Stem Cell Research, Genetic Engineering (1 Viewer)

[katie_tully]

however, it is when stem cell research involves 'embryonic stem cells' (if an embryo is classed as living) rather than adult stem cells from, say, the bone marrow or Genetic engineering results in the creation or destruction of a life that these is forbidden.

I suggest you read the research on using adult cells over stem cells. There are over 200 specialised cells you can grow, or develop from embryos. Barely 70 of these can be replicated by using adult cells.

 

[The_highwayman]

i know that. that is why embryonic stem cells are seen as having the most potential.
But i am approaching this from a religious point of view, using that definition i highlighted beforehand and thus, see embryos as living.

Please dont be condescending, suggesting that i dont know of the huge capabilities of using embryonic stem cells, purely because of my view. I respect that others see the world differently to me, and it is not my responsibility to force my beliefs on them.

This is turning too much into a religious discussion. Even though religion has made a habit of appearing in this issue, i dont want this to turn into a religious argument.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But i am approaching this from a religious point of view

i dont want this to turn into a religious argument.

:/

 

[loquasagacious]

Do you support a ban on embryonic stem cell research/cloning then? If you do then you are forcing your beliefs on others, eg scientists and people who may benefit from such research.

 

[The_highwayman]

NTB, i meant "stop focusing so much on my religious beliefs"

Do you support a ban on embryonic stem cell research/cloning then? If you do then you are forcing your beliefs on others, eg scientists and people who may benefit from such research.

i do not openly support a ban on either.

The situation of embryonic stem cell research is an interesting one when it refers to embryos from from IVF. If the embryo is only going to be destroyed through disposal then i see little difference between that and destroying it through taking the stem cells and using them for the betterment of the lives of others. However, i am against the production of embryos purely for the purpose of stem cell research. I am also against whole human cloning, however, i have no major problem with cloning of certain parts of a human (eg: organs etc.)

But this thread should not be about my opinions, it should be about the issue as a whole, including everyone's opinion. what is urs?

 

[davin]

NTB, i meant "stop focusing so much on my religious beliefs"

the issue that that attitude creates is that your position is then based upon religious elements, however, you then say that some parts of your stance are not allowed to be discussed and questioned. by the fact you've used religion as a justification, it is now a part of this because the validity of that justification can be called into question

 

[The_highwayman]

ok, But why are mine the only opinions being discussed?

This thread Shouldnt be about religion. I know that it is a part of the issue, in my instance an influencing part. However, i am not a representative for anyone other than myself. As a result, what i have to say only reflects MY opinion and not anyone else's. I think my opinion has been explored in relation to the focus issue of this thread. If anyone feels they would like to continue the discussion i am willing to, via PM.
However, i fear that if discussion continues along it's current vein in this thread then it will lose it's focus from a thread about 'stem cell research and genetic engineering' (the pro's and cons of both) to one purely about 'Religion' with some stem cells on the side.

 

[sam04u]

The major issue is, what makes the "embryos" life any less valuable then yours?
Wouldn't embroys be covered under HREOC?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

As Einstein once said: "Science without Religion is lame, Religion without science is blind."

No he didn't.

NTB, i meant "stop focusing so much on my religious beliefs"

But your argument is centred around your religious belief, why should I not focus on it when I'm arguing against you? This is a moral issue. You shouldn't be able to just say 'religious belief' and have it go unchallenged because of that.

I know that it is a part of the issue, in my instance an influencing part.

When it comes to Stem Cell research... the only people arguing against it (except for perhaps a fringe minority like phanatical) are doing so for religious reasons. So it isn't just 'a part' of the issue, it is the issue.

I know that it is a part of the issue, in my instance an influencing part.

Value is of course a subjective thing, and I can't prove that an embryo's life is any less valuable than mine than you can prove an ant's life is any less valuable than yours. But lets look at what an embryo is... it's a non-conscious, never been conscious, unfeeling, unknowing, ball of genetic muck. Why be against using it for the benefit of creatures that are conscious,that are feeling pain, that know the world around them, and that are loved by many others?

 

[sam04u]

Value is of course a subjective thing, and I can't prove that an embryo's life is any less valuable than mine than you can prove an ant's life is any less valuable than yours. But lets look at what an embryo is... it's a non-conscious, never been conscious, unfeeling, unknowing, ball of genetic muck. Why be against using it for the benefit of creatures that are conscious,that are feeling pain, that know the world around them, and that are loved by many others?

I think i'm going to have to agree with your choice of username.

You can't disvalue and embryo's life because it has yet to experience 'Life'.
The argument you are making is illogical... why should an "embryo" which has the potential to experience life... be killed... and stopped from experiencing life for the sake of those who have already experienced it?

Thats like me justifying killing little babies for their organs by saying... "I've experienced more then them".

Embryos should have "legal" protection rights... as they are "alive" and have the "potential to... experience life"

I don't agree to embryonic stem cell research or "cloning"... (for the above reasons)

Research however on... constructing organs and vestiges and even reanimating dead nerves....
Are positive... and more funding should be allocated to such research.

...Life is valuable

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You can't disvalue and embryo's life because it has yet to experience 'Life'.

If it has yet to experience life, it has no life. It is nothing.

The argument you are making is illogical... why should an "embryo" which has the potential to experience life... be killed... and stopped from experiencing life for the sake of those who have already experienced it?

Well despite the fact that generally these embryo's are unwanted, and are going to be killed either way... They should be killed and stopped from experience life, for those currently alive, because it is only those whom have lived that place any value on it.

Thats like me justifying killing little babies for their organs by saying... "I've experienced more then them".

Little babies are already alive and conscious.

Embryos should have "legal" protection rights... as they are "alive" and have the "potential to... experience life"

Are you insane? You mean give an embryo the same legal rights as a child? -_-

I don't agree to embryonic stem cell research or "cloning"... (for the above reasons)

Even if... you think an embryo is a life, or a potential human life or whatever... can't you see the value in curing a life which is in pain, by taking the life of a creature that feels no pain and does not care?

 

[katie_tully]

Embryo's are not alive. Embryo's are merely bundles of cells.
If you believe embryo's are alive, you're quite wrong.

Have you ever seen a human embryo compared with a chicken embryo? They nearly look identicle. Would any of you have a problem with destroying a chicken embryo?
Probably not.

 

[katie_tully]

And Highway Man, we have every right to discuss your religious beliefs. This is a discussion about religion. I asked specifically whether we are playing "God".

Religion has relevance, because some 500 years after the Middle Ages, we're still being dictated to by the Church, and by people in power with religious ties.
Quite frankly, I don't think religion should have any bearing on people as a whole,especially when it comes to politics and science. Especially science.

 

[HotShot]

Embryo's are not alive. Embryo's are merely bundles of cells.
If you believe embryo's are alive, you're quite wrong.

Have you ever seen a human embryo compared with a chicken embryo? They nearly look identicle. Would any of you have a problem with destroying a chicken embryo?
Probably not.

so according to u, if i had no problem murdering u. then everyone is should have no problem murdering u 'fallacy of composition'.

firstly, i have no problems with stem cell research. personally i feels its cool. no probs. CLoning is something else altogether, it has a lot of ethical issues to deal with. its more complicated personally i feel cloning of humans wont happen. where as cloning of animals may happen for productivity, that nature of humans is to be greedy and want more. It is surprising tho, then why we wont clone ourselves - it will decrease labour costs siginificantly improving productivity but we already have overpopulation problems.

so cloning has some serious issues.

 

[davin]

Embryos should have "legal" protection rights... as they are "alive" and have the "potential to... experience life"

so can we prosecute women who have miscarriages for manslaughter?

 

[katie_tully]

so according to u, if i had no problem murdering u. then everyone is should have no problem murdering u 'fallacy of composition'.

We speak English in Australia.

 

[sam04u]

Same idiots... all the time...

An embryo is alive... an embryo is probably more important then you Katie... It has the potential to be anything... anyone...
Being so inhumane as to slaughter our own kind on the basis that... "they haven't experienced life?" and that it could "cure" diseases after millions are slaughtered... is inhumane..

Katie.. what you're saying is extremely incorrect... everything which is "alive" struggles to stay alive.. the difference between a human embryo and a chicken embryo... to an idiot is "not much" but to the intelligent the difference is the difference between a chicken and a human.

Re Davin:
It's her child... a mother has a right to raise her child to the best of her ability... if it unfortunately dies... it is not her fault.

You have to look at it like this... imagine that was you... the unfortunate embryo...

Your justification is weak... take life... for life?

My analogy was perfect... Killing babies for the sake of those who have experienced life... it's unjustified.

Embryo Protection Act (Cwlth) 2007!

 

[davin]

but miscarriages can be caused by neglegence.
would you also feel that a mother effectivly owns her children such that if they die after birth for any reason, including negligence, that she is not at fault?

personally, i believe there is a difference between an unborn, mostly undeveloped embryo and someone who has actually been born

 

[HotShot]

but miscarriages can be caused by neglegence.

anything can be caused by neglegence, pressing the button to laucnh a nuclear missle towards australia can be neglegence. ur wasting others time, make some valuable posts. instead just trying back yourself through meaningless ones.

 

[boon]

to many advantages i think of stem cell research if use correctly
on the other hand have any of you watched GATACA