Stem-Cell Debate: Suggestions

[Ted-Easton]

I'm not looking for an actual debate on the topic of stem cell reseach, I've agreed to participate in one. I've put my two cents in here a number of times on the subject, but I'm looking to the learned of NG to supply me with more fodder.

Here's the situation. I need to argue against stem cell reseach, preferably on solid legal grounds. Any input, from sources to precedents, arguments to philosophical questions, is welcome and appreciated.

[EveryDamnNameIsTaken]

People who are against stem cells are also usually against abortion, mainly because it kills babies (good riddance, we have enough of those fucking things already). So say something involving the fact that it's taking human lives for research purposes.

[psk21]

Eh, I'll tell you two things.

1. If stem cell research is the only way to regenrate tissues and cures diseases I'm all for it.

2. However, if its used to lead cutting edge technology in the realm of Cloning then no.

I like abortion, a woman has a right to chose whether to bare any child by accident or intentional. And in doing so she also has the rights to offer her embryo to science to further advance studies in many areas that can help the majority of the country striken with one sort of disease or another.

[EvilBobTheAlmighty]

I'm for it.

So shut it up you.

[SkyCube]

At 11/14/05 04:15 PM, TurkishBezerker wrote: People who are against stem cells are also usually against abortion, mainly because it kills babies

But stem cell research doesn't kill any babies/foetuses/embryos at all. No one especially aborts embryos for stem cells research. It's not like sceintists are paying women to get pregnant and have abortions so they can get stem cells.

The babies/foetuses/embryos (whatever you like to call them) will be aborted anyways, so you might as well put them to good use afterwards. I really can't understand why people use the fact that abortions are taking place as an argument against stem cell research, they will happen either way.

So... yeah, make sure you avoid that one steve. :-)

[SkyCube]

At 11/14/05 06:11 PM, -SkyCube- wrote: So... yeah, make sure you avoid that one steve. :-)

Oops, I meant Ted. I always get you and stealthsteve mixed up for some reason. :o

sorry

[Ted-Easton]

As I said, all input is welcome. Unless you post "I'm for it. So shut it up you." In which case, a ban will soon follow.

At 11/14/05 06:13 PM, -SkyCube- wrote: Oops, I meant Ted. I always get you and stealthsteve mixed up for some reason. :o

I can see why. We're secretly the same person.

[smith916]

http://www.earnedmedia.org/cwfa11011.htm

This may or may not involve stem cell research, but I dont understand why people cant get stem cells from somthing that isn't alive, like the embilicle of the baby, i mean, they could put it to good use.

[Richthofen]

For it mostly. Creating new body parts, yes. Cloning livestock, ok. But cloning whole people? I don't think so.

[smith916]

At 11/14/05 08:16 PM, Richthofen wrote: For it mostly. Creating new body parts, yes. Cloning livestock, ok. But cloning whole people? I don't think so.

Ha! looks like somone here doesn't seem to have a very thick stomach.

Lets talk cloneing.

Well what scientists want to do is take embyros, clone them, then dysect the clones for stem cells.

Why is it ok to do this to an embryo, but not a pet? (which would be rather gross)

I say... take the clones, give them white suits and put them on imperial star destroyers, then send them acros the galaxy for an imperial conquest!!!!!!!!!

[fli]

I couldn't find any decent logically sound arguments online for your needs Ted. Although, there have been very good arguments posted in the past.

I cannot tell you any of them because... well... I've forgotten them, cause for every jewel of a good argument, it is buried with a ton of elephant crap... of people saying, "OMG! STEM CELL0RZ R LIVE-- DONT KILLZ0R."

I think BeFell wrote something that was very interesting, but man-- that was so long ago, I can't remember.

Just use the search bar, and start shuffling through the crap, and start polishing turds. It will be a while.

[ReiperX]

I was under the impression that stem cells can't be gotten <Fli please correct my grammer its late> from fetuses. They are recieved from vitrofertilization basically the eggs or whatever that are going to be discarded anyways so I see no problem even from the anti abortion people to have a legitmate backing saying it kills babies. Source is from a while back, someone linked to some government stuff explaining in detail about stem cells and such, both types of stem cells and everything. Was a very good read, unfortunately I don't have the time nor the patience to look it up again.

[Gtd-Orion]

use living peoples cells stem cells kill potential people and=it is sinful to kill people and against the law

[Thespus]

Do you want to fight against stem cell research or federal funding for the project? Because there is only one crowd that's seriously anti-stem cell research, and that's the anti-abortion crowd. If you just want to talk about federal funding, though, there's plenty better arguments agsinst the federal government funding research for the endeavour.

Further, are you talking about embryonic stem cells or adult? If it's embryonic, then you've probably got more basis for your argument because that's an unnatural birth (if you're arguing the religious side).

And then you have the inefficiency of stem cell research. With all the diabetes patients, parkinson's patients, HIV patients, and so on and so forth, there won't be enough eggs to supply all of them after everything has been done to make the stem cells work.

And then you have other options, like cord blood. Just research all of this, find some sources, and you should be ready for a good debate on stem cell research.

By the way, I have no interest in halting stem cell research, if it wasn't the best option, the scientists wouldn't have chosen it. I trust them over the politicians any day.

[Altarus]

Be sure to mention that stem cells aren't proven to actually work.

[LordXanthus]

There are other options, of course, which don't involve the questionable use of aborted humans. Mind you, I'm not sure if stuffing millions of dead babies and embryos in a landfill is a better idea or not. Even so, the morals of this issue could be avoided through use of stem cells from other sources.

Somatic (adult) stem cells. In a recent study, which you can read about here, there was a significant reduction of cerebral palsy symptoms in animals which had somatic stem cells injected into their brains. Somatic stem cells have also been used in a variety of cases with human subjects, with excellent results. It is a well-kept secret of the liberal media, that somatic stem cells can actually serve the same function as embryonic stem cells, which brings us to another issue.

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research are lying to us. Somatic stem cells, as well as umbyllical stem cells, are of equal use to embryonic stem cells. Furthermore, there is no proof that embryonic stem cell research will ever cure AIDS, or other such diseases. This is still a hypothesis, and aside from that, if embryonic stem cells can be used to cure cancer, than somatic stem cells are likely able to, as well.

Ultimately, it would appear that the scientific community is deliberately decieving us in order to bypass the ethical issues of embryonic stem cell research. This is one of the most powerful points you could make. In the world of politics, it is always helpful to bring your opponent's integrity into question.

[Lidov]

Although I am against abortions, not something extreme, just against it because some of my own reasons, I am for stem-cell research.
Mostly, the stem-cell research is done in already aborted fetuses, that means that they ae already dead and that there is nothing that can save them. That means that they already lost any chance of living in this world and that it would remain in this situation no matter what. In that case, why would you make the abortion for nothing? If you already aborted your baby, there is nothing wrong with researching it to save other, living people's lives. I really can't see the logic behind people who are against that kind of research, because the fetus is already dead, and if ie can save human's lives, why not?

[very-bad-man]

Why would you NEED to argue against it? It doesn't sound like its your own personal view. If there is some institutional figure forcing you to take sides, well thats sad. Abortion rights aside, the more direct question is, who has the right to tell you when to live or when to die?Or whether or not you should be able to walk again? Ya know?

Sorry, but I can't find a good enough reason not to do it for you. You kill more cells everytime you bump your head or breathe in some LA air than what comprises a 4wk old fetus.

[ScaryDeadGirl]

They're figuring out new ways to get stem cells. Let me see if I can find it...

" This particular group of scientists, led by Hwang Woo-suk, made headlines earlier this year when they created 11 disease-specific embryonic stem cell lines without using fertilized embryos, and when they successfully cloned human embryonic stem cell lines.
The new foundation will make disease-specific embryonic stem cell lines by somatic-cell nuclear transfer in South Korea. Those cells will then be shipped to paying scientists around the world.
Somatic-cell nuclear transfer, or "research cloning," involves taking a cell from an adult or child (usually with a disease), then using it to replace the nucleus in a donated egg and, from that, creating a new line of cells."

Source: http://www.northshor..amp;articleid=528618

[ScaryDeadGirl]

Now an ethicle issues is developing about using eggs. PLEASE PEOPLE. If it's not one thing it's another...

[Neruo]

Ethnics should not interfear with science like chirstianity did in the middle ages.

[SkyCube]

At 11/15/05 09:01 AM, LordXanthus wrote: Proponents of embryonic stem cell research are lying to us. Somatic stem cells, as well as umbyllical stem cells, are of equal use to embryonic stem cells. Furthermore, there is no proof that embryonic stem cell research will ever cure AIDS, or other such diseases. This is still a hypothesis, and aside from that, if embryonic stem cells can be used to cure cancer, than somatic stem cells are likely able to, as well.

Ultimately, it would appear that the scientific community is deliberately decieving us in order to bypass the ethical issues of embryonic stem cell research. This is one of the most powerful points you could make. In the world of politics, it is always helpful to bring your opponent's integrity into question.

But the big problem with that argument is WHY?

Why would the "liberal media" keep such a secret? You make it sound like proponents of embryonic stem cell research want to do it just so they mess around with dead foetuses or something.

[LordXanthus]

At 11/15/05 12:42 PM, -SkyCube- wrote: But the big problem with that argument is WHY?

Why would the "liberal media" keep such a secret? You make it sound like proponents of embryonic stem cell research want to do it just so they mess around with dead foetuses or something.

Well, at this point, they've moved so far ahead that they don't want to second guess themselves, and admit that they were wrong. It all boils down to politics. Nobody wants to admit that they were incorrect.
What's more, they actually do want to mess around with dead fetuses, which is understandable, considering that they're already dead, and provide abundant stem cell resources.
The point is that they are lying to us to save face. All politicians do this, and stem cell research has become little more than a matter of petty partisan politics.

[ReiperX]

Since you don't actually use aborted fetuses in stem cell research then why would the pro abortion side want to keep it a secret?

[Ted-Easton]

Well, it seems something changed. I'm informed today that they no longer care about it. Seems the debate has been called off. Thanks for the help, though, everyone.

Stupid people. (Not any of you).

[fli]

At 11/15/05 04:45 AM, ReiperX wrote: Fli please correct my grammer its late...

Tee-hee-- you got to be kidding me.
Have you read my posts? They are horrible! I sin against myself...

You're okay-- but it's "in vitro fertilization ". But that's something I would overlook cause-- well, I don't want people to correct my own grammar. Only time I take I do really care is when I need to turn something in school.

At 11/15/05 03:54 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Well, it seems something changed. I'm informed today that they no longer care about it. Seems the debate has been called off. Thanks for the help, though, everyone.

Stupid people. (Not any of you).

That's great--
Hope everything works out for you.

[morefngdbs]

At 11/14/05 02:22 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Here's the situation. I need to argue against stem cell reseach, preferably on solid legal grounds. Any input, from sources to precedents, arguments to philosophical questions, is welcome and appreciated.

;
There was a very good article in July's/05 National Geographic magazine on Stem cell research.
I just tried going to their site , typed in Stem cell research and up poped the article.
There was a quick link in the july edition that took you to the extra material.
nationalgeographic.com/magazine/0507.
But I think it has been disabled.
Check it out, hope it's useful.