[_ Old Earth _] Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[Brokendoll]

I have some questions about people's opinions on Stem Cell Research, especially of the Embryonic kind. This is mainly for those Christians who are opposed to it, but of course, anyone is free to weigh in with their thoughts on the subject.


But first, let's lay down the premise:

Fact: Embryonic Stem Cells are an important research tool for scientists working on a greater understanding of cell division, embryonic development in addition to potential cures for hereditary diseases.

Fact: Due to IVF treatments we have a huge surplus of zygots (pre-faetus clumps of cells resulting from the merger of egg and sperm cells) numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Scientists wants to use these zygots for stem cell research instead of summary destruction, which is what would happen to them if not used for research.


Now for the questions:

1. Why are you opposed to embryonic stem cell research?

2. If the zygots are not used for stem cell research what would you like us to do with them?

3. Assuming you believe in a soul, at what point does the soul get attached to the body? At conception? At birth? Earlier? Later?

 

[jasoncran]

what about the far more promising adult stem cells with lower chances of rejection as they use your own.

there was a case in isreal in where a girl had stem cell(embroyininc) used for treatment. She had cancer one yr later and all the tissues were removed had the same genes as the embryonic stem cells donated..

to my knowledge adult stem cells have'nt had that problem.

 

[Brokendoll]

what about the far more promising adult stem cells with lower chances of rejection as they use your own.

there was a case in isreal in where a girl had stem cell(embroyininc) used for treatment. She had cancer one yr later and all the tissues were removed had the same genes as the embryonic stem cells donated..

to my knowledge adult stem cells have'nt had that problem.

My questions were not regarding adult stem cells, which, as you point out, has had some very promising results. This is not a discussion about either/or but rather I would like to know peoples opinions and possibly arguments against embryonic stem cell research on it's own terms.

 

[jasoncran]

1) less effective
2) we believe at conception the the person has a soul. as life begins there
3) keep them in storage or allow those that (couples) that cant have children to adopt that zygote and carry that to term.

 

[Brokendoll]

1) less effective

Again, this is not about a comparison between ASR and ESR. Also, as a research tool embryonic stem cells have several advantages over adult stem cells.

2) we believe at conception the the person has a soul. as life begins there

Very well. So does that mean that you are opposed to IVF treatments?
After all they produce a huge surplus of zygots which are now just being destroyed.

3) keep them in storage or allow those that (couples) that cant have children to adopt that zygote and carry that to term.

I'm pretty sure that a couple that is capable of carrying a zygot to term would rather have one based on their own sperm and egg cells.

And for what purpose would we keep them in storage?

 

[ChattyMute]

3) keep them in storage or allow those that (couples) that cant have children to adopt that zygote and carry that to term.

Keeping those zygotes in storage would cost more time and money than most would be willing to put into it. And why would we do that when there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already living who need to be adopted?

 

[Physicist]

Plain truth

3) keep them in storage or allow those that (couples) that cant have children to adopt that zygote and carry that to term.

Keeping those zygotes in storage would cost more time and money than most would be willing to put into it. And why would we do that when there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already living who need to be adopted?

The plain truth is that the zygotes will be destroyed if not used for research. The restriction on their use was one, of many, stupid policies of George W. Bush. Fortunately, we have a more intelligent occupant in the White House and a sensible policy reversal.

 

[jasoncran]

3) keep them in storage or allow those that (couples) that cant have children to adopt that zygote and carry that to term.

Keeping those zygotes in storage would cost more time and money than most would be willing to put into it. And why would we do that when there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already living who need to be adopted?

then why keep the elderly who have the incurable diseases alive then.after all they take a lot of money too.

 

[jasoncran]

physicts show me that embroynic has an advantag over adult stem cells.

and to address that thing on storage see the above post on the elderly. are our lives only money now, gotta love the culture of death.

 

[AAA]

3) keep them in storage or allow those that (couples) that cant have children to adopt that zygote and carry that to term.

Keeping those zygotes in storage would cost more time and money than most would be willing to put into it. And why would we do that when there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already living who need to be adopted?

then why keep the elderly who have the incurable diseases alive then.after all they take a lot of money too.

Old people are people.

Embryonic stem cells are not people.

You equate them because of your metaphysical belief that they both have souls, but you have not a shred of evidence that souls exist, so your argument is baseless.

 

[jasoncran]

you asked a christian point of view. that is what the op was about not what atheists think about it.

so life begins when the kid is born, correct. then why is it not ok for me to stab the would be pregnant girl and kill the child, yet she can go to a doc and have him do it for her.

not very consisitent. if a fetus that is a premature is born and is killed its murder, yet if it remains in the womb, then its ok to abort. no difference in size, just not born yet.

 

[Brokendoll]

you asked a christian point of view. that is what the op was about not what atheists think about it.

I also mentioned that other people were welcome to join in. ;)

so life begins when the kid is born, correct. then why is it not ok for me to stab the would be pregnant girl and kill the child, yet she can go to a doc and have him do it for her.

not very consisitent. if a fetus that is a premature is born and is killed its murder, yet if it remains in the womb, then its ok to abort. no difference in size, just not born yet.

I'm not sure what the rules are in the US, but in Norway you are not allowed to have an abortion after the 12th week of pregnancy, which is consistent with the development of the nervous system. The faetus would not be able to feel pain prior to this stage.

As for the elderly, well, they are people. We separate between actual people and clumps of cells, which by any scientific standard cannot be considered people.

Theoretically a piece of your skin could be stripped of it's DNA and introduced into an egg cell then stimulated to divide, thus potentially producing a new human (genetically identical to you by the way). Would you consider that clump of cells to be a person with it's own soul as well?

As for advantages of ESRs:
Embryonic stem cells are thought by most scientists and researchers to hold potential cures for spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders and much more. Scientists see almost infinite value in the use of embryonic stem cell research to understand human development and the growth and treatment of dieases.

Over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases that eventually may be treated more effectively or even cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Some researchers regard this as the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the advent of antibiotics. Most studies show that adult stem cells are less flexible and weaker than embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells do not last as long as embryonic stem cells. There is a greater quantity of embryonic stem cells as well.

Embryonic stem cells are a lot more readily avaliable than adult stem cells, they divide faster and has totipotency (i.e. the potential to become any type of cell) whereas adult stem cells only have pluripotency (i.e. the potential to become a limited number of types of cells).

 

[ChattyMute]

3) keep them in storage or allow those that (couples) that cant have children to adopt that zygote and carry that to term.

Keeping those zygotes in storage would cost more time and money than most would be willing to put into it. And why would we do that when there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already living who need to be adopted?

then why keep the elderly who have the incurable diseases alive then.after all they take a lot of money too.

Because the difference between the elderly and a zygote is that the elderly are already living.

 

[jasoncran]

even if ravaged by alzheimers and in the final stages? my grandpa (john) remember nothing later then the 1930's , didnt remember his grandkids or kids or wife (though long deceased). he died in the fetal position, his heart and liver and kidney failed at the same time.

so is that alive or dead to you.

 

[jasoncran]

really then why all negative reactions then to them? why has adult stem had more results. then the esr's.

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm what results according that site.

 

[ChattyMute]

even if ravaged by alzheimers and in the final stages? my grandpa (john) remember nothing later then the 1930's , didnt remember his grandkids or kids or wife (though long deceased). he died in the fetal position, his heart and liver and kidney failed at the same time.

so is that alive or dead to you.

He is physically alive. A more philosophical stance would be that he was the living dead due to his condition. At that point IMO, it is up to the individual if he/she wants to keep living. If the individual can't make that decision, partial decision is given the the family. But, that is just my opinion, and it is a bit off topic.

Your grandfather's condition doesn't change the fact that he was alive while a clump of cells is not.

 

[jasoncran]

but you arent allowing the clump of stell cells to be, you are arbitralary deciding that they dont have life or will. with that alzemheirs thing thing isnt much to diefferent then the right to die laws. you, not the person, with the conditions decided that they should die. after all its all philosophical then

i dont believe in the right to die laws.
never have never will. back to topic

 

[jasoncran]

the problem here isnt science alltogether but a philosophical question? medical ethics. that is where i have the main issue.

what is the definition of life, at birth or when the heart starts beating?

 

[ChattyMute]

but you arent allowing the clump of stell cells to be, you are arbitralary deciding that they dont have life or will. with that alzemheirs thing thing isnt much to diefferent then the right to die laws. you, not the person, with the conditions decided that they should die. after all its all philosophical then

i dont believe in the right to die laws.
never have never will. back to topic

I do. If a person wants to die, who are we to say said person have to keep living? My great-great uncle choose to die instead of living for years longer in a immobile state like my great-grandmother, his older sister, did. He choose that when he was capable of full thought before he got into that condition, and I support his choice. He died a few months ago.
That being said, a group of cells has not conscious thought or feelings.

-shrugs- Whatever.

 

[jasoncran]

My wife has bp and wants to die often. having bp is uncurable and hell for some we dont let them choose to die, yet we torture them with life.

no i'm advocating letting of them commit suicide, but this life to a christian is temporal and passing, we all are dying, the question is whats next. for me heaven. though cancer and such like will shake anyones faith, i know of some who have survived and grew in the lord.

gojubrian is a cancer survvivor. billy graham said the cancer he had was the best thing that happen to him. made him focus on God. He aslo prayed that it wouldnt be healed.

i'm not able to fully grasp that at all.

is science then a philosophy?