

thats exactly what i was saying in the thread why is christianity the target ;o

Well, you're wrong. I know you don't like to hear that and I'm not going to argue with you.

Tadao · #47

I looked at this link http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...tem_Cells.html

I gotta say. I don't understand it yet.

pac-man · #48

I'm going to need sobriety and and a dictionary for that one. Like you said before, there needs to be a real comprehensive Discovery Channel special about this that covers pros and cons and uses some laymen's terms.

Colonel Flagg · #49

Nice find T. A fine summary of the state of the art - maybe not true cutting edge, but current as of the past year, surely.

What strikes me is the tone of the article. There's no "right" or "wrong" - there's only fact and falsehood. Very little in the way of emotion to cloud the issue at hand, allowing the reader to make his or her own decision as to ethics or morality of the research.

Arob · #50

Quote:

Adult stem cells are what they came from. Stem cells from hair follicles can be teased to grow more hair follicles, thus curing male-pattern baldness. (I kid, of course.) Embryonic stem cells are differentiable. Under different conditions, they can be made to grow into lung tissue, or liver tissue, or nerve tissue, or brain tissue, or .... This is why they are so valuable and desirable for research. The "existing stem cell lines" were either not of sufficient differentiable quality to generate this level of diversity, or they were contaminated.

Again, what is missing is the starting material to make the leap forward. Looking at historical advances in medical science, it is conceivable that we will develop the ability to generate fully differentiable stem cells without resorting to the harvesting of human embryos (that admittedly would be discarded by fertility clinics, as they are today). It will just take 8 years longer than it could have.

Quoting Colonel Flagg,

What about the stem cells taken from a baby's umbilical cord blood? Can these adult stem cells turn into babies?