Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Stem cell research

by duckman / October 26, 2006 7:08 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Stem cell research
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Stem cell research
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
So, tell me, Duckman: Do you think the left,...
by Paul C / October 26, 2006 10:49 AM PDT
In reply to: Stem cell research

...already firmly wedded to the idea of using embryonic stem cell research as a rationale for abortion, will ever accept these facts?

Collapse -
It seems to me that if an unwanted fetus
by Steven Haninger / October 26, 2006 11:02 AM PDT

that's already been sentenced to die should be harvested for it's good parts, then the same rationale could be used for condemned killers in our prisons. Instead of frying them up or poisoning them, just carve them up and take out their organs for transplant use instead. Devil

Collapse -
That's already done in China.
by Paul C / October 26, 2006 7:01 PM PDT

A while back, I had a well respected female liberal Democrat tell me during a conversation that she thought that it'd be OK for the government to pay women to get pregnant if the women would allow the pregnancy to be aborted and the embryo removed for stem cell research.

I told her that the thought of using women as brood mares appalled me. She brushed that off and allowed as how I was "unenlightened."

I think I'd rather be unenlightened than agree to the casual utilitarianism that seems to permeate contemporary liberalism when the issue of stem cell research comes up.

Collapse -
The point is that to all but the regiously driven,
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / October 26, 2006 11:39 PM PDT

that very early fetus is not a human being. Regligion is The only rationale for saying that it is -- and that means special protections are against the First Amendment, because they're based on one particular religious view (shared by a minority of members of the National Council of Churches, btw). How people really feel about the issue is shown by the following hypothetical question: There's a fire a t a fertility clinic, and you as a fireperson rush through the smoke and see a nurse lying unconscious beside a 150-pound liquid nitrogen tank filled with frozen embryos. Which do you carry out the front door to safety before the roof collapses? Almost everyone would rescue the technicin -- and that's the true answer to which is worth more, a live human being, or the potential human being reprsented by an embryo (it's not yet a "fetus," btw -- that requires implantation). Situation ehtics? Sure -- but that's the type of choice required in the real world, not the philosopher's construct.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
How many times do MEMBERS here ...
by Evie / October 26, 2006 11:48 PM PDT

... have to refute your continuous misrepresentation of their positions as religious for you to stop posting that slam? MY POSITION IS NOT RELATED TO RELIGION.

Medical terminology for the developing human lifeform is not your forte.

Your hypothetical situation is nonsense. There is a huge difference between saving one life over another in a life-threatening situation. The frozen embryos only threat comes from other humans that feel entitled to kill them for experimentation.

Collapse -
What other basis is there, Evie --
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / October 27, 2006 1:49 PM PDT

when there's less than a 50% chance of a natural embryo at that stage ever reaching live birth (w/o any intervention -- not speaking about birth control or abortion here). There's no LOGICAL basis for claiming that life begins at conception -- in fact, that wasn't even the official Catholic position until the 18th Century (before then it was held to begin "at quickening," when momevement was first felt). Ironically, the reason for the change had nothing to do with theology or concern for survival of the fetus; it was aimed to preserve the lives of the many women dying from abortions before antiseptic surgical techniques, blood transfusions, etc.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
We don't really know the survival rate ...
by Evie / October 27, 2006 10:02 PM PDT

... of embryos, but that is irrelevant. Even if only 10% made it to live birth. There are times and societies where living past one's first year wasn't given much better odds than the 50% you cite. Does that mean life doesn't begin until one is a year old? Infant mortality stats when broken down show that the odds of survival increase dramatically from the first few months to the latter months in the first year. Is the 1 month old any less alive than the 10 month old? When did your life begin?

The point you are missing is that this research involves CREATING a human life, then deliberately snuffing it out for experimentation. You can parse it all you want, but this is what is on the ballot in MO.

Collapse -
No, Evie, it does not involve deliberately creating an
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / October 28, 2006 1:12 AM PDT

embryo (at least not for research). I'd completely support outlawing specific creation of embryos for research. What we're talking about is embryos created for implantation as part of in vitro fertilization, but that for one reason or another are now to be discarded (usually because of successful implantation of other embryos from the same batch, leading to a jouyous birth). IOW, they're going to be destroyed anyway -- I therefore see no reason not to derive potentially lifesaving benefits from their inevitable destruction.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
IOW
by duckman / October 28, 2006 1:16 AM PDT

they shouldn't be created in the first place. As far as ethics goes, in vitro is BAD SCIENCE. That is mostly why I oppose ESC. BAD SCIENCE. But as long as it promotes an agenda and makes money for those involed.....

Collapse -
BTW Dave
by Evie / October 28, 2006 12:26 AM PDT

Why do women who are trying to get pregnant take Folic acid. Why do women who think they might get pregnant generally not smoke, drink, etc.? Why do they try to eat well? These and more are all efforts to improve the odds for their child. That its life will continue, not end.

With medical experimentation, you cannot bet away from the fact that one life is snuffed for another.

The laws should be amended to prevent the making of "surplus embryos".

Collapse -
Which would effectively ban in vitro fertilization, Evie!
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / October 28, 2006 1:20 AM PDT
In reply to: BTW Dave

>>the laws should be amended to prevent the making of "surplus embryos". <<

The IVF procedure is horrifically expensive and not covered by insurance, with the actual implantation being the least expensive part. Additionally, it is draining on a woman's health to induce multiple ovulation, as must be done to make the embryos. All of these considerations dictate the current standard operating procedure of making multiple embryose at one time, enough for two or three implantation attempts. The bill you propose would nearly double or triple the cost of the second or third attempt at IVF, making them prohibitively expensive for all but the extremely wealthy (it's already out of reach for probably 80% of the population, unless they're extremely dedicated to parenthood. Of course, you have to be extremely dedicated to go through this long, drawn-out, and health-endangering process in the first place!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
What would be wrong with banning it?
by duckman / October 28, 2006 1:38 AM PDT

NO ONE has the right to have children much less through any extraordinary means other than what was given to us

Collapse -
I will repeat my assertion that religious
by Steven Haninger / October 27, 2006 4:51 AM PDT

people were not suddenly zapped into their sense of ethics and morals. This was in them already... and they, perhaps, settled in with a collective body of like minded individuals who accepted certain things to be "truth". Ergo, a sense of what a human life is and when it begins is not something one can only discern through religion. It's innate in them, thought not always fully recognized.

In any event, my post was "tongue in cheek" and meant simply to mull over. Certainly I would not suspect many would give a thumbs up to such.

By the way, in your clinic fire scenerio, I would think the firefighter's reaction would be instinctive and not one he'd spend much time thinking about first....which is an opportunity we have in the case of taking a life in this manner. It's also been written that a woman in a burning house with an unconscious child and an unconscious husband will grab her child first....and the husband later....if there's still time, anyway. Happy

Collapse -
not religious specifically, but moral in nature too.
by James Denison / October 28, 2006 2:00 AM PDT

Without regard to any particular religion, I've never heard a woman come home to tell her husband she's got an "embryo", or a "fetus" or a bit of "growth tissue" or "developing stem cells". Almost invariably they choose to say "I'm pregnant, we're having a baby!" I wonder her reaction if the husband says, "It's not a baby till it's born, and till then please refer to it as a fetus or developing clump of stem cells". Has the world gone mad?!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) NO
by duckman / October 26, 2006 11:12 AM PDT
In reply to: Stem cell research
Collapse -
"The medical potential for embryonic stem cells remains
by Ziks511 / October 26, 2006 7:57 PM PDT
In reply to: Stem cell research
relatively untapped at this point, and significant hurdles remain to be overcome before these cells may be considered safe and effective for uses in patients. Meanwhile, adult stem cells have begun to show significant capabilities of their own in repair of damaged tissue." The Journal of Investigative Medicine No. 54 1, January 2006.

Given that there has been a moratorium on Embryonic Stem Cell research in the US since the days of Reagan this isn't exactly surprising, however as is noted above, much has been done successfully with adult stem cells. Personally, I think it would make sense to have the same consent and collection process in place for placentas and umbilical cords that exists for organs. In this case, when you go to hospital for the delivery of a baby, one of the consent forms says the hospital may collect and store these items for research and therapeutic use.

I think I am generally seen here as mildly liberal so here's one liberal who doesn't believe in your linking of stem cell research and abortion in the liberal mind. I think virtually all liberals would see them as two separate and distinct issues.

Additionally I am opposed to abortion personally, but I will not force a woman to bear a child, at risk to herself through the many complications of gestation and birth, against her will. There are many better ways of contraception than birth control and I think that there should be a premium placed on using them, as opposed to the last resort of abortion.

Rob
Collapse -
You are simply incorrect
by Evie / October 26, 2006 10:11 PM PDT

There is no moratorium, although there probably should be. Folks are being swayed by emotional arguments to accept things they otherwise would not if considered rationally or even personally.

I wonder, if anyone had the guts, if MJFox and his wife would conceive their own child from which to harvest stem cells. THIS is the issue. ESC requires the creation and destruction of an embryo. IF we're talking about "surplus" embryos, the solution is to curtail their creation in the first place, not use them up.

The free market is working well in this area. It is the ethical and reality of potential benefit that has kept ESC STILL less productive as a research avenue than other stem cells. It's amazing really, as the MORE promising research into other stem cells has had to compete with the hype-driven appeal of embryonic cells.

One really does have to step back and wonder why ANYONE in possession of the facts would support ESC Sad

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) potential = modern Alchemy
by duckman / October 26, 2006 10:21 PM PDT
Collapse -
Huh?
by EdH / October 26, 2006 10:48 PM PDT
I think I am generally seen here as mildly liberal...

Who believes that?

Medical research can only be funded by the Federal Government, or else it doesn't exist.
Collapse -
Double huh?
by Evie / October 26, 2006 10:52 PM PDT
In reply to: Huh?

That was what Rob said, not me Devil

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I know
by EdH / October 26, 2006 11:20 PM PDT
In reply to: Double huh?
Collapse -
Rob, the real problem is that those most vehemently

opposed to abortion are also opposed to contraception. Look at the disgusting bill just put into effect in Nicarauga, outlawing abortion even when continuing the pregnancy will kill the woman. How is that a "right to life?"

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Nicaragua?
by Evie / October 26, 2006 11:50 PM PDT

Relevance to this debate?

Link?

Collapse -
Relevance to this debate, Evie?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / October 27, 2006 2:02 PM PDT
In reply to: Nicaragua?

The relevance is that adult women's lives are considered by many Americans (in fact a majority, according to polls) to be more valuable than those of fetuses -- there's a right to life on both sides of the issue, not just one. As for a link, Nicaragua votes to outlaw abortion.

>> Nicaragua on Thursday night voted to outlaw all forms of abortion, including operations to save a pregnant woman's life, after a campaign by the Catholic church.

The main political parties supported a bill establishing jail sentences of six to 30 years for women who terminate their pregnancies and doctors who perform the procedure. <<

As for relevance of abortion to the stem cell debate, it's the anti-abortion, anti-stem cell folks who claim that the latter issue is just a phony way to get the camel's nose under the tent in the debate about the former, so I'm just running with the linkage you folks claimed. They're not actually linked in my opinion -- except that in both cases the judgment is being made by so-called right-to-lifers that the the potential "life" of the unborn at various stages is more valuable than the actual life of the sentient born.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
This is America not Nicaragua
by Evie / October 27, 2006 10:12 PM PDT

Abortion for convenience was the first step in decline in respect for human life.

The linkage is clear. The abortion advocates have been losing ground since the advent of ultrasound blew their "just a ball of cells" lie out of the water. When ASC is more promising than ESC, yet advocates continue to try to force public funding for the less fruitful research, there can be only one conclusion drawn about the agenda.

The stem cell debate started out with "we'll just take a few cells before we thrown them out anyway". We are now talking about CLONING embryos for the EXPRESS purpose of medical experimentation and destruction.

Collapse -
You ever hear the phrase "nipping in the bud, DM?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / October 26, 2006 11:32 PM PDT
In reply to: Stem cell research

Of COURSE there aren't fully developed therapies yet -- it will probably take a decade of research and six years of FDA trials before such thearapies start coming to fruition. What the naysayers want to do is stop that possibility before it starts.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Or maybe...
by EdH / October 26, 2006 11:39 PM PDT

they don't want to throw good money after bad, while paying for something they feel is immoral. It's not like this research is not conducted elsewhere.

Collapse -
Correct.
by duckman / October 28, 2006 1:45 AM PDT
In reply to: Or maybe...

This is really just about gettig a huge pile of FEDERAL funds thrown at it. There is no ban

Collapse -
More like ...
by Evie / October 26, 2006 11:42 PM PDT

... investing research dollars where they show the most promise. You SHOULD know about that writing grant proposals.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GIVEAWAY

We are giving away 'Black Panther' swag!

Four lucky readers will be taking home *Marvel*ous "Black Panther" prizes, including magazines autographed by the King of Wakanda himself! Giveaway ends Feb. 25, 2018.