Cure Disease, save lives/ Or flush the toilet (Stem Cells)

[Freethinker]

OK, in an effort to move elements of the Election debockel into seperate threads, here is one on Stem Cell Research.

 

Embryo's are created continually in fertilization clinics. Some small percent are transplanted to wombs. The rest are eventually disposed of rather than being allowed to use them for the most potentially benefitial medical research we have ever known!

 

There has not been a single valic reason given for this morally abhorant attack on humanity other than unsubstantiated religious mumbo jumbo. None of them hold up under even the slightest evaluation.

 

So instead of finding cures, we flush these unwanted embryos down the toilet.

[GAHD]

Fertility clinics shouldn't be making so many, there are allready too many people on the planet.

[Stargazer]

I don't see what the problem is, either. As far as I understand this research holds much promise.

Btw, are embryos the only way to get stem cells?

[IrishEyes]

Btw, are embryos the only way to get stem cells?

 

No, embryos are not the only way to get stem cells.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

No, embryos are not the only way to get stem cells.

But they are the only way to get certain types of stem cells. "Embryonic" Stem cells. The best, most flexible ones. The ones that hold the most potential benefit. There are things that other (adult) stem cells just can't do. Yes we are having success with the other types. But they will never work in other areas.

 

It is like asking "Is it OK to only cure certain diseases?".

 

Which diseases should we decide to intentionally ignore and instead flush those extra already existing fertilized eggs down the drain? That it is better to intentionally waste them than to use them for incredibly benefitial purposes!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Fertility clinics shouldn't be making so many, there are allready too many people on the planet.

Wouldn;t that be a seperate issue? One of population growth, not usage of already existing extra embyo's?

 

Perhaps your question has more to do with the ethics of fertility enhancement? Should couples that are unable to concieve "naturally" be provided extra outside effort?

 

But what about those already existing embyonic stem cells that will soon be flushed away unless an effort is made to stop it and use them for higly benefitial medical applications?

[Freethinker]

California passed a law last week creating a $3 billion, 10-year fund to subsidize embryonic stem research. Massachusetts is now looking to fast track a similar measure.

 

Once more we find it is PROFITS that are driving "moral" issues, with people that were opposed to things deciding their pocket book is more important than their claimed moral indignation.

 

No moral dilema for those not driven primarily by profits while claiming religious ideology.

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: GAHD

Fertility clinics shouldn't be making so many, there are allready too many people on the planet.

Wouldn;t that be a seperate issue? One of population growth, not usage of already existing extra embyo's?

 

Perhaps your question has more to do with the ethics of fertility enhancement? Should couples that are unable to concieve "naturally" be provided extra outside effort?

 

But what about those already existing embyonic stem cells that will soon be flushed away unless an effort is made to stop it and use them for higly benefitial medical applications?

 

 

First off, contrary to what must have been taught in the archaic age when you went to school, a sentence ending in '?' is a question. I have not posed a question in this thread, but made a statement.

 

That said, it isn't a separate issue. You claim it's outrageous these cells aren't being used for research, that they're just going to waste. I say they shouldn't be mass produced in the first place.

 

Now, to answer your last QUESTION(remember, sentence ending in '?' ); What about them? You want an effort made, purchase some and send them to Mexico where there aren't laws preventing cloning and embryonic research. If you feel particularly ambitious, you could always go donate the necessary material to a lab; I'm sure they'd love to get a sample of such a 'special' individual.

 

You want funding for those projects? Get your religious brethren to join you in making monthly donations to a place you think could use the money; you'd be surprised how far private funding goes.

[Aki]

Why are they creating more embryos than what they need? If they're going to flush the extras down the toilet, then just don't make that many of them.

[GAHD]

My point exactly Aki. I do understand that embryos react better to being frozen then either sperm or ova(ovum? too tired to check), but in all honesty there are always more people in need of money and thus a steady supply.

[Aki]

Originally posted by: GAHD

ova(ovum? too tired to check)

 

ova (singular); ovum (plurial)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: GAHD

Fertility clinics shouldn't be making so many, there are allready too many people on the planet.

 

First off, contrary to what must have been taught in the archaic age when you went to school, a sentence ending in '?' is a question. I have not posed a question in this thread, but made a statement.

Nor from what I was taught in my "archaic age when (I) went to school" did we learn to spell "allready" with two "l"'s.

 

But bringing these minor issues up does not enhance the flow of the discussion. It is just a simplistic ad homenum based attempt to avoid addressing the specific issue. Which you also fail to do in the rest of your reply. The rest of the ad homenums are deleted to conserve space.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Aki

Why are they creating more embryos than what they need? If they're going to flush the extras down the toilet, then just don't make that many of them.

First so what? So what if they create more fertilized embryo's than one at a time? Current science does not guarantee a 100% success rate with each and every embryo. The alternative would be an operation each and every time to remove a single egg, fertilize it and hope it succeeds. If not, start the entire medical operation process over and over and over. Instead they harvest a smal qty of eggs and fertilize them all, knowing that many will not make it and the qty is needed for backup.

 

In the natural process, eggs are primarily wasted each and every month. Even naturally fertilized eggs suffer over 65% failure rate. They do not come full term. By the very nature of procreation there is significant waste in the process.

 

Why not use what nature is going to waste anyway and get the tremendeous benefits that Embryonic Stem Cell research is indicating?

[GAHD]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: GAHD

Originally posted by: GAHD

Fertility clinics shouldn't be making so many, there are allready too many people on the planet.

 

First off, contrary to what must have been taught in the archaic age when you went to school, a sentence ending in '?' is a question. I have not posed a question in this thread, but made a statement.

Nor from what I was taught in my "archaic age when (I) went to school" did we learn to spell "allready" with two "l"'s.

 

But bringing these minor issues up does not enhance the flow of the discussion. It is just a simplistic ad homenum based attempt to avoid addressing the specific issue. Which you also fail to do in the rest of your reply. The rest of the ad homenums are deleted to conserve space.

 

Ok, so you delete your part of the quote, I wonder why? Also you appear to be playing Shakespear and creating words, care to provide something http://www.m-w.com or another online dictionary can define? Still, I persist that I did not pose a question in that original statement. Now quit dismissing my actual comments with your side tracking.

 

YOU have failed to respond to my addition other than to attempt your usual crotchety bullshit.

 

Why not use what nature is going to waste anyway and get the tremendeous benefits that Embryonic Stem Cell research is indicating?

Though not directed at myself, this question ties directly in with my previous statement, which being the actual 'meat' of my post, you of course decided to delete rather than respond to. Allow me to refresh you mind, I have no qualms about 'wasting space';

You want an effort made, purchase some and send them to Mexico where there aren't laws preventing cloning and embryonic research. If you feel particularly ambitious, you could always go donate the necessary material to a lab; I'm sure they'd love to get a sample of such a 'special' individual.

 

You want funding for those projects? Get your religious brethren to join you in making monthly donations to a place you think could use the money; you'd be surprised how far private funding goes.

Why no responce, your 'happy humanist' friends have vices for wallets or are you simply all talk and no walk like so many others?

[sanctus]

First time I speak as a moderator:

 

Freethinker and Gahd: where is the use of saying your opinion by almost (I enphatize almost) insulting the other?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus

Freethinker and Gahd: where is the use of saying your opinion by almost (I enphatize almost) insulting the other?

Good question. I was wondering the same thing.

 

Notice, I started this thread, GAHD replied. No complications in either. I then posted a reply also lacking ANY anomosity or attacks. Merely asking if the two are not seperate issues.

 

3 posts, not problems....

 

Then GAHD attacked.

 

So if you want to know WHY the thread turned sour, ask the person that did it.

[sanctus]

Now as a poster:

 

there are actually two main question discussed here, as I see it.

 

1) Should we produce stem cells of embryos? and why?

 

2) What do we do with the ones we've got?

 

 

My answers:

 

1) No, for what I know there already enough cells to do enough research to prove that there is really an interest or none in this sector.

If yes, I bekieve that there should be produced, because:

a) I don't think that just a "omnipotent cell" can feel pain

:) it's better to do experiments on human cells than on animals who suffer pain (I think I'll start a thread on this)!

 

2) Use them for research. The reason for people with "ethical problems" is: at least so that part of human life is sacrified for saving other lifes, instead of being sacrified for nothing.

 

 

 

A part from this, Gahd I do not agree that the research should be made in Mexico (or somewhere else, nothing against Mexico), the reaon is very simple: let's suppose they find something then all the world will want to have this knowledge and everybody is happy; let's suppose they find that there is nothing to find, then all the world will blame them forgetting that they also wanted to do that research (actually were already starting to do it) before the ethicists came up. In other words you want something then do it yourself, instead of waiting that others do it and then you can blame them for if it doesn't work, this would be a bit FAKE!!!