Stem cell research

[Adron]

Canned response:

OK, but there are more religions in the world. And there are some with rules such as --you should have no gods beside me...

Suddenly you need to pick say one choice out of 10, where 9 are different gods and 1 is none. And if you pick the wrong one, you lose.....

You don't know religion or haven't studied it too well, then.

I have studied it well enough to know that people kill each other over it. And I have studied it well enough to know that if the christian god is the god, you lose if you believe in the norse gods, and if the norse gods are the gods, you lose if you believe in the christian god.

Anyway, addressing the stem cell argument- You're going to need to grow the embryo into a state where you can harvest the body parts or whatever it is you want from the clone(?) and grow it however. Are you considering murdering the child after taking the necessary or intended body parts from the host? That's worse than perhaps, what Stalin did. Or, would you rather allow the host to grow without those limbs? I'm surprised that so many people believe that this is the right path. Sure, research it, but why go so far to kill a thousand to benefit another? Does human life matter so little to you?

Here's a link to an example of what researchers are trying to do with stem cells: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/24/eveningnews/main676424.shtml

As you can see, stem cells can be used to grow cloned organs without having to kill a human to harvest them.


Here's a link to someone speaking of creating children to help other children survive: http://www.dnapolicy.org/pdfs/Strongin_PGD_7.03.pdf

That's an example of creating a child and using something from it to save another child, without having to kill it to harvest it.


You're thus utterly wrong. There's no need to be killing grown children to harvest body parts. Science solves it all for us if we just encourage research in the field.

[Topaz]

It depends what you consider "grown" and when life begins, but...

If you'd read my posts, like some other people on these forums, you'd understand my point of view. I'm not speaking out against curing or repairing genetic mutations - I'm against cloning and using clones to replace body parts. Also, if you'd read what I wrote to DM, you'd understand why I said that.

I suppose there'll always be closed-minded people who only listen to their own voice.

[Adron]

It depends what you consider "grown" and when life begins, but...

If you'd read my posts, like some other people on these forums, you'd understand my point of view. I'm not speaking out against curing or repairing genetic mutations - I'm against cloning and using clones to replace body parts. Also, if you'd read what I wrote to DM, you'd understand why I said that.

I suppose there'll always be closed-minded people who only listen to their own voice.

Well, if you look at the post about copying human cells into animals and having the animals grow human body parts that can be harvested just like we grow animals for meat already.... Or would you say the animal is a human as soon as you put in some human cells?

[Hostile]

It depends what you consider "grown" and when life begins, but...

If you'd read my posts, like some other people on these forums, you'd understand my point of view. I'm not speaking out against curing or repairing genetic mutations - I'm against cloning and using clones to replace body parts. Also, if you'd read what I wrote to DM, you'd understand why I said that.

I suppose there'll always be closed-minded people who only listen to their own voice.

So in essence, you support stem cell research then? Only object to human cloning? :p

PS: Feels like you're avoiding me and just about all of my posts. Doesn't show much when you keep reverting to picking on other people who took a more direct approach to posting their views then me for explaining it more. Very rude

[Topaz]

Yeah

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

So it seems to me we all agree that stem cell research is OK...?

[Hostile]

Well, now that you guys are understanding the great benefits that stem cell research can safely provide for us, I'll only be fair and admit I do share similar concerns. Should we ever start using it recklessly it could cause serious problems as well, however I really don't think that its a problem worth discussing too much, yet. The only real idea of the problems that could come from -certain- methods of the science have really only been predicted through science fiction media. I'm quite confident that later on, when the actual extent of negative (well more so, questionable) usage of stem cell research, that there would be laws put in place to restrict such things. In the mean time, we really must thrive to even get to that point, and seek out all the safe benefits we can from it.

[Adron]

Anything used recklessly can cause problems. Genetic manipulation, cloning and stem cell processes will all need to be regulated by the legal system, but the research on them shouldn't be blocked. Getting the knowledge is good, we just have to be careful how we use it.

Much like researching weapons, organ transplants, medical drugs, etc..

[shout]

Anything can and will be abused; stem cell research is no exception.

[Topaz]

One of the biggest issues I've been thinking of is abuse - If, per say, a drug addict slash alchoholic were to get replacements for his kidney and liver, he would suffer no consequences for destroying his body (eg, long-lasting). After filling his body with toxins and destroying his body, he would continue to do so (perhaps forever) until his money for drugs, alcohol, and replacement parts ran out.

[Adron]

That's not a problem. If we can replace body parts and fix up drug addicts, that's for the better.

[nslay]

That's not a problem. If we can replace body parts and fix up drug addicts, that's for the better.

It's a problem when the person doesn't fix his habits because he can always buy a new organ.  Well, I guess that's where capitalism comes in, but I don't think even people with money who abuse drugs should have the oppurtunity on their 3rd+ chance on life.

I wonder how never used liver taste...supposedly people eat those poison filters.
Just think Topaz!  We can feed the world Liver, we'll get our Liver stem cells, put them in a pot and plant them until a new Liver sprouts.  And in England, where their cuisine sucks for the most part (except for Shepards Pie...oh yeah that owns), we can grow them kidneys since they eat that too!

[Adron]

That's not a problem. If we can replace body parts and fix up drug addicts, that's for the better.

It's a problem when the person doesn't fix his habits because he can always buy a new organ.  Well, I guess that's where capitalism comes in, but I don't think even people with money who abuse drugs should have the oppurtunity on their 3rd+ chance on life.

You don't need to give people the option to replace their organs to make them smoke / drink. They know their organs take damage from smoking and drinking, but they do it anyway. The number of people starting to smoke/drink because they know new organs can be grown would be minimal. Besides, organs can already be transplanted from human donors.

[nslay]

That's not a problem. If we can replace body parts and fix up drug addicts, that's for the better.

It's a problem when the person doesn't fix his habits because he can always buy a new organ.  Well, I guess that's where capitalism comes in, but I don't think even people with money who abuse drugs should have the oppurtunity on their 3rd+ chance on life.

You don't need to give people the option to replace their organs to make them smoke / drink. They know their organs take damage from smoking and drinking, but they do it anyway. The number of people starting to smoke/drink because they know new organs can be grown would be minimal. Besides, organs can already be transplanted from human donors.

Exactly, which is why we shouldn't give them the option to replace their organs on their 3rd+ time.

[Arta]

Exactly, which is why we shouldn't give them the option to replace their organs on their 3rd+ time.

Why 3? Why not 1? Or 5? Or none?

I think this is a pretty callous position to take, not to mention arrogant and judgemental. What qualifies you to decide who should receive life-saving medial treatment and who should not? Why should you get to dictate how people should live their lives?

What the hell business is it of yours?