Debate: Stem Cell Research

[TheUnknown 39]

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but the embryos used for stem cell research would be thrown away, anyways. So, assuming that's true, wouldn't it make sense to use those embryos who would otherwise be destroyed for something that could save and improve lives?

[Brumak 2]

I don't really think it's ethical either way to do that, whether the embryo is going to be discarded or not. I still think though, from a scientific viewpoint, that we should be furthuring ourselves in that area. I guess that would be the one thing that I am glad Bush did do...

I'm sure someone could create a program to simulate the research they're doing without the unethical side effects.

[Princess 35]

But like Unknown said, these are unwanted embryo's from fertility clinics that are just going to be destroyed anyways, so instead of totally destroying them, why not use them to do some good?

[Brumak 2]

I see no real problem with people using those for the research, but there are bound to be people that will still see it as unethical. Thus a simulation program could make everyone happy...if everyone COULD be happy over one topic at once....

[Ana 15]

You don't think they've tried simulations? They have. But sims will only go so far. At a certain point you need to get into the practical world, and that is going to require stem cells.

[Brumak 2]

Yar, they'll be required...my statement was merely to satisfy the other side of the debate while still stating mine :p

[Andy 60]

Personally, I feel that if they were to be destroyed anyways, then surely using them for stem cell research means they have at least served some purpose rather than having been a complete waste.

[Mara 29]

They don't have to be destroyed. Other infertile couples can adopt them as their own.

There are many organizations who do this.

Plus, there hasn't been any proof that embryonic stem cells even help anything... Adult stem cells have helped out with lots of diseases.

Example

Adult stem cells: 73. Embyonic: zilch.

Why keep researching something when it's been years and there's still nothing they can help with?

Shouldn't we keep on doing research on what has been shown to work and has helped many people?

Plus, you don't have to kill anybody in order to use adult stem cells.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Mara

[Princess 35]

Plus, there hasn't been any proof that embryonic stem cells even help anything... Adult stem cells have helped out with lots of diseases.

That's because our moronic president has limited federal funding to the hopelessly contaminated lines that exist. If you don't have fresh to use, then you're not going to get good results.

Why keep researching something when it's been years and there's still nothing they can help with?

So let's also stop all research on AIDS, cancer, vaccines, etc.

Shouldn't we keep on doing research on what has been shown to work and has helped many people?

I believe that we have an obligation to research EVERY single possibility so that we can cure the most disease possible.

Plus, you don't have to kill anybody in order to use adult stem cells.

And since you've brought that up then, when does life start? Just so we know when it's ok to kill.

[Drake 53]

Life starts, in my opinion, once the sperm and egg unite. Killing the child any time after that is murder.

See, I'm not pro-abortion...but I am pro-choice. If the mother chooses to murder her child, then it will be her sin and she'll answer for it at the end.

And yes, I am a Christian.

[Mara 29]

Life starts at conception.

[Princess 35]

But how the point when the egg and sperm unite happen if the sperm is dead or the egg is dead? Don't they both have to be alive? So really, isn't life more of a continuation?

[Drake 53]

Individually, a sperm and egg are essentially cells. They each contain half of the DNA needed to create life. Before they combine, they are just like a blood cell or a brain cell or a skin cell. They are just one, tiny part of a larger being.

[Princess 35]

Personally I am for stem cell research. There are many factors that people don't realize about it. First off, I am citing a presentation that I saw and will provide informational links after I site the presentation.

There are 3 different types of stem cells:

-Totipotent cells which are the master cells of the body because they can create all cells in the body, including the placenta.

- Pluripotent cells can give rise to all cell lines except the placenta

-Multipotent cells can give rise to several other cell types, but those are limited in number

There are also 2 main dividing classes of stem cells, adult and embryonic stem cells. Both serve similar purposes but there are differences between the two. Adult stem cells appear to be less versatile than embryonic and appear to be harder to culture. And when talking embryonic stem cells, these are not embryos that were created for research purposes or fertilized and aborted. These are in vitro embryos that have reached their "expiration date" so to speak in fertility labs. These are embryos that were created in a petri dish and were then frozen until a couple is ready to use them. Many embryos are created and only some implanted, and then the rest saved unless in case the implantation doesn't take. If it takes and the parents decide not to have any more children, well the embryos would just be destroyed, so why not save a life with them?

There are problems with stem cell research though, it is difficult to culture the cells and once it is decided what is needed to be grown from the stem cell, a special biochemical solution must be used to make the cells differentiate. Also the cells must be integrated into the patient tissue where they must "learn" to function in a way that will help the patient. And I feel that anything that has a chance of helping a patient is worth trying.

Use of cell therapy is currently in use for treatment of leukemias. A bone marrow transplant is a form of stem cell therapy. But stem cells only make up about .5% of the bone marrow.

Cell therapies could be used to treat many kinds of disorders from skin grafts in severe burn patients to neural and myocardial regeneration. There's also even the possibility of being able to grow our own organs for transplant from stem cells, eliminating the need to knock out the immune system with anti-rejection drugs.

NIH's page of stem cell info

Stem Cell Research at UW-Madiso

The Washington Post

[Ana 15]

Individually, a sperm and egg are essentially cells. They each contain half of the DNA needed to create life. Before they combine, they are just like a blood cell or a brain cell or a skin cell. They are just one, tiny part of a larger being.

But it's not as if the minute it's a fertilized egg, it becomes a differentiated being. If memory serves, it simply starts duplicating, and the cells don't become specialized until later in the process. It becomes a centralized group of unspecified cells. How is that any different than a bunch of skin cells grouped together to form skin?

[Princess 35]

in the US alone:

-Each year 30,000 people are diagnosed with any of about 70 diseases that can be cured with a stem cell transplant. Research could end the long wait for a donor.

-There are:

~57,207 people waiting for a kidney transplant

~17,292 waiting for a liver transplant

~1,551 waiting for a pancreas transplant

~2,410 waiting for a kidney-pancreas transplant

~189 waiting for intestinal transplant

~3,479 waiting for a heart transplant

~187 waiting for a heart-lung transplant

~3,912 waiting for a lung transplant

That's 84,226 people waiting for transplants. Stem cells could make that list almost disappear

[Drake 53]

Not saying that stem cell research is wrong. Just that it can be done without murdering children, is all. *shrugs*

[Tsl 7]

Stem cells come from frozen embryos abandoned at fertilization clinics. They are slated to be destroyed anyways. It's like dying adults/children donating organs. Let their otherwise completely miserable and meaningless lives count for something.

But then I'm an organ donation advocate...

[Mara 29]

Adult stem cells can be used to grow new organs. And you don't need to kill anyone to take them out.

And they don't have to be abandoned: like I said, they can be adopted out by other infertile couples. It's usually cheaper than for them to go through all the fertility treatments.

[TheUnknown 39]

They don't have to be destroyed. Other infertile couples can adopt them as their own.

There are many organizations who do this.

Yes, this is a possibility. However, it seems logical that most couples using a fertility clinic would want their children to come from their genes and not want someone elses. And, unless I'm wrong, it would seem as though the number of couples who would want other people's embryos, either because they're completely infertile or carry genetic disorders they don't want to pass on to their offspring, would pale in comparison to the number of embryos available. So, what would happen to the extra embryos? They can't stay frozen forever.

Additionally, there are plenty of children already born in need of adoption. I would give priority to the already born.

[Brumak 2]

This is probably going to sound a bit inhumane (and I'm not even sure if it's possible)...but what about culturing and 'breeding' stem cells..?

[Tsl 7]

I don't know a whole lot about it, but I'm sure that if it were possible they would be doing it from what few lines they're allowed to use.

The reason embryonic cells are needed is that they can differentiate into anything. Absolutely anything. At that super early stage of development, you're just a bunch of cells and genes begin to tell certain cells to become brain cells or skin cells or immunologic cells...essentially every single cell type that makes up the human body. The thought being that we could theoretically give a spinal cord injury patient some completely undifferentiated cells and tell them to become a brand spankin' new spinal cord created to work specifically for and with that person.

Adult stem cells are already somewhat (if not mostly) differentiated and therefore have limited potential.

[Drake 53]

Well, personally, I still believe that the death of an unborn child is still murder. In this case, I understand the potential and need for embryonic stem cells. I'm for stem cells and against abortion/fetus harvesting/etc....too bad I can't have my cake and eat it too. I guess, in the end, if killing babies will help more people in the future than it's for the greater good.

[Princess 35]

Honestly I'm not for creating embryos for the sheer purpose of using them for stem cells, but when it comes to ones that are just gonna be tossed in the autoclave and destroyed, then let's use them. Let some good come from it.

[Chickenman 9]

I'm against abortion in most cases. The only time I can maybe see myself being for it is if the childbirth will endanger the mother, then she should be able to choose.

And as with most things, I'm divided in the middle when it comes to when life starts. I don't think it's life as soon as sperm touches egg, but I think at that point the birth process has started, and isn't that kinda the same thing as killing an infant?

I'm am in favor of stem cell research, so long as abortion is legal. It's disgraceful to let those fetuses die for nothing. What if, their death might lead to someone else overcoming a terrible disease? I'm not saying it's worth it, but at least it's doing some good.

And as for adopting them, how many woman do you think are willing to insert someone else's near dead fetus into their uterus?

Mara, given the choice of bring your own child into this world, or inserting someone else's near dead fetus in there, which would you choose?

And like Unknown said, there are so many already born orphans to adopt, that are living in poverty and don't have much of a future ahead of them, that it would be disgraceful to choose a fetus over them.