Stem Cell Research

quiet bear · #1 07-19-2006, 02:53 AM

I did a search for this, and didn't get any matches, so if this has been covered, I apologize.

This has been brewing for a while, so I thought I'd see what everyone's opinions on this subject are. (is?)

I'm not big on science, and I don't have a lot of stats and data and whatnot to go along with this post, just my own thoughts, as I understand the subject.

It seems to me, that the big bone of contention is the embryonic research. The pro-life and pro...research? people are at odds.

The embryo is considered by some to be a life, while others don't see it that way. I have my own opinion on that, which is private.

One question that I have asked over and over again, in my mind is, what if these embryos are created with the sole intent of being used as a research tool? Then isn't that the embryo's 'fate', so to speak, from the beginning?

Isn't that different from these scientists cultivating embryos they've recieved from various clinics, that were going to dispose of them?

From what I understand, embryonic research has far more capabilities than any other form, because the embryo, since it has not developed any 'tendencies', so to speak, it can be pointed in any direction.

Anyway, I am probably errant in some of this post. I don't have anything in front of me to go by, these are just thoughts I had.

Joshua Adams · #2 07-19-2006, 03:08 AM

I got a news alert in my mail from CNN today, stating that the Senate voted to loosen the restrictions on government funding. But Bush promised to veto it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quiet bear

One question that I have asked over and over again, in my mind is, what if these embryos are created with the sole intent of being used as a research tool? Then isn't that the embryo's 'fate', so to speak, from the beginning?

That exists in the form of therapeutic cloning. It's controversial (read: rejected by conservatives), possibly in part because of confusion with reproductive cloning.

Quote:

Isn't that different from these scientists cultivating embryos they've recieved from various clinics, that were going to dispose of them?

Of course, it's different. Do you mean that you think it should be considered an agreeable solution that sidesteps some perceived problems with the other way of gathering embryos? If so, it's actually no less problematic, maybe even more so depending on the person you're talking to. Some feel that creating a life with the sole intent of using it for research is degrading, like turning life into a commodity.

Quote:

From what I understand, embryonic research has far more capabilities than any other form, because the embryo, since it has not developed any 'tendencies', so to speak, it can be pointed in any direction.

Anyway, I am probably errant in some of this post. I don't have anything in front of me to go by, these are just thoughts I had.

I don't think anything you said is wrong, but you'll find that conservatives/pro-lifers will be inclined to claim that adult stem cells are just as effective, or even more effective than embryonic ones (just google it up and you'll see).

Ari · #3 07-19-2006, 07:32 PM

Just another anti-choice you will do what the government tells you and like it response from the current administration.

The president vetoed the bill that would allow the federal funding of research using the frozen embryo (Blastocyst) from donors who gave permission for research. He would apparently be happier that these cells be destroyed than allow them to be used for research that may cure diseases.
(Bolding for fun

)

LadyShea · #4 07-19-2006, 07:40 PM

Had I been allowed to, I would have given my unused embryos to science. As it is, I wasn't allowed to, and they were not good enough quality for reproductive purposes...but they might have been okay to do reasearch on.

Basically 4 poor quality embryos simply stopped developing and got washed down the sink when they could have been used to fight illness. Pisses me off to this day.

Zehava · #5 07-19-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Had I been allowed to, I would have given my unused embryos to science. As it is, I wasn't allowed to, and they were not good enough quality for reproductive purposes...but they might have been okay to do reasearch on.

Basically 4 poor quality embryos simply stopped developing and got washed down the sink when they could have been used to fight illness. Pisses me off to this day.

And therein lies the rub.

IIRC most (it not all) the embryos used in research were the by-products of fertility treatments/etc. The religious right gets in an uproar when these embroys are to be used for research purposes, after all they are human beings. However they, for the most part, seem to have absolutely no problem with the embryos being destroyed (which they will be if not used for research).

A stance that is more than a little hypocritical if you ask me, much like their stance on the death penalty.

I have no problems with the unused embryos from fertility treatments being used for research, providing of course that the couple gives their consent. Hell I'd have no problem with a woman volunteering eggs to be used in stem cell research.

Shake · #6 07-19-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quiet bear

The pro-life and pro...research? people are at odds.

According to a news report I saw last night, some of the anti-choice (you call them "pro-life") people are actually for stem cell research, as they feel this would improve the quality of life of those living with either crippling disabilities or nasty diseases.

The same report pointed out that Bush has said he will veto the bill just passed by the Senate when it reaches him. Interestingly, this will be the first veto in his time in office. :tmangry1:

trientalis · #7 07-19-2006, 09:57 PM

What, no signing statement? His fingers must be sore from being crossed behind his back all the time.

Shake · #8 07-19-2006, 09:59 PM

My bad. Apparently, he's already vetoed the bill.

TomJoe · #9 07-20-2006, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zehava

IIRC most (it not all) the embryos used in research were the by-products of fertility treatments/etc. The religious right gets in an uproar when these embroys are to be used for research purposes, after all they are human beings. However they, for the most part, seem to have absolutely no problem with the embryos being destroyed (which they will be if not used for research).

A stance that is more than a little hypocritical if you ask me, much like their stance on the death penalty.

Which is why the Catholic Church does not condone fertility treatment practices along those lines. Seems pretty consistent to me.

Do No Harm

LadyShea · #10 07-20-2006, 07:37 PM

On this issue the RCC is indeed consistent. But not all pro-lifers are Catholic and most churches simply don't address IVF at all. Those that have addressed it often have specific outlines to keep treatments within bounds acceptable to them ethically, such as only fertilizing 2 eggs rather than a whole batch or transferring all resultant embryos no matter how many there are.

I spoke to several women who were weighing the chance of success against their religious convictions and were having a difficult time. Others wanted a baby more than they wanted to adhere to the beliefs of their church and went for the best success rates.

I don't think it's easy for anyone. It was even hard for me to decide what would happen to any leftover embryos and I don't consider them persons.

Ari · #11 07-20-2006, 08:32 PM

Last night I saw Bush give the veto speech on the news. OMG I don't know what's worse that his people think we are complete idiots or that people probably bought it. It was a nice emotional pandering with babies in the background and a kiss the baby spot at the end. Is there anything more cliche of a politicians speech?

Although he talked a lot about the morals of america (even though america seems to disagree with him) he didn't seem to mention that the embryos would be destroyed anyway.

TomJoe · #12 07-20-2006, 08:33 PM

I can sortof understand wanting to have a child that is of your own flesh. However, Christianity talks so often about Christians being the "adopted sons of daughters of God", you'd think that such things (literal blood lines) wouldn't be such driving factors for Christians and adoption would be considered more seriously as a first alternative, rather than a settling.

My girlfriend and I have discussed this at length, and if we try the old fashioned way, and nothings doin, we'll adopt. End of story.

Ari · #13 07-20-2006, 08:45 PM

A good reason for "pro-life" and "pro-family" groups to spend more time trying to make adoption an easy and better process than spending their time and money on trying to limit the rights of others.

LadyShea · #14 07-20-2006, 08:56 PM

Adoption has its own set of ethical issues I don't necessarily want to get too heavily into here, but many pro-life groups are involved...and add to the ethical problems in my opinion. The level of coercion and lack of accurate and helpful information available to the expectant parents is appalling.

TomJoe · #15 07-20-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ari

A good reason for "pro-life" and "pro-family" groups to spend more time trying to make adoption an easy and better process than spending their time and money on trying to limit the rights of others.

From the "pro-life" point of view, the pro-choice camp wants to limit the rights of the unborn, that's why they fight.

Can/SHOULD the adoption process be easier? Reading LadyShea's trials and tribulations, and knowing the exhorbitant lengths my aunt and uncle went through to adopt their youngest daughter, I can only agree. There are a lot of things that don't make sense from a practical standpoint, but blaming it on a Christian boogeyman isn't going to solve anything.

Ari · #16 07-20-2006, 11:51 PM

There is a huge debate there about abortion but in this specific case the pro-lifers that Bush is apparently supporting are choosing the rights of a destroyed bundle of cells over the rights of the donors and those that could benefit.

Well I'm not blaming the christian boogeyman, just pointing out that if a number of groups put the time, money and effort into helping others that they do into protesting and fighting against things like gay marriage, perhaps things would be better.
Although as Ladyshea indirrectly pointed out, a number of these groups just enjoy the power they get and maybe it's better they are spinning their wheels than taking over more important issues.

angrybellsprout · #17 07-29-2006, 11:37 PM

Why shouldn't we produce humans for the purpose of killing them off in the name of 'science'?

Obviously the only way that stem cells exist is by farming human children like other farm yard animals.

It isn't as if they are alive or are apart of the homo sapien taxonomic classification, they are nothing more than unliving matter which magically goes through the process of abiogenesis when it passes through the birth canal.

livius drusus · #18 07-29-2006, 11:40 PM

Who has claimed human embryos aren't homo sapiens? Do you have a link?

angrybellsprout · #19 07-29-2006, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shake

Quote:

Originally Posted by quiet bear

The pro-life and pro...research? people are at odds.

According to a news report I saw last night, some of the anti-choice (you call them "pro-life") people are actually for stem cell research, as they feel this would improve the quality of life of those living with either crippling disabilities or nasty diseases.

The same report pointed out that Bush has said he will veto the bill just passed by the Senate when it reaches him. Interestingly, this will be the first veto in his time in office. :tmangry1:

By anti-choice I am going to assume you are makeing reference to those who refuse to give children the choice to live or not?

Maybe you are talking about those who oppose the concept of sex being a choice, that it is really just a natural reaction like breathing?

angrybellsprout · #20 07-29-2006, 11:42 PM

Many of those who support the slaughter of children make the claim that they aren't 'humans' or even better that they aren't 'alive'...

angrybellsprout · #21 07-29-2006, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zehava

IIRC most (it not all) the embryos used in research were the by-products of fertility treatments/etc. The religious right gets in an uproar when these embroys are to be used for research purposes, after all they are human beings. However they, for the most part, seem to have absolutely no problem with the embryos being destroyed (which they will be if not used for research).

A stance that is more than a little hypocritical if you ask me, much like their stance on the death penalty.

Which is why the Catholic Church does not condone fertility treatment practices along those lines. Seems pretty consistent to me.

Do No Harm

How dare those bigots who force their beliefs on others try to suggest that you shouldn't just grow dozens of humans to pick one or two of them to survive and flush the others down the toilet.

Freedom from religion !!