jriva Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 . I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom71 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Jean, My answer would be absolutley Yes I would support it, reason being if we already have these cells that are not going to be used and are just going to be medical waste, than what could possibly be more morally correct than to ease the pain and suffering of people whom are suffering from some dehabilitating condition such as a stroke. God Bless, Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder and Owner smallory Posted December 6, 2006 Founder and Owner Share Posted December 6, 2006 Jean, excellent topic to debate. I was going to start a post on this exact subject! My only real problem with embryonic stem cells is how they would be gathered. i cannot in good faith agree to destroy any human life, no matter the stage of growth. Personally, I could not be associated with stem cells derived from human embryos, even if it meant walking and talking, again! To me, this is a question of one's faith. It's in my moral and ethical background. From what I have read, embryos derived from invitro embryos could potentially be defective. I'm thinking that all of the prescreening necessary for embryonic stem cells so that you would not get tumors and would get good embryonic stem cells is going to make the procedure cost ineffective. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jriva Posted December 7, 2006 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 . Steve, I don't want to see this topic hi-jacked. So allow me to restate the debate topic in this thread: "If our USA government could guarantee without a shadow of doubt that all embryonic stem cells used for research would come from spontaneous (not planned) abortions or from discarded cells left over from in vitro fertilization clinics, would you personally approve a ten year government funded research project, or not?" Your answer to this question is probably a resounding no, but don't you think that ten years of research will take us a long way towards being able to sort out the now mystery markers for the various embroynic cells so that we can learn to prevent tumors from growing where we don't want them to? I'm also thinking that by studying embryonic stem cells we might learn enough about the human body to find ways to prevent many diseases rather than just focusing on treatment afterwards. I don't buy that all we'd learn from the massive embryonic cell research is just better ways to use stem cells for therapy. I'd just like to for someone to persuade me that we should open this Pandora's box. Jean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slmstrokeangel Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I'm going to answer yes although I'm a Christian. There simply has to be more research done on embryonic stem cells and if those cells meet your criteria I'm going to vote yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arogers Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Jean, I like the way this question is posed. It has encouraged me to think more deeply than simply "yes" or "no" on this issue. 1. I don't believe it would be possible for anyone to guarantee stem cells from only spontaneous abortions will be used. Any governmental guarantee is suspect to me. 2. The idea of using "left-over" embryos is personally offensive to me because I think there is so much room for individuals to once again turn a good idea into a very bad situation. I can't imagine there are enough left-over embrios to really, really research stem cell therapy. I believe we will soon hear about the need for additional embryos in order to research X theory - it will look promising, and individuals mourning what has been "lost" will lobby for legitimizing yet another way these embryos might ethically be harvested. (Hey, if we are theroizing, my mind can go wild!) 3. If the cost is prohibitive to a vast majority of individuals what happens to that person who has all kinds of potential for good in this world, but not the finances needed to undergo this presumably wonder treatment? 4. Who makes the decision about this group of individuals who form a panel to determine whether or not the use of stem cells is ethical? The best question you've posed is that of age limits. If I am 41 years old and am promised stem cell therapy would "cure" my physical problems. however, the guidelines have determined the age limit for the use of stem cells is 39 what happens? It still becomes an inside-job. Will I be angry, bitter, constantly in search of yet another way to make me the way I "was", or will I look toward the future and concentrate on the way I am and will be? What is the purpose of our life? And so, my answer comes after I've posed more questions. No, I would not endorse government funded stem cell research. You're so right about today's science fiction being tomorrows reality. The questions you've posed should certainly be answered by someone - however I wonder if the answers might be too painful for those who do the research to honestly and philosphically address. I wonder how in the world a panel as broad as that you've suggested (although I think it would be most interesting!) could ever come to any real consensus on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdehaas Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Jean I have no problem responding Yes as to whether the govt should fund ESCR. But, I 'm also pro-choice so using discarded embryonic SC, irrespective of the legal source, is not a moral or ethical problem for me. As long as abortion is legal as it is nationwide (up to 6 mos.), then I don't have any problem with my affirmative response. By having to condition or couch your question as you have makes this a pro life/choice issue to me. Which is a debate for another site. Or maybe I'm not understanding the question. It appears that your major issue has to do with the results of the ESCR, not the methods. And as someone pointed out on another thread, the overwhelming majority of the American public votes yes to you question. http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jriva Posted December 7, 2006 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 . Ann, I may be wrong but when they first made abortion legal didn't they call a panel of top scientists, religious leaders, philosophers, doctors and government leaders together to testify before the Supreme Court on the issue of when life begins? I don't know my history all that well so I'm sure there are better examples that could be used to illustrate that think tank type groups like I'm suggesting aren't unheard in Washington. We have a friend who works in DC at a think tank and it's their job to project how society will be impacted by the different bills coming up before the senate or house. They get their contracts from senators and representatives who want to know this stuff before they sponsor a bill. Tom, In my first post I said, "Let Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdehaas Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 JR I agree with most of what you say, particularly in the last paragraph. That’s how several of these debate threads have ended, agreeing to disagree. I don’t share the same concerns about the reprecussions of the research. And I’m not that much younger than you:) It’s impossible to stop science and technology. If it’s not govt funded it will just take a little longer, whether it’s DNA manipulation, cell regeneration or synthetic bodies. I’ll let my daughter and grandgaughter deal with those issues. If there’s still a planet Earth. I’m not trying to avoid the abortion issue. Your assumption to the question was trying to separate it from the funding debate. My only point was that it’s entiuely consistent with being both pro-choice and desirious of funding ESCR or not. But not with being pro-life. You cannot be in favor funding ESCR and pro-life at the same time. Those are not compatible positions. Therefore when ESCR is discussed the abortion-prolife issue becomes paramount to the debate and I do not care to go there. And get into life begin ?? Someone recently posted here on new technologies that make it possible to acquire ESC without harming embryo. I do agree with your theory there are those who for whatever reason, morals are not in favor of funding ESCR. They are in the minority though. Tom :beer: :beer: Here's to agreeing to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jriva Posted December 8, 2006 Author Share Posted December 8, 2006 It's impossible to stop science and technology. Tom, What you're said in this line up above is one of the major reasons why I believe that we, as a nation, need to get behind embryonic stem cell research. Other countries who don't have the pro-life/pro-choice dilemmia are doing it and they will get light years ahead of us in their treatment/prevention of dieases to a point where we will be come irrelevant in the medical field. It would be like tying one hand behind the backs of our scientiest to limit them to just studying adult stem cells. No one can be 100% sure which will work the best for what without the side by side studies. Compare what we've done with federally funding projects for the space program with countries who haven't done so. Private enterprise isn't going to pick up the where government leaves off if we don't fund ESCR. Our scientists will just all continue to go off shore. Jean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder and Owner smallory Posted December 8, 2006 Founder and Owner Share Posted December 8, 2006 Jean, your question is logically great but scientificly not sound. I think it makes one think deep, like Anne said, but I seriously doubt that embryonic stem cells would ever, ever be researched to anything other than to rule them out more than they already are by the scientific community. I'm not saying that your question is not something that does not deserves to be debated but I cannot help being the spoiler, here. (like usual! ) First, I want to refute the statistics that Tom quoted. According to the statistics that 70-80% of americans want embryonic stem cells the same poll gave statistics that 40% of america knows little to nothing about stem cells! We can then deduce that maybe only 50% of america actually wants embryonic stem cells. Also, you cannot rely on america actually understanding the science of embryonic stem cells so the sample taken for that poll means, ZILCH! Would you go to this sample of people for brain surgery? This is how much confidence that I have in their ability to comment about embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells actually have the least amount of scientific potential of all of the various types of stem cells! Not only because of doctors having difficulty with finding useful embryonic stem cells but economically they would be the most expensive. Do you understand where I am coming from, Jean? Umbillical chord stem cells have the most potential. They are relatively cheap to get so economically would be excellent, scientificly, they have the greatest potential to help mankind with all of it's capabilities to cure diseases and ethically, they are not ethically or morally a problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jriva Posted December 8, 2006 Author Share Posted December 8, 2006 . Steve, I understand what you are saying but my thoughts are that if we had had federally funded embryonic stem cell research for as long as we Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdehaas Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Steve, Pleae don't misrepresent what i wrote. i did not quote any statistics. I linked a site that contained the results of over 20 polls of Americans over a couple of years regarding ESCR. Each one showed a majority favored the research. I'm not all that convinced on the accuracy on opinion polls, but if you want to deduce that at least 50% approve, then deduced that some have no opinion, and then deduce that a minority don't approve of the funding research. Thx, Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstockman Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I would say yes if the embroys would be discarded as medical waste, then I would vote yes to use them and the left over in vitro eggs. I'm not sure about the age issue, but I think if they were used for medical purpose, to aid stroke, ms, etc. Not for "cosmetic' purpose or to make one "feel" younger. This is going to be a big issue. I did a term paper on medical ethics of gene splicing. How.. do you keep "big" companies from not trying to make a huge financial profit. To be able if it can be a therapy so it is available to all, not just those who can afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder and Owner smallory Posted December 8, 2006 Founder and Owner Share Posted December 8, 2006 Tom, you cannot have it both ways! If you reference those faulty statistics then you are stuck with the fact that almost half of america does not understand stem cells from a can of corn! What you are telling me is that you would also let the majority of America perform brain surgery on you! Jean, how many friends do you have? How many would understand pluripotent or multipotent? How about totipotent ? Also, I am quoting the statistics from the link that say, in the same breath, that most of america does not understand embryonic stem cells so the statistics aren't just my interpretation. Both Tom and Jason provide the link to those fuzzy polls. Both embryonic and umbillical stem cells are pluripotent so even though embryonic looks very promising, in theory, they also provide the most challenge to scientists. Embryonic stem cells, therefore, are not a good model for your qUestion. I do not want to have to debate whether embryonic stem cells should be used because I have had more fun poking holes on them ever getting further than a hypothetical question on a message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikisteph Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Hello all, Whilst this argument is really for Americans, as it is your governments tax dollars you are talking about, i would like to add my little bit. I do not think that the general public of any country are capable of making this or any other decision relating to stem cells, wherever they come from, that is why we have the HFEA and if anyone wants to challenge their decisions they can go to the courts. Maybe your country will end up following a similar path because it is eventually recognised that there is insufficient understanding of the issues involved. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jriva Posted December 8, 2006 Author Share Posted December 8, 2006 . Mike, Welcome to this thread. I wish more people would jump in with their opinions, in their own words. I'm happy to see a thread in this forum that is not just debating by exchanging articles that most of us probably don't bother to read. Steve, If what you say is fact---and I'm not conceding for one moment that it is---why is this issue even an issue in the research and science communities? If it were fact, wouldn't researchers world wide be content to limit their research to the one type of stem cells? Most people are probably against cloning but even so, didn't researchers learn some valuable things from the process that acted as stepping stones into this current field of adult stem cell research? Scientists have always been doing things that society gets up in arms against and but the cart always follows the horse, not the other way around, and eventually we've all come to accept things like the gravity really does work and the earth really is round. You and Jason may understand---and with good reasons---the science of the research better than the average Joe on the street but the rest of us are experts on our own thoughts, on whether or not we trust the scientitic community to have altruistic goals guided by their own professional set of ethics and personal, moral compasses. And I do trust them. To me, this whole issue of federally funded ESC research still boils down to pro-life people needing to be guaranteed without a shadow of doubt where the embryonic stem cells are harvested and for them to understand one very basic fact---that an embryonic stem cell is not an embryo. Jean . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder and Owner smallory Posted December 8, 2006 Founder and Owner Share Posted December 8, 2006 Jean, now that I have done a fair amount of research, if you want to call me reading articles about stem cells research, I agree with you that embryonic stem cells are not embryos. It's no longer an ethical dilemna for me. The facts stand for itself! Embryonic stem cells have the most potential but are also the most challenging and will never in a million years get past the scientific 2nd base. There are too many other types of stem cells that show the potential for doing what we seek. Mark my words! I personally liked this debate because it caused me to search deeper than I have before! There is lots of information on the Internet about stem cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom71 Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Steve, I'm glad this debate has caused you to do more research, and eased your ethical dilema, however I dis agree with your thought that "it will never in a million years get past the scientific 2nd base." God Bless, Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jriva Posted December 8, 2006 Author Share Posted December 8, 2006 Steve, I believe the goals for, and the results from, embyronic stem cell research and adult stem cell research will lead us in entirely different directions, both being of great value to humanity. With embryonic stem cells, scientists can better learn how to turn genes on and off which will be key in learning why abnormal cell divisions cause things like birth defects, cancer, etc. Where as the research in adult stem cells, I believe, will take off more in the direction of developing cell-based therapies to treat diseases and conditions after someone has been struck down. The latter ASC research might pay off quicker---as you spectulate---but the former ESC research will make a more profound impact of the quality of life because it will help us learn how to prevent things like MS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, etc., from ever happening in the first place. I believe with embryonic stem cell research there will be a day when the potientual for getting diseases and conditions later in life will be discovered and treated in vitro. As I said earlier in this thread, today's science fiction is tomorrow's reality. Jean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.