Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Stem Cell Research
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology
Google
nikioz0630
What is everyone's opinion on stem cell research? I have learned quite a bit on this topic, so I'm not going to say anything about my own opinion until I've heard others.
Google
Jaime
I actually don't know too much about it. Could you provide me with some unbiased links, nikioz? Thanks!
turnea
Well to put it bluntly, by scientific standards, an embryo is a living human. Therefore ending it's life is not acceptable, even if it is for a good cause. They should stick with adult stem cell research. I think Bush struck a very good solution last year.
nikioz0630
Sure, Jamie, here are some links:


US Dept of Health and Human Resources-Stem Cell Research

For anyone who hasn't heard the President's view, here is a link:President Bush's Remarks on Stem Cell Research

If you need anymore, just ask.

biggrin.gif
nikioz0630
You do have a point turnea, but when they want embryonic stem cells, they don't destroy a life. They unite a sperm and an egg in a petri dish and they use it before it ever starts developing into a human. Take a look at the link I provided for Jamie!
otseng
This debate is similar to the abortion debate. In that, the key question is when do you think life begins.

My belief is that life starts at conception. Based on that, it is immoral to destroy embryos in the name of research.

In the case where it's possible to obtain stem cells without destroying life, I fully support stem cell research.
turnea
Yes, the stem cells are gathered after conception. By scientific standards (I say this a lot don't I?) tongue.gif Life begins at conception so I guess I'm against embryonic stem-cell research.
Jaime
I have a question. I keep hearing "life" begins at conception. Am to assume it is human life to which you all are referring?

If not, I see this debate spinning off into an animal testing debate. Is it ok to test on non-sentient beings AND fully living animals? Many of us would not be alive today if it had not been for animal testing that went on in the past.

I wonder how many lives will be saved because of stem cell research. Is the trade-off, if you believe there is a trade-off, worth it?
clue
QUOTE(Jaime @ Oct 14 2002, 02:45 PM)
I wonder how many lives will be saved because of stem cell research.  Is the trade-off, if you believe there is a trade-off, worth it?

How many lives can you save if you were to kill me (an adult human) and give my healthy organs, limbs, etc. to a person in need? Probably lots. But will it be 'right' for you to do so?
Jaime
You got me, clue. Answering my question with a question - and a better question than the one I posed.

Back to square one for me.

I need to go check out nikioz's links...
Google
turnea
Exactly.
I'm not sure about testing on animals, but I am sure an embryo is a living human (by scientific standards) and therefore (by my standards) it's life should be protected.
otseng
QUOTE(Jaime @ Oct 14 2002, 01:45 PM)
I have a question.  I keep hearing "life" begins at conception.  Am to assume it is human life to which you all are referring?  

When I refer to life in the stem cell and abortion debates, I'm referring to human life.

As for animals, they are in a completely different category than humans. Though I don't think we should be unnecessarily cruel to animals, I see no problems with using animals for our own good (including eating them).

Jaime, what is your definition of a "non-sentient being"?
turnea
Perhaps I misunderstood, if this is referring to stem cell research through cloning there is no normal conception. However the clone is human and alive, just like any embryo.
iwcmpech
I read in one scientific report that it was possible to obtain stem cells from an adult without causing harm to the donor. Does anyone have objections to stem cell research if the stem cells could be harvested this way?
Madtown
QUOTE(otseng @ Oct 15 2002, 07:59 AM)
QUOTE(Jaime @ Oct 14 2002, 01:45 PM)
I have a question.  I keep hearing "life" begins at conception.  Am to assume it is human life to which you all are referring?  

When I refer to life in the stem cell and abortion debates, I'm referring to human life.


Embryos Now Labeled 'Human Subjects'
Wed Oct 30,10:22 AM ET
By LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has revised the charter of a federal advisory committee concerned with the safety of research volunteers to specify that embryos in experiments are "human subjects" whose welfare should be considered along with that of fetuses, children and adults.



The new move does not require that embryos used in research be given any particular protections or have any direct impact on federal policy, but it offers another powerful symbol that the administration considers the rights of embryos and fetuses on par with those of children and adults.


The committee, whose members have not yet been appointed, offers recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites), which would then have to initiate rulemaking or encourage legislation if it wanted to put any new protections in place.


The change was made to recognize that certain populations are particularly vulunerable in today's research, said Arthur J. Lawrence, assistant surgeon general and deputy assistant secretary for health operations, who oversaw the rewriting of the charter. He noted that more women are being included in research studies, and some of them are likely to be pregnant.


The charter now specifically directs the committee to consider "pregnant women, embryos and fetuses."


"It's very important to focus in on the risks to women who are pregnant and their embyos and fetuses," he said. "It was the intent of the revision of the charter to insert specifically within the charter the populations that needed to get special consideration."


Other groups specifically mentioned include newborns, children, prisoners and the "decisionally impaired," meaning those who aren't able to give informed consent.


HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said that there is no significance to specifically extending the charter to cover fetuses and embryos. "For many people, the terms fetuses, embryos and unborn children are used to described the same things," he said.


And Pierce emphasized that the advisory committee will not make policy. "They do not interact in the everyday working of the department."


Still, the revised wording is seen as a political victory for those who favor increased protections for the unborn. In September, the administration enacted a new policy that allows states to include "unborn children" from the moment of conception in the Children's Health Insurance Program.


The revised charter also could be the start of a process that could result in greater restrictions on embryo research at some fertility clinics, universities and research labs, said The Washington Post, which first reported the development Wednesday.

Scientists have increasingly turned to embryos to improve understanding of birth defects and infertility, and as a source of embryonic stem cells, which researchers hope to turn into therapies for a variety of degenerative diseases.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.