Home More advice Politics & Law
is it still highly criticized anymore? i havent heard much of the hate towards it anymore but i also stopped following the news as much.
You asked for me to clarify my position. I did this. I was not trying to cause insult, nor receive any in return. And please refrain from calling others "ignorant", especially when it's likely they've been studying various subjects, such as this on, for far longer than you've probably been aware of their existence.
I don't know where you get your information. Mine is based out of a combination of medical journals, reports, and research papers. Your right. Adult stem cells can't turn into EVERY cell in the body. However, they can turn into MOST, including nerve cells, and without the associated risk of rejection of foreign tissue, which is a notable possibility with embryonic stem cells. Also, adult stem cells can be made to bear the same attributes as embryonic stem cells thanks to recent research, albeit without the previous risk mentioned and cancer-like growth(a noted and observed potential with embryonic stem cells, and ONLY embryonic stem cells.)
As for the zygote/embryo stance, merely my choice of morals. Wasting cells from IVF used to produce children for mothers hard-stricken to bear them would be a...waste. However, after passing the initial zygote phase and initiating splitting, I consider that embryo a potential life(same reason I don't agree with artificial terminations of pregnancies but in the most exceptional cases), and I can not condone wastefully creating such potential human lives for the sole purpose of being used like farm animals.
I am here merely to express my own opinions and civilly discuss them with others, as I though you were initially. I am not here to force my opinions down others' throats, or to even change them. And I am not here to downplay the validity of others' opinions. I ask that I be granted the same courtesy in return.
Adult stem cell therapies have been in the works for a couple of decades. The results thus far have been promising: regenerating cartilage, regrowing portions of bone damaged or lost that would have otherwise resulted in permanent problems for the patient, healing nerve damage, and possible alternative cancer treatments. In fact, you can have some of the benefits in your daily life by adding to your diet foods that enhance your body's natural capacity for growing adult stem cells from your bone marrow.
In the case of embryonic stem cells, it's a relatively new research, the results thus far have been inconsistent, and the formation of tumors has been witnessed in some cases where embryonic stem cells were being observed. The controversy with it is, besides umbilical cords from newborn children, the only source of embryonic stem cells is by creating an embryo and essentially killing it to harvest stem cells from it. Obviously, due to the various outlooks on living creatures that we all have, it's an issue of great moral debate.
On a personal note, I am personally opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research if the cells are harvested at the expense of a growing human(once a zygote embeds itself in the lining of a uterus, I consider it "alive"). The way I see it, they are babies being born just about every minute somewhere in this country, and viable umbilical cords from most of them. If that isn't enough to do research on, I don't think it's worth perusing. We should put more money in adult stem cell research, which has already been shown to be able to do what we're seeking in embryonic stem cell research. Perfecting what we know works is the best chance we have, especially with trying economic times.
I've gotta say that there seems to be a great deal of ignorance in your reply. "IVF for the sole purpose of farming embryos for stem cells?" - this doesn't happen. In Vitro Fertilisation is performed purely to create a baby, and at the end of IVF unused cells are thrown away or frozen for later IVF treatments. More cells are disposed of through IVF than stem cell research and experiments. You say we should "waste less money on embryonic stem cell research and spend more on adult stem cell research" - do some research - adult stem cells are not as versatile in their uses as embryonic stem cells, and so are not as useful. And you believe that adult stem cells have "healthier and genetically purer specimens" - how is this in any way true? It's not. An embryo is pure and healthy - it's just a ball of 8 cells, how can it not be? The cells being used would be tested for signs of any faulty alleles that cause disease so a scientist can actually have as 'pure' or 'healthy' a sample of embryonic stem cells as they want. Think about it.
they cloned the sheep because it's baby steps. scientists managed to persuade the government to allow them to experiment on animals by explaining the benefits and the opportunities it opens for developments in technology and medicine. it's still highly debated but in the US it is now legalised i think, that's why all the best scientists from england (where it's been legalised for a long time) have eagerly hopped it to the US to help out and feel needed - the 'Brain Drain'. anyway, recent controversy in the news: a meat farmer in north england has bred and slaughtered a cloned sheep, releasing the meat into the food stream without permission from the food safety association (fsa) and has since been arrested for this. it was not permitted because the effects of eating cloned meat are still unknown. Hope this is enough for you (:
For the purpose of helping a couple have a baby? Absolutely. And any embryos that are left over shouldn't be wasted. They should be recycled in their various uses with the permission of their parents.
IVF for the sole purpose of farming embryos for stem cells? Right now I'd say absolutely not. For me, there's not much of a question on where I stand on that.
But as I said before, I think we should waste less money on embryonic stem cell research and spend more on adult stem cell research(which technically can come from children as well, who bear healthier and genetically purer specimens). It's far more promising, in my opinion(can't say professional since I'm not, just versed on the material.)
It's only partially legalized in the United States; under G.W. Bush, they made embryonic stem cell research illegal. That was the biggest controversy. It was in the fact that embryos, human lives, were being created and then killed just for the stem cells, since embryonic are the most...elastic, I guess? They work better than any other. And cloned animals do live for a shorter period of time, because of the process. Reproductive DNA is placed into cells that, aren't meant to live for as long as humans do. Cells are replaced again and again during our lifetimes, meaning that the clone wears out faster than an animal or person would.
using the argument that human embryos are being created and destroyed is not valid in most cases as a lot of people are in favour if IVF, but not stem cells. sorry, how many embryos are destroyed in order to give someone a baby 'god didn't intend them to have?', yeah, loads of them. and stem cells aren't the most "elastic", they have all their genes switched of, which means that they have the ability to develop into any kind of human cell. bone marrow stem cells are similar but less versatile in their ability so embryonic stem cells are the most useful.
Oh, and " On a personal note, I am personally opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research if the cells are harvested at the expense of a growing human(once a zygote embeds itself in the lining of a uterus, I consider it "alive") " - any cells used in a lab are grown in the lab (hence test tube babies..?). No cells used have been embedded into a uterus, and cannot be called a zygote, therefore your argument is irrelevant.
yes many people are still against it because it could lead to human cloning, designer babies and so on. What i dont understand is the fact that many people think that animals have rights like humans but then why did they clone a sheep? they haven't done this to a human beacause people are scared it migth lower the value of life, what they dont realise is that that's already been done.
true but wat im saying is that under certain animal welfare acts, it is stated that animals are therefore entitled to the same basic rights as any human, the sheep was used as a resource,it was used for research but we wouldn't do that to a human. Plus, the sheep did die prematurely which was supposedly because it was cloned.
the operative word being 'supposedly'. and yes animals are supposed to have the same basic rights, but not all animals. such as animals being bred for food - we wouldn't do that to a human would we? there are exceptions to any rule and in the case of Dolly, she was one.
Stem cell research and cloning have ties, but cloning is only one part of research with stem cells. Most of the research being conducted with stem cells has to do with finding cure for degenerative diseases. It is still controversial in regards to fetal stem cells.
created and then destroyed*
Do you agree with IVF?
