Stem Cell Research

[Pidgeon]

So after arguing on other social issues, mainly abortion, I wanted to find out your guys opinion on stem cells. I personally don't like us messing with the cycle of life like this. My opinion has nothing to do with religion like most people against stem cells. I just feel like we're messing with the cycle of life too much. Humans have no real natural predators and our medicine and life expectancy is growing through the roof. And I know this kind of the unpopular opinion but at some people have to do die. That's just the cycle. Our population is already out of control and I feel like the use of stem cells will really take things out of control. If everyone lives to 80 or 90 because even disease and sickness is no longer a threat to us than the population will get to a point where famine and poverty will over run the entire planet. I feel like this is an issue where people aren't looking towards the future and just at their immediate situation, and who could blame them. But this really is an under rated issue in my eyes because I think there could be dire consequences. Idk, what do you guys think?

[Benjamin]

Here's what it boils down to:

If you wake up tomorrow and learn that you have a type of cancer that could only be cured if there was more stem cell research, would you still be against it?

[Pidgeon]

yes, thats obviously not to say I wouldn't try to beat it, but yes

[Todd]

So it sounds like you would be against it unless it benefits you.

[Pidgeon]

no no no!!! lmao I meant yes I would still be against it

[Benjamin]

no no no!!! lmao I meant yes I would still be against it

I'm sorry, but I find that extremely hard to believe.

And here's another question: what about a family member? What if you have a baby son/daughter who only has a year to live because of some birth defect in a future world where there is no stem cell research?

[Ryo Hazuki]

Say, if someone has a gun and puts it up to your head, they are about to pull the trigger but all of a sudden they're taken down by a quick witted hero.

Now, look at the gun as the disease and look at the hero as the stem cell research.

Think, do you want people to get shot? I don't think that you want innocent people to be shot and killed, especially if there is someone with experience who can stop it from happening. And yet from the example you use above, by your own logic if no one was ever shot then there is dire consequences to be had.

[Pidgeon]

Say, if someone has a gun and puts it up to your head, they are about to pull the trigger but all of a sudden they're taken down by a quick witted hero.

Now, look at the gun as the disease and look at the hero as the stem cell research.

Think, do you want people to get shot? I don't think that you want innocent people to be shot and killed, especially if there is someone with experience who can stop it from happening. And yet from the example you use above, by your own logic if no one was ever shot then there is dire consequences to be had.

I don't find that comparable, I just feel like we have too much power for own good. We're growing exponentially without anything to slow us. With advances in modern medicine we will have nothing to keep the population under control. Stem cells would make us virtually invincible, that is until we reach the point that we can no longer sustain ourselves because of the population. There has to be a balance and right now we're tipping the scales. And I know how this sounds but death is a part of life, sometimes death is necessary for the good of the group

[travz21]

I'm for it.

How do you feel about basic medicine? Were we wrong to meddle with that stuff to begin with?

If you're worried about the natural order of things, I think it's safe to say that doesn't apply to humans anymore. Our intelligence has made us untouchable compared to the rest of the planet's creatures.

And even if stem cell research is a huge success and we can create new body parts or even new people from scratch, the less developed parts of the world won't have access to it. And there will continue to be wars around the world killing people. And natural disasters. Diseases, etc. Just because we're possibly going to be overpopulated one day doesn't mean we shouldn't be striving to make advancements in our health and have a better quality of life.

[Benjamin]

I'm for it.

How do you feel about basic medicine? Were we wrong to meddle with that stuff to begin with?

If you're worried about the natural order of things, I think it's safe to say that doesn't apply to humans anymore. Our intelligence has made us untouchable compared to the rest of the planet's creatures.

And even if stem cell research is a huge success and we can create new body parts or even new people from scratch, the less developed parts of the world won't have access to it. And there will continue to be wars around the world killing people. And natural disasters. Diseases, etc. Just because we're possibly going to be overpopulated one day doesn't mean we shouldn't be striving to make advancements in our health and have a better quality of life.

More or less this.

[Pidgeon]

I'm for it.

How do you feel about basic medicine? Were we wrong to meddle with that stuff to begin with?

If you're worried about the natural order of things, I think it's safe to say that doesn't apply to humans anymore. Our intelligence has made us untouchable compared to the rest of the planet's creatures.

And even if stem cell research is a huge success and we can create new body parts or even new people from scratch, the less developed parts of the world won't have access to it. And there will continue to be wars around the world killing people. And natural disasters. Diseases, etc. Just because we're possibly going to be overpopulated one day doesn't mean we shouldn't be striving to make advancements in our health and have a better quality of life.

Thats a good point, idk, I guess I've just never really heard an argument on the issue without it being a religious issue. I feel like the only one who see's other problems with it. But you definitely make a good a point.

[Pidgeon]

how about this then, If you had the option to genetically alter your child before it was born, say to give it a certain talent or even rid the child of any chance of birth defects, would do it?

[Todd]

how about this then, If you had the option to genetically alter your child before it was born, say to give it a certain talent or even rid the child of any chance of birth defects, would do it?

Probably not for a talent, but if for a birth defect, absolutely.

[Benjamin]

I agree with Todd. I'm not necessarily an advocate for letting parents decide what their child looks like and what its talents will be. There's no reason to get into that.

[Ryo Hazuki]

Probably not for a talent, but if for a birth defect, absolutely.

This.


I'd even go so far as dismiss it as being a talent at all, in the case of human engineering . If you have a biological (genetic) talent that just about anyone can have just as easily then what's the point of it even being labeled a talent? And I don't exactly understand why anyone would want to choose their children's talents anyway.

It's kind of like wanting your children to have a certain hair colour. What if the child does not like the colour and then decides to change it.

[jedibeaner]

I see your argument, but don't you think there are other ways to prevent over-population? e.g. Educating women about birth control, creating careers for these women to prolong childbearing, etc..

There many different ways to contain population size.

[Vriska]

The thread is moot, since scientists have since discovered ways to acquire stem cells without meddling with anyone's uterus.

You can continue on with the genetic engineering bit though.
I would be for it, IF, it can be done safely.
It can't be proven safe unless it's been tested on humans.
This could possibly create some very unhappy mutated people. There's definitely a gray area here.

[Derek The Infamous]

Yeah I was going to say that they've found ways to make artificial stem cells, it's just that nobody will give them the money to properly research it because it meddles with the whole "creationist" bullshit. It doesn't matter if it could save lives, if it means we're playing god...it's a bad thing. Not trying to attack religion here, it's just the truth.

[Dean]

I am against because what if Metal Gear Solid happens 4 real? It's hard enough to follow in a game much less actually live it.

[Vriska]

Not trying to attack religion here, it's just the truth.

This attitude is harmful. You are trying not to offend someone who is actively hurting people with their ignorance. You need to learn a few insults.

How does anyone expect to solve any problems without confronting it? If unproven religious beliefs are being presented as fact in a public setting, you need to force them to back it up or otherwise humiliate them. To do otherwise is to say that you think not offending nutjobs is a higher priority than human life. A person who forces their religion on other people forfeits that religion's protection from criticism.

[Apop]

I consider myself pro-religion and all, but who's to say creationism and evolution / stem cell research / abortion and such can't coexist? Evolution and "playing God" could only exist with the driving force of a higher being behind it. If given the ability by the Lord to save lives, I say let's try it. The whole idea that people die when they are supposed to die is not very Catholic to me, keeping people alive and healthy is important.

[Derek The Infamous]

Trust me, I can be very offending...I just wasn't in the mood to derail this thread any more than it has been. But since the Stem Cell debate is as much religion as it is science, I guess it's not derailed at all is it?

[Benjamin]

To my understanding, evolution and religion in fact cannot co-exist. There is evidence that evolution has happened over millions of years whereas the Bible has the Earth at only 6,000 years. You really can't say "oh well I like both!" It's one or the other.

[Timothy]

To my understanding, evolution and religion in fact cannot co-exist. There is evidence that evolution has happened over millions of years whereas the Bible has the Earth at only 6,000 years. You really can't say "oh well I like both!" It's one or the other.

Well, not every Christian takes the Bible literally.

[Benjamin]

Well, not every Christian takes the Bible literally.

Well, yeah, because they WANT them to co-exist.

[Dean]

Yeah but, as far as I know it's only a literal interpretation that isn't compatible with also believing in evolution.

When it comes to believing that the planet was literally created in a week a few thousand years ago, that contradicts quite a lot.

[Benjamin]

I always love how people interpret the good things literally and the bad things/things that make no sense not literally.

[Dean]

Why shouldn't they? If someone reads the Bible and at least has the sense to do the good things and disregard the bad things that were clearly written in the spirit of 2000 year old values, that's just pragmatism.

[Benjamin]

It is better than nothing I guess. But ideally, in my opinion, they would read it and think to themselves that it doesn't make sense and accept the fact that the Bible is just a book filled with good moral stories.

Or take it literally and not believe in science.

[Dean]

Plenty of people do do that, unless you are actually just talking about fundamentalists.

[Benjamin]

Plenty of people do do that.

I know, but not enough (ideally).

[Dean]

It probably is a country thing because here there are a lot less people who are really fundamentalist, whereas there seem to be a lot in the USA, or a lot who are actually vocal about it.

[Apop]

Extremists and fundamentalists are always the loudest and most appealing, especially for the media.

[Vriska]

The theory of evolution does not conflict with the account of Genesis.
The theory of albiogenesis completely destroys genesis.
Also, The likelihood of the human race surviving from an initial population of 2 is astronomically low; we should all be deformed from inbreeding.

However, its moot because Genesis has already been destroyed with evidence, and also basic common sense. Our ancestors have already been traced back by DNA, and we're all from Africa.
And you can't fit the entire world's worth of animals on a single boat. The flood account is demonstrably false.

[Apop]

Like I tried saying, but I guess I didn't expand enough on, religion, for me, is a basis for morals. I do not read the Bible literally. I do not believe in the story of Adam and Eve. I do not believe in Noah's Arc. With that being said, I do believe in the true morals of these parables. I am a Catholic primarily to better my daily behavior and attitude, I don't spend my time believing that a 700 year old man built a ship and got two of every animal on board with him and his family. One must look past the simplified meaning of the stories, whether they believe it or not, and look at the message the story is trying to convey. Not doing so either makes someone a fundamentalist on one side of it, or, often times, very opposed and simple-minded to religion in general, but either way it is a very extremist view.

[Dean]

Like I tried saying, but I guess I didn't expand enough on, religion, for me, is a basis for morals. I do not read the Bible literally. I do not believe in the story of Adam and Eve. I do not believe in Noah's Arc. With that being said, I do believe in the true morals of these parables. I am a Catholic primarily to better my daily behavior and attitude, I don't spend my time believing that a 700 year old man built a ship and got two of every animal on board with him and his family. One must look past the simplified meaning of the stories, whether they believe it or not, and look at the message the story is trying to convey. Not doing so either makes someone a fundamentalist on one side of it, or, often times, very opposed and simple-minded to religion in general, but either way it is a very extremist view.
Yes.

At least, that's what I was taught. Not that I'm a Christian anymore myself.