Why stem cells are important...

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by Echoes OK, I will respect that it is your thread... let me know when you put the coloring books away and start having a grown-up conversation... adios.

Please, just because you come in here with ignorance and misinformation doesn't mean I am immature in not wanting you involved in the thread. I have "grown-up" conversations every day with people far more mature and educated than you, including vehement and *educated* Christians (my school has a very strong School of Divinity, with some of the best Christian scholars and theologians in the world).

[Loghead]

Originally posted by telephant Im all for killing babies and old people. Two birds. One stone.

Babies are succulent when poached.

[rockapede]

Originally posted by Echoes Originally posted by rememberduane I don't really see how you can conflate stem-cell research and abortion. First of all, stem-cells are only taken from already aborted fetuses. actually, this is part of the debate. Once *MONEY* enters the equation all bets are off, and, if it is dealing with *HUMAN MERCHANDISE* of even the most 'embryonic' stages, you can be sure that *GREED* will overcome human rights/morals/ethics. But if they are going to do it anyway, why should those lives go completely to waste? I'm vehemently against abortion -- I'm also pro-choice. Mull it over. Murderers are going to kill people anyway...so, why don't we get them really good guns and teach them to shoot accurately so, *INNOCENT* folks don't get killed in their murdering foray In any case, there is promising research, awaiting reproduction of lab results, that would allow harvesting fully-functional embryonic (general) stem-cells from living embryos without damaging the embryo. it *ALWAYS* starts as a procedure to preserve and aid in ailing/sick individuals...but, anybody that is aware of the potential for *ENHANCEMENT and COSMETICS* will soon realize the thrust of this argument is funded and pushed by those that stand to turn a huge *PROFIT* from human resources...in the hand of single dimensional 'situation ethics/ends justifies the means' society spells for a *LEGAL* recipe for murder for profit. (The 'slippery slope' where, inevitably, secular society always falls to). I *DON'T* understand the *HATRED* coming out of a supposed *CHRISTIAN*, which I am as *WELL*. I *THINK* you need to take a *SECOND* to consider the fact that others have *DIFFERENT* opinions and try to see things from their point of view *AS WELL*. That *DOESN'T* mean you would be *GIVING UP* or *CONCEDING* anything, just that you would be *ATTEMPTING* to employ some *TACT* to ensure a *CIVIL DEBATE*.

[Cougar Hunter]

Gene Hackman, my nemesis, I will no longer be called Christopher. I am now "Chris". I grow stronger each day!! :mad:

[AaronF]

I'm a diabetic of over 15 years, so obviously I have my opinions on the issue. I didn't bother to read the whole thread but this is what I have gathered from my research on the subject.

First off, there are many types of stem cell research, embryonic is the one that causes most of the controversy. The other is using the normal stem cells that are already in all of our bodies. The latter doesn't promise the same that embryonic does, simply as the genetic code is more 'malleable' in terms of creating the cells wanted.

I could understand as to why the religious fanatics do not want to use the cells from an aborted embryo. However, every day there are hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos (frozen for parents who want to have babies but can't via invitro) that have to be incenerated because they are about to expire. My point being, why can't we just do research on those cells that are about to die anyway?

Also, the issue of cloning is a big argument. Here in Missouri, we had a vote on stem cell research that passed. The opposition had a huge deal about it leading to cloning. However, if you live in Missouri and you voted, you would have noticed that the second bullet point explaining the issue specifically said, 'bans any type of human cloning.' Personally, I don't understand how that whole arguement was held up. If you read the bill (very long, by the way) you would find that it also bans the cloning of humans.


I just don't understand the arguments against it. And I think both sides need to open their ears and listen to eachother in order to find ways to allow stem cell research while allowing provisions to be made to keep the other side happy (see paragraph three of my post).

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by AaronF I'm a diabetic of over 15 years, so obviously I have my opinions on the issue. I didn't bother to read the whole thread but this is what I have gathered from my research on the subject. First off, there are many types of stem cell research, embryonic is the one that causes most of the controversy. The other is using the normal stem cells that are already in all of our bodies. The latter doesn't promise the same that embryonic does, simply as the genetic code is more 'malleable' in terms of creating the cells wanted. I could understand as to why the religious fanatics do not want to use the cells from an aborted embryo. However, every day there are hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos (frozen for parents who want to have babies but can't via invitro) that have to be incenerated because they are about to expire. My point being, why can't we just do research on those cells that are about to die anyway? Also, the issue of cloning is a big argument. Here in Missouri, we had a vote on stem cell research that passed. The opposition had a huge deal about it leading to cloning. However, if you live in Missouri and you voted, you would have noticed that the second bullet point explaining the issue specifically said, 'bans any type of human cloning.' Personally, I don't understand how that whole arguement was held up. If you read the bill (very long, by the way) you would find that it also bans the cloning of humans. I just don't understand the arguments against it. And I think both sides need to open their ears and listen to eachother in order to find ways to allow stem cell research while allowing provisions to be made to keep the other side happy (see paragraph three of my post).

Very interesting and wise points.

[Thri11_H0use]

YOu know guys, i think this is one of those things us men should just stay out of. We are never going to have to get an abortion. Really, all of our opinions on it are invalid. I think the women should be the ones in control of this one. Thery are the ones that ultimatly get to choose whether they want to or not.

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by Thri11_H0use YOu know guys, i think this is one of those things us men should just stay out of. We are never going to have to get an abortion. Really, all of our opinions on it are invalid. I think the women should be the ones in control of this one. Thery are the ones that ultimatly get to choose whether they want to or not.

If we were talking about abortion at this point, I'd say that's a pretty fair discussion to be had.

[silverfacechamp]

Originally posted by Echoes Originally posted by rememberduane it *ALWAYS* starts as a procedure to preserve and aid in ailing/sick individuals...but, anybody that is aware of the potential for *ENHANCEMENT and COSMETICS* will soon realize the thrust of this argument is funded and pushed by those that stand to turn a huge *PROFIT* from human resources...in the hand of single dimensional 'situation ethics/ends justifies the means' society spells for a *LEGAL* recipe for murder for profit. (The 'slippery slope' where, inevitably, secular society always falls to). That's a terrible argument, really. First of all, you're injecting a scientific argument with non-secular rhetoric. Using the phrase 'murder for profit' is not only misguided, which you would know had you researched the subject matter, its also the same sensationalist misinformation that has polluted rational discussion of the issue from the beginning. Ethics are a cultural construct, and are not universal to all people. You can't close-mindedly apply your philosophy to everybody everywhere. It simply doesn't work. I won't argue that within anything there exists a certain probability that it may become distorted due to the unscrupulous actions of an individual involved. That's a risk inherent with anything. You're also seemingly implying that entirely secular operations are doomed to fail in regards to ethical responsibility. Many would argue that completely secular tasks are much less prone to perversion simply because there is no underlying alterior (religious) motivation. Not only that, but to imply that only religious based activities are always ethical is not only narrow-minded, it also completely ignores the history of many of the world's major religions.

[Echoes]

Originally posted by rockapede I *DON'T* understand the *HATRED* coming out of a supposed *CHRISTIAN*, which I am as *WELL*. I *THINK* you need to take a *SECOND* to consider the fact that others have *DIFFERENT* opinions and try to see things from their point of view *AS WELL*. That *DOESN'T* mean you would be *GIVING UP* or *CONCEDING* anything, just that you would be *ATTEMPTING* to employ some *TACT* to ensure a *CIVIL DEBATE*.

and.... how is it that making my *POINTS* using caps and asterisks mean that I'm angry, hateful and unChristian? and...

How is it that my points are not allowing those with a different opinion, their point(s)? and...

Exactly what am I giving up or conceding by making my points? and...

Exactly how is it that a *BEAT DOWN* by R-Duanne isn't a lack of *TACT* or *CIVIL DEBATE*

read what I had to say and think about it...if you disagree? that's fine....but, to take that and attack my character is just wrong on your part and on R-Duanne's part..I am amazed that you cannot (as a professed Christian) see this?

*HUGE HINT*....address the issue...DON'T ATTACK THE PERSON!

NOW... carry on kids.

[STEEL KAGE]

As a man of Science, I strongly support Stem Cell research. I understand the problems some people have with it but you have to remember; this is a nascent field. Given the time and leeway to improve and perfect ways of harvesting stem cells, I believe that we will eventually see a day when the issues against it will no longer be an issue at all...

Theres a reason that The Lord gaves us brains, I think that its kind of silly to impede science when the net result will have such a widespread , beneficial impact on our lives...

[PlayboyChris]

Originally posted by Loghead Babies are succulent when poached.

 

LOL!!!!

[starsnuffer]

At the rate the religious right enjoys destroying the enviorment, it will not be long before people are the only food left for other people.

WTF difference does it make if we use people to cure disease or if we use them for food?

{censored}ing religious hypocrites.

-W

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by Echoes *HUGE HINT*....address the issue...DON'T ATTACK THE PERSON!

Not a valid statement when the *person* is performing an indicative action, such as spouting misinformation, ignorance, and anger. Then "attacking" the person on account of their actions is perfectly acceptable, as their points/issues are invalid to address. Please leave the thread before your garbled, ignorant, invalid garbage ruins it even more.

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by STEEL KAGE As a man of Science, I strongly support Stem Cell research. I understand the problems some people have with it but you have to remember; this is a nascent field. Given the time and leeway to improve and perfect ways of harvesting stem cells, I believe that we will eventually see a day when the issues against it will no longer be an issue at all... Theres a reason that The Lord gaves us brains, I think that its kind of silly to impede science when the net result will have such a widespread , beneficial impact on our lives...

[Echoes]

Originally posted by silverfacechamp
That's a terrible argument, really. First of all, you're injecting a scientific argument with non-secular rhetoric.

if you think this isn't about *MONEY* then you need to look up the word: NAIVE. If you think that science labs across America (or the world for that matter) are driven by anything other than *MONEY* you, again, are terribly NAIVE.

Using the phrase 'murder for profit' is not only misguided, which you would know had you researched the subject matter, its also the same sensationalist misinformation that has polluted rational discussion of the issue from the beginning.

You are SOOOO, very condescending, almost like you *THINK* you are more 'informed' than those that disagree with you....NAIVE.

Ethics are a cultural construct, and are not universal to all people. You can't close-mindedly apply your philosophy to everybody everywhere. It simply doesn't work.

Thanks professor!...then, why are you doing that to me RIGHT NOW! hypocrite? Why then is my opinion on this matter not valid? (try not to be 'closed minded' in your philosophy as you 'judge' me)

I won't argue that within anything there exists a certain probability that it may become distorted due to the unscrupulous actions of an individual involved. That's a risk inherent with anything.

We agree here! cool...

You're also seemingly implying that entirely secular operations are doomed to fail in regards to ethical responsibility. Many would argue that completely secular tasks are much less prone to perversion simply because there is no underlying alterior (religious) motivation. Not only that, but to imply that only religious based activities are always ethical is not only narrow-minded, it also completely ignores the history of many of the world's major religions.

as spoken by an obvious 'religious' bigot....I never pointed to 'religion' as any kind of answer or solution to this problem/research at all. I pointed to a few obvious flaws in mankind's 'motivation' and,... for all the potential 'good' that could occur from embryonic stem cells the *RISK* at the potential expense of human carnage is (IMHO) too high a price to pay. As kind human beings we all would like to think that something like this would not deteriorate into 'embryo harvesting for profit'...but, unless you are a fool and naive you have to at least admit the potential for corporations (that always run on the bottom line) to come in and try to 'maximize profits'...and, we have seen what folks will do for a paycheck...do the math...I'm outtee

[rememberduane]

Please no one feed the troll. He's an idiot, he's ignorant, and he has a psychotic obsession with fundamental Christianity. Just don't reply to his posts.

[Echoes]

Here's my same CHRISTIAN view...from a friend of mine....

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Means and Ends

Gregory Koukl

You have to have a human being before you can get human stem cells.

I want to talk to you about an idea, a concept - the underlying moral principles that drive ideas. My deep concern about our nation is that there is radical confusion, not just in the population in general, but in the church in particular, about how to do moral thinking. One of the most immediate examples of such a thing is the area of embryonic stem cell research and cloning. You know that Congress is debating right now whether to allow human cloning or not, and whether to allow the cloning of embryonic stem cells for research. Actually those are both the exact same issue.

There has been an attempt to obfuscate (confuse) the issue morally, an attempt to draw a distinction between a blastula (the earliest stages of human development) and the later stages, as if in the first case you don

[Echoes]

Part 2.....

Situational Ethics is a proper noun. It is a specific kind of ethical system developed by a man named Joseph Fletcher. And Joseph Fletcher is not a relativist; he was an absolutist. The absolute rule he believed was that you should always do the loving thing. The circumstance determine what is loving in any given situation. I am not advocating that. I am advocating that you must look at the situation itself before you can know what proper and appropriate objective or absolute moral principle applies. All moral decision making is situational in that sense. Is killing right? Well, it depends. Not to get a seat in the bus, but killing arguably is right in self-defense. Do you see the relationship there?

Relativism is when the moral claim is relative, not to the circumstances themselves, but is relative to the subject. It's also called subjectivism. In the same circumstances, different subjects have different moral rules. If you and I are in the exact same situation, I could say that one course of action is right for me, but an opposite course of action could be right for you. The only thing that is changed is you and I. That is relativism.

All truth claims of any kind are always relative to the circumstances - you have to know which rule to apply in any given circumstance. We have to be careful to be aware that when we are making moral judgments with regards to means and ends, it is not enough to simply dismiss alternatives with the statement, The ends never justify the means. Oftentimes, the ends do justify the means. You have to look more closely. But, on the other hand, we cannot simply look at noble goals and act as if that is all that matters.

We cannot just trot out people in wheelchairs before the Senate in place of a moral argument. Of course, it is a noble end; no one is taking exception with that. This question is what do we have to do to get the ends that you have in mind? It isn

[rememberduane]

Please get out of my thread you psychotic, ignorant, inane asshole.

[Echoes]

Part 3...

"On the one side are the utilitarians. These are the ones who basically see cloning life in terms of markets and patents and progress. On the other side are those who believe in the intrinsic value of human life. They mention for various reasons, but whatever their rationale, religious or otherwise, this is what they believe. They all share a respect for the human and the natural and oppose efforts to reduce human life in its various parts and stages to the status of mere research tools and manufactured products. The utilitarians argue that the potential medical advances of harvesting stem cells from cloned human embryos for medical research justifies going ahead. However, those of us to hold to the intrinsic value of life believe that creating embryonic clones for research and eventually for the creation of spare body parts if unethical. Even though, we strongly support continued research on adult stem cells which has proved promising in recent clinical trials."

They look at the distinction being made between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning and are say that in both cases we are confronted with the same moral problem. We cannot treat them differently. They point out that these bills before the Congress right now would, in effect, authorize the creation of human clones and then mandate their destruction. Then they take the roof off. They show the natural consequence of this way of thinking.

"If using a 12-day-old cloned embryo for producing cells and tissues is morally acceptable, what about harvesting more developed cells from say, an eight-week-old embryo, or harvesting organs from a five-month-old cloned fetus if it were found to be a more useful medical therapy."

They are showing that when you take this to its logical conclusion, it produces morally absurd results. They are taking the roof off.

"Humans have always thought of the birth of their children as a gift bestowed by God or beneficent nature. In its place, the new cloned progeny would become the ultimate shopping experience designed in advanced, produced to specifications, and purchased in the biological marketplace. A child would no longer be a unique creature, but rather an engineered reproduction. Human cloning opens the door to a commercial eugenic civilization where life science companies already have patented both human embryos and stem cells."

How do you patent a human embryo? They go on, "Giving them ownership and control of the new form of reproductive commerce with frightening implications for the future of society."

Friends, my point in cloning has always been that the greatest harm is not the cloning per se. I

[rememberduane]

You may very well be the biggest idiot I have seen on these forums. Please {censored} off.

[PlayboyChris]

Originally posted by rememberduane Please get out of my thread you psychotic, ignorant, inane asshole.

 

This is not your thread. This thread belongs to the forum and everyone who is a member of the forum. Squelching opposing points of view is unacceptable.

[rememberduane]

Originally posted by PlayboyChris This is not your thread. This thread belongs to the forum and everyone who is a member of the forum. Squelching opposing points of view is unacceptable.

You do realize this isn't a "point of view" but a matter of misinformation, false claims, and ignorance based on religious rhetoric, correct? Please read what you're defending. I am asking that these lies and ignorance that derives from them are kept out of an intelligent conversation.

[Loghead]

All this crap (Echoes' posts) is based on the premise that life begins at conception.