Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tuxedo Templar on 2005-05-25 at 07:40:16
Frankly, I value the lives of those who have lived, loved, and hold the memories and experiences of many years more than the barely-assembled culmination of a single act of sexual intercourse (which can be abundantly duplicated), with a minimal gestation period to follow. Though people want to hold lives as something arbitrarily sacred and block out any kind of compromise on this matter, the fact is that it's not like we have any shortage of offspring to continue our species. That's of course, looking at it through a numbers standpoint.
But seriously, I think we should do this research any way you look at it, to find out if there's a way to do it without taking lives or not. By blocking out funding and clinging to a rigid and nebulous concept of rights, we won't be able to know that. I think that would be a bigger crime than not doing it, especially if it ends up taking place anyway, somewhere where human lives don't hold the same value, and where will only be done to make money, regardless of ethics.
But seriously, I think we should do this research any way you look at it, to find out if there's a way to do it without taking lives or not. By blocking out funding and clinging to a rigid and nebulous concept of rights, we won't be able to know that. I think that would be a bigger crime than not doing it, especially if it ends up taking place anyway, somewhere where human lives don't hold the same value, and where will only be done to make money, regardless of ethics.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kenoli on 2005-05-25 at 16:15:19
Banning research into one of the most important medical breakthroughs ever would be absolutely stupid, I do belive.
Besides the possibility to treat a wide variety of medical problems (some that are otherwise incurable), stem cells form every tissue of the body, theres no telling what we may be able to learn from them. It's a very important area of research, and I think should be supported as much as possible.
As for all the "Take away someone's life to make another person's life better" stuff...
The people who say these things generally don't know what they are talking about, have never read a single ture thing about stem cell research, and are more or less idiots. I just dismiss anything they have to say on the matter.
I encourage people to actually read about what stem cell research is and what it can be used for. Nothing is worse than hearing people going on and on about something they know nothing about.
Besides the possibility to treat a wide variety of medical problems (some that are otherwise incurable), stem cells form every tissue of the body, theres no telling what we may be able to learn from them. It's a very important area of research, and I think should be supported as much as possible.
As for all the "Take away someone's life to make another person's life better" stuff...
The people who say these things generally don't know what they are talking about, have never read a single ture thing about stem cell research, and are more or less idiots. I just dismiss anything they have to say on the matter.
I encourage people to actually read about what stem cell research is and what it can be used for. Nothing is worse than hearing people going on and on about something they know nothing about.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snipe on 2005-05-25 at 16:21:15
stim cell? isn't it stem cell??
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kenoli on 2005-05-25 at 16:26:22
It's stem cell, but people misspell it as stim cell, but they mean the same thing.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snipe on 2005-05-25 at 16:52:22
gotcha
Report, edit, etc...Posted by .matrix//Merovingian on 2005-05-25 at 21:23:20
Out of the 27 votes gathered so far, 23 are in favour of continuing stem cell research, and 4 have no opinion on the matter. Not a single person has voted against stem cell research...so far.
I agree. Pro-lifers are such illogical hypocrites.
QUOTE
We are at a loss to understand why pro-lifer leaders in the U.S. have concentrated on the few dozen embryos used in stem cell research, while almost ignoring the hundreds of thousands of embryos who have died in other ways in IVF clinics.
I agree. Pro-lifers are such illogical hypocrites.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2005-05-26 at 22:43:17
I wonder if any religious scientist is againts stem cells?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-05-27 at 13:00:59
when i die, i went to donate my body to my family.
Grandson: Mommy? what's for dinner?
Mom: We're gonna have your grand pa Leif for dinner.
Grandson: Yay!!
I'm gonna be such a good father figure, I'm gonna be putting the food on the table even after I'm dead. Even if that food has to be me.
Grandson: Mommy? what's for dinner?
Mom: We're gonna have your grand pa Leif for dinner.
Grandson: Yay!!
I'm gonna be such a good father figure, I'm gonna be putting the food on the table even after I'm dead. Even if that food has to be me.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-05-27 at 13:08:01
Um, I found your dialogue confusing. First you put the kid as "Grandson" so I'm assuming it's relative to what you are. So then the Mom comes in the dialogue, so if it's in relation to you then that would make the Mom YOUR mom, which would be the kid's like great grandmother. Even if you are a father figure, why would you refer to the kid as grandson?
And if it was grandson, then the mom would be like your daughter or something.
And if it was grandson, then the mom would be like your daughter or something.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-05-27 at 13:12:47
Ya, I did leave some of the details out. Let me clarify the bad joke now. (It was kinda bad, now it's just terrible)
Mom = My daughter
Grandson= my Grandson
I was being a father figure to my grandson. Well, a grandfather figure if you want to get technical.
Mom = My daughter
Grandson= my Grandson
I was being a father figure to my grandson. Well, a grandfather figure if you want to get technical.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2005-05-27 at 14:20:56
QUOTE
I wonder if any religious scientist is againts stem cells?
"Religious scientist" is an oxymoron. That is just their attempt to counter Darwinism and that silly little thing called evolution.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-05-30 at 23:35:38
I was just reading this forum and read this Stem Cell Research Topic
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-foru...5-0-asc-12.html
This was a very convincing post:
And a reply which just corrects some things
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-foru...5-0-asc-12.html
This was a very convincing post:
QUOTE
Firstly, I would like to debunk some myths that I found posted here: for a first, stem cells DO NOT lessen as a person ages. Let us take the bone marrow for example. It is a major source of stem cells and acts as the produce of white blood cells. As the white blood cells get destroyed, they must be replaced if the immune systme is to be maintained. The body does not simply pull white blood cells out of thin air, it uses oligopotent stem cells located within the bone marrow to act as templates from which the white platelets are created. The same follows for the brain where many stem cells have been found as well. Contrary to popular belief, the loss of cellular mass in the brain is far from irreversible. Once again oligopotent stem cells, stem cells that can produce only one cell in a range of aproximately 6 out of 210 various cells, reform and recreate lost and killed brain cells. Now to awnswer a few questions: A scientist has a time frame of approximately 10 days, starting from day 6 after fertilization, to harvest the ICM, intra cellular mass (stem cells(embryonic)), to obtain pluripotent embryonic stem cells. After this time frame, the scientists can still harvest stem cells but they will be in the form of adult stem cells. If one wishes to obtain EBRYONIC stem cells, the fetus (actually a blastocyst) is always killed. The blastocyst does not render a fetus like shape until day 21. I personally do not understand why people fight over the study of stem cells due to the following reason: fertility clinics collect a supply of unused and unclaimed pre-fertilized embryos which they continually keep until 5 years after their date of creation. At this point, by STATE MANDATE, the zygotic masses must be destryoed. It suprises me that this specific issue does not take precedence over stemcell research. It would seem more logical to spend the yearly disposed amount of 340000 liters of zygotic mass in more fruitful ways. To me, it is all much ado about nothing. If that account may seem as a weak argument as to the justification of stem cell research in general, allow me to say thus: Adult stem cells work in the same manner as embryonic stem cells and can be obtained from foreskin of circumsized babies, which is normally disposed of. These stem cells can be manipulated, through various methods, ranging from denucleation to forcing the cells to form various functions, and in the same manner as embryonic stem cells, be used to create replacemnt organs and skin grafts. 1 sq cm of foreskin can be used to generate 6 football fields of graft skin.
And a reply which just corrects some things
QUOTE
Nice "debunking," Ajedrez. Do you even know what these stem cells are? You do NOT refer to the ESM, or Embryonic Stem Cell. You are talking about the Hematopoietic Stem cells found in bone marrow. I would like you to take note that the only EFFECTIVE therapy these stem cells can be used for is to make new blood cells. Hematopoietic have been attempted to be used in other areas of the body. For example, they have been implanted into damaged heart tissue. However, these hematopoietic cells were ONLY able to create replacement cells having the basic structural form of original heart tissue. Any further similaraties ended here as the replacement cells proved to be NON FUNCTIONAL
Embryonic stem cells are the ONLY type of stem cell that has the ability to effectively replace any damaged tissue in the human body. See my thread called "Kyle's Stem Cell Paper" for further information.
Embryonic stem cells are the ONLY type of stem cell that has the ability to effectively replace any damaged tissue in the human body. See my thread called "Kyle's Stem Cell Paper" for further information.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-05-30 at 23:44:16
I wonder if it was possible to try and make a hybrid using stem cells and cancer.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2005-05-31 at 00:14:31
Not really since those cells do not "breed" with one another. And modifying animal genes is still beyond us.
They are sort of the same things though. Just stem cells stops after the area around them is too crouded.
They are sort of the same things though. Just stem cells stops after the area around them is too crouded.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-05-31 at 00:30:05
I meant more along the terms of DNA slicing.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2005-05-31 at 09:08:23
Why would you want to combine stem cells with cancerous cells anyway?
Stem Cells = Totipotent undifferentiated cells that can become any type of cell, depending on the environment it finds itself in.
Cancer Cells = Any cell with DNA damage that disrupts the cell cycle, causing uncontrolled mitosis. There are two types of cancer (at a cellular level), if I remember correctly, and only one type can be treated through conventional means.
I don't think slicing healthy genes out of stem cells and incorporating them into cancer cells will work, unless you catch the cancer very very early, if that's what you were thinking of.
Stem Cells = Totipotent undifferentiated cells that can become any type of cell, depending on the environment it finds itself in.
Cancer Cells = Any cell with DNA damage that disrupts the cell cycle, causing uncontrolled mitosis. There are two types of cancer (at a cellular level), if I remember correctly, and only one type can be treated through conventional means.
I don't think slicing healthy genes out of stem cells and incorporating them into cancer cells will work, unless you catch the cancer very very early, if that's what you were thinking of.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2005-05-31 at 19:24:44
In which case it's pretty well treatable anyway.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-06-06 at 06:25:28
QUOTE(Devlin)
Seriously, you guys treat human life like nothing. It's still a human life if it was going to be killed. That's like saying you mine as well steal someone's wallet when he's dead, I mean, he's dead, he doesn't need it does he?
I think your definition of life is exactly correct. Lem'me straighten it out for everyone.
This resembles to me like as that potencial energy thing into becoming kinetic one. All you need is a push.
'Till we get this 'push' well sorted out (read no stray edges loose) I'll stick to that definition down here.
QUOTE(Life at Dictionary.com (partial quote))
#
1.
a) The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
b) The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
2. Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life.
3. A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed hundreds of lives.
4. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence: the artistic life of a writer.
5.
a) The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life.
b) The interval of time between one's birth and the present: has had hay fever all his life.
c) A particular segment of one's life: my adolescent life.
d) The period from an occurrence until death: elected for life; paralyzed for life.
e) Slang. A sentence of imprisonment lasting till death.
...
1.
a) The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
b) The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
2. Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life.
3. A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed hundreds of lives.
4. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence: the artistic life of a writer.
5.
a) The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life.
b) The interval of time between one's birth and the present: has had hay fever all his life.
c) A particular segment of one's life: my adolescent life.
d) The period from an occurrence until death: elected for life; paralyzed for life.
e) Slang. A sentence of imprisonment lasting till death.
...
From this methinks that your point over this was sorta exagerated.
QUOTE(Devlin)
Another proof that when some religious conservative drives the admin of any country it almost surely won't come with any open minded results from it's PoV's.
QUOTE(Alpha[MC))
when i die, i went to donate my body to my family.
Grandson: Mommy? what's for dinner?
Mom: We're gonna have your grand pa Leif for dinner.
Grandson: Yay!!
I'm gonna be such a good father figure, I'm gonna be putting the food on the table even after I'm dead. Even if that food has to be me.
Grandson: Mommy? what's for dinner?
Mom: We're gonna have your grand pa Leif for dinner.
Grandson: Yay!!
I'm gonna be such a good father figure, I'm gonna be putting the food on the table even after I'm dead. Even if that food has to be me.
Inquisitive sidenote: Wth does this have to do with the current topic at hands? (We're on the Serious Debate area afterall.)
--------
For sums, I'm in favour of Stem Cell research. But, imo, they should set some more guidelines before extending it's testing, though.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2005-06-08 at 21:00:52
Most stem cells are taken from 3-5 day old embryos. What constitutes a human being? That thing pro-lifers called "a human being" is a cluster of identical cells that will differentiate into other cells in the future. Once we learn how to modify animal stem cells and inject them with human DNA, then they could have the possibility of turning into a human being (once we're that advanced). Most of the research is done artificially, as that is much easier to control with gene splicing and whatnot, and it's far more effective than removing the embryo from a woman. Stem cells have shown the potential to cure the widest array of illnesses of any medicine in existence.
I think a far more exciting prospect is that as we advance in biology on this monumental basis, will we advance so far as to break down a stem cell so much that we can replicated it artificially... or rather synthesize human stem cells from highly calculated concentrations of carbon, hydrogen, etc? Now isn't that a great plot for a sci-fi novel?
I think a far more exciting prospect is that as we advance in biology on this monumental basis, will we advance so far as to break down a stem cell so much that we can replicated it artificially... or rather synthesize human stem cells from highly calculated concentrations of carbon, hydrogen, etc? Now isn't that a great plot for a sci-fi novel?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by re_casper on 2005-06-17 at 01:06:44
there are two types of stem cell research if you read devilesk's, but it would also mean that there will be a man and a women just having sex over and over killing the babies.... (good or bad cuz they dont want children) and handing them over to the scientists... i do not mind them screwing over their lives.... but over all... it is quite stupid... where would the scientists get over abundant embryos? of course it is from prostitutes, and people who live by seducing people.... which i think is pretty sick... but the second kind which is completly harmless is taking the cells of certain places such as the nose, the skin, blood, and doing stem cell research on that.... so far, i would say that the main break throughs and completions would be through this... one of the good things about going after this would be having a clone of yourself, just without a brain. so if you lose a part, you can replace it. But that would truly mean that you can be eternally or 500 years on earth. for those who do not get it: You lose an arm, you get a perfect one. your heart stops, you get a perfect one. your lungs disfigure, you get a perfect one. And so on.... i really do not mind scientists going on in their work, well science is nothing, it is just the study of using the senses..
uhh sry i kinda got off topic...
uhh sry i kinda got off topic...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by The_Shattered_moose on 2005-06-17 at 15:15:56
Idsa, on your point that "stem cells are from prostitutes", you're wrong. Most of the aborted fetuses found are from accidents, or cases where the child would have come into the world in a negative environment. But that is actually completly beside the point, as stem cells are not derived from aborted fetuses, they are derived from blastocysts, which are fertilized eggs a few days old. I'd also like to point out that your claim that stem cells can be derived from other parts of the body is innacurate, as embryonic stem cells are what is called Pluripotent, and can differentiate into any cell in the body. Cells in the nose or skin have already differentiated, and are only multipotent, they can only become one type of cell. Embryonic stem cells, however, are pluripotent, and thus can differentiate into any cell in the body. Therefor embryonic stem cells are incredibly more effective than adult/multipotent stem cells.