Debate Table

[Tsl 7]

Plenty of bums living on the street. Not contributing to anything. Without anything to live for. No future. Should they be used too?

K, that's a terrible analogy and the sort typically used by anti-stem cell research types to sway the bellow-average intelligence masses. I'm somewhat insulted, as should the rest of the site's members, that you attempted to use it on us.

Now, if you truly do believe in your statement, I apologize for calling you of bellow average intelligence, and let me show you why I said it...

Embryoes in fertility clinics: frozen clump of cells that do not even resemble a human, have no personality, no chance of survival

street bums: not frozen, fully developed human being, has a personaility, has a chance at not only surviving, but of making something of themselves someday

If you still cannot wrap your mind around the differences, then how about this. You cannot harvest embryonic stem cells from an adult. That's why they're called embryonic. The types of stem cells we as adults or near adults have are partially differentiated already. They will have to become a specific type of cell with our specific genetic markers and all that.

[Princess 35]

Stem Cell Information by NIH

[Bushy 0]

>>A fertilized egg is considered totipotent, meaning that its potential is total; it gives rise to all the different types of cells in the body.

>>Stem cells that can give rise to a small number of different cell types are generally called multipotent.

>>Pluripotent stem cells can give rise to any type of cell in the body except those needed to develop a fetus.

There's nothing wrong with extracting and studying stem cells that aren't already a part of a living human being (yes, a human becomes a human at the moment when the egg is fertilized and begins multiplying, shut the hell up, don't tell me I'm wrong). But once that human life starts, then the cells should be left the hell alone.

Don't know if this has been pointed out or not, but many people have been helped tremendously through stem cell research, excluding stem cells from embryos and fertilized eggs. Those kinds of stem cells haven't helped a damn person yet. Actively killing a human to save another's memory or something trivial compared to death is wrong. Period. Case closed. I win. You all lose. I'm 1337, j00 all sux (except for JM and Ender)

[CorSec 5]

K...tsl...Spiffy. Insulted? k.

Well...here's my deal. I was merely suggesting the idea as a viable theory. Perhaps I don't believe it. Like I said, some people will. Sure, my embryo has no personality, but it's still human in some peoples minds.

Again. Let me stress. No strong feelings. This entire arguement is really just based on you're perception of humanity.

And if I ever insult you're intelligence again...don't tell me. "I don't care"

Edited October 13, 2004 by CorSec

[Tsl 7]

And I was merely pointing out that to say there is no difference between them is ludicrous.

I think you misconstrued my words again. No surprize. I'm quite used to it coming from you. And yes, I know...you don't care. You win the award for Most Apathetic member. Yay.

[CorSec 5]

Hey. It was you're word use. Just the little jabs at my intelligence and you're obvious feeling of insult.

[Tsl 7]

Bushy: Yes! You're right, those stem cells are wonderful for treating Lukemias. The embryonic stem cells research is focused differently though. They are looking at creating new tissues, maybe even organs with it. They could replace, say, myelin lost in Multiple Scleriosis, stopping the degenerative effects of the disease.

Nobody has been helped by it yet because it's very new, and they haven't gotten far enough into it to start using it effectively and safely yet.

[Princess 35]

Yes, a bone marrow transplant is a stem cell transplant, and in most cases it works. But bone marrow cells don't exactly have the ability to become nerve tissue to help stop the effects of Alzheimers. I have an uncle that has alzheimer's disease, and if this can help him, then I'm all for it because NOBODY deserves to go through that. And I don't have my notes with me, so I'm pulling this number from memory, but in the bone marrow only 0.5% of the cells are stem cells.

[GI_Admiral 2]

I am not going to debate on Stem cell research.

Why? I dont know too much about it.

Let the people who have studied and research it debate. People who might have heard a tv report or something like that, have little substance and this will most likely turn intouseless arguing and hurt feelings.

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

same here. until i know more about it, i can't really form an opinion on it.

[Princess 35]

Read the stuff that I linked to on the previous page, and I'll try to answer any questions that I can since I've got some college edumacation on stem cells

[Tsl 7]

hehe, edumacation...I got me some of that too ;)

[GI_Admiral 2]

So Bushy mentioned you kill a baby to take its embryo?

Actively killing a human to save another's memory

From reading part of this, that is the most important question I have.

[Alexander 0]

Well then you get into the whole concept of killing a human or killing a "potential" human. I can't force my view on you, and Bush can't force his view on me. The needs of many outweigh the needs of the few, and right now, such research would benefit more than it would harm.

[Bushy 0]

Senator John Kerry criticized President George W. Bush

on the subject of embryonic stem cell research. He

said the president was "turning his back on science in

favor of ideology," and that his position was

emblematic of how he "makes decisions" and how he

"sees the world."

Catholic League president William Donohue addressed

Kerry's remarks as follows:

"Senator Kerry is correct to say that President Bush's

decision to put limits on federal funding of embryonic

stem cell research tells us something about the way he

makes decisions and sees the world. It also tells us

something about those who want no restrictions

whatsoever. This is what Kerry said yesterday: 'I

will stop at nothing to get stem cell research moving

in this country.' Which means there are no ethical

concerns that give this man pause about destroying

human embryos. This tells us volumes about the way he

sees the world, beginning with nascent human life.

"Kerry says that to put limits on embryonic stem cell

research is to 'sacrifice science for extreme,

right-wing ideology.' But Kerry knows full well that

right-wing ideology has no more to do with this issue

than left-wing ideology-the issue is one of biology,

pure and simple. Either one believes that life begins

at conception, or one does not. If life begins at

conception-and the scientific evidence is overwhelming

that it does-then there is only one defensible moral

position to take: embryos must be protected. And

since embryonic stem cell research cannot take place

without destroying embryos, logic dictates that we

should pursue adult stem cell research and not toy

with embryos.

"Kerry has boxed himself in. On the one hand, he says

he is a 'practicing and believing Catholic' who

believes that 'life begins at conception.' But on the

other hand, he says he will stop at nothing to allow

the killing of human embryos for the purpose of

research. This is not just another flip-flop-it's a

morally incoherent position about the most salient of

issues."

[Alexander 0]

Maybe Kerry *gasp* thinks his religious beliefs and his governmental power should not work hand-in-hand!

[GI_Admiral 2]

Whoa!!! What a crazy concept!!!!! :eek:

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

so, the values that his religion teaches him should have no impact on how he would run the country? now there's a scary thought.....

[GI_Admiral 2]

He should do things that help the American people. If it goes against his values, oh well, he was voted to help the people, not preach everyday about his religion.

[chozen 1]

The msulim religion is the fastest growing religion in America. It must be stopped.

[Tsl 7]

then there is only one defensible moral

position to take: embryos must be protected. And

since embryonic stem cell research cannot take place

without destroying embryos, logic dictates that we

should pursue adult stem cell research and not toy

with embryos.

But the embryoes are destroyed after a set amount of time anyways. That's my whole point and one this dude is refusing to address...

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

He should do things that help the American people. If it goes against his values, oh well, he was voted to help the people, not preach everyday about his religion.

you can be moralistic and not preach about religion at the same time. ending slavery was immensely unpopular at the time, but i think we can all agree it was a good, moral choice. the right thing to do is rarely the popular thing to do.

[Princess 35]

Either one believes that life begins

at conception, or one does not. If life begins at

conception-and the scientific evidence is overwhelming that it does-then there is only one defensible moral position to take: embryos must be protected. And since embryonic stem cell research cannot take place without destroying embryos, logic dictates that we should pursue adult stem cell research and not toy with embryos.

Ok here's a thought, life doesn't really begin, it is just a continuation. Can you form an embryo if the eggs are not viable? Can you form an embryo is the sperm is dead? Therefore, everytime a woman mensturates or a man ejaculates, they are killing innocent lives. Just think about that.

Also, there are differences between adult and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells don't last as long as embryonic stem cells. They also have been exposed to more environmental factors as well as growth factors that can influence what a stem cell becomes.

[Tsl 7]

These big important types really ought to research what it is they're so against. It bothers me when they make statements like "We can use adult cells instead!" Because no....we can't.

How can you so vehemently oppose something you have no clue about?

[Alexander 0]

He should do things that help the American people.  If it goes against his values, oh well, he was voted to help the people, not preach everyday about his religion.

you can be moralistic and not preach about religion at the same time. ending slavery was immensely unpopular at the time, but i think we can all agree it was a good, moral choice. the right thing to do is rarely the popular thing to do.

We agree with that now, because we were raised with the concept that slavery is wrong. But if we were in that time period we'd probably be in the group that favors slavery.