Let's talk about

[call_me_Melody]

stem cell research?

I know, I know.. really Melody? But... we have a lot of people here from a lot of walks of life and I have my reasons for wanting to know.

I'm curious to know what people's actual opinions are and I'd love to know your reasoning behind it, without all the skew of the political arena.

My only request, be respectful of each other's opinions ok?

 

[alisonwunderlnd]

i think there is much to be learned from it and more to be gained

 

[RyanBlack]

There are significant indicators that stem cell research may yield some vectors for disease treatments even cures.

The political demagogaurie revolves not around "stem cell" research which can be done with fat and other cells, but around fetal stem cell research. The difference is that using aborted fetuses as a source for stem cells for research is simply cheaper and does not require donor permission or any "ownership" issues of the genetic material.

I adamantly oppose fetal stem cell research---it is simply too dangerous to open that door for future prescident---it is an issue of cost to use other cells, but worth the price to pay to avoid the possibility of "breeding" fetuses to generate stem cells for either research or cures. Fetuses would end up categorized as a resource and to me that is simply unthinkable.

It opens the door to a level of heinous behavior and disregard for life that makes me shudder. If you disagree, I beg you to consider the events of recent history--the social changes both here in the US and abroad--the nature of current philosophy, particularly in bio ethics in major medical universities, and the devaluation of life all across the board; from Guantanamo Bay torturing of prisoners, to the abrogation of social responsibilities to the environment in the Gulf of Mexico, to the unconscionable corporate approval by the FDA to permit the use of Aspertame (nutrasweet) in food products [no I am not a conspiracy nut but even the simplest of research will uncover the overwhelming research describing this substance as one of the most incredibly harmful food additives that is currently legal. If you dont think that breeding fetuses as a cost effective way to generate stem cells is a possibility then you dont understand the way corporations work.

Hope that wasnt too much of a rant.

 

[Odyssean]

I suppose I'm most flummoxed by the argument against it. Unless someone is a Jain and opposed to the endangerment of microscopic life -- and bully for them if so -- I see the potential benefits of this far, far outweighing the negatives.

 

[RyanBlack]

The heart of the issue is The Doctrine of Double Effect The Stanford University of Philosophy describes this as:

The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. This reasoning is summarized with the claim that sometimes it is permissible to bring about as a merely foreseen side effect a harmful event that it would be impermissible to bring about intentionally.


This is not a new philosophical quadry, rather it has been an ethical discussion for hundreds of years.

Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the principle of double effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7). Killing one's assailant is justified, he argues, provided one does not intend to kill him. Aquinas observes that “Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. … Accordingly, the act of self-defense may have two effects: one, the saving of one's life; the other, the slaying of the aggressor.” As Aquinas's discussion continues, a justification is provided that rests on characterizing the defensive action as a means to a goal that is justified: “Therefore, this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being as far as possible.” However, Aquinas observes, the permissibility of self-defense is not unconditional: “And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”

Aquinas does not actually say that intending to kill the assailant as a means to self-defense would be prohibited. The passage can be interpreted as formulating a prohibition on apportioning one's efforts with killing as the only goal guiding one's actions, which would lead one to act with greater viciousness than the goal of self-defense would allow. In contrast, Augustine had earlier maintained that killing in self-defense was not permissible, maintaining that “private self-defense can only proceed from some degree of inordinate self-love.”

Later versions of the double effect principle all emphasize the distinction between causing a morally grave harm as a side effect of pursuing a good end and causing a harm as a means of pursuing a good end. We can summarize this by noting that for certain categories of morally grave actions, for example, causing the death of a human being, the principle of double effect combines a special permission for incidentally causing death for the sake of a good end (when it occurs as a side effect of one's pursuit of that end) with a general prohibition on instrumentally causing death for the sake of a good end (when it occurs as part of one's means to pursue that end).

 

[TheMysticMan]

I really can't decide. I kinda think it's ok, as long as it's done ethically, embryos from IVF or abortions, etc. But it is kind of unatural and could lead to some serious problems, both physical (risk of disease) and also sociological (designer babies etc. *Shudders*). In a lot of ways I'm completely against tampering with the body atall, should just leave nature to it and let us die. But I know that would never happen , and as hard as it is to believe, we are nature, so what we do is arguably natural.

I don't think I'll ever decide. And if it became a personal issue to me, like I me or someone I loved required them, I'd probably be all for it. But it's hard to be objective when love is involved.

 

[RyanBlack]

This is a small article presenting some of the various philosophical views on HESCR

http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=94944


It is academic in nature and devoid of the histrionics of "pop philosophy" and cultural morality wars.

I recommend it as a basis for an informed discussion of the issue as opposed to spewing ill informed opinions sourced from Talking heads on Television.

 

[call_me_Melody]

Ahhhh... see. Some discussion while I was gone.
Ryan you make excellent points regarding fetal stem cell research and believe me I will review that information closely. I love knowledge without agenda.

Christopher Reeves asked “Is it more unethical for a woman to donate unused embryos that will never become human beings, or to let them be tossed away as so much garbage when they could help save thousands of lives.”

I'm intrigued by your statement regarding fetuses as a resource.
I need to think on that.

Hmmm....

 

[RyanBlack]

Ahhhh... see. Some discussion while I was gone.
Ryan you make excellent points regarding fetal stem cell research and believe me I will review that information closely. I love knowledge without agenda.

Christopher Reeves asked “Is it more unethical for a woman to donate unused embryos that will never become human beings, or to let them be tossed away as so much garbage when they could help save thousands of lives.”

I'm intrigued by your statement regarding fetuses as a resource.
I need to think on that.

Hmmm....

Keep in mind that Christopher Reeves was no more qualified to offer a Philosophical or Moral argument than was George Bush--They both offered personal and ill informed opinions.

This issue must be dealt with rationally and thoughtfully with facts and devoid of personal agendas if there is to be any hope of humanity making a social decision that we can live with as a race.

Ethics does not necessarily have to be divorced from Theology---Theologians are afterall some of the pre-eminent thinkers of any given age--Nor need it be divorced from the question of "need."

All disciplines must needs be examined and included rationally without devolving into ad hominim attacks.

I believe that this question has far reaching consequences racially, culturally and socially which are often ignored or minimized instead of recognized as the underpinnings of what it means to be human.

 

[alisonwunderlnd]

ih this more of a natural selection vs otherwise....thats another talk altogether
but just steam cell research for the sake of knowledge I cannot for the life of me see what the problem against it would be

 

[RyanBlack]

ih this more of a natural selection vs otherwise....thats another talk altogether
but just steam cell research for the sake of knowledge I cannot for the life of me see what the problem against it would be

The "problem" isnt with "stem cell research" it is with Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

Both fields of research study "stem cells" which are undifferentiated cells which can be manipulated to form diverse cells. The vectors for nerve cells an organ cells offer the most promising avenues for cures.

The ethical question comes into the forefront when considering the sourcing for stem cells. All bodies produce stem cells; primarily in fat areas of the body--these cells are stored for future needs by the body. They, however "belong" to the person from which they are extracted. For example: a person has a liposuction proceedure, the fat exctacted contains stem cells as well as other differentiated cells, fat, connective tissue, hemoglobin, plasma etc. This material can be disposed of or used for research. If those cells are used for research and the result of that research using the donors cells results in positive treatment or proceedures or even cures from the donors cells--the genes of the donor become the patent source for the research and the lawyers and corporate greed gets involved.

Using stem cells from fetuses eliminates the ownership of the genetic material because the donor is considered to either be "dead" or "never alive" depending on which side of the argument on finds themselves on. Therefore there is little or no long term economic cost to using that material and the lawyers dont get involved in the ownership of the genetic material.

Stem cells from fat cells, and stem cells from fetuses are both stem cells. This becomes an ecomomic and ethical argument as opposed to a scientific or moral one.

 

[southerntierguy]

Keep in mind that Christopher Reeves was no more qualified to offer a Philosophical or Moral argument than was George Bush--They both offered personal and ill informed opinions.

This issue must be dealt with rationally and thoughtfully with facts and devoid of personal agendas if there is to be any hope of humanity making a social decision that we can live with as a race.

Ethics does not necessarily have to be divorced from Theology---Theologians are after all some of the pre-eminent thinkers of any given age--Nor need it be divorced from the question of "need."

All disciplines must needs be examined and included rationally without devolving into ad hominim attacks.

I believe that this question has far reaching consequences racially, culturally and socially which are often ignored or minimized instead of recognized as the underpinnings of what it means to be human.

I hate to disagree with Ryan, and I appreciate the analysis to which he links, but one statement he makes certainly makes me shake my head ...

"This issue must be dealt with rationally and thoughtfully with facts and devoid of personal agendas if there is to be any hope of humanity making a social decision that we can live with as a race."

I find it hard to accept that much of mankind's "evolution" into who were are today has anything to do with thoughtful, rational analysis of facts devoid of personal agenda. The race has survived to this point despite the fact that we generally do NOT tend towards this aspect of behavior. It seems to me that our most influential cultures have those who have been the most dominant militarily, not the best philosophically. And in terms of impact of thinkers, the most influential have been the most passionate, not the most rational.

Perhaps I wish he were right, but I do not believe it. I think that at some point one side or the other will gain a preeminent emotional position, perhaps due to one or a series of now-unforeseen events, and from then on the influence of the opposing side will slowly fade as generations pass.

 

[alisonwunderlnd]

i think this is the time i remove myself from the thread
I normally tend to be on the fringe with subjects like this.
I can respect other people views as long as I am not thunked over my head with their board of personal thoughts.....
No one has crossed the line yet..But I dont want it to happen
I will leave by saying this
I dont see a thing wrong with it at all...and yes that does include all sorts of the research
thats me...

 

[RyanBlack]

I hate to disagree with Ryan, and I appreciate the analysis to which he links, but one statement he makes certainly makes me shake my head ...

"This issue must be dealt with rationally and thoughtfully with facts and devoid of personal agendas if there is to be any hope of humanity making a social decision that we can live with as a race."

I find it hard to accept that much of mankind's "evolution" into who were are today has anything to do with thoughtful, rational analysis of facts devoid of personal agenda. The race has survived to this point despite the fact that we generally do NOT tend towards this aspect of behavior. It seems to me that our most influential cultures have those who have been the most dominant militarily, not the best philosophically. And in terms of impact of thinkers, the most influential have been the most passionate, not the most rational.

Perhaps I wish he were right, but I do not believe it. I think that at some point one side or the other will gain a preeminent emotional position, perhaps due to one or a series of now-unforeseen events, and from then on the influence of the opposing side will slowly fade as generations pass.

STG--That is precisely why my call is for something different!

Slavery is an expedient use of resources---or so the argument was made for centuries---it was justified on moral, theological, ethical grounds quite successfully for years. In some places in the world it still is.

That doesnt mean it was the right answer to an ethical question, and the consequences effect us in so many negative ways 160 years later even though the social currents of the abolitionists eventually prevailed.

The fact that the masses are swayed emotionally with bad rhetoric and demagogurie does NOT divorce us from the obligation to do the right thing when we have discerned to the best of our ability what is the "right thing".

 

[RyanBlack]

i think this is the time i remove myself from the thread
I normally tend to be on the fringe with subjects like this.
I can respect other people views as long as I am not thunked over my head with their board of personal thoughts.....
No one has crossed the line yet..But I dont want it to happen
I will leave by saying this
I dont see a thing wrong with it at all...and yes that does include all sorts of the research
thats me...

I would hate to see you avoid a discussion for fear of a misunderstanding. I have always valued what you bring to the table for conversations!

Your opinions, views and insights are valued by me regardless of their alignment with my own ma'am.

 

[alisonwunderlnd]

I would hate to see you avoid a discussion for fear of a misunderstanding. I have always valued what you bring to the table for conversations!

Your opinions, views and insights are valued by me regardless of their alignment with my own ma'am.

im not withdrawing for fear of any misunderstandings
Im backing out because I just don't have a valid problem with stem cell research


People tend to get heated over things and this is one of those areas
I dont need to raise my personal flag of thoughts and ideas on this
ALthough I come off as a loudmouth...I am a very internal person
I scare away enough people in real life with how I look and dress.....
I dont need to be the scary bitch on lit too...lol
Thank you though for being kind to me over it

 

[RyanBlack]

im not withdrawing for fear of any misunderstandings
Im backing out because I just don't have a valid problem with stem cell research


People tend to get heated over things and this is one of those areas
I dont need to raise my personal flag of thoughts and ideas on this
ALthough I come off as a loudmouth...I am a very internal person
I scare away enough people in real life with how I look and dress.....
I dont need to be the scary bitch on lit too...lol
Thank you though for being kind to me over it

Though I dont know you well, I know you well enough to know better than to behave like a dolt to you

I might attack your opinions and arguments in debate but NEVER you. As to people being scared away in real life with how you look and dress---well the world is full of fools who never look beyond the shell---I personally find diversity to be one of the very best things in life.

 

[southerntierguy]

im not withdrawing for fear of any misunderstandings
Im backing out because I just don't have a valid problem with stem cell research


People tend to get heated over things and this is one of those areas
I dont need to raise my personal flag of thoughts and ideas on this
ALthough I come off as a loudmouth...I am a very internal person
I scare away enough people in real life with how I look and dress.....
I dont need to be the scary bitch on lit too...lol
Thank you though for being kind to me over it

There is a LITTLE hope the conversation won't evolve into a flame war. After all, this is the Playground, and not the General Board.

Though I dont know you well, I know you well enough to know better than to behave like a dolt to you

I might attack your opinions and arguments in debate but NEVER you. As to people being scared away in real life with how you look and dress---well the world is full of fools who never look beyond the shell---I personally find diversity to be one of the very best things in life.

I think EVERYONE is aware how much Ryan enjoys diversity.

 

[RyanBlack]

There is a LITTLE hope the conversation won't evolve into a flame war. After all, this is the Playground, and not the General Board.

The more we work out the ethics of it with each other, the greater chance for a synthesis of our ideas into something which we all learn from through dialogue.

Ignorance is the real danger---not argument.


STR--

 

[alisonwunderlnd]

I might attack your opinions and arguments in debate but NEVER you..

and that is WHY
im audi
have fun kids

 

[alisonwunderlnd]

There is a LITTLE hope the conversation won't evolve into a flame war. After all, this is the Playground, and not the General Board.

nods....

 

[call_me_Melody]

I'm just reading... in between work.
This is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping to see.

 

[mikeroman336]

There is a research team here, in my town, that has discovered the ability to harvest stem cells from amniotic fluid. They're the same kind that you can derive from embryos without all the ethical mess involved. They can be harvested either through amniocentesis and even from afterbirth. They have the ability to be programmed to replicate virtually any other cell the human body produces.

 

[call_me_Melody]

There is a research team here, in my town, that has discovered the ability to harvest stem cells from amniotic fluid. They're the same kind that you can derive from embryos without all the ethical mess involved. They can be harvested either through amniocentesis and even from afterbirth. They have the ability to be programmed to replicate virtually any other cell the human body produces.

I would love more information on that. If you don't feel comfortable sharing that on the board (ie:hometown) would you mind PMing me with it?

 

[alisonwunderlnd]

I'm just reading... in between work.
This is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping to see.

awww
so ya didnt want is calling each other STUPID HEAD ?