With or against stem cells?

Fletch_Talon · Oct 15, 2008 11:31 PM

Kazoobie64 wrote:

and yeah it doesn't beat regular breeding.

best anti-cloning argument ever

and i was of the impression that they can get stem cells from the umbilical cord which serves no use once the baby is born, but maybe like adult stem cells the cord cells arent as "potent"

also its kind of silly to claim that anything is "playing god" if god created all of everything, then surely he would have realised that it would one day be possible to do these things, to say that we are "playing god" without gods permission is like saying we've surpassed god by finding flaws and loopholes in his creation

Stormy · Oct 16, 2008 12:46 AM

[sub]Hmmm...

I'll admit I don't know much about this topic. Doesn't it involve creating a human embryo and obtaining cells from it?

If it's what Fletch_Talon just said, I have no problem with it. However, if it involves the death of the embryo, my feelings are conflicted. On one hand, an adult life is being saved, but on the other hand, a baby is being killed before it gets a chance at life.[/sub]

Aicebo · Oct 16, 2008 12:53 AM

WTF are stem cells?

Stormy · Oct 16, 2008 12:56 AM

[sub]Here you go.

It's one of many political/ethical controversial subjects right now. [/sub]

Aicebo · Oct 16, 2008 12:59 AM

Lulz I dun't get it.

A Guy · Oct 16, 2008 1:00 AM

If I am correct, stem cells are capable of turning into any other cells.

However, the method of obtaining stem cells is controversial, I believe, something to do with fetuses.

Fletch_Talon · Oct 16, 2008 2:02 AM

this is my understanding

stem cells are cells which have no purpose or have yet to be assigned a purpose
therefore stem cells are able to be used to repair/replace cells that arent working properly, because they can become any kind of cell

stem cells are found in adult bodies and in foetuses, umbilical cords and i think fertilised embryos
adult stem cells are not as effective as those in foetuses

thats the extent of my knowledge, as far asi know its all correct, as for the actual morals behind it, well, im still of the opinion that we need to figure out a point at which a cluster of cells (even if theyre vaguely human shaped) can actually be considered human life, if science can hurry up and give us a general idea (its not like theres an exact time where the foetus will magically go "poof" im a real boy) then we might just be able to put the abortion argument and the stem cell argument to rest...

ok its too much to wish for

Spyro_Loves_Me · Oct 16, 2008 5:19 AM

Heh, this is definitely something I haven't paid any attention on. Had to do a little Wiki on that one. :-P
But it's simple for me: if you have to take a life away for it, then no.

Phoenix_Flyer · Oct 16, 2008 7:26 AM

I did try explaining Stem Cells in my first post, but it is at A-Level standard so to some it may just be a load of cr*p. You don't create a fetus to get them. The problem is that what scientists use is a fertilised egg left over from IVF.
As most people know, IVF produces up to a dozen or more fertilised eggs, and obviously not all of them will be used. So, scientists ask permission, and then use them for stem cell research. An embryo at the best stage for stem cells is 9 days old, at this point its called a blastocyst.
The embryo is made up of a bunch of stem cells which, at this point, have no purpose. However, if it did develop into a baby, all of the stem cells would change into all of the different types of stem cells and create all the organs etc. This is why these stem cells are the best to use, because they can change into almost any cell. Scientists can give stem cells chemical signals and change them into the cells they want. They can then test on them, and try to find cures for diseases, without having to test on animals and stuff like that.
There are also stem cells in the umbilical cord, but, like adult stem cells (found in bone marrow and blood that moves around your body), they can't change into as many different types of cell. They can only change into some of the kinds of muscle cells, and some others I can't remember. You can also get stem cells from an embryos germ cells, which would turn into a baby's testes or ovaries. Scientists get these from terminated or miscarried babies.

ratchet · Oct 16, 2008 1:34 PM

Has anyone seen the Island, that Revolves around harvesting clones for body parts, watch it!

Can i ask some of you this, Every time A Woman has her period and waists her egg, is that Murder. Ofcource that baby could of Cured Cancer.
C'mon, God really wasn't very explicid on his "commandments", and if sinning saves 1000s or millions of lives, then what is sinning?
I support stem cell all the way, as well as genetic testing on animals. I know i sound cruel but its a small price to pay to help many people in the future.

Stormy · Oct 16, 2008 1:39 PM

ratchet wrote:

Can i ask some of you this, Every time A Woman has her period and waists her egg, is that Murder. Ofcource that baby could of Cured Cancer.

[sub]-__________-

There's a difference in that those eggs were not fertilized, meaning they had no chance at even becoming a baby in the first place. Not a baby, a cell. One cell, not two.[/sub]

ratchet · Oct 16, 2008 1:49 PM

It still COULD of become a baby, just like the Embrio.

Stormy · Oct 16, 2008 1:52 PM

[sub]You have to be realistic here. With all the millions of cells, every single one couldn't possibly become a baby. However, once it's fertilized, it has a very good chance.

In any case, you could apply the same logic to men and their millions of sperm. -_____-

Seriously, there has to be some kind of limit as to what's considered a potential baby and what isn't. Single cells, no. Fertilized eggs, yes. [/sub]

dragon protector x · Oct 16, 2008 2:43 PM

I am with them because when the cells develop and before the 2 end connect they are nothing but a blob of cells which makes them stem cells. When the 2 ends connect then thats when the cells are set to what they are going to develop. It is at that point of time when life is given to that blob of cells. Before for they connect they are not human, but just cells unsure of what they will be. The only life is the cell itself.

Kamineko · Oct 16, 2008 11:20 PM

Stormy wrote:

[sub]You have to be realistic here. With all the millions of cells, every single one couldn't possibly become a baby. However, once it's fertilized, it has a very good chance.
In any case, you could apply the same logic to men and their millions of sperm. -_____-
Seriously, there has to be some kind of limit as to what's considered a potential baby and what isn't. Single cells, no. Fertilized eggs, yes. [/sub]

Applying the logic to sperm is ridiculous, as is the entirety of the logic.

It's stupid to think "OH THIS BABY MIGHT CURE CANCER SOME DAY!!!!!" when in all actuality if the mother was considering an abortion she probably doesn't really want to raise a kid and can't afford it and the kid will end up growing up in a horrible place and will probably drop out of high school and deal drugs RARARARARARAARA

Stormy · Oct 16, 2008 11:26 PM

Atresac wrote:

Stormy wrote:
[sub]You have to be realistic here. With all the millions of cells, every single one couldn't possibly become a baby. However, once it's fertilized, it has a very good chance.
In any case, you could apply the same logic to men and their millions of sperm. -_____-
Seriously, there has to be some kind of limit as to what's considered a potential baby and what isn't. Single cells, no. Fertilized eggs, yes. [/sub]
Applying the logic to sperm is ridiculous, as is the entirety of the logic.
It's stupid to think "OH THIS BABY MIGHT CURE CANCER SOME DAY!!!!!" when in all actuality if the mother was considering an abortion she probably doesn't really want to raise a kid and can't afford it and the kid will end up growing up in a horrible place and will probably drop out of high school and deal drugs RARARARARARAARA

[sub]1. Did you read ratchet's post? I was responding to where he said it's "murder" when a woman has her period and the cells die. I was just a bit irked that he mentioned nothing about men.
2. What do you have against adoption? =P[/sub]

Kamineko · Oct 16, 2008 11:34 PM

Stormy wrote:

Atresac wrote:
Stormy wrote:
[sub]You have to be realistic here. With all the millions of cells, every single one couldn't possibly become a baby. However, once it's fertilized, it has a very good chance.
In any case, you could apply the same logic to men and their millions of sperm. -_____-
Seriously, there has to be some kind of limit as to what's considered a potential baby and what isn't. Single cells, no. Fertilized eggs, yes. [/sub]
Applying the logic to sperm is ridiculous, as is the entirety of the logic.
It's stupid to think "OH THIS BABY MIGHT CURE CANCER SOME DAY!!!!!" when in all actuality if the mother was considering an abortion she probably doesn't really want to raise a kid and can't afford it and the kid will end up growing up in a horrible place and will probably drop out of high school and deal drugs RARARARARARAARA
[sub]1. Did you read ratchet's post? I was responding to where he said it's "murder" when a woman has her period and the cells die. I was just a bit irked that he mentioned nothing about men.
2. What do you have against adoption? =P[/sub]

Well it's technically murder either way if you're going with the "potential life" argument.

Adoption is not something I'd suggest in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. At least 90% of adoption homes are filthy, disease-ridden places where the children are abused on a regular basis, and this is for years until they *might* eventually find someone to adopt them.

Stormy · Oct 16, 2008 11:37 PM

Well it's technically murder either way if you're going with the "potential life" argument.

[sub]Yes, that's what I mean. I'm trying to illustrate to ratchet how ridiculous his statement was, one, because he mentioned only women, and two, because not every cell can possibly become a baby.

I guess you have a point about the adoption thing, but the question then would be if it's better to not live at all. [/sub]

Kamineko · Oct 16, 2008 11:41 PM

Stormy wrote:

Well it's technically murder either way if you're going with the "potential life" argument.
[sub]Yes, that's what I mean. I'm trying to illustrate to ratchet how ridiculous his statement was.[/sub]

and he was arguing how ridiculous the "this embryo may someday be a doctor ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"

Stormy · Oct 16, 2008 11:43 PM

Atresac wrote:

Stormy wrote:
Well it's technically murder either way if you're going with the "potential life" argument.
[sub]Yes, that's what I mean. I'm trying to illustrate to ratchet how ridiculous his statement was.[/sub]
and he was arguing how ridiculous the "this embryo may someday be a doctor ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"

[sub]Well yeah. But I'm saying there has to be a middle ground in there somewhere. You can oppose abortion without considering a woman having her period "murder". [/sub]

Kazoobie64 · Oct 17, 2008 12:33 AM

Sure, anything can be considered murder if you look at it that way. Popping a wart is murder because you're killing cells. Having an abortion before 3 months into a pregnancy is murder because you're killing some cells that haven't even developed to be considered a baby! If you think it's wrong to mess with mother nature or destroy the POSSIBILITY of a baby, that's cool with me, but calling that sort of thing "baby killing" has always baffled me.

bmah · Oct 17, 2008 3:28 AM

Well people usually see babies as something precious, which of course is a way of thinking that's genetically coded into us, so that's probably why people use that strong adjective - "killing" a baby. We don't have the same kind of sympathy towards a bunch of cells comprising a wart (even though a baby is just a network of cells anyways - but we don't think in technical terms like this).

Fletch_Talon · Oct 17, 2008 12:01 PM

Stormy wrote:

[sub]You have to be realistic here. With all the millions of cells, every single one couldn't possibly become a baby. However, once it's fertilized, it has a very good chance.
In any case, you could apply the same logic to men and their millions of sperm. -_____-
Seriously, there has to be some kind of limit as to what's considered a potential baby and what isn't. Single cells, no. Fertilized eggs, yes. [/sub]

its funny you should say that

there are 2 christian beliefs im thinking of right now, a belief that contraception is wrong and a belief that *bleep* is wrong (if you dont know what *bleep* is ask your parents, just dont tell them you heard it on these forums because youll likely be banned from coming back)

now to my knowledge, the whole reason *bleep* is considered wrong is that its a waste of potential human life, and i would assume the same reasoning applies to contraception, so apparently if sperm isnt being used to get a woman preggers then its a waste and therefore youre killing potential human life and therefore you can go to hell for it

all this despite the fact that as ratchet has said, women dispose of unused sex cells frequently, and males sex cells are constantly dying and being replenished just as god made us

in other words i agree with you stormy, it is ridiculous to claim that the death of unfertilised sex cells is murder

as for fertilised cells, yes there is a very good chance itll grow into a human being, but why should that then be considered the same thing as being a child, some might argue that the cluster of cells, that "would be human" has a soul, but i cant imagine something without a mind, having a soul, but thats just my point of view

Phoenix_Flyer · Oct 17, 2008 12:07 PM

Personally, I agree with everything Fletch has just said. I couldn't have said it better myself.

dragon protector x · Oct 17, 2008 2:34 PM

Kazoobie64 wrote:

Sure, anything can be considered murder if you look at it that way. Popping a wart is murder because you're killing cells. Having an abortion before 3 months into a pregnancy is murder because you're killing some cells that haven't even developed to be considered a baby! If you think it's wrong to mess with mother nature or destroy the POSSIBILITY of a baby, that's cool with me, but calling that sort of thing "baby killing" has always baffled me.

Yes your killing cells but its cells...Cells die all the time but the real debate in this matter is on the Soul itself of a living being. Stem cells are cells that could become anything... Technecly if they still havent been decided apon what they going to make then they are nothing but a blob of cells. We still dont know when a body gets its soul, but we know that when the body stops functioning its soul is able to leave therfour it is dead. A body is nothing but a capsole for a soul. The capsole takes damage but the soul only feels it.

Stem Cells are just Cells. Its only the life of the cells untill they are decided till then maybe thats when the Cells gain a soul they bound around.

#26 Oct 15, 2008 11:31 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#27 Oct 16, 2008 12:46 AM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#28 Oct 16, 2008 12:53 AM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#29 Oct 16, 2008 12:56 AM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#30 Oct 16, 2008 12:59 AM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#31 Oct 16, 2008 1:00 AM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#32 Oct 16, 2008 2:02 AM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#33 Oct 16, 2008 5:19 AM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#34 Oct 16, 2008 7:26 AM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#35 Oct 16, 2008 1:34 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#36 Oct 16, 2008 1:39 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#37 Oct 16, 2008 1:49 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#38 Oct 16, 2008 1:52 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#39 Oct 16, 2008 2:43 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#40 Oct 16, 2008 11:20 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#41 Oct 16, 2008 11:26 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#42 Oct 16, 2008 11:34 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#43 Oct 16, 2008 11:37 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#44 Oct 16, 2008 11:41 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#45 Oct 16, 2008 11:43 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#46 Oct 17, 2008 12:33 AM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#47 Oct 17, 2008 3:28 AM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#48 Oct 17, 2008 12:01 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#49 Oct 17, 2008 12:07 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

#50 Oct 17, 2008 2:34 PM

Re: With or against stem cells?

Board footer