Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
1,307 bytes added ,  20:47, August 15, 2011
added pro-life argument for ESC research
Line 18: Line 18:  
I have nothing against stem cell research... non-embryonic stem cell research, that is. Stem cell research using non-embryonic sources (umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow, and adult skin, blood, brain, and body fat cells) is ethically fine. No human lives are destroyed. If stem cells can be obtained from living humans without harming them, then why are embryonic stem cells so sought after. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost any type of cell. Adult stem cells are multipotent, meaning they can only make cells from a closely related group of cells. For example, one type of stem cell could make RBC's, WBC's, platelets, etc., but not nervous tissue. For this reason, embryonic stem cells are more desirable. However, we must face the ethical realities. Is it right to take one person's life to save another's? Opinion changes from person to person, but I believe life begins at the moment of conception. There is no reason why that baby should be used for stem cell research. It is not ethically justifiable. However, I know that this will come up - what about aborted babies? Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people? My opinion - one wrong does not justify another. Just because a baby was aborted doesn't make it right to use it for stem cell research. Additionally, ponder this... if the government were to allow aborted babies to be used for stem cell research, the mothers might get paid... if they were paid, people would have many babies with someone on purpose so that they can destroy the life of an individual to make money. I would like to see everyon elses reaction to this, as well as the question, "Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people?" So quite simply, it is never morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being to benefit another human being. Sooo... next topic, stem cells that have been discarded. Illegal. Why? Well, allowing discarded stem cells, as in stem cells from an aborted fetus, seems to condone abortion, because the cells are being used for a "good purpose." Basically, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the baby was already aborted does not make using the embryos for their stem cells fine. Because then you might have people willingly abort their babies knowing they will be used for science. Or even more disturbing - a mother "growing" babies that she aborts to use stem cells to heal the sickness of herself or others. Not something we want to support. Thus, by making using even discarded embryonic stem cells illegal, a line is being drawn. Under no circumstances are embryonic stem cells fine. Because when you make exceptions, more and more get made until possibly the thing itself becomes legal. I had thought the same thing you do once, but then realized that its morally wrong. One wrong does not justify another. About the jail time: if it was just a fine, rich doctors could easily continue to use the ESC's without getting hurt too bad. People who kill the life of a human to help another are criminal. Another example: euthanasiasts - they take the life of a patient to ease their suffering and make the lives of those suffering with them emotionally better.  
 
I have nothing against stem cell research... non-embryonic stem cell research, that is. Stem cell research using non-embryonic sources (umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow, and adult skin, blood, brain, and body fat cells) is ethically fine. No human lives are destroyed. If stem cells can be obtained from living humans without harming them, then why are embryonic stem cells so sought after. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost any type of cell. Adult stem cells are multipotent, meaning they can only make cells from a closely related group of cells. For example, one type of stem cell could make RBC's, WBC's, platelets, etc., but not nervous tissue. For this reason, embryonic stem cells are more desirable. However, we must face the ethical realities. Is it right to take one person's life to save another's? Opinion changes from person to person, but I believe life begins at the moment of conception. There is no reason why that baby should be used for stem cell research. It is not ethically justifiable. However, I know that this will come up - what about aborted babies? Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people? My opinion - one wrong does not justify another. Just because a baby was aborted doesn't make it right to use it for stem cell research. Additionally, ponder this... if the government were to allow aborted babies to be used for stem cell research, the mothers might get paid... if they were paid, people would have many babies with someone on purpose so that they can destroy the life of an individual to make money. I would like to see everyon elses reaction to this, as well as the question, "Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people?" So quite simply, it is never morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being to benefit another human being. Sooo... next topic, stem cells that have been discarded. Illegal. Why? Well, allowing discarded stem cells, as in stem cells from an aborted fetus, seems to condone abortion, because the cells are being used for a "good purpose." Basically, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the baby was already aborted does not make using the embryos for their stem cells fine. Because then you might have people willingly abort their babies knowing they will be used for science. Or even more disturbing - a mother "growing" babies that she aborts to use stem cells to heal the sickness of herself or others. Not something we want to support. Thus, by making using even discarded embryonic stem cells illegal, a line is being drawn. Under no circumstances are embryonic stem cells fine. Because when you make exceptions, more and more get made until possibly the thing itself becomes legal. I had thought the same thing you do once, but then realized that its morally wrong. One wrong does not justify another. About the jail time: if it was just a fine, rich doctors could easily continue to use the ESC's without getting hurt too bad. People who kill the life of a human to help another are criminal. Another example: euthanasiasts - they take the life of a patient to ease their suffering and make the lives of those suffering with them emotionally better.  
 
WHY IS MURDER JUSTIFIABLE FOR SCIENCE?? IT SHOULD NOT BE SO!
 
WHY IS MURDER JUSTIFIABLE FOR SCIENCE?? IT SHOULD NOT BE SO!
 +
 +
 +
==Pro-life argument ''for'' the use of embryonic stem cells==
 +
 +
It is significant to note that, for the purposes of in-vitro fertilization (IVF), far more embryos are created than could ever possibly be used.  Yes, life does begin at conception; therefore a fertilized egg does constitute a human life.  However, a life spent frozen in a freezer is simply a waste.  Personally, I would rather contribute to humanity--and the study of human disease--and thereby save lives, than live as a ball of cells in a freezer.
 +
 +
It is the imperative, provided by God, that all people honor the sanctity of life.  And, while an embryo cannot consent to being used in research, there seems to me to be no higher calling than a life spent serving the good of humanity.  Even if that life is simply spent as cells in a petri dish.
 +
 +
Allowing the creation of embryonic stem cell lines from leftover embryos--which are, I must stress, living people--gives them a chance to live a life in the service of the sick, rather than simply being wasted when they get freezer burn (even frozen embryos do go bad after some time) or are otherwise discarded.
 +
 +
Discarding embryos is murder.  Without a womb to allow them to develop a body, allowing them to grow and be used in research is the nearest we can come to giving them a life.
 +
 +
 
- [[User:JCasto]]
 
- [[User:JCasto]]
 
: your argument obviously brings about the topic of what is defined as being human.  Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life.  Besides what about embryos that are stored by couples who have successfully undergone invitro fertilization?  Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away.  Why not use those embryos for stem-cell research?  JCasto, are you willing to save the "life" of an embryo at the cost of prolonging of the suffering of millions of people? - [[User:comatose raccoon]]
 
: your argument obviously brings about the topic of what is defined as being human.  Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life.  Besides what about embryos that are stored by couples who have successfully undergone invitro fertilization?  Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away.  Why not use those embryos for stem-cell research?  JCasto, are you willing to save the "life" of an embryo at the cost of prolonging of the suffering of millions of people? - [[User:comatose raccoon]]
Line 95: Line 108:  
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 (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.
 
[[User:AWHall|AWHall]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
 
[[User:AWHall|AWHall]] 16:09, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
−
       

Navigation menu