This is an issue I'm shocked people aren't discussing here on ProgressiveU. Clearly, this is an issue of importance - it's an issue that I think is going to be fought over in the coming years, after the fundamentalists get over their wet dreams of abortion-free America.
Christover Reeve (sp?) was victim of a spinal cord injury. He ended up dying, and his life might've been saved had stem cell research been legal.
Stem cells are, in essence, "blank" cells - they can form into whatever cell they want, whether it be a brain cell, a spinal cord cell, a heart cell, whatever it may be.
To me, this is a very double-edged issue. I think that it has it's good sides - we could save a lot of people who have injuries/incurable diseases that could be fixed simply with new cells. The bad side I see is just as powerful - what if a government is to use it as a biological weapon? Consider this - cancer can kill victims in mere days, given the right conditions. How about an accelerated cancer that could be injected into special perceived threats? Possibly a gas that infects the lungs?
There's also the possibiltiy of human cloning - which I am very much against. I think that people need to die. Something I say a lot is that there is no life without death - if people hadn't of died in war, of diseases, or of natural causes, all those people would be around today - and that's a big deal. That's billions more people that this world cannot sustain. Under a cloning system, the presumption is that all of us would live for an eternity, right? That is BAD, very very BAD. We've seen the results of overpopulation, not in humans, but it animals. I believe it was down in teh SouthWest somewhere, but there was this deer that was hard to find. So the government hired a bunch of hunters to kill the deer's natural predator. What happened? There was a BIG spike in the number of deer, and then, get this - a BIG drop. Why? The ecosystem the deer lived in couldn't support the new huge population - they all just starved to death, so they had to be nurtered back to a decent condition for many decades afterword.
The same would happen to humans, if cloning came true. And cloning, I think, would be made a lot easier with the research of stem cells. I have no real opinion on this issue; there simply, to me, is not enough data to support any particular opinion. The research is seen as unethical, so it'll probably take years before the big debate comes along, as I'm sure it will.
What do you guys think?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I am against cloning, but for stem cell research because of all it's good usess. One never knows what can happen, but unfortunately, there's always that chance the people can use it for bad. There is so much good that it can do, which is why I think it is worth the risk.
I am for stem cell research (embryonic or adult.) It's an opportunity that can save lives. The scientific community checks itself to prevent "Frankenstein" like events. There are rules and regulations that they follow.
Extreme "right to lifers" who think that the use of stem cells destroys precious potential lives need to remember that the stem cells would be used to save the lives of those already alive. And, for the most part, the cells that scientists want to use would just be discarded from fertility clinics.
I do not have a clear opinion on cloning at this time, but I don't really like the prospect of cloning humans. But again, that's something that I need to investigate more.
Do you know anything about stem cell research? Adult stem cells are more effective, they can be injected after they are differentiated, without fear of the bodies refecting them. Why kill potential life when you can save yourself with stem cells taken out of your own body. I'm not an extreme "right to lifer" I just did my research and am not making uncalculated assumptions about a subject I know nothing about. I dont have a problem on using embryonic stem cells that would otherwise be destroyed but why do even that when adult stem cells are just as effective?
First, you cite no source proving such - please do so.
Second - you assume that people are lining up to have embryos removed for science research. These embryos are ALREADY ABORTED - they're usually discarded, but I'd rather then save lives. How dare you call yourself pro-life and then let people die needlessly!
I'd rather have more than one avenue to work with - if we just shoot towards adult stem cells and then find that they are useless by most applications, then what? You see my point. These cells would be wasted anyway; let them be used for good purposes instead of filling biohazard boxes.
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
I agree. It seems like everyone thinks embyronic stem cells are the only ones that have potential....and many scientists even are researching them more than adult stem cells, but articles I've read have said adult stem cells are just as effective, if not more.
First of all, how do you know adult stem cells are more effective? Embyronic stem cells haven't even been used before on humans, and they could well be more effective. Also, adult stem cells are limited in the different types of cells they can turn into. For example, the adult stem cells in our bone marrow can only turn into dufferent types of blood cells. And there is a possibility that the body having stem cells injected will reject the adult stem cells, unless all of the patient's bone marrow was removed. While adult stem cells can save some lives, embryonic stem cells could save even more lives. So far, they have not been proven to be unable to diffentiate into a certain type of cell. That means they can turn into ANY type of cell, which can save a lot more lives than adult stem cells. I am not against adult stem cell research, but I definitely agree that we should use the stem cells that are disposed of from fertility clinics and turn them into cures.
I am so happy that you are the first one to comment! Most people have no idea that adult stem cells are more effective. No one does their research anymore, they just take a stand on a conterversial issue!
I'm not really sure where you're going with cloning there, Xbot. Cloning yourself doesn't mean you live for an eternity. It simply means that a human being with very similar genetic material to yourself has been created. A clone would be a unique human being just like anyone else.
Yes, but those clones I see being used for parts - perhaps upon your death your brain could be rewired into the clone. That, I think, would be a very bad thing.
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
I am for adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research since they get those stem cells from aborted babies.
This is something I have yet to understand from anti-abortionists - how can they oppose abortions, and then when they occur just toss away the embryo? At least make some use of it to save lives; if you're going to be parading around claiming that every life is important (even a fetus), then at the very least allow these fetuses to be used to save someone who is alive and functional (to an extent) from death.
Clearly, if you're going to disapprove of abortions, at least approve of the fetuses being used for good purpose.
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
A good purpose like what, stem cell research? I can't agree with that because that seems to make the abortion seem okay, which I disagree.
Whether or not abortion is OK, while abortions are happening, you should at least let those aborted fetuses help people live. Clearly, it's better for those fetuses that would be thrown away to be used to save some guy's life.
It doesn't matter if you support it or not; people could be saved by stem cell research, and you're about to deny them the right to live because of your own beliefs? That's completely opposite of the idea of abortion on it's own, isn't it? If I'd of been aborted, I'd like my embryo to be used to help someone walk again, or for some guy with severe brain cell damage to live again.
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
But using the fetuses makes the abortions seem justified.
I wouldn't deny them the right. Adult stem cells have tons of potential...and more in some instances, yet the government kept doing research mostly on embryonic stem cells. I agree 100% with further research with the human cells; just not the embryonic ones.
So some people are potentially losing your lives because you MIGHT be SEEMING to justify abortion? Wouldn't you rather those fetuses save lives? They're going to be tossed away anyway, why not use them to save lives?
It's like - if you order something at some fast food restaraunt and get it assembled wrong, wouldn't it be better if you gave the unwanted food to a homeless person than to throw it away and forget about it while eating your newly assembled one? Regardless of what you thought of that food item, it still can be used for something else.
It's not perfect, but I'm watching Spongebob Squarepants - TV drowns my thoughts sometimes lol
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
Why not use more adult stem cells? They can be taken from adults without harming the person. Why are you not even considering that as an option?
I haven't mentioned adult stem cells. This is because I feel it is a done deal - nobody thus far has questioned their use in research.
I think stem cell research of any kind is good. What's bad is when people are tossing away what potentially could save someone's life because of a "SEEMINGLY" situation.
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
But if we can use adult stem cells, why even bother using the embryonic ones? Do we not have enough adults to get them from? no
Adult ones don't have the potential that embryonic ones do. Adult stem cells are not totally blank - embryonic ones are.
Look at it this way - it's RESEARCH. One day, thanks to research like this, we might be able to make our own artificial embryonic cells - or cells like them. This is RESEARCH peppermintfrost - and the bill isn't cheap; but it will repay itself in more than you or I can imagine.
50 years ago people would have laughed you right into the asylum of you said that in 50 years people will pay a mere $600 for a computer that plays three dimensional games in your own lap. Who's to say 50 years from now people will no longer be concerned about broken legs? Or when DNA goes bad, we can fix it?
All of it takes some moral sacrifice, and in the end, we gain a lot more because of it. Morally, 100 years ago it was wrong for a woman to talk to a man other than her husband. Let's not play the moral game, 'K?
Oh, and about hte 'why bother?' Besides the conditions above, those cells are going to be tossed away. I'd rather those cells save lives than end in some biohazard box, wouldn't you? They're not going to develop anyway - why not let them save a life or two?
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
I disagree with Stem Cell research because it's hard to be done successfully. Additionally the technology is phenomenally expensive and not even fully developed. The former Superman had more opportunity than most to overcome his afflictions, in addition to working in America he had the advantage of being able to go to nations which are scientifically better developed than the United States. I think that allowing stem cells not would prevent it from being available to all socio-economic status.
Also, a lot of responses to this article address adult stem cells. These cells can not generate all of the parts that embryonic stemcell research. So, you are essentially supporting technology that only helps some and leaves others without a source of hope
That's why it's called stem cell RESEARCH. With RESEARCH comes cheap technology.
It was expensive to research the personal computer, too. Now they're cheaper than the most basic computers of the '80s.
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
I find nothing wrong with stem cell research and the implementation of whatever comes of said research. The end justifies the means.
I do believe you're quite right, Xbot, about possible over-population. People wouldn't just stop reproducing. Merely cloning the same people for generations with no new genetic diversity would put humanity at a standstill. It would be a very selfish populace indeed that enlisted this practice.
However, cloning has positives. What if the great leaders and geniuses of the world could live on? I do see how incredibly unlikely it is that cloning would be restricted to only certain people, and how the powerful would pull strings to have their way, so that likely isn't an option any time soon. What about the child who dies at four because of, say, a drunk driver? Can we really restore all these children without horrible effects? Is it for the best of society, or is it selfishly destructive?
This all reminds me of Nobel. He didn't know the evil of the dynamite he held in his hands.
People would just stop reproducing. Fears of overpopulation can be overblown; I've done a bit of reading on it, and once the issue is approached logically, the danger fades. People would only clone--or have children--if they're sure they can support them. It's when population growth is artificially propped up, by welfare in humans, for instance, that risk is created. In Nature, this risk is less likely. (There's more to it; I plan to eventually post a blog entry on this)
did you mean to type 'incredibly likely'? If you did, then yes, the wealthy would probably be the only ones who could do it for themselves. I'm fine with that.
Michael Allen Yarbrough
Was dynamite ever used in combat? I'm sure you wouldn't have said that unless it was eventually developed for use in some weapon against humans; even if you did, Nobel is innocent: he did not invent war, and he did not hold the judgment of those who used it destructively in his hands.
yeah, of course stem cell research is an issue in psychology and politics. however, there are movements dedicated to this process, and may 24 of last year, there was a Stem Cell Research Act. One good thing about Stem Cell Research is that scientists are finding ways to actually TREAT neurological diseases: Parkinson's and ALS; spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. All of these did not have treatment back in the 1960s and earlier. There are so many ways that the United States could be a little more lenient toward other people in society, other than shunning them for having a disorder or disease they can't control. When we're little kids, we get sick and our parents find ways for us to get better. What about those with disorders or diseases that finally have cures? It would be like living with a life long cold and not finding a cure until you're almost dead.
I think stem cell research is very important for discovering cures and medicines, learning how things work, and helping people.
Society advances by means of science. The question of how advanced we need to be will be heavily debated until we finish over populating like locusts and finally kill off the planet we call home. Natural selection was put in motion for a purpose, be it AIDS, Cancer, or Crack Addiction, we were meant to die off. The strain of humans living longer and being given increasing ways and time to procreate will continue to take it's toll until the entire system collapses and the world resets itself. There will be severe economic strain on every country whether we start saving lives for the long run or maintaining the narrow focus on present health care costs and how much a barrel of oil costs for the day. If we continue to over populate, by whatever means possiable, there wont be enough resources to go around anyway and there we will sit in yet another conundrum of economic survival. The question of the morality of hESG or any other kind of stem cell research will remain under debate as long as religion of any kind remains a popular belief. Concessions are however being made by some religious sanctions such as, Union of American Hebrew Congregations(Reform-Jews) and the Episcopal Church. Both renounce the use of cloning embryotic stem cells for research but both support the use of over stock emryo's from fertility clinics. Adult stem cells dont seem to be the debate anymore, people have actually started encouraging their use after the surfacing of embryotic stem cells.The biggest fear since Dolly the sheep has been human cloning. Human cloning should be at the bottom of everyone's, "Things to fear list," for the time being. It's making the living live longer that should be the fear. The advancements in genetic research are facinating and will in time help billions of people, but unless advancements in alternative fuel/power sources and legislative thinking follow(Chris S.), there will be nothing left for the masses to survive on and the end result takes us right back to natural selection. In the end we will die off if we are supposed to and if we dont want to see others suffer secondary to disease or old age give them the choice of Active Euthanesia with no judicial ramifications. If we can actively euthanise an animal, secondary to over population or disease, why can't we do the same for ourselves.
I'm for stem cell research because of the fact of the people that it could help with different diseases. One of the large ones is Diabetes. I myself believe that if given the time to research properly there could be a cure through stem cell research. It would be good for those of us that our diabetes is slowly killing due to lack of anymore advancements and our diabetes being different than textbook cases.
Blessed be to all who read.
Khaos Faerie