With or against stem cells?

SpyroandCynder4EVAH · Oct 15, 2008 7:56 PM

Are you with or against stem cells and why or why not? If you don't know what stem cells are, feel free to ask I know a couple sites that might help.
I AM NOT TRYING TO START A FIGHT! I JUST WANT TO KNOW YOUR POINT OF VEIW!

I am against it because I believe playing God is wrong and hat we could go to hell for it. Not only that, but if you take a stem cell from the embrioe, you are killing that person. That person could be the one to find a cure for MRSA! You never know what a baby could do (if it was a baby you took it form ect)

Kazoobie64 · Oct 15, 2008 8:14 PM

Do you mean stem cell research? Because how can we be for or against stem cells if they exist and there's nothing we can do about it?

Either way I'm for it. I don't really want to get into why because I see that you are mentioning God and I know some way or another I'm going to start another religion vs. science argument without intending to, and I don't want to do that again.

RaidonMakoto · Oct 15, 2008 8:17 PM

Stem cell research is good. Provided the stem cells are taken from first trimester zygotes or fetuses, then go for it.

And you're not 'playing god' when doing stem cell research. You're using the stem cells to find cures for diseases that normally don't have a cure or clone new parts for people. Its all good.

SpyroandCynder4EVAH · Oct 15, 2008 8:20 PM

XD. This is like class today. We had a little debate (actually lasted 3 days. Today it ended) and the judge ended up undesicive.

Phoenix_Flyer · Oct 15, 2008 8:29 PM

It depends really. The issues arise because the stem cells are either taken from a fertilised embryo in the stage of a blastocyst or (what would be) the testes or ovaries of a miscarried or terminated embryo. They can also be taken from the bone marrow or peripherial blood of an adult. But these stem cells don't differentiate much and don't grow well in culture.
For those of you who are unsure, Stem Cells are used to test for cures to diseases and 'grow' new organs. Its only in its research stage. Stem cells are used because they are just plain cells with no function, they are undifferentiated. In nature, the early embryo is made of these stem cells and gradually they all change into the different cells that make up all of the organs. In the lab, scientists can give them chemical signals to differentiate (change) into the cells they want, like muscle cells. They can then test on them and don't have to test on animals and also people.

My opinion is this, if the stem cells were taken from a terminated, or miscarried babies' germ cells, no problem. The baby had died and wasn't going to live anyway. Similarly, blastocysts which were the leftover result of IVF treatment are (in my opinion) suitable. If they are leftover, you can argue that it was the lesser of two evils. The baby was extremely unlikely to have developed into a human being anyway (consider how low the success rate for IVF is), especially due to the fact that leftover fertilised eggs are frozen. So, isn't it justifiable that the embryo should be used instead to help forward medical treatments for the population thats already alive? Stems cells are only taken in this way and only in those circumstances. Its an exaggeration to say that scientists are taking away eggs and 'killing' the embryo just for research. They take them with permission and only the leftover ones. I recently wrote an essay on Stem Cells and their uses for Biology, so I know what I'm talking about (hence the essay! XD)
The main trouble is, are a couple of babies lives worth the maybe thousands of lives that could be saved if a cure to degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's is found? I would say yes.

Neotyguy40 · Oct 15, 2008 8:48 PM

Well, you must remember, taking a stem cell won't kill someone if they have not been born with (heck every month each stem cell dies out).

I am ok with it's research, because you need to think about some people that can't carry children, how it can help purify against cancer, and cell reproduction cures.

I am actually slightly insulted how you said we could go to hell for supporting it, especially right after you said you weren't trying to start a fight.

EDIT:

You also said that baby might be the one to find a cure for MRSA, but that would mean we would need to get everyone pregnant once a month to save EVERYONE...

Kamineko · Oct 15, 2008 8:50 PM

I'm all for them. "the baby could have cured blah blah blah" but the odds of that are insanely small, whereas the research helps us in the now.

I don't think it's playing God, I think it's humans making the most of the technology we have created.

Phoenix_Flyer · Oct 15, 2008 8:56 PM

Just to clarify, we're not talking about stem cells as in the ones in your brain. We're talking about a simple cell which has no job, mainly found in an early stage fertilised fetus. The reason they are so special is because they can be made to change into almost any cell from a human body by sending it the right signals.
I have another argument. There is also no need for loads of embryos to be used. Stem cells from an embryo are prefered over adult stem cells because they can change into many more different types of cells than the adult stem cells can. And stem cells from an embryo grow better in culture. We don't actually have to get loads of stem cells because you can get a few from many different types of individuals, then grow them in culture so you don't have to run out. Then, the argument that babies had to 'die' to supply them will be illegitamate, because they didn't.

SpyroandCynder4EVAH · Oct 15, 2008 8:57 PM

(not fighting. Just pointing this out) The technology deosn't count for its an item they are creating and not a living person, animal, ect.

Lancer232 · Oct 15, 2008 8:58 PM

I'm not sure if I'm for or against stem cells, and don't get me wrong, I do believe in God and such, but I don't think Stem Cell research is playing god, Cloning seems more likely to fit that category.

Phoenix_Flyer · Oct 15, 2008 8:59 PM

How does it not count when its used to save lives?

SpyroandCynder4EVAH · Oct 15, 2008 9:01 PM

It is??? I'm so stupid. But I don't think saving a life is against God, but cloning He might not want cause it could:
Over populate us
Kill so many animal (how. Um.. Abusing, hunting, like that they could go extinct!)

Neotyguy40 · Oct 15, 2008 9:08 PM

Wow... If you think that cloning is that bad, I wonder what your going to say when you find out they are planning a 50 year mission to terraform Mars...

Kazoobie64 · Oct 15, 2008 9:10 PM

I never saw the thrill in cloning. Ok yeah, you have a living mirror image of yourself. WOW for like ten minutes, now what? It seems it would get a little creepy after a while, and yeah it doesn't beat regular breeding.

Phoenix_Flyer · Oct 15, 2008 9:10 PM

Sorry, that was my fault. Its not used to save lives, yet. But if a cure is found then many thousands more lives will be saved than was lost. And, as I said, those lives were not going to take place anyway (or extremely unlikely). Therefore, I believe that the use of Stem Cells is the lesser of two evils and is OK.

EDIT: And I didn't say kill animals, I said test on animals, which is a whole other issue in its own right. Keep on the subject of Stem Cells. Research on Stem Cells has connections to many other fields of science such as genectic engineering. But we don't really want to go into that....

Kamineko · Oct 15, 2008 9:17 PM

Kazoobie64 wrote:

I never saw the thrill in cloning. Ok yeah, you have a living mirror image of yourself. WOW for like ten minutes, now what? It seems it would get a little creepy after a while, and yeah it doesn't beat regular breeding.

use the clones as spare parts for the original. "I need a new heart" "ok let's just slice up your clone"

Lancer232 · Oct 15, 2008 9:18 PM

I'm not against Terraforming (heck, I kinda support it), and by cloning I ment like cloning animals, and I was kinda pointing at when we reach the level to clone ourselves.

Kazoobie64 · Oct 15, 2008 9:18 PM

Atresac wrote:

use the clones as spare parts for the original. "I need a new heart" "ok let's just slice up your clone"

That poor clone, can't we just clone organs?

Phoenix_Flyer · Oct 15, 2008 9:20 PM

That poor clone, can't we just clone organs?

That's one of the uses of Stem Cells. They can be made to differentiate into many different kinds of cells, including heart cells. I'm pretty sure they have grown a rat heart, which worked.

Swaffy · Oct 15, 2008 9:21 PM

If you guys have a bunch of questions about cloning, etc, search Google.
It will help you. *listens to Slow Ride by Foghat* You guys will learn
a lot from research. Ugh... but it's boring, though.
-.- RESEARCH MAKES SLEEPY PEOPLE.

Phoenix_Flyer · Oct 15, 2008 9:22 PM

If you research something you're interested in, then its not. wink

Rurikredwolf · Oct 15, 2008 9:26 PM

This was a question on my quiz....I am rather indeiferant on this.

Spyrorocks · Oct 15, 2008 10:05 PM

I don't think much of the issue is using stem cells, but obtaining them. I know very little on the subject, but I think it can be compared to removing organs from those who have died in order to give someone a transplant. The person no longer can use the organs, so why not put them to use?

Swaffy · Oct 15, 2008 10:16 PM

That's true. Why have something if you can't use it? Like owning a car
with no wheels. Dead people's organs, spleen, etc. can be used to keep
people that are alive... alive.

Kamineko · Oct 15, 2008 11:16 PM

But that's very limited. Stem cells can become anything the body needs, not just organs.

#1 Oct 15, 2008 7:56 PM

With or against stem cells?

#2 Oct 15, 2008 8:14 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#3 Oct 15, 2008 8:17 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#4 Oct 15, 2008 8:20 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#5 Oct 15, 2008 8:29 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#6 Oct 15, 2008 8:48 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#7 Oct 15, 2008 8:50 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#8 Oct 15, 2008 8:56 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#9 Oct 15, 2008 8:57 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#10 Oct 15, 2008 8:58 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#11 Oct 15, 2008 8:59 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#12 Oct 15, 2008 9:01 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#13 Oct 15, 2008 9:08 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#14 Oct 15, 2008 9:10 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#15 Oct 15, 2008 9:10 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#16 Oct 15, 2008 9:17 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#17 Oct 15, 2008 9:18 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#18 Oct 15, 2008 9:18 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#19 Oct 15, 2008 9:20 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#20 Oct 15, 2008 9:21 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#21 Oct 15, 2008 9:22 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#22 Oct 15, 2008 9:26 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#23 Oct 15, 2008 10:05 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#24 Oct 15, 2008 10:16 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#25 Oct 15, 2008 11:16 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

Board footer