Changes

No, embryonic stem cell research is not wrong in any sense. It is one of the stupidest issues there is. I can end the debate in two sentences. Listen hard and listen well (or read, rather...). '''A 4-day-old embryo consisting of liquid in a petri dish is NOT a person. Period. It is, as I just said, nothing more than liquid in a petri dish.''' No limbs, no organs, no blood, no tiny little fetus face, none of those images you may have in your mind. Those are all characteristics of a FETUS. It can certainly be argued that fetuses at different stages in development are human life given that they resemble more and more a miniature form of an infant. But the embryos used in stem cell research are just a cup of liquid! That's it! They only have 50-100 cells! It's absolutely absurd! The idea that the value of that liquid is greater than the suffering of millions of conscious, living people who may be miserable stuck in a wheel chair for their entire lives or have incurable diseases is absolutely asinine. And before somebody gives me some bullsh*t about how embryonic stem cell research can't cure those things, don't even go there. That is a petty justification for your views. It won't produce an immediate cure, but it is a definite possibiliy in the next decade or so. Don't let the Christian Right fool you into thinking this is an issue about "life". It is an issue about - no, it's not even an issues at all. There is no issue. --[[User:TheLoneLiberal|TheLoneLiberal]] 10:14, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

No, embryonic stem cell research is not wrong in any sense. It is one of the stupidest issues there is. I can end the debate in two sentences. Listen hard and listen well (or read, rather...). '''A 4-day-old embryo consisting of liquid in a petri dish is NOT a person. Period. It is, as I just said, nothing more than liquid in a petri dish.''' No limbs, no organs, no blood, no tiny little fetus face, none of those images you may have in your mind. Those are all characteristics of a FETUS. It can certainly be argued that fetuses at different stages in development are human life given that they resemble more and more a miniature form of an infant. But the embryos used in stem cell research are just a cup of liquid! That's it! They only have 50-100 cells! It's absolutely absurd! The idea that the value of that liquid is greater than the suffering of millions of conscious, living people who may be miserable stuck in a wheel chair for their entire lives or have incurable diseases is absolutely asinine. And before somebody gives me some bullsh*t about how embryonic stem cell research can't cure those things, don't even go there. That is a petty justification for your views. It won't produce an immediate cure, but it is a definite possibiliy in the next decade or so. Don't let the Christian Right fool you into thinking this is an issue about "life". It is an issue about - no, it's not even an issues at all. There is no issue. --[[User:TheLoneLiberal|TheLoneLiberal]] 10:14, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?

It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probably has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?

^ I don't care what the media or John Kerry think.  I care about whether or not stem cells have value.  Read my post and you '''will''' see, as you say, "logical" reasons for stem cell research.

^ I don't care what the media or John Kerry think.  I care about whether or not stem cells have value.  Read my post and you '''will''' see, as you say, "logical" reasons for stem cell research.

:: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world.  When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions.  There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice.  So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress.  [[User:Seekcommon]]

:: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world.  When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions.  There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice.  So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress.  [[User:Seekcommon]]

:::I heard ''PETA'' is one of the biggest organizations against animal testing.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT):::: Yes, I have heard report of their atrocities also.  To many who belong to PETA/ human life is far less (or not important) than any/all animal life - they would take human life to protect animals, what I understand.  Despicable for sure. [[User:Seekcommon]]

:::I heard ''PETA'' is one of the biggest organizations against animal testing.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT):::: Yes, I have heard report of their atrocities also.  To many who belong to PETA/ human life is far less (or not important) than any/all animal life - they would take human life to protect animals, what I understand.  Despicable for sure. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Stem cell research is a vital part of a growing scientific and medic commune that hopes to eraticate such diseases as Alzheimers. The unfortunate thing is that FETAL stem cells are incapable of providing such results. However, ADULT stem cells have already cured 60 some odd diseases and cured parallysis in several test subjects. The thought of farming children like livestock is barbaric. To really just grow children for spare parts is inhumane. Besides, trials involving FETAL stem cells have had side effects similar to being jolted with lightning include spaztic convulsions that does not dissipate. Its harmful to both the humans who were involved in clinical trials and the humans they were harvested from. My responce does not come as a Republican, or a Bushie, but as a concerned citizen of Earth who feels more can be accomplished whithout sacrificing the next generation. P.S. Aztecs sacrificed children and we called them barbaric. [[User; Dfairlyxed13|Dairlyxed13]]

Stem cell research is a vital part of a growing scientific and medic commune that hopes to eraticate such diseases as Alzheimers. The unfortunate thing is that FETAL stem cells are incapable of providing such results. However, ADULT stem cells have already cured 60 some odd diseases and cured parallysis in several test subjects. The thought of farming children like livestock is barbaric. To really just grow children for spare parts is inhumane. Besides, trials involving FETAL stem cells have had side effects similar to being jolted with lightning include spaztic convulsions that does not dissipate. Its harmful to both the humans who were involved in clinical trials and the humans they were harvested from. My response does not come as a Republican, or a Bushie, but as a concerned citizen of Earth who feels more can be accomplished without sacrificing the next generation. P.S. Aztecs sacrificed children and we called them barbaric. [[User; Dfairlyxed13|Dairlyxed13]]

: It IS barbaric to "grow" children for spare parts, that is not the intention, as fas as I know, of the people who pursue embryonic stem cell research.  It is not true that ALL stem cells are equivalent, from what I understand.  While attempts are being made to reprogram stem cells from any source, the current state of the art/science seems to be that only embryonic stem cells seem capable of differentiating into any tissue/organs.  Again, from what I understand, the clamor is to be able to use cells which were going to be destroyed - or use cells that were discarded naturally - e.g. when there is a miscarriage ... again, my limited understanding.  Nature/God is far more "cruel" if you can say that when it comes to terminating pregnancies - it happens at far higher rates than deliberately induced abortions, again, what I gather.  Humans are always pushing the envelope - we are always seeking means to improve and yes, protect lives - starting with drugs to kill bacteria/viruses, to deliberate surgical interventions to transplantation and so on.  We should ALWAYS be careful in what we pursue, yet, where the lines we must NOT cross are not clear to all and hence the controversies.  I do not for a minute believe that the right to choose people are simply waiting to kill babies/unborns - OR that the right to life people are not sympathetic to the victim of rape or incest or unwanted pregnancies.  I just wish that each side would understand what it is that they seek and work towards the common goal of reducing living, human suffering and not add to the sufferings.  [[User:Seekcommon]]

: It IS barbaric to "grow" children for spare parts, that is not the intention, as fas as I know, of the people who pursue embryonic stem cell research.  It is not true that ALL stem cells are equivalent, from what I understand.  While attempts are being made to reprogram stem cells from any source, the current state of the art/science seems to be that only embryonic stem cells seem capable of differentiating into any tissue/organs.  Again, from what I understand, the clamor is to be able to use cells which were going to be destroyed - or use cells that were discarded naturally - e.g. when there is a miscarriage ... again, my limited understanding.  Nature/God is far more "cruel" if you can say that when it comes to terminating pregnancies - it happens at far higher rates than deliberately induced abortions, again, what I gather.  Humans are always pushing the envelope - we are always seeking means to improve and yes, protect lives - starting with drugs to kill bacteria/viruses, to deliberate surgical interventions to transplantation and so on.  We should ALWAYS be careful in what we pursue, yet, where the lines we must NOT cross are not clear to all and hence the controversies.  I do not for a minute believe that the right to choose people are simply waiting to kill babies/unborns - OR that the right to life people are not sympathetic to the victim of rape or incest or unwanted pregnancies.  I just wish that each side would understand what it is that they seek and work towards the common goal of reducing living, human suffering and not add to the sufferings.  [[User:Seekcommon]]

Are embryos definitely living things? I think it depends on where you define life begins e.g. conception or after-birth.

Are embryos definitely living things? I think it depends on where you define life begins e.g. conception or after-birth.

Let me use the environment as an analogy. We're all agreed that both humans and trees are living things. Humans come from embryos just as much as tree originiate from seeds. How many of you would classify a seed as the same sort of living thing that an embryo is?

Let me use the environment as an analogy. We're all agreed that both humans and trees are living things. Humans come from embryos just as much as tree originate from seeds. How many of you would classify a seed as the same sort of living thing that an embryo is?

Seeds are allowed to be experimented on so why not embryos? Aren't trees the same "perfect work of God" that humans are? -- [[User:jamieallen]]

Seeds are allowed to be experimented on so why not embryos? Aren't trees the same "perfect work of God" that humans are? -- [[User:jamieallen]]

:No, I want to deliberately kill babies.  Seriously?  If umbilical cord cells are easiest to obtain/highest quality, then YES I support umbilical cord cells over embryonic.  If, however, they are of inferior quality (i.e. can't be made to specialize) or are too hard to get (i.e. they're needles in haystacks), then embryonic cells are better.  [[User:Cthx]]

:No, I want to deliberately kill babies.  Seriously?  If umbilical cord cells are easiest to obtain/highest quality, then YES I support umbilical cord cells over embryonic.  If, however, they are of inferior quality (i.e. can't be made to specialize) or are too hard to get (i.e. they're needles in haystacks), then embryonic cells are better.  [[User:Cthx]]

From what I've gatherd stem cells from cord blood are still a new idea but they show enormous potential. Scientists have also found a way to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying the embryo. I also support research of embryonic stem cells (especialy when there are so many to be gained through things like invitro fertilization that would have otherwise been disposed of), however in light of recent scienific breakthroughs this debate is becoming much less neccessary, as there are now multiple ways to satisfy both sides.--[[User:HKK|HKK]]

From what I've gatherd stem cells from cord blood are still a new idea but they show enormous potential. Scientists have also found a way to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying the embryo. I also support research of embryonic stem cells (especially when there are so many to be gained through things like invitro fertilization that would have otherwise been disposed of), however in light of recent scienific breakthroughs this debate is becoming much less necessary, as there are now multiple ways to satisfy both sides.--[[User:HKK|HKK]]

Great! [[User:Cthx]]

Great! [[User:Cthx]]

As stated by Porthos, the embryos that would just got to waste otherwise are better put to stem cell research, as it means they have a use.  Stem cells have incredible potential, the idea that we could replace body parts is incredible.  We are learing to replicate the miricles of jesus, just as his diciples did after he returned to heaven, in what way is this contrary to the Bible? Didn't jesus want us to be his diciples?

As stated by Porthos, the embryos that would just got to waste otherwise are better put to stem cell research, as it means they have a use.  Stem cells have incredible potential, the idea that we could replace body parts is incredible.  We are learing to replicate the miricles of jesus, just as his disciples did after he returned to heaven, in what way is this contrary to the Bible? Didn't jesus want us to be his disciples?

[[User:Jesusfollower|Jesusfollower]] 22:16, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Jesusfollower|Jesusfollower]] 22:16, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Stems cells are both difficult to work with and to understand.  It may surprise some of you, but established embryonic stem cell lines have been around since the late seventies.  The line I do some work with, HEK-293 cells, was established from a kidney from an aborted fetus in 1978, in the Netherlands.  It's gruesome to think about, but HEK cells (HEK stands for human embryonic kidney cells) are used throughout neurobiology and electrophysiology for experimentation.  The problem with stem cells is keeping them as stem cells - they like to change, depending on their environment.  They also have a high probability of becoming cancerous outside of the body (ie in tissue culture), due to over expression of telomerase.  We don't know much about what makes a stem cell differentiate, that is why so many of the original stem cell lines established in the US are useless now - they became contaminated, or differentiated.  How we get more stem cells is a difficult question - arguably much of the research that could/would use human stem cells could use those of chimpanzees, as they are so genetically similar to us.  Personally I think anything that would  be thrown out otherwise (medical waste, cord blood, unused IVF embryos) should be used to establish more stem cell lines, as cracking the stem cell differentiation puzzle will hopefully solve more lives than it could ever harm.

Stems cells are both difficult to work with and to understand.  It may surprise some of you, but established embryonic stem cell lines have been around since the late seventies.  The line I do some work with, HEK-293 cells, was established from a kidney from an aborted fetus in 1978, in the Netherlands.  It's gruesome to think about, but HEK cells (HEK stands for human embryonic kidney cells) are used throughout neurobiology and electrophysiology for experimentation.  The problem with stem cells is keeping them as stem cells - they like to change, depending on their environment.  They also have a high probability of becoming cancerous outside of the body (i.e. in tissue culture), due to over expression of telomerase.  We don't know much about what makes a stem cell differentiate, that is why so many of the original stem cell lines established in the US are useless now - they became contaminated, or differentiated.  How we get more stem cells is a difficult question - arguably much of the research that could/would use human stem cells could use those of chimpanzees, as they are so genetically similar to us.  Personally I think anything that would  be thrown out otherwise (medical waste, cord blood, unused IVF embryos) should be used to establish more stem cell lines, as cracking the stem cell differentiation puzzle will hopefully solve more lives than it could ever harm.

[[User:AWHall|AWHall]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

[[User:AWHall|AWHall]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

== Embryonic-No, Stem Cells-Yes ==

== Embryonic-No, Stem Cells-Yes ==

A a religious person, I oppose abortion and the murder of unborn babies. However, there is no doubt that stem cells are very important. This article here lists many sucesful uses of non-embryonic stem-cells. These are from bone marrow or embilical chords after birth. They kill no one and work as effectiveley as embryonic stem cells.

A a religious person, I oppose abortion and the murder of unborn babies. However, there is no doubt that stem cells are very important. This article here lists many successful uses of non-embryonic stem-cells. These are from bone marrow or embilical chords after birth. They kill no one and work as effectiveley as embryonic stem cells.

The article: [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0876/is_91/ai_n15338777/]

The article: [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0876/is_91/ai_n15338777/]

== [[A basic issue of Conservation]] ==

== [[A basic issue of Conservation]] ==

Embryonic stem cells become medical waste though any number of procedures (abortion, miscarriage, fertility clinic discards, death during gestation, etc.) Therefore to discard them is quite simply wasteful with a material that has great potential for no good reason. If I might bend this a bit further right, one could easily make the argument that many of these fetuses and blastocysts become medical waste through circumstance that your Christian god has allowed, or even directed, to occur. Might it be possible that he/she/it intends their use for medical research?  

Embryonic stem cells become medical waste though any number of procedures (abortion, miscarriage, fertility clinic discards, death during gestation, etc.) Therefore, to discard them is quite simply wasteful with a material that has great potential for no good reason. If I might bend this a bit further right, one could easily make the argument that many of these fetuses and blastocysts become medical waste through circumstance that your Christian god has allowed, or even directed, to occur. Might it be possible that he/she/it intends their use for medical research?  

From the medical side of things, the potential of embryonic stem cells has yet to be realized (with all deference with hose who decry it) because only since the Obama administration's reversal of the ban has Federal funding been available for their use in research. What is acknowledged by the NIH is that embryonic stem cells have potentials that adult stem cells cannot possible have and to fail to explore these potentials is, quite simply, choosing ignorance for no good reason.

From the medical side of things, the potential of embryonic stem cells has yet to be realized (with all deference with hose who decry it) because only since the Obama administration's reversal of the ban has Federal funding been available for their use in research. What is acknowledged by the NIH is that embryonic stem cells have potentials that adult stem cells cannot possible have and to fail to explore these potentials is, quite simply, choosing ignorance for no good reason.