Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Scrutinizer · 11-23-2002, 04:12 PM

Can anyone who is opposed to embryonic stem cell research provide reasons why it's immoral? I'm yet to see any convincing arguments, either from a secular or a Christian point-of-view, that stem cell research ought not to be allowed.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

LordSnooty · 11-23-2002, 06:21 PM

I sincerely doubt that the anti-research people even know what stem cell research is, let alone why they object to it.

Paul

CuriosityKills · 11-23-2002, 08:05 PM

I'll be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about this issue, but for some reason I feel compelled to discuss it. (?)

I think some of the controversy regarding stem cell research comes from the fact that doctors may use the stem cells from aborted fetal tissue. This drives the pro-lifers crazy because they don't want to admit that anything positive can come from an abortion.

I'm not here to argue the right or wrong of abortion, that's been done too many times on this forum. But I do beleive that if circumstances do lead to abortion that stem cell reasearch could somehow make use of tissue that would otherwise go to waste. We live in such a wateful society that to make good use of anything that would otherwise be discarded should be applauded.

An argument against stem cell research would be that there may be people who would concieve a child only for the stem cells. Possibly to save the life of a child who is ill. The intentions behind this act are genuine and non-malevolent, but from a moralistic point of view this seems wrong.

Philosoft · 11-23-2002, 08:42 PM

If I'm not mistaken, base stem cells are taken from blastocysts, of maybe 16 cells, that were produced entirely in a lab. The base cells can then be artificially multiplied a certain number of times. I don't think it has anything to do with cells from aborted fetuses.

scigirl · 11-24-2002, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
If I'm not mistaken, base stem cells are taken from blastocysts, of maybe 16 cells, that were produced entirely in a lab. The base cells can then be artificially multiplied a certain number of times. I don't think it has anything to do with cells from aborted fetuses.

<a href="http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1728.86999" target="_blank">Here's</a> a primer on stem cell research.

The current policy is to use in vitro fertilizations - women who have this procedure end up harvesting more than one egg, and these eggs are all attempted to be fertilized. The reason for this is because not all in vitro attempts work. So the "extra ones" are currently put in liquid nitrogen and frozen indefinitely. It is these cells, not aborted cells, that were debated in the US of A. But because some christians think that these frozen blastocysts have a soul, it was way more moral to leave them in liquid N2 than to use them for scientific research to cure debilitating diseases. Go figure. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Plus, the stem cell debate unfortunately became linked to human cloning.

scigirl

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

dk · 11-24-2002, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
If I'm not mistaken, base stem cells are taken from blastocysts, of maybe 16 cells, that were produced entirely in a lab. The base cells can then be artificially multiplied a certain number of times. I don't think it has anything to do with cells from aborted fetuses.

No, a blastocyst is produced by an egg surgically harvested from a women, then fertiized by sperm in a lab.

Splat · 11-24-2002, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
But because some christians think that these frozen blastocysts have a soul, it was way more moral to leave them in liquid N2 than to use them for scientific research to cure debilitating diseases. Go figure. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

And because keeping them in LN2 is expensive, eventually they're incinerated along with all the other medical waste.

You sure wouldn't want to deprive the lord of his burnt offering.

Philosoft · 11-24-2002, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk:

No, a blastocyst is produced by an egg surgically harvested from a women, then fertiized by sperm in a lab.

Just to clarify, when I used the phrase, "produced entirely in a lab," I was referring to the blastocyst product, not the component sperm and ovum. And cursory reading suggests the blastocyst is actually more like 60 cells, rather than 16 as I had originally indicated.

Frivolous · 11-24-2002, 07:09 PM

Genetic engineering and embryonic stem cell research are new areas of technology that no one can claim to have extensive knowledge about. What i mean by this is that we have had no experience or first hand knowledge of what future outcomes can arise from genetically manipulated organisms.

Take for instance the european colonization of Australia. The settlers applied farming techniques that worked well for their homeland, but they did not know how the arid australian environment functions properly and this caused major salinity problems that we still encounter today.

From an evolutionists point of view (and note that i did not say that i am an evolutionist), natural selection by either the classical method or punctuated equilibrium is a very slow process taking many years. Ecosystems have a lot of time to adapt to gradual changes in species.

Because genetic engineering is such a rapid and often incredibly huge change in the characteristics of a species, ecosystems that are host to these may not have time to adjust to the sudden imbalance. Foreseeing these effects are very difficult, like the effect of the introduced cane toad.

Like with DDT in the food chain, small upsets in lower levels can have large implications for the entire system.

Because we cannot predict the effects of manipulated oganisms on ecosystems, an incredibly cautious approach is warranted.

Philosoft · 11-24-2002, 07:16 PM

Frivolous,

What exactly do you think are the goals of stem cell research? For one thing, it's not genetic engineering.

11-23-2002, 04:12 PM	#1
Scrutinizer Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 245	Embryonic Stem Cell Research Can anyone who is opposed to embryonic stem cell research provide reasons why it's immoral? I'm yet to see any convincing arguments, either from a secular or a Christian point-of-view, that stem cell research ought not to be allowed. Regards, - Scrutinizer

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-23-2002, 06:21 PM	#2
LordSnooty Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 211	I sincerely doubt that the anti-research people even know what stem cell research is, let alone why they object to it. Paul

11-23-2002, 08:05 PM	#3
CuriosityKills Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada Posts: 114	I'll be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about this issue, but for some reason I feel compelled to discuss it. (?) I think some of the controversy regarding stem cell research comes from the fact that doctors may use the stem cells from aborted fetal tissue. This drives the pro-lifers crazy because they don't want to admit that anything positive can come from an abortion. I'm not here to argue the right or wrong of abortion, that's been done too many times on this forum. But I do beleive that if circumstances do lead to abortion that stem cell reasearch could somehow make use of tissue that would otherwise go to waste. We live in such a wateful society that to make good use of anything that would otherwise be discarded should be applauded. An argument against stem cell research would be that there may be people who would concieve a child only for the stem cells. Possibly to save the life of a child who is ill. The intentions behind this act are genuine and non-malevolent, but from a moralistic point of view this seems wrong.

11-23-2002, 08:42 PM	#4
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	If I'm not mistaken, base stem cells are taken from blastocysts, of maybe 16 cells, that were produced entirely in a lab. The base cells can then be artificially multiplied a certain number of times. I don't think it has anything to do with cells from aborted fetuses.

11-24-2002, 07:09 PM	#9
Frivolous Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 101	Genetic engineering and embryonic stem cell research are new areas of technology that no one can claim to have extensive knowledge about. What i mean by this is that we have had no experience or first hand knowledge of what future outcomes can arise from genetically manipulated organisms. Take for instance the european colonization of Australia. The settlers applied farming techniques that worked well for their homeland, but they did not know how the arid australian environment functions properly and this caused major salinity problems that we still encounter today. From an evolutionists point of view (and note that i did not say that i am an evolutionist), natural selection by either the classical method or punctuated equilibrium is a very slow process taking many years. Ecosystems have a lot of time to adapt to gradual changes in species. Because genetic engineering is such a rapid and often incredibly huge change in the characteristics of a species, ecosystems that are host to these may not have time to adjust to the sudden imbalance. Foreseeing these effects are very difficult, like the effect of the introduced cane toad. Like with DDT in the food chain, small upsets in lower levels can have large implications for the entire system. Because we cannot predict the effects of manipulated oganisms on ecosystems, an incredibly cautious approach is warranted.

11-24-2002, 07:16 PM	#10
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Frivolous, What exactly do you think are the goals of stem cell research? For one thing, it's not genetic engineering.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.