Case #503 against blind faith--Stem Cell Research

Well cloning is a different story.

Ray wrote:

Well cloning is a different story.

No it's not. If somebody is to grow a new pancreas gland for you out of stem cells, he is likely to use cloned cells containing the same genetical information as your own body.

This is the world the religious opposition to stem cell and cloning research is preventing.

Anon-Voter wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

kickycan,

I can understand your feelings with this. I really can. But, it seems an awful like like growing human beings for parts to me. I realize that's oversimplification but that's the way I see it.

You'd rather see them destroyed and flushed down the toilet as they are now with In Vitro reproduction?

Anon

Don't know how you got that from what I said.

Just what do you think happens to all those little people (in your mind) that don't get implanted if you don't use them for stem cell research?? Time to start living in the real world!

Imagine a world where there was no need for organ donors, and all organ transplants had a 0% chance of being rejected by the host body.
A world where genetic disease was more of a trivial nuisance than a serious concern. This is the world the religious opposition to stem cell and cloning research is preventing.

You are assuming, without giving any evidence for it, that nothing else is preventing this world. And even if there wasn't, you would still be wrong. Unlike Germany, the United States haven't made research on new stem cell lines illegal. They only have declined to subsidize it. So if the future is really as bright as you say, what would keep private investors from picking up the tab to reap obscene future profits? What keeps state governments from securing a competitive advantage over states that don't fund stem cell research?

I feel no need to 'rebut' what you have written, as what you wrote didn't rebut anything I said.

Your 'refutation' didn't really touch my point whatsoever.
That being overwhelming religious sentiment is the most visible and measurable obstacle to stem cell research.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of a single obstacle to stem cell research that isn't based on 'morality' That obstacle being of course, lack of funding based on aforestated reasons.
Perhaps you can bring forward another contributing factor?

Anon-Voter wrote:

Just what do you think happens to all those little people (in your mind) that don't get implanted if you don't use them for stem cell research?? Time to start living in the real world!

I asked this question to Terry, and I'll ask it to you: Do you know for a fact that once therapeutic cloning goes into mass production, the demand for stem cells can still be met with 'leftovers'? It is one thing to supply a few hundred researchers, quite another to supply a nation of 300 millions.

To answer your question more directly, I can guarantee you nothing. I can't guarantee you success, I can't guarantee you unlimited availability. Does that mean that we don't use the 450,000 we have freezing to death, literally! Does that mean we do nothing because we may not have supply that means demand? I'm not sure why you ask the question in reality, because it seems to me like a slam dunk that we use what we can for the people that are here now.

Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your President I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.

Anon-Voter wrote:

To answer your question more directly, I can guarantee you nothing. I can't guarantee you success, I can't guarantee you unlimited availability. Does that mean that we don't use the 450,000 we have freezing to death, literally! Does that mean we do nothing because we may not have supply that means demand? I'm not sure why you ask the question in reality, because it seems to me like a slam dunk that we use what we can for the people that are here now.

I am asking the question because I'm not buying the argument that 'they're just leftovers anyway'. If therapeutic cloning becomes a success, it will generate serious pressure to create new embryos specifically for the purpose of cloning -- and many people have a problem with that. Also, while I can see that the already-created embryos are useful for research, I don't see how they would be "used for the people that are here and now". To use stem cells for growing new organs, don't you need cells that are genetically identical to the body they're supposed to be implanted in? If so, the existing embryos would be of no practical therapeutic use.

You haven't studied up much on this have you??

Anon-Voter wrote:

You haven't studied up much on this have you??

I will be grateful for any enlightenment you might be able to provide.