|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
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 |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-15-2010, 10:11 PM | #51 (permalink) | |
Partying on the inside
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,584
|
Quote:
Researching an aborted fetus is in no way promoting abortion. I don't know where you're getting your logic from, but you should probably do a little research on its source... because it's way off. What's unethical is sitting on our asses letting millions of people die of diseases we can eventually prevent and not doing a damn thing about it. I really don't think using a dead body to do that is unethical. I guess you oppose autopsies as well? Would that be unethical to you? |
|
05-16-2010, 04:37 AM | #52 (permalink) | ||||||
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I used a utilitarian argument to defend my position. It's based on a principle that a moral action is good if it has good consequences. Good consequences lead to pleasure in some form. Bad consequences lead to suffering in some form. Your job as a moral being according to the utilitarian principle is to maximize pleasure or/and reduce suffering. The amount of consideration any living being should recieve depends on its, his or hers ability to feel pleasure or suffering, the ability to be affected by your moral decision. Although I do believe abortions and the research itself are separate events, I've used a utilitarian argument to defend abortions as well as the research. Defending the research is simple, stemcell research will have groundbreaking positive consequences and can help heal so many ailments both now and in the future. Dead fetuses don't suffer, at least we can't assume they do, so they do not deserve any moral consideration. When I defended abortions using a utilitarian argument, I wrote that in an abortion, there are potentially two main targets for moral consideration. The mother and the fetus. If she's a healthy, normal human being, we know about the mother's capacity for feeling pleasure or suffering. We know that abortion or not will have immense consequences for her happiness or suffering. The fetus on the other hand is comparatively less capable to experience the consequences of the decision. You then have to prioritize the mother and her happiness/suffering over that of the fetus. These are ethical arguments explain how and why actions are right or wrong, something that all your posts so far lack. Why is stemcell research wrong? Because God says so? If you want to discuss morals, you should figure out a way to not just say what your views are, but explain them. Aren't your moral beliefs based on anything but "because"?
__________________
Something Completely Different |
||||||
05-16-2010, 11:21 PM | #53 (permalink) | ||
carpe musicam
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
|
Quote:
What I mean in essence is that they are acting like they have forgotten there was an abortion that took place. Maybe if they remember that they are dealing with a human fetus, they would speak up against it. You insist have not yet provided one single argument as to why stemcell research is wrong. I don't know what you are looking for, I'm not going to say in general all stem cell research is wrong. I've from my first post have made a distinction between adult and embryonic stem cell research. I'm not going to make a general statement about ethics of stem research, when stem research encompasses both ethical and unethical means of studying stems cells. You should remember that I've mention adult stem cell research and said that they have positive results. A good example is bone marrow transplant that uses adult stem cells. The ethical issue is where the stem cells originally come from. There is a distinction to which one is unethical and which one isn't. Embryonic and aborted fetuses stem cell research is unethical. The research they are doing starts with and comes from the fact that a (man-made) abortion of a human fetus took place and they are using a human fetus that was aborted that should not have been aborted. They are experimenting on a deceased body that should not have died that way. The purpose of a human emrbyo/fetus is to develope into an human being. There is no complicated or sophisticated arguement to offer why a preborn human being has a right to life. Just like you said a journey starts with a first step, the embryo/fetus is the first steps of life for human beings. What kind of arguement are you looking for to prove a preborn human being has the right to life?
__________________
Quote:
"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº? “I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac. “If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle. "If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon "I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards |
||
05-16-2010, 11:31 PM | #54 (permalink) |
we are stardust
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,894
|
I'm all for stem cells and the research surrounding them. Like somebody said earlier (I think it was Burning Down), I also tend to liken this situation to healthy people's organs being donated after their death. Like like when somebody with many good organs passes away, the cells (in this case) aren't going to be having any other role so why not use them for things that could lead to saving people's lives? I think it's a very exciting time in science. I can understand people being against the act of abortion, but taking stem cells from already aborted fetuses is a completely different thing.
A question for anyone that may know - can you also get stem cells from placentas? I've heard this somewhere and was thinking about it. In this case, when the placenta comes out of the mother following childbirth can they be used to get stem cells? Also, can stem cells be taken from fetuses that have been miscarried for other reasons (not abortion)? |
05-18-2010, 08:29 PM | #55 (permalink) | ||
carpe musicam
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
|
Quote:
here are two article you might be interested in: UK Researcher: Cord Blood Real Potential for Cures, - Part 1 UK Researcher: Stem Cells
__________________
Quote:
"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº? “I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac. “If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle. "If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon "I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards |
||
05-19-2010, 02:19 AM | #56 (permalink) | ||
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
Quote:
You write for example that they are experimenting on a deceased body which should not have died that way. Why is it wrong to experiment on bodies which "should not" have died that way? How should it have died? Is it always unethical to research dead bodies? I know now why I'm not getting any good answers. Not to be nasty, but after all this back and forth, it is clear you don't know much ethics. You probably haven't taken a course in philosophy which covers the different morale theories or studied this in your own time. It's also clear that either you haven't found answers for such questions yourself - or - if you have, you are keeping it a secret. I know you are a christian and different branches of christianity promote different kinds of dos and donts such as the ten commandments. Perhaps this is the basis for your argument, but you're not telling because you don't think a view on morale based in religion will get any recognition? Or you don't want to see discussion used against it? Basically, I'm trying to figure out if there's any depth to your arguments which can be discussed on a philosophical level. If there's not, then there's not much weight in your arguments. You say something is unethical without explaining why. Saying it is because the fetuses shouldn't have died that way is not an explanation .. it only begs for a new question; why does that make it unethical? Quote:
I do agree that it would be better if stem cells for treatment came from somewhere else than embryos. I am not personally bothered that the stem cells with the most potential currently come from fetuses, but it would be more practical if they came from somewhere else, f.ex if we could grow them or if we could reverse the differentiation process and turn advanced cells back into stem cells. It would also be practical if it had more support from the general public, although that bit seems to have improved quite a bit over the years.
__________________
Something Completely Different |
||
05-23-2010, 09:32 AM | #57 (permalink) |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Leith
Posts: 72
|
Stem cell research is brilliant...
For class, I've done a few research essays on the potential of limb regrowth and artificial organs. Really interesting stuff. I'd like to dabble in it some day. It'd have so much more potential once someone discovers how to dedifferentiate cells... Then there's be no need to get babies involved. xD |
07-01-2010, 07:41 AM | #58 (permalink) |
Like a fart in a trance
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chavham. Go on, Wiki it.
Posts: 115
|
Ok, I may be dredging this up but I've only just got round to reading this in it's entirety.
From what I can see, the debate (if you can call one person against everyone else a constructive debate) is more to do with being pro-life and against abortion rather than the actual matter at hand. On a personal level, I've had an abortion (think I mentioned before I'm pretty frank and open about shit like this), thought this wasn't actually through choice. There were complications. This leaves my views on abortions a little skewed. BUT, should I have been given the opportunity to 'donate' in anyway I would have jumped at it. When put into perspective, I would see this no differently than to a parent allowing a child to be an organ donor. Death, be it an old man, a kid or an aborted fetus will always happen so I don't see how embryonic stem cell research to an aborted fetus is any different to organ donation or those who choose to donate their bodies to science. I can understand those that say a fetus is a life from day 1, regardless that it can't think/feel etc and that it should have rights, I feel that way too, but as with anything, if a child or person can't make a choice (organ donation, life support, whatever) then that desicion is made by those closest to them who decide what is best. That's acceptable, so why is making the same kind of desicion on behalf of an aborted fetus any different?
__________________
'You got red on you...'
|
07-03-2010, 09:11 PM | #59 (permalink) |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 526
|
The fact that almost everyone voted yes makes me very happy. I do not believe in the idea of a soul being created at the moment of conception or souls at all. I think it is completely ridiculous to compare the life of a 150 cell creature to that of a person.
|
|