GarfieldJL Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Not pluripotent ones, which was my original point And I'm saying they can't yet, how about they do research on altering pluripotent cells which wouldn't cause any moral issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And I'm saying they can't yet, how about they do research on altering pluripotent cells which wouldn't cause any moral issues.Adult stem cells can not be easily manipulated as embryonic ones, due to the fact that they have matured and have taken on some characteristics of their intended purpose, hence why embryonic stem cells are highly sought after, since they are entirely "blank", if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And I'm saying they can't yet, how about they do research on altering pluripotent cells which wouldn't cause any moral issues. I stand corrected. While I thought they were making multipotent cells out of skin cells, but they are in fact making Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. However, these are the cells that are shown to cause tumors. However, Pastrami is correct. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I stand corrected. While I thought they were making multipotent cells out of skin cells, but they are in fact making Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. However, these are the cells that are shown to cause tumors. Depends, I don't think the tumors show up as often if it is the skin cells of the person you intend to use the stem cells on. You can gather cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells from another source though which is a leftover from the birthing process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Depends, I don't think the tumors show up as often if it is the skin cells of the person you intend to use the stem cells on. You can gather cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells from another source though which is a leftover from the birthing process. False. You have no empirical evidence to claim that they don't "show up as often." The reason that these induced pluripotent stem cells aren't used is due to the causal relationship they have with tumors - tumors which present irrespective of who they're being used on. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I got something to contribute: talked to some people and they use the slippery slope arguemnt aginst stem cell research. The biggest fear, they clain, is that if they start using blastocysts, thay will have less respect for life, and move on to terminating bigger things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Meh, it's the triumph of politics over medcical ethics. Especially in light of all the advances in stem cells that have occurred since the ban (on lines not yet already existing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rake Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I really don't understand the hypocritical nature of some people on the side against stem cell research. In my opinion, every cell that is going to be thrown away in every fertility clinic should be stockpiled and given to everyone against "murdering babies." Especially after a baby is born, they are allowed to be "collateral" damage in bombings and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I got something to contribute: talked to some people and they use the slippery slope arguemnt aginst stem cell research. The biggest fear, they clain, is that if they start using blastocysts, thay will have less respect for life, and move on to terminating bigger things. ....did this surprise you? _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I got something to contribute: talked to some people and they use the slippery slope arguemnt aginst stem cell research. The biggest fear, they clain, is that if they start using blastocysts, thay will have less respect for life, and move on to terminating bigger things. Well, you do have to watch out for those zany, kill-happy scientists. Everyone knows that they're only looking for ways to kill people under the guise of "helping to further mankind", etc. Nothing at all like those "devout christians" who blow up reproductive health clinics where the blastocysts can be found...with the doctors and nurses inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I really don't understand the hypocritical nature of some people on the side against stem cell research. In my opinion, every cell that is going to be thrown away in every fertility clinic should be stockpiled and given to everyone against "murdering babies." Especially after a baby is born, they are allowed to be "collateral" damage in bombings and the like. Many of the people whom are against embryonic stem cell research, are also against abortion, and against fertility clinics existing. There is a concept called adoption, there are a bunch of children out there that need homes. I don't condone the hypocracy of tossing bombs at fertility clinics if they think those embryos are life. I also don't condone the practice that leads to those embryos being created in the first place. Human life is human life from the first cell division to when they are born, to when they are an adult, to when they are elderly. A baby doesn't look like an adult human, but they are both still human. This is nothing more than commercializing human life, which is immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Human life is human life from the first cell division to when they are born, to when they are an adult, to when they are elderly. A baby doesn't look like an adult human, but they are both still human. This is nothing more than commercializing human life, which is immoral. These are your opinions. If pressed for your "good reasons" for believing this to be true, I'm willing to bet we'll find religious dogma, not well-founded moral philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 These are your opinions. If pressed for your "good reasons" for believing this to be true, I'm willing to bet we'll find religious dogma, not well-founded moral philosophy. Can a human give birth to a cat, dog, fish, etc. Two humans mating will only produce a human offspring, that's simple biology, it isn't an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 Of course a blastocyst is human. I don't think Achilles is denying it or arguing otherwise. It has human DNA. What a blastocyst isn't is a person. Its a ball of cells with no brain. It has as much right to live as the bacteria in my bowels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Can a human give birth to a cat, dog, fish, etc. Two humans mating will only produce a human offspring, that's simple biology, it isn't an opinion. Huh? Yes, a blastocyst can become an embryo which can become a fetus which can give way to a baby which can grow into a human being. You would argue that all of these things are "a person". I would argue that only a couple of them are. Your arguments are most likely grounded in religious dogma, conservative talking points, and general ignorance about the field of biology. My arguments are based on something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Good thing that bacteria can't grow into a fully functional human, I mean talk about a real pain in the arse... If you acknowledge that a blastocyst is human, why should it be ignored human rights? If I introduce human DNA into a dog, does it then become human as well? (warning..it's a rhetorical question) Does a "human" only have rights insofar as it draws breath unaided in earth's atmosphere? I'm not asking a legal question here btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 My toenails are human. My skin is human. A blastocyst, while it has the potential to develop into an embryo and then a fetus, is not a person. A sperm cell has the same potential to develop into a person. Yet we would hardly expect all of them to do so. Nor is it immoral (to most rational people) to protect every single sperm cell with the same sort of vigor. A blastocyst is not a person. It has no brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 And will never be allowed to develop the brain that DNA provides it with as it continues to develop b/c some people are content to snuff it out for what are statistically known to be completely selfish reasons. The reason that your 1st 2 examples = fail is because none of those cells grows into a person, but are just differentiated parts of the whole. Also, a brain is not a person either, but like the toenail, skin and sperm cell also merely parts. Nor is it immoral (to most rational people) to protect every single sperm cell with the same sort of vigor. Did you mean that to most rational people masturbation is NOT immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 I was actually speaking of birth control. There is no rational reason to object to condoms, the pill, the morning after pill, diaphragms, spermicide, etc., but there are those who object based on supernatural concerns. Killing a sperm or egg -or preventing an egg from fertilizing to begin with, amounts to the same result as fertilizing it and removing the blastocyst before it becomes a person. Indeed, many, many blastocysts never fully develop to begin with. So, what good reason is there to object to obtaining stem cells from a blastocyst (which is not a person) if one is has no objections to birth control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Nor is it immoral (to most rational people) to protect every single sperm cell with the same sort of vigor. On the opposite side of the playing field: how about the egg cell? Non-pregnant women who have experience puberty but have not yet been through menopause typically "waste" one of the precious cell every month. I mean, if were seriously going to advocate extending human rights to every cell that has the potential to become a human being, I can think of no better poster child for the cause than an egg cell. Following this train of thought through to it's logical conclusion, doesn't this mean that women have a moral obligation to be pregnant at all times? Shouldn't the wasteful ejection of a viable potential person be cause for scorn? I think if we want this silly argument to be taken seriously, we have to recognize that the time of half-measures has passed. Let's round up some women and force them to be pregnant all the time! I'm sure they won't mind at all [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 While they most likely wouldn't like it, for "supernatural reasons", I'd still be willing to bet that many of them would concede that an ounce of prevention (condoms) was preferable to a pound of cure (abortion in any of it's varieties). Indeed, many, many blastocysts never fully develop to begin with. Indeed, and many people die in the course of things from illnesses or varied genetic defects as well. So, what good reason is there to object to obtaining stem cells from a blastocyst (which is not a person) if one is has no objections to birth control? Probably the same kind of thing that allows people to approve of killing in self-defense but not murder. They're two different animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 Probably the same kind of thing that allows people to approve of killing in self-defense but not murder. They're two different animals.Since harvesting a blastocyst isn't the same as killing a person, this is a weak analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Hardly, as the end effect is still the same. A person is still a person (lest we're now talking legal definitions) all along the spectrum of life. The whole purpose of fetal stem cells is largely to supply another revenue stream for abortion providers. And regardless of whether you chose to agree with that or not (you won't, of course ), other methods have since been developed that obviate the need to go down the path of fetal stem cell research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 The whole purpose of fetal stem cells is largely to supply another revenue stream for abortion providers. And regardless of whether you chose to agree with that or not (you won't, of course), other methods have since been developed that obviate the need to go down the path of fetal stem cell research. First, those methods do not obviate the need or value of doing embryonic stem cell research (they don't bother with cells of fetus' -so I'm assuming you mis-typed). The method(s) you're probably referring to do not produce nearly the pluropotency that can be obtained from embryonic lines. Second, I'm willing to agree with your contention about abortion clinic profits, but I'll need to see some evidence. Most abortions are conducted after the blastocyst stage, so I don't see how this is a logical argument since the core premise doesn't hold. Fertility clinics might get some new revenue streams, but the contention that abortion clinics would/do is likely undereducated rhetoric from superstitious objectionists who are already aligned against abortion clinics and seek to poison the well with regard to embryonic stem cells by associating them with something easier to criticize. I suspect you may have read some of this rhetoric. But, like I said, I'm willing to revise my opinion/conclusion. I'd be interested to see what evidence there is for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Since harvesting a blastocyst isn't the same as killing a person, this is a weak analogy. How isn't it, you just admitted it is a human, just because it isn't a fully developed adult doesn't mean it isn't human. The brain isn't fully developed in a newborn, but a newborn is still human. Your Toenails are largely made up of dead and dieing cells btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.