Support NeoGAF

[Zaptruder]

So we've got a good idea of how to push modern medical science into a wonderous new frontier, that can eventually lead to the end of a lot of problems, end the suffering of many many people all around the world.

So what view do christians have on it here? Is it unacceptable, using the sanctity of unborn 'life' to further research into actual life saving results?

What does define life in your opinion?

And at what point does it become 'sacred'?

How does this contrast with the sacredness of current lives, that have already been ill afflicted? Denying them a chance to live again to their full potential. And even denying some new life the right to a healthy, unhindered living?

 

[shuri]

I would eat baby flesh if it made me immortal.

 

[Ecrofirt]

I don't have a problem using stem cells from umbilical cords or placenta, as I understand you can get them from them as well, but there's something that doesn't sit right with me about using them from an unborn fetus.

assuming you CAN get them from an unborn fetus. I've tried not to really look into the subject for fear of getting depressed.

 

[Zaptruder]

depends what you define a fetus.

If you mean the point and which sperm and ovum are joined, then unfortunately that's what we require.

But the stem cells themselves occur at this point or shortly after; they're the building blocks of life and can turn into brain, muscle, bone and all that jazz... but are none of them.

 

[Winged Creature]

Im 100% for it. It will save lives and it will further scientific knowledge tremendously.

 

[Draff]

Stem cell research also encompasses non embryonic stem cells as well...
i.e. adult stem cells.

 

[arter_2]

count me in the im all for it side.

 

[tedtropy]

If they're coming from something that's going to be aborted anyways, I don't really see why they shouldn't be used to advance research. Just makes more sense to me. But everyone has a different definition of when this thing called life begins and the sanctity thereof...

 

[Zaptruder]

Ah fuck this. I'm gonna rant.

From a liberal Christian perspective;

There is no questioning the sanctity of life.
But the bible doesn't get too specific about alot of stuff. Including at what point life occurs during the union of man and woman.

Moreover, God gave us the talent and faculties to explore science. He also gave us the reasoned judgement to determine right and wrong (or we took it rather; but now we have it and we must use it).

For God, he detests handing out talent... and then having it wasted. But isn't that what this knowledge is? A talent to humans, that we're willing to waste as we bicker and spout rhetoric about the sanctity of newborn life...

while ignoring the sanctity of living life?

To me, it's not even a question... the stem cells needed come generally during the blastose stage of birth; at this point, the cells are present and they're dividing and making more cells. At this stage, they're essentially a collection of divisible cells. Although the potential for life as we understand it resides in those cells, they're not living humans.

Consider the foundation of a building. Although it is the start of a building, it cannot be called one. It is in essence, a concrete slab. At this point you could change it into a carpark and not have lost a building.
At some point during the construction of the building, ontop of the foundation... you *can* call it a building, though unfinished.

Similarly with human cells; the blastose of cells can be used for other things at this point. Up until this point in time, we've never had the talent to exploit its use for anything but the growth of human life. But now we know; like a foundation, they can grow into life; but aren't to be considered human life in and of themselves.

If you don't take the time to understand how life works, but instead openly voice in ignorance opposition... then it is a mortal sin. Not only of ignorance but waste (of a talent).

I don't think any reasonable person can argue that the locus of our life is our brain; in it, our personality, and everything else that makes us more than just a cadaver resides. If you believe in it, then it is also the home of your soul in your body.
At some point during development, the blastose of cells will begin to mark groups of cells as bone cells, muscle cells, heart cells and neural cells. Neural cells alone don't mean much... but eventually they form a cluster where a network of activity can occur. At that point, I think a fetus can be considered 'living'.
But to be on the safe side, because we know the development of human life can be variable, we give a leeway and say that the sanctity of human life occurs at X amount of time before the actual expected development of the neural cells.

But even with that, we can readily expect to use the stem cells we need; preserving the sanctity of new born life while solving the problems that God has given us talent to do so; in turn giving new meaning and preserving the sanctity of current life. To do less, would be a grave sin, now that we know better.

 

[Hitokage]

Fertility clinics already produce zygotes which are then disposed of.

 

[teh_pwn]

I'm for it as long as embryos are not raised for the sole purpose of being harvested.

 

[Iceman]

doesn't take a leap in logic to figure out opening up stem cell research will add to the numbers of abortions that take place and that people will end up profiting on them (both ways).

There's adult stem cell research and then there's fetal stem cell research. The world of biology is working on both right now. Stem cell research is exciting, but it's all too apparent IMO that it's promise and potential is nowhere near what people thought it would be when this was all first dreamed up nor near what is being advertised currently. It is becoming clear that stem cells alone will not be able to cure anything in a human, at least nothing it has been applied to so far. Stem cell research is the current hot thing, before that it was gene therapy.. remember all the buzz about gene therapy? Well, it turns out that game is a lot more difficult to play than ever anticipated. Same thing is happening with stem cells: easy to grow into whatever cell you want (yet in many cases it is not proven that the cells are fully differentiated).. exceedingly difficult to apply in such a way that it compensates for a disease.

Look, I'm in pathology and I can appreciate experiments designed to directly tackle disease but the current focus on stem cells is only distracting from all the basic research that is actually giving us a better understanding of normal and disease states and is pointing us in the directions of the right answers.

Stem cell research can also reveal to us quite a few things and could possibly result in the best possibly interventions for some specific diseases. But it will not be the panacea everyone hopes for.

Now if there was a way to legalize the use of stem cells that would not encourage abortions but would only allow the harvesting of cells from fetuses that died on their own or from necessary abortions (mother dying) then I'd be okay with it. But to augment the number of dead babies for some false hope in a niche biology or to profit from that hope is just plain despicable to me.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

I would eat baby flesh if it made me immortal.

hahahaha.....no Shin Megami spoilers!

 

[StoOgE]

Fertility clinics already produce zygotes which are then disposed of.

exactly, most of which are gonna get destroyed anyway.

 

[Do The Mario]

Well I wrote I paper on the ethics of stem cell research, it was a first year paper so I am too ashamed to post it. Anyway stem cell research most certainly has to continue but I think there are several safe guards that should be put in place to stop the potential selling of zygotes/ embryos, it would have to be a very strictly monitored industry.

 

[maharg]

doesn't take a leap in logic to figure out opening up stem cell research will add to the numbers of abortions that take place and that people will end up profiting on them (both ways).

Please, help me across the gap here. Are you suggesting people would start getting abortions specifically so that their unborn children could be used for stem cell research?

 

[teh_pwn]

"Are you suggesting people would start getting abortions specifically so that their unborn children could be used for stem cell research?"

Not sure what he'd say, but I think so in a way. If stem cell research becomes useful, and it's used to accurately test drugs on human cells, create tissue for organ replacement, etc, there will need to be more stem cells than what the normal amount of existing abortions provide. Furthermore, scientists will want stem cells with genetic diversity. So they'll seek specific stem cells from people of specific backgrounds.

I don't think they'll abort for this from a woman's body. But take eggs from women, and fertilize them outside their body.

 

[Zaptruder]

Is that what you consider 'farming'?

And if so, why's that a bad thing?

 

[FoneBone]

Please, help me across the gap here. Are you suggesting people would start getting abortions specifically so that their unborn children could be used for stem cell research?

Cartman: And so you see, now that the ban on stem-cell research has been lifted, we can sell your fetus to companies like Alder Labs.
Woman: Oh, I don't know.
Cartman: Look, I can offer you seventy-five dollars for that fetus right now, Jill.
Jill: Seventy-five dollars? Well, alright.
Cartman: [hands the clipboard over for her to sign the release form] Great, just sign right here, please. [another woman arrives] Hi. Havin' an abortion today? [Jill hands him the clipboard back, then heads for the clinic] Great. [to the second woman] Listen, if you'd like to sell your abortion for research I'm offering uh, seventy-five dollars. Help you out a little bit with your medical bill in there. [she nods and reaches for the clipboard.] And you sign right here. [hands her the clipboard and she signs. A couple passes by] Uh excuse me, ma'am. Can I interest you in selling your aborted fetus? [the second woman enters the clinic]
Woman 2: We're not going to the abortion clinic. I'm going to have this baby.
Cartman: Oh, I'm sorry to hear that, because uh, there's a little boy dying in a hospital right now who sure could use that baby more than you could. The stem cells from your fetus could help save his life.
Man: Oh. Well, I guess we can always... just make another one.
Woman 2: Oh Mark, I love you.

That was a great episode.

 

[way more]

I'm for it as long as embryos are not raised for the sole purpose of being harvested.

Bingo, this would also never happen in the US. What pisses me off is when the benefits finally come into play crazy right wingers will use them all the time. Either go for Christian Science or be a hedonist liberal, no in between.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Fertility clinics already produce zygotes which are then disposed of.

"Clinics" also suck fully formed babies from wombs, what's your point? Morally, I'm rather confused about stem cells...The possible cure for all the horrible diseases commonly listed is really enticing, but really this all depends on your definition of human life. Being a Christian, I believe human life begins when the spirit enters the body, and I'm all but certain that occurs at birth. I believe abortion to be wrong not necessarily because it's murder, but because procreation should be more respected than that, and it's a horrible form of birth control. So if you ask me if using a few cells that hardly represent a human being for (possibly) the good of millions, then I'll probably lean towards supporting it. For some reason, however, I feel somewhat hesitant to throw my full weight behind it...

 

[Zaptruder]

"Clinics" also suck fully formed babies from wombs, what's your point? Morally, I'm rather confused about stem cells...The possible cure for all the horrible diseases commonly listed is really enticing, but really this all depends on your definition of human life. Being a Christian, I believe human life begins when the spirit enters the body, and I'm all but certain that occurs at birth. I believe abortion to be wrong not necessarily because it's murder, but because procreation should be more respected than that, and it's a horrible form of birth control. So if you ask me if using a few cells that hardly represent a human being for (possibly) the good of millions, then I'll probably lean towards supporting it. For some reason, however, I feel somewhat hesitant to throw my full weight behind it...

But how can you back up that belief? (that spirit enters from the start of cell union) Are you willing to wager that belief on the lives of millions of people already alive and millions more to come?

Was there something wrong with my definition of 'human' life... occuring after neural connections were established? I mean... the body is nothing without the brain. But the brain is still something without the body. The spirit is something alive and sentient. How can that be disentangled from the brain?


----

As for abortion, I personally don't condone it myself (after all, a child can be put up for adoption)... but I see no problem with it at a early stage, before the neural development occurs; marking the fetus as more than just a collection of cells. Just make the deadline for abortion a bit before neural develpment commonly occurs to be on the safe side.

Is it a hang up on a technicality? Or making an astute judgement given the knowledge that we possess? Before, we didn't know about sin... about right and wrong. But to not use that information now in taking the correct course of action is sinful.

As for Hitokage's point. It's not about the clinics. It's that we already produce the things we need (the fertilized embryos) as a natural course of allowing artificial fertilization... which are then discarded; right now we can't even use that stuff to improve our information and knowledge that can lead to more cures around the world. How is discarding that stuff better than using it to help research on cures?

 

[teh_pwn]

"And if so, why's that a bad thing?"

Somewhat. First, I believe there is some intrinsic value to human life. Second, this could subordinate women by making it a necessity to sell their eggs to make it in the work world.

 

[Zaptruder]

I wholly agree that human life has some 'greater intrinsic' value. But that goes both ways; for life that currently is and life to come. In fact, with the breakthroughs that are possible with stem cell research, it also means that some new born life, that would otherwise be afflicted with malignant problems would lead a proper life.

But my question is when do you believe human life occurs? If there was no difficulty in farming embryos where they could freeze and stop the process of growth way beyond what it took to get to 'human life' stage, while acquiring the material they need with that... what's wrong?

As for the last comment... what do you think about sperm banks? Women would be doing something alot more helpful with their ovum while getting paid alot more for it too!

 

[Mandark]

This is so simple.

There are embryos being thrown away already. Using them for research would not lead to one single abortion that would not happen otherwise.

Liberals need to repeat this over and over and over until people like Iceman get it.

 

[Ecrofirt]

Are you willing to wager that belief on the lives of millions of people already alive and millions more to come?

Are you willing to wager yours? What if you're wrong, and you'd burn in a firery hell forever as a mass murderer?*

Spinning things on their head is fun.


*Note: I don't believe you'd burn in a firery hell if you were wrong, but I wanted to attack you just as you attacked him.

 

[teh_pwn]

"But my question is when do you believe human life occurs? If there was no difficulty in farming embryos where they could freeze and stop the process of growth way beyond what it took to get to 'human life' stage, while acquiring the material they need with that... what's wrong?"

I don't know. Who Does? As long as no one can prove when life begins, I'll assume it exists.

I'm not sure I understand that freezing idea. So after you've cultivated stem cells, you freeze the embryo so it's like not killing it?


As for sperm banks, we have pratically an endless supply of sperm while women have a limited supply of eggs. If a woman sold her eggs, that would be like selling something permanent. And in a society that they are highly valued, a woman that's poor would be pressured into selling them.

If you don't believe that embryos have any right to life, then I could see why it isn't a big problem. That's similar to the "let's use the already aborted fetuses for science" idea in that a woman's eggs will perish in her late 30s early 40s.

 

[Zaptruder]

As for sperm banks, we have pratically an endless supply of sperm while women have a limited supply of eggs. If a woman sold her eggs, that would be like selling something permanent. And in a society that they are highly valued, a woman that's poor would be pressured into selling them.

If you don't believe that embryos have any right to life, then I could see why it isn't a big problem. That's similar to the "let's use the already aborted fetuses for science" idea in that a woman's eggs will perish in her late 30s early 40s.

But a woman that's poor is pressured into doing many things. It might not necessarily be right, but in practical terms, I think you'd agree selling ovums, tho somewhat limited (they have thousands of them) is somewhat better than starving... or even becoming a prostitute. Not saying all poor women would whore themselves out, nor saying all prostitutes are poor women... but that's the kinda argument you're trying to bring to the table yeah? Ideals are one thing... but practical effects are real. Without consideration of those effects... ideals are little more than a falsity. A corruption of the mind.

And you're right. I liken embryos more to sperm and ovum. They represent a potential for life. But they're not considered human life nor sacred in and of themselves. embryos and ovum... blastose... they're all further along to becoming human life then the sperm and the egg. but again, they're not human life.

And ecofirt... I am willing to stand by my belief. I've done at least some logical examination and found the answer 'obvious'.

 

[fart]

well i don't know about you, but if stem cell research is unbanned, i plan on using my demonic seed to impregnate hundreds of women, and then i plan on forcing every single one of them to abort their unborn fetuses for the sole purpose of profit and defacing god's earth. ie, i will use the proceeds to buy land from poor churches then demolish their places of congregation so i can build strip malls over them full of nothing but hot topics and hat zones

 

[Keio]

In Europe, stem cell research is going on full steam.

I haven't seen any ppl on the street corner hustling fetuses, but I'm on the lookout. And there hasn't been an explosion in abortions, either.

Regarding genetics, it's still a big thing and f. ex. saved my life due to immunoboosting drugs created by GM bacteria (filgrastim). And stem cell research has already created advances in restoring a person's bone marrow functions. And it will soon help people who have youth type diabetes.

 

[luxsol]

I liken embryos more to sperm and ovum. They represent a potential for life.

I thought an embryo was life, just not in the form of a human (which is when most people consider abortions to be wrong because it looks like a deformed person!!!)?

I'm Roman Catholic and I pretty much agree with Ecro.

This sorta reminds me of a Babylon 5 episode where a Dilgar called Deathwalker found the secret for immortal life and hinted that it would require the death of millions to attain it.

 

[Kiriku]

But the bible doesn't get too specific about alot of stuff. Including at what point life occurs during the union of man and woman.

The bible was written for people 2000+ years ago, so no surprise there.
That's one of the problems with the bible, it's not like someone can go in and "correct" it now. People can only interpret it and generalize it down to a basic enough level where it fits with any situation, but then there's always people who can interpret it a different way. But maybe the Lord finds that entertaining.

 

[kitchenmotors]

This is so simple.

There are embryos being thrown away already. Using them for research would not lead to one single abortion that would not happen otherwise.

Liberals need to repeat this over and over and over until people like Iceman get it.

Some people don't want to understand.

There is a lot of people in this country with minds made of concrete.

 

[luxsol]

Some people don't want to understand.

There is a lot of people in this country with minds made of concrete.

The thing about that though, is the fear of an increased use of these clinics just to make those embryos solely for stem cells (the clinics becoming farms).

And it will happen, but to what extent? who knows.
People already sell their organs, females sell their eggs (ovums), parents have kids solely to be donors, etc. Neat, huh?

BTW, I don't think females selling their eggs is wrong.

 

[Zaptruder]

I thought an embryo was life, just not in the form of a human (which is when most people consider abortions to be wrong because it looks like a deformed person!!!)?

I'm Roman Catholic and I pretty much agree with Ecro.

This sorta reminds me of a Babylon 5 episode where a Dilgar called Deathwalker found the secret for immortal life and hinted that it would require the death of millions to attain it.

It gets down to the point where it *is* important to look very finely at what life is. Obviously the embryo is some sort of life. But it's still in a state where it's unlikenable to a human. There's obviously potential for human life there. But that's in terms of it's natural development; modified, it's a collection of cells that can transform into a liver, an arm, an eye, etc, etc... or yield to us the secrets of many genetic problems.

If you don't look finely at what life is... continue to vehemently opposed what you haven't had a deep look at... then through your inaction and groundless beliefs, you're practically condemning the fates of millions.


Our bodies continually rebuild ourselves throughout it's life time. Parts of our bodies broken down through out days, months and years by our very bodies... though this happens, I doubt any rational believer would say that the spirit is been broken down with the body and reborn constantly.
On the otherhand, the brain... although it grows when we're young... past an early stage remains constant with us through our life time. Damage to it can mean dramatic changes to personality. It is obvious that the display of one's spirit, soul... one's being resides in the brain alone, that the body is a house and instrument for it.

But the embryo is at a stage way before the formation of those neural cells even required for a hint of human life. Before then... the embryo is little more than building blocks; stem cells, from which the potential of real life can occur.

The bible doesn't define what life is... but it doesn't deny us the right to discover what it truly is. It didn't tell us the world was round... that we assumed it was flat. Hundreds of years after it's discovery it is all but for the most insane, a round spherical world... Will you let the world wait hundreds of years to discover a truth evident right infront of you? Or even tens of years? All in the while dooming the lives of many people?

Will you, through your lack of examination... lack of willing to examine the details... allow ignorance to use an argument that will help condemn the lives of millions in a very practical sense, letting instead your descendants worry about this... and in the mean time through all the sins I've mentioned... condemn lives of many millions? So that you can feel comfortable... that you did not have to broach the subject and go into detail on the idea of what life really is.

If you have done so, then forgive my strong words. But I sincerely believe that no majority of sane rational thinkers that have given the issue a decent amount of thought can deny that the issue of human life is certainly more complex than the ability to divide... and that embryos can be fair subjects of study for us to find the knowledge that will help millions of people that are and millions that will come.

 

[Litigation Manuel]

On the subject of when human life begins, keep in mind that the collection of cells that exists at conception is human. It is no other species or form of life, it is decidedly human. It will not develop into anything else, the DNA which guides it is human in every way. Just because it does not resemble a human does not mean that the cells aren't human. Also, it is living. On the fourth day of conception, the will to survive begins: the "collection of cells" are in what is literally an egg, and they must break out of it in order to survive. With this in mind and the other factors that determine life such as growth, response to stimuli, and others, we can determine that this cell collection is living, and it is human. Now, whether it has a spirit or anything is under debate, but it is alive. And while cells are destroyed everyday in our bodies, I believe that is something quite different from cells being destroyed in the embryonic stages of life. These cells are all that make up the lifeform, and if they are destroyed that human life is destroyed; which is slightly different than cells being destroyed in a fully grown human. These are some of the reasons why I am against embryonic stem cell research.

However, I am not against adult stem cell research. Also, I am not necessarily against using fetuses that have died by natural means for research. I realize the potential for cures that the research can bring, but I think we must study other means of obtaining the stem cells for it. I am a Roman Catholic, which does sway some of my opinions, but I feel I have some solid reasoning behind my belief towards this subject.

 

[Willco]

LOOKING FOR A SAFE STANCE ON STEM CELL RESEARCH? ME NEITHER!

 

[Zaptruder]

That's good reasoning. And you're right that they are human cells that are living and growing.

But they're living in the sense that cell tissue in a human body is living. There's not even a hint of sentience at such a stage... where as after, neural development... where we can say sentience starts to occur... is more akin to life as we understand it (i.e. something sentient, reasoning, complex and worthy of respect).

But let me put the spin on your statement "These cells are all that make up the lifeform, and if they are destroyed that human life is destroyed".

These cells as a collection have the potential to be developed into a sentient human life... but if they are destroyed at this stage, do not represent the loss of such sentient life. The cells may be human... and they may be living... but in terms of whether or not they are human as we understand it... as we can appreciate it... I say no.

It is important to argue the strong case through... so as to not even leave doubt for the weak case. I can respect your views on the subject matter, although I respectfully decline to agree with the conclusion you draw.

 

[luxsol]

It gets down to the point where it *is* important to look very finely at what life is. Obviously the embryo is some sort of life. But it's still in a state where it's unlikenable to a human. There's obviously potential for human life there. But that's in terms of it's natural development; modified, it's a collection of cells that can transform into a liver, an arm, an eye, etc, etc... or yield to us the secrets of many genetic problems.

In the last stage an embryo looks like a human. If it started out like this or would only be viable in this stage, would you still be saying "go for it?" It's still the same organism but only in different stages.

If you don't look finely at what life is... continue to vehemently opposed what you haven't had a deep look at... then through your inaction and groundless beliefs, you're practically condemning the fates of millions.

Or through action, condemning the fate of millions of people or potential humans as you would say. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, right?

The bible doesn't define what life is... but it doesn't deny us the right to discover what it truly is. It didn't tell us the world was round... that we assumed it was flat. Hundreds of years after it's discovery it is all but for the most insane, a round spherical world... Will you let the world wait hundreds of years to discover a truth evident right infront of you? Or even tens of years? All in the while dooming the lives of many people?

Will you, through your lack of examination... lack of willing to examine the details... allow ignorance to use an argument that will help condemn the lives of millions in a very practical sense, letting instead your descendants worry about this... and in the mean time through all the sins I've mentioned... condemn lives of many millions? So that you can feel comfortable... that you did not have to broach the subject and go into detail on the idea of what life really is.

If you have done so, then forgive my strong words. But I sincerely believe that no majority of sane rational thinkers that have given the issue a decent amount of thought can deny that the issue of human life is certainly more complex than the ability to divide... and that embryos can be fair subjects of study for us to find the knowledge that will help millions of people that are and millions that will come.

Personally, I could care less about what the bible says about it and it doesn't say anything about it anyway. Some people may take the bible literally, but I don't. I went to a Catholic school from 1-12th grade and was taught not to take it literally. They explained why certain things were written. The Jews needed to build a nation, so having children was very important, even to the point of incest for the propogation of their people. Anything done to avoid (homosexuality, masturbation, abortions, condoms) having children was looked down upon, so of course they're going to write very unfavorably about it in the bible (could be worded better, but i'm too tired to think of them).

I'm against using embryos for the research mostly because of the abuse that will happen. And, soul or not, an embryo from humans is a human as far as I'm concerned. People just have a hard time identifying themselves with a couple of cells because it looks nothing like them but they were once such cells too. It's sorta like those who deny that at one stage in human evolution that we looked like monkeys, or even a fish. Ignorance, right?

Potentially this research could save millions of lives but, as someone stated in this thread (or another), its applications in the real world might not be that beneficial. Of course, I'm not one to just want all research to be halted... because i voted for a proposition (in California) that would give state funds for it. I know what I got into when i voted, but i believe in progress too. I hope no abuse comes from my choice and the work that comes from it.

 

[luxsol]

FUCK! Litigatin Manuel said it better than me and he said it first!
Just rest my head while writing for a minute and it's an hour later the next minute. =|

 

[Zaptruder]

In the last stage an embryo looks like a human. If it started out like this or would only be viable in this stage, would you still be saying "go for it?" It's still the same organism but only in different stages.

I'd have to take a detailed examination of the embryo...

but why put up misleading hypotheticals, when what's real is more positive and has a good case for it?


As for the inaction comment. I'm refering to inaction to having a practical look... a close examination at what constitutes life. If at the end, you still find the practical intent of human life to start from the point where fertilization occurs, then so be it.
So no... you're only damned if you don't.

People just have a hard time identifying themselves with a couple of cells because it looks nothing like them but they were once such cells too.

But at the same time people strongly identify with just a couple of cells... simply because they represent the start of what can be a human.

 

[luxsol]

I'd have to take a detailed examination of the embryo...

but why put up misleading hypotheticals, when what's real is more positive and has a good case for it?

Just curious on what your stance was if you could identify with it. Judging by your comment, you wouldn't? In the end, you're still only basing your reason on whether you can identify with it or not. Sorta like those who can't identify with a lobster being boiled alive and feeling pain because it can't scream. It has to be like us in some way for us to care. That's just basic animal reasoning, everyone is like that. Of course, humans can be more open and mindful than that.

As for the inaction comment. I'm refering to inaction to having a practical look... a close examination at what constitutes life. If at the end, you still find the practical intent of human life to start from the point where fertilization occurs, then so be it.
So no... you're only damned if you don't.

It's about the end result though. If by disagreeing or being ignorant and not supporting it it would be condemning millions. Wouldn't you be damned more if you understood the consequences and chose inaction? Or by agreeing and action takes place for it... it's still condeming millions.

 

[videogamer]

I'm not sure I understand that freezing idea. So after you've cultivated stem cells, you freeze the embryo so it's like not killing it?

I don't follow your reasoning. One of the methods today is to take out the inner cell mass(ICM) from a blastula and then grow it on a plate By taking out the ICM, the embryo cannot develop in the first place.

The thing about that though, is the fear of an increased use of these clinics just to make those embryos solely for stem cells (the clinics becoming farms).

And it will happen, but to what extent? who knows.
People already sell their organs, females sell their eggs (ovums), parents have kids solely to be donors, etc. Neat, huh?

:sigh: That's why people want to create stem cell lines. So the farming is done in tissue culture flasks without the necessity for new cells. Either that or the cloning of embryos so people don't whine about scientists raiding fertility clinics.

Let me repeat Mandark and my cell professor: If you are ok with in vitro fertilization, you should be ok with stem cell research. The most malleable cells from from the very early stages, not some growing fetus. People couldn't figure out when ensoulment happens (blastula? gastrulation? single cell?) so they just placed restrictions on stem cell research funding. Not that ensoulment could be scientifically tested for anyways.

 

[Dilbert]

This is so simple.

There are embryos being thrown away already. Using them for research would not lead to one single abortion that would not happen otherwise.

Liberals need to repeat this over and over and over until people like Iceman get it.

Amen. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Like any new frontier of science, there may be unexpected consequences...but that's the same problem with a lot of things: new drugs, genetically-modified crops, etc.

well i don't know about you, but if stem cell research is unbanned, i plan on using my demonic seed to impregnate hundreds of women, and then i plan on forcing every single one of them to abort their unborn fetuses for the sole purpose of profit and defacing god's earth. ie, i will use the proceeds to buy land from poor churches then demolish their places of congregation so i can build strip malls over them full of nothing but hot topics and hat zones

:lol:lol:lol

 

[luxsol]

These cells as a collection have the potential to be developed into a sentient human life... but if they are destroyed at this stage, do not represent the loss of such sentient life.

Take that reasonsing in reverse: an adult human who is brain dead is no longer a sentient being, everything it does is reactionary just like that cell. It continues to grow and live but is not aware of anything. It relies on someone else to keep it alive. Is the brain dead adult not human because of that lack of sentience?

 

[Zaptruder]

Just curious on what your stance was if you could identify with it. Judging by your comment, you wouldn't? In the end, you're still only basing your reason on whether you can identify with it or not. Sorta like those who can't identify with a lobster being boiled alive and feeling pain because it can't scream. It has to be like us in some way for us to care. That's just basic animal reasoning, everyone is like that. Of course, humans can be more open and mindful than that.

Not so much identifying. I couldn't if the embryo had at that stage formed a decent cluster of neural cells... or exhibited neural activity.

Similarly, I think braindead patients should be disconnected from life support. Yes. I believe a braindead human has lost its essence as a human. Without the sentience given by a brain... it merely becomes an organic machina that has the appearance of a human. I would definetly wish to be declared deceased (and be put to rest) at such a point, even if my body might still live on.

 

[Litigation Manuel]

That's good reasoning. And you're right that they are human cells that are living and growing.

But they're living in the sense that cell tissue in a human body is living. There's not even a hint of sentience at such a stage... where as after, neural development... where we can say sentience starts to occur... is more akin to life as we understand it (i.e. something sentient, reasoning, complex and worthy of respect).

But let me put the spin on your statement "These cells are all that make up the lifeform, and if they are destroyed that human life is destroyed".

These cells as a collection have the potential to be developed into a sentient human life... but if they are destroyed at this stage, do not represent the loss of such sentient life. The cells may be human... and they may be living... but in terms of whether or not they are human as we understand it... as we can appreciate it... I say no.

It is important to argue the strong case through... so as to not even leave doubt for the weak case. I can respect your views on the subject matter, although I respectfully decline to agree with the conclusion you draw.

You raise some very good, thought out points. Most of what you say I can respect and understand. It is sentient life, the capacity to think, that defines what we see as a useful, truly alive human.

However, my problem is that unlike the cell tissue of a fully grown human, these cells will become a sentient being. There is no denying this, it is just a matter of time. What you seem to say is that once, over this length of time, these cells begin to form neural cells and become sentient beings, they are truly human. My problem is that, it feels as if it were a race against the clock. You have to make use of these stem cells before they make neural cells and it becomes immoral; if you can do so it remains moral, but after that moment of time, it is wrong. It doesn't quite seem right that all that determines if this collection of cells is truly human and sentient is a length of time. In the DNA, the neural cells are already mapped out, it is already decided what they will be, where they will be, and what shape they are to take. Since we have this almost certain conclusion for what these cells will do and become, it does not seem right to destoy them at a point before they carry out their task. The neural cells will form, it is predestined how they will be, it is just a matter of time. We cannot deny this certain possibility, and I feel it is wrong to deny a life that fulfills it.

 

[luxsol]

That's why people want to create stem cell lines. So the farming is done in tissue culture flasks without the necessity for new cells. Either that or the cloning of embryos so people don't whine about scientists raiding fertility clinics.

Let me repeat Mandark and my cell professor: If you are ok with in vitro fertilization, you should be ok with stem cell research. The most malleable cells from from the very early stages, not some growing fetus. People couldn't figure out when ensoulment happens (blastula? gastrulation? single cell?) so they just placed restrictions on stem cell research funding. Not that ensoulment could be scientifically tested for anyways.

I do support stem cell research because of that, but is cloning even possible right now?

 

[videogamer]

I do support stem cell research because of that, but is cloning even possible right now?

I mentioned cloning of embryos

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/02/12/science.clone/

old news

 

[Iceman]

This is so simple.

There are embryos being thrown away already. Using them for research would not lead to one single abortion that would not happen otherwise.

Liberals need to repeat this over and over and over until people like Iceman get it.

LIKE I SAID, if you can legislate it in such a way that THESE are the cells that are used then I fully support it. Waste not want not. More resources and money in disease biology research is never a bad thing. (This IS my field you know.)