Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 69
  1. #21  
    [QUOTE]Do all the people who are against embryonic stem cell research feel the same way about in-vitro fertilization?

    Y'all know that thousands of embryos get "wasted" at these clinics every year, right? [\QUOTE]

    Don't know about all the rest, but I am not in favor of IVF.

    I know....but what about all the people who want to have children but can't?

    Adoption is wonderful institution for addressing that and several other needs.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    ...though I would have saved my daughter's life, I would never be able to forget the fact that I would have given the order to kill another person (however minute they were ) to do it.

    no thanks, folks, I don't think most are ready for that kind of guilt.
    Just to add some facts to the discussion: the stem cells you mean are not derived from babies, but from egg cells fertilized in vitro and grown in a petri dish - so, in contrast to what has been claimed repeatedly and falsly many times (also in this forum), it has nothing to do with abortion.

    The cells are "totipotent" (can be grown into all types of tissue) until about the 8 or 16 cell phase. In that state, they look like this:


    I don't think the term "person" applies in this case, though the field is open for discussion of course. But at least one should know what one is discussing.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3.    #23  
    CLULUP, MEYERWEB- READ.

    www.news.co.uk/1/hi/health/3854039.stm
  4.    #24  
    hang on - fixing the link..
  5.    #26  
    "dont expect much..." clulup?

    lol. believe me, the feeling is CERTAINLY mutual
  6. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    Sorry treobk214, but you got it TOTALLY wrong again. The article you posted is about reproductive cloning, which means creating a full-grown organism from a body cell. In the case of humans, this would mean taking some body cell from a man or a woman, letting it grow in a petri dish, then implanting the resulting embryo into a foster mother so that it becomes a fetus, and ultimately a baby etc... this process has been carried out e.g. with sheep ("Dolly" was the first) and mice and several other mammal species.

    HOWEVER: this process is illeagal in humans in most civilized nations, e.g. in Switzerland. It would be highly amoral because it would involve using thousands of human beings as "laboratory animals", and certainly thousands of babies would die in late stages of pregnancy or be born with severe defects, and even individuals who are apparently healthy may suffer from severe deficiencies later (this is what the article you posted is about).

    The stem cell research we are discussing here is about therapeutic cloning, which means growing certain tissues from stem cells, like e.g. liver tissue to replace parts of a destoyed liver, or brain tissue in order to cure Parkinson. This type of research is legal in many nations, but still a topic of controversy.

    Personally I think there are good arguments in favour of therapeutic cloning, but one has to be careful.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7.    #28  
    sigh... ahhh, clulup ..." TOTALLY WRONG, HMM?"

    read -

    www.cis.org.uk/articles/burke_stemcells.htm
  8. #29  
    Here is a 2004 review article by Dr. Takeuchi:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15151711

    Conclusion of the abstract

    .........this field will require rational rather than emotional reactions as a basis for legislation if the therapeutic promise of stem cell research and the experimental potential of nuclear transplantation techniques are to be fully realized.

    In other words, this person, like the overwhelming majority of doctors and scientists, feels that stem cells have therapeutic promise which should be fully realized.

    For people who are not so firmly rooted in their minds that they already block out all reason on the subject, here is an informative link from Stanford University School of Medicine:

    http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/...stem-main.html
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 10/29/2004 at 01:11 PM.
  9.    #30  
    I like your attempts to try and say I am against ALL scientific progress.

    its amusing guys. my profession is healthcare.
    opposing progress would be quite a conflict of interests, would it not?
  10. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    I like your attempts to try and say I am against ALL scientific progress.

    its amusing guys. my profession is healthcare.
    opposing progress would be quite a conflict of interests, would it not?
    no I say you are just wrong on the stem cell issue thats all.
    I am in healthcare too, I am sure we agree on other things.
  11. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Here is a 2004 review article by Dr. Takeuchi:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15151711

    Conclusion of the abstract

    .........this field will require rational rather than emotional reactions as a basis for legislation if the therapeutic promise of stem cell research and the experimental potential of nuclear transplantation techniques are to be fully realized.

    In other words, this person, like the overwhelming majority of doctors and scientists, feels that stem cells have therapeutic promise which should be fully realized.

    For people who are not so firmly rooted in their minds that they already block out all reason on the subject, here is an informative link from Stanford University School of Medicine:

    http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/...stem-main.html
    I find the appeal to "reason" fascinating, given that "doctors and scientists *feel* that stem cells have therapeutic promise..."

    What has the research to date yielded?
  12. #33  
    From the Stanford Article:

    {But most research proponents feel that the rights of a blastocyst are far outweighed by the need for new treatments and potential cures. And they do not consider blastocysts to be human beings per se. "I believe that the human embryo has some moral status, but it is quite different from the status of a living, breathing human who is desperately ill," explains Hank Greely, JD, a law professor with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. "I think human life is too sacred to let it be lost for lack of pursuing promising research avenues."}

    This was the same rationale that emboldened scientists to subject the "Tuskeegee Airmen" to Syphillis (See: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9002212)

    Granted, the distinction that is being drawn in the article (and in stem cell research debate) is between embryo and "living, breathing human." But, then the abortion debate looks for a distinction between the amount of development of the "embryo" (or in the extremem case of partial birth abortion, between in-utero and post-birth.)

    The truth is, we can always find a way to "rationalize" what we want to do. And, some have come to believe that when that rationalization is wrapped in the cloak of "science," it trumps all other ideas and ideologies.
  13. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I find the appeal to "reason" fascinating, given that "doctors and scientists *feel* that stem cells have therapeutic promise..."

    What has the research to date yielded?
    it is a "feeling" that is based on a great deal of scientific results. I am not going to spend my time citing article after article and then explaining it to you. sorry I have a job too

    but I am glad you are reading the Stanford article, but the article is written for the lay person without a ton of science background and is in general very informative.
  14. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The truth is, we can always find a way to "rationalize" what we want to do. And, some have come to believe that when that rationalization is wrapped in the cloak of "science," it trumps all other ideas and ideologies.
    Why shouldn't we can make discoveries that can save many lives from cells that would otherwise be discarded by infertility clinics?
  15. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    but the article is written for the lay person without a ton of science background and is in general very informative.
    It is actually written to convince people to support the research that the University wants to perform. Yet, it points to no tangible outcome of the research. It states that the scientists have hope, but does not cite the progress that yields such hope.

    It's whole focus is an effort to marginalize those who oppose its research goals on ethical/religious/moral grounds, as demonstrated by the 0closing quote:

    "in the end science will prevail"

    Dr. Pizzo surmises that the big question is "where will it take place?"

    In, fact, If this brand of science prevails, the big question is, "at what cost?"
  16. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Why shouldn't we can make discoveries that can save many lives from cells that would otherwise be discarded by infertility clinics?
    Because those cells should not be created and discarded in the first place.

    In fact, IVF is a prime example of the type of blatant disregard for life that concerns me. Millions of lives are being whimsically created and destroyed in the hopes of generating what amounts to so few births. You would think the process would be perfected by now. Yet, so many cells are discarded, while practitioners make sooooo much $$$$$ (which is the real issue at hand).
  17. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    sigh... ahhh, clulup ..." TOTALLY WRONG, HMM?"
    Yes, totally wrong, because the article you quoted was about the negative effects of reproductive cloning (creating whole organisms from a stem cell). As mentioned before, reproductive cloning is illeagal in many countries, and certainly not supported by Kerry. Even if you try to establish a link here, it does not exist - but well, one can always try, maybe somebody will fall for it?

    The stem cell research under discussion is about therapeutic cloning, which is about generating tissues and not about creating living organism. The stem cells involved can be derived from 8-cell stage cell clumps, from umbilical cords, from adult pluripotent stem cells, etc.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    IVF is a prime example of the type of blatant disregard for life that concerns me. Millions of lives are being whimsically created and destroyed in the hopes of generating what amounts to so few births.
    Correct me (and please, forgive me) if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that "fertilized egg" == "a life". Furthermore, it seems that you believe it to be "a human life". From that belief follows some pretty intense ethical considerations--namely, the idea that IVF results in the death of millions of human lives. What I don't understand is this: How can you believe such a thing is happening in the US, and talk so casually about it?

    This is something I've never understood about the anti-abortion mindset. Am I missing something, or mis-interpreting your statements?

    Nareau
  19. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    What has the research to date yielded?
    With more of that kind of thinking, there would never have been vaccines, antibiotics, no medicine in general, no engineering, no science, nothing. We would still live in Middle Age with famines, sky high infant mortality rates, etc.

    Lucky there were people who were not discouraged by such questions - or would you prefer living without the results of scientific progres?

    This doesn't mean we should allow science to do everything, but it certainly is the wrong question to ask at such an early stage of a new field of research.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions