Stem Cell Research

[Fuelbi]

Ahhhhh yes, my favorite debate topic: Should stem cell research be legalized?

First, let's start off with what stem cells are for those of you who don't know. Stem cells are cells that have the have the potential to develop to many different kinds of cells early in its life. Let's say you have a stem cell and want to turn it into bone marrow. Under certain physiologic or experimental conditions, you can turn it into bone marrow if you wanted. You can also turn it into other things like red blood cells, brain cells, or even into more stem cells if you wanted.

Now people ask "What's the big deal with stem cells?". Stem cells have the capability of curing many diseases like blindness for example. There are two kinds of stem cells. One is the embryonic stem cell and the other is the adult stem cell. This debate will be focusing on the embryonic stem cell.

Many people find extracting stem cells from embryos controversial. This stems from the fact that at the time that scientists take stem cells out of embryos, they are considered to be "alive" with a beating heart, functioning brain, etc.

Supporters claim that to save many lives, one must be destroyed. They also say stem cell research can pave teh way for even more medicine, which means that perhaps one day, stem cells may become obsolete.

Arguments against stem cell research say that taking the life away off a baby is wrong. They say that unborn should have the same rights as a normal person. They also say that we should not play the role of God

Personally, I believe that we should continue on with stem cell research. As stated above, we can save many more lives in the process. I also believe that this can pave the way for more medicine. I mean, if this ends up becoming obsolete, we won't end up extracting stem cells from unborn babies right?

And now it's time for your opinion


Sources:

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/defaultpage.asp
http://www.experiment-resources.com/stem-cell-pros-and-cons.html

 

[Deleted member]

The embryo "dies" when stem cells are extracted?

I'm very pro research so I do think they should continue doing what they are doing.

However, right now stem cells have no proven medical application and the stem cell clinics are something that needs to be shut down until there are proven results.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

One is the embryonic stem cell and the other is the adult stem cell.

Well if we'll have a discussion on Stem Cells, let us begin with the pros of them.

Pros of Stem Cells:

Stem cell research can potentially help treating a range of medical problems. It could lead humanity closer to better treat and possibly cure a number of diseases:


•Parkinson’s Disease


•Alzheimer’s Disease


•Heart Diseases, Stroke and Diabetes (Type 1)


•Birth Defects


•Spinal Cord Injuries


•Replace or Repair Damaged Organs


•Reduced Risk of Transplantation (You could possibly get a copy of your own heart in a heart-transplantation in the future


•Stem cells may play a major role in cancer

Better treatment of these diseases could also give significant social benefits for individuals and economic gains for the society.



Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/stem-cell-pros-and-cons.html#ixzz0qNOJwLvD

Source conveniently given in the quote.

Many people find extracting stem cells from embryos controversial. This stems from the fact that at the time that scientists take stem cells out of embryos, they are considered to be "alive" with a beating heart, functioning brain, etc.

However, the main problem I have with this entire "ethical" section of the stem cell debate is the fact that stem cells are so useful so as to go on and save numerous lives at the cost of one.

...At the cost of one.
I regret saying that, as it is the taking of life, which is the antithesis of my beliefs. However, there is the debate within the larger one on whether the embryos are actually considered human life or not.
Zygotes, however, are not yet at the stage to be considered 'human life'. Considering zygotes are the products from the combinations of gametes from the parents that divide and give rise to cells that form the main organism, they would be considered totipotent stem cells.
Totipotent cells give rise to the pluripotent cells.
If these cells were taken before the multi-cellular organism was created, then they could be divided into others for work. Technically speaking, this is not destroying human life; instead it is merely ceasing the process in which human life is created.

Arguments against stem cell research say that taking the life away off a baby is wrong. They say that unborn should have the same rights as a normal person. They also say that we should not play the role of God

Personally, the way described above that stem cells taken from a single cell to stop the process of creation seems almost rightful to me.
However, the Bible states that human life begins as soon as conception occurs.
This possibly presents a problem for me.
Overall, I'm admitting that the ethical part of Stem cell research confuses me, and I have a difficult time choosing which side, because of my Catholic beliefs.
However, then begins the inquisition of the taking of stem cells from an adult.
These stem cells can be obtained from bone marrow, brain tissue, and blood. These stem cells are still able to provide aid for those with certain cancers, autoimmune diseases, and some cardiovascular ailments.
Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-stem-cell-research.html

My opinion: I'm mostly with the side that says take stem cells from adults. This does not kill the adult, and it does not really have any harmful effects towards them.
However, adult stem cells have less of a capacity than embryonic stem cells.

Nonetheless, if enough are gathered and tampered with, we may be able to discover a greater use for adult stem cells.
Thus, we would be taking a tiny amount of cells from another, and using those cells to help many more, without harm coming to the host of those cells! How convenient.
That's also following how the Bible is strong in the alleviation of disease and suffering, and how curing people is a noble, kind act.

Well, I guess I just found my side then, what an accomplishment.

 

[Deleted member]

where is the line between zygote and embryo?
I myself consider anything unborn ok to be "messed" with, to put it like that.

I'm not going to defend that here since that isn't the debate right now.

 

[GoldShadow]

However, right now stem cells have no proven medical application

Are you sure about that? You may want to take a quick trip to Wikipedia!

and the stem cell clinics are something that needs to be shut down until there are proven results.

How can "proven results" be obtained if there are no stem cells to work with for use in research?

 

[Deleted member]

Are you sure about that? You may want to take a quick trip to Wikipedia!

How can "proven results" be obtained if there are no stem cells to work with for use in research?

I mean clinics that advertise themselves as "wonder clinic" while stem cell research is, well, still in the research phase.

And I am very pro research.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I mean clinics that advertise themselves as "wonder clinic" while stem cell research is, well, still in the research phase.

And I am very pro research.

I see what you're getting @ here.

Recently, 60 Minutes had a piece on just that, quacks (who were hitherto medical doctors or doctors in training), hyping Stem Cell Research that can make ALS patients walk again.

The sad part is that this is becoming somewhat of an industry, with little regulation coming from the government.

 

[Sieguest]

I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of sparking something.

Personally, the way described above that stem cells taken from a single cell to stop the process of creation seems almost rightful to me.
However, the Bible states that human life begins as soon as conception occurs.
This possibly presents a problem for me.

At the part I've highlighted in red. How does the Bible prove that life begins at conception?
At conception their are no organs present, just cells. If I were to take a picture of the zygote at conception from a pregnant woman, and a picture of the zygote of what may become an animal baby, could you tell the difference?

However, then begins the inquisition of the taking of stem cells from an adult.
These stem cells can be obtained from bone marrow, brain tissue, and blood. These stem cells are still able to provide aid for those with certain cancers, autoimmune diseases, and some cardiovascular ailments.
Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-stem-cell-research.html

My opinion: I'm mostly with the side that says take stem cells from adults. This does not kill the adult, and it does not really have any harmful effects towards them.
However, adult stem cells have less of a capacity than embryonic stem cells.

Nonetheless, if enough are gathered and tampered with, we may be able to discover a greater use for adult stem cells.
Thus, we would be taking a tiny amount of cells from another, and using those cells to help many more, without harm coming to the host of those cells! How convenient.
That's also following how the Bible is strong in the alleviation of disease and suffering, and how curing people is a noble, kind act.

Well, I guess I just found my side then, what an accomplishment.

I'm not sure how you can justify your reasoning with the Bible, in order to do that, you would have to prove that the bible is true in what it contains, this would then link to establish an objective "right". However, that can't be true, due to the presence of those who don't follow the teaching of the bible, but have the same devotion to their higher deity (if any) and readings (if any). You could say that the bible considers there are those that are "wrong" and that those who are wrong are the people I've described, but this can be transversed the other way as well. Someone of a profoundly different belief could use that reasoning as well.

where is the line between zygote and embryo.

About five weeks. This explains it in a bit more detail.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

I'll play devil's advocate for the sake of sparking something.



At the part I've highlighted in red. How does the Bible prove that life begins at conception?
At conception their are no organs present, just cells. If I were to take a picture of the zygote at conception from a pregnant woman, and a picture of the zygote of what may become an animal baby, could you tell the difference?

This is partly why I still have problems with the entire conception and "beginning of human life" proportion of that debate; how it cannot be considered a true human until it is multi-cellular. I have not an idea why the Bible states that as soon as conception occurs, it is human, because it is only a mere cell.
The destruction of a single cell is completely negligible, as you can scratch your skin and you will kill off a few cells either way.

I honestly don't know, I can't question the Bible, and bringing it into debates is a bad thing usually, the main part of when I used it was just to say it was considered a noble act in alleviating ailments.

I'm not sure how you can justify your reasoning with the Bible, in order to do that, you would have to prove that the bible is true in what it contains, this would then link to establish an objective "right". However, that can't be true, due to the presence of those who don't follow the teaching of the bible, but have the same devotion to their higher deity (if any) and readings (if any). You could say that the bible considers there are those that are "wrong" and that those who are wrong are the people I've described, but this can be transversed the other way as well. Someone of a profoundly different belief could use that reasoning as well.

...

This is why I just said bringing it in was probably a bad idea.
Again, reason I brought it in stated above.

It was more so to justify myself because I'm still unstable when it comes to the subject of questioning Religious scriptures.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Arguments against stem cell research say that taking the life away off a baby is wrong. They say that unborn should have the same rights as a normal person. They also say that we should not play the role of God

I love hearing about humans playing god. Makes me all fuzzy and warm inside to know that we're becoming Uebermenschen, or trying our best.

This ties in very, very deeply with abortion-if abortion is OK, why should stem cell research be prohibited? It's taking what is quite literally a piece of biological garbage (don't take that the wrong way please) and making something useful out of it. Can we agree that if abortion is legal, than prohibiting stem cell research is nothing more than a waste of a valuable raw material (or life, if you see it that way)? And as such, the only real debate here is "should abortion be allowed"?

 

[Sucumbio]

please remember to disable sigs, thanks!

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade here, but we don't need destroy embryos to get stem cells.

See there are these wonderful things called Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. Now the interesting thing about these is, we can create what are functionally the same as embryonic stem cells in mice, without destroying embryos. If this works for humans, we can basically turn adult cells into embryonic stem cells.

This is why stem cell research should be continued. If we get this right, we can cure or remedy a whole host of diseases, without destroying any embryos.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well in that case, there doesn't appear to be much of a controversy at all, does there?

 

[Cyn]

If this works for humans, we can basically turn adult cells into embryonic stem cells.

Even though it is a great breakthrough, it will not stop the philosophical debates. Induced pluripotent stem cells could eventually demonstrate totipotency (the ability of a single cell to divide and produce all the different cells in an organism), which is required for the start of a new human life. They could essentially be human embryos (if manipulated properly), negating any advantage that induced pluripotent stem cells may have over embryonic stem cells in terms of the destruction of early human life. However, as of now, the cells have not been able to be manipulated to grow the outer layer of an embryonic cell which is essential for the developing of the cell into a human being.

But it still leaves open the highly debatable point of cloning.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Even though it is a great breakthrough, it will not stop the philosophical debates. Induced pluripotent stem cells could eventually demonstrate totipotency (the ability of a single cell to divide and produce all the different cells in an organism), which is required for the start of a new human life. They could essentially be human embryos (if manipulated properly), negating any advantage that induced pluripotent stem cells may have over embryonic stem cells in terms of the destruction of early human life. However, as of now, the cells have not been able to be manipulated to grow the outer layer of an embryonic cell which is essential for the developing of the cell into a human being.

But it still leaves open the highly debatable point of cloning.

I know, but it'll mean that we don't actually have to touch embryos to get our stem-cells anymore. Of course this is still in the works and we may have to do embryonic stem-cell research in the meantime.

 

[Squidster]

Alright everyone's taking way too passive of a side on this debate. I believe its not only ok to do stem cell research, but it's immoral not to.

From a utilitarian perspective the life of the unborn embryo should be weighed the same as the lives that would be saved from the researched. The calculation is made even easier when you look at which embryos would be killed, if the alternative is simply an abortion then it really is no contest... (as mentioned above, this simply becomes an "is abortion ok" debate, where I will say that my answer would also be yes.)

I don't think anyone would disagree that utilitarianism would say stem cell research is good. The debate then becomes if utilitarianism is the right mode to evaluate this decision. From a policy making standpoint I feel like it's the only morally permissible system of evaluation... anything else takes preferences over life. Remember, "playing God" makes it sound like you are willingly taking a life. Calling it a "calculated decision" makes it sound like you're choosing which lives are more important. Calling it "utilitarianism" is simply choosing whichever option is best for everyone involved. Is the life of the embryo more important than the life of the lives that are doomed without stem cell research?

A lot of the objection to stem cell research comes from simple semantics.

What if instead of saying "do we KILL an embryo for research" we said, "do we kill 10 people to get a baby born." I am aware this is by no means an accurate depiction of the situation, but you can see how much wording has to do with how this is interpreted.

 

[gm jack]

How about now the research doesn't need to use embryos?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082101180.html

Now it's pretty much research that must be allowed to take place.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I agree with squidster You kill more living things (as well as human skin cells) washing your hands I truly do not see a problem.

AARRGG...once again learned this in school but can not find the score (actually learned it from a science video I want to say old school discovery channel but can not say for certain.)

 

[gm jack]

See my previous post. They don't need to use embryos any more.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Since we don't have to use embryos (and, no offense gm jack, but T-mart brought that up earlier) what's wrong about this?