OrangeSoul Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 If you are against Stem cell research and there is a healthy organ but made through stem cell labs would you accept it and get it if you need it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I am only against embryonic stem-cell research. (I'm also against the kind that they get from aborted babies; i think that's technically adult stem cells, but i'll count that in there too.) Most adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells are just fine by me. So... if they wanted to make me an organ with adult stem cells, and it was the choice between having one and not having one, i would totally go for it. Embryonic or foetal stem cells, that's kinda different. I don't think there has been enough research into the issue to even have to make a decision right now, but... i mean, if they'd already gone and done it, it doesn't really matter either way, does it? If they've already destroyed an embryo, you dying isn't going to bring it back, so why not, i guess. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 The problem with embryonic stem cells, is that people seem to think they are harvesting live, fertilized ova from women, taking the cells they want, and dumping the rest, when that's FAR from what happens. What they do is take fertilized ova, which was fertilized with many many others as part of fertility treatment. The ones which will NOT be implanted back in a woman, and would be destroyed ANYWAY are the ones from which they harvest cells. I have no problem with this as the ovum was going into the furnace anyway. Why NOT make some use of it? Of course, they should only use ova that are going to be destroyed anyway. Harvesting them JUST for stem cells is very very wrong. As long as it would otherwise have been destroyed, I'd happily take an organ grown from an embryonic stem cell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I don't think it's necessary, though. There is so much more work that can be done with adult stem cells before we have to start dabbling in morbid stuff like aborted foetuses and embryos. It's more the drama associated with the process that is the problem than the steps involved in the process itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I don't think it's necessary, though. There is so much more work that can be done with adult stem cells before we have to start dabbling in morbid stuff like aborted foetuses and embryos.It's more the drama associated with the process that is the problem than the steps involved in the process itself. 586009600[/snapback] But there are some potential treatments that adults stem cells are no good for. IIRC from material I've read, replacement organs is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 That's because embryonic cells are easier to look at. They're there, they can turn into anything, the end. The research almost conducts itself. Adult stem cells are harder to get to and the specific cells are less versatile. However, they're finding new stuff out about them all the time, and they have even found that many of the stem cells in the adult body can turn into other cells. Like bone-marrow stem cells can become liver and kidney cells. I hadn't ever heard that replacement organs couldn't be made from adult stem cells, but i guess i haven't looked that far into it, so i dunno. :shrug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Embryonic or foetal stem cells, that's kinda different. I don't think there has been enough research into the issue to even have to make a decision right now, but... i mean, if they'd already gone and done it, it doesn't really matter either way, does it? If they've already destroyed an embryo, you dying isn't going to bring it back, so why not, i guess. :/ 586009547[/snapback] Being a bit hypocritical, aren't we? You'll accept a pre-existing organ created from embryonic stem cells, but you're against stem cell research that uses pre-existing embryonic cells? It's not like they're making embryos just for stem cell research. They're using discarded embryos from fertility clinics. If you don't use it for stem cell research, it's just going to get tossed in the biohazard trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 They have to specifically destroy it to extract the stem cells. If they've already done that and they came up to me and said, 'Hey, here we have some stem cells from an embryo that we destroyed, do you want 'em for your new lung?', i would probably say, yeah, OK. You've already gone through the process, why not. But if they said, 'OK, we're gonna be having a bunch of embryos to discard later on, want we should take the stem cells out of them and give them to you?', i would probably say, no, that's quite alright. I doubt anyone would ever be in that situation, but if that was how it went, that's how i'd respond to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 They have to specifically destroy it to extract the stem cells. If they've already done that and they came up to me and said, 'Hey, here we have some stem cells from an embryo that we destroyed, do you want 'em for your new lung?', i would probably say, yeah, OK. You've already gone through the process, why not. But if they said, 'OK, we're gonna be having a bunch of embryos to discard later on, want we should take the stem cells out of them and give them to you?', i would probably say, no, that's quite alright.I doubt anyone would ever be in that situation, but if that was how it went, that's how i'd respond to it. 586009846[/snapback] Ok, so what good does saying 'no' do? The embryo doesn't get destroyed for its stem cells, but rather it gets tossed in the trash and it gets destroyed anyway. Either way, the embryo is going to be destroyed because it's useless to the facility that created it. Why not make what use of it you can in an attempt to help someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 It's more the drama associated with the process that is the problem than the steps involved in the process itself.586009600[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted June 3, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 3, 2005 I don't think it's necessary, though. There is so much more work that can be done with adult stem cells before we have to start dabbling in morbid stuff like aborted foetuses and embryos. here's a thought experiment: suppose then that adult stem cells couldn't be used (because they're biologically less stable, etc.). would you then allow embryonic stem cell use? it seems like you're not entirely against embryonic stem cell use. you would rather study adult stem cells first, then, if we have to, embryonic stem cells. but if you say that, it makes no difference whether you study embryonic stem cells now or later. and since the cells are going to be destroyed no matter what, research is equivalent to non-research. It's more the drama associated with the process that is the problem than the steps involved in the process itself.586009600[/snapback] there doesn't have to be any drama. unfortunately, most people don't know what the process is and they don't know all the implications. they just know what little they can gather from popular news sources. i certainly cannot vouch for their scientific literacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 here's a thought experiment: suppose then that adult stem cells couldn't be used (because they're biologically less stable, etc.). would you then allow embryonic stem cell use?586009956[/snapback] I'm not sure. Right this moment, probably not. Not in an environment like America's, anyway. (Maybe my entire thought process is too America-centric; i know that Korea and Britain have a more liberal view on embryonic stem cells, so maybe it would be appropriate there.) it seems like you're not entirely against embryonic stem cell use.586009956[/snapback] Right, i'm not entirely against it. I don't believe that right now it's 100% necessary to get involved in that kind of stuff. It's not that i think there's something wrong with using embryonic cells that are going to be destroyed anyway (morbid as it is), it's that there is so much controversy surrounding it right now that it's just better to devote our time to researching adult stem cells instead of getting everybody all bothered about the concept of embryonic ones. but if you say that, it makes no difference whether you study embryonic stem cells now or later. and since the cells are going to be destroyed no matter what, research is equivalent to non-research.586009956[/snapback] It's equivalent to non-research from science's point of view, but not from the point of view of all the people griping about embryonic stem cells. If everybody's going to get so upset about it and ban funding for it and stuff like that, you may as well just work on adult stem cells. It just seems more productive to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 It's more the drama associated with the process that is the problem than the steps involved in the process itself. 586009911[/snapback] So there's more drama in putting an otherwise unused embryo to possible good use than in simply kicking it to the curb and letting it perish in the bottom of a trash can? it seems like you're saying (and I'm assuming you believe an embryo is as much a 'life' as you and me), "I don't care if it dies, but I don't want to have any part in it's death, even if it does further scientific research" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted June 3, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 3, 2005 I'm not sure. Right this moment, probably not. Not in an environment like America's, anyway. (Maybe my entire thought process is too America-centric; i know that Korea and Britain have a more liberal view on embryonic stem cells, so maybe it would be appropriate there.)Right, i'm not entirely against it. I don't believe that right now it's 100% necessary to get involved in that kind of stuff. It's not that i think there's something wrong with using embryonic cells that are going to be destroyed anyway (morbid as it is), it's that there is so much controversy surrounding it right now that it's just better to devote our time to researching adult stem cells instead of getting everybody all bothered about the concept of embryonic ones. It's equivalent to non-research from science's point of view, but not from the point of view of all the people griping about embryonic stem cells. If everybody's going to get so upset about it and ban funding for it and stuff like that, you may as well just work on adult stem cells. It just seems more productive to me. 586010011[/snapback] i was just trying to understand your position. you don't seem to have a moral opposition to it, just an economic one. but more people should get involved to combat those who lobby, but don't know what they're talking about. So there's more drama in putting an otherwise unused embryo to possible good use than in simply kicking it to the curb and letting it perish in the bottom of a trash can?it seems like you're saying (and I'm assuming you believe an embryo is as much a 'life' as you and me), "I don't care if it dies, but I don't want to have any part in it's death, even if it does further scientific research" 586010019[/snapback] i see his point. he doesn't mind that embryonic stem cells are used (i'm throwing out his america-oriented mentality for the moment), since they will be discarded in any case. he just thinks it's more productive to focus on adult stem cells instead of wasting time fighting the opposition over embryonic stem cells, which will have to occur before we can even do serious research on them. that could be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 but more people should get involved to combat those who lobby, but don't know what they're talking about.i see his point. he doesn't mind that embryonic stem cells are used (i'm throwing out his america-oriented mentality for the moment), since they will be discarded in any case. he just thinks it's more productive to focus on adult stem cells instead of wasting time fighting the opposition over embryonic stem cells, which will have to occur before we can even do serious research on them. that could be true. 586010027[/snapback] Ah. Well that certainly seems to clear things up a bit. In a way, I'd have to agree with that. If the work can be done with adult stem cells, we might as well go that way since trying to use embryonic stem cells at the moment is like trying to drive a go-kart through a brick wall, what with all the moral opposition coming from the right. Unfortunately, I think we're going to sooner or later come to a point where the usefulness of adult stem cells hits a ceiling and we'll need to confront the right on this issue head on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Nope. Sure wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted June 3, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 3, 2005 Unfortunately, I think we're going to sooner or later come to a point where the usefulness of adult stem cells hits a ceiling and we'll need to confront the right on this issue head on. 586010042[/snapback] for some applications, adult stem cells cannot be used (or are more difficult). perhaps, by that time, things will have calmed down enough so that serious research can happen. otherwise, people need to take initiative to plow through and make history. Nope. Sure wouldn't. 586010066[/snapback] why? if the embryos are being thrown away in any case, why not use them? that way, a life is never lost. to simply throw them away is to deny those cells any human dignity. the only tenable moral argument against this is the commoditization of cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted June 3, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 3, 2005 Nope. Sure wouldn't. 586010066[/snapback] Do you have any problem with the fertility process that creates multiple embryos, knowing the scucess rate is so low for implantation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 why? if the embryos are being thrown away in any case, why not use them? that way, a life is never lost. to simply throw them away is to deny those cells any human dignity.the only tenable moral argument against this is the commoditization of cells. 586010085[/snapback] Because I will not take advantage of something I see as murder.....that being abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwanders Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 if the embryos are being thrown away in any case, why not use them? that way, a life is never lost. to simply throw them away is to deny those cells any human dignity.the only tenable moral argument against this is the commoditization of cells. 586010085[/snapback] the way i see it, if someone's going to be against the use of embryonic stem cells, they have to be against the creation of embryos in the first place, and that means being against all non-natural fertilization techniques. If you're not against in vitro fertilization, then you're saying it's better to toss out unused embryos than to put them to good use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted June 3, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 3, 2005 Because I will not take advantage of something I see as murder.....that being abortion. 586010091[/snapback] and if the cells die on their own? the way i see it, if someone's going to be against the use of embryonic stem cells, they have to be against the creation of embryos in the first place, and that means being against all non-natural fertilization techniques. If you're not against in vitro fertilization, then you're saying it's better to toss out unused embryos than to put them to good use. 586010099[/snapback] creation of life is a difficult idea. ivf techniques are about creating life, but with real intent. it's not like cells are manufactured for the express purpose of harvest (although i admit there are people who advocate that). thus, it is like sex. but, like sex, ivf isn't perfect. not every conception yields viable life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Do you have any problem with the fertility process that creates multiple embryos, knowing the scucess rate is so low for implantation? 586010096[/snapback] It makes me cringe, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 and if the cells die on their own? 586010161[/snapback] That's completely different, but my gut feeling is that they won't separate the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted June 3, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 3, 2005 It makes me cringe, yes. 586010203[/snapback] but what about a man and woman who try multiple times to conceive, and yet fail? That's completely different, but my gut feeling is that they won't separate the two. 586010209[/snapback] and if they did? would you legalize the use of embryonic stem cells from embryos that died on their own? if people accept that, there's likely to be less drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 but what about a man and woman who try multiple times to conceive, and yet fail?586010228[/snapback] Adoption. What about it? :huh: and if they did? would you legalize the use of embryonic stem cells from embryos that died on their own? if people accept that, there's likely to be less drama. 586010228[/snapback] Yes, but that's pie in the sky thinking. Some people will try to justify abortion with stem cells...saying 'we have them, why don't we make some good out of this situation?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts