Author Topic: Stem celly goodness. (Read 1747 times)

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #15 on:** November 18, 2002, 05:58:52 PM »

Nevahmine
-SW

Thrawn · « **Reply #16 on:** November 18, 2002, 07:02:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Do you think we should let people donate other peoples "blood and other tissues"?

Fetus aren't people.

Kanth · « **Reply #17 on:** November 18, 2002, 07:41:55 PM »

This already happens.

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Do you think we should let people donate other peoples "blood and other tissues"?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #18 on:** November 18, 2002, 07:45:55 PM »

I hope stem cell work goes ahead and the religion fanatics step aside on this issue, thry are wrong...

Fatty · « **Reply #19 on:** November 18, 2002, 07:53:53 PM »

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #20 on:** November 18, 2002, 08:30:03 PM »

God must really wanna smite the FDBs...!
-SW

NUKE · « **Reply #21 on:** November 18, 2002, 09:36:24 PM »

Stem cells my arse!

Nash · « **Reply #22 on:** November 18, 2002, 10:16:57 PM »

To be honest I've not been following stem cell research and the surrounding controversy much at all... but this jumped out at me:

"The fetus develops into a human being, given the opportunity. The same cannot be said for the other types of tissue."...."But human life is sacred, whether we believe in God or not."

It seems to me you need to take this matter up with the people and the laws that make abortion possible. It may sound ugly, but once a fetus is unable to grow, it is as dead as any other dead thing. I don't think you can mix the benefits of stem cell research with abortion.... if that's your issue. To do so seems to be applying an additional layer of morality on top of something that's already been done and is now out of the debate.

Don't like abortion? Well maybe there should be a law against it. But if it's legal... we're looking at tissue that can benefit a whole lot of people.

Of course, if the benefits of this stem cell biz increases the number of abortions somehow (ie. $$ for fetuses) then you've got a beef and you should write to your local Omnibudsman. Otherwise I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Sandman · « **Reply #23 on:** November 18, 2002, 11:01:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
To be honest I've not been following stem cell research and the surrounding controversy much at all... but this jumped out at me:

"The fetus develops into a human being, given the opportunity. The same cannot be said for the other types of tissue."...."But human life is sacred, whether we believe in God or not."

It seems to me you need to take this matter up with the people and the laws that make abortion possible. It may sound ugly, but once a fetus is unable to grow, it is as dead as any other dead thing. I don't think you can mix the benefits of stem cell research with abortion.... if that's your issue. To do so seems to be applying an additional layer of morality on top of something that's already been done and is now out of the debate.

Don't like abortion? Well maybe there should be a law against it. But if it's legal... we're looking at tissue that can benefit a whole lot of people.

Of course, if the benefits of this stem cell biz increases the number of abortions somehow (ie. $$ for fetuses) then you've got a beef and you should write to your local Omnibudsman. Otherwise I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

I see your point. Still, I think those that have a moral argument worry that people may chose to abort simply to harvest the stem cells.

My initial thought is to consider that to be a piss poor reason to choose to abort.

After second thought, it occurs to me that the reason to abort or not is none of my business. That decision belongs to the one that owns the womb. Her reasons are her own.

Of course... Telling a woman she can do whatever she damn well pleases with her own body is good for talk but it's hardly the reality. Prostitution being a prime example.

c H e F · « **Reply #24 on:** November 18, 2002, 11:26:10 PM »

The simplest way I see it is: if we cannot create human life we ought not be killing it. If we don't know Who created it then we shouldn't make arrogant assumptions about something we can't do or Who may have done it. Be a real hero and go make your own life and stem cells to play with!

A previous poster said:
"Ever notice, those that oppose the research don't have a pressing medical issue that would benefit from the research...."

Baloney.

I am going to die sometime. I don't need to get hysterical about my particular eminent reason for death so as to jump on an unborn induced death to promote or extend my life. Are you kidding me? That is deception. It is also incoherency brought about by repeated irresponsibility. No organ replacement anywhere can fix that.

Also, it is not "the research" we are against, it is the way and upon what that research should be conducted.

Stem cells will soon be obtained from neutral host sources. Even sooner if killing babies is deemed a selfish and immoral way to get easy cells. Don't let lazy scientists trying to get gratuitous grants sell you that the unborn's cells are the only way. What media farms these cells into mature organs? I guess pigs and cows drugged up with immune suppressants. What would that clinic look like? Keep in mind we have long since banned Kobe beef.

The issue is really cloning. If God installs a spirit into a clone then you have only a twin younger than you. The secular researcher's goal to defeat this "inconvenience" would be to clone with an impaired brain gene. This would produce a permanently comatose clone showing no higher brain activity yet able to has its life sustained artificially long enough to harvest organs or scaffold cellular materials. This is no different than a killer getting off by a technicality...uh....just like OJ. There have been folks returning from this dark coma place to tell us they have heard and understood while helpless to move.

It is my view that if you are nearing death you need to get your house in order. What good is a new heart etc., if your brain is plaqued? Let's say you are 75. You are going to convince me that you need another 5 years to..do what? If you haven't been able to get what God wants you to do done in your life by then you might be a looser anyway lol. I mean what were your life long priorities anyway? Get to Vegas every year? lol

Some questions.

Transplants for premature ailments or young persons are wonderful. Who will pay for 50 million simple old age transplants in year? Or in a month.. someone has to pay for incubating a body or cellular mass for 6-10 years to harvest usable organs? Insurance rates? A clone body becomes a national right? Ok, it will be like Social Security..we all pay into it? If the top 10% (or rich) pay 75% of the taxes now who will pay for the poor's clones..the voting base of the liberals? Will the rich republicans be appreciated for once?

You take out the heart of your clone then all the other organs die..so I guess you'll need several clones? Oh, you thought you will need each organ you farmed all harvested at the same time? lol

At least at this time, each one of us would need a huge warehouse to cultivate all the potential clones incubated until we might need them. A couple for skin..you might get burned. AT least one for an extra heart. One for a pancreas. One for a liver. One for eyes. One would due for dental implants, inner ear parts, meniscus, ligaments and joints. One for lungs and kidneys. Warehouses will cost millions each properly staffed to get the job done. Could you intravenously gang two clones together to keep another one alive that had a sole vital organ removed?

Yes, I am getting old and I would like a new pancreas. As of this last summer I know that my death will be diabetic related (if I don't meet with something else sudden and catastrophic). I have an "interest" in stem cell research for sure...but not with the simply inconvenient unborn babies Rowe/Wade has proliferated and lead many to kill.

c H e F

Nash · « **Reply #25 on:** November 18, 2002, 11:27:12 PM »

How many women are going to get pregnant and have abortions for the sole and selfless act of doing their part to increase the stem cell supply?

Even suggesting that a woman who is waffling between an having an abortion or carrying the child to labour will make her final decision based on fixing the heart of some old fat guy from Iowa is a bit of a stretch.

Choice/Lifers.....

It's got nothing to do with stem cells. It has everything to do with choice/lifers. Starts there and ends there.

If you think it's broken, fix that. But to allow abortions to take place... and if the law backs that up... Then what does this have to do with stem cells?

The whole thing strikes me as either steeped in some kinda legalistic hypocracy or... something... I don't know... misplaced.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #26 on:** November 18, 2002, 11:35:56 PM »

Can't see the forest for the trees.

Hey guy, look over there, is that a new righteous moral path to take?

Honestly, the fetus is dead. It's dead because the mom did not want the baby for whatever reason.

If it's dead, it's dead and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. But hey, maybe it can help us out...

Instead, next time a baby gets born with a bum heart, failing kidneys, or some other ailment related to an internal organ... that dead fetus' stem cells may go to giving it a new organ.

But nevermind that.... can't let reality get in the way of morality.
-SW

Sandman · « **Reply #27 on:** November 18, 2002, 11:36:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
The whole thing strikes me as either steeped in some kinda legalistic hypocracy or... something... I don't know... misplaced.

And to think you actually used to live in the U.S.

Legalistic hypocracy is what we live for.

StSanta · « **Reply #28 on:** November 19, 2002, 12:27:05 AM »

Heh I love how people redefine things.

'Fetus' is a medical term. I'll ask my sis for the details. For starters I'll use a dictionary.

fetus
n : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal.

Later stages is referring to the fact that this stage is after the embryonic one.

Bit of a stretch, but if others are stretching the 'unborn child' aspect, then so can I stretch.

Calling a fetus a child is like calling a caterpillar a butterfly.

Besides, it's a straw man argument in the discussion about stem cells. Fetuses die for a variety fo reasons - intentional abortion is just one of them.

Stem cell research has been given the go ahead in Europe. So eat European dust yanks; get with it or we'll leave ya behind

.

And we can't have that, can we? I mean, the US is the freest most technologically advanced country in the world; the place where all breakthroughs happen, right?

Couldn't resist

Nash · « **Reply #29 on:** November 19, 2002, 12:36:07 AM »

I wonder what the US medical lobby is gonna be whisperin' in the government's ear when people start flying to Europe for treatment.

huge money on one side <-----------> conservative morals on the other

That's a hell of a dilemma shaping up