Please use this space to respectfully and intellectually debate the
issues surrounding stem cell research. Express your
opinion in a productive, focused and open-minded way. If any of your
posts have to be removed, you will lose classwork credit.
Background Info. Stem cell research usually uses cells from a pre-embryonic "human" to replace deteriorating cells in another person. The stem cells are taken before the cells differentiate functionally, so they can be used to replace "dead" or non-functioning cells anywhere in the body. Also, stem cells can reproduce many, many times without the typical deterioration, whereas specialized cells act similarly to an old Xerox machine.
Debate. The debate is over the controversy of whether or not the destruction of an pre-embryonic stage human is equivalent to murder. Pro-life activists do not support stem cell research, which is no surprise. Personally, I think these advancements should be utilized, especially considering it can be used to help cancer patients. I don't like that the possible human life is destroyed, but this does limit the population and make the quality of life for a person that has already developed. Scientists are currently researching methods to use stem cells that do not require eggs, eliminating the debate entirely.
I'm pro-life. I'm against it. I do realize that research is a good thing and we learn a lot from it, but people should be careful about what they do to get the research. .-.
I am pro-life as well, but as Jacob stated it can solve multiple varieties of issues. Choosing between destroying a life or possibly saving another is a very hard choice for me. As helpful as it sounds, due to my standards i would be against it.
Your reply does not provide any basis for your conclusion. It does not make a valid argument for the anti-stem cell standpoint. Please provide some sort of justification for your beliefs.
The National Institutes of Health state, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
Does this knowledge alter your stance on stem cell research?
STEM cell research is a good thing. In the case of miscarriages, dead babies on birth and etc., if the Mom is okay with it. If she okays it, then we can use the biotic material to aid in research of helping humans that are deaf, disabled, blind and etc.
I can see both sides with this because to a lot of people doing this would be like killing someone, but you have to look at the fact that it is beneficial even though it sounds very wrong to do this. It would help to find cures to many things. The only thing is that we would need to be extremely careful with how we would go about this as it could and up being disastrous.
I am personally against this because like Roorda stated, we have many different methods and technologies to research this kind of science. It may be more costly and time-consuming, but in the long-run we will find an easier way.
Please present evidence to substantiate your claim that "we have many different methods and technologies to research this kind of science. It may be more costly and time-consuming, but in the long-run we will find an easier way."
I do not see how we can properly research stem cells without using actual stem cells.
I have found a website from The National Institutes of Health that states, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
This information does prove your original point that there are alternative methods of stem cell research that do not necessitate the use of fetuses. Please disregard my previous post. However, it should also address your concerns about stem cell research. Does this change your stance on stem cell research?
I am also against stem cell research because it seems unethical. Using aborted fetuses for scientific gain kind of seems like fowl play. There should be other way sother than using fetuses.
Stem cell research is a good intention, but it isn't right. You are making a baby for materials? That is saying hey let me have a friend around, so i can blame him for everything. it is a major facepalm. If they found a natural way of stem cells (not really going to happen) that isnt killing a fetus i will be all for it.
I agree with you two to some extent. I believe scientist should try to find another "source" other than fetuses for Stem Cell Research. However, if the baby is going to die any way, then why not use it for the research? I know it may not sound ethical, but if it happened to you, you you would want the treatment to help yourself.
I also believe in a way that it is wrong. I mean, I went to see a man that had Cerebral palsy. He told stories of how his life went, his mother died when he was young. He went through a lot of bullying too. When he grew up, he was very successful and is known on a national basis. You may ask "What does this have to do with the topic?" Well, a child that may be killed for this process could become a successful. Some people may say, "Oh, it is just a soon-to-be child. It doesn't have feeling anyway." That "soon-to-be child may grow up to be president one day.
@Duncan: You argue that "Stem cell research is a good intention, but it isn't right. You are making a baby for materials? That is saying hey let me have a friend around, so i can blame him for everything. it is a major facepalm."
I do not understand your line of reasoning. You appear to be arguing that creating a baby for research use is wrong. However, stem cell research can be performed on aborted fetuses. People are not specifically making babies for research.
If I have misunderstood your argument, please restate it using clear terms.
@Josiah: Saying "That "soon-to-be child may grow up to be president one day." does not constitute a valid argument. Your statement is completely anecdotal.
I have found a website from The National Institutes of Health that states, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
This information should address everybody's concerns about stem cell research.
like taeja said up there i can see both sides to the arguement but i think it has more pros than cons. i mean it is pretty sad that we have to take away possible lives but we gain so kuch knowledge from doing so, it might limit the cost of lives later. not only that but René Réaumur hypothesised that animals were regenerating limbs because their cells "knew" when and where to do it. i mean imagine being able to regenerate your arm if it has to become amputated i mean thats amazing!
I am on the fence about this topic. I think abortion is wrong, but then again you can't change peoples minds if they are going to get an abortion. So instead of that baby being killed and not used you can use it for stem cell research.
Well, this is a little bit off-topic but in Japan, it's a tradition to keep your umbilical cord (your mom is supposed to keep it and give it to you when you leave the house for college or whatever).
well there are women out there that get abortions because they do not mean to get pregnant, so they get an abortion, and the dead fetus can either be put in a garbage bag or can be sent off to help with stem cell research.
i dont see why someone would get an abortion if they didnt want one. some poeple actually want ot get abortions because they didnt want to have a baby or some other alternate reason. either way for the people who do get abortions, why not allow that unnborn child be a part of something has the potential to save lives?
Stem Cell research is ethical in my opinion because it helps the living people survive longer. I know that people will say oh, abortion is wrong, but like Morgan said, if somebody does not want the baby, you can not change their mind. If they are getting rid of their baby, then why not use it for Stem cell research?
To me, stem cell research is more positive than negative. Babies will be aborted either way you look at it, but it doesn't help anyone for them to die for no reason. Letting the embryos die but not using them to benefit people that are already living is the real problem. Some people actually need this to survive and stem cells are a good way to get it.
I agree with you. If we are looking at this from the abortion viewpoint, then I say yes, go for stem cell research! Babies are going to be aborted no matter what or who tells them they can't, so why not use the aborted fetuses (done by experienced doctors in a safe environment) to make other people better? I personally think the most 'controversial' part of this subject is the fact that this requires fetuses. If people did abortions in places besides doctors offices, then you may have lost the chance to save someone.
However, that's not to say that some people don't abuse stem cell research. I've heard of companies using stem cell research to improve flavor in drinks, so it all depends on how far you go and what you want to use your research for.
I am definitely for stem cell research. I understand that to some people that it seems like there is a life being taken just for this cause, but that is not the case. The cells came from the already aborted babies. so, instead of throwing the fetus away in a chemical waste basket; they use the already dead baby for helping that of others. Also, they dont have to take the cells from the fetus; they can also be harvested from umbilical cords.(like Raymond stated) all i am saying is one way or another the baby will die, why not use it as a chance to cure people? What if the cure to all of these horrible disease out in the world are in this stem cell research? But, no one wants to take a chance; because people dont want to harm an already dead baby.
Okay, so I am pro-life. I am completely against them using the embryonic cells of an unborn child. Yeah, I undersand that it could be helping a cancer patient or someone els. But sadly the fact it, their genes are resbonsible for them getting cancer, it was already pre determined. And who is to say that the stem cells are actually going to help them? What if they did not, then that person has probably lost their life, and so has an innocent unborn child, that has FINGERNAILS. It is murder, plain and simple. I would be okay with the stem cell stuff if it was not harming poor babies.
I have found a website from The National Institutes of Health that states, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
This information should address your concerns about stem cell research. The cells being cultured in lab dishes certainly do not have fingernails.
@David: I will begin by saying that I agree with the idea of Stem Cell research. If you or anyone else considers the embryo, from the instant of fertilization, to be human, does the fact that the embryo was not fertilized in a human change its status of being human?
If it was the case that a zygote was, objectively, a human being, then I suppose that this method of stem cell research would not solve the issue that many anti-abortionists have.
However, I question the belief that a zygote constitutes a human being.
If you present some sort of rationale for the belief that a zygote is a human being (which does not have to be your own), we can continue this discussion.
The usual argument that the pro-life circle presents is that because a zygote has the potential to be a human, it should be considered one. The problem with this argument is that it can be applied to any step of the reproductive process.
If you say that a zygote has the potential to become a human being, what is to prevent you from taking the next step and saying that sperm and eggs have the potential to be human beings and therefore are also humans?
You could then say that any act of consensual sex has the potential to result in a human being and therefore should be treated as a human. Birth control would then be seen as murder.
My question to the proponents of this argument is as follows: if an act of sex, separate sperm and eggs, and a zygote all have the potential to produce a human being, what are the differences among them that make a zygote a human and the others not?
It could be argued that sperm and eggs are separate entities that come together to produce a human and are not individually humans. However, there is also a significant issue with this argument. A zygote, individually, does not have the capacity to become a human. It requires the nourishment of the mother to develop into a baby. We are then back to the original dilemma: what is the difference that makes a zygote a human but sperm and eggs not?
I am absolutely against this because I am Pro-Life. I realized that it can help cancer patients, which my mom is a one. But i don't think my mom would want a BABY, not a fetus, to die for her. That baby is alive, and i wouldn't be able to do anything like that to one. It is just so wrong. The idea is great, but the way that they are doing it is absolutely terrible.
I have found a website from The National Institutes of Health that states, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
This information should address your concerns about stem cell research.
As a few people have said above, I believe that it is good. I think Morgan's idea (about using the fetuses that were about to be aborted for research) is a good idea. I see how some people think it's unethical to kill the unborn child, but I think that the things that we can gain from the research is beneficial.
if i had to choose a side i would say it is ok because, like the discussion me and Mrs. Fleener had, what if the women was going to get an abortion anyway. Instead of just killing the baby and it getting incinerated it is donated to science to help research for many thing like finding a cure for cancer.
There appears to be a significant contention that stem cell research necessitates the death of fetuses and is therefore morally and ethically wrong. This contention comes mainly from the pro-life (anti-abortion) circle.
I would like to pose a question to this group.
If you are against stem cell research because it involves the use of human fetuses, what would you say to the people who will die because we do not have the results that stem cell research can give us?
You have to realize that the research needs only to be done one time. Once we have the knowledge we need, we will be able to save an infinite number of lives.
ok, i am so confused on what stem research is. so they they use a fetus to save people with cancer or other diseases right??? and they can use it if people want an abortion right?? if that is the case than i would say i am in between on this one. if people want an abortion than why not use it to save lives? i mean you probably don't even know what that person has been through. dont judge with people that want maybe not even want an abortion. anyway, if people want to use a baby's cells and the baby or unborn child is going to die anyway, don't just waste 2 lifes at once, you can save one life at least. so i guess i am for this.
Stem cell research can be beneficial in the long-run. Sure, human fetuses might be destroyed, but how will the human race advance forward without making sacrifices? After all, no pain no gain.
Judging by all the facts above, it would seem that stem cell research could prove to be an amazing advancement to the society we all live in today. As much as I praise the idea of improvement, i simply could not take the life of another for research. It is just too unethical for me and I am sure many others would agree.
I just found a website from the National Institutes of Health that contains a significant amount of information about stem cells. I found the following paragraph to be of particular relevance to the current debate.
"Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth. In addition, in many tissues they serve as a sort of internal repair system, dividing essentially without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential either to remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell."
This information presents the possibility that perhaps, stem cell research and the use of stem cells in medicine does not necessitate the death of fetuses. It appears to be possible to simply culture stem cells as required. This possibility addresses many concerns held by anti-abortionists.
The website can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/
The paragraph I mentioned can be found on this page: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1.asp
Further support of my point is found on this page: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
Here, the following paragraph is found.
"Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body."
I believe that the number lives that could be saved through stem cell outweigh the numbers of children that have POTENTIALLY been killed. I say potentially due to the question of "At what point is an embryo considered a human, and does it need to have been fertilized within a human body?" If an embryo is considered to be a human of equal status as you or me, then the use of embryos should not be allowed. If I were to look at this from a religious standpoint (I am a Catholic), I would not be able to agree with the idea as the embryo, though unborn, is my brother/sister. Despite this, I still think that Stem Cell research is worth continuing.
As I have previously demonstrated, stem cell research does not require an abortion.
As the National Institutes of Health state, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
I never said it had to be an abortion, but on the sense that someone was to give up his or her baby, then they might as well as give it to Stem Cell Research.
Like cloning of people, I am against stem cell research. It seems morally wrong to me. I feel that using aborted fetuses, as mentioned above, is mostly wrong. The moral wrongs of this topic are far greater than the good bits of scientific knowledge gained.
Personally, I am against Stem Cell Research because it is wrong. Not only are there moral implications to think about, but there is funding and judgement. Stem Cell Research is morally wrong. I mean, who are we to play God (or whoever you believe in). This is exactly the reason the world is in the state that it is today because people want to keep testing the limits of their abilities, and when they reach those limits, they are compelled to come up with ways to further advance their abilities. Now, I am not going to sit here and pretend that the Stem Cell Research already conducted has proven that it has supposedly great health benefits for cancer patients, etc., but it is wrong. I am always for life, and if it will require a human life to be lost to save another, then I am absolutely against it. And there is always the off chance that the process of giving someone the Stem Cells will not work, so if it does not, you have just murdered an innocent little creature for no good reason--very similar to ivory-hunters or whalers.
You state that "Stem Cell Research is morally wrong. I mean, who are we to play God (or whoever you believe in)."
However, claiming that stem cell research constitutes playing god is not a valid argument against the practice of stem cell research. Please make a solid, logical argument.
You state that "This is exactly the reason the world is in the state that it is today because people want to keep testing the limits of their abilities, and when they reach those limits, they are compelled to come up with ways to further advance their abilities."
This is a blatant red herring. Testing the limit of human ability has no bearing on the ethical value of stem cell research.
You state that "Now, I am not going to sit here and pretend that the Stem Cell Research already conducted has proven that it has supposedly great health benefits for cancer patients, etc., but it is wrong."
I assume you mean to say that you are "not going to sit here and pretend that the Stem Cell Research already conducted hasn't proven that it has supposedly great health benefits for cancer patients, etc." If this is not the case, please restate your argument more clearly.
You argue that "I am always for life, and if it will require a human life to be lost to save another, then I am absolutely against it."
I have already demonstrated with evidence that stem cell research does not require the death of humans. Please see the following webpage: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
This website clearly states that "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body."
You state that "And there is always the off chance that the process of giving someone the Stem Cells will not work, so if it does not, you have just murdered an innocent little creature for no good reason..."
This argument is a non sequitur. A chance of failure does not make a practice unethical. Many people undergo radiotherapy for cancer, for example, which could quite easily fail. However, the potential benefits outweigh the associated risks.
Background Info.
ReplyDeleteStem cell research usually uses cells from a pre-embryonic "human" to replace deteriorating cells in another person. The stem cells are taken before the cells differentiate functionally, so they can be used to replace "dead" or non-functioning cells anywhere in the body. Also, stem cells can reproduce many, many times without the typical deterioration, whereas specialized cells act similarly to an old Xerox machine.
Debate.
The debate is over the controversy of whether or not the destruction of an pre-embryonic stage human is equivalent to murder. Pro-life activists do not support stem cell research, which is no surprise. Personally, I think these advancements should be utilized, especially considering it can be used to help cancer patients. I don't like that the possible human life is destroyed, but this does limit the population and make the quality of life for a person that has already developed. Scientists are currently researching methods to use stem cells that do not require eggs, eliminating the debate entirely.
I'm pro-life. I'm against it. I do realize that research is a good thing and we learn a lot from it, but people should be careful about what they do to get the research. .-.
ReplyDeletePlease explain your rationale further. This statement does not constitute a valid argument.
DeleteI am pro-life as well, but as Jacob stated it can solve multiple varieties of issues. Choosing between destroying a life or possibly saving another is a very hard choice for me. As helpful as it sounds, due to my standards i would be against it.
DeleteYour reply does not provide any basis for your conclusion. It does not make a valid argument for the anti-stem cell standpoint. Please provide some sort of justification for your beliefs.
DeleteThe National Institutes of Health state, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here:
Deletehttp://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
Does this knowledge alter your stance on stem cell research?
This is very good, and can solve multiple physical, and possibly mental problems. The fetus would die anyway, so there is no harm.
ReplyDeleteSTEM cell research is a good thing. In the case of miscarriages, dead babies on birth and etc., if the Mom is okay with it. If she okays it, then we can use the biotic material to aid in research of helping humans that are deaf, disabled, blind and etc.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is very good but i think people should be careful and cautious.
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides with this because to a lot of people doing this would be like killing someone, but you have to look at the fact that it is beneficial even though it sounds very wrong to do this. It would help to find cures to many things. The only thing is that we would need to be extremely careful with how we would go about this as it could and up being disastrous.
ReplyDeleteI am personally against this because like Roorda stated, we have many different methods and technologies to research this kind of science. It may be more costly and time-consuming, but in the long-run we will find an easier way.
ReplyDeletePlease present evidence to substantiate your claim that "we have many different methods and technologies to research this kind of science. It may be more costly and time-consuming, but in the long-run we will find an easier way."
DeleteI do not see how we can properly research stem cells without using actual stem cells.
I have found a website from The National Institutes of Health that states, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here:
Deletehttp://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
This information does prove your original point that there are alternative methods of stem cell research that do not necessitate the use of fetuses. Please disregard my previous post. However, it should also address your concerns about stem cell research. Does this change your stance on stem cell research?
I am also against stem cell research because it seems unethical. Using aborted fetuses for scientific gain kind of seems like fowl play. There should be other way sother than using fetuses.
ReplyDeleteStem cell research is a good intention, but it isn't right. You are making a baby for materials? That is saying hey let me have a friend around, so i can blame him for everything. it is a major facepalm. If they found a natural way of stem cells (not really going to happen) that isnt killing a fetus i will be all for it.
DeleteI agree with you two to some extent. I believe scientist should try to find another "source" other than fetuses for Stem Cell Research. However, if the baby is going to die any way, then why not use it for the research? I know it may not sound ethical, but if it happened to you, you you would want the treatment to help yourself.
DeleteI also believe in a way that it is wrong. I mean, I went to see a man that had Cerebral palsy. He told stories of how his life went, his mother died when he was young. He went through a lot of bullying too. When he grew up, he was very successful and is known on a national basis. You may ask "What does this have to do with the topic?" Well, a child that may be killed for this process could become a successful. Some people may say, "Oh, it is just a soon-to-be child. It doesn't have feeling anyway." That "soon-to-be child may grow up to be president one day.
DeleteThough I also understand that it may help future generations against mutations and etc.
Delete@Duncan:
DeleteYou argue that "Stem cell research is a good intention, but it isn't right. You are making a baby for materials? That is saying hey let me have a friend around, so i can blame him for everything. it is a major facepalm."
I do not understand your line of reasoning. You appear to be arguing that creating a baby for research use is wrong. However, stem cell research can be performed on aborted fetuses. People are not specifically making babies for research.
If I have misunderstood your argument, please restate it using clear terms.
@Josiah:
Saying "That "soon-to-be child may grow up to be president one day." does not constitute a valid argument. Your statement is completely anecdotal.
I have found a website from The National Institutes of Health that states, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here:
Deletehttp://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
This information should address everybody's concerns about stem cell research.
like taeja said up there i can see both sides to the arguement but i think it has more pros than cons. i mean it is pretty sad that we have to take away possible lives but we gain so kuch knowledge from doing so, it might limit the cost of lives later. not only that but René Réaumur hypothesised that animals were regenerating limbs because their cells "knew" when and where to do it. i mean imagine being able to regenerate your arm if it has to become amputated i mean thats amazing!
ReplyDeleteI am on the fence about this topic. I think abortion is wrong, but then again you can't change peoples minds if they are going to get an abortion. So instead of that baby being killed and not used you can use it for stem cell research.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the umbilical cord? We can use those in stem cell research. No abortions are needed.
ReplyDeleteI know that this sounds funny but most people actually want to keep their kid's umbilical cord
DeleteWell, this is a little bit off-topic but in Japan, it's a tradition to keep your umbilical cord (your mom is supposed to keep it and give it to you when you leave the house for college or whatever).
Deletewell there are women out there that get abortions because they do not mean to get pregnant, so they get an abortion, and the dead fetus can either be put in a garbage bag or can be sent off to help with stem cell research.
Deletei dont see why someone would get an abortion if they didnt want one. some poeple actually want ot get abortions because they didnt want to have a baby or some other alternate reason. either way for the people who do get abortions, why not allow that unnborn child be a part of something has the potential to save lives?
DeleteStem Cell research is ethical in my opinion because it helps the living people survive longer. I know that people will say oh, abortion is wrong, but like Morgan said, if somebody does not want the baby, you can not change their mind. If they are getting rid of their baby, then why not use it for Stem cell research?
ReplyDeleteTo me, stem cell research is more positive than negative. Babies will be aborted either way you look at it, but it doesn't help anyone for them to die for no reason. Letting the embryos die but not using them to benefit people that are already living is the real problem. Some people actually need this to survive and stem cells are a good way to get it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. If we are looking at this from the abortion viewpoint, then I say yes, go for stem cell research! Babies are going to be aborted no matter what or who tells them they can't, so why not use the aborted fetuses (done by experienced doctors in a safe environment) to make other people better? I personally think the most 'controversial' part of this subject is the fact that this requires fetuses. If people did abortions in places besides doctors offices, then you may have lost the chance to save someone.
DeleteHowever, that's not to say that some people don't abuse stem cell research. I've heard of companies using stem cell research to improve flavor in drinks, so it all depends on how far you go and what you want to use your research for.
I am definitely for stem cell research. I understand that to some people that it seems like there is a life being taken just for this cause, but that is not the case. The cells came from the already aborted babies. so, instead of throwing the fetus away in a chemical waste basket; they use the already dead baby for helping that of others. Also, they dont have to take the cells from the fetus; they can also be harvested from umbilical cords.(like Raymond stated) all i am saying is one way or another the baby will die, why not use it as a chance to cure people? What if the cure to all of these horrible disease out in the world are in this stem cell research? But, no one wants to take a chance; because people dont want to harm an already dead baby.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so I am pro-life. I am completely against them using the embryonic cells of an unborn child. Yeah, I undersand that it could be helping a cancer patient or someone els. But sadly the fact it, their genes are resbonsible for them getting cancer, it was already pre determined. And who is to say that the stem cells are actually going to help them? What if they did not, then that person has probably lost their life, and so has an innocent unborn child, that has FINGERNAILS. It is murder, plain and simple. I would be okay with the stem cell stuff if it was not harming poor babies.
ReplyDeleteI have found a website from The National Institutes of Health that states, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here:
Deletehttp://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
This information should address your concerns about stem cell research. The cells being cultured in lab dishes certainly do not have fingernails.
@David: I will begin by saying that I agree with the idea of Stem Cell research. If you or anyone else considers the embryo, from the instant of fertilization, to be human, does the fact that the embryo was not fertilized in a human change its status of being human?
DeleteIf it was the case that a zygote was, objectively, a human being, then I suppose that this method of stem cell research would not solve the issue that many anti-abortionists have.
DeleteHowever, I question the belief that a zygote constitutes a human being.
If you present some sort of rationale for the belief that a zygote is a human being (which does not have to be your own), we can continue this discussion.
The usual argument that the pro-life circle presents is that because a zygote has the potential to be a human, it should be considered one. The problem with this argument is that it can be applied to any step of the reproductive process.
DeleteIf you say that a zygote has the potential to become a human being, what is to prevent you from taking the next step and saying that sperm and eggs have the potential to be human beings and therefore are also humans?
You could then say that any act of consensual sex has the potential to result in a human being and therefore should be treated as a human. Birth control would then be seen as murder.
My question to the proponents of this argument is as follows: if an act of sex, separate sperm and eggs, and a zygote all have the potential to produce a human being, what are the differences among them that make a zygote a human and the others not?
It could be argued that sperm and eggs are separate entities that come together to produce a human and are not individually humans. However, there is also a significant issue with this argument. A zygote, individually, does not have the capacity to become a human. It requires the nourishment of the mother to develop into a baby. We are then back to the original dilemma: what is the difference that makes a zygote a human but sperm and eggs not?
DeleteI am absolutely against this because I am Pro-Life. I realized that it can help cancer patients, which my mom is a one. But i don't think my mom would want a BABY, not a fetus, to die for her. That baby is alive, and i wouldn't be able to do anything like that to one. It is just so wrong. The idea is great, but the way that they are doing it is absolutely terrible.
ReplyDeleteI have found a website from The National Institutes of Health that states, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here:
Deletehttp://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
This information should address your concerns about stem cell research.
Stem-cell research helps prevent diseases like cancer, but your using pre-embryonic HUMAN cells.?!
ReplyDeleteAs a few people have said above, I believe that it is good. I think Morgan's idea (about using the fetuses that were about to be aborted for research) is a good idea. I see how some people think it's unethical to kill the unborn child, but I think that the things that we can gain from the research is beneficial.
ReplyDeleteif i had to choose a side i would say it is ok because, like the discussion me and Mrs. Fleener had, what if the women was going to get an abortion anyway. Instead of just killing the baby and it getting incinerated it is donated to science to help research for many thing like finding a cure for cancer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. You worded that way better than I did, but what you said was exactly what I meant.
DeleteThere appears to be a significant contention that stem cell research necessitates the death of fetuses and is therefore morally and ethically wrong. This contention comes mainly from the pro-life (anti-abortion) circle.
ReplyDeleteI would like to pose a question to this group.
If you are against stem cell research because it involves the use of human fetuses, what would you say to the people who will die because we do not have the results that stem cell research can give us?
You have to realize that the research needs only to be done one time. Once we have the knowledge we need, we will be able to save an infinite number of lives.
ok, i am so confused on what stem research is. so they they use a fetus to save people with cancer or other diseases right??? and they can use it if people want an abortion right?? if that is the case than i would say i am in between on this one. if people want an abortion than why not use it to save lives? i mean you probably don't even know what that person has been through. dont judge with people that want maybe not even want an abortion. anyway, if people want to use a baby's cells and the baby or unborn child is going to die anyway, don't just waste 2 lifes at once, you can save one life at least. so i guess i am for this.
ReplyDeletesorry i ment to say stem cell research
ReplyDeleteStem cell research can be beneficial in the long-run. Sure, human fetuses might be destroyed, but how will the human race advance forward without making sacrifices? After all, no pain no gain.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like sarcasm, but I could be wrong.
DeleteJudging by all the facts above, it would seem that stem cell research could prove to be an amazing advancement to the society we all live in today. As much as I praise the idea of improvement, i simply could not take the life of another for research. It is just too unethical for me and I am sure many others would agree.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI just found a website from the National Institutes of Health that contains a significant amount of information about stem cells. I found the following paragraph to be of particular relevance to the current debate.
ReplyDelete"Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth. In addition, in many tissues they serve as a sort of internal repair system, dividing essentially without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential either to remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell."
This information presents the possibility that perhaps, stem cell research and the use of stem cells in medicine does not necessitate the death of fetuses. It appears to be possible to simply culture stem cells as required. This possibility addresses many concerns held by anti-abortionists.
The website can be found here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/
The paragraph I mentioned can be found on this page:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1.asp
Further support of my point is found on this page:
Deletehttp://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
Here, the following paragraph is found.
"Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body."
I believe that the number lives that could be saved through stem cell outweigh the numbers of children that have POTENTIALLY been killed. I say potentially due to the question of "At what point is an embryo considered a human, and does it need to have been fertilized within a human body?"
ReplyDeleteIf an embryo is considered to be a human of equal status as you or me, then the use of embryos should not be allowed.
If I were to look at this from a religious standpoint (I am a Catholic), I would not be able to agree with the idea as the embryo, though unborn, is my brother/sister.
Despite this, I still think that Stem Cell research is worth continuing.
This is only right if someone is going to have an abortion.
ReplyDeleteAs I have previously demonstrated, stem cell research does not require an abortion.
DeleteAs the National Institutes of Health state, "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." This quote can be found here:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
I never said it had to be an abortion, but on the sense that someone was to give up his or her baby, then they might as well as give it to Stem Cell Research.
DeleteLike cloning of people, I am against stem cell research. It seems morally wrong to me. I feel that using aborted fetuses, as mentioned above, is mostly wrong. The moral wrongs of this topic are far greater than the good bits of scientific knowledge gained.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am against Stem Cell Research because it is wrong. Not only are there moral implications to think about, but there is funding and judgement. Stem Cell Research is morally wrong. I mean, who are we to play God (or whoever you believe in). This is exactly the reason the world is in the state that it is today because people want to keep testing the limits of their abilities, and when they reach those limits, they are compelled to come up with ways to further advance their abilities. Now, I am not going to sit here and pretend that the Stem Cell Research already conducted has proven that it has supposedly great health benefits for cancer patients, etc., but it is wrong. I am always for life, and if it will require a human life to be lost to save another, then I am absolutely against it. And there is always the off chance that the process of giving someone the Stem Cells will not work, so if it does not, you have just murdered an innocent little creature for no good reason--very similar to ivory-hunters or whalers.
ReplyDeleteYou state that "Stem Cell Research is morally wrong. I mean, who are we to play God (or whoever you believe in)."
DeleteHowever, claiming that stem cell research constitutes playing god is not a valid argument against the practice of stem cell research. Please make a solid, logical argument.
You state that "This is exactly the reason the world is in the state that it is today because people want to keep testing the limits of their abilities, and when they reach those limits, they are compelled to come up with ways to further advance their abilities."
This is a blatant red herring. Testing the limit of human ability has no bearing on the ethical value of stem cell research.
You state that "Now, I am not going to sit here and pretend that the Stem Cell Research already conducted has proven that it has supposedly great health benefits for cancer patients, etc., but it is wrong."
I assume you mean to say that you are "not going to sit here and pretend that the Stem Cell Research already conducted hasn't proven that it has supposedly great health benefits for cancer patients, etc." If this is not the case, please restate your argument more clearly.
You argue that "I am always for life, and if it will require a human life to be lost to save another, then I am absolutely against it."
I have already demonstrated with evidence that stem cell research does not require the death of humans. Please see the following webpage:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
This website clearly states that "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body."
You state that "And there is always the off chance that the process of giving someone the Stem Cells will not work, so if it does not, you have just murdered an innocent little creature for no good reason..."
This argument is a non sequitur. A chance of failure does not make a practice unethical. Many people undergo radiotherapy for cancer, for example, which could quite easily fail. However, the potential benefits outweigh the associated risks.