stem cell research

I just had an argument with someone about stem cell research (as mentioned in random thoughts).  What are your thoughts about it?  Personally, I'm against using humans in any form for scientific research, although i can see why people argue for it.  I'm also pro-life, although I think its probably better to have legal abortions (currently its not legal in Ireland) then to have coat hanger jobs in back alleys.  And I read a story (well it was read to me in college) relating to it, about a girl who was attacked, raped, invaded and kidnapped by beings who demanded the use of her body for 9 months before putting her into extreme pain and then not releasing her for 21 years from their servitude.  It did make me look at the issue differently.  Having said i'm  pro-life, I wouldn't condemn someone who has had an abortion, as it is not an easily reached decision, and its extremely painful and not a path most people would choose if they didn't feel forced into it.
BUT anyway-- what are your views on stem cell research?  Do the ends justify the means?  Or do you not think a 0 - 5 day old embryo is human?  If not, how come 5 days?  Why not 5 days and 12 hours, or 4 and a half days? 
One argument i read said that while you can argue against it on a pro-life basis, most of the embryos come from fertility clinics, are used with permission, and it would have been deep-freeze (indefinately), destruction or research, therefore no lives are saved by preventiing the research, and that its a purely symbolic stand.
Thoughts?

Don't confuse embryonic stem cells, which appear to be a waste of time because no real break throughs have ever been made with them, and adult stem cells which have had some fantastic results, including reconstructing part of a windpipe (made from the Patients own cells of course.), meaning there will be no need for a lifetime of anti rejection drugs as there would be in a normal transplant.

So my answer would be that you are very uniformed, But embryonic stem cells are not the way forward, Adult stem cells have already been proven an more time and research should be ploughed into it.

I am in favour of human experimenation. Even if there's nothing to be scientifically gained from it, it would still be great fun. I also believe that the re-introduction of slavery would solve the world's economic problems so my opinions are probably best kept to myself.

fatty.

Stem cell research does not mean that "humans" are used for medical experimentation. First of all, there are adult stem cells and secondly even embryonal stem cells are not "humans", they are just cells. In the  discussion about the ethical implications of stem cell research we are often given the impression that small cute embryos are killed brutally for research purpose but that is just propaganda, it's just a small cell lump that was created in the tube. All the "life starts with conception" is propaganda as well in my humble opinion. If you have a 3rd month miscarriage in a Catholic hospital they won't give the embryo an emergency baptism and bury it on a Christian cemetery - they will throw it into the biohazard trash can. Only if a woman demands she wants to decide about her body herself the 3 month embryo is sacred life all of a sudden. I only mentioned Catholic hospitals because the Catholic church is leading the "pro life" campaigns - other hospitals do the same, of course.

Exactly what Barbara said!

-fatty- wrote: I am in favour of human experimenation. Even if there's nothing to be scientifically gained from it, it would still be great fun. I also believe that the re-introduction of slavery would solve the world's economic problems so my opinions are probably best kept to myself.

fatty.
=====

In the words of my wise and cynical professor of Economic History, Peer Vries:

"Slavery is a system marred by one major disadvantage: slaves require regular feeding."

Let me be the second to second YV's comments in their entirety.

YV for the win !

" If you have a 3rd month miscarriage in a Catholic hospital they won't give the embryo an emergency baptism and bury it on a Christian cemetery - they will throw it into the biohazard trash can"

Your source for this?  Or is this just a slight case of slander?

(I'm sure this will go unanswered.)

emrabt wrote: Don't confuse embryonic stem cells, which appear to be a waste of time because no real break throughs have ever been made with them, and adult stem cells which have had some fantastic results, including reconstructing part of a windpipe (made from the Patients own cells of course.), meaning there will be no need for a lifetime of anti rejection drugs as there would be in a normal transplant.

So my answer would be that you are very uniformed, But embryonic stem cells are not the way forward, Adult stem cells have already been proven an more time and research should be ploughed into it.

Yeah, after thinking and reading a bit more about it, I think i was confusing it a bit with fetal tissue transplants, etc.  In my teens i went through a rabid pro-life phase and read tonnes of stuff about the pro-life movement, and i know a lot of that is propaganda -- but now my problem is trying to sort through the vast amount of vaguely remembered information that's in my head and try to figure out what is true and what is emotive hype. 
I do think breeding embryos for research is wrong, and I think too much genetic experimentation is wrong -- HAVING SAID THAT, i'm sure if i actually read up about it, i might find that it is looking to promote anti-cancer genes and stuff like that rather then genetically encouraging blonde hair. 
I also realised yesterday while thinking about this that the statistics i had heard (which i don't remember) about the number of babies in the USA which are aborted based on things like hair and eye colour cannot be true.  Maybe there have been abortions over stuff like that (maybe -- but can they even tell hair colour) but more likely it was a paternity issue (maybe the baby would have come out with brown skin and black hair, instead of white skin and blue eyes -- the hair colour is different, but not the actual issue). 
And yes, as you said, a huge amount of stem cell research is done on ADULT stem cells.... so yes, my rant was a bit random.  Also they can get stem cells from umbilical cords, placenta, etc, not necessarily from embryos.  So i was jumping the gun a bit.
BUT, i'm glad i asked it, cos typing it out (and arguing with my friend) made me think about it, and that has to be good.  :)

-fatty- wrote: I am in favour of human experimenation. Even if there's nothing to be scientifically gained from it, it would still be great fun. I also believe that the re-introduction of slavery would solve the world's economic problems so my opinions are probably best kept to myself.

fatty.

rofl

YourValentine wrote:All the "life starts with conception" is propaganda as well in my humble opinion. If you have a 3rd month miscarriage in a Catholic hospital they won't give the embryo an emergency baptism and bury it on a Christian cemetery - they will throw it into the biohazard trash can. Only if a woman demands she wants to decide about her body herself the 3 month embryo is sacred life all of a sudden. I only mentioned Catholic hospitals because the Catholic church is leading the "pro life" campaigns - other hospitals do the same, of course.
Dont they?  Is that an issue of sanctity of life or of trying to minimise the pain to the mother or of practicality (it would be pretty tiny).  I actually didn't realise they do emergency baptisms on miscarriages at all.

No, they don't :-) It's only an example about how "life" is differently defined: when you have a miscarriage, it is not considered human life because it is not treated like a human body (my source is my lifelong experience and that of my  fellow citizens, microwave).

About the abortion of babies because of hair or skin colour: I think that is a big, fat lie. I do not think it is even possible to determine eye colour or skin coulour with stem cell research. We had the same discussion when preimplantation diagnostics were legalised. Opponents of the law argued that people would select embryos according to gender and hair colour but experts testified in parliament that that is not even possible.

I understand the ethical problems many people have with issues like stem cell research, preimplantation diagnostics and abortion but the discussion should be honest. Horror stories about evil parents who want their designer babies are not helpful - maybe there are such rare cases but they are not the normal issue.

YourValentine wrote: No, they don't :-) It's only an example about how "life" is differently defined: when you have a miscarriage, it is not considered human life because it is not treated like a human body (my source is my lifelong experience and that of my  fellow citizens, microwave).

About the abortion of babies because of hair or skin colour: I think that is a big, fat lie. I do not think it is even possible to determine eye colour or skin coulour with stem cell research. We had the same discussion when preimplantation diagnostics were legalised. Opponents of the law argued that people would select embryos according to gender and hair colour but experts testified in parliament that that is not even possible.

I understand the ethical problems many people have with issues like stem cell research, preimplantation diagnostics and abortion but the discussion should be honest. Horror stories about evil parents who want their designer babies are not helpful - maybe there are such rare cases but they are not the normal issue.

Yeah, what you said about designer babies is exactly what i meant -- i was a lot less discerning about what i read and its source when i was in my teens, and if it came from a christian source i was a lot less critical/questioning about their claims, hence i now have some fairly strong attitudes and i'm not 100% certain of the validity of the information they are based on!
*when i said about skin colour, i meant that perhaps the 'women have abortions because of hair colour' claim may have been based on cases where women had abortions because they knew damn well that the baby was not their partner's and that it would come out looking significantly different to their partner, making it impossible to hide (from him) that he wasn't the dad. 
Or maybe that hazily remembered issue was based on someone saying that PROBABLY this will be the situation, or MAYBE people would want this, etc -- just hype and propaganda. 
And i agree, it would make things a lot clearer if people would use straightforward, logical and ACCURATE arguments.

I don't understand why religious people think doing stem cell research is meddling with their gods plan. While removing a tumour, that was able to grow there because of their gods blueprints, isn't.