|
Post by Russel on Oct 28, 2006 15:12:47 GMT -5
For those who don't know, stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell. Stem cells is making cells and tissues for medical therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace those that are diseased or destroyed. But the number of people needing a transplant far exceeds the number of organs available for transplantation. Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to problems that occur somewhere in this process. A better understanding of normal cell development will allow us to understand and perhaps correct the errors that cause these medical conditions. Many republicans do not like the idea of stem cell research. They believe that artifical cells are un-godly and they don't want to take the risks of the side effects. The downside of stem cells could be corrected if stem cell research had more funding. Here is what michael J. Fox has to say about this in the up coming Missouri election. Then after what American Radio Talk show host Rush Limbaugh had to say about what Michael had to say. www.youtube.com/watch?v=14pGY1P97L8and here is Michael's Response to that www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvLsm5vmVXAIn my opinion, I think stem cell research will better man-kind. If saving a life is un-godly then I don't know what is. Please review what I have said and give your own opinions.
|
|
|
Post by flowerpower on Oct 28, 2006 16:54:45 GMT -5
Yeah, using embryos that are destined to be thrown away in any case is against the morality of Christians. rolleyes.gif
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: Battôsai on Oct 29, 2006 9:35:04 GMT -5
Are you sure it's using stemcells that is "un-godly"? Maybe it's just where you get them?
Saving life is all very well, but taking one life to save another...that, I think, is wrong unless the person sacrifices him/herself.
But if we can get our hands on stem cells without killing anyone, then I would say, go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by flowerpower on Oct 29, 2006 10:40:09 GMT -5
Are you sure it's using stemcells that is "un-godly"? Maybe it's just where you get them? Saving life is all very well, but taking one life to save another...that, I think, is wrong unless the person sacrifices him/herself. But if we can get our hands on stem cells without killing anyone, then I would say, go ahead. You're not killing anyone to get the cells. You're using useless embryos that are to be thrown away in any case, or that are taken away from a live human's tissue.
|
|
|
Post by Kahuna on Oct 29, 2006 10:41:01 GMT -5
But what some people are saying is that the embryo isn't considered a "person", yet.
EDIT: Flowerpower beat me to it :\
But is it right to kill something that is living? I don't think so.
Is it right to let someone die knowing that there was something that you could do to save them? Probably not. Depending if the person chooses
It just comes down to choosing to do it or not and people that are conflict with the idea.
I, personally, wouldn't go with it because you never know what that "person" could've been. It might've been someone who changed the world or someone who is just an ordinary person. Either way, I think they both have the right to live, imo.(not saying this from my view of religions or any other secondary source)
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Oct 29, 2006 11:14:05 GMT -5
yes they'll use embryos, but think about it. Once the research is complete we can figure out how to make stem cells without the using embryos. To save millions or billions of lives, they're going some sacrifices. But it'll be worth it.
|
|
|
Post by spik3 on Oct 29, 2006 11:59:33 GMT -5
Batto your not really taking a life.The embryo may be "alive" in a certain sense of the word but its like letting someone in a vegetative state die.They have no feelings or anything.If using the embryos can help i say do it.
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: Battôsai on Oct 29, 2006 13:34:21 GMT -5
By that logic, killing someone while they're asleep is fine. They're not doing anything, right? They're just in a vegetative state. You can even make sure that they won't feel anything. But no, sleeping people, like embryoes, can wake up.
Lol, I get the feeling this is gonna turn into a debate on abortion...
|
|
|
Post by flowerpower on Oct 29, 2006 13:55:51 GMT -5
aksbdhskbhd guys they're not using embryos that are going to be fertalized. They are going to be using useless embryos that would be thrown away, so they are not "killing" anyone.
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: Battôsai on Oct 29, 2006 16:22:22 GMT -5
...
ok, I don't understand, then. What's going on? Mass production of embryoes in vitro?
|
|
|
Post by spik3 on Oct 29, 2006 16:32:53 GMT -5
By that logic, killing someone while they're asleep is fine. They're not doing anything, right? They're just in a vegetative state. You can even make sure that they won't feel anything. But no, sleeping people, like embryoes, can wake up. Lol, I get the feeling this is gonna turn into a debate on abortion... Will they not wakeup?Have they not experienced life?Its taking away something from them.The embryos have never had anything.And yeah it will turn into an abortion debate but thats cool becuz theyre basically the same thing. And yeah kahuna we may be killing someone rly smart who knows.But if we dont we could also be letting the next Hitler live.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Oct 29, 2006 20:26:47 GMT -5
Yeah I rather not have the next hitler live....I think its best not to worry about the lives of tomorrow, but the lives of today.
|
|
|
Post by flowerpower on Oct 31, 2006 8:45:42 GMT -5
From Wikipedia.
Notice the last sentence of that paragraph.
The embryos are not "killing" anyone becuase they would have been "killed" or thrown away anyway becuase they are not embryos used for fertilization but extra ones that would be thrown away, so wouldn't it be a better idea to use them for stem cell research rather than wasting them in either case?
Also, not only embryonic cells can be used to repair tissue. There has been research that cells taken from the umbilical cord have the same effect and it certainly won't be "killing" anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Chariot is Legend! on Oct 31, 2006 10:19:02 GMT -5
They can cure so many diseases already. Should I have to live with my diabetes simply because some people who happen to be in charge disagree with it? Should the Christian beliefs of one man determine whether we get the help we need? Why don't I deserve a cure? It's not like it's a life for a life. Millions of people will benefit from this. Allow it. No questions asked.
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: Battôsai on Oct 31, 2006 13:59:33 GMT -5
Hm. I guess, my position is this, then: By all means except those that involve killing a human, pursue stem cell research. The umbilical cord thing? Go for it. Maybe we could figure out how to get some stem cells from an embryo without killing it? Worth looking into. But using embryoes that were "slated for destruction" anyways? That, I have a problem with: that these people are "slated for destruction". It's actually a weird situation. Creating a person, only to destroy them? I don't know the specifics of why they're doing that - it's probably necessary for their in vitro stuff - but it sounds wrong to me. Granted, I know next to nothing about it. But it does sound wrong to me.
|
|