1
   

Stem cell research v. organ/tissue donation

 
 
The Gert One
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2004 12:26 pm
Look, as for life I am not going to snowball this. I drew a line. Human life only begins when there are enough chromosomes present to allow it to proceed into further development. A sperm will not grow into a human byitself and neither will an egg.

I eat a cow to live. I do not kill humans to live. That is one thing that has been taboo for most of civilized society and even before. Lions rarely eat lions, sharks rarely eat sharks. It is in desperate times that they turn on each other. I assure you we are not in those desperate times.

As for rape victims, there is technology present to help the fetus survive.
0 Replies
 
binnyboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2004 12:37 pm
You may not kill humans to live, but you sure do pay mercenaries to do it with your tax dollars.

And as for helping the fetuses in rape victims survive... that's not the point. The point is that these fetuses... the people they will become... are unwanted. That's why I used that example--to show that lives that CAN be should often be PREVENTED (by locking up rapists).
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2004 07:21 am
The Gert One wrote:
Look, as for life I am not going to snowball this. I drew a line.


And I can draw several others, for example brainfunctions, sentience and birth, why should your line trump mine?

Quote:
Human life only begins when there are enough chromosomes present to allow it to proceed into further development.


By your definition.

Quote:
A sperm will not grow into a human byitself and neither will an egg.


Nor will a cyst unles implanted into a uterus.

Quote:
I eat a cow to live.


Please resent cases of people who died from a balanced vegetarian diet.

Quote:
I do not kill humans to live.


Would you? In self defence?

I would, and more importantly, the law allows it.

Quote:
That is one thing that has been taboo for most of civilized society and even before.


Which society scoffed at killing in self defence?

Quote:
Lions rarely eat lions


Because lions are dangerous to hunt and kill

Quote:
sharks rarely eat sharks.


I'm torn between Shocked , Laughing and Rolling Eyes , which do you find more offensive?

Quote:
It is in desperate times that they turn on each other.


Predatory fish, sharks included, regularly eat their own kind. Anything eatable at the right size is eaten, regardless of species.

Quote:
I assure you we are not in those desperate times.


You're wrong, shark fetuses are canibalising eachother as I speak.

Quote:
As for rape victims, there is technology present to help the fetus survive.


Which tecnologies will allow a fetus to survive preventing the rape which would spawn it?


And why would you want to?
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 01:11 pm
Who killed the thread?
0 Replies
 
Lady J
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2004 01:30 pm
Einherjar wrote:
Who killed the thread?


I think it drowned in a sea of emotion. Sad
0 Replies
 
imleaving16
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 06:13 pm
stem cell research debate help
Hi! i am a new member here and haven't been keeping up with the posts. I am probably one of the younger members here, for I am still in school. The question that I had is about the negative view points of stem cell research. I am in a debate and the position assigned to me is stem cell research affirmative, which thankfully is my person view on the topic. I know much about this view point and am very educational on it, but I am not sure about a lot of the views on the negative side. I would really like to be well prepaired for the debate, and want to know some of the opposing view points on it. So, my question is, what are some of the view points of negative believers in stem cell research. I know that most of them are moral and ethical, but I would like to have those explained to me, and if possible, are they any view points about it that don't have to do with religion? If you have a response I would prefer you send it to my email ([email protected]) but if not posting a reply here would be acceptable. Thank you SO much! I really need the help for the upcoming debate (friday the 17th!!!).
-Lil Rano
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 09:16 pm
People arguing against stemcell research tend to want to define life as beginning at conception, and assign the full protection of the law from that point onwards. This would interfere with the harvesting og embryonical stemcells.

Personally I think it makes more sense to define the beginning of life as when brainfunctions commence, or sentience or some such. Most ethics are founded on utilitarian principles, and wouldn't apply before sentience.



Expect the case to be made that an embryo (stemcells are actually harvested before an embryo is formed, but I don't know what that is called) is a "possibility for sentient life" or something along those lines. Basically the pro lifers want to work the potential happiness of the "embryo" in its potential life innto the utilitarian equation. This would lead to "potential life" gaining full protection under the law, at least ethically.

I'd make the case that potential human life is prevented all the time, by using protection, or by not having sex at all. Also by locking up rapists (saw that on another thread). Extending the protections awarded fellow humans to encompass all "potential human life" would be absurd. The pro lifers would need to differentiate between pre conception potential life and post conception potential life. I've yet to see a justification of this differentiation that doesn't come down to "because I say so".



Remember ethics is just an axiomatic structure, at some point there are no further justifications, just axioms. At the end of the day the structure which best serves humanity will likely be preffered, and this is measured by utilitarian standards. Ethical imperatives like not stealing or not killing (which pro lifers are trying to attatch to "potential sentient life") are justified by arguing that these rules serve utilitarian purpouses when heeded by all members of a society.


My argument for stemcell research (basically an adaptation of my pro choice argument) goes something like this:

The greatest good for the greatest proportion of society should be served. (modification of the traditional "greatest good for the greatest number of people" which would make it an ethical imperative to procreate.)

Non sentient "potentials for sentient life" are not (yet) members of society, and extending ethical imperatives to cover them would infringe on the quality of life of those who are members of society.

The greatest good for the greatest proportion of society is best served by allowing stemcell research. (and abortion)



I'm sorry I can't help you much with the against possition.
0 Replies
 
doyouknowhim
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 05:32 pm
Frozen embryo research includes a variety of
"parents". The possibile "parents", could consist of human/mammal or reptile embryo. " Should these "parents" be able to donate them " In some cases, could the "parents" of the embryo make that decision ?

The "what is the arrangement" ?
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 06:22 pm
doyouknowhim wrote:
Frozen embryo research includes a variety of
"parents". The possibile "parents", could consist of human/mammal or reptile embryo. " Should these "parents" be able to donate them " In some cases, could the "parents" of the embryo make that decision ?

The "what is the arrangement" ?


Sure why not? (in the case of humans of course)
0 Replies
 
gosuflavor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jan, 2005 11:54 pm
What about after stem cells can help cures for diseases, will there be people getting pregnant to sell their fetus' stem cells for $3000 a pop? Isn't that thought a bit unsettling? But despite this I still support the research.
0 Replies
 
binnyboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 01:29 am
You're right... it is unsettling. But the problem is the capitalism, not the stem cell research. Smile
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 06:47 am
It is the muic that calls them .....they seek the magic of knowing the music that builds the symphony ...... the thoughts of gods lay waiting to be spoken, to be understood. The one great purpose ...... to understand the music.....
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 10:02 pm
I don't quite get why anyone would be objectionable to stem cell reserach. We are talking aborted fetus, right? If anything good can come of this, let it happen and shut up about your ignorant morality issues.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2005 10:59 pm
I think the ones they use are miscarried, not aborted. Even less objectionable.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2005 09:09 am
The only objection to stem cell research [fetal] is religious. Every thing about stem cell research points toward the betterment of mankind. Religion on the other hand does not and never has.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Jan, 2005 09:33 am
binnyboy wrote:
You're right... it is unsettling. But the problem is the capitalism, not the stem cell research. Smile


I'm surprised. How do you find this unsettling?
0 Replies
 
dadothree
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 11:41 pm
I hope this thread is still active. There seems to be a lot of misinformation in favor of killing embryos.
0 Replies
 
Etruscia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Feb, 2005 06:45 pm
If theres misinformation, try and clear it up. but i think you put too much emphasis on the fact your "killing" embryos, which is debatable whether your killing a human, but the fact is were using them for great research and development.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Feb, 2005 10:55 pm
Quote:
Major laboratory breakthrough in Parkinson's disease research at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem

55 Reads

.

.
Israel News Source: Hadassah International eBulletin

JERUSALEM - December 6, 2004 - In what is considered a major medical breakthrough, researchers at the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem have succeeded in showing that human embryonic stem cells can improve the functioning of a laboratory rat with Parkinson's Disease. Findings of the research were published in the recent edition of the prestigious magazine Stem Cells.

Parkinson's, the second most common degenerative disease of the nervous system, afflicts more than one-and-a-half million people in the United States, and several thousand in Israel. The disorder is caused by the selective death of a discrete cluster of nerve cells, which secrete the neurotransmitter dopamine, and whose function is to control the part of the brain that integrates motion. The disease expresses itself in the disturbance of movement - especially trembling or freezing of muscles - which severely disrupts daily functioning.
The research team created cultures of primitive nerve cells from human embryonic stem cells and transplanted them into an area in the brain of a rat, where there were no dopaminergic nerve cells. A gradual, significant improvement in the functioning of the rats was noted. After three months it was clear that some of the transplanted human cells turned into dopaminergic nerve cells. The researchers emphasize that the percentage of transplanted cells that matured into dopaminergic nerve cells was not high and that the rats did not make a complete recovery.

The research team was headed by Prof. Benjamin Reubinoff, Director of Hadassah's Center for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research at the Goldyne Savad Institute of Gene Therapy and the Department of Gynecology, and Prof. Tamir Ben-Hur, senior physician in Hadassah's Department of Neurology, the Agnes Ginges Center for Human Neurogenetics.

According to Reubinoff: "We are in the midst of research, in which we are trying to bring about the maturation of primitive nerve cells into dopaminergic nerve cells before we transplant them, in order to increase the number of dopaminergic cells in the implant - and to achieve complete reversal of Parkinson's disease in the rats."

Human embryonic stem cells, which can reproduce endlessly in culture and mature into any type of cell in the body, have sparked wide international interest because of their potential to serve as an endless source of cells for transplantation. They hold the promise of improving the functioning of people suffering from a wide range of disorders, such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes or heart failure. This is the first time that the potential ability of transplanted human embryonic stem cells has been demonstrated in an animal model with Parkinson's disease. The research is the latest stage in a long series of trials aimed at using human embryonic stem cells to find a cure for people who suffer from Parkinson's disease.

The research was funded in part by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 07:48 am
Every time I read of advances such as this and I remember the constraints Bush and religion has imposed on this reasearch my blood boils. What I wish for Bush and the religious fanatics is that they are paid off in kind.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 02:34:01