|
Post by Freebird on Jul 15, 2005 0:39:28 GMT -6
I think that Stem Cell Recearch is a good idea. I'm in the medical field and alot of things could be learned and cured. I have a problem with a baby's Stem Cell but the use of the cord is fine with me the cord is thrown away. I don't beleave the "cloning" reason is why Bush won't ok it. In my opinion I think that if he actually did something good it would shock us all. You can clone from a strand of hair, your hair has D.N.A. and cells in it. What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by Joxcenia on Jul 15, 2005 1:07:15 GMT -6
Stem cells that come from the umbilical cord is okay... but not from aborted fetuses.
|
|
|
Post by buttcheeks on Jul 15, 2005 11:48:50 GMT -6
Well after hearing that the capability to grow a body without a brain is possible-I'm not sure. I keep seeing that old Metallica video of that man on a slab locked inside a body that didn't move.
But if they could grow just an organ or just a piece of what it needed maybe that would be okay. But you know people are doing things unawares and there is probably some half human suffering somewhere. It's scares the poop out of me.
|
|
|
Post by Joxcenia on Jul 15, 2005 17:10:01 GMT -6
I'm not talking about using the stem cells to clone anyone... only to use to restore damaged cells in others. Such as to restore the use of the spinal cord, or limbs, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Freebird on Jul 15, 2005 23:35:47 GMT -6
Cord Cells can cure all kinds of things such as Lupus, some Cancers, and Alzheimer's. Wouldn't it be nice not to have to worry about those things? My sister has Lupus so I'm hoping they can go ahead with the studies. I wouldn't want anyone to do any studies on fetuses either, that just wouldn't be right, I think that would be inhumane and cruel. The aborted fetuses are not alive but they are still human a little baby. I couldn't hurt a baby live or otherwise. They can already replace body parts by using you're own cells. Thats been done for years now. My sister had her face, neck, and chest burned with HOT bacon grease when she was 2 yrs old and lost her Left breast completely, but when she was starting to develop on the right she went to have a procedure done, and now she is normal on both sides. And she has very little scaring from the burn because of skin graphs. By using her OWN tissues and cells. Now she is 28 married with 2 wonderful kids. I thank God they had this knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 17, 2005 0:56:57 GMT -6
Fertility clinics have been discarding "unused" embryos for years. Without saying whether that is right or wrong, I will say that if they're going to discard them anyway, then why not instead use them to grow body parts? Not whole humans, but body parts. They have the technical ability to do this, but Bush put a limit on how many unused embryos they're allowed to use in their research.
The excuse given as to why there's a limit is so scientists/clinics can't purposely make more embryos than they would normally make to help a couple conceive, just so they could have extra embryos for their research. But scientists argue that they're not allowed to use enough of these embryos to do thorough research.
Whether they are cloned or not doesn't matter, since the embryo will never have self-awareness either way. If anyone thinks that discarding embryos in fertility clinics is ok, then they shouldn't have a problem with cloning DNA and growing body parts with it. Parts, mind you, not whole people, since they would probably have a greater chance of developing problems than someone who receives their genes from two parents.
However, anyone who has a problem with cloning DNA for body parts should also have a problem with fertility clinics making more embryos than they need and discarding the leftovers along with the trash.
It all comes down to the question of when does life begin when trying to decide if either is right, and I honestly don't know where I stand on the issue. But what I do know is, it would be much better to research on embryos if they are just going to discard them anyway, so their existence (even though they were never self-aware) can have meaning and save lives.
As for cloning, moral issues aside... The reason some scientists want to clone is because it is as foolproof as you can get when it comes to getting cells with compatible DNA — short of getting stem cells from the patient him/herself — since it will be the same exact DNA. If you take the stem cells from the patient, you will also have to take them from the same diseased organ that it will be used to help, since it's difficult if not impossible to change the behavior of cells that came from one organ to be compatible with another organ. But if you take cells from a diseased organ, you will need to process those cells in order to get rid of the disease before putting the cells back into the patient. Using embryonic cells, however, they have already been successful at training cells to grow into any organ they need, although they have not perfected it yet. On the other hand, they have not yet been successful at re-training adult stem cells, and I don't think they even know yet if it's even possible.
Another reason to clone for research is so they can study the cells to see what caused the patient's ailment in the first place, and as far as I know, someone has already made some discoveries doing this. As we all know, it is difficult (if not impossible) to cure something if you don't know how it was caused.
As far as I know, nobody has actually been cured yet by embryonic stem cells (maybe due to not being advanced enough in their research?), although many people have been helped with their own stem cells. People with arthritis, for example, have had stem cells removed from the joints that give them pain, the stem cells go through some sort of process, then the cells are reinserted into the joints, getting rid of the cause of their pain. I have even read that it's possible to drill into the joints and do something to stimulate the stem cells to get them to grow the cartilage back, or something to that extent.
I don't think anyone has a problem with studying stem cells from umbilical cords, and I completely understand why there is a lot of debate over stem cell research on embryos and cloning. For one, many people have the misconception that cloning means growing a whole human being with all organs intact when it doesn't. But even though I know that's not the case, I still debate within myself if it's morally right to do so anyway. Is it worse to use (and go so far as to create) non-self-aware embryos — something/someone that at least has the beginnings of a human life — to do research that has a great potential for curing painful ailments and saving lives? Or would it be worse to let people (including children) suffer from ailments like lupus, cancer, and alzheimers before those ailments kill them? For me, it basically comes back to the question of when life begins, and I simply don't have the means to answer that. But like I said, if it's wrong to clone DNA for body parts (not whole humans), then it should also be wrong to create too many embryos in fertility clinics only to discard them.
|
|
|
Post by Freebird on Jul 17, 2005 20:45:54 GMT -6
I don't know exactly when life begins either, but to me it begins at conception. Some people would say that it begins when there is a heartbeat. I don't believe in cloning a whole person, body parts yes. I think that if you clone a whole person you are playing God.
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 19, 2005 2:11:31 GMT -6
I think that if you clone a whole person, you run a huge risk on that person coming out "wrong". Even if they could get it right eventually, think of how many deformed people they would be creating while they're trying to get it right. This is why there is no question in my mind that I would never want cloning of whole people to be legal anywhere. Your stance on when life begins combined with your stance on cloning organs may or may not be contradictory. Some say you need an embryo to clone organs, while others say you need pre-embryos. So I guess the question in this case is, does a pre-embryo constitute being "conceived," and if not, then does an embryo formed in a petri dish with only one parent's DNA constitute being "conceived"? Keep in mind that whole human clones would also contain only one parent's DNA, so if they are conceived, then wouldn't the embryo formed in a petri dish for the purpose of cloning organs also be "conceived"? It's no wonder there's so much debate on the topic. If the answer was that simple, there would be little or nothing to debate. But maybe people need to debate it to help answer the question for themselves. I know I don't have all the answers, and all the issues involved really make me think. A supporter of cloning gave this example: What if you and your son or daughter were in a fertility clinic with no one else around (maybe you're an employee there or something), and the place caught on fire? Would you save your son or daughter first, or would you try to save the embryos? I think it's safe to say that's a rhetorical question. Of course, one might say that there shouldn't be thousands of embryos there to begin with, because they are creating life only to destroy most of the embryos anyway, since they can't possibly 'use' them all in the first place. I still lean in favor of cloning organs (although I am in no means solid in that stance), even if they do have to make and kill embryos (or pre-embryos?) in order to do it. Consider the fact that many embryos (or pre-embryos?) are flushed down the toilet during menstruation simply because the fertilized egg hasn't attached itself to the womb. If we're supposed to mourn for them, then why don't we know when it's happening?
|
|
|
Post by buttcheeks on Jul 21, 2005 14:56:53 GMT -6
This is why our country is so split on this. I don't believe that life begins at conception mainly because I base it upon my spiritual beliefs on when the soul inhabits the body. I don't think we'll ever collectively agree on this. If you want to argue what "life" is there are many that argue that plants and rocks are life too and to cut grass and chop bushes and take down trees is wrong as well. I know this must sound silly but for any bit of news I hear even locally there is some group of belief out there that is ruffled over things that happen. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 31, 2005 2:34:39 GMT -6
There is an uncommon Indian religion called Jainism where followers consider all life to be God, and will sweep the ground in front of them as they walk to make sure they don't accidentally step on an insect. They must not have fleas where they live. I agree, there will always be differing viewpoints on when life begins, and I honestly don't know my own viewpoint on that.
|
|
|
Post by buttcheeks on Jul 31, 2005 11:22:09 GMT -6
They should come to my place because I need them to sweep as I walk with all my dozens of carpenter ants running around.
|
|
|
Post by Lesa on Jul 31, 2005 23:04:16 GMT -6
LMAO! I wonder if they could do something about our flies.
|
|