we only have one life,there is no heaven or hell.we need stem cells,those zygotes are not human and have not developed a consciousness so let the girl have an abortion if she wants too. to save more lives then produce one.
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Thank you oran6es! Isn't it amazing how we are now finding out that the ethical Adult stem-cells can actually change into every cell tissue and organ in the body with a lower rejection rate than the unethical use of their embryonic counterparts. More often, the transplanted embryonic cells grow uncontrollably into tumors or cysts. EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS HAVE YET TO BENEFIT ANY PERSON, yet we continue to find cures for a whole range of things using Adult stem-cells.
Hey stupids, in order to get these cells, another individual human was destroyed.
I can show you a picture of beating heart cells arising in the INTACT embryo, except mine would be connected to the entire circulatory system, which would be nourishing the entire developing individual.
Sorry. The embryonic stem cells used are from the inner cell mass cells of the blastocyst. The umbilical cord comes from those cells on the outer wall of the blastocyst.
dear faggot, nobody cares what you have to say because you obviously aren't very well educated on the issue and don't understand the purpose of this type of research.
Thank you oran6es! Isn't it amazing how we are now finding out that the ethical Adult stem-cells can actually change into every cell tissue and organ in the body with a lower rejection rate than the unethical use of their embryonic counterparts. More often, the transplanted embryonic cells grow uncontrollably into tumors or cysts. EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS HAVE YET TO BENEFIT ANY PERSON, yet we continue to find cures for a whole range of things using Adult stem-cells.
well... it's nice to read ethical debates. but seeing as i NEED a stem cell therapy to live... well, if you were in my shoes, and were aware that it could be done, what would you choose?
it's easy to debate what is ethical and what isn't. it's more difficult when you yourself would benefit directly from progress with the research at hand. think about it.
Thanks man. Same here. Easy to be on your moral high ground and self righteous douche-baggery when you're not the one suffering from a debilitating genetic disease and have to beg and scrap for pain doctors to give you opioid pain meds.
I have severe heart block & am simply waiting for this stem cell research for a cure. The very idea that such necessary progress in medicine is being held up by fringe religious views is at times infuriating.
We've already crossed so many moral lines in medicines, & I fail to see how this one is much different from the already widely used in-vitro fertilization sciences.
Facinating. Too bad some religions(not all of them of course) would rather see people die of heart failure than use stem cells to save millions of lives. Or is that only embryonic stem cells?
ballexman :)Yes; it is stupid to worry about the life of human cells when human beings are dying in war; why don't the churches protest to the government about that; war is killing many real humans, as well as human potential.
MMM? Maybe they are protecting their tax breaks or they just don't want science to heal the sick; too much as it wont be great for their business. They want people to pray and pay for the hope of a healing.
@ballexman Embryonic. No one wants to see people die of heart failure. The cells beating are not stem cells. They're developed at this point into infant cells. Which life would you like to save?
1. 80 yo with heart failure(in 5 yrs will be 85 with kidney failure)
2. Young developing human life (embryo)(in 5 yrs will be a healthy 4 year old)
@ballexman Grow new heart cells using the child's own induced pluripotent somatic cells AND grow a new child using the embryo, then the 2 children could play with each other.
@oran6es And what if you're not really that into kids? But seriously, although you do have a point, I am not convinced that those cells pass for sentient life. Then again neither would a newborn baby for all I know. I do, however, agree with you that scientific progress should seek the solutions that hurt the least amount of people.
Now, I don't ask this to mock you, but are your motivations for opposing such seemingly "miraculous" scientific results religious in any way?
@ballexman I'm motivated by my Hippocratic Oath. Those beating heart cells in the petrie dish are no longer stem cells. If it took them>8weeks to grow them, they're fetal cells. If it took > 38 weeks, they're infant cells.(They should be connected to the rest of the infant). No one group of humans should own, manipulate, or abuse another living human at any phase of its life cycle. That's fundamentally wrong.
@oran6es Well if that truly is your motivation, then I do not understand your problem. This petri dish of cells is no more sentient than a chopped of arm or a tree. If a brain never even started to grow, then it is not murder to use its building blocks. Potential life is wasted all the time, mostly in "natural" ways. Should we try to fertilize every sperm- and egg cell as well in that case? I understand your want to preserve life, doctor or not, but that is just a biological clockwork, not life.
@BallexmanTwo We're all just animated flesh. As thinking adults, our animation is more exaggerated and complex. Allow each individual to animate for themselves. Life is living. Allow the less animated to develop into the more animated.
@oran6es Now that just sounds like deranged hippie talk to me. This does not equal to murder, but even if it did - and although it sounds cynical - I would rather save a contributing human being, than a potential failure.
@ballexman only embryonic. Millions of lives saved at the cost of one abortion. I am not saying its a bad trade, but wun question the people questioning its morality
I brought up the US Constitution for a reason, because it's a good example of how values set at the BEGINNING of an experiment affect values throughout the experiment & beyond
The US Constitution codified the parsing of humanity into "whole people" (with rights) and "partial people" (with no rights)
That eventually lead to an aparthied system & current racial problems, etc..
Likewise, the values that we set at the beginning of SCR will affect how that tech is used & exploited
Since that is the 2nd time you've mis-quoted me I think my point stands, not living in the US doesn't mean you're not stupid.
The greatest profit is to the woman who can walk again, the man that can see again and the child that survives leukimia. Would you rather an expensive cure for AIDs or none at all?
IDK what it is about men who go to Thailand to work with children that gives me the shivers?
Okay, that was a low blow but don't let it drown out my message!
I'm tired of arguing with your stupid as a brick wall Americans, I'm sure it's not the majority of Americans that are like this, unfortunately it is a sizable number. Pudgimelon is a case-in-point he'll argue himself blue in the face all the while forgetting that he's just some jack-ass that discovered youtube some day and thought, I can force myself upon people who would usually cross the road when they smell me!I'm not going to take that away from you, but I have better things to do, bye.
thank you for the name-calling and anti-American bigotry, but two things before you go:
1) I don't live in America, so what does their "brick-wall nature" have to do with any point I made?
2) You said there was "no business in SCR", but I pointed out that just one state had a seven billion dollar industry around it. Other than name-calling and being WRONG, do you have anything else to contribute?
So crack-pot Americans are patenting it, no one cares about America. Get over your self.
What's important is the rewards achieved from stem cell research, I'm sorry to say no one cares about your half-baked morals either.
So what if they patent everything under the sun, it makes no difference to you or I. What do you really lose by allowing someone to do SCR on someone else's cells (properly sourced). You're probably one of those anti-choice nuts also.
So in just one state, this is already a SEVEN BILLION DOLLAR industry, but according to you, Wolfman, there is "no business in SCR". It's all just universities doing feel-good research for the benefit of mankind.
Yah right.
Tax credits & angel investors sound like big business to me. Which is all fine & good. Capitalism ROCKS in my opinion
However, all of you who think that adult stem cells somehow remove ALL ethical concerns are grossly naive. "Science" is just the tip of the iceberg
Pudgimelon, perhaps in america all the research is done by biotech companies but in the UK and Japan (the leading countries for SCR research)the vast vast majority of research is done by universities, funded by research councils. Most countries have national healthcare, outside the US patents aren't the main concern, saving people are
Wow riddix, you really don't know how the business world works, do you.
"Outside the US patents aren't much concern?"
Huh.
If that's the case, then why is EVERY UNIVERSITY AND BIOTECH FIRM IN THE WORLD that's doing stem cell research paying ROYALTY FEES to WARF & Geron Corp (the holders of the stem cell procedure patents).
Haven't you ever wondered why universities need to be "funded by research councils"? The money goes to pay LICENSING FEES!
Just trying to work out where you're coming from is all - I'm a biomedical scientist therefore I study and understand the basis of stem cell research, I understand just what an embryo is. I base my opinions and ethics on the facts I know, a persons job or background strongly influences their view of the world - I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from
riddix, it's been my point along that science is not the whole issue. you do realize that scientific advances have APPLICATIONS in the real world that may or may not be ethical. Right?
You can't just say, "An embryo is not a person, so that makes EVERYTHING ok."
You may be a biomed scientist, but surely you can appreciate the NON-scientific consequences I'm talking about. So "where I'm coming from" is simply "concerned citizen" in the "general public".
"You do realize that scientific advances have APPLICATIONS in the real world that may or may not be ethical. Right?"
Gosh really? Stem cell research is a medical advancement and the only clear application is saving lives!
"surely you can appreciate the NON-scientific consequences I'm talking about"
What like companies making money? Frankly I can live with that if it saves lives. I'm struggling to see any other clear arguments so please lay them out for me in a bullet point list
• I've got no problems with companies making money
• However, people here were talking as if adult cells answered ALL the ethical concerns. They don't.
• Profiting from the parsing of human life into "those with rights" and "those with no rights" is worrisome.
• At it's core, SCR is about "body rights". So was the Roe vs. Wade decision. If you are truly Pro-choice, it's hard to support SCR without being a hypocrite.
riddix, "Pray enlighten me, what're the ethical concerns with adult stem cells?"
Scientifically? Probably none. They're donated by conscious adults so I don't see a problem with that
However science is just the START. Once the research is done, it gets churned through the capitalist system which is prone to abuse, & it also impacts societal values, legal cases, personal rights, etc..
It's a can of worms. Just because opening the can may be "ethical", that doesn't mean you should open it
riddix, most of the research in America is done by universities as well. But they immediately patent & sell that research. After all, WARF stands for the "Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation" (UW:Madison), & they own LOTS of the patents stem cell procedures. Just because it's "university research" doesn't mean there aren't huge sums of money behind it. Also, those "research councils" in Europe/Asia are often funded by business or govts. So you can bet that a PROFIT is expected down the road
The Milwaukee BUSINESS Journal reports that WI has joined with WARF to lure embryonic stem cell companies to WI
Companies won't have to pay ROYALTY FEES to WARF for research conducted in WI. As part of a FINANCIAL INCENTIVES PACKAGE, stem cell companies that locate in WI will be eligible for up to $250,000 in grants, certain TAX CREDITS & assistance from a specialist in the WI ENTREPRENEUR'S Network & ANGEL INVESTOR Network
WI's current biotech industry generates $7 BILLION for the economy
You made no VALID points for me to respond to.Ethics plays a role but your POV is not the be all and end all Im sorry to burst your bubble!I do not need unwritten laws(unwritten constitution means we never created a document listing rights.Not that we dont write our laws down.There is no business of SCR universities are the main proponents of research.Face it your last post just obliterated any belief that you were rational this and your half-baked morals are just another facet of your ignorance
Its clear to me that you're just another crackpot who is only allowed to express himself on the internet, and not worth arguing with. I have better thing's to do than try to get a American to realise the world exists outside of this head.
Calling me a "crackpot" does not change the fact that you were unable to respond to any of the VALID points I raised.
Point of fact: Science does not exist in a bubble.
Ethics MUST play a role in scientific research. Even you admit that with your need for imaginary, unwritten British laws to justify SCR.
You don't like American morals, fine, pick different ones, I don't care. But don't forget that the SCIENCE of S.C.R is very, very different from the BUSINESS of S.C.R.
ethics smethics, kill the unborn and harvest their life giving elixir...wouldn't you assasinate a child to save lots of people...i would...remember Spock's logic
Your "scientific" retort oozes ignorance.Regardless I dont think our ideas should deprive others who dont believe in them the same applies to islamist shouldnt force girls to be veiled. You have no right to to prevent someone using their own stem cells to heal their broken spine and if it were your child in a position to be helped by stem cells I am sure youd change tune. If you wouldnt thats nothing to be proud of. Just shows how little you think of human life compared to your half-baked morals
wolfman, I'm talking about the "inalienable rights" as outlined in the US Constitution, and you say that "oozes ignorance" and "others don't believe in them" and that they are "half-baked morals"???
Really.
So, you think the US Constitution is a piece of ignorant, fundamentalist junk that should be ignored simply because of some promising lab work???
The world exists outside of America, get over your self. There are 6b people on Earth the majority dont care about the US constitution. It's a fine piece of work, but it doesnt have a no stemcell clause. Dont try to take good ideas down with your half-baked morals, I know you struggle to find anything supporting your argument so if you insist we'll use the British unwritten constitution and have stem cell research.
Wow. I have to thank wolfman, bram, & dazzer for dragging this conversation back down into the internet-gutter
We were having a relatively civilized discussion, but thanks for reminding us that we're on YouTube, where juveniles go to feel self-important
BTW, wolfman/bram, I've said many times that the SOURCE isn't the issue. Put aside the ethics of embryo destruction & there's still LOTS of problems with this research
Your dreamed of "long & healthy" life may cost your civil liberties
There's a huge difference between skin cells & embryos. So if you're going to give an example, please use one that makes sense. & if you're trying to be the "science" advocate, at least get the science right!
But enough about embryos. As I said, the source is not the WHOLE issue.
You have to expand your view beyond just science & into SOCIAL science. Our civil liberties are tied to the intrinsic value of human life
Once you start parsing "humanity", you erode those liberties
About a million of your cells die each second. That's 86,400,000,000 a day! Outside of the womb an embryo has no greater chance than any other cell of creating life. Some ignorant people will always claim something is unethical, but that's all it is, ignorance. This research will save many lives and improve many more, if you choose to believe that in the process they "kill", at least let them die for a cause, this embryos would otherwise be destroyed, in a useless "death".
Everyone who finds the usage of embryonic stem cells unethical should be shot! Don't ruin my chances to live extraordinary long and healthy! If you eat meat than you should totally shut your mouth. Look at nature, everything is living at the cost of everything else. Besides embryos don't have any conscious and past memories whatsoever! They're embryos with stemcells, that still have to form braincells to remember things!
@bramcorleone I eat meat. I object to the consumption of our own young. Should I be shot for this objection? We all want cures, ethical cures, not cannibalization.
However, I strongly believe that using an abortion to provide stem cells is morally wrong. These scientists should give moral thought to the slippery slope they are on, and try to find a different way to extract stem cells that doesn't involve the moral equivalent of graverobbing."
The scientists are working on all possible avenues to saving lives.
Also, obtaining stem cells from is so very far from graverobbing, the closest analogy is organ donation
riddix, "Also, obtaining stem cells from is so very far from graverobbing, the closest analogy is organ donation"
Sorry, but I disagree with that. Organ donation is a CHOICE--a conscious decision by an ADULT
If you can figure out some way to "ask that embryo" & get its permission, & you've cleared a big ethical hurdle. Until then, it's using a potential human life without its consent.
Talk to someone who's suffered a miscarriage before you suggest that "potential" life is no big deal.
Pudgimelon "If you can figure out some way to "ask that embryo" & get its permission, & you've cleared a big ethical hurdle. Until then, it's using a potential human life without its consent"
That kind of issue is exactly the issue, this is the great divide between scientists and the general population, scientists understand just what an embryo is - at the stage of development we're talking about is doesn't have a brain or at least anything capable of higher thought, it doesn't have an opinion
The 'general population' is not stupid, & it's unwise to dismiss ethical considerations in a headlong rush towards some "benefit".
Ethical systems have been developed over the centuries by some VERY smart people, and I trust that much more than I trust some fairly recent lab work.
"Ethical concerns" doesn't necessarily equal "religious nonsense". And there are times when scientists need to take their eyes off "the prize" and think about the social consequences of their work.
Pudgimelon "Talk to someone who's suffered a miscarriage before you suggest that "potential" life is no big deal"
How is miscarriage anything to do with it? The pain experienced due to a miscarriage is surely due to the fact the parents wanted the child, had hopes for it and dreams for it. The "potential" is something they feel, not what the foetus/embryo feels - very different issues!
Hybrid embryos-(lots in the media about these) where there is no loss of human life but a whole new set of ethical issues. The final main option is cloned embryos (made using the patients nucleus and a donated egg), these are great but the costs obscene compared to obtaining the cells from aborted fetuses or left over IVF blastocysts
"Cloned embryos, adult cells, or "wasted" fetuses, etc.. The SOURCE isn't the issue!
You've put the cart before the horse. Is it ethical to do SCR in the first place? Answer THAT, & then talk about costs."
My first posts were facts because you didn't know about the other types of stem cells. Opinion had no place with them.
You've also contradicted yourself because donors or adult stem cells have given consent so there aren't ethical issues (this is what bone marrow transplants are).
riddix, "You've also contradicted yourself because donors have given consent so there aren't ethical issues"
Oh yes there are!
Didn't I say that the source is not the issue?
Even if we had a source for stem cells that was completely free of ethical concerns, there would STILL be major problems with this research
Geron Corp & WARF aretwo leaders in American SCR, & they spend much of their time in a COURTROOM fighting over patents. That should give you an idea of what the future holds for SCR
"..they think it's bad that embryos are dying just so companies can get more patents & more MONEY"
"Geron Corp & WARF aretwo leaders in American SCR, & they spend much of their time in a COURTROOM fighting over patents."
Now you're being hopelessly naive, in the UK most SCR is done by universities not companies looking for money. If companies were only in research for the money then they wouldn't go into SCR as they actually spend most their time in courtrooms trying to get permission to work!
"Is it ethical to do SCR in the first place? Answer THAT, & then talk about costs."
In my personal opinion yes stem cell research is entirely ethical. I place more value on adult lives than those of 16 celled organisms (the stage of development when SCs are harvested from embryo's). Personally I find it a little morally repugnant that people are dying right now of things that are potentially cureable and people are petitioning to stop research into the cure
riddix, "I place more value on adult lives than those of 16 celled organisms.." "..& people are petitioning to stop research into the cure"
First, nobody is petitioning to "stop the cure". Everyone wants these diseases cured, but they do not want millennia of values shredded in the process
You said you value human life & you desire this research because of that BELIEF. Other people value life too, & they think it's bad that embryos are dying just so companies can get more patents & more MONEY
Stem cells no longer have to come from human embryos, they can be made from skin cells without killing anybody in the process. It's not an easy process, but we no longer have to consider the point you brought up.
The reset processing method doesn't quite work yet and we don't know why. They seem to lead to tumor cells. Not good. This is a rumour, not journal info. Does anyone have correction?
What are you talking about? Google "stem cells from skin", and you get results from the Washington post, npr, bbc, msnbc, and other reputable sources. This isn't a rumor.
I couldn't find anything that even mentioned tumors in the contexts of stem cells. I want a source.
Ok, I found out what you were talking about. Stem cells (all kinds) normally reproduce indefinitely. For them to be of any use scientists need to figure out how to signal stem cells to differentiate and stop reproducing, if they don't tumors will often form. This is a problem with all stem cells however, not just the skin ones, and they're working on it. There's obviously a method for doing it though, as your body has done it billions of times.
So yes, it's just cells in a dish, but these scientists are going to turn right around and patent those cells.
It is not a big leap from owning human tissue to owning humans (or some form of 'genetic slavery') and we erase the last 150 years of advancement in human rights
You think selective breeding to avoid defects is good, but Gattica had it right. What happens when they start denying jobs and premium insurance policies to people who aren't "gene-tailored"? That's a two-tiered society.
And don't mistake me. I don't believe corporations are evil. I'm sure the companies funding this research genuinely wish to help people (and make a profit).
But what you need to understand is that there is a huge difference between science for science's sake, and product research and development.
Geron Corp and WARF have already fought legal battles over the "rights" to human stem cells. The legal precedents they establish WILL dictate legal decisions in other cases, even abortion.
NicNasty, you misunderstand, I'm not afraid of the science involved, and I am also well aware that S.C.R. is a very different kind of science than gene selection or selective breeding.
What you fail to see is that all of these things--SCR, gene tailoring, abortion, biotech--all have similar underlying MORAL, SOCIAL, LEGAL, and PROPRIETORIAL issues.
It has nothing to do with the science involved and everything to do with the CORPORATIONS funding that science.
Sorry to spam this thread, but the 500-character count makes a long form answer on a complex topic very difficult.
I know some of my examples are a bit fanciful, but I'm just trying to illustrate that the problem is not simply a "moral issue". There are other factors that are just as troublesome.
If you say, don't worry, it's just cells in a dish? I'd answer that in 50 years, we went from horseback to H-Bombs. Where do you think this tech will go in your lifetime?
While Americans might not abuse this tech, do you really think that China is going worry about ethics?
I bet they can't wait to build tougher, stronger, more obedient & DUMBER peasants. The "One Child Law" will be nothing compared to the "Selective Breeding" program (where you can have many kids, as long as you mix your genes in a petri dish & have the type of kids they ALLOW)
Just look at how addicted Americans are to meds & imagine a future where you are genetically addicted to products!
So it's all well and good to hear about scientists using stem cells to treat heart disease, but it won't be long before someone figures out how to monetarize the technology (and then abuse and/or weaponize it).
Those of you who want to rush headlong into the future need to consider what kind of future do you want to have.
Do you seriously want your kids to be born with Nike-branded genes? Oops, your son meets the girl of his dreams but she's an Adidas product. Tough luck, son...
"Do you seriously want your kids to be born with Nike-branded genes? Oops, your son meets the girl of his dreams but she's an Adidas product. Tough luck, son.."
you cant be scared of the future, you have to embrace it! i wonder what you would of sounded like when the first heart transplants were happening? you might of been worried about frankenstien monsters but now that its here it troubles nobody morally.
S.C.R. is NOT selecting genes but rather reproducing tissue fibre theres a big cont.
cont. if youre protesting cause youre scared of selective breeding your on the wrong page, its tissue regrowth only. Selecting genes is something completly different.
And china does have a 1 child per family rule but many people ignore it.
plus selective breeding has been happening for years! for years now people have been testing to see if their children have certain diseases or defects before going on with a pregnancy which i dont think is a bad thing.
1) While I support science 100%, I've serious concerns about S.C.R. I believe that in the push to "save lives", many scientists aren't carefully considering the moral, legal/social & proprietorial implications of their work
2) My concern about S.C.R. does not come from my objection to abortion
3) I object to abortion on personal, moral grounds
4) I am, however, pro-choice
5) My pro-choice stance and my concerns about S.C.R. both arise from the same place: "proprietorial body rights"
Even though I cannot tolerate abortions, I remain pro-choice due to "body rights". It is VERY dangerous to start allowing the government to dictate what we can do with our own bodies
My stem cell concerns are about "body rights" too. We're entering an age where it'll be possible to patent human cells (would you like it if a company patented YOUR genome & OWNED your genetic rights?)
Think about ALL OF IT, not just the health benefits for some
but pudgimelon, abortion is not the only way to get stem cells. Eggs are the best stem cells and are thrown out in massive supply ever week. these are cells that could be put to good use! what do you think about using these to benefit people?
know that baning stem cell is a conscious decision that will kill everyone who otherwise could have live with stem cell research. at the cost of cluster of cells. how does that rest well in your moral? YES those cells can become human. there is NO win-win solution at this time by moral standpoint, there is however a choice between saving lives and not saving lives (baning stem cell does not stop abortion) to a rational person the chose however hard is very obvious
ccaptorchen, we both agree that stem cell research is important and saves lives. However it is a complex issue and not as simple "the cost of a cluster of cells" as you suggest.
I agree that stem cells and abortion are separate issues, and I know that this video is about stem cell, not abortion. however, I was replying to someone who made a comment about "letting fetuses go to waste".
I think that is a morally repugnant statement. A fetus is not a resource that can be "wasted"!
This is a wonderful and important advance in science and many people's lives will by saved by it.
I'm sure these scientists have the best of intentions and are decent, thoughtful and moral people.
However, I strongly believe that using an abortion to provide stem cells is morally wrong. These scientists should give moral thought to the slippery slope they are on, and try to find a different way to extract stem cells that doesn't involve the moral equivalent of graverobbing.
while people are pondering about the morals of stem cell. fetus is being thrown out and people who needs stem cell research are dying. these scientist have fully weigh the ethical problems against the facts of reality. and if graverobbing will save lives, I will do it too.
Pudgimelon, there are several types of stem cells that researchers are experimenting with; adult stem cells -either taken from the patient or from a donor (which has the same rejection risks as organ transplant) and transplanted into damaged tissue, however these cells are usually unipotent (the significant exception being haemopoetic cells) meaning they can only form the same type of cells as they were producing originally. Cont...
"Simple killing one life to graft into another." Mate, look at it logically here. Sure. If science was ordering women to get abortions so they could get stem cells, then yes, it would be wrong, but there NOT. The same number of abortions will happen if stem cell technology goes ahead or not. The only difference is the number of wasted fetuses that are just thrown out. Also, one fetus can supply an enormous amount of stem cells, saving a multitude of people. Your opinion fails logic.
cancer tumor is removed to save the live of the patient, and the cluster cell of cancer is as much alive as the embryo cells. is that still wrong?
also people who abort their baby obviously don't feel the devastation as someone who wanted to keep the baby. not saying I support abortions but emotional attachment makes little validity to stop stem cell research
"Your opinion fails logic as well. One life for many is still wrong, especially when THAT life has NO CHOICE in the matter.If a soldier gives his life for others, that's laudable & heroic, because HE made a decision to do it! (his MOM did not throw him on the grenade!)"
abortions arent the only way to get these cells.
also noone is having and abortion on purpose to have these cells.
if it was legalised abortions wont increase or decrease because there would be no way the mother can benifit
"Your opinion fails logic as well. One life for many is still wrong, especially when THAT life has NO CHOICE in the matter."
also its not like these children are being sacraficed in purpose to get these cells.
think of it this way. Many people organ donate when they die. I have registered all my organs for science or for transplant. this is an act of love on my behalf because i want to make a difference. if you could explain that to a fetus dont you think it would do the same??
Can we please get this straight: People don't have abortions to create stem cells. People have abortions because they decide they don't want/can't have a child. Stem cell research is not wrong.
its not killing one life to save another, you need to look at it more logicly. there are 10s of thousands of embryonic cells thrown out every week. These cells could have the possicility of becoming life if they were fertilised & inplanted in a womb. Thats why the church is against it cause they have the possibility. However they are being dumped everyweek so what chance do they have in a dumpster?? you might as well have a war on monthly menstrations while you're at it.
"if its wrong because they have the possibility of becoming human then masturbation is genocide"
and so is scratching you nose or wiping your butt. Just because they have the potential. then every nucleus which 'could' be cloned deserves the same respect. "Stop rubbing it you're killing me." LOL
Bush banned the research because of his own moral conflictions against it, he violated one of many boundries one must not cross as a leader. Church and state are seperated to keep things fair for everyone, I just hope the next guy(or lady) in office doesn't tout their religion as a reason to vote for them, as if they are implying they will make (possibly unfair) biased judgements while president because of their religion.
Ethics is beyond religion. Example is it ok to kill someone for shoplifting? It is wrong to underplay the ethical implications regardless of your stance when there are much better ways with adult stem cells having the same dna and less complications.
could you explain why you think the ethics of doing this are too controversial?
I think the ethics of not doing it are more controversial considering the massive amount of diseases and injuries it can help.I have a spinal injury.Stephen Hawking has Lou Gehrig's.Imagine the improvement to his quality this could bring.Stephen can now only move his cheek and selects his words from a machine at the rate of 4 words a minute!!I bet you cant even imagine the pain he or any other sufferer goes thru!!
"I think the ethics of not doing it are more controversial considering the massive amount of diseases and injuries it can help.I have a spinal injury.Stephen Hawking has Lou Gehrig's.Imagine the improvement to his quality this could bring.Stephen can now only move his cheek and selects his words from a machine at the rate of 4 words a minute!!I bet you cant even imagine the pain he or any other sufferer goes thru!!"
I still find it vaguely amusing that what may be one of the most beneficial subjects to research from a medical vantage point is deemed "immoral" because it somehow is against the sanctity of life.
I guess some people prefer to stick to a strong moral confiction that has little to no real material bases, rather than something that has actual evidence of what it can mean to us and injured people.
great progress anyway, scientific breakthrough of the best kind.
shows the importance of embriotic stem cells. I dont understand Bush banning stem cell research. 10s of thousands of cells r thrown out everyweek. the arguement against using them is the church wants 2 protect any cell that has the ability 2 become life, hence thinking it protects life but the eggs r being dumped anyway!!!
And before someone mentions Japan & the technology 2 make embriotic cells out of skin those cells become cancerous very quickly r of no use today. Embriotic is the way to go
You hit the nail on the head. It's blatantly hypocritical the way right-to-life types have restricted stem cell research, declaring how sacred these cells supposedly are, when in fact these same cells are being thrown in dumpsters everyday.
Actually, yes it is. The difference between anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research are essentially the same exact people, with overlapping justifications for their intransigence.
Actually no its not. They are not the same people throwing the cells down the dumpster every day. They did not create the cells in the first place. Most are against infertile insemination. They would say adopt. I think this kind of research leads down a road of too small a gene pool and we will have the same problem we are having with agriculture.
I never said right-to-life people were throwing cells away. What I said was that they don't bellyache and complain about cells being thrown away like they do about cells being used for research. It's hypocrisy to go after future, possible research, but not equally go after our present, actual wastefulness.
Genetic arguments are another matter entirely. Stem cell research is mostly about curing the worst diseases & ailments mankind knows, like how to grow back together a broken spine.
"think this kind of research leads down a road of too small a gene pool"
nope all this does is help you and me live to see the day when you can toss any gene you want into your body. Don't fight it, it will be a great thing.
yes, as damianpoirier points out, biotech research can lead to great things. True wonders. However, as with every scientific advance, the wonders come hand-in-hand with the horrors
Damian, let's say you insert a proprietary gene into your body that allows, skin color change. You're green one day, blue with orange dots the next. Awesome! Right?
Flipside: A company inserts a proprietary gene into some workers that requires them to eat bio-Wheaties, or DIE. That company now OWNS THEM & THEIR KIDS
Flipside: A company inserts a proprietary gene into some workers that requires them to eat bio-Wheaties, or DIE. That company now OWNS THEM & THEIR KIDS
flipside: frakk the company dude. Nanotech is coming and centralized manufacturing goes the way of the dinosaur.
damianpoirier, "flipside: frakk the company dude. Nanotech is coming and centralized manufacturing goes the way of the dinosaur"
While self-replicating nanotech is still a LONG way off, I agree that it will certainly change the way things are made, but if you think the death of centralized manufacturing will result in the demise of corporations, you are VERY naive.
Also, how is "nanotech" a rebuttal of my point? Nanotech will be just as open to abuse as biotech.
"Nanotech will be just as open to abuse as biotech."
Yes, as is fire.
Things to keep in mind.
All our eggs are in one basket.
Comet Impact,GRB,Supernova though statisticly remote, DO OCCUR.
There is one choice, rocket forward or die.
The feasability study for nano has already been done. Nature did it for us via biology.
The solution to your paranoia is for YOU to be the corperation. Learn the knowlege. Acquire the tools. Make the DNA and NANO the YOU want to have.And empower others.
damian, "The solution to your paranoia is...Learn the knowlege.Acquire the tools."
That is not valid at all.
a) It isn't "paranoia" to have ethical concerns about new research, especially if it touches at the core value of human life. It is VERY risky to do things that devalue human life.
b) No. Sorry. I do not--& should not--have to learn every new tech in order to protect my rights. Do you even understand the concept of ETHICS?
Damian, What you just said is as silly as saying that since I don't know how to produce my own chemicals, I've no right to complain when someone dumps them into my drinking water supply.
You're only looking at things from a scientific perspective. And on that, I think we both AGREE. This research is great science.
But you're not seeing the other issues involved. This isn't just about "right2lifers" vs. "scientists".
no, pudgi, I'm saying if you don't learn the tech you will be at the mercy of every tom dick and harry on the planet. How many corperations write computer viruses?
And yeah, it is about ethics and the right to life. We are machines. We can be repaired(probably indefinitly.
Each day 100,000 perple die from needless mechanical failure. We sould not tolerate this. Our war on terror? WTF? Billions thrown away on trash and destruction.
we only have one life,there is no heaven or hell.we need stem cells,those zygotes are not human and have not developed a consciousness so let the girl have an abortion if she wants too. to save more lives then produce one.
altoids79762 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
robert80taylor 7 months ago
Wow, very interesting.
MsPinkPrincess6 9 months ago
ALL WRONG!! Empty it out for me!!
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
Also see ARTICLE: 'What the Media Won't Tell You About Stem Cell Research' by Dawn Vargo (Citizen Link . org)
M30WM3 1 year ago
SEE VIDEO: Doctor Shocks Oprah with News of Ethical Stem-Cell Successes
M30WM3 1 year ago
Thank you oran6es! Isn't it amazing how we are now finding out that the ethical Adult stem-cells can actually change into every cell tissue and organ in the body with a lower rejection rate than the unethical use of their embryonic counterparts. More often, the transplanted embryonic cells grow uncontrollably into tumors or cysts. EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS HAVE YET TO BENEFIT ANY PERSON, yet we continue to find cures for a whole range of things using Adult stem-cells.
M30WM3 1 year ago
creepy....
Agustin6004 2 years ago
Hey stupids, in order to get these cells, another individual human was destroyed.
I can show you a picture of beating heart cells arising in the INTACT embryo, except mine would be connected to the entire circulatory system, which would be nourishing the entire developing individual.
Mine's cooler than your petrie dish project.
oran6es 2 years ago
abortion = stem cells
th3planetsghost 2 years ago
or quite possibly they used afterbirth and umbilical cord matter...has the same stem cells and allows people to continue overpopulating the planet.
EnderZ13 2 years ago
Sorry. The embryonic stem cells used are from the inner cell mass cells of the blastocyst. The umbilical cord comes from those cells on the outer wall of the blastocyst.
oran6es 2 years ago
dear faggot, nobody cares what you have to say because you obviously aren't very well educated on the issue and don't understand the purpose of this type of research.
-from the entire YouTube community
ToadlyCool 2 years ago
Au contraire, my rude friend., I am a heterosexual, a well educated physician, and I speak the truth.
Have a great day
oran6es 2 years ago
Thank you oran6es! Isn't it amazing how we are now finding out that the ethical Adult stem-cells can actually change into every cell tissue and organ in the body with a lower rejection rate than the unethical use of their embryonic counterparts. More often, the transplanted embryonic cells grow uncontrollably into tumors or cysts. EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS HAVE YET TO BENEFIT ANY PERSON, yet we continue to find cures for a whole range of things using Adult stem-cells.
M30WM3 1 year ago
well... it's nice to read ethical debates. but seeing as i NEED a stem cell therapy to live... well, if you were in my shoes, and were aware that it could be done, what would you choose?
it's easy to debate what is ethical and what isn't. it's more difficult when you yourself would benefit directly from progress with the research at hand. think about it.
abyssquick 3 years ago 12
Thanks man. Same here. Easy to be on your moral high ground and self righteous douche-baggery when you're not the one suffering from a debilitating genetic disease and have to beg and scrap for pain doctors to give you opioid pain meds.
DarKaleem 2 years ago
I have severe heart block & am simply waiting for this stem cell research for a cure. The very idea that such necessary progress in medicine is being held up by fringe religious views is at times infuriating.
We've already crossed so many moral lines in medicines, & I fail to see how this one is much different from the already widely used in-vitro fertilization sciences.
abyssquick 2 years ago
@abyssquick they will never understand...As I don't understand the ethical debate. There is always some people love to pull legs.
softedge1 6 months ago
Facinating. Too bad some religions(not all of them of course) would rather see people die of heart failure than use stem cells to save millions of lives. Or is that only embryonic stem cells?
Awesome anyway...
ballexman 3 years ago 12
ballexman :)Yes; it is stupid to worry about the life of human cells when human beings are dying in war; why don't the churches protest to the government about that; war is killing many real humans, as well as human potential.
MMM? Maybe they are protecting their tax breaks or they just don't want science to heal the sick; too much as it wont be great for their business. They want people to pray and pay for the hope of a healing.
Science is the wholy sprit :)
JezebelDecibel 3 years ago
@ballexman Embryonic. No one wants to see people die of heart failure. The cells beating are not stem cells. They're developed at this point into infant cells. Which life would you like to save?
1. 80 yo with heart failure(in 5 yrs will be 85 with kidney failure)
2. Young developing human life (embryo)(in 5 yrs will be a healthy 4 year old)
oran6es 1 year ago
@ballexman Do you favor stealing? After all, most religions are against it.
oran6es 1 year ago
@oran6es Well, how about saving a four year old with heart failure? Or would you rather grow a new one, perhaps?
ballexman 1 year ago
@ballexman Grow new heart cells using the child's own induced pluripotent somatic cells AND grow a new child using the embryo, then the 2 children could play with each other.
oran6es 1 year ago
@oran6es And what if you're not really that into kids? But seriously, although you do have a point, I am not convinced that those cells pass for sentient life. Then again neither would a newborn baby for all I know. I do, however, agree with you that scientific progress should seek the solutions that hurt the least amount of people.
Now, I don't ask this to mock you, but are your motivations for opposing such seemingly "miraculous" scientific results religious in any way?
ballexman 1 year ago
@ballexman I'm motivated by my Hippocratic Oath. Those beating heart cells in the petrie dish are no longer stem cells. If it took them>8weeks to grow them, they're fetal cells. If it took > 38 weeks, they're infant cells.(They should be connected to the rest of the infant). No one group of humans should own, manipulate, or abuse another living human at any phase of its life cycle. That's fundamentally wrong.
oran6es 1 year ago
@oran6es Well if that truly is your motivation, then I do not understand your problem. This petri dish of cells is no more sentient than a chopped of arm or a tree. If a brain never even started to grow, then it is not murder to use its building blocks. Potential life is wasted all the time, mostly in "natural" ways. Should we try to fertilize every sperm- and egg cell as well in that case? I understand your want to preserve life, doctor or not, but that is just a biological clockwork, not life.
BallexmanTwo 1 year ago
@BallexmanTwo and by life I mean the type with feelings and thoughts, not just animated flesh.
BallexmanTwo 1 year ago
@BallexmanTwo We're all just animated flesh. As thinking adults, our animation is more exaggerated and complex. Allow each individual to animate for themselves. Life is living. Allow the less animated to develop into the more animated.
oran6es 1 year ago
@oran6es Now that just sounds like deranged hippie talk to me. This does not equal to murder, but even if it did - and although it sounds cynical - I would rather save a contributing human being, than a potential failure.
BallexmanTwo 1 year ago
@BallexmanTwo A contributing human being can't contribute if you pulled him apart at a younger age.
oran6es 1 year ago
@ballexman only embryonic. Millions of lives saved at the cost of one abortion. I am not saying its a bad trade, but wun question the people questioning its morality
digerpaji 1 year ago
@ballexman Muslim here, all for it! (:
elbasrever 2 months ago
Finally! So it's decided stem cell research rules. I assume so since these "ethical issues" haven't been explained. And Pudgi is a peado.
wolfmankurd 3 years ago
riddix,
I brought up the US Constitution for a reason, because it's a good example of how values set at the BEGINNING of an experiment affect values throughout the experiment & beyond
The US Constitution codified the parsing of humanity into "whole people" (with rights) and "partial people" (with no rights)
That eventually lead to an aparthied system & current racial problems, etc..
Likewise, the values that we set at the beginning of SCR will affect how that tech is used & exploited
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Urgh you keep dragging me back.
Since that is the 2nd time you've mis-quoted me I think my point stands, not living in the US doesn't mean you're not stupid.
The greatest profit is to the woman who can walk again, the man that can see again and the child that survives leukimia. Would you rather an expensive cure for AIDs or none at all?
IDK what it is about men who go to Thailand to work with children that gives me the shivers?
Okay, that was a low blow but don't let it drown out my message!
wolfmankurd 3 years ago
Wmk: "Would you rather an expensive cure for AIDs or none at all?"
That's actually the first valid point you've made, wolfman, congratulations on entering the world of adult discussion!
Wmk, "IDK what it is about men who go to Thailand to work with children that gives me the shivers?"
Aaaand then you drag yourself right back down into juvenile stalker BS. Grow up, please.
Oh well, I guess it's a lot to ask from you all at once, so it's OK. Take baby steps, wolfman. Baby steps.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
I'm tired of arguing with your stupid as a brick wall Americans, I'm sure it's not the majority of Americans that are like this, unfortunately it is a sizable number. Pudgimelon is a case-in-point he'll argue himself blue in the face all the while forgetting that he's just some jack-ass that discovered youtube some day and thought, I can force myself upon people who would usually cross the road when they smell me!I'm not going to take that away from you, but I have better things to do, bye.
wolfmankurd 3 years ago
wolfman,
thank you for the name-calling and anti-American bigotry, but two things before you go:
1) I don't live in America, so what does their "brick-wall nature" have to do with any point I made?
2) You said there was "no business in SCR", but I pointed out that just one state had a seven billion dollar industry around it. Other than name-calling and being WRONG, do you have anything else to contribute?
pudgimelon 3 years ago
So crack-pot Americans are patenting it, no one cares about America. Get over your self.
What's important is the rewards achieved from stem cell research, I'm sorry to say no one cares about your half-baked morals either.
So what if they patent everything under the sun, it makes no difference to you or I. What do you really lose by allowing someone to do SCR on someone else's cells (properly sourced). You're probably one of those anti-choice nuts also.
wolfmankurd 3 years ago
So in just one state, this is already a SEVEN BILLION DOLLAR industry, but according to you, Wolfman, there is "no business in SCR". It's all just universities doing feel-good research for the benefit of mankind.
Yah right.
Tax credits & angel investors sound like big business to me. Which is all fine & good. Capitalism ROCKS in my opinion
However, all of you who think that adult stem cells somehow remove ALL ethical concerns are grossly naive. "Science" is just the tip of the iceberg
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Pudgimelon, perhaps in america all the research is done by biotech companies but in the UK and Japan (the leading countries for SCR research)the vast vast majority of research is done by universities, funded by research councils. Most countries have national healthcare, outside the US patents aren't the main concern, saving people are
riddlix 3 years ago
Wow riddix, you really don't know how the business world works, do you.
"Outside the US patents aren't much concern?"
Huh.
If that's the case, then why is EVERY UNIVERSITY AND BIOTECH FIRM IN THE WORLD that's doing stem cell research paying ROYALTY FEES to WARF & Geron Corp (the holders of the stem cell procedure patents).
Haven't you ever wondered why universities need to be "funded by research councils"? The money goes to pay LICENSING FEES!
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Pudgimelon if you don't mind me asking what do you do for a living?
riddlix 3 years ago
riddix, how is that relevant to this discussion?
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Just trying to work out where you're coming from is all - I'm a biomedical scientist therefore I study and understand the basis of stem cell research, I understand just what an embryo is. I base my opinions and ethics on the facts I know, a persons job or background strongly influences their view of the world - I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from
riddlix 3 years ago
riddix, it's been my point along that science is not the whole issue. you do realize that scientific advances have APPLICATIONS in the real world that may or may not be ethical. Right?
You can't just say, "An embryo is not a person, so that makes EVERYTHING ok."
You may be a biomed scientist, but surely you can appreciate the NON-scientific consequences I'm talking about. So "where I'm coming from" is simply "concerned citizen" in the "general public".
pudgimelon 3 years ago
"You do realize that scientific advances have APPLICATIONS in the real world that may or may not be ethical. Right?"
Gosh really? Stem cell research is a medical advancement and the only clear application is saving lives!
"surely you can appreciate the NON-scientific consequences I'm talking about"
What like companies making money? Frankly I can live with that if it saves lives. I'm struggling to see any other clear arguments so please lay them out for me in a bullet point list
riddlix 3 years ago 2
Bullet point list:
• All human life has value. Even potential life
• I've got no problems with companies making money
• However, people here were talking as if adult cells answered ALL the ethical concerns. They don't.
• Profiting from the parsing of human life into "those with rights" and "those with no rights" is worrisome.
• At it's core, SCR is about "body rights". So was the Roe vs. Wade decision. If you are truly Pro-choice, it's hard to support SCR without being a hypocrite.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Pudgimelon "people here were talking as if adult cells answered ALL the ethical concerns. They don't"
Pray enlighten me, what are the ethical concerns with adult stem cells?
riddlix 3 years ago 2
riddix, "Pray enlighten me, what're the ethical concerns with adult stem cells?"
Scientifically? Probably none. They're donated by conscious adults so I don't see a problem with that
However science is just the START. Once the research is done, it gets churned through the capitalist system which is prone to abuse, & it also impacts societal values, legal cases, personal rights, etc..
It's a can of worms. Just because opening the can may be "ethical", that doesn't mean you should open it
pudgimelon 3 years ago
riddix, "Gosh really? Stem cell research is a medical advancement and the only clear application is saving lives!"
SCR is also a GLOBAL multi-billion dollar industry with little oversight (and outright profiteering in many countries).
Sure, "saving lives" sounds good on a bumper sticker, but trotting out sob stories doesn't justify underlying ethical problems with this research.
Everyone wants to cure disease, but patenting HUMANITY in order to do it is a worrisome concept.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
riddix, most of the research in America is done by universities as well. But they immediately patent & sell that research. After all, WARF stands for the "Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation" (UW:Madison), & they own LOTS of the patents stem cell procedures. Just because it's "university research" doesn't mean there aren't huge sums of money behind it. Also, those "research councils" in Europe/Asia are often funded by business or govts. So you can bet that a PROFIT is expected down the road
pudgimelon 3 years ago
The Milwaukee BUSINESS Journal reports that WI has joined with WARF to lure embryonic stem cell companies to WI
Companies won't have to pay ROYALTY FEES to WARF for research conducted in WI. As part of a FINANCIAL INCENTIVES PACKAGE, stem cell companies that locate in WI will be eligible for up to $250,000 in grants, certain TAX CREDITS & assistance from a specialist in the WI ENTREPRENEUR'S Network & ANGEL INVESTOR Network
WI's current biotech industry generates $7 BILLION for the economy
pudgimelon 3 years ago
You made no VALID points for me to respond to.Ethics plays a role but your POV is not the be all and end all Im sorry to burst your bubble!I do not need unwritten laws(unwritten constitution means we never created a document listing rights.Not that we dont write our laws down.There is no business of SCR universities are the main proponents of research.Face it your last post just obliterated any belief that you were rational this and your half-baked morals are just another facet of your ignorance
wolfmankurd 3 years ago
No business for S.C.R.?
Wolfman, you really are naive. SCR/biotech is a HUGE industry already and it's getting bigger.
What do you think universities do with that research? They PATENT it & then sell it to biotech firms.
After a peer-reviewed journal article for prestige it's straight to the patent office!
Embryos are being sacrificed for PATENTS, not cures.
Google "WARF" & "Geron Corp" if you want to educate yourself or continue name-calling & remain ignorant.
Up to you.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Its clear to me that you're just another crackpot who is only allowed to express himself on the internet, and not worth arguing with. I have better thing's to do than try to get a American to realise the world exists outside of this head.
wolfmankurd 3 years ago
Calling me a "crackpot" does not change the fact that you were unable to respond to any of the VALID points I raised.
Point of fact: Science does not exist in a bubble.
Ethics MUST play a role in scientific research. Even you admit that with your need for imaginary, unwritten British laws to justify SCR.
You don't like American morals, fine, pick different ones, I don't care. But don't forget that the SCIENCE of S.C.R is very, very different from the BUSINESS of S.C.R.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
ethics smethics, kill the unborn and harvest their life giving elixir...wouldn't you assasinate a child to save lots of people...i would...remember Spock's logic
ThompsonSeedless 3 years ago
Your "scientific" retort oozes ignorance.Regardless I dont think our ideas should deprive others who dont believe in them the same applies to islamist shouldnt force girls to be veiled. You have no right to to prevent someone using their own stem cells to heal their broken spine and if it were your child in a position to be helped by stem cells I am sure youd change tune. If you wouldnt thats nothing to be proud of. Just shows how little you think of human life compared to your half-baked morals
wolfmankurd 3 years ago
wolfman, I'm talking about the "inalienable rights" as outlined in the US Constitution, and you say that "oozes ignorance" and "others don't believe in them" and that they are "half-baked morals"???
Really.
So, you think the US Constitution is a piece of ignorant, fundamentalist junk that should be ignored simply because of some promising lab work???
huh...
I think you might be in the minority on that one.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
The world exists outside of America, get over your self. There are 6b people on Earth the majority dont care about the US constitution. It's a fine piece of work, but it doesnt have a no stemcell clause. Dont try to take good ideas down with your half-baked morals, I know you struggle to find anything supporting your argument so if you insist we'll use the British unwritten constitution and have stem cell research.
wolfmankurd 3 years ago
I hear, "heal spines", "cure diseases", "extend life", etc... as justifications for SCR, but what they all boil down to is:
SELF-INTEREST
When has self-interest ever been a valid justification for immoral action?
All these benefits you guys list are great, & I want them too. But the REALITY is that big companies will make big money off this research
So before you bleat about "healing a child's broken spine" (how cliche'!), think about who cashes the check & what they'll do for PROFIT
pudgimelon 3 years ago
A good example is the US Constitution, because it has a big contradiciton.
On one hand, it lays down "inalienable" rights.
On the other hand, it attempts to "parse" humanity as a compromise to slave states
So that's an example of what happens when you VALUE humanity: you get America, land of the free.
It also shows what happens when you devalue humanity: you get genocide
Even if stem cells come from adults, humanity shouldn't become a patentable commodity!
We're not products!
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Wow. I have to thank wolfman, bram, & dazzer for dragging this conversation back down into the internet-gutter
We were having a relatively civilized discussion, but thanks for reminding us that we're on YouTube, where juveniles go to feel self-important
BTW, wolfman/bram, I've said many times that the SOURCE isn't the issue. Put aside the ethics of embryo destruction & there's still LOTS of problems with this research
Your dreamed of "long & healthy" life may cost your civil liberties
pudgimelon 3 years ago
dazzer06 , started it :) And it was a pleasure.
How is stem cell research with stem cells derived from fully informed consenting adult sources, going to lose us our civil liberties.
More importantly, what gives you the right to stop people doing what the please with their own cells?
You may as well prohibit bathing for it destroys millions of cells now that is what I call a lose of freedom.
The only problem with this research is general ignorance, if you can think of any more then say.
wolfmankurd 3 years ago
There's a huge difference between skin cells & embryos. So if you're going to give an example, please use one that makes sense. & if you're trying to be the "science" advocate, at least get the science right!
But enough about embryos. As I said, the source is not the WHOLE issue.
You have to expand your view beyond just science & into SOCIAL science. Our civil liberties are tied to the intrinsic value of human life
Once you start parsing "humanity", you erode those liberties
pudgimelon 3 years ago
About a million of your cells die each second. That's 86,400,000,000 a day! Outside of the womb an embryo has no greater chance than any other cell of creating life. Some ignorant people will always claim something is unethical, but that's all it is, ignorance. This research will save many lives and improve many more, if you choose to believe that in the process they "kill", at least let them die for a cause, this embryos would otherwise be destroyed, in a useless "death".
wolfmankurd 3 years ago
Everyone who finds the usage of embryonic stem cells unethical should be shot! Don't ruin my chances to live extraordinary long and healthy! If you eat meat than you should totally shut your mouth. Look at nature, everything is living at the cost of everything else. Besides embryos don't have any conscious and past memories whatsoever! They're embryos with stemcells, that still have to form braincells to remember things!
bramcorleone 3 years ago 2
@bramcorleone I eat meat. I object to the consumption of our own young. Should I be shot for this objection? We all want cures, ethical cures, not cannibalization.
oran6es 1 year ago
....sorry that was in response to "
However, I strongly believe that using an abortion to provide stem cells is morally wrong. These scientists should give moral thought to the slippery slope they are on, and try to find a different way to extract stem cells that doesn't involve the moral equivalent of graverobbing."
The scientists are working on all possible avenues to saving lives.
Also, obtaining stem cells from is so very far from graverobbing, the closest analogy is organ donation
riddlix 3 years ago
riddix, "Also, obtaining stem cells from is so very far from graverobbing, the closest analogy is organ donation"
Sorry, but I disagree with that. Organ donation is a CHOICE--a conscious decision by an ADULT
If you can figure out some way to "ask that embryo" & get its permission, & you've cleared a big ethical hurdle. Until then, it's using a potential human life without its consent.
Talk to someone who's suffered a miscarriage before you suggest that "potential" life is no big deal.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Pudgimelon "If you can figure out some way to "ask that embryo" & get its permission, & you've cleared a big ethical hurdle. Until then, it's using a potential human life without its consent"
That kind of issue is exactly the issue, this is the great divide between scientists and the general population, scientists understand just what an embryo is - at the stage of development we're talking about is doesn't have a brain or at least anything capable of higher thought, it doesn't have an opinion
riddlix 3 years ago
riddix, "this is the great divide between scientists and the general population"
So you need "higher thought" in order to have rights? Then why not chop up people in comas for their organs?
See, this is why we NEED ethics in science. Just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD.
cont....
pudgimelon 3 years ago
The 'general population' is not stupid, & it's unwise to dismiss ethical considerations in a headlong rush towards some "benefit".
Ethical systems have been developed over the centuries by some VERY smart people, and I trust that much more than I trust some fairly recent lab work.
"Ethical concerns" doesn't necessarily equal "religious nonsense". And there are times when scientists need to take their eyes off "the prize" and think about the social consequences of their work.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Pudgimelon "Talk to someone who's suffered a miscarriage before you suggest that "potential" life is no big deal"
How is miscarriage anything to do with it? The pain experienced due to a miscarriage is surely due to the fact the parents wanted the child, had hopes for it and dreams for it. The "potential" is something they feel, not what the foetus/embryo feels - very different issues!
riddlix 3 years ago
riddix, "How is miscarriage anything to do with it? ... The "potential" is something they feel, not what the embryo feels - very different issues!"
No, it's not.
Their pain proves that all human life--even a POTENTIAL human life--has value.
There are some very negative societal consequences when you start doing things that erode humanity's value
You're naive to think that scientists can focus on the "facts" & work in a bubble divorced of social implications
That's how we end up with H-Bombs
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Hybrid embryos-(lots in the media about these) where there is no loss of human life but a whole new set of ethical issues. The final main option is cloned embryos (made using the patients nucleus and a donated egg), these are great but the costs obscene compared to obtaining the cells from aborted fetuses or left over IVF blastocysts
riddlix 3 years ago
riddix, "final option is cloned embryos....but costs obscene compared to the cells from aborted fetuses"
So if the costs can be reduced, it'd be OK to use cloned human life for experimentation?
Your logic is sound, but it is based on science & economics that are devoid of ETHICS.
Cloned embryos, adult cells, or "wasted" fetuses, etc.. The SOURCE isn't the issue!
You've put the cart before the horse. Is it ethical to do SCR in the first place? Answer THAT, & then talk about costs.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
"Cloned embryos, adult cells, or "wasted" fetuses, etc.. The SOURCE isn't the issue!
You've put the cart before the horse. Is it ethical to do SCR in the first place? Answer THAT, & then talk about costs."
My first posts were facts because you didn't know about the other types of stem cells. Opinion had no place with them.
You've also contradicted yourself because donors or adult stem cells have given consent so there aren't ethical issues (this is what bone marrow transplants are).
Cont...
riddlix 3 years ago
riddix, "You've also contradicted yourself because donors have given consent so there aren't ethical issues"
Oh yes there are!
Didn't I say that the source is not the issue?
Even if we had a source for stem cells that was completely free of ethical concerns, there would STILL be major problems with this research
Geron Corp & WARF aretwo leaders in American SCR, & they spend much of their time in a COURTROOM fighting over patents. That should give you an idea of what the future holds for SCR
pudgimelon 3 years ago
"..they think it's bad that embryos are dying just so companies can get more patents & more MONEY"
"Geron Corp & WARF aretwo leaders in American SCR, & they spend much of their time in a COURTROOM fighting over patents."
Now you're being hopelessly naive, in the UK most SCR is done by universities not companies looking for money. If companies were only in research for the money then they wouldn't go into SCR as they actually spend most their time in courtrooms trying to get permission to work!
riddlix 3 years ago
"Is it ethical to do SCR in the first place? Answer THAT, & then talk about costs."
In my personal opinion yes stem cell research is entirely ethical. I place more value on adult lives than those of 16 celled organisms (the stage of development when SCs are harvested from embryo's). Personally I find it a little morally repugnant that people are dying right now of things that are potentially cureable and people are petitioning to stop research into the cure
riddlix 3 years ago
riddix, "I place more value on adult lives than those of 16 celled organisms.." "..& people are petitioning to stop research into the cure"
First, nobody is petitioning to "stop the cure". Everyone wants these diseases cured, but they do not want millennia of values shredded in the process
You said you value human life & you desire this research because of that BELIEF. Other people value life too, & they think it's bad that embryos are dying just so companies can get more patents & more MONEY
pudgimelon 3 years ago
"First, nobody is petitioning to "stop the cure" "
When you petition to stop medical research thats exactly what your doing.
"Everyone wants these diseases cured, but they do not want millennia of values shredded in the process"
For millenia societies sacrificed adults to the gods, values change, it can be a good thing
riddlix 3 years ago
The science involved in this research is awesome and very laudable.
Unfortunately, we live in the real world & you cannot divorce "science" from "consequences". That's why we HAVE ethics in the first place
I'm sure the scientists at Aucshwitz thought they're doing "good science", but it certainly wasn't ethical!
The heart of this issue is the sanctity of human life, when does it start, & how much control do we have over our own bodies
You cannot answer those questions in a lab
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Stem cells no longer have to come from human embryos, they can be made from skin cells without killing anybody in the process. It's not an easy process, but we no longer have to consider the point you brought up.
balderdash707 3 years ago
The reset processing method doesn't quite work yet and we don't know why. They seem to lead to tumor cells. Not good. This is a rumour, not journal info. Does anyone have correction?
damianpoirier 3 years ago
What are you talking about? Google "stem cells from skin", and you get results from the Washington post, npr, bbc, msnbc, and other reputable sources. This isn't a rumor.
I couldn't find anything that even mentioned tumors in the contexts of stem cells. I want a source.
balderdash707 3 years ago
@damianpoirier
Ok, I found out what you were talking about. Stem cells (all kinds) normally reproduce indefinitely. For them to be of any use scientists need to figure out how to signal stem cells to differentiate and stop reproducing, if they don't tumors will often form. This is a problem with all stem cells however, not just the skin ones, and they're working on it. There's obviously a method for doing it though, as your body has done it billions of times.
balderdash707 3 years ago
balderdash707, "Stem cells no longer have to come from human embryos..."
Yeah, except that as I keep REPEATEDLY saying, my concerns about SCR do NOT come out of my anti-abortion stance.
Address the OTHER issues I raised please.
Let's see if you can grok this:
1) Anti-Abortion. Yes.
2) Pro-choice. YES.
3) My concerns about SCR come from the same concerns that lead me to be pro-choice politically in spite of being anti-abortion personally.
4) I'm pro-science too, btw.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
So yes, it's just cells in a dish, but these scientists are going to turn right around and patent those cells.
It is not a big leap from owning human tissue to owning humans (or some form of 'genetic slavery') and we erase the last 150 years of advancement in human rights
You think selective breeding to avoid defects is good, but Gattica had it right. What happens when they start denying jobs and premium insurance policies to people who aren't "gene-tailored"? That's a two-tiered society.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
"Gattica had it right."
only if we continue to squash gene replacement therapy too. It won't be long dude before anyone can have any gene they want AT ANYTIME IN THEIR LIFE.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
damianpoirier, "anyone can have any gene they want AT ANYTIME IN THEIR LIFE."
& you are naive enough to believe that governments won't try to control, use & abuse that tech?
What kind of privacy & body-rights do you think you will you have in the future?
This tech represents the ultimate invasion of privacy & the ultimate attack on "body ownership".
That's what Roe vs. Wade was about, btw: Protecting a woman's right to OWN her body. SCR has the potential to violate that right for all
pudgimelon 3 years ago
And don't mistake me. I don't believe corporations are evil. I'm sure the companies funding this research genuinely wish to help people (and make a profit).
But what you need to understand is that there is a huge difference between science for science's sake, and product research and development.
Geron Corp and WARF have already fought legal battles over the "rights" to human stem cells. The legal precedents they establish WILL dictate legal decisions in other cases, even abortion.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
NicNasty, you misunderstand, I'm not afraid of the science involved, and I am also well aware that S.C.R. is a very different kind of science than gene selection or selective breeding.
What you fail to see is that all of these things--SCR, gene tailoring, abortion, biotech--all have similar underlying MORAL, SOCIAL, LEGAL, and PROPRIETORIAL issues.
It has nothing to do with the science involved and everything to do with the CORPORATIONS funding that science.
cont...
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Sorry to spam this thread, but the 500-character count makes a long form answer on a complex topic very difficult.
I know some of my examples are a bit fanciful, but I'm just trying to illustrate that the problem is not simply a "moral issue". There are other factors that are just as troublesome.
If you say, don't worry, it's just cells in a dish? I'd answer that in 50 years, we went from horseback to H-Bombs. Where do you think this tech will go in your lifetime?
pudgimelon 3 years ago
While Americans might not abuse this tech, do you really think that China is going worry about ethics?
I bet they can't wait to build tougher, stronger, more obedient & DUMBER peasants. The "One Child Law" will be nothing compared to the "Selective Breeding" program (where you can have many kids, as long as you mix your genes in a petri dish & have the type of kids they ALLOW)
Just look at how addicted Americans are to meds & imagine a future where you are genetically addicted to products!
pudgimelon 3 years ago
So it's all well and good to hear about scientists using stem cells to treat heart disease, but it won't be long before someone figures out how to monetarize the technology (and then abuse and/or weaponize it).
Those of you who want to rush headlong into the future need to consider what kind of future do you want to have.
Do you seriously want your kids to be born with Nike-branded genes? Oops, your son meets the girl of his dreams but she's an Adidas product. Tough luck, son...
pudgimelon 3 years ago
"Do you seriously want your kids to be born with Nike-branded genes? Oops, your son meets the girl of his dreams but she's an Adidas product. Tough luck, son.."
you cant be scared of the future, you have to embrace it! i wonder what you would of sounded like when the first heart transplants were happening? you might of been worried about frankenstien monsters but now that its here it troubles nobody morally.
S.C.R. is NOT selecting genes but rather reproducing tissue fibre theres a big cont.
NicNasty1981 3 years ago
cont. if youre protesting cause youre scared of selective breeding your on the wrong page, its tissue regrowth only. Selecting genes is something completly different.
And china does have a 1 child per family rule but many people ignore it.
plus selective breeding has been happening for years! for years now people have been testing to see if their children have certain diseases or defects before going on with a pregnancy which i dont think is a bad thing.
why bring a child into this cont.
NicNasty1981 3 years ago
cont. world with a disease where its gonna suffer a short painful life??
NicNasty1981 3 years ago
OK:
1) While I support science 100%, I've serious concerns about S.C.R. I believe that in the push to "save lives", many scientists aren't carefully considering the moral, legal/social & proprietorial implications of their work
2) My concern about S.C.R. does not come from my objection to abortion
3) I object to abortion on personal, moral grounds
4) I am, however, pro-choice
5) My pro-choice stance and my concerns about S.C.R. both arise from the same place: "proprietorial body rights"
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Now, if they can just put these in a 3d printer and print a heart.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
I'm pro-choice, but also anti-abortion
Even though I cannot tolerate abortions, I remain pro-choice due to "body rights". It is VERY dangerous to start allowing the government to dictate what we can do with our own bodies
My stem cell concerns are about "body rights" too. We're entering an age where it'll be possible to patent human cells (would you like it if a company patented YOUR genome & OWNED your genetic rights?)
Think about ALL OF IT, not just the health benefits for some
pudgimelon 3 years ago
but pudgimelon, abortion is not the only way to get stem cells. Eggs are the best stem cells and are thrown out in massive supply ever week. these are cells that could be put to good use! what do you think about using these to benefit people?
NicNasty1981 3 years ago
after all these are embryonic stem cells aka eggs, and are the most useful and easily the most promising out of all the stem cells.
NicNasty1981 3 years ago
NicNasty, you're right, there are other ways to get stem cells, not just abortions.
However, as I said, I was responding to a comment about "wasted fetuses", which I strongly disagreed with.
My objection to stem cells does not arise from my objection to abortion.
This is tough to spell out in a 500 character post but I'll try, bear with me and I'll post another comment detailing my stance on this issue...
pudgimelon 3 years ago
know that baning stem cell is a conscious decision that will kill everyone who otherwise could have live with stem cell research. at the cost of cluster of cells. how does that rest well in your moral? YES those cells can become human. there is NO win-win solution at this time by moral standpoint, there is however a choice between saving lives and not saving lives (baning stem cell does not stop abortion) to a rational person the chose however hard is very obvious
ccaptorchen 3 years ago 2
ccaptorchen, we both agree that stem cell research is important and saves lives. However it is a complex issue and not as simple "the cost of a cluster of cells" as you suggest.
I agree that stem cells and abortion are separate issues, and I know that this video is about stem cell, not abortion. however, I was replying to someone who made a comment about "letting fetuses go to waste".
I think that is a morally repugnant statement. A fetus is not a resource that can be "wasted"!
pudgimelon 3 years ago
This is a wonderful and important advance in science and many people's lives will by saved by it.
I'm sure these scientists have the best of intentions and are decent, thoughtful and moral people.
However, I strongly believe that using an abortion to provide stem cells is morally wrong. These scientists should give moral thought to the slippery slope they are on, and try to find a different way to extract stem cells that doesn't involve the moral equivalent of graverobbing.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
while people are pondering about the morals of stem cell. fetus is being thrown out and people who needs stem cell research are dying. these scientist have fully weigh the ethical problems against the facts of reality. and if graverobbing will save lives, I will do it too.
ccaptorchen 3 years ago
Pudgimelon, there are several types of stem cells that researchers are experimenting with; adult stem cells -either taken from the patient or from a donor (which has the same rejection risks as organ transplant) and transplanted into damaged tissue, however these cells are usually unipotent (the significant exception being haemopoetic cells) meaning they can only form the same type of cells as they were producing originally. Cont...
riddlix 3 years ago
yay,progress,at last...
hartnell114 3 years ago
"Simple killing one life to graft into another." Mate, look at it logically here. Sure. If science was ordering women to get abortions so they could get stem cells, then yes, it would be wrong, but there NOT. The same number of abortions will happen if stem cell technology goes ahead or not. The only difference is the number of wasted fetuses that are just thrown out. Also, one fetus can supply an enormous amount of stem cells, saving a multitude of people. Your opinion fails logic.
Flinchie 3 years ago 2
Your opinion fails logic as well. One life for many is still wrong, especially when THAT life has NO CHOICE in the matter.
If a soldier gives his life for others, that's laudable & heroic, because HE made a decision to do it! (his MOM did not throw him on the grenade!)
Have you ever known anyone who's had a miscarriage? Trust me, it can be just as devastating as a child's death.
I agree that stem cell research is valuable & important, but USING abortions to do it is morally wrong. Period.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
that really depends on your definition of life.
cancer tumor is removed to save the live of the patient, and the cluster cell of cancer is as much alive as the embryo cells. is that still wrong?
also people who abort their baby obviously don't feel the devastation as someone who wanted to keep the baby. not saying I support abortions but emotional attachment makes little validity to stop stem cell research
ccaptorchen 3 years ago
"Your opinion fails logic as well. One life for many is still wrong, especially when THAT life has NO CHOICE in the matter.If a soldier gives his life for others, that's laudable & heroic, because HE made a decision to do it! (his MOM did not throw him on the grenade!)"
abortions arent the only way to get these cells.
also noone is having and abortion on purpose to have these cells.
if it was legalised abortions wont increase or decrease because there would be no way the mother can benifit
NicNasty1981 3 years ago
"Your opinion fails logic as well. One life for many is still wrong, especially when THAT life has NO CHOICE in the matter."
also its not like these children are being sacraficed in purpose to get these cells.
think of it this way. Many people organ donate when they die. I have registered all my organs for science or for transplant. this is an act of love on my behalf because i want to make a difference. if you could explain that to a fetus dont you think it would do the same??
NicNasty1981 3 years ago
Can we please get this straight: People don't have abortions to create stem cells. People have abortions because they decide they don't want/can't have a child. Stem cell research is not wrong.
ShmeeShoo 3 years ago 3
Yay! Here's to technology!
Clockworkforest 3 years ago 3
I know I am far out numbered here. It does not mean my view should just be tossed aside.
jeffsadowski 3 years ago
its not killing one life to save another, you need to look at it more logicly. there are 10s of thousands of embryonic cells thrown out every week. These cells could have the possicility of becoming life if they were fertilised & inplanted in a womb. Thats why the church is against it cause they have the possibility. However they are being dumped everyweek so what chance do they have in a dumpster?? you might as well have a war on monthly menstrations while you're at it.
NicNasty1981 3 years ago 2
if its wrong because they have the possibility of becoming human then masturbation is genocide
ccaptorchen 3 years ago 3
"if its wrong because they have the possibility of becoming human then masturbation is genocide"
and so is scratching you nose or wiping your butt. Just because they have the potential. then every nucleus which 'could' be cloned deserves the same respect. "Stop rubbing it you're killing me." LOL
damianpoirier 3 years ago
cool :]
wolfsrainlvr 3 years ago
Bush banned the research because of his own moral conflictions against it, he violated one of many boundries one must not cross as a leader. Church and state are seperated to keep things fair for everyone, I just hope the next guy(or lady) in office doesn't tout their religion as a reason to vote for them, as if they are implying they will make (possibly unfair) biased judgements while president because of their religion.
Ezmarii 3 years ago 6
Ethics is beyond religion. Example is it ok to kill someone for shoplifting? It is wrong to underplay the ethical implications regardless of your stance when there are much better ways with adult stem cells having the same dna and less complications.
jeffsadowski 3 years ago
Ethics of doing this is too controversial.
jeffsadowski 3 years ago
could you explain why you think the ethics of doing this are too controversial?
I think the ethics of not doing it are more controversial considering the massive amount of diseases and injuries it can help.I have a spinal injury.Stephen Hawking has Lou Gehrig's.Imagine the improvement to his quality this could bring.Stephen can now only move his cheek and selects his words from a machine at the rate of 4 words a minute!!I bet you cant even imagine the pain he or any other sufferer goes thru!!
NicNasty1981 3 years ago 3
"I think the ethics of not doing it are more controversial considering the massive amount of diseases and injuries it can help.I have a spinal injury.Stephen Hawking has Lou Gehrig's.Imagine the improvement to his quality this could bring.Stephen can now only move his cheek and selects his words from a machine at the rate of 4 words a minute!!I bet you cant even imagine the pain he or any other sufferer goes thru!!"
Very well put NicNasty, and I agree 100%.
mattb521 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Simple killing one life to graft into another.
jeffsadowski 3 years ago
"Simple killing one life to graft into another."
Then stop eating.
WizardJim 3 years ago 5
If it weren't for embryonic research, we wouldn't have infertility treatments and embryo storage.
jjshen83 3 years ago
I still find it vaguely amusing that what may be one of the most beneficial subjects to research from a medical vantage point is deemed "immoral" because it somehow is against the sanctity of life.
I guess some people prefer to stick to a strong moral confiction that has little to no real material bases, rather than something that has actual evidence of what it can mean to us and injured people.
great progress anyway, scientific breakthrough of the best kind.
NShimaru 3 years ago 6
shows the importance of embriotic stem cells. I dont understand Bush banning stem cell research. 10s of thousands of cells r thrown out everyweek. the arguement against using them is the church wants 2 protect any cell that has the ability 2 become life, hence thinking it protects life but the eggs r being dumped anyway!!!
And before someone mentions Japan & the technology 2 make embriotic cells out of skin those cells become cancerous very quickly r of no use today. Embriotic is the way to go
NicNasty1981 3 years ago 3
You hit the nail on the head. It's blatantly hypocritical the way right-to-life types have restricted stem cell research, declaring how sacred these cells supposedly are, when in fact these same cells are being thrown in dumpsters everyday.
dafttool 3 years ago 4
It is not the same people.
jeffsadowski 3 years ago
Actually, yes it is. The difference between anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research are essentially the same exact people, with overlapping justifications for their intransigence.
dafttool 3 years ago
Actually no its not. They are not the same people throwing the cells down the dumpster every day. They did not create the cells in the first place. Most are against infertile insemination. They would say adopt. I think this kind of research leads down a road of too small a gene pool and we will have the same problem we are having with agriculture.
jeffsadowski 3 years ago
I never said right-to-life people were throwing cells away. What I said was that they don't bellyache and complain about cells being thrown away like they do about cells being used for research. It's hypocrisy to go after future, possible research, but not equally go after our present, actual wastefulness.
Genetic arguments are another matter entirely. Stem cell research is mostly about curing the worst diseases & ailments mankind knows, like how to grow back together a broken spine.
dafttool 3 years ago
"think this kind of research leads down a road of too small a gene pool"
nope all this does is help you and me live to see the day when you can toss any gene you want into your body. Don't fight it, it will be a great thing.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
yes, as damianpoirier points out, biotech research can lead to great things. True wonders. However, as with every scientific advance, the wonders come hand-in-hand with the horrors
Damian, let's say you insert a proprietary gene into your body that allows, skin color change. You're green one day, blue with orange dots the next. Awesome! Right?
Flipside: A company inserts a proprietary gene into some workers that requires them to eat bio-Wheaties, or DIE. That company now OWNS THEM & THEIR KIDS
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Flipside: A company inserts a proprietary gene into some workers that requires them to eat bio-Wheaties, or DIE. That company now OWNS THEM & THEIR KIDS
flipside: frakk the company dude. Nanotech is coming and centralized manufacturing goes the way of the dinosaur.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
damianpoirier, "flipside: frakk the company dude. Nanotech is coming and centralized manufacturing goes the way of the dinosaur"
While self-replicating nanotech is still a LONG way off, I agree that it will certainly change the way things are made, but if you think the death of centralized manufacturing will result in the demise of corporations, you are VERY naive.
Also, how is "nanotech" a rebuttal of my point? Nanotech will be just as open to abuse as biotech.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
"Nanotech will be just as open to abuse as biotech."
Yes, as is fire.
Things to keep in mind.
All our eggs are in one basket.
Comet Impact,GRB,Supernova though statisticly remote, DO OCCUR.
There is one choice, rocket forward or die.
The feasability study for nano has already been done. Nature did it for us via biology.
The solution to your paranoia is for YOU to be the corperation. Learn the knowlege. Acquire the tools. Make the DNA and NANO the YOU want to have.And empower others.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
damian, "The solution to your paranoia is...Learn the knowlege.Acquire the tools."
That is not valid at all.
a) It isn't "paranoia" to have ethical concerns about new research, especially if it touches at the core value of human life. It is VERY risky to do things that devalue human life.
b) No. Sorry. I do not--& should not--have to learn every new tech in order to protect my rights. Do you even understand the concept of ETHICS?
cont....
pudgimelon 3 years ago
Damian, What you just said is as silly as saying that since I don't know how to produce my own chemicals, I've no right to complain when someone dumps them into my drinking water supply.
You're only looking at things from a scientific perspective. And on that, I think we both AGREE. This research is great science.
But you're not seeing the other issues involved. This isn't just about "right2lifers" vs. "scientists".
It is a more complex issue that that.
pudgimelon 3 years ago
no, pudgi, I'm saying if you don't learn the tech you will be at the mercy of every tom dick and harry on the planet. How many corperations write computer viruses?
And yeah, it is about ethics and the right to life. We are machines. We can be repaired(probably indefinitly.
Each day 100,000 perple die from needless mechanical failure. We sould not tolerate this. Our war on terror? WTF? Billions thrown away on trash and destruction.
damianpoirier 3 years ago
damian,
At first you said, "Don't fight it, it will be a great thing."
Now you say, "if you don't learn the tech you will be at the mercy of every tom dick and harry on the planet"
So you acknowledge potential problems, but still see it as a great thing.
As do I.
However, what I've said is that we need to consider the ethical/legal/social/proprietorial implications of this tech before jumping headlong into it.
You dismissed that as paranoia.
I see it as common sense.
pudgimelon 3