Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[Dysphemist]

I don't know whether this has been brought up before or not, or if anyone made a poll.

What is your stance on the issue, atheists, Christians, Buddhists, etc.?

ETA: sorry to the agnostics out there! Just planet X if you don't want to consider yourself atheist or theist :(

[uruk]

I'm all for Stem cell research. It it shows too much promise to give up or ban. We need stem cell research.

I'm a little iffy on the embryos subject though. An embryo is a potential human being, seeing as there is a full set of chromosomes, but not a full fledged human being with a mind and experiance. So where is the line between a human and a simple set of dividing cells? Smarter people than I can debate this all they want. All I know is that I would sleep better if there was a viable alternative.

I voted planet X because I'm an agnostic and in support of embryonics stem cell research (with some reservations).

[krazyKemist]

I'm all for Stem cell research. It it shows too much promise to give up or ban. We need stem cell research.

I'm a little iffy on the embryos subject though. An embryo is a potential human being, seeing as there is a full set of chromosomes, but not a full fledged human being with a mind and experiance. So where is the line between a human and a simple set of dividing cells? Smarter people than I can debate this all they want. All I know is that I would sleep better if there was a viable alternative.


The line is where the brain comes in. Every egg and every sperm is a potential human being too. And once the technical difficulties around cloning are solved, everything containing your DNA is a "potential human being". "Potential human beings" are not persons, for very obvious reasons. Also consider that a great proportion of fertilized eggs simply fail to implant, for no known reason.

One way to make things clearer is to know exactly where embryonic stem cells come from : from a zygote. Not even a feotus, certainly not a baby, but a formless glob of cells, like other human cells that you can put in culture, and that also happen to contain human DNA, and thus, theoretically, could be persons. That it has belonged to another live person first has no real weight : saying that you'd find it ethical to murder one twin just because somebody with his DNA is still alive.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hooray for theists who are otherwise skeptics and scientists. (So far in the poll results, anyway.)

[Silentknight]

"Well, look." (To quote the guy in my avatar.)

Stem cells are cells with certain properties. You have stem cells in your body right now.

If we take embryonic stem cells, implant them in a womb, and they develop into a fetus, they're simply doing what nature (or God if you prefer) designed them to do. If we take embryonic stem cells, graft them to a living host, and they grow into the desired specialized tissue, they're also doing what nature (or God) designed them to do. Either way, they're following their programming and taking their natural course, whether it's growing into a new human or saving an existing human's life.

So where's the big problem? Is it the fact that instead of flushing them down a medical waste tube, we're finding out what they can do and what diseases they can cure? Ooh, what an absolutely horrible thing to do! :p

[This Guy]

Didn't vote because the available answers don't really represent my view.

I'm in favor of stem cell research.

I have no problem using cells from abortions. But I'm not fond of the idea of abortion. I would oppose, strongly, any attempt to offer any incentive for abortion for stem cells. I don't think anyone has proposed such a thing, and doubt they ever will, just getting my view out FWIW :)

For those that don't know my opinion, to stem the hate replies, I support the right to choose. I just hope that those choosing to abort have a better reason than they don't want what their night of passion produced.

[uruk]

The line is where the brain comes in. Every egg and every sperm is a potential human being too. Technically no. Gametes only contain half the information necessary to create a human. The potentiality happens when the two sets of chromosomes shuffle together. At that point, barring any problems, a brain will eventually form and then a baby human. I guess it still comes to an arbitrary line. Some just see the line at different places.

And once the technical difficulties around cloning are solved, everything containing your DNA is a "potential human being". "Potential human beings" are not persons, for very obvious reasons.I'm sure the cloning process would require more than just your DNA to create a potential human. I would say that you have a potential human clone once your DNA was processed into a zygote. Again an arbitrary line. But I can see it. Also consider that a great proportion of fertilized eggs simply fail to implant, for no known reason. That is not quite the same thing as intentionaly producing and harvesting zygotes for stem cells. You really have no control if the zygote does not implants in the uterine wall or is not viable because of mutation or defect.

One way to make things clearer is to know exactly where embryonic stem cells come from : from a zygote. Not even a feotus, certainly not a baby, but a formless glob of cells, like other human cells that you can put in culture, and that also happen to contain human DNA, and thus, theoretically, could be persons. A zygote left on it's own implanted in a womb will develop into a foetus and then a baby. That's because it contains the full set of chromosomes. Those formless cells are still a potential human. Just because it still early in it's development does not mean that it loses it's potentiality. It's just easier to say that it is not human because of it's appearance.

That it has belonged to another live person first has no real weight : saying that you'd find it ethical to murder one twin just because somebody with his DNA still alive. You know that is not the same thing. A cell in a full grown human has already become a differentiated cell. Sure it has the full set of chromosomes but it has only become a single building block of the whole organizim.
A single skin cell can only be cultured to develop other skin cells even though the information of the entire organizim is in there.

The cells of a zygote is different than differentiated cell because it is part of the development of the complete human organizim. That formless cell will become a human being if left to develop.

Which is why stem cells are so usefull. They are not differentiated cells.

[uruk]

"Well, look." (To quote the guy in my avatar.)

Stem cells are cells with certain properties. You have stem cells in your body right now.

If we take embryonic stem cells, implant them in a womb, and they develop into a fetus, they're simply doing what nature (or God if you prefer) designed them to do. If we take embryonic stem cells, graft them to a living host, and they grow into the desired specialized tissue, they're also doing what nature (or God) designed them to do. Either way, they're following their programming and taking their natural course, whether it's growing into a new human or saving an existing human's life.

So where's the big problem? Is it the fact that instead of flushing them down a medical waste tube, we're finding out what they can do and what diseases they can cure? Ooh, what an absolutely horrible thing to do! :p

I'm not against using stem cells. I am against intentionaly producing zygotes for the specific pourpose of harvesting stem cells.

I have nothing against using stem cells from foetuses aborted for reasons other than the pourpose of intentionaly harvesting stem cells.

There's got to be a better way.

[SusanB-M1]

I'm all for Stem cell research. It it shows too much promise to give up or ban. We need stem cell research.

I'm a little iffy on the embryos subject though. An embryo is a potential human being, seeing as there is a full set of chromosomes, but not a full fledged human being with a mind and experiance. So where is the line between a human and a simple set of dividing cells? Smarter people than I can debate this all they want. All I know is that I would sleep better if there was a viable alternative.
An embryo is what you say, but can only grow into a baby and be born if it is implanted in a womb. If all the embryos that are created (stored, frozen, thrown away, or whatever else) were to become babies, then one would need many thousands of women to be prepared to undergo the procedure required to implant them.

[Moochie]

I didn't vote, because there isn't a category for anyone like me who wants science to be allowed to do what science does best, unshackled by religious or political considerations.


M.

[uruk]

An embryo is what you say, but can only grow into a baby and be born if it is implanted in a womb. If all the embryos that are created (stored, frozen, thrown away, or whatever else) were to become babies, then one would need many thousands of women to be prepared to undergo the procedure required to implant them.

Who is creating all those embryos and why? Harvesting? That's what I'm opposed to.
If all those embryos were never created, you would not that situation.

It's one thing for an embryo to be created the usual way and rejected or flushed from a womb for reasons that have to do with biology. It's quite another thing to create embryos in vitro for the purpose of harvesting. It's moraly questionable to me.

It's just easier to create and cast off the embryo because you don't see the human in the zygote. It's a case of "it does'nt look human so therefore it is not."

I guess it depends wether you see the zygote as just a group of cells or a person early in development. Apparently the difference is if the group of cells is in a womb or a petri dish. Same group of cells, different location.

The difference is that one goes on to be a person, the other gets to become replacement tissue in another person. It not quite the same thing as organ transplant. It's like saying that you had a child for the pourpose of using it's organs.