Stem Cell Research

[Aethix 129]

I don't care if we aren't eating them, it's still cannibalization. And there is no abrupt, defining change between an embryo in early development and an embryo in late development. The only change that does not occur continuously is the change that occurs at the moment of conception. Therefore, the only logical conclusion to be reached is that life and consciousness itself begins at conception.

[Chameleon 0]

Cannibalism (ka-nə-bə-ˌli-zəm) n.:

1. The usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being.

2. The eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind.

Now that we've established you clearly have no idea what cannibalism is, anything else you say can rightfully be disregarded.

Edited 10 May 2009 by Chameleon (see edit history)

[Aethix 129]

can

[Chameleon 0]

By definition I am wrong, but that definition is an utterly retarded metaphorical use of the word. It's also just ridiculous that the metaphor has become the definition. Besides, that sounds more parasitic to me.

It's a shame I couldn't have learned something from this. Usually I find the general consensus reasonable, but this is just stupid.

Edited 10 May 2009 by Chameleon (see edit history)

[Skippy 82]

Dustin, you don't know what you are talking about. I've seen footage of a late-term abortion. The embryo tries to get away from the suction tube, even as it is violently broken into little pieces and sucked out of its mothers womb. And then the "doctors" performing the abortion stick clamps into the womb to crush the dead embryo's head and suck out the pieces. What I'm saying is, yes, the embryo cares whether it lives or dies, and that footage proves it. It shouldn't even be killed in the first place; IVF should be banned.

We shouldn't cannibalize babies.

Maybe you need to clarify the difference between an embryo and a fetus.

An Embryo is a fertilized, unhatched, human egg. An Embryo is only an embryo for about eight days. It doesn't have a head to crush.

You are talking about a fetus, the formed body of a human baby in the womb, and those types of abortions are now illegal.

And IVF should be banned? So, we should not allow people to have children of their own? You need a wake up call into the ways of the world friend. Did you know that many conservative Jews will shun those who cannot conceive? IVF is their only option. What gets thrown away in IVF is a cryogenically frozen fourth day embryo. Not a fetus.

Edited 11 May 2009 by skippy (see edit history)

[Aethix 129]

I'm sorry, but if it's fertilized, then it's alive. If it's human, then killing it for any reason other than self-defense is nothing short of murder. If they can find a way to do IVF without killing embryos, then that would be fine. And there is no clear, solid line that separates an embryo from a fetus.

[Skippy 82]

I'm sorry, but if it's fertilized, then it's alive. If it's human, then killing it for any reason other than self-defense is nothing short of murder. If they can find a way to do IVF without killing embryos, then that would be fine. And there is no clear, solid line that separates an embryo from a fetus.

No No, scientifically, yes, there is. A fetus is not a fetus until it has differentiated and formed a body. Look it up friend.

fetus |ˈfētəs| ( Brit. (in nontechnical use) also foetus)

noun ( pl. -tuses )

an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

And IVF doesn't kill embryos, it creates them, and uses them to create children, you have a lot of your facts very distorted.

Quite frankly, if it isn't sentient, meaning it can think and feel on it's own, then it's a woman's choice, and if that choice is to not implant an embryo, than I think it should be used for research.

And if you want to get into all the embryos that go unused in IVF, it's only because they would fail anyway, the amount of embryos used to babies born is higher in IVF than natural birth. It's natural that most human embryos, even naturally conceived, will not become human. Over ninety percent of all reproductive material in the human body is defective, meaning even if the egg is fertilized, it wouldn't make it to eight ays without freezing, and you can tell by the third or fourth day if it's even viable. So even though they cannot create a baby, they can be used for stem cells.

It's people who don't fully understand what's going on that stop beneficial research from happening, people like to stand back and be righteous than maybe give a little bit and try to understand what is going on in the world around them.

[ZuZu 10]

Quite frankly, if it isn't sentient, meaning it can think and feel on it's own, then it's a woman's choice, and if that choice is to not implant an embryo, than I think it should be used for research.

Agreed. If a baby does not have conscious thought, it has no opinion on its creation or its use for scientific purposes, and should be kept 100% up to the mother & father.

[Aethix 129]

You cannot prove that the embryo is not sentient. In America, we believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, we should not kill embryos or introduce situations in which embryos can be killed until hard evidence can be produced that embryos are not sentient.

And, the line that separates embryo from fetus is a blurred line. The line that separates unfertilized egg and sperm is clear and well-defined.

It doesn't really matter, anyways. Adult stem cells work and embryonic stem cells don't. And no one has the right to chose life or death for an innocent person.

[Max 10]

We also think that we should force our religious views onto every other nation despite the fact that we came here for religious freedom ourselves.

[Otis McNutt 395]

Do you realise that if it wasn't for that science fearing MORON George W. Bush, we might have advanced Stem Cell techniques that could've saved Christopher Reeve! Not to mention others with severe paralysis. FUKCING BUSH

[Skippy 82]

You cannot prove that the embryo is not sentient. In America, we believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, we should not kill embryos or introduce situations in which embryos can be killed until hard evidence can be produced that embryos are not sentient.

And, the line that separates embryo from fetus is a blurred line. The line that separates unfertilized egg and sperm is clear and well-defined.

It doesn't really matter, anyways. Adult stem cells work and embryonic stem cells don't. And no one has the right to chose life or death for an innocent person.

Actually, we can.

Sentient beings (Beings who are aware of themselves) Have advanced thought (Electrical) Patterns. These can be measured by electro-encephalograms. Extensive testing has proved that Embryos are not only NON-Sentient beings, but they have no thought at all. You cannot be sentient without thought.

The line that separates an embryo from a fetus is very not blurred, an embryo hasn't even hatched, brush up on your reproductive science friend.

Embryo

Blastocyst

-Then hatches

then becomes a cellular mass, what was the embryo becomes the placenta, and cells differentiate and the mass becomes a fetus. At eight weeks, give or take a couple of days, the fetus will make it's first movements. Till them the fetus doesn't have a formed neural system, much less thoughts. At this point abortions are illegal, and there aren't any stem cells to be used.

And as I stated before, adult stem cells don't really work, you might be able, if your lucky, to make a skin graft out of it. Which is great, go ahead and do that. But with further research into embryonic, we may be able to cure paralysis or MS or down's. The only reason they haven't worked yet is because Bush stopped it before we could make any real headway. We've done much more research much longer on adult, if we can devote that time to embryonic, then we may be able to find a cure.

[Aethix 129]

Bush didn't stop a thing. He merely banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Private investors were allowed to put all the money they want into it. They just didn't want to, because they knew it wasn't going anywhere. So maybe you ought do some research before knocking on Bush, m'kay?

Also, in response to Skippy's claim that adult stem cells don't work...

• http://www.whitehead.mit.edu/programs/ask/101606.html
  
• http://donmargolis.com/blog/2009/04/adult-...ient-in-canada/
  
• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle1637528.ece
  
• http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/7907
  
• http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/0...-cell-research/
  
• What the heck? Here's one from umbilical cord blood stem cells: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=46546
  
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2037629/posts
  

Shall I list some more, or is this sufficient?

What have embryonic stem cells done for anybody lately again... oh that's right. TUMORS! Tumors FTW!

[Skippy 82]

Bush didn't stop a thing. He merely banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Private investors were allowed to put all the money they want into it. They just didn't want to, because they knew it wasn't going anywhere. So maybe you ought do some research before knocking on Bush, m'kay?

Also, in response to Skippy's claim that adult stem cells don't work...

• http://www.whitehead.mit.edu/programs/ask/101606.html
  
• http://donmargolis.com/blog/2009/04/adult-...ient-in-canada/
  
• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle1637528.ece
  
• http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/7907
  
• http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/0...-cell-research/
  
• What the heck? Here's one from umbilical cord blood stem cells: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=46546
  
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2037629/posts
  

Shall I list some more, or is this sufficient?

What have embryonic stem cells done for anybody lately again... oh that's right. TUMORS! Tumors FTW!

Okay, I will be a big boy here.

But why is it that people only pick a part of a post to respond to?

I was wrong, there has been limited success in adult stem cell research.

However, it does not change the fact that embryonic has not been given as much time or effort as a direct result of bush's campaigning. It also does not change the fact that you have shown no idea as to the process of recovering embryonic stem cells.

Now, it is possible that embryonic stem cells are even more useful, as they are still more flexible, and that with time and effort they will be very successful.

And as for bush not stopping research, he cut federal funding, and then openly supported and pushed organizations who stopped it in individual states, as mine. One of the leading organizations donated huge sums of money to Bush's pet projects in return for his support. He may not have signed a federal ban, but he pushed for bans in individual states, like mine.

I actually supported much of what Bush did, but he did all he could to stop anything that he felt was against his religion, which I strongly disagree with. Policy should not have any religious influence.

There simply hasn't been the time, effort or funding there to do the research, I'm not even talking treatment, but the research to perfect the treatment.

Edited 12 May 2009 by skippy (see edit history)

[Aethix 129]

Fine, they just use embryonic stem cell research from discarded human embryos from IVF now, but what about after those embryos run out? Then these research groups will start creating embryos for the express purpose of destroying them in research. I still believe it is on the same level as cannibalism, and I will never agree to undergo any procedure using embryonic stem cells, and I will continue to protest their use.

Which brings me to your point about Bush. He was well within his rights as an individual to protest their use and to advocate organizations that work against their use. He has the right to do anything within his power as an individual to protest anything he finds immoral, and to stop taxpayer money from going to research many Americans find immoral as the president. He did not overstep his boundaries as president in any way in that regard.

It doesn't change the fact that its support from private investors has been minimal. They understand the fact that embryonic stem cell research has little probability of success, and even if it is successful, those success would probably be surpassed by adult stem cell research. I will admit it is possible embryonic stem cells could be more useful, but extremely unlikely.