Stem Cell Research and YOU!

duga · 05-11-2010, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAPTAIN CAVEMAN

i can't believe anyone actually replies to this clown

Exactly what I thought after I posted my response.

This happens every damn time.

Freebase Dali · 05-11-2010, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

Exactly what I thought after I posted my response.

This happens every damn time.

Pretty clever trap he lays.
He really knows how to ride the cusp, the teetering edge of being that way purposefully or ignorantly.

And then there's the cusp of whether he's laying a trap at all.

Don't mind me... I just like saying the word 'cusp'.
It is like watching a psychological thriller though. Unfortunately this one seems like it doesn't have a reveal.

Guybrush · 05-11-2010, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

'From what I heard adult stem cells provide positive results, sceintist really don't need to experiment on human embryos.'

Don't need? Do we need to figure anything out? There's a really important difference between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells from the earliest stages of development can become any cell in the body and can even be used to clone a whole new organism. This isn't something adult stem cells can do. If you want adult stem cells to do this, be as useful as embryonic stem cells, then obviously you have to know what it is that makes embryonic stem cells special, what it is that makes them develop and if it's possible to undo some or all of the differentiation that has taken place in adult stem cells.

If we can get the same kind of potential from adult stem cells, perhaps we don't need to use embryonic stem cells anymore. But you know, walking a mile starts with a single step.

The rest of your post contains a lot of unexplained/unsupported statements which I would like to see you elaborate on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

There is no dilemma, you don't do something unethical. Stem cell research where the stem cell come from embryonic and fetuses is unethical.

Why is it unethical? I just argued that from a utilitarian point of view, which is a moral theory based on a happiness principle (maximize happiness/reduce suffering), stem cell research can be the right moral thing to do. How can you say it's not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

It violates the natural law to interfere or disrupt the natural process of a human embryo or a human fetus that is developing into a human baby and develope thereafter into a human person.

There is a natural law not to interfere or disript the development of a fetus? What is this natural law? And the research itself is not abortion. A fetus is donated after abortion has taken place so the moral decision to abort pregnancy is not a dilemma decided by the researchers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

All human beings come from human embryos that is a undeniable scientific fact, and likewise one should understand that a human embryo purpose is to develope into a human being, not to be a part of an experiment.

How do you know that embryos have a purpose? And again, how do you feel when you take into account that a fetus used in research has already been aborted and can't fulfill it's "purpose" even if one accepts it has one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I can not see how abortion can provide life when abrotion takes life away person that was aborted. That is not the purpose of a human being to loose hers/his life before it begins. I can not see how technology take life away from one person and in that same process promises to benefit the life of another.

How can science benefit mankind from any forbidden experiment?

Forbidden? And then with the purpose .. what purpose? Again, it's not the goal of stem cell research to kill babies. You are debating as if stem cell research = abortions. That is a misconception with very important ethical implications so I think you need to sort that out and provide some ethical arguments that differentiate between the two. It's not a goal of stem cell research and treatment to kill embryos.

You can't see how technology that "takes life" can benefit life. How does a treatment of injecting stem cells into damaged tissue take life? I think you got it mixed up with abortions again. If you want to know how it can benefit life, stem cells can potentially replace any dead/damaged cell in your body from muscle damage, liver, brain, inner ear, you name it! In it's potential for healing, it is beyond any doubt the biggest thing since the discovery of penicillin and I would say even greater.

OctaneHugo · 05-11-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

Well, I was playing Devil's advocate there. However, there *are* fully grown people who are no longer substantially aware of what is going on, and thus might be considered equivalent to an embryo in terms of sentience.

The clearest example would be a brain-dead person. Many but not all people feel it is okay to harvest their organs, since the hope of recovery is slight. But what if someone is in a coma? When do you decide it is ethical to harvest *her* organs?

Now, back to embryos, some people may feel it is wrong to kill a tiny individual and would ask instead that we wait until that individual is mature enough to make her or his own decisions about when to become an organ and tissue donor.

The basic question surrounding our treatment of embryos and birthed humans is how do we decide when we should keep our hands off them. And then the next question becomes this: once someone has decided to kill them, what is the right thing to do with their bodies?

I think that if you have a brain dead person you have to look at whether or not they decided to be an organ donor and go from there. It's not the most efficient way, but right now I think it's the best we have and are ready for. This is a humongously touchy subject after all, and it needs to be carefully discussed and touched upon.

Neapolitan · 05-11-2010, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Why is it unethical? I just argued that from a utilitarian point of view, which is a moral theory based on a happiness principle (maximize happiness/reduce suffering), stem cell research can be the right moral thing to do. How can you say it's not?

I didn't say it is not, I didn't say stem cell research was unethical. I said human embryonic stem research was unethical, base on the fact that it is using human embryos and they gather those human embryo through unethical means. That human embryo is part of the developement of a human being, and the human embryo should not be destroyed nor collected and manipulated and experimented on, nor cloned etc. I guess you do not consider that a human embryo (even though it is simple in structure) is a human being and that it has no value of a human being. But just as it is unthinkable to use a person in an experiment that would destroy that person, it is equally so to use a human embryo.

Guybrush · 05-11-2010, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I didn't say it is not, I didn't say stem cell research was unethical. I said human embryonic stem research was unethical, base on the fact that it is using human embryos and they gather those human embryo through unethical means. That human embryo is part of the developement of a human being, and the human embryo should not be destroyed nor collected and manipulated and experimented on, nor cloned etc. I guess you do not consider that a human embryo (even though it is simple in structure) is a human being and that it has no value of a human being. But just as it is unthinkable to use a person in an experiment that would destroy that person, it is equally so to use a human embryo.

I see you making claims that this is unethical, but I've still yet to see you provide any reasoning or arguments as to why. I mean, an early embryo doesn't look like a human, can't experience it's surroundings like a human, isn't smart like the average human - why does it deserve the kind of moral consideration we typically have for people? On top of that, does it deserve that moral consideration if it's already dead?

I provided a utilitarian argument as to why it is not unethical in this post. I'd like you to provide some more tangible whys as well .. not because I think your opinion is wrong, but right now it looks like you're basing your arguments on a simple "because I say so"

To confront you with another question, you think it's unethical to experiment on the fetus because it is a dead human. Why does that make it unethical?

Yukon Cornelius · 05-11-2010, 09:36 PM

more pro's than cons.. for it

I feel if you were in a situation where someone close to you was in need of this kinda of research to be done that you would be for it. Guess it takes presuading for the immortal.

If the woman wants to abort its her call, the research only gives the purpose to the embryo..

Unethical, but with good intent?? Check minus for nay sayers... We're not making Zombies here!

We don't just eat the meat, we also use the bones for tools.. This is the way humans are, give it meaning, purpose, and joy... Not a biohazard can or a clothes hanger... Once again lost my dog today.. Bit pissed

Neapolitan · 05-11-2010, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I see you making claims that this is unethical, but I've still yet to see you provide any reasoning or arguments as to why. I mean, an early embryo doesn't look like a human, can't experience it's surroundings like a human, isn't smart like the average human - why does it deserve the kind of moral consideration we typically have for people? On top of that, does it deserve that moral consideration if it's already dead?

All the genetic material that human being needs is present at the time of conception, even the human being goes through different developemental stages it does not take away from the fact that it is a human being.

It sounds like you are saying a human being has two stages a non-human stage and then a human stage. And that the non-human stage (e.g. a human embryo) does not merit moral consideration. That is a little complicated, when does this transition from non-human to human take place? Is it gradual or sudden? And where does this opinion of a non-human human embryo come from? I can not understand why anyone would take that stance that a human embryo is not human. Even if a person is not religious what about the philosphical understanding of a human being, natural law and the ethical treatment of a unborn human being?

I like to see you as well to prove that a human embryo is not part of the developement of the human being. If you can prove to me that a human being can skip over the embryonic stage and prove it is not neccessary for or a part of human life then you can start to build your case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I provided a utilitarian argument as to why it is not unethical in this post. I'd like you to provide some more tangible whys as well .. not because I think your opinion is wrong, but right now it looks like you're basing your arguments on a simple "because I say so"

To confront you with another question, you think it's unethical to experiment on the fetus because it is a dead human. Why does that make it unethical?

It is not the fact that it is a dead fetus, it is the fact that the human fetus had it's life deliberately taken from it. They are starting off with an unethical act, termination of life, then proceed to study stem cell that was procured from that unethical act.

There is adult stem cell research, which does not rely on the termination of life of a fetus or the use of destroyed embryos. And since there is an ethical way to go about stem cell research it makes the unethical way unnecessary and twice as wrong.

Guybrush · 05-11-2010, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

All the genetic material that human being needs is present at the time of conception, even the human being goes through different developemental stages it does not take away from the fact that it is a human being.

It sounds like you are saying a human being has two stages a non-human stage and then a human stage. And that the non-human stage (e.g. a human embryo) does not merit moral consideration. That is a little complicated, when does this transition from non-human to human take place? Is it gradual or sudden? And where does this opinion of a non-human human embryo come from? I can not understand why anyone would take that stance that a human embryo is not human. Even if a person is not religious what about the philosphical understanding of a human being, natural law and the ethical treatment of a unborn human being?

I like to see you as well to prove that a human embryo is not part of the developement of the human being. If you can prove to me that a human being can skip over the embryonic stage and prove it is not neccessary for or a part of human life then you can start to build your case.

Here you are making up an imaginary argument which I have never actually promoted. I believe the term is "strawmanning"? I have never claimed that fetuses are not human or that there is a threshhold one crosses in development where you suddenly deserve to be treated as a human .. It's painfully obvious you haven't read the post I referred you to.

If you want to argue against my moral views on stem cell research, at least get the right ones! Good on you for dodging those difficult questions, though

So what if a fetus has human DNA? How does that make it deserve to be treated with the same moral consideration you'd have for the average grown-up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

It is not the fact that it is a dead fetus, it is the fact that the human fetus had it's life deliberately taken from it. They are starting off with an unethical act, termination of life, then proceed to study stem cell that was procured from that unethical act.

There is adult stem cell research, which does not rely on the termination of life of a fetus or the use of destroyed embryos. And since there is an ethical way to go about stem cell research it makes the unethical way unnecessary and twice as wrong.

I believe I already explained why one "has" to research embryonic stem cells so I won't bother repeating myself. As for the starting off with an unethical act, I think that since the decision to abort and the decision to research are two independent decisions, one shouldn't morally affect the other. If researchers were asking people to do abortions so that they could research the fetuses, then I think your criticism would be justified. Since they don't, I really think you should treat the abortion part and the research part morally independent of eachother.

To extrapolate the kind of view you seem to be promoting, it would be unethical to study a thousands of years old mummy if it's death way back then was by torture.

Put in practical terms, I think you should forget the abortions and then focus on whether the research is unethical or not.

Neapolitan · 05-15-2010, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Here you are making up an imaginary argument which I have never actually promoted. I believe the term is "strawmanning"? I have never claimed that fetuses are not human or that there is a threshhold one crosses in development where you suddenly deserve to be treated as a human .. It's painfully obvious you haven't read the post I referred you to.

It's not a strawman, I never insist that you said something, actuaclly I said "it sounds like.." and I am only trying to understand your reason for opposing me about human life before birth. And it comes from statements like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

So what if a fetus has human DNA? How does that make it deserve to be treated with the same moral consideration you'd have for the average grown-up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

If you want to argue against my moral views on stem cell research, at least get the right ones! Good on you for dodging those difficult questions, though

It's painfully obvious you haven't read my post, either, if you read what I wrote you should know I've mentioned adult stem research. Since I mentioned adult stem research, why would I argue against stem research?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I believe I already explained why one "has" to research embryonic stem cells so I won't bother repeating myself. As for the starting off with an unethical act, I think that since the decision to abort and the decision to research are two independent decisions, one shouldn't morally affect the other. If researchers were asking people to do abortions so that they could research the fetuses, then I think your criticism would be justified. Since they don't, I really think you should treat the abortion part and the research part morally independent of eachother.

I can not agree with you on that point, they are related, because the researcher would not have the opportunity to research the human cells taken from human fetuses without that act happening in the first place. There was a similar problem this reminds me of that happened in the 19th century:

Quote:

Originally Posted by "wiki'

From 1827 to 1828 in Scotland, murders were carried out, so that the bodies could be sold to medical schools for cash. These were known as the West Port murders. The Anatomy Act of 1832 was formed and passed because of the murders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

To extrapolate the kind of view you seem to be promoting, it would be unethical to study a thousands of years old mummy if it's death way back then was by torture.

That analogy doesn't make sense, why would they cruelly torture a king and then very carefully and reverently perserve him forever by mummifying him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Put in practical terms, I think you should forget the abortions and then focus on whether the research is unethical or not.

It is the very fact that the scientist and researchers forgets the abortions that makes it unethical.

Wether it's ethical or not, you know where I stand, I'm against stem cell research that involves human emrbyos and human fetuses that were aborted.

View Poll Results: Stem cells. Yay or nay?
Yes! Bring it on!	35	97.22%
No. I'm against it.	1	2.78%
Undecided	0	0%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

05-11-2010, 09:36 PM	#47 (permalink)
Yukon Cornelius Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 625	more pro's than cons.. for it I feel if you were in a situation where someone close to you was in need of this kinda of research to be done that you would be for it. Guess it takes presuading for the immortal. If the woman wants to abort its her call, the research only gives the purpose to the embryo.. Unethical, but with good intent?? Check minus for nay sayers... We're not making Zombies here! We don't just eat the meat, we also use the bones for tools.. This is the way humans are, give it meaning, purpose, and joy... Not a biohazard can or a clothes hanger... Once again lost my dog today.. Bit pissed __________________ Attempting to find a cure for Stupid... Last edited by Yukon Cornelius; 05-11-2010 at 09:49 PM.