IVF

[Shinoda_baby]

r u against stem cell research or against it?
and why?
im kinda for it and not for it...seeing your still taking a life.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Shinoda_baby@Jun 15 2005, 09:28 PM
seeing your still taking a life.
I'm for researching subjects before posting your opinion on it.


Stem cell research does not involve taking a life.

[Shinoda_baby]

well IVF does. its killing en embryo.

[Minus Xero]

Originally posted by Shinoda_baby@Jun 15 2005, 08:38 PM
en embryo.
Is that like... Spanish or something?

Most people tend to believe that an embryo isn't necessarily a person until a certain stage.

[Atsuzen]

Originally posted by Minus Xero+Jun 16 2005, 10:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Minus Xero @ Jun 16 2005, 10:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Shinoda_baby@Jun 15 2005, 08:38 PM
en embryo.
Is that like... Spanish or something?

Most people tend to believe that an embryo isn't necessarily a person until a certain stage. [/b][/quote]
Still, it's alive.

[Shinoda_baby]

Originally posted by Atsuzen+Jun 16 2005, 02:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Atsuzen @ Jun 16 2005, 02:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Minus Xero@Jun 16 2005, 10:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Shinoda_baby@Jun 15 2005, 08:38 PM
en embryo.
Is that like... Spanish or something?

Most people tend to believe that an embryo isn't necessarily a person until a certain stage.
Still, it's alive. [/b][/quote]
yeah i agree. its a living cell.

[Minus Xero]

Originally posted by Atsuzen+Jun 15 2005, 08:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Atsuzen @ Jun 15 2005, 08:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Minus Xero@Jun 16 2005, 10:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Shinoda_baby@Jun 15 2005, 08:38 PM
en embryo.
Is that like... Spanish or something?

Most people tend to believe that an embryo isn't necessarily a person until a certain stage.
Still, it's alive. [/b][/quote]
Everything is alive to a certain degree.

If we didn't kill things because they were alive, we'd be pretty screwed.

Wood comes from trees. Trees are alive. Should we not have wood?

Wood was first used as a way to survive. Wood = fire. That's a justifiable reason to 'kill' the tree.

Stem cell research will save many lives, and prevent death in many cases.

Is that not justified? The embryo, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), is not conscious, much like the tree. For the greater good...?

EDIT: Shinoda_Baby: Bacteria are living cells. Should we not try to eradicate them when we use Lysol to wipe our tables (made of wood, furthermore)?

[Shinoda_baby]

Originally posted by Minus Xero@Jun 16 2005, 03:04 AM


If we didn't kill things because they were alive, we'd be pretty screwed.

Wood comes from trees. Trees are alive. Should we not have wood?

Wood was first used as a way to survive. Wood = fire. That's a justifiable reason to 'kill' the tree.

Stem cell research will save many lives, and prevent death in many cases.

Is that not justified? The embryo, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), is not conscious, much like the tree. For the greater good...?

EDIT: Shinoda_Baby: Bacteria are living cells. Should we not try to eradicate them when we use Lysol to wipe our tables (made of wood, furthermore)?
but there are good bacteria (as in yoghurt) and bad bacteria (as in viruses)
a embryo is a cell that multiplies to form a feotus.

[Minus Xero]

Originally posted by Shinoda_baby+Jun 15 2005, 09:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shinoda_baby @ Jun 15 2005, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Minus Xero@Jun 16 2005, 03:04 AM


If we didn't kill things because they were alive, we'd be pretty screwed.

Wood comes from trees. Trees are alive. Should we not have wood?

Wood was first used as a way to survive. Wood = fire. That's a justifiable reason to 'kill' the tree.

Stem cell research will save many lives, and prevent death in many cases.

Is that not justified? The embryo, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), is not conscious, much like the tree. For the greater good...?

EDIT: Shinoda_Baby: Bacteria are living cells. Should we not try to eradicate them when we use Lysol to wipe our tables (made of wood, furthermore)?
But there are good bacteria (as in yogurt) and bad bacteria (as in viruses)
a embryo is a cell that multiplies to form a feotus. [/b][/quote]
But there are good embryos and bad embryos. Hitler, for example, was surely a bad embryo.

And what about trees? Are there 'good trees' and 'bad trees?' Either way, they are still being chopped down. It's inevitable.

What about good and bad grain? We should stop eating bread because it came from good grain.

EDIT: And I corrected your post for you.

[Link04]

Originally posted by Shinoda_baby+Jun 16 2005, 03:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shinoda_baby @ Jun 16 2005, 03:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Atsuzen@Jun 16 2005, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by -Minus Xero@Jun 16 2005, 10:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Shinoda_baby@Jun 15 2005, 08:38 PM
en embryo.
Is that like... Spanish or something?

Most people tend to believe that an embryo isn't necessarily a person until a certain stage.
Still, it's alive.
yeah i agree. its a living cell. [/b][/quote]
So what about sperm? Should I not masturbate?

[Leones]

Originally posted by Link04+Jun 16 2005, 05:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Jun 16 2005, 05:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Shinoda_baby@Jun 16 2005, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by -Atsuzen@Jun 16 2005, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by -Minus Xero@Jun 16 2005, 10:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Shinoda_baby@Jun 15 2005, 08:38 PM
en embryo.
Is that like... Spanish or something?

Most people tend to believe that an embryo isn't necessarily a person until a certain stage.
Still, it's alive.
yeah i agree. its a living cell.
So what about sperm? Should I not masturbate? [/b][/quote]
:lol: !

[Minus Xero]

Originally posted by Leones+Jun 16 2005, 09:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Leones @ Jun 16 2005, 09:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Link04@Jun 16 2005, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by -Shinoda_baby@Jun 16 2005, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by -Atsuzen@Jun 16 2005, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by -Minus Xero@Jun 16 2005, 10:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Shinoda_baby@Jun 15 2005, 08:38 PM
en embryo.
Is that like... Spanish or something?

Most people tend to believe that an embryo isn't necessarily a person until a certain stage.
Still, it's alive.
yeah i agree. its a living cell.
So what about sperm? Should I not masturbate?
:lol: ! [/b][/quote]
Maybe we shouldn't reproduce at all, since for every egg fertilized, thousands of sperm cells are killed.

It's genocide, man. :lol:

[cooljelly]

I think this is stupid. If u were on a sinking boat and you had the choice of saving one life or 5 billion lives, what would you do? ( I know exaggeration but still.....)

[Louis]

My thoughts on the issue.

I'm for it and I'm against it.

I'm for it for this reason:

If we continue with Stem Cell research (A.K.A IVF), we probably will eventually find cures for diseases such as Parkinson's. It could be a great breakthrough in human science and it would be a benefit to everybody.

But I'm against it because you're killing an embryo which could eventually become of some being. You're killing what could be a life. I'm pro-life, so that's why I'm against it.

But I'm mainly for it.

[Danielle]

I thought IVF was invitro (sp?) fertillisation? Isn't it where the sperm and the egg are fertillised in a test-tube then implanted back into the woman? So how's it murder-life's being created?

Edit: Yeah it is! Sauce (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=in%20vitro%20fertilization).


So no life is being killed-life is being given.



By the way- I spelt source wrong on purpose to see if anyone would notice!

[Glenn]

I'm all for stem cell research. I don't consider a cell to be a person until he/she is born. I think we should stop restricting this research just because it will save a few lives...we're talking about millions of lives that could be saved. We also need to get the fucking idiot out of office, and put some sane homosapians in that can make some fucking progress.
[/rant]

[Weezy]

For clarification, IVF = In Vitro Fertilization, not Stem Cell Research..

It involves taking the sperm and egg of the parents, growing the embryo in a petri dish (in a lab). Then the embryo is implanted into the mother, if the couple chooses to (or frozen/discarded, if they do not choose one). Tests are sometimes run on the embryo to check for certain genetic diseases (though I think this is optional).

And it's already legal in the United States. People are using the procedure currently, usually for couples who cannot conceive a child. ;)

(go Biotech class!)

I'm all for stem cell research. Heck, I might even go into that field, if the government loosens its restrictions on it. As Saxopiano said, I don't consider it to be a person until they are born.

They can be used to save many lives and can cure many diseases. So why not. There's a huge misunderstanding about stem cells, I've noticed...

Besides, humans naturally have stem cells in their body. They are used by the body to replace old/dead cells. I guess most research is needed for the stem cells located within the brain. Yes, there are stem cells in the brain, but scientists cannot do research at this time to figure out how they work..

[Whimsicality]

Originally posted by Link04+Jun 16 2005, 11:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Jun 16 2005, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Shinoda_baby@Jun 16 2005, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by -Atsuzen@Jun 16 2005, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by -Minus Xero@Jun 16 2005, 10:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Shinoda_baby@Jun 15 2005, 08:38 PM
en embryo.
Is that like... Spanish or something?

Most people tend to believe that an embryo isn't necessarily a person until a certain stage.
Still, it's alive.
yeah i agree. its a living cell.
So what about sperm? Should I not masturbate? [/b][/quote]
That made my day. :lol:

Oh, and just for the record I voted for you as "Best Debater" in the LPA Awards...


On topic: I'm for it. I'd argue my case but it's been done in previous posts, so I won't bother.

And while I don't consider an embryo a person, I disagree with the people who said a baby isn't a person until it's born...I'd consider it a person as soon as it gets to a stage where it gained some type of conciseness.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by Weezy@Jun 16 2005, 05:26 PM
For clarification, IVF = In Vitro Fertilization, not Stem Cell Research..

It involves taking the sperm and egg of the parents, growing the embryo in a petri dish (in a lab). Then the embryo is implanted into the mother, if the couple chooses to (or frozen/discarded, if they do not choose one). Tests are sometimes run on the embryo to check for certain genetic diseases (though I think this is optional).

And it's already legal in the United States. People are using the procedure currently, usually for couples who cannot conceive a child. ;)

(go Biotech class!)

I'm all for stem cell research. Heck, I might even go into that field, if the government loosens its restrictions on it. As Saxopiano said, I don't consider it to be a person until they are born.

They can be used to save many lives and can cure many diseases. So why not. There's a huge misunderstanding about stem cells, I've noticed...

Besides, humans naturally have stem cells in their body. They are used by the body to replace old/dead cells. I guess most research is needed for the stem cells located within the brain. Yes, there are stem cells in the brain, but scientists cannot do research at this time to figure out how they work..
Well...the big thing is that they use the cells from embryos.

[Weezy]

Well I know that stem cells come from embryos.

But I bet most people don't know that there are stem cells in their body.

[Shinoda_baby]

there are two ways to get stem cells;

1) to kill an embryo
or
2) take it out an adults spinal fluid

killing an embryo has been proven the best.
i still think that taking a life to save another life is both moral and immoral.

[Shinoda_baby]

Originally posted by Minus Xero+Jun 16 2005, 03:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Minus Xero @ Jun 16 2005, 03:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Shinoda_baby@Jun 15 2005, 09:09 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Minus Xero@Jun 16 2005, 03:04 AM


If we didn't kill things because they were alive, we'd be pretty screwed.

Wood comes from trees.* Trees are alive.* Should we not have wood?

Wood was first used as a way to survive.* Wood = fire.* That's a justifiable reason to 'kill' the tree.

Stem cell research will save many lives, and prevent death in many cases.

Is that not justified?* The embryo, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), is not conscious, much like the tree.* For the greater good...?

EDIT: Shinoda_Baby: Bacteria are living cells.* Should we not try to eradicate them when we use Lysol to wipe our tables (made of wood, furthermore)?
But there are good bacteria (as in yogurt) and bad bacteria (as in viruses)
a embryo is a cell that multiplies to form a feotus.
But there are good embryos and bad embryos. Hitler, for example, was surely a bad embryo.

And what about trees? Are there 'good trees' and 'bad trees?' Either way, they are still being chopped down. It's inevitable.

What about good and bad grain? We should stop eating bread because it came from good grain.

EDIT: And I corrected your post for you. [/b][/quote]
hitler's embryo wasn't bad. it was sense of morality and decent respect that was bad.

[Todd]

1. Don't double post
2. Say what you want, but the world would be better off if someone used Hitler's embryo for research.

[Link04]

Originally posted by Weezy@Jun 17 2005, 02:58 AM
Well I know that stem cells come from embryos.

But I bet most people don't know that there are stem cells in their body.
Yes, in bone marrow, and some other things that I forget at the present moment. But, like someone said, emberyo's have proven the most efficient way of obtaining stem cells.

[Weezy]

The problem with non-embryonic stem cells is that they can only become one type of cell; brain blood cells will become new brain cells, and that's all they will ever become.

Stem cells from embryos are unipotent; they can become any type of cell, whether it be brain, nerve, etc. :)

[User Name]

Originally posted by Todd@Jun 16 2005, 10:32 PM
2. Say what you want, but the world would be better off if someone used Hitler's embryo for research.
True, but don't you think that someone else would have eventually pulled off what he did?

[Melonman64]

Alright, I wrote a whole report on ESCR (Embryonic Stem Cell Research) for TSA (Technology Student Association) in the Ag-Biotech event. Here is that whole paper:

Embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) is, as defined by www.dictionary.com, “biological research on stem cells derived from embryos and their use in medicine,” but what does this mean? Simply put, ESCR is conducting research on a stem cell, a primitive cell that can be manipulated to form most of the 220 different cells in the body, from an embryo, an organism with potential to become a human, and using the results for the benefit of medicine.
ESCR has many benefits to society; however, some people believe it is wrong to obtain stem cells from an embryo. They reason that the embryo the first stage of a human being, rather than having only the potential to become human. Therefore, these people disagree with taking stem cells out of an embryo since it “murders” a human being. Due to the controversy about this issue, the U.S. government has decided not to fund ESCR. However, adult stem cells, while being of much less use, may still be used for research. If embryonic stem cells could be used, it is likely that heart disease, diabetes, certain, cancers, and many other diseases could be cured.
The pro-life organizations and individuals protesting further research see it as entirely immoral to do so, even when approximately 100,000 embryos that are frozen will almost certainly die anyways. They believe that just letting them die is somehow different from killing them for potential gain to all of society. They won’t let one embryo die for the sake of 100 million people.
Of course, there are solutions to this problem. Since the frozen embryos are up for adoption, it could be announced to infertile couples that an embryo is going to be used for research if no one adopts it within a set time period. That way, if someone doesn’t wish to have it destroyed, they can do something about it. Also, if someone would privately fund ESCR, that would be an alternative. We live in the United States of America, and therefore, we would have the choice to decide if we want to use it for our own benefit.
ESCR could very possibly alter medicinal practices in the future, but today, we must decide if we will ever start governmentally funded research again. For as many people there are that believe ESCR is a wonderful idea, and that it should be governmentally funded, there are just as many people who think it is wrong and that we should ban it altogether. It is important that we act now, for if we make no decision, the embryos will most probably die due to mechanical malfunctions in their freezers. Excess embryos from attempts to make an infertile couple pregnant are destroyed immediately, kept in a freezer for future use, or used for training inexperienced doctors. Among the 100,000 or so embryos in cryogenic storage, a minute number will survive. Either we use them now for adoption purposes, or we use them now for ESCR. If we take no action, they die, and if we conduct research on them, they are destroyed. Of course, if they are adopted, they will almost certainly live, but would you rather save 100,000 potential lives, or 100 million human lives that have already been born?
ESCR can treat a wide variety of diseases, including diabetes, leukemia, and various forms of cancer. It has many potential benefits, but the cost might be too critical. It all depends on a person’s point of view as to where human life begins. Some people believe that human life begins at the moment of conception, which therefore means an embryo is a human. Others, however, feel that human life begins later, in pregnancy. This would mean that an embryo wouldn’t be a human. Since it is unethical to take human life in any circumstance, there is large controversy over this issue. Some steps have already been made to reach a decision. California passed the SB 253 bill, which allows any kind of stem cell research. In the future, it is possible other states will do something similar. Another possible outcome would be to have a national vote as to whether ESCR should be allowed throughout the nation. It could even go down to just being state-based, where if your state wishes to allow ESCR, then your state, and only your state, has decided that. The decision is yours to make, so voice your opinion to whomever you can.

[Odaton]

As for me, the whole "life of an embryo" issue isn't my reason for being skeptical if not altogether against Eugenics and genetics in general, here's an excerpt from an excellent essay by activist Jeremy Rifkin to explain my point...I don't know if this is directly related but the topic but it deals with stem cell research too:

The reason most people have an almost instinctual revulsion to cloning is that deep down, they sense that it signals the beginning of a new journey where the “gift of life” is steadily marginalized and eventually abandoned all together.* In its place, the new progeny becomes the ultimate shopping experience - designed in advance, produced to specification and purchased in the biological marketplace.

Cloning is, first and foremost, an act of “production”, not creation.* Using the new biotechnologies, a living being is produced with the same degree of engineering as we have come to expect on an assembly line.* When we think of engineering standards, what immediately comes to mind is quality controls and predictable outcomes.* That’s exactly what cloning a human being is all about.* For the first time in the history of our species, we can dictate, in advance, the final genetic constitution of the offspring.* The child is no longer a unique creation - one of a kind - but rather an engineered reproduction.

Human cloning opens the door wide to the dawn of a commercial Brave New World.* Already life science companies have leaped ahead of the political game being played out in Congress and the media by patenting both human embryos and stem cells, giving them upfront ownership and control of a new form of reproductive commerce.* Many in the left worry that human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and soon designer babies, lays the groundwork for a new form of bio-colonialism in which global life science companies become the ultimate arbiters over the evolutionary process itself.

We have good reason to be concerned.* While heads of state and parliamentarians wrestle with the escalating struggle between right to life advocates and researchers, a far more menacing tale is unfolding behind the scenes with enormous potential consequences for society.* U.S. and British scientists and biotech companies are using embryo and stem cell technology to develop the framework for a commercial Eugenics civilization with profound long-term implications for the human race.

“Eugenics” is a term coined by Sir Francis Galton, the British philosopher, in the 19th century.* It means to use breeding to both eliminate undesirable genetic traits and add desirable traits to improve the characteristics of an organism or species.* When we think of eugenics, we think of Adolf Hitler’s ghoulish plan to create the “master” race.* Today, however, a new eugenics movement is being meticulously prepared in corporate boardrooms and far away from public scrutiny, a commercial eugenics, far different in nature from the kind of social eugenics hysteria that engulfed the world in the first half of the 20th century.* * * * **

Our story begins with a small biotech company, Roslin Bio-Med.* The company was created in April 1998 by the Roslin Institute, a government funded research institution outside Edinburgh, Scotland, where Dolly the sheep was cloned.* The company was given an exclusive license to all the Roslin Institute’s cloning technology for biomedical research.* A year later, Roslin Bio-Med was sold to Geron, a U.S. firm headquartered in Menlo Park, California.* Then, in January 2000, the British Patent Office granted a patent to Dr. Ian Wilmut for his cloning technology.* The patent – now owned by Geron – covers the cloning process and all the animals produced by the cloning process.* What the public doesn’t know – because it has received so little attention – is that the British Patent Office granted Wilmut and his company a patent on all cloned human embryos up to the blastocyst stage of development – that’s the stage where pluripotent stem cells emerge.* The British government, in effect, became the first in the world to recognize a human embryo as a form of intellectual property.* The UK was also the first country to sanction the use of embryos, and even cloned embryos, for the harvesting of stem cells.

Despite British success in creating a favorable regulatory and commercial regime for the new research, it was the American company Geron that was quick to lock up the cloning technology.* Even before securing the embryo patent, Geron had been quietly financing stem cell research conducted by two U.S. researchers, Dr. James A. Thomson of the University of Wisconsin and Dr. John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.* In November of 1998 both scientists announced that they had independently isolated and identified human stem cells.* The breakthrough opened the door to the era of stem cell experimentation in medicine.* The researchers’ academic institutions immediately applied for patents and sold the exclusive licenses to use the patents to Geron.* According to the terms of the Johns Hopkins agreement, Gearhart receives a share of the royalties collected on his patent.* Gearhart and Johns Hopkins also own stock in Geron, and Gearhart serves as a consultant to the company.* Geron, once alone in the field, is now being challenged by a competitor.* Geron’s founder, Michael West, broke away from the company and now heads up Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts.* West’s new company has secured its own patents on non-human embryo cloning and is experimenting on alternative ways to create human stem cells.

By securing patents on the cloning process, as well as on cloned human embryos and stem cells, companies like Geron and Advanced Cell Technology are in a position to dictate the terms for further advances in medical research using stem cells.* The mass production of cloned human embryos provides an unlimited source of stem cells.* The stem cells, in turn, are the progenitors of all of the 200 or so differentiated cell types that make up the biology of human life.* Researchers, institutes, and other companies from around the world will have to pay Geron and Advanced Cell Technology to access either the use of the embryos or the stem cells they produce, giving the companies unprecedented market advantage.* If other researchers or companies actually succeed in making specific body cells from the stem cells, they will likely have to enter into commercial licensing agreements of various kinds with Geron and Advanced Cell Technology for the right to produce the products.

What does this portend for the future?* To begin with, the granting of a patent for cloned human embryos raises a formidable political question.* Can commercial institutions lay claim to a potential individual human life, in the form of intellectual property, at its early stage of development? The British Patent Office has said yes.* In the 19th century, we fought over the question of whether human beings after birth could be held as commercial property and eventually every nation abolished slavery.* Now, however, we have technology that allows companies like Geron to claim potential human beings as intellectual property, at the developmental stage, between conception and birth.* The question of whether commercial enterprises will be allowed to own potential human life at the developmental stage, will likely be one of the seminal political issues of the Biotech Century.*

Secondly, should companies like Geron and Advanced Cell Technology be allowed to own – in the form of intellectual property – the primary human cells that are the gateway to the entire biological composition that constitutes human life?* Do we risk the dawn of a new era in human history where the creation of human life itself will increasingly fall under the control of commercial forces?* Will global biotech companies own the designs, the parts and the processes that produce a human life?

The commercial implications of embryo and stem cell research need to be examined in their entirety.* Failure to do so could trap all of us into a commercial eugenics future we neither anticipated nor willingly chose.
http://www.barglow.com/rifkin-anticloning.htm

[Mark]

If the cure for diseases such as cancer can be found by using the embryos of a couple who have given permission to use the embryo that they created, then I'm all for it. The couple should have complete control over what happens to their creation (which mind you, hasn't formed into a fetus yet), no one else. I personally think it's perfectly ethical to use embryos as research towards saving the lives of millions of already living organisms.

[Melonman64]

I concur, yet others do not. They see it as unethical for whatever reason. But typically, it is their religious belief. And that is why President George W. Dumbass doesn't want it allowed. Ever hear of something called Separation of Church and State? Hello? Bush? NO! DON'T PRESS THAT BUTTON! NOW THE MISSLES HAVE LAUNCHED! AAAAAH!
...yeah. Bush won't pass it because of religious issues, which is entirely unconstitutional.

[Evan™]

personally....im quite neutrel aabt hte situation but sometimes doing the right thing isnt doing the right thing....etc.

[tunnelvision]

okay.first of all, there is a very big difference between cloning and stem cell therapy. when you clone something, such as a sheep for example, that clone sheep is the exact genetic replica of the sheep from which the original cells were taken. the beauty of stem cell therapy however is that the cells which are taken, stem cells, are what's called undifferentiated, which means they can change their biology to be a specific type of cell, say a liver cell. once they have changed that means they are differentiated, and say you had a damaged liver, youve got all these little stem cells ready and raring to go and fix it because they can change into fresh new liver cells and replace the ones which are damaged!! thats why theres all this hooha about it, because its one of the most amazing scientific advances theres been in medicine, or whatever you wanna call, for ages. i mean, this could help so many people with so many different diseases which are so far incurable!! its true that these stem cells are taken from human embryos, and its also true that they can be taken from adult human stem cells, but so far tests, experiments have shown that the ASCs are not as effective as the ESCs.some countries are looking at different laws to govern the use of embryos, such as prohibiting the creation of embryos specifically for SCR, but allowing the use of any "excess" embryos, ie. where the sperm and egg and donated by two people who dont know each other and have no intention of using them for reproduction purposes. also, i dunno bout other countries, but in new zealand theyre setting up whats called a "cord bank" which really is an ingenious idea. stem cells are taken from the umbilical cord AT BIRTH, frozen, and say the baby later on down the line gets really sick, well look!! their own stem cells are ready and waiting to fix them!! it's just brilliant. of course it costs, but hey. whats the price on life. and no embryos have to be killed. i dont know why more people arent doing this.
so....in short......stem cell therapy does raise some very interesting ethical questions, and i agree a LOT more research needs to be done before we allow anything and make any laws, but like mostly everything there are other options which can be explored, and ways of compromising. but i definately dont think we should just throw this new and exciting treatment out the window because "foetuses are people too" . theyre not.
anyone still interested go to http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10195.html and read the online book "stem cells and the future of regenerative medicine", itll clear up heaps and it's real helpful.

[Weezy]

Originally posted by Melonman64+Jun 18 2005, 03:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Melonman64 @ Jun 18 2005, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I concur, yet others do not. They see it as unethical for whatever reason. But typically, it is their religious belief. And that is why President George W. Dumbass doesn't want it allowed. Ever hear of something called Separation of Church and State? Hello? Bush? NO! DON'T PRESS THAT BUTTON! NOW THE MISSLES HAVE LAUNCHED! AAAAAH!
...yeah. Bush won't pass it because of religious issues, which is entirely unconstitutional.[/b]
Actually, no, it's not unconstitutional. Contrary to popular belief, the constitution does not say the words "separation of church and state". It does, however, prevent the government from creating a national church that everyone must join.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

But I'm sure someone could interpret the clause in some weird way that says that religion cannot play a part in law-making.


AND..


<!--QuoteBegin--tunnelvision
...experiments have shown that the ASCs are not as effective as the ESCs.[/quote]

Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent (can be turned into any type of cell), while adult stem cells are unipotent (can be turned into only one type of cell).

So.. using adult stem cells would be far less effective.