Embryonic Stem Cells Get a Boost

[Totenkopf]

First, those methods do not[/i(I] 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.

 

Right, and that was naturally why private industry didn't pursue any of it when the ban was ONLY on federal funding, not private funding. I suspect you may be as current on this as you were about Libby/Armitage. And probably no less sloppy in your thinking about what is just and what isn't.

 

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.

 

I didn't actually say "abortion clinincs". And despite your parsing about "blastocysts", it's called fetal stem cell for a reason. When fertility clinincs are in the business of disposing of fertilized egg cells when they are "done" with them, that's still an abortion.

 

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.

 

Shilling for the "abortion industry" are you.. Actually, I've never visited "superstitious" pro-life sites, not sure how you jump to your conclusion beyond making the illogical assumption that all opposition to abortion (in any of it's stages/incarnations) is only rooted in religion. Is that part of some atheistic credo, as you aren't the only atheist here that customarily jumps to that conclusion?

 

But, like I said, I'm willing to revise my opinion/conclusion.....

 

No offense, I rather doubt it based on many of your comments in this thread.

[Achilles]

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.

As he's already pointed out (more than once?), the true issue at hand is personhood, not whether or not something is "human".

 

Thanks to modern science, dead toenails cells have the same "potential for personhood" as an egg cell or a sperm cell. Are we going to extend human rights to toenail clippings too?

 

You see, Garf, at some point the argument goes too far and the discussion becomes impractical.

 

The brain isn't fully developed in a newborn, but a newborn is still human.

Indeed, and since a newborn has a brain and a heart and activity in both, and meets all the other requirements for "life", there isn't much debate about whether or not it's a living thing.

 

So, I'm not sure what your point is.

[GarfieldJL]

As he's already pointed out (more than once?), the true issue at hand is personhood, not whether or not something is "human".

 

Thanks to modern science, dead toenails cells have the same "potential for personhood" as an egg cell or a sperm cell. Are we going to extend human rights to toenail clippings too?

 

No, a toenail does not have that capability on its own via natural means to become self-aware. Egg cells and sperm cells by themselves lack some of the chromosomes needed to create new life. Once you have cell division, that it, left on it's own you can end up having a baby with a fully functioning nervous system. If they were making stem cells out of unfertalized eggs or straight sperm cells, there wouldn't be that big of an issue, but once we see the egg be fertalized that's it we're talking about a life that is seperate from the mother's.

 

You see, Garf, at some point the argument goes too far and the discussion becomes impractical.

 

 

Indeed, and since a newborn has a brain and a heart and activity in both, and meets all the other requirements for "life", there isn't much debate about whether or not it's a living thing.

 

Not according to people like Planned Parenthood and Barack Obama.

 

So, I'm not sure what your point is.

 

My point is that it seems the Catholics have it right. You shouldn't allow abortions, fertility clinics, etc. because there wouldn't be this moral calamity.

[True_Avery]

My point is that it seems the Catholics have it right. You shouldn't allow abortions, fertility clinics, etc. because there wouldn't be this moral calamity.

Moral by whom's standards? The Catholics? You'll have to excuse me if I don't agree with the "morals" of a church that has committed countless atrocities.

 

It is a moral calamity to you, but not to me and others. Unfortunately for you, not everyone has your morals.

 

You'll also have to forgive me for not believing in this perfect world you have realized. You do realize that in the absence of clinics, girls can and do go to back alley "clinics" or attempt abortions themselves along with killing/dumping their babies when born? How about when the abortion is needed to save the mother's life?

 

This topic seems to also focus on the baby, but there is a woman carrying that baby. That baby can kill her, ruin her, and she has, regardless of a clinic or not, the power to abort that baby in a number of ways. What are you going to do when that happens? Charge the woman with murder?

 

Awfully convenient for the men in this thread to talk when they aren't the ones carrying the baby to term and putting their life on the line to do such.

 

Your world has holes in it, and I am quite frankly ticked off that you keep ignoring this glaringly obvious hole in your thought processes and posts that point it out.

[GarfieldJL]

Moral by whom's standards? The Catholics? You'll have to excuse me if I don't agree with the "morals" of a church that has committed countless atrocities.

 

True_Avery, I'm not Catholic for a reason, but in this area I feel they have the correct viewpoint.

 

It is a moral calamity to you, but not to me and others. Unfortunately for you, not everyone has your morals.

 

There are people out there that think cold-blooded murder and raping women is okay, does that mean I should respect their morals? Seriously, there are some things that liberal moral relativism is stupid.

 

You'll also have to forgive me for not believing in this perfect world you have realized. You do realize that in the absence of clinics, girls can and do go to back alley "clinics" or attempt abortions themselves along with killing/dumping their babies when born? How about when the abortion is needed to save the mother's life?

 

The instance you're giving happens extremely rarely, most of the time a woman wants an abortion because she decides to get laid then doesn't want to get saddled with the inconvience having a baby would cause her.

 

This topic seems to also focus on the baby, but there is a woman carrying that baby. That baby can kill her, ruin her, and she has, regardless of a clinic or not, the power to abort that baby in a number of ways. What are you going to do when that happens? Charge the woman with murder?

 

So you are admitting we're talking about a baby? And in answer I would also say in my opinion it is murder, there is such a thing known as adoption, and people wouldn't be able to get invetro fertilization either so that would mean couples that can't have children can adopt children.

 

Awfully convenient for the men in this thread to talk when they aren't the ones carrying the baby to term and putting their life on the line to do such.

 

Actually, I condemn the man that knocked the woman up too if it was consentual, if there is rape involved then I think the rapist should have life in prison without possibility of parole, and/or the rapist be castrated. There are incidents where women rape young teenage boys and in situations like that the woman should have life in prison.

 

Your world has holes in it, and I am quite frankly ticked off that you keep ignoring this glaringly obvious hole in your thought processes and posts that point it out.

 

And then we have planned parenthood not reporting to the police or prosecutors when an underage girl comes in whom had sex with an adult and got pregnent (which was statuatory rape), seriously there is problems with your solution too.

[Achilles]

No, a toenail does not have that capability on its own via natural means to become self-aware. Egg cells and sperm cells by themselves lack some of the chromosomes needed to create new life.

Your argument seems to stem from the concept of "potential life". All of these things (and more) are "potential life". If you would like to argue from a position of actual living things, that's fine (actually it's my preference), however blastocysts are not included. The good news is that this means we can both move on.

 

Once you have cell division, that it, left on it's own you can end up having a baby with a fully functioning nervous system.

"Can" is what I've been discussing for the last several posts. You seem to want to have it both ways.

 

If they were making stem cells out of unfertalized eggs or straight sperm cells, there wouldn't be that big of an issue, but once we see the egg be fertalized that's it we're talking about a life that is seperate from the mother's.

Really? Then help me understand why that whole "gestation" thing seems important?

 

Not according to people like Planned Parenthood and Barack Obama.

Source please?

 

My point is that it seems the Catholics have it right. You shouldn't allow abortions, fertility clinics, etc. because there wouldn't be this moral calamity.

There isn't any "moral calamity" now. There's a religious values calamity, but I have yet to be presented with a genuine moral argument re: any of these topics. As always, you're welcome to enlighten me, however I suspect that we will continue to see the arguments from dogma that I predicted several posts ago.

[GarfieldJL]

Your argument seems to stem from the concept of "potential life". All of these things (and more) are "potential life". If you would like to argue from a position of actual living things, that's fine (actually it's my preference), however blastocysts are not included. The good news is that this means we can both move on.

 

There is cellular function isn't there, the cells take in nutrients and expell waste, they grow and divide, that sounds like life to me.

 

"Can" is what I've been discussing for the last several posts. You seem to want to have it both ways.

 

Actually I don't, that's why I think the Catholics are correct on this topic.

 

Really? Then help me understand why that whole "gestation" thing seems important?

 

No, it's more of I don't really care, in my views life begins at conception.

 

Source please?

 

I posted it months ago in Kavar's Corner, I'm not going to waste my time looking for it again, because you said that someone that testified under oath, a transcript from the Illinois State Senate, etc. weren't valid sources so quite frankly I'm not going to waste my time.

 

There isn't any "moral calamity" now. There's a religious values calamity, but I have yet to be presented with a genuine moral argument re: any of these topics. As always, you're welcome to enlighten me, however I suspect that we will continue to see the arguments from dogma that I predicted several posts ago.

 

No, there is a moral calamity, where the problem is the fact that some people think you can compromise what you know to be right and wrong is for conveinence. That's what's wrong.

[Achilles]

There is cellular function isn't there, the cells take in nutrients and expell waste, they grow and divide, that sounds like life to me.

Nutrients provided by the mother.

 

And even if your point was valid, that wouldn't constitute personhood.

 

Actually I don't, that's why I think the Catholics are correct on this topic.

Actually you do which is why you're changing the subject here instead of addressing the point.

 

No, it's more of I don't really care, in my views life begins at conception.

Okay, then your simply here to troll then (since you aren't here to debate). Your view is an opinion based on dogma and will not hold up in serious discussion. I think you and I are both aware of this.

 

I posted it months ago in Kavar's Corner, I'm not going to waste my time looking for it again, because you said that someone that testified under oath, a transcript from the Illinois State Senate, etc. weren't valid sources so quite frankly I'm not going to waste my time.

Okay, so then you're done with the thread then. kthxbai.

 

No, there is a moral calamity, where the problem is the fact that some people think you can compromise what you know to be right and wrong is for conveinence. That's what's wrong.

Please present your argument or move along. Insisting that there is a moral argument is not the same thing as presenting one. This isn't a sandbox and you don't get to have your way just because you can throw a tantrum really loud.

[jrrtoken]

There is cellular function isn't there, the cells take in nutrients and expell waste, they grow and divide, that sounds like life to me.

A biological process, through a dynamic interaction of advanced molecules due to fundamental laws of physics, thermodynamics, and other forces of nature. To be brief; complex mysteries of science do not need to be explained with metaphysics. For example, many years ago, people believed that rain was directly caused by God, and fell from heaven. We now know that is caused by fundamentals of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics in the petri dish that is our Earth. This is the same idea; Taking a currently unexplained, or not thoroughly understood, scientific phenomenon, and associating a metaphysical attribute to it.

Actually I don't, that's why I think the Catholics are correct on this topic.

There's a reason why I left the Catholic church when I did; It has become so vehemently anti-abortion that it never fails to mention the subject when it deals with almost every aspect of Catholicism and the present, including politics, which is why I was unofficially excommunicated from the church when I spoke out against it. They have become obsessed with the subject, to the point where they regularly organize "fasts" and "prayer services" at planned parenthood clinics with school children enrolled at their schools.

[True_Avery]

The instance you're giving happens extremely rarely, most of the time a woman wants an abortion because she decides to get laid then doesn't want to get saddled with the inconvience having a baby would cause her.

Nice try:

 

Every year, 100 million induced abortions occur globally (IPAS); and according to the 2000 estimates (WHO), 19 million unsafe abortions take place each year. According to WHO, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease (incomplete abortion, infection (sepsis), haemorrhage, and injury to the internal organs, such as puncturing or tearing of the uterus).(IPAS) According to WHO statistics, the risk rate for unsafe abortion is 1/270; according to other sources, unsafe abortion is responsible for one in eight maternal deaths.

 

Nour NM. "An Introduction to Maternal Mortality". Reviews in Ob Gyn (2008) 1:77-81.

 

A 2007 study published in the The Lancet found that, although the global rate of abortion declined from 45.6 million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003, unsafe procedures still accounted for 48% of all abortions performed in 2003. It also concluded that, while the overall incidence of abortion in both developed and developing countries is approximately equal, unsafe abortion occurs more often in less-developed nations.

 

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/fulltext

 

Oh, right, statistics are all lies.

 

And then we have planned parenthood not reporting to the police or prosecutors when an underage girl comes in whom had sex with an adult and got pregnent (which was statuatory rape), seriously there is problems with your solution too.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

So, you are admitting it is a problem for these girls to get raped?

 

Should a 13 year old girl who is raped by a family member be allowed an abortion, or are you just going to say "no"?

[GarfieldJL]

Nutrients provided by the mother.

 

And even if your point was valid, that wouldn't constitute personhood.

 

Nutrients are provided by the mother if an infant is breast fed.

 

Actually you do which is why you're changing the subject here instead of addressing the point.

 

Actually I am addressing the point, I'm pointing out that like Catholics, I find a lot of the arguments for fertility clinics, abortions, and stem cell research to be immoral. In that stance, I'm not contradicting myself on the subject.

 

Okay, then your simply here to troll then (since you aren't here to debate). Your view is an opinion based on dogma and will not hold up in serious discussion. I think you and I are both aware of this.

 

 

Okay, so then you're done with the thread then. kthxbai.

 

If you're going to quote me, kindly quote me in context please.

 

Please present your argument or move along. Insisting that there is a moral argument is not the same thing as presenting one. This isn't a sandbox and you don't get to have your way just because you can throw a tantrum really loud.

 

It's a moral issue because we're talking about human life, at what point do you define it as something like this to be unethical. That's the problem with trying to play God, what is being done devalues human life. That's the moral problem.

[SkinWalker]

If he was "playing God," then murder, infanticide, and even rape and torture become okay and moral. Are you sure you want to play that card?

[GarfieldJL]

If he was "playing God," then murder, infanticide, and even rape and torture become okay and moral. Are you sure you want to play that card?

 

I've pointed out before that some of these Abortion Clinics have essentially committed infantcide, covered up incidents of statuatory rape, etc.

[SkinWalker]

So, you're acknowledging that the Christian god is an amoral murderous being, who sees no moral issue with taking the lives of infants, children, etc.

[Achilles]

Nutrients are provided by the mother if an infant is breast fed.

Correct, but I was referring to when the baby is still inside the mother. Even in cases of artificial insemination, the fertilized egg must be successfully implanted in the mother if the embryo is to develop. You seem to be forgetting this for the sake of your point.

 

Actually I am addressing the point, I'm pointing out that like Catholics, I find a lot of the arguments for fertility clinics, abortions, and stem cell research to be immoral. In that stance, I'm not contradicting myself on the subject.

The discussion was all the things that can qualify as potential human beings. You changed the subject when cornered on that (post 83)

 

How's it doing so far?

 

If you're going to quote me, kindly quote me in context please.

Non sequitur much?

 

It's a moral issue because we're talking about human life,

No, we are not. We are talking about a potential human life and lots of things fit under that umbrella. A casual examination of that list will show most reasonable people that this argument is untenable.

 

To recap: no human life, no moral issue.

 

at what point do you define it as something like this to be unethical.

???

 

That's the problem with trying to play God,

False premise #1

 

what is being done devalues human life.

False premise #2

 

That's the moral problem.

Faulty conclusion = failed argument.

[kipperthefrog]

I have autism and a super high metabolism. That means I don't gain weight as easy. and some girls want to loose weight. Would stem cell research cure autism? Would it be able to boost peoples metabolism to be like mine and help girls loose weight?

[Achilles]

Would stem cell research cure autism?

We're not even sure what causes autism, therefore it's too soon to tell. Possibly, yes. My understanding is that the brunt of ESTR is going toward degenerative diseases/disorders (Parkinson's, etc) and/or "replacement parts" (i.e. how to build new skin/nerve cells for burn victims).

 

Would it be able to boost peoples metabolism to be like mine and help girls loose weight?

It's certainly possible, however I think we would be much better off watching all the research that came out of the human genome project.

 

A quick google search turned up this article.

[Jae Onasi]

I have autism and a super high metabolism. That means I don't gain weight as easy. and some girls want to loose weight. Would stem cell research cure autism? Would it be able to boost peoples metabolism to be like mine and help girls loose weight?

 

We have to find out what causes autism before we can work on a cure. So far it doesn't seem to be a problem with bad tissue so much as how the brain processes information. There's still so much to learn about this condition.

 

Current weight loss research is focusing on some of the hormones that control hunger (e.g. leptin) and calorie absorption in the gastrointestinal tract. For those who truly do have a slow metabolism due to thyroid, that gets treated with thyroid medication. You can't boost metabolism artificially (e.g. with extra thyroid hormones) because it makes the heart overwork and drives blood pressure up. It is more likely that treatments for obesity will focus on medication to target the specific hormones rather than using stem cells, besides the obvious 'eat fewer calories, higher quality food, and exercise more'.

[kipperthefrog]

I found http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30825449/vp/31572813#31714673

 

It reads "should we tanper with nature?"

 

We already have been doing that since we discovered fire. Of course science is good.

[Achilles]

I found http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30825449/vp/31572813#31714673

 

It reads "should we tanper with nature?"

 

We already have been doing that since we discovered fire. Of course science is good.

 

Off-topic: Shouldn't organ transplant be a new thread?

 

On-topic: Quite right. We tamper with nature all the time and have been for ages. The argument that something with bad because it "tampers with nature" is also known as Appeal to Nature fallacy (aka "naturalistic fallacy", although this is arguably incorrect usage).

[kipperthefrog]

Off-topic: Shouldn't organ transplant be a new thread?

 

On-topic: Quite right. We tamper with nature all the time and have been for ages. The argument that something with bad because it "tampers with nature" is also known as Appeal to Nature fallacy (aka "naturalistic fallacy", although this is arguably incorrect usage).

 

They did mention stem cells in this and stem cells are considered by some, "tampering with nature".