Adult Stem Cell Results & Embryonic Stem Cell Ethics Video
Posted on November 22, 2009
Filed Under self treatment | 25 Comments
Adult Stem Cell Research: Making a Difference Today from Rosenberg Communications, Inc. The Gerard Health Foundation has produced a powerful video on adult stem cell research, showing its advantages over embryonic stem cell research. The public domain video offers useful, yet often ignored, information about adult stem cell research. We believe the information you’ll see in the video is essential to making an informed judgment about the debate over this research. This film is consistent with …
Comments
25 Responses to “Adult Stem Cell Results & Embryonic Stem Cell Ethics Video”
Leave a Reply
mroctopuslungs: “So by your standards is the semen inside my testicles millions of humans?”
No, dearie. Perhaps you need to learn the difference between a SPERM CELL and an embryonic human being.
You can’t adopt a stem cell, but you can adopt an embryonic human being. Confusing the two terms will hinder your ability to think about this issue clearly.
i like bioethics. when thinking about embryonic stem cell research, why should i take the life of another to better me?
Thank you, Thomas. People who believe in God and people who don’t (and people who may hope God exists but aren’t entirely sure) really should get along better than they do. But we should be able to agree on scientific fact, such as the fact that human embryos are human beings, even if they don’t fulfill people’s “preconceived” (ha) notions of what human beings look like.
Very well thought out arguement BoyGenteel.
It’s nice to see there are other Agnostics out there that know that ESCR is worthless. And that actually know what a human being is.
Really? When did you refute anything I’ve said. Here you go: “numerous secular science textbooks accurately cite fertilization as the beginning of a new human being’s life.” Try refuting that. I’m not insulting anyone, but pointing out the holes in your argument. Instead of acting as though you’ve been wounded or something, go back and notice that that’s the same thing you tried to do with my arguments.
Oh, and by the way, does one need to agree with you in order to qualify as “listening to others’ opinions”? It reminds me of your comment, “There is obviously no arguing with you.” This, of course, said, while you were arguing with me. When Tony Snow was asked if Bush will listen to those with a differing point of view, he responded, “Yes. And will THEY listen to HIM?” That’s also part of the question.
Call it what you want. I have already refuted what you sai. I have already overcome your supposed argument. What you present are not facts. Just your twisted opinions. Whatever. Go on. Insult me all you want.
Huh-kay, big guy. Thanks for playing, anyway. That’s what people of your ilk do: they can’t refute what I’m saying, and so they just chant, “Nyah-nyah, you’re wrong.” You can leave if you want (not that you have to), but newcomers to the thread will see that I’m the one presenting facts and reason here.
Too bad you’re wrong. However, you win. Just keep believing wrongly. You are obviously not going to listen to anything but your own opinion (which is wrong BTW). So I’m done arguing with you. Try and justify your blinders all you want.
You can reply all you want. I’m done.
“You are obviously a person of faith.” Actually, I’m an agnostic who understands basic human reproductive biology. And face it: adult stem cell research is going to leave embryonic in the rear-view mirror. Many former-ESC researchers have moved over to induced pluripotent cells, not because they “had to” but because they see them as more promising (and, perhaps, more ethical).
Science and faith can never truly hold hands and reconcile their differences.
You are obviously a person of faith. So no. Your idea of “ethics” can not mesh with science. And yes, there were scientific breakthroughs that did come of that horrible period of time.
So yes, I believe that good can come of this. And no, I also believe that the benefits of embryonic stem cell research outweigh the benefits of adult stem cell research.
“There is obviously no arguing with you.”
Oh, I don’t know about that — you’re certainly still here.
What “magical” answers have I put forth? This is rather basic stuff. You don’t need to live in a “utopia” to want science to be ethical. If documents were found from Germany, confirming “promising” results from the experiments performed on victims of concentration camps, would you just go along with the flow?
And, amazingly, you’re ignoring the whole point of this video: ADULT cells.
There is obviously no arguing with you. Even if somebody states a reasonable argument, you will come up with some magical answer. Nobody should murder anyone, but it happens. Nobody should go to war, but they do. Bad thing shouldn’t happen anywhere, but they DO.
Be realistic, the Utopian society you envision will never happen. And you are against any good coming of what IS. Things will never be what you and others like you, envision they SHOULD BE. Realism.
Humanity should benifit.
None of these embryos should be destroyed, as they are human beings. You’re not telling me anything I don’t already know here, Manx. The practice of destroying embryonic human beings, for any reason, should be immediately outlawed worldwide. Furthermore, some states are trying to enact legislation that would ensure that no more embryos are created than will be implanted (as the law decrees in Italy). IVF technology is also improving to the level at which that will likely happen, anyway.
This is my own personal opinion, and seeing as, where I live, I’m allowed to have one of those. As are you.
Adopt an embryo, that’s fine. But let me tell you, people aren’t going to stop being careless (unfortunately). Meaning that there are going to be FAR more stem cells that someone can adopt. What’s going to happen to the ones that DON’T get adopted?
There’s a right and there’s a wrong to it.
Do I believe that the child is “alive” when they’re an embryo?
No. I honestly don’t.
What you don’t seem to understand is that they were ALREADY being destroyed. Fertility clinics fertilize usually fertilize around 10 eggs, then implant 3 or 4 into a woman. The rest are destroyed. This was happening even when no research was being done.
And even when stem cell research was not being done, this was the common practice. Might as well use them for something good.
If you believe that life is sacred, then use what was already being destroyed for the good of already living people.
No, those aren’t the only two possible outcomes. Once we understand that these embryos are human beings (a point you may be conceding), and that they are ALREADY alive, we understand that each deserves a chance to be implanted. Our laws should be amended to reflect that. Your question is no different from someone who wanted to kill 10,000 homeless people, and then either dump them into the lake or “use” them for research so that they don’t go to “waste,” a sickeningly utilitarian argument.
Here is the answer: It does not matter.
Let’s say that a fertility clinic has 10,000 embryos. These embryos are left over and are going to be destroyed anyway. Would you rather they
A) Are used for stem cell research, which could possibly help those already alive STAY alive? or
B) Be destroyed needlessly, for no good reason?
Keep in mind, these are the ONLY 2 possible outcomes as it stands today. So, where is your argument now?
I does not matter where you think life begins.
1. Again, this is no mere “organic matter,” but rather (as I’ve explained and cited) actual, already-existing human beings. Not just “human,” but also human beings.
2. As we’re seeing confirmed more and more each week, ESCR does NOT hold “some of the best promises for treatment and cures,” as ASCs and other types of cells are already treating (IN HUMANS) juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s, spinal-cord injury, MS, and dozens of other ailments.
The point where we should not experiment on piles of unfeeling, unknowing organic matter even if it has some of the best promises for treatment and cures to terrible conditions.
What part of my argument are you still having difficulty with? I’ve refuted everything you’ve written already. No science textbook holds that “ability to feel pain” or “to have experience” is a criterion for status as a human being. “EMBRYO — is an animal or plant in an early stage of its development” — WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA
You’re not reading correctly. I said this is how humans are formed, not that this is already a human. You can acuse me of any of the bullshit you feel like, but a blastocyst is not a human, or deserving of treatment afforded to humans.
If I’m reading this correctly, you’re now backtracking from your statement that an embryo is a mere precursor to a human being and moving on to the argument that certain human beings are not worthy of human treatment, based upon their “lack of experience.” That would follow the usual progression, yes. You’re working backwards from a predetermined, preferred outcome.
I’m not going to deny clear facts about how humans are formed. But there are certain reasons we afford certain rights to lifeforms. These are things like the ability to feel pain, and to have experiance. A blastocyst lacks in all the areas that matter when deciding what is ethical treatment.