Stem Cell Research
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
morninggirl5
Secret Dream Machine
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Posts
- 10,647
There was some discussion about this a week or so ago.
http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39038&highlight=Stem+cell+research
I'm not sure what the President's decision will be, but I believe that the compromise offered by Sen. Frist of Tennessee is extremely likely.
As I said previously, I'm not opposed to the research when using embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. Creating embryos specifically for research is something I'm not comfortable with.
http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39038&highlight=Stem+cell+research
I'm not sure what the President's decision will be, but I believe that the compromise offered by Sen. Frist of Tennessee is extremely likely.
As I said previously, I'm not opposed to the research when using embryos that would otherwise be destroyed. Creating embryos specifically for research is something I'm not comfortable with.
LordMagicMan
Lord of the Morning
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
- Posts
- 4,788
Stem Cell Research is a testy subject. As a scientist I must say that the research seems necassary to move further with treatments of certain deasies. It seems we want the cure without the sacarfices of it all. If it was a would-be-life then I agree it shouldnt be done, but if its marked for disposal, then whats the difference if its used for researched or thrown away.
morninggirl5
Secret Dream Machine
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Posts
- 10,647
For anyone interested, this gives the basics of Frist's proposal.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/18/stem.cell/index.html
A senior aide to Frist outlined 10 conditions on which his support is based:
-- A ban on the creation of embryos for research purposes
-- A continued funding ban on "derivation," meaning federal dollars could be spent to research embryos and stem cells only obtained through private funding
-- A ban on human cloning
-- An increase in government funding for adult stem cell research
-- A restriction on funding for embryonic stem cell research only in the earliest embryonic stage
-- A rigorous "informed consent" rule modeled on those now in place for organ donation, giving donors the right to decide whether to put the embryo up for adoption or to discard the embryo. If the donor chooses to discard the embryo, he or she must approve the embryo's use for research.
-- A limit on the number of stem cell "lines" taken from each embryo in order to minimize bio-ethical problems
-- A new public research oversight mechanism that would establish public research guidelines, including a national research registry
-- An ongoing scientific and ethical review by The Institute of Medicine and the creation of an independent presidential advisory panel to review the bio-ethical implications of stem-cell research. The review would also require the secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress annually on the status on federal grants for stem cell research.
-- Strengthen and harmonize embryonic research restrictions to mirror fetal tissue research restrictions
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/18/stem.cell/index.html
A senior aide to Frist outlined 10 conditions on which his support is based:
-- A ban on the creation of embryos for research purposes
-- A continued funding ban on "derivation," meaning federal dollars could be spent to research embryos and stem cells only obtained through private funding
-- A ban on human cloning
-- An increase in government funding for adult stem cell research
-- A restriction on funding for embryonic stem cell research only in the earliest embryonic stage
-- A rigorous "informed consent" rule modeled on those now in place for organ donation, giving donors the right to decide whether to put the embryo up for adoption or to discard the embryo. If the donor chooses to discard the embryo, he or she must approve the embryo's use for research.
-- A limit on the number of stem cell "lines" taken from each embryo in order to minimize bio-ethical problems
-- A new public research oversight mechanism that would establish public research guidelines, including a national research registry
-- An ongoing scientific and ethical review by The Institute of Medicine and the creation of an independent presidential advisory panel to review the bio-ethical implications of stem-cell research. The review would also require the secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress annually on the status on federal grants for stem cell research.
-- Strengthen and harmonize embryonic research restrictions to mirror fetal tissue research restrictions
bluntforcemama
Aqua Vulva
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2000
- Posts
- 30,225
I say research! Hell, what else are they going to do with aborted fetuses? Honestly! It's not like stem cell research persuades termination of pregnancies. If the prelife of a fetus is lost, then why can't we use it for possible life extensions? I am pro choice, but I would like to know more about how the people who are pro life view this subject.
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,693
Uncle Bill brought up an interesting point on another thread re: stem cell research and the religious arguments against it. I shall now attempt to crudely and clumsily paraphrase.
The Catholic Church is against stem cell research.
The Catholic Church also believes that cloned humans are not true humans, because only God can endow a being with a soul and clones are Man's creation. Clones, therefore, would be on par with animals (also soulless) - and the Bible allows humans to use animals as they see fit - for food, for clothing, etc.
Stem cell researchers would be creating fetal tissue in test tubes.
So by their arguments, this tissue has no soul, ergo it is not "human", ergo WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Yes, the idea is a bit off-putting, but when you look at it unemotionally, there's really no reason to be against such research. I think allowing weird, uneducated emotional arguments to get in the way of science is a bad move. It was once off-putting to believe that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system.
And shouldn't we have stopped taking science advice from the Catholic Church after the Galileo incident? Pope, schmope.
I've thought about it a lot lately, and I don't think this should be a moral issue. It is an issue of saving lives. For me to deny another person a chance to live a normal healthy life - for me to deprive a family of a loved one - simply because I find the idea of cultivating tissue to be "gross" or "distasteful" would be unfair.
I say go for it.
The Catholic Church is against stem cell research.
The Catholic Church also believes that cloned humans are not true humans, because only God can endow a being with a soul and clones are Man's creation. Clones, therefore, would be on par with animals (also soulless) - and the Bible allows humans to use animals as they see fit - for food, for clothing, etc.
Stem cell researchers would be creating fetal tissue in test tubes.
So by their arguments, this tissue has no soul, ergo it is not "human", ergo WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Yes, the idea is a bit off-putting, but when you look at it unemotionally, there's really no reason to be against such research. I think allowing weird, uneducated emotional arguments to get in the way of science is a bad move. It was once off-putting to believe that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of the solar system.
And shouldn't we have stopped taking science advice from the Catholic Church after the Galileo incident? Pope, schmope.
I've thought about it a lot lately, and I don't think this should be a moral issue. It is an issue of saving lives. For me to deny another person a chance to live a normal healthy life - for me to deprive a family of a loved one - simply because I find the idea of cultivating tissue to be "gross" or "distasteful" would be unfair.
I say go for it.
stargazer76
Struck by Lightning
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2001
- Posts
- 1,597
Very insightful, Laurel
I never would have thought of it that way, but what a wonderful way of looking at it. I, for one, have never been against stem cell research, especially if it's done in the interest of saving lives, but I know that many people have very strong moral arguments against it. Thanks for providing a logical argument to counter their fears.
I never would have thought of it that way, but what a wonderful way of looking at it. I, for one, have never been against stem cell research, especially if it's done in the interest of saving lives, but I know that many people have very strong moral arguments against it. Thanks for providing a logical argument to counter their fears.
livin_simple
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2000
- Posts
- 149
I believe the whole issue is being forced forward for the purpose of committing us to a policy decision and public consensus that launches us down a moral, ethical and religious slippery slope.
Only a few weeks ago a study was published demonstrating that fat cells can be just as effective as stem cells. If that is true, the entire issue can be side-stepped and becomes a non-issue.
Instead it is being forced forward.
This is the work of people with an agenda rather than people with a scientific or public best interest in mind.
Only a few weeks ago a study was published demonstrating that fat cells can be just as effective as stem cells. If that is true, the entire issue can be side-stepped and becomes a non-issue.
Instead it is being forced forward.
This is the work of people with an agenda rather than people with a scientific or public best interest in mind.
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,693
I agree, livin_simple. 100%. I don't know why science is being put up to a popular vote. "Hands up, who agree the world is round?" Pullease.
I think he's in a real tough spot. There are many Republicans (including the Nancy Reagan) who are pressuring him to allow stem cell research. There are many Republicans & Democrats who are against it for religious reasons. Now that he's met with the Pope (who spoke with him at length about stem cell research but said narry a word regarding GW's support of the death penalty, go figure), he's in a tricky spot. If he says "nay" on stem cell research, I think that he's going to face a lot of criticism from families of Alzheimers and Parkinsons patients, as well as researchers and others. If he votes to allow it, he's gonna piss off the Pope.
lavender said:
I think he's in a real tough spot. There are many Republicans (including the Nancy Reagan) who are pressuring him to allow stem cell research. There are many Republicans & Democrats who are against it for religious reasons. Now that he's met with the Pope (who spoke with him at length about stem cell research but said narry a word regarding GW's support of the death penalty, go figure), he's in a tricky spot. If he says "nay" on stem cell research, I think that he's going to face a lot of criticism from families of Alzheimers and Parkinsons patients, as well as researchers and others. If he votes to allow it, he's gonna piss off the Pope.
As you can see I am quite undecided about this just now.
Taking off my 8 year old Bible Hat.
Putting on my 18 year old Atheist Hat.
They are just worthless babies, kill them all it will save countless lives. Mr. Spock once said. "The needs of the many out wiegh the needs of the many." Don't use plentiful fat cells when we can help decrease the population explosion.
Seriously that is what I think when I think with my former militant Athiest training.
Taking off my 18 year ol Atheist Hat.
Putting on my 8 year old Bible.
But those babies are losing thier life on a chance that some body might be extended in thier life. Oh those poor little unborn barely concieved babies.
God once said, "I knew thee in the womb of thy mother." Why can't we focus more on the fat stem cells? There is lots more fat than unborn living babies.
Seriously thats what I think with my current free form thought process tied to a relidious source.
So as you can see I am in a state of confusion.
Taking off my 8 year old Bible Hat.
Putting on my 18 year old Atheist Hat.
They are just worthless babies, kill them all it will save countless lives. Mr. Spock once said. "The needs of the many out wiegh the needs of the many." Don't use plentiful fat cells when we can help decrease the population explosion.
Seriously that is what I think when I think with my former militant Athiest training.
Taking off my 18 year ol Atheist Hat.
Putting on my 8 year old Bible.
But those babies are losing thier life on a chance that some body might be extended in thier life. Oh those poor little unborn barely concieved babies.
God once said, "I knew thee in the womb of thy mother." Why can't we focus more on the fat stem cells? There is lots more fat than unborn living babies. Seriously thats what I think with my current free form thought process tied to a relidious source.
So as you can see I am in a state of confusion.
First, the study regarding fat cells being equivalent to the stem cells discussed is being pushed as a way to obviate the relative value (which is yet unknown) of the stem cells. I suspect a lot of the hype is from those wishing to suppress stem cell research on religious grounds.
Laurel, to be completely honest, I can't attribute that info to a Catholic, merely to someone who professed strong religious convictions. The reasoning applied was mine, however.
Regarding Nancy Reagan, from what I remember of Ronald Reagan's professed beliefs, I believe he would have opposed this idea, perhaps even sought to have it made illegal. I'm relying on 15-year-old memories, so take that into consideration as you flame the assumption.
And I oppose the Federal funding of it as unconstitutional (but I similarly oppose Federal funding of all research other than that for military technical/weapons development).
What babies, Todd? These are zygotes/blastulas/embryos which are potential babies after a significant period of gestation. There is no guarantee that all of them will develop even if implanted in a uterus. I have heard statistics in the past which indicated that scientists believe that about 40% of potential pregnancies spontaneously abort after implantation of the fertilized egg. So even under the best of circumstances, there's seems to be about a 40% probability of loss.Originally posted by Todd
But those babies are losing thier life on a chance that some body might be extended in thier life. Oh those poor little unborn barely concieved babies.
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,693
Unclebill said:
I didn't mean to imply that you flamed Catholics. I applied your reasoning to their beliefs. No harm meant.
I'm sure you're right. Nancy Reagan, however, did claim to be pro-choice on the abortion issue - as did Barbara Bush, as does Laura Bush. Nancy may have deferred to her husband and taken a stand against stem cell research when he was healthy. However, priorities sometimes change when you're sitting watching the love of your life deteriorate.
As it stands now, the Alzheimer's Association - home of the Ronald and Nancy Reagan Research Institute - has come out unequivocally against "any ban on federal funding for human stem cell research".
I understood; just wanted to clarify for anyone who did not read the other thread. The person who made the call did not to my recollection give a specific denomination. But it is pretty consistent with most other Catholic tenets with which I'm familiar (and there aren't too many, me being an atheist.Originally posted by Laurel
I didn't mean to imply that you flamed Catholics. I applied your reasoning to their beliefs. No harm meant.
)I agree with you there. What amuses me is the radical turn many people make on subjects like this when a close friend or loved one becomes the victim of one of these disorders for which genetic engineering, stem cell reasearch, cloning, etc., can offer a potential solution. Fits right in with the previous "Illness & Morals" thread.
Never
Come What May
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2000
- Posts
- 23,234
Laurel:
"I've thought about it a lot lately, and I don't think this should be a moral issue. It is an issue of saving lives. For me to deny another person a chance to live a normal healthy life - for me to deprive a family of a loved one - simply because I find the idea of cultivating tissue to be "gross" or "distasteful" would be unfair."
All issues are moral issues, the argument that saving lives is 'good' and cultivating tissues is 'good' because it saves lives is a moral argument.
"I've thought about it a lot lately, and I don't think this should be a moral issue. It is an issue of saving lives. For me to deny another person a chance to live a normal healthy life - for me to deprive a family of a loved one - simply because I find the idea of cultivating tissue to be "gross" or "distasteful" would be unfair."
All issues are moral issues, the argument that saving lives is 'good' and cultivating tissues is 'good' because it saves lives is a moral argument.
Svedish_Chef
On Walkabout
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2000
- Posts
- 9,937
Fuck
Svedish_Chef
On Walkabout
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2000
- Posts
- 9,937
You mean like this one....
"Yes Please!"
"Yes Please!"
G
Guest
Guest
too many "ifs" to justify loss of life, if it could ever be justified.
It is easy for us to say that embryos are "just tissue." It was waaaaay back in high school, but I remember in Biology class the scientific definition of life. I think there were 7 conditions to be met. Something about cellular respiration, cellular growth, disposal of cellular waste, and some other things I don't remember clearly. I DO remember being shown that a newly conceived embryo meets all these conditions. Therefore, even at the very beginning, right after sperm meets egg, there is life. If you look at the new life's genetics, you will find it is a human life. And if you compare that new human life's genes to those of both the mother and the father, you will see it is a unique new human life, different from both parents.
I have always wondered why people have a hard time accepting that a newly fertilized egg is a new human life. It's plain as day, right there in the textbooks. If a classroom of average high school kids could add 2 and 2 and get 4 on this issue, why is the media allowed to ignore this basic science-proven fact?
Another thing, can one person own another person? That's slavery, right? So why should we be allowed to do as we please with these tiny humans, regardless of their wishes or rights?
I think it is easy for us to say, "Sure, do whatever you have to do for this research" only because we can fool ourselves, or be fooled by others that we are not taking life. We are. If we were sacraficing 1 month old infants for this research, there would be a big stink, right? Any reasonable person would be outraged. What difference does a few months make? Sure, the unborn baby is less developed, but it is still just as alive, just as human, just as unique. So are we saying that less developed humans are disposable? Are people with Down's Syndrome less worthy of life just because they are less developed than we are?
Logical deduction tells me we ought to find a different way to do this research.
It is easy for us to say that embryos are "just tissue." It was waaaaay back in high school, but I remember in Biology class the scientific definition of life. I think there were 7 conditions to be met. Something about cellular respiration, cellular growth, disposal of cellular waste, and some other things I don't remember clearly. I DO remember being shown that a newly conceived embryo meets all these conditions. Therefore, even at the very beginning, right after sperm meets egg, there is life. If you look at the new life's genetics, you will find it is a human life. And if you compare that new human life's genes to those of both the mother and the father, you will see it is a unique new human life, different from both parents.
I have always wondered why people have a hard time accepting that a newly fertilized egg is a new human life. It's plain as day, right there in the textbooks. If a classroom of average high school kids could add 2 and 2 and get 4 on this issue, why is the media allowed to ignore this basic science-proven fact?
Another thing, can one person own another person? That's slavery, right? So why should we be allowed to do as we please with these tiny humans, regardless of their wishes or rights?
I think it is easy for us to say, "Sure, do whatever you have to do for this research" only because we can fool ourselves, or be fooled by others that we are not taking life. We are. If we were sacraficing 1 month old infants for this research, there would be a big stink, right? Any reasonable person would be outraged. What difference does a few months make? Sure, the unborn baby is less developed, but it is still just as alive, just as human, just as unique. So are we saying that less developed humans are disposable? Are people with Down's Syndrome less worthy of life just because they are less developed than we are?
Logical deduction tells me we ought to find a different way to do this research.
The_old_man
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Posts
- 916
Stem cell research should be taken out of GOVERNMENT control but definately should continue.
It should also be protected from fanatics, as are family planning centers. For the same reasons.
It should also be protected from fanatics, as are family planning centers. For the same reasons.
As a non-practicing but still obedient Catholic who is pro-choice but personally against abortion (you follow that?) I'm in favor of stem-cell research. I think. Robert Wright had a good column in Slate magazine arguing that these frozen embryos, unlike fertilized eggs in a woman's womb, aren't going to become human beings, and so stem-cell research shouldn't be looked on in the same light as abortion. I agree with him on that point. But manufacturing embryos for research...there's gotta be a better way. And if they can use fat cells instead of embryos, I got a couple I can donate to science.
I didn't read a transcript of everything that the Pope said during his meeting with Bush, but if he didn't mention the death penalty I'd be very surprised. Even tho stem-cell research is the hot topic right now, last month it was the death penalty, especially in Europe, and I wonder if the Pope had anything to say about it.
I'll be shocked if Bush doesn't come out against stem-cell research. If he does, he risks alienating his far-right supporters, who might turn on him the way they turned on his poppa. He would also risk pissing off American Catholics, tho we seem to be a bit more liberal than the Pope.
It was odd seeing Bush and John Paul II sitting there next to each other. The Pope is obviously very frail, in bad health, he was all bent and looked exhausted. Wheras Bush was sitting like he was doing his Al Gore impersonation, with a stick up his ass. I mean, he was barely on the chair, sitting at attention, with this very strange expression on his face. I think Bush meant for it to be solemn, but it looked like he just took a big bite out of a lemon.
I didn't read a transcript of everything that the Pope said during his meeting with Bush, but if he didn't mention the death penalty I'd be very surprised. Even tho stem-cell research is the hot topic right now, last month it was the death penalty, especially in Europe, and I wonder if the Pope had anything to say about it.
I'll be shocked if Bush doesn't come out against stem-cell research. If he does, he risks alienating his far-right supporters, who might turn on him the way they turned on his poppa. He would also risk pissing off American Catholics, tho we seem to be a bit more liberal than the Pope.
It was odd seeing Bush and John Paul II sitting there next to each other. The Pope is obviously very frail, in bad health, he was all bent and looked exhausted. Wheras Bush was sitting like he was doing his Al Gore impersonation, with a stick up his ass. I mean, he was barely on the chair, sitting at attention, with this very strange expression on his face. I think Bush meant for it to be solemn, but it looked like he just took a big bite out of a lemon.
