The other day at youth group, we had a guest speaker who has taught at a local university for thirty years. He spoke for an hour and a half on embryonic stem cell research and other similar topics. Although I had heard similar arguments before, the way he talked was really interesting and even shined some more light on the subject. The really incredible thing was that he had quite a few various embryos (including human embryos) that he showed us at the end.
According to one interesting article in the New York Times, the embryonic stem cell research has gone slowly with no cures or major therapeutic discoveries even in sight (1). An interesting article from Science Daily reports how Adult Stem Cells can help with issues like Parkinson's disease that Embryonic Stem Cells have yet to be able to help (2). Even the liberals agree that not even one cure is due to embryonic stem cell research (3). However, despite the controversy involved in embryonic stem cell research, the great findings of adult stem cell research, and the obvious failing in embryonic stem cell research, scientists have not given up their embryonic stem cell research studies.
The religious controversies stem from the belief that all human life is sacred from conception until natural death. It is believed that it is a moral evil to destroy the life of the embryos. So my question is that if there is so much controversy and if the embryonic stem cell research hasn’t come up with anything whereas the adult stem cell research HAS, then why are scientists continuing to study them?
Also, as I said, he showed us some embryos (human, cat, snake, etc) at the end. After seeing them with my own two eyes, I can’t fathom how anyone can say that that’s not a baby.
Sources:
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/science/21stem.html
(2) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080606102603.htm
(3) http://usliberals.about.com/od/stemcellresearch/i/StemCell1.htm
...and serious research into the potential uses of Embryonic Stem Celss really only began in the late 90's. To criticize that work, which has been severely hampered in this country by the controversy driven by the religious right, is both premature and unreasonable. Even so, you assertion that this research has produced "no cures" and that there are "[no] major therapeutic discoveries even in sight," is simply false.
Just earlier this year, scientists from Novocell were able to control Type I Diabetes in mice by injecting them with embryonic stem cells that were modified to produce insulin. Also earlier this year, another groups of scientists at Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. published a technique by which they were able to produce red-blood cells, and which could lead to an end to the constant blood shortages facing the medical industry.
And finally, the reason that scientists continue to study embryonic stem cells is two-fold. On the one hand, the current research is very promising, despite what many religiously rather than scientifically motivated sources will tell you. And secondly, the quest for knowledge about how these cells work is a goal in and of itself.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Wow, so diabetes patients will be able to exchange diabetes for brain tumors. Fun.
"a small number of the mice developed tumors, and some experts said the cells might not be well-characterized enough for use in people. In any event, Novocell said it would be several years before any human tests could begin."
Also, your lab friends not only think that it will be a long time before they can discover the proper way to do blood, but they also find it expensive.
"Roger Dodd, vice president of research and development at the American Red Cross’ Holland Laboratory in Rockville, Md., said producing blood in the lab could cost thousands of dollars per unit – far too expensive to replace the 14 million pints of red blood cells that are transfused every year.
“It’s a rather ambitious goal,” Dodd said. ""
You see, the reason that the embryonic stem cells do things like produce tumors is because they are supposed to make a baby. They split and repeat themselves over and over again until they make a complete human child. Each cell contains all the proper necessities in order to make a complete human being. Therefore, if you inject some to make a bladder, for example, it could easily turn into a lung. On the contrary, adult stem cells have been successful in creating all sorts of things.
No, even your sources said that the research has a long way to go, causes other problems, and is very expensive.
At the cost of thousands of innocent LIVES?
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
The research itself is in its infancy. Thousands of treatments start out not working, and they're slowly developed over the course of decades to work properly, and to get to the point where they can be mass produced. No research is something that can turn out results overnight... that's why there is still research going on.
Would you eliminate in vitro fertilization, which allows otherwise infertile couples to have children? By your very pro-life stance, I argue you would. In that case, yes, ESCR is costing lives, because they would need to take these embryos from some source. However, if you are for IVF, ESCR offers an option for using those lives that would otherwise be destroyed (by throwing them away). Which is the more evil?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
But I question why when the adult stem cells appear to be working so much better.
Yes, I would eliminate in vitro fertilization, as well. My reasons are mainly religious, in that I think it is unnatural and not the way God intended. As others have pointed out in past debates, there are many unwanted children. If these people want children, adoption is an awesome option. I think we could rid both evils by stopping embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization. Whoo, problem solved.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Penicillin worked great 60 or so years ago. Now... not so much. Why? Because bacteria have evolved to overcome the problems penicillin presented to them. So, we've had to continually be 2 steps ahead of them. Pure science also doesn't care what is currently out there; it seeks to investigate more because there is still more to be discovered. Who knows when ESC will be more beneficial than adult stem cells, or IF it'll ever happen. The only way we can tell one way or the other is by doing the investigations to begin with.
And you're the type of person who would vote for Amendment 48 where I live. You would have my instructor and countless other women in the state prosecuted because they had a miscarriage. I mean, maybe they were TRYING to have a miscarriage, and that would most certainly be the worst thing that could EVER happen......
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
But the work of science is to enhance life...not DESTROY it.
Well, I'm not sure what Amendment 48 is, but I wouldn't have people prosecuted for having miscarriages. My mom's extremely pro-life and she has had six miscarriages. So being pro-life doesn't mean you're not going to have miscarriages.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
And some of our most important discoveries have come through failures, or treatments we no longer consider ethical. As I said, pure science is just out to discover; it makes no moral statement about the outcome of the research.
Amendment 48 is a Colorado amendment intended to change the definition of 'person' to 'any human from the moment of fertilization'. It's on the ballot this year, and I pray it does not pass, because it would mean exactly what I said above; miscarriages would be prosecuted just as well as abortions would be, and doctors would be unable to take any steps to save the life of the mother if they risk the life of the egg as well. It would outlaw IVF, or cause it to be more expensive and less successful than it currently is (since many eggs are fertilized and implanted in hopes that one will take). You sound like a person that would vote yes on such an amendment.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Well, not that I can vote, but if I could, then yes...I would vote yes. Miscarriages are a part of life, so I doubt that anyone would be so extreme as to say that a woman has to go to jail for having a miscarriage. In addition, doctors should work to save both patients, and I think it's up to the individual family to decide who is to be concentrated on more.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
But... if abortion is illegal, some women may be desperate enough to induce a miscarriage themself. In that case, since the embryo is considered a person with all the rights of the law, the woman who had the miscarriage could be charged and tried with manslaughter. Will it go that far? Maybe, maybe not. But legally, it would be entirely possible.
Similarly, if the law went through, a doctor would not have much choice, and may choose not to treat either the women or her unborn child because of the potential malpractice and criminal proceedings should the child die in the course of treatment. This means that the woman would essentially have no choice for her own health care when she's pregnant; if she got cancer during that time, she would be forced to attempt to carry the child to term before starting any treatment that may damage the child. If she needed surgery for any reason, she would be forced to wait until she could give birth before choosing the surgery (as surgery causes a shock that tends to cause a woman to miscarry; early on, women typically choose to save their own lives, rather than try to carry the child to term first, and later they tend to choose the child).
The amendment has implications that would reach far beyond the abortion debate and would essentially destroy any rights the woman has to her own health during the time of her pregnancy.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Well, if the woman forced a miscarriage, then that would be abortion and hence she has killed another human being and hence should be tried as such.
I doubt it would be as dramatic as all that. However, I do know that without such a law, thousands of babies will die DAILY due to abortion.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
...that your opinion is based more (as usual) on your religious beliefs that it is on any sort of actual understand of the science involved in this very promising research. Your objection to ESCR on the basis that "thousands of innocent LIVES" is a purely religious point-of-view, which has very little influence on anyone that doesn't already share your religious proclivities. Scientifically speaking, embryonic stem cells are not "LIVES." They're cells.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I object to ESCR on other grounds (stated in my blog), but religious is a part of it. Also, I have every right to object to something from a religious stand point. My faith is the center of everything in my life and every decision I make includes my religious beliefs. However, my faith is also based on logic and thus my beliefs are logical. You seem to deny such a connection.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
...don't seem to be based in a sound understanding of the current research or its findings. As for the religious elements, you DO have a right to object, but you do NOT have a right to use the Law to enforce those objections on other people. As long as you keep your religious opinions out of our government, then there's no problem. When you start using your religious opinions as a reason to limit public funding for valid scientific lines of inquiry, then you are violating the First Amendment.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
So, just because it's going to take a while means we should give up on it? That's mature. That's five year old logic. Of course a new field of study is going to take a while. People laughed at Gregor Mendel when he first suggested the concept of genetics, but look where we are with genetic research now! Penicillin didn't work at first either; it just needed some more research and effort. Like these, ESCR just needs some time to develop. Your assumptions about stem cell research are erroneous because we haven't gotten far enough with it yet to come to any definitive conclusions.
I can see this is a sensitive issue to you, but let me ask you this: would you rather these aborted fetuses just get thrown away? At least they're getting put to good use. These fetuses were not forcibly removed from the mother. The fetus was never aware of its own existence, and it can't feel pain because its nervous system is not fully developed.
-----
"What's God?"
"You know when you ask for something really hard? God's the guy who ignores you."
--- From The Island.
ESCR has been conducted for nearly 30 years.
http://www.genengnews.com/articles/chtitem.aspx?tid=1244&chid=3
I'd hardly call that infant stages. That's my point...we haven't gotten far enough with it yet. On the contrary, we've come very far with adult stem cells.
I'd rather they not be aborted in the first place ;)
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Thirty years in terms of science is not a long time at all. Archaeology, for example, started in ancient China in roughly 1000 AD. It wasn't taken seriously until Egyptology came about 1700 years later. Gregor Mendel started the study of genetics in the 1850s and 60s, but no one took it seriously until 1900. Even then, they had quite a way to go. I'd hardly call thirty years beyond infancy.
-----
"What's God?"
"You know when you ask for something really hard? God's the guy who ignores you."
--- From The Island.
But if you consider the incredible discoveries through adult stem cell research, then I would definitely consider that to be the more promising of the two.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
That may be true. But still, abortion has already been put out there, and there's no way you can stop it. I wish it were that simple, but it isn't. I would rather that these aborted fetuses have something done with them to help future generations than just be laid to waste.
-----
"What's God?"
"You know when you ask for something really hard? God's the guy who ignores you."
--- From The Island.