Stem Cell Research - Pro or Con?

[instigata]

I was reading interview questions and stumbled upon a really interesting one. What do you think of stem cell research? Obviously there are HUGE benefits, getting even greater as the field expands. But of course, there is the enormous ethical issue with using fetus' that were "doomed for destruction anyway." I want to start off by saying that I feel stem cell research could lead to drastic effects in curing certain diseases, but without some kind of ethical basis, I am against stem cell research. Possibly in the future, when they could discover a more practical means of attaining stem cells, I would agree with stem cell research. Anybody else?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[szhao]

my nature answer is sacrifice the few for the greater good of the many, now, i would argue though using totipotent stem cells are not that much better than pluripotent and some cases multipotent, that being said, scientist should be discrete in deciding which kind of stem cells to use and not to over kill with totipotent stem cells. i mean its just a simple "modest proposal" (has literary allusion)

there are proposals to obtain pluripotent stem cells without destruction of the embryo 1, however it is obviously just at the peak of its development. my point of view on fetus' that are "doomed for destruction anyway" is well they are going anyways, might as well make good use of them as long as the parents approve.

i don't think studying ethics is really going to solve anything, my prediction (without source) is in the future people are either going to find away around it or as society progress culture will deem this acceptable.

 

[Stolenspatulas]

THERE IS NO CON.
yea, i put it out there.

 

[Tyronebiggums]

We are all former fetuses so of course there is a con. I think embyonic stem cell research is getting blown out of proportion. Most researchers are having a difficult time getting the stem cells past the immune system of rats and even when the they do massive tumors (tetromas) form and the rats have died. Theoretically embryonic stem cells offer potential ways to cure horrible diseases. Adult stem cells are already approved to treat human diseases, usually blood disorders. I also think umbilical cord blood stem cells are helpful and valuable. I would like to see ethical standards maintained but an interesting loophole exists I think with embryonic stem cells. If abortion is legal then why can't a woman ask to have her eggs fertilized for the express purpose of stem cell research. Logically if the embryo was implanted into her body she could choose to abort it, so why can't she say she wants the embryo aborted before it is implanted and have the embryo dies in the manner she chooses, notably after its stem cells have been extracted. What is the logical or moral difference between allowing a woman to abort a fetus inside her or one that was going to be inside her but she decided to abort through the avenue of stem cell research? As long as abortion is legal then it is not illogical that embryonic stem cell research should be, even without the existence of IVF leftovers.

 

[curious1]

like the other dude said... hard to see the cons

 

[maestro1625]

keep in mind, Federally, embryonic stem cell research is legal, there just is no federal funding for it at the moment. Certain states do have outright bans on research though...

so a woman can do whatever the hell she wants with her cells, she's just gotta pay for it herself... that **** ain't cheap.

 

[lilnoelle]

We are all former fetuses so of course there is a con. I think embyonic stem cell research is getting blown out of proportion. Most researchers are having a difficult time getting the stem cells past the immune system of rats and even when the they do massive tumors (tetromas) form and the rats have died. Theoretically embryonic stem cells offer potential ways to cure horrible diseases. Adult stem cells are already approved to treat human diseases, usually blood disorders. I also think umbilical cord blood stem cells are helpful and valuable. I would like to see ethical standards maintained but an interesting loophole exists I think with embryonic stem cells. If abortion is legal then why can't a woman ask to have her eggs fertilized for the express purpose of stem cell research. Logically if the embryo was implanted into her body she could choose to abort it, so why can't she say she wants the embryo aborted before it is implanted and have the embryo dies in the manner she chooses, notably after its stem cells have been extracted. What is the logical or moral difference between allowing a woman to abort a fetus inside her or one that was going to be inside her but she decided to abort through the avenue of stem cell research? As long as abortion is legal then it is not illogical that embryonic stem cell research should be, even without the existence of IVF leftovers.

The stage that a woman would need to "abort" and give up the embryo would be at about 8-14 days. Most woman do not know they're pregnant at that point, in fact, the blastocyst doesn't even implant till about 9-11 days. A woman wouldn't even be able to take a home pregnancy test till about 12-14 days. Obviously this method wouldn't work unless a woman decided to be a "blastocyst factory" and got pregnant in order to provide blastocyst for science research. This would not only be more complicated than stem cell nuclear transfer, but I would say there are more ethical problems with this idea.

 

[Cirrus83]

Umm...most of the ethical cons are based on wild fantasy scenarios where we go down a "slippery slope" of ethics (like, once we allow this, the next thing you know we'll be doing that). Most of which are totally fantastical and insane.

Like the whole thing about women just donating their eggs or whatever for money. I saw some ad where they were saying that poor women would all start selling their eggs for stem cell research, completely ignoring the fact that you can already sell your eggs as it is for infertile couples, and it already pays pretty well. And yet oddly enough poor people do not just go around selling their eggs all the time. Nor do they all rent out their wombs as surrogate mothers, or any of the multitudes of ways you can already legally make money using your body.

It's like saying we should ban computers now, because the next thing you know braniac will allow earth to blow up as it lies to us about the condition of our planet so it can save itself. *sigh*

And you realize you can fairly easily get around all these silly scenarios by simply writing it into law that you can't become an embryo factory, right? But the ad I saw insinuated that researchers would then proceed to buy embryos from poor women on the black market...I dunno what these people were smoking when they thought these insane scenarios up. Maybe researchers will just take guns and go around killing pregnant women to steal their fetuses too.

 

[Oculus Sinistra]

Nor do they all rent out their wombs as surrogate mothers, or any of the multitudes of ways you can already legally make money using your body.

Mmmm
rentable wombs

cheaper then the college dorms

nice quiet place to study

but you can't really bring a girl back there

because that's just weird.

 

[maestro1625]

Mmmm
rentable wombs

cheaper then the college dorms

nice quiet place to study

but you can't really bring a girl back there

because that's just weird.

honestly, given the state of my college housing, I think the womb might be a cleaner, more spacious alternative...

 

[Kuba]

pro all the way. As long as their are obvious regulations in place.

 

[estairella]

I want to start off by saying that I feel stem cell research could lead to drastic effects in curing certain diseases, but without some kind of ethical basis, I am against stem cell research.

So it's unethical to use material that would otherwise be discarded, and do something good and potentially life-saving with it? *sigh*

Admit it, you don't care about ethics, you're just thinking of your own personal morals.

We are all former fetuses so of course there is a con.

We are also former eggs and sperm. I guess not having 20 kids in your lifetime as a woman and 2000 as a man is also a "con"?? Because, as you know, those eggs and sperm will die otherwise...

 

[Tyronebiggums]

So it's unethical to use material that would otherwise be discarded, and do something good and potentially life-saving with it? *sigh*

Admit it, you don't care about ethics, you're just thinking of your own personal morals.



We are also former eggs and sperm. I guess not having 20 kids in your lifetime as a woman and 2000 as a man is also a "con"?? Because, as you know, those eggs and sperm will die otherwise...

I think it is easy to see the distinction between an embryo and the two necessary parts that make one. Clearly if these embryos were placed in the right environment they would develop into an ordinary human being. Ignoring this fact or stating that this isn't cause for moral or ethical concern is problematic and simple-minded I believe.

 

[Gunz580]

Stem cell research can and will be the next huge breakthrough in the medical field, if it's allowed to. I see it being no different than say being an organ donor.

 

[t2oo5]

I think it is easy to see the distinction between an embryo and the two necessary parts that make one. Clearly if these embryos were placed in the right environment they would develop into an ordinary human being. Ignoring this fact or stating that this isn't cause for moral or ethical concern is problematic and simple-minded I believe.

Agreed.

What do you guys think of therapeutic cloning? A lot of people find this more controversal, I find it less. My rationale: Fertilization via sperm and egg gives rise to a unique individual, aborting that I think is morally wrong. However, implanting ones own DNA directly into the egg, via somatic cell nuclear transfer, gives rise to a complete clone of oneself. It would be morally wrong to clone to develop into an individual, however, if used for the purpose of harvesting stem cells, I don't see as much of a problem. Think about it: you are taking your own DNA and planting it into an egg for the sole purpose of creating "your own" stem cells. Once again, with proper limitations, I think this may also be a good alternative. Of course, you could argue the clone is a person too, but it is not a unique individual given birth from a unique recombinant DNA. What do you guys think?

 

[A Tree]

I believe that the debate over stem cell research/therapy is one that, while meriting discussion and consideration, should be had elsewhere. It angers me when scientific issues are hijacked as part of the larger culture war.

 

[Pkboi24]

Agreed.

What do you guys think of therapeutic cloning? A lot of people find this more controversal, I find it less. My rationale: Fertilization via sperm and egg gives rise to a unique individual, aborting that I think is morally wrong. However, implanting ones own DNA directly into the egg, via somatic cell nuclear transfer, gives rise to a complete clone of oneself. It would be morally wrong to clone to develop into an individual, however, if used for the purpose of harvesting stem cells, I don't see as much of a problem. Think about it: you are taking your own DNA and planting it into an egg for the sole purpose of creating "your own" stem cells. Once again, with proper limitations, I think this may also be a good alternative. Of course, you could argue the clone is a person too, but it is not a unique individual given birth from a unique recombinant DNA. What do you guys think?

From what you have said, it seems you are suggesting that a person's DNA is the only factor that makes them an unique individual. I believe a person is a product of both their genome and environment. Therefore, in my opinion, a clone of oneself would be considered a unique individual who warrants equal consideration as any other human being.

 

[vimkgt]

I think it is easy to see the distinction between an embryo and the two necessary parts that make one. Clearly if these embryos were placed in the right environment they would develop into an ordinary human being. Ignoring this fact or stating that this isn't cause for moral or ethical concern is problematic and simple-minded I believe.

Isn't it just as clear that if you put an egg and a sperm in the right environment they would develop into a human being too? A zygote and an egg/sperm pair before fertilization occurs both have potential for human life, but we are only talking about potential. As that potential develops, it eventually becomes human life, but a zygote is no more of a baby than the egg and sperm it came from.

There is a line between a bunch of cells and a human life, and where that line is drawn will be somewhere arbitrary. And why not? We have just as many arbitrary lines out there such as legal driving age, being allowed to make your own idiotic decisions as an adult the day you turn 18, drinking at 21, number of weeks after which abortion is illegal, etc. and it works for the most part.

If that arbitrary legal line is drawn at fertilization, it would be a great loss for science as we could no longer experiment with embryonic stem cells. The only thing we gain is the protection of an unthinking, unfeeling group of cells from destruction, oh and of course a few people's moral qualms will be relieved.

 

[Tyronebiggums]

Isn't it just as clear that if you put an egg and a sperm in the right environment they would develop into a human being too? A zygote and an egg/sperm pair before fertilization occurs both have potential for human life, but we are only talking about potential. As that potential develops, it eventually becomes human life, but a zygote is no more of a baby than the egg and sperm it came from.

There is a line between a bunch of cells and a human life, and where that line is drawn will be somewhere arbitrary. And why not? We have just as many arbitrary lines out there such as legal driving age, being allowed to make your own idiotic decisions as an adult the day you turn 18, drinking at 21, number of weeks after which abortion is illegal, etc. and it works for the most part.

If that arbitrary legal line is drawn at fertilization, it would be a great loss for science as we could no longer experiment with embryonic stem cells. The only thing we gain is the protection of an unthinking, unfeeling group of cells from destruction, oh and of course a few people's moral qualms will be relieved.

I would argue a zygote is definitely more of a baby than eggs or sperm. Neither eggs nor sperm alone can ever become babies without being combined. I agree that legal lines are arbitrary but to say that an unthinking, unfeeling groups of cells is really what the argument is about is not logically defensible. People who are paralyzed vegetables still are not experimented on at will. Not being able to feel pain or being able to think are not reasons why experimentation is valid. A normal person could be viewed as groups of unthinking, unfeeling cells. A single neuron does not "think" nor does it "feel" in the human sense. An entire human arm falls under the same category but clearly my arm cannot be cut off for research purposes. Human limbs with nerve damage cannot be taken at will for research purposes.
Clumps of cells with no collective purpose is not the source of moral qualms. Clumps of cells with the fantastic purpose of developing into a human is the moral problem. Each individual cell in a fully grown human is unthinking and unfeeling but as a collective whole the cells form a thinking and feeling entity. Babies born without functioning brains (Anencephaly) cannot think or feel but I don't believe anyone would argue they should be experimented on, yet they are just a clump of cells society has deemed sophisticated enough to protect. I believe it is logical to say a developing embryo is no less sophisticated than a paralyzed vegetable or an Anencephalic infant. Therefore, the argument that thinking and feeling are criteria for protection are not necessarily valid for analyzing which biological entities should be protected. The argument must then be based on the number of cells and the form they are in, which is inherently arbitrary but does not and probably should not exclude embryos from protection.

 

[blargh]

what's pink and black and taps on the window every 30 seconds?