PDA

View Full Version : Stem Cells?


King Zark
03-01-2006, 10:40 PM
So what do you think of Stem Cell research?

I say we should for numerous of reasons.
1) SAVE LIVES
2) IF SUPERMAN WAS ALIVE HE WANT THIS!
3) PEOPLE WHO HAD ATTACKS AND HAVE THEIR HEARTS DAMAGED THEIR HEARTS CAN GO TO THE POINT BEFORE HEART ATTACK


Medicial research should be narrowed down to:

"Can we do it? Should we do it?" -My Science teacher.

Alonso
03-02-2006, 01:30 AM
So what do you think of Stem Cell research?

I say we should for numerous of reasons.
1) SAVE LIVES
2) IF SUPERMAN WAS ALIVE HE WANT THIS!
3) PEOPLE WHO HAD ATTACKS AND HAVE THEIR HEARTS DAMAGED THEIR HEARTS CAN GO TO THE POINT BEFORE HEART ATTACK


Medicial research should be narrowed down to:

"Can we do it? Should we do it?" -My Science teacher.
Stem cell research helps not only people with heart disease but also with cancer, diabetes, and almost all diseases. Stem Cell Research also intervenes with religious beliefs and we live in a world where religion is a big thing. This could lead to more terrorism and acts of violence.

Alakazam
03-06-2006, 09:15 PM
"Should we be doing stem cell research?" Shouldn't even be a question - of course we should. It save lives, and is going to be essential in advancing medicine into the 21st century, and no moral issues surrounding it are significant enough to slow or stop this research. Not only that, but federal funding is both appropriate and neccesary.

flareon008
03-14-2006, 03:30 AM
no moral issues surrounding it are significant enough to slow or stop this research. Not only that, but federal funding is both appropriate and neccesary.

Maybe not, but it has. Bush is against it too. It would be a major step to help millions. To me, I would say yes to the stem cell research.

This could lead to more terrorism and acts of violence.

Unfortunately, that would be quite true.

Kenny_C.002
03-14-2006, 04:23 AM
We have to understand that stem cell research means many different things, and most of it doesn't even touch moral boundaries. In fact, is it immoral to take stem cells from say you and use that as research? No. I don't see problems with that at all. People, however, get the idea that stem cells HAD to come from fetuses, and we HAD to kill fetuses to get stem cells. Again, that's not true at all. I'd say we should use stem cell research to its fullest, and research in how we can use stem cells as repair mechanisms.

Redlark
04-07-2006, 04:39 AM
Actually, they recently discovered that you can also get stem cells from sperm, which makes sense. It's the other half of the prego process.

Aborting babies causes too much of a morality fuss, and it's harder and more time consuming to find doners that can only donate once a month or two three times a year. With sperm, the only real issue is for the guy, having to "sample" in a cup.

Alonso
04-08-2006, 02:55 AM
Actually, they recently discovered that you can also get stem cells from sperm, which makes sense. It's the other half of the prego process.

Aborting babies causes too much of a morality fuss, and it's harder and more time consuming to find doners that can only donate once a month or two three times a year. With sperm, the only real issue is for the guy, having to "sample" in a cup.
Well stem cell research is considered just as bad as abortion so...we can't do anything about it. But that sperm idea doesn't sound to bad.

InvertrevnI
04-08-2006, 03:09 AM
Again, I must agree with you people, the only people that would disagree would be souther babtists

NightBreaker
04-08-2006, 03:21 AM
The research of stem cells isn't right.

Stem cell research is interferring with the natural process of life, even though it is to save lives. We should never try to alter our bodies by using the lives of children to be born just to expand our lives for a few more minutes to a month or two from death, because we will eventually die. We have to accept that fact. Humans had a longer life expectancy BEFORE we began making useless inventions.

We now have dyed food when the color doesn't change the taste at all, but the color actually makes our bodies worse. Red Dye 40 is the number 1 product that feeds cancerous cells. Cancer is caused by death of cells, which can be caused by water lack when we eat too much dye, which clogs up the cell membranes of our cells.

In the old days, people didn't have sex with the next person they met. They remained true to their spouses, so AIDS and HIV were less common, nearly non-existent.

And ever thought of the sideffects of sten cells? Having kimotheraphy gives you hair loss, making you prone to sunburn and cancer, and using too much sun tan to prevent it causes cancer. To cure leukemia, we use radiation, but that just deprives us of all our blood cells and use of our marrows, then we have to get surgery and blood transfusions to replace it all. When curing heart attacks, the person's heart is replaced with a new heart, but that leaves the victim prone to another heart attack when they could have avoided the whole thing by eating healthy foods and exercising.

Accomplishing stem cells won't only help us with a few things, but it will make more problems for everything else, including the ones it's supposed to help. Stem cells could even cause a new disease far beyond our ability to cure, and in the process we will continue to conduct researches that will only help us a bit more, but make our problems much worse.

Seawolf
04-08-2006, 03:43 AM
Stem cell research is interferring with the natural process of life, even though it is to save lives. We should never try to alter our bodies by using the lives of children to be born just to expand our lives for a few more minutes to a month or two from death, because we will eventually die. We have to accept that fact. Humans had a longer life expectancy BEFORE we began making useless inventions.

So...is tossing aborted fetuses into the trash moral? Because I don't see the point in not using them for research if all they become is garbage.

Thousands of abortions take place everyday. It's hard to take, but it is true. But discarding them just because those extreme evangelists consider it to be "immoral" is just stupid. Stem cells are a hot-button issue for a reason - they have been shown to help treat certain types of diseases, and continuing to research stem cells will help us further this way. We're wasting a valuable opportunity for science.

Yes for stem cells.

boltAge
04-08-2006, 01:44 PM
It boils down to the same issue as abortions - Do we consider foetuses to be humans? What do we define as human? Something with limbs, or even just a fertilised egg?

This is a very subjective issue, my stand on this is, yes, it is alright. It's the same thing as donating organs, which is surprisingly having a lot less controversy.

Alonso
04-09-2006, 06:34 PM
It boils down to the same issue as abortions - Do we consider fetuses to be humans? What do we define as human? Something with limbs, or even just a fertilised egg?

This is a very subjective issue, my stand on this is, yes, it is alright. It's the same thing as donating organs, which is surprisingly having a lot less controversy.
Donating organs is different. Why? Because a person is freely donating their body's organs. You can't tell me what to do with my body. But abortion is different. You are killing another being. Some say "the baby is in my body and I can do whatever I want with my body just like the people who donate organs." No they are wrong. The fetus is in your body because that is how it intended to be with humans when reproducing. Some animals have internal reproduction and others have external. So don't go killing other people. A fetus is a person. And that person has his/her rights. Claiming that a fetus isn't human is like saying a baby isn't a human because it isn't tall like an adult male.
So...is tossing aborted fetuses into the trash moral? Because I don't see the point in not using them for research if all they become is garbage.
So your saying that we should use those fetuses that we aren't go to use anymore...we shouldn't have fetuses being artificially made or test tube babies at all.

How would you like it if you were a fetus in a lab and used for stem cell research or a baby in a mother's womb ready to be aborted? You should see how people kill their babies. It is sick.

When humans get older they start losing their hearing and different problems in their body. Humans weren't really intended to live so old as 70s. And if we increase the lifespan of humans the population of the world will severely increase. So stem cell research contributes to other problems.
Final Answer
NO to Stem Cell Research.

Seawolf
04-09-2006, 06:44 PM
So your saying that we should use those fetuses that we aren't go to use anymore...we shouldn't have fetuses being artificially made or test tube babies at all.

How would you like it if you were a fetus in a lab and used for stem cell research or a baby in a mother's womb ready to be aborted? You should see how people kill their babies. It is sick.

I'm Pro-Choice, so I'm not exactly going to have your same opinion. I also think you misunderstood me.

Aborted fetuses should be the ones used for research. They are dead, they can't feel anything, there's no harm done. They would actually be of use then instead of being tossed aside.

InvertrevnI
04-09-2006, 06:46 PM
I'm Pro-Choice, so I'm not exactly going to have your same opinion. I also think you misunderstood me.

Aborted fetuses should be the ones used for research. They are dead, they can't feel anything, there's no harm done. They would actually be of use then instead of being tossed aside.
You took the words right out of my mouth, Megumi has a good point.

Seawolf
04-09-2006, 06:47 PM
You took the words right out of my mouth, Megumi has a good point.

But abortion is a strong issue, so I can see where Charizard is coming from. :ermm:

InvertrevnI
04-09-2006, 06:50 PM
True, this is a major issue, I would have hoped religous and moral views
would have opened to to science by now. :(

Alonso
04-09-2006, 10:36 PM
But abortion is a strong issue, so I can see where Charizard is coming from. :ermm:
Huh? Where do I come from?

I'm Pro-Choice, so I'm not exactly going to have your same opinion. I also think you misunderstood me.

Aborted fetuses should be the ones used for research. They are dead, they can't feel anything, there's no harm done. They would actually be of use then instead of being tossed aside.
There shouldn't be aborted fetuses in the first place. Abortion should be stopped and illegal.

When you say you're pro-choice, are you pro-choice on abortion or in general?
This could've been you (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=abortion).

Seven
04-09-2006, 11:08 PM
Huh? Where do I come from?


There shouldn't be aborted fetuses in the first place. Abortion should be stopped and illegal.

When you say you're pro-choice, are you pro-choice on abortion or in general?
This could've been you (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=abortion).

I don't doubt your good intentions, SC, but in the real world you shouldn't just think of your ideals. Abortion WILL happen, outlawing won;t stop that. Sure, in a perfect world ti wouldn't, but we don't live in one.
In Romania, under Ceausescu's rule abortion was illegal. Result: tens of thousands homeless children. Who knows what happened to the mothers.

It's better to live in reality that in a world of ideals.

BUT. this topic isn't on abortion, I know that, just needed to point this out.

Alonso
04-10-2006, 12:17 AM
I don't doubt your good intentions, SC, but in the real world you shouldn't just think of your ideals. Abortion WILL happen, outlawing won;t stop that. Sure, in a perfect world ti wouldn't, but we don't live in one.
In Romania, under Ceausescu's rule abortion was illegal. Result: tens of thousands homeless children. Who knows what happened to the mothers.

It's better to live in reality that in a world of ideals.

BUT. this topic isn't on abortion, I know that, just needed to point this out.
OK this is going farther into another topic but its connected with stem cell research.

If abortion was made illegal in the US then there would be more lawbreakers in the US and prisons will get overcrowded. Then the government will have to take actions to build new prisons (unless what almost happened in Johnny English happens). So there would be a big problem if abortion was made illegal. An economic crisis etc. I just think people should reconsider about abortion and considering that you are playng with another person's life when you are researching stem cells.

InvertrevnI
04-10-2006, 12:29 AM
OK this is going farther into another topic but its connected with stem cell research.

If abortion was made illegal in the US then there would be more lawbreakers in the US and prisons will get overcrowded. Then the government will have to take actions to build new prisons (unless what almost happened in Johnny English happens). So there would be a big problem if abortion was made illegal. An economic crisis etc. I just think people should reconsider about abortion and considering that you are playng with another person's life when you are researching stem cells.
I have serious doubts about your logic sc, no offence.

Seawolf
04-10-2006, 12:53 AM
This could've been you (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=abortion).

I've seen worse. :sleepy: Trying to change my mind with pictures won't help, sorry.

And Pro-Choice means I'm pro-abortion.

Alonso
04-10-2006, 01:44 AM
I've seen worse. :sleepy: Trying to change my mind with pictures won't help, sorry.

And Pro-Choice means I'm pro-abortion.
I didn't want to change your mind but don't you feel anything for the kid that was killed.

And I hate it when people say "if you get raped it's ok!"

Some people say that if men were able to get pregnant then abortion would be completely legal.

Zenaku
04-10-2006, 02:33 AM
Unfortunately, SC, we humans are incapable of Asexual reproduction. Ah, how much simpler life would be if we could reproduce with ourselves; no worrying about hormones.

As for the pictures, they didn't really bother me. Made me want to see more, rather than make me think "OMG that's terrible", as coldhearted as it may sound.

People against stem cells and abortion are constantly moaning about how it's unfair on the fetus, and always ask us how we would feel; what about it? If my birth would have caused unhappiness for my family, I'd rather have not been born. Whether my parents would have hated me, or if they'd have suffered financially, or whatever. I'd prefer not to have been put up for adoption, no matter how nice the people who'd adopt me are.

As such, if I'd have died while I was developing, I'd rather my remains be used to help others than be tossed into the trash as garbage: is that what you prefer for fetus'? I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to be treated that way. I doubt any other unborn baby would either. My moms first child was a miscarriage, over 25 years ago, and if stem cell research was around back then, I'd have preferred my older bro/sis to have helped someone too.

Anyway, I'll just go through a basic or two. Stem Cells are blank cells, which take the form of the surrounding cells. A stem cell in the blood turns into a blood cell, and a stem cell in the muscles becomes a muscle cell, if I remember correctly.

By using stem cells, one can replace the cells within the body with newer cells. Yes, this does increase life expectancy, as our life expectancy itself depends on how many times the cells we are born with can go through mitosis (Obviously, the "new" cells that are cloned through mitosis gain weaknesses, which contribute to the loss of sight and hearing potential as we age); replacing cells with completely new cells decreases the age of the body (Hm, if only it could be put to practical use to gain immortality or something like that :P) although it'd hardly make any difference to a population. Yes, more people will survive diseases and the like, but it'd be no different than if they were to survive naturally. Population wouldn't take a big dive unless almost every disease became redundant.

Either way, I think those who rely on the bible should spend less time thinking of the morality of scientific research (As god is not a basis for science) and spend more time trying to make the world a better place. I mean heck, it's because of god that people become terrorists to protect their "beliefs", although this isn't a godly discussion.

Meh, I'm tired.

Kenny_C.002
04-10-2006, 02:36 AM
NightBreaker:

I should try to be calm about this. You're ignoring the fact that you have stem cells inside you at this current moment. Stem cell research doesn't care whether they're getting stem cells from inside you, or from a source such as a fetus. People cannot forget that we who research stem cells do not use fetuses in our research. We don't need to.

Stem cells have no side effects, since we contain them. If there were adverse side effects to using stem cells, we would already be experiencing this side effect already, and thus would not matter at all.

Also, the use of the idea that HIV, etc. wasn't common in the past was just complete bull. The fact that HIV didn't exist back then isn't even part of the argument. You seem to be forgetting the existence of LEGAL BROTHELS in many parts of the world in the past. Men paid money to have sex with women in brothels. If HIV existed back then, it would have been more like an epidemic.

The dye you mentioned is illegal in most countries. It's been proven to be a carcinogenic from the Aime's Test, and all foods and ingested substances or possible for ingestion even by accident, such as chemicals in labs, are tested for carcinogenicity with the Aime's Test. The foods we buy here in North America are safe enough to not be carcinogenic, as long as they go through the proper procedures (no, illegal chinese imported foods do not count).

I'm going to end several things here first:

Stem cells do not coincide with abortion arguments. They are separate issues.

And the sperm idea: I'm skeptical about that one. I don't think sperm are stem cells themselves (1 sperm = 1 cell). I gues that should be worth research if it turns out to be able to mimic stem cells or something.

Edit: humans can never be immortal due to the cells structure. It's due to apoptosis that humans can survive, and partially this causes senescense (and we don't know why we age aside from that), it's due to the fact that we limit our mitosis that we can survive, and we die because of it. What if we lift that limit to mitosis? We get cancer. :(

Alonso
04-10-2006, 08:59 PM
Stem cells do not coincide with abortion arguments. They are separate issues.

They might be different issues but when it comes to hipocrites that say "killing a fetus isn't like killing a person" then it does coincide.

Zenaku has pointed some very good points. I just think that stem cell research should be a no. Yeah I know were saving people but if people continue to live on longer...say 100 is the life expectancy one day...then the world will be severely overpopulated and then the world will have to have China's one child policy. Then aunts, uncles, nephews, cousins, and neices will cease to exist. Just mom, dad, grandmas and grandpas. So stem cell research produces too many other problems.

Religion=Terrorism

Seawolf
04-11-2006, 12:03 AM
Religion=Terrorism

Ah, too true.

Kenny_C.002
04-11-2006, 01:22 AM
They might be different issues but when it comes to hipocrites that say "killing a fetus isn't like killing a person" then it does coincide.

Zenaku has pointed some very good points. I just think that stem cell research should be a no. Yeah I know were saving people but if people continue to live on longer...say 100 is the life expectancy one day...then the world will be severely overpopulated and then the world will have to have China's one child policy. Then aunts, uncles, nephews, cousins, and neices will cease to exist. Just mom, dad, grandmas and grandpas. So stem cell research produces too many other problems.

I understand where you come from, but I'm not exaggerating when I say that 99% of Americans don't know what stem cell research IS to begin with before actually diving into arguments. Those are really pissing me off.

As for the stem cells and living to 100. Surely there is a point in time where overpopulation would be a problem, is what many would say. The only problem with that argument is that the trends in high income countries (HIC) have been showing that birth rates are down significantly. We may even hit a point in the near future where our death rate would exceed birth rate (some countries are already at that point, actually).

The overpopulation argument comes from LIC's, where a single couple have 10 children. That's where the problem of overpopulation is. How do we solve this problem? Well the easy answer is to simply have them advance in their technology, and rasie their standards of living high enough to start following the HIC ways. Of course, this isn't going to happen in the next 10 to 20 generations down the road, so I don't have an answer to that.

As we can see, stem cell research still doesn't change any of those facts. It won't be used in LIC's simply because it's too expensive (and it's impossible for stem cell technology to get to LIC's when clearly drip irrigation technology hasn't even gotten to the LIC's yet...). I really don't see a problem with it, in terms of overpopulation in HIC's (as it really won't be affected), and LIC's (where the technology won't reach them anyway).

Alonso
04-11-2006, 09:58 PM
I understand where you come from, but I'm not exaggerating when I say that 99% of Americans don't know what stem cell research IS to begin with before actually diving into arguments. Those are really pissing me off.

As for the stem cells and living to 100. Surely there is a point in time where overpopulation would be a problem, is what many would say. The only problem with that argument is that the trends in high income countries (HIC) have been showing that birth rates are down significantly. We may even hit a point in the near future where our death rate would exceed birth rate (some countries are already at that point, actually).

The overpopulation argument comes from LIC's, where a single couple have 10 children. That's where the problem of overpopulation is. How do we solve this problem? Well the easy answer is to simply have them advance in their technology, and rasie their standards of living high enough to start following the HIC ways. Of course, this isn't going to happen in the next 10 to 20 generations down the road, so I don't have an answer to that.
Offtopic: What is the connection between MEDCs and LEDCs with HICs and LICs?

As we can see, stem cell research still doesn't change any of those facts. It won't be used in LIC's simply because it's too expensive (and it's impossible for stem cell technology to get to LIC's when clearly drip irrigation technology hasn't even gotten to the LIC's yet...). I really don't see a problem with it, in terms of overpopulation in HIC's (as it really won't be affected), and LIC's (where the technology won't reach them anyway).
I just think no to stem cell research. It shouldn't be done.

Kenny_C.002
04-12-2006, 01:10 AM
I just think no to stem cell research. It shouldn't be done.
The natural question that would stem from here would be "why?"

It cannot be a moral issue, as I said that there is nothing immoral about stem cell research by any religious standard. It cannot be an argument of overpopulation, since overpopulation is in the LIC's, and is more an economic problem than one of science. I'm trying to think of negatives of stem cell research, and it's just not happening.

Alonso
04-17-2006, 01:36 AM
The natural question that would stem from here would be "why?"

It cannot be a moral issue, as I said that there is nothing immoral about stem cell research by any religious standard. It cannot be an argument of overpopulation, since overpopulation is in the LIC's, and is more an economic problem than one of science. I'm trying to think of negatives of stem cell research, and it's just not happening.
Ok...I remember one time it was said that when a mother can't get pregnant and they do the test tube babies where they fertilize outside the body and then put the fertilized egg inside the mother's womb later that many eggs have to be made to ensure that there will be baby because this process in costly. Thus there are many left over embryos after only one is put inside the mother's womb. So what do you do with the leftovers? Well...I guess you contribute them to Stem Cell Research right? But the Catholic Church says not to. But if you don't give them to stem cell research then wtf, there dead anyway, they just go in the trash. So make better use of them right?

Oh and I wrote it wrong. I didn't mean overpopulation. I actually meant that if there is a larger population then we use up a lot more resources...were screwed!

Kenny_C.002
04-19-2006, 09:48 PM
Ok...I remember one time it was said that when a mother can't get pregnant and they do the test tube babies where they fertilize outside the body and then put the fertilized egg inside the mother's womb later that many eggs have to be made to ensure that there will be baby because this process in costly. Thus there are many left over embryos after only one is put inside the mother's womb. So what do you do with the leftovers? Well...I guess you contribute them to Stem Cell Research right? But the Catholic Church says not to. But if you don't give them to stem cell research then wtf, there dead anyway, they just go in the trash. So make better use of them right?

It's easy to separate 1 egg from an ovary (I've done it myself, with fruit fly eggs. -.-), so we wouldn't have leftover fertlilized eggs, since it's always been 1 egg, many sperm in the artificial insemination process. We only need to inject 1 fertlilzed egg anyway (it'll start growing to tell us that it's a success, and we have very little time to inject this growing batch of cells into the woman before the fertlilized egg is out of nutrients). Notice that I never said embryo. It's because we don't have embryos until quite a significant time after fertlilization. Don't worry about that so much. ;)

Unfertlilized eggs aren't human beings, they're not technically living, since they don't even have a full genome. Even if we use those eggs, it's still not crossing moral boundaries by standard. Also, even IF we are taking artificially fertlilized eggs, we're still not breaking any moral boundaries, and I'm taking the law as the standard for moral boundaries (i.e. 23 weeks).

As I said, we don't technically need cells from humans for stem cell research, and certainly we don't need cells from embryos. We don't need any of that, there is no moral debate.

Oh and I wrote it wrong. I didn't mean overpopulation. I actually meant that if there is a larger population then we use up a lot more resources...were screwed!

It still doesn't change the fact that it's of concern to science only to the point of increasing efficiency, and contributes nothing to the stem cell research debate.

Alonso
05-04-2006, 09:45 PM
It still doesn't change the fact that it's of concern to science only to the point of increasing efficiency, and contributes nothing to the stem cell research debate.
Kind of does. It shows the concequences of stem cell research, that is IF it is successful.

Actually, you do need more than one egg because this is a very expensive process. So if you get one egg and the fertilization is unsuccessful then you spent a lot of cash to get nothing. That is why they get like 10 eggs to ensure that at least you will get a fertilized egg and then a successfully fertilized egg is put back into the womb but what if there was more than one fertilized egg, what do you do with those? Well I guess we should give them to stem cell research...but the Catholic Church says your can't. But then wtf do I do with it, throw them away? Better to donate them to science, right?

Kenny_C.002
05-04-2006, 10:17 PM
Kind of does. It shows the concequences of stem cell research, that is IF it is successful.

Actually, you do need more than one egg because this is a very expensive process. So if you get one egg and the fertilization is unsuccessful then you spent a lot of cash to get nothing. That is why they get like 10 eggs to ensure that at least you will get a fertilized egg and then a successfully fertilized egg is put back into the womb but what if there was more than one fertilized egg, what do you do with those? Well I guess we should give them to stem cell research...but the Catholic Church says your can't. But then wtf do I do with it, throw them away? Better to donate them to science, right?

I don't think it's a problem because we can ISOLATE eggs. Fertilize egg #1. Doesn't work? Okay fertilize egg #2, and so on. We wouldn't have extra fertilized eggs, because they are all isolated cases to begin with (as I said, it's a simple process to isolate drosophola eggs, I don't think human eggs are any harder to isolate). Now the question then is whether or not we can use these unfertilized eggs for stem cell research. Of course we can, we eat unfertilized eggs (aka chicken eggs) by the masses, why not use eggs for research?

Do note that most of the research right now aren't done on human egg cells either, since it's considered "unethical" by the churches. Of course, churches being churches, and the knowledge of science being the knowledge of science among the common people, they THINK we do things they deem unethical.

Take for example, we have a coalescence theory in genetics, and we have traced mitochrondrial DNA to a coalescent point (in a single woman). The scientists, being idiots, named their project "mitchrondrial eve". Knowing the churches being churches, and the knowledge of science amongst the common people, they deemed that this is the single woman in the Bible. Wrong. She was ONE woman lucky enough in HER ERA that got her mitochrondria passed down onto us. It doesn't mean that we had ONE WOMAN during that period of time, and the churches ignored the rest of the phylogenic tree, which clearly shows otherwise.